- 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-106/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 15 February 2022 — Xella Magyarország Építőanyagipari Kft. v Innovációs és Technológiai Miniszter
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0106
62022CN0106
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
23.5.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 207/15
(Case C-106/22)
(2022/C 207/21)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Xella Magyarország Építőanyagipari Kft.
Defendant: Innovációs és Technológiai Miniszter
Questions referred
1.Having regard to recitals 4 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2019/452 (1) establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union and to Article 4(2) TEU, must Article 65(1)(b) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that it permits the laying down of rules such as those in Paragraph 85 of veszélyhelyzet megszűnésével összefüggő átmeneti szabályokról és a járványügyi készültségről szóló 2020. évi LVIII. törvény (Law LVIII of 2020 on transitional provisions relating to the end of the state of emergency and to the pandemic crisis), and in particular those in Paragraph 276(1) and (2)(a) and Paragraph 283(1)(b) of that law?
2.If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the mere fact that the Commission has conducted a merger control procedure, exercised its powers and authorised a concentration affecting the chain of ownership of a foreign indirect investor preclude the exercise of the decision-making power under the applicable law of the Member State?
(1) OJ 2019 L 79I, p. 1.