natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As a matter of fact, the prices paid by Hidroelectrica to Electrocentrale Deva between 2009 and 2011 were similar to prices paid by other electricity distribution companies, State and privately owned, which were purchasing electricity from Electrocentrale Deva.
Seda kinnitab lisaks ka Rumeenia (põhjendus 63).
However, those purchases were taking place between Electrocentrale Deva and electricity distribution companies, which were selling electricity to households and small businesses on the retail market at regulated prices and conditions (recital 34).
Vastupidi, vajadust toetada nende kahe ettevõtte ja neid varustavate kivisöekaevanduste kulukat ja konkurentsivõimetut käitamist nimetasid Termoelectrica (põhjenduses 20) ja Electrocentrale Deva (põhjenduses 21) direktorid vastutavale ministrile põhjusena, miks Hidroelectrica peaks asjaomased lepingud sõlmima.
Hidroelectrica was buying electricity on the wholesale market for retail resale on the competitive market to industrial consumers and/or traders, on which prices and quantities were not regulated and buyers could refrain from buying from expensive sellers, like Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva and chose the cheapest supplier, independent of its production costs.
Siiski, kui riigi osalusega äriühingud võtavad äritehingute tegemisel arvesse kaalutlusi toetada raskustes ettevõtteid või sektoreid sotsiaal- või majanduspoliitilistel põhjustel, mis ei ole nende ärihuvides, ning teevad selliseid tehinguid tingimustel, mis ei oleks tavalisele turuosalisele vastuvõetavad, siis võib heaks kiidetud tingimustega, käesoleval juhul Hidroelectrica ostuhindadega, kaasneda põhjendamatu majanduslik eelis teis(t)ele pool(t)ele, mis vastab seega ühele ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 kohaldamise tingimustest.
Therefore, even if prices were similar and assuming that sales of Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva on the regulated market allowed for cost-recovery, the prices paid by the electricity distribution companies to Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva are not comparable with and cannot constitute a valid benchmark for the prices paid by Hidroelectrica on the competitive free market.
Sellest järeldub, et asjaomaste lepingute sõlmimisel ja jõusse jätmisel ei käitunud Hidroelectrica turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtjana.
Likewise, the cost justification adduced by Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva and the Romanian authorities only explains why the prices at which Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva were capable of selling without loss were high.
Järelikult tõendab see põhimõte ka kvalitatiivselt ökonomeetrilise analüüsi tulemusi, mis näitasid, et asjaomased lepingud andsid Termoelectricale ja Electrocentrale Devale majandusliku eelise, mis turutingimustes muidu kättesaadav ei oleks.
This justification does not establish that these prices were in line with market prices determined under competitive conditions such as those under which Hidroelectrica should have concluded and implemented the Contracts, if these Contracts were to be deemed to entail no State aid.
Rumeenia ametiasutuste esitatud andmed ei käsitlenud asjaomaste lepingutega täpselt sarnaste kogust ja kestust puudutavate tingimustega pikaajalisi lepinguid.
For the purposes of establishing whether the contractual prices were in line with market conditions in Romania, it is appropriate to compare them with the price conditions prevailing for other bi-laterally negotiated contracts contemporaneous with the Contracts on the free market.
Kuna kindel viide nn turutingimuste kindlakstegemiseks puudub, võrdles komisjon Hidroelectrica makstud lepingujärgseid hindu aasta kaupa Rumeenia esitatud pikaajalistes jaemüügilepingutes kehtestatud kõrgeimate hindadega Rumeenias aastatel 2009–2011 (vt põhjendused 42–45).
The Commission used the Dataset provided by the Romanian authorities, considering it the best available source of evidence to reflect the market conditions in Romania (recitals 42-45).
