1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between PROFIL-COPY 2002 Irodatechnikai Kft. (‘Profil-Copy’), a Hungarian company, and the Közigazgatási és Területfejlesztési Minisztérium (Ministry of Public Administration and Regional Development, Hungary) (‘the Ministry’), acting as the managing authority of the ‘Economic Development and Innovation Plus’ operational programme, concerning the recovery of a grant paid to Profil-Copy.
3 Article 47 of the Charter provides as follows: ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. …’
4 Under Article 69 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (OJ 2021 L 231, p. 159): ‘… 2. Member States shall ensure the legality and regularity of expenditure included in the accounts submitted to the [European] Commission and shall take all required actions to prevent, detect and correct and report on irregularities including fraud. … … 7. Member States shall make arrangements to ensure the effective examination of complaints concerning the Funds. The scope, rules and procedures concerning those arrangements shall be the responsibility of Member States in accordance with their institutional and legal framework. … For the purposes of this Article, complaints cover any dispute between potential and selected beneficiaries with regard to the proposed or selected operation and any disputes with third parties on the implementation of the programme or operations thereunder, irrespective of the qualification of means of legal redress established under national law.’
5 Article 132(1) of the a 2021-2027 programozási időszakban az egyes európai uniós alapokból származó támogatások felhasználásának rendjéről szóló 256/2021. (V. 18.) Korm. rendelet (Magyar Közlöny 2021/91) (Government Decree No 256/2021 on the rules for the use of grants from certain EU funds during the 2021-2027 programming period) of 18 May 2021 (‘Decree No 256/2021’) provides that the managing authority is to conclude a grant contract subject to civil law with the beneficiary and that the rules governing the grant contract apply, mutatis mutandis, when the legal grant relationship is established by means of a grant awarding instrument issued by the managing authority.
6 In case of suspected irregularities, the managing authority is to conduct irregularity proceedings under Chapter XIII of Decree No 256/2021.
7 Article 397(2) of that decree provides that, where an irregularity has been established, the managing authority may, inter alia, terminate the grant contract.
8 Under Article 403(1) of that decree: ‘Where the decision finding an irregularity is unlawful or contrary to the grant contract or the call for grant proposals, the beneficiary may appeal against it once.’
9 Article 408(1)(d) of Decree No 256/2021 provides, in that regard, that the Miniszterelnökség Belső Ellenőrzési és Integritási Igazgatósága (Directorate of Internal Audit and Integrity in the Prime Minister’s Office, Hungary) (‘the Directorate of Internal Audit and Integrity’) is to dismiss the appeal without examining the merits of the case if the appeal lodged by the beneficiary concerns a decision already made on appeal.
10 Article 414(1) of that decree provides: ‘At the end of the appeal proceedings, the Directorate of Internal Audit and Integrity (a) shall confirm the decision finding an irregularity; (b) shall set aside the decision finding an irregularity; or (c) shall set aside the decision finding an irregularity and institute new irregularity proceedings before the managing authority.’
11 Article 418 of that decree provides: ‘In the event of misappropriation of a grant, use thereof contrary to the law or not for the purpose for which it was granted, revocation of the grant or termination of the grant contract, either unilaterally or by mutual agreement, the beneficiary is required to repay the unduly paid grant.’
12 The managing authority is to attempt to collect the debt through a payment order, offsetting or authorisation for payment in instalments. If those measures do not produce results, the managing authority is to immediately request the tax authorities, pursuant to Article 436(1) of that decree, to recover the aid which has not been repaid, in accordance with the same procedures as for the recovery of taxes.
13 Article 103(1) of the a polgári perrendtartásról szóló 2016. évi CXXX. törvény (Law No CXXX of 2016 on the Code of Civil Procedure) (Magyar Közlöny 2016/190) provides that the competent civil court may, on application, order interim measures.
14 Article 15 of the az adóhatóság által foganatosítandó végrehajtási eljárásokról szóló 2017. évi CLIII. törvény (Law No CLIII of 2017 on enforcement proceedings that must be initiated by the tax authorities) (‘the Law on enforcement proceedings by the tax authorities’) (Magyar Közlöny 2017/193) does not list courts among the bodies which are authorised to suspend enforcement proceedings initiated by the tax authorities.
