natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I medfør af artikel 1 i gennemførelsesbestemmelserne til afgørelse nr. 4/2000 truffet af Associeringsrådet EU-Rumænien blev konkurrencerådet og konkurrencekontoret udpeget som de rumænske myndigheder med ansvar for undersøgelse og vurdering af, om statsstøtteforanstaltninger er forenelige med Europaaftalen af 1995.
Following that case-law, Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provides that ‘where negative decisions are taken in respect of unlawful aid, the Commission shall decide that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary […].’
Civilretlig afgørelse nr. 26, se kendelsen, præmis 219.
The claimants contend that they had a legitimate expectation that the incentives granted under EGO 24 were lawful and that they could benefit from those incentives until their scheduled expiry on 1 April 2009.
Se kendelsen, præmis 224.
The Commission observes, in that regard, that Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 further specifies that ‘[t]he Commission shall not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of [Union] law.’
EU's fælles holdning af 21. november 2001, CONF-RO 43/01, s. 4.
The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations has been recognised by the CJEU to constitute such a general principle of Union law.
Under et ansøgerlands tiltrædelsesproces foreslår Kommissionen regelmæssigt såkaldte fælles holdninger, som Rådet vedtager, hvori kandidatlandets fremskridt med hensyn til overholdelse af tiltrædelseskriterierne evalueres.
The Commission does not consider, however, that the claimants can claim such a legitimate expectation.
Baggrundsrapport til EGO 94/2004, 26. august 2004, s. 12-13.
According to the case-law of the CJEU, save in exceptional circumstances, undertakings to which an aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Artikel 9, stk. 1, i investeringsaftalen.
The CJEU, in its more recent case-law, has declared that in the absence of sufficiently precise assurances arising from a positive action taken by the Commission, which has the exclusive competence to authorise the grant of State aid by the Member States of the Union, that lead the beneficiary to believe that the measure does not constitute State aid, no exceptional circumstances can warrant the application of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations to prevent recovery if that aid measure was not notified to the Commission [94].
Kendelsen, præmis 725.
Indeed, it is long-standing case-law that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot be relied upon against a precise provision of Union law and that the conduct of a national authority responsible for applying Union law, which acts in breach of that law, cannot give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of an economic operator that he will benefit from treatment which is contrary to that law [95].
Kendelsen, præmis 827.
A diligent economic operator must be assumed to be able to determine whether that procedure has been followed [96].
Se fodnote 24.
The Commission notes that, as regards the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants, it should have been clear without any doubt to the claimants even before that aid was granted to them through the adoption of the Award, in conjunction with Romanian domestic law giving legal effect in Romania’s domestic legal order to the Award, that the Commission considered payment of that compensation to give rise to unlawful and incompatible State aid.
Kendelsen, præmis 872.
That position was expressly communicated to the Tribunal on 20 July 2009 and communicated to the claimants.
Kendelsen, præmis 875 ff.
As regards the claimants’ claim that they had a legitimate expectation that the EGO 24 were lawful and would remain in place until 1 April 2009, the Commission recalls, as a preliminary matter, that it is the payment of compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal and not EGO 24 that form the basis for this Decision.
Beløbet omfatter import mellem den 22. februar 2005 og den 31. marts 2009.
Nevertheless, the Commission adds, for the sake of completeness, that the claimants cannot justifiably claim a legitimate expectation as to the validity and continued existence of that scheme until 1 April 2009.
Se fodnote 28.
As regards that scheme, it was not the Commission, but the Romanian Competition Council, which, by virtue of Decision No 4/2000 of the EU-Romania Association Council and Romanian Law No 143/1999 on State aid, was responsible for the monitoring and authorisation of the grant of State aid prior to Romania’s accession to the Union.
Sagsøgerne søgte erstatning for den øgede pris på PET.
The Commission notes in that regard that EGO 24 was notified to the Romanian Competition Council in light of the modifications envisaged by EGO 75 and that the Romanian Competition Council, by its Decision No 244/2000 of 15 May 2000, found those incentives to constitute incompatible State aid.
Voldgiftsretten afviste imidlertid dette krav, fordi sagsøgerne i realiteten aldrig havde udnyttet råmaterialeordningen med hensyn til import af PET.
It was after the adoption of that decision, on 1 June 2000, that S.C.
Dette beløb er baseret på tolden på import af sukker, som ikke ville være blevet opkrævet, hvis sagsøgeren havde haft mulighed for at etablere store lagre af sukker før den fastsatte udløbsdato for EGO (dvs. den 1. april 2009).
