natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The claimants submit that the implementation or execution of the Award by Romania does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
V zvezi s tem tožniki navajajo tudi domnevno trditev Komisije, da „se bilateralne investicijske pogodbe, čeprav zagotavljajo ugodnost v obliki zavarovanja lastninskih pravic v tujini, tehnično ne morejo šteti za državno pomoč, ki jo prepoveduje člen 107(1) [Pogodbe], saj ugodnost ni prednostno dodeljena določenim podjetjem ali za proizvodnjo določenega blaga, temveč se na splošno dodeljuje vsem vlagateljem, ne glede na sektor, v katerem delujejo“.
First, while they do not dispute the qualification of S.C.
Nazadnje tožniki zanikajo, da bi izvedba odločbe lahko izkrivila konkurenco in vplivala na trgovino med državami članicami.
European Food SA, S.C.
Trdijo, da obrazložitev v sklepu o začetku postopka ne more veljati za brata Micula, ki menda nista udeležena v nobeni gospodarski dejavnosti, kar pomeni, da nobeno plačilo, ki bi ga utegnila prejeti, ne more izkriviti konkurence in vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami.
Starmill S.R.L., and S.C.
Povedano splošneje, tožniki zatrjujejo, da izvedba odločbe tožnikom ne bi dodelila nikakršne ugodnosti, zato se lahko vsakršni učinki na konkurenco ali trgovino izključijo.
Multipack as undertakings, the claimants assert that Ioan and Viorel Micula cannot themselves be said to be engaged in economic activities.
Glede opredelitve izvajanja/izvrševanja odločbe kot nove pomoči
Particularly, the fact that the Micula brothers hold shares in various undertakings is said to be insufficient to qualify them as undertakings themselves.
Tožniki nadalje oporekajo opredelitvi izvajanja/izvrševanja odločbe kot nove pomoči.
The claimants also maintain that the three aforementioned companies and the Micula brothers cannot be treated as a single economic unit, as the brothers’ interests are not identical to those of the companies.
Opozarjajo, da sta edina dogodka, ki sta se zgodila po pristopu Romunije, samo sprejetje odločbe in njena izvršitev.
Second, the claimants emphasise that implementing the Award does not confer an advantage upon them.
Predvsem izvršitev s strani Romunije naj bi bila zgolj samodejna posledica odločbe in ne rezultat posebnega sklepa.
They argue that measures which serve to fulfil legal obligations, such as the payment of compensation for damages, do not constitute preferential treatment of undertakings.
Po mnenju tožnikov so bile pomembne časovne točke sprejetje EGO 24, izdaja investitorskih potrdil tožnikom ali najpozneje sklenitev bilateralne investicijske pogodbe.
In this context, the claimants assert that the Commission cannot rely on Advocate-General Colomer’s statement in Atzeni, since that case related to damages paid to a beneficiary in compensation for the recovery of incompatible aid that had already been paid out.
Tožniki se pri utemeljevanju, da bi se moral pri odškodninah, ki se izplačujejo na podlagi zaveze, vključene v mednarodni sporazum, za odločilnega šteti datum sklenitve sporazuma, zanašajo tudi na sodno prakso in prakso Komisije v zvezi z državnimi jamstvi (v skladu s katero je pomembna časovna točka trenutek, ko je jamstvo dano, in ne trenutek, ko se jamstvo uveljavlja ali ko se izvajajo izplačila).
The claimants maintain that, in contrast, in the present case no State aid — much less unlawful State aid — had been paid out to them, thus distinguishing it from Atzeni.
Glede združljivosti izvajanja/izvrševanja odločbe
Similarly, the claimants maintain that the present case cannot be equated with the cases cited in the opening decision in which contract clauses indemnifying beneficiaries for recovery of incompatible State were judged to constitute State aid themselves.
Tožniki najprej zatrjujejo, da mora Komisija pri preiskovanju nepriglašene pomoči, za katero zadevna država članica ne predloži nikakršnih argumentov glede združljivosti, proučiti, ali je pomoč morda združljiva v skladu s katerimi od uporabljenih pravil ali smernic, za kar mora po potrebi pridobiti dodatne informacije od države članice ali upravičenca.
The claimants further maintain that the implementation or execution of the Award would fall squarely under the Asteris case-law.
Kar zadeva predhodno analizo združljivosti v sklepu o začetku postopka, tožniki navajajo, da je konceptualno napačna, ker za izvedbo/izvršitev odločbe uporablja smernice o regionalni pomoči, čeprav je popolnoma očitno, da izvedba/izvršitev odločbe ne temelji na regionalnih razvojnih ciljih.
