1 The requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of the first sentence of Article 2(18)(a) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] (OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1, ‘the GBER’), of Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/452 of 15 March 2021 correcting the Romanian language version of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] (OJ 2021 L 89, p. 1, ‘the correcting regulation’), and of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty.
2 Those requests, which are worded identically, were made in two sets of proceedings between, the first, On Air Media Professionals SRL (‘On Air Media’), a limited liability company under Romanian law, and Agenția pentru Întreprinderi Mici și Mijlocii Iaşi (agency for small and medium-sized enterprises, Iaşi, Romania) and, the second, Different Media SRL, also a limited liability company under Romanian law, and the Ministerul Antreprenoriatului și Turismului - Agenția pentru Întreprinderi Mici și Mijlocii, Atragere de Investiții și Promovare a Exportului Iaşi (Ministry of Business and Tourism, agency for small and medium-sized enterprises seeking to attract investment and promote exports, Iaşi, Romania) concerning requests for the reimbursement of grants unduly paid to those two companies in connection with measures to support undertakings affected by the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
3 Recital 14 of the GBER is worded as follows: ‘Aid granted to undertakings in difficulty should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation, since such aid should be assessed under the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty of 1 October 2004 … as prolonged by [European] Commission communication concerning the prolongation of the application of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty of 1 October 2004 … or their successor Guidelines, in order to avoid their circumvention, with the exception of aid schemes to make good the damage caused by certain natural disasters. In order to provide legal certainty, it is appropriate to establish clear criteria that do not require an assessment of all the particularities of the situation of an undertaking to determine whether an undertaking is considered to be in difficulty for the purposes of this Regulation.’
4 Article 1 of that regulation, entitled ‘Scope’, provides in paragraph (4): ‘This Regulation shall not apply to: … …’
5 According to the initial Romanian language version of Article 2 of that regulation, entitled ‘Definitions’: ‘For the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply: … …’
6 Recitals 1 and 2 of the correcting regulation read as follows:
7 Article 1 of the correcting regulation states, in paragraph (1) [in a translation in the English language]: ‘The [GBER] is corrected to read as follows: The first sentence of Article 2(18)(a) shall be replaced by the following wording: “In the case of a limited liability company (other than an SME that has been in existence for less than three years or, for the purposes of eligibility for risk finance aid, an SME within [seven] years from its first commercial sale that qualifies for risk finance investments following due diligence by the selected financial intermediary), where more than half of its subscribed share capital has disappeared as a result of accumulated losses.”’
8 Article 2 of the correcting regulation provides: ‘This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.’
9 The Commission authorised the State aid scheme entitled ‘Support for SMEs and [certain related] large enterprises to overcome the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic’ that Romania had notified to it on 20 August 2020, by Commission Decision C(2020) 5949 final of 27 August 2020 - State Aid SA.58166 (2020/N) - Romania - COVID-19: Support for SMEs and certain related large enterprises to overcome the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2020 C 302, p. 1, ‘the decision of 27 August 2020’).
10 Recitals 16 and 47 of that decision state: … …
11 Article 4(1) of the Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 130/2020 privind unele măsuri pentru acordarea de sprijin financiar din fonduri externe nerambursabile, aferente Programului operațional Competitivitate 2014-2020, în contextul crizei provocate de COVID-19, precum și alte măsuri în domeniul fondurilor europene (Government Emergency Ordinance No 130/2020 on some measures for financial support from non-reimbursable external funds related to the Competitiveness Operational [Programme] 2014-2020 in the context of the crisis caused by COVID-19, as well as other measures in the field of European funds) of 31 July 2020 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 705 of 6 August 2020) (‘OUG No 130/2020’), provides: ‘The micro-grants shall be of EUR 2 000 and shall be granted once only, in a lump sum, in compliance with Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 289), as amended, and with Article 67(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).’
12 According to Article 6 of OUG No 130/2020: ‘The micro-grants provided for in Article 4(1) shall be granted, on the basis of a State aid contract, to beneficiaries meeting all of the following conditions:
13 Article 32 of OUG No 130/2020 provides: ‘(1) The rules for the granting of State aid are laid down in the Support for SMEs State aid scheme, subject to the opinion of the European Commission. (2) Any modification of and/or in addition to the Support for SMEs State aid scheme shall take effect from the date on which the European Commission communicates the authorisation decision.’
