This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CN0384
Case C-384/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik
Case C-384/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik
Case C-384/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik
SL C 343, 10.11.2012, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.11.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 343/6 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock (Germany) lodged on 13 August 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik
(Case C-384/12)
2012/C 343/05
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Landgericht Rostock
Parties to the main proceedings
Per Harald Lökkevik
Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Rostock
Question referred
Should the concept of an advantage within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it includes a situation in which it appears that simply a lack of competence of the European Commission has been brought about by statements made in a subsidy procedure for the purposes of avoiding the prescribed notification of regional investment aid projects with total project costs of at least EUR 50 million laid down in Section 2(1)(i) of the Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects of 7 April 1998 (OJ 1998 C 107, p. 7)?