natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By contrast, BITs concluded between a Member State of the Union and a third country are governed by Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council [79] which establishes transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries until those agreements are progressively replaced by agreements of the Union relating to the same subject matter, in light of the Union’s exclusive competence with respect to the common commercial policy under which foreign direct investment falls [80].
Zadeva tožnikov zato ni primerljiva s sklepom Komisije v zadevi N 380/04, na katero se sklicujejo.
Romania is also a party to the multilateral ICSID Convention, to which it has acceded prior to its accession to the Union.
Komisija je v svojem sklepu ugotovila, da je odškodninska obveznost nastala na podlagi pogodbe iz leta 1997, da se odškodnina, ki jo je dodelilo arbitražno sodišče, v celoti nanaša na obdobje pred pristopom Latvije in da je bila sama arbitražna odločba izdana pred pristopom Latvije k Uniji.
However, because no third country Contracting Party to the ICSID Convention is party to the BIT involved in the present proceedings, Article 351 is not relevant for this case.
Na podlagi tega je Komisija sklenila, da „plačilo […] odškodnine, ki jo je dodelilo sodišče […], pomeni samo izvedbo ukrepa, ki je bil v celoti izoblikovan pred pristopom“ in da izvajanja arbitražne odločbe iz leta 2003 ni mogoče šteti za „novo pomoč“.
New aid
Poleg tega je že iz samega sklepa Komisije v zadevi N 380/04 razvidno, da ni predvidel analize morebitnih prihodnjih plačil po pogodbi, ki so se navezovala na obdobja po pristopu, s čimer je močno omejil izbrani pristop na določena dejstva, ki jih je sporočila Latvija.
Article 107(1) of the Treaty provides that State aid is, in principle, incompatible with the internal market.
Nasprotno v obravnavani zadevi odškodninska obveznost izhaja iz odločbe, ki je bila sprejeta leta 2013, odškodnina, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, se pretežno nanaša na obdobje po pristopu Romunije k Uniji, sama odločba pa je bila izdana skoraj sedem let po tem, ko je Romunija pristopila k Uniji.
Unless an aid measure is declared to be compatible with the internal market by the Commission, the Member States are prohibited from putting State aid measures into effect.
Končno se sklep v zadevi N 380/04 najbolj razlikuje od obravnavane zadeve v tem, da v prvi zadevi ni bilo videti, da bi z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo arbitražne odločbe iz leta 2003 družba LG pridobila nezakonito državno pomoč, ki ji jo je Latvija obljubila v nasprotju s svojimi obveznostmi glede državne pomoči, ki jih je imela kot država kandidatka za pristop k Uniji.
Under Article 108(3) of the Treaty, a Member State must notify any plans to alter or grant aid to the Commission and shall not put its proposed measure into effect until the Commission has taken a final decision on that measure’s compatibility with the internal market.
Komisija zato ugotavlja, da plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, pomeni novo pomoč in da se ukrep lahko izvede le, če in ko ga Komisija odobri v skladu s pravili o državni pomoči.
The obligation not to put into effect any aid measure without a final decision from the Commission on the compatibility of that aid measure only applies, of course, to aid measures put into effect after the entry into force of the Treaty for the Member State concerned.
Nezakonitost v skladu s členom 108(3) Pogodbe
For Romania, the Treaty entered into force on 1 January 2007.
Odškodnino, ki jo je dodelilo sodišče, je Romunija tožnikom že delno poravnala z odpisom nekaterih davčnih dolgov, ki jih je eden od tožnikov, S.C.
The claimants dispute that the implementation or execution of the Award would constitute ‘new aid’ within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
European Food S.A., dolgoval državi Romuniji.
They maintain that even if the Commission’s assessment is correct quod non and the implementation or execution of the Award would constitute aid, the date of the grant of that aid would be the initial granting of benefits under EGO 24 to the claimants, which took place in 2000 and 2002 and thus before Romania’s accession to the Union.
Ker Romunija o delni izvedbi odločbe ni obvestila Komisije, je bil ukrep izveden nezakonito v nasprotju s členom 108(3) Pogodbe.
According to the claimants, the very latest point in time which could be considered the granting date is the entry into force of the BIT, on which the Award is based, and which entered into force in 2003.
Vsako nadaljnje plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je dodelilo sodišče, bodisi z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo odločbe, o kateri Komisija ne bi bila obveščena ali bi se zgodila po sprejetju tega sklepa, bi iz enakih razlogov prav tako pomenila kršitev obveznosti Romunije, da ravna v skladu s členom 108(3) Pogodbe.
