natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, the party requesting termination of the contract could also have faced the additional risk of being required by the competent court, through the so-called ‘Presidential Order’, to fulfil the contract until the dispute was settled, as happened in the cases of Electrocarbon and Elsid.
Zainteresirane strani so trdile predvsem, da v Romuniji [39] ni prišlo do nobenih pravnih ali gospodarskih sprememb na trgu z električno energijo, ki bi upravičevale, da se leto 2007 vzame kot referenčno točko za presojo gospodarske prednosti: romunski energetskih trgi so bili v vzponu že pred letom 2004; romunski veleprodajni trg je začel delovati septembra 2000.
COMMENTS BY THIRD PARTIES
OPCOM-PCCB ni ustrezna in veljavna referenčna cena
All the alleged beneficiaries, except Electrica, submitted observations regarding the opening decisions, summarised in Section 5.1.
Vsi domnevni upravičenci, ki so predložili pripombe k odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, trdijo, da ni bilo primerne in veljavne referenčne cene za primerjavo cen, določenih v pogodbah.
In addition, a competitor of Alro, an aluminium producer, submitted its observations regarding the opening decision on 5 October 2012.
Zainteresirane strani (domnevni upravičenci) trdijo, da cena OPCOM-PCCB ni bila ustrezna referenčna cena iz naslednjih razlogov:
On 6 September 2012 an anonymous citizen submitted observations in relation to the opening decisions concerning Alro and the electricity traders
cene OPCOM-PCCB niso odražale pravega stanja v upoštevanem obdobju;
Comments from alleged beneficiaries
pogodbe OPCOM-PCCB se razlikujejo od pogodb v preiskavi z več različnih vidikov (tj. dolgoročna obveznost nakupa količin po fiksnih cenah, določenih v okviru nestabilnega trga, se zelo razlikuje od obveznosti odkupa na trgu za dan vnaprej ali na delujoči energetski borzi v razmerah liberaliziranega trga.
The main observations of the alleged beneficiaries are similar and refer to: (i) the Commission's lack of competence to assess either the contracts concluded prior to Romania's accession to the EU [35] or the subsequent addenda to the contracts [36]; (ii) there being no appropriate market-prices benchmark for comparing contract prices; (iii) Hidroelectrica's having acted like a private market vendor without conferring any economic advantage on the alleged beneficiaries; (iv) there having been no imputability to the State and no transfer of State resources; (v) the fact that there was no distortion of competition; (vi) the absence of selectivity; (vii) there having been no severability of the amendments from the initial contract; and (viii) Hidroelectrica's having declared itself insolvent to avoid its contractual obligations.
Na trgu OPCOM PCCB je zasebnim ponudnikom odvzeta možnost, da spremenijo svoje pogodbe, potem ko je dogovor dosežen.
Commission's lack of competence to assess the contracts and their subsequent addenda
Trg OPCOM-PCCB do takrat ni bil organiziran kot platforma, primerna za velike industrijske stranke in njihove potrebe po električni energiji ter možnosti, ki jih zahtevajo);
The interested parties argue that the Commission does not have competence to review alleged State aid measures implemented before Romania's accession to the European Union (‘EU’) in 2007.
niso imeli enakega roka dobave;
The same applies, in their view, to the addenda to the contracts that were signed after 2007, because the addenda were not severable from the initial contracts.
OPCOM-PCCB in pogodbe predstavljajo dva ločena trga (npr.: obdobje trajanje dobavnih pogodb, s katerimi se trguje na trgu OPCOM-PCCB, je znašalo eno leto ali manj v primerjavi z veliko daljšimi roki za pogodbe, o katerih poteka razprava; cene na platformi OPCOM-PCCB so bile višje od tistih, ki so bili predmet individualnega dogovora v okviru pogodb [40] in so bile nestanovitne ter odvisne od nihanj povpraševanja in ponudbe;
The addenda were simply implementing contractual rules for future supplies, originally determined under the contracts.
