natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, Decision No 244/2000 of the Romanian Competition Council has never been challenged nor annulled, but only ignored by the Romanian legislator through the adoption of EGO 75 contrary to the provisions of Law No 143/1999 on State aid and thus in violation of its obligations under the European Agreement and Decision No 4/2000 of the EU-Romania Association Council.
V obravnavani zadevi tožniki trdijo, da je izvedba odločbe „samodejna in neprostovoljna posledica obveznosti, ki jih ima Romunija v skladu s konvencijo ICSID, zato je očitno ni mogoče pripisati državi in torej ne more pomeniti državne pomoči“.
The Union then insisted Romania comply with that decision, its obligations under Europe Agreement and the acquis communautaire in the context of the accession negotiations, which the latter did by repealing EGO 24.
Bistvo utemeljitve, ki jo navajajo tožniki, je, da mora Romunija odločbo izvesti na podlagi obveznosti, ki ji jo nalaga mednarodno pravo, zato izvedbe ni mogoče pripisati državi.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission concludes that payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal through the implementation or execution of the Award constitutes an economic advantage in favour of the claimants that they would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Komisija se s takšnim razmišljanjem ne strinja in meni, da je ukrep mogoče pripisati Romuniji iz naslednjih razlogov.
Selectivity
Komisija najprej navaja, da je Romunija s prostovoljnim pristopom k bilateralni investicijski pogodbi, zlasti členu 7 pogodbe, ustvarila pogoje za selektivno prednost iz odločbe, kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi 110 in naslednjih.
Not all measures which grant an undertaking an economic advantage constitute State aid, but only those which confer an economic advantage in a selective manner upon certain undertakings or categories of undertakings or to certain economic sectors.
Poleg tega, če Romunija prostovoljno izvede odločbo z izplačilom odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, potem se ta ukrep nedvomno pripiše državi Romuniji.
The Award awards compensation only to the claimants.
To vsekakor velja vsaj za del odškodnine, dodeljene tožnikom z odločbo, s katerim je Romunija odpisala davke, ki jih je eden od tožnikov, in sicer družba S.C.
Therefore by paying that compensation, either through the implementation or execution of the Award, Romania grants an advantage only to the claimants.
Enako velja tudi za primer, ko se je Romunija odločila za prostovoljno izplačilo odškodnine, ki jo je dodelilo sodišče.
The measure is thus selective.
Na koncu sklene, da se vsak ukrep državnih organov Romunije pripiše Romuniji.
Moreover, as follows from the Asteris judgment, compensation for damages will not selectively benefit an individual undertaking only insofar as that compensation follows from the application of a general rule of law for government liability which every individual can invoke, so that it excludes that any compensation granted confers a selective benefit on certain groups in society.
Ti državni organi vključujejo vlado države članice in druge javne organe.
The contested measure, which follows from the application of the provisions of the BIT, does not comply with this requirement for all of the reasons in the present case.
Predvsem je treba tudi domača sodišča države in sodno imenovane izvršitelje ter sodne uslužbence obravnavati kot organe zadevne države, ki so torej v skladu s členom 4(3) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije in po službeni dolžnosti zavezani lojalnemu sodelovanju z Unijo.
First, the BIT only confers this right of compensation to a certain group of investors, that is, to investors of the two Member States covered by the intra-EU BIT, i.e. Sweden and Romania.
V skladu s tem se dejanja domačih sodišč in sodno imenovanih izvršiteljev ter sodnih uslužbencev pripišejo državi Romuniji, tako da se, če je Romunija po odločbi prisiljena izplačati odškodnino tožnikom prek svojih sodišč ali sodno imenovanih izvršiteljev in sodnih uslužbencev, tudi ta ukrep pripiše državi Romuniji.
Accordingly, not every similarly situated Union investor could rely on that BIT to claim damages corresponding to the incentives promised under the abolished EGO 24 aid scheme, but only investors of a certain nationality.
Pravo Evropske unije priznava le zelo omejeno izvzetje iz tega splošnega načela pripisovanja odgovornosti: ukrep se državi članici ne pripiše, če ji pravo Unije narekuje, da mora ta ukrep izvesti brez vsake diskrecije.
Thus, to the extent that paying compensation awarded to an investor pursuant to a BIT amounts to granting an advantage, the advantage is selective.
V tem primeru ukrep izhaja iz akta zakonodajalca Unije in ga ni mogoče pripisati državi.
