natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Pro společnost Alro bylo racionální pořizovat dodávky přímo u společnosti Hidroelectrica, a ušetřit tudíž obchodní marži, pokud její dodavatel nezvyšoval hodnotu velkoobchodních dodávek ze strany společnosti Hidroelectrica.
Except for the supply of electricity on the regulated market (recitals 25-26) Hidroelectrica exercises its electricity supplying activities in open markets with non-captive buyers, in competition with other private or publicly owned suppliers.
Stejně tak je poměrně nevěrohodné, že by rumunský stát v roce 2008 a 2009 nutil společnost Hidroelectrica zachovat smlouvu se společností Luxten-Lighting, neboť v případě, že společnost Luxten-Lighting nezvyšovala hodnotu maloobchodního prodeje průmyslovým uživatelům či jiným kupujícím, by tito získali nižší ceny tím, že uzavřou smlouvy přímo se společností Hidroelectrica.
In particular, a significant volume of electricity well above the total amount of Hidroelectrica's supplies under all the contracts under investigation was traded through bilateral bespoke long-term contracts on the Romanian market, where many other suppliers compete (recitals 30 and 38).
Společnost Luxten-Lighting mimoto svou smlouvu se společností Hidroelectrica jednostranně ukončila v listopadu 2011 před tím, než Komise zahájila řízení; toto chování neodpovídá jednání příjemce státní podpory.
Hidroelectrica's contracts under scrutiny and, in particular, the three bespoke long-term contracts with Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon and Elsid, maintained after 1 January 2007, are, therefore, not abnormal or extraordinary, which would suggest a particular interest of the State in maintaining them.
Na základě všech výše uvedených úvah nebylo zjištěno, že smlouvy se společností Luxten-Lighting pro roky 2008–2009 a se společnostmi Electrocarbon a Elsid pro období 2007–2010 lze přičíst Rumunsku.
Furthermore, the contracts with Electrocarbon and Elsid were maintained and renegotiated by Hidroelectrica's receiver after insolvency proceedings were begun in 2012, which provides an indication that these contracts were still of interest to Hidroelectrica's temporary new management, well after Romania's accession to the European Union in 2007 and well after the contracts were concluded and were amended, in particular with regard to prices.
Jelikož tři smlouvy se společností Luxten-Lighting pro roky 2008–2009 a společnostmi Electrocarbon a Elsid pro období 2007–2010 neobsahují základní prvek přičitatelnosti Rumunsku, aby se jednalo o státní podporu, není nutné analyzovat, zda jsou splněny ostatní kumulativní podmínky pro použití tohoto stanovení, jako je možný dopad na hospodářskou soutěž a obchod mezi členskými státy.
Likewise, Hidroelectrica requested increased prices above contract levels and gave notice to Electrocarbon and Elsid of the interruption of supplies in order to prompt them to accept further price increases in 2010 (recital 22), thus behaving like a revenue-maximising seller and not like a grantor of aid.
Vzhledem k výše uvedeným skutečnostem nepředstavují tři předmětné smlouvy se společností Luxten-Lighting pro roky 2008–2009 a se společnostmi Electrocarbon a Elsid pro období 2007–2010 státní podporu ve smyslu čl. 107 odst. 1 SFEU.
This is not to say that the Romanian State is not in the position of being involved with the commercial contracts of State-owned electricity suppliers in the interests of specific and major industrial buyers.
ZÁVĚR
For instance, before Romania's accession to the EU, an Internal Note dated 2 February 2006, signed by the State Secretary of the Economy and Trade Ministry and approved by the Prime Minister, proposed the implementation of special preferential treatment for the ten largest energy-intensive users in Romania (including aluminium or steel producers supplied by Hidroelectrica or Nuclearelectrica).
Smlouvy, jichž se toto rozhodnutí týká, nepředstavují státní podporu ve smyslu čl. 107 odst. 1 SFEU,
As regards the contract with Arcelor-Mittal, in particular, Hidroelectrica's board of directors' decision No 13/2009 dated 16 December 2009 empowered Hidroelectrica's chief executive officer ‘to negotiate the ongoing sale-of-electricity contract in the best conditions for Hidroelectrica’.
PŘIJALA TOTO ROZHODNUTÍ:
The board of directors did this by approving the main terms of the contracts of 2009 and 2010 with ArcelorMittal.
Článek 1
Addendum No 17 in 2009 to the contract with Alro (inserting the LME formula in the calculation of the contract price) was also approved by Hidroelectrica's board of directors.
Smlouvy uzavřené mezi společnostmi Hidroelectrica a ArcelorMittal, Alpiq RomEnergie, Alpiq RomIndustries, EFT, Electrica, Electromagnetica, Energy Holding, EURO-PEC, Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon a Elsid a smlouva se společností Alro nepředstavují státní podporu ve smyslu čl. 107 odst. 1 Smlouvy o fungování Evropské unie.
Likewise, a memorandum of 3 February 2011 from the two General Managers of Nuclearelectrica and CE Hunedoara, which, like Hidroelectrica, are State-owned, requested the approval of the Ministry of Economy and Trade for the conclusion of a wholesale sale of electricity contract between Nuclearelectrica as a seller and CE Hunedoara as a purchaser.
Článek 2
This transaction needed a derogation from the provisions of Order 445/2009 requiring that any wholesale electricity transaction involving a State-owned enterprise should take place only on OPCOM.
Toto rozhodnutí je určeno Rumunsku.
This derogation was requested in view of the fact that the electricity acquired would serve ‘the electricity needs of a number of industrial consumers of national importance in 2011’.
V Bruselu dne 12. června 2015.
This memorandum was fully endorsed by the Minister of Economy and Trade.
Za Komisi
It follows that there is some indirect evidence that does not allow it to be completely ruled out that the Romanian State would have been involved in concluding, or making major amendments to, Hidroelectrica's contracts with big energy-intensive industrial buyers.
členka Komise
Moreover, the Commission has concluded that other purchase contracts into which Hidroelectrica entered with two other State-owned companies, Electrocentrale Deva and Termoelectrica, in 2008 and 2009, were imputable to the Romanian State.
Rozhodnutí Komise C(2012) 2516 final ze dne 25. dubna 2012 ve věci SA.
That conclusion was based mainly on direct evidence of the other two State-owned companies having sought approval of the contracts from the Minister responsible also for the State-owned Hidroelectrica as a means of (cross) financing their current operations and that of the State-owned mines which supplied them with coal, for social and other non-commercial reasons [61].
33623 (Úř. věst.
However, the considerations that may render plausible (or not exclude the possibility of) the Romanian State's being involved in a number of Hidroelectrica's contracts with big industrial buyers of national importance for the Romanian economy and with other State-owned sellers cannot be extrapolated from in such a way that all Hidroelectrica's commercial contracts and, in particular, those with Elsid, Electrocarbon and electricity traders are considered to be imputable to the Romanian State.
C 189, 29.6.2012, s. 3).
Unlike Electrocentrale Deva and Termoelectrica, Elsid, Electrocarbon and the electricity traders were privately-owned and none of them can be held to be a big industrial buyer of national importance for the Romanian economy.
Rozhodnutí Komise C(2012) 2517 final ze dne 25. dubna 2012 ve věci SA.
In particular, the evidence available in the investigation does not point at any specific interest or involvement on the part of the Romanian State in prompting Hidroelectrica to conclude or, after Romania's accession, to maintain the contracts with Elsid, Electrocarbon and the electricity traders.
33624 (Úř. věst.
Moreover, as regards Elsid, Electrocarbon and Luxten-Lighting, which were specifically singled out in the previous Section 7.1, several facts make it implausible that the decision to maintain the contracts and amend the prices of the contracts with Luxten-Lighting for 2008-2009 and with Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010 could be attributed to the Romanian authorities.
C 268, 5.9.2012, s. 21).
In particular, the actual prices under the three contracts were constantly increased each year.
Rozhodnutí Komise C(2012) 2542 final ze dne 25. dubna 2012 ve věci SA.
Between 2007 and 2010, the prices charged to Elsid, Electrocarbon and Luxten-Lighting increased by 44,5 %, 44,5 % and 41,4 %, respectively.
33451 (Úř. věst.
Price increases reduce the absolute value of the aid granted.
C 395, 20.12.2012, s. 5).
These contract changes which reduce the putative amount of the alleged State aid, were always triggered by, and for the benefit of, Hidroelectrica.
Rozhodnutí Komise C(2012) 2556 final ze dne 25. dubna 2012 ve věci SA.
A strategy aimed at reducing the amount of aid granted to the beneficiaries seems to contradict the purpose of granting aid or, at least, to be too sophisticated to be plausible.
33581 (Úř. věst.
Moreover, contrary to Alro and ArcelorMittal, Elsid, Electrocarbon and Luxten-Lighting cannot be deemed to be industrial consumers of national importance: by way of illustration, their annual consumption purchases from Hidroelectrica amounted to less than one tenth of those of Alro (Annex I).
C 395, 20.12.2012, s. 34).
It is therefore unlikely that decisions reducing the amount of aid by considerably increasing the contract prices can be imputed not to a commercial decision of Hidroelectrica but to a decision of the Romanian State aimed at providing aid to the alleged beneficiaries.
Úř. věst.
The fact that it is unlikely that the State would be involved in subtly reducing the amount of aid is also apparent with respect to the contracts with Electrocarbon and Elsid.
L 115, 9.5.2008, s. 92.
In particular, it is implausible that Hidroelectrica was acting under instructions from the State when requesting price increases above the contract prices in 2010, threatening to discontinue the electricity supply and arguing the matter in court (recital 22), for the requested price increases had the effect of reducing the putative amount of aid, and discontinued supplies could have jeopardised the productive activities of the buyers.
Věc SA.
This behaviour of not adhering to a contract price that purportedly provides aid, threatening to interrupt supplies and defending price increases in court is not behaviour typical of a grantor of aid, but is, rather, that of a revenue-maximising company defending its commercial interests and not concerned with following non-commercial goals, possibly under instructions received from the State.
33623 (Úř. věst.
As regards Luxten-Lighting, there is no obvious reason of public policy, such as low end-user prices, behind sales to a trader which can only sell retail at higher prices than if Hidroelectrica had sold the same electricity retail on its own.
C 189, 29.6.2012, s. 3); věc SA.
For instance, before being supplied retail by Hidroelectrica as from 2005, Alro purchased electricity from a trader, Energy Holding, that bought electricity wholesale from Hidroelectrica.
33624 (Úř. věst.
It was rational behaviour for Alro to be supplied directly by Hidroelectrica, thus saving a trading margin, if its supplier was not adding value to Hidroelectrica's wholesale supply.
C 268, 5.9.2012, s. 21). věc SA.
In the same vein, it is rather implausible that the Romanian State should have prompted Hidroelectrica to maintain the contract with Luxten-Lighting in 2008 and 2009, for, if Luxten-Lighting did not add value to its retail sales to industrial users or other buyers, the latter would have obtained lower prices by contracting directly with Hidroelectrica.
33451 (Úř. věst.
Furthermore, Luxten-Lighting unilaterally terminated its contract with Hidroelectrica in November 2011, before the Commission opened proceedings; this behaviour is not consistent with that of a beneficiary of State aid.
C 395, 20.12.2012, s. 5) a věc SA.
On the basis of all the above considerations, it is not established that the contracts with Luxten-Lighting for 2008-2009 and for Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010 are imputable to Romania.
33581 (Úř. věst.
As the essential element of imputability to Romania for the existence of State aid is not present in the three contracts with Luxten-Lighting for 2008-2009 and with Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010, it is not necessary to analyse whether the other cumulative conditions for the application of this provision, such as the potential effect on competition and trade between Member States, are met.
C 395, 20.12.2012, s. 34).
In the light of the above, the three contracts under scrutiny, with Luxten-Lighting for 2008-2009 and with Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010, do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Včetně předběžných připomínek společností Luxten-Lighting a Euro-Pec, které byly předloženy před zveřejněním výzvy k podání připomínek k rozhodnutí o zahájení řízení: od společnosti Luxten-Lighting dne 14. srpna 2012 a od společnosti Euro-Pec dne 13. srpna 2012.
CONCLUSION
Všichni členové představenstva společnosti Hidroelectrica kromě generálního ředitele společnosti Hidroelectrica a zástupce fondu Fondul Proprietatea (v roce 2010) zastávali jiné funkce na různých ministerstvech, přičemž k jejich jmenování došlo prostřednictvím nařízení vydaných ministerstvem hospodářství a obchodu takto: i) v období 2005–2006 byli členy představenstva společnosti Hidroelectrica osobní poradce v kabinetu ministra hospodářství a obchodu, ředitel kabinetu ministra pro malé a střední podniky, osobní poradce v kabinetu ministra na ministerstvu veřejných financí a osobní poradce na generálním sekretariátu vlády; ii) situace v letech 2007–2008 není známa; iii) v roce 2009 byl státní tajemník na ministerstvu hospodářství a obchodu zároveň předsedou představenstva společnosti Hidroelectrica a členy představenstva společnosti Hidroelectrica byli rovněž jiný státní tajemník na ministerstvu veřejných financí a dva generální ředitelé na ministerstvu hospodářství a obchodu; iv) v roce 2010 byli členy představenstva společnosti Hidroelectrica tři osobní poradci ministerstva hospodářství a obchodu, státní tajemník na ministerstvu financí a generální ředitel na ministerstvu hospodářství a obchodu.
The contracts covered by the present Decision do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU,
Viz Mezinárodní energetická agentura: „Projected costs of generating electricity“, vydání 2010, oddíl 4.2 „Country by country data on electricity generating costs“, s. 89.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Rozhodnutí soudu v Bukurešti č. 22456/3/2012 ze dne 26. června 2012.
Article 1
Rozhodnutí soudu v Bukurešti č. 6482 ze dne 26. června 2013.
The contracts concluded between Hidroelectrica and ArcelorMittal, Alpiq RomEnergie, Alpiq RomIndustries, EFT, Electrica, Electromagnetica, Energy Holding, Euro-Pec, Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon and Elsid, and the contract with Alro, do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
K dispozici pouze v rumunštině na adrese: http://www.euroinsol.eu/uploads/Raport%2059%20Hidro%20v11.pdf
Article 2
Společnost Electrica uzavřela se společností Hidroelectrica dvě krátkodobé smlouvy.
This Decision is addressed to Romania.
Smlouva se společností AlpiqRomEnergie, dvě smlouvy se společností Electrica a dvě smlouvy se společností ArcelorMittal.
Done at Brussels, 12 June 2015.
Pět smluv s obchodníky s elektřinou (Alpiq RomIndustries; Electromagnetica; Energy Holding; Euro-Pec; Luxten-Lighting).
For the Commission
Smlouvy se společností EFT (obchodník s elektřinou) a společností Alro.
Member of the Commission
Smlouvy se společnostmi Electrocarbon a Elsid a Alpiq RomEnergie (obchodník s elektřinou).
Commission Decision C(2012) 2516 final of 25 April 2012 concerning case SA.33623 (OJ C 189, 29.6.2012, p. 3).
Smlouvy se společnostmi Electrocarbon a Elsid.
Commission Decision C(2012) 2517 final of 25 April 2012 concerning case SA.33624 (OJ C 268, 5.9.2012, p. 21).
Dvě smlouvy se společností Arcelor Mittal.
Commission Decision C(2012) 2542 final of 25 April 2012 concerning case SA.33451 (OJ C 395, 20.12.2012, p. 5).
Dvě smlouvy se společností Electrica.
Commission Decision C(2012) 2556 final of 25 April 2012 concerning case SA.33581 (OJ C 395, 20.12.2012, p. 34).
Smlouvu se společností Luxten-Lighting (obchodník s elektřinou) společnost Luxten-Lighting dne 15. listopadu 2011 vypověděla s účinností od 1. ledna 2012.
OJ L 115, 9.5.2008, p. 92.
Platnost smluv se společnostmi Electrocarbon a Elsid skončila dne 13. března 2013 a platnost smlouvy se společností Electromagnetica (obchodník s elektřinou) skončila dne 30. dubna 2014.