OPCOM-PCCB sploh ni obstajal, ko se je sklepala večina pogodb, saj je začel delovati šele leta 2005; ter
According to the interested parties, the alleged State aid measures stemming from the contracts were not applicable after Romania's accession to the EU since the contracts were concluded prior to 2007; also the first addenda establishing the exact parameters of the price indexation [37] system were signed prior to 2007.
le majhen del skupne količine električne energije, ki je bila na voljo na romunskem trgu, je bil prodan na platformi OPCOM-PCCB.
Furthermore, in the opinion of the interested parties, even if it were proven that the contracts contained State aid, this would have to be regarded as existing, not new, aid, considering that all the conditions for granting existing State aid were met in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [38].
Ena od zainteresiranih strani [41] je trdila, da je bil OPCOM-PPCB nereprezentativna referenčna vrednost ali neprimerna referenčna vrednost za cene, določene v pogodbah, saj se je le majhen delež električne energije v okviru romunskega trga z električno energijo dejansko prodajal na trgu OPCOM-PCCB v obdobju, ki ga presoja Komisija (tj. od 2 % celotne notranje porabe v letu 2006 na 14,62 % v letu 2012).
In particular: the alleged State aid measure did not meet the conditions for being classified as State aid when it was put into effect; it became State aid only later and due to changes in the market environment; and, finally, the alleged State aid measure was not substantially altered after it was put into effect.
Poleg tega so druge zainteresirane strani [42] trdile, da bi bilo ustrezno merilo za tržne cene najdeno in pripravljeno z uporabo „temeljnega“ modela, ki bi temelji na: (i) podobnih dejstvih in pogojih, (ii) soodločujočih pričakovanjih in (iii) istem obdobju, kot ga zajema obdobje odločbe.
Consequently, the interested parties claimed that the Commission cannot investigate the alleged State aid measure under the regime for new State aid and cannot request the Member State to recover the aid retroactively.
Nazadnje je ena od zainteresiranih strani [43] trdila, da naj glede na zapletene in specifične razmere na romunskem trgu električne energije ne bi bilo veljavne referenčne cene, ki bi ustrezala cenam, določenim v pogodbah.
The interested parties also argued that, according to the case-law, the relevant time for assessing any transaction with regard to the market vendor/market operator test was the time when the transaction was concluded.
Ponudbe drugih dobaviteljev električne energije v primeru pogodb s podjetjem ArcelorMittal
Therefore, for transactions concluded before 2007, the question would have been whether they would have constituted State aid if the State aid rules had been applicable at the time when they were concluded.
Podjetje ArcelorMittal je trdilo, da predpostavka, da bi podjetje Hidroelectrica lahko sprejelo eno od vzporednih ponudb dobaviteljev OPCOM-PCCB po ceni, ki je višja od cene, pridobljene na podlagi dveh pogodb s podjetjem ArcelorMittal, ni realna, saj je za romunski trg z električno energijo značilna presežna zmogljivost.
The same principle was also applicable to the time when the economic advantage had to be assessed, i.e.: the moment when the contracts were concluded.
Podjetje ArcelorMittal nadalje trdi, da je na trgu, za katerega so značilne presežne zmogljivosti, podjetje Hidroelectrica upoštevalo tveganje, da če bi prodali električno energijo dobaviteljem, je ti morda ne bi uspeli ponuditi na trgu ali bi jo morali ponovno prodati z izgubo.
The interested parties argued in particular that, in Romania [39], there were no legal or economic changes on the electricity market to justify taking 2007 as the reference point for assessing the economic advantage: the Romanian energy markets were already emerging before 2004; the Romanian wholesale market was opened in September 2000.
Prav tako so trdili, da so dobavitelji dali te ponudbe za nakup na trg OPCOM z očitnim namenom ponovne prodaje električne energije podjetju ArcelorMittal po višji ceni.
