natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The fact that neither the Act of Accession nor the Treaty were applicable to Romania at the time when Romania allegedly breached its obligations under the BIT by revoking the aid scheme established by EGO 24 or when the claimants brought their claims under the BIT before the Tribunal is irrelevant.
Vahekohtu poolt hagejatele määratud hüvitise maksmine on olemuselt ajutine, sest sellel puudub pärast vahekohtuotsuse rakendamise või täitmise lõppemist igasugune mõju.
At neither point did the claimants obtain an unconditional right to the payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which is the measure under consideration.
Samas ei anta seda vaid eelnevalt määratletud kulutuste teatava osa jaoks, sest hüvitise eesmärk on tagada kogu hagejate kantud kahju katmine.
It is only when the Tribunal established that there was a breach of Article 2(3) of the BIT by rendering the Award on 11 December 2013, in conjunction with Romanian domestic law giving legal effect in Romania’s domestic legal order to the Award, that the claimants received an unconditional right to that compensation which they could enforce against Romania.
Eespool öeldut arvesse võttes leiab komisjon, et vahekohtu poolt hagejatele määratud hüvitise maksmine ei ole kooskõlas 2007. aasta suunistega ja seetõttu ei saa seda kuulutada kokkusobivaks siseturuga.
That date was after Romania’s accession to the European Union.
Kuna kohaldatav ei ole ka ükski teine kokkusobivuse alus, leiab komisjon, et abimeetme kokkusobivuses siseturuga ei olnud võimalik veenduda.
The claimants’ case therefore is not comparable to the Commission’s decision in Case N 380/04 to which they refer.
Järeldus abimeetme hindamise kohta
Case N 380/04 concerned a contract concluded between the company Latvijas Gāze (‘LG’) and Latvia in 1997.
Eespool esitatud analüüs näitab, et vahekohtu poolt hagejatele määratud hüvitise maksmine kujutab endast siseturuga kokkusobimatu uue abi andmist, mis ei ole kooskõlas aluslepinguga.
When a dispute arose between LG and Latvia over the latter’s obligations under the contract, commercial arbitration proceedings were initiated in Stockholm under Uncitral rules.
Komisjonil on kahju, et Rumeenia on hüvitise selle ühe osa tasaarvestamisega ühe hageja, S.C.
The arbitration tribunal established for those proceedings decided, on 19 June 2003, that Latvia owed LG compensation for the period 10 January 2001 until 10 March 2003.
European Food S.A. maksuvõlaga Rumeenia riigi ees ja kohtu määratud täidesaatja võetud meetmetega osaliselt juba välja maksnud.
Latvia did not comply with the arbitral award before it acceded to the Union on 1 May 2004 and notified the envisaged implementation of that award to the Commission after accession.
SISSENÕUDMINE
In its decision, the Commission observed that the compensation obligation arose on the basis of the 1997 contract, that the compensation awarded by the arbitration tribunal related in its entirety to a period before Latvia’s accession, and that the arbitral award itself was issued before Latvia’s accession to the Union.
Aluslepingu ja Euroopa Kohtu väljakujunenud praktika kohaselt võib komisjon juhul, kui ta leiab, et abi ei ole siseturuga kokkusobiv, otsustada, et asjaomane liikmesriik peab sellise abi andmise lõpetama või seda muutma [91].
On this basis, the Commission concluded that ‘the payment […] of the damages awarded by the Tribunal […] constitute a mere act of implementation of a measure that crystallised entirely before accession’ and that implementing the 2003 arbitral award could not be regarded as constituting ‘new aid’.
Samuti on Euroopa Kohus korduvalt sedastanud, et liikmesriigi kohustus lõpetada sellise abi andmine, mida komisjon peab siseturuga kokkusobimatuks, on kehtestatud selleks, et taastada varasem olukord [92].
Furthermore, the Commission’s decision in Case N 380/04 itself points out that it did not prejudge the analysis of possible future payments under the contract that related to periods after accession, thus narrowly limiting the approach chosen to the specific facts notified by Latvia.
