Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2025.Emporiki Serron AE – Emporias kai Diathesis Agrotikon Proionton v Ypourgos Anaptyxis kai Ependyseon and Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon.Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 – Irregularities – Article 3 – Limitation period – Duration and starting point of that period – National legislation providing for a five-year limitation period as from the time the irregularity is discovered.Case C-42/24.

This judgment concerns the interpretation of limitation periods for proceedings related to irregularities affecting the EU’s financial interests under Regulation No 2988/95.The case arose from a dispute in Greece regarding the recovery of EU agricultural funds from a company that received financial support in 2001 but was found to have irregularities during inspections in 2006. The key question was whether national legislation could set different rules about when the limitation period starts running.The Court ruled on two main aspects:

• While Member States can set longer limitation periods than the 4 years provided in EU law, they cannot change the starting point of when the period begins running. The period must start from when the irregularity was committed, not when it was discovered.
• When a Member State sets a longer limitation period, the absolute limitation period (after which no action can be taken) should be twice that longer period, not twice the standard 4-year EU period.

The judgment emphasizes that allowing limitation periods to start only when irregularities are discovered would create excessive legal uncertainty for operators and could encourage administrative inertia. It reinforces that limitation periods must provide legal certainty while allowing reasonable time for authorities to act against irregularities affecting EU funds.

Full text by link