No appropriate price benchmark
Poleg tega je podjetje ArcelorMittal trdilo, da bi bila primerjava med ceno iz navedenih pogodb, sklenjenih s podjetjem Hidroelectrica, in cen iz ponudbe dobaviteljev veljavna samo, če:
OPCOM-PCCB was not an appropriate and valid price benchmark
bi bil ArcelorMittal prisiljen kupiti od dobaviteljev – vendar ArcelorMittal trdi, da ni bilo tako, saj so imeli možnost nakupa od drugih romunskih proizvajalcev ali pa iz Madžarske in Bolgarije;
All the alleged beneficiaries that submitted comments regarding the opening decision claimed that there was no appropriate and valid price benchmark for comparing the prices stipulated in the contracts.
dobavitelji bi lahko ponovno prodali količine, ki jih ArcelorMittal ni odkupil od njih – vendar dejstvo, da so bile ponudbe umaknjene, kaže na dejstvo, da dobavitelji niso nameravali prodajati teh količin drugim kupcem kot podjetju ArcelorMittal;
The interested parties (the alleged beneficiaries) argued that OPCOM-PCCB prices were not a relevant price benchmark for the following reasons:
dobavitelji niso imeli zmogljivosti za prevzem izgub v primeru, da električne energije, kupljene od podjetja Hidroelectrica, ne bi bili sposobni ponovno prodati.
OPCOM-PCCB prices did not reflect the correct situation in the relevant period,
V zvezi s tem je ArcelorMittal predložil dokaze, da Arelco in Petprod nista bili finančno trdni podjetji.
the contracts under OPCOM-PCCB differ from the contracts under investigation on various counts (i.e.: a long-term obligation to purchase quantities at prices fixed in the context of a volatile market is completely different from the obligation to purchase executed either on a day-ahead market or on a fully operational power exchange, especially in the context of a liberalised market.
Podjetje ArcelorMittal tudi trdi, da pogodbi iz let 2009 in 2010 ni mogoče primerjati s cenami OPCOM, saj OPCOM v tistem času še ni deloval normalno.
The OPCOM-PCCB market deprived private suppliers of the flexibility of being able to modify their contracts once an agreement had been reached.
Meni, da je povprečna cena, ki jo objavlja ANRE, bolj reprezentativna za velike dvostranske transakcije.
The OPCOM-PCCB market had not been organised by then as a platform suitable in terms of large industrial clients' electricity needs and the options they required),
Podjetje Hidroelectrica je ravnalo kot zasebni prodajalec na trgu in ni dajalo nobenih finančnih ugodnosti domnevnim upravičencem.
they did not match the same delivery period,
Večina zainteresiranih strani je trdila, da podjetje Hidroelectrica ni ravnalo kot zasebni prodajalec na trgu pri sklepanju pogodb in da torej niso imeli nobenih finančnih koristi: (i) pogodbe so bile sklenjene pod tržnimi pogoji; (ii) podjetje Hidroelectrica je imelo korist od stabilnosti dohodka, ki so ga zagotavljale sklenjene pogodbe; (iii) pogodbe so zagotovile prodajo velikih količin proizvedene električna energije podjetja Hidroelectrica; (iv) pogodbe so zagotovile, da je bilo podjetje Hidroelectrica zaščiteno pred kakršnim koli znižanjem cen v zvezi z alternativno prodajo na drugih trgih; (v) cene, dogovorjene v pogodbah, upoštevajo tveganja in obveznosti, naložene kupcem, ter pogodbene pogoje, ki so bili predvsem v interesu podjetja Hidroelectrica; (vi) pogodbene cene, plačane za nakup električne energije pri podjetju Hidroelectrica, so bile stalno med 80 % in 100 % višje od cen, ki jih je podjetje Hidroelectrica dobilo za prodajo električne energije na reguliranem trgu; in (vii) pogodbe so bile najboljša možnost za podjetje Hidroelectrica na datum, ko so bile podpisane.
OPCOM-PCCB and the contracts represented two separate markets (e.g.: the period of the supply contracts traded on the OPCOM-PCCB market was of 1 year or less compared with a much longer period for the contracts under discussion; the prices on the OPCOM-PCCB platform were higher than those negotiated individually under the contracts [40] and were volatile and dependent on the fluctuations of demand and supply,
Poleg tega so zainteresirane strani trdile, da bi morala Komisija upoštevati finančni položaj podjetja na dan, ko so bile podpisane pogodbe, glede na to, da je možno, da v skladu s sodno prakso [44] presoja Komisije ni upoštevala vseh informacij, ki niso bile na voljo, in razvoja dogodkov, ki niso bili predvidljivi, ko so bile podpisane pogodbe.
OPCOM-PCCB did not even exist when most of the contracts were concluded, as it became operative only in 2005, and
Alro trdi, da je bila vsaka nadaljnja sprememba njihove pogodbe s podjetjem Hidroelectrica vedno v korist podjetju Hidroelectrica, in sicer iz naslednjih razlogov: (i) uvedena je bila klavzula za indeksacijo cen, ob upoštevanju lastnih stroškov podjetja Hidroelectrica; (ii) uporabljena valuta se je spremenila iz USD v RON v juniju 2007, v času, ko je leu rastel v primerjavi z ameriškim dolarjem, kar je podjetju Hidroelectrica omogočilo, da pridobi 40 % na ceno in odpravi valutna tveganja; (iii) formulacija LME je bila uvedena v letu 2010, kar je privedlo do močnega povečanja cen.
only a small portion the total electricity available on the Romanian market was traded on the OPCOM-PCCB platform.
Poleg tega je podjetje Alro predložilo celovite in obsežne ekonomske študije, ki so jih izvedli Skupina Brattle in Nera, da bi podprlo svojo trditev, da pogodba s podjetjem Hidroelectrica ni vključevala državne pomoči.
One of the interested parties [41] argued that OPCOM-PPCB was either a non-representative benchmark or a benchmark inappropriate for the prices stipulated in the contracts, since only a small portion of the electricity available on the Romanian electricity market was actually sold on the OPCOM-PCCB market during the period of the Commission's assessment (i.e., ranging from 2 % of total internal consumption in 2006 to 14,62 % in 2012).
V skladu s študijo Skupine Brattle iz leta 2005 je bila ocenjena neto sedanja vrednost (v nadaljnjem besedilu: „NSV“) pogodbe Alro (393,09 milijona EUR) višja od tega zneska, kar izhaja iz obratnega prodajnega scenarija (355 milijonov EUR), ki temelji na predpostavki, da obstaja popolnoma konkurenčen trg.
In addition, other interested parties [42] claimed that a proper benchmark for market prices could only have been found and developed through the use of a ‘fundaments’ model, based on: (i) similar facts and conditions; (ii) concomitant expectations; and (iii) the same period of time as the one covered by the present Decision.
Podobne ocene so bile predložene tudi s strani Skupine Brattle za leto 2007, rezultati pa so bili podobni kot za leto 2005: NSV pogodbe Alro v vrednosti 348 milijonov EUR za leto 2007 je višja od hipotetične NSV v vrednosti 300 milijonov EUR.
Finally, one of the interested parties [43] argued that, on Romania's complex and specific electricity market, there was no valid price benchmark available that would have been relevant for the prices stipulated in the contracts.
Podjetje Alro je predložilo tudi študije in poročila Skupine Brattle in Nera, da bi podkrepilo svojo trditev, da s pogodbo s podjetjem Hidroelectrica ni bila dodeljena nezakonita pomoč.
Other electricity traders' offer in the case of the contracts with ArcelorMittal
Energy Holding, dobavitelj električne energije, je predložil ekonomsko analizo, simulacijo cenovnega modela in poročilo o cenah, ki jih je zagotovilo neodvisno svetovalno podjetje KPMG, v podporo trditvi, da ni bilo nezakonite pomoči.
ArcelorMittal claimed that the assumption that Hidroelectrica could have accepted one of the parallel offers of OPCOM-PCCB traders for a price higher than that obtained under the two contracts with ArcelorMittal was not realistic because the Romanian electricity market was characterised by overcapacity.
KPMG je potrdil, da je bila pogodba s podjetjem Energy Holding: (i) za podjetje Hidroelectrica najboljša alternativa in (ii) da je podjetju Hidroelectrica prinesla višji donos ali manjše tveganje v primerjavi z drugo najboljšo možno alternativo.
