{"id":4339,"date":"2026-09-07T09:15:45","date_gmt":"2026-09-07T09:15:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/?p=4339"},"modified":"2026-09-07T09:20:04","modified_gmt":"2026-09-07T09:20:04","slug":"advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/","title":{"rendered":"Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n <span class=\"tp-lang-sq\">Opinioni i Avokatit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-en\">Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-it\">Parere dell'Avvocato Generale nella causa C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g<\/span>\r\n <\/title>\r\n <script src=\"https:\/\/cdn.tailwindcss.com\"><\/script>\r\n <link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Inter:wght@300;400;500;600;700&family=Playfair+Display:ital,wght@0,400;0,600;0,700;1,400;1,700&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\">\r\n \r\n <style>\r\n :root {\r\n --gold: #c5a059;\r\n --gold-light: #dfc493;\r\n --espresso: #1a0f0a;\r\n --brown-deep: #2c1810;\r\n --cream: #fdfcf9;\r\n }\r\n body { font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif; background-color: var(--cream); color: var(--espresso); line-height: 1.7; }\r\n .serif { font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; }\r\n\r\n .drop-cap::first-letter { float: left; font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; font-size: 4rem; line-height: 3rem; padding-top: 6px; padding-right: 10px; color: var(--gold); font-weight: 700; }\r\n \r\n article p { margin-bottom: 1.25rem; font-size: 1.05rem; color: #2d2d2d; }\r\n article ul { margin-bottom: 1.25rem; list-style-type: disc; padding-left: 1.5rem; color: #2d2d2d; }\r\n article li { margin-bottom: 0.5rem; font-size: 1.05rem; }\r\n \r\n .case-card { background-color: var(--brown-deep) !important; color: #ffffff !important; border-left: 4px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .case-card p, .case-card h3 { color: #ffffff !important; }\r\n\r\n \/* TranslatePress Automatic Display Rules *\/\r\n .tp-lang-block { display: none; }\r\n title span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n title span.tp-lang-en,\r\n title span.tp-lang-it,\r\n h1 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n h1 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n h1 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n h2 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n h2 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n h2 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n h3 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n h3 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n h3 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n p span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n p span.tp-lang-en,\r\n p span.tp-lang-it,\r\n li span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n li span.tp-lang-en,\r\n li span.tp-lang-it { display: none; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Albanian when TranslatePress language is SQ *\/\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL .tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] .tp-lang-sq { display: block; }\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL title span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] title span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL h1 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] h1 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL h2 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] h2 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL h3 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] h3 span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL p span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] p span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL li span.tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] li span.tp-lang-sq { display: inline; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show English when TranslatePress language is EN *\/\r\n body.translatepress-en_US .tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB .tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] .tp-lang-en { display: block; }\r\n body.translatepress-en_US title span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB title span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] title span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_US h1 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB h1 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] h1 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_US h2 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB h2 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] h2 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_US h3 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB h3 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] h3 span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_US p span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB p span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] p span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_US li span.tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB li span.tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] li span.tp-lang-en { display: inline; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Italian when TranslatePress language is IT *\/\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT .tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] .tp-lang-it { display: block; }\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT title span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] title span.tp-lang-it,\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT h1 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] h1 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT h2 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] h2 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT h3 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] h3 span.tp-lang-it,\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT p span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] p span.tp-lang-it,\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT li span.tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] li span.tp-lang-it { display: inline; }\r\n <\/style>\r\n<\/head>\r\n<body class=\"antialiased\">\r\n\r\n <main class=\"max-w-3xl mx-auto px-6 py-12\">\r\n \r\n <!-- Header Image Banner -->\r\n <div class=\"relative w-full h-[360px] rounded-2xl overflow-hidden shadow-xl mb-10 border-b-4 border-[var(--gold)]\">\r\n <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/images.pexels.com\/photos\/36207471\/pexels-photo-36207471.jpeg\" alt=\"Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g Case\" class=\"w-full h-full object-cover object-center brightness-[0.65]\">\r\n <div class=\"absolute inset-0 bg-gradient-to-t from-black\/90 via-black\/40 to-transparent\"><\/div>\r\n <div class=\"absolute bottom-8 left-8 right-8 text-white\">\r\n <p class=\"text-[var(--gold)] tracking-widest uppercase font-semibold text-xs mb-2\">\r\n <span class=\"tp-lang-sq\">E Drejta e Bashkimit Evropian & Shqyrtimi i Investimeve<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-en\">European Union Law & Investment Screening<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-it\">Diritto dell'Unione Europea & Controllo degli Investimenti<\/span>\r\n <\/p>\r\n <h1 class=\"serif text-3xl md:text-4xl font-bold leading-tight\">\r\n <span class=\"tp-lang-sq\">Opinioni i Avokatit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-en\">Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g<\/span><span class=\"tp-lang-it\">Parere dell'Avvocato Generale nella causa C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g<\/span>\r\n <\/h1>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n <!-- ALBANIAN VERSION -->\r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-sq\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl md:text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-6 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4 font-semibold\">Hyrje<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Kjo \u00e7\u00ebshtje ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me Opinionin e Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme Tamara \u0106apeta n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22, Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g. \u00c7\u00ebshtja ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte (IHD) dhe mas\u00ebn n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn nj\u00eb Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t\u00eb kufizoj\u00eb nj\u00eb investim q\u00eb origjinon nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb kur investimi b\u00ebhet n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb kompanie me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE. \u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi pasi Hungaria bllokoi blerjen e nj\u00eb kompanie hungareze q\u00eb operon nj\u00eb gurore, me arsyetimin se transaksioni mund t\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnonte sigurin\u00eb e furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb tam\u00ebshme t\u00eb caktuara. Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme ekaminon n\u00ebse legjislacioni i till\u00eb komb\u00ebtar dhe vendimi individual p\u00ebr t\u00eb bllokuar blerjen jan\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me ligjin e BE-s\u00eb, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti me Rregulloren e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve, l\u00ebvizjen e lir\u00eb t\u00eb kapitalit dhe lirin\u00eb e vendosjes.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Faktet e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>N\u00eb vitin 2021, Ministri i Inovacionit dhe Teknologjis\u00eb i Hungaris\u00eb bllokoi blerjen e nj\u00eb kompanie hungareze nga nj\u00eb kompani tjet\u00ebr hungareze. Kompania q\u00eb po blihet zot\u00ebron nj\u00eb gurore nga e cila nxirret r\u00ebr\u00eb, argjil\u00eb dhe zhavorr. N\u00eb vendimin e tij, Ministri shpjegoi se lejimi i nj\u00eb kompanie me pron\u00ebsi t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb marr\u00eb kontrollin e nj\u00eb kompanie t\u00eb till\u00eb \u201cstrategjike\u201d do t\u00eb ishte n\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtim me interesat komb\u00ebtare hungareze, p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb sigurin\u00eb e furnizimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtyre l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para. Pron\u00ebsia e t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga vendi i tret\u00eb n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte e lidhur me nj\u00eb kompani me baz\u00eb n\u00eb Bermuda. Prandaj, megjith\u00ebse blerja u krye zyrtarisht midis dy kompanive hungareze, pron\u00ebsia p\u00ebrfundimtare p\u00ebrfshinte nj\u00eb kompani nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb. Gjykata hungareze, F\u0151v\u00e1rosi T\u00f6rv\u00e9nysz\u00e9k (Gjykata e Lart\u00eb e Budapestit), prandaj pyeti n\u00ebse ligji i BE-s\u00eb lejon Hungarin\u00eb t\u00eb vendos\u00eb legjislacion q\u00eb kufizon investimet e huaja direkte n\u00eb kompani me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE kur investime t\u00eb tilla zbatohen p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb kompanie tjet\u00ebr me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Opinioni i Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme \u0106apeta<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>N\u00eb Opinionin e saj, Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme Tamara \u0106apeta fillimisht konsideron se investimet e huaja direkte q\u00eb origjinojn\u00eb nga vendet e treta hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e veprimit t\u00eb Rregullores s\u00eb Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve. Rregullorja (BE) 2019\/452 vendos nj\u00eb korniz\u00eb p\u00ebr shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte n\u00eb Bashkimin Evropian. Sipas Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme, Rregullorja mbulon investimet e \u00e7do lloji p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cilave nj\u00eb investitor i nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb fiton pjes\u00ebmarrje ose kontroll efektiv mbi nj\u00eb kompani t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb. Kjo p\u00ebrfshin gjithashtu investimet ku nj\u00eb investitor i nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb fiton n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb kontrollin mbi nj\u00eb kompani t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb p\u00ebrmes blerjes s\u00eb nj\u00eb kompanie t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb nga nj\u00eb kompani tjet\u00ebr e BE-s\u00eb e cila vet\u00ebm n\u00eb vetvete zot\u00ebrohet nga nj\u00eb kompani e nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb. Prandaj, fakti q\u00eb nj\u00eb investim kryhet zyrtarisht midis dy kompanive t\u00eb themeluara brenda Bashkimit Evropian nuk e parandalon domosdoshm\u00ebrisht q\u00eb ai t\u00eb konsiderohet nj\u00eb investim i huaj direkt q\u00eb origjinon nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Kompetenca e BE-s\u00eb dhe Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme \u0106apeta konsideron se investimet e huaja direkte t\u00eb tilla hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e veprimit t\u00eb Nenit 207 TFEU dhe p\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb brenda kompetenc\u00ebs ekskluzive t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e politik\u00ebs tregtare t\u00eb p\u00ebrbashk\u00ebt. Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve u lejon Shteteve An\u00ebtare t\u00eb krijojn\u00eb mekanizma p\u00ebr shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte. Sipas Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme, kjo duhet t\u00eb kuptohet si \u201cdelegim\u201d efektiv i kompetencave t\u00eb caktuara p\u00ebrs\u00ebri tek Shtetet An\u00ebtare n\u00eb nj\u00eb fush\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn ato kishin humbur m\u00eb par\u00eb ato kompetenca pas hyrjes n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb Traktatit t\u00eb Lisbon\u00ebs. Prandaj, megjith\u00ebse Shtetet An\u00ebtare mund t\u00eb krijojn\u00eb mekanizma komb\u00ebtar\u00eb shqyrtimi, ato mekanizma duhet t\u00eb veprojn\u00eb brenda kufijve t\u00eb vendosur nga ligji i BE-s\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">L\u00ebvizja e lir\u00eb e kapitalit dhe liria e vendosjes<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme gjithashtu konsideron se mekanizmat komb\u00ebtar\u00eb t\u00eb shqyrtimit t\u00eb mund\u00ebsuar nga Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve duhet t\u00eb respektojn\u00eb rregullat e tregut t\u00eb brendsh\u00ebm. Legjislacioni komb\u00ebtar duhet t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb prandaj q\u00eb autoritetet p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebse p\u00ebr miratimin e vendimeve individuale t\u00eb shqyrtimit t\u00eb sigurojn\u00eb arsyetime legjitime dhe t\u00eb mjaftueshme kur kufizojn\u00eb flukse kapitali. Nga Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve rrjedh se kufizimet e l\u00ebvizjeve t\u00eb kapitalit mund t\u00eb arsyetohen vet\u00ebm mbi baza sigurie ose rendi publik. Arsyetime t\u00eb tilla mund t\u00eb mb\u00ebshtetet vet\u00ebm kur ekziston nj\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnim i v\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe mjaftuesh\u00ebm serioz ndaj nj\u00eb interesi fundamental t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb. P\u00ebr m\u00eb tep\u00ebr, \u00e7do mas\u00eb q\u00eb kufizon l\u00ebvizjen e kapitalit duhet t\u00eb jet\u00eb proporcionale me objektivin q\u00eb ajo k\u00ebrkon t\u00eb arrij\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Siguria e furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>N\u00eb lidhje me arsyetimin specifik t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga Ministri hungarez, Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme pranon se sigurimi i furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para t\u00eb caktuara mundet, n\u00eb koh\u00eb krize, t\u00eb jet\u00eb i aft\u00eb t\u00eb arsyetoj\u00eb nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb investimit t\u00eb huaj direkt mbi baza t\u00eb politik\u00ebs publike ose siguris\u00eb publike. K\u00ebto konsiderata mund t\u00eb arsyetojn\u00eb madje edhe kufizime t\u00eb l\u00ebvizjeve t\u00eb kapitalit q\u00eb p\u00ebrfshijn\u00eb vende t\u00eb treta t\u00eb cilat ndryshe nuk do t\u00eb ishin t\u00eb pranueshme sipas rregullave t\u00eb tregut t\u00eb brendsh\u00ebm. Megjithat\u00eb, ekzistenca e thjesht\u00eb e nj\u00eb investitori t\u00eb huaj ose e nj\u00eb pron\u00ebsie t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb nuk mjaftohet vetvetiu. Autoritetet komb\u00ebtare duhet t\u00eb demonstrojn\u00eb se investimi krijon realisht nj\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnim t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe mjaftuesh\u00ebm serioz ndaj nj\u00eb interesi fundamental t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Proporcionaliteti<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme thekson gjithashtu parimin e proporcionalitetit. Nj\u00eb Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t\u00eb miratoj\u00eb masa kufizuese p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur sigurin\u00eb publike ose rendin publik, por ato masa duhet t\u00eb jen\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrshtatshme dhe t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr arritjen e objektivit t\u00eb ndjekur. N\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen aktuale, autoritetet hungareze prandaj duhet t\u00eb demonstrojn\u00eb pse pron\u00ebsia e t\u00ebrthort\u00eb e huaj e gurores p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebson nj\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnim t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe serioz ndaj siguris\u00eb s\u00eb furnizimit t\u00eb zhavorrit, r\u00ebr\u00ebs dhe argjil\u00ebs n\u00eb Hungari. Ato duhet t\u00eb konsiderojn\u00eb gjithashtu n\u00ebse i nj\u00ebjti objektiv mund t\u00eb ishte arritur p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb mase m\u00eb pak kufizuese.