natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Pursuant to Article 1(2) of this Order, ongoing bilateral contracts were generally exempted from the rule on the basis of which the representatives of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Business Environment and members of the boards of directors of the State-owned electricity companies were obliged to ensure that, as of 31 March 2010, the volume of electricity intended for the wholesale market should be traded exclusively on OPCOM.
Lisaks, mis puudutab Elsidit, Electrocarbonit ja Luxten-Lightingit, mida käsitleti konkreetselt eelmises punktis 7.1, on mitme fakti põhjal ebatõenäoline, et otsust säilitada Luxten-Lightingi 2008.–2009. aasta ning Electrocarboni ja Elsidi 2007.–2010. aasta lepingud ja muuta nende hindu saaks seostada Rumeenia ametiasutustega.
As noted in recital 101, the competence to examine the contracts at issue from the perspective of EU State aid rules started as from Romania's accession to the EU, that is to say 3 years before the time-limit set in Ministerial Order No 445/2009 and more than 2 years before the Order's adoption.
Eelkõige tõsteti järjekindlalt igal aastal kolme lepingu tegelikke hindu.
It follows that no such rule existed when the contracts at issue became susceptible of review under EU rules.
Aastatel 2007–2010 tõsteti Elsidi, Electrocarboni ja Luxten-Lightingi hindu vastavalt 44,5, 44,5 ja 41,4 %.
Moreover, although Ministerial Order 445/2009 suggests a degree of influence on the part of the State on the commercial policy of State-owned electricity producers, its aim is mainly of a regulatory nature, namely to increase transparency of energy transactions on the wholesale market and to ensure greater volumes and liquidity on the trading platforms administered by OPCOM.
Need lepingute muudatused, mis vähendavad väidetava riigiabi arvatavat summat, algatas alati Hidroelectrica ja alati enda kasuks.
This Ministerial Order applies to all State-owned producers, not only to Hidroelectrica.
Strateegia, mille eesmärk on vähendada abisaajatele antud summat, näib olevat vastuolus abi andmise otstarbega või vähemalt on see liiga keeruline, et olla tõenäoline.
It cannot therefore be deduced from the terms and aims of Ministerial Order 445/2009 that the Romanian State exercised control over every transaction, contract or contract amendment regarding the supply of electricity by State-owned electricity producers, which account for the large majority of producers on the Romanian market, or, in particular, by Hidroelectrica.
Lisaks ei saa Elsidit, Electrocarbonit ja Luxten-Lightingit vastupidiselt Alrole ja ArcelorMittalile pidada riiklikult oluliseks tööstustarbijaks: näitlikustamiseks saab tuua asjaolu, et nende aastane Hidroelectricalt ostetud tarbitav kogus moodustab Alro tarbitavast kogusest alla kümnendiku (I lisa).
In other words, the Order does not make it plausible that the Romanian State was involved in the ordinary day-to-day commercial activity, sales contracts, amendments thereof, price negotiations, etc. in relation to the three contracts under examination.
Seepärast ei ole tõenäoline, et otsuseid, millega vähendati abisummat, tõstes märgatavalt lepinguhindu, saaks pidada mitte Hidroelectrica äriotsusteks, vaid Rumeenia riigi otsuseks anda abi väidetavatele abisaajatele.
Except for the supply of electricity on the regulated market (recitals 25-26) Hidroelectrica exercises its electricity supplying activities in open markets with non-captive buyers, in competition with other private or publicly owned suppliers.
Ka Electrocarboni ja Elsidi lepingutest nähtuvalt on ebatõenäoline, nagu oleks riik osalenud abisumma tasahaaval vähendamises.
In particular, a significant volume of electricity well above the total amount of Hidroelectrica's supplies under all the contracts under investigation was traded through bilateral bespoke long-term contracts on the Romanian market, where many other suppliers compete (recitals 30 and 38).
Eelkõige on ebatõenäoline, et 2010. aastal lepinguhindade tõstmist nõudes tegutses Hidroelectrica riigi juhiste kohaselt, ähvardades katkestada elektritarned ja vaieldes selle üle kohtus (põhjendus 22), sest taotletud hinnatõusude mõjul vähenes arvatav abisumma ning tarnete katkestamine oleks võinud ohustada ostjate tootmistegevust.
