natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
EGO 24 burde derfor være blevet vurderet i forhold til retningslinjerne fra 1998, i henhold til hvilke den burde være blevet fundet at være forenelig.
Regarding the characterisation of the implementation/execution of the Award as State aid
Sagsøgerne gør derefter gældende, at der aldrig er truffet en gyldig formel beslutning om, at EGO 24 udgør uforenelig statsstøtte.
The claimants submit that the implementation or execution of the Award by Romania does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Det rumænske konkurrenceråds afgørelse (afgørelse nr. 244), hvor det ophævede EGO 24, var ifølge sagsøgerne mangelfuld, eftersom konkurrencerådet ikke vurderede foreneligheden og begrundede sine resultater.
First, while they do not dispute the qualification of S.C.
Desuden gjorde sagsøgerne gældende, at den rumænske regerings vedtagelse af EGO 75, som bekræftede EGO 24, tilsidesatte konkurrencerådets afgørelse.
European Food SA, S.C.
De anfører videre, at afvisningen af konkurrencerådets indsigelser mod EGO 75 ved de rumænske domstole også beviser, at EGO 24 og EGO 75 havde forrang for konkurrencerådets afgørelse.
Starmill S.R.L., and S.C.
Sagsøgerne angiver desuden, at Kommissionen ikke havde og ikke har kompetence til at prøve EGO 24, heller ikke lejlighedsvist, heller ikke parentetisk.
Multipack as undertakings, the claimants assert that Ioan and Viorel Micula cannot themselves be said to be engaged in economic activities.
De relevante dele af EGO 24 blev ophævet før Rumæniens tiltrædelse til Unionen.
Particularly, the fact that the Micula brothers hold shares in various undertakings is said to be insufficient to qualify them as undertakings themselves.
For så vidt som kendelsen anses for at genindføre støtte, som blev ydet i medfør af EGO 24, anfører sagsøgerne derfor, at Kommissionen ikke har kompetence til prøvelse.
The claimants also maintain that the three aforementioned companies and the Micula brothers cannot be treated as a single economic unit, as the brothers’ interests are not identical to those of the companies.
I denne forbindelse henviser de også til Kommissionens afgørelse i statsstøttesag N 380/2004, hvor Kommissionen konstaterede, at gennemførelse efter tiltrædelsen af en voldgiftskendelse, som var blevet afsagt før tiltrædelsen, og som kun var relateret til tiden før tiltrædelsen, ikke udgjorde ny støtte.
Second, the claimants emphasise that implementing the Award does not confer an advantage upon them.
Endelig gør sagsøgerne gældende, at EGO 24 og de enkelte incitamenter i EGO 24 var forenelige med det indre marked i henhold til de gældende retningslinjer fra 1998, eftersom alle forenelighedsbetingelserne var opfyldt.
They argue that measures which serve to fulfil legal obligations, such as the payment of compensation for damages, do not constitute preferential treatment of undertakings.
I denne forbindelse gør de for det første gældende, at EGO 24 faktisk kan anses for at være forenelig investeringsstøtte og ikke driftsstøtte, og for det andet, at EGO 24 stadig var forenelig.
In this context, the claimants assert that the Commission cannot rely on Advocate-General Colomer’s statement in Atzeni, since that case related to damages paid to a beneficiary in compensation for the recovery of incompatible aid that had already been paid out.
Vedrørende berettigede forventninger
The claimants maintain that, in contrast, in the present case no State aid — much less unlawful State aid — had been paid out to them, thus distinguishing it from Atzeni.
Sagsøgerne gør gældende, at en afgørelse fra Kommissionen om, at gennemførelse eller fuldbyrdelse af kendelsen er i strid med statsstøttereglerne, ville krænke sagsøgernes berettigede forventninger.
Similarly, the claimants maintain that the present case cannot be equated with the cases cited in the opening decision in which contract clauses indemnifying beneficiaries for recovery of incompatible State were judged to constitute State aid themselves.
De angiver, at Unionen udtrykkeligt tilskyndede Rumænien til at indgå investeringsaftaler med medlemsstater før Rumæniens tiltrædelse, at Kommissionen fortsat støtter indgåelsen af investeringsaftaler, at sagsøgerne havde en forventning om, at voldgiftssagen ville betyde, at de ville få erstatning for den skade, de havde lidt som følge af Rumæniens beslutning om at opretholde alle investorernes forpligtelser i EGO 24, og at der ikke er nogen tungtvejende offentlig interesse i at tilsidesætte sagsøgernes berettigede forventninger.