Võrdlus toetub konservatiivsele eeldusele, et Termoelectrica ja Electrocentrale Deva oleksid võinud asjaomaste Hidroelectricaga sõlmitud lepingute asemel sõlmida mitu lepingut teiste turul olevate ostjatega, kes pakkusid kõige kõrgemaid hindu, ning on väga konservatiivne: selle asemel, et võtta turuhinnaks võrreldavate tehingute keskmine, mediaan või mood, võeti turuhinnaks mitme tehingu, mis ei olnud täielikult võrreldavad, kõige kallim hind.
As indicated in recital 45, no long-term contract concluded or in force in 2009 replicates the characteristics of the Contracts.
Arvestades ühtluse puudumist tehingute puhul ja võimalike tegurite või anomaaliate olemasolu, mis võib aidata selgitada, miks võeti võrdlusaluseks kõige kõrgema hinnaga tehingute puhul kokkulepitud hinnatase, on see lähenemisviis abisaajale soodus, kuna seda kasutades on võimalik hinnata saadud soodustust tegelikust vähem oluliseks.
Therefore, the Commission carried out an econometric analysis in order to estimate a price benchmark based on electricity contracts contemporaneous with the Contracts throughout the relevant period.
Hidroelectricale Electrocentrale Deva ja Termoelectrica aastatel 2009–2011 tarnitud elektrienergia koguste kaalutud keskmised hinnad (põhjendus 32) olid järgmised:
A detailed technical description of the econometric analysis and its results is provided in the Annex.
(RON/MWh)
In the absence of a definite reference to establish the ‘market conditions’, in order to check whether the Contracts had prices above market level, a benchmark of market prices was estimated as a proxy, under conservative assumptions, namely, by accounting for important deviations upwards from the estimated market price.
Electrocentrale DEVA hind
Based on this conservative approach, the Commission performed a comparison of the prices of the Contracts against the benchmark market price, yearly, between 2009 and 2011.
Turuhinna kaalutud keskmine
The comparison was made yearly because the selling prices under the Contracts were increased every year.
A ja B vahe
The analysis shows that, based on the benchmark prices and under conservative assumptions, the prices charged by Termoelectrica to Hydroelectric were above market prices.
Termoelectrica hind
If due account is taken of the fact that the comparison of transactions at wholesale level for the Contracts is carried out with contracts at the retail level, by adding a 5 % retail margin charged on average by traders on the Romanian market, the difference with market prices is: 18,8 RON/MWh in 2010 and 19,8 RON/MWh in 2011 for Termoelectrica and 17,5 RON/MWh in 2010 and 13,9 RON/MWh in 2011.
Sellistel konservatiivsetel eeldustel võrrelduna on keskmised hinnad, mida Hidroelectrica maksis Termoelectricale ja Electrocentrale Devale, ikkagi kõrgemad kui 2010. ja 2011. aastal makstud kõrgeimad hinnad, mis kinnitab ökonomeetrilise analüüsi tulemusi.
The econometric analysis therefore provides a first indication that the Contracts provided Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva with an economic advantage over market conditions.
Hinnad, mida Termoelectrica Hidroelectricalt küsis, olid 16,6 RON/MWh võrra kõrgemad kui 2010. aasta kõrgeimad hinnad ning 14,3 RON/MWh võrra kõrgemad kui 2011. aasta kõrgeimad hinnad ning hinnad, mida Electrocentrale Deva Hidroelectricalt küsis, olid 9,8 RON/MWh kõrgemad kui 2010. aasta kõrgeimad hinnad ja 4,4 RON/MWh võrra kõrgemad kui 2011. aasta kõrgeimad hinnad.
However, the mere fact that prices under the Contracts were assessed to be above benchmark prices of similar contracts is not sufficient to establish that these contracts would not have been entered into and maintained in force by a market operator acting in lieu of Hidroelectrica.
Eelnevat arvesse võttes saab järeldada, et asjaomased lepingud soodustasid Termoelectricat ja Electrocentrale Devat, andes neile majandusliku eelise, mis turutingimustes muidu kättesaadav ei oleks.
