Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/4555

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa – Latvia) – ‘TOODE’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-653/23,

TOODE)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Aid scheme authorised by the European Commission - Support to the economy in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic - Refusal by the competent authority to grant aid - Legal action requesting that the court before which the matter has been brought order the adoption of a beneficial administrative act ex nunc - Expiry, during the legal proceedings, of the time limit prescribed for granting the aid - Date on which the aid is deemed to have been granted - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective judicial remedy - Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 1 - Existing aid)

(C/2025/4555)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:

‘TOODE’ SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 107(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation whereby individual aid under a national aid scheme authorised by the European Commission cannot be regarded as having been ‘granted’, within the meaning of that provision of the TFEU, on the date on which the competent national authority unduly refused to grant it to an individual that applied for the aid within the period laid down for granting it, where a judicial decision finds that refusal to be unlawful after the expiry of that period.

Article 1(b)(ii) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 [TFEU]

must be interpreted as meaning that individual aid deemed to have been granted on the date on which the competent authority unduly refused to grant the aid to an individual that applied for it within the period laid down for granting it, but paid to that individual pursuant to a beneficial administrative act adopted on the basis of an order in a judicial decision finding that refusal to be unlawful after the expiry of that period, must be classified as ‘existing aid’ within the meaning of that provision.

—

(1) OJ C, C/2024/630.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4555/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—