natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
No imputability to the State and no transfer of State resources
Pripombe drugih zainteresiranih strani
Almost all interested parties [45] claimed that their contracts with Hidroelectrica were not imputable to the State, because in accordance with Hidroelectrica's statutes, the board of directors delegated its executive powers to the chief executive officer.
V zvezi s sklepom o začetku postopka v zvezi s podjetjem Alro je Komisija prejela pripombe tretjih strani, ki niso domnevni upravičenci: (i) pripombe enega od konkurentov podjetja Alro in (ii) pripombe anonimne stranke (državljan).
It was therefore claimed that the board members did not participate in the day-to-day business of Hidroelectrica, including the negotiation of the contracts.
Pripombe, ki jih je predložil eden od konkurentov podjetja Alro
According to one interested party [46], the burden of proof concerning the imputability rested on the Commission.
Eden od konkurentov podjetja Alro je trdil, da so tako cene na energetski borzi kot tudi promptne tržne cene nepomembne kot referenčne cene za pogodbe za dobavo električne energije v talilnicah aluminija.
The interested party claimed that concluding that a measure was imputable to the State just because the State had a majority shareholding in Hidroelectrica was not sufficient.
Glede na mnenje konkurenta podjetja Alro se talilnice aluminija morajo zanesti predvsem na dolgoročne in razmeroma predvidljive pogodbe o dobavi električne energije, da niso prisiljene začasno ustaviti obratovanja zaradi netrajnostno visokih stroškov električne energije ter da bi preprečile potencialno tveganje zaprtja zaradi cene elektrike in dobička proizvajalca elektrike.
It further argued that the Commission had reached that conclusion on the basis only of ‘indications’ and presumptions and not of concrete facts, which was contrary to the requirements of case-law.
Konkurent podjetja Alro je prav tako trdil, da lahko primerjava tarif v okviru dolgoročnih pogodb o dobavi električne energije s cenami električne energije na energetski borzi in/ali na promptnih trgih in/ali s tarifami v drugih industrijah vodi do izkrivljanja trga in slabega precedensa, kar povzroča precejšnje tveganje ne le za Alro in/ali njegove konkurente, temveč tudi za celoten evropski trg.
The interested party argued that concrete evidence such as documents, factual elements and concrete actions on behalf of the State were required to sustain that conclusion.
Poleg tega je konkurent podjetja Alro trdil, da bi bilo treba vpliv na konkurenco presojati glede na cene električne energije, ki jih plačajo talilnice aluminija na globalni ali vsaj evropski ravni.
Other interested parties [47] argued that there was no transfer of State resources.
Ker stroški za električno energijo predstavljajo več kot tretjino vseh stroškov proizvodnje aluminija in glede na to, da proizvajalci aluminija odkupijo električno energijo na nacionalnem trgu in so pozneje vključeni v svetovno konkurenco, bi morala ustrezna ocena vključevati oceno, zasnovano na podlagi cene električne energije za proizvajalce aluminija po vsem svetu.
In particular, they argued that the allegedly lower prices offered by an undertaking under State control were not a factor sufficient to invoke the existence of State resources.
Zato konkurent podjetja Alro trdi, da bi za ustrezno oceno potencialnega izkrivljanja konkurence Komisija morala preveriti, ali je domnevna državna pomoč dejansko zmanjšala proizvodne stroške podjetja Alro na raven, ki je nižja od njihovih konkurentov, in s tem dajala prednost podjetju Alro glede na cene njegovih evropskih in/ali svetovnih konkurentov.
They also claimed that the Romanian State's intervention regarding the use of these resources needed to have been established in concreto.
Nadalje, konkurent podjetja Alro je trdil, da bi zaradi pomanjkanja ustreznih primerljivih informacij za opredelitev „tržne cene“ „postopek primerjave cen lahko vključeval primerjavo stroškov in stopnjo dobička kot legitimno metodologijo določanja cen“.
Furthermore, the interested parties emphasised that, according to Hidroelectrica's statutes, concluding contracts fell within the exclusive competence of the General Director and not of the Board of Directors, and therefore the State was not involved in Hidroelectrica's contractual decision-making process.
Po enaki logiki bi se lahko uporabila „odločitev, da se ponudijo cene, indeksirane na podlagi cen na londonski borzi kovin (LME cene)“.
No distortion of competition
Prav tako je trdil, da imajo talilnice aluminija posebne značilnosti in profil kupca, ki bi objektivno upravičili cene električne energije, nižje od cen, določenih na energetski borzi, ter cene, določene na stroških in na indeksu londonske borze kovin.
