- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-243/17: Order of the Court of 16 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP v António da Silva Rodrigues (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3(1) — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Concept of ‘multiannual programme’ — Scope of application)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CB0243
62017CB0243
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 32/8
(Case C-243/17) (<a id="ntc1-C_2018032EN.01000802-E0001" href="#ntr1-C_2018032EN.01000802-E0001"> (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)</a>
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3(1) - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Concept of ‘multiannual programme’ - Scope of application))
(2018/C 032/12)
Language of the case: Portuguese
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP
Defendant: António da Silva Rodrigues
Operative part of the order
1.The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an irregularity which is neither continuous nor repeated, the limitation period of four years provided for in that provision runs from the date the irregularity was committed.
2.The second, third and fourth questions referred by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal) are manifestly inadmissible.
(<a id="ntr1-C_2018032EN.01000802-E0001" href="#ntc1-C_2018032EN.01000802-E0001">(<span class="super">1</span>)</a> OJ C 256, 7.8.2017).
* * *