natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Modtageren af ulovlig støtte kan dog ikke forhindres i at påberåbe sig usædvanlige omstændigheder, som har givet anledning til begrundede forhåbninger om, at støtten var lovlig, og derfor at modsætte sig tilbagesøgningen [121].
However, a recipient of unlawful aid is not precluded from relying on exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it had legitimately assumed the aid to be lawful and thus declining to refund that aid [121].
På den anden side må det fastslås, at »når forudseende og påpasselige erhvervsdrivende kan påregne gennemførelsen af en fællesskabsforanstaltning, der kan påvirke deres interesser, kan de imidlertid ikke påberåbe sig et sådant princip, når foranstaltningen gennemføres« [122].
On the other hand, if ‘a prudent and discriminating trader could have foreseen the adoption of a Community measure likely to affect his interests, he cannot plead that principle if the measure is adopted’ [122].
Kommissionen har undersøgt, om de usædvanlige omstændigheder, som Alcoa har gjort gældende, og som er knyttet til Alumix-beslutningen, kunne skabe en berettiget forventning.
The Commission has examined whether the exceptional circumstances alleged by Alcoa, which are linked to the existence of the Alumix decision, may have led it to entertain such legitimate expectations.
Domstolen har konstant fastslået, at den berettigede forventning udelukkende kan opstå ved, at fællesskabsinstitutionerne har afgivet præcise, ubetingede og konsekvente tilsagn, som har givet anledning til begrundede forhåbninger om, at foranstaltningen ikke udgør støtte, eller at den er lovlig [123].
The Court has consistently held that legitimate expectations can arise from only precise, unconditional and concordant assurances, given by the Community institutions, of such a nature as to give rise to a justified expectation that the measure was not aid or was lawful [123].
Alcoa fremfører, at den, selv om den gældende ordning ikke betragtes som »eksisterende støtte«, under alle omstændigheder kan påberåbe sig den berettigede forventning, fordi den havde overtaget Alumix og besluttet at foretage yderligere investeringer i de to smelteværker på grundlag af den konklusion i Alumix-beslutningen, at der ikke var tale om statsstøtte.
Alcoa submits that, even if the current scheme was not to be considered as ‘existing aid’, Alcoa could still claim legitimate expectations, because it had relied upon the Alumix finding that there was no aid when it purchased Alumix and decided to make further investments in the two smelters.
Alcoa fremdrager også et præcedens i Kommissionens beslutning om skattefritagelse for stålvirksomheder, der etablerer fabrikker i udlandet [124] (jf. betragtning 97).
Alcoa also cites as a precedent the Commission decision on tax-free treatment for steel companies setting up establishments abroad [124] (see recital 97 above).
I ovennævnte kommissionsbeslutning om skattefritagelse for stålvirksomheder i Frankrig, kunne bestemmelserne om eksisterende støtte ikke anvendes direkte, idet støtte til stålindustrien falder ind under EKSF-traktaten, som ikke anerkendte begrebet eksisterende støtte.
In that Commission decision, which concerned the tax-free treatment granted by France to steel companies, the provisions on existing aid could not be applied directly, since aid to the steel sector was governed by the ECSC Treaty, which did not recognise the concept of existing aid.
Kommissionen fastslog, at støttemodtagerne havde en berettiget forventning på grundlag af en analog anvendelse af EF-traktatens bestemmelser og krævede derfor ikke støtten tilbagebetalt.
The Commission recognised the beneficiaries’ legitimate expectations by applying, by analogy, the relevant provisions of the EC Treaty, and accordingly did not order the recovery of the aid.
Sagen svarede dog stort set til sagen vedrørende Koordinationscentre, som er hjemmehørende i Belgien, hvor Kommissionen ændrede sin vurdering af en foranstaltning, som den tidligere havde anset for ikke at udgøre støtte, uden at foranstaltningen var blevet ændret af medlemsstaten.
However, the case was in substance similar to the Belgian Coordination Centres case, in that the Commission had changed its appraisal of a measure previously classified as not comprising aid without that measure having been altered by the Member State.
I overensstemmelse med bemærkningerne i betragtning 210 må Kommissionen afvise den påstand, at det på grundlag af ovennævnte beslutning kan fastslås, at Alcoa havde en berettiget forventning.
The considerations developed in recital 210 meant that the Commission must dismiss the claim that the cited decision can be taken as a basis to acknowledge legitimate expectations on the part of Alcoa.