Hidroelectrica's contracts under scrutiny and, in particular, the three bespoke long-term contracts with Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon and Elsid, maintained after 1 January 2007, are, therefore, not abnormal or extraordinary, which would suggest a particular interest of the State in maintaining them.
Selline käitumine – mitte pidada kinni lepinguhinnast, millega väidetavalt anti abi, ähvardada tarnete katkestamisega ning kaitsta hinnatõusu kohtus – ei ole abiandjale omane käitumine, vaid pigem on see kasumit suurendada sooviv äriühing, kes kaitseb oma ärihuve ega kaalu mitteärilisi eesmärke, mida tõenäoliselt tehtaks vastavalt riigilt saadud juhistele.
Furthermore, the contracts with Electrocarbon and Elsid were maintained and renegotiated by Hidroelectrica's receiver after insolvency proceedings were begun in 2012, which provides an indication that these contracts were still of interest to Hidroelectrica's temporary new management, well after Romania's accession to the European Union in 2007 and well after the contracts were concluded and were amended, in particular with regard to prices.
Luxten-Lightningi puhul puuduvad seoses müügiga kauplejale, kes saab seda elektrit müüa jaeturul üksnes kõrgema hinnaga, kui Hidroelectrica oleks saanud sedasama elektrit ise jaeturul müüa, ilmsed avaliku sektoriga seotud põhjused, nagu näiteks madalad hinnad lõpptarbijatele.
Likewise, Hidroelectrica requested increased prices above contract levels and gave notice to Electrocarbon and Elsid of the interruption of supplies in order to prompt them to accept further price increases in 2010 (recital 22), thus behaving like a revenue-maximising seller and not like a grantor of aid.
Näiteks enne kui Hidroelectrica hakkas Alrot 2005. aastal jaetasandil varustama, ostis Alro elektrit kauplejalt, Energy Holdingilt, kes ostis elektrit hulgi Hidroelectricalt.
This is not to say that the Romanian State is not in the position of being involved with the commercial contracts of State-owned electricity suppliers in the interests of specific and major industrial buyers.
Alro puhul oli ratsionaalne käitumine lasta tarnida otse Hidroelectrical, säästes seeläbi kasumimarginaali, kui tema tarnija ei lisanud enam Hidroelectrica hulgitarnele väärtust.
For instance, before Romania's accession to the EU, an Internal Note dated 2 February 2006, signed by the State Secretary of the Economy and Trade Ministry and approved by the Prime Minister, proposed the implementation of special preferential treatment for the ten largest energy-intensive users in Romania (including aluminium or steel producers supplied by Hidroelectrica or Nuclearelectrica).
Samas vaimus ei ole tõenäoline, et kui Luxten-Lighting ei oleks lisanud oma tööstuskasutajatele või teistele ostjatele suunatud jaemüügile väärtust, oleks Rumeenia riik 2008. ja 2009. aastal survestanud Hidroelectricat säilitama lepingut Luxten-Lightingiga.
As regards the contract with Arcelor-Mittal, in particular, Hidroelectrica's board of directors' decision No 13/2009 dated 16 December 2009 empowered Hidroelectrica's chief executive officer ‘to negotiate the ongoing sale-of-electricity contract in the best conditions for Hidroelectrica’.
Lisaks lõpetas Luxten-Lighting 2011. aasta novembris, enne kui komisjon alustas menetlust, ühepoolselt lepingu Hidroelectricaga; selline käitumine ei ole kooskõlas riigiabi saaja käitumisega.
The board of directors did this by approving the main terms of the contracts of 2009 and 2010 with ArcelorMittal.
Kõigi eespool esitatud kaalutluste alusel ei ole tehtud kindlaks, et 2008.–2009. aasta lepingud Luxten-Lightingi ning 2007.–2010. aasta lepingud Electrocarboni ja Elsidiga on seostatavad Rumeenia riigiga.
Addendum No 17 in 2009 to the contract with Alro (inserting the LME formula in the calculation of the contract price) was also approved by Hidroelectrica's board of directors.
Rumeenia riigiga seostatavuse olulise elemendina riigiabi olemasolu puudumisel kolmes lepingus, Luxten-Lightingi 2007.–2010. aasta lepingutes ning Electrocarboni ja Elsidi 2008.–2009. aasta lepingutes, ei ole vajadust analüüsida, kas selle sätte kohaldamise muud kumulatiivsed tingimused, nagu võimalik mõju konkurentsile ja liikmesriikidevahelisele kaubandusele, on täidetud.
Likewise, a memorandum of 3 February 2011 from the two General Managers of Nuclearelectrica and CE Hunedoara, which, like Hidroelectrica, are State-owned, requested the approval of the Ministry of Economy and Trade for the conclusion of a wholesale sale of electricity contract between Nuclearelectrica as a seller and CE Hunedoara as a purchaser.
Eespool kirjeldatut arvesse võttes ei kujuta kolm kontrollitavat lepingut, Luxten-Lightingi 2008.–2009. aasta lepingud ning Electrocarboni ja Elsidi 2007.–2010. aasta lepingud, endast riigiabi ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
This transaction needed a derogation from the provisions of Order 445/2009 requiring that any wholesale electricity transaction involving a State-owned enterprise should take place only on OPCOM.
JÄRELDUS
This derogation was requested in view of the fact that the electricity acquired would serve ‘the electricity needs of a number of industrial consumers of national importance in 2011’.
Käesoleva otsusega hõlmatud lepingud ei kujuta endast riigiabi ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses,
This memorandum was fully endorsed by the Minister of Economy and Trade.
ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
It follows that there is some indirect evidence that does not allow it to be completely ruled out that the Romanian State would have been involved in concluding, or making major amendments to, Hidroelectrica's contracts with big energy-intensive industrial buyers.
Artikkel 1
Moreover, the Commission has concluded that other purchase contracts into which Hidroelectrica entered with two other State-owned companies, Electrocentrale Deva and Termoelectrica, in 2008 and 2009, were imputable to the Romanian State.
Hidroelectrica ning ArcelorMittali, Alpiq RomEnergie, Alpiq RomIndustriesi, EFT, Electrica, Electromagnetica, Energy Holdingi, EURO-PECi, Luxten-Lightingi, Electrocarboni ja Elsidi vahel sõlmitud lepingud ning leping Alroga ei kujuta endast riigiabi ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
That conclusion was based mainly on direct evidence of the other two State-owned companies having sought approval of the contracts from the Minister responsible also for the State-owned Hidroelectrica as a means of (cross) financing their current operations and that of the State-owned mines which supplied them with coal, for social and other non-commercial reasons [61].
Artikkel 2
However, the considerations that may render plausible (or not exclude the possibility of) the Romanian State's being involved in a number of Hidroelectrica's contracts with big industrial buyers of national importance for the Romanian economy and with other State-owned sellers cannot be extrapolated from in such a way that all Hidroelectrica's commercial contracts and, in particular, those with Elsid, Electrocarbon and electricity traders are considered to be imputable to the Romanian State.
Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud Rumeeniale.
Unlike Electrocentrale Deva and Termoelectrica, Elsid, Electrocarbon and the electricity traders were privately-owned and none of them can be held to be a big industrial buyer of national importance for the Romanian economy.
Brüssel, 12. juuni 2015
In particular, the evidence available in the investigation does not point at any specific interest or involvement on the part of the Romanian State in prompting Hidroelectrica to conclude or, after Romania's accession, to maintain the contracts with Elsid, Electrocarbon and the electricity traders.
Komisjoni nimel
Moreover, as regards Elsid, Electrocarbon and Luxten-Lighting, which were specifically singled out in the previous Section 7.1, several facts make it implausible that the decision to maintain the contracts and amend the prices of the contracts with Luxten-Lighting for 2008-2009 and with Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010 could be attributed to the Romanian authorities.
Margrethe Vestager
In particular, the actual prices under the three contracts were constantly increased each year.
Komisjoni 25. aprilli 2012. aasta otsus C(2012) 2516 final juhtumi SA.
Between 2007 and 2010, the prices charged to Elsid, Electrocarbon and Luxten-Lighting increased by 44,5 %, 44,5 % and 41,4 %, respectively.