The claimants further maintain that the implementation or execution of the Award would fall squarely under the Asteris case-law.
Vedrørende sagsøgernes proceduremæssige rettigheder
They argue that the rationale behind the Asteris case-law, as well as such cases as Denkavit [46] and ThyssenKrupp [47], is that payment of damages is not within the discretion of Member States, so that it cannot qualify as State aid.
Endelig gør sagsøgerne gældende, at interesserede parter i henhold til retspraksis »har ret til at blive inddraget i den administrative procedure i det omfang, det må anses for formålstjenligt under hensyn til sagens konkrete omstændigheder« [48].
Romania’s commitments under the BIT are further claimed to be an expression of general rules of liability to which the Asteris case-law applies.
Sagsøgerne gør gældende, at Rumænien har undladt at inddrage sagsøgerne i statsstøtteproceduren, hvilket angiveligt har stillet sagsøgerne særligt ufordelagtigt, og advarer om, at det, at Kommissionen har undladt at give sagsøgerne mulighed for at forsvare deres interesser ved at inddrage dem bedre i proceduren, kunne betyde, at Kommissionens endelige afgørelse er ugyldig.
Regarding the Commission’s argument that Asteris does not apply to damages awarded on the basis of intra-EU BITs considered incompatible with Union law, the claimants maintain that any such incompatibility would not render the Award granted on the basis of such a BIT void.
Sagsøgerne slutter med at bemærke, at Kommissionens praksis i statsstøttesager generelt ikke i tilstrækkelig grad beskytter de angivelige støttemodtageres proceduremæssige rettigheder og er i strid med artikel 6, stk. 1, i den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention og artikel 47 i EU's charter om grundlæggende rettigheder, fordi den ikke giver adgang til effektive retsmidler.
Implementation or execution of the Award could furthermore not be seen as granting State aid ‘by the back door’, as the Award does not reinstate the abolished EGO 24 scheme; rather, the Award is said to grant damages for Romania’s autonomous decision to, inter alia, maintain an unreasonable burden imposed on the claimants.
BEMÆRKNINGER FRA RUMÆNIEN OM BEMÆRKNINGER FRA TREDJEMAND
The claimants further assert that the Commission’s arguments regarding the incompatibility of the BIT with Union law are irrelevant, since the dispute leading to the arbitral proceedings and ultimately the Award arose before Romania’s accession to the Union.
I sit svar på sagsøgernes bemærkninger afviser Rumænien først og fremmest påstanden om, at Ioan og Viorel Micula ikke selv kan anses for at være virksomheder med hensyn til anvendelsen af EU's statsstøttelovgivning.
Arguing that the Commission’s argumentation in the opening decision is based on mistakenly linking the implementation/execution of the Award with the incompatibility of the EGO 24 scheme, the claimants reassert that in any event the Award did not grant damages on the basis of Romania’s decision to comply with Union State aid rules.
Rumænien gør gældende, at de fem sagsøgere i stedet bør betragtes som én økonomisk enhed, eftersom Micula-brødrene udøver direkte eller indirekte kontrol over de sagsøgende virksomheder.
The claimants further dispute that the CJEU’s decision in Lucchini, which the Commission referred to in the opening decision, has any relevance for the present case.
Til støtte for denne påstand forklarer Rumænien bl.a., at Micula-brødrene under forhandlingerne mellem Rumænien og sagsøgerne efter afsigelsen af kendelsen traf en formel beslutning på vegne af de tre sagsøgende virksomheder.
In their view, Lucchini establishes only that provisions of national law cannot frustrate the recovery of incompatible aid, and has no bearing on the implementation/execution of an arbitral award granting damages for the breach of a BIT.
For det andet tilbageviser Rumænien sagsøgernes forsøg på at nægte, at der er en forbindelse mellem ophævelsen af EGO 24-incitamenterne og tilkendelsen af erstatning i kendelsen.
Third, as regards the imputability of the implementation/execution of the Award to Romania, the claimants argue that the Commission’s assessment cannot rely on the imputability of EGO 24 itself.
Rumænien gør gældende, at det klart fremgår af kendelsen, at voldgiftsretten fastsatte erstatningen på grundlag af de økonomiske fordele, som sagsøgerne ville have fået, hvis incitamenterne var blevet videreført.
They maintain further that the implementation/execution of an ICSID award is an automatic and involuntary consequence of Romania’s obligations under the ICSID Convention.