14 The annex to Ordinul nr. 1060/2857/2020 pentru aprobarea Schemei de ajutor de stat - Sprijin pentru IMM-uri în vederea depășirii crizei economice generate de pandemia de COVID-19 (Order No 1060/2857/2020 approving State aid scheme - Support for SMEs to overcome the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic) of 8 September 2020 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 835 of 11 September 2020) (‘Order No 1060/2857/2020’), issued by the Ministerul Economiei, Energiei și Mediului de Afaceri (Ministry of the Economy, Energy and the Business Environment, Romania) and the Ministerul Fondurilor Europene (Ministry of European Funds, Romania), contains the following definition in point 3.6: ‘“undertakings in difficulty” - in accordance with Article 2(18)(a) of the [GBER], an undertaking shall be considered to be in difficulty in the following situations:
15 According to point 6.19 of the annex to that order: ‘The general eligibility criteria for beneficiaries applying for funding under the measures in this State aid scheme are as follows:
16 Point 8.11 of the annex to Ordinul nr. 2989/2020 privind aprobarea Procedurii de implementare a măsurii ‘Microgranturi acordate din fonduri externe nerambursabile’ din cadrul schemei de ajutor de stat instituite prin Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 130/2020 privind unele măsuri pentru acordarea de sprijin financiar din fonduri externe nerambursabile, aferente Programului operațional Competitivitate 2014-2020, în contextul crizei provocate de COVID-19, precum și alte măsuri în domeniul fondurilor europene (Order No 2989/2020 approving the procedure for the implementation of the ‘Micro-grants awarded from non-repayable external funds’ measure as part of the State aid scheme established by Government Emergency Ordinance No 130/2020 on some measures for financial support from non-reimbursable external funds related to the Competitiveness Operational [Programme] 2014-2020 in the context of the crisis caused by COVID-19, as well as other measures in the field of European funds) of 30 September 2020 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 902 of 5 October 2020) provides, in essence, that State aid will be recovered in full where it is established, following checks carried out after the financing contracts have been signed, that the beneficiary does not come within the category of eligible beneficiaries laid down by OUG No 130/2020.
17 On 20 August 2020, Romania notified an aid scheme to the Commission, entitled ‘Support for SMEs and [certain related] large enterprises to overcome the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic’. The Commission authorised that State aid scheme by the decision of 27 August 2020.
18 According to recital 16 of that decision, no State aid could be granted, on the basis of the authorised scheme, to undertakings that were in difficulty within the meaning of Article 2(18) of the GBER on 31 December 2019. As is clear from recital 47 of that decision, that circumstance was one of the conditions laid down by the Commission in order for it to be able to declare the aid scheme necessary, appropriate and proportionate and therefore compatible with the internal market.
19 After notification of the decision of 27 August 2020, the aid scheme was implemented by the Romanian authorities by means of Order No 1060/2857/2020.
20 Point 6.1 of the annex to that order provided for the granting of aid of up to EUR 2 000 per beneficiary for certain categories of SME.
21 In accordance with the decision of 27 August 2020, one of the general eligibility criteria to be met by beneficiaries applying for funding was, according to point 6.19 of the annex to that order, that they were not in difficulty within the meaning of Article 2(18) of the GBER on 31 December 2019. The definition of ‘undertaking in difficulty’ given in that latter provision was reiterated in point 3.6(i) of the annex to that order.
22 In the context of the aid scheme referred to above, on 10 December 2020, On Air Media and Different Media concluded financing contracts under which those companies each received a micro-grant of RON 9 679 (approximately EUR 1 945) to help them to overcome the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
23 Each of those micro-grants was the subject matter of a recovery decision, of 8 November 2022 for On Air Media and of 18 October 2022 for Different Media respectively. The Romanian authorities found that those companies did not meet one of the legal conditions for receiving the grants at issue, since, on 31 December 2019, they were ‘undertakings in difficulty’ within the meaning of point 3.6(i) of the annex to Order No 1060/2857/2020, as the capital losses recorded by those companies on that date far exceeded half of their subscribed capital.