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">P\u00ebrfundim<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>N\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim, Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme \u0106apeta konsideron se ligji i BE-s\u00eb nuk parandalon, n\u00eb parim, legjislacionin komb\u00ebtar q\u00eb t\u00eb lejoj\u00eb shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte q\u00eb origjinojn\u00eb nga vendet e treta, madje edhe kur investimi zbatohet p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb kompanie me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE. Megjithat\u00eb, mekanizmat e till\u00eb komb\u00ebtar\u00eb t\u00eb shqyrtimit duhet t\u00eb jen\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me ligjin e BE-s\u00eb. N\u00eb ve\u00e7anti, vendimet individuale q\u00eb kufizojn\u00eb investimet duhet t\u00eb jen\u00eb t\u00eb arsyetuara si\u00e7 duhet, duhet t\u00eb ndjekin objektiv\u00eb legjitime si siguria publike ose rendi publik, dhe duhet t\u00eb respektojn\u00eb parimin e proporcionalitetit. N\u00eb rastin specifik t\u00eb Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g, gjykata komb\u00ebtare prandaj duhet t\u00eb vler\u00ebsoj\u00eb n\u00ebse Ministri hungarez shpjegoi mjaftuesh\u00ebm pse pron\u00ebsia e t\u00ebrthort\u00eb e huaj e gurores p\u00ebrb\u00ebnte nj\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnim t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe serioz ndaj siguris\u00eb s\u00eb furnizimit t\u00eb zhavorrit, r\u00ebr\u00ebs dhe argjil\u00ebs n\u00eb Hungari, dhe n\u00ebse ky objektiv mund t\u00eb ishte arritur nga nj\u00eb mas\u00eb m\u00eb pak kufizuese. Opinioni p\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb thekson ekuilibrin midis aft\u00ebsis\u00eb s\u00eb Shteteve An\u00ebtare p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur interesat strategjike dhe lirive themelore t\u00eb garantuara nga ligji i BE-s\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"mt-10 pt-6 border-t border-[var(--gold)]\/30 text-sm text-gray-600 italic\">\r\n <p class=\"font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] not-italic mb-1\">Petani Law & Tax<\/p>\r\n <p>Material juridik dhe informativ mbi t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e BE-s\u00eb, shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja dhe tregtin\u00eb e lir\u00eb. P\u00ebr zbatimin n\u00eb nj\u00eb rast konkret duhet t\u00eb analizohen legjislacioni komb\u00ebtar dhe korniza rregullatore evropiane.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n <!-- ENGLISH VERSION -->\r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-en\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl md:text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-6 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4 font-semibold\">Introduction<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">This case concerns the Opinion of Advocate General Tamara \u0106apeta in Case C-106\/22, Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g. The case concerns the screening of foreign direct investment (FDI) and the extent to which a Member State may restrict an investment originating from a third country when the investment is made indirectly through an EU-based company. The case arose after Hungary blocked the acquisition of a Hungarian company operating a quarry, on the grounds that the transaction could threaten the security of the supply of certain raw materials. The Advocate General examines whether such national legislation and the individual decision to block the acquisition are compatible with EU law, in particular with the FDI Screening Regulation, the free movement of capital and the freedom of establishment.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Facts of the case<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>In 2021, the Hungarian Minister for Innovation and Technology blocked the acquisition of a Hungarian company by another Hungarian company. The company being acquired owns a quarry from which sand, clay and gravel are extracted. In his decision, the Minister explained that allowing a company with indirect third-country ownership to take control of such a \u201cstrategic\u201d company would be contrary to Hungarian national interests, including the security of the supply of those raw materials. The indirect third-country ownership in question was linked to a company based in Bermuda. Therefore, although the acquisition was formally carried out between two Hungarian companies, the ultimate ownership involved a company from a third country. The Hungarian court, the F\u0151v\u00e1rosi T\u00f6rv\u00e9nysz\u00e9k (Budapest High Court), therefore asked whether EU law permits Hungary to introduce legislation restricting foreign direct investment in EU-based companies when such investments are implemented through another EU-based company.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Opinion of Advocate General \u0106apeta<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>In her Opinion, Advocate General Tamara \u0106apeta first considers that foreign direct investments originating from third countries fall within the scope of the FDI Screening Regulation. Regulation (EU) 2019\/452 establishes a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union. According to the Advocate General, the Regulation covers investments of any type through which a third-country investor gains effective participation or control over an EU company. This also includes investments where a third-country investor indirectly gains control over an EU company through the acquisition of an EU company by another EU company which is itself owned by a third-country company. Therefore, the fact that an investment is formally carried out between two companies established within the European Union does not necessarily prevent it from being considered a foreign direct investment originating from a third country.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">EU competence and the FDI Screening Regulation<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>Advocate General \u0106apeta considers that such foreign direct investments fall within the scope of Article 207 TFEU and therefore within the European Union\u2019s exclusive competence in the field of the common commercial policy. The FDI Screening Regulation allows Member States to establish mechanisms for screening foreign direct investments. According to the Advocate General, this should be understood as effectively \u201cdelegating\u201d certain competences back to the Member States in an area in which they had previously lost those competences following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore, although Member States may establish national screening mechanisms, those mechanisms must operate within the limits established by EU law.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Free movement of capital and freedom of establishment<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>The Advocate General also considers that national screening mechanisms enabled by the FDI Screening Regulation must comply with the rules of the internal market. National legislation must therefore require the authorities responsible for adopting individual screening decisions to provide legitimate and sufficient justifications when restricting capital flows. It follows from the FDI Screening Regulation that restrictions on capital movements may be justified only on grounds of security or public order. Such justifications can be relied upon only where there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society. Furthermore, any measure that restricts the movement of capital must be proportionate to the objective that it seeks to achieve.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Security of supply of raw materials<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>With regard to the specific justification given by the Hungarian Minister, the Advocate General recognises that securing the supply of certain raw materials may, in times of crisis, be capable of justifying a restriction on foreign direct investment on grounds of public policy or public security. These considerations may even justify restrictions on capital movements involving third countries that would otherwise not be acceptable under the internal market rules. However, the mere existence of a foreign investor or indirect ownership from a third country is not sufficient by itself. The national authorities must demonstrate that the investment actually creates a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Proportionality<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>The Advocate General also emphasises the principle of proportionality. A Member State may adopt restrictive measures in order to protect public security or public order, but those measures must be appropriate and necessary for achieving the objective pursued. In the present case, the Hungarian authorities therefore need to demonstrate why the indirect foreign ownership of the quarry represents a genuine and serious threat to the security of the supply of gravel, sand and clay in Hungary. They must also consider whether the same objective could have been achieved through a less restrictive measure.