33623 kohta (ELT C 189, 29.6.2012, lk 3).
Price increases reduce the absolute value of the aid granted.
Komisjoni 25. aprilli 2012. aasta otsus C(2012) 2517 final juhtumi SA.
These contract changes which reduce the putative amount of the alleged State aid, were always triggered by, and for the benefit of, Hidroelectrica.
33624 kohta (ELT C 268, 5.9.2012, lk 21).
A strategy aimed at reducing the amount of aid granted to the beneficiaries seems to contradict the purpose of granting aid or, at least, to be too sophisticated to be plausible.
Komisjoni 25. aprilli 2012. aasta otsus C(2012) 2542 final juhtumi SA.
Moreover, contrary to Alro and ArcelorMittal, Elsid, Electrocarbon and Luxten-Lighting cannot be deemed to be industrial consumers of national importance: by way of illustration, their annual consumption purchases from Hidroelectrica amounted to less than one tenth of those of Alro (Annex I).
33451 kohta (ELT C 395, 20.12.2012, lk 5).
It is therefore unlikely that decisions reducing the amount of aid by considerably increasing the contract prices can be imputed not to a commercial decision of Hidroelectrica but to a decision of the Romanian State aimed at providing aid to the alleged beneficiaries.
Komisjoni 25. aprilli 2012. aasta otsus C(2012) 2556 final juhtumi SA.
The fact that it is unlikely that the State would be involved in subtly reducing the amount of aid is also apparent with respect to the contracts with Electrocarbon and Elsid.
33581 kohta (ELT C 395, 20.12.2012, lk 34).
In particular, it is implausible that Hidroelectrica was acting under instructions from the State when requesting price increases above the contract prices in 2010, threatening to discontinue the electricity supply and arguing the matter in court (recital 22), for the requested price increases had the effect of reducing the putative amount of aid, and discontinued supplies could have jeopardised the productive activities of the buyers.
ELT L 115, 9.5.2008, lk 92.
This behaviour of not adhering to a contract price that purportedly provides aid, threatening to interrupt supplies and defending price increases in court is not behaviour typical of a grantor of aid, but is, rather, that of a revenue-maximising company defending its commercial interests and not concerned with following non-commercial goals, possibly under instructions received from the State.
Juhtum SA.
As regards Luxten-Lighting, there is no obvious reason of public policy, such as low end-user prices, behind sales to a trader which can only sell retail at higher prices than if Hidroelectrica had sold the same electricity retail on its own.
33623 (ELT C 189, 29.6.2012, lk 3); juhtum SA.
For instance, before being supplied retail by Hidroelectrica as from 2005, Alro purchased electricity from a trader, Energy Holding, that bought electricity wholesale from Hidroelectrica.
33624 (ELT C 268, 5.9.2012, lk 21); juhtum SA.
It was rational behaviour for Alro to be supplied directly by Hidroelectrica, thus saving a trading margin, if its supplier was not adding value to Hidroelectrica's wholesale supply.
33451 (ELT C 395, 20.12.2012, lk 5) ja juhtum SA.
In the same vein, it is rather implausible that the Romanian State should have prompted Hidroelectrica to maintain the contract with Luxten-Lighting in 2008 and 2009, for, if Luxten-Lighting did not add value to its retail sales to industrial users or other buyers, the latter would have obtained lower prices by contracting directly with Hidroelectrica.
33581 (ELT C 395, 20.12.2012, lk 34).
Furthermore, Luxten-Lighting unilaterally terminated its contract with Hidroelectrica in November 2011, before the Commission opened proceedings; this behaviour is not consistent with that of a beneficiary of State aid.
Sealhulgas esialgsed tähelepanekud, mille Luxten-Lighting ja Euro-Pec esitasid enne algatamisotsuste kohta märkuste esitamise kutse avaldamist: Luxten-Lighting 14. augustil 2012 ja Euro-Pec 13. augustil 2012.
On the basis of all the above considerations, it is not established that the contracts with Luxten-Lighting for 2008-2009 and for Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010 are imputable to Romania.