They argue that the rationale behind the Asteris case-law, as well as such cases as Denkavit [46] and ThyssenKrupp [47], is that payment of damages is not within the discretion of Member States, so that it cannot qualify as State aid.
Tožniki menijo in ponovno poudarjajo, da sklep o začetku postopka napačno domneva, da bi izvedba odločbe retroaktivno privedla do ponovne uvedbe EGO 24; edina pomoč, ki bi bila lahko dodeljena, so bile ugodnosti v okviru sheme iz EGO 24.
Romania’s commitments under the BIT are further claimed to be an expression of general rules of liability to which the Asteris case-law applies.
EGO 24 bi moral biti nato ocenjen glede na smernice o regionalni pomoči iz leta 1998, v skladu s katerimi bi moral biti ugotovljen za združljivega.
Regarding the Commission’s argument that Asteris does not apply to damages awarded on the basis of intra-EU BITs considered incompatible with Union law, the claimants maintain that any such incompatibility would not render the Award granted on the basis of such a BIT void.
Tožniki nadalje trdijo, da ni bil nikoli sprejet veljaven uradni sklep, s katerim bi bilo ugotovljeno, da je EGO 24 nezdružljiva državna pomoč.
Implementation or execution of the Award could furthermore not be seen as granting State aid ‘by the back door’, as the Award does not reinstate the abolished EGO 24 scheme; rather, the Award is said to grant damages for Romania’s autonomous decision to, inter alia, maintain an unreasonable burden imposed on the claimants.
Sklep romunskega sveta za konkurenco (sklep št. 244), s katerim je bil EGO 24 odpovedan, je bil po mnenju tožnikov nepravilen, saj ni vseboval ocene združljivosti in obrazložitve ugotovitev.
The claimants further assert that the Commission’s arguments regarding the incompatibility of the BIT with Union law are irrelevant, since the dispute leading to the arbitral proceedings and ultimately the Award arose before Romania’s accession to the Union.
Poleg tega tožniki trdijo, da je romunska vlada s sprejetjem EGO 75, ki je ponovno potrdil EGO 24, preglasila sklep sveta za konkurenco.
Arguing that the Commission’s argumentation in the opening decision is based on mistakenly linking the implementation/execution of the Award with the incompatibility of the EGO 24 scheme, the claimants reassert that in any event the Award did not grant damages on the basis of Romania’s decision to comply with Union State aid rules.
Nadalje trdijo, da je zavrnitev ugovorov, ki jih je svet za konkurenco predložil zoper EGO 75 na romunskih sodiščih, dodaten dokaz, da sta imela EGO 24 in EGO 75 prednost pred sklepom sveta za konkurenco.
The claimants further dispute that the CJEU’s decision in Lucchini, which the Commission referred to in the opening decision, has any relevance for the present case.
Tožniki zatrjujejo še, da Komisija ni imela in še vedno nima pristojnosti niti za slučajen pregled EGO 24.
In their view, Lucchini establishes only that provisions of national law cannot frustrate the recovery of incompatible aid, and has no bearing on the implementation/execution of an arbitral award granting damages for the breach of a BIT.
Pomembni deli EGO 24 so bili razveljavljeni pred pristopom Romunije k Uniji.
Third, as regards the imputability of the implementation/execution of the Award to Romania, the claimants argue that the Commission’s assessment cannot rely on the imputability of EGO 24 itself.
Če se za odločbo meni, da ponovno uvaja pomoč, dodeljeno v okviru EGO 24, tožniki trdijo, da Komisija nima pristojnosti za pregled.
They maintain further that the implementation/execution of an ICSID award is an automatic and involuntary consequence of Romania’s obligations under the ICSID Convention.
V zvezi s tem se sklicujejo tudi na sklep Komisije v zadevi o državni pomoči N 380/2004, v kateri je Komisija odločila, da izvedba arbitražne odločbe, ki je bila dodeljena pred pristopom in se je v celoti navezovala na obdobja pred pristopom, a je bila opravljena po pristopu, ni pomenila nove pomoči.
Any involuntary act is, according to the claimants, not imputable to the state and cannot constitute State aid.
Nazadnje tožniki trdijo, da so bili EGO 24 in posamezne spodbude iz EGO 24 v skladu z veljavnimi smernicami o regionalni pomoči iz leta 1998 združljivi z notranjim trgom, če so bili izpolnjeni vsi pogoji združljivosti.
They stress further that ICSID awards are not open to review by national courts and their enforcement cannot be blocked for reasons of domestic ordre public or incompatibility with Union law.
