Etablissement national des produits de l'agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) v Société Sodiaal International.
Date: 2015-09-03
20. According to settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see judgments in Yaesu Europe , C‑433/08, EU:C:2009:750, paragraph 13; ebookers.com Deutschland , C‑112/11, EU:C:2012:487, paragraph 12; Brain Products , C‑219/11, EU:C:2012:742, paragraph 13; and Utopia , C‑40/14, EU:C:2014:2389, paragraph 27).
27. Next, it should be noted that that approach corresponds to the settled case-law of the Court, confirmed in the judgment in Pfeifer & Langen ( C‑52/14, EU:C:2015:381) . According to that case-law, there is no distinction to be drawn between an administrative penalty and an administrative measure in the application of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95. The Court clearly ruled that that provision is applicable both to irregularities leading to the imposition of an administrative penalty within the meaning of Article 5 of that regulation and to irregularities which are the subject of an administrative measure within the meaning of Article 4 of that regulation, where that measure is intended to withdraw the wrongly obtained advantage without however constituting a penalty (see, to that effect, judgments in Handlbauer , C‑278/02, EU:C:2004:388, paragraphs 33 and 34; Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb and Others , C‑278/07 to C‑280/07, EU:C:2009:38, paragraph 22; Cruz & Companhia , C‑341/13, EU:C:2014:2230, paragraph 45; and Pfeifer & Langen , C‑52/14, EU:C:2015:381, paragraph 23).
28. The Court has already stated that irregularities involving the adoption of administrative measures within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, must be considered to be time-barred after four years from the date on which they were committed, taking into account any interruptions in the limitation period provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of that regulation and in compliance with the maximum limit laid down in the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) thereof (judgment in Cruz & Companhia , C‑341/13, EU:C:2014:2230, paragraph 64).
29. Thus, it is apparent from the Court’s recent case-law that the interpretation of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 applies equally to the possibility of an administrative penalty as to that of an administrative measure (judgment in Pfeifer & Langen , C‑52/14, EU:C:2015:381, paragraphs 40, 43 and 47).
30. Finally, the objectives underlying Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 are relevant. In that regard, the period referred to in this provision clearly seeks to ensure legal certainty for economic operators (see, to that effect, judgments in Handlbauer , C‑278/02, EU:C:2004:388, paragraph 40, and SGS Belgium and Others , C‑367/09, EU:C:2010:648, paragraph 68). Those operators must be in a position to determine which among their transactions are definitive and which may still be the subject of legal proceedings (judgment in Pfeifer & Langen , C‑52/14, EU:C:2015:381, paragraphs 24 and 64).
32. For the sake of completeness, it should be emphasised that that interpretation is without prejudice to Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 according to which Member States are to retain the possibility of applying a period which is longer than that provided for in Article 3(1) and (2) of that regulation respectively (see, to that effect, judgments in Cruz & Companhia , C‑341/13, EU:C:2014:2230, paragraph 54, and Ze Fu Fleischhandel and Vion Trading , C‑201/10 and C‑202/10, EU:C:2011:282, paragraph 25).
33. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation which it lays down is applicable not only to proceedings concerning irregularities which lead to the imposition of administrative penalties within the meaning of Article 5 thereof but also to proceedings which lead to the adoption of administrative measures within the meaning of Article 4 thereof.
Costs