As regards the claimants’ contention that the general character of the benefits provided by BITs has previously been recognised by the Commission (see recital 66), the statement cited by the claimants in support of that claim is not in fact a Commission statement at all, but an excerpt from a study prepared by an external contractor for the Policy Department of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for External Policies.
Vendar je nesporno, da Romunije k izvedbi odločbe ne zavezuje pravo Unije.
Secondly, in order to discard any doubts about the ownership of the opinions expressed in this study, it contains a disclaimer specifying that the author bears the sole responsibility for them and that they do not reflect the official position of the European Parliament.
Vsaka odločitev o izvedbi ali izvršitvi odločbe, ki jo sprejme bodisi romunska vlada bodisi katero od domačih romunskih sodišč, se torej pripiše državi Romuniji.
The statement made in this report cannot be imputed to the Commission and is irrelevant for the case at hand.
Komisija na podlagi navedenega sklene, da je ukrep mogoče pripisati Romuniji.
Second, the contested measure compensates the applicants for the repeal of investment incentives which themselves are selective in nature.
Izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino
Indeed, the incentives offered under EGO 24 were only available to undertakings investing in certain regions.
Za ukrep, ki ga dodeli država, se šteje, da izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco, kadar izboljša konkurenčni položaj prejemnika pomoči v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki so njegovi konkurenti [77].
Accordingly, the compensation awarded to the complainants by the Tribunal should in themselves be considered selective since they correspond to the advantages promised under the abolished EGO 24.
V praksi se tako domneva, da gre za izkrivljanje konkurence v smislu člena 107 Pogodbe takoj, ko država dodeli finančno prednost podjetju v liberaliziranem sektorju, kjer obstaja ali bi lahko obstajala konkurenca.
In any event, the Commission considers the BIT upon which the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants to have been rendered invalid upon Romania’s accession to the Union, so that it cannot be considered to form the basis for a general rule of law for government liability which every investor can rely upon.
Dejstvo, da lokalni organi javno službo dodelijo notranjemu ponudniku (čeprav bi lahko to storitev oddali tretjim osebam), ne izključuje morebitnega izkrivljanja konkurence.
For all of the above reasons, the Commission concludes that the implementation or execution of the Award grants the claimants a selective advantage.
Prednost, dodeljena podjetju, ki izkrivlja konkurenco, običajno vpliva tudi na trgovino med državami članicami.
State resources
Trgovina med državami članicami je prizadeta, kadar ukrep okrepi konkurenčni položaj upravičenega podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki konkurirajo v trgovini znotraj Skupnosti [78].
Only advantages granted directly or indirectly through state resources can constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija je že odločila (glej uvodno izjavo 81 in naslednje), da tožniki skupaj tvorijo eno gospodarsko enoto, ki za namen uporabe pravil Unije o državni pomoči predstavlja pomembno podjetje.
In the present case, Romania has already partially implemented the Award by setting it off part of the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal against taxes owed by one of the claimants to the Romanian State.
To podjetje je dejavno na liberaliziranem trgu, kjer tekmuje z drugimi podjetji.
The court-appointed executor has furthermore seized funds from state accounts to satisfy the claimants’ outstanding claims under the Award.
Komisija je sklenila tudi, da bi plačilo odškodnine tožnikom z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo odločbe izboljšalo njihov konkurenčni položaj v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenčnimi podjetji, ki niso prejela podobne odškodnine za umik nezakonite državne pomoči.
Direct payments from the state budget, the foregoing of state income by writing off taxes owed, or the transfer of other state assets (such as shares in other undertakings or the transfer of seized assets) to the claimants, whether made voluntarily or through court-ordered execution, are all to be regarded as measures financed through state resources.
Odškodnina, zagotovljena z odločbo, temelji na znesku, ki ustreza carinskim dajatvam za surovine, izgubljenemu dobičku in obrestim od celotne vsote dodeljenih odškodnin.
Imputability
Stroški surovin kot vhodnih materialov za končne izdelke so običajni operativni stroški podjetij.
For a selective advantage to constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, it must, inter alia, be imputable to the state [76].
Če se tožnikom del običajnih operativnih stroškov oprosti, se jim s tem dodeli posebna konkurenčna prednost; enako velja za izplačilo odškodnine tožnikom za izgubljeni dobiček in za plačilo obresti.
In the present case, the claimants maintain that since the implementation of the Award is ‘an automatic and involuntary consequence of Romania’s obligations under the ICSID Convention, it is clearly not imputable to the State, and thus cannot constitute State aid’.
Tožniki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo živil, mlevskih izdelkov in plastične embalaže.
The main thrust of the claimants’ argument is that since Romania is under an international law obligation to implement the Award, doing so is not imputable to the State.
Za vse navedene izdelke obstaja liberaliziran trg, tako da bi lahko vsaka prednost, dodeljena tožnikom, izkrivljala konkurenco.
The Commission disagrees with this line of reasoning and considers the measure imputable to Romania for the following reasons.
Ob upoštevanju, da bi se lahko z izdelki, ki jih v prvi vrsti proizvajajo tožniki, na veliko trgovalo oziroma se dejansko trguje med državami članicami, je jasno, da bi lahko vsaka prednost, dodeljena tožnikom, vplivala tudi na trgovino med državami članicami.
The Commission notes at the outset that the voluntary agreement of Romania to enter into the BIT, in particular Article 7 thereof, created the conditions for the selective advantage resulting from the Award as explained in recitals 110 et seq.
Komisija poudarja, da tožniki z utemeljitvami, s katerimi zanikajo izkrivljanje konkurence, zgolj ponavljajo trditve, da bratov Micula ni mogoče obravnavati kot podjetje in da izvedba odločbe tožnikom ne bi zagotovila nikakršne prednosti.
Moreover, if Romania voluntarily implements the Award by paying out the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal, there is no question that that action is imputable to the Romanian state.
Obe trditvi sta bili že obsežno obravnavani zgoraj (glej uvodno izjavo 81 in naslednje ter 92 in naslednje), zato nadaljnje pripombe niso potrebne.
That is, in any event, the case for the portion of the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Award which Romania offset against taxes owed by one of the claimants, namely S.C.
Sklep
That is also the case when Romania decided to voluntarily pay out the outstanding compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega Komisija meni, da plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Finally, every act of Romania’s state organs is imputable to Romania.
Uporaba pravil o državni pomoči ne vpliva na pravice in obveznosti, zaščitene s členom 351 Pogodbe
Those state organs include the Member State’s government and other public authorities.
Člen 351 Pogodbe določa, da „[d]oločbe Pogodb ne vplivajo na pravice in obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz sporazumov med eno ali več državami članicami na eni strani ter eno ali več tretjimi državami na drugi strani, sklenjenih […] za države, ki pristopajo, pred datumom njihovega pristopa“.
Notably, also domestic courts of a state and court-appointed executors and bailiffs are to be considered organs of that state and are thus bound under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union by their duty of sincere cooperation vis-à-vis the Union.
V obravnavani zadevi se tožniki zanašajo na pravice in obveznosti, ki so opredeljene v bilateralni investicijski pogodbi.
Accordingly, the actions of domestic courts and court-appointed executors and bailiffs are imputable to the Romanian state, so that if Romania is compelled to compensate the claimants under the Award by the action of its courts or court-appointed executors and bailiffs, that action is also imputable to the Romanian state.
Iz besedila člena 351 Pogodbe je razvidno, da ta v obravnavani zadevi ne velja, saj gre pri bilateralni investicijski pogodbi za pogodbo, ki je sklenjena med dvema državama članicama Unije, Švedsko in Romunijo, in ne za pogodbo „med eno ali več državami članicami na eni strani ter eno ali več tretjimi državami na drugi strani“.
Union law recognises only a narrow exemption from this general principle of imputability: a measure is not imputable to a Member State if that Member State is under an obligation under Union law to implement that measure without any discretion.
Zato uporaba zakonodaje o državni pomoči v obravnavani zadevi ne vpliva na pravice in obveznosti, zaščitene s členom 351 Pogodbe.
In that case, the measure stems from an act of the Union legislature and is not imputable to the State.
V zvezi s tem Komisija opozarja, da se po pravu Unije za bilateralne investicijske pogodbe med državami članicami EU in za bilateralne investicijske pogodbe, sklenjene med državo članico Unije in tretjo državo, uporabljajo drugačna pravila.
It is, however, undisputed that Romania is not obliged by Union law to implement the Award.
Za bilateralne investicijske pogodbe med državami članicami EU Komisija meni, da so v nasprotju s pravom Unije in nezdružljive z določbami Pogodb Unije, zato bi se morale šteti za neveljavne.
