natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Accordingly, the terms and prices applied in those rather niche market segments, whatever they amount to, cannot be used as a reference for a significant and objective comparison with Hidroelectrica's prices under long-term contracts.
Glede na navedeno Komisija ugotavlja, da ni bilo neupravičene gospodarske prednosti v primerjavi s tržnimi pogoji v pogodbah s podjetji Alpiq RomIndustries, Alpiq RomEnergie, EFT, Electromagnetica, Energy Holding, Euro-Pec, Electrica, ArcelorMittal in Alro za celotno obdobje v preiskavi ter za Luxten-Lighting za leti 2007 in 2010.
Given the essential characteristics of the contracts in terms of flexibility of supply, long duration and quantities contracted, and in the specific circumstances of the Romanian market in the period under investigation, the closest comparators available for determining the possible presence of an economic advantage over prevailing market conditions in Romania were the prices agreed by large consumers having concluded bespoke contracts negotiated directly in terms that were non-rigid and pre-established.
Hkrati je empirična analiza opredelila tri pogodbe, kjer cene niso v skladu z referenčno ceno, in sicer pogodbi med podjetjema Hidroelectrica in Luxten-Lighting za leti 2008 in 2009 ter tisto s podjetjema Electrocarbon in Elsid za obdobje 2007–2010.
It is therefore appropriate to analyse whether the contracts under scrutiny were in line with the prices of other sellers on the Romanian market for directly negotiated contracts.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega odločitve podjetja Hidroelectrica, da ohrani tri pogodbe s podjetji Elsid, Electrocarbon in Luxten-Lighting, ni mogoče šteti kot delovanje razumnega udeleženca na trgu, saj se pogodbe s podjetjem Luxten-Lighting za leti 2008 in 2009 ter pogodbe s podjetji Electrocarbon in Elsid za obdobje 2007–2010 zdijo pod tržnimi pogoji, na podlagi konzervativnih predpostavk (Priloga II).
The dataset described in recitals 35-38 above covering the directly negotiated bilateral contracts in force that were contemporaneous with the contracts under investigation constitutes the most adequate basis available to the Commission in this case for comparing the contract prices charged to electricity traders, Alro, Electrocarbon and Elsid.
Pogodbe podjetja Hidroelectrica zato dodeljujejo neupravičeno gospodarsko prednost podjetju Luxten-Lighting za obdobje 2008–2009 in podjetjema Electrocarbon in Elsid za obdobje 2007–2010.
Therefore, the Commission compared those prices with the prices resulting from the dataset referring to the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of 2010.
Iz tega izhaja, da so pogodbe podjetja Hidroelectrica z Luxten-Lighting za leti 2008 in 2009 ter s podjetjema Electrocarbon in Elsid za obdobje 2007–2010 ugodno vplivale na kupce, saj jim je bila dodeljena neupravičena gospodarska prednost, ki presega običajne tržne pogoje, zato teh pogodb ni mogoče izključiti iz pogodbe, ki vključuje državno pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Contracts with ArcelorMittal
Zato je treba, glede na ugotovitve ekonometrične analize Komisije iz uvodne izjave 120, nadalje analizirati, ali je izpolnjen še eden od dveh kumulativnih pogojev za obstoj državne pomoči, kar zadeva podjetja Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon in Elsid.
in relation to the 2009 contract, neither of the two parallel offers made on OPCOM were actually valid.
Glede na to, da je podjetje Hidroelectrica 80-odstotno v državni lasti in da morebitni primanjkljaj prihodkov od prodaje zmanjšuje razpoložljiva sredstva Romunije v vlogi delničarja, lahko Komisija sklene, da padec prihodkov od prodaje električne energije na podlagi treh pogodb, in sicer s podjetjem Luxten-Lighting za obdobje 2008–2009 ter podjetjema Electrocarbon in Elsid za obdobje 2007–2010, pomeni državna sredstva v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU.
Energy Holding withdrew its parallel offer for the same period, quantity and delivery terms before the offer of ArcelorMittal was auctioned [56].