V zvezi s tem zatrjujejo, da je mogoče EGO 24 dejansko obravnavati kot združljivo pomoč za naložbe in ne kot pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, da pa je EGO 24 še vedno združljiv tudi, če se obravnava kot pomoč za tekoče poslovanje.
The claimants further argue that Romania’s obligations under the ICSID Convention were not affected by Romania’s subsequent membership to the Union.
Glede legitimnih pričakovanj
They explain that since the alleged breach of the BIT and the institution of proceedings occurred before Romania acceded to the Union, EU law is not applicable to the present case.
Tožniki trdijo, da bi sklep Komisije, da je izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe v nasprotju s pravili o državni pomoči, kršil legitimna pričakovanja tožnikov.
Fourth, with respect to selectivity, the claimants claim that implementation/execution of the Award is not selective, since BITs and the ICSID Convention establish a system of general liability that is equally applicable to any investor.
Zatrjujejo, da je Unija Romunijo pred njenim pristopom izrecno spodbujala k sklenitvi bilateralnih investicijskih pogodb z državami članicami; da Komisija še naprej spodbuja sklenitev bilateralnih investicijskih pogodb; da so se tožniki zanašali na svoje pričakovanje, da jim bo arbitražni postopek omogočil prejem odškodnine za škodo, ki jim jo je Romunija povzročila s sklepom, da ohrani vse obveznosti tožnikov v skladu z EGO 24; in da ni prevladujočega javnega interesa za razveljavitev legitimnih pričakovanj tožnikov.
Damages awarded under this system are, accordingly, not selective.
Glede procesnih pravic tožnikov
In this context, the claimants also quote a statement allegedly made by the Commission that ‘BITs, although conferring a benefit by securing property rights abroad, technically cannot qualify as [S]tate aid prohibited by Article 107(1) [of the Treaty] since the benefit does not favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods but is granted generally to all investors irrespective of the sector they operate in.’
Nazadnje tožniki zatrjujejo, da imajo zainteresirane strani v skladu s sodno prakso „pravico sodelovati v upravnem postopku v obsegu, primernem glede na okoliščine zadeve“ [48].
Finally, the claimants deny that implementing the Award would be liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Tožniki s trditvijo, da jih Romunija ni ustrezno vključila v postopek glede državne pomoči, s čimer naj bi jih postavila v posebej neugoden položaj, opozarjajo, da bi bil končni sklep Komisije lahko neveljaven, če jim Komisija ne omogoči, da bi ustrezno zagovarjali svoje interese, s tem da jih v večji meri vključi v postopek.
They claim that the reasoning contained in the opening decision cannot apply to the Micula brothers, who are allegedly not engaged in any economic activity, with the consequence that any payments to them cannot distort competition or affect trade between Member States.
Za konec tožniki opozorijo, da praksa Komisije v zadevah državne pomoči na splošno ne varuje dovolj domnevnih procesnih pravic upravičencev in je, ker ne poskrbi za učinkovito rešitev, v nasprotju s členom 6(1) Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah ter členom 47 Listine EU o temeljnih pravicah.
More generally, the claimants argue that implementing the Award would not grant the claimants an advantage, so that any effect on competition or trade can be excluded.
KOMENTAR ROMUNIJE K PRIPOMBAM TRETJIH STRANI
Regarding the characterisation of the implementation/execution of the Award as new aid
Prvič, Romunija v svojem odgovoru na pripombe, ki so jih predložili tožniki, zavrača trditev, da se za namen uporabe zakonodaje EU o državni pomoči Ioan in Viorel Micula ne moreta obravnavati kot podjetje.
The claimants further take issue with the characterisation of the implementation/execution of the Award as new aid.
Romunija navaja, da bi bilo treba vseh pet tožnikov obravnavati kot eno gospodarsko enoto, saj brata Micula neposredno ali posredno nadzorujeta vse družbe tožnice.
They note that the only events that took place after Romania’s accession were the adoption of the Award itself and the execution thereof.
To trditev je Romunija podprla z razlago, da sta v pogajanjih, ki so se med Romunijo in tožniki odvijala po izdaji odločbe, brata Micula sprejela uradno odločitev v imenu treh družb tožnic.
Romania’s execution in particular is said to be a mere automatic consequence of the Award, rather than the result of a distinct decision.
Drugič, Romunija izpodbija poskus tožnikov, da bi zanikali povezavo med preklicem spodbud iz EGO 24 in dodelitvijo odškodnine v skladu z odločbo.
The relevant points in time were, according to the claimants, the enactment of EGO 24, the issuance of PICs to the claimants, or at the latest the conclusion of the BIT.
