1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549, and corrigendum OJ 2016, L 130, p. 6).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between M.K. and the Ministerstvo zemědělství (Ministry of Agriculture, Czech Republic) concerning a decision ordering the recovery from M.K. of amounts wrongly paid of a grant.
3 The third recital of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) provides: ‘… acts detrimental to the [European] Communities’ financial interests must … be countered in all areas’.
4 Article 1 of that regulation provides: ‘1. For the purposes of protecting the European Communities’ financial interests, general rules are hereby adopted relating to homogenous checks and to administrative measures and penalties concerning irregularities with regard to Community law. 2. “Irregularity” shall mean any infringement of a provision of Community law resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities or budgets managed by them, either by reducing or losing revenue accruing from own resources collected directly on behalf of the Communities, or by an unjustified item of expenditure.’
5 Article 3 of that regulation provides: ‘1. The limitation period for proceedings shall be four years as from the time when the irregularity referred to in Article 1(1) was committed. However, the sectoral rules may make provision for a shorter period which may not be less than three years. In the case of continuous or repeated irregularities, the limitation period shall run from the day on which the irregularity ceases. In the case of multiannual programmes, the limitation period shall in any case run until the programme is definitively terminated. The limitation period shall be interrupted by any act of the competent authority, notified to the person in question, relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the irregularity. The limitation period shall start again following each interrupting act. However, limitation shall become effective at the latest on the day on which a period equal to twice the limitation period expires without the competent authority having imposed a penalty, except where the administrative procedure has been suspended in accordance with Article 6(1). 2. The period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative penalty shall be three years. That period shall run from the day on which the decision becomes final. Instances of interruption and suspension shall be governed by the relevant provisions of national law. 3. Member States shall retain the possibility of applying a period which is longer than that provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 respectively.’
6 Recital 37 of Regulation No 1306/2013 stated: ‘(37) As regards the [European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF)], sums recovered should be paid back to that Fund where the expenditure is not in conformity with Union law and no entitlement existed. In order to allow sufficient time for all the necessary administrative proceedings, including internal checks, Member States should request recovery from the beneficiary within 18 months after a control report or similar document, stating that an irregularity has taken place, has been approved and, where applicable, received by the paying agency or body responsible for the recovery. Provision should be made for a system of financial responsibility where irregularities have been committed and where the total amount has not been recovered. In this respect a procedure should be established enabling the [European] Commission to safeguard the interests of the [EU] budget by deciding on partial charging to the Member State concerned of the sums lost as a result of irregularities and not recovered within a reasonable period. In certain cases of negligence by the Member State, it is also right to charge the full sum to the Member State concerned. However, subject to Member States complying with obligations under their internal procedures, the financial burden should be divided fairly between the Union and the Member State. The same rules should apply to the [European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)], subject however, to the requirement that sums recovered or cancelled following irregularities should remain available to the approved rural development programmes of the Member State concerned as those sums have been allocated to that Member State. Provisions on the reporting obligation for Member States should also be established.’
7 Article 5 of Regulation No 1306/2013, entitled ‘EAFRD expenditure’, provided: ‘The EAFRD shall be implemented in shared management between the Member States and the Union. It shall finance the Union’s financial contribution to rural development programmes implemented in accordance with the Union law on support for rural development.’
8 Title IV of that regulation, entitled ‘Financial management of the funds’, included Chapter IV, entitled ‘Clearance of accounts’, Section III of which concerned ‘irregularities’.
