EU law is unique in that it is published in 24 official languages, each of which holds equal authenticity and binding force. This linguistic diversity occasionally creates challenges, especially when a translation error results in a substantive divergence in legal meaning. This issue arose in the context of the Romanian version of the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER), where a mistranslation materially altered the eligibility criteria for State aid. In his Opinion, Advocate General Szpunar concluded that while correcting such an error may have retroactive effect to ensure consistency across language versions, it cannot be enforced against individuals who relied in good faith on the erroneous version as published in the Official Journal. Thus, an incorrect translation published in the Official Journal may still give rise to legitimate expectations—even if it contradicts all other language versions.

The Origin of the Dispute: A Translation Error in the GBER

The GBER exempts certain categories of State Aid from the standard notification and approval process, allowing Member States to disburse aid without prior European Commission clearance. However, a translation error in the Romanian text of the GBER altered the definition of an “undertaking in difficulty,” creating a material inconsistency with the other language versions.

Specifically, while the correct version of Article 2(18) of the GBER defined an “undertaking in difficulty” as “an undertaking in respect of which at least one of the following circumstances occurs: (a) In the case of a limited liability company (other than [a small or medium-size enterprise (SME]) that has been in existence for less than three years …,” the original Romanian version erroneously translated the words “in existence for less than three years” as “in existence for at least three years.” This divergence broadened the scope of entities considered eligible for aid under the Romanian version, leading to the potential for aid being granted in circumstances that would have been prohibited under the correctly translated text.

To rectify this, the European Commission adopted a correcting regulation in 2021 that amended the Romanian wording, aligning it with its counterparts. Following this correction, Romanian authorities began reassessing aid granted under the erroneous version, prompting legal challenges.

The Romanian Proceedings: From Grant to Recovery

In 2020, Romania introduced an aid scheme to support SMEs. The Commission approved the scheme with the caveat that no aid could be granted to “undertakings in difficulty” as defined in Article 2(18) of the GBER. Relying on the then-official Romanian version, two SMEs — On Air Media Professionals and Different Media — received micro-grants in December 2020. Both companies had been in existence for well over three years, and appeared to be eligible for such grants under the incorrect Romanian version.

By 2022, however, Romanian authorities moved to recover the grants, arguing that both companies were, in fact, in difficulty at the relevant time due to substantial capital losses. The recipients contested the recovery, arguing, inter alia, that they had met the eligibility criteria as officially published, that the correcting regulation could not be applied retroactively to their disadvantage, and that their reliance on the uncorrected text was justified and protected under the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

The dispute eventually reached the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Court of Appeal, Bacău), which referred the following preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling:

“(1) Does the adoption of a regulation correcting the official Romanian language version of an EU regulation, namely [the correcting regulation], have the effect of retroactively applying the corrected version, from the entry into force of the original regulation, or does it produce effects only for the future, after the entry into force of the correcting regulation, in a situation in which the national authorities granted State aid in accordance with the conditions laid down in the original Romanian language version of [the GBER] and have requested, following the entry into force of [the correcting regulation], the recovery of the State aid granted?

(2) Does the equivalence of the language versions of an EU regulation mean that the national authorities of a Member State may rely, against a beneficiary of State aid granted in accordance with the original Romanian language version of [the GBER], on the provisions of [the correcting regulation] correcting that version in order to request the recovery of State aid, in the absence of any fault on the part of the aid beneficiary?

(3) Are EU law and, in particular, the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, to be interpreted as precluding the recovery of State aid granted in compliance with the conditions initially laid down in the Romanian language version, conditions which, however, did not exist in the other language versions of [the GBER], when the correction was made by means of [the correcting regulation] to the Romanian language version after the State aid was granted?”

The Advocate General’s Opinion

On 22 May 2025, Advocate General Szpunar (AG) delivered his opinion, addressing the preliminary questions in two parts: first, the retroactive effect of the correcting regulation (Question 1), and then its implications for recovery of aid (Questions 2 and 3).

Regarding the first question, the AG underscored the foundational importance of publication and linguistic authenticity in EU law:

“The principle of the equivalence of the language versions, in connection with legal certainty, therefore assumes that proper publication of a regulation for a Member State whose language is an official language of the European Union, must include the publication of that act, in that language, in the Official Journal … [and] such proper publication is a pre-condition for the act concerned to be enforceable against natural and legal persons.” (para. 50)

He also acknowledged that the retroactive effect in law must be carefully justified and limited:

“Non-retroactivity of an EU legislative act remains the principle, its effects being contingent upon its publication in the Official Journal. However, in certain exceptional cases … it may be permitted that an EU legislative act should produce legal effects at a point in time prior to its publication.” (para. 54)

Emphasizing that all language versions of an EU legal act are to be interpreted and applied uniformly, the AG took the view that a correcting regulation designed to correct a translation error should be considered as having retroactive effect when it merely aligns a defective version with the correct meaning present in the other language versions from the outset:

“The correcting regulation serves a purpose of general interest, namely consistency of the various language versions of an EU legislative act, which justifies interpreting it as having retroactive effects … It would … be neither effective nor consistent to consider that this applies only for the future, allowing divergences to remain for the period between the entry into force of the GBER and the entry into force of the correcting regulation.” (para. 59).

In relation to the second and third questions, the AG emphasized that retroactivity cannot be applied mechanically to the detriment of individuals who relied in good faith on the official Romanian text:

“It stems from the principle of legal certainty that only an act that is properly published in the Official Journal may be enforced against natural and legal persons of a Member State and that proper publication of that act for a Member State includes its publication in the language of that Member State.” (para. 67)

AG Szpunar also rejected the idea that individuals should have to cross-check other language versions to detect errors:

“Natural or legal persons cannot be required to check the other language versions of a clearly worded provision, and to ascertain its purpose and the context in which it appears, when there is nothing in the actual wording of the provision leading to any difficulty of interpretation.” (para. 73)

Regarding legitimate expectations, the AG found that:

“The Romanian version of the GBER containing a material error was published in the Official Journal, and so it was authentic in that Member State and could therefore give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of beneficiaries of the aid that they came within the scope of the beneficiaries of the measures in question.” (para. 80)

He noted that responsibility for the error was not solely due to the Romanian authorities, but was partly attributable to the EU institutions responsible for ensuring accurate publication of legislation, reinforcing the protection of recipients relying on the official text.

Ultimately, the AG concluded:

“The correcting regulation correcting the Romanian language version of the GBER, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, must be interpreted as precluding it from being enforced against individuals of that Member State who have benefited from aid measures granted on the basis of the incorrect version of the GBER before its entry into force, so that the Member State cannot rely on it in order to require the recovery of that aid.” (para. 82)

Broader Implications: Legal Certainty in a Multilingual Union

The Advocate General’s opinion highlights the delicate balance between upholding the integrity of EU law—ensuring all language versions mean the same—and safeguarding individuals’ rights and expectations. It underscores that retroactivity in law must be carefully managed to avoid unfairness, especially in a multilingual legal environment where mistakes can easily occur.

This case is not only about a technical translation correction; it tests the EU legal system’s capacity to handle the practical realities of its linguistic diversity while maintaining fairness and predictability for those subject to its laws.

The upcoming #CJEU ruling will provide important guidance on the limits of retroactivity, the scope of legal certainty, and the protection of legitimate expectations when dealing with corrections of official EU legal texts. Until then, the AG’s Opinion serves as a vivid reminder that, in the EU, every word counts — but so does fairness to those who rely on the law as it is officially published.

By Maria Paschou