natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It also allowed the investors to institute proceedings before an international arbitration tribunal in case they believed their rights under the BIT were violated by the host state.
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.
As the Micula brothers hold Swedish citizenship, they claimed that their investments in Romania were covered by the BIT.
Poleg tega Romunija ni delovala pregledno, s tem ko tožnikov ni pravočasno obvestila, da bo to ureditev ukinila pred navedenim datumom izteka.
On 28 July 2005, and in reaction to the revocation of the investment incentives under EGO 24, the claimants requested the establishment of an arbitration tribunal pursuant to the dispute settlement provisions of the BIT.
Sodišče zato meni, da Romunija ni ‚zagotovila poštene in pravične obravnave naložb‘ tožnikov v smislu člena 2(3) bilateralne investicijske pogodbe.“
The claimants had initially requested the re-establishment of the EGO 24 investment incentives that had been revoked as of 22 February 2005.
Sodišče je tožnikom dodelilo odškodnino v višini 376433229 RON z obrestmi.
However, during the proceedings, the claimants partially withdrew their claim in 2009 and instead requested compensation for damages resulting from the revocation of the EGO 24 incentives.
Odškodnina je sestavljena na naslednji način: sodišče je odločilo, da mora Romunija tožnikom plačati 85,1 milijona RON [28] odškodnine za povečane stroške sladkorja (za katerega so morali tožniki po preklicu olajšave za surovine plačati carinske dajatve), 17,5 milijona RON [29] odškodnine za povečane stroške surovin, ki niso sladkor in PET [30], 18,1 milijona RON [31] odškodnine za izgubo sposobnosti ustvarjanja zalog sladkorja po nižjih cenah ter 255,7 milijona RON [32] odškodnine za izgubljeni dobiček zaradi izgubljene prodaje končnega blaga.
The claimants alleged that by revoking the incentives, Romania had infringed their legitimate expectations that those incentives would be available, in substance, until 1 April 2009.
Poleg tega je sodišče Romuniji naložilo plačilo obresti (ROBOR plus 5 %), obračunanih od 1. marca 2007 za povečane stroške sladkorja in drugih surovin, od 1. novembra 2009 za izgubo sposobnosti ustvarjanja zalog sladkorja in od 1. maja 2008 za izgubljeni dobiček.
Thus, according to the claimants, Romania had violated its obligation of fair and equitable treatment owed to them as Swedish investors under Article 2(3) of the BIT.
Na dan sprejetja odločbe so glavnica in obresti, dodeljene tožnikom, znašale 791882452 RON, kot je prikazano v preglednici.
In the course of the arbitration proceedings, the Commission intervened as amicus curiae.
Odškodnine in obresti, dodeljene tožnikom z odločbo
In its intervention, submitted on 20 July 2009, the Commission explained that the EGO 24 incentives were: ‘incompatible with the Community rules on regional aid.
Dodeljene odškodnine
In particular, the incentives did not respect the requirements of Community law as regards eligible costs and aid intensities.
Znesek (v RON)
Moreover, the facilities constituted operating aid, which is proscribed under regional aid rules’.
Obresti, obračunane od
The Commission also observed that ‘[a]ny ruling reinstating the privileges abolished by Romania, or compensating the claimants for the loss of these privileges, would lead to the granting of new aid which would not be compatible with the EC Treaty’.
Povečan strošek sladkorja
It also advised the Tribunal that the ‘execution of [any award requiring Romania to re-establish investment schemes which have been found incompatible with the internal market during accession negotiations] can thus not take place if it would contradict the rules of EU State aid policy’.
1. marca 2007
In the Award of 11 December 2013, the Tribunal found that by revoking the EGO 24 incentives, Romania ‘violated the Claimants’ legitimate expectations with respect to the availability of the EGO 24 incentives’ until 1 April 2009 [23].
Povečani stroški surovin, ki niso sladkor ali PET
The Tribunal further concluded that, with the exception of maintaining the investors’ obligations under EGO 24 after revocation of the relevant incentives, ‘Romania’s repeal of the incentives was a reasonable action in pursuit of a rational policy.’