Kõik Hidroelectrica nõukogu liikmed, välja arvatud Hidroelectrica peadirektor ja Fondul Proprietatea (2010) esindaja, täitsid eri ministeeriumides muid ülesandeid ja nad nimetati ametisse majandus- ja kaubandusministri määrusega järgmiselt: i) aastatel 2005–2006: majandus- ja kaubandusministri kabineti isiklik nõunik; väikeste ja keskmise suurusega ettevõtjate ministri kabineti direktor; rahandusministri kabineti isiklik nõunik ning valitsuse peasekretariaadi isiklik nõunik olid Hidroelectrica juhatuse liikmed; ii) aastatel 2007–2008: olukord teadmata; iii) 2009. aastal: majandus- ja kaubandusministeeriumi riigisekretär oli ühtlasi Hidroelectrica nõukogu esimees (2009), samas olid ka riigi rahandusministeeriumi riigisekretär ning kaks majandus- ja kaubandusministeeriumi peadirektorit Hidroelectrica nõukogu liikmed; iv) 2010. aastal: kolm majandus- ja kaubandusministeeriumi isiklikku nõunikku, rahandusministeeriumi riigisekretär ning majandus- ja kaubandusministeeriumi peadirektor olid Hidroelectrica nõukogu liikmed.
As the essential element of imputability to Romania for the existence of State aid is not present in the three contracts with Luxten-Lighting for 2008-2009 and with Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010, it is not necessary to analyse whether the other cumulative conditions for the application of this provision, such as the potential effect on competition and trade between Member States, are met.
Vt Rahvusvahelise Energiaagentuuri aruanne „Projected costs of generating electricity“ (elektrienergia tootmise prognoositavad kulud), 2010. aasta väljaanne, punkt 4.2 „Country by country data on electricity generating costs“ (riigikohased andmed elektrienergia tootmise kulude kohta), lk 89.
In the light of the above, the three contracts under scrutiny, with Luxten-Lighting for 2008-2009 and with Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010, do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Bukaresti kohtu 26. juuni 2012. aasta otsus nr 22456/3/2012.
CONCLUSION
Bukaresti kohtu 26. juuni 2013. aasta otsus nr 6482.
The contracts covered by the present Decision do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU,
Kättesaadav üksnes rumeeniakeelsena aadressil http://www.euroinsol.eu/uploads/Raport%2059%20Hidro%20v11.pdf
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Electrica sõlmis Hidroelectricaga kaks lühiajalist lepingut.
Article 1
Leping AlpiqRomEnergiega; kaks lepingut Electricaga; ja kaks lepingut ArcelorMittaliga.
The contracts concluded between Hidroelectrica and ArcelorMittal, Alpiq RomEnergie, Alpiq RomIndustries, EFT, Electrica, Electromagnetica, Energy Holding, Euro-Pec, Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon and Elsid, and the contract with Alro, do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Viis lepingut elektrikauplejatega (Alpiq RomIndustries; Electromagnetica; Energy Holding; Euro-Pec; Luxten-Lighting).
Article 2
Lepingud EFT (elektrikaupleja) ja Alroga.
This Decision is addressed to Romania.
Lepingud Electrocarboni ja Elsidi ning Alpiq RomEnergiega (elektrikaupleja).
Done at Brussels, 12 June 2015.
Lepingud Electrocarboni ja Elsidiga.
For the Commission
Kaks lepingut ArcelorMittaliga.
Member of the Commission
Kaks lepingut Electricaga.
Commission Decision C(2012) 2516 final of 25 April 2012 concerning case SA.33623 (OJ C 189, 29.6.2012, p. 3).
Lepingu Luxten-Lightingiga (elektrikaupleja) lõpetas Luxten-Lighting 15. novembri 2011. aasta teatega, jõustumiskuupäevaga 1. jaanuar 2012.
Commission Decision C(2012) 2517 final of 25 April 2012 concerning case SA.33624 (OJ C 268, 5.9.2012, p. 21).
Lepingud Electrocarboni ja Elsidiga aegusid 13. märtsil 2013 ning leping Electromagneticaga (elektrikaupleja) aegus 30. aprillil 2014.
Commission Decision C(2012) 2542 final of 25 April 2012 concerning case SA.33451 (OJ C 395, 20.12.2012, p. 5).