Navaja, da je iz odločbe razvidno, da je sodišče določilo vrednost odškodnine na podlagi gospodarskih prednosti, ki bi jih bili tožniki deležni, če spodbude ne bi bile preklicane.
The claimants also rely on case-law and Commission practice on state guarantees (according to which the relevant point in time is when the guarantee is given, not when it is invoked or payments issued) to argue that where compensation is paid based on a commitment included in an international agreement, the date of the conclusion of that agreement should be considered decisive.
Tretjič, kar zadeva trditev tožnikov, da niso bili in še vedno niso ustrezno vključeni v preiskavo glede državne pomoči, Romunija zanika, da ni nemudoma posredovala sklepa o začetku postopka tožnikom.
Regarding the compatibility of the implementation/execution of the Award
Poleg tega Romunija navaja, da nima nikakršne pravne obveznosti, da bi tožnike v postopek vključila v večji meri, kot jih je do zdaj.
The claimants first claim that where the Commission is investigating non-notified aid, and the Member State concerned fails to bring forward any compatibility argument whatsoever, the Commission is under a duty to consider whether the aid may be compatible under any applicable rules or guidelines, if necessary by requesting further information from the Member State or the beneficiary.
OCENA
As regards the preliminary compatibility analysis contained in the opening decision, the claimants maintain that it is conceptually flawed since it applies the current Regional Aid Guidelines (‘RAG’) to the implementation/execution of the Award, even though it is plainly obvious that the implementation/execution of the Award is not motivated by any regional development objective.
Obstoj pomoči
In the claimants’ opinion, and stressing again that the opening decision wrongly assumes that implementing the Award would retroactively reinstate EGO 24, the only aid that could have been granted were the benefits under the EGO 24 scheme.
Člen 107(1) Pogodbe določa, da je „pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
The EGO 24 should then have been assessed under the 1998 RAG, under which they should have been found compatible.
V skladu s tem ukrep pomeni državno pomoč, če so izpolnjeni naslednji štirje kumulativni pogoji:
The claimants next assert that there has never been a valid formal decision establishing that EGO 24 constitutes incompatible State aid.
ukrep podjetju zagotavlja selektivno gospodarsko prednost,
The decision of the Romanian Competition Council (Decision No 244) denouncing EGO 24 was, according to the claimants, defective, as it did not assess compatibility and failed to provide reasoning for its findings.
ukrep je mogoče pripisati državi in je financiran z državnimi sredstvi,
In addition, the claimants argued that the adoption of EGO 75, which reaffirmed EGO 24, by the Romanian Government overrode the Competition Council’s decision.
ukrep mora izkrivljati ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco,
They further argue that the rejection of the Competition Council’s challenges against EGO 75 before Romanian courts is further proof that EGO 24 and EGO 75 took precedence over the Competition Council’s decision.
ukrep bi lahko vplival na trgovino med državami članicami.
The claimants further assert that the Commission had and has no competence to review EGO 24, even incidentally.
Komisija poudarja, da je pojem državne pomoči objektiven in pravni pojem, ki je neposredno opredeljen v Pogodbi.
The relevant parts of EGO 24 were revoked before Romania’s accession to the Union.
Odločitev o tem, ali določen ukrep pomeni državno pomoč ali ne, ni odvisna le od namenov ali utemeljitev držav članic pri dodelitvi, temveč od učinkov zadevnega ukrepa [49].
In so far as the Award is seen as reinstating aid granted under EGO 24, the claimants thus assert that the Commission has no competence of review.
Podjetje
In this context, they refer also to the Commission decision in State aid case N 380/2004, where the Commission found that implementing an arbitral award after accession which had been rendered before accession and related entirely to periods before accession did not constitute new aid.
SEU dosledno opredeljuje podjetja kot subjekte, ki opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost, ne glede na njihov pravni status in način financiranja [50].
Finally, the claimants argue that EGO 24 and individual incentives under EGO 24 were compatible with the internal market pursuant to the applicable 1998 RAG, given that all the compatibility conditions were fulfilled.
Zato je uvrstitev posameznega subjekta popolnoma odvisna od narave njegovih dejavnosti.
In this context, they assert, first, that EGO 24 can in fact be seen as compatible investment aid, rather than operating aid, and, second, that even if perceived as operating aid, EGO 24 was still compatible.
Ločena pravna subjekta se lahko pri uporabi pravil o državni pomoči obravnavata kot ena gospodarska enota.
Regarding legitimate expectations
Ta gospodarska enota se nato obravnava kot zadevno podjetje.
The claimants claim that a Commission decision finding that the implementation or execution of the Award contravenes State aid rules would violate the claimants’ legitimate expectations.
