Case C-539/24, Mikroregion Porta Bohemica: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 November 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud – Czech Republic) – Mikroregion Porta Bohemica v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Concept of irregularity – Article 1(2) – Limitation periods – Article 3 – Starting point and duration of the limitation periods – Project co-financed through EU resources)
Date: 2025-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU financing, State aid, budgetary expenditure, control of State aid, financial aid, limitation of legal proceedings, reimbursement of aid








C_202600429EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/429


2.2.2026






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 November 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud – Czech Republic) – Mikroregion Porta Bohemica v Odvolací finanční ředitelství


(Case C-539/24,
                (1)
Mikroregion Porta Bohemica)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Concept of ‘irregularity’ - Article 1(2) - Limitation periods - Article 3 - Starting point and duration of the limitation periods - Project co-financed through EU resources)
(C/2026/429)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mikroregion Porta Bohemica

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests
must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which has not made use of the option to provide for a limitation period for proceedings which is longer than the four-year limitation period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of that regulation cannot lay down an absolute limitation period for the adoption of a decision imposing a penalty which is greater than twice that four-year period.










2.


Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95
must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from fixing the starting point of the absolute limitation period for the adoption of a decision imposing a penalty for committing an irregularity on the first day of the calendar year following that in which that irregularity was committed. That period runs in all cases, under the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of that regulation, from the date on which the irregularity was committed or, in the case of a repeated or continuous irregularity, from the date on which that irregularity ceased.










3.


Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95
must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation periods laid down therein apply to an irregularity affecting the financing of a project linked to an EU policy, including where that irregularity affects or is likely to affect both the financial interests of the European Union and those of a Member State.






(1)  OJ C, C/2024/6634.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/429/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)