18.12.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/30

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 27 September 2010 — Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer et des Collectivités territoriales v Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de l’Indre

(Case C-465/10)

()

2010/C 346/50

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-mer et des Collectivités territoriales

Defendant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie (CCI) de l’Indre

Questions referred

1.

Concerning the existence of a legal basis creating an obligation to recover the aid paid to the CCI:

Where an awarding authority that receives subsidies paid from the ERDF has failed to comply with one or more public procurement rules in the implementation of the subsidised project, when it is not otherwise disputed that that project is eligible for that fund and that it has been implemented, is there a provision of Community law, in particular in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 (1) of 24 June 1988 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (2) of 19 December 1988, that creates an obligation to recover subsidies? If such an obligation exists does it apply to any failure to comply with the public procurement rules, or only to some of them? In the latter case, which?

2.

If the answer to the first question is at least partly affirmative:

(a)

Does the failure, by an awarding authority entitled to aid from the ERDF, to observe one or more rules relating to public procurement for the choice of a service provider responsible for implementing the subsidised project constitute an irregularity within the meaning of Regulation No 2988/95 (3)? Does the fact that the competent national authority could not have been unaware, at the time when it decided to grant the aid applied for from the ERDF, that the recipient operator had failed to comply with the public procurement rules in recruiting, before the aid had even been allocated, the provider responsible for implementing the project financed by the authority affect the characterisation as an irregularity within the meaning of Regulation No 2988/95?

(b)

In case of an affirmative answer to question 2(a), and, given that, as the Court of Justice held in Joined Cases C-278/07 to C-280/07 Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Josef Vosding Schlacht, Kûhl- und Zerlegebetrieb GmbH & Co [2009] ECR I-457, the limitation period referred to in Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 is applicable to administrative measures such as the recovery of aid wrongly received by an operator as a result of irregularities it committed:

—

Should the starting point for the limitation period be set at the date of payment of the aid to the recipient or at that of the recipient’s use of the subsidy received to pay the provider recruited in disregard of one or more of the public procurement rules?

—

Should that period be regarded as interrupted by the transmission, by the competent national authority to the recipient of the subsidy, of an auditor’s report finding that there was a failure to comply with the public procurement rules and recommending, as a result, that the national authority obtain repayment of the sums paid?

—

When a Member State makes use of the possibility afforded by Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 to apply a longer limitation period for proceedings, in particular where, in France, the ordinary limitation period at the time of the facts at issue is applicable, as set out at Article 2262 of the Code Civil which provides that ‘All actions, both in rem and in personam, are time-barred after 30 years …’, must the compatibility of such a limitation period with Community law, in particular with the principle of proportionality, be determined in the light of the maximum limitation period for proceedings according to the national legislation providing the legal basis for the national administration’s demand for recovery or in the light of the period in fact applied in the particular case?

(c)

In case of a negative answer to question 2(a), with regard to payment of aid such as that at issue in the main proceedings, do the financial interests of the Community prevent the judge from applying the national rules relating to the withdrawal of decisions creating rights, according to which, except in cases of non-existence, acquisition by fraud or the recipient’s request, the administration may withdraw an individual decision creating rights, if it is illegal, only within a period of four months following the date that decision was taken, an administrative decision being nonetheless capable, in particular when it concerns payment of aid, of being coupled with conditions subsequent, the fulfilment of which allows the withdrawal of the aid in question without any limitation condition — the Conseil d’État having held that that national rule must be interpreted to the effect that it could not be relied on by the recipient of an aid wrongly attributed in application of Community legislation unless it was in good faith?

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their

effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 185, p. 9).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).

(3)  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).