- 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-347/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 28 July 2020 — SIA Zinātnes parks v Finanšu ministrija
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0347
62020CN0347
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
12.10.2020
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 339/7
(Case C-347/20)
(2020/C 339/09)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: SIA Zinātnes parks
Defendant: Finanšu ministrija
Questions referred
1.Must the concept of ‘subscribed share capital’ in Article 2(18)(a) of Commission Regulation No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 (1) of the Treaty, in conjunction with other EU legal provisions relating to company law, be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining subscribed share capital, only particulars that have been published in the manner laid down by the national laws of each Member State may be taken into account, bearing in mind that the particulars in question are thus deemed to become effective only from that moment?
2.When assessing the concept of ‘undertaking in difficulty’ in Article 2(18) of Commission Regulation No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty, is it necessary to attach significance to the requirements, laid down as part of the procedure for selecting projects for European funds, concerning which documents are to be submitted as evidence of the financial situation of the undertaking in question?
3.If the reply to the second question referred is in the affirmative, is a provision of domestic law on the selection of projects, which establishes that no further clarification of project applications may be made once the application has been submitted, compatible with the principles of non-discrimination and transparency established in Article 125(3)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006? (2)
(1) OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320.
Language of the case: Latvian