European Food SA obtained its PIC, which made it eligible to obtain State aid under the scheme set up by EGO 24 as explained in recital 133.
Dette benchmark er baseret på lagre i 2004/05.
However, that does not mean the aid was granted on that date, as explained in recital 134.
Tab af fortjeneste er beregnet for perioden 2004-2008 for tab af markedsandele på læskedrikke og andre produkter, som indeholdt sukker.
It follows from that at the time S.C.
Ifølge påstanden steg omkostningerne efter afskaffelse af EGO-incitamenterne, hvilket førte til højere priser og dermed lavere markedsandele.
European Food SA was granted the unlawful State aid provided by EGO 24, which is in any event after 1 June 2000, it must have been fully aware of the Romanian Competition Council’s decision of 15 May 2000 declaring the EGO 24 incentives to be incompatible State aid.
Sag nr. 3456/3/2014, retten i Bukarest.
Moreover, it must also have been aware of the Europe Agreement, which entered into force on 1 January 1995, and Romanian Law No 143/1999 on State aid, which entered into force on 1 January 2000, both of which prohibited Romania from granting State aid and conferred the power on the Romanian Competition Council to authorise the grant of new State aid.
Kendelse afsagt af retten i Bukarest i sag nr. 9261/3/2014, afdeling IV Civil.
Absent such an authorisation from the Competition Council and in line with the case-law of the CJEU, which applied by virtue of the Article 64 of the 1995 Europe Agreement, Article 1 of the Implementing Rules to Decision No 4/2000 of the EU-Romanian Association Council and the acquis communautaire, S.C.
Sag nr. 15755/3/2014, retten i Bukarest, afdeling III Civil.
European Food SA could never have entertained a legitimate expectation that the incentives granted under EGO 24 constituted compatible State aid, regardless of the subsequent actions of the Romanian Government after Decision No 244/2000 was adopted.
Sag nr. 15755/3/2014/al, appelretten i Bukarest, afdeling IV Civil.
The same reasoning obviously applies to Multipack and Starmill, which only obtained their PICs on 17 May 2002, two years after Decision No 244/2000 was adopted.
Se fodnote 36.
Thus, the claimants cannot even validly claim a legitimate expectation that the EGO 24 scheme constituted lawful State aid, which the Commission considers irrelevant for the purposes of the present Decision.
Den Europæiske Centralbanks referencekurs pr. 5. januar 2015: 1 EUR = 4,49 RON.
Therefore, any payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal must be recovered by Romania since that payment constitutes unlawful and incompatible State aid.
Se fodnote 38.
As the five claimants, together with the other relevant EFDG companies constitute a single economic unit (see recital 91), the five claimants and the other relevant EFDG companies shall be jointly liable to repay the State aid received by any one of them to the Romanian state.
Den Europæiske Centralbanks referencekurs pr. 9. marts 2015: 1 EUR = 4,44 RON.
According to Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 the aid to be recovered pursuant to a recovery decision shall include interest at an appropriate rate fixed by the Commission.
Sag nr. 1-14-cv-600 Viorel Micula mod Rumæniens regering ved United States District Court for the District of Columbia — Begæring om stadfæstelse af ICSID-kendelse og afsigelse af dom.
Interest shall be payable from the date on which the unlawful aid was at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its recovery.
Se fodnote 7.
Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 provides that recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures under the national law of the Member State concerned, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Commission’s decision.
Se fodnote 40.
To this effect and in the event of a procedure before national courts, the Member States concerned shall take all necessary steps which are available in their respective legal systems, including provisional measures, without prejudice to Union law.
Se beslutningen om at indlede proceduren, betragtning 39.
The Commission observes in this respect that Romania has already offset the amount of RON 337492864 (ca.
Sag 61/79 Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato mod Denkavit italiana EU:C:1980:100.
EUR 76 million [97]) against tax debts owed by one of the claimants, S.C. European Food SA.
Kommissionens beslutning 2008/408/EF af 20. november 2007 om Italiens statsstøtte C 36/A/06 (ex NN 38/06) til ThyssenKrupp, Cementir og Nuove Terni Industrie Chimiche (EUT L 144 af 4.6.2008, s. 37).
The Commission further observes that on 5 January 2015 the court-appointed executor seized RON 36484232 (ca.
Under henvisning til sag T-68/03 Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies, EU:T:2007:253, præmis 42.
EUR 8,1 million [98]) from Romania’s Ministry of Finance and subsequently transferred RON 34004232 (ca.
Sag C-487/06 P British Aggregates mod Kommissionen EU:C:2008:757, præmis 85 og 89 og den nævnte retspraksis, og sag C-279/08 P Kommissionen mod Nederlandene (NOx) EU:C:2011:551, præmis 51.
EUR 7,56 million) in equal parts to three of the five claimants, and kept the remainder as compensation for execution costs.
Forenede sager C-180/98 til C-184/98 Pavlov m.fl. EU:C:2000:428, præmis 74.
Between 5 February and 25 February 2015, the court-appointed executor seized a further RON 9197482 (ca.
Sag C-170/83 Hydrotherm EU:C:1984:271, præmis 11.
EUR 2 million) [99] from the bank accounts of the Ministry of Finance.
Se også sag T-137/02 Pollmeier Malchow mod Kommissionen EU:T:2004:304, præmis 50.
In addition, the Commission takes note of the fact that the Romanian authorities have voluntarily transferred RON 472788675 (ca.
Sag C-480/09 P Acea Electrabel Produzione SpA mod Kommissionen EU:C:2010:787, præmis 47 til 55; sag C-222/04 Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA m.fl. EU:C:2006:8, præmis 112.
EUR 106,5 million [100]) (including the costs of court appointed executor of RON 6028608) into a blocked account in the name of the five claimants.
Se kendelsen, præmis 935-936 og 943.
Those sums, as well as any further payments to the claimants in fulfilment of the Award which have taken or will take place, must be recovered by Romania.
Sag C-170/83 Hydrotherm EU:C:1984:271, præmis 10.
Accordingly, the Commission,
Sag C-222/04 Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA m.fl. EU:C:2006:8, præmis 112.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Sag C-222/04 Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA m.fl. EU:C:2006:8, præmis 114.
Article 1
Se betragtning 87 og 88.
The payment of the compensation awarded by the arbitral tribunal established under the auspices of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) by award of 11 December 2013 in Case No ARB/05/20 Micula a.o. v Romania [101] to the single economic unit comprising Viorel Micula, Ioan Micula, S.C.
Sag C-39/94 SFEI m.fl. EU:C:1996:285, præmis 60; sag C-342/96 Spanien mod Kommissionen EU:C:1999:210, præmis 41.
Multipack, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Scandic Distilleries SA, Transilvania General Import-Export S.R.L., and West Leasing S.R.L constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty which is incompatible with the internal market.Article 2
Kendelsen, præmis 917.
Romania shall not pay out any incompatible aid referred to in Article 1 and shall recover any incompatible aid referred to in Article 1 which has already been paid out to any one of the entities constituting the single economic unit benefiting from that aid in partial implementation or execution of the arbitral award of 11 December 2013, as well as any aid paid out to any one of the entities constituting the single economic unit benefiting from that aid in further implementation of the arbitral award of 11 December 2013 that the Commission has not been made aware of or that is paid out after the date of this Decision.
Kendelsen, præmis 928.
Multipack, European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Scandic Distilleries SA, Transilvania General Import-Export S.R.L., and West Leasing S.R.L shall be jointly liable to repay the State aid received by any one of them.
Kendelsen, præmis 953.
The sums to be recovered are those resulting from the implementation or execution of the award of 11 December 2013 (principal and interest).
Betragtning 27 indeholder en beskrivelse af de skyldige beløb i medfør af kendelsen.
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until their actual recovery.
Voldgiftsretten konkluderede, at ophævelsen af EGO 24-incitamenterne krænkede sagsøgernes berettigede forventninger, før den overhovedet vurderede, om Rumæniens handlinger var rimelige eller gennemsigtige (kendelsen, præmis 725, 726; rimelighed og gennemsigtighed blev kun omtalt i henholdsvis præmis 727 ff. og 837 ff.).
Romania shall provide the exact dates on which the aid provided by the state was put at the disposal of the respective beneficiaries.
Der er derfor ikke grundlag for at gøre gældende, som sagsøgerne foreslår, at voldgiftsrettens konklusion om, at investeringsaftalen blev overtrådt, tog udgangspunkt i, at det var urimeligt at opretholde investorernes forpligtelser i medfør af EGO 24, eller i, at Rumæniens handlinger ikke var tilstrækkeligt gennemsigtige.
The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [102].
Kendelsen, præmis 953, 961, 971, 984, 1016, 1020, 1136.
Romania shall ensure that no further payments of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be effected with effect from the date of adoption of this Decision.
Forenede sager 106/87 til 120/87 Asteris, EU:C:1988:457.
Article 3
Forenede sager 106/87 til 120/87 Asteris, EU:C:1988:457, præmis 23.
Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.
Se Kommissionens beslutning af 16. juni 2004 om Nederlandenes støtte til Akzo-Nobel med henblik på at formindske transporten af klor (sag N 304/2003), resumé i EUT C 81 af 2.4.2005, s. 4; se også Kommissionens beslutning af 20. december 2006 om Nederlandenes støtte til flytning af autodemonteringsvirksomheden Steenbergen (sag N 575/05), resumé i EUT C 80 af 13.4.2007, s. 1.
Romania shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.
Af samme grunde ville Kommissionen også betragte de bilaterale investeringsaftaler mellem EU's medlemsstater som ugyldige som grundlag for voldgiftssagen, jf. fodnote 53 i begæringen.
Article 4
Se også Kommissionens tjenestegrenes arbejdsdokument af 15. april 2013 om kapitalens frie bevægelighed i EU, SWD(2013) 146 final, side 11 og 14; Kommissionens tjenestegrenes arbejdsdokument af 18. marts 2014 om kapitalens frie bevægelighed i EU, SWD(2014) 115 final, side 12; og Europa-Kommissionen, Monitoring activities and analysis, Bilateral Investment Treaties between EU Member States (intra-EU BITs) 2012, på: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/capital/analysis/monitoring_activities_and_analysis/index_en.htm.
Within two months following notification of this Decision, Romania shall submit the following information:
Forslag til afgørelse af 28. april 2005 i forenede sager C-346/03 og C-529/03 Atzori ECLI:EU:C:2005:256, præmis 198.
the total amount of aid received by each entity mentioned in Article 1 of this Decision;
Sag T-384/08 Elliniki Nafpigokataskevastiki AE Chartofylakeiou mod Kommissionen EU:T:2011:650, og sag T-565/08 Corsica Ferries mod Kommissionen EU:T:2012:415, præmis 23, 114 og 120-131.
a detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;
Se analogt hermed også sag C-111/10 Kommissionen mod Rådet EU:C:2013:785, præmis 44.
documents demonstrating that the beneficiaries have been ordered to repay the aid.
Sag C-119/05 Lucchini EU:C:2007:434, præmis 59.
Romania shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed.
Sag C-280/00 Altmark Trans EU:C:2003:415, præmis 84.
It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision.
Sag T-351/02 Deutsche Bahn AG mod Kommissionen EU:T:2006:104, præmis 101.
It shall also provide detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiaries.
Sag 730/79 Phillip Morris EU:C:1980:209, præmis 11.
Article 5
Forenede sager T-298/97 til T-312/97 m.fl. Alzetta, EU:T:2000:151, præmis 80.
This Decision is addressed to Romania.
Sag T-288/97 Friulia Venezia Giulia EU:T:2001:115, præmis 41.
Done at Brussels, 30 March 2015.
Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1219/2012 af 12. december 2012 om indførelse af overgangsordninger for bilaterale investeringsaftaler mellem medlemsstaterne og tredjelande (EUT L 351 af 20.12.2012, s. 40).
For the Commission
Traktatens artikel 3, stk. 1, litra e).
Member of the Commission
Sag C-129/12 Magdeburger Mühlenwerke EU:C:2013:200, præmis 40.
With effect from 1 December 2009, Articles 87, and 88 of the EC Treaty have become Articles 107 and 108, respectively, of the Treaty.
Der findes en engelsk oversættelse af den oprindelige bestemmelse om råmaterialeordningen (som er det investeringsincitament, hvis ophævelse gav anledning til tilkendelse af erstatning til sagsøgerne) i kendelsens præmis 148.
The two sets of Articles are in substance identical.
De tre kategorier af eksisterende støtte, der nævnes i tiltrædelsesakten, er:støtteforanstaltninger, der er trådt i kraft inden den 10. december 1994støtteforanstaltninger opregnet i tillægget til dette bilagstøtteforanstaltninger, der inden tiltrædelsesdatoen er blevet vurderet af den nationale statsstøttekontrolmyndighed i den nye medlemsstat og fundet forenelige med gældende fællesskabsret, og som Kommissionen ikke har gjort indsigelse mod på grund af alvorlig tvivl om, hvorvidt foranstaltningen er forenelig med fællesmarkedet, jf. proceduren i stk. 2.En beslutning om fuldbyrdelse af kendelsen er ikke omfattet af disse tre kategorier.