The Commission disagrees with the claimants and considers that payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal, whether through the implementation or execution of the Award, amounts to new aid and is thus subject to the full State aid control mechanism set out in Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty.
Združljivost z notranjim trgom
According to the case-law of the CJEU, aid must be considered to be granted at the time that an unconditional right to receive it is conferred on the beneficiary under the applicable national rules [81].
Komisija najprej opozarja, da je pri ocenjevanju združljivosti ukrepa z notranjim trgom v skladu s členom 107(2) in členom 107(3) Pogodbe dokazno breme glavna odgovornost države članice [85].
Neither the adoption of EGO 24 on 2 October 1998, nor the designation of Ștei-Nucet, Bihor county, as a disfavoured region for 10 years (effective on 1 April 1999), nor the grant of permanent investor certificates to S.C.
V zvezi s tem Komisija opozarja tudi, da ukrepa ni mogoče razglasiti za združljivega z notranjim trgom, če pomeni neločljivo kršitev drugih posebnih določb Pogodbe [86].
European Food SA (on 1 June 2000) and S.C.
Romunija zaenkrat ni predložila pripomb, s katerimi bi lahko upravičila ukrep po členu 107(2) in členu 107(3) Pogodbe.
Multipack (on 17 May 2002) conferred on the claimants an unconditional right to obtain the Raw Material Facility until 1 April 2009.
Kljub temu Komisija meni, da je zaradi celovitosti primerno, če opravi presojo združljivosti na lastno pobudo.
Rather, a right to that Facility was only obtained by a company eligible for aid under the scheme set up by EGO 24:
Tožniki trdijo, da ukrep pomeni združljivo regionalno pomoč.
under the initial scheme set up by EGO 24: when the regional development agency approved the company’s production sales documents attesting that an import of raw materials intended for integration into internal production had taken place, giving right to a reimbursement of customs duties paid [82], andafter the Raw Material Facility of EGO 24 was transformed into an exemption from customs duties under EGO 75: when a company eligible for aid under that scheme imported raw materials for integration into internal production and requested the exemption from the border control authorities on the basis of duly justified documents.
Na podlagi člena 107(3)(a) in člena 107(3)(c) Pogodbe lahko Komisija za združljivo z notranjim trgom šteje državno pomoč, namenjeno pospeševanju gospodarskega razvoja določenih prikrajšanih območij v Uniji.
As the Award was rendered and risks being implemented or executed after Romania acceded to the Union, the unconditional right under Romanian domestic law to receive the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, arising from the ratification of the ISCID Convention integrating it in Romania’s domestic legal order and thus giving the Award legal effect in Romania’s domestic legal, was conferred on the claimants only after Romania’s accession to the Union.
V obravnavani zadevi se odškodnina, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, nanaša na izgube, ki so neposredno povezane s preklicem spodbud iz EGO 24, in je namenjena zagotovitvi položaja upravičencu, v katerem bi ta „po vsej verjetnosti“ bil, če spodbude iz EGO 24 ne bi bile preklicane.
It is also important to note in this regard that the Award grants to the claimants compensation in an amount corresponding to the advantages foreseen under the abolished Raw Materials Facility of the EGO 24 scheme from the moment that that legislation was repealed (22 February 2005) until its alleged scheduled expiry (1 April 2009).
Z izvedbo odločbe se dejansko ponovno vzpostavi položaj, v katerem bi tožniki po vsej verjetnosti bili, če Romunija ne bi ukinila EGO 24.
That period comprises a little over 49 months, during the majority of which (27 months) Romania was a full member of the Union directly subjected to the State aid discipline laid down in the Treaty.
Ker so bile prednosti, ki so bile dodeljene v skladu z EGO 24, povezane s tekočimi stroški tožnikov in niso bile povezane s prvotno naložbo, so pomenile pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
In addition, the Award grants to the claimants compensation for the lost opportunity to stockpile sugar in 2009, assuming that the connected losses were incurred between 31 March 2009 and 1 July 2010.
Zato zagotovitev položaja upravičencu, v katerem bi ta bil, če spodbude iz EGO 24 ne bi bile preklicane, in s tem odškodnina za izgube, povezane s tem preklicem, pomenita pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
These alleged losses were thus incurred entirely after Romania had acceded to the Union in 2007.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 92 in naslednjih, plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, dejansko retroaktivno zmanjšuje operativne stroške, ki jim nastanejo pri opravljanju gospodarske dejavnosti v običajnih tržnih pogojih.
