Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerijos Aplinkos projektų valdymo agentūra v UAB „Alytaus regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras“.
Date: 2017-06-15
42


First of all, it should be borne in mind that Regulation No 2988/95, in accordance with Article 1 thereof, introduces general rules relating to homogenous checks and to administrative measures and penalties concerning irregularities with regard to EU law in order, as is clear from the third recital of the regulation, to counter acts detrimental to the financial interests of the European Union in all areas (judgment of 11 June 2015, Pfeifer & Langen, C‑52/14, EU:C:2015:381, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
43


In that context, the first and second subparagraphs of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 establish — without prejudice to sectoral EU rules or national rules which may make provision for a shorter period — a limitation period for proceedings of four years as from the time when the irregularity was committed or, in the case of a continuous or repeated irregularity, from the day on which the irregularity ceases (judgment of 11 June 2015, Pfeifer & Langen, C‑52/14, EU:C:2015:381, paragraph 21).
45


In the absence of a definition of ‘multiannual programme’ in Regulation No 2988/95, the scope of that concept must be determined by taking account of the meaning of each of its constituent terms, the context in which it is used and the objectives of the legislation which refers to it (see, by analogy, judgments of 6 October 2015, Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export, C‑59/14, EU:C:2015:660, paragraph 22, and of 21 December 2016, Interservice, C‑547/15, EU:C:2016:983, paragraph 20).
54


In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, in the case of a repeated or continuous irregularity, the limitation period is to run from the day on which the irregularity ceases, while the concept of an ‘irregularity ceasing’, referred to in that provision, must be understood as denoting the day on which the last transaction forming part of a single repeated irregularity ceases (judgment of 11 June 2015, Pfeifer & Langen, C‑52/14, EU:C:2015:381, paragraph 66).
55


An irregularity must be regarded as ‘continuous’ where the omission occasioning the breach of the provision of EU law persists over time (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 December 2004, José Martí Peix v Commission, C‑226/03 P, EU:C:2004:768, paragraph 17). An irregularity is ‘repeated’ within the meaning of that provision where it is committed by an operator who derives economic advantages from a body of similar transactions which infringe the same provision of EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 June 2015, Pfeifer & Langen, C‑52/14, EU:C:2015:381, paragraph 49).
58


In the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it (judgment of 28 April 2016, Oniors Bio, C‑233/15, EU:C:2016:305, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
62


It should also be pointed out that, for the purpose of determining when ‘the programme is definitively terminated’, within the meaning of the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, account should be taken of the objective of the limitation period referred to in that provision. The limitation period provided for in that provision makes it possible, on the one hand, to ensure that, as long as a programme is not definitively terminated, the competent authority is still able to pursue irregularities committed in connection with the implementation of that programme, in order to facilitate protection of the European Union’s financial interests (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 October 2015, Firma Ernst Kollmer Fleischimport und -export, C‑59/14, EU:C:2015:660, paragraph 26.) On the other hand, it seeks to ensure legal certainty for economic operators. 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 of 11 June 2015, Pfeifer & Langen, C‑52/14, EU:C:2015:381, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).