Electrocarboniga sõlmitud lepingu 1. lisas on esitatud eelnevalt kehtestatud hind (fikseeritud summa – sama hind) kuni 28. veebruarini 2008; Elsidiga sõlmitud lepingu 2. lisas on esitatud eelnevalt kehtestatud hind kuni 31. detsembrini 2007.
Commission Decision C(2012) 2556 final of 25 April 2012 concerning case SA.33581 (OJ C 395, 20.12.2012, p. 34).
1. juulil 2004 leppisid pooled kokku tabelis, milles kehtestati eelnevalt ajavahemiku 2006–2013 iga aasta kohta fikseeritud hind (st Electrocarboniga sõlmitud lepingu 4. lisa ja Elsidiga sõlmitud lepingu 5. lisa).
OJ L 115, 9.5.2008, p. 92.
Seejärel muudeti hindu 1. jaanuaril 2005, nii et hinnad kehtestati fikseeritud summas Elsidi puhul kuni 31. detsembrini 2007 ja Electrocarboni puhul kuni 28. veebruarini 2008.
Case SA.33623 (OJ C 189, 29.6.2012, p. 3); case SA.33624 (OJ C 268, 5.9.2012, p. 21); case SA.33451 (OJ C 395, 20.12.2012, p. 5) and case SA.33581 (OJ C 395, 20.12.2012, p. 34).
2006. aasta seisuga kohandati hindu Electrocarboni ja Elsidi puhul uuesti igal aastal.
Including the preliminary observations submitted by Luxten-Lighting and Euro-Pec before publication of the invitation to provide comments on the opening decision: Luxten-Lighting on 14 August 2012 and Euro-Pec on 13 August 2012.
Esimese astme kohus: Olti kohus – toimik 2800/104/2010 (Electrocarbon), ja Dambovita kohus – toimik 4102/120/2010 (Elsid).
All members of Hidroelectrica's Board of Directors except the General Director of Hidroelectrica and the representative of Fondul Proprietatea (2010), cumulated other functions in various Ministries and were appointed through Orders issued by the Ministry of Economy and Trade, as follows: (i) in 2005-2006: the personal adviser in the cabinet of the Minister of Economy and Trade; the director of cabinet of the Minister for Small and Medium Enterprises; the personal adviser in the cabinet of the Minister in the Ministry of Public Finance and the personal adviser in the General Secretariat of the Government were members of Hidroelectrica's Board of Directors; (ii) in 2007-2008 — situation unknown; (iii) in 2009: the State Secretary in the Ministry of Economy and Trade was also the President of Hidroelectrica's Board of Directors (2009), while another State Secretary in the Ministry of Public Finance and two general directors in the Ministry of Economy and Trade were also members of Hidroelectrica's Board of Directors; (iv) in 2010: three personal advisers in the Ministry of Economy and Trade, a State Secretary in the Ministry of Finance and a General Director in the Ministry of Economy and Trade were members of Hidroelectrica's Board of Directors.
Kõigi kolme lepingu artikli 10 punkt 2.
See International Energy Agency: ‘Projected costs of generating electricity’ 2010 edition, Section 4.2 ‘Country by country data on electricity generating costs’, p. 89.
Kõigi kolme lepingu artikli 10 punkt 1.
Decision of Tribunal of Bucharest No 22456/3/2012 dated 26 June 2012.
Elektri- ja gaasiseaduse nr 123/2012 artikli 55 lõige 1; seadust on muudetud seadusega nr 127/2014.
Decision of Tribunal of Bucharest No 6482 dated 26 June 2013.
KPMG aruanne, energiaettevõtete märgukiri, 3. lisa, 27. veebruar 2012, lk 8; allikas: Hidroelectrica aastaaruanded, halduri 2010. aasta aruanne, KPMG analüüs.
Available in Romanian only at http://www.euroinsol.eu/uploads/Raport%2059%20Hidro%20v11.pdf
KPMG aruanne, energiaettevõtete memorandum, 3. lisa, 27. veebruar 2012, lk 21; allikas: ANRE.
Electrica concluded two short-term contracts with Hidroelectrica.
Ärisaladus.