Hvad angår den betydning, som Alcoa tillægger Alumix-beslutningen, skal det bemærkes, at denne beslutning udelukkende kunne give støttemodtageren en berettiget forventning om, at den takstordning, der vurderes deri, ikke udgjorde støtte indtil den 31. december 2005.
As regards the relevance attributed by Alcoa to the Alumix decision, it should be pointed out that that decision could give the beneficiary a legitimate expectation that the tariff arrangement assessed therein did not constitute aid only until 31 December 2005.
Der kan derimod ikke udledes nogen berettiget forventning af Alumix-beslutningen vedrørende forlængelsen af taksten i henhold til artikel 11, stk. 11, i lov nr. 80/2005.
No legitimate expectations can, however, be derived from the Alumix decision in respect of the extension in time of the tariff provided for by Article 11(11) of Law No 80/2005.
Alcoa kunne ikke have nogen berettiget forventning om, at foranstaltningen fra 2005, som forlængede taksten indtil 2010, uden videre ville blive anset for ikke at udgøre støtte.
Alcoa could not legitimately have entertained the expectation that the 2005 measure, which prolonged the tariff until 2010, would likewise automatically qualify as not constituting aid.
Da der var tale om en foranstaltning, som var blevet a) ændret væsentligt og b) forlænget, burde en påpasselig støttemodtager have sikret sig, at støtten var lovlig.
Faced with a measure which had been (a) substantially amended and (b) extended in time, a prudent beneficiary should have verified that the aid was lawful.
Det fastslås udtrykkeligt i præmis 109 i Rettens dom, at der ikke kan udledes nogen berettiget forventning af Alumix-beslutningen.
The lack of legitimate expectations deriving from the Alumix decision is expressly confirmed in paragraph 109 of the Court’s judgment.
Den omstændighed, at Alcoa havde foretaget investeringer i sine italienske anlæg, kan ikke skabe nogen berettiget forventning med hensyn til, at takstordningen, der blev ændret og forlænget, er lovlig, da det stod klart fra begyndelsen, at den oprindelige Alumix-takst kun skulle gælde i ti år, og Alcoa planlagde sine investeringer på dette grundlag og ikke ud fra den antagelse, at taksten ville have ubegrænset gyldighed.
The fact that Alcoa has made investments in its Italian plants is not capable of giving rise to legitimate expectations vis-à-vis the lawfulness of the amended and extended tariff arrangement, given that it was clear when the original Alcoa tariff was granted that it was to last for no more than ten years and that Alcoa programmed its own investments on that basis and not on the assumption of the unlimited duration of the tariff.
På baggrund af ovenstående har Kommissionen konkluderet, at den godkendte Alumix-takst ikke kunne give Alcoa en berettiget forventning om, at den pågældende foranstaltning var lovlig.
In the light of the above considerations, the Commission has concluded that there are no extraordinary circumstances which could have led Alcoa to entertain legitimate expectations as to the lawfulness of the measure at issue.
Hvad angår det sardinske anlæg, har Kommissionen også undersøgt, om 2007-brevet og den efterfølgende udvikling kan give Alcoa en berettiget forventning.
With respect to the Sardinian plant, the Commission has also considered whether the 2007 letter and the subsequent developments deriving from it could constitute a source of legitimate expectations for Alcoa.
Det skal i denne forbindelse bemærkes, at Kommissionen ikke i 2007-brevet gav præcise og ubetingede tilsagn om, at det på grundlag af VPP kunne konkluderes, at støtten var forenelig.
It should be noted in this respect that in the 2007 letter the Commission did not give any precise and unconditional assurances as to the value of the VPP for the purposes of a finding on the compatibility of the aid.
I brevet fra Kommissionens tjenestegrene blev det blot anført, at konkurrencekommissæren var villig til at forelægge kollegiet et forslag om godkendelse af en kort overgangsperiode for gradvis afskaffelse af el-taksterne på Sardinien.
The letter from the services of the Commission did no more than indicate that ‘the European Commissioner for Competition will be willing to propose to the College a gradual and brief phasing-out period for the electricity tariffs in Sardinia’.
Denne formulering indebar, at en positiv udgang på sagen under alle omstændigheder var betinget af, at kommissærkollegiet godkendte beslutningsforslaget.
That wording implied that a positive outcome to the case would, in any event, be conditional on approval of the draft decision by the whole Commission.