For det tredje nægter Rumænien med hensyn til sagsøgernes påstand om, at de ikke var blevet og ikke bliver tilstrækkeligt inddraget i statsstøtteundersøgelsen, at den ikke straks fremsendte beslutningen om at indlede proceduren til sagsøgerne.
Any involuntary act is, according to the claimants, not imputable to the state and cannot constitute State aid.
Rumænien gør endvidere gældende, at den ikke er retligt forpligtet til at inddrage sagsøgerne mere end det, den har gjort.
They stress further that ICSID awards are not open to review by national courts and their enforcement cannot be blocked for reasons of domestic ordre public or incompatibility with Union law.
VURDERING
The claimants further argue that Romania’s obligations under the ICSID Convention were not affected by Romania’s subsequent membership to the Union.
Forekomst af statsstøtte
They explain that since the alleged breach of the BIT and the institution of proceedings occurred before Romania acceded to the Union, EU law is not applicable to the present case.
Det bestemmes i traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, at »statsstøtte eller støtte, som ydes ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, er uforenelig med det indre marked, i det omfang den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne«.
Fourth, with respect to selectivity, the claimants claim that implementation/execution of the Award is not selective, since BITs and the ICSID Convention establish a system of general liability that is equally applicable to any investor.
Dermed udgør en foranstaltning statsstøtte, hvis følgende fire kumulative betingelser er opfyldt:
Damages awarded under this system are, accordingly, not selective.
Foranstaltningen skal give virksomheden en økonomisk fordel.
In this context, the claimants also quote a statement allegedly made by the Commission that ‘BITs, although conferring a benefit by securing property rights abroad, technically cannot qualify as [S]tate aid prohibited by Article 107(1) [of the Treaty] since the benefit does not favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods but is granted generally to all investors irrespective of the sector they operate in.’
Foranstaltningen skal kunne tilregnes staten og finansieres med statsmidler.
Finally, the claimants deny that implementing the Award would be liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Foranstaltningen skal fordreje eller true med at fordreje konkurrencen.
They claim that the reasoning contained in the opening decision cannot apply to the Micula brothers, who are allegedly not engaged in any economic activity, with the consequence that any payments to them cannot distort competition or affect trade between Member States.
Foranstaltningen kan påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
More generally, the claimants argue that implementing the Award would not grant the claimants an advantage, so that any effect on competition or trade can be excluded.
Kommissionen understreger, at begrebet statsstøtte er et objektivt og juridisk begreb, som defineres udtrykkeligt i traktaten.
Regarding the characterisation of the implementation/execution of the Award as new aid
Hvorvidt en bestemt foranstaltning udgør statsstøtte, afhænger ikke af medlemsstaternes grunde til eller formål med at yde den, men af den pågældende foranstaltnings virkninger [49].
The claimants further take issue with the characterisation of the implementation/execution of the Award as new aid.
Virksomhed
They note that the only events that took place after Romania’s accession were the adoption of the Award itself and the execution thereof.
Begrebet virksomhed omfatter enhver enhed, som udøver økonomisk virksomhed, uanset denne enheds retlige status og dens finansieringsmåde [50].
Romania’s execution in particular is said to be a mere automatic consequence of the Award, rather than the result of a distinct decision.
Klassifikationen af en bestemt enhed afhænger dermed helt af, hvad dens aktiviteter består i.
The relevant points in time were, according to the claimants, the enactment of EGO 24, the issuance of PICs to the claimants, or at the latest the conclusion of the BIT.
Flere juridiske enheder kan anses for at udgøre én økonomisk enhed med henblik på statsstøttereglerne.
The claimants also rely on case-law and Commission practice on state guarantees (according to which the relevant point in time is when the guarantee is given, not when it is invoked or payments issued) to argue that where compensation is paid based on a commitment included in an international agreement, the date of the conclusion of that agreement should be considered decisive.
Den økonomiske enhed betragtes dermed som den relevante virksomhed.
Regarding the compatibility of the implementation/execution of the Award
Som Domstolen tidligere har udtalt: »Begrebet virksomhed skal i en konkurrenceretlig kontekst forstås som en økonomisk enhed (…), også når denne økonomiske enhed juridisk set udgøres af flere fysiske eller juridiske personer« [51].
The claimants first claim that where the Commission is investigating non-notified aid, and the Member State concerned fails to bring forward any compatibility argument whatsoever, the Commission is under a duty to consider whether the aid may be compatible under any applicable rules or guidelines, if necessary by requesting further information from the Member State or the beneficiary.
