natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In effect, the implementation or execution of the Award re-establishes the situation the claimants would have, in all likelihood, found themselves in if the EGO 24 scheme had never been repealed.
SEU je na podlagi predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v svoji sodbi navedlo, da bi, ker je že zavrnilo odškodninsko tožbo proti Komisiji, morala biti vsakršna odškodninska tožba proti grški državi vložena iz različnih razlogov kot odškodninska tožba proti Komisiji, ki jo je zavrnilo, kar pomeni, da bi morala temeljiti na nedopustnem ravnanju samih grških organov.
Accordingly, the implementation or execution of the Award grants the claimants an economic advantage not otherwise available on the market.
SEU predvsem ni navedlo, da se dodelitev odškodnine, enakovredne znesku obljubljene, ne pa tudi izplačane nezakonite državne pomoči, ne bi štela za državno pomoč.
First, the costs of raw materials, as inputs for final products, constitute ordinary operating expenses of undertakings, and relieving them of a part of their ordinary operating expenses grants them a distinct advantage.
Zato si na podlagi sodbe v zadevi Asteris ni mogoče razlagati, da je vsaka dodelitev odškodnine nujno zunaj področja uporabe zakonodaje Unije o državni pomoči.
Second, granting the claimants compensation for lost profits because they had to bear their own operating expenses themselves likewise constitutes an economic advantage not available under normal market conditions and in absence of the Award; under normal market conditions, the undertaking would have had to bear itself the costs inherent in its economic activity and would therefore not have generated these profits.
Prej velja, da se v tožbah zaradi odgovornosti, ki temeljijo na nepravilnem ravnanju nacionalnih organov, podjetju prednost ne dodeli, če ta odgovornost zgolj zagotavlja, da oškodovanec dobi tisto, do česar je upravičen v skladu s splošnimi pravili o civilni odgovornosti v zadevni državi članici, kakor bi bilo do tega upravičeno vsako drugo podjetje.
Third, paying interest to the claimants on payments that were allegedly due in the past, but which themselves must be qualified as conferring an advantage, confers a separate and additional advantage.
Odškodnina, dodeljena v skladu z navedenimi splošnimi pravili o civilni odgovornosti, se od državne pomoči razlikuje po tem, da oškodovanec po prejemu odškodnine ne sme biti na boljšem.
Again, under normal market conditions and in the absence of the Award, the undertaking would have had to bear its ordinary operating expenses, would have not generated the allegedly lost profits, and would therefore not have been able to draw an interest on this capital.
Drugič, da se za odškodnino ne uporabljajo pravila Unije o državni pomoči v okviru sodbe v zadevi Asteris, mora temeljiti na splošnem pravilu odškodnine [69].
In fact, by repealing the EGO 24 scheme, Romania re-established normal conditions of competition on the market on which the claimants operate, and any attempt to compensate the claimants for the consequences of the revocation of the EGO 24 incentives grants an advantage not available under those normal market conditions.
V obravnavani zadevi je bila odškodnina tožnikom dodeljena na podlagi bilateralne investicijske pogodbe med državama članicama EU, ki jo Komisija od pristopa Romunije k Uniji šteje za neveljavno.
The claimants’ attempts to separate the award of compensation from the revocation of the EGO 24 incentives are unconvincing.
Komisija vztrajno zagovarja stališče, da so bilateralne investicijske pogodbe med državami članicami EU, kakršna je bilateralna investicijska pogodba, na podlagi katere so tožniki vložili tožbo [70], v nasprotju s pravom Unije, ker niso združljive z določbami Pogodb Unije in bi se morale torej šteti za neveljavne [71].
The claimants argue: ‘[I]n the present case the ICSID Tribunal concluded that the decision to comply with EU State aid rules complied with Romania’s obligations under the BIT and did not award damages to the Claimants on this basis.
Komisija je to stališče državam članicam, tudi zadevnim, večkrat ponovila.
Instead, the ICSID Tribunal awarded damages for the Romanian state’s wrongdoing consisting in maintaining obligations imposed in relation to EGO 24 after the withdrawal of the scheme and non-transparent behaviour towards the investors’.
Tretjič, Komisija ugotavlja, da je namen odločbe plačati tožnikom odškodnino za spodbude, ki jim jih je Romunija obljubila z EGO 24 (ki je bil spremenjen z EGO 75), ki pa jih je morala na zahtevo Unije ukiniti, da je zaključila postopek pogajanj za pristop k Uniji.
This description of the Award is inaccurate and in any event fails to consider the effects of implementing/executing the Award.