15 Where proceedings are brought before the tax authorities by the managing authority under Article 436(1) of Decree No 256/2021, the tax authorities are to issue an administrative transfer order which the bank of the party required to repay the grant is obliged to enforce in accordance with Article 42(1) of the Law on enforcement proceedings by the tax authorities. Under that law, those authorities are also to initiate legal proceedings for collection on movable and immovable goods.
16 Profil-Copy received a grant of 125 184 193 Hungarian forint (HUF) (approximately EUR 315 000) for the installation of solar panels. The grant was awarded under the Hungarian ‘Economic Development and Innovation Plus’ operational programme, implemented for the period from 2021 to 2027 and supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+).
17 Having found an irregularity, the Ministry, acting as the managing authority for that programme, ordered the withdrawal of the grant awarding instrument and recovery of the grant paid.
18 Following an appeal lodged by Profil-Copy with the Directorate of Internal Audit and Integrity, that decision was confirmed and is no longer subject to any further administrative appeal, in accordance with Article 403(1) and Article 408(1)(d) of Decree No 256/2021.
19 Consequently, the managing authority withdrew the grant which had been unduly paid to Profil-Copy and asked the latter to repay that grant while informing it that, if it failed to repay it, the managing authority would be entitled to request the national tax authorities to recover the debt corresponding to the undue grant.
20 Since Hungarian law classifies the relationship between the managing authority and the beneficiary of the EU grant as a relationship governed by civil law, Profil-Copy brought a civil action before the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), which is the referring court, in order to avert the consequences of the decision ordering the recovery of the grant from which it had benefited.
21 In the context of that action, it sought a declaration that both the decision finding the irregularity and the order for recovery of the allegedly undue grant should be declared unlawful. It also requested that court to adopt an interim measure based on Article 103(1) of Law No CXXX of 2016 on the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to prohibit the Ministry from recovering or enforcing recovery of the amount claimed. To that end, Profil-Copy submits that, while the Ministry may, by referring the matter to the tax authorities, proceed to enforcement against it before a final decision in civil proceedings has been delivered on the merits of its application, it can assert its rights against that ministry only in the context of ordinary civil proceedings. The Ministry, for its part, submits before the referring court that the latter does not have jurisdiction to adopt such an interim measure.
22 In that regard, that court states that, in the context of the dispute in the main proceedings, it is incumbent on it to ascertain whether, when recovering the grants, the managing authority complied with Decree No 256/2021, which implements Regulation 2021/1060.
23 In addition, the referring court explains that recently a number of similar cases have been brought before it in which the litigants request that the Ministry be temporarily prohibited from recovering a debt. Those litigants argue that enforcement would make it impossible to pursue their economic activity by creating a risk of insolvency or even bankruptcy before the proceedings have been definitively concluded. In so doing, there is a real risk that the addressees of a decision to recover a grant will cease to exist even before the proceedings are concluded by a final decision, which makes it impossible for them to assert their rights.
24 It is in that context that the Hungarian civil courts have enabled the addressee of an enforceable decision to recover a grant to bring a civil action at a later date to have the unlawfulness of that decision declared in an action against the decision terminating the grant contract.
25 The referring court explains, however, that Hungarian case-law is divided as regards the jurisdiction of the civil courts over applications for interim measures brought in such cases. According to one line of case-law, since Hungarian law brings the EU grant contract within the scope of civil law, there is no obstacle to the adoption of interim measures. By contrast, according to a second line of case-law, such an application for interim measures must be dismissed on the ground that the court before which it has been brought lacks jurisdiction, since Article 15 of the Law on enforcement proceedings by the tax authorities does not list courts among the bodies empowered to suspend enforcement proceedings initiated by those authorities.
26 In so far as, first, it is required to examine the lawfulness of the recovery of an EU grant awarded under Regulation 2021/1060, second, Article 69(7) of that regulation requires Member States to ensure an effective examination of complaints concerning European funds and, third, Article 47 of the Charter confers a right to an effective remedy on everyone whose rights guaranteed by EU law have been infringed, the referring court considers it necessary to refer questions to the Court of Justice in order to assess whether the system for dealing with irregularities provided for by Hungarian law is compatible with Article 47 of the Charter.