9 Within Section III, Article 54 of that regulation, entitled ‘Common provisions’, provided: ‘1. For any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence, Member States shall request recovery from the beneficiary within 18 months after the approval and, where applicable, reception, by the paying agency or body responsible for the recovery, of a control report or similar document, stating that an irregularity has taken place. The corresponding amounts shall be recorded at the time of the recovery request in the debtors’ ledger of the paying agency. 2. If recovery has not taken place within four years from the date of the recovery request, or within eight years where recovery is taken in the national courts, 50% of the financial consequences of the non-recovery shall be borne by the Member State concerned and 50% by the Union’s budget, without prejudice to the requirement that the Member State concerned must pursue recovery procedures in compliance with Article 58. Where, in the context of the recovery procedure, the absence of any irregularity is recorded by an administrative or legal instrument of a final nature, the Member State concerned shall declare as expenditure to the Funds the financial burden borne by it under the first subparagraph. However, if for reasons not attributable to the Member State concerned, it is not possible for recovery to take place within the time limit specified in the first subparagraph, and the amount to be recovered exceeds EUR 1 million, the Commission may, at the request of the Member State, extend the time limit by a period of up to half of the original period. 3. On duly justified grounds, Member States may decide not to pursue recovery. A decision to this effect may be taken only in the following cases: (a) where the costs already and likely to be effected total more than the amount to be recovered, … … (b) where recovery proves impossible owing to the insolvency, recorded and recognised under national law, of the debtor or the persons legally responsible for the irregularity. Where the decision referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph is taken before the outstanding amount has been subject to the rules referred to in paragraph 2, the financial consequence of non-recovery shall be borne by the Union’s budget. 4. Member States shall enter in the annual accounts to be sent to the Commission under point (c)(iv) of Article 102(1) the amounts to be borne by them under paragraph 2 of this Article. The Commission shall check that this has been done and make any adjustments needed in the implementing act referred to in Article 51. 5. The Commission may, provided that the procedure laid down in Article 52(3) has been followed, adopt, implementing acts, excluding from Union financing sums charged to the Union’s budget in the following cases: (a) if the Member State has not respected the time limits referred to in paragraph 1; (b) if it considers that the decision not to pursue recovery taken by a Member State pursuant to paragraph 3 is not justified; (c) if it considers that an irregularity or lack of recovery is the outcome of irregularity or negligence attributable to the administrative authorities or another official body of the Member State. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 116(2).’
10 Within Section III, Article 56 of that regulation, entitled ‘Provisions specific to the EAFRD’, provided: ‘Where irregularities or negligence are detected in rural development operations or programmes, Member States shall make financial adjustments by totally or partially cancelling the Union financing concerned. Member States shall take into consideration the nature and gravity of the irregularities detected and the level of the financial loss to the EAFRD. Amounts of the Union financing under the EAFRD which are cancelled and amounts recovered, as well as the interest thereon, shall be reallocated to the programme concerned. However, the cancelled or recovered Union funds may be reused by Member States only for an operation under the same rural development programme and provided the funds are not reallocated to operations which have been the subject of a financial adjustment. After the closure of a rural development programme, the Member State shall refund the sums recovered to the Union’s budget.’
11 Title V of Regulation No 1306/2013, entitled ‘Control systems and penalties’, included Chapter I, entitled ‘General rules’, which included Articles 58 to 66 thereof.
12 Article 58 of that regulation, entitled ‘Protection of the financial interests of the Union’, provided, in paragraph 1: ‘1. Member States shall, within the framework of the [common agricultural policy (CAP)], adopt all legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions and take any other measures necessary to ensure effective protection of the financial interests of the Union, in particular to: … (e) recover undue payments plus interest, and bring legal proceedings to that effect as necessary.’
13 The referring court explains that, on the date of payment of the grant at issue in the main proceedings, namely 7 July 2015, the Czech legal system did not provide for a limitation period for the recovery of a grant wrongly paid from the beneficiary of that grant.
14 On 28 June 2012, M.K., a Czech natural person, submitted an application for a grant from the rural development programme of the Czech Republic, Measure III.1.2 ‘Support for business start-ups and the development thereof’ (‘the RDP’), for a project entitled ‘Construction work on a building for a business’.