Za razliko od zadeve Asteris torej tožniki v obravnavani zadevi zahtevajo odškodnino zato, ker so jim bile odvzete spodbude, ki jim jih je Romunija obljubila in s tem prekršila svoje obveznosti iz člena 64 Evropskega sporazuma in zakona št. 143/1999, kot je razloženo v sklepu št. 244/2000 romunskega sveta za konkurenco o nedodeljevanju nezakonite državne pomoči.
It has been already pointed out that the Tribunal considered that the alleged breaches of the BIT all resulted from ‘the premature revocation of the incentives or in direct connection with that premature revocation’ [63], and awarded damages for losses resulting directly from the revocation of the incentive scheme.
Vendar je generalni pravobranilec Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer pojasnil [72], da bi dodelitev odškodnine v znesku, enakem vsoti predvidenih zneskov pomoči, pomenila neposredno dodelitev državne pomoči, za katero je bilo ugotovljeno, da je nezakonita in nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom.
The Tribunal was also already quoted as stating that [64]: ‘[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).
V skladu z navedenim je tudi Splošno sodišče menilo, da odškodninske klavzule za vračilo državne pomoči pomenijo državno pomoč [73].
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.
Poleg tega je SEU v sodbi v zadevi Lucchini odločilo, da nacionalno sodišče ne sme uporabljati nacionalnega prava, če bi uporaba navedenega prava „onemogočila uporabo prava Skupnosti, saj bi onemogočila vračilo dodeljene državne pomoči, s tem, da bi kršila pravo Skupnosti“ [74].
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.
Poskusi tožnikov, da bi ločili te zadeve od obravnavane, so neprepričljivi.
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’.
Ni pomembno to, da se natančna dejstva, na katerih temeljijo navedene zadeve, razlikujejo od dejstev obravnavane zadeve, temveč je pomembno načelo, na katerem temeljijo navedene zadeve, v skladu s katerim se nacionalna zakonodaja, vključno z ureditvami odgovornosti v okviru nacionalne zakonodaje, ne sme uporabiti, če bi to onemogočilo uporabo zakonodaje Unije o državni pomoči in posledično privedlo do dodelitve nezakonite državne pomoči.
In light of this conclusion, it cannot be maintained, as the claimants do, that the Tribunal found Romania’s decision to comply with Union State aid rules by revoking EGO 24 not to have been in breach of the BIT, or that it did not award damages on that basis [65].
V zvezi s tem zadeva Asteris ne izvzema odškodnin, ki so dodeljene kot nadomestilo za vračilo nezakonite državne pomoči ali nezakonito državno pomoč, ki ni bila prejeta.
The Commission notes that in justifying its decision to award compensation for increased prices and the loss of the ability to stockpile, as well as lost profits, the Tribunal referred only to damages incurred by the claimants as a result of the revocation of the EGO 24 incentives [66].
Komisija meni, da enako načelo velja v primerih, v katerih odgovornost izhaja iz pogodbe o mednarodnem pravu, sklenjene med dvema državama članicama (kakršna je bilateralna investicijska pogodba med državami članicami EU), na podlagi katere se dodeli državna pomoč.
Notably, the Tribunal did not refer to, or award additional damages on the basis of, its finding that Romania acted unreasonably in maintaining the investors’ obligations under EGO 24 and failed to act transparently.
Če bi izvajanje pogodbe, sklenjene med državami članicami EU, državi članici onemogočilo uporabo prava Unije, mora ta spoštovati slednje, saj ima primarno pravo Unije, kot sta člena 107 in 108 Pogodbe, prednost pred mednarodnimi obveznostmi zadevne državne članice.
Economic advantage (2): damages and State aid
V zvezi s tem je trditev tožnikov, da ni bilo še z nobenim veljavnim uradnim sklepom ugotovljeno, da EGO 24 pomeni nezakonito državno pomoč ali da so bile z njim povezane spodbude nezdružljive z notranjim trgom, nepomembna, saj je izvedba/izvršitev odločbe tista, ki predstavlja izpodbijani ukrep in tvori osnovo obravnavane odločbe, in ne spodbude za naložbe, obljubljene z EGO 24.
The presence of an advantage is, contrary to the submission of the claimants, furthermore not precluded by the fact that the payment of the compensation awarded to the complainants by the Tribunal through the implementation or execution of the Award entails a payment of compensation for damages.