Sellega seoses on Euroopa Kohus leidnud, et kõnealune eesmärk on saavutatud, kui abisaaja on ebaseadusliku abina saadud summad tagasi maksnud ja seega loobunud eelisest, mis tal turul konkurentide ees oli, ja kui on taastatud abi väljamaksmisele eelnenud olukord [93].
By contrast, in the present case the compensation obligation arises from the Award, which was rendered in 2013, the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal relates for the most part to the period after Romania acceded to the Union and the Award itself was issued almost seven years after Romania acceded to the Union.
Kooskõlas selle kohtupraktikaga on määruse (EÜ) nr 659/1999 artikli 14 lõikes 1 sätestatud, et „[k]ui ebaseadusliku abi korral tehakse negatiivne otsus, nõuab komisjon, et kõnealune liikmesriik peab võtma kõik vajalikud meetmed, et abisaajalt abi tagasi saada”.
Finally, the decision in Case N 380/04 differs most starkly to the present case in that there was no indication in the former case that by implementing or executing the 2003 arbitral award LG would obtain unlawful State aid which Latvia had promised to grant contrary to its State aid obligations as a candidate country acceding to the Union.
Hagejad väidavad, et neil olid õiguspärased ootused selle suhtes, et erakorralise määruse nr 24 alusel antud stiimulid on seaduslikud ja et nad saavad nendest stiimulitest kasu kuni nende kavandatud aegumiseni 1. aprillil 2009.
The Commission therefore finds that the payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants constitutes new aid and that that measure can only be put into effect if and after the Commission has authorised it under the State aid rules.
Komisjon märgib sellega seoses, et määruse (EÜ) nr 659/1999 artikli 14 lõikes 1 on lisaks sätestatud, et „[k]omisjon ei nõua abi tagastamist, kui see on vastuolus [liidu] õiguse üldpõhimõtetega”.
Illegality under Article 108(3) of the Treaty
Euroopa Kohus on tunnistanud, et õiguspäraste ootuste kaitsmise põhimõte kujutab endast sellist liidu õiguse üldpõhimõtet.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal has already been partially paid out by Romania to the claimants through the offsetting of certain tax debts owed by one of the claimants, S.C.
Ometi ei leia komisjon, et hagejad saaksid tugineda sellisele õiguspärasele ootusele.
European Food SA, to the Romanian state.
Välja arvatud erandlikel asjaoludel, saavad ettevõtjad Euroopa Kohtu praktika kohaselt tugineda õiguspärasele ootusele abi seaduslikkuse osas põhimõtteliselt üksnes siis, kui abi andmisel on järgitud aluslepingu artikli 108 lõikes 3 ette nähtud menetlust.
Since that partial implementation of the Award was not notified to the Commission by Romania, the measure has unlawfully been put into effect in violation of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Oma hilisemas kohtupraktikas on Euroopa Kohus täheldanud, et kui komisjon, kellel on ainupädevus lubada liidu liikmesriikidel anda riigiabi, ei ole oma konkreetse positiivse toiminguga andnud piisavalt täpseid kinnitusi, mis võimaldavad abisaajal asuda seisukohale, et meede ei kujuta endast riigiabi, ei taga ükski erandlik asjaolu abi tagasinõudmise ärahoidmiseks õiguspäraste ootuste kaitsmise põhimõtte kohaldamist, kui komisjoni ei ole kõnealusest abimeetmest teavitatud [94].
Any further payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whether by implementation or execution of the Award, that the Commission is either unaware of or that might occur after the adoption of this Decision would, for the same reasons, also constitute a violation of Romania’s obligation to comply with Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Tõepoolest, pikaajalise kohtupraktika kohaselt ei saa õiguspäraste ootuste kaitsmise põhimõtet vastu seada liidu õiguse konkreetsele sättele ning liidu õiguse kohaldamise eest vastutava riigiasutuse kõnealuse õigusega vastuolus olev käitumine ei saa tekitada ettevõtjal õiguspäraseid ootusi selle suhtes, et teda koheldakse viisil, mis on kõnealuse õigusega vastuolus [95].
Compatibility with the internal market
Tuleb eeldada, et kohusetundlik ettevõtja suudab kindlaks teha, kas kõnealust menetlust on järgitud [96].