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Conclusion<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>In conclusion, Advocate General \u0106apeta considers that EU law does not, in principle, prevent national legislation from allowing the screening of foreign direct investments originating from third countries, even where the investment is implemented through an EU-based company. However, such national screening mechanisms must comply with EU law. In particular, individual decisions restricting investments must be properly justified, must pursue legitimate objectives such as public security or public order, and must comply with the principle of proportionality. In the specific case of Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g, the national court must therefore assess whether the Hungarian Minister sufficiently explained why the indirect foreign ownership of the quarry constituted a genuine and serious threat to the security of the supply of gravel, sand and clay in Hungary, and whether that objective could have been achieved by a less restrictive measure. The Opinion therefore highlights the balance between the Member States\u2019 ability to protect strategic interests and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by EU law.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"mt-10 pt-6 border-t border-[var(--gold)]\/30 text-sm text-gray-600 italic\">\r\n <p class=\"font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] not-italic mb-1\">Petani Law & Tax<\/p>\r\n <p>Legal and educational material regarding EU law, foreign direct investment screening, and free trade. Concrete application requires analyzing national legislation and the European regulatory framework.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n <!-- ITALIAN VERSION -->\r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-it\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl md:text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-6 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4 font-semibold\">Introduzione<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Questo caso riguarda il parere dell'Avvocato Generale Tamara \u0106apeta nella causa C-106\/22, Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g. La causa riguarda il controllo degli investimenti diretti esteri (IDE) e la misura in cui uno Stato membro pu\u00f2 limitare un investimento proveniente da un paese terzo quando l'investimento \u00e8 effettuato indirettamente tramite una societ\u00e0 avente sede nell'UE. La causa \u00e8 sorta dopo che l'Ungheria ha bloccato l'acquisizione di una societ\u00e0 ungherese che gestisce una cava, adducendo che l'operazione avrebbe potuto minacciare la sicurezza dell'approvvigionamento di determinate materie prime. L'Avvocato Generale esamina se tale normativa nazionale e la decisione individuale di bloccare l'acquisizione siano compatibili con il diritto dell'UE, in particolare con il regolamento sul controllo degli investimenti diretti esteri, la libera circolazione dei capitali e la libert\u00e0 di stabilimento.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Fatti di causa<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>Nel 2021, il Ministro ungherese per l'Innovazione e la Tecnologia ha bloccato l'acquisizione di una societ\u00e0 ungherese da parte di un'altra societ\u00e0 ungherese. La societ\u00e0 oggetto di acquisizione possiede una cava da cui si estraggono sabbia, argilla e ghiaia. Nella sua decisione, il Ministro ha spiegato che consentire a una societ\u00e0 con propriet\u00e0 indiretta di paesi terzi di assumere il controllo di una tale societ\u00e0 \"strategica\" sarebbe contrario agli interessi nazionali ungheresi, inclusa la sicurezza dell'approvvigionamento di tali materie prime. La propriet\u00e0 indiretta di paesi terzi in questione era collegata a una societ\u00e0 con sede nelle Bermuda. Pertanto, sebbene l'acquisizione sia stata formalmente effettuata tra due societ\u00e0 ungheresi, la propriet\u00e0 finale riguardava una societ\u00e0 di un paese terzo. Il tribunale ungherese, il F\u0151v\u00e1rosi T\u00f6rv\u00e9nysz\u00e9k (Tribunale di Budapest), ha quindi chiesto se il diritto dell'UE consenta all'Ungheria di introdurre una normativa che limiti gli investimenti diretti esteri in societ\u00e0 aventi sede nell'UE quando tali investimenti sono realizzati tramite un'altra societ\u00e0 avente sede nell'UE.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Parere dell'Avvocato Generale \u0106apeta<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>Nel suo parere, l'Avvocato Generale Tamara \u0106apeta ritiene anzitutto che gli investimenti diretti esteri provenienti da paesi terzi rientrino nell'ambito di applicazione del regolamento sul controllo degli investimenti diretti esteri. Il regolamento (UE) 2019\/452 istituisce un quadro per il controllo degli investimenti diretti esteri nell'Unione europea. Secondo l'Avvocato Generale, il regolamento copre investimenti di qualsiasi tipo attraverso i quali un investitore di un paese terzo acquisisce una partecipazione effettiva o il controllo su una societ\u00e0 dell'UE. Ci\u00f2 include anche gli investimenti in cui un investitore di un paese terzo acquisisce indirettamente il controllo su una societ\u00e0 dell'UE attraverso l'acquisizione di una societ\u00e0 dell'UE da parte di un'altra societ\u00e0 dell'UE che \u00e8 a sua volta posseduta da una societ\u00e0 di un paese terzo. Pertanto, il fatto che un investimento sia formalmente effettuato tra due societ\u00e0 stabilite all'interno dell'Unione europea non impedisce necessariamente che esso sia considerato un investimento diretto estero proveniente da un paese terzo.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Competenza dell'UE e regolamento sul controllo degli investimenti diretti esteri<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>L'Avvocato Generale \u0106apeta ritiene che tali investimenti diretti esteri rientrino nell'ambito di applicazione dell'articolo 207 TFUE e quindi nella competenza esclusiva dell'Unione europea nel settore della politica commerciale comune. Il regolamento sul controllo degli investimenti diretti esteri consente agli Stati membri di istituire meccanismi per il controllo degli investimenti diretti esteri. Secondo l'Avvocato Generale, ci\u00f2 deve essere inteso come una effettiva \"delega\" di determinate competenze agli Stati membri in un settore in cui essi avevano precedentemente perso tali competenze a seguito dell'entrata in vigore del trattato di Lisbona. Pertanto, sebbene gli Stati membri possano istituire meccanismi di controllo nazionali, tali meccanismi devono operare entro i limiti stabiliti dal diritto dell'UE.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Libera circolazione dei capitali e libert\u00e0 di stabilimento<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>L'Avvocato Generale ritiene inoltre che i meccanismi di controllo nazionali abilitati dal regolamento sul controllo degli investimenti diretti esteri debbano rispettare le regole del mercato interno. La normativa nazionale deve pertanto imporre alle autorit\u00e0 responsabili dell'adozione di decisioni di controllo individuali di fornire giustificazioni legittime e sufficienti in caso di restrizione dei flussi di capitali. Dal regolamento sul controllo degli investimenti diretti esteri discende che le restrizioni alla circolazione dei capitali possono essere giustificate solo per motivi di sicurezza o di ordine pubblico. Tali giustificazioni possono essere fatte valere solo in presenza di una minaccia effettiva e sufficientemente grave a un interesse fondamentale della societ\u00e0. Inoltre, qualsiasi misura che limiti la circolazione dei capitali deve essere proporzionata all'obiettivo che intende raggiungere.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Sicurezza dell'approvvigionamento di materie prime<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>Per quanto riguarda la specifica giustificazione fornita dal Ministro ungherese, l'Avvocato Generale riconosce che garantire l'approvvigionamento di determinate materie prime pu\u00f2, in tempi di crisi, essere idoneo a giustificare una restrizione degli investimenti diretti esteri per motivi di politica pubblica o di sicurezza pubblica. Tali considerazioni possono persino giustificare restrizioni alla circolazione dei capitali che coinvolgono paesi terzi che altrimenti non sarebbero accettabili secondo le regole del mercato interno. Tuttavia, la mera esistenza di un investitore straniero o di una propriet\u00e0 indiretta di un paese terzo non \u00e8 sufficiente di per s\u00e9. Le autorit\u00e0 nazionali devono dimostrare che l'investimento crea effettivamente una minaccia reale e sufficientemente grave a un interesse fondamentale della societ\u00e0.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Proporzionalit\u00e0<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>L'Avvocato Generale sottolinea altres\u00ec il principio di proporzionalit\u00e0. Uno Stato membro pu\u00f2 adottare misure restrittive al fine di tutelare la sicurezza pubblica o l'ordine pubblico, ma tali misure devono essere appropriate e necessarie per il conseguimento dell'obiettivo perseguito. Nel caso di specie, le autorit\u00e0 ungheresi devono quindi dimostrare perch\u00e9 la propriet\u00e0 straniera indiretta della cava rappresenti una minaccia reale e grave per la sicurezza dell'approvvigionamento di ghiaia, sabbia e argilla in Ungheria. Esse devono altres\u00ec valutare se lo stesso obiettivo avrebbe potuto essere raggiunto mediante una misura meno restrittiva.