ArcelorMittal further argued that, in a market characterised by overcapacity, Hidroelectrica had to take into account the risk that, if it had sold the electricity to the traders, they might not have been able to place it on the market or have had to re-sell it at a loss.
Analiza KPMG je temeljila na absolutno in relativno vrednotenih analizah namesto na kakšni drugi metodi vrednotenja pogodb (npr. analiza mejne dobičkonosnosti, analiza okrnjene notranje stopnje donosa).
It also claimed that the traders placed those purchase offers on OPCOM with the evident intention of re-selling the electricity to ArcelorMittal at a higher price.
Sklicevala se je na dve obdobji vrednotenja (tj. 2004–2013 in 2010–2018) in upoštevala pogoje pogodbe, sklenjene s podjetjem Hidroelectrica leta 2004 in ponovno leta 2009, ko je bila pogodba podaljšana.
Moreover, ArcelorMittal argued that a comparison between the price specified in the two contracts concluded with Hidroelectrica and the prices under the traders' offers would have been valid only if:
Brez pripisa odgovornosti države in brez prenosa državnih sredstev
ArcelorMittal had been forced to buy from the traders — whereas ArcelorMittal claims that this was not the case, as it had the alternative of buying from other Romanian producers or from Hungary or Bulgaria,
Skoraj vse zainteresirane strani [45] so trdile, da njihovih pogodb s podjetjem Hidroelectrica ni mogoče pripisati državi, saj lahko v skladu s statutom podjetja Hidroelectrica upravni odbor prenese svoja izvršilna pooblastila na izvršnega direktorja.
the traders had been able to re-sell the quantities that ArcelorMittal did not buy from them — whereas the fact that the offers were withdrawn shows that the traders had not counted on selling those quantities to clients other than ArcelorMittal,
Zato so trdile, da člani odbora niso sodelovali v vsakodnevnem poslovanju podjetja Hidroelectrica, vključno s pogajanji o pogodbah.
the traders had not had the capacity to withstand the losses in the event of their not having been able to re-sell the electricity bought from Hidroelectrica.
Po mnenju ene zainteresirane strani [46] nosi dokazno breme glede odgovornosti Komisija.
In this connection, ArcelorMittal produces evidence that Arelco and Petprod were not financially robust companies.
Zainteresirana stran je trdila, da ugotovitev, da je odgovornost mogoče pripisati državi samo zato, ker je država imela večinski delež v podjetju Hidroelectrica, ni bila zadostna.
ArcelorMittal also argues that the 2009 and 2010 contracts cannot be benchmarked against OPCOM prices, because OPCOM was not yet operating normally at that time.
Trdila je tudi, da je Komisija prišla do tega sklepa na podlagi „označb“ in domnev in ne na podlagi konkretnih dejstev, kar je v nasprotju z zahtevami iz sodne prakse.
It considers that the average price, published by ANRE, for large bilateral transactions is more representative.
Zainteresirana stran je trdila, da so za podporo te ugotovitve potrebni konkretni dokazi, kot so dokumenti, stvarni elementi in konkretni ukrepi v imenu države.
Hidroelectrica acted like a private market vendor/without conferring any financial advantage on the alleged beneficiaries.
Druge zainteresirane strani [47] so trdile, da ni bilo prenosa državnih sredstev.
In addition, the interested parties claimed that the Commission should have looked into Hidroelectrica's financial position on the date when the contracts were signed, considering that, in accordance with case-law [44], the Commission's assessment may have taken no account at all of information not available, and developments not foreseeable, when the contracts were signed.
Trdile so tudi, da je treba romunsko državno posredovanje v zvezi z uporabo teh sredstev dokazati na konkretnem primeru.
Alro argued that each successive amendment to its contract with Hidroelectrica was always in Hidroelectrica's favour, for the following reasons: (i) a price indexation clause was introduced, taking into account Hidroelectrica's own costs; (ii) the currency used was changed from USD to RON in June 2007, at a time when the leu was appreciating against the USD, which allowed Hidroelectrica to gain 40 % on the price and eliminate its currency risks; (iii) the LME formula was introduced in 2010, leading to a sharp increase in prices.