At the outset, the Commission recalls that when assessing the compatibility of a measure with the internal market under Articles 107(2) and 107(3) of the Treaty, the burden of proof is the principal responsibility of the Member State [85].
Komisjon märgib, et mis puudutab vahekohtu poolt hagejatele määratud hüvitist, siis hagejatele oleks pidanud olema ilma mingi kahtluseta selge juba enne seda, kui abi neile vahekohtuotsuse vastuvõtmise ja Rumeenia siseriikliku õigusaktiga, millega anti vahekohtuotsusele Rumeenia õiguskorras juriidiline jõud, eraldati, et komisjoni meelest kaasneb kõnealuse hüvitise maksmisega ebaseaduslik ja siseturuga kokkusobimatu riigiabi.
In this context, the Commission also recalls that a State aid measure cannot be declared compatible with the internal market, if it entails a non-severable violation of other specific provisions of the Treaty [86].
See seisukoht edastati 20. juulil 2009 sõnaselgelt vahekohtule ja sellest teavitati hagejaid.
At present, Romania has presented no arguments that could justify the measure under Articles 107(2) and 107(3) of the Treaty.
Mis puudutab hagejate väidet, et neil olid õiguspärased ootused selle suhtes, et erakorraline määrus nr 24 on seaduslik ja et see jääb jõusse kuni 1. aprillini 2009, siis kõigepealt tuletab komisjon meelde, et käesoleva otsuse aluseks on vahekohtu poolt hagejatele määratud hüvitise maksmine, mitte erakorraline määrus nr 24.
Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, the Commission considers it appropriate to undertake a compatibility assessment of its own motion.
Sellega seoses märgib komisjon, et Rumeenia konkurentsinõukogu teavitati erakorralisest määrusest nr 24 seoses erakorralise määrusega nr 75 kavandatud muudatustega ning et Rumeenia konkurentsinõukogu leidis oma 15. mai 2000. aasta otsuses nr 244/2000, et need stiimulid kujutavad endast siseturuga kokkusobimatut riigiabi.
The claimants contend that the measure constitutes compatible regional aid.
S.C.
On the basis of Article 107(3)(a) and 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, the Commission may consider compatible with the internal market State aid to promote the economic development of certain disadvantaged areas within the Union.
See aga ei tähenda, et abi anti nimetatud kuupäeval, nagu on selgitatud põhjenduses 134.
The conditions under which aid to promote regional development can be considered compatible with the internal market are set out in the Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014–2020 (‘RAG 2014’).
Sellest järeldub, et ajal, mil S.C.
Recital 188 of those Guidelines explains that they apply for assessing the compatibility of all regional aid intended to be awarded after 30 June 2014.
European Food S.A. sai erakorralise määrusega nr 24 ette nähtud ebaseaduslikku riigiabi, mida anti igal juhul pärast 1. juunit 2000, pidi ta olema täiesti teadlik Rumeenia konkurentsinõukogu 15. mai 2000. aasta otsusest, millega erakorralise määruse nr 24 stiimulid kuulutati siseturuga kokkusobimatuks riigiabiks.
This means that regional aid awarded unlawfully or regional aid intended to be awarded before 1 July 2014 are to be assessed in accordance with the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 [87] (‘RAG 2007’).
Lisaks pidi ta olema teadlik ka 1. jaanuaril 1995 jõustunud Euroopa lepingust ja 1. jaanuaril 2000 jõustunud Rumeenia seadusest nr 143/1999 riigiabi kohta, milles mõlemas keelati Rumeenial anda riigiabi ja anti Rumeenia konkurentsinõukogule volitus lubada uue riigiabi andmist.
As explained in recital 134, an unconditional right to the aid was granted to the claimants when the Award was issued on 11 December 2013, in conjunction with Romanian domestic law giving legal effect in Romania’s domestic legal order to the Award, that is, before the entry into force of the RAG 2014.