Glede na to, da je bil EGO 24 ukinjen 22. februarja 2005 in po tem datumu ni bila izplačana nikakršna pomoč v okviru te zakonodaje, nista mogla niti romunski svet za konkurenco niti Komisija z uradnim sklepom odločiti, da je EGO 24 v obdobju od 22. februarja 2005 do 1. aprila 2009 povzročil nezdružljivo državno pomoč, za katero je bila v odločbi tožnikom dodeljena odškodnina.
The central question in this regard is whether the principles laid down in the CJEU’s Asteris [67] judgment are applicable to the case at hand.
Iz enakega razloga tudi ni treba Komisiji sprejeti uradnega sklepa, s katerim bi ugotovila obstoj državne pomoči v primerih, v katerih nacionalno sodišče ali arbitražno sodišče naloži plačilo odškodnine državi članici zaradi preklica ukrepa pomoči.
In its judgment in Asteris, the CJEU set out that State aid ‘is fundamentally different in its legal nature from damages which the competent national authorities may be ordered to pay to individuals in compensation for the damage they have caused to those individuals.’ [68] The claimants argue that the present case falls squarely under this case-law, and that any attempt by the Commission to distinguish the Asteris case from the one at hand is unconvincing.
Člen 107(1) Pogodbe vsebuje splošno prepoved dodelitve „kakršne koli vrste“ državne pomoči.
The Commission disagrees with this position.
Natančna oblika ukrepa zato pri ugotavljanju, ali za podjetje pomeni gospodarsko prednost, ni pomembna [75].
The Commission observes, first, that the Asteris case arose out of a very different context than the present case.
Če se torej državna pomoč dodeli z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo sodbe ali odločbe, za kar po mnenju Komisije gre pri obravnavani odločbi, mora Komisija v zvezi s to izvedbo ali izvršitvijo dokazati, da so izpolnjeni kumulativni pogoji člena 107(1) Pogodbe in da pomoč ni združljiva z notranjim trgom.
In the former case, the CJEU rendered a judgment in response to a reference for a preliminary ruling by a Greek court by which the CJEU was asked to pronounce itself on the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States to entertain claims for damages brought by individuals against national authorities in respect of non-payment of aid under the Union’s common agricultural policy.
Komisija v vsakem primeru opozarja, da so romunski svet za konkurenco, več skupnih stališč Unije in romunska vlada ob preklicu EGO 24 vsi sklenili, da je EGO 24 v skladu z Evropskim sporazumom, Sklepom št. 4/2000 Pridružitvenega sveta EU-Romunija, zakonom št. 143/99 in pravnim redom Skupnosti povzročil nezakonito državno pomoč.
The non-payment of aid was not the result of a broken promise by the Greek authorities to grant that aid, but rather the consequence of the inclusion of technical errors by the Commission in a regulation.
Poleg tega romunski svet za konkurenco sklepa št. 244/2000 ni nikoli izpodbijal ali razveljavil, temveč le prezrl s sprejetjem EGO 75, kar je bilo v nasprotju z določbami zakona št. 143/1999 o državni pomoči in s čimer je torej kršil svoje obveznosti v skladu z Evropskim sporazumom in Sklepom št. 4/2000 Pridružitvenega sveta EU-Romunija.
The affected undertakings had already brought an action for damages against the Commission before the CJEU, which had rejected it as unfounded.
Unija je nato vztrajala, da mora Romunija v okviru pristopnih pogajanj ravnati v skladu s tem sklepom, svojimi obveznostmi iz Evropskega sporazuma in pravnim redom Skupnosti, kar je Romunija naredila z razveljavitvijo EGO 24.
In response to the reference for a preliminary ruling, the CJEU specified in its judgment that since it had previously dismissed the action for damages against the Commission, any action for damages against the Greek state would have to be on different grounds from the action against the Commission it dismissed, that is to say a wrongful act of the Greek authorities themselves.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega je Komisija sklenila, da plačilo odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo odločbe, pomeni gospodarsko prednost v korist tožnikom, ki je v običajnih tržnih pogojih ne bi prejeli.
Notably, the CJEU did not state that an award of damages equal to an amount of illegal State aid promised but not paid out would not amount to State aid itself.
Selektivnost
Thus, it does not follow from the Asteris judgment that every award of damages is automatically outside the scope of Union State aid law, as the claimants seem to argue.
Državne pomoči ne predstavljajo vsi ukrepi, s katerimi se podjetju dodeli gospodarska prednost, ampak le tisti, ki gospodarsko prednost na selektiven način dodelijo določenim podjetjem ali kategorijam podjetij ali določenim gospodarskim sektorjem.
