Hellenic Republic v European Commission.
Date: 2019-02-27
23


As regards, specifically, the first limb of the first plea, alleging a lack of legal basis for the decision at issue on the ground that Article 39 of Regulation No 1260/1999 had been repealed before the adoption of that decision, the General Court stated, inter alia, in paragraphs 23 to 34 of the judgment under appeal, as follows:
‘23   From 1 January 2007, Regulation No 1083/2006, in accordance with Article 107(1) thereof, repealed Regulation No 1260/1999. According to Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1083/2006, that regulation applies to the [ERDF], [ESF] and Cohesion Funds. However, as is apparent from recital 6 of that regulation, the instruments providing aid for rural development, namely the [European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)], which replaced the EAGGF Guidance Section, and for the fisheries sector, namely the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), should be integrated into the instruments under the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy and coordinated with those under the cohesion policy. In that regard, Regulation No 1290/2005 established, as is clear from recital 1 and Article 1 thereof, two European agricultural funds, the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), which funds market measures and other measures, and the EAFRD, which is intended to finance rural development programmes.
24   However, Article 105(1) of Regulation No 1083/2006, headed “Transitional provisions”, provides that “this Regulation shall not affect the continuation or modification, including the total or partial cancellation, of assistance co-financed by the Structural Funds or of a project co-financed by the Cohesion Fund approved by the Commission on the basis of [Regulation No 1260/1999] or any other legislation which applies to that assistance on 31 December 2006, which shall consequently apply thereafter to that assistance or the projects concerned until their closure”.
25   In addition, Article 105(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 provides that “while taking decision on operational programmes, the Commission shall take account of any assistance co-financed by the Structural Funds or of any project co-financed by the Cohesion Fund approved by the Council or by the Commission before the entry into force of this Regulation and having financial repercussions during the period covered by those operational programmes”.
26   It follows that Article 105(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 is intended to lay down the transitional scheme for structural funds which were approved on the basis of EU rules in force until 31 December 2006 which continue beyond that date and closure of which takes place at a later date (judgment of 21 September 2016, Commission v Spain, C‑140/15 P, EU:C:2016:708, paragraph 94).
27   In other words, Regulation No 1260/1999 was repealed by Regulation No 1083/2006, but, in accordance with Article 105(1) and Article 107(1) of Regulation No 1083/2006, Regulation No 1260/1999 continues to apply to previous operational programmes (judgment of 22 September 2011, Spain v Commission, T‑67/10, not published, EU:T:2011:518, paragraph 6).
28   The transitional scheme set out in Article 105(2) of Regulation No 1083/2006 concerns the substantive rules applicable to previous operational programmes, as, moreover, is clear from the use of the terms “assistance” and “project” in that article, in the same way as the content of paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof. By contrast, that transitional scheme does not concern rules of a procedural nature, in accordance with the principle that procedural rules are immediately applicable (judgment of 21 September 2016, Commission v Spain, C‑140/15 P, EU:C:2016:708, paragraphs 92 and 95).
…
34   It follows that, under Article 105(1) of Regulation No 1083/2006, that regulation maintained in force the substantive provisions of Article 39 of Regulation No 1260/1999, that is to say those which set out the respective roles and rights and obligations of the Member States and of the Commission in the context of the procedure applicable in the event of irregularities established pursuant to a financial review conducted by the EAGGF.’
51


It must be borne in mind from the outset that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, while a legal situation that has arisen and become definitive under the old law remains subject to that law, the legislator is free to provide otherwise, in particular by means of transitional rules (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 November 2013, Gemeinde Altrip and Others, C‑72/12, EU:C:2013:712, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
52


However, transitional provisions are to be interpreted strictly (judgment of 2 September 2010, Kirin Amgen, C‑66/09, EU:C:2010:484, paragraph 33).
54


According to the Court’s case-law, the principle of legal certainty requires that rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations imposed on them, in particular where there is a risk of financial consequences (judgment of 6 September 2018, Czech Republic v Commission, C‑4/17 P, EU:C:2018:678, paragraph 58).
56


Since autonomous concepts of EU law must be interpreted in the light of the context of the legislation in which they are used and the objectives pursued by that legislation (judgment of 15 November 2018, BTA Baltic Insurance Company, C‑648/17, EU:C:2018:917, paragraph 31), it must be held that, failing an express reference, in Article 105 of Regulation No 1083/2006, to a broader definition of ‘Structural Funds’ in Regulation No 1260/1999 than in Regulation No 1083/2006, the mere fact that that provision lays down ‘transitional provisions’, as is clear from its heading, does not, contrary to what the Commission claims, mean that the concepts which that provision uses may be taken from scope of the definition given by Regulation No 1083/2006, to which those concepts belong.