- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-545/21, ANAS: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS) v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Union Structural Funds — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 2(7) — Concept of ‘irregularity’ — Article 98(1) and (2) — Financial corrections by Member States in connection with irregularities detected — Criteria to be applied — Directive 2004/18/EC — Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) — Concept of ‘grave professional misconduct’)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0545
62021CA0545
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
24.7.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 261/24
(Case C-545/21, (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>) ANAS)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Union Structural Funds - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 2(7) - Concept of ‘irregularity’ - Article 98(1) and (2) - Financial corrections by Member States in connection with irregularities detected - Criteria to be applied - Directive 2004/18/EC - Point (d) of the first subparagraph of Article 45(2) - Concept of ‘grave professional misconduct’)
(2023/C 261/34)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Azienda Nazionale Autonoma Strade SpA (ANAS)
Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 2(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999
must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘irregularity’, within the meaning of that provision, covers behaviour liable to be classified as ‘acts of corruption’ carried out in the context of a procedure for the award of a public contract for the performance of works co-financed by an EU structural fund, and for which an administrative or judicial procedure has been initiated, including where it is not proved that that behaviour had a real impact on the procedure for selecting the tenderer and where no actual adverse effect on the budget of the European Union has been found.
2.Article 98(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1083/2006
must be interpreted as meaning that in the event of an ‘irregularity’, as defined in Article 2(7) of that regulation, the Member States, in order to determine the applicable financial correction, must carry out an assessment on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, taking into account, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the irregularities found and their financial impact on the fund concerned.
Language of the case: Italian