natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Scope of the Commission's retroactive control competence under Annex VII
Obseg pristojnosti Komisije za retroaktivni nadzor v skladu s Prilogo VII
In the context of this procedure, the Commission must assess whether the exceptional retroactive control competence described in recitals (23)-(26) above also covers measures granted by Romania to tube producers before accession.
V okviru tega postopka mora Komisija oceniti, ali izredna pristojnost za retroaktivni nadzor iz uvodnih izjav (23) do (26) zajema tudi ukrepe, ki jih je Romunija dodelila proizvajalcem cevi pred pristopom.
To this end, the legal bases applicable to this case, consisting of Annex VII in conjunction with Protocol 2 and the Additional Protocol, have to be interpreted with a view to determining whether their provisions cover measures granted to Romanian tube producers before accession.
V ta namen je treba pravne podlage, ki veljajo za ta primer, tj. Priloga VII skupaj s Protokolom 2 in Dodatnim protokolom, razlagati z namenom določitve, ali njihove določbe zajemajo ukrepe, dodeljene romunskim proizvajalcem cevi pred pristopom.
It is a generally-recognised principle of law that the provisions of a lex specialis, which derogates from the general regime, must be interpreted in a strict sense.
Splošno priznano načelo zakona je, da je treba določbe lex specialis, ki odstopajo od splošne ureditve, razlagati v ožjem pomenu.
A strict interpretation of the above-mentioned legal bases (see recitals (29)-(43) below) leads to the conclusion that the Commission’s exceptional retroactive control competence is limited to (potential) pre-accession aid to ECSC producers, thereby excluding (potential) aid to tube producers.
Ozka razlaga navedenih pravnih podlag (glej uvodne izjave (29) do (43)) vodi do zaključka, da je izredna pristojnost Komisije za retroaktivni nadzor omejena na (morebitno) predpristopno pomoč proizvajalcem ESPJ, s čimer je izključena (morebitna) pomoč proizvajalcem cevi.
Paragraphs (12) and (17) of Annex VII lay down the Commission’s monitoring and retroactive control competences with respect to pre-accession aid to the Romanian steel industry.
Odstavka (12) in (17) Priloge VII določata pristojnost Komisije za spremljanje in retroaktivni nadzor v zvezi s predpristopno pomočjo za romunsko jeklarsko industrijo.
Paragraph (2) of Annex VII provides that only the companies listed as beneficiaries of the NRP (also listed in Appendix A to Annex VII) are eligible for receiving State aid over the period 1993 to 2004.
Odstavek (2) Priloge VII določa, da lahko samo podjetja, ki so našteta kot upravičenci NPP (našteta tudi v Dodatku A k Prilogi VII), upravičena do državne pomoči po obdobju od 1993 do 2004.
Paragraph (6) of Annex VII provides that companies not listed as beneficiaries of the NRP ‘shall not benefit from aid for restructuring or any other aid’, and shall not be required to reduce their capacity either.
Odstavek (6) Priloge VII določa, da podjetja, ki niso navedena kot upravičenci NPP, „niso upravičena do državne pomoči za prestrukturiranje ali katerekoli druge pomoči“ in jim tudi ni treba zmanjšati zmogljivosti.
The latter contained the same list of ECSC products as that in Annex I to the ECSC Treaty, where the definition of ‘ECSC steel’ specifically excluded steel tubes (‘tubes (seamless or welded) […] bright bars and iron castings (tubes, pipes and fittings, and other iron castings’).
Slednji je vseboval enak seznam jeklenih izdelkov ESPJ kot v Prilogi I k Pogodbi ESPJ, kjer opredelitev „jeklenih izdelkov ESPJ“ izrecno izključuje jeklene cevi („cevi (brezšivne ali varjene) […] svetle palice in železne odlitke (različne cevi in pribor ter drugi železni odlitki)“).
This was codified in Article 27 and Annex B of the Multisectoral Framework on regional aid for large investment projects [20], which defined the EU steel sector so as to include seamless tubes and large welded tubes (with a diameter greater than 406,4 mm).
To je bilo kodificirano v členu 27 in Prilogi B k Večsektorskemu okviru za regionalno pomoč, namenjeno večjim naložbenim projektom [20], v katerem je evropski jeklarski sektor opredeljen kot sektor, ki vključuje brezšivne cevi in široke varjene cevi (s premerom več kot 406,4 mm).
The extended definition of the steel sector was thereafter taken over in Annex I to the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 [21], and in Point 29 under Article 2 of the General Block Exemption Regulation [22].
Razširjena opredelitev jeklarskega sektorja je bila pozneje povzeta v Prilogi I k Smernicam o državni regionalni pomoči za 2007–2013 [21] in v točki 29 člena 2 Uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah [22].
Nevertheless, neither Protocol 2 nor the Additional Protocol were explicitly amended to include this broadened definition of the EU steel sector as including tube producers.
Vendar pa niti Protokol 2 niti Dodatni protokol nista bila izrecno spremenjena z namenom vključitve te razširjene opredelitve jeklarskega sektorja EU, ki vključuje proizvajalce cevi.
The Additional Protocol refers to ‘steel products’ in general, but its scope is also specifically linked to Article 9(4) of Protocol 2, which covered ECSC products only.
Dodatni protokol se nanaša na „jeklene izdelke“ na splošno, vendar pa je njegovo področje uporabe posebej povezano tudi s členom 9(4) Protokola 2, ki je zajemal samo izdelke ESPJ.
In particular, under Article 2 of the Additional Protocol, the extension of Protocol 2 was made conditional on the submission by Romania to the Commission of an NRP and company restructuring plans, for beneficiaries of the NRP, both meeting ‘the requirements of Article 9(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement and assessed and agreed by its national State aid authority (the Competition Council)’.
Zlasti je bilo podaljšanje Protokola 2 v skladu s členom 2 Dodatnega protokola pogojeno s tem, da Romunija Komisiji predloži NPP in načrte prestrukturiranja podjetij za upravičence NPP, ki izpolnjujejo „zahteve iz člena 9(4) Protokola 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu in ki jih je ocenil ter potrdil Nacionalni organ za državne pomoči (Svet za konkurenco)“.
It should therefore be concluded that Paragraph 17 of Annex VII, as interpreted in the light of paragraphs (1)-(2) and (6) of Annex VII, together with Protocol 2 and the Additional Protocol, do not give the Commission competence to control aid granted to Romanian tube producers prior to accession, in particular over the period 1993 to 2004.
Zato je treba zaključiti, da odstavek 17 Priloge VII, ki se razlaga glede na točke odstavka (1) in (2) ter (6) Priloge VI skupaj s Protokolom 2 in Dodatnim protokolom, Komisiji ne daje pooblastil za nadzor pomoči, dodeljene romunskim proizvajalcem cevi pred pristopom, zlasti v obdobju 1993 do 2004.
Implementing Rules for the Europe Agreement as interpretation instrument
Izvedbena pravila za Evropski sporazum kot instrument razlage
In addition to the legal interpretation of the scope of the relevant legal bases (i.e. Annex VII, Protocol 2 and the Additional Protocol - see recitals (29)-(36) above), the Commission also examined the question of whether the implementing rules for the application of the State aid provisions in the Europe Agreement and Protocol 2, as adopted by the Community and Romania in 2001 (hereinafter ‘the Implementing Rules’ [23]), are relevant when determining the scope of the Commission's retroactive control competence with respect to (potential) pre-accession aid to Romanian tube producers.
Poleg pravne razlage obsega zadevnih pravnih podlag (tj. Priloge VI, Protokola 2 in Dodatnega protokola – glej uvodne izjave (29) do (36)) je Komisija proučila tudi vprašanje, ali so izvedbena pravila za uporabo določb o državni pomoči v Evropskem sporazumu in Protokolu 2, kot sta jih leta 2001 sprejeli Skupnost in Romunija (v nadaljnjem besedilu: izvedbena pravila [23]), pomembna za določitev obsega pristojnosti Komisije za retroaktivni nadzor v zvezi z (morebitnimi) predpristopnimi ukrepi, dodeljenimi romunskim proizvajalcem cevi.
As a general rule, the Implementing Rules contain rules of procedure, to be distinguished from the substantive State aid provisions in the Europe Agreement and Protocol 2.
Na splošno izvedbena pravila vsebujejo poslovnik, ki ga je treba razlikovati od vsebinskih določb o državni pomoči v Evropskem sporazumu in Protokolu 2.
It must be noted however that the Implementing Rules also contain specific provisions on the criteria for assessing the compatibility of aid with the Europe Agreement, and with Protocol 2, respectively.
Vendar pa je treba upoštevati, da izvedbena pravila vsebujejo tudi posebne določbe o merilih za oceno združljivosti pomoči z Evropskim sporazumom oziroma s Protokolom 2.
The first sentence of Article 2(1) of the Implementing Rules provides as follows: ‘The assessment of compatibility of individual aid awards and programmes with the Europe Agreement, as provided for in Article 1 of these Rules, shall be made on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules of Article 87 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, including the present and future secondary legislation, frameworks, guidelines and other relevant administrative acts in force in the Community, as well as the case law of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice of the European Communities and any decision taken by the Association Council pursuant to Article 4(3).’ This sentence lays down the general principle that the substantive criteria for assessing compatibility of State aid in general with the Europe Agreement are ‘evolutive’, in the sense that they incorporate any new changes/developments in EU law and case law.
Prvi stavek člena 2(1) izvedbenih pravil določa: „Ocena združljivosti posameznih dodeljenih pomoči in programov z Evropskim sporazumom, kot je določeno v členu 1 teh pravil, se izvede na podlagi meril, ki izhajajo iz uporabe pravil člena 87 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, vključno s sedanjo in prihodnjo sekundarno zakonodajo, okviri, smernicami in drugimi zadevnimi upravnimi akti, ki veljajo v Skupnosti, kot tudi iz sodne prakse Sodišča prve stopnje in Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti ter sklepov, ki jih Pridružitveni svet sprejme v skladu s členom 4(3).“ Ta stavek vzpostavlja splošno načelo, da so vsebinska merila za oceno združljivosti državne pomoči na splošno z Evropskim sporazumom „razvojna“ v smislu vključitve vseh sprememb/razvojnih dogodkov v pravu in sodni praksi EU.
The second sentence of Article 2(1) refers in particular to the compatibility criteria laid down in Protocol 2: ‘Insofar as the aid awards or aid programmes are destined for products covered by Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement, the first sentence of this paragraph applies fully with the exception that the assessment shall not be made on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules of Article 87 of the Treaty establishing the European Community but on the basis of the criteria arising from the application of the rules on State aid of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community.’ It must be noted that the wording of this sentence clearly indicates that, by contrast to the situation of general aid covered by the first sentence of Article 2(1) (see recital (41) above), in the case of aid covered by Protocol 2 the compatibility criteria evolve by reference to the ECSC Treaty.
Drugi stavek člena 2(1) se zlasti nanaša na merila združljivosti v skladu s Protokolom 2: „Če so dodeljene pomoči ali programi pomoči namenjeni izdelkom iz Protokola 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu, prvi stavek v tem odstavku v celoti velja, s to izjemo, da se ocena ne izvede na podlagi meril, ki izhajajo iz uporabe pravil člena 87 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, temveč na podlagi meril, ki izhajajo iz uporabe pravil glede državnih pomoči Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti za premog in jeklo.“ Treba je opozoriti, da besedilo tega stavka jasno navaja, da se, v nasprotju s splošno pomočjo, zajeto v prvem stavku člena 2(1) (glej uvodno izjavo (41)), za namene pomoči, ki jo zajema Protokol 2, merila združljivosti razvijajo glede na Pogodbo ESPJ.
No specific indications are given as to the evolution of the compatibility criteria after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty in 2002.
V zvezi z razvojem meril združljivosti po izteku veljavnosti Pogodbe ESPJ leta 2002 ni nobenih posebnih navedb.
Articles 2(2) and 2(3) of the Implementing Rules set out the mechanism whereby Romania must incorporate changes in the EU compatibility criteria.
Člena 2(2) in 2(3) izvedbenih pravil določata mehanizem, s katerim mora Romunija vključiti spremembe evropskih meril združljivosti.
In particular, Romania shall be informed of any changes in the Community compatibility criteria which are not published, and ‘where such changes do not encounter objections from Romania within three months from the date of receiving the official information about them, they shall become criteria of compatibility as provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article. Where such changes encounter objections from Romania and having regard to the approximation of legislation as provided for in the Europe Agreement, consultations shall take place, in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of these Rules’.
Zlasti se Romunija obvešča o vseh spremembah meril združljivosti Skupnosti, ki niso bile objavljene, in „če Romunija tem spremembam ne ugovarja v roku treh mesecev po prejemu uradnih informacij o spremembah, spremembe postanejo merila združljivosti, kot je določeno v odstavku 1 tega člena. Če Romunija tem spremembam ugovarja, se izvedejo posvetovanja v skladu s členoma 7 in 8 teh pravil, ob upoštevanju približevanja zakonodaje, kot je določeno v Evropskem sporazumu.“
Although Romania did not object within three months to the change in 2002 of the Community definition of the steel industry to also cover tube producers, those changes in Community law could not have become applicable to measures that fall outside the scope of the Europe Agreement, namely those that were not covered by the ECSC Treaty.
Četudi Romunija v roku treh mesecev ni ugovarjala spremembi iz leta 2002 v zvezi z opredelitvijo jeklarske industrije s strani Skupnosti za vključitev proizvajalcev cevi, te spremembe v pravu Skupnosti ne bi mogle začeti veljati za ukrepe, ki ne spadajo v področje uporabe Evropskega sporazuma, tj. tiste ukrepe, ki jih Pogodba ESPJ ni zajemala.
Moreover, since Annex VII is a lex specialis, when determining its scope the Commission cannot rely on broadening the definition of EU steel following the expiry of the ECSC Treaty.
Poleg tega je Priloga VII lex specialis, zato se Komisija za določitev njenega področja uporabe ne more opirati na razširitev opredelitve jeklarskega sektorja EU po izteku veljavnosti Pogodbe ESPJ.
It must therefore be concluded that a clear distinction must be made between, on the one hand, the ‘evolutive’ nature of the law applicable to State aid for the steel sector in Romania before accession, under the Europe Agreement, and on the other hand the necessarily strict interpretation of the scope of the Commission's retroactive control competence as stemming from Annex VII, Protocol 2 and the Additional Protocol.
Zato je treba zaključiti, da je treba jasno razlikovati med „razvojno“ naravo zakonodaje, ki velja za državno pomoč za jeklarski sektor v Romuniji pred pristopom po Evropskem sporazumu, na eni strani, in na drugi strani nujno ozko razlago obsega pristojnosti Komisije za retroaktivni nadzor, kot izhaja iz Priloge VII, Protokola 2 in Dodatnega protokola.
On the basis of the aforementioned considerations (see in particular recitals (36) and (42) above), the Commission concludes that it does not have competence to review measures granted to Romanian tube producers before accession, in particular over the period 1993-2004, on the basis of Annex VII.
Na podlagi navedenih pomislekov (glej zlasti uvodni izjavi (36) in (42)) Komisija zaključi, da ni pristojna za preverjanje ukrepov v korist romunskih proizvajalcev cevi pred pristopom, zlasti v obdobju med letoma 1993 in 2004, na podlagi Priloge VII.
The formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU initiated by letter addressed to Romania of 25 September 2007, is closed for lack of Commission competence under the provisions of Annex VII Section B to the Accession Treaty of Romania to review the measures granted by Romania in the context of the privatisation of Petrotub Roman S.A in 2003.
Formalni postopek preiskave iz člena 108(2) PDEU, ki je bil začet z dopisom Romuniji dne 25. septembra 2007, se zaključi, ker Komisija na podlagi določb oddelka B Priloge VII k Pristopni pogodbi Romunije ni pristojna za preverjanje ukrepov, ki jih je Romunija dodelila podjetju Petrotub Roman S.A. v okviru privatizacije leta 2003.
OJ C 287, 29.11.2007, p. 29.
UL C 287, 29.11.2007, str. 29.
Petrotub was acquired in 2003 by LNM Holdings, and the latter merged in 2004 with ISPAT International, to form the Mittal Steel group.
Podjetje Petrotub je bilo leta 2003 prodano podjetju LNM Holdings, slednje pa se je leta 2004 združilo s podjetjem ISPAT International v skupino Mittal Steel.
In 2006, Mittal Steel merged with Arcelor to form the ArcelorMittal group.
Leta 2006 sta se podjetji Mittal Steel in Arcelor združili v skupino ArcelorMittal.
As of December 31, 2009, ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Holding B.V.
Od 31. Decembra 2009 ima podjetje ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Holding B.V.
Rotterdam NLD holds a 69,7684 % stake in ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman S.A.
Rotterdam NLD 69,7684-odstotni delež v skupini ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman S.A.
With effect from 1 December 2009, Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty have become Articles 107 and 108, respectively, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’).
Z učinkom od 1. decembra 2009 sta člena 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES postala člena 107 oziroma 108 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU).
For the purposes of this Decision, references to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU should be understood as references to Articles 87 and 88, respectively, of the EC Treaty where appropriate.
V tem sklepu je treba sklicevanje na člena 107 in 108 PDEU razumeti kot sklicevanje na člena 87 oziroma 88 Pogodbe ES, kadar je to primerno.
See footnote 1 above.
Glej sprotno opombo 1.
Roman is the second largest city of a North-Eastern Romanian county qualifying as assisted region under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU pursuant to the Commission Decision of 24 January 2007 on the national regional State Aid map for Romania (N 2/07) (OJ C 73, 30.3.2007, p. 17).
Roman je drugo največje mesto v severovzhodni romunskem okrožju, ki se uvršča med regije, upravičene do pomoči po členu 107(3)(a) PDEU v skladu z Odločbo Komisije z dne 24. januarja 2007 o karti regionalnih državnih pomoči za Romunijo (N 2/07) (UL C 73, 30.3.2007, str. 17).
Further details on the company’s current profile are available on the website of ArcelorMittal (see http://www.arcelormittal.com/tubular/roman-54.html).
Nadaljnje podrobnosti o sedanjem profilu podjetja so na voljo na spletnem mestu skupine ArcelorMittal (glej http://www.arcelormittal.com/tubular/roman-54.html).
In May 2004, the Romanian privatisation agency APAPS (Romanian acronym for the Authority for the Privatisation and Administration of State Holdings) was merged with AVAB (Romanian acronym for the Authority for the Administration of Bank Assets) and renamed AVAS (Romanian acronym for the Authority for the Administration of State Assets).
Maja 2004 se je romunska agencija za privatizacijo APAPS (romunska kratica organa za privatizacijo in upravljanje državnih deležev) združila z organom AVAB (romunska kratica organa za upravljanje sredstev bank) in se preimenovala v AVAS (romunska kratica organa za upravljanje državnih sredstev).
The EUR sums are calculated at the ROL/EUR exchange rate of 30 September 2003 – 1 EUR = 38185 ROL.
Zneski v eurih so izračunani na podlagi menjalnega tečaja ROL/EUR z dne 30. septembra 2003; 1 EUR = 38185 ROL.
BDO Conti Audit SA, report of October 2007.
BDO Conti Audit SA, poročilo za oktober 2007.
The sums expressed in ROL are converted into EUR at the ROL/EUR exchange rate applicable on 30 September 2003 – see footnote 8 above.
Zneski izraženi v romunskih levih so pretvorjeni v eure na podlagi menjalnega tečaja, ki je veljal 30. septembra 2003; glej sprotno opombo 8.
Case T-152/99 HAMSA and Spain v Commission [2002] ECR II-3049.
Zadeva T-152/99 HAMSA in Španija proti Komisiji, Recueil, str. II-3049.
Joined Cases C-278/92 to 280/92 Spain v Commission (HYTASA) [1994] ECR I-4103.
Združene zadeve C-278/92 do 280/92 Španija proti Komisiji (HYTASA), Recueil, str. I-4103.
Case C-344/99 Germany v Commission (Gröditzer Stahlwerke) [2003] ECR I-1139.
Zadeva C-344/99 Nemčija proti Komisiji (Gröditzer Stahlwerke), Recueil, str. I-1139.
Communication of the Commission to the Member States pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance (OJ C 281, 17.9.1997, p. 4).
Sporočilo Komisije državam članicam po členu 93(1) Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti o uporabi členov 92 in 93 Pogodbe za kratkoročno zavarovanje izvoznih kreditov (UL C 281, 17.9.1997, str. 4).
The text is available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997Y0917(01):EN:NOT
Besedilo je na voljo na http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31997Y0917%2801%29:SL:NOT.
In Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06 ISD Polska and Others v Commission, judgment of 1 July 2009, the General Court confirmed at paragraph 90 that ‘[…] it is common ground that, in principle, Articles 87 EC and 88 EC do not apply to aid granted before accession which was no longer applicable thereafter’.
V sodbi z dne 1. julija 2009 v združenih zadevah T-273/06 in T-297/06 ISD Polska in drugi proti Komisiji je Splošno sodišče v točki 90 potrdilo, „[…] da se člena 87 ES in 88 ES načeloma ne uporabljata za državne pomoči, dodeljene pred pristopom, ki jih po pristopu ni mogoče več uporabiti“.
See also Commission Decision 2006/937/EC of 5 July 2005 on State aid C 20/04 (ex NN 25/04) in favour of Huta Czestochowa S.A. (OJ L 366, 21.12.2006, p. 1, paragraph 108).
Glej tudi Odločbo Komisije 2006/937/ES z dne 5. julija 2005 o državni pomoči št. C 20/04 (prej NN 25/04) za Huta Częstochowa S.A. (UL L 366, 21.12.2006, str. 1, odstavek 108).
OJ L 157, 21.6.2005.
UL L 157, 21.6.2005.
Council Decision of 18 July 2005 on the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in Article 3 of the Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Romania, of the other part, with regard to an extension of the period laid down in Article 9(4) of Protocol 2 to the Europe Agreement (OJ L 195, 27.7.2005, p. 22).
Sklep Sveta z dne 18. julija 2005 o izpolnjevanju pogojev iz člena 3 Dodatnega protokola k Evropskemu sporazumu o pridružitvi med Evropskimi skupnostmi in njihovimi državami članicami na eni strani in Romunijo na drugi strani v zvezi s podaljšanjem obdobja, predvidenega v členu 9(4) Protokola 2 k Evropskemu sporazumu (UL L 195, 27.7.2005, str. 22).
Case T288/06 Regionalny Fundusz Gospodarczy v Commission, judgment of 1 July 2009, paragraphs 40-44, and Joined Cases T-273/06 and T-297/06 ISD Polska and Others v Commission, judgment of 1 July 2009, paragraphs 91-97.
Zadeva T288/06 Regionalny Fundusz Gospodarczy proti Komisiji, sodba z dne 1. julija 2009, točke 40–44, in združeni zadevi T-273/06 in T-297/06 ISD Polska in drugi proti Komisiji, sodba z dne 1. julija 2009, točke 91–-97.
OJ L 138, 22.5.2001, p. 16.
UL L 138, 22.5.2001, str. 16.
By letters dated 28 January 2008, registered on 29 January 2008, ArcelorMittal (the parent company) and AM Roman (the subsidiary concerned) submitted their comments, which were communicated to Romania on 12 February 2008.
Z dopisoma z dne 28. januarja 2008, evidentiranima 29. januarja 2008, sta ArcelorMittal (matična družba) in AM Roman (hčerinska družba) poslali svoje pripombe, ki so bile Romuniji posredovane 12. februarja 2008.
Romania reacted by letter of 11 March 2008, registered on the same date.
Romunija je odgovorila z dopisom z dne 11. marca 2008, evidentiranim istega dne.