Some of the interested parties [48] argued that there was no potential or actual distortion of competition deriving from their contracts with Hidroelectrica for the following reasons: (i) no relevant market was identified on which the State aid granted strengthened the position of an undertaking in relation to other undertakings within intra-EU trade; and (ii) the Romanian electricity market is not concentrated as shown by the Herfindahl-Hirschman (HHI) concentration index.
Pripombe, ki jih je predložil državljan
No selectivity
Državljan je trdil, da je podjetje Alro kupovalo električno energijo od podjetja Hidroelectrica po ugodnejši ceni, tj. po ceni, ki je nižja od tržne cene (na primer cene OPCOM in ANRE).
Some of the interested parties [49] argued that there was no selectivity deriving from their contracts with Hidroelectrica because contracts of the same or a similar type were concluded with other traders (for the electricity traders) or were available to other parties on the market (for non-traders).
Poleg tega se je državljan skliceval na argument, da je prilagoditev pogodbene cene za podjetje Alro prek mehanizma indeksacije na podlagi mehanizma oblikovanja cen po formuli LME diskriminatorno v primerjavi z drugimi kupci na trgu električne energije.
No severability of the amendments from the initial contract
Komisija je prejela pripombe od istega državljana glede pogodb z dobavitelji električne energije, da so pogodbe pomenile državno pomoč.
Electrocarbon and Elsid claimed that the amendments to the contracts were not separate from the contracts.
Predložen ni bil noben dokaz v podporo tej trditvi.
They also suggested that, even in a situation in which such amendments would have been regarded as separate commitments, the price changes were still complying with the market economy vendor principle and they therefore did not involve State aid.
PRIPOMBE ROMUNSKIH ORGANOV NA PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANK
The only reason why Hidroelectrica declared itself insolvent was to get out of its contractual obligations
Romunski organi so odgovorili na pripombe zainteresiranih strani.
Some of the electricity traders [50] argued that the only reason why Hidroelectrica declared itself insolvent was to terminate its contractual obligations.
Natančneje, romunski organi so ohranili svoje stališče, izraženo julija 2012 v zvezi s sklenjeno pogodbo s podjetjem Hidroelectrica in dobavitelji električne energije, ter pojasnili, da to običajno niso bile zanesljive in dolgoročne pogodbe zaradi vsaj dveh razlogov: (i) kupec je imel možnost enostransko prekiniti pogodbe s 30-dnevnim odpovednim rokom brez obveznosti plačila ustreznega nadomestila, medtem ko podjetje Hidroelectrica tega ni moglo storiti, in (ii) urna proizvodnja za kupca bi se lahko in se je spreminjala na željo kupca kot diskrecijska pravica.
They argued that, while Hidroelectrica took full advantage of contracts in the past, it was no longer prepared to honour the obligations assumed and, therefore, the declaration of insolvency seemed to be a way of exiting the contracts.
Poleg tega so romunski organi trdili, da so po sklenitvi pogodb ali njihovih spremembah kupci imeli pravico (ki so jo dejansko uporabljali), da povečajo ali zmanjšajo potrebno količino električne energije s pozivi, izdanimi samo en dan pred dobavo, kar je značilnost promptnih transakcij.
Comments from other interested parties
V zvezi s pogodbami s podjetjema Electrocarbon in Elsid so se romunski organi vzdržali izrazitve morebitnih stališč.
In relation to the opening decision concerning Alro, the Commission received comments from parties other than the alleged beneficiaries: (i) comments from one of Alro's competitors; and (ii) comments from an anonymous party (citizen).
Med razlogi za to so romunski organi navedli, da niso vedeli, ali sta Electrocarbon in Elsid sodelovala v veleprodajnem grosističnem trgovanju z električno energijo.
Comments submitted by one of Alro's competitors
Romunski organi so predložili dobro utemeljene in podrobne pripombe na stališča podjetij Alro in ArcelorMittal v podporo svojemu sklepu, da pri njihovih pogodbah ni šlo za državno pomoč.
One of Alro's competitors argued that both power exchange market prices and spot-market prices were irrelevant as a price benchmark for electricity supply contracts for aluminium smelters.
Romunski organi so pojasnili, da država ni dala nobenih navodil svojim predstavnikom upravnega odbora podjetja Hidroelectrica ter da romunsko pravo gospodarskih družb nalaga članom odbora, da morajo delovati v interesu podjetja in ne v interesu delničarjev, ki so jih imenovali.
According to Alro's competitor, aluminium smelters need to rely mainly on long-term and relatively predictable electricity supply contracts in order not to have to suspend operations because of unsustainably high electricity costs and in order to avoid any potential risk of their having to shut down because of electricity prices and the generator's profits.
