natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ASSESSMENT
Po proučitvi lastniške strukture skupine EFDG in ugotovitvi, da imata brata Micula neposredno ali posredno v lasti najmanj 99,96 % vseh družb v skupini EFDG, za katere sta brata Micula terjala odškodnino (te so European Drinks S.A., Rieni Drinks S.A., Scandic Distilleries S.A., Transilvania General Import-Export S.R.L. in West Leasing S.R.L), je sodišče ta pristop sprejelo in tožnikom dovolilo, da zahtevajo odškodnino za škodo skupine EFDG kot celote [53].
Existence of aid
To vedenje tožnikov v arbitražnem postopku in z njim povezane ugotovitve sodišča kažejo, da brata Micula in tri družbe tožnice ter navedene družbe, ki so del skupine EFDG, tvorijo eno gospodarsko enoto z enim gospodarskim interesom.
Article 107(1) of the Treaty provides that ‘aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.
Tretjič, opredelitev bratov Micula in njunih družb kot ene gospodarske enote je dodatno podkrepljena še z načinom, kako jim je bila z odločbo na koncu dodeljena odškodnina.
Accordingly, a measure constitutes State aid if the following four cumulative conditions are met:
Namesto da bi se v odločbi odškodnina ločeno dodelila vsakemu od petih tožnikov posebej, se jim je dodelila „kolektivno“ na podlagi „skupne upravičenosti“.
the measure must confer a selective economic advantage upon an undertaking,
Dejstvo, da je vseh pet tožnikov skupaj (tj. tudi družbe tožnice) zaprosilo sodišče, naj celotno odškodnino dodeli le bratoma Micula, kaže na to, da družbe tožnice niso neodvisne od bratov Micula.
the measure must be imputable to the state and financed through state resources,
Sodišče je nazadnje vsem tožnikom dovolilo, da izterjajo celotni znesek dodeljene odškodnine in ga nato razdelijo med sabo, kakor se jim zdi primerno, ne glede na to, koliko škode je dejansko utrpel posamezni tožnik.
the measure must distort or threaten to distort competition,
Na to odločitev ni vplivala utemeljitev tožnikov, da je treba njihovo zadevo razlikovati od sodbe Hydrotherm, ker je bila fizična oseba v tej zadevi partner, ki je bil osebno odgovoren za finančne obveznosti različnih družb in je zato veljal za eno gospodarsko enoto, medtem ko brata Micula nista osebno odgovorna.
the measure must have the potential to affect trade between Member States.
Komisija v svojem odgovoru opozarja, da SEU v ustreznih točkah svoje sodbe v zadevi Hydrotherm ni niti omenilo osebne odgovornosti zadevne fizične osebe, temveč je navedlo le, da ima zadevna fizična oseba „popoln nadzor“ nad zadevnimi družbami [54].
The Commission stresses that the notion of State aid is an objective and legal concept defined directly by the Treaty.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, imata zaradi lastništva tudi brata Micula popoln nadzor nad družbami tožnicami in dejansko tudi nad drugimi pomembnimi družbami skupine EFDG.
To establish whether a particular measure constitutes State aid depends not on the intentions or justifications of the Member States when granting it, but on the effects of the measure in question [49].
V nasprotju s trditvami tožnikov Komisija meni tudi, da se v tej zadevi prav tako lahko uporabi logika, na kateri temelji sodba v zadevi Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze.
Undertaking
V tej sodbi je SEU priznalo, da lahko subjekt gospodarsko dejavnost opravlja neposredno ali posredno z nadzorovanjem izvajalca v okviru gospodarske enote, ki jo skupaj tvorita.
The CJEU has consistently defined undertakings as entities engaged in an economic activity, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed [50].
Čeprav SEU priznava, da zgolj imetništvo deležev, čeprav nadzornih deležev, ne zadošča za to, da se opredeli kot gospodarska dejavnost subjekta, ki je imetnik teh deležev, kadar to povzroči le uresničevanje pravic, ki so vezane na lastnost delničarja ali družbenika, ter na prejem dividend, ki so preprost sad lastništva blaga, je jasno, da je stanje v obravnavani zadevi drugačno.
The classification of a particular entity thus depends entirely on the nature of its activities.
SEU dejansko meni, da je treba „subjekt, ki je lastnik nadzornih deležev v družbi in ki ta nadzor dejansko izvaja z neposrednim ali posrednim vključevanjem v njeno upravljanje, obravnavati, kot da sodeluje pri gospodarski dejavnosti, ki jo izvaja nadzorovana družba“ [55].
Separate legal entities may be considered to form one economic unit for the purpose of the application of State aid rules.
SEU je poudarilo tudi, da „preprosto ločevanje podjetja na dva različna subjekta“ ne more biti dovolj za izogib pravilom o državni pomoči [56].
That economic unit is then considered to be the relevant undertaking.
Ta obrazložitev velja tudi v primerih, v katerih sta zadevna subjekta fizični osebi.
As the CJEU has previously held, ‘[i]n competition law, the term “undertaking” must be understood as designating an economic unit […] even if in law that economic unit consists of several persons, natural or legal.’ [51] To determine whether several entities form an economic unit, the CJEU looks at the existence of a controlling share or functional, economic or organic links [52].
Sicer se dodelitev pomoči fizični osebi, ki ima v lasti nadzorni delež podjetja, ne bi štela za državno pomoč, tudi če bi lahko fizična oseba to pomoč uporabila v korist podjetja, ki ga nadzoruje.
The claimants in the arbitration proceedings giving rise to the Award are the brothers Ioan Micula and Viorel Micula and three companies owned by them (S.C. European Food SA, S.C. Starmill S.R.L., and S.C. Multipack).
V obravnavani zadevi za namene uporabe pravil o državni pomoči res ne more biti pomembno, ali se odškodnina, ki jo je sodišče kolektivno dodelilo vsem petim tožnikom, izplača bratoma Micula ali družbam, ki jih imata v lasti.
It is clear that the three companies are engaged in economic activities, as they specialise in industrial manufacturing of food products, milling products, and plastic packaging, respectively.
Nazadnje Komisija sklene, da brata Micula in tri družbe tožnice skupaj tvorijo eno gospodarsko enoto, ki se za namene uporabe člena 107(1) Pogodbe šteje za podjetje.
The three companies therefore constitute undertakings.
Druge družbe skupine EFDG, za domnevno škodo katerih je bila bratoma Micula v odločbi dodeljena odškodnina (European Drinks S.A., Rieni Drinks S.A., Scandic Distilleries S.A., Transilvania General Import-Export S.R.L. in West Leasing S.R.L) [57], so prav tako del te gospodarske enote.
This characterisation is not disputed by the claimants.
Končna upravičenka do ukrepov pomoči je ta enotna gospodarska enota, sestavljena iz petih tožnikov in navedenih družb skupine EFDG.
The claimants maintain, however, that the Micula brothers themselves cannot, as natural persons, be considered to constitute undertakings for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, and that accordingly funds paid out to them in implementation or execution of the Award would not constitute State aid.
Gospodarska prednost (1)
In particular, the interests of the Micula brothers are said not to coincide with those of the three corporate claimants.
Prednost v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe je katera koli gospodarska korist, ki je podjetje v običajnih tržnih pogojih, tj. v odsotnosti posredovanja države, ne bi prejelo [58].
The Commission finds, however, that the three companies and the Micula brothers together constitute a single economic unit for the purpose of the application of the State aid rules.
Natančna oblika ukrepa pri ugotavljanju, ali za podjetje pomeni gospodarsko prednost, ni pomembna.
This economic unit is therefore considered the relevant undertaking.
Pojem prednost na primer vključuje vse situacije, ko so podjetja oproščena stroškov, povezanih z njihovimi gospodarskimi dejavnostmi.
This finding relies, first, on the fact that the Micula brothers have, directly or indirectly, virtually exclusive ownership of the three corporate claimants, thus demonstrating a controlling interest over those companies.
Sodišče je z odločbo določilo, da mora Romunija tožnikom plačati odškodnino v višini 376433229 RON plus obresti.
Second, this finding takes into account that the corporate claimants form part of a larger group of companies, the European Food and Drinks Group (‘EFDG’).
Da bi v celoti razumeli, zakaj izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe za tožnike pomeni gospodarsko prednost, si je najprej priporočljivo ogledati, na podlagi česa je sodišče v tej odločbi odločilo, da se tožnikom izplača odškodnina.
During the arbitral proceedings, the Micula brothers also claimed compensation for other companies forming part of EFDG that allegedly suffered losses as a result of Romania’s actions giving rise to the proceedings.
Potem ko je sodišče odločilo, da je Romunija kršila bilateralno investicijsko pogodbo, je razložilo, da mora biti odškodnina plačana na podlagi načela, da „je treba tožniku ponovno zagotoviti položaj, v katerem bi ‚po vsej verjetnosti‘ bil, če mu ne bi bila povzročena mednarodna krivica“ [59].
In fact, rather than claiming and quantifying separate losses for each corporate claimant and the two individual claimants, the claimants based their application for compensation on the losses allegedly suffered by EFDG as a whole.
Razložilo je tudi, da se z odškodnino lahko nadomestijo le izgube, ki so vzročno povezane z dejanjem, ki pomeni mednarodno krivico, in da „vse kršitve bilateralne investicijske pogodbe, ki jih navajajo tožniki, izhajajo iz istega dejstva: predčasne ukinitve spodbud iz [EGO 24] ali v neposredni povezavi s to predčasno ukinitvijo“ [60].
After examining the ownership structure of EFDG and determining that the Micula brothers, directly or indirectly, owned at least 99,96 % of the all companies in EFDG for which the Micula brothers claimed damages (these are European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Scandic Distilleries SA, Transilvania General Import-Export S.R.L., West Leasing S.R.L), the Tribunal accepted this approach and allowed the claimants to seek compensation for the losses of EFDG as a whole [53].
Sodišče je pri natančnem določanju odškodnine, dolgovane tožnikom, upoštevalo, ali so bile izgube dejansko povzročene in ali so bile neposredno povezane z ukinitvijo sheme spodbud.
This behaviour of the claimants during the arbitral proceedings and the corresponding determinations of the Tribunal demonstrate that the Micula brothers and the three corporate claimants, as well as the aforementioned companies forming part of EFDG, form a single economic unit with a single economic interest.
V zvezi z odškodnino, dodeljeno za povišano ceno sladkorja, je sodišče na primer navedlo [61]: „Obstoj škode in vzročna povezava med ukinitvijo spodbud in povzročeno škodo sta bila ustrezno dokazana.
Third, the characterisation of the Micula brothers and their companies as one economic unit is further reinforced by how the Award eventually awarded compensation to them.
Nobenega dvoma ni, da so morali tožniki zaradi ukinitve spodbude v zvezi s surovinami za sladkor, kupljen po februarju 2005, plačati več.“
Rather than apportioning compensation individually to each of the five claimants, the Award awarded the compensation to them ‘collectively’ on the basis of a ‘common entitlement’.
Iz teh ugotovitev je razvidno, da Romunija z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo odločbe tožnikom dodeli znesek, ki popolnoma ustreza prednostim, predvidenim v ukinjeni shemi iz EGO 24, v času od njene ukinitve (22. februarja 2005) do njenega predvidenega izteka (1. aprila 2009).
The Tribunal finally allowed each claimant to recover the entire amount of compensation awarded, and then to allocate that compensation among the claimants however they deem fit, regardless of the damages actually sustained by each claimant.