27 In those circumstances, the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
28 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the beneficiary of an EU grant awarded in the context of the implementation of Regulation 2021/1060 must have an effective judicial remedy against an enforceable decision of the managing authority of a programme supported by EU funds ordering that beneficiary to repay that grant.
29 As is apparent from Article 51(1) of the Charter, the provisions thereof are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law.
30 That is the case here, since the decision ordering the withdrawal and recovery of the grant paid to Profil-Copy was adopted on the basis of Decree No 256/2021, which implements Regulation 2021/1060 by specifying the detailed rules for the use of grants from certain EU funds during the 2021-2027 programming period.
31 That said, the recognition, in a given case, of the right to an effective remedy, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, presupposes that the person invoking that right is relying on rights or freedoms guaranteed by EU law or that that person is the subject of proceedings constituting an implementation of EU law (see, inter alia, judgment of 22 February 2022, RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court), C‑430/21, EU:C:2022:99, paragraph 34).
32 In the present case, the civil action brought by Profil-Copy seeks a declaration, first, that the decision of the managing authority withdrawing the grant allocated to it under the ‘Economic Development and Innovation Plus’ programme, which is supported by the ERDF and the ESF+ and, second, and consequently, that the order for recovery of that grant, are unlawful.
33 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the beneficiary of an EU grant awarded in the context of the implementation of Regulation 2021/1060 must have an effective judicial remedy against an enforceable decision of the managing authority of a programme supported by EU funds ordering that beneficiary to repay that grant.
34 It should be borne in mind that it is for the referring court to determine, in the cases before it, what the correct interpretation of national law is (judgment of 22 June 2010, Melki and Abdeli, C‑188/10 and C‑189/10, EU:C:2010:363, paragraph 49).
35 By its second to fourth questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the possibility, for the beneficiary of an EU grant, first, to challenge indirectly an enforceable decision requiring it to repay that grant in an action brought before a civil court for a declaration that a decision ordering the withdrawal of that grant is unlawful and, second, to seek, in the context of that action, the adoption of interim measures in order to suspend the enforcement of that decision, constitutes an effective judicial remedy.
36 As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that, in proceedings under Article 267 TFEU, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, the national court alone has jurisdiction to interpret and apply national law (judgments of 4 May 1999, Sürül, C‑262/96, EU:C:1999:228, paragraph 95; of 14 June 2012, Banco Español de Crédito, C‑618/10, EU:C:2012:349, paragraph 76; of 22 September 2022, Servicios prescriptor y medios de pagos EFC, C‑215/21, EU:C:2022:723, paragraph 26, and of 9 April 2024, Profi Credit Polska (Reopening of proceedings concluded with a final judicial decision), C‑582/21, EU:C:2024:282, paragraphs 31 and 54).
37 Therefore, the Court will start from the premiss, referenced in paragraph 25 of the present judgment, that Hungarian case-law is divided as regards the jurisdiction of the civil courts to order interim measures in actions seeking to temporarily prohibit the managing authority from recovering a grant which it considers to have been unduly paid to its beneficiary.
38 Article 47 of the Charter provides that everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in that provision, which means that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law.
39 The obligation imposed on the Member States in the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU, to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law, corresponds to that right (judgments of 16 May 2017, Berlioz Investment Fund, C‑682/15, EU:C:2017:373, paragraph 44, and of 6 October 2020, État luxembourgeois (Right to bring an action against a request for information in tax matters), C‑245/19 and C‑246/19, EU:C:2020:795, paragraph 47).
40 In that regard, although, in the absence of EU rules on the matter, it is for the national legal order of each Member State, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy, to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing legal proceedings and, subject to the observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, to lay down the detailed rules governing remedies for ensuring that individual rights derived from the EU legal order are safeguarded, Member States nevertheless have the responsibility to ensure observance in every case of the right to effective judicial protection of those rights as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter (judgments of 19 November 2019, A.K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), C‑585/18, C‑624/18 and C‑625/18, EU:C:2019:982, paragraph 115 and the case-law cited; of 2 June 2022, Skeyes, C‑353/20, EU:C:2022:423, paragraph 52; and of 1 August 2025, Alace and Canpelli, C‑758/24 and C‑759/24, EU:C:2025:591, paragraph 64).