24 On Air Media and Different Media brought actions against those recovery decisions before the Tribunalul Neamț (Regional Court, Neamț, Romania). They claimed that they met all the conditions laid down in order to be awarded micro-grants and that, in particular, they did not possess the characteristics of undertakings in difficulty within the meaning of Article 2(18) of the GBER. Those provisions, in the Romanian language version of that regulation, excluded ‘SME[s] that [have] been in existence for at least three years’ from the category of ‘undertakings in difficulty’. On Air Media and Different Media asserted that they had existed for 13 and 18 years respectively on the date on which they concluded their respective financing contracts.
25 The Tribunalul Neamț (Regional Court, Neamț) dismissed those actions. That court relied on the fact that the Romanian language version of the GBER had been corrected by the correcting regulation, after the grants had been awarded to On Air Media and to Different Media and that, thus corrected, the GBER provides that only SMEs that have been in existence for less than three years - and not, as in the initial version of that regulation in the Romanian language, SMEs that have been in existence for at least three years - fall outside the scope of the concept of ‘undertakings in difficulty’ and are therefore eligible for the aid at issue.
26 That court held that the correcting regulation had not amended the GBER but had merely corrected its Romanian language version, since the original version, in the English language, referred, as from the time it was adopted, to SMEs ‘in existence for less than three years’. Consequently, that court applied Article 2(18) of the GBER as corrected by the correcting regulation, and found that On Air Media and Different Media did not meet all the eligibility criteria on the date of their grant applications.
27 Those companies lodged appeals against the first instance judgments before the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Court of Appeal, Bacău, Romania), which is the referring court.
28 Before that court, they submit, in the first place, that the Romanian authorities applied the correcting regulation retroactively because that regulation was adopted in March 2021, that is to say, more than three months after signature of the financing contracts at issue and even after the grants had been used to purchase equipment.
29 In the second place, they claim that the concept of an ‘original version of the regulation’ in the English language, in the grounds of the first instance judgments, lacks any legal basis, since the Romanian language is one of the 24 official languages of the European Union, on the same basis as any of the 23 other languages.
30 In the third place, they note that, on the date on which the financing contracts at issue were signed, the Romanian language version of the GBER had been in force unamended for more than six years and that the text of that regulation was fully in accordance with all the other regulatory acts applicable in the present case, in particular with Order No 1060/2857/2020, which contained identical wording. In those circumstances, they maintain that they submitted their grant applications, signed the financing contracts and performed those contracts in all good faith.
31 The referring court considers that it is required to determine whether the adoption of a regulation correcting a language version of an initial EU regulation gives rise to the retroactive application of the corrected version as from entry into force of that initial regulation or whether it produces effects only from the entry into force of the correcting regulation.
32 It is also uncertain whether the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations preclude recovery of the State aid granted in compliance with the conditions initially contained in the Romanian language version of the GBER, in a context such as that of the cases before it.
33 It notes, last, that the national case-law is not uniform on those issues.
34 In those circumstances, the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Court of Appeal, Bacău) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
35 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the correcting regulation must be interpreted as correcting the Romanian language version of the GBER retroactively, as from the date on which the GBER entered into force.
36 As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, it is manifestly in the interests of the EU legal order that, in order to forestall future differences of interpretation, any provision of EU law should be given a uniform interpretation, which the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 267 TFEU is designed to ensure (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 October 1990, Dzodzi, C‑297/88 and C‑197/89, EU:C:1990:360, paragraphs 37 and 38, and of 16 June 2016, Rodríguez Sánchez, C‑351/14, EU:C:2016:447, paragraph 61).
37 The need for a uniform interpretation of provisions of EU law makes it impossible for the text of a provision to be considered, in case of doubt, in isolation but requires that it be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (judgments of 5 December 1967, van der Vecht, 19/67, EU:C:1967:49, p. 456, and of 10 April 2025, Tartisai, C‑238/24, EU:C:2025:258, paragraph 30).
38 Nevertheless, as the court also consistently holds, all the language versions of a provision of EU law must, in principle, be recognised as having the same weight (judgments of 2 April 1998, EMU Tabac and Others, C‑296/95, EU:C:1998:152, paragraph 36, and of 4 October 2024, AFAÏA, C‑228/23, EU:C:2024:829, paragraph 38).
39 Where there is divergence between the various language versions of an EU text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (judgments of 27 October 1977, Bouchereau, 30/77, EU:C:1977:172, paragraph 14, and of 10 April 2025, Tartisai, C‑238/24, EU:C:2025:258, paragraph 30).
