Judgment_paragraph 53 · R.M. and E.M. v Eesti Vabariik (Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet) (C-437/22)

53In the third place, as regards the objectives of the rules at issue, the Court notes that, by laying down an obligation for Member States to recover aid wrongly received on account of an irregularity unless there are good reasons not to pursue such recovery, Articles 54 and 56 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and Article 35(6) of Delegated Regulation No 640/2014 pursue the objective of protecting the financial interests of the Union, as confirmed by Article 58(1)(e) of Regulation No 1306/2013. The possibility of seeking recovery of wrongly received aid from not only the beneficiary thereof, but also, in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation No 2988/95, from the ‘persons who have taken part in the irregularity and [from] those who are under a duty to take responsibility for the irregularity or to ensure that it is not committed’, is clearly capable of contributing to the attainment of that objective, in particular where the beneficiary is a legal person which no longer exists or does not have sufficient resources to repay that aid. That interpretation is justified, more specifically, in the light of the objective of effectively combating fraud, referred to in the fourth recital of Regulation No 2988/95.

R.M. and E.M. v Eesti Vabariik (Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet) (C-437/22)

History · 1 version

Key facts

Connections