Z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo odločbe se torej tožnikom dodeli gospodarska prednost, ki jim sicer na trgu ne bi bila na voljo.
The foregoing conclusion is not affected by the claimants’ argument that the present case must be distinguished from the Hydrotherm judgment, as the natural person in that case was a partner personally liable for the financial obligations of the various companies with which he was considered to constitute a single economic unit, whereas the Micula brothers are not so personally liable.
Prvič, stroški surovin kot vhodnih materialov za končne izdelke so običajni operativni stroški podjetij in če se jim del običajnih operativnih stroškov oprosti, se jim s tem dodeli posebna prednost.
In response, the Commission recalls that in the relevant paragraphs of its Hydrotherm judgment the CJEU did not mention the personal liability of the natural person in question at all; rather, the CJEU limited itself to pointing out that the natural person in question ‘has complete control’ of the companies in question [54].
Drugič, če se tožnikom dodeli odškodnina za izgubljeni dobiček, ker so morali sami poravnati svoje operativne stroške, to prav tako pomeni gospodarsko prednost, ki jim v običajnih tržnih pogojih in brez odločbe ne bi bila na voljo; v običajnih tržnih pogojih bi moralo podjetje samo poravnati stroške, povezane z njegovo gospodarsko dejavnostjo, in torej ne bi ustvarilo tega dobička.
As already mentioned, by virtue of their ownership the Micula brothers similarly have complete control over the corporate claimants, and in fact the other relevant EFDG companies.
Tretjič, če se tožnikom plačajo obresti za plačila, ki so bila domnevno dolgovana v preteklosti, vendar morajo biti opredeljena kot prednost, to pomeni ločeno in dodatno prednost.
The Commission also considers, contrary to the assertions of the claimants, that the logic underpinning the Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze judgment is equally applicable in this case.
Tudi v tem primeru velja, da bi moralo podjetje v običajnih tržnih pogojih in brez odločbe samo poravnati svoje običajne operativne stroške, ne bi ustvarilo domnevnega izgubljenega dobička in torej ne bi moglo dobiti obresti od tega kapitala.
In that judgment, the CJEU recognised that an economic activity can be exercised by an entity directly or indirectly, through controlling an operator as part of an economic unit which they form together.
Pravzaprav je Romunija s preklicem sheme iz EGO 24 ponovno vzpostavila običajne konkurenčne pogoje na trgu, na katerem so dejavni tožniki, zato vsak poskus, da se tožnikom zagotovi nadomestilo za posledice preklica spodbud iz EGO 24, pomeni prednost, ki v običajnih tržnih pogojih ne bi bila na voljo.
Although the CJEU acknowledges that the mere fact of holding shares, even controlling shareholdings, is insufficient to characterise as economic an activity of the entity holding those shares when it gives rise only to the exercise of the rights attached to the status of shareholder or member, as well as the receipt of dividends, which are merely the fruits of the ownership of an asset, it is clear that the present situation is different.
Poskusi tožnikov, da bi dodelitev odškodnine ločili od preklica spodbud iz EGO 24, niso prepričljivi.
Indeed, according to the CJEU ‘an entity which, owning controlling shareholdings in a company, actually exercises that control by involving itself directly or indirectly in the management thereof must be regarded as taking part in the economic activity carried on by the controlled undertaking.’ [55] The CJEU was also concerned to point out that ‘simple separation of an undertaking into two different entities’ cannot be sufficient to circumvent State aid rules [56].
Tožniki trdijo: „[V] obravnavani zadevi je sodišče ICSID sklenilo, da je sklep glede upoštevanja pravil EU o državni pomoči v skladu z obveznostmi, ki jih Romuniji narekuje bilateralna investicijska pogodba, in za to tožnikom ni dodelilo odškodnine.
This rationale also applies where one of the two entities concerned is a natural person.