41 EU law does not, however, have the effect of requiring Member States to establish remedies other than those established by national law, unless it is apparent from the overall scheme of the national legal system in question that no legal remedy exists that would make it possible to ensure, even indirectly, respect for the rights that individuals derive from EU law, or the sole means of obtaining access to a court is effectively for individuals to break the law (see, to that effect, judgments of 13 March 2007, Unibet, C‑432/05, EU:C:2007:163, paragraphs 40, 41, 64 and 65, and of 2 June 2022, Skeyes, C‑353/20, EU:C:2022:423, paragraph 54).
42 In the present case, it follows from the request for a preliminary ruling that, in view of Hungarian legislation as it currently stands, the civil courts have held that they have jurisdiction to assess, indirectly, the compatibility with EU law of an enforceable decision of the managing authority ordering the recovery of an EU grant, in an action brought by the beneficiary of that grant against, inter alia, a decision to withdraw that grant or to terminate the grant contract.
43 It should be added that a national court seised of a dispute governed by EU law must be in a position to grant interim relief in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the rights claimed under EU law (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 June 1990, Factortame and Others, C‑213/89, EU:C:1990:257, paragraph 21; of 13 March 2007, Unibet, C‑432/05, EU:C:2007:163, paragraphs 67 and 77; and of 2 June 2022, Skeyes, C‑353/20, EU:C:2022:423, paragraph 53). It follows that a court which in those circumstances would grant interim relief, if it were not for a rule of national law, is obliged to set aside that rule.
44 Furthermore, in so far as, as has been pointed out in paragraph 25 of the present judgment, Hungarian case-law is divided as regards the jurisdiction of the civil courts to order interim measures in actions seeking to temporarily prohibit the managing authority from recovering a grant which it considers to have been unduly paid to its beneficiary, reference must be made to the requirement that national law be interpreted in conformity with EU law. That requirement to interpret national law in conformity with EU law entails the obligation for national courts to change established case-law, where necessary, if it is based on an interpretation of national law that is incompatible with the objectives of a directive. Accordingly, the national court cannot validly claim that it is impossible for it to interpret the national provision at issue in a manner that is consistent with EU law by mere reason of the fact that it has consistently interpreted that provision in a manner that is incompatible with EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 April 2016, DI, C‑441/14, EU:C:2016:278, paragraphs 33 and 34).
45 In the present case, in so far as Hungarian law classifies the relationship between the managing authority and the beneficiary of the EU grant as a relationship governed by civil law and since Article 103(1) of Law No CXXX of 2016 on the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the civil court having jurisdiction to order, on application, interim measures, it is for the referring court to give priority to the first line of case-law referred to in paragraph 25 of the present judgment and, consequently, to declare that it has jurisdiction to suspend the enforcement of the enforceable decision of the managing authority which ordered the withdrawal and the decision which ordered the recovery of the EU grant initially paid to Profil-Copy.
46 Since the referring court is unable to suspend the implementation of the decision ordering recovery of the grant referred to in the preceding paragraph, the managing authority could obtain enforcement of that decision from the tax authorities. The right to an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, would be illusory if national legislation were to allow a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. Such national legislation would fail to comply with the essential content of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 December 2019, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, C‑752/18, EU:C:2019:1114, paragraphs 35 and 36, and of 3 July 2025, TOODE, C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517, paragraph 28).
47 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second to fourth questions is that Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the possibility for the beneficiary of an EU grant, first, to challenge indirectly an enforceable decision requiring it to repay that grant in an action brought before a civil court for a declaration that a decision ordering the withdrawal of that grant is unlawful and, second, to seek, in the context of that action, the adoption of interim measures in order to suspend the enforcement of that decision, constitutes an effective judicial remedy.
48 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. 1. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights