natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Mr Viorel Micula also initiated further enforcement proceedings against Romania before the Romanian courts on 3 October 2014, but that claim was rejected by the Bucharest Tribunal on 3 November 2014.
Poudarja, da je nacionalno sodišče samostojno odločilo, da različni predpisi, ki jih je Komisija izdala leta 2014, po romunskem pravu ne bi mogli zadržati uveljavitve odločbe.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE AND GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
Romunija nadalje utemeljuje, da ima sicer pravo Unije v skladu z romunsko ustavo praviloma prednost pred (običajnim) romunskim nacionalnim pravom, ne more pa ovreči romunske ustave.
Description of the measure
Poleg tega Romunija zatrjuje, da odškodnina, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, ne bi smela biti obravnavana kot nezdružljiva nova pomoč, temveč kot odškodnina za škodo v smislu sodbe Asteris.
The measure under assessment is the payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal by virtue of the Award, whether by implementation or execution of that Award, plus the interest that has accrued since the Award was issued.
Romunija zlasti ugovarja uporabi sodbe Lucchini v obravnavani zadevi, in sicer z utemeljitvijo, da se dejansko ozadje zadevnega primera razlikuje od ozadja, na podlagi katerega je SEU razsodilo v primeru Lucchini [45].
As noted in recital 3, Romania already partially paid out that compensation in early 2014 by offsetting tax debts owed by one of the claimants, S.C.
Romunija večkrat poudarja navzkrižja, ki so v zadevnem primeru očitna med obveznostmi, ki jih Romuniji na eni strani nalaga konvencija ICSID, na drugi pa pravo Unije.
European Food SA, to the Romanian State.
Trdi, da se izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe ICSID ne bi smela šteti za nezakonito državno pomoč, dokler se na ravni ICSID ne določi, ali naj ima prednost konvencija ICSID ali pravo Unije.
The tax debts thus offset amount to RON 337492864 (ca.
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
EUR 76 million [42]).
Edina zainteresirana stran, ki je predložila svoja stališča glede sklepa o začetku postopka, so bili tožniki v arbitražnem postopku, na podlagi katerega je bila sprejeta odločba.
As noted in recital 37, the court-appointed executor seized RON 45681714 (ca.
Tožniki so ugovarjali zoper predhodne ugotovitve v sklepu o začetku postopka.
EUR 10,17 million [43]) from Romania’s Ministry of Finance in order to execute the Award.
Predvsem so imeli pripombe glede (i) ozadja zadeve in (ii) domnevno nepravilnega opisa ukrepa; trdijo, da (iii) ni navzkrižij med pravili Unije o državni pomoči in bilateralnimi investicijskimi pogodbami med državami članicami EU; zatrjujejo, da (iv) izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe ne pomeni državne pomoči ali (v) vsaj ne nove pomoči; trdijo, da bi bila, če bi bila označena kot pomoč, (vi) izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe združljiva pomoč; vztrajajo, da (vii) varstvo legitimnih pričakovanj Komisiji preprečuje, da bi sprejela negativno odločitev; in trdijo tudi, da (viii) mora Komisija sprejeti ukrepe za ustrezno vključitev tožnikov v postopek preiskave.
Furthermore, the Romanian authorities have transferred the remaining amount of RON 472788675 (ca.
Glede ozadja zadeve
EUR 106,5 million [44]) (including the costs of court appointed executor of RON 6028608) into a blocked account in the name of the five claimants.
Tožniki razložijo, da se je Romunija po razpadu komunističnega režima leta 1989 znašla v hudem ekonomskem pomanjkanju.
According to the Romanian authorities the arbitration award has been fully implemented.
Stanje je bilo tako slabo, da Romunija leta 1995, ko je začela pristopni proces k Evropski uniji, še zdaleč ni izpolnjevala pristopnih meril Unije.