Case SA.33623 (OJ C 189, 29.6.2012, p. 3); case SA.33624 (OJ C 268, 5.9.2012, p. 21); case SA.33451 (OJ C 395, 20.12.2012, p. 5) and case SA.33581 (OJ C 395, 20.12.2012, p. 34).
Dodatek č. 1 ke smlouvě se společností Electrocarbon uváděl předem stanovenou cenu (v pevné výši – stejná cena) do dne 28. února 2008; dodatek č. 2 ke smlouvě se společností Elsid uváděl předem stanovenou cenu do dne 31. prosince 2007.
Including the preliminary observations submitted by Luxten-Lighting and Euro-Pec before publication of the invitation to provide comments on the opening decision: Luxten-Lighting on 14 August 2012 and Euro-Pec on 13 August 2012.
Dne 1. července 2004 schválily smluvní strany tabulku, která stanovila pevnou cenu pro jednotlivé roky v období 2006–2013 (tj. dodatek č. 4 ke smlouvě se společností Electrocarbon a dodatek č. 5 ke smlouvě se společností Elsid).
All members of Hidroelectrica's Board of Directors except the General Director of Hidroelectrica and the representative of Fondul Proprietatea (2010), cumulated other functions in various Ministries and were appointed through Orders issued by the Ministry of Economy and Trade, as follows: (i) in 2005-2006: the personal adviser in the cabinet of the Minister of Economy and Trade; the director of cabinet of the Minister for Small and Medium Enterprises; the personal adviser in the cabinet of the Minister in the Ministry of Public Finance and the personal adviser in the General Secretariat of the Government were members of Hidroelectrica's Board of Directors; (ii) in 2007-2008 — situation unknown; (iii) in 2009: the State Secretary in the Ministry of Economy and Trade was also the President of Hidroelectrica's Board of Directors (2009), while another State Secretary in the Ministry of Public Finance and two general directors in the Ministry of Economy and Trade were also members of Hidroelectrica's Board of Directors; (iv) in 2010: three personal advisers in the Ministry of Economy and Trade, a State Secretary in the Ministry of Finance and a General Director in the Ministry of Economy and Trade were members of Hidroelectrica's Board of Directors.
Ceny byly následně dne 1. ledna 2005 pozměněny cenami v pevné výši, které v případě společnosti Elsid platily do dne 31. prosince 2007 a v případě společnosti Electrocarbon do dne 28. února 2008.
See International Energy Agency: ‘Projected costs of generating electricity’ 2010 edition, Section 4.2 ‘Country by country data on electricity generating costs’, p. 89.
Od roku 2006 byly smluvní ceny v případě společností Electrocarbon a Elsid každý rok upravovány.
Decision of Tribunal of Bucharest No 22456/3/2012 dated 26 June 2012.
Soud prvního stupně: soud v župě Olt – spis 2800/104/2010 (Electrocarbon) a soud v župě Dambovice – spis 4102/120/2010 (Elsid).
Decision of Tribunal of Bucharest No 6482 dated 26 June 2013.
Čl.
Available in Romanian only at http://www.euroinsol.eu/uploads/Raport%2059%20Hidro%20v11.pdf
10 odst. 2 každé ze tří smluv.
Electrica concluded two short-term contracts with Hidroelectrica.
Čl.
Contract with Alpiq RomEnergie; two contracts with Electrica; and two contracts with ArcelorMittal.
10 odst. 1 každé ze tří smluv.
Five contracts with electricity traders (Alpiq RomIndustries; Electromagnetica; Energy Holding; Euro-Pec; Luxten-Lighting).
§ 55 odst. 1 zákona o elektřině a zemním plynu č. 123/2012 ve znění zákona č. 127/2014.
Contracts with EFT (electricity trader) and Alro.
Zpráva společnosti KPMG, příloha 3 memoranda energetických holdingových společností ze dne 27. února 2012, s. 21, zdroj: úřad ANRE.
Contracts with Electrocarbon and Elsid.
Obchodní tajemství.
Two contracts with Arcelor Mittal.
