18.4.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/6

(Case C-584/15) (<a id="ntc1-C_2017121EN.01000601-E0001" href="#ntr1-C_2017121EN.01000601-E0001"> (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)</a>)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 3 - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Article 11 - Recovery of an export refund unduly granted - Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92 - Article 5a - Security wrongly released - Interest due - Limitation period - Point from which time begins to run - Interruption of the period - Maximum limit - Longer period - Whether applicable))

(2017/C 121/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glencore Céréales France

Defendant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

Operative part of the judgment

1.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 the limitation period laid down in that provision is applicable to the recovery of claims for interest, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, due on the basis of Article 11(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997, and Article 5a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3002/92 of 16 October 1992 laying down common detailed rules for verifying the use and/or destination of products from intervention, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 770/96 of 26 April 1996.

2.The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an operator is liable for claims for interest, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, does not constitute a ‘continuous or repeated irregularity’ within the meaning of that provision. Such claims must be regarded as resulting from the same irregularity, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, as that giving rise to the recovery of the aid and amounts wrongly received, constituting the principal claims.

3.The first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2988/95 must be understood as meaning that, as regards proceedings resulting in the adoption of administrative measures for the recovery of claims for interest, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the limitation period laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) starts to run from the date on which the irregularity which gives rise to the recovery of the aid and amounts not due, on the basis of which that interest is calculated, was committed, that is, on the date of the act or omission or the date of the prejudice, which occurs last.

4.The fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, as regards proceedings resulting in the adoption of administrative measures for the recovery of interest, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, limitation becomes effective on the expiry of the period laid down in the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1), when within that period the competent authority, while having sought recovery of the aid or amounts wrongly received by the operator concerned, has not adopted a decision regarding that interest.

5.Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that a limitation period laid down under national law, which is longer than that laid down in Article 3(1) of that regulation, may be applied, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as regards the recovery of claims arising before the date on which that period entered into force, not yet time-barred under Article 3(1).

(<a id="ntr1-C_2017121EN.01000601-E0001" href="#ntc1-C_2017121EN.01000601-E0001">(<span class="super">1</span>)</a> OJ C 38, 1.2.2016)