(Reference for a preliminary ruling– Structural Funds– European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)– Regulation (EU) No1303/2013– Co-financing programme– State aid– Regulation (EU) No651/2014

81Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

1.Article2(18)(a) of Commission Regulation (EU) No651/2014 of 17June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles107 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.Article3(3) of Regulation (EU) No1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No1080/2006 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 Article2(18) of Regulation No651/2014, 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.Article125(3) of Regulation (EU) No1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17December 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) No1083/2006, 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.

[Signatures]

*Language of the case: Latvian.