natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efterfølgende meddelte Amsterdam kommune Kommissionen pr. e-mail, der blev registreret den 23. december 2005, at Amsterdams byråd enstemmigt havde besluttet at investere i udrulningen af FTH-nettet. I samme e-mail forklarede kommunens repræsentant yderligere, at forhandlingerne med BAM/DRAKA (om anlæggelse af nettet) og med BBned (om driften af nettet) tillige med forhandlingerne med ING RE og fem boligforeninger (medinvestorer) alle forløb planmæssigt og sandsynligvis ville blive afsluttet i januar 2006.
The municipality of Amsterdam informed the Commission by e-mail registered on 23 December 2005 that the City council of Amsterdam had by unanimity decided to invest in the roll-out of the FttH network and stated further that negotiations with BAM/DRAKA (for the construction of the network) and with BBned (for the exploitation of the network) and the negotiations with ING RE and five housing corporations (co-investors) were all on track and would be finalised by January 2006.
Med et brev, der blev registreret den 27. december 2005, modtog Kommissionen en klage over projektet fra VECAI (brancheorganisationen for kabelvirksomheder i Nederlandene, som ændrede sit navn til »NLKabel« i september 2007) [2].
By letter registered on 27 December 2005, the Commission received a complaint regarding the project from VECAI (the association of cable operators in the Netherlands, which changed its name in September 2007 into ‘NLKabel’) [2].
UPC Nederland BV (en kabelvirksomhed, der især er aktiv i Amsterdam, i det følgende: »UPC« [3] underrettede for første gang Kommissionen om sine indvendinger i marts 2005.
UPC Nederland BV (a cable operator present notably in Amsterdam, hereinafter: ‘UPC’ [3] informed the Commission for the first time about its concerns in March 2005.
Der har fundet en antal møder sted med begge klagere; de anfører, at kommunens deltagelse ikke er i overensstemmelse med det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip og derfor udgør statsstøtte i den i EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, anførte betydning.
Both parties — with whom several meetings took place — argue that the participation of the municipality is not in line with the MEIP and constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Den 3. marts 2006 sendte Kommissionen de nederlandske myndigheder en erindringsskrivelse, hvori der henvistes til de nederlandske myndigheders erklæring fra november 2005 om, at der ville blive givet flere oplysninger, så snart der var konstateret flere fremskridt med udformningen af projektet, som man forventede ville være en realitet i foråret 2006.
On 3 March 2006, the Commission sent a reminder to the Dutch authorities, referring to the statement of the Dutch authorities in November 2005 that further information would be provided once further progress had been made on the setup of the project and which was foreseen for spring 2006.
Kommissionen mindede ligeledes de nederlandske myndigheder om standstillforpligtelsen i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 88, stk. 3.
The Commission also reminded the Dutch authorities of the standstill obligation of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
De nederlandske myndigheder besvarede den 3. april 2006 Kommissionens brev af 3. marts 2006 og sendte den 2. maj 2006 yderligere oplysninger.
The Dutch authorities replied to the Commission’s letter of 3 March 2006 on 3 April 2006, and sent additional information by letter of 2 May 2006.
Den 19. maj 2006 sendte Kommissionens tjenestegrene endnu en gang et brev til de nederlandske myndigheder, hvori de gjorde opmærksom på, at de havde modtaget oplysninger fra UPC, som gav anledning til tvivl om, hvorvidt det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip var blevet anvendt. De mindede endnu en gang de nederlandske myndigheder om standstillforpligtelsen [4].
On 19 May 2006, the Commission’s services sent another letter to the Dutch authorities, referring to the information received from UPC which cast initial doubts on the application of the MEIP and reminded the authorities again of the standstill obligation [4].
I maj og juni 2006 fremskaffede de nederlandske myndigheder igen oplysninger [5].
The Dutch authorities sent further information in May and June 2006 [5].
Efter endnu en anmodning om oplysninger fra Kommissionen den 24. juli 2006 forelagde de nederlandske myndigheder forskellige informationspakker [6].
The Commission sent an additional request for information to the Dutch authorities on 24 July 2006, in answer to which the Dutch authorities submitted several batches of information [6].
Efter en ny anmodning om oplysninger den 29. september 2006 anmodede de nederlandske myndigheder den 13. oktober 2006 om en forlængelse af svarfristen.
Following an additional request of information of 29 September 2006, the authorities asked on 13 October 2006 for an extension of the deadline to reply.
I mellemtiden begyndte man officielt udrulningen af nettet den 12. oktober 2006 [7].
In the meantime, the roll-out of the network commenced on 12 October 2006 [7].
På baggrund af denne udvikling blev de nederlandske myndigheders anmodning om en forlængelse af fristen afvist.
In view of these developments, the extension of the deadline requested by the Dutch authorities was refused.
De nederlandske myndigheder sendte en del af deres svar før svarfristen den 26. oktober, men en betydelig mængde oplysninger blev først indsendt den 30. oktober og den 16., den 20. og den 21. november 2006.
The Dutch authorities submitted part of their answers before the deadline of 26 October and a substantial amount of information was also provided on 30 October, 16, 20 and 21 November 2006.
UPC forsøgte ved en hasteprocedure ved retten i Amsterdam (arrondissementsrechtbank) at forpligte Amsterdam kommune til at overholde standstillforpligtelsen i EF-traktatens artikel 88, stk. 3, og stille projektet i bero, indtil Kommissionen havde truffet en beslutning. UPC’s anmodning blev afvist af retten i Amsterdam.
UPC requested the District Court in Amsterdam in a procedure for interim measures to order the municipality of Amsterdam to respect the standstill obligation laid down in Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty and not to continue the project before the Commission has finalised its assessment.
Retten fastslog i sin kendelse af 22. juni 2006, at det ikke kunne antages, at kommunens deltagelse i projektet tydede på statsstøtte.
The request by UPC was dismissed by the District Court which stated in its judgement of 22 June 2006 that it was not obvious that the municipality’s involvement in the project involved State aid.
Ifølge retten kunne det blotte forhold, at kommunen havde taget initiativ til projektet, ikke betragtes som en støtteforanstaltning.
According to the Court, the mere fact that the municipality has initiated the project is not to be considered as State aid.
Desuden konkluderede retten, at de begyndelsesomkostninger, som Amsterdam havde afholdt (undersøgelser osv.) skulle tilbagebetales af Glasvezelnet Amsterdam CV og derfor ikke udgjorde statsstøtte.
Moreover, the Court concluded that the initial costs incurred by Amsterdam (studies, etc.) would be reimbursed by the joint-venture Glasvezelnet Amsterdam CV and therefore did not constitute aid.
UCP meddelte den 22. september 2006 Kommissioner pr. e-mail, at man havde anket rettens kendelse [8].
UPC informed the Commission by letter of 22 September 2006 that it had appealed the decision by the District Court.
UCP og Amsterdam kommune meddelte i november 2006 Kommissionen, at appelretten havde foreslået UCP og kommunen, at man afventede Kommissionens beslutning, før retten afsagde dom.
The municipality of Amsterdam [8] informed the Commission in November 2006 that the Court of Appeal proposed to UPC and the municipality of Amsterdam to await the Commission’s decision before a judgement by the Court would be rendered.
Begge parter accepterede dette forslag [9].
Both parties accepted this proposal [9].
Ved brev af 20. december 2006 meddelte Kommissionen Nederlandene, at den havde besluttet at indlede den i EF-traktatens artikel 88, stk. 2, fastsatte procedure over for den anmeldte støtteforanstaltning.
By letter dated 20 December 2006, the Commission informed the Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the notified measure.
Ved brev af 8. januar 2007 anmodede de nederlandske myndigheder om indsigt i de forskellige dokumenter, som UPC havde indsendt, og som var nævnt i beslutningen om indledningen af proceduren.
By letter of 8 January 2007, the Dutch authorities requested access to several documents submitted by UPC mentioned in the opening decision.
I et brev, der blev registreret den 13. februar 2007, gik UPC med til, at de nederlandske myndigheder fik indsigt i de pågældende dokumenter, som Kommissionen derefter sendte til disse myndigheder.
By letter registered on 13 February 2007, UPC agreed to share the requested documents with the Dutch authorities, which were forwarded by the Commission to the authorities.
Den 18. januar 2007 afviste appelretten i Amsterdam (Gerechthof Amsterdam) [10] UPC Nederlands påstand om, at Amsterdam kommune skulle indstille al yderligere virksomhed i forbindelse med foranstaltningen.
On 18 January 2007, the Court of Appeal Amsterdam [10], rejected the appeal brought by UPC Nederland against the municipality of Amsterdam to stop further activities related to the measure.
Retten fandt, at Kommissionen i sin beslutning om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure ganske vist tvivlede på, om det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip var blevet anvendt, men at Amsterdam kommune ved at give yderligere oplysninger gjorde det antageligt, at dette var tilfældet.
The Court of Appeal found that, although the Commission expressed in its opening decision certain doubts as to whether the MEIP is fulfilled, by providing the requested information to the Commission, the municipality of Amsterdam could still prove that the measure is in line with the MEIP and does not constitute aid.
På denne baggrund skønnede retten, at der var stor sandsynlighed for, at Kommissionen ville komme til den konklusion, at der ikke var tale om statsstøtte.
Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeal considered it possible that the Commission would conclude that no aid is involved.
Ifølge retten ville det skade kommunens interesser, hvis der blev sat en stopper for alle aktiviteter i forbindelse med GNA, mens UPC ikke ville lide nogen videre skade som følge af kommunens forberedende aktiviteter.
The Court also found that the municipality would be hurt if it would have to stop all activities related to GNA, while UPC would not significantly suffer from the preparatory activities undertaken by Amsterdam.
Ved brev af 5. marts 2007 anmodede UPC Kommissionen om adgang til fortrolige oplysninger, som var indsendt af de nederlandske myndigheder, og om at iværksætte en datarumprocedure [11], så UCP bedre kunne undersøge de nederlandske myndigheders påstande med henblik på en yderligere begrundelse af sin klage.
By letter of 5 March 2007, UPC asked the Commission for access to confidential information submitted by the Dutch authorities and to set up a ‘data room’ [11] procedure for the measure at hand, in order to be able to assess the Dutch authorities’ claims to substantiate their complaint further.
Ved brev af 26. marts 2007 meddelte Kommissionen UPC, at statsstøtteprocedurerne ikke indeholder nogen bestemmelser om de interesserede parters adgang til fortrolige oplysninger eller anvendelse af en datarumprocedure.
By letter of 26 March 2007, the Commission informed UPC that the State aid procedures do not foresee access for third parties to the requested confidential information or for setting up a ‘data room’ procedure.
De nederlandske myndigheder reagerede ved brev, som blev registreret den 16. marts 2007, på Kommissionens beslutning om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure (indledningsskrivelsen).
The Dutch authorities responded by letter registered on 16 March 2007 to the Commission’s decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Efter nogen brevveksling mellem Kommissionen og de nederlandske myndigheder om fortrolighedsspørgsmålene blev den offentlige version af indledningsskrivelsen sendt til klagerne den 23. april 2007 og offentliggjort i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende [12].
After several exchanges of correspondence between the Commission and the Dutch authorities on confidentiality issues, the public version of the opening decision was sent to the complainants on 23 April 2007 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union [12].
Kommissionen opfordrede interesserede parter til at fremsætte deres bemærkninger til foranstaltningen.
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure.
Efter indledningen af proceduren fik Kommissionen bemærkninger fra fem interesserede parter, nemlig Liberty Global/UPC [13], Comp Hem [14], Ono [15], France Telecom [16] og endnu en part, som ønskede at forblive anonym [17].
Following the opening of procedure, the Commission received comments from five interested parties, namely from Liberty Global/UPC [13], Com Hem [14], Ono [15], France Telecom [16] and another party which requested anonymity [17].
Ved et brev, der blev registreret den 30. juli 2007, sendte Kommissionen disse interesserede parters bemærkninger til de nederlandske myndigheder.
By letter registered on 30 July 2007, the Commission forwarded the third party comments to the Dutch authorities.
De nederlandske myndigheders reaktion blev modtaget ved brev af 17. september 2007.
The authorities submitted their observations by letter dated on 17 September 2007.
Kommissionens tjenestegrene havde et møde med repræsentanter for Liberty Global/UPC den 5. juli 2007 og med de nederlandske myndigheder den 5. november 2007.
The Commission services met with representatives of Liberty Global/UPC on 5 July 2007 and with the Dutch authorities on 5 November 2007.
De nederlandske myndigheder sendte yderligere oplysninger den 9. og den 12. november 2007.
The Dutch authorities submitted additional information on 9 November 2007 and on 12 November 2007.
Amsterdam kommune besluttede i 2004 at undersøge mulighederne for en investering i et FTH-net (fiber-til-hjem) inden for elektronisk kommunikation [18] (Citynet Amsterdam).
The municipality of Amsterdam decided in 2004 to investigate the possibility of investing in a fibre-to-the-home (FttH) electronic communications access network [18].
Efter rapporter, markedsundersøgelser og første kontakter med potentielle investorer besluttede kommunen i december 2005 officielt at foretage investeringen og fastlægge betingelserne for, hvordan denne investering skulle foretages.
Following reports, market analyses and preliminary contacts with potential investors, the municipality decided formally in December 2005 on the said investment and the conditions under which such an investment would take place.
Det planlagte fibernet i Amsterdam skal betjene 37000 husstande i Amsterdam, nærmere bestemt i delkommunerne Zeeburg, Osdorp og Oost-Watergraafsmeer, som tilsammen udgør omkring 10 % af Amsterdam kommune.
The planned FttH network in Amsterdam will serve 37000 households in Amsterdam in the districts of Zeeburg, Osdorp and Oost-Watergraafsmeer, which comprise together about 10 % of the city of Amsterdam.
Kommunen har desuden ladet forstå, at den på lang sigt vil udbrede projektet til andre dele af byen, så i alt 400000 husstande vil være tilsluttet.
The municipality of Amsterdam also expressed its long-term ambition to extend the project to other parts of Amsterdam, with up to 400000 household connections altogether.
Denne eventuelle udbredelse udgør imidlertid ikke en del af det projekt, der skal vurderes.
However, this potential extension is not part of the project under assessment.
Trelagsmodellen
The three-layer model
Amsterdam-projektet er baseret på en »trelagsmodel« og gengives skematisk i figur 1.
The project in Amsterdam is based on a ‘three-layer model’ as outlined below.
Forenklet oversigt over projektet Citynet Amsterdam
Simplified overview of the Citynet Amsterdam project
Det første lag er den såkaldte »passive infrastruktur« og omfatter kabelkasser, fiberkabler og vejskabe til apparatur.
The first layer is the so-called ‘passive network infrastructure’, which includes ducts, fibre and street cabinets.
Denne passive infrastruktur aktiveres ved hjælp af telekommunikationsapparatur (det andet eller det »passive lag«) af et distributionsselskab (wholesale operator), som driver og vedligeholder nettet og tilbyder engrostjenester til leverandørerne (retail operators).
This passive infrastructure is activated by means of telecommunications equipment (the second or ‘active layer’) by a wholesale operator managing and maintaining the network and providing wholesale services to retail operators.
Det aktive lag omfatter drifts-, kontrol- og vedligeholdelsessystemer, som er nødvendige for at drive nettet, såsom kontakter, routere og splittere.
The active layer includes the management, control and maintenance systems necessary to operate the network, such as switches, routers or splitters.
Distributionsselskabet tilbyder leverandørerne åben og ikke-diskriminerende adgang til at tilbyde tv-, bredbånds-, telefoni- og andre internettjenester til endelige brugere (tredje lag eller »servicelaget«).
The wholesale operator will provide an open, non-discriminatory access to retail operators to offer television, broadband, telephony and other Internet-based services to end customers (third or ‘retail layer’).
For at kunne tilbyde disse tjenester skal udbyderne af detailtjenester bl.a. investere i apparatur, og de skal sørge for indholdet og drive deres egen serviceplatform (vedligeholdelse, kundepleje og fakturering).
In order to be able to provide these services, retail service providers will have to invest, inter alia, in equipment, procure content and operate their own service platform (maintenance, customer care, and billing).
Projektdeltagerne
The stakeholders of the project
Ejer og forvalter af den passive infrastruktur bliver fællesforetagendet Glasvezelnet Amsterdam CV (»GNA«) [19], hvis aktionærer er Amsterdam kommune, to private investorer, ING Real Estate (»ING RE«) [20] og Reggefiber [21], hvortil kommer fem datterselskaber af boligselskaber [22].
The passive infrastructure will be owned and managed by the partnership Glasvezelnet Amsterdam cv (‘GNA’) [19], whose shareholders are the municipality of Amsterdam, two private investors, namely ING Real Estate (hereinafter: ‘ING RE’) [20] and Reggefiber [21], and five subsidiaries of social housing corporations [22].
Den 11. april 2006 blev der indgået en samarbejdsaftale mellem parterne, og investeringsaftalen (»CV-aftalen«) blev underskrevet den 26. maj 2006.
A cooperation agreement (‘Samenwerkingsovereenkomst’) was signed by the parties on 11 April 2006 and the investment agreement (‘CV-overeenkomst’) was signed on 26 May 2006.
Amsterdam kommune investerer 6 mio. EUR, ING RE og Reggefiber hver 3 mio. EUR, tre boligselskaber hver 1,5 mio. EUR og to boligselskaber hver 750000 EUR [23].
The municipality of Amsterdam invests EUR 6 million, ING RE and Reggefiber invest each EUR 3 million, three social housing corporations invest each EUR 1,5 million and two housing corporations invest each EUR 750000 [23].
Det samlede investerede beløb andrager 18 mio. EUR. Desuden har GNA fra […] [24] fået et lån på […] EUR [25].
The total equity investment amounts to EUR 18 million. In addition, GNA acquired loan amounting to EUR […] [24] from […] [25].
De samlede omkostninger til programmet anslås til 30 mio. EUR. Som det ses af figur 1 ejer Amsterdam kommune en tredjedel af aktierne i GNA, to private investorer ejer tilsammen også en tredjedel, mens datterselskaberne af boligselskaberne ejer den sidste tredjedel.
The total planned budget for the project amounts to EUR 30 million. As also outlined in Figure 1, the Amsterdam municipality owns one third of the shares of GNA, the two private investors together another one third, while the subsidiaries of the housing corporations own the remaining one third.
GNA’s passive net skal aktiveres og drives af BBned [26] på grundlag af en kontrakt, der blev indgået mellem GNA og BBned den […].
The passive infrastructure of GNA will be activated and operated by BBned [26] on the basis of a contract between GNA and BBned of […].
BBned skal foretage de investeringer, der er nødvendige på distributionssiden (»wholesale«-adgang).
The necessary investments to provide wholesale access will have to be undertaken by BBned.
BBned skal lease fibre fra GNA og have […] [27] ret til på egen risiko at tilbyde engros-transport og dermed forbundne tjenester til leverandørvirksomhederne (retail operators).
BBned will lease fibre from GNA and have the — […] [27] — right to provide wholesale transport and related services to retail operators at its own risk.
BBned skal betale et beløb for hver husstand, der tilsluttes GNA.
It will pay a fee per household connected to GNA for the use of the passive network.
Distributionsvirksomheden skal give leverandørvirksomhederne uhindret, ikke-diskriminerende adgang til at tilbyde tjenester inden for tv, telefoni og bredbåndsinternetadgang.
The wholesale operator will provide open, non-discriminatory access to retail operators to offer TV, telephony and broadband Internet access services.
De tjenester, der bliver tilbudt via det nye net, skal konkurrere med det bestående udbud fra kabel- og telekommunikationsselskaber såsom KPN og UPC.
The services offered via the new network will compete with existing offers of cable and telecommunications companies such as KPN and UPC.
Det fremgår af offentligt tilgængelige kilder, at BBned har indgået kontrakter med forskellige udbydere af detailtjenester, som allerede er begyndt med levering af »triple play«-tjenester [28] til de endelige brugere via GNA-nettet.
Based on publicly available information, it appears that BBNed has already contracted with several retail service providers who have started to offer ‘triple play’ services [28] on the GNA fibre network to end users.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at BBned også er aktiv på detailniveau via sine datterselskaber Pilmo og Bbeyond.
The Commission notes that BBned is also active, through its affiliated companies Pilmo and Bbeyond, at retail level.
BEGRUNDELSE FOR INDLEDNING AF DEN FORMELLE UNDERSØGELSESPROCEDURE
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
Den 20. december 2006 besluttede Kommissionen at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, fordi den havde modtaget bevismateriale fra de nederlandske myndigheder, der ikke i tilstrækkelig grad satte den i stand til at bedømme, om Amsterdam kommunes investering i GNA var i overensstemmelse med det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip.
On 20 December 2006, the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure as the Dutch authorities did not provide sufficient evidence for the Commission to conclude on the conformity of the investment by the city of Amsterdam in GNA with the MEIP.
Kommissionen anså det både af indholds- og proceduremæssige grunde [29] nødvendigt at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure.
The Commission considered it necessary to open the formal investigation procedure both for substantial and for procedural [29] reasons.
Kommissionen var nemlig ikke overbevist om, at Amsterdam kommunes investering i GNA havde været »samtidig«, dvs. at den havde fundet sted på samme tidspunkt som ING RE’s og Reggefibers private investeringer.
In particular, the Commission was not convinced that the investment of the municipality of Amsterdam in GNA had been ‘concomitant’, i.e. it was performed at the same time with the private investments by ING RE and Reggefiber.
Desuden var Kommissionen ikke sikker på, om betingelserne for Amsterdam kommunes investering i GNA svarede til betingelserne for de andre parters investeringer.
Moreover, the Commission was not convinced that the terms and conditions of the investment by the municipality of Amsterdam in GNA were equal to the terms and conditions under which the other parties have invested.