C-255/25
ECLI:EU:C:2026:532
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62025CO0255
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
Provisional text
ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)
29 June 2026 ( * )
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Reply which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law – Private investment aid scheme – Aid scheme compatible with the internal market – Refusal by the competent authority to grant aid under that scheme – Legal action seeking annulment of that refusal decision – Retroactive effect of a possible judicial annulment of that refusal decision – Expiry, during the legal proceedings, of the period laid down for granting the aid under that aid scheme – Date on which the aid concerned is deemed to have been granted – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to an effective judicial remedy – Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 – Article 1 – Existing aid )
In Case C‑255/25,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State, Greece), made by decision of 11 February 2025, received at the Court on 4 April 2025, in the proceedings
Technikes Anaktisis kai Diachorismou AE (ECORESET AE)
v
Perifereia Attikis,
THE COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of F. Schalin, President of the Chamber, M. Gavalec and Z. Csehi (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: L. Medina,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to rule by reasoned order, in accordance with Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,
makes the following
Order
1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU and point 28 of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] (OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between Technikes Anaktisis kai Diachorismou AE (ECORESET AE) and Perifereia Attikis (Attica Region, Greece) concerning the rejection, by the latter, of that company’s application for aid under the aid scheme for private investment in the regional and economic development of the country, entitled ‘General Entrepreneurship’ (‘the “General Entrepreneurship” aid scheme’), authorised by the European Commission under Regulation No 651/2014.
Legal context
European Union law
The Charter
3 The first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) provides:
‘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 this Article.’
Regulation No 651/2014
4 Paragraph 1(a) and (b) and paragraph 2(a) of Article 1 of Regulation No 651/2014 provide:
‘1. This Regulation shall apply to the following categories of aid:
(a) regional aid;
(b) aid to [small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)] in the form of investment aid, operating aid and SMEs’ access to finance;
…
2. This Regulation shall not apply to:
(a) schemes under Sections 1 (with the exception of Article 15), 2, 3, 4, 7 (with the exception of Article 44), and 10 of Chapter III of this Regulation, if the average annual State aid budget exceeds EUR 150 million, from six months after their entry into force. The Commission may decide that this Regulation shall continue to apply for a longer period to any of these aid schemes after having assessed the relevant evaluation plan notified by the Member State to the Commission, within 20 working days from the scheme’s entry into force’.
5 Point 28 of Article 2 of that regulation provides:
‘For the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:
…
(28) “date of granting of the aid” means the date when the legal right to receive the aid is conferred on the beneficiary under the applicable national legal regime’.
6 Article 3 of that regulation, headed ‘Conditions for exemption’, provides:
‘Aid schemes, individual aid granted under aid schemes and ad hoc aid shall be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(2) or (3) [TFEU] and shall be exempted from the notification requirement of Article 108(3) [TFEU] provided that such aid fulfils all the conditions laid down in Chapter I of this Regulation, as well as the specific conditions for the relevant category of aid laid down in Chapter III of this Regulation.’
Regulation (EU) 2015/1589
7 Article 1 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 [TFEU] (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9), entitled ‘Definitions’, provides:
‘For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
…
(b) “existing aid” means:
…
(ii) authorised aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which have been authorised by the Commission or by the Council [of the European Union];
…
(c) “new aid” means all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid;
…’
Greek law
Law 4399/2016
8 Nomos 4399/2016 ‘Thesmiko plaisio gia ti systasi kathestoton Enischyseon Idiotikon Ependyseon gia tin perifereiaki kai oikonomiki anaptyxi tis choras …’ (Law 4399/2016 concerning an institutional framework for the establishment of aid schemes for private investment in the regional and economic development of the country …) of 22 June 2016 (FEK A’ 117) introduces State aid schemes of which the ‘General Entrepreneurship’ aid scheme forms part (Articles 37 to 41).