15 On 13 March 2013, by signing a grant agreement, M.K. undertook to comply with the rules of the RDP.
16 On 7 July 2015, a grant in the amount of 5239422 Czech koruny (CZK) (approximately EUR 210000) was paid to M.K. in respect of the project concerned.
17 Following an inspection of that project, which took place on 29 April 2016, the Státní zemědělský intervenční fond (Agricultural Intervention Fund), in an opinion of 24 May 2016, found that the building in question had not been used for the purposes of carrying on the business concerned and that the infringement of the rules of the RDP by M.K. entailed a grant reduction of 100 %.
18 On 12 September 2016, that opinion was confirmed by the Review Commission of the Ministry of Agriculture.
19 On 11 June 2018, the Agricultural Intervention Fund adopted a decision ordering the recovery from M.K. of all the funds which had thus been wrongly paid to her, namely CZK 5239422.
20 On 7 May 2020, the Ministry of Agriculture dismissed the administrative appeal brought by M.K. against that decision.
21 Hearing an action brought by M.K. against the decision dismissing that administrative appeal, the Městský soud v Praze (Prague City Court, Czech Republic), after examining the complaint alleging that the right of the Member State concerned to recover from M.K. the grant at issue in the main proceedings had lapsed, on the ground that the request for recovery of that grant had been made by the competent Czech authorities after the expiry of the 18-month time limit laid down in Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, held that that right had not lapsed in the case before it, since that time limit constituted an indicative time limit and not a limitation period, and only failure to comply with a limitation period was capable of causing that right to lapse.
22 By its judgment, that court departed, in that regard, from the case-law of the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic), which is the referring court, resulting from a decision of the Ninth Chamber of that court, in which it was held that a time limit such as that at issue in the main proceedings was a limitation period.
23 An appeal on a point of law was brought before the referring court against the judgment delivered by the Městský soud v Praze (Prague City Court). The case in the main proceedings was assigned, within that court, to the Fifth Chamber.
24 The Fifth Chamber of the referring court referred the case to the Extended Chamber of that court, considering that - since the 18-month time limit laid down in Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 was an indicative time limit and the Member State concerned was thus entitled to require the recovery of undue payments from the beneficiary of the grant at issue even after the expiry of that time limit - it was necessary to depart from the existing national case-law.
25 The referring court points out that it is required to make a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice, on account, first, of the existence of a divergence in its own case-law as regards the classification of the time limit laid down in Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, second, of the fact that none of the possible interpretations can be regarded as clear, plausible and obviously more compelling than the others and, third, of the absence of an answer in that regard emerging from the case-law of the Court of Justice.
26 With regard to how Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 should be interpreted, the referring court observes that, unlike the time limit laid down in Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, the one set out in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 is expressly classified as a limitation period.
27 Moreover, that referring court notes that Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 governs the relationship between the Member State concerned and the European Union, and not the relationship between that Member State and the beneficiary of the grant at issue.
28 By contrast, referring to the judgment of 8 May 2019, Järvelaev (C‑580/17, EU:C:2019:391), that court states that paragraphs 95 and 96 of that judgment may be interpreted as not precluding an interpretation to the effect that the 18-month time limit laid down in Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 is both an indicative time limit, in the relationship between the Member State concerned and the European Union, and a limitation period, in the relationship between that Member State and the beneficiary of the grant at issue.
29 In those circumstances, the Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Must Article 54(1) of [Regulation No 1306/2013] be interpreted as meaning that the Member State’s authorisation to request recovery of undue payments from the beneficiary lapses upon the expiry of the 18-month time limit laid down that provision?’
30 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, although the question referred concerns only Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, as regards the lapse of the right of the Member State concerned to require the recovery of undue payments of an EAFRD grant from its beneficiary, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the referring court is in fact uncertain whether that provision establishes a limitation period in the relationship between that Member State and that beneficiary, excluding the application of the limitation period laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95.