For the purposes of this Decision references to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty should be understood as references to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty when appropriate.
Selv om det blev antaget, at gennemførelse af kendelsen blot genindfører sagsøgernes rettigheder i medfør af EGO 24, som om de relevante incitamenter ikke var blevet ophævet før den fastsatte udløbsdato, ville denne retroaktive genindførelse stadig blive betragtet som »ny støtte« fra tidspunktet for Rumæniens tiltrædelse til Unionen.
The Treaty also introduced certain changes in terminology, such as the replacement of ‘Community’ by ‘Union’ and ‘common market’ by ‘internal market’.
Se også forenede sager T-80/06 og T-182/09 Budapesti Erömü EU:T:2012:65, præmis 54.
The terminology of the Treaty will be used throughout this Decision.
Sag T-68/03 Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE mod Kommissionen EU:T:2007:253, præmis 34.
OJ C 393, 7.11.2014, p.
Sag C-225/91 Matra mod Kommissionen EU:C:1993:239, præmis 41.
27.
Retningslinjer for statsstøtte med regionalt sigte for 2007-2013 (EUT C 54 af 4.3.2006, s. 13).
ICSID Case No ARB/05/20, Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, SC European Food SA, SC Starmill SRI, SC Multipack SRL v Romania, final award of 11 December 2013.
Retningslinjerne for statsstøtte med regionalt sigte for 2007-2013, punkt 76.
Reference exchange rate of the European Central Bank on 11 December 2013: 1 EUR = 4,45 RON.
Kommissionens beslutning N 2/07, resumé i EUT C 73 af 30.3.2007, s. 15.
The BIT entered into force on 1 April 2003.
Kommissionens beslutning SA 38364, resumé i EUT C 233 af 18.7.2014, s. 1.
See footnote 4.
Sag C-70/72 Kommissionen mod Tyskland EU:C:1973:87, præmis 13.
Reference exchange rate of the European Central Bank on 15 January 2014: 1 EUR = 4,52 RON.
Forenede sager C-278/92, C-279/92 og C-280/92 Spanien mod Kommissionen EU:C:1994:325, præmis 75.
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p.
Sag C-75/97 Belgien mod Kommissionen EU:C:1999:311, præmis 64-65.
1).
Sag C-148/04 Unicredito Italiano EU:C:2005:774, præmis 104-111.
See recital 3.
Dom i sag C-217/06 Kommissionen mod Italien EU:C:2007:580, nr. 23 og den nævnte retspraksis.
See footnote 2.
Sag C-5/89 Kommissionen mod Italien EU:C:1990:320, præmis 14.
An additional RON 6028608 have been transferred on the blocked account as compensation for the execution costs.
ICSID-sag nr. ARB/05/20, Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, SC European Food SA, SC Starmill SRI, SC Multipack SRL mod Rumænien, endelig voldgiftskendelse af 11. december 2013.
OJ L 357, 31.12.1994, p.
Kommissionens forordning (EF) 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 (EUT L 140 af 30.4.2004, s. 1).
2.
Kommissionens beslutning om at indlede proceduren blev offentliggjort i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende [10] den 7. november 2014.
See also Article 2 of the Implementing Rules to Decision No 4/2000 of the EU-Romania Association Council of 10 April 2001 adopting the implementing rules for the application of the provisions on State aid referred to in Articles 64(1)(iii) and (2) pursuant to Article 64(3) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part, and in Article 9(1)(iii) and (2) of Protocol 2 on European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) products to that Agreement (OJ L 138, 22.5.2001, p.
I denne afgørelse opfordrede Kommissionen interesserede parter til at fremsætte bemærkninger.
16).
Rumænien fremsendte sine bemærkninger til beslutningen om at indlede proceduren den 26. november 2014.
Monitorul Oficial, first part, No 73 of 12 April 1993.
Sagsøgerne fremsatte bemærkninger som interesseret part den 8. december 2014, efter at Kommissionen havde afvist deres anmodning om at få længere tid til at fremsætte deres bemærkninger.
The Competition Council was and is an autonomous administrative authority in the field of competition law and State aid law with regulatory and investigative powers, similar to the European Commission in the field of competition and State aid law.
Sagsøgernes bemærkninger blev fremsendt til Rumænien, som fik mulighed for at svare.
The Competition Office was a specialised authority subordinate to the government.