natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ifølge traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, er statsstøtte eller støtte, som ydes ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, uforenelig med fællesmarkedet i det omfang, den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market.
Ifølge De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstols retspraksis foreligger der påvirkning af samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne, hvis den støttemodtagende virksomhed udøver økonomisk aktivitet, der indebærer handel mellem medlemsstaterne.
Pursuant to the established case law of the European Courts, the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries out an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
Componentas aktiviteter indebærer handel mellem medlemsstaterne.
The activities of Componenta involve trade between Member States.
Den støtte, virksomheden har fået tildelt, omfattes derfor af EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
Therefore, aid to this company would fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Økonomisk støtte, som tildeles af regionale og lokale myndigheder, udgør statsstøtte.
State resources include financial assistance granted by regional and local authorities.
I sin beslutning om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure fastslog Kommissionen, at støttens størrelse udgøres af den forskel, som fås ved at trække aktiernes købspris på 2,37 mio. EUR fra den pris, en privat investor ville være villig til at betale for aktierne.
In its decision to open the formal investigation the Commission stated that the aid amount would be the difference between the price a private investor would be willing to pay for the shares and the purchase price of EUR 2,37 million.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at den samlede købspris bestod af to dele.
The Commission notes that the total purchase price consisted of two parts.
På den ene side fik Componenta 0,7 mio. EUR kontant for aktierne, og på den anden fik det tilbagebetalt 1,67 mio. EUR, som det havde givet KK i lån.
First, Componenta received EUR 0,7 million in cash in return for its shares and, second, it was repaid EUR 1,67 million that it had provided as a loan to KK.
Betingelsesklausulen
The conditional clause
Kommissionen konstaterer, at Componenta som alternativ havde kunnet flytte støberivirksomheden fra Karkkila til Alvesta.
The Commission notes that one alternative for Componenta had been to move its foundry activities from Karkkila to Alvesta.
Det er derfor forståeligt, at Karkkila har kunnet være bekymret over muligheden for at miste produktionsanlæggene og dermed også miste arbejdspladser.
It is therefore understandable that Karkkila may have been concerned about the prospects of losing production facilities and thereby employment.
Det kan være rigtigt, at efterspørgslen på jordarealer ville stige, hvis en stor arbejdsgiver i byen udvidede sine aktiviteter i stedet for at indskrænke dem.
Furthermore, it may be correct that the demand for land would increase if a main employer in the city expanded its activities instead of reducing them.
At købet af KK's aktier og långivningen til KK i aftalen var knyttet sammen med Componentas investeringsbeslutning, og at byen endda havde ret til at annullere hele handelen, hvis Componenta ikke foretog de lovede investeringer i Karkkila, viser, at byens beslutning om at indgå handelen med Componenta ikke blot bygger på KK's markedsværdi, men også blev påvirket af andre faktorer.
However, the fact that the issue of buying the shares in KK and providing a loan to KK was contractually linked with Componenta’s investment decision and that the city even had the right to cancel the entire transaction if Componenta did not make the promised investments in Karkkila proves that the decision of the city to perform the transaction with Componenta was not based only on the market value of KK, but took other considerations into account as well.
Ifølge det af De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol stadfæstede markedsøkonomiske investorprincip er en markedsøkonomisk investor en investor, der træffer sin beslutning under hensyntagen til det forventede afkast og lader alle samfundsmæssige, regionalpolitiske og sektorbestemte synspunkter ude af betragtning.
However, according to the market economy investor principle, as established by the Court, a market economy investor takes his decisions having regard to the foreseeability of obtaining a return and leaving aside all social, regional policy and sectoral considerations.
Da Componentas investering i et nyt produktionsanlæg var en direkte betingelse for afslutning af den handel, undersøgelsen gælder, kan det konstateres, at Karkkila ikke optrådte i overensstemmelse med det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip.
Given that Componenta’s investment in new production facilities was a direct condition for the financial transaction under investigation, it can be concluded that the behaviour of Karkkila did not comply with the market economy investor principle.