Objective reasons may still mean that high price levels alone cannot be deemed to afford an economic advantage above market conditions to electricity sellers.
Seepärast järeldab komisjon, et Hidroelectrica ei käitunud nii, nagu turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev ettevõtja oleks sellises olukorras käitunud, ning andis Termoelectricale ja Electrocentrale Devale lubamatu majandusliku eelise.
It is therefore necessary that additional evidence of prices above market conditions corroborates the robustness of the results of the econometric analysis.
Riigi vahendid ja riigiga seostatavus
In that respect, it is appropriate to establish whether Hidroelectrica behaved in a way comparable to that of a private economy operator in a similar situation (‘the market economy operator test’/‘MEOP’) [37].
Et meede oleks ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses riigiabi, tuleb seda rahastada otseselt või kaudselt riigi vahenditest ja see peab olema seostatav riigiga.
The Commission assessed therefore whether a private operator placed in a similar situation would have behaved in the same way as Hidroelectrica when entering into and maintaining the Contracts.
Nagu nähtub põhjendusest 11, on Hidroelectrica otseselt Rumeenia riigi kontrolli all.
In this context, the following circumstances described below in recitals 82-85 and concerning the conclusion and implementation of the Contracts are relevant.
Sellest järeldub, et Hidroelectrica saamata jäänud vahendid teevad kokku sama palju kui riigi vahendid, millest Rumeenia ilma jäi.
First, at the date of conclusion of the Contracts other cheaper sources of electricity were available to Hidroelectrica on the market; for example: in 2008-2009, Nuclearelectrica offered electricity for 153 RON/MWh compared to 227 RON/MWh for Termoelectrica and 230 RON/MWh for Electrocentrale Deva [38].
Rumeenia riik määrab ka juhatuse liikmed.
Second, Hidroelectrica could only sell the electricity purchased from Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva to third parties at a loss.
Lisaks sellele olid juhatuse liikmetel samaaegselt poliitilised kohustused ministeeriumis, mis kontrollib riigi osalust Hidroelectricas.
As shown in recitals 46 and 47, Hidroelectrica's retail selling prices on the free market were significantly lower than these wholesale purchase prices and the highest price at which Hidroelectrica resold electricity on the directly negotiated contracts market was 190 RON/MWh, in 2010, compared to a purchase price of 230 RON/MWh for Termoelectrica and 234 RON/MWh for Electrocentrale Deva.
Väljakujunenud kohtupraktika kohaselt ei saa asjaolu tõttu, et riigil on võimalik kontrollida meetmete jaotamisel osalevaid äriühinguid, automaatselt eeldada, et nende äriühingute tegevus on seostatav riigiga.
It follows that, based on those prices, every single MWh purchased from Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva was resold by Hidroelectrica at loss.
Euroopa Kohus on selgitanud riigi osalusega äriühingute vara puudutavate otsuste riigiga seostatavuse mõistet otsuses Stardust Marine.
In that respect, the investigation did not provide any explanation why Hidroelectrica agreed to purchase the entire output of Termoelectrica's Paroseni power plant (recital 24).
Riigi osalusega äriühingu vahendeid tuleb pidada riigi vahenditeks ja neid puudutavat tegevust tuleb pidada riigiga seostatavaks, kui riik on suuteline oma valitseva mõjuga sellise äriühingu üle suunama selle vahendite kasutamist [39].
A commitment to buy whatever output a power plant produces on 10-year long-term basis is a strong indication that Hidroelectrica did not need the contracts to honour its own supply contract obligations.
Euroopa Kohus sätestas näitajad riigiga seostatavuse kindlaksmääramiseks: riigi osalusega äriühingu integreeritus riigiasutuste süsteemi; tema tegevuse laad; äriühingu õiguslik seisund; ametiasutuste teostatava kontrolli intensiivsus ettevõtja juhtimise üle ning kõik muud tegurid, mis osutavad ametiasutuste osalusele meetme vastuvõtmisel või sellele, et nende osalus ei ole ebatõenäoline.