Sellise konkurentsinõukogu loa puudumisel ning kooskõlas Euroopa Kohtu praktikaga, mida kohaldati 1995. aasta Euroopa lepingu artikli 64, ELi-Rumeenia assotsiatsiooninõukogu otsuse nr 4/2000 artikli 1 ja ühenduse õigustiku alusel, ei saanud äriühingul S.C.
Therefore, the payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants should be assessed under the RAG 2007.
European Food A.S. tekkida – hoolimata Rumeenia valitsuse edasistest sammudest pärast otsuse nr 244/2000 vastuvõtmist – kunagi õiguspärast ootust selle suhtes, et erakorralise määruse nr 24 alusel antud stiimulid kujutavad endast siseturuga kokkusobivat riigiabi.
In those guidelines, the Commission sets out that regional aid aimed at reducing the current expenses of an undertaking constitutes operating aid and will not be regarded as compatible with the internal market, unless it is awarded in exceptional circumstances to tackle specific handicaps faced by undertakings in disadvantaged regions falling within the scope of Article 107(3)(a) of the of the Treaty [88].
Sama arutluskäik on ilmselgelt asjakohane äriühingute S.C. Multipack ja S.C.
In effect, the implementation of the award re-establishes the situation in which the claimants would have, in all likelihood, found themselves if EGO 24 had never been repealed by Romania.
Seega ei ole hagejatel mingit alust viidata õiguspärasele ootusele, et erakorralise määruse nr 24 kava kujutab endast seaduslikku riigiabi, mida komisjon peab pealegi käesoleva otsuse kontekstis ebaoluliseks.
As explained in recitals 92 et seq., payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal in reality retroactively reduces the operating expenses incurred by them pursuing their economic activity under normal market conditions.
25. veebruaril 2015 konfiskeeris kohtu määratud täidesaatja rahandusministeeriumi pangakontodelt veel 9197482 leud (ligikaudu 2 miljonit eurot [99]).
According to points 76, 77 and 79 of the RAG 2007, operating aid is normally prohibited, and can be granted only exceptionally in Article 107(3)(a) regions provided that:
Lisaks võtab komisjon teadmiseks asjaolu, et Rumeenia ametiasutused on vabatahtlikult kandnud 472788675 leud (ligikaudu 106,5 miljonit eurot, [100] sh kohtu määratud täidesaatja kulud summas 6028608 leud) viie hageja nimel avatud blokeeritud kontole.
it is justified in terms of its contribution to regional development (targeted),
Need summad, nagu ka kõik teised hagejatele vahekohtuotsuse täitmisel makstud või makstavad summad, peab Rumeenia sisse nõudma.
its nature and its level is proportional to the handicaps it seeks to alleviate,
Sellest tulenevalt on komisjon
it is temporary and reduced over time, and should be phased out when the regions concerned achieve real convergence with the wealthier areas of the EU,
VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
in principle it is granted in respect of a predefined set of eligible expenditures or costs and limited to a certain proportion of those costs,
Artikkel 1
the Member State has committed itself to respect detailed reporting rules, as laid down in point 83 of the RAG 2007.
Rahvusvahelise Investeeringuvaidluste Lahendamise Keskuse (ICSID) egiidi all asutatud vahekohtu 11. detsembri 2013. aasta otsusega juhtumis nr ARB/05/20 Micula a.o. vs. Rumeenia [101] määratud hüvitise maksmine majandusüksusele, kuhu kuuluvad Viorel Micula, Ioan Micula, S.C.
The economic activities benefitting from the implementation of the Award are located in an area falling within the scope of Article 107(3)(a) of the of the Treaty, as established by the Commission in the decision of the regional aid map for Romania for 2007-2013 [89] and for 2014-2020 [90].
Multipack, European Drinks S.A., Rieni Drinks S.A., Scandic Distilleries S.A., Transilvania General Import-Export S.R.L. ja West Leasing S.R.L., kujutab endast riigiabi aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses ja on kokkusobimatu siseturuga.Artikkel 2
However, the Commission fails to see how the payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants is justified in terms of its contribution to the regional development of the areas concerned.