Finally, the Tribunal awarded compensation for lost profits, taking into account claimed losses incurred between 1 January 2005 and 31 August 2011.
V skladu s točkami 76, 77 in 79 smernic RAG 2007 je pomoč za tekoče poslovanje običajno prepovedana in se lahko le izjemoma dodeli v regijah iz člena 107(3)(a), če:
That period comprises 80 months, during the vast majority of which (56 months) Romania was a full member of the Union directly subjected to the State aid discipline laid down in the Treaty.
je upravičena zaradi njenega prispevka k regionalnemu razvoju (ciljno usmerjena),
Finally, the EGO 24 incentive scheme is not mentioned in Annex V, chapter 2, n.1 of the Act of Accession of Romania to the Union which exhaustively lists the State aid measures which would be considered existing aid upon Romania’s accession to the Union [83] [84].
sta njena narava in višina sorazmerni pomanjkljivostim, ki jih skuša zmanjšati,
The fact that neither the Act of Accession nor the Treaty were applicable to Romania at the time when Romania allegedly breached its obligations under the BIT by revoking the aid scheme established by EGO 24 or when the claimants brought their claims under the BIT before the Tribunal is irrelevant.
je začasna in se s časom zmanjšuje ter se postopno opusti, ko zadevne regije dosežejo resnično konvergenco z bogatejšimi območji EU,
At neither point did the claimants obtain an unconditional right to the payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which is the measure under consideration.
je načeloma dodeljena samo glede na predhodno določen niz upravičenih odhodkov ali stroškov ter omejena na določen delež teh stroškov,
It is only when the Tribunal established that there was a breach of Article 2(3) of the BIT by rendering the Award on 11 December 2013, in conjunction with Romanian domestic law giving legal effect in Romania’s domestic legal order to the Award, that the claimants received an unconditional right to that compensation which they could enforce against Romania.
se država članica zaveže, da bo spoštovala podrobna pravila poročanja, kot je opredeljeno v točki 83 smernic RAG 2007.
That date was after Romania’s accession to the European Union.
Gospodarske dejavnosti, ki imajo korist od izvajanja odločbe, se opravljajo na območju, ki spada v področje uporabe člena 107(3)(a) Pogodbe, kakor je določila Komisija v sklepu o karti regionalnih pomoči za Romunijo za obdobje 2007–2013 [89] in 2014–2020 [90].
The claimants’ case therefore is not comparable to the Commission’s decision in Case N 380/04 to which they refer.
Vendar Komisija ne razume, kako je plačilo odškodnine, dodeljene tožnikom, upravičeno v smislu njenega prispevka k regionalnemu razvoju zadevnih območij.
Case N 380/04 concerned a contract concluded between the company Latvijas Gāze (‘LG’) and Latvia in 1997.
Cilj pomoči za tekoče poslovanje, ki izhaja iz plačila, ni prispevati k skupnemu cilju enakosti, kot je zahtevano v členu 107(3)(a) Pogodbe, temveč zgolj zagotoviti upravičencem odškodnino za izgube, nastale zaradi preklica EGO 24 pred predvidenim datumom izteka.
When a dispute arose between LG and Latvia over the latter’s obligations under the contract, commercial arbitration proceedings were initiated in Stockholm under Uncitral rules.
To pomeni brezplačno pridobitev sredstev za tožnike brez kakršnega koli pozitivnega učinka na razvoj regije.
The arbitration tribunal established for those proceedings decided, on 19 June 2003, that Latvia owed LG compensation for the period 10 January 2001 until 10 March 2003.
Dejstvo, da se gospodarska dejavnost opravlja „na območju“, ne zadostuje za predvidevanje, da je ukrep sorazmeren pomanjkljivostim, ki jih skuša zmanjšati, ker je treba najprej dokazati, katere so te pomanjkljivosti in kako ovirajo razvoj zadevne regije.
Latvia did not comply with the arbitral award before it acceded to the Union on 1 May 2004 and notified the envisaged implementation of that award to the Commission after accession.
Brez predloženih dokazov Komisija ni mogla ugotoviti posebnih pomanjkljivosti, ki naj bi jih ukrepi pomoči skušali zmanjšati.
In its decision, the Commission observed that the compensation obligation arose on the basis of the 1997 contract, that the compensation awarded by the arbitration tribunal related in its entirety to a period before Latvia’s accession, and that the arbitral award itself was issued before Latvia’s accession to the Union.
Plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, je začasno, ker se po izvedbi ali izvršitvi odločbe njegovi učinki končajo.
On this basis, the Commission concluded that ‘the payment […] of the damages awarded by the Tribunal […] constitute a mere act of implementation of a measure that crystallised entirely before accession’ and that implementing the 2003 arbitral award could not be regarded as constituting ‘new aid’.
Vendar pa ni omejeno na določen delež predhodno določenih stroškov, saj je cilj odškodnine zagotoviti kritje vseh izgub, ki so nastale tožnikom.
Furthermore, the Commission’s decision in Case N 380/04 itself points out that it did not prejudge the analysis of possible future payments under the contract that related to periods after accession, thus narrowly limiting the approach chosen to the specific facts notified by Latvia.
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija meni, da plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, ni v skladu s smernicami RAG 2007 in ga zato ni mogoče razglasiti za združljivega z notranjim trgom.
By contrast, in the present case the compensation obligation arises from the Award, which was rendered in 2013, the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal relates for the most part to the period after Romania acceded to the Union and the Award itself was issued almost seven years after Romania acceded to the Union.
Ker za združljivost ni mogoče uporabiti nobene druge podlage, Komisija meni, da združljivost ukrepa pomoči ni bila ugotovljena.
Finally, the decision in Case N 380/04 differs most starkly to the present case in that there was no indication in the former case that by implementing or executing the 2003 arbitral award LG would obtain unlawful State aid which Latvia had promised to grant contrary to its State aid obligations as a candidate country acceding to the Union.
Sklep o oceni ukrepa pomoči
The Commission therefore finds that the payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants constitutes new aid and that that measure can only be put into effect if and after the Commission has authorised it under the State aid rules.
Iz navedene analize je razvidno, da plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, pomeni dodelitev nezdružljive nove pomoči, ki ni združljiva s Pogodbo.
Illegality under Article 108(3) of the Treaty
Komisija obžaluje, da je Romunija odškodnino že delno poravnala z odpisom davčnih dolgov, ki jih je eden od tožnikov, S.C.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal has already been partially paid out by Romania to the claimants through the offsetting of certain tax debts owed by one of the claimants, S.C.
European Food S.A., dolgoval državi Romuniji, od dela te odškodnine ter z ukrepanjem sodno imenovanega izvršitelja.
European Food SA, to the Romanian state.
VRAČILO
Since that partial implementation of the Award was not notified to the Commission by Romania, the measure has unlawfully been put into effect in violation of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Komisija je v skladu s Pogodbo in ustaljeno sodno prakso SEU pristojna za odločanje, ali mora zadevna država članica ukiniti ali spremeniti pomoč, za katero je ugotovila, da je nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom [91].
Any further payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, whether by implementation or execution of the Award, that the Commission is either unaware of or that might occur after the adoption of this Decision would, for the same reasons, also constitute a violation of Romania’s obligation to comply with Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Prav tako je v skladu s stalno prakso Sodišča namen obveznosti na strani države članice, da ukine pomoč, za katero Komisija meni, da ni združljiva z notranjim trgom, ponovna vzpostavitev prejšnjih razmer [92].
Compatibility with the internal market
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče navedlo, da je ta cilj dosežen, ko prejemnik odplača znesek, ki mu je bil dodeljen v okviru nezakonite pomoči, s čimer izgubi prednost, ki jo je užival glede na konkurente na trgu, ter se ponovno vzpostavijo razmere pred plačilom pomoči [93].
At the outset, the Commission recalls that when assessing the compatibility of a measure with the internal market under Articles 107(2) and 107(3) of the Treaty, the burden of proof is the principal responsibility of the Member State [85].
V skladu s to sodno prakso člen 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 določa, da: „če se v primerih nezakonite pomoči sprejmejo negativne odločbe, Komisija odloči, da mora zadevna država članica sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe, da upravičenec vrne pomoč […]“.
In this context, the Commission also recalls that a State aid measure cannot be declared compatible with the internal market, if it entails a non-severable violation of other specific provisions of the Treaty [86].
Tožniki trdijo, da so legitimno pričakovali, da so bile spodbude, dodeljene v okviru EGO 24, zakonite in da bi jih lahko koristili do njihovega načrtovanega izteka 1. aprila 2009.
At present, Romania has presented no arguments that could justify the measure under Articles 107(2) and 107(3) of the Treaty.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ugotavlja, da člen 14(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 določa tudi, da „Komisija ne zahteva vračila pomoči, če bi bilo to v nasprotju s splošnim načelom prava [Unije]“.
Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, the Commission considers it appropriate to undertake a compatibility assessment of its own motion.