This is furthermore confirmed by Romania (recital 63).
Käesoleval juhul tuleb arvesse võtta ka asjaomaste lepingute ulatust, sisu ja tingimusi.
On the contrary, the need to support the expensive and uncompetitive operation of the two companies and the coal mines which supplied them was put forward by the company managers of Termoelectrica (recital 20) and Electrocentrale Deva (recital 21) to the responsible Minister as the reason why Hidroelectrica should enter into the Contracts.
Seepärast on vaja uurida, kas Rumeenia ametiasutused osalesid ühel või teisel viisil asjaomaste lepingute sõlmimisel ja kehtivuse säilitamisel ning lepingujärgsete hindade muutmisel.
However, when entering into commercial transactions, if public undertakings take into account considerations of support to ailing companies or sectors for social or economic policy reasons which are extraneous to their commercial interests and enter into such transactions under conditions which a normal market operator would not accept, the conditions accepted, as to purchase prices by Hidroelectrica in this case, might entail an undue economic advantage for the other party or parties, thus fulfilling one of the conditions of application of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Sealjuures osales majandus- ja kaubandusministeerium aktiivselt otsustusprotsessis, mis puudutas asjaomaste lepingute sõlmimist ja seejärel muudatuste tegemist lepingujärgsetes hindades.
It follows that by entering into and maintaining the Contracts, Hidroelectrica did not behave as a market economy operator.
Konkreetsemalt andis majandus- ja kaubandusministeerium Termoelectricale ja Electrocentrale Devale heakskiidu asjaomaste lepingute allkirjastamiseks Hidroelectricaga, mis viitab tegelikult sellele, et Rumeenia riigil oli selle üle otsustav mõju (põhjendused 19–22).
Accordingly, this test also corroborates qualitatively the result of the econometric analysis indicating that the Contracts granted to Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva an economic advantage not otherwise available under market conditions.
Seda kinnitab veelgi asjaolu, et Hidroelectrica taotles otseselt Rumeenia majandus- ja kaubandusministeeriumi heakskiitu hindade kohandamiseks (põhjendused 26–31).
The data provided by the Romanian authorities did not cover long term contracts with exactly the same conditions as regards the quantity and duration as the Contracts.
Seda otsest tõendit kinnitab ka Hidroelectrica ostude negatiivne tulem ning majanduslikult ebaotstarbekas otsus osta Paroșeni elektrijaama kogu toodang (põhjendused 84–85).
In the absence of a definite reference to establish the ‘market conditions’, the Commission therefore compared, on a yearly basis, the contract prices paid by Hidroelectrica with the highest prices applied in Romania between 2009 and 2011 in long-term retail contracts provided by Romania (see recitals 42 to 45).
Tundub, et asjaomaste lepingute sõlmimise motiiv oli kahe teise riigi omandis oleva elektrijaama raske finantsolukord ning sotsiaalsed kaalutlused seoses kivisöe tootmisega (põhjendused 20–21).
This comparison relies on the conservative assumption that Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva could have replaced their Contracts with Hidroelectrica by several contracts with other buyers on the market offering the highest prices and is very conservative: instead of taking as a market price the average, median or mode in comparable transactions, the market price is taken to be the most expensive price found in several, not fully comparable transactions.
Lõppkokkuvõttes kuulusid kõik kolm riigiosalusega elektrijaama ja kivisöekaevandused riigile ja vastutus nende eest lasus riigil, kellelt Termoelectrica ja Electrocentrale Deva taotlesid vahendeid oma jooksva tegevuse rahastamiseks.
Given the lack of homogeneity of the transactions, and the existence of potential factors or anomalies that may contribute to explain the price level agreed in the highest-price transactions taken as a reference, this approach is favourable to the beneficiary, as it may potentially underestimate the advantage received.
