CELEX: 62019CN0491
Language: en
Date: 2019-06-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-491/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma v Szent Borbála Kórház

14.10.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 348/4
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma v Szent Borbála Kórház
      (Case C-491/19)
      (2019/C 348/05)
      Language of the case: Hungarian
      
         Referring court
      
      Kúria
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant: Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma
      
         Respondent: Szent Borbála Kórház
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  In the legal relationship arising from a subsidy agreement, are the authorities and intermediate bodies of the Member States which are competent to conduct irregularity proceedings at first or second tier empowered to examine directly in the course of the proceedings before them, in accordance with 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 (‘the Regulation’), (1) and in particular as part of the control mechanism provided for in Articles 60, 70 and 98 thereof, any infringement that has or may have an impact prejudicial to the financial interests of the budget of the European Union, and are they obliged, if necessary, to apply a financial correction?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Is the protection of the financial interests of the European Union effectively guaranteed by national procedural legislation, or by the case-law interpreting it, which, in the case of a subsidy agreement, allows a breach of that agreement consisting in an infringement of public procurement legislation (an irregularity) to be established, and any civil claim based on the establishment of that infringement to be asserted, only where a final declaration as to the existence of that infringement has been made by the Arbitration Committee or, following a judicial review of the decision of the Arbitration Committee, by a court?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  If the infringement of public procurement legislation constitutes an irregularity but proceedings have not been instituted before the Arbitration Committee, is the court hearing the civil claims relating to compliance with the subsidy agreement empowered to assess the irregularity in the public procurement process in the course of examining the breach of the agreement?
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25.