For at fastslå, om flere enheder udgør en økonomisk enhed, ser Domstolen på, om en enhed ejer kontrollerende kapitalandele, eller om der er funktionelle, økonomiske eller organisatoriske forbindelser [52].
As regards the preliminary compatibility analysis contained in the opening decision, the claimants maintain that it is conceptually flawed since it applies the current Regional Aid Guidelines (‘RAG’) to the implementation/execution of the Award, even though it is plainly obvious that the implementation/execution of the Award is not motivated by any regional development objective.
Sagsøgerne i den voldgiftssag, der førte til kendelsen, er brødrene Ioan Micula og Viorel Micula samt tre virksomheder, som de ejer (S.C. European Food S.A., S.C. Starmill S.R.L. og S.C. Multipack).
In the claimants’ opinion, and stressing again that the opening decision wrongly assumes that implementing the Award would retroactively reinstate EGO 24, the only aid that could have been granted were the benefits under the EGO 24 scheme.
Det står klart, at de tre virksomheder udøver økonomisk virksomhed, eftersom de beskæftiger sig med henholdsvis industriel fremstilling af fødevarer, mølleriprodukter og plastemballage.
The EGO 24 should then have been assessed under the 1998 RAG, under which they should have been found compatible.
De tre virksomheder udgør derfor virksomheder.
The claimants next assert that there has never been a valid formal decision establishing that EGO 24 constitutes incompatible State aid.
Sagsøgerne gjorde ikke indsigelse mod denne konklusion.
The decision of the Romanian Competition Council (Decision No 244) denouncing EGO 24 was, according to the claimants, defective, as it did not assess compatibility and failed to provide reasoning for its findings.
Klagerne gør imidlertid gældende, at Micula-brødrene som fysiske personer ikke selv kan betragtes som virksomheder som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, og at de beløb, der er udbetalt til dem til gennemførelse eller fuldbyrdelse af kendelsen, derfor ikke ville udgøre statsstøtte.
In addition, the claimants argued that the adoption of EGO 75, which reaffirmed EGO 24, by the Romanian Government overrode the Competition Council’s decision.
Det angives navnlig, at Micula-brødrenes interesser ikke er sammenfaldende med de tre sagsøgende virksomheders interesser.
They further argue that the rejection of the Competition Council’s challenges against EGO 75 before Romanian courts is further proof that EGO 24 and EGO 75 took precedence over the Competition Council’s decision.
Kommissionen mener imidlertid, at de tre virksomheder og Micula-brødrene tilsammen udgør én økonomisk enhed med henblik på anvendelsen af statsstøttereglerne.
The claimants further assert that the Commission had and has no competence to review EGO 24, even incidentally.
Denne økonomiske enhed betragtes dermed som den relevante virksomhed.
The relevant parts of EGO 24 were revoked before Romania’s accession to the Union.
Denne konklusion er først og fremmest baseret på, at Micula-brødrene direkte eller indirekte er næsten eneejere af de tre sagsøgende virksomheder, hvilket viser, at de ejer en kontrollerende kapitalandel af disse virksomheder.
In so far as the Award is seen as reinstating aid granted under EGO 24, the claimants thus assert that the Commission has no competence of review.
For det andet tager denne konklusion højde for, at de sagsøgende virksomheder indgår i en større gruppe virksomheder, nemlig European Food and Drinks Group (»EFDG«).
In this context, they refer also to the Commission decision in State aid case N 380/2004, where the Commission found that implementing an arbitral award after accession which had been rendered before accession and related entirely to periods before accession did not constitute new aid.
Under voldgiftssagen krævede Micula-brødrene også erstatning for andre virksomheder i EFDG, som angiveligt led tab som følge af Rumæniens handlinger, der gav anledning til sagen.
Finally, the claimants argue that EGO 24 and individual incentives under EGO 24 were compatible with the internal market pursuant to the applicable 1998 RAG, given that all the compatibility conditions were fulfilled.
I stedet for at kræve og kvantificere separate tab for hver sagsøgende virksomhed og de to individuelle sagsøgere baserede sagsøgerne deres erstatningskrav på de tab, som EFDG som helhed angiveligt havde lidt.
In this context, they assert, first, that EGO 24 can in fact be seen as compatible investment aid, rather than operating aid, and, second, that even if perceived as operating aid, EGO 24 was still compatible.
Efter at voldgiftsretten havde undersøgt ejerskabsstrukturen i EFDG og konstateret, at Micula-brødrene direkte eller indirekte ejede mindst 99,96 % af alle virksomhederne i EFDG, som Micula-brødrene krævede erstatning for (disse er European Drinks S.A., Rieni Drinks S.A., Scandic Distilleries S.A., Transilvania General Import-Export S.R.L., West Leasing S.R.L), accepterede den denne tilgang og lod sagsøgerne søge erstatning for EFDG's tab som helhed [53].