40 However, such an interpretation of a provision of EU law cannot have the result of depriving the clear and precise wording of that provision of all effectiveness (judgments of 8 December 2005, ECB v Germany, C‑220/03, EU:C:2005:748, paragraph 31, and of 3 September 2024, Illumina and Grail v Commission, C‑611/22 P and C‑625/22 P, EU:C:2024:677, paragraph 126).
41 The discrepancy between the Romanian language version, the wording of which was clear and unambiguous, and the other language versions of Article 2(18) of the GBER led the Commission to adopt the correcting regulation that gave rise to the disputes in the main proceedings.
42 The GBER, which declares certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, in Article 1(4)(c) excludes ‘undertakings in difficulty’, which are defined in Article 2(18) thereof, from its scope.
43 Whereas, in completely unambiguous terms, in the initial Romanian language version of Article 2(18), published on 26 June 2014 in the Official Journal of the European Union, the category of undertakings in difficulty, in relation to limited liability companies, excluded SMEs existing for at least three years, in the other language versions of that provision, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on the same day, that category excluded, no less clearly, SMEs existing for less than three years.
44 As regards whether the correcting regulation has retroactive effect, it should be recalled, first of all, that, under Article 297 TFEU, EU acts are to enter into force on the date specified in them or, in the absence of such a date, on the twentieth day following their publication.
45 Next, it is clear from the Court’s settled case-law that, unlike procedural rules, which are generally taken to apply from the date on which they enter into force, the substantive rules of EU law must be interpreted, in order to ensure observance of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, as applying to situations existing before their entry into force only in so far as it clearly follows from their terms, their objectives or their general scheme that such effect must be given to them (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 June 2022, Volvo and DAF Trucks, C‑267/20, EU:C:2022:494, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
46 In the present case, the correcting regulation, which concerns a substantive rule, states, in Article 2, that it is to enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and does not expressly provide that it is to take effect at an earlier date.
47 However, the retroactive effect of the correcting regulation clearly follows from its objective.
48 As recitals 1 and 2 of the correcting regulation state, the purpose of that regulation is to correct the Romanian, but not any other, language version of the first sentence of Article 2(18)(a) and of the first sentence of Article 2(18)(b) of the GBER, which is the version containing errors which alter the meaning of those provisions.
49 It is clear from the subject matter itself of the correcting regulation that the regulation is intended to restore the uniformity of interpretation that must be given to Article 2(18) of the GBER in all the language versions of that provision, by correcting ab initio, retroactively, the translation error that affected the Romanian language version of the GBER.
50 If the correcting regulation had corrected the Romanian language version of the GBER only for the future, it would have allowed incompatible versions of that regulation, all of them founded on clear and precise wording, to coexist for the period between the entry into force of the GBER and that of the correcting regulation.
51 Such an interpretation of the correcting regulation could not be adopted without disregarding the requirement that EU law be interpreted and applied uniformly referred to in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the present judgment.
52 The answer to the first question is therefore that the correcting regulation must be interpreted as correcting the Romanian language version of the GBER retroactively, as from the date on which the GBER entered into force.
53 By its second and third questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as precluding recovery, on the basis of the correcting regulation, of the aid granted by Romania before that regulation was adopted, under the aid scheme authorised by the decision of 27 August 2020.
54 As held in paragraph 52 of the present judgment, the correcting regulation corrects the Romanian language version of the GBER retroactively as from the date on which the GBER entered into force.
55 In the light of the corrected Romanian language version, it is not in dispute that On Air Media and Different Media had to be regarded as undertakings in difficulty within the meaning of Article 2(18) of the GBER, and should therefore have been precluded from benefiting from the grants at issue in the cases in the main proceedings.
56 According to settled case-law, a finding that aid is unlawful must in principle give rise to its recovery by the national authorities, in order to restore the previous situation (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 December 2011, Residex Capital IV, C‑275/10, EU:C:2011:814, paragraph 33, and order of 28 February 2024, Greece v Commission, C‑797/22 P, EU:C:2024:174, paragraph 71).
57 However, when they implement EU law, those authorities must observe the fundamental principles thereof, including the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations (judgments of 1 April 1993, Lageder and Others, C‑31/91 to C‑44/91, EU:C:1993:132, paragraph 33, and of 5 September 2024, Novo Banco and Others, C‑498/22 to C‑500/22, EU:C:2024:686, paragraph 100).