31 In those circumstances, it must be held that, by its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, must be interpreted as precluding the initiation of the recovery procedure for the amounts wrongly paid of an EAFRD grant from its beneficiary after the expiry of the time limit of 18 months after the approval and, where applicable, reception, by the paying agency or body responsible for the recovery, of a control report or similar document, stating that an irregularity has taken place.
32 In that regard, it should be recalled that Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 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 to that regulation, to ‘[counter] acts detrimental to the [European Union’s] financial interests … in all areas’ (judgments of 24 June 2004, Handlbauer, C‑278/02, EU:C:2004:388, paragraph 31, and of 22 December 2010, Corman, C‑131/10, EU:C:2010:825, paragraph 36).
33 As is clear from Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, those administrative measures may consist in the withdrawal of the wrongly obtained advantage by the obligation to repay the amounts wrongly paid without however constituting a penalty (see, to that effect, judgments of 17 September 2014, Cruz & Companhia, C‑341/13, EU:C:2014:2230, paragraph 45, and of 7 April 2022, IFAP, C‑447/20 and C‑448/20, EU:C:2022:265, paragraph 46).
34 Thus, the limitation period referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 is applicable both to the irregularities leading to the imposition of an administrative penalty, within the meaning of Article 5 of that regulation, and to irregularities, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are penalised by an administrative measure resulting in the recovery of the wrongly obtained advantage, in accordance with Article 4 of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgments of 2 March 2017, Glencore Céréales France, C‑584/15, EU:C:2017:160, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited, and of 6 February 2025, Emporiki Serron - Emporias kai Diathesis Agrotikon Proionton, C‑42/24, EU:C:2025:56, paragraph 18).
35 The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 fixes, as far as proceedings are concerned, a limitation period which is applicable, inter alia, to such administrative measures and which runs from the time when the irregularity concerned was committed, such irregularity, according to Article 1(2) of that regulation, being ‘any infringement of a provision of [EU] law resulting from an act or omission by an economic operator, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the [European Union]’ (judgments of 29 January 2009, Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb and Others, C‑278/07 to C‑280/07, EU:C:2009:38, paragraph 21, and of 7 April 2022, IFAP, C‑447/20 and C‑448/20, EU:C:2022:265, paragraph 47).
36 By adopting Regulation No 2988/95, in particular the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) thereof, the EU legislature decided to establish a general rule on limitation whereby it intended, first, to define a minimum period applied in all the Member States and, second, to exclude the possibility of bringing proceedings concerning an irregularity that is detrimental to the European Union’s financial interests after the expiry of a four-year period after the irregularity was committed (see, to that effect, judgments of 29 January 2009, Josef Vosding Schlacht-, Kühl- und Zerlegebetrieb and Others, C‑278/07 to C‑280/07, EU:C:2009:38, paragraph 27, and of 7 April 2022, IFAP, C‑447/20 and C‑448/20, EU:C:2022:265, paragraph 48).
37 The second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) states that that four-year limitation period is applicable in the absence of ‘sectoral rules’, namely those adopted at EU level and not at national level, providing for ‘a shorter period which may not be less than three years’ (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 December 2010, Corman, C‑131/10, EU:C:2010:825, paragraphs 41 and 42 and the case-law cited).
38 It follows that, as from the date on which Regulation No 2988/95 entered into force, proceedings may be brought by the competent authorities of the Member States within a period of four years - as a rule, and other than in the sectors for which the EU legislature has prescribed a shorter period - concerning any irregularity that is detrimental to the European Union’s financial interests (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 March 2019, Eesti Pagar, C‑349/17, EU:C:2019:172, paragraph 117 and the case-law cited).
39 However, in so far as the EU legislature has chosen to create, in another general rule or in a sectoral rule, an obligation to recover misused or wrongly obtained funds, it is that rule which then constitutes the relevant legal basis for the purposes of recovery of those funds (judgment of 4 October 2024, Commission v PB, C‑721/22 P, EU:C:2024:836, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).