Poleg tega so zainteresirane strani poudarile, da je v skladu s statutom podjetja Hidroelectrica sklenitev pogodbe izključno v pristojnosti generalnega direktorja in sveta direktorjev in zato država ni bila vključena v procesu oblikovanja odločitev glede pogodb podjetja Hidroelectrica.
Moreover, Alro submitted comprehensive and extensive economic studies performed by Brattle Group and Nera in order to support its argument that the contract with Hidroelectrica did not involve State aid.
Brez izkrivljanja konkurence
According to the Brattle Group's 2005 study, the estimated net present value (hereinafter the ‘NPV’) of the Alro contract (EUR 393,09 million) was higher than that resulting from the counterfactual sales scenario (EUR 355 million) based on the assumption of a perfectly competitive market.
Nekatere zainteresirane strani [48] so trdile, da ni bilo možnosti za potencialno ali dejansko izkrivljanje konkurence, ki bi izhajalo iz pogodb s podjetjem Hidroelectrica iz naslednjih razlogov: (i) ni bil opredeljen ustrezen trg, na katerem je državna pomoč okrepila položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji v trgovini znotraj EU, in (ii) romunski trg z električno energijo ni koncentriran glede na indeks koncentracije Herfindahl-Hirschman (HHI).
Similar estimates were also provided by Brattle Group for 2007, with similar results as for 2005: the EUR 348 million NPV for the 2007 Alro contract was, in addition, higher than the EUR 300 million NPV of its counterfactual.
Neobstoj selektivnosti
Alro also submitted Brattle Group and Nera studies and reports in order to sustain its argument that no illegal aid was granted through its contract with Hidroelectrica.
Nekatere zainteresirane strani [49] so trdile, da ni bilo selektivnosti, ki bi izhajala iz njihovih pogodb s podjetjem Hidroelectrica, saj so bile enake ali podobne pogodbe sklenjene z drugimi gospodarskimi subjekti (za dobavitelje električne energije) ali pa so bile na voljo drugim strankam na trgu (za netrgovce).
Energy Holding, an electricity trader, submitted an economic analysis, price model simulations and price reports produced by KPMG, an independent consultancy firm, in order to sustain its argument that there had been no illegal aid.
Ni ločljivosti sprememb prvotne pogodbe
KPMG confirmed that the contract with Energy Holding was: (i) Hidroelectrica's best alternative at the time; and (ii) that it brought Hidroelectrica a higher return or presented it with a lower risk compared with the next-best alternative.
Electrocarbon in Elsid sta trdila, da spremembe pogodb niso ločene od pogodb.
KPMG's analysis was based on an absolute and relative valuation analysis rather than on any other method of contract valuation (e.g.: marginal profitability analysis, truncated IRR analysis).
Opozorila sta tudi, da so bile tudi v okoliščinah, v katerih bi lahko bile te spremembe obravnavane kot ločene obveznosti, spremembe cen vedno v skladu z načelom prodajalca v tržnem gospodarstvu in zato ne vključujejo državne pomoči.
It referred to two valuation periods (i.e.: 2004-2013 and 2010-2018) and reflected the terms of the contract concluded with Hidroelectrica in 2004 and the terms renegotiated in 2009 when the contract was renewed.
Edini razlog, zakaj je podjetje Hidroelectrica razglasilo plačilno nesposobnost, je bil rešiti se svojih pogodbenih obveznosti
The same analysis was at a later stage extended by KPMG for 1 January 2007.
Nekateri dobavitelji električne energije [50] so trdili, da je bil edini razlog, zakaj je podjetje Hidroelectrica razglasilo plačilno nesposobnost, da prekine svoje pogodbene obveznosti.
Its conclusion was the same as the one described above for both absolute and relative valuation.
Trdili so, da čeprav je podjetje Hidroelectrica v preteklosti v celoti izkoristilo pogodbe, ni bilo več pripravljeno spoštovati obveznosti, ki jih je prevzelo, zato je bila objava stečaja način za prekinitev obstoječih pogodb.