Izgubljena možnost ustvarjanja zalog sladkorja
However, the Tribunal went on to state that [25]: ‘[T]his conclusion does not detract from the Tribunal’s holding […] above that Romania undermined the Claimants’ legitimate expectations with respect to the continued availability of the incentives until 1 April 2009.
1. novembra 2009
As a result, Romania’s actions, although for the most part appropriately and narrowly tailored in pursuit of a rational policy, were unfair or inequitable vis-à-vis the Claimants’.
Izgubljen dobiček od prodaje končnega blaga
The Tribunal concluded its analysis by stating that [26]: ‘[B]y repealing the EGO 24 incentives prior to 1 April 2009, Romania did not act unreasonably or in bad faith (except that [Romania] acted unreasonably by maintaining investors’ obligations after terminating the incentives).
1. maja 2008
The Tribunal, however, concludes by majority that Romania violated the Claimants’ legitimate expectations that those incentives would be available, in substantially the same form, until 1 April 2009.
SKUPAJ
Romania also failed to act transparently by failing to inform the Claimants in a timely manner that the regime would be terminated prior to its stated date of expiration.
Skupni znesek z obrestmi dne 11. decembra 2013:
As a result, the Tribunal finds that Romania failed to “ensure fair and equitable treatment of the investments” of the Claimants in the meaning of Article 2(3) of the BIT’.
791882452 RON
The Tribunal further decided that Romania had to pay damages to the claimants [27].
Postopki ICSID za razveljavitev
In total, the Tribunal awarded the claimants RON 376433229 plus interest.
Romunija je 18. aprila 2014 pri začasnem odboru vložila predlog za razveljavitev odločbe na podlagi člena 52 Konvencije o reševanju investicijskih sporov med državami in državljani drugih držav z dne 18. marca 1965 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: konvencija ICSID).
The damages are made up as follows: the Tribunal found that Romania had to pay the claimants RON 85,1 million [28] in damages for the increased cost of sugar (for the import of which the claimants had to pay customs duties after the revocation of the Raw Materials Facility), RON 17,5 million [29] in damages for the increased cost of raw materials other than sugar and PET [30], RON 18,1 million [31] in damages for the loss of the ability to stockpile sugar at lower prices, and RON 255,7 million [32] in damages for lost profit deriving from lost sales of finished goods.
Zaradi postopkovnih pravil, ki se uporabljajo za te postopke, Romunija tega predloga ni predložila Komisiji.
In addition, the Tribunal ordered Romania to pay interest (ROBOR plus 5 %), calculated from 1 March 2007 with respect to the increased cost of sugar and other raw materials, from 1 November 2009 with respect to loss of ability to stockpile sugar, and from 1 May 2008 with respect to lost profits.
Vendar je postalo jasno, da je Romunija v svojem predlogu začasni odbor zaprosila tudi, naj odredi odlog izvršitve odločbe, dokler ne sprejme odločitve glede predloga o razveljavitvi.
On the date of the Award, the principal and interest due to the claimants amounted to RON 791882452, as illustrated in the table.
Romunija je v dopisu z dne 18. avgusta 2014 Komisiji sporočila, da ji je začasni odbor s sklepom z dne 7. avgusta 2014 odobril odlog izvršitve odločbe, če v enem mesecu zagotovi naslednje: „Romunija se brez vsakih pogojev (vključno s tistimi, povezanimi s pravom ali odločbami [EU]) zavezuje, da bo v primeru, če odločba ne bo razveljavljena, po obvestilu o odločitvi glede razveljavitve v celoti plačala svoje finančne obveznosti, ki ji jih nalaga odločba v zadevi ICSID št.
Damages and interest as awarded to the claimants by the Award
ARB/05/20 in ki jih dolguje tožnikom.“
Damages awarded
Komisija je Romuniji na njeno zahtevo pojasnila, da se ne more brezpogojno zavezati, da bo tožnikom plačala odškodnino, ki jim je bila dodeljena z odločbo, tudi če bi zaradi tega kršila svoje obveznosti po pravu Unije in ne glede na katero koli odločitev Komisije.