Order 137926/2017
9 By Apofasi 137926/2017 tou Ypourgou kai tou Anapliroti Ypourgou Oikonomias kai Anaptyxis (Order 137926/2017 of the Minister and the Deputy Minister for the Economy and Development) of 14 December 2017 (FEK B’ 4445), the second call for projects relating to the ‘General Entrepreneurship’ aid scheme entered into force, with an overall budget of EUR 390 000 000.
10 The date for initiating the procedure for the submission of investment projects was set at 15 December 2017.
11 Following several extensions, the closing date of that procedure was set at 21 May 2018.
12 Order 137926/2017 made the grant of aid under the ‘General Entrepreneurship’ aid scheme subject to compliance with specific substantive conditions.
13 Article 14(1), (5) and (6) of that order provided for a comparative assessment method involving ranking the persons concerned on a final list and including them in that aid scheme until the respective budgets of each host organisation were exhausted.
14 Article 15 of that order provided for the possibility to submit complaints.
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
15 On 21 May 2018, the applicant in the main proceedings, which is a company active in the electrical and electronic equipment recycling sector, submitted, under the second call for projects referred to in paragraph 9 above, an application for aid under the ‘General Entrepreneurship’ aid scheme for an investment project relating to the installation of a new production line, located in Aspropyrgos (Greece), with a view to diversifying its production, the total eligible costs of that project amounting to EUR 1 404 420.
16 On 30 August 2018, an accredited assessor considered that that application was complete and that the investment plan submitted by the applicant in the main proceedings satisfied the required conditions of legality.
17 Subsequently, an ‘investment plan evaluation committee’ was established. That committee found that supporting documents were missing and asked for clarification and additional information.
18 Having taken into consideration the evaluation report of the investment plan of the applicant in the main proceedings and the documents relating thereto, that committee decided to reject that plan on the ground, first, that the conditions relating to eligible expenditure had not been complied with and, second, that that plan did not concern a new economic activity of the applicant in the main proceedings in the region.
19 The applicant in the main proceedings lodged a complaint against that rejection decision before a complaint review committee.
20 On 28 June 2019, the complaint review committee rejected that complaint as regards certain conditions of legality, but upheld it in respect of one of those conditions. That committee’s final decision to reject that complaint was notified to the applicant in the main proceedings.
21 On 10 October 2019, on the basis, inter alia, of the evaluation reports of the evaluation committee and of the complaint review committee, the President of the Attica Region adopted the final list of investment projects (List No 618644). That list did not include the investment project of the applicant in the main proceedings.
22 By Decision 140399 of the Vice-President of Finance of the Attica Region of 19 February 2020, the application for eligibility of the investment project of the applicant in the main proceedings under the ‘General Entrepreneurship’ aid scheme was rejected on the ground that certain conditions of legality had not been satisfied.
23 On 15 June 2020, the applicant in the main proceedings brought an action against that decision before the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State, Greece), which is the referring court, seeking the annulment of that decision ‘and of any other relevant act or failure on the part of the administration’.
24 That court notes that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 651/2014, the Commission, which took on the case given that the budget for the ‘General Entrepreneurship’ aid scheme exceeded the annual limit of EUR 150 million laid down in that provision, approved the draft evaluation plan which had been submitted to it by the Hellenic Republic as well as the extension of that aid scheme until 31 December 2022.
25 That court observes that, if, following its decision, the application for eligibility of the investment project of the applicant in the main proceedings under the ‘General Entrepreneurship’ aid scheme had been ultimately granted, in view of the retroactive effect afforded to annulment decisions by Greek law, the administration would be required to pay the aid concerned and to take all measures necessary to comply fully with that judicial decision, in compliance with the provisions of EU law on State aid.
26 In that regard, the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State) considers that the Greek administration cannot call into question, as a matter of principle, the relevance of the action in the main proceedings or the purpose of those proceedings by relying on the possible exhaustion of the budget for the call for projects concerned or on the completion of the investment programme on the date of the hearing held in the course of those proceedings.
27 According to the referring court, the exercise of the right to an effective remedy, as enshrined in Article 20(1) of the Greek Constitution and in Article 47 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 51 thereof, must be fully guaranteed.