Dejstvo je, da so bile vse tri pogodbe v veljavi na dan 1. januarja 2007 (uvodna izjava 19, Priloga I).
The other offer, by Petprod, was not acceptable for benchmarking purposes because it covered only half of the quantity that ArcelorMittal offered to buy,in relation to the 2010 contract, the financial data for the two traders with parallel offers showed that they would not have been able to withstand losses if they had been unable to re-sell the large quantity of electricity that they intended to purchase from Hidroelectrica: the real intent of these two traders in 2010 was to re-sell the electricity to ArcelorMittal at a higher price.
Komisija ni pristojna, da ugotovi, ali je mogoče sklenitev treh pogodb v letih 2002 in 2004 ter vse spremembe v obdobju pred pristopom Romunije k EU pripisati romunski državi, ali za presojo tržnih razmer, v katerih so bile te pogodbe sklenjene ali spremenjene pred ustreznim datumom (uvodna izjava 101).
In fact, both offers were withdrawn immediately after the buy offer on the part of ArcelorMittal was accepted by Hidroelectrica on 29 December 2010, which shows that the traders concerned did not count on selling those quantities to clients other than ArcelorMittal [57].(116) In the absence of fully comparable contracts having been applied, OPCOM-PCCB average prices are not a valid benchmark for the two contracts with ArcelorMittal, given that the volume of energy traded on OPCOM was limited and the types of transaction effectively carried out were not comparable.
Odločitve podjetja Hidroelectrica, za katere je Komisija pristojna dati svojo oceno, so zato naslednje:
Notwithstanding the preliminary views put forward in the opening decisions, and in consideration of the large quantities of electricity purchased by ArcelorMittal, the fact that ArcelorMittal was a reliable and financially stable client of Hidroelectrica's and the fact that neither of the two parallel offers by traders nor the average OPCOM-PCCB prices represented a valid comparator for the two contracts with ArcelorMittal, the Commission considers that the best indicator for a price benchmark for comparison purposes would be that used for the other contracts identified under the dataset.
izrecna odločitev ali tihi pristanek, da ohrani prodajne pogodbe, ki so bile v veljavi po 1. januarju 2007, sklenjene pred pristopom Romunije k EU,
Therefore, in the light of the comments received in response to the opening decision, the Commission has modified its analysis and examined the prices of these two contracts with ArcelorMittal on the basis of the same dataset used to compare long-term contracts.
vse odločitve, da se bistveno spreminjajo pogodbeni pogoji po pristopu Romunije k EU, zlasti sklepi o spremembi pogodbene cene.
The Commission's econometric analysis of long-term contract prices
V zvezi s tem, četudi bi bila romunska država v položaju, da bi lahko nadzirala poslovno politiko podjetja Hidroelectrica in imela prevladujoč vpliv na odločitve podjetja, ni mogoče samodejno domnevati, da je v zvezi z ohranitvijo obeh pogodb s podjetjem Luxten-Lighting za obdobje 2008–2009 ter s podjetjema Electrocarbon in Elsid za obdobje 2007–2010 ter v zvezi s spremembo pogodbene cene tudi dejansko izvajala nadzor.
However, in the present case, given the relatively high proportion of demand that, in Romania in 2009, was still being satisfied on the basis of regulated tariffs, the limited liquidity of OPCOM trading platforms in the period 2007-2010 and the fact that the power exchanges managed by OPCOM had been designated as a relevant antitrust market on which abuse of dominant position is practised, it is appropriate to rely on other suitable benchmarks for assessing the possible presence of an economic advantage over market prices.
V skladu z ustrezno sodno prakso [59] je treba proučiti, ali je mogoče za romunske organe trditi, da so bili na tak ali drugačen način vpleteni v ohranjanje pogodb v času njihove veljavnosti ter v spreminjanje pogodbenih cen, in majhno verjetnost, da niso vpleteni v te odločitve.
Accordingly, the Commission used the dataset provided by the Romanian authorities, considering it the best available source of evidence to reflect the market conditions in Romania.