I betragtning af 2007-brevets status (et brev fra en tjenestegren) og dets indhold (et betinget tilsagn) kan det ikke skabe en berettiget forventning af den af Domstolen anerkendte art.
In view of its status (a letter from the Commission departments) and its content (a conditional assurance), the 2007 letter could not, therefore, give rise to legitimate expectations of a nature recognised by the Court.
Andre generelle fællesskabsretlige principper
Other general principles of Community law
Hverken Italien eller Alcoa har påberåbt sig sådanne principper.
Neither Italy or Alcoa have advanced arguments in this respect.
Kommissionen har dog vurderet, om andre generelle fællesskabsretlige principper helt eller delvis forhindrer tilbagesøgning.
However, the Commission has examined whether other general principles of Community law prevent recovery, in full or in part.
Hvad angår anlægget i Veneto, skal det bemærkes, at tilbagesøgningen ikke strider mod nogen generelle fællesskabsretlige principper. Kommissionen havde i sin beslutning om indledning af proceduren udtrykt tvivl om, hvorvidt støtten til anlægget i Veneto var forenelig, og intet har under proceduren kunnet fjerne denne tvivl.
With respect to the plant located in Veneto, it should be noted that recovery does not violate any general principle of Community law; the Commission expressed serious doubts about the compatibility of the aid for the Veneto site in the opening decision and nothing in the subsequent course of the proceedings could have changed the impression given to Alcoa by the opening of the investigation.
Hvad angår anlægget på Sardinien, har Kommissionen undersøgt den situation, som 2007-brevet og den efterfølgende udvikling har skabt.
As for the plant located in Sardinia, the Commission has examined the situation deriving from the 2007 letter and its subsequent developments.
Som anført i betragtning 275, indeholdt brevet fra Kommissionens tjenestegrene ikke præcise og ubetingede tilsagn om, at det på grundlag af VPP kunne konkluderes, at støtten var forenelig, men angav blot, at konkurrencekommissæren, hvis Italien havde reageret hurtigt på forslaget, ville foreslå Kommissionen, at den godkendte en kortvarig udfasning af taksten.
As illustrated above in recital 275, the letter from the Commission departments did not give any precise and unconditional assurances as to the value of the VPP for the purposes of a finding on the compatibility of the aid, but confined itself to indicating that, if Italy reacted promptly to the proposal, the Commissioner for Competition would propose a brief phasing-out period for the tariff for approval by the Commission.
Tanken om VPP forelå dog stadig under hele proceduren, indtil Italien besluttede at realisere den.
However, the idea of a VPP was put to one side in the subsequent course of the proceedings, until Italy decided to put it into effect.
På trods af dette forslag er Kommissionen, som forklaret i betragtning 253-259, nået til den konklusion, at det ikke kan fastslås på grundlag af VPP, at støtten er forenelig, hvilket hænger sammen med omstændighederne omkring foranstaltningen og VPP's art, og ikke drøftelserne med Italien.
Despite this proposal, as explained in recitals 253 to 259 above, the Commission came to the conclusion that the VPP could not constitute a basis for a decision on the compatibility of the aid, for reasons related to the circumstances of the measure and the general nature of the VPP, reasons which did not derive from its discussions with Italy.
Det bør dog overvejes, om de langtrukne drøftelser om VPP kan medføre, at der skal ses bort fra generelle formodning, at det, når en ulovlig støtteforanstaltning anses for at være uforenelig, nødvendigvis skal indebære fuld tilbagebetaling af støtten.
There is, however, reason to ponder whether the prolonged talks on the VPP might overcome the presumption that an assessment of incompatibility of an unlawful aid measure ought necessarily to lead to the full refund of that aid.
Selv om undersøgelsen ikke i sig selv har været usædvanlig langvarig (tre år), erkender Kommissionen, at den i den foreliggende sag er blevet forlænget af drøftelserne om indførelse af VPP.
Irrespective of the fact that the duration of the investigation was not, in itself, excessively long (three years), the Commission acknowledges that, in the present case, the duration was prolonged by talks regarding the introduction of a VPP.
Selv om en af årsagerne til, at drøftelserne om VPP trak i langdrag i vid udstrækning, skyldes, at Italien reagerede sent på forslaget, erkender Kommissionen, at de langtrukne drøftelser om VPP ikke er i overensstemmelse med princippet om forsvarlig forvaltning og har påvirket støttemodtagerens adfærd under proceduren.