SEU je načelo varovanja legitimnih pričakovanj tožnikov pripoznalo kot takšno splošno načelo prava Unije.
The claimants contend that the measure constitutes compatible regional aid.
Vendar Komisija meni, da se tožniki ne morejo sklicevati na takšno legitimno pričakovanje.
On the basis of Article 107(3)(a) and 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, the Commission may consider compatible with the internal market State aid to promote the economic development of certain disadvantaged areas within the Union.
V skladu s sodno prakso SEU se, razen v izjemnih okoliščinah, podjetja, ki jim je bila pomoč odobrena, načeloma ne morejo sklicevati na legitimno pričakovanje, da je pomoč zakonita, razen če je bila odobrena v skladu s postopkom za dodelitev državne pomoči, opredeljenem v členu 108(3) Pogodbe.
The conditions under which aid to promote regional development can be considered compatible with the internal market are set out in the Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014–2020 (‘RAG 2014’).
SEU je v svoji nedavni sodbi izjavilo, da brez dovolj natančnih zagotovil, izhajajočih iz pozitivnih ukrepov Komisije, ki ima izključno pristojnost, da državi članici Unije dovoli dodeliti državno pomoč, na podlagi katerih upravičenci verjamejo, da ukrep ne pomeni državne pomoči, ne morejo nobene izjemne okoliščine utemeljiti uporabe načela varovanja legitimnih pričakovanj za preprečevanje vračila, če Komisija o tem ukrepu ni bila obveščena [94].
Recital 188 of those Guidelines explains that they apply for assessing the compatibility of all regional aid intended to be awarded after 30 June 2014.
V skladu z dolgoletno sodno prakso dejansko ni mogoče, da bi se načelo varovanja legitimnih pričakovanj uporabilo zoper natančno določbo prava Unije, in ravnanje nacionalnega organa, odgovornega za uporabo prava Unije, ki to pravo krši, pri gospodarskem subjektu ne more ustvariti legitimnih pričakovanj, da bo imel korist od obravnave, ki je v nasprotju s tem pravom [95].
This means that regional aid awarded unlawfully or regional aid intended to be awarded before 1 July 2014 are to be assessed in accordance with the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 [87] (‘RAG 2007’).
Skrben gospodarski subjekt bi se namreč po navadi mogel prepričati, ali je bil ta postopek spoštovan [96].
As explained in recital 134, an unconditional right to the aid was granted to the claimants when the Award was issued on 11 December 2013, in conjunction with Romanian domestic law giving legal effect in Romania’s domestic legal order to the Award, that is, before the entry into force of the RAG 2014.
Komisija navaja, da bi moralo biti pri odškodnini, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, tem brez dvoma jasno, še preden jim je bila ta odškodnina dodeljena s sprejetjem odločbe in v povezavi z romunskim nacionalnim pravom, ki je odločbi podelil pravni učinek v nacionalnem pravnem redu Romunije, da je Komisija plačilo odškodnine obravnavala za nezakonito in nezdružljivo državno pomoč.
Therefore, the payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants should be assessed under the RAG 2007.
To stališče je bilo sodišču izrecno sporočeno 20. julija 2009 in posredovano tožnikom.
In those guidelines, the Commission sets out that regional aid aimed at reducing the current expenses of an undertaking constitutes operating aid and will not be regarded as compatible with the internal market, unless it is awarded in exceptional circumstances to tackle specific handicaps faced by undertakings in disadvantaged regions falling within the scope of Article 107(3)(a) of the of the Treaty [88].
Kar zadeva trditev tožnikov, da so legitimno pričakovali, da so spodbude iz EGO 24 zakonite in da bodo na voljo do 1. aprila 2009, Komisija najprej opozarja, da podlaga za ta sklep ni EGO 24, temveč plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom.
In effect, the implementation of the award re-establishes the situation in which the claimants would have, in all likelihood, found themselves if EGO 24 had never been repealed by Romania.
Šele po sprejetju tega sklepa, in sicer 1. junija 2000, je družba S.C.
As the advantages granted under EGO 24 were connected to the recurrent costs of the claimants and were not linked to an initial investment, those advantages constituted operating aid.
European Food S.A pridobila investitorsko potrdilo, na podlagi katerega je bila upravičena do pridobitve državne pomoči v okviru sheme iz EGO 24, kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi 133.
Therefore, placing the beneficiary in the position in which it would have been if the EGO 24 incentives had not been revoked and thus compensating the losses linked to this revocation constitutes operating aid.
Vendar pa, kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi 134, to ne pomeni, da je bila pomoč dodeljena na ta dan.