This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CA0743
Case C-743/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rēzeknes tiesa — Latvia) — LSEZ SIA ‘Elme Messer Metalurgs’ v Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Structural Funds — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 2(7) — Concept of ‘irregularity’ — Infringement of a provision of EU law resulting from an act or omission on the part of an economic operator — Prejudice caused to the general budget of the European Union — Insolvency of the beneficiary’s sole business partner)
Case C-743/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rēzeknes tiesa — Latvia) — LSEZ SIA ‘Elme Messer Metalurgs’ v Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Structural Funds — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 2(7) — Concept of ‘irregularity’ — Infringement of a provision of EU law resulting from an act or omission on the part of an economic operator — Prejudice caused to the general budget of the European Union — Insolvency of the beneficiary’s sole business partner)
Case C-743/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rēzeknes tiesa — Latvia) — LSEZ SIA ‘Elme Messer Metalurgs’ v Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Structural Funds — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Article 2(7) — Concept of ‘irregularity’ — Infringement of a provision of EU law resulting from an act or omission on the part of an economic operator — Prejudice caused to the general budget of the European Union — Insolvency of the beneficiary’s sole business partner)
OJ C 399, 23.11.2020, p. 9–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 01/10/2020
- Date lodged:
- 28/11/2018
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- Latvian
- Type of procedure:
- Reference for a preliminary ruling
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62018CJ0743
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
23.11.2020 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 399/9 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rēzeknes tiesa — Latvia) — LSEZ SIA ‘Elme Messer Metalurgs’ v Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra
(Case C-743/18) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structural Funds - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Article 2(7) - Concept of ‘irregularity’ - Infringement of a provision of EU law resulting from an act or omission on the part of an economic operator - Prejudice caused to the general budget of the European Union - Insolvency of the beneficiary’s sole business partner)
(2020/C 399/11)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Rēzeknes tiesa
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: LSEZ SIA ‘Elme Messer Metalurgs’
Defendant: Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra
Operative part of the judgment
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, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 539/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which the beneficiary of European Regional Development Fund funding fails to achieve, during the relevant period, the level of turnover expected as part of the project eligible for financing because the activities of its sole business partner have been suspended or because that partner has become insolvent may be regarded as an ‘irregularity’ within the meaning of that provision.