Rather, in cases of liability based on the wrongful conduct of national authorities, no advantage is granted to an undertaking where such liability merely ensures that the damaged party is given what it is entitled to, just as any other undertaking would be, under the general rules of civil liability in that Member State.
Odločba dodeljuje odškodnino le tožnikom.
Compensation granted under those general rules of civil liability differ from State aid to the extent that they cannot result in the damaged individual being better off after receiving compensation.
S plačilom te odškodnine, bodisi z izvedbo ali izvršitvijo odločbe, Romunija torej dodeli prednost le tožnikom.
Second, for compensation to fall outside the Union State aid rules under the Asteris case-law it must be based on a general rule of compensation [69].
Ukrep je zato selektiven.
In the present case, the compensation has been awarded to the claimants on the basis of an intra-EU BIT which the Commission considers invalid as of Romania’s accession to the Union.
Poleg tega odškodnina za škodo, kot izhaja iz sodbe v zadevi Asteris, ne bo selektivno koristila posameznemu podjetju le, če ta odškodnina izhaja iz uporabe splošnega pravnega pravila o odgovornosti vlade, ki ga lahko uveljavlja vsak posameznik, tako da se izključi, da vsaka dodeljena odškodnina prinaša selektivno ugodnost določenim družbenim skupinam.
The Commission has consistently taken the view that intra-EU BITs, such as the BIT upon which the claimants base their claim [70], are contrary to Union law since they are incompatible with provisions of the Union Treaties and should therefore be considered invalid [71].
Izpodbijani ukrep, ki izhaja iz uporabe določb bilateralne investicijske pogodbe, ne izpolnjuje te zahteve iz vseh razlogov v obravnavani zadevi.
The Commission has repeatedly made this view known to the Member States, including the Member States in question.
Prvič, bilateralna investicijska pogodba daje pravico do odškodnine le določeni skupini vlagateljev, in sicer vlagateljem iz dveh držav članic, zajetih v bilateralno investicijsko pogodbo, sklenjeno med državami članicami, tj. Švedske in Romunije.
Third, the Commission notes that the purpose of the Award is to compensate the applicants for the incentives which Romania had promised them under EGO 24 (modified by EGO 75) but had been required to abolish by the Union to complete the negotiation process for its accession to the Union.
Skladno s tem se glede zahtevanja odškodnine, ki bi ustrezala spodbudam, obljubljenim v okviru ukinjene sheme pomoči iz EGO 24, na navedeno bilateralno investicijsko pogodbo ne bi mogel zanesti vsak vlagatelj v Uniji, ki bi bil v podobnem položaju, temveč le vlagatelji določene narodnosti.
Thus, in contrast to the Asteris case, the reason the applicants claim compensation in this case is because they were denied the incentives Romania promised to grant them in violation of its obligations under Article 64 of the Europe Agreement and Law No 143/1999 as interpreted by Decision No 244/2000 of the Romanian Competition Council not to grant unlawful State aid.
Če se plačevanje odškodnine, dodeljene vlagatelju v skladu z bilateralno investicijsko pogodbo, šteje za dodelitev prednosti, je prednost selektivna.
However, as Advocate-General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer has explained [72], an award of damages equal to the sum of the amounts of aid that were envisaged to be granted would constitute an indirect grant of State aid found to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market.
Kar zadeva trditev tožnikov, da je splošni značaj koristi, zagotovljene z bilateralno investicijsko pogodbo, Komisija prej pripoznala (glej uvodno izjavo 66), izjava, ki so jo tožniki navedli v podporo svoje trditve, v resnici ni izjava Komisije, temveč izpis iz študije, ki jo je za tematski sektor generalnega direktorata Evropskega parlamenta za zunanjo politiko pripravil zunanji izvajalec.
Following that line, the General Court has considered indemnification clauses for the recovery of State aid to constitute State aid [73].
Drugič, da se odpravijo vsi dvomi o lastništvu mnenj, izraženih v tej študiji, ta vsebuje izjavo o omejitvi odgovornosti, ki določa, da je avtor edini odgovoren zanje in da ne odražajo uradnega stališča Evropskega parlamenta.
Moreover, in the judgment in Lucchini, the CJEU held that a national court was prevented from applying national law where the application of that law would have the effect to ‘frustrate the application of Community law in so far as it would make it impossible to recover State aid that was granted in breach of Community law’ [74].
Izjave, navedene v tem poročilu, ni mogoče pripisati Komisiji in za obravnavano zadevo ni pomembna.
