EN
13.3.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 94/13
3.
In interpreting the principle of equivalence with regard to the point in time at which default interest is awarded to the recipient of the non-repayable financing from the ERDF, is it relevant that a rule of national law provides that, in the event of a finding of irregularity, the only consequence is that the financial benefit concerned is not granted or, as the case may be, is withdrawn (repayment of the undue amounts), to the extent to which it was granted, without receipt of interest, notwithstanding that the recipient of those amounts has enjoyed the advantage of their use up to the time of repayment, and that it is only where that repayment does not take place within the statutory time limit, that is, 30 days from the notification of the credit instrument, that the provisions of Article 42(1) and (2) of the Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr.
66/2011 (Government Emergency Order No 66/2011) permit the receipt of interest after the expiry of that time limit? 4.
Do the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU preclude, in circumstances such as those of the present case, the applicability of Directive 2011/7/EU (1) from being extended by a national rule also to the case of a contract for the grant of non-repayable financing from the ERDF concluded between the public authority responsible for the management of European funds and a legal person operating a profit-making undertaking?
(1)
Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2022 — Citadines Betriebs GmbH v MPLC Deutschland GmbH (Case C-723/22) (2023/C 94/14) Language of the case: German Referring court Oberlandesgericht München Parties to the main proceedings Appellant: Citadines Betriebs GmbH Respondent: MPLC Deutschland GmbH Question referred Must Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 March 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) be interpreted as precluding a national provision or practice according to which the provision of physical facilities for enabling or making a communication — such as television sets in hotel rooms or hotel fitness rooms — is regarded as communication to the public when, while the transmission signal, in addition, is retransmitted to the physical facilities via the hotel’s own cable distribution system, that cable retransmission takes place lawfully on the basis of a licence acquired by the hotel?
(1)
OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
Appeal brought on 24 November 2022 by AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot, AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 14 September 2022 in Case T-865/19, Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK ‘Azot’ v Commission (Case C-725/22 P) (2023/C 94/15) Language of the case: English Parties Appellants: AO Nevinnomysskiy Azot, AO Novomoskovskaya Aktsionernaya Kompania NAK ‘Azot’ (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, advocate, A. de Moncuit and T. Martin-Brieu, avocats)