Eeltoodu kinnitab menetluse algatamise otsuses väljendatud komisjoni esialgset seisukohta, et asjaomased lepingud ja nende rakendamine ei olnud Hidroelectrica ratsionaalsed ja sõltumatud tehinguotsused, vaid Rumeenia riigi valitseva mõju rakendamine.
The weighted average prices for the quantities of electricity effectively supplied to Hidroelectrica by Electrocentrale Deva and Termoelectrica between 2009 and 2011 (recital 32) were as follows:
Seepärast järeldab komisjon, et otsesed tõendid viitavad Rumeenia riigi seostatavusele asjaomaste lepingute sõlmimise ja nende rakendamisega.
(in RON/MWh)
Lisaks sellele, kui arvestada, et asjaomaste lepingute sõlmimine ja rakendamine tähendas Hidroelectrica kui riigi osalusega äriühingu jaoks vahendite kaotust, järeldab komisjon, et nende meetmete elluviimiseks eraldatakse riigi vahendeid.
Price Electrocentrale Deva
Valikulisus
A. Market price
Et meede oleks riigiabi, peab see olema konkreetne või valikuline, soodustades ainult teatavaid ettevõtjaid või teatavate kaupade tootmist.
Difference A – B
Asjaomased lepingud sõlmiti kahe konkreetse tarnija, Termoelectrica ja Electrocentrale Devaga, ning neile anti põhjendamatu majanduslik eelis.
Price Termoelectrica
Ükski teine Hidroelectricale elektrienergia tarnija ei saanud kasu asjaomastes lepingutes sätestatud tingimustele sarnastest tingimustest.
Compared under these conservative assumptions, the average prices paid by Hidroelectrica to Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva still turn out to be above those highest prices in 2010 and 2011, thus corroborating the findings of the econometric analysis.
Ülemäära kõrgetest lepingujärgsetest hindadest tulenevad majanduslikud eelised on seega valikulised.
The prices charged by Termoelectrica to Hidroelectrica were 16,6 RON/MWh above the highest prices in 2010 and 14,3 RON/MWh in 2011, whilst the prices charged by Electrocentrale Deva to Hidroelectrica were 9,8 RON/MWh above the highest prices in 2010 and 4,4 RON MWh in 2011.
Konkurentsimoonutus ja mõju kaubandusele
In view of the above, it can be concluded that the Contracts favoured Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva by affording them an economic advantage not available under market conditions.
Kui liikmesriigi antud abi tugevdab ettevõtja positsiooni võrreldes teiste ettevõtjatega, kes konkureerivad liidusiseses kaubanduses, tuleb järeldada, et abi mõjutab viimati nimetatuid.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that Hidroelectrica did not act as a market economy operator would have done in the circumstances and conferred an undue economic advantage on Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva.
Eriti eeldatakse konkurentsimoonutust ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses niipea, kui riik annab rahalise eelise ettevõtjale liberaliseeritud sektorist, kus on või võib olla konkurents [40].
State resources and imputability
Termoelectrica ja Electrocentrale Deva tegutsevad elektrimüügiturul, mis on konkurentsile avatud (põhjendused 35–38).
In order to be considered aid in the sense of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, a measure must be granted directly or indirectly from State resources and it must be imputable to the State.
Sellistele ettevõtjatele antud majanduslik kasu annaks neile eelise konkurentide ees, kellele turutingimustes selliseid hindu ei pakuta.
As shown in recital 11, Hidroelectrica is directly controlled by the Romanian State.
Käesoleva juhtumi puhul oli toetus mõeldud kivisöel põhineva elektrienergia tootmise soodustamiseks, mis moonutaks elektrienergia tootjate vahelist konkurentsi.
It follows those resources foregone by Hidroelectrica amount to State resources foregone by Romania.
Lisaks sellele on Rumeenia turg praegu (ja oli asjaolude ilmnemise ajal) seotud teiste liikmesriikidega ja eksportis sinna elektrienergiat (põhjendus 17).