Romunski organi so trdili, da je bilo podjetje Alro oskrbovano iz lastne proizvodnje podjetja Hidroelectrica, zato se mora dobičkonosnost meriti samo s sklicevanjem na lastne stroške proizvodnje podjetja Hidroelectrica.
Alro's competitor also argued that by comparing the tariffs under the long-term electricity supply contracts with electricity prices on the power exchange and/or on spot markets and/or with other industries' tariffs, the market reality could have been distorted and a bad precedent set, entailing a significant risk not only for Alro and/or its competitors but also for the entire European market.
Romunski organi so tudi jasno povedali, da je ArcelorMittal drugi največji porabnik električne energije v Romuniji, takoj za podjetjem Alro.
In addition, Alro's competitor argued that the impact on competition should have been assessed by reference to the prices paid by aluminium smelters for their electricity at global, or at least European, level.
Pojasnili so, da velja za električno energijo enako kot za kateri koli drug proizvod: višja kot je kupljena količina, nižja je pogodbena cena.
Since electricity costs represented more than one third of the total costs of aluminium production and considering that aluminium producers bought electricity on the national market and afterwards engaged in competition worldwide, a relevant assessment would have required an assessment based on electricity prices paid by aluminium producers all over the world.
Pripombe, ki jih je podal konkurent podjetja Alro, so romunski organi v celoti potrdili in podprli njegovo stališče, v skladu s katerim je evropski proizvajalec aluminija konkurenčen vsem drugim svetovnim proizvajalcem aluminija.
Consequently, Alro's competitor claimed that, for a proper assessment of a potential distortion of competition, the Commission should have verified whether the alleged State aid had actually reduced Alro's production costs to below those of its competitors and, therefore, conferred on Alro an advantage, given the tariffs of its European and/or global competitors.
Poleg tega so romunski organi trdili, da pogodba s podjetjem Alro ni izkrivljala konkurence na svetovnem trgu aluminija.
Furthermore, Alro's competitor argued that, in the absence of relevant information for defining a comparable ‘market price’, ‘benchmarking prices to costs and a reasonable profit margin could have been acceptable as a legitimate pricing methodology’.
Poleg tega so romunski organi trdili, da bi s finančnega vidika vsak racionalni proizvajalec električne energije ponudil proizvajalcu aluminija cene, boljše od OPCOM-PCCB, ali promptno tržno ceno, glede na posebne značilnosti proizvajalca aluminija.
The same logic might have been applied ‘to a decision to offer prices indexed on the basis of LME prices’.
Prav tako so pojasnili, da cena električne energije na promptnem trgu ne bi bila ustrezna referenčna vrednost za načrtovanje dolgoročnih pogodb, sklenjenih z industrijskim porabnikom.
It also claimed that aluminium smelters' unique characteristics and client profile might objectively justify an electricity price below power exchange prices, cost-based pricing and LME-indexed pricing.
Cene na podlagi dvostranskih pogodb z ugodnimi pogoji za plačilo zajemajo velike količine električne energije v predvidljivem pasu potrošnje in morajo biti precej nižje od cene električne energije na promptnem trgu.
Comments submitted by a citizen
Romunski organi so trdili, da so bile državljanove pripombe neutemeljene.
The citizen argued that Alro bought electricity from Hidroelectrica at a preferential price, i.e. at a price below market price (such as OPCOM and ANRE prices).
V zvezi s trditvijo, da so bile cene za Alro nižje od cen za enake transakcije v Romuniji, so romunski organi razložili, da državljan ni v celoti upošteval nihanja cen na podlagi posebnih elementov vsakega posla (tj. velike količine električne energije s pasovnim odjemom, visoke stopnje predvidljivosti ter ugodnih finančnih pogojev za prodajalca).
In addition, the citizen invoked the argument that the adjustment of the contract price for Alro through an indexation mechanism based on the LME formula was a pricing mechanism discriminatory in relation to other buyers of electricity on the market.
Kar zadeva drugi argument, ki ga navaja državljan, kot možnost za podjetje Alro, da se zanj prilagodi cene na podlagi formule LME, s čimer bi bili zapostavljeni drugi udeleženci na trgu z električno energijo, so romunski organi trdili naslednje: (i) ta praksa je bila dovoljena na podlagi romunske zakonodaje, dokler podjetje ustvarja dobiček iz pogodbe, in (ii) ureditev je bila oblika partnerstva med prodajalcem in kupcem, ki sta si delila dobiček od prodaje aluminija.
No evidence was provided to justify this argument.
Obstoj državne pomoči
COMMENTS BY THE ROMANIAN AUTHORITIES ON THE OBSERVATIONS BY THIRD PARTIES
V skladu s členom 107(1) PDEU je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli pomoč iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z notranjim trgom, če prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
The Romanian authorities responded to the observations made by the interested parties.
Da se šteje za državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU, mora zadevni ukrep izpolnjevati vse te pogoje
In particular, the Romanian authorities maintained its view, expressed in July 2012, with regard to the contracts concluded by Hidroelectrica with the electricity traders and explained that those contracts were not typically robust and long-term contracts for at least two reasons: (i) the buyer was able unilaterally to terminate any of the contracts with 30 days' notice without having to pay adequate compensation, while Hidroelectrica was not able to do so; and (ii) the hourly output deliverables to the buyer could be, and were, variable at the buyers' discretion.
Zato je treba oceniti, ali pogodbe v preiskavi zagotavljajo državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU kupcem prodane električne energije s strani podjetja Hidroelectrica, tj. podjetjem Alpiq RomEnergie, Alpiq RomIndustries, EFT, Electrica, Electromagnetica, Energy Holding, EURO-PEC, Luxten-Lighting, Alro, ArcelorMittal, Electrocarbon in Elsid, po pristopu Romunije k Evropski uniji.
In addition, the Romanian authorities claimed that after the contracts had been concluded, or the amendments made to them, the buyers had the right (which they actually exercised) to increase or decrease the quantity of electricity needed by means of notices issued even just 1 day before delivery, which is a characteristic of spot transactions.
Tako bi bilo samo v primeru, poleg drugih pogojev uporabe člena 107(1) PDEU, če so zadevne pogodbe dajale prednost določenim kupcem, kar bi jim omogočalo gospodarsko prednost, ki presega običajne tržne pogoje, in če je tako, samo v primeru, če prednosti, ki izhaja iz pogodb in njenih poznejših sprememb, ni mogoče pripisati samo sredstvom romunske države, ampak tudi dejanjem, navodilom ali odločilnemu vplivu države, za razliko od neodvisne poslovne odločitve podjetja Hidroelectrica.
In relation to the contracts with Electrocarbon and Elsid, the Romanian authorities abstained from expressing any views.
V skladu z odločitvijo v zadevi Budapesti Erömü [51] bi se državni ukrepi pomoči, ki so začeli veljati pred pristopom in se uporabljajo tudi po pristopu, morali obravnavati kot obstoječa pomoč ali kot nova pomoč po pristopu.
As reasons for doing so, the Romanian authorities added that they did not know whether Electrocarbon and Elsid were also involved in wholesale electricity trading.
Da se pomoč obravnava kot veljavna pomoč, morajo ti ukrepi biti izrecno navedeni v Aktu o pogojih pristopa države k Evropski uniji; v obravnavani zadevi Priloga V k Pogodbi o pristopu Bolgarije in Romunije k Evropski uniji (v nadaljnjem besedilu „Akt o pristopu“) [52].
The Romanian authorities provided well-substantiated and detailed comments on the observations made by Alro and ArcelorMittal in support of their conclusion that their contracts did not entail State aid.
Pogodbe niso bile izrecno navedene v Prilogi V k Aktu o pristopu.
In particular, the Romanian authorities explained that the State had not given any instructions to its representatives on Hidroelectrica's board of directors and that Romanian company law obliges board members to act in the interests of the company, and not in the interests of the shareholders who appointed them.
Glede na to, da so bile te pogodbe še vedno veljavne po datumu pristopa, jih je mogoče obravnavati le kot nove in glede na navedeno sodno prakso jih je treba torej presojati od dneva pristopa (1. januar 2007) v luči teh štirih pogojev iz člena 107(1) PDEU.
The Romanian authorities claimed that Alro was served from Hidroelectrica's own production and that, therefore, profitability had to be measured only by reference to Hidroelectrica's own production costs.
Take okoliščine zato ne bodo dodatno proučene v nadaljevanju.
The Romanian authorities also made it clear that ArcelorMittal is the second-largest consumer of electricity in Romania, after Alro, and they explained that the same was true of electricity as of any other product: the higher the volume purchased, the lower the contract price.
Ocena morebitne gospodarske prednosti v primerjavi s tržnimi pogoji
In addition, the Romanian authorities confirmed the observations made by ArcelorMittal, to the effect that, as reported by ANRE, the average price paid by industrial consumers with demand in the order of 150000 MWh/year was only 11 RON/MWh higher than the price paid by ArcelorMittal in 2010.
Da bi se ugotovilo, ali cene in pogoji, po katerih je podjetje Hidroelectrica dobavilo električno energijo domnevnim upravičencem, ne bi bile drugače na voljo na romunskem trgu od leta 2007, mora Komisija najprej najti ustrezne referenčne cene, ki odražajo tržno ceno (i) na voljo v času, ko so bile pogodbe v veljavi po pristopu Romunije k EU, ter (ii) za obdobje, za katero je Komisija sprožila formalni postopek preiskave v zvezi s pogodbami.
The authorities used the following arguments to explain this difference: (i) delivery in this linear profile provides the electricity supplier with the opportunity to optimise its productions costs; (ii) maintenance costs are significantly reduced; (iii) both the number and duration of accidental stoppages are reduced; and (iv) imbalances on the electricity market are significantly reduced, a factor also reflected in a reduction in electricity acquisition costs.
Gospodarska prednost v primerjavi s tržnimi pogoji
In relation to the observations made by Alro's competitor, the Romanian authorities entirely endorsed the latter's position and supported its view according to which a European aluminium producer was in competition with any other global aluminium producer.
Pri oceni, ali obstaja gospodarska prednost, Komisija kot merilo uporablja udeleženca na trgu, za katerega veljajo enake ali podobne obveznosti kot za podjetje Hidroelectrica, prav tako ima enake priložnosti, pravne in ekonomske pogoje, ki veljajo v Romuniji v pregledanem obdobju glede na omejitve in tržne cilje udeleženca [53].
Moreover, the Romanian authorities argued that the contract with Alro did not distort competition on the global aluminium market.
Če je prisotnost državne pomoči mogoče izključiti, mora družba v javni lasti pri prodaji proizvodov ravnati, kot bi ravnal zasebni vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu, katerega namen je povečati prihodke ali čim bolj zmanjšati izgube.
Furthermore, the Romanian authorities argued that, from a financial point of view, any rational electricity producer would have offered the aluminium producer a tariff better than the OPCOM-PCCB or spot market ones, given the aluminium producer's specific characteristics.
Z drugimi besedami, ugotavljanje morebitne neupravičene gospodarske prednosti v pogodbi o dostavi z dobaviteljem v državni lasti vključuje oceno, v kakšni meri bi nedržavni dobavitelj v podobnem položaju ravnal enako.
They also explained that the price on the spot market would not have been a correct benchmark for a long-term contract concluded with an industrial consumer.
Prav tako, ker razlike med cenami električne energije, ki jih določi država, ter višjimi cenami na prostem trgu na prvi pogled lahko kažejo na prisotnost državne pomoči, se da iz objektivnih razlogov vseeno ugotoviti, da znižanje cen v pogodbah s kupci električne energije ne daje gospodarske prednosti v primerjavi s tržnimi pogoji [54].
The prices under bilateral contracts with advantageous payment conditions and covering large volumes of electricity in predictable band consumption had to be much lower than electricity prices on the spot market.
Nazadnje bi preučitev možnosti, da se opredeli kot državna pomoč cena, višja od tržne cene električne energije na trgu električne energije pod kompleksnimi pogoji trga, lahko Komisija pravno oprla na posebne metode ali ekonomske modele, da bi ugotovila, v kolikšni meri se pogodbene cene razlikujejo od tržnih cen [55].
As regards the allegation made by the citizen to the effect that the prices granted to Alro were below the prices for equivalent transactions in Romania, the Romanian authorities explained that the citizen had completely disregarded the price fluctuation based on the specific elements of each transaction (i.e. large volumes of electricity with band consumption, the high level of predictability, and advantageous financial conditions for the seller).
Ali je obstajala gospodarska prednost, je bilo ocenjeno za vsako leto, ki ga pokriva preiskava od 1. januarja 2007.
As regards the second argument invoked by the citizen, to the effect that the opportunity given to Alro to adjust prices on the basis of the LME formula discriminated against other participants in the electricity market, the Romanian authorities argued as follows: (i) this practice was allowed under Romanian legislation as long as Hidroelectrica made a profit out of the contract concerned; and (ii) the arrangement was a form of partnership between seller and buyer, who were sharing the profit from the sale of the aluminium.
Pogodbe z dobavitelji električne energije, proizvajalci elektrod in podjetjem Alro
ASSESSMENT
Na dobro delujočih trgih z električno energijo z ustrezno likvidnostjo in instrumenti, ki omogočajo napoved cen za prihodnje dobave, so promptne cene dober pokazatelj približka tržnih cen in jih je mogoče uporabiti kot merila za oceno ravni cen v posameznih pogodbah.