Stichting ROM-projecten v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken.
Date: 2007-06-21
16. In the procedure laid down by Article 234 EC providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the referring court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. To that end the Court of Justice may have to reformulate the question referred to it (Case C‑210/04 FCE Bank  [2006] ECR I‑2803, paragraph 21, and the case‑law cited).
23. It follows from the case-law of the Court that, in the absence of provisions of Community law, disputes concerning the recovery of amounts wrongly paid under Community law must be decided by national courts in application of their own domestic law, subject to the limits imposed by Community law, on the basis that the rules and procedures laid down by domestic law must not have the effect of making it practically impossible or excessively difficult to recover the aid not due and that the national legislation must be applied in a manner which is not discriminatory as compared to procedures for deciding similar national disputes (Joined Cases 205/82 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor and Others  [1983] ECR 2633, paragraph 19, Case C‑366/95 Steff-Houlberg Export and Others  [1998] ECR I‑2661, paragraph 15, and Case C‑336/00 Huber  [2002] ECR I‑7699, paragraph 55).
24. Accordingly, it cannot be regarded as contrary to Community law for national law, as far as the cancellation of administrative measures and the recovery of sums wrongly paid by public authorities are concerned, to take into account, in addition to the principle of legality, the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, since those principles form part of the legal order of the Community ( Deutsche Milchkontor , paragraph 30, Joined Cases C‑80/99 to C‑82/99 Flemmer and Others  [2001] ECR I‑7211, paragraph 60 and Huber , paragraph 56).
25. In particular, that principle of legal certainly requires that Community rules enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which are imposed on them (Case C‑209/96 United Kingdom v Commission  [1998] ECR I‑5655, paragraph 35; Case C‑108/01 Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma  and Salumificio S. Rita  [2003] ECR I‑5121, paragraph 89, and Case C‑255/02 Halifax and Others  [2006] ECR I‑1609, paragraph 72). Individuals must be able to ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are and take steps accordingly (Case C‑143/93 Van Es Douane Agenten  [1996] ECR I‑431, paragraph 27 and Case C‑248/04 Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun  [2006] ECR I‑10211, paragraph 79).
26. That imperative of legal certainty must be observed all the more strictly in the case of rules liable to have financial consequences (Case C‑94/05 Emsland-Stärke  [2006] ECR I‑2619, paragraph 43 and Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun , paragraph 79).
31. That beneficiary is, however, in a position to challenge the cancellation and request for repayment only if he acted in good faith as regards the regularity of the use to which the financial assistance was put. It is for the national court to consider whether that condition has been fulfilled (see, to that effect, Case C‑298/96 Oelmühle and Schmidt Söhne  [1998] ECR I‑4767, paragraph 29, and Huber , paragraph 58).
32. It is also necessary, finally, to point out that where the principle of legal certainly precludes the beneficiary of a Community financial assistance from being required to repay it, the Community's interest in recovering that assistance must nevertheless be taken into consideration ( Huber , paragraph 57).