28 That court also refers to Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation 2015/1589, which defines ‘existing aid’ as ‘authorised aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which have been authorised by the Commission or by the Council’, and to Article 1(c) of that regulation, according to which ‘new aid’ means ‘all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid’.
29 The Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State) notes that, under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, read in conjunction with the provisions of Regulations No 651/2014 and 2015/1589 referred to in paragraphs 24 and 28 above, the grant of State aid under an authorised aid scheme cannot take place after the date of expiry of the period of validity of that aid scheme, namely, as regards the ‘General Entrepreneurship’ aid scheme, 31 December 2022. Otherwise, such aid would have to be regarded as ‘new aid’ which, as a result of non-compliance with the procedural requirements laid down in Regulation No 651/2014, would constitute unlawful aid for the purposes of Article 108(3) TFEU.
30 In addition, that court refers to point 28 of Article 2 of Regulation No 651/2014, which defines the ‘date of granting of the aid’ as the ‘date when the legal right to receive the aid is conferred on the beneficiary under the applicable national legal regime’, and to the case-law according to which it is for the national court to determine, in accordance with the applicable national law, the date on which the aid in question is to be regarded as having been granted. In its view, under Greek law, that is the date on which the decision to accept or reject the application for the aid concerned to be granted was adopted. Consequently, it notes that, in the event of a decision rejecting an application for aid, the fact that the judicial decision recognising the possible unlawfulness of that rejection is handed down at a later date has no bearing on the date of granting of the aid, nor does the question of the retroactive effect of that judicial decision.
31 The referring court also alludes to the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which, from the moment when the right to receive support, provided through State resources, is conferred on the beneficiary under the applicable national legislation, the aid must be considered to be granted, so that the actual transfer of the resources in question is not decisive, as follows from the judgment of 19 December 2019, Arriva Italia and Others (C‑385/18, EU:C:2019:1121, paragraph 36).
32 Lastly, it refers to paragraphs 78 and 79 of the judgment of 12 January 2023, DOBELES HES (C‑702/20 and C‑17/21, EU:C:2023:1), in which the Court of Justice considered that Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where national legislation establishing a statutory right to a payment constitutes ‘State aid’, within the meaning of that provision, legal proceedings seeking full entitlement to that right must be regarded as requests for payment of the portion of that State aid not received, and not as requests for the grant by the court seised of separate State aid.
33 The Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State) considers, in the light of all of those factors, that it was no longer possible, in principle, for investment projects to be eligible for the ‘General Entrepreneurship’ aid scheme and for the corresponding individual aid to be granted after 31 December 2022. However, in that court’s view, no aid is granted where, after that date, a judicial decision establishes as unlawful an administrative measure rejecting an application for aid which had been adopted before that date, and annuls it with effect retroactive to the date of that measure.
34 In the present case, the referring court notes that, both on the date on which the President of the Attica Region adopted the final list of investment projects (List No 618644), namely 10 October 2019 – in which the investment project of the applicant in the main proceedings was not included – and on the date on which the Vice-President of Finance of the Attica Region rejected the application of that investment project to be eligible for the ‘General Entrepreneurship’ aid scheme, namely 19 February 2020, that aid scheme was still in force. That court considers, therefore, that, in the event that it upholds the action in the main proceedings, there could be no question of unlawful State aid having been granted by its own judicial decision.
35 The referring court points out, however, that the interpretation of certain provisions of EU law is necessary for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings and refers to a similar case, which was pending before the Court of Justice on the date on which the present request for a preliminary ruling was made and which gave rise to the judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE (C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517).
36 In those circumstances, the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1) Must Article 107(1) TFEU and point 28 of Article 2 of [Regulation No 651/2014] be interpreted as meaning that State aid, such as that provided for by the [“General Entrepreneurship”] aid scheme, is “granted” at the time when the person concerned satisfies all the conditions laid down in the call for projects, which in the present case corresponds to the time when the competent authority adopts a decision on the application, even where compliance with those conditions is established by a judicial decision, handed down after the expiry of the period laid down for the granting of aid and annulling the measure rejecting the application?
