1.

Should Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ (1) financial interests and Article 325 TFEU (the principle of effective and deterrent prevention of fraud and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the European Union), along with Article 4(3) TEU (the principle of sincere cooperation), be interpreted as meaning that they are not compatible with the extinguishing of accounting liability established in Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (c), (2), (3) and (4) and Article 2(e) of the LOA (2) taking into account the circumstance that the alleged accounting liability claimed in the proceedings for recovery of public funds NoB-180/21 involves an ‘effect on the financial interests of the EU’, both (i) if the Court of Justice of the European Union were to give a ‘restrictive interpretation’ to the concept of ‘protection of the financial interests of the European Union’ (which would only cover illegal management activities carried out using public funds from the EU), and (ii) if it were to give a ‘broad interpretation’ to that concept (which would also cover illegal management activities carried out using public funds from a Member State but causing actual or potential loss to the budget of the EU)?

2.

If the Court of Justice were to give a ‘restrictive interpretation’ to the concept of ‘protection of the financial interests of the European Union’, should Articles 2 and 19(1)(2) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) be interpreted as meaning that they are not compatible with Article 10 of the LOA, inasmuch as the mandatory period of two months permitted for the delivery of a decision laid down in that provision would be contrary to the right of every person to a fair trial within ‘a reasonable time’ and would constitute ‘external pressure’ on the court in the case that, before making a decision as to the application of the LOA in the present proceedings for recovery of public funds NoB-180/21, it is necessary to carry out some kind of final evidentiary procedure to prove the origin (national or EU budget) or intended purpose (promoting Catalonia’s independence outside Spain during the financial years from 2011 to 2017) of the public funds used to incur the expenses referred to in the applicants’ submissions?

3.

Should Article 325 TFEU and Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), be interpreted as meaning that they are not compatible with the provisions of Article 13(3) in fine of the LOA, bearing in mind that that provision does not contain any type of mechanism (procedure, legal action, etc.) that would allow the parties that have brought the accounting action (in the present proceedings for recovery of public funds NoB-180/21, the SCC and the Ministerio Fiscal (the Public Prosecutor’s Office)) to raise an objection to the finding in the proceedings at first instance that there is no accounting liability, merely requiring that the injured public sector entities (in these accounting proceedings, the Generalitat de Catalunya, which did not even appear in the proceedings to bring the accounting action and was therefore deemed to have withdrawn) have not objected?

4.

Should the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, in conjunction with Article 325 TFEU and Council Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995, be interpreted as incompatible with Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the LOA, in conjunction with the provisions of paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of that article, given the lack of clarity and precision in the definition of the objective, subjective and temporal scope of the LOA, which could result – in the present proceedings for recovery of public funds NoB-180/21 – in this Advisor to the Court of Auditors declaring that no accounting liability arises from actions affecting the financial interests of the European Union that were not in fact those envisaged within the scope of the LOA?

5.

Should Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that they are not compatible with the provisions of Article 1(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the LOA, in conjunction with the provisions of paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of that article and the preamble to that legislation, since, as a result of the abovementioned lack of clarity and precision in the definition of the scope of the LOA, which could lead to a situation in which it is held incorrectly that there is no accounting liability, in turn, that circumstance would also give rise to discriminatory or unequal situations in respect of persons who have been convicted of accounting liability in other proceedings for recovery of public funds, which relate to events occurring in the same geographical area (the Autonomous Community of Catalonia) and within the period included in the temporal scope of the LOA?

6.

Should Articles 2 and 19(1)(2) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that they are not compatible with Article 8(3) of the LOA, which provides for the one-sided, mandatory lifting of interim measures, without leaving any discretion for the court, unlike the procedure applicable in all other proceedings for recovery of public funds, in which, by reference to the LFTCU (3) , the general rules laid down in the the LEC (4) covering interim measures are applied?

7.

Should Articles 2 and 19(1)(2) TEU, Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR be interpreted as meaning that they are not compatible with the provisions of Article 13(3) of the LOA (finding of no accounting liability in proceedings at first instance), in so far as this provision does not permit a prior hearing for a public sector body (despite the fact that that body has the ex lege right to institute accounting proceedings) and neither does it give the court the possibility of hearing cases in which a defendant has argued that he or she has not participated in the acts of which he or she is accused, having regard to the fact that, in the present proceedings for recovery of public funds NoB-180/21, a public body has appeared as co-applicant, and that some defendants have argued that they did not participate in the events at issue?

8.

Should Articles 2 and 19(1)(2) TEU and Article 47 of the Charter, in particular in conjunction with Article 267 TFEU and Article 23(1) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Protocol No 3), be interpreted as meaning that the suspensory effect of a reference for a preliminary ruling and the effectiveness of the final decision of the Court of Justice are not compatible with Articles 8(3), 10 and 13(3), in conjunction with the provisions of the preamble to the LOA (see the tenth and eleventh paragraphs of Section V), which would impose a situation where the LOA would have absolute effectiveness, depriving the resolution of the question referred for a preliminary ruling of any useful effect, and infringing the principles of the primacy and direct effect of EU law?