Brussels, 12/11/2013 (Agence Europe) - The EU General Court has annulled the Commission's 2010 decision on the state aid granted by Hungary to the oil company MOL, which set the mining fee for the extraction of hydrocarbons by MOL, considering it as state aid incompatible with the common market. According to the General Court, nothing showed that, with the agreement, MOL had enjoyed favourable treatment compared to its rivals for the payment of that fee.
Under the agreement cited, the Hungarian state and MOL had extended by five years the time limit set for the company to begin exploitation of twelve hydrocarbon fields, by fixing the extension fee in accordance with the law on rates at between 12.24% and 12.6%, slightly above the basic rate (12%). Furthermore, they had extended, for a period of 15 years, the application of that fee to all MOL's fields already exploited under authorisation, i.e. 44 hydrocarbon fields and 93 gas fields, with that fee constituting an increased mining fee in respect of those fields. In addition, the agreement provided for a one-off payment of 20,000 million Hungarian forints (approx. €68 million). Nonetheless, in January 2008, the Mining Act was amended and the rate of the mining fee was increased to 30% with effect from 8 January 2008 (until a further amendment to 12% in January 2009). However, that increase did not apply to MOL's fields, which remained subject to the rates set in the 2005 agreement. In June 2010, the Commission considered that the fee set for MOL in the agreement, combined with the rise in the mining fee for competitors, was tantamount to state aid giving the company an advantage compared with its rivals. Consequently, it requested Hungary to recover that aid, which amounted to €96.6 million for 2008 and €6.6 million for 2009. MOL brought an action before the General Court for annulment of the Commission's decision.
The General Court ruled in MOL's favour. In its judgment it considered that: - the extension of its mining rights on one or more fields on which it had not started extraction was legitimate and the fact that MOL was, in practice, the only undertaking to have concluded an extension agreement in the hydrocarbons sector does not undermine that conclusion; - the fact that the Hungarian authorities have a margin of discretion in determining the rate of the extension fee does not mean that certain undertakings might derive a competitive advantage from this, and the margin of discretion conferred by the Mining Act therefore enables the authorities to preserve equal treatment between operators by adjusting the proposed fees to the characteristics of each extension application submitted; - the Commission did not take into account the aspect of the agreement providing that the rates of the extension fees and of the increased mining fee could be higher or lower depending on the number of fields extended compared to those already in production; - and neither did the Commission take into account the existence of other extension agreements concluded in Hungary (in the solid minerals sector), or of the fact that the rise in fees in 2008 had been decided in the context of the rise in global crude rates, independently of the 2005 agreement. On these bases, the General Court considers that the Commission's analysis did not make it possible to establish that the 2005 agreement conferred economic advantages on MOL to the detriment of its competitors and therefore annulled the Commission's decision. (FG/transl.jl)