Any decision to implement or execute the Award, whether taken by the Romanian government or Romania’s domestic courts, is thus imputable to the Romanian State
Nasprotno bilateralne investicijske pogodbe med državo članico Unije in tretjo državo ureja Uredba (EU) št. 1219/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [79], ki določa prehodne dogovore za dvostranske sporazume o naložbah med državami članicami in tretjimi državami, dokler teh sporazumov postopoma ne nadomestijo sporazumi Unije, ki se nanašajo na isto zadevo, v skladu z izključno pristojnostjo Unije na področju skupne trgovinske politike, na katero spadajo neposredne tuje naložbe [80].
In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the measure is imputable to Romania.
Romunija je tudi pogodbenica večstranske konvencije ICSID, h kateri je pristopila pred pristopom k Uniji.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade
Vendar ker ni v bilateralno investicijsko pogodbo, ki je predmet obravnavane zadeve, vključena nobena tretja država, ki je pogodbenica konvencije ICSID, člen 351 za to zadevo ni pomemben.
A measure granted by the state is considered to distort or threaten to distort competition when it is liable to improve the competitive position of the recipient compared to other undertakings with which it competes [77].
Nova pomoč
For all practical purposes, a distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty is thus assumed as soon as the state grants a financial advantage to an undertaking in a liberalised sector where there is, or could be, competition.
Člen 107(1) Pogodbe določa, da je državna pomoč načeloma nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom.
An advantage granted to an undertaking that distorts competition will normally also be liable to affect trade between Member States.
Države članice lahko ukrepe državne pomoči izvajajo le, če jih Komisija razglasi za združljive z notranjim trgom.
Trade between Member States is affected where a measure strengthens the competitive position of the beneficiary undertaking as compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade [78].
V skladu s členom 108(3) Pogodbe mora država članica Komisijo obvestiti o vseh načrtih za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči in ne sme izvajati svojega predlaganega ukrepa, dokler Komisija ne sprejme dokončnega sklepa o združljivosti zadevnega ukrepa z notranjim trgom.
The Commission already concluded (see recitals 81 et seq.) that the claimants jointly form a single economic unit, which in turn constitute the relevant undertaking for the purpose of the application of Union State aid rules.
Obveznost o prepovedi izvajanja ukrepov pomoči brez dokončnega sklepa Komisije glede združljivosti zadevnih ukrepov seveda velja le za ukrepe pomoči, ki se začnejo izvajati po začetku veljavnosti Pogodbe za zadevno državo članico.
That undertaking is active on a liberalised market, competing with other undertakings.
Za Romunijo je Pogodba začela veljati 1. januarja 2007.
The Commission has also concluded that payment of compensation to the claimants, whether by implementing or executing the Award, would improve their competitive position as compared to other undertakings with which they compete, who have not received similar compensation for the withdrawal of unlawful State aid.
Tožniki nasprotujejo trditvi, da bi izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe s strani Romunije pomenila „novo pomoč“ v smislu člena 1(c) Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999.
The compensation provided for by the Award is based on an amount corresponding to the customs duties charged on raw materials, lost profits and interest on the total sum of damages awarded.
Zatrjujejo, da tudi če je ocena Komisije pravilna quod non in bi izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe pomenila pomoč, bi bil datum dodelitve te pomoči začetna dodelitev ugodnosti tožnikom v skladu z EGO 24, ki se je izvajala med letoma 2000 in 2002, kar je bilo pred pristopom Romunije k Uniji.
Relieving the applicants of a part of their ordinary operating expenses grants them a distinct competitive advantage, as does compensating the applicants for lost profits and the payment of interest.
Komisija se s tožniki ne strinja in meni, da plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo odločbe, pomeni novo pomoč in zato zanjo velja mehanizem za nadzor državne pomoči iz členov 107 in 108 Pogodbe.
The claimants are engaged in manufacturing food products, milling products, and plastic packaging.
V skladu s sodno prakso SEU je pomoči treba šteti za dodeljene takrat, ko je na podlagi veljavne nacionalne ureditve upravičencu podeljena pravica za njihovo pridobitev [81].
A liberalised market exists for all those products, so that any advantage granted to the claimants is liable to distort competition.
Niti sprejetje EGO 24 2. oktobra 1998 niti imenovanje regije Ștei-Nucet v okrožju Bihor za prikrajšano regijo za obdobje 10 let (z začetkom veljavnosti 1. aprila 1999) niti odobritev trajnih investitorskih potrdil družbam S.C.