Hvis forøgelsen af skatteindtægter og den almindelige velfærd i byen blev godkendt som faktorer, der skulle tages i betragtning af en markedsøkonomisk investor, ville byens rolle som offentlig myndighed og som forretningsdrivende ejer af KK blive sammenblandet.
To accept boosting tax revenue and improving general welfare in the municipality as being market economy investor considerations would be to mix the roles of the city as a public authority and as commercial co-owner of KK.
Kommissionen bemærker endvidere, at byrådet i Karkkila på et møde, der blev afholdt den 1. november 2003, bekræftede, at den indgåede handel med Componenta var knyttet direkte til Componentas beslutning om at investere i Karkkila, og at Componenta ved Karkkilas køb af KK's aktier fik tilstrækkelige midler til at foretage investeringen i støberiet i Karkkila.
The Commission also notes that that the Karkkila City Board at its meeting on 1 September 2003 stated that the transaction with Componenta was directly linked to its investment decision in Karkkila and that when Karkkila bought the shares of KK, Componenta would have the funds to make the investment in its Karkkila plant.
Disse faktorer støtter Kommissionens i det følgende fremsatte konklusioner om, at handelen ikke skete på markedsvilkår.
These observations further support the Commission’s findings below that the transaction was not market-based.
Aktiernes salgspris
The price for the shares
Den betalte pris for KK's aktier udgør en del af den indgåede handel mellem Karkkila og Componenta.
The price paid for the shares in KK is one part of the financial transaction between Karkkila and Componenta.
Det skal på grundlag af den pris, der blev betalt for aktierne, konstateres, om den foregik på markedsvilkår.
The issue is whether this price was market based.
Finland har begrundet KK-aktiernes pris med nettoværdien af KK's aktiver.
Finland justified the price of the shares in KK in terms of the net value of the assets owned by KK.
I den handel, undersøgelsen gælder, er der dog ikke tale om salg af egentlig ejendom, men om erhvervelse af virksomhedens aktier.
However, the transaction at issue is not a sale of real estate itself, but the acquisition of shares in a company.
En markedsøkonomisk investor, der foretog en sådan investering, ville først og fremmest benytte vurderingen af markedsprisen som grundlag for det afkast, der kunne forventes af investeringen.
For such investment, a market economy operator would base his assessment of the market price primarily on the likely return he could expect from his investment.
Det skyldes, at en markedsøkonomisk investor investerer af hensyn til det udbytte eller afkast, der kan forventes af investeringen.
This is because a market economy investor invests in view of the profits, i.e. the expected return on the investment.
En markedsøkonomisk investor ville derfor have taget hensyn til aktiernes og den investerede kapitals forventede årlige afkast for at se, om der kunne forventes et rimeligt udbytte af investeringen i sammenligning med andre investeringsmuligheder.
He would therefore have taken into account the ratio between the expected yearly return on the shares and the capital invested in order to see whether he could expect an appropriate return, compared to other investment alternatives.
På baggrund af flere af det foregående års indtægter er afkastet af investeringen i KK klart negativ.
On the basis of the results of the last few years, the return on an investment in KK would clearly be negative.
Der er heller ingen tegn på, at situationen skulle blive bedre i fremtiden.
Moreover, there are no signs that this situation is set to improve in the future.
Finland har heller ikke forelagt nogen forretningsplan for KK, hvorefter der skulle være planer om foranstaltninger til forbedring af rentabiliteten, og Finland har ikke en gang påstået, at Karkkila skulle have forventet nogen forbedring af indtægterne og udbyttet.
Finland has not provided any KK business plan setting out measures planned to improve the profit situation nor has it even claimed that Karkkila had any expectations of improvement in profits and return.
De negative indtægter kommer af, at KK klart var i vanskeligheder, efterspørgslen på dets jordarealer var svag, og dets indtægter på jordarealerne var små.
The reason for the negative results is that KK was clearly in difficulties, the demand for its land was weak and revenue from its land was only marginal.
Virksomheden havde i de sidste fire år haft tab, dets salg var usædvanligt lille, det kunne ikke udbetale udbytte og befandt sig i en usikker økonomisk situation.
The company had shown losses for the past four years, had very low sales, could not distribute any dividends and had a precarious financial situation.