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-2xl font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] mt-8 mb-4\">Conclusione<\/h2>\r\n\r\n <p>In conclusione, l'Avvocato Generale \u0106apeta ritiene che il diritto dell'UE non vieti, in linea di principio, a una normativa nazionale di consentire il controllo degli investimenti diretti esteri provenienti da paesi terzi, anche quando l'investimento \u00e8 realizzato tramite una societ\u00e0 avente sede nell'UE. Tuttavia, tali meccanismi di controllo nazionali devono rispettare il diritto dell'UE. In particolare, le decisioni individuali che limitano gli investimenti devono essere adeguatamente motivate, perseguire obiettivi legittimi quali la sicurezza pubblica o l'ordine pubblico e rispettare il principio di proporzionalit\u00e0. Nel caso specifico di Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g, il giudice nazionale deve pertanto valutare se il Ministro ungherese abbia sufficientemente spiegato perch\u00e9 la propriet\u00e0 straniera indiretta della cava costituisca una minaccia reale e grave alla sicurezza dell'approvvigionamento di ghiaia, sabbia e argilla in Ungheria, e se tale obiettivo potesse essere raggiunto con una misura meno restrittiva. Il parere evidenzia pertanto l'equilibrio tra la capacit\u00e0 degli Stati membri di tutelare gli interessi strategici e le libert\u00e0 fondamentali garantite dal diritto dell'UE.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"mt-10 pt-6 border-t border-[var(--gold)]\/30 text-sm text-gray-600 italic\">\r\n <p class=\"font-bold text-[var(--brown-deep)] not-italic mb-1\">Petani Law & Tax<\/p>\r\n <p>Materiale giuridico e informativo sul diritto dell'UE, il controllo degli investimenti diretti esteri e il libero scambio. L'applicazione a un caso concreto richiede l'analisi della legislazione nazionale e del quadro normativo europeo.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n <\/main>\r\n\r\n<\/body>\r\n<\/html>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Opinioni i Avokatit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gAdvocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gParere dell’Avvocato Generale nella causa C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g E Drejta e Bashkimit Evropian & Shqyrtimi i InvestimeveEuropean Union Law & Investment ScreeningDiritto dell’Unione Europea & Controllo degli Investimenti Opinioni i Avokatit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gAdvocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gParere dell’Avvocato Generale nella causa C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g Hyrje Kjo \u00e7\u00ebshtje ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me Opinionin e Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme Tamara \u0106apeta n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22, Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g. \u00c7\u00ebshtja ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte (IHD) dhe mas\u00ebn n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn nj\u00eb Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t\u00eb kufizoj\u00eb nj\u00eb investim q\u00eb origjinon nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb kur investimi b\u00ebhet n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb kompanie me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE. \u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi pasi Hungaria bllokoi blerjen e nj\u00eb kompanie hungareze q\u00eb operon nj\u00eb gurore, me arsyetimin se transaksioni mund t\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnonte sigurin\u00eb e furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb tam\u00ebshme t\u00eb caktuara. Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme ekaminon n\u00ebse legjislacioni i till\u00eb komb\u00ebtar dhe vendimi individual p\u00ebr t\u00eb bllokuar blerjen jan\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me ligjin e BE-s\u00eb, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti me Rregulloren e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve, l\u00ebvizjen e lir\u00eb t\u00eb kapitalit dhe lirin\u00eb e vendosjes. Faktet e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes N\u00eb vitin 2021, Ministri i Inovacionit dhe Teknologjis\u00eb i Hungaris\u00eb bllokoi blerjen e nj\u00eb kompanie hungareze nga nj\u00eb kompani tjet\u00ebr hungareze. Kompania q\u00eb po blihet zot\u00ebron nj\u00eb gurore nga e cila nxirret r\u00ebr\u00eb, argjil\u00eb dhe zhavorr. N\u00eb vendimin e tij, Ministri shpjegoi se lejimi i nj\u00eb kompanie me pron\u00ebsi t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb marr\u00eb kontrollin e nj\u00eb kompanie t\u00eb till\u00eb \u201cstrategjike\u201d do t\u00eb ishte n\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtim me interesat komb\u00ebtare hungareze, p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb sigurin\u00eb e furnizimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtyre l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para. Pron\u00ebsia e t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga vendi i tret\u00eb n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte e lidhur me nj\u00eb kompani me baz\u00eb n\u00eb Bermuda. Prandaj, megjith\u00ebse blerja u krye zyrtarisht midis dy kompanive hungareze, pron\u00ebsia p\u00ebrfundimtare p\u00ebrfshinte nj\u00eb kompani nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb. Gjykata hungareze, F\u0151v\u00e1rosi T\u00f6rv\u00e9nysz\u00e9k (Gjykata e Lart\u00eb e Budapestit), prandaj pyeti n\u00ebse ligji i BE-s\u00eb lejon Hungarin\u00eb t\u00eb vendos\u00eb legjislacion q\u00eb kufizon investimet e huaja direkte n\u00eb kompani me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE kur investime t\u00eb tilla zbatohen p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb kompanie tjet\u00ebr me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE. Opinioni i Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme \u0106apeta N\u00eb Opinionin e saj, Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme Tamara \u0106apeta fillimisht konsideron se investimet e huaja direkte q\u00eb origjinojn\u00eb nga vendet e treta hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e veprimit t\u00eb Rregullores s\u00eb Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve. Rregullorja (BE) 2019\/452 vendos nj\u00eb korniz\u00eb p\u00ebr shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte n\u00eb Bashkimin Evropian. Sipas Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme, Rregullorja mbulon investimet e \u00e7do lloji p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cilave nj\u00eb investitor i nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb fiton pjes\u00ebmarrje ose kontroll efektiv mbi nj\u00eb kompani t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb. Kjo p\u00ebrfshin gjithashtu investimet ku nj\u00eb investitor i nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb fiton n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb kontrollin mbi nj\u00eb kompani t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb p\u00ebrmes blerjes s\u00eb nj\u00eb kompanie t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb nga nj\u00eb kompani tjet\u00ebr e BE-s\u00eb e cila vet\u00ebm n\u00eb vetvete zot\u00ebrohet nga nj\u00eb kompani e nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb. Prandaj, fakti q\u00eb nj\u00eb investim kryhet zyrtarisht midis dy kompanive t\u00eb themeluara brenda Bashkimit Evropian nuk e parandalon domosdoshm\u00ebrisht q\u00eb ai t\u00eb konsiderohet nj\u00eb investim i huaj direkt q\u00eb origjinon nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb. Kompetenca e BE-s\u00eb dhe Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme \u0106apeta konsideron se investimet e huaja direkte t\u00eb tilla hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e veprimit t\u00eb Nenit 207 TFEU dhe p\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb brenda kompetenc\u00ebs ekskluzive t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e politik\u00ebs tregtare t\u00eb p\u00ebrbashk\u00ebt. Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve u lejon Shteteve An\u00ebtare t\u00eb krijojn\u00eb mekanizma p\u00ebr shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte. Sipas Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme, kjo duhet t\u00eb kuptohet si \u201cdelegim\u201d efektiv i kompetencave t\u00eb caktuara p\u00ebrs\u00ebri tek Shtetet An\u00ebtare n\u00eb nj\u00eb fush\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn ato kishin humbur m\u00eb par\u00eb ato kompetenca pas hyrjes n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb Traktatit t\u00eb Lisbon\u00ebs. Prandaj, megjith\u00ebse Shtetet An\u00ebtare mund t\u00eb krijojn\u00eb mekanizma komb\u00ebtar\u00eb shqyrtimi, ato mekanizma duhet t\u00eb veprojn\u00eb brenda kufijve t\u00eb vendosur nga ligji i BE-s\u00eb. L\u00ebvizja e lir\u00eb e kapitalit dhe liria e vendosjes Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme gjithashtu konsideron se mekanizmat komb\u00ebtar\u00eb t\u00eb shqyrtimit t\u00eb mund\u00ebsuar nga Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve duhet t\u00eb respektojn\u00eb rregullat e tregut t\u00eb brendsh\u00ebm. Legjislacioni komb\u00ebtar duhet t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb prandaj q\u00eb autoritetet p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebse p\u00ebr miratimin e vendimeve individuale t\u00eb shqyrtimit t\u00eb sigurojn\u00eb arsyetime legjitime dhe t\u00eb mjaftueshme kur kufizojn\u00eb flukse kapitali. Nga Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve rrjedh se kufizimet e l\u00ebvizjeve t\u00eb kapitalit mund t\u00eb arsyetohen vet\u00ebm mbi baza sigurie ose rendi publik. Arsyetime t\u00eb tilla mund t\u00eb mb\u00ebshtetet vet\u00ebm kur ekziston nj\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnim i v\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe mjaftuesh\u00ebm serioz ndaj nj\u00eb interesi fundamental t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb. P\u00ebr m\u00eb tep\u00ebr, \u00e7do mas\u00eb q\u00eb kufizon l\u00ebvizjen e kapitalit duhet t\u00eb jet\u00eb proporcionale me objektivin q\u00eb ajo k\u00ebrkon t\u00eb arrij\u00eb. Siguria e furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para N\u00eb lidhje me arsyetimin specifik t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga Ministri hungarez, Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme pranon se sigurimi i furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para t\u00eb caktuara mundet, n\u00eb koh\u00eb krize, t\u00eb jet\u00eb i aft\u00eb t\u00eb arsyetoj\u00eb nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb investimit t\u00eb huaj direkt mbi baza t\u00eb politik\u00ebs publike ose siguris\u00eb publike. K\u00ebto konsiderata mund t\u00eb arsyetojn\u00eb madje edhe kufizime t\u00eb l\u00ebvizjeve t\u00eb kapitalit q\u00eb p\u00ebrfshijn\u00eb vende t\u00eb treta t\u00eb cilat ndryshe nuk do t\u00eb ishin t\u00eb pranueshme sipas rregullave t\u00eb tregut t\u00eb brendsh\u00ebm. Megjithat\u00eb, ekzistenca e thjesht\u00eb e nj\u00eb investitori t\u00eb huaj ose e nj\u00eb pron\u00ebsie t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb nuk mjaftohet vetvetiu. Autoritetet komb\u00ebtare duhet t\u00eb demonstrojn\u00eb se investimi krijon realisht nj\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnim t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe mjaftuesh\u00ebm serioz ndaj nj\u00eb interesi fundamental t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb. Proporcionaliteti Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme thekson gjithashtu parimin e proporcionalitetit. Nj\u00eb Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t\u00eb miratoj\u00eb masa kufizuese p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur sigurin\u00eb publike ose rendin publik, por ato masa duhet t\u00eb jen\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrshtatshme dhe t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr arritjen e objektivit t\u00eb ndjekur. N\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen aktuale, autoritetet hungareze prandaj duhet t\u00eb demonstrojn\u00eb pse pron\u00ebsia e t\u00ebrthort\u00eb e huaj e gurores p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebson<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"_thinkrank_schema_form_data":"","_thinkrank_selected_schema_type":"","_thinkrank_additional_schemas":"","_thinkrank_canonical_url":"","_thinkrank_og_title":"","_thinkrank_og_description":"","_thinkrank_og_image":"","_thinkrank_twitter_title":"","_thinkrank_twitter_description":"","_thinkrank_twitter_image":"","_thinkrank_imported_from":"","_thinkrank_focus_keywords":[],"_thinkrank_focus_keyword":"","_thinkrank_robots_meta_enabled":0,"_thinkrank_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_advanced_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-petani-blog"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g - Petani Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"sq_AL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Opinioni i Avokatit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gAdvocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gParere dell’Avvocato Generale nella causa C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g E Drejta e Bashkimit Evropian & Shqyrtimi i InvestimeveEuropean Union Law & Investment ScreeningDiritto dell’Unione Europea & Controllo degli Investimenti Opinioni i Avokatit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gAdvocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gParere dell’Avvocato Generale nella causa C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g Hyrje Kjo \u00e7\u00ebshtje ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me Opinionin e Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme Tamara \u0106apeta n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22, Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g. \u00c7\u00ebshtja ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte (IHD) dhe mas\u00ebn n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn nj\u00eb Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t\u00eb kufizoj\u00eb nj\u00eb investim q\u00eb origjinon nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb kur investimi b\u00ebhet n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb kompanie me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE. \u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi pasi Hungaria bllokoi blerjen e nj\u00eb kompanie hungareze q\u00eb operon nj\u00eb gurore, me arsyetimin se transaksioni mund t\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnonte sigurin\u00eb e furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb tam\u00ebshme t\u00eb caktuara. Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme ekaminon n\u00ebse legjislacioni i till\u00eb komb\u00ebtar dhe vendimi individual p\u00ebr t\u00eb bllokuar blerjen jan\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me ligjin e BE-s\u00eb, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti me Rregulloren e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve, l\u00ebvizjen e lir\u00eb t\u00eb kapitalit dhe lirin\u00eb e vendosjes. Faktet e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes N\u00eb vitin 2021, Ministri i Inovacionit dhe Teknologjis\u00eb i Hungaris\u00eb bllokoi blerjen e nj\u00eb kompanie hungareze nga nj\u00eb kompani tjet\u00ebr hungareze. Kompania q\u00eb po blihet zot\u00ebron nj\u00eb gurore nga e cila nxirret r\u00ebr\u00eb, argjil\u00eb dhe zhavorr. N\u00eb vendimin e tij, Ministri shpjegoi se lejimi i nj\u00eb kompanie me pron\u00ebsi t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb marr\u00eb kontrollin e nj\u00eb kompanie t\u00eb till\u00eb \u201cstrategjike\u201d do t\u00eb ishte n\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtim me interesat komb\u00ebtare hungareze, p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb sigurin\u00eb e furnizimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtyre l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para. Pron\u00ebsia e t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga vendi i tret\u00eb n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte e lidhur me nj\u00eb kompani me baz\u00eb n\u00eb Bermuda. Prandaj, megjith\u00ebse blerja u krye zyrtarisht midis dy kompanive hungareze, pron\u00ebsia p\u00ebrfundimtare p\u00ebrfshinte nj\u00eb kompani nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb. Gjykata hungareze, F\u0151v\u00e1rosi T\u00f6rv\u00e9nysz\u00e9k (Gjykata e Lart\u00eb e Budapestit), prandaj pyeti n\u00ebse ligji i BE-s\u00eb lejon Hungarin\u00eb t\u00eb vendos\u00eb legjislacion q\u00eb kufizon investimet e huaja direkte n\u00eb kompani me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE kur investime t\u00eb tilla zbatohen p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb kompanie tjet\u00ebr me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE. Opinioni i Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme \u0106apeta N\u00eb Opinionin e saj, Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme Tamara \u0106apeta fillimisht konsideron se investimet e huaja direkte q\u00eb origjinojn\u00eb nga vendet e treta hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e veprimit t\u00eb Rregullores s\u00eb Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve. Rregullorja (BE) 2019\/452 vendos nj\u00eb korniz\u00eb p\u00ebr shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte n\u00eb Bashkimin Evropian. Sipas Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme, Rregullorja mbulon investimet e \u00e7do lloji p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cilave nj\u00eb investitor i nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb fiton pjes\u00ebmarrje ose kontroll efektiv mbi nj\u00eb kompani t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb. Kjo p\u00ebrfshin gjithashtu investimet ku nj\u00eb investitor i nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb fiton n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb kontrollin mbi nj\u00eb kompani t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb p\u00ebrmes blerjes s\u00eb nj\u00eb kompanie t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb nga nj\u00eb kompani tjet\u00ebr e BE-s\u00eb e cila vet\u00ebm n\u00eb vetvete zot\u00ebrohet nga nj\u00eb kompani e nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb. Prandaj, fakti q\u00eb nj\u00eb investim kryhet zyrtarisht midis dy kompanive t\u00eb themeluara brenda Bashkimit Evropian nuk e parandalon domosdoshm\u00ebrisht q\u00eb ai t\u00eb konsiderohet nj\u00eb investim i huaj direkt q\u00eb origjinon nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb. Kompetenca e BE-s\u00eb dhe Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme \u0106apeta konsideron se investimet e huaja direkte t\u00eb tilla hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e veprimit t\u00eb Nenit 207 TFEU dhe p\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb brenda kompetenc\u00ebs ekskluzive t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e politik\u00ebs tregtare t\u00eb p\u00ebrbashk\u00ebt. Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve u lejon Shteteve An\u00ebtare t\u00eb krijojn\u00eb mekanizma p\u00ebr shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte. Sipas Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme, kjo duhet t\u00eb kuptohet si \u201cdelegim\u201d efektiv i kompetencave t\u00eb caktuara p\u00ebrs\u00ebri tek Shtetet An\u00ebtare n\u00eb nj\u00eb fush\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn ato kishin humbur m\u00eb par\u00eb ato kompetenca pas hyrjes n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb Traktatit t\u00eb Lisbon\u00ebs. Prandaj, megjith\u00ebse Shtetet An\u00ebtare mund t\u00eb krijojn\u00eb mekanizma komb\u00ebtar\u00eb shqyrtimi, ato mekanizma duhet t\u00eb veprojn\u00eb brenda kufijve t\u00eb vendosur nga ligji i BE-s\u00eb. L\u00ebvizja e lir\u00eb e kapitalit dhe liria e vendosjes Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme gjithashtu konsideron se mekanizmat komb\u00ebtar\u00eb t\u00eb shqyrtimit t\u00eb mund\u00ebsuar nga Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve duhet t\u00eb respektojn\u00eb rregullat e tregut t\u00eb brendsh\u00ebm. Legjislacioni komb\u00ebtar duhet t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb prandaj q\u00eb autoritetet p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebse p\u00ebr miratimin e vendimeve individuale t\u00eb shqyrtimit t\u00eb sigurojn\u00eb arsyetime legjitime dhe t\u00eb mjaftueshme kur kufizojn\u00eb flukse kapitali. Nga Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve rrjedh se kufizimet e l\u00ebvizjeve t\u00eb kapitalit mund t\u00eb arsyetohen vet\u00ebm mbi baza sigurie ose rendi publik. Arsyetime t\u00eb tilla mund t\u00eb mb\u00ebshtetet vet\u00ebm kur ekziston nj\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnim i v\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe mjaftuesh\u00ebm serioz ndaj nj\u00eb interesi fundamental t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb. P\u00ebr m\u00eb tep\u00ebr, \u00e7do mas\u00eb q\u00eb kufizon l\u00ebvizjen e kapitalit duhet t\u00eb jet\u00eb proporcionale me objektivin q\u00eb ajo k\u00ebrkon t\u00eb arrij\u00eb. Siguria e furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para N\u00eb lidhje me arsyetimin specifik t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga Ministri hungarez, Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme pranon se sigurimi i furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para t\u00eb caktuara mundet, n\u00eb koh\u00eb krize, t\u00eb jet\u00eb i aft\u00eb t\u00eb arsyetoj\u00eb nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb investimit t\u00eb huaj direkt mbi baza t\u00eb politik\u00ebs publike ose siguris\u00eb publike. K\u00ebto konsiderata mund t\u00eb arsyetojn\u00eb madje edhe kufizime t\u00eb l\u00ebvizjeve t\u00eb kapitalit q\u00eb p\u00ebrfshijn\u00eb vende t\u00eb treta t\u00eb cilat ndryshe nuk do t\u00eb ishin t\u00eb pranueshme sipas rregullave t\u00eb tregut t\u00eb brendsh\u00ebm. Megjithat\u00eb, ekzistenca e thjesht\u00eb e nj\u00eb investitori t\u00eb huaj ose e nj\u00eb pron\u00ebsie t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb nuk mjaftohet vetvetiu. Autoritetet komb\u00ebtare duhet t\u00eb demonstrojn\u00eb se investimi krijon realisht nj\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnim t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe mjaftuesh\u00ebm serioz ndaj nj\u00eb interesi fundamental t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb. Proporcionaliteti Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme thekson gjithashtu parimin e proporcionalitetit. Nj\u00eb Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t\u00eb miratoj\u00eb masa kufizuese p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur sigurin\u00eb publike ose rendin publik, por ato masa duhet t\u00eb jen\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrshtatshme dhe t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr arritjen e objektivit t\u00eb ndjekur. N\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen aktuale, autoritetet hungareze prandaj duhet t\u00eb demonstrojn\u00eb pse pron\u00ebsia e t\u00ebrthort\u00eb e huaj e gurores p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-07T09:15:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-07T09:20:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minuta\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\\\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-07T09:15:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-07T09:20:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3650,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Petani Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/\",\"name\":\"Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\\\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-07T09:15:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-07T09:20:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\\\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":155,\"caption\":\"Petani Law Firm\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\",\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Stafi\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g - Petani Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/","og_locale":"sq_AL","og_type":"article","og_title":"Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Opinioni i Avokatit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gAdvocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gParere dell’Avvocato Generale nella causa C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g E Drejta e Bashkimit Evropian & Shqyrtimi i InvestimeveEuropean Union Law & Investment ScreeningDiritto dell’Unione Europea & Controllo degli Investimenti Opinioni i Avokatit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gAdvocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1gParere dell’Avvocato Generale nella causa C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g Hyrje Kjo \u00e7\u00ebshtje ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me Opinionin e Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme Tamara \u0106apeta n\u00eb \u00c7\u00ebshtjen C-106\/22, Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g. \u00c7\u00ebshtja ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte (IHD) dhe mas\u00ebn n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn nj\u00eb Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t\u00eb kufizoj\u00eb nj\u00eb investim q\u00eb origjinon nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb kur investimi b\u00ebhet n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb kompanie me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE. \u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi pasi Hungaria bllokoi blerjen e nj\u00eb kompanie hungareze q\u00eb operon nj\u00eb gurore, me arsyetimin se transaksioni mund t\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnonte sigurin\u00eb e furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb tam\u00ebshme t\u00eb caktuara. Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme ekaminon n\u00ebse legjislacioni i till\u00eb komb\u00ebtar dhe vendimi individual p\u00ebr t\u00eb bllokuar blerjen jan\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me ligjin e BE-s\u00eb, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti me Rregulloren e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve, l\u00ebvizjen e lir\u00eb t\u00eb kapitalit dhe lirin\u00eb e vendosjes. Faktet e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes N\u00eb vitin 2021, Ministri i Inovacionit dhe Teknologjis\u00eb i Hungaris\u00eb bllokoi blerjen e nj\u00eb kompanie hungareze nga nj\u00eb kompani tjet\u00ebr hungareze. Kompania q\u00eb po blihet zot\u00ebron nj\u00eb gurore nga e cila nxirret r\u00ebr\u00eb, argjil\u00eb dhe zhavorr. N\u00eb vendimin e tij, Ministri shpjegoi se lejimi i nj\u00eb kompanie me pron\u00ebsi t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb marr\u00eb kontrollin e nj\u00eb kompanie t\u00eb till\u00eb \u201cstrategjike\u201d do t\u00eb ishte n\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtim me interesat komb\u00ebtare hungareze, p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb sigurin\u00eb e furnizimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtyre l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para. Pron\u00ebsia e t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga vendi i tret\u00eb n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte e lidhur me nj\u00eb kompani me baz\u00eb n\u00eb Bermuda. Prandaj, megjith\u00ebse blerja u krye zyrtarisht midis dy kompanive hungareze, pron\u00ebsia p\u00ebrfundimtare p\u00ebrfshinte nj\u00eb kompani nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb. Gjykata hungareze, F\u0151v\u00e1rosi T\u00f6rv\u00e9nysz\u00e9k (Gjykata e Lart\u00eb e Budapestit), prandaj pyeti n\u00ebse ligji i BE-s\u00eb lejon Hungarin\u00eb t\u00eb vendos\u00eb legjislacion q\u00eb kufizon investimet e huaja direkte n\u00eb kompani me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE kur investime t\u00eb tilla zbatohen p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb kompanie tjet\u00ebr me baz\u00eb n\u00eb BE. Opinioni i Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme \u0106apeta N\u00eb Opinionin e saj, Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme Tamara \u0106apeta fillimisht konsideron se investimet e huaja direkte q\u00eb origjinojn\u00eb nga vendet e treta hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e veprimit t\u00eb Rregullores s\u00eb Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve. Rregullorja (BE) 2019\/452 vendos nj\u00eb korniz\u00eb p\u00ebr shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte n\u00eb Bashkimin Evropian. Sipas Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme, Rregullorja mbulon investimet e \u00e7do lloji p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cilave nj\u00eb investitor i nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb fiton pjes\u00ebmarrje ose kontroll efektiv mbi nj\u00eb kompani t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb. Kjo p\u00ebrfshin gjithashtu investimet ku nj\u00eb investitor i nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb fiton n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb kontrollin mbi nj\u00eb kompani t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb p\u00ebrmes blerjes s\u00eb nj\u00eb kompanie t\u00eb BE-s\u00eb nga nj\u00eb kompani tjet\u00ebr e BE-s\u00eb e cila vet\u00ebm n\u00eb vetvete zot\u00ebrohet nga nj\u00eb kompani e nj\u00eb vendi t\u00eb tret\u00eb. Prandaj, fakti q\u00eb nj\u00eb investim kryhet zyrtarisht midis dy kompanive t\u00eb themeluara brenda Bashkimit Evropian nuk e parandalon domosdoshm\u00ebrisht q\u00eb ai t\u00eb konsiderohet nj\u00eb investim i huaj direkt q\u00eb origjinon nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb. Kompetenca e BE-s\u00eb dhe Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme \u0106apeta konsideron se investimet e huaja direkte t\u00eb tilla hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e veprimit t\u00eb Nenit 207 TFEU dhe p\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb brenda kompetenc\u00ebs ekskluzive t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian n\u00eb fush\u00ebn e politik\u00ebs tregtare t\u00eb p\u00ebrbashk\u00ebt. Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve u lejon Shteteve An\u00ebtare t\u00eb krijojn\u00eb mekanizma p\u00ebr shqyrtimin e investimeve t\u00eb huaja direkte. Sipas Avokates s\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithshme, kjo duhet t\u00eb kuptohet si \u201cdelegim\u201d efektiv i kompetencave t\u00eb caktuara p\u00ebrs\u00ebri tek Shtetet An\u00ebtare n\u00eb nj\u00eb fush\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn ato kishin humbur m\u00eb par\u00eb ato kompetenca pas hyrjes n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb Traktatit t\u00eb Lisbon\u00ebs. Prandaj, megjith\u00ebse Shtetet An\u00ebtare mund t\u00eb krijojn\u00eb mekanizma komb\u00ebtar\u00eb shqyrtimi, ato mekanizma duhet t\u00eb veprojn\u00eb brenda kufijve t\u00eb vendosur nga ligji i BE-s\u00eb. L\u00ebvizja e lir\u00eb e kapitalit dhe liria e vendosjes Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme gjithashtu konsideron se mekanizmat komb\u00ebtar\u00eb t\u00eb shqyrtimit t\u00eb mund\u00ebsuar nga Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve duhet t\u00eb respektojn\u00eb rregullat e tregut t\u00eb brendsh\u00ebm. Legjislacioni komb\u00ebtar duhet t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb prandaj q\u00eb autoritetet p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebse p\u00ebr miratimin e vendimeve individuale t\u00eb shqyrtimit t\u00eb sigurojn\u00eb arsyetime legjitime dhe t\u00eb mjaftueshme kur kufizojn\u00eb flukse kapitali. Nga Rregullorja e Shqyrtimit t\u00eb IHD-ve rrjedh se kufizimet e l\u00ebvizjeve t\u00eb kapitalit mund t\u00eb arsyetohen vet\u00ebm mbi baza sigurie ose rendi publik. Arsyetime t\u00eb tilla mund t\u00eb mb\u00ebshtetet vet\u00ebm kur ekziston nj\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnim i v\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe mjaftuesh\u00ebm serioz ndaj nj\u00eb interesi fundamental t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb. P\u00ebr m\u00eb tep\u00ebr, \u00e7do mas\u00eb q\u00eb kufizon l\u00ebvizjen e kapitalit duhet t\u00eb jet\u00eb proporcionale me objektivin q\u00eb ajo k\u00ebrkon t\u00eb arrij\u00eb. Siguria e furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para N\u00eb lidhje me arsyetimin specifik t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga Ministri hungarez, Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme pranon se sigurimi i furnizimit t\u00eb l\u00ebnd\u00ebve t\u00eb para t\u00eb caktuara mundet, n\u00eb koh\u00eb krize, t\u00eb jet\u00eb i aft\u00eb t\u00eb arsyetoj\u00eb nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb investimit t\u00eb huaj direkt mbi baza t\u00eb politik\u00ebs publike ose siguris\u00eb publike. K\u00ebto konsiderata mund t\u00eb arsyetojn\u00eb madje edhe kufizime t\u00eb l\u00ebvizjeve t\u00eb kapitalit q\u00eb p\u00ebrfshijn\u00eb vende t\u00eb treta t\u00eb cilat ndryshe nuk do t\u00eb ishin t\u00eb pranueshme sipas rregullave t\u00eb tregut t\u00eb brendsh\u00ebm. Megjithat\u00eb, ekzistenca e thjesht\u00eb e nj\u00eb investitori t\u00eb huaj ose e nj\u00eb pron\u00ebsie t\u00eb t\u00ebrthort\u00eb nga nj\u00eb vend i tret\u00eb nuk mjaftohet vetvetiu. Autoritetet komb\u00ebtare duhet t\u00eb demonstrojn\u00eb se investimi krijon realisht nj\u00eb k\u00ebrc\u00ebnim t\u00eb v\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe mjaftuesh\u00ebm serioz ndaj nj\u00eb interesi fundamental t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb. Proporcionaliteti Avokatja e P\u00ebrgjithshme thekson gjithashtu parimin e proporcionalitetit. Nj\u00eb Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t\u00eb miratoj\u00eb masa kufizuese p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur sigurin\u00eb publike ose rendin publik, por ato masa duhet t\u00eb jen\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrshtatshme dhe t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr arritjen e objektivit t\u00eb ndjekur. N\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen aktuale, autoritetet hungareze prandaj duhet t\u00eb demonstrojn\u00eb pse pron\u00ebsia e t\u00ebrthort\u00eb e huaj e gurores p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebson","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-09-07T09:15:45+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-09-07T09:20:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Stafi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Stafi","Est. reading time":"16 minuta"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g","datePublished":"2026-09-07T09:15:45+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-07T09:20:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/"},"wordCount":3650,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["Petani Blog"],"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/","name":"Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-09-07T09:15:45+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-07T09:20:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","width":2560,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/advocate-generals-opinion-in-case-c-106-22-xella-magyarorszag\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Advocate General\u2019s Opinion in Case C-106\/22 | Xella Magyarorsz\u00e1g"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","name":"Petani Law Firm","description":"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"sq"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization","name":"Petani Law Firm","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","width":500,"height":155,"caption":"Petani Law Firm"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90","name":"Stafi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","caption":"Stafi"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4339","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4339"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4339\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4344,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4339\/revisions\/4344"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}