The Romanian State also appoints Directors to its Board.
Eelneva valguses järeldab komisjon, et asjaomased lepingud võivad konkurentsi moonutada ja mõjutada liikmesriikide vahelist kaubandust ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
Moreover, those Directors simultaneously exercised political responsibilities in the Ministry which controls the State's holding in Hidroelectrica.
Järeldus riigiabi olemasolu kohta
According to settled case law, the ability of the State to control the entities involved in granting the measures does not justify automatically the presumption that the entities' actions are imputable to the State.
Eelpool põhjendustes 72–105 kirjeldatud argumentide põhjal järeldab komisjon, et mõlemad asjaomased lepingud sisaldavad riigiabi andmist Termoelectricale ja Electrocentrale Devale ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has explained the notion of imputability to the State of decisions involving the funds of public undertakings in Stardust Marine judgement.
Rumeenia ei täitnud ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõike 3 kohast kohustust mitte rakendada meedet enne, kui komisjon on andnud sellele oma heakskiidu.
The resources of a public undertaking are to be considered State resources and actions concerning them are considered to be imputable to the State if the State is capable, by exercising its dominant influence over such an undertaking, to direct the use of its resources [39].
Riigiabi on seega ebaseaduslik.
The Court of Justice provided indicators for establishing imputability to the State which are: integration of the public undertaking into the structures of the public administration; the nature of its activities; the legal status of the undertaking; the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking or any other indicator showing an involvement by the public authorities in the adoption of a measure or the unlikelihood of their not being involved.
Abi kokkusobivus siseturuga
Regard must also be had in this case to the compass of the Contracts, their content or the conditions which they contain.
Kuna meede, mida Rumeenia rakendas Termoelectrica ja Electrocentrale Deva puhul, kujutab endast riigiabi ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses, tuleb selle kokkusobivust siseturuga hinnata kõnealuse artikli lõigetes 2 ja 3 sätestatud erandite valguses.
It is therefore necessary to examine whether the Romanian Authorities must be regarded as having been involved, in one way or another, in concluding and maintaining the Contracts in force and in modifying the contract prices.
Käesoleval juhul andis riigiabi abisaajatele jooksva tegevustulu, mis ei olnud spetsiaalselt eraldatud ühekski konkreetseks investeeringuks, mis oleks suutnud parandada elektrienergia tootmist või jaotamist.
In this regard, the Ministry of Economy and Trade, was actively involved in the decision making process concerning the conclusion of the Contracts and the subsequent contractual price readjustments.
Sellise tegevusabi kokkusobivust siseturuga vastavalt ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõikele 2 või 3 tuleb hinnata kitsendavalt, rakendades rangeid tingimusi.
In particular, Termoelectrica and Electrocentrale Deva received the approval of the Ministry of Economy and Trade to sign the Contracts with Hidroelectrica which de facto implies that it is the Romanian State which ultimately exercised the decisive influence over the latter (recitals 19-22).
Korduv ja pikaajaline tegevusabi kahe aasta jooksul ei tundu olevat vajalik ega aita kaasa ühegi ELile üldist huvi pakkuva selge eesmärgi saavutamisele.
This is further confirmed by the fact that Hidroelectrica directly sought the approval of the Romanian Ministry of Economy and Trade for the price readjustments (recitals 26-31).
Samuti ei ole tõendatud abi proportsionaalsus.
This direct evidence is corroborated by the loss-making nature of Hidroelectrica's purchases and the lack of economic rationale of committing to buy the entire output of Paroseni's power plant (recitals 84-85).
Lisaks sellele ja igal juhul on Euroopa Kohtu praktika kohaselt liikmesriigi ülesanne esitada siseturuga kokkusobivuse võimalikud põhjused ja tõendada, et sellise kokkusobivuse tingimused on täidetud [41].