Grounds for initiating the formal investigation procedure
Romunska vlada je v prizadevanju, da bi pospešila gospodarski razvoj in zmanjšala regionalne razlike, vzpostavila okvir za regionalni razvoj in kmalu zatem sprejela EGO 24, da bi spodbudila naložbe zasebnega sektorja v prikrajšanih regijah.
In the opening decision, the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants through the implementation or execution of the Award constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Spodbude iz EGO 24 so bile namenjene izključno vlagateljem, ki so ustvarjali delovna mesta v najbolj prikrajšanih regijah ene najrevnejših držav v Evropi.
This preliminary conclusion rests on the preliminary findings that:
V zvezi s tem tožniki zlasti poudarjajo, da EGO 24 vlagateljem ni le zagotovil prednosti, temveč jim je naložil tudi obveznosti, med drugim dolžnost ustvarjanja delovnih mest in zaposlovanja predhodno brezposelnih delavcev, razvoja in proizvodnje novih materialov v prikrajšani regiji, ohranjanja sedežev novo ustvarjenih družb v prikrajšani regiji ter pridobitve investitorskega potrdila.
the five claimants constitute one economic unit that must be qualified as an undertaking,
Tožniki nadalje razložijo, da so njihove družbe pridobile investitorska potrdila med letoma 2000 in 2002 za naložbe v okrožju Bihor.
payment of the awarded compensation would grant the claimants an economic advantage not otherwise available on the market,
V skladu s pogoji teh investitorskih potrdil, ki so bila veljavna do 1. aprila 2009, so se tožniki zavezali, da bodo naložbe nadaljevali „dvakrat toliko časa, kolikor bodo [tožniki] uživali prednosti“, ki jim jih zagotavlja EGO 24.
the presence of an advantage is not precluded by the fact that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is designated as compensation for damages, since the Award does not fall within the scope of the Asteris case-law distinguishing damages from State aid,
Tožniki trdijo, da so s svojimi naložbami ustvarili približno 9000 novih delovnih mest, od katerih jih 7000 obstaja še danes.
the advantage granted is selective, since only the claimants would benefit from the measure,
Zatrjujejo tudi, da so njihove naložbe privedle do pomembnih učinkov prelivanja v regiji.
the advantage is granted from state resources, since the relevant payments would be made from the state budget, and the decision to grant the advantage is imputable to Romania, regardless of whether Romania implemented the Award voluntarily or on the order of a court,
Tožniki na podlagi teh ugotovitev sklenejo, da so s svojimi naložbami pomagali ublažiti stisko, ki je bila posledica slabih gospodarskih razmer v okrožju Bihor, in izboljšali kakovost življenja v tej regiji.
payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants distorts competition and affects trade between Member States.
Kar zadeva zakonodajo o državni pomoči, ki se je v Romuniji uporabljala pred njenim pristopom k Uniji, tožniki zatrjujejo, da glede na to, da je bil EGO 24 sestavljen pred začetkom veljavnosti zakona št. 143/1999, je kot tak pomenil obstoječo pomoč za namen tega zakona in zanj ni bilo potrebno dovoljenje sveta za konkurenco.
The Commission then determined that the application of the State aid rules in this case does not affect rights and obligations protected by Article 351 of the Treaty.
Tožniki opozarjajo tudi na to, da svet za konkurenco takrat, ko je na romunskih sodiščih poskušal izpodbijati EGO 75, ni oporekal združljivosti EGO 24 z zakonom št. 143/1999.
The Commission further found that payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants would constitute new aid, since the implementation or execution of the Award would take place after Romania’s accession to the Union, and that it did not matter that some of the costs which the measure would de facto reimburse were incurred by the claimants before accession.
Opozarjajo še, da Unija razen v skupnem stališču EU z dne 21. novembra 2001 ni v nobeni drugi izjavi, ki jo je izdala v času pristopnega procesa, posebej navedla, da je EGO 24 s stališča državne pomoči problematičen.
Finally, the Commission reached the preliminary conclusion that the payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants through the implementation or execution of the Award would not be compatible with the internal market, since it would not fulfil the applicable compatibility conditions for regional aid.
Za zaključek tožniki navajajo, da bi bile v primeru, če se odločba ne izvede v celoti ali če bi se moral del, ki je bil že izveden z odpisom davčnih dolgov tožnikov od dolgovane odškodnine, vrniti, posledice za tožnike in regijo katastrofalne, saj bi to ogrozilo tisoče delovnih mest ter zaustavilo gospodarski razvoj v regiji.
COMMENTS FROM ROMANIA
Glede opisa ukrepa
Romania points out, first, that under Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention, to which Romania became a party in 1975, each state party ‘shall recognise an award rendered pursuant to this Convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that state’.
Tožniki zatrjujejo, da sklep o začetku postopka ni dosleden pri opredelitvi zadevnega ukrepa.
Romania argues that the consequence of this clause is that every state party has an obligation to recognise and enforce an ICSID arbitral award the execution of which has not been stayed in accordance with the rules under the ICSID Convention, with there being no possibility of appeal against such an award before the national courts.
Pri uvodnih izjavah 25 in 26 sklepa o začetku postopka tožniki opozarjajo, da Komisija sicer trdi, da preiskuje le izvajanje ali izvrševanje odločbe, v resnici pa izpodbija temeljno shemo iz EGO 24.
Second, Romania stresses that the Romanian government is bound to comply with the Romanian constitution, which bars it from unduly influencing national judges as regards the question of whether or not to enforce the Award.
Tožniki trdijo tudi, da tako in tako ni bilo nikoli veljavno ugotovljeno, ali EGO 24 pomeni nezdružljivo državno pomoč.
It stresses that the national court autonomously decided that the various acts issued by the Commission in 2014 could not suspend the enforcement of the Award under Romanian law.
Na podlagi nadaljnje navedbe, da sklep o začetku postopka napačno opredeljuje odločbo, tožniki zatrjujejo, da odločba izključno dodeljuje odškodnino za škodo, ki jo je Romunija povzročila s kršenjem bilateralne investicijske pogodbe, in ne podvaja ugodnosti iz EGO 24.
Romania argues further that, while according to the Romanian constitution Union law generally takes precedence over (ordinary) Romanian national law, Union law could not overrule the Romanian constitution itself.
Po navedbah tožnikov sodišče ni dodelilo odškodnine za predčasno ukinitev spodbud iz EGO 24 kot take, temveč zato, ker so ukrepi, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da kršijo bilateralno investicijsko pogodbo, ti, da je Romunija ravnala nerazumno, ker (i) je ohranila vse obveznosti vlagateljev iz EGO 24, čeprav je ukinila skoraj vse ugodnosti iz njega, (ii) spodkopala legitimna pričakovanja tožnikov glede trajne razpoložljivosti spodbud iz EGO 24 in (iii) ni zagotovila zadostne preglednosti tožnikom.
Third, Romania submits that the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal should not be treated as new incompatible aid, but as compensation for damages within the meaning of the Asteris case-law.
Tožniki nadalje navajajo, da sklep o začetku postopka temelji na predpostavki, da je EGO 24 pomenil nezdružljivo pomoč, in da je ta predpostavka napačna, ker združljivost EGO 24 kot državne pomoči ni bila nikoli veljavno ugotovljena.
Romania objects, in particular, to the application of the Lucchini case-law to the present case, arguing that the factual background distinguishes the present case from that adjudicated upon by the CJEU in Lucchini [45].
Glede neobstoja navzkrižij med pravili Unije o državni pomoči in bilateralnimi investicijskimi sporazumi med državami članicami EU
Finally, Romania repeatedly stresses the conflict borne out in the present case between Romania’s obligations under the ICSID Convention and under Union law.
V zvezi z uvodnimi izjavami 51 do 55 sklepa o začetku postopka tožniki trdijo, da določbe prava Unije glede obveznosti, ki jih imajo države članice po mednarodnem pravu, v tej zadevi niso pomembne, ker ni navzkrižij med zakonodajo Unije o državni pomoči in bilateralnimi investicijskimi sporazumi.
It submits that until it has been determined at ICSID level whether the ICSID Convention or Union law should take precedence, the implementation or execution of an ICSID award should not be considered to constitute illegal State aid.
Tožniki zatrjujejo, da je vsakršno navzkrižje izključeno, ker se je zadevni arbitražni postopek začel, preden je Romunija pristopila k Uniji.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Obveznost izpolnjevanja odločbe naj bi za Romunijo začela veljati takrat, ko naj bi prekršila bilateralno investicijsko pogodbo, kar pa je bilo pred njenim pristopom k Uniji in torej ni v pristojnosti prava Unije.
The only interested party to submit observations on the opening decision was the claimants in the arbitration proceedings giving rise to the Award.
Glede opredelitve izvajanja/izvrševanja odločbe kot državne pomoči
The claimants contest the preliminary findings contained in the opening decision.
Tožniki navajajo, da izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe s strani Romunije ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
In particular, they make observations regarding (i) the background of the case; and (ii) the allegedly incorrect description of the measure; they argue that (iii) there is no conflict between Union State aid rules and intra-EU BITs; they submit that (iv) the implementation or execution of the Award does not constitute State aid; or (v) at least not new aid; they assert that if characterised as aid; (vi) the implementation or execution of the Award would be compatible aid; they maintain that (vii) the protection of legitimate expectations precludes the Commission from adopting a negative decision; and finally they argue that (viii) the Commission must take steps to properly involve the claimants in the investigation procedure.
Prvič, medtem ko tožniki ne ugovarjajo opredelitvi, da so S.C.
Regarding the background of the case
European Food S.A., S.C.
The claimants explain that after the collapse of the communist regime in 1989, Romania found itself in a state of dire economic deprivation.
Starmill S.R.L. in S.C.
The situation was such that when Romania started the accession process to the European Union in 1995, it was far from meeting the Union’s accession criteria.
Multipack podjetja, pa zatrjujejo, da za Ioana in Viorela Miculo ni mogoče trditi, da opravljata gospodarske dejavnosti.
In order to accelerate economic development and reduce regional disparities, the Romanian government established a framework for regional development and shortly thereafter adopted EGO 24 to incentivise private sector investments in disfavoured regions.
Predvsem naj bratov Micula ne bi bilo mogoče opredeliti za podjetji zgolj na podlagi dejstva, da imata delnice v različnih podjetjih.
The EGO 24 incentives were aimed solely at investors creating jobs in the most disadvantaged regions in one of the poorest countries in Europe.
Poleg tega tožniki menijo, da navedenih treh podjetij in bratov Micula ni mogoče obravnavati kot ene gospodarske enote, saj brata nimata enakih interesov kot podjetja.
In this context, the claimants stress in particular that EGO 24 did not only provide advantages to investors, but also imposed obligations, such as the duty to create jobs and employ previously unemployed workers, develop and produce new materials in a disfavoured region, maintain the head office of the newly established companies in the disfavoured region, and the obligation to apply for and receive a PIC.
Drugič, tožniki poudarjajo, da jim izvedba odločbe ne prinese prednosti.
The claimants further explain that their companies obtained PICs between 2000 and 2002 for investing in Bihor County.
Zatrjujejo, da ukrepi, namenjeni izpolnitvi pravnih obveznosti, kot je plačilo odškodnine za škodo, ne pomenijo prednostne obravnave podjetij.
Under the terms of those PICs, which were valid until 1 April 2009, the claimants committed to maintaining their investments for ‘twice the period of time in which [the claimants] enjoyed the advantages’ put in place by EGO 24.
V zvezi s tem tožniki trdijo, da se Komisija ne more zanašati na izjavo generalnega pravobranilca Colomera v zadevi Atzeni, ker je šlo v tej zadevi za odškodnino, plačano upravičencem za vračilo nezdružljive pomoči, ki je bila že izplačana.
Through their investments, the claimants claim to have created approximately 9000 new jobs, of which 7000 continue to exist to this day.
Tožniki navajajo, da njim državna pomoč – zlasti ne nezakonita državna pomoč – ni bila izplačana, po čemer se njihova zadeva razlikuje od zadeve Atzeni.
The claimants further assert that their investments led to significant spillover effects in the region.
Navajajo še, da njihove zadeve ni mogoče enačiti z zadevami, navedenimi v sklepu o začetku postopka, pri katerih so bile za državno pomoč ocenjene že same pogodbene klavzule, v skladu s katerimi je bilo upravičencem dodeljeno vračilo nezdružljive državne pomoči.
The conclusion that the claimants draw from these observations is that through their investments they contributed to alleviating the hardship brought about by the dire economic conditions in the Bihor County region and have improved the quality of life in that region.
Tožniki nadalje navajajo, da bi izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe popolnoma spadala v sodbo Asteris.
With respect to the State aid laws in place in Romania prior to Romania’s accession to the Union, the claimants argue that since EGO 24 was set up before Law No 143/1999 entered into force, EGO 24 was existing aid for the purpose of that law and did not have to be authorised by the Competition Council.
Trdijo, da zadeva Asteris in zadeve, kot sta Denkavit [46] in ThyssenKrupp [47], temeljijo na načelu, da plačilo odškodnine ni v pristojnosti držav članic, tako da ne more veljati za državno pomoč.
The claimants also recall that while the Competition Council attempted to challenge EGO 75 in Romania’s courts, it did not contest the compatibility of EGO 24 with Law No 143/1999.
Trdijo tudi, da so obveznosti Romunije iz bilateralne investicijske pogodbe izraz splošnih pravil o odgovornosti, za katere se uporablja sodba Asteris.
The claimants also recall that, with the exception of the EU Common Position of 21 November 2001, no statement issued by the Union in the course of the accession process specifically identified EGO 24 as being problematic from a State aid perspective.
Kar zadeva trditev Komisije, da se sodba Asteris ne uporablja za odškodnino, plačano na podlagi bilateralnih investicijskih pogodb med državami članicami EU, ki se štejejo za nezdružljive s pravom Unije, tožniki navajajo, da taka nezdružljivost, tudi če bi bila prisotna, ne bi povzročila neveljavnosti odločbe, odobrene na podlagi take bilateralne investicijske pogodbe.
Finally, the claimants state that any failure to fully implement the Award, or the recovery of the part that has already been implemented by means of setting of the claimant’s tax debts against the compensation owed, would be disastrous for the claimants and the region, jeopardising thousands of jobs and reversing the economic development that took place in the region.
Poleg tega se izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe ne bi mogla šteti za odobritev državne pomoči „skozi zadnja vrata“, saj odločba ne bi ponovno uvedla ukinjene sheme iz EGO 24; nasprotno, odločba naj bi odobrila odškodnino za avtonomno odločitev Romunije, da, med drugim, ohrani nerazumno breme, naloženo tožnikom.
Regarding the description of the measure
Tožniki nadalje zatrjujejo, da so trditve Komisije o nezdružljivosti bilateralne investicijske pogodbe s pravom Unije nepomembne, ker se je spor, zaradi katerega je bil sprožen arbitražni postopek in sprejeta odločba, začel pred pristopom Romunije k Uniji.
The claimants argue that the opening decision is not consistent when it comes to identifying the relevant measure.
S trditvijo, da argumenti Komisije v sklepu o začetku postopka temeljijo na zmotni povezavi izvedbe/izvršitve odločbe z nezdružljivostjo sheme iz EGO 24, tožniki ponovno potrjujejo, da z odločbo ni bila odškodnina v nobenem primeru dodeljena na podlagi odločitve Romunije, da ravna v skladu s pravili Unije o državni pomoči.
Referring to recitals 25 and 26 of the opening decision, the claimants stress that while the Commission claims to be investigating only the implementation or execution of the Award, in reality it is challenging the underlying EGO 24 scheme.
Tožniki nadalje oporekajo, da ima sodba SEU v zadevi Lucchini, na katero se Komisija sklicuje v sklepu o začetku postopka, kakršen koli pomen za njihovo zadevo.
The claimants also assert that, in any event, it has never been validly established that EGO 24 amounted to incompatible State aid.
Menijo, da je bilo v zadevi Lucchini dokazano le, da določbe nacionalnega prava ne morejo onemogočiti vračila nezdružljive pomoči, in da ne vpliva na izvedbo/izvršitev arbitražne odločbe, s katero je bila dodeljena odškodnina za kršitev bilateralne investicijske pogodbe.
Asserting further that the opening decision mischaracterises the Award, the claimants argue that the Award exclusively grants compensation for damages arising from Romania’s violation of the BIT and does not replicate the EGO 24 benefits.
Tretjič, kar zadeva pripisljivost izvedbe/izvršitve odločbe Romuniji, tožniki trdijo, da ocena Komisije ne more temeljiti na pripisljivosti samega EGO 24.
Indeed, according to the claimants the Tribunal did not award compensation for the premature revocation of EGO 24 incentives per se, but rather that the measures found to be in breach of the BIT are that Romania acted unreasonably by: (i) maintaining as a whole the investor’s obligation under EGO 24 despite having revoked virtually all the benefits thereunder; (ii) by undermining the claimants’ legitimate expectations with respect to the continued availability of the EGO 24 incentives; and (iii) by being insufficiently transparent with the claimants.
Nadalje zatrjujejo, da je izvedba/izvršitev odločbe ICSID samodejna in neprostovoljna posledica obveznosti, ki jih ima Romunija po konvenciji ICSID.
The claimants furthermore put forward that the opening decision is based on the presumption that EGO 24 constituted incompatible aid, and that this presumption is flawed because EGO 24’s compatibility as regional aid has never been validly determined.
Tožniki menijo, da nobenega neprostovoljnega dejanja ni mogoče pripisati državi in ne more pomeniti državne pomoči.
Regarding the lack of conflict between the Union State aid rules and intra-EU BITs
Poudarjajo tudi, da odločbe ICSID niso na voljo za pregled nacionalnim sodiščem in njihove izvršitve ni mogoče preprečiti zaradi razlogov domačega javnega reda ali nezdružljivosti s pravom Unije.
Referring to recitals 51 to 55 of the opening decision, the claimants assert that provisions of Union law dealing with international law obligations of Member States are irrelevant in this case, as there is no conflict between Union State aid law and the BIT.
Trdijo še, da na obveznosti, ki jih ima Romunija po konvenciji ICSID, ni vplivalo naknadno članstvo Romunije v Uniji.
Centrally, the claimants argue that any conflict is excluded by the fact that the arbitral proceedings in question were initiated before Romania acceded to the Union.
Pojasnjujejo, da se pravo EU v njihovi zadevi ne more uporabljati, ker sta se domnevna kršitev bilateralne investicijske pogodbe in začetek postopka zgodila pred pristopom Romunije k Uniji.
Romania’s obligation to implement the Award is said to stem from the point in time at which the alleged violation of the BIT occurred, i.e. before Romania’s accession to the Union, and is thus unaffected by Union law.
Četrtič, kar zadeva selektivnost, tožniki trdijo, da izvedba/izvršitev odločbe ni selektivna, ker bilateralne investicijske pogodbe in konvencija ICSID vzpostavljajo sistem splošne odgovornosti, ki enako velja za vsakega vlagatelja.
Regarding the characterisation of the implementation/execution of the Award as State aid
Odškodnine, dodeljene v okviru tega sistema, zato niso selektivne.