(2) Or, on the contrary, is the acquisition of a definitive right to receive aid effective on the date of the relevant judicial decision, with the result that, in such a case, it is the judicial decision itself which grants unlawful “new aid”?
(3) Does the answer to the [previous] question differ depending on whether, in the relevant national legal system, the annulment of that administrative measure on the ground of unlawfulness has retroactive effect, as is the case in Greece, or whether it has effect only with regard to the future?’
The procedure before the Court
37 By decision of the President of the Court of 25 May 2025, the proceedings in the present case were stayed pending delivery of the judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE (C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517).
38 By letter of 16 July 2025, the Registry of the Court of Justice sent a copy of that judgment to the referring court and asked it to state whether, in the light of that judgment, it wished to maintain its request for a preliminary ruling.
39 By letter of 1 September 2025, the referring court informed the Court of Justice that it wished to maintain its request for a preliminary ruling.
Consideration of the questions referred
40 Under Article 99 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court may at any time, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide to rule by reasoned order where the reply to a question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling may be clearly deduced from existing case-law.
41 In the present case, the Court considers that, despite the doubts expressed by the referring court, the interpretation of EU law sought by the referring court may be clearly deduced from the judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE (C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517). Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure therefore must be applied in the present case.
42 It should be noted as a preliminary point that, according to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to decide the case before it. To that end, the Court should, where necessary, reformulate the questions referred to it. Moreover, in so doing it may deem it necessary to consider provisions of EU law to which the national court has not referred in its questions (see judgment of 12 December 1990, SARPP , C‑241/89, EU:C:1990:459, paragraph 8, and order of 13 February 2020, flightright , C‑606/19, EU:C:2020:101, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
43 When there are no EU rules governing the matter, although it is for the domestic legal system of every Member State to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from EU law, the Member States are, however, to ensure compliance in every case with the right to effective judicial protection of those rights as enshrined in the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter. Under the first paragraph of that Article 47, everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal (judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE , C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517, paragraph 23 and the case-law cited).
44 In the present case, the ‘General Entrepreneurship’ aid scheme was declared compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(2) or (3) TFEU and exempted from the notification requirement laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation No 651/2014. That aid scheme therefore constitutes an implementation of that regulation. The declaration of compatibility of that aid scheme under that regulation was extended by a Commission decision until 31 December 2022. It follows that the application of that aid scheme constitutes the implementation of EU law, for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter.
45 In those circumstances, it must be held that, by its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 107(1) TFEU, Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation 2015/1589 and point 28 of Article 2 of Regulation No 651/2014, read in the light of the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, preclude national legislation or case-law conferring retroactive effect on an annulment, by a judicial decision, of a decision of an authority unduly refusing to grant an undertaking individual aid under a State aid scheme authorised by the Commission, with the result that that aid is deemed to have been granted on the date on which that authority had unduly refused it, even though that judicial decision was handed down after the date of expiry of the period laid down for granting aid under that aid scheme.
46 In accordance with point 28 of Article 2 of Regulation No 651/2014, the ‘date of granting of the aid’ means the date when the legal right to receive the aid is conferred on the beneficiary under the applicable national legal regime.
47 According to the case-law of the Court, the decisive factor for establishing the date on which the right to receive State aid was conferred on its beneficiaries by a particular measure is the acquisition by those beneficiaries of a definitive right to receive that aid and the corresponding commitment, by the State, to grant that aid. It is on that date that such a measure is liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE , C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited).
48 It is therefore for the referring court to determine, on the basis of the applicable national law and in compliance with EU law, the date on which the State aid at issue in the main proceedings must be considered to be granted. To that end, that court must take account of all the conditions laid down by national law for the grant of the aid concerned (judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE , C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
49 The Court has held that aid granted at a date on which the Commission’s authorisation for that aid is no longer in force must, due to the fact that it is new aid, be notified to the Commission under Article 108(3) TFEU and may not be put into effect until the Commission has found it to be compatible with the internal market (judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE , C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
50 It should be recalled, also, that Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation 2015/1589 provides that ‘existing aid’ is authorised aid, which includes aid schemes and individual aid which have been authorised by the Commission or by the Council. For its part, Article 1(c) of that regulation provides that ‘new aid’ is to mean all aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid.
