CELEX: 62017CB0243
Language: en
Date: 2017-11-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-243/17: Order of the Court of 16 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP v António da Silva Rodrigues (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3(1) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Concept of ‘multiannual programme’ — Scope of application)

29.1.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 32/8
            
         Order of the Court of 16 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP v António da Silva Rodrigues
   (Case C-243/17) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3(1) - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Concept of ‘multiannual programme’ - Scope of application))
   (2018/C 032/12)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   
      Referring court
   
   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP
   
      Defendant: António da Silva Rodrigues
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) 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, in the case of an irregularity which is neither continuous nor repeated, the limitation period of four years provided for in that provision runs from the date the irregularity was committed.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The second, third and fourth questions referred by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal) are manifestly inadmissible.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.