40 Therefore, where the recovery of sums wrongly paid, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in the context of an aid programme, approved and co-financed by the EAFRD for the 2007-2013 programming period, takes place after the programming period has come to an end, namely after 1 January 2014, recovery must be based on the provisions of Regulation No 1306/2013, and in particular on Article 56 of that regulation (judgment of 29 February 2024, Eesti Vabariik (Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet), C‑437/22, EU:C:2024:176, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).
41 In that regard, it should be noted that Article 54 of Regulation No 1306/2013, in Title IV of that regulation, entitled ‘Financial management of the funds’, and, more specifically, in Chapter IV thereof, entitled ‘Clearance of accounts’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof, in general terms, that ‘for any undue payment following the occurrence of irregularity or negligence, Member States shall request recovery from the beneficiary’.
42 Article 54 of Regulation No 1306/2013 governs, in the context of the system of financial responsibility relating to irregularities as a result of which amounts wrongly paid of a grant must be recovered from the beneficiary of that grant, the apportionment of the financial consequences between the budget of the European Union and the budget of the Member State responsible for the recovery of those amounts.
43 In that context, Article 54(1) lays down an 18-month time limit, which runs from the formal finding of the existence of an irregularity, within which the Member States ‘shall’ require the recovery of the amounts from the beneficiary concerned, on pain of them being charged for the amounts of the grant concerned, in accordance with Article 54(5)(a).
44 In accordance with the latter provision, the Commission may, provided that the procedure laid down in Article 52(3) of Regulation No 1306/2013 has been followed, adopt implementing acts excluding from EU financing the amounts charged to the EU budget if the Member State concerned has not complied with the 18-month time limit referred to in Article 54(1) of that regulation.
45 In addition, according to recital 37 of that regulation, ‘Member States should request recovery from the beneficiary within 18 months after a control report or similar document, stating that an irregularity has taken place, has been approved and, where applicable, received by the paying agency or body responsible for the recovery’, it being noted that ‘provision should be made for a system of financial responsibility where irregularities have been committed and where the total amount has not been recovered’ and that ‘a procedure should be established enabling the Commission to safeguard the interests of the [EU] budget by deciding on partial charging to the Member State concerned of the sums lost as a result of irregularities and not recovered within a reasonable period’.
46 Therefore, a Member State which detects an irregularity is required to recover the grant wrongly paid and must, in particular, request recovery from the beneficiary within 18 months after the approval and, where applicable, reception, by the paying agency or body responsible for the recovery, of a control report or similar document, stating that an irregularity has taken place. It follows that a Member State may and, in the interests of sound financial management of EU resources, must enforce recovery as soon as possible (judgment of 8 May 2019, Järvelaev, C‑580/17, EU:C:2019:391, paragraphs 95 and 96).
47 It follows that Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, relating to the recovery of amounts wrongly paid as a result of an irregularity from the beneficiary concerned, concerns the financial relationship between the European Union and the Member State concerned and that provision therefore does not apply to the relationship between the Member State concerned and the beneficiary of the undue payments.
48 Accordingly, the expiry of the time limit of 18 months after the approval and, where applicable, reception, by the paying agency or body responsible for the recovery, of a control report or similar document, stating that an irregularity has taken place, within the meaning of that provision, cannot lead to the lapse of a Member State’s right to request the recovery of undue payments of a grant from its beneficiary. However, the expiry of that time limit may have consequences for that Member State with respect to its obligations regarding the financial management of resources from the budget of the European Union.
49 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question raised is that Article 54(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013, read in conjunction with the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, must be interpreted as not precluding the initiation of the recovery procedure for the amounts wrongly paid of an EAFRD grant from its beneficiary after the expiry of the time limit of 18 months after the approval and, where applicable, reception, by the paying agency or body responsible for the recovery, of a control report or similar document, stating that an irregularity has taken place.
50 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national 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.