Amount (in RON)
Romunija je posredovala ustrezen odgovor začasnemu odboru, ki je 7. septembra 2014 odlog izvršitve razveljavil.
Interest calculated from
Komisija je 15. oktobra 2014 začasni odbor zaprosila za dovoljenje, da v postopku razveljavitve posreduje kot stranka, ki ni v sporu.
Increased cost of sugar
Začasni odbor je dovoljenje za posredovanje odobril 4. decembra 2014 in Komisija je svoje stališče amicus curiae v tem postopku predložila 9. januarja 2015.
1 March 2007
Ukrepi tožnikov za priznanje in izvršitev odločbe na sodiščih v Romuniji in ZDA
Increased cost of raw materials other than sugar or PET
Romunski organi so službe Komisije nadalje obvestili o nacionalnih postopkih, ki so jih začeli tožniki za uveljavitev odločbe.
Lost opportunity to stockpile sugar
Viorel Micula je februarja 2014 najprej začel sodni postopek, da bi dosegel priznanje odločbe na podlagi novega zakona o pravdnem postopku (členi 1124 do 1132) [33].
1 November 2009
Komisija je 7. maja 2014 posredovala v tem postopku v skladu s členom 23a(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
Lost profits on the sale of finished goods
Vendar je Viorel Micula 28. maja 2014 postopek prekinil, zato sodba ni bila izrečena.
1 May 2008
Ločeno od tega postopka so 18. marca 2014 ostali štirje tožniki (S.C. European Food S.A., S.C. Starmill S.R.L., S.C. Multipack in g.
TOTAL
Ioan Micula) začeli sodni postopek v Romuniji, da bi dosegli uveljavitev odločbe v skladu s členom 54 konvencije ICSID, pri čemer so zahtevali plačilo 80 % neporavnanega zneska (tj. 301146583 RON) in pripadajočih obresti.
Total including interest on 11 December 2013:
Sodišče v Bukarešti je 24. marca 2014 dovolilo izvršitev odločbe, ki so jo zahtevali navedeni štirje tožniki, ob upoštevanju, da je na podlagi člena 54 konvencije ICSID, ki jo je Romunija ratificirala in je del nacionalnega pravnega reda, odločba neposredno izvršljiv ukrep in jo je treba obravnavati kot pravnomočno nacionalno sodbo, zaradi česar postopek za priznanje odločbe na podlagi novega romunskega zakona o pravdnem postopku (členi 1123 do 1132) ni potreben [34].
RON 791882452
Izvršitelj je 30. marca 2014 začel izvršilni postopek, s tem ko je romunskemu ministrstvu za finance določil šestmesečni rok, da navedenim štirim tožnikom izplača 80 % odškodnine, obresti in druge stroške, odobrene z odločbo.
The ICSID annulment proceedings
Romunija je izvršitev odločbe izpodbijala na sodišču v Bukarešti, kjer je zaprosila za začasne ukrepe, tj. za začasno prekinitev izvršitve do sprejetja odločitve o vsebini zadeve [35].
On 18 April 2014, Romania filed an application for the annulment of the Award on the basis of Article 52 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States of 18 March 1965 (‘ICSID Convention’) before an ad hoc committee.
Sodišče v Bukarešti je 14. maja 2014 izvršitev odločbe začasno prekinilo do sprejetja odločitve glede utemeljenosti izpodbijanja Romunije in njene prošnje za začasno prekinitev izvršitve.
Due to the procedural rules applicable to those proceedings, Romania has not provided the Commission with its application.
Komisija je 26. maja 2014 posredovala v tem postopku v skladu s členom 23a(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
However, it has become clear that in its application, Romania also requested the ad hoc committee to order a stay of enforcement of the Award until the committee had ruled on the application for annulment.
Komisija je sodišče v Bukarešti pozvala, naj začasno prekine in razveljavi prisilno izvršitev odločbe.
By letter of 18 August 2014, Romania informed the Commission that by order of 7 August 2014, the ad hoc committee granted a stay of enforcement of the Award under the condition that Romania deposit, within one month, the following assurances: ‘Romania commits itself subject to no conditions whatsoever (including those related to [EU] Law or decisions) to effect the full payment of its pecuniary obligation imposed by the Award in ICSID Case No ARB/05/20 — and owed to Claimants — to the extent that the Award is not annulled — following the notification of the Decision on annulment’.
Podredno ga je pozvala, naj vprašanje predloži v predhodno odločanje Sodišču Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: SEU).
At the request of Romania, the Commission explained to Romania that it could not provide the unconditional commitment that it would pay the compensation awarded under the Award to the claimants even if that entailed a violation of its obligations under Union law and regardless of any decision of the Commission.
Sodišče v Bukarešti je 23. septembra 2014 v zadevi o začasnih ukrepih razveljavilo začasno prekinitev in zavrnilo prošnjo Romunije, da se izvršitev odločbe začasno prekine.
Romania replied accordingly to the ad hoc committee which lifted the stay of enforcement of the Award as of 7 September 2014.
Glavni razlog za zavrnitev je bila odločitev začasnega odbora ICSID z dne 7. septembra 2014, s katero je bil odlog izvršitve razveljavljen (glej uvodno izjavo 29).
On 15 October 2014, the Commission submitted an application to the ad hoc committee for leave to intervene as a non-disputing party in the annulment proceedings.
Romunija je 17. oktobra 2014 po sklepu Komisije z dne 1. oktobra 2014 o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave v okviru zadeve št. 15755/3/2014 pred sodiščem v Bukarešti znova zaprosila za začasne ukrepe v obliki začasne prekinitve prisilne izvršitve odločbe.
The claimants’ actions for recognition and execution of the Award in Romanian and US courts
Zaradi nalogov za zaseg premoženja, ki jih je izdal izvršitelj, so nekateri deli državne blagajne in bančni računi ministrstva za finance trenutno zamrznjeni.
The Romanian authorities further informed the Commission services about the national proceedings introduced by the claimants to enforce the award.
Sodno imenovani izvršitelj je 5. januarja 2015 romunskemu ministrstvu za finance zasegel 36484232 RON (približno 8,1 milijona EUR [38]).
In February 2014, Viorel Micula introduced first the court proceedings with a view to recognise the award on the basis of the New Procedural Civil Code (Articles 1124-1132) [33].
Od tega zneska je nato 34004232 RON (približno 7,56 milijona EUR) enakomerno razdelil med tri od petih tožnikov, preostanek pa je obdržal kot nadomestilo za stroške izvajanja.
Separately, on 18 March 2014 the other four claimants (S.C. European Food SA, S.C. Starmill S.R.L., S.C. Multipack, and Mr Ion Micula) initiated court proceedings in Romania with a view to enforcing the Award pursuant to Article 54 of the ICSID Convention requesting the payment of 80 % of the outstanding amount (i.e. RON 301146583) and the corresponding interest.
Vendar lahko navedenih pet tožnikov denar dvigne le, če Komisija odloči, da je državna pomoč, ki je bila dodeljena na podlagi odločbe, združljiva z notranjim trgom.
On 24 March 2014, the Bucharest Tribunal allowed the execution of the Award as requested by the four claimants considering that, on the basis of Article 54 of the ICSID Convention which has been ratified by Romania and is part of the domestic legal order, the Award is a directly enforceable act and must be treated as a final domestic judgment, thus obviating the procedure to recognise the Award on the basis of the Romanian New Procedural Civil Code (Articles 1123-1132) [34].
Poleg tega je Komisija odkrila, da je g.
On 30 March 2014, an executor started the enforcement procedure by setting the Romanian Ministry of Finance a deadline of 6 months to pay to the four claimants 80 % of the Award plus the interests and other costs.