Regarding legitimate expectations
Denne adfærd fra sagsøgernes side under voldgiftssagen og voldgiftsrettens konklusioner viser, at Micula-brødrene og de tre sagsøgende virksomheder samt ovennævnte virksomheder i EFDG udgør én økonomisk enhed med en fælles økonomisk interesse.
The claimants claim that a Commission decision finding that the implementation or execution of the Award contravenes State aid rules would violate the claimants’ legitimate expectations.
For det tredje bekræftes det, at Micula-brødrene og deres virksomheder er én økonomisk enhed, også af den kendsgerning, at de faktisk fik tilkendt erstatning i kendelsen.
They argue that the Union expressly encouraged Romania to conclude BITs with Member States prior to Romania’s accession; that the Commission continues to support the conclusion of BITs; that the claimants relied on their expectation that the arbitral proceedings would allow them to receive compensation for the damage caused by Romania’s decision to maintain all the investors’ obligations under EGO 24; and that there is no overriding public interest in setting aside the claimants’ legitimate expectations.
I stedet for at fordele erstatningen ud på hver af de fem sagsøgere, fik de tilkendt den »samlet« på grundlag af deres »fælles rettighed«.
Regarding the claimants’ procedural rights
Den omstændighed, at de fem sagsøgere samlet (dvs. herunder også de sagsøgende virksomheder) bad voldgiftsretten om at tilkende hele erstatningen til Micula-brødrene, viser, at de sagsøgende virksomheder ikke er selvstændige enheder i forhold til Micula-brødrene.
Finally, the claimants assert that according to case-law interested parties ‘have the right to be involved in the administrative procedure to the extent appropriate in the light of the circumstances of the case’ [48].
Voldgiftsretten lod endelig hver enkelt sagsøger inddrive hele den tilkendte erstatning og derefter fordele den blandt sagsøgerne, som de ville, uanset hvilket tab den enkelte sagsøger faktisk havde lidt.
Arguing that Romania has failed to properly involve the claimants in the State aid procedure, which allegedly placed the claimants at a particular disadvantage, the claimants warn that failure on the part of the Commission to enable the claimants to properly defend their interests by involving them more fully in the procedure could vitiate the Commission’s final decision.
Ovenstående konklusion berøres ikke af sagsøgernes argument om, at denne sag ikke skal sammenlignes med Hydrotherm-dommen, fordi den fysiske person i den sag var en partner, der hæftede personligt for de finansielle forpligtelser for de forskellige virksomheder, som han blev anset for at udgøre en fælles økonomisk enhed med, hvorimod Micula-brødrene ikke hæfter personligt på den måde.
The claimants conclude by noting that the Commission’s practice in State aid cases in general does not sufficiently safeguard the alleged beneficiaries’ procedural rights, and is, by failing to provide an effective remedy, contrary to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Kommissionen minder her om, at Domstolen i de relevante præmisser i Hydrotherm-dommen overhovedet ikke nævnte den fysiske persons personlige hæftelse, men kun påpegede, at den pågældende fysiske person udøver »fuld kontrol« over de pågældende virksomheder [54].
COMMENTS FROM ROMANIA ON THIRD PARTY COMMENTS
Som nævnt ovenfor udøver Micula-brødrene som følge af deres ejerskab også fuld kontrol over de sagsøgende virksomheder, ligesom over de andre relevante virksomheder i EFDG.
In its response to the comments submitted by the claimants, Romania first rejects the claim that Ioan and Viorel Micula could not themselves be considered to constitute undertakings for the purpose of the application of EU State aid law.
Kommissionen mener også, i modsætning til hvad sagsøgerne gør gældende, at den logik, der ligger til grund for Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze-dommen, også kan anvendes på denne sag.
Romania argues that the five claimants should rather be regarded as one economic unit, since the Micula brothers exert direct or indirect control over the corporate claimants.
I denne dom anerkendte Domstolen, at en økonomisk aktivitet kan udøves af en enhed direkte eller indirekte, ved at kontrollere en erhvervsdrivende inden for rammerne af en økonomisk enhed, som de udgør tilsammen.
To underpin this assertion, Romania explains, inter alia, that during the negotiations between Romania and the claimants that took place after the Award was issued the Micula brothers took formal decision on behalf of the three corporate claimants.