Considering that the products primarily produced by the claimants can and indeed are widely traded between Member States, it is clear that any advantage granted to the claimants is also liable to affect trade between Member States.
European Food S.A. (1. junija 2000), S.C.
The Commission notes that the claimants’ arguments denying a distortion of competition merely repeat the assertions that the Micula brothers cannot be considered as undertakings and that the implementation of the Award would not grant the claimants any advantage.
v skladu s prvotno shemo iz EGO 24: ko je agencija za regionalni razvoj odobrila proizvodno in prodajno dokumentacijo družbe, ki je dokazovala, da so uvažale surovine, namenjene za vključitev v notranjo proizvodnjo, zaradi česar so bile upravičene do vračila plačanih carinskih dajatev [82], inpotem ko je bila olajšava za surovine iz EGO 24 v EGO 75 spremenjena v izvzetje od carinskih dajatev: kadar je družba, ki je bila v skladu s to shemo upravičena do pomoči, uvažala surovine za vključitev v notranjo proizvodnjo in je pri organih mejne kontrole zaprosila za izvzetje na podlagi ustrezno utemeljenih dokumentov.
Both assertions were already extensively addressed above (see recitals 81 et seq. and 92 et seq.) and require no further comments.
Ker je bila shema iz EGO 24, kakor je bil spremenjen z EGO 75, 22. februarja 2005 preklicana, po tem datumu uvoz surovin v Romunijo za vključitev v notranjo proizvodnjo nobeni družbi ni podelil pravice do pomoči na podlagi nacionalnega regulativnega okvira.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission considers that the payment of the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal amounts to State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Ker je bila odločba sprejeta in bi bila lahko izvedena ali izvršena po pristopu Romunije k Uniji, je bila brezpogojna pravica, v skladu s katero so tožniki v okviru nacionalnega prava Romunije upravičeni do prejetja odškodnine, ki jim jo je dodelilo sodišče, in ki izhaja iz ratifikacije konvencije ISCID, s katero je bila ta vključena v nacionalni pravni red Romunije in na podlagi česar ima odločba pravni učinek v nacionalnem pravnem redu Romunije, tožnikom podeljena šele po pristopu Romunije k Uniji.
The application of the State aid rules does not affect rights and obligations protected by Article 351 of the Treaty
V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti tudi, da odločba tožnikom dodeljuje odškodnino v znesku, ki ustreza prednostim, predvidenim v ukinjeni olajšavi za surovine v okviru sheme iz EGO 24, v času od ukinitve te zakonodaje (22. februarja 2005) do predvidenega izteka sheme (1. aprila 2009).
Article 351 of the Treaty provides that ‘[t]he rights and obligations arising from agreements concluded […] for acceding States, before the date of their accession, between one or more Member States on the one hand, and one or more third countries on the other, shall not be affected by the provisions of the Treaties’.
V tem obdobju, ki obsega nekaj več kot 49 mesecev, je bila Romunija večino časa (27 mesecev) polnopravna članica Unije, za katero je neposredno veljala disciplina glede državne pomoči, opredeljena v Pogodbi.
In the present case, the rights and obligations on which the claimants rely are those arising from the BIT.
Poleg tega shema spodbud iz EGO 24 ni navedena v točki 1 poglavja 2 Priloge V k Aktu o pristopu Romunije k Uniji, v kateri so natančno našteti ukrepi državne pomoči, ki so se ob pristopu Romunije k Uniji šteli za obstoječo pomoč [83] [84].
It is clear from the wording of Article 351 of the Treaty that it does not apply in the present case, since the BIT is a treaty concluded between two Member States of the Union, Sweden and Romania, and not a treaty ‘between one or more Member States on the one hand, and one or more third countries on the other’.
Dejstvo, da se v času, ko je Romunija domnevno prekršila svoje obveznosti iz bilateralne investicijske pogodbe, s tem ko je preklicala shemo pomoči, opredeljeno v EGO 24, ali ko so tožniki predložili svoje zahtevke sodišču v skladu z bilateralno investicijsko pogodbo, za Romunijo nista uporabljala niti Akt o pristopu niti Pogodba, ni pomembno.
Accordingly, the application of State aid law in the present case does not affect rights and obligation protected under Article 351 of the Treaty.
Tožniki niso nikoli pridobili brezpogojne pravice do plačila odškodnine, ki jim jo je dodelilo sodišče in ki je obravnavani ukrep.