(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

70By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article125(3) of Regulation No1303/2013, together with the principles of non-discrimination and transparency to which that provision refers, is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which project applications may not be the subject of clarification after they have been submitted.

71At the outset, it should be noted that the referring court does not specify whether, when it refers in the wording of its question to the submission of projects, it is referring to the deadline for submission of project applications laid down by national law or to the date on which the project application of a concerned project applicant was submitted. However, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that, in the case at issue in the main proceedings, Zinātnes parks submitted its file on the date of the deadline for submission of project applications laid down by national law. Accordingly, it does not appear necessary to examine the issue of whether EU law requires Member States to allow project applicants to provide clarifications after the submission of their project applications but before the deadline for submission of such applications. By contrast, that question arises in relation to clarifications that may be provided after that deadline.

72Next, it should be noted that Article125(3)(d) of Regulation No1303/2013 merely mentions that the competent managing authority must satisfy itself that each beneficiary of ERDF support has the administrative, financial and operational capacity to fulfil the conditions for support for each operation before approval of each operation, without specifying when that capacity must be assessed or when project applicants must provide that authority with the information necessary for the verification of that capacity.

73Given that EU law does not specify the deadline for providing the managing authorities with the necessary evidence, it is for the Member States to decide this within the limits laid down by the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, as well as by the obligation on every managing authority to ensure scrupulously compliance with general principles of law, which include the principles of equal treatment and transparency, referred to in Article125(3) of Regulation No1303/2013, as well as the principle of proportionality.

74As regards, in particular, the principles of transparency and equal treatment, it should be recalled that, where a Member State has set a deadline for project applicants to complete their file, those principles require the managing authorities to exclude from the selection procedure any application which has not been accompanied, by that date, by the necessary information (see, by analogy, judgments of 6November 2014, Cartiera dell’Adda, C‑42/13, EU:C:2014:2345, paragraph42, and of 2June 2016, Pizzo, C‑27/15, EU:C:2016:404, paragraphs42 to 44).

75In the case at issue in the main proceedings, it is apparent from the information provided by the referring court that the Member State concerned, while taking the view that the condition laid down in Article3(3) of Regulation No1301/2013 must be assessed at the date of approval of project applications, chose to prohibit those project applicants from completing their file after expiry of the deadline for submission of those project applications.

76Having regard to the need for the national managing authorities to have the necessary time to examine the files submitted to them (see, to that effect, by analogy, judgments of 10February 1998, Germany v Commission, C‑263/95, EU:C:1998:47, paragraph31, and of 25March 2010, Commission v Spain, C‑392/08, EU:C:2010:164, paragraph21), that Member State cannot, however, be criticised for having set a deadline for project applicants to communicate all the information necessary to the competent managing authority which was earlier than the date of approval of project applications.

77Consequently, as the Advocate General stated, in essence, in point80 of her Opinion, if project applicants were allowed to complete their file after the deadline for submission of project applications, the competent managing authority could find itself obliged to re-examine the same files repeatedly, with the risk that the date of approval of those applications would have to be postponed, thereby undermining the objectives of the financing programmes, or that the principles of equal treatment and transparency would no longer be observed. Such a possibility is also likely to give rise to additional costs for the competent managing authority, which a Member State may legitimately wish not to bear, in accordance with the principle of sound administration.

78Therefore, it must be held that a Member State may decide that project applicants are not authorised to complete their file after expiry of the deadline for submission of project applications, even if the national legislation provides that the condition laid down in Article3(3) of Regulation No1301/2013 must be assessed at a later date.

79In accordance with the principle of equivalence, it is important to identify, in national law, procedures which are comparable, having regard to their purpose, cause of action and essential characteristics, to that laid down for receipt of ERDF support and to ensure that those procedures are not, by allowing project applicants to complete their file after the deadline for submission of project applications, more favourable than that at issue in the main proceedings (see, by analogy, judgment of 26September 2018, Belastingdienst v Toeslagen (Suspensory effect of the appeal), C‑175/17, EU:C:2018:776, paragraphs42 to 44).

80In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third question is that Article125(3) of Regulation No1303/2013, 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 ERDF support.