51 In the case which gave rise to the judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE (C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517, paragraphs 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 24 and 25), the Court examined a case which is the opposite to that at issue in the main proceedings, in which, under national law, where a judicial decision found, after the date of expiry of the period for granting individual aid under a State aid scheme authorised by the Commission, that a decision refusing to grant that aid was unlawful, national courts could only order the adoption of beneficial administrative acts for the future ( ex nunc ).
52 In that case, the Court held that Article 107(1) TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation whereby individual aid under a national aid scheme authorised by the Commission cannot be regarded as having been ‘granted’, within the meaning of that provision of the FEU Treaty, on the date on which the competent national authority unduly refused to grant it to an individual that applied for the aid within the period laid down for granting it, where a judicial decision finds that refusal to be unlawful after the expiry of that period (judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE , C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517, paragraph 30).
53 Furthermore, according to the case-law of the Court, from the moment at which the definitive right to receive State aid is conferred on the beneficiary under the applicable national law, the aid must be deemed to be granted, with the result that the actual transfer of the resources in question is not decisive (judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE , C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
54 It follows from that case-law that, since State aid such as that at issue in the main proceedings is deemed to have been granted at a date on which the Commission’s authorisation for that aid was in force, it must be classified as ‘authorised aid’ and, accordingly, as ‘existing aid’ within the meaning of Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation 2015/1589, irrespective of the fact that it is paid after the aid scheme approved by the Commission ceases to be valid. Such an interpretation cannot distort competition on the market. Since, as is apparent from the case-law referred to in paragraph 47 above, it is on the date on which the definitive right to receive State aid was conferred that a measure is liable to distort competition in a way that could affect trade between Member States, within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the payment of aid such as that at issue in the main proceedings after the date of expiry of the aid scheme concerned places the applicant for the aid concerned in the situation in which it should have found itself if the competent authority had acted lawfully, and thus makes it possible precisely to restore the competitive balance on the market (judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE , C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517, paragraphs 35 and 36).
55 The Court concluded therefrom that Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation 2015/1589 must be interpreted as meaning that individual aid deemed to have been granted on the date on which the competent authority unduly refused to grant the aid to an individual that applied for it within the period laid down for granting it, but paid to that individual pursuant to a beneficial administrative act adopted on the basis of an order in a judicial decision finding that refusal to be unlawful after the date of expiry of that period, must be classified as ‘existing aid’ within the meaning of that provision (judgment of 3 July 2025, TOODE , C‑653/23, EU:C:2025:517, paragraph 37).
56 It follows from the foregoing that the answer to the questions referred is that Article 107(1) TFEU, Article 1(b)(ii) of Regulation 2015/1589 and point 28 of Article 2 of Regulation No 651/2014, read in the light of the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation or case-law conferring retroactive effect on an annulment, by a judicial decision, of a decision of an authority unduly refusing to grant an undertaking individual aid under a State aid scheme authorised by the Commission, with the result that that aid is deemed to have been granted on the date on which that authority had unduly refused it, even though that judicial decision was handed down after the date of expiry of the period laid down for granting aid under that aid scheme.
Costs
57 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 107(1) TFEU, Article 1(b)(ii) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 [TFEU], and point 28 of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU], read in the light of the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation or case-law conferring retroactive effect on an annulment, by a judicial decision, of a decision of an authority unduly refusing to grant an undertaking individual aid under a State aid scheme authorised by the European Commission, with the result that that aid is deemed to have been granted on the date on which that authority had unduly refused it, even though that judicial decision was handed down after the date of expiry of the period laid down for granting aid under that aid scheme.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: Greek.