CJEU Case C-510/24 / Judgment

PROFIL-COPY 2002 Irodatechnikai Kft. v Közigazgatási és Területfejlesztési Minisztérium
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Seventh Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
16/10/2025
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2025:795
  • CJEU Case C-510/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Economic, social and territorial cohesion – EU funds – Management and control – Obligation for Member States to make arrangements to ensure the effective examination of complaints concerning EU funds – National legislation excluding any judicial remedy against a decision ordering repayment of an EU grant on account of an irregularity – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Right to an effective remedy

    Outcome of the case: 

    On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:

    1.  Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

      must be interpreted as meaning that the beneficiary of an EU grant awarded in the context of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy must have an effective judicial remedy against an enforceable decision of the managing authority of a programme supported by EU funds ordering that beneficiary to repay that grant.

    2. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

      must be interpreted as meaning that the possibility for the beneficiary of an EU grant, first, to challenge indirectly an enforceable decision requiring it to repay that grant in an action brought before a civil court for a declaration that a decision ordering the withdrawal of that grant is unlawful and, second, to seek, in the context of that action, the adoption of interim measures in order to suspend the enforcement of that decision, constitutes an effective judicial remedy.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    28.   By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the beneficiary of an EU grant awarded in the context of the implementation of Regulation 2021/1060 must have an effective judicial remedy against an enforceable decision of the managing authority of a programme supported by EU funds ordering that beneficiary to repay that grant.

    29.  As is apparent from Article 51(1) of the Charter, the provisions thereof are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law.

    ...

    31. That said, the recognition, in a given case, of the right to an effective remedy, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, presupposes that the person invoking that right is relying on rights or freedoms guaranteed by EU law or that that person is the subject of proceedings constituting an implementation of EU law (see, inter alia, judgment of 22 February 2022, RS (Effect of the decisions of a constitutional court), C‑430/21, EU:C:2022:99, paragraph 34).

    ... 

    33. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the beneficiary of an EU grant awarded in the context of the implementation of Regulation 2021/1060 must have an effective judicial remedy against an enforceable decision of the managing authority of a programme supported by EU funds ordering that beneficiary to repay that grant.

    ...

    35. By its second to fourth questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the possibility, for the beneficiary of an EU grant, first, to challenge indirectly an enforceable decision requiring it to repay that grant in an action brought before a civil court for a declaration that a decision ordering the withdrawal of that grant is unlawful and, second, to seek, in the context of that action, the adoption of interim measures in order to suspend the enforcement of that decision, constitutes an effective judicial remedy.

    ...

    38. Article 47 of the Charter provides that everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in that provision, which means that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law.

    ...

    40. In that regard, although, in the absence of EU rules on the matter, it is for the national legal order of each Member State, in accordance with the principle of procedural autonomy, to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing legal proceedings and, subject to the observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, to lay down the detailed rules governing remedies for ensuring that individual rights derived from the EU legal order are safeguarded, Member States nevertheless have the responsibility to ensure observance in every case of the right to effective judicial protection of those rights as guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter (judgments of 19 November 2019, A.K. and Others (Independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court), C‑585/18, C‑624/18 and C‑625/18, EU:C:2019:982, paragraph 115 and the case-law cited; of 2 June 2022, Skeyes, C‑353/20, EU:C:2022:423, paragraph 52; and of 1 August 2025, Alace and Canpelli, C‑758/24 and C‑759/24, EU:C:2025:591, paragraph 64).

    ...

    46. Since the referring court is unable to suspend the implementation of the decision ordering recovery of the grant referred to in the preceding paragraph, the managing authority could obtain enforcement of that decision from the tax authorities. The right to an effective remedy, within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, would be illusory if national legislation were to allow a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. Such national legislation would fail to comply with the essential content of the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 December 2019, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, C‑752/18, EU:C:2019:1114, paragraphs 35 and 36, and of 3 July 2025, TOODE, C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517, paragraph 28).

    47.   In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second to fourth questions is that Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as meaning that the possibility for the beneficiary of an EU grant, first, to challenge indirectly an enforceable decision requiring it to repay that grant in an action brought before a civil court for a declaration that a decision ordering the withdrawal of that grant is unlawful and, second, to seek, in the context of that action, the adoption of interim measures in order to suspend the enforcement of that decision, constitutes an effective judicial remedy.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)