Rozhodnutí Komise ze dne 5. března 2014 podle článku 102 Smlouvy, kterým se ukládají pokuty podle článku 7 nařízení Rady (ES) č. 1/2003 ve věci AT.39984 „Rumunská energetická burza/OPCOM“.
Two contracts with Electrica.
Seznam kupujících je uveden v příloze II tabulce 1.
The contract with Luxten-Lighting (electricity trader) was terminated by Luxten-Lighting by notice dated 15 November 2011, with effect from 1 January 2012.
Někteří obchodníci s elektřinou (tj. Alpiq RomIndustries, EFT, Alro Electrocarbon a Elsid).
Contracts with Electrocarbon and Elsid expired on 13 March 2013 and the contract with Electromagnetica (electricity trader) expired on 30 April 2014.
Jeden obchodník s elektřinou (EFT) a společnost Alro.
Addendum 1 to the contract with Electrocarbon provided for a pre-set price (at a fixed amount — the same price) until 28 February 2008; Addendum 2 to the contract with Elsid provided for a pre-set price until 31 December 2007.
Pouze v případě společnosti Alro.
On 1 July 2004 the parties agreed on a table pre-setting a per year fixed price for the period 2006-2013 (i.e.: Addendum 4 to the contract with Electrocarbon and Addendum 5 to the contract with Elsid).
Nařízení Rady (ES) č. 659/1999 ze dne 22. března 1999, kterým se stanoví prováděcí pravidla k článku 93 Smlouvy o ES (Úř. věst.
The prices were subsequently modified on 1 January 2005 with prices pre-set at a fixed amount until 31 December 2007 for Elsid and until 28 February 2008, for Electrocarbon.
L 83, 27.3.1999, s. 1).
As of 2006 the contract prices were readjusted yearly for Electrocarbon and Elsid.
Na rozdíl od případů maďarských preferenčních sazeb za elektřinu – T-80/06 a T-182/09 BudapestiErömü v.
Court of first instance: Olt Tribunal — File 2800/104/2010 (Electrocarbon) and Dambovita Tribunal — File 4102/120/2010 (Elsid).
Komise (ECLI:EU:T:2012:65).
Article 10(2) of each of the three contracts.
Další informace viz výroční monitorovací zpráva úřadu ANRE za rok 2007 a následující roky.
Article 10(1) of each of the three contracts.
Alpiq RomIndustries a Alpiq RomEnergie.
Article 55 paragraph 1 of the Electricity and Gas Law No 123/2012 as further amended by Law No 127/2014.
Věc Francouzská republika v.
KPMG Report, Annex 3 to Memorandum of Energy Holdings dated 27 February 2012, p. 8, source: Hidroelectrica's Annual Reports, 2010 Administrator's Report, KPMG Analysis.
Komise (Stardust Marine), C-482/99, Recueil 2002, s. I-4397.
KPMG report, Annex 3 to the Memorandum of Energy Holdings dated 27 February 2012, p. 21, source: ANRE.
AlpiqRomEnergie, AlpiqRomIndustrie, Electromagnetica, Energy Holding, Electrocarbon a Elsid, ArcelorMittal a Alro.
Business secret.
Energy Holding, obchodník s elektřinou.
Commission Decision of 5 March 2014, in application of Article 102 TFEU imposing fines pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in case AT.39 984 ‘Romanian Power Exchange/OPCOM’.
EFT, Electromagnetica, Luxten-Lighting a Energy Holding.
The dataset used for benchmarking included 114 observations, covering the period 2007-2010.
EFT, Electromagnetica, Luxten-Lighting a Alro.
The dataset included the following information: the identity of the seller and the buyer, the type of contract, the date of entry into force and the expiry date, as well as the quantity, profile of supply and the weighted average price for each year from 2007 to 2013.
EFT, Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon a Elsid.
The list of buyers is provided in Annex II, Table 1.
Alpiq RomEnergy a Alpiq RomIndustries.
Certain electricity traders (i.e.: Alpiq RomIndustries, EFT, Alro Electrocarbon and Elsid).
Spojené věci Budapesti Erömü v.
One electricity trader (EFT) and Alro.
Evropská komise, T-80/06 a T-182/09, body 50 až 62.
Only in the case of Alro.