Det kan også tilføjes, at denne vanskelige økonomiske situation fortsatte, selv om virksomheden fik bevilget rentefrie lån.
Furthermore, this difficult financial situation existed even though the company was benefiting from interest-free loans.
Hvis det havde finansieret sine aktiviteter med lån til normal rente, ville situationen have været endnu værre.
Had it financed its activities by normal loans with interest, the situation would have been even worse.
På grundlag af tidligere erfaringer og fordi en forbedring af virksomhedens økonomiske situation ikke syntes mulig, kunne en markedsøkonomisk investor ikke have forventet noget som helst udbytte af sin investering, hvis han købte aktier i KK.
On the basis of past experience, and lacking any prospects of an improvement in the company's financial situation, a market investor could not have expected any return on investment when purchasing the shares of KK.
På dette grundlag finder Kommissionen, at værdien af KK's aktier var lig nul.
Based on this, the Commission considers that the value of the shares in KK was zero.
Denne konklusion bekræftes af, at KK's aktiviteter i vid udstrækning blev finansieret ved hjælp af to rentefrie aktionærlån, således som det fremgår af det foregående.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that KK was, as explained above, to a large extent financed by two interest-free shareholder loans.
Det betyder, at en ny ejer ved overtagelse af aktierne skulle have overtaget de rentefrie lån sammen med dem, hvad en markedsøkonomisk investor ikke ville have godtaget, således som det forklares i det følgende.
This means that a change of ownership in the shares would have to be accompanied by the takeover of the interest-free loans, which, as will be explained below, a market investor would not have done.
Som allerede påpeget er den afgørende faktor en langsigtet forventning om afkast, som kan være forskellig fra de foregående års faktisk realiserede indkomst.
As already stated above, what is decisive is the expected return in the long run, which might differ from the return actually generated in the past.
En markedsøkonomisk investor ville dog også tage hensyn til tidligere indkomster.
Nevertheless, a market economy investor would also take past performance into account.
Det afgørende forhold i forbindelse med forventningen om afkast er, om det med rimelighed kunne forventes, at KK ville få tilstrækkelig indtægt på at sælge og udleje byggegrunde.
As regards expected returns, the crucial question is whether KK could reasonably be expected to generate adequate income through sale of land and through the leasing out of land.
Dette skal medtages ved bestemmelse af ejendommens helhedsværdi, således som det fremgår af det følgende.
This is linked to the valuation of the real estate in its totality as discussed below.
Finland har forklaret, at KK's jordarealer blev benyttet som grundlag for aktiernes værdi.
Finland explained that the value of the land owned by KK was the basis for the valuation of the shares.
Det er korrekt, at også en markedsøkonomisk investor tager hensyn til ejendommens nettoværdi, når han skal træffe sin beslutning.
It is true that the net value of assets is also considered by a market economy investor for his decision.
Finlands begrundelser for vurderingen af aktierne fremgår i korthed af følgende tabel:
The Finnish argumentation for the valuation of the shares is summarised in the table below:
KK's værdi ifølge Finland
Value of KK according to Finland:
Jordarealets type
Land type
Værdi ifølge Finland (EUR)
Value according to Finland (Euro)
Parcelhusgrunde
For detached houses
Grunde til række- og etagehuse
For terraced houses and apartment blocks
Parker og offentlige områder
Parks and communal land
Andre arealer (Haapala)
Other area (Haapala)
Jordarealernes samlede værdi
Total land value
KK's bogførte egenkapital
Book equity of KK
KK's gæld
Debts of KK
KK's nettoværdi
Net value KK
50 % af KK's nettoværdi
Net value 50 % of KK
Den af byen betalte pris
Price paid by city
0(36) Kommissionens meddelelse om statsstøtteelementer i forbindelse med offentlige myndigheders salg af jord og bygninger finder ikke direkte anvendelse, da handelen ikke gjaldt enkeltstående ejendomme, men virksomhedens aktier.
0(36) The considerations of the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities do not apply directly, because the transaction does not concern individual pieces of real estate, but shares in a company.
Meddelelsen kan dog benyttes analogt i dette tilfælde, idet Kommissionens meddelelse, hvis formål er at sikre, at jordhandler mellem offentlige og private foretagender ikke indebærer støtte, berører såvel offentlige foretagenders salg som deres køb af jord, og fordi Finland i dette tilfælde hævder, at vurderingen af aktierne bygger på jordarealernes værdi.
However, they can be applied by analogy in this case, since the aim of the Commission’s Communication, which is to ensure that transactions between public and private undertakings involving land are free from aid, is relevant for both the sale and purchase of land by public undertakings and also because in this case Finland argues that the valuation of the land was the basis for setting the price of the shares.
Ifølge meddelelsen skal der, hvis salget sker ved en betingelsesløs udbudsprocedure, foretages en uafhængig vurdering af én eller flere uafhængige vurderingssagkyndige, så markedsværdien inden salget kan fastlægges på grundlag af almindeligt accepterede markedsindikatorer og vurderingsstandarder.
The Communication states that land evaluation, if not based on an unconditional bidding procedure, should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale, in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at jordarealernes værdi ikke er blevet fastsat ved en betingelsesløs udbudsprocedure.
The Commission notes that the land was not evaluated on the basis of an unconditional bidding procedure.
Derfor skulle en uafhængig vurderingssagkyndig have foretaget en vurdering.
Therefore a valuation should have been made by an independent asset valuer.
Spørgsmålet er, om Finlands vurdering svarer til en sådan uafhængig vurdering.
The question is whether the valuation made by Finland fulfils the requirement for such an independent asset valuation.
Kommissionen konstaterer for det første, at det af den kortfattede ejendomsmæglererklæring, Finland har forelagt, ikke fremgår klart, at det drejer sig om vurdering af KK's jordarealer.
The Commission firstly notes that the short report from a real estate agent provided by Finland does not clearly indicate that it concerns the valuation of land owned by KK.
Denne erklærings betydning vurderes nærmere i det følgende.
The relevance of this report will be further assessed below.
Kommissionen konstaterer i denne forbindelse, at KK's jordarealer blev vurderet på forskellig måde afhængigt af jordarealernes type (parcelhusgrunde, grunde til række- og etagehuse, Asemansuo-området og parker og offentlige områder).
The Commission notes that the land owned by KK was valued in different ways for different types of land, i.e. land for detached houses, land for terraced houses and blocks of flats, a specific area called Asemansuo, and parks and communal land.
Disse forskellige jordarealtyper analyseres hver for sig.
These different land types will be analysed separately.
Vurderingen af parcelhusgrundene byggede på den officielle kvadratmeterpris, som blev benyttet af Karkkila, og som for parcelhusgrundes vedkommende var på 10,19 EUR/m2.
As regards land for detached houses, the valuation was based on Karkkila’s official unit sales price for such land of EUR 10,19 per square metre.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at dette var detailprisen eller den pris, hvortil byen solgte grunde til enkeltvise købere.
The Commission notes that this was the price used by the city to sell land to individual buyers and thus the retail price.
Finland forelagde også en erklæring fra en ejendomssagkyndig om utypiske jordarealers kvadratmeterpriser i Karkkila (de priser, der forlanges af de endelige kunder, det vil også i dette tilfælde sige detailpriser).
Finland also provided information from a real estate expert on the unit value (for the final customer, i.e. also in this case the retail value) of different types of land in Karkkila.
Den sagkyndige bekræfter, at kvadratmeterpriserne for den slags grunde i Karkkila varierede mellem 9,43 EUR og 14,76 EUR i 2003, og at den pris, Karkkila har benyttet, ligger tæt på grundenes markedsværdi, uden at denne på nogen måde præciseres.
The expert notes that such land was sold in Karkkila for between EUR 9,43 and EUR 14,76 per square metre in 2003, but also notes that the price used by Karkkila is close to the going value for land, without providing any further details.
Kommissionen konstaterer imidlertid, at der ikke blev foretaget nogen egentlig ekstern vurdering af KK's parcelhusgrunde.
However, the Commission notes that there was no actual external valuation made of the specific land to be used for detached houses that was owned by KK.
Grundenes engrospris blev heller ikke vurderet.
Furthermore, there was no estimation of the wholesale value of the land.