Namesto tega je sodišče ICSID dodelilo odškodnino za napačno ravnanje države Romunije, ker je po preklicu sheme ohranila obveznosti, povezane z EGO 24, in ker vlagateljem ni zagotavljala dovolj preglednosti.“
Otherwise granting aid to a natural person who is the controlling shareholder of an undertaking would not be considered to constitute State aid, even though the natural person could use that aid for the benefit of the undertakings which it controls.
Ta opis odločbe ni pravilen in ne upošteva učinkov izvedbe/izvršitve odločbe.
Indeed, in the present case, it cannot make any difference for the purposes of applying the State aid rules whether the compensation collectively awarded to all five claimants by the Tribunal is paid out to the Micula brothers or to the companies owned by them.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, so po mnenju sodišča vse domnevne kršitve bilateralne investicijske pogodbe nastale zaradi „predčasne ukinitve spodbud ali v neposredni povezavi s to predčasno ukinitvijo“ [63] in je dodelilo odškodnino za izgube, ki so izhajale neposredno iz ukinitve sheme spodbud.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the Micula brothers and the three corporate claimants together form a single economic unit that constitutes an undertaking for the purpose of applying Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Prav tako so bile že navedene naslednje trditve sodišča [64]: „[Z] razveljavitvijo spodbud iz EGO 24 pred 1. aprilom 2009 Romunija ni ravnala nerazumno ali v slabi veri (nerazumno je [Romunija] ravnala le s tem, ko je po prekinitvi spodbud ohranila obveznosti vlagateljev).
The other EFDG companies for whose alleged losses the Micula brothers were awarded compensation by virtue of the Award (European Drinks SA, Rieni Drinks SA, Scandic Distilleries SA, Transilvania General Import-Export S.R.L., West Leasing S.R.L) [57] likewise form part of this single economic unit.
Vendar sodišče zaključi z večinskim sklepom, da je Romunija prekršila legitimna pričakovanja tožnikov, da bodo spodbude v pretežno enaki obliki na voljo do 1. aprila 2009.
The final beneficiary of the aid measure is this single economic unit, made up of the five claimants and those EFDG companies.
Poleg tega Romunija ni delovala pregledno, s tem ko tožnikov ni pravočasno obvestila, da bo to ureditev ukinila pred navedenim datumom izteka.
Economic advantage (1)
Sodišče zato meni, da Romunija ni zagotovila poštene in pravične obravnave naložb tožnikov v smislu člena 2(3) bilateralne investicijske pogodbe.“
An advantage, as required by Article 107(1) of the Treaty, is any economic benefit which an undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions, i.e. in the absence of the state intervention [58].
Na podlagi tega sklepa se ni mogoče strinjati s trditvijo tožnikov, da po mnenju sodišča sklep Romunije, da z ukinitvijo EGO 24 zagotovi skladnost s pravili Unije o državni pomoči, ni bil v nasprotju z bilateralno investicijsko pogodbo ali da sodišče ni dodelilo odškodnine na podlagi tega [65].
The precise form of the measure is irrelevant for establishing whether it confers an economic advantage on the undertaking.
Komisija navaja, da se je sodišče pri utemeljitvi svojega sklepa, da dodeli odškodnino za povišane cene in izgubo zmožnosti ustvarjanja zalog ter za izgubljeni dobiček, sklicevalo le na škodo, ki je tožnikom nastala zaradi preklica spodbud iz EGO 24 [66].
The notion of advantage includes, for example, all situations where undertakings are relieved of inherent costs of their economic activities.
Predvsem se sodišče ni niti sklicevalo na svoji ugotovitvi, da je Romunija ravnala nerazumno, ko je ohranila obveznosti vlagateljev v zvezi z EGO 24, in ni ravnala pregledno, niti ni na podlagi teh ugotovitev dodelilo dodatnih odškodnin.
By the Award, the Tribunal has awarded the claimants compensation of RON 376433229 plus interest against Romania.