Po prejšnjih ugotovitvah SEU je „[v] konkurenčnem pravu izraz ‚podjetje‘ treba razumeti kot oznako za gospodarsko enoto […], tudi če je ta gospodarska enota po pravu sestavljena iz več oseb, fizičnih ali pravnih“ [51].
They argue that the Union expressly encouraged Romania to conclude BITs with Member States prior to Romania’s accession; that the Commission continues to support the conclusion of BITs; that the claimants relied on their expectation that the arbitral proceedings would allow them to receive compensation for the damage caused by Romania’s decision to maintain all the investors’ obligations under EGO 24; and that there is no overriding public interest in setting aside the claimants’ legitimate expectations.
Pri ugotavljanju, ali je gospodarska enota sestavljena iz več subjektov, SEU prouči obstoj nadzornega deleža ali funkcionalne, gospodarske in strukturne povezave [52].
Regarding the claimants’ procedural rights
Tožniki v arbitražnem postopku, iz katerega izhaja odločba, sta brata Ioan Micula in Viorel Micula ter tri družbe v njuni lasti (S.C. European Food S.A., S.C. Starmill S.R.L. in S.C. Multipack).
Finally, the claimants assert that according to case-law interested parties ‘have the right to be involved in the administrative procedure to the extent appropriate in the light of the circumstances of the case’ [48].
Jasno je, da vse tri družbe opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti, saj so specializirane za industrijsko proizvodnjo živil, mlevskih izdelkov oziroma plastične embalaže.
Arguing that Romania has failed to properly involve the claimants in the State aid procedure, which allegedly placed the claimants at a particular disadvantage, the claimants warn that failure on the part of the Commission to enable the claimants to properly defend their interests by involving them more fully in the procedure could vitiate the Commission’s final decision.
Vse tri družbe se torej štejejo za podjetja.
The claimants conclude by noting that the Commission’s practice in State aid cases in general does not sufficiently safeguard the alleged beneficiaries’ procedural rights, and is, by failing to provide an effective remedy, contrary to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Tej opredelitvi tožniki ne oporekajo.
COMMENTS FROM ROMANIA ON THIRD PARTY COMMENTS
Trdijo pa, da bratov Micula kot fizičnih oseb ni mogoče šteti za podjetja za namene člena 107(1) Pogodbe in da zato tudi sredstva, ki bi jima bila izplačana v okviru izvedbe ali izvršitve odločbe, ne bi pomenila državne pomoči.
In its response to the comments submitted by the claimants, Romania first rejects the claim that Ioan and Viorel Micula could not themselves be considered to constitute undertakings for the purpose of the application of EU State aid law.
Predvsem naj se interesi bratov Micula ne bi ujemali z interesi treh družb tožnic.
Romania argues that the five claimants should rather be regarded as one economic unit, since the Micula brothers exert direct or indirect control over the corporate claimants.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da za namen uporabe pravil o državni pomoči tri družbe in brata Micula skupaj tvorijo eno gospodarsko enoto.
To underpin this assertion, Romania explains, inter alia, that during the negotiations between Romania and the claimants that took place after the Award was issued the Micula brothers took formal decision on behalf of the three corporate claimants.
Ta gospodarska enota se zato obravnava kot zadevno podjetje.
Second, Romania rebuts the claimants’ attempt to deny the connection between the revocation of the EGO 24 incentives and the granting of damages under the Award.
Prvič, ta ugotovitev temelji na dejstvu, da sta brata Micula neposredno ali posredno praktično izključna lastnika treh družb tožnic, zato njun interes prevladuje nad interesom družb.
It maintains that it is clear from the Award that the value of the damages was established by the Tribunal on the basis of the economic advantages that the claimants would have obtained if the incentives had been maintained.
Drugič, ta ugotovitev upošteva, da so družbe tožnice del večje skupine družb, in sicer skupine European Food and Drinks Group (v nadaljnjem besedilu: EFDG).
Third, as regards the claimants’ assertion that they had not been and are not being properly involved in the State aid investigation, Romania denies that it failed to immediately forward the opening decision to the claimants.
Brata Micula sta v arbitražnem postopku zahtevala tudi odškodnino za druge družbe iz skupine EFDG, ki so domnevno utrpele škodo zaradi ukrepov Romunije, na podlagi katerih je bil postopek začet.
It further asserts that Romania is under no legal obligation to involve the claimants more fully than is and has been the case.
Pravzaprav so tožniki, namesto da bi terjali in količinsko opredelili škodo za vsako družbo tožnico in vsakega od dveh tožnikov posebej, svoj zahtevek za odškodnino utemeljili na škodi, ki naj bi jo utrpela skupina EFDG kot celota.