Det er efter Kommissionens opfattelse klart, at grundenes værdi i detailhandel er betydelig større, end når der sælges store jordarealer (som i dette tilfælde, hvor KK f.eks. ejede 80 parcelhusgrunde), som køberen ikke har til hensigt at bruge selv, men at videresælge senere.
In the view of the Commission it is evident that the value of land at the retail stage is considerably higher than when land is sold in large quantities (such as in this case, where KK owned 80 plots for detached houses) where the buyer's intention is not to use it, but to sell it on at a later date.
En vurdering, hvori en bestemt jordtypes detailsalgsværdi blot ganges med KK's samlede jordareal, indeholder derfor to fejl.
Therefore, an evaluation whereby the estimated retail value for one type of land is simply multiplied by the total amount of land owned by KK contains two errors.
For det første bliver det jordareal, der direkte er tale om, ikke vurderet, og for det andet viser vurderingen ikke, hvad en markedsøkonomisk investor, der køber hele jordarealet på én gang, ville være villig til at betale på købstidspunktet, når der tages særligt hensyn til det begrænsede marked for den slags grunde.
First, the specific land in question is not valued and, second, the valuation does not indicate what a market investor buying all the land at once would be willing to pay at the time of the transaction, in particular taking into account the limited size of the market for such plots.
Med hensyn til grundene til række- og etagehuse, hvis værdi blev angivet til 1136849 EUR, henviser Finland til den vurdering, som blev foretaget af den ejendomssagkyndige.
As regards the land intended for construction of terraced houses and blocks of flats, in total valued at EUR 1136849, Finland refers to the valuation made by the real estate expert.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at rækkehusgrundenes værdi ifølge den ejendomssagkyndiges vurdering er på 70–80 EUR pr. etagemeter og etagehusgrundenes på 60–75 EUR pr. etagemeter.
The Commission notes that the valuation provided by the real estate expert is EUR 70-80 per square metre floor area for terraced houses and EUR 60-75 for apartments.
Den værdi, Finland benyttede, var på 74,02 EUR pr. etagemeter for rækkehusgrunde og på 79,56 EUR pr. etagemeter for etagehusgrunde.
The value used by Finland was EUR 74,02 per square metre of floor area for terraced houses and EUR 79,56 for apartment blocks.
Disse tal ligger således mellem de værdier, den ejendomssagkyndige har opgivet, eller lidt over dem.
These figures are thus in the middle of the range or slightly above those provided by the real estate expert.
Den sagkyndige betoner desuden, at der de seneste år kun har været få tilsvarende handler, og at efterspørgslen fremover vil være lille.
The expert furthermore stresses that there have been only a few comparable transactions in recent years and demand continues to be low.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at den sagkyndige, også for byggegrunde til den slags formål, opgiver detailprisen og ikke engrosprisen, som er den pris, en markedsøkonomisk investor ville betale, hvis han købte hele jordarealet på én gang.
The Commission notes that for these types of land too the expert appears to provide the retail value of the land, and not the wholesale value, which is the price that a market investor would pay to buy all the land in one transaction.
Da den sagkyndige påpeger, at efterspørgslen på denne type jord fremover vil være lille, finder Kommissionen, at også vurderingen af denne jordtypes engrospris på købstidspunktet er klart i overkanten.
Given that the expert stresses that the demand for this type of land continues to be low, the view of the Commission is that the wholesale market value at the time of the assessed transaction was greatly overestimated for these types of land too.
Der foreligger ikke oplysninger om, hvordan markedsværdien af det jordareal, som ligger i byens centrum (Asemansuo), er blevet bestemt. Det pågældende jordareal svarer til omtrent halvdelen af den anslåede værdi af KK's jordejendom (2358158 EUR).
As regards the estimated value of the land in the city centre (Asemansuo), which amounts to around half of the estimated value of KK’s land (EUR 2358158), it is unclear how the market valuation was made.
Finland bruger værdien pr. bebyggelig kvadratmeter (79,56 EUR) og ganger denne værdi med det areal, hvortil der er byggetilladelse (29640 m2.
Finland refers to a value per square metre to be built on (EUR 79,56), and multiplies this by the area allowed to be built on (29640 m2.