58 The principle of legal certainty means that rules must enable those concerned to know precisely the extent of the obligations which they impose on them (judgments of 1 October 1998, United Kingdom v Commission, C‑209/96, EU:C:1998:448, paragraph 35, and of 22 February 2022, Stichting Rookpreventie Jeugd and Others, C‑160/20, EU:C:2022:101, paragraph 41).
59 Although in general the principle of legal certainty precludes an EU measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication or notification, it may exceptionally be otherwise where a purpose in the general interest so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected (judgments of 25 January 1979, Racke, 98/78, EU:C:1979:14, paragraph 20, and of 12 November 1981, Meridionale Industria Salumi and Others, 212/80 to 217/80, EU:C:1981:270, paragraph 10), and in so far as it follows clearly from the terms, objectives or general scheme of the rules of the law concerned that such effect must be given to them (judgments of 24 September 2002, Falck and Acciaierie di Bolzano v Commission, C‑74/00 P and C‑75/00 P, EU:C:2002:524, paragraph 119, and of 30 April 2019, Italy v Council (Fishing quota for Mediterranean swordfish), C‑611/17, EU:C:2019:332, paragraph 106 and the case-law cited).
60 As regards the condition that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations must be observed, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, the right to rely on that principle presupposes that precise, unconditional and consistent assurances originating from authorised, reliable sources have been given to the person concerned by the competent authorities of the European Union (judgment of 5 March 2019, Eesti Pagar, C‑349/17, EU:C:2019:172, paragraph 97 and the case-law cited).
61 Accordingly, a practice of a Member State which does not conform to precise EU rules cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of an individual who benefits from that situation (judgments of 15 December 1982, Maizena, 5/82, EU:C:1982:439, paragraph 22, and of 19 December 2024, Kaduna, C‑244/24 and C‑290/24, EU:C:2024:1038, paragraph 131).
62 In the area of State aid, it is clear from settled case-law of the Court that, in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of State aid by the Commission pursuant to Article 108 TFEU, undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that article, and furthermore, an economic operator exercising due care should normally be able to determine whether that procedure has been followed (judgment of 5 March 2019, Eesti Pagar, C‑349/17, EU:C:2019:172, paragraph 98 and the case-law cited).
63 However, the Court also accepts that a recipient of unlawfully granted aid is not precluded from relying on exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had legitimately assumed the aid to be lawful and from objecting, in consequence, to the refunding of that aid (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 September 1990, Commission v Germany, C‑5/89, EU:C:1990:320, paragraph 16).
64 In the present case, as the Advocate General stated in point 80 of his Opinion, the expectations which On Air Media and Different Media were entitled to entertain as regards the fact that they came within the scope of the beneficiaries of the aid capable of being authorised under the GBER were founded not only on the conduct of the Romanian authorities, in particular on the national aid scheme and the decisions awarding that aid made under it, but also on the clear, although incorrect, wording of the Romanian language version of the GBER published in the Official Journal of the European Union, to which that aid scheme referred.
65 In that regard, as the Advocate General noted in point 73 of his Opinion, On Air Media and Different Media cannot be criticised, in the circumstances of the cases in the main proceedings, for failing to check the other language versions of Article 2(18) of the GBER, since nothing in the wording of the initial Romanian language version of that article gave rise to any difficulty of interpretation.
66 Moreover, the national aid scheme at issue, having been duly notified to the Commission, had been authorised by the Commission by the decision of 27 August 2020, a circumstance that was likewise such as to give rise to legitimate expectations that the aid granted on the basis of that scheme was lawful.
67 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second and third questions is that the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as precluding the recovery, on the basis of the correcting regulation, of the aid granted by Romania before the adoption of that regulation by virtue of the aid scheme authorised by the decision of 27 August 2020.
68 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. Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/452 of 15 March 2021 correcting the Romanian language version of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] must be interpreted as correcting the Romanian language version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] retroactively, as from the date on which that latter regulation entered into force; 2. The principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as precluding the recovery, on the basis of Regulation 2021/452, of the aid granted by Romania before the adoption of that regulation by virtue of the aid scheme authorised by Commission Decision C(2020) 5949 final of 27 August 2020 - State Aid SA.58166 (2020/N) - Romania - COVID-19: Support for SMEs and certain related large enterprises to overcome the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.