Although the length of the talks on the VPP was in large part due to Italy’s belated reply to the proposal, the Commission acknowledges that the lengthy discussions on the VPP were not conducive to the principle of sound administration, and affected the behaviour of the beneficiary over the subsequent course of the investigation.
Udsigten til, at der på grund af VPP kunne sikres en positiv udgang på sagen for det sardiske anlæg — udsigten var foranlediget af Kommissionen og blev ikke fjernet tilstrækkelig tidligt — kan have ændret Alcoas opfattelse af risikoen for tilbagesøgning af støtten til det sardiske anlæg efter indledningen af proceduren, og dette kan have påvirket dens strategi med hensyn til investeringerne og aktiviteternes placering.
The prospect that, thanks to the VPP, a favourable outcome to the case might be secured for the Sardinian plant, a prospect which was created by the Commission and not dissipated in a sufficiently timely manner, may have altered Alcoa’s perception of the risk of recovery of the aid to the Sardinian plant following the opening of the proceedings, and this may in turn have influenced its business strategy in terms of investments and the siting of activities.
Hvis ikke 2007-brevet var blevet fremsendt, havde Alcoa måske besluttet ikke at fortsætte sine aktiviteter på Sardinien og derved begrænset det beløb, der kunne kræves tilbagebetalt.
If the 2007 letter had not been sent, Alcoa might have decided not to continue activities in Sardinia, and thus limited the amount to be refunded.
På denne baggrund finder Kommissionen det rimeligt, at der ikke kræves tilbagebetaling for det sardiske anlæg for perioden fra brevets datering, dvs. den 19. januar 2007 og indtil vedtagelsen af denne beslutning.
In the light of the above circumstances, the Commission find that it is appropriate not to impose the recovery of the aid for the Sardinian plant for the period from the date of sending the letter, 19 January 2007, until that of this Decision.
Opgørelse af de beløb, der skal tilbagesøges
Quantification of the amounts to be recovered
Det må konkluderes, at hele den uforenelige støtte, som Alcoa har modtaget i henhold til artikel 11, stk. 11, i lov nr. 80/2005 fra den 1. januar 2006 og frem, skal tilbagebetales med renter i overensstemmelse med kapitel V i Kommissionens forordning nr. 794/2004 af 21. april 2004 om gennemførelse af Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 om fastlæggelse af regler for anvendelsen af EF-traktatens artikel 93 [125].
In conclusion, all amounts of incompatible aid received by Alcoa pursuant to Article 11(11) of Law No 80/2005 from 1 January 2006 onwards must be recovered, with interest, in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty [125].
Tilbagebetalingen tager sigte på at genskabe den konkurrencesituation, som støttemodtageren befandt sig i før udbetalingen af den uforenelige støtte.
The purpose of recovery is to restore the competitive situation of the beneficiary prevailing before the grant of the incompatible aid.
For at fastslå, hvor store beløb der skal tilbagebetales, er det derfor nødvendigt at fastsætte den pris, som Alcoa skulle have betalt på markedet for el-leverancer, hvis taksten ikke var blevet forlænget.
In order to quantify the amounts to be recovered, it is therefore necessary to establish the price Alcoa would have paid on the market for its electricity supplies if the tariff had not been prolonged.
Som anført under betragtning 157 havde Alcoa indgået en bilateral kontrakt med ENEL om en nominel pris, der næsten svarede til ENEL's standardtakst for levering af højspændingsselektricitet.
As shown in recital 157, Alcoa established a bilateral contract with ENEL for a nominal price roughly equivalent to the standard high-voltage tariff charged by the utility.
Ifølge Kommissionen er det denne pris, Alcoa skulle have betalt for sine el-leverancer, hvis ikke der havde været anvendt en nedsat takst.
In the Commission’s view, this is the price Alcoa would have paid for its electricity supplies in the absence of the tariff.
Kommissionen mener derfor, at det beløb, der skal tilbagebetales, svarer til forskellen mellem kontraktprisen og den nedsatte takst.
The Commission therefore considers that the amount to be recovered equals the difference between the contractual price and the preferential price.
Beløbet er det samme som den kompensation, virksomheden har modtaget i den pågældende periode [126].
This amount coincides with the compensatory contribution received by the company over the period concerned [126].
Kommissionen anvendte samme beregningsmetode i Terni-sagen [127], som kan sammenlignes direkte med den foreliggende.
The same calculation method was prescribed by the Commission in the Terni case [127], which is directly comparable to the present case.
For fuldstændighedens skyld har Kommissionen også undersøgt — men afvist — det argument, at Alcoa uden statsstøtten ville have forhandlet sig frem til en lavere pris med sin leverandør, og at tilbagebetalingen derfor skal baseres på et andet og angiveligt mere realistisk parameter.
For the sake of completeness, the Commission has examined – and rejected – the argument that, in the absence of the State subsidy, Alcoa would have negotiated a better price with the utility, and that therefore recovery should be based on a different, supposedly more realistic benchmark.
For det første er Kommissionen principielt ikke positivt indstillet over for tanken om at opstille et teoretisk parameter, når der foreligger en konkret og tilfredsstillende reference.
Firstly, the Commission is not in favour, as a matter of principle, of the idea of constructing a theoretical benchmark when a concrete and appropriate benchmark is available.
I Unicredito-sagen [128] afviste Domstolen en tilsvarende teoretisk fremgangsmåde og fastslog følgende: »genoprettelsen af den oprindelige situation […] medfører ikke, at fortiden rekonstrueres med et andet forløb på grundlag af hypotetiske elementer som de ofte mangfoldige valg, der kunne være foretaget af de berørte erhvervsdrivende«.
In Unicredito [128], the Court rejected a similarly hypothetical approach and ruled that ‘re-establishing the status quo ante… does not imply reconstructing past events differently on the basis of hypothetical elements such as the choices, often numerous, which could have been made by the operators concerned’.
For det andet havde Alcoa, efter at Kommissionen havde indledt den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure med hensyn til taksten i 2004 og i 2006, og efter at Alcoa var blevet opfordret til at stille en moderselskabsgaranti til dækning af risikoen for tilbagebetaling, et klart incitament til at forhandle med ENEL om de bedst mulige betingelser for energileverancer.
Therefore, after the Commission opened formal investigation proceedings into the tariff in 2004 and 2006 and Alcoa was required to provide a parent company guarantee to cover the risk of recovery, the company had a clear incentive to negotiate the best possible terms of supply with ENEL.
Der er derfor ikke noget, der tyder på, at den kontraktpris, der var blevet forhandlet frit mellem Alcoa og ENEL ikke korrekt afspejlede den markedspris, som Alcoa skulle have betalt uden støtten.
There are, therefore, no indications that the contractual price freely negotiated between Alcoa and ENEL misrepresents the market price Alcoa would have paid in the absence of the aid.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at Italien ulovligt, i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 88, stk. 3, har gennemført artikel 1 i præsidentdekret (Decreto del presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri) af 6. februar 2004 og artikel 11, stk. 11, i lovdekret nr. 35/05, ophøjet til lov nr. 80/2005 om forlængelse af den el-takst, der anvendes på Alcoa.
The Commission finds that Italy has unlawfully implemented, in breach of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, the provisions of Article 1 of the Prime Ministerial Decree of 6 February 2004 and Article 11(11) of Decree-Law No 35/05, converted into statute by Law No 80/2005, providing for the extension in time of the preferential electricity tariff applicable to Alcoa.
Kommissionen mener, at en sådan foranstaltning, der må betragtes som ren driftsstøtte, ikke falder ind under nogen af undtagelserne fra EF-traktatens generelle forbud mod statsstøtte, og at den derfor er uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
The Commission considers that the measure, which constitutes pure operating aid, is not eligible for any derogation from the general prohibition of State aid under the EC Treaty, and is therefore incompatible with the common market.
Støtten må derfor ikke længere udbetales, og den allerede udbetalte støtte skal kræves tilbagebetalt som fastsat i det følgende.
Therefore, all payments of outstanding aid must be cancelled, while the aid already paid is to be recovered.
Det beløb, der skal tilbagebetales, svarer til hele den kompensation, som Cassa Conguaglio har ydet Alcoa.
The amount to be recovered corresponds to the sum of all compensatory components made by the Equalisation Fund to Alcoa.
For Venetos vedkommende vedrører tilbagebetalingen perioden fra den 1. januar 2006 til tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af denne beslutning.
For the Veneto plant, this recovery corresponds to the period from 1 January 2006 until the date of adoption of this Decision.
For Sardiniens vedkommende vedrører tilbagebetalingen den periode, der går forud for brevet fra 2007, dvs. fra 1. januar 2006 til 18. januar 2007 —
For the plant in Sardinia, the recovery corresponds to the period prior to the 2007 letter, that is from 1 January 2006 to 18 June 2007,