- 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-814/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Ursa Major Services BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common fisheries policy — Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 — Article 55(1) — Financial contribution by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) — Eligibility of expenditure — Condition — Expenditure actually paid by the beneficiaries — Meaning)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0814
62018CA0814
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 77/5
(Case C-814/18) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 - Article 55(1) - Financial contribution by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) - Eligibility of expenditure - Condition - Expenditure actually paid by the beneficiaries - Meaning)
(2020/C 77/07)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Ursa Major Services BV
Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 55(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund must be interpreted as being applicable to the relationship between the managing authority of an operational programme and the beneficiary of a subsidy granted under the European Fisheries Fund, so that that provision can be invoked against that beneficiary;
2.Article 55(1) of Regulation No 1198/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that an amount invoiced to the beneficiary of a subsidy granted under the European Fisheries Fund and paid by him may be regarded as expenditure actually paid, as referred to in that provision, even if the third party who invoiced that amount has also made a financial contribution to the subsidised project, either by a set-off of the debt owed to him by the beneficiary against that beneficiary’s claim against him, stemming from his commitment to make a contribution, or by issuing a separate invoice, provided that the expenditure and the contribution concerned are duly supported by receipted invoices or accounting documents of equivalent probative value, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
(1) OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.