Rumeenia ei maksa välja artiklis 1 nimetatud siseturuga kokkusobimatut abi ja nõuab sisse artiklis 1 nimetatud siseturuga kokkusobimatu mis tahes abi, mis on ükskõik millisele kõnealust abi saava majandusüksuse osaks olevale üksusele 11. detsembri 2013. aasta vahekohtuotsuse osalise rakendamise või täitmise kaudu juba välja makstud, ning mis tahes abi, mis on ükskõik millisele kõnealust abi saava majandusüksuse osaks olevale üksusele 11. detsembri 2013. aasta vahekohtuotsuse edasise rakendamise kaudu välja makstud ja millest komisjoni ei ole teavitatud või mis on välja makstud pärast käesoleva otsuse vastuvõtmist.
In view of the above, the Commission considers that the payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal does not comply with the RAG 2007 and can therefore not be declared compatible with the internal market.
Artikkel 3
As no other basis of compatibility is otherwise applicable, the Commission considers that the compatibility of the aid measure has not been established.
Artiklis 1 nimetatud abi tuleb sisse nõuda viivitamata ja tõhusalt.
Conclusion on the assessment of the aid measure
Rumeenia tagab käesoleva otsuse rakendamise nelja kuu jooksul alates selle teatavaks tegemise kuupäevast.
The foregoing analysis indicates that the payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants amounts to the granting of incompatible new aid which is incompatible with the Treaty.
Artikkel 4
The Commission regrets that Romania has already partially paid out that compensation by offsetting tax debts owed by one of the claimants, S.C.
Kahe kuu jooksul alates käesoleva otsuse teatavakstegemisest esitab Rumeenia järgmise teabe:
European Food SA, to the Romanian state against part of that compensation, as well as by the action taken by the court-appointed executor.
igale käesoleva otsuse artiklis 1 nimetatud üksusele antud abi kogusumma;
RECOVERY
käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks juba võetud ja kavandatavate meetmete üksikasjalik kirjeldus;
In accordance with the Treaty and the CJEU’s established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the Member State concerned must abolish or alter aid when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market [91].
dokumendid, mis kinnitavad, et abisaajatele on antud korraldus abi tagasi maksta.
The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a Member State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation [92].
Rumeenia teavitab komisjoni käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks võetud riiklike meetmetega seotud edusammudest, kuni kogu artiklis 1 nimetatud abi on tagasi makstud.
In this context, the Court has stated that that objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored [93].
Rumeenia esitab komisjoni taotlusel viivitamata teabe käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks juba võetud ja kavandatavate meetmete kohta.
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 […].’
Ta esitab ka üksikasjaliku teabe abisaajatelt juba tagasi saadud abisummade ja intressi kohta.
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.
Artikkel 5
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.’
Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud Rumeeniale.
The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations has been recognised by the CJEU to constitute such a general principle of Union law.
Brüssel, 30. märts 2015
The Commission does not consider, however, that the claimants can claim such a legitimate expectation.
Komisjoni nimel
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.
Margrethe VESTAGER
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].
Alates 1. detsembrist 2009 muutusid EÜ asutamislepingu artiklid 87 ja 88 vastavalt Euroopa Liidu toimimise artikliteks 107 ja 108.
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].
Sätted on sisult identsed.
A diligent economic operator must be assumed to be able to determine whether that procedure has been followed [96].
Käesolevas otsuses tuleb viiteid Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artiklitele 107 ja 108 käsitada vajaduse korral vastavalt viidetena EÜ asutamislepingu artiklitele 87 ja 88.
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.
Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepinguga tehti terminoloogiasse teatavaid muudatusi: „ühendus” asendati „liiduga” ja „ühisturg” „siseturuga”.
That position was expressly communicated to the Tribunal on 20 July 2009 and communicated to the claimants.
Käesolevas otsuses kasutatakse läbivalt Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu terminoloogiat.
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.
ELT C 393, 7.11.2014, lk 27.
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.
ICSIDi 11. detsembri 2013. aasta lõppotsus kohtuasjas nr ARB/05/20: Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, SC European Food SA, SC Starmill SRI, SC Multipack SRL vs. Rumeenia.
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.
Euroopa Keskpanga viitekurss 11. detsembril 2013: 1 euro = 4,45 leud.