V ta namen se za pripis odgovornosti državi Romuniji za odločitve glede pogodbe v preiskavi lahko sklepa iz vrste kazalnikov, ki izhajajo iz okoliščin in iz konteksta, v katerem je podjetje Hidroelectrica dobavilo električno energijo podjetju Luxten-Lighting za obdobje 2008–2009 ter podjetjema Electrocarbon in Elsid po letu 2007.
The dataset contains information adequate to enable the Commission to analyse the conditions on the Romanian electricity market in the period of time under investigation, as shown in recitals 36 and 37.
Zlasti na podlagi ustrezne sodne prakse je mogoče nadaljevanje treh obstoječih pogodb in spremembe pogodbenih cen po letu 2007 pripisati Romuniji, (i) če podjetje Hidroelectrica ni moglo odločati o teh zadevah, ne da bi upoštevalo zahteve javnih organov, (ii) če je to podjetje moralo upoštevati direktive, ki so jih izdali vladni ali medresorski organi.
On the basis of the dataset, the Commission carried out an econometric analysis in order to estimate a price benchmark based on electricity supply contracts contemporaneous with the investigated Hidroelectrica contracts throughout the investigated period.
Prav tako je treba upoštevati tudi, ali je podjetje Hidroelectrica (iii) integrirano v strukturo javne uprave, (iv) naravo njegovih dejavnosti in njihovo izvajanje na trgu v običajnih razmerah konkurence z zasebnimi gospodarskimi subjekti, (v) pravni status podjetja (v smislu, da zanj velja javno pravo ali običajno pravo družb), (vi) intenzivnost nadzora javnih organov nad njenim upravljanjem ali (vii) kateri koli drugi kazalnik vpletenosti javnih organov v ohranjanje in spreminjanje pogodbenih cen ali neverjetnost njihove vpletenosti, tudi ob upoštevanju (viii) razsežnosti odločitev podjetja Hidroelectrica, njihove vsebine ali pogojev, ki jih vsebujejo [60].
The use of economic models to quantify possible advantages over market conditions is in line with precedent in complex market settings (recital 104), such as the one at issue in Romania as from 2007 (recitals 24-38 and 107).
Podjetje Hidroelectrica je podjetje, ki ga ureja običajno pravo gospodarskih družb in ni vključeno v strukturo javne uprave.
A full and detailed technical description of the econometric analysis and its results is provided in Annex II.
Dejansko si člani upravnega odbora podjetja Hidroelectrica lahko kopičijo funkcije z vladnimi položaji (uvodna izjava 12).
Based on this conservative approach, the Commission performed a comparison between the prices of Hidroelectrica's contracts and the annual benchmark market price between 2007 and 2010.
Medtem ko obstajajo znaki, da mora podjetje Hidroelectrica upoštevati direktive, ki so jih izdali vladni ali medresorski organi, nič ne kaže, da bi bile take direktive izdane za namene ohranjanja veljavnosti treh zadevnih pogodb in pogodbenih cen.
The comparison was made on an annual basis because, in fact, the selling prices were modified each year [58], despite the relevant provisions in the contracts.
Zlasti ni nobenih znakov, da bi generalna skupščina delničarjev ali upravni svet podjetja Hidroelectrica imela vlogo pri sprejemanju odločitev v zvezi z ohranjanjem komercialnih pogodb o dobavi električne energije in/ali spremembi cen na podlagi teh pogodb (uvodna izjava 12).
The analysis shows that only three alleged beneficiaries benefited from prices lower than those within the range in which they could be considered in line with the benchmark market price:
Kot je omenilo več zainteresiranih strani, je v skladu s statutom podjetja Hidroelectrica in romunskim pravom gospodarskih družb glavni izvršni direktor tisti, ki upravlja podjetje v tekočem poslovanju in samostojno sprejema odločitve o zadevah, ki niso v pristojnosti skupščine delničarjev in upravnega odbora.
in each year between 2007 and 2010, Electrocarbon and Elsid exhibit contract prices below the benchmark market price for the corresponding year,
Romunski organi poudarjajo, da morajo člani uprave sprejeti odločitve v interesu družbe.
for Luxten-Lighting, this difference is higher than the benchmark price only in 2008 and 2009.