The attempts by the claimants to distinguish those cases from the present case are unconvincing.
Drugič, izpodbijani ukrep tožnikom zagotavlja odškodnino za ukinitev spodbud za naložbe, ki so po naravi selektivne.
What matters is not that the precise facts underlying those cases differ from those of the present case, but the principle informing those cases, which is that national law, including liability arrangements under national law, cannot be applied where doing so would frustrate the application of Union State aid law and thus ultimately result in the grant of illegal State aid.
Spodbude, zagotovljene z EGO 24, so bile namreč na voljo izključno podjetjem, ki so opravljala naložbe v določenih regijah.
In this light, the Asteris case does not exempt damages awarded as compensation for the recovery of illegal State aid or the failure to receive illegal State aid.
Odškodnina, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, bi se morala zato šteti za selektivno, saj ustreza prednostim, ki so bile obljubljene v ukinjenem EGO 24.
The Commission considers that same principle to apply where the liability flows from an international law treaty concluded between two Member States (such as an intra-EU BIT) the application of which gives rise to the grant of State aid.
Komisija v vsakem primeru meni, da je bila bilateralna investicijska pogodba, na podlagi katere je sodišče dodelilo odškodnino tožnikom, po pristopu Romunije k Uniji razveljavljena, tako da je ni mogoče obravnavati kot splošno pravno pravilo o odgovornosti vlade, na katero se lahko zanaša vsak vlagatelj.
Where giving effect to an intra-EU treaty by a Member State would frustrate the application of Union law, that Member State must uphold Union law since Union primary law, such as Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty, takes precedence over that Member State’s international obligations.
Komisija na podlagi vseh navedenih razlogov sklene, da izvedba ali izvršitev odločbe tožnikom zagotavlja selektivno prednost.
The claimants’ contention that there has never been a valid formal decision establishing that EGO 24 constitutes illegal State aid nor that those incentives were incompatible with the internal market is irrelevant in this respect, since it is the implementation/execution of the Award and not the investment incentives promised under EGO 24 which constitute the contested measure and form the basis of the present Decision.
Državna sredstva
Indeed, considering EGO 24 was abolished on 22 February 2005 and no aid was disbursed under that legislation after that date, neither the Romanian Competition Council nor the Commission could conclude in a formal decision that EGO 24 gave rise to incompatible State aid in the period 22 February 2005 to 1 April 2009, which is the period for the which the Award grants compensation to the claimants.
Državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe lahko pomenijo samo ugodnosti, ki se dodelijo neposredno ali posredno iz državnih sredstev.
For that very reason, there is also no need for the Commission to adopt a formal decision finding the existence of State aid in cases where a national court or an arbitral tribunal awards compensation against a Member State for the withdrawal of an aid measure.
V obravnavani zadevi je Romunija že delno izvedla odločbo, s tem ko je od dela odškodnine, ki jo je sodišče dodelilo tožnikom, odpisala davke, ki jih je eden od tožnikov dolgoval državi Romuniji.
Article 107(1) of the Treaty contains a general prohibition on the grant of State aid ‘in any form whatsoever’.
Poleg tega je v okviru odločbe sodno imenovani izvršitelj zasegel sredstva z državnih računov za plačilo neporavnanih terjatev tožnikov.
The precise form of the measure is thus irrelevant in establishing whether it confers an economic advantage on the undertaking [75].
Vsi ukrepi v obliki neposrednih plačil iz državnega proračuna, odrekanja državnim dohodkom z odpisom dolgovanih davkov ali prenosa drugih državnih sredstev (na primer delnic v drugih podjetjih ali prenos zaseženih sredstev) na tožnike, bodisi prostovoljno ali na podlagi sodnega naloga, se morajo obravnavati kot ukrepi, financirani z državnimi sredstvi.
Thus, if the State aid is granted through the implementation or execution of a judgment or an award, which the Commission considers to be the case in relation to the Award, it is in relation to that implementation or execution that the Commission must show that the cumulative conditions of Article 107(1) of the Treaty are fulfilled and that that aid is incompatible with the internal market.
Pripisovanje odgovornosti
In any event, the Commission recalls that the Romanian Competition Council, several Union Common Positions and the Romanian Government upon repealing EGO 24 all concluded that EGO 24 gave rise to unlawful State aid under the Europe Agreement, Decision No 4/2000 of the EU-Romania Association Council, Law No 143/99 and the acquis communautaire.
Da se selektivna prednost šteje za pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe, je zlasti potrebno, da se jo pripiše državi [76].