- 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-491/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma v Szent Borbála Kórház
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CN0491
62019CN0491
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
14.10.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 348/4
(Case C-491/19)
(2019/C 348/05)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma
Respondent: Szent Borbála Kórház
Questions referred
1.In the legal relationship arising from a subsidy agreement, are the authorities and intermediate bodies of the Member States which are competent to conduct irregularity proceedings at first or second tier empowered to examine directly in the course of the proceedings before them, in accordance with 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 (‘the Regulation’), (1) and in particular as part of the control mechanism provided for in Articles 60, 70 and 98 thereof, any infringement that has or may have an impact prejudicial to the financial interests of the budget of the European Union, and are they obliged, if necessary, to apply a financial correction?
2.Is the protection of the financial interests of the European Union effectively guaranteed by national procedural legislation, or by the case-law interpreting it, which, in the case of a subsidy agreement, allows a breach of that agreement consisting in an infringement of public procurement legislation (an irregularity) to be established, and any civil claim based on the establishment of that infringement to be asserted, only where a final declaration as to the existence of that infringement has been made by the Arbitration Committee or, following a judicial review of the decision of the Arbitration Committee, by a court?
3.If the infringement of public procurement legislation constitutes an irregularity but proceedings have not been instituted before the Arbitration Committee, is the court hearing the civil claims relating to compliance with the subsidy agreement empowered to assess the irregularity in the public procurement process in the course of examining the breach of the agreement?
(1) OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25.