Ministrski odlok 445/2009, na katerega se je Komisija sklicevala v odločitvah o začetku postopka (uvodna izjava 44), ni imela nobenega vpliva na pogoje za tri zadevne pogodbe.
The analysis shows that the prices applied by Hidroelectrica in nine of the contracts between 2007 and 2010, namely those with Alpiq RomIndustries, Alpiq RomEnergie, EFT, Electromagnetica, Energy Holding, Euro-Pec, Electrica, ArcelorMittal and Alro, were fully in line with the benchmark market price.
V skladu s členom 1(2) tega odloka so bile tekoče dvostranske pogodbe ponavadi izvzete iz pravil, na podlagi katerih so predstavniki ministrstva za gospodarstvo, trgovino in poslovno okolje ter člani upravnih odborov elektroenergetskih podjetij v državni lasti dolžni zagotavljati, da se od 31. marca 2010 z električno energijo, namenjeno za veleprodajni trg, trguje izključno na trgu OPCOM.
In the case of the contract with Luxten-Lighting, the prices applied in 2007 and 2010 do not differ significantly from those for other directly negotiated contracts concluded on the Romanian market.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 101, je pristojnost za proučevanje zadevnih pogodb z vidika pravil EU o državni pomoči nastopila od pristopa Romunije k Evropski uniji, to je tri leta pred rokom, ki je bil določen v Uredbi št. 445/2009, in več kot dve leti pred sprejetjem Direktive za njegovo sprejetje.
In view of the above, the Commission concludes that there was no undue economic advantage over market conditions granted under the contracts with Alpiq RomIndustries, Alpiq RomEnergie, EFT, Electromagnetica, Energy Holding, Euro-Pec, Electrica, ArcelorMittal and Alro for the entire period of time under investigation, as well as with Luxten-Lighting for the years 2007 and 2010.
Iz tega sledi, da tako pravilo ni obstajalo, ko so zadevne pogodbe postale predmet pregleda v skladu s predpisi EU.
At the same time, the empirical analysis identifies three contracts as having prices not in accordance with the benchmark price, namely the contract between Hidroelectrica and Luxten-Lighting for 2008 and 2009 and those with Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010.
Poleg tega maloprodajne pogodbe med podjetjem Hidroelectrica in Elsid oziroma Electrocarbon – že v veljavi pred 31. marcem 2010, ne bi bile vključene, čeprav bi ukrep veljal tudi za naročila, ki so že obstajala, ko je začela veljati, saj je bila pomembna samo (prihodnja) prodaja na debelo.
In view of the above, Hidroelectrica's decision to maintain the three contracts with Elsid, Electrocarbon and Luxten-Lighting cannot be deemed to be that of a rational market operator, since the contracts with Luxten-Lighting for 2008 and 2009 and with Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010 appear to be below market conditions, under conservative assumptions (Annex II).
Poleg tega, čeprav Ministrski odlok 445/2009 kaže na stopnjo vpliva na poslovno politiko proizvajalcev električne energije v državni lasti, pa je njegov namen predvsem regulativne narave, in sicer povečati preglednost energetskih transakcij na debelo ter zagotoviti večji obseg in likvidnost na trgovalnih platformah, ki jih upravlja OPCOM.
Therefore, Hidroelectrica's contracts conferred an undue economic advantage on Luxten-Lighting for 2008-2009 and on Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010.
Ta ministrski odlok velja za vse proizvajalce v državni lasti, ne samo za podjetje Hidroelectrica.