Viorel Micula zoper Romunijo vložil tudi predlog za izvršbo na zveznem okrožnem sodišču za Zvezno okrožje Kolumbija v Združenih državah [41].
Romania challenged the execution of the Award before the Bucharest Tribunal and asked for interim measures, i.e. a temporary suspension of execution until the case had been decided on the merits [35].
Ta zadeva še čaka na obravnavo.
On 14 May 2014, the Bucharest Court temporarily suspended the execution of the Award until a decision on the merits of Romania’s challenge and request to suspend the execution had been taken.
Komisija namerava zaprositi za dovoljenje za vložitev svojega stališča amicus curiae v tem postopku.
On 26 May 2014, the Commission intervened in those proceedings pursuant to Article 23a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
G. Viorel Micula je 3. oktobra 2014 proti Romuniji sprožil tudi izvršilni postopek na sodiščih v Romuniji, vendar je ta zahtevek sodišče v Bukarešti 3. novembra 2014 zavrnilo.
The Commission invited the Bucharest Tribunal to suspend and annul the forced execution of the Award.
OPIS UKREPA IN RAZLOGOV ZA ZAČETEK POSTOPKA
In the alternative, the Commission invited the Bucharest Tribunal to refer a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’).
Opis ukrepa
On 23 September 2014, the Bucharest Tribunal, in the interim measure case, lifted the suspension and rejected Romania’s request for a suspension of the execution of the Award.
Zadevni ukrep je plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom z odločbo, bodisi z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo te odločbe, in obresti, obračunanih od izdaje odločbe.
The primary reason for that rejection was the lifting of the stay of enforcement of the Award by the ICSID ad hoc committee on 7 September 2014 (see recital 29).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 3, je Romunija odškodnino že delno poravnala na začetku leta 2014 z odpisom davčnih dolgov, ki jih je eden od tožnikov, S.C.
On 30 September 2014, Romania decided to appeal the decision of Bucharest Tribunal of 23 September 2014 [36].
European Food S.A., dolgoval državi Romuniji.
On 13 October 2014, the Bucharest Tribunal rejected the request to send preliminary questions to the CJEU on the basis of Article 267 of the Treaty.
Na ta način odpisani davčni dolg je znašal 337492864 RON (približno 76 milijonov EUR [42]).
On 17 October 2014, against the backdrop of the Commission decision of 1 October 2014 to open the formal investigation procedure, in the context of the case No 15755/3/2014 before the Bucharest Tribunal, Romania again requested interim measures in the form of the suspension of the forced execution of the Award.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 37, je sodno imenovani izvršitelj z namenom izvršitve odločbe romunskemu ministrstvu za finance zasegel 45681714 RON (približno 10,17 milijona EUR [43]).
Despite the obligation of all Romanian authorities, including the judiciary, to comply with the Commission decisions of 26 May 2014 and 1 October 2014, the executor appointed by the Bucharest Tribunal issued orders on 31 October 2014 to seize the accounts of Romania’s Ministry of Finance and seek the execution of 80 % of the Award.
Poleg tega so romunski organi na blokirani račun za vseh pet tožnikov prostovoljno nakazali preostali znesek v višini 472788675 RON (približno 106,5 milijona EUR [44]) (vključno s stroški za sodno imenovanega izvršitelja v višini 6028608 RON).
As a result of the letters of attachment issued by the executor, some parts of the Ministry of Finance’s state treasury and bank accounts are currently frozen.
Po mnenju romunskih organov je bila arbitražna odločba v celoti izvedena.
On 24 November 2014, the Bucharest Tribunal also rejected Romania’s main action against the execution order of 24 March 2014, including the request for interim measures of 17 October 2014.
Razlogi za začetek formalnega postopka preiskave
On 14 January 2015, Romania has appealed the decision of the Bucharest Tribunal [37].
Komisija je v sklepu o začetku postopka predhodno sklenila, da plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo odločbe, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
On 24 February 2015, the Bucharest Court of Appeal lifted the decision of the Bucharest Tribunal of 23 September 2014 and suspended the forced execution until the appeal against the decision of Bucharest Tribunal of 24 November 2014 is decided.
Predhodni sklep temelji na predhodnih ugotovitvah, da:
The Commission has decided to seek leave to intervene in those appeal proceedings on the basis of Article 23a(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
pet tožnikov tvori eno gospodarsko enoto, ki se mora obravnavati kot podjetje,
On 5 January 2015, the court-appointed executor seized RON 36484232 (ca.
bi plačilo dodeljene odškodnine za tožnike pomenilo gospodarsko prednost, ki jim sicer na trgu ne bi bila na voljo,
EUR 8,1 million [38]) from Romania’s Ministry of Finance.
obstoja prednosti ne preprečuje dejstvo, da je odškodnina, ki jo je dodelilo sodišče, opredeljena kot odškodnina za škodo, ker odločba ne spada v obseg sodbe Asteris, po kateri je odškodnina ločena od državne pomoči,
Of this sum, the executor subsequently transferred RON 34004232 (ca.
je odobrena prednost selektivna, saj bi imeli od ukrepa korist le tožniki,
EUR 7,56 million) in equal parts to three of the five claimants, and kept the remainder as compensation for execution costs.
je prednost odobrena iz državnih sredstev, saj bi se zadevna plačila financirala iz državnega proračuna, in da je sklep o odobritvi prednosti mogoče pripisati Romuniji ne glede na to, ali je Romunija odločbo izvedla prostovoljno ali na odredbo sodišča,
Between 5 February and 25 February 2015, the court-appointed executor seized an additional RON 9197482 (ca.
plačilo odškodnine, dodeljene tožnikom, izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami.
EUR 2 million) [39] from the Ministry of Finance.
Komisija je nato sklenila, da uporaba pravil o državni pomoči v tem primeru ne vpliva na pravice in obveznosti, zaščitene s členom 351 Pogodbe.
On 9 March 2015 the Ministry of Finance voluntarily transferred the remaining amount of RON 472788675 (ca.
Komisija je nadalje ugotovila, da bi plačilo odškodnine, dodeljene tožnikom, pomenilo novo pomoč, ker bi bila izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe opravljena po pristopu Romunije k Uniji, in da ni pomembno, da so nekateri stroški, ki bi bili v okviru ukrepa dejansko povrnjeni, tožnikom nastali pred pristopom.
EUR 106,5 million [40]) (including the costs of court appointed executor of RON 6028608) into a blocked account in the name of the five claimants in order to implement the Award.
Komisija je zato sprejela predhodni sklep, da plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo odločbe, ne bi bilo združljivo z notranjim trgom, ker ne bi izpolnjevalo ustreznih pogojev združljivosti za regionalno pomoč.
However, the five claimants can withdraw the money only if the Commission decides that the State aid granted on the basis of the Award is compatible with the internal market.
PRIPOMBE ROMUNIJE
The Commission has furthermore discovered that Mr Viorel Micula also initiated an action for enforcement against Romania before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia [41].
Romunija navaja, da v skladu s členom 54(1) konvencije ICSID, katere pogodbenica je Romunija postala leta 1975, vsaka država pogodbenica „prizna vsako odločbo, sprejeto na podlagi te konvencije, za obvezujočo in finančne obveznosti, naložene z odločbo, uveljavi na svojem ozemlju kot pravnomočno sodbo sodišča v zadevni državi“.
That case is pending.
Romunija trdi, da ima po tej klavzuli vsaka država pogodbenica obveznost priznati in uveljaviti arbitražno odločbo ICSID, katere izvršitev ni bila razveljavljena v skladu s pravili iz konvencije ICSID, ne da bi se bilo mogoče zoper odločbo pritožiti pri nacionalnih sodiščih.
The Commission intends to apply for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in those proceedings.
Romunija poudarja, da mora romunska vlada upoštevati romunsko ustavo, v skladu s katero ne sme neupravičeno vplivati na odločitev nacionalnih sodnikov glede vprašanja o uveljavitvi oz. neuveljavitvi odločbe.