Case C-347/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Zinātnes parks’ v Finanšu ministrija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Structural Funds — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 — Co-financing programme — State aid — Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 — Scope — Limits — Concepts of ‘subscribed share capital’ and ‘undertaking in difficulty’ — Exclusion of undertakings in difficulty from ERDF support — Conditions for the taking effect of an increase of the subscribed share capital — Date of submission of evidence of that increase — Principles of non-discrimination and transparency)
Date: 2022-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, State aid, administrative transparency, capital increase, co-financing, company in difficulties, equal treatment, principle of additionality, principle of proportionality








C_2022119EN.01001201.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/12






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Zinātnes parks’ v Finanšu ministrija
(Case C-347/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Structural Funds - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - Co-financing programme - State aid - Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 - Scope - Limits - Concepts of ‘subscribed share capital’ and ‘undertaking in difficulty’ - Exclusion of undertakings in difficulty from ERDF support - Conditions for the taking effect of an increase of the subscribed share capital - Date of submission of evidence of that increase - Principles of non-discrimination and transparency)
(2022/C 119/16)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA ‘Zinātnes parks’

Defendant: Finanšu ministrija

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(18)(a) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a company is ‘in difficulty’ within the meaning of that provision, the expression ‘subscribed share capital’ must be understood as referring to all contributions which current or future members or shareholders of a company have made or have irrevocably undertaken to make.










2.


Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a project applicant is to be regarded as not being ‘in difficulty’ within the meaning of Article 2(18) of Regulation No 651/2014, the competent managing authority must take account only of evidence which complies with the requirements laid down when the project selection procedure was drawn up, provided that those requirements comply with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, as well as with the general principles of EU law, such as, in particular, the principles of equal treatment, transparency and proportionality.










3.


Article 125(3) 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, together with the principles of non-discrimination and transparency to which that provision refers, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which project applications may not be the subject of clarification after the deadline for submission of those applications. However, in accordance with the principle of equivalence, that impossibility, for project applicants, to complete their file after the deadline for submission of project applications must concern all procedures which may, where appropriate, be regarded as comparable with regard to their purpose, cause of action and essential characteristics to that laid down for receipt of support from the European Regional Development Fund.






(1)  OJ C 339, 12.10.2020.