It follows that Hidroelectrica's contracts with Luxten-Lighting for 2008 and 2009 and with Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010 appear to have favoured the buyers by affording them an undue economic advantage above normal market conditions and, therefore, the possibility cannot be excluded of the contracts having involved State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Zato iz besedila in ciljev Ministrskega odloka 445/2009 ni mogoče sklepati, da je romunska država izvajala nadzor nad vsako transakcijo, pogodbo ali spremembo pogodbe v zvezi z dobavo električne energije s strani proizvajalcev električne energije v državni lasti, ki predstavljajo večino proizvajalcev na romunskem trgu, zlasti podjetja Hidroelectrica.
Therefore, in the light of the findings of the Commission's econometric analysis described in recital 120, it is necessary to analyse further whether one of the other cumulative conditions for the existence of State aid is fulfilled as regards Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon and Elsid.
Z drugimi besedami, odlok ne kaže na verjetnost, da bi romunska država sodelovala pri običajnih vsakodnevnih poslovnih dejavnostih, prodajnih pogodbah, spremembah pogodb, pogajanjih s cenam itd. v zvezi s tremi pogodbami, ki se proučujejo.
State resources and imputability to the State
Razen za dobavo električne energije na reguliranem trgu (uvodne izjave 25 do 26) podjetje Hidroelectrica izvaja svojo dejavnost oskrbe z električno energijo na odprtih trgih s kupci za nelastno uporabo, ki so v konkurenci z drugimi dobaviteljev v zasebni ali javni lasti.
Considering that Hidroelectrica is 80 %-owned by the State and that a potential shortfall of sales revenues reduces the resources available to Romania in its capacity as shareholder, the Commission can conclude that revenues or shortfalls thereof from the sale of electricity under the three contracts with Luxten-Lighting for 2008-2009 and Electrocarbon and Elsid for 2007-2010 involve State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
Zlasti pomembno je dejstvo, da se precejšnja količina električne energije podjetja Hidroelectrica proda na romunskem trgu s prilagojenimi dvostranskimi dolgoročnimi pogodbami, količina, ki je bistveno višja od količine iz pogodb v preiskavi, medtem ko številni drugi ponudniki konkurirajo (uvodni izjavi 30 in 38).
However, the same conclusion is not necessarily warranted as regards the imputability to the Romanian State of commercial decisions of Hidroelectrica in relation to prices and sales revenues accrued through the three contracts with Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon and Elsid after 1 January 2007.
Pogodbe podjetja Hidroelectrica, ki so predmet preiskave, zlasti tri dolgoročne pogodbe s podjetji Luxten-Lighting, Electrocarbon in Elsid, ki so bile ohranjene po 1. januarju 2007, torej niso neobičajne ali izredne, kar bi predstavljalo poseben interes države, da jih ohranja.
Indeed, the mere fact that the prices in application of the contracts under scrutiny were charged by Hidroelectrica, a public undertaking majority controlled by the Romanian State, is not sufficient reason to conclude that these decisions were imputable to the Romanian State.
Poleg tega so bile pogodbe s podjetjema Electrocarbon in Elsid ohranjene ter na novo pogajane s stečajnim upraviteljem po uvedbi stečajnega postopka zaradi insolventnosti podjetja Hidroelectrica, ki je bil uveden leta 2012, kar kaže, da so bile te pogodbe še vedno v interesu novega vodstva podjetja Hidroelectrica, tudi po pristopu Romunije k Evropski uniji leta 2007 in po tem, ko so bile pogodbe sklenjene in spremenjene, zlasti v zvezi s cenami.
In fact, all three contracts were in force on 1 January 2007 (recital 19, Annex I).
Prav tako je podjetje Hidroelectrica zahtevalo zvišanje cen nad raven cen iz pogodb in poslalo podjetjema Electrocarbon in Elsid obvestilo o prekinitvi oskrbe, da bi jih spodbudilo, da sprejmejo nadaljnje zvišanje cen v letu 2010 (uvodna izjava 22), in s tem ravnalo kot prodajalec, ne pa kot dajalec pomoči.
The Commission is not competent to establish whether the conclusion of the three contracts in question in 2002 and 2004 and of any amendments in the period before Romania's accession to the EU were imputable to the Romanian State, or to assess the market circumstances in which the contracts were concluded or amended before the relevant date (recital 101).
To ne pomeni, da romunska država ne more biti vključena v komercialne pogodbe dobaviteljev električne energije v državni lasti, kadar gre za interese posebnih in pomembnih industrijskih odjemalcev.
The decisions of Hidroelectrica that the Commission is competent to assess are therefore as follows:
Na primer, pred pristopom Romunije k EU je v internem zapisu z dne 2. februarja 2006, ki ga je podpisal državni sekretar na Ministrstvu za gospodarstvo in trgovino, odobril pa ga je predsednik vlade, predlagano izvajanje posebne preferencialne obravnave za deset največjih energetsko intenzivnih uporabnikov v Romuniji (tudi proizvajalci aluminij ali jekla, ki jih oskrbuje podjetje Hidroelectrica ali Nuclearelectrica).
an express or tacit decision to maintain in force after 1 January 2007 the sales contracts concluded before Romania's accession to the EU, and
V zvezi s pogodbo z Arcelor-Mittal, zlasti Sklep odbora podjetja Hidroelectrica št. 13/2009 z dne 16. decembra 2009, pooblašča generalnega direktorja podjetja Hidroelectrica „za pogajanja v potekajočih se pogajanjih za pogodbe o prodaji elektrike in za najboljše pogoje za podjetje Hidroelectrica“.
any decisions to substantially modify the contract conditions after Romania's accession to the EU, in particular decisions to amend contract prices.
Upravni odbor je odobril glavne pogoje pogodb iz let 2009 in 2010 s podjetjem ArcelorMittal.
In that respect, even if the Romanian State had been in a position to control Hidroelectrica's policy and to exercise a dominant influence over its decisions, it cannot automatically be presumed that, in the matter of maintaining the contracts with Luxten-Lighting for the years 2008-2009 and with Electrocarbon and Elsid for the years 2007-2010, and amending the contract prices, it actually exercised that control.
Dodatek št. 17 iz leta 2009 k pogodbi s podjetjem Alro (doda se formula LME za izračun pogodbene cene) je prav tako odobril odbor podjetja Hidroelectrica.
Pursuant to the relevant case-law [59] it is necessary to examine both whether the Romanian authorities can be considered as having been involved, in one way or another, in maintaining the contracts in force and in modifying the contract prices, and the unlikelihood of their not having been involved in these decisions.
Poleg tega je tudi memorandum z dne 3. februarja 2011 dveh generalnih direktorjev podjetij Nuclearelectrica in CE Hunedoara, ki sta tako kot podjetje Hidroelectrica v lasti države, zahteval soglasje Ministrstva za gospodarstvo in trgovino za sklenitev pogodbe za veleprodajo električne energije med podjetjema Nuclearelectrica kot prodajalcem in podjetjem CE Hunedoara kot kupcem.
To that effect, the imputability to the Romanian State of the decisions regarding the contracts under investigation may be inferred from a set of indicators arising from the circumstances, and from the context, in which Hidroelectrica supplied electricity to Luxten-Lighting for the years 2008-2009 and to Electrocarbon and Elsid after 2007.
Ta transakcija je potrebovala odstopanje od določb Odloka 445/2009, ki zahteva, da vse transakcije na grosističnem trgu električne energije, ki vključujejo podjetja v državni lasti, potekajo zgolj na trgu OPCOM.
In particular, and on the basis of the relevant case-law, maintaining the three ongoing contracts and introducing modifications to the contract prices after 2007 may be imputable to Romania (i) if Hidroelectrica could not have decided on these matters without taking account of the requirements of the public authorities; or (ii) if Hidroelectrica had to take account of directives issued by a governmental or an interministerial body.
Iz tega sledi, da obstajajo neposredni dokazi, ki jih ni bilo mogoče popolnoma izključiti, in sicer da je bila romunska država vpletena v sklepanje pogodb ali znatne spremembe pogodb podjetja Hidroelectrica z velikimi, energetsko intenzivnimi industrijskimi odjemalci.