Gospodarska prednost (2): Odškodnina in državna pomoč
To fully understand why the implementation or execution of the Award grants the claimants an economic advantage, it is first instructive to examine on which basis the Tribunal determined that compensation should be paid out to the claimants in that Award.
Prisotnosti prednosti v nasprotju s trditvami tožnikov prav tako ne izključuje dejstvo, da plačilo odškodnine, ki jo sodišče dodeljuje tožnikom z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo odločbe, pomeni plačilo odškodnine za škodo.
After it had decided that Romania had breached the BIT, the Tribunal explained that damages had to be awarded on the basis of the principle that ‘the claimant must be placed back in the position it would have been “in all probability” but for the international wrong’ [59].
Osrednje vprašanje v zvezi s tem je, ali se v obravnavani zadevi lahko uporabijo načela iz sodbe SEU v zadevi Asteris [67].
It further explained that only losses that are causally linked to the act constituting the international wrong could be compensated by means of damages, and that ‘all of the violations of the BIT alleged by the Claimants arise from the same fact: the premature revocation of the [EGO 24] incentives or in direct connection with that premature revocation’ [60].
SEU je v sodbi v zadevi Asteris odločilo, da se državna pomoč „po svoji pravni naravi bistveno razlikuje od odškodnine, ki jo morajo pristojni nacionalni organi na zahtevo plačati posameznikom kot nadomestilo za škodo, ki so jo tem posameznikom povzročili“ [68].
In assessing the precise compensation due to the claimants, the Tribunal took into account whether losses were in reality incurred and whether they were directly related to the revocation of the incentive scheme.
Tožniki zatrjujejo, da obravnavana zadeva popolnoma spada v navedeno sodno prakso in da so vsi poskusi Komisije, da bi zadevo Asteris ločila od obravnavane zadeve, neprepričljivi.
For instance, with regard to the damages awarded for the increased price of sugar, the Tribunal held [61]: ‘Both the existence of the damage and the causal link between the revocation of the incentives and the damage suffered have been adequately proved.
Komisija se s tem stališčem ne strinja.
There is no dispute that, as a result of the revocation of the Raw Materials Incentive, the Claimants were required to pay an increased amount for the sugar they purchased after February 2005’.
Komisija najprej opozarja, da se ozadje zadeve Asteris zelo razlikuje od ozadja obravnavane zadeve.
In light of these considerations, it is clear that through the implementation or execution of the Award, Romania grants the claimants an amount corresponding exactly to the advantages foreseen under the abolished EGO 24 scheme from the moment it was repealed (22 February 2005) until its scheduled expiry (1 April 2009).
V prvi zadevi je SEU izdalo odločbo na podlagi predloga grškega sodišča za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, s katerim je SEU pozvalo, naj se izreče o pristojnosti sodišč držav članic glede odločanja o odškodninskih zahtevkih, ki jih posamezniki vložijo zoper nacionalne organe v zvezi z neplačilom pomoči v okviru skupne kmetijske politike Evropske unije.
More precisely, implementing or executing the Award de facto reimburses customs duties charged on imported sugar and other raw materials between 22 February 2005 and 31 March 2009, as well as the customs duties charged on imported sugar that the claimants would have avoided if they had had the opportunity to stockpile sugar before the schedule expiration of the EGO 24 facilities on 31 March 2009.
Neplačilo pomoči ni bilo rezultat prelomljene obljube grških oblasti o dodelitvi pomoči, temveč prej posledica odločitve Komisije, da v uredbo vključi tehnične napake.
In addition, to ensure that the claimants fully benefit from an amount corresponding to that of the abolished scheme and are ‘placed back in the position it would have been “in all probability” ’, the Tribunal also awarded interest and compensation for the allegedly lost opportunity and lost profit [62].
Oškodovana podjetja so proti Komisiji že vložila odškodninsko tožbo pri SEU, vendar jo je to zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno.