natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ifølge Domstolens faste retspraksis kan en EU-retlig norm anvendes analogt, såfremt følgende to betingelser er opfyldt: For det første skal de regler, der finder anvendelse på den pågældende situation, være nøje sammenlignelige med de regler, som tilstræbes anvendt analogt.
According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, a rule of Union law can be applied by analogy if the following two conditions are met. First, the rules applicable to the case must be very similar to the ones which it is sought to have applied by analogy.
Allerede i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren konkluderede Kommissionen imidlertid — med hensyn til spørgsmålet, om der forelå støtte — at »fritagelsen« for finansieringsordningen ikke kunne vurderes uafhængigt af selve finansieringsordningen. Kommissionen fandt, at en »undtagelse« (fritagelse) pr. definition er uadskilleligt forbundet med »reglen«, og at fritagelsesordningen er en integrerende del af den generelle ordning og derfor skal vurderes i overensstemmelse hermed i støttemæssig henseende.
On the question of the presence of State aid, the Commission in its opening decision found that the exemption from the financing mechanism could not be assessed separately from the financing mechanism itself. The Commission considered that an exception or exemption was always inseparably linked to the relevant rule, so that the exemption was an integral part of the general scheme and had to be assessed accordingly under State aid law.
Domstolen behøvede ikke at vurdere, om fritagelsesordningen som sådan (dvs. uden begrænsningen til virksomheder, der overvejende fremstiller materielle goder) i realiteten var selektiv.
This was noted by Advocate-General Jacobs in his opinion in a subsequent case before the Court: ‘the effect of the 0,35 % threshold was not examined by the Court of Justice in Adria-Wien’ [42]. The Court did not need to decide whether the exemption mechanism as such (i.e. without the restriction to undertakings engaged primarily in the production of goods) was selective de facto.
Kommissionen konstaterer, at følgende fremgår af Domstolens retspraksis: »(…) driftsstøtte, dvs. støtte, der har til formål at friholde en virksomhed for omkostninger, som den normalt selv skulle have afholdt i forbindelse med den løbende drift og de normale aktiviteter, i princippet ikke omfattet af artikel 92, stk. 3, [nu artikel 107, stk. 3, i TEUF] (…)« [84]. Domstolen har endvidere fastslået følgende: »Ifølge retspraksis fordrejer støtte af denne art i princippet konkurrencebetingelserne i de erhvervsgrene, hvortil den ydes, og kan som sådan ikke fremme de formål, der er fastlagt i ovennævnte undtagelsesbestemmelser« [85].
According to the case-law, ‘operating aid, that is to say, aid intended to relieve an undertaking of the expenses which it would itself normally have had to bear in its day-to-day management or its usual activities, does not in principle fall within the scope of Article 92(3) [now Article 107(3) TFEU]’ [84]. As the courts have said, ‘According to the relevant case-law, the effect of such aid is in principle to distort competition in the sectors in which it is granted, whilst nevertheless being incapable, by its very nature, of achieving any of the objectives of the aforesaid exceptions’ [85].
Nedenstående vurdering er baseret på både TEUF og EØS-aftalen, men for nemheds skyldt henvises der nedenfor kun til bestemmelserne i TEUF.
The assessment conducted here is based on both the TFEU and the EEA Agreement. For the sake of simplicity, however, reference will be made only to the provisions of the TFEU.
om Finlands foranstaltning C 37/04 (ex NN 51/04) til fordel for Componenta Oyj
on measure C 37/04 (ex NN 51/04), implemented by Finland for Componenta Oyj
(Kun den finske og svenske udgave er autentiske)
(Only the Finnish and Swedish texts are authentic)
efter at have opfordret interesserede parter til at fremsætte bemærkninger i overensstemmelse med ovennævnte bestemmelser [1], og
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above [1],
Finland fremsatte bemærkninger ved brev af 5. januar og 10. januar 2010, der også indeholdt to undersøgelser om vurderingen af de pågældende jordarealer.
Finland submitted observations by letters dated 5 January and 10 January 2010, which also included two studies on the valuation of the real estate concerned.
BESKRIVELSE AF OMSTÆNDIGHEDERNE
DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS
Transaktionen
Transaction
Componenta er en metalforarbejdende virksomhed, som har hovedsæde i Karkkila, Finland.
Componenta is a metal manufacturing company based in Karkkila, Finland.
Hovedparten af virksomhedens omsætning på 316 mio. EUR i 2004 kom fra de nordiske lande og Mellemeuropa.
Most of the company’s EUR 316 million turnover in 2004 was generated in the Nordic countries and central Europe.
Koncernen havde i 2004 ca. 2200 ansatte.
The group employed some 2200 people in 2004.
Den undersøgte transaktion vedrører ejendomsselskabet Karkkilan Keskustakiinteistöt Oy (i det følgende benævnt »KK«), som besad jordejendom i byen Karkkila, der ligger omkring 65 km nordvest for Helsingfors.
The transaction under assessment concerns the real estate company, Karkkilan Keskustakiinteistöt Oy (hereinafter ‘KK’), which owned real estate in Karkkila, located some 65 km north west of Helsinki.
Componenta og Karkkila ejede hver halvdelen af KK.
KK was jointly owned (50/50) by Componenta and Karkkila.
I 1996 ydede hver af joint venture-partnerne KK et rentefri aktionærlån på 1670184 EUR.
In 1996 each joint venture partner had granted KK an interest-free shareholder loan of EUR 1670184.
Det blev i henhold til handelsaftalen, der blev underskrevet den 16. december 2003, aftalt, at byen ville erhverve det fulde ejerskab af KK ved køb af de aktier, som var ejet af Componenta, for en samlet pris af 2383276,50 mio. EUR. Transaktionen bestod af to dele:
Under the sales contract signed on 16 December 2003, it was agreed that the city would acquire full ownership of KK by acquiring the shares held by Componenta for a total price of EUR 2383276,50 million. The transaction comprised two parts:
Componenta modtog 713092,50 EUR for købet af 50 % af aktierne, der blev solgt til Karkkila
Componenta received EUR 713092,50 as payment for the 50 % of shares sold to Karkkila,
Derved ændredes kreditorforholdet fra Componenta til byen Karkkila.
This resulted in a change of creditor from Componenta to the city of Karkkila.
Karkkila tilvejebragte derfor 2383276,50 EUR for ovennævnte transaktion: 713092,50 EUR som betaling for KK's aktier og 1670184 EUR som et rentefrit lån til KK.
Karkkila therefore mobilised the sum of EUR 2383276,50 for the above transaction: EUR 713092,50 as payment for KK’s shares and EUR 1670184 as an interest-free loan granted to KK.
Købsprisen for aktierne blev beregnet med udgangspunkt i de faste priser, som Karkkila solgte fast ejendom til i 2003.
The purchase price for the shares was calculated by reference to the standard prices at which Karkkila sold real estate in 2003.
Salgspriser pr.m2 for de af KK solgte jordarealer
Sales prices per m2 for the plots sold by KK
Parcelhusgrunde
Detached houses
Rækkehuse
Terraced houses
Etagehuse
Tower blocks
Råjord uden for byplan
Raw land outside town planning
Jordarealer udlagt til offentlige parker
Land earmarked for public parks
Disse faste priser blev anvendt på jordarealerne i KK's portefølje på transaktionstidspunktet og delt i to, hvilket gav aktieprisen på 713092,50 EUR.
These standard prices were applied to the real estate in KK’s land portfolio at the time of the transaction and divided by two, which resulted in the share purchase price of EUR 713092,50.
I handelsaftalen mellem Karkkila og Componenta indgik desuden følgende erklæring:
The sales contract between Karkkila and Componenta furthermore stated the following:
Sælgeren forpligter sig til at foretage den i bilag 1 i nærværende aftale nærmere beskrevne udvidelsesinvestering i Karkkila by for at forøge Componenta Karkkila Oy's produktion.
the seller agrees to invest in the extension of Componenta Karkkila Oy’s production facilities in the city of Karkkila as specified in Annex 1 to this contract.
Investeringen anslås at skabe 50-70 nye, direkte fuldtidsarbejdspladser i Karkkila i 2004 (i 2003 var der ca. 130 arbejdspladser).
It is estimated that the investment will create 50–70 new full-time jobs in Karkkila in 2004 (in 2003 the number of jobs was 130);
Hvis den i ovennævnte stykke nævnte sælgers investeringsudvidelse ikke foretages i løbet af 2004, kan køberen, hvis han ønsker det, annullere handelen.
if the extension of the seller’s facilities is not commenced in 2004 as specified in the above paragraph, the buyer has the right to cancel the transaction at its own discretion.
I handelsaftalens bilag 1 bekræftes det, at Componenta vil sammenlægge aktiviteterne på koncernens to produktionssteder, nemlig støberiet i Alvesta i Sverige og støberiet i Karkkila, og at beslutningen om støberiets fremtidige anbringelsessted vil afhænge af resultatet af en analyse.
Annex 1 to the sales contract stated that Componenta would merge the operations of two of the Group’s production sites, namely the Alvesta (located in Sweden) and Karkkila foundries, and that the decision on the future location of the foundry would depend on the outcome of an analysis.
I 2005 blev støberiet i Alvesta lukket, og produktionen blev flyttet til Karkkila.
In 2005, the Alvesta foundry was closed and production was transferred to Karkkila.
Efter at have købt Componentas aktier i KK besluttede Karkkila at nedlægge KK og lægge jordarealerne ind under byen.
After having taken over Componenta’s shares in KK, Karkkila decided to terminate KK’s activities and transfer the land to the city.
KK's aktiver
KK’s assets
Karkkila ligger ca. 65 kilometer nordvest for Helsingfors ad hovedvej nr. 2, i den nordøstlige del af Uusimaa-provinsen.
Karkkila is located some 65 kilometres north-west of Helsinki along highway No 2, in the north-eastern part of Uusimaa Province.
Karkkila havde i 2003 ca. 8500 indbyggere.
Karkkila had some 8500 inhabitants in 2003.
De jordarealer, som KK ejede, dækkede 730000 m2 jord i Karkkila og byens umiddelbare omgivelser, ikke mere end 2,5 km fra centrum.
The real estate owned by KK covered 730000 m2 of land in Karkkila and its immediate surroundings, no more than 2,5 km from the town centre.
I december 2003 var situationen følgende:
In December 2003, the situation was as follows:
Det jordareal, der har den højeste markedsværdi, ligger i Asemanranta-området (zone 1) og er udlagt til etageejendomme.
the highest value land is located in the Asemanranta area (zone 1) and earmarked for tower blocks.
Dette område svarer til omtrent halvdelen af værdien af KK's portefølje.
This area accounts for roughly half the value of KK’s portfolio,
Hovedparten af jordarealerne er beliggende i Haapala/Uusitalo-området (zone 2).
most of the land is located in the Haapala/Uusitalo area (zone 2).
Det er udlagt til parcelhusgrunde og udgør ca. en fjerdedel af porteføljens samlede værdi.
It is earmarked for detached family houses and represents about a quarter of the total value of the portfolio,
Porteføljen omfatter ligeledes nogle få parcelhusgrunde i andre bebyggede områder, visse jordarealer, der er udlagt til etagehuse i Takko I-området og nogle få rækkehuse.
the portfolio also contains a few plots for detached houses in other residential areas, some land earmarked for tower blocks in the Takko I area and a few terraced houses,
En del af jordarealet er udlagt til offentlige parker.
part of the land is earmarked for public park areas,
Porteføljen omfatter også råjord uden for byplanen.
the portfolio also includes some raw land outside town planning.
I alt omfatter jordarealerne ca. 160 grunde.
In total, the real estate comprises about 160 plots of land.
Karkkila by havde imidlertid til hensigt at omdanne en del af arealerne og dele dem op i mindre parceller.
Karkkila intended, however, to reshape some of the land and subdivide it into smaller plots.
KK var langt den største ejer af jordejendom i Karkkila på tidspunktet for transaktionen.
KK was by far the biggest real estate owner in Karkkila at the time of the transaction.
Efter at have erhvervet det fulde ejerskab havde Karkkila til hensigt at lease en del af arealerne for at dække driftsomkostningerne.
After acquiring full ownership, Karkkila intended to lease out some of the land to cover operating expenses.
KK's driftsomkostninger (løn, leje, renter på lån) udgjorde i 2000-2003 højst 40000 EUR.
KK’s operating expenses (salary, rent, interests on loans) in 2000-2003 were at most EUR 40000.
Yderligere relevante oplysninger
Further relevant information
Karkkila ligger inden for pendlerafstand fra Helsingfors.
Karkkila is located within commuting distance of Helsinki.
Fast ejendom i Helsingfors og omliggende områder er blevet meget dyr, og priserne stiger fortsat.
Real estate in Helsinki and the surrounding areas has become very expensive and prices are still rising.
Dette prispres har fået folk til at slå sig ned i kommunerne omkring hovedstaden, hvilket har slået kraftigt igennem på huspriserne disse steder.
This price pressure has led people to settle in municipalities surrounding the capital, which has had a knock-on effect on real estate prices there.
Karkkila kan betragtes som en mulig alternativ beliggenhed, sammen med tre andre byer: Vihti, Lohja og Hyvinkää.
Karkkila can be considered a possible alternative location, together with three other towns: Vihti, Lohja and Hyvinkää.
Afstandene fra Helsingfors er følgende:
Distances from Helsinki are as follows:
Afstande fra Helsingfors
Distances from Helsinki
38 min
38 min
42 min
42 min
50 min
50 min
Disse kommuner har trukket et betydeligt antal nye beboere til sig.
These municipalities have attracted considerable numbers of new residents.
I konsekvens heraf steg ejendomspriserne kraftigt før (og efter) transaktionen, hvor priserne fordobledes i Karkkila, og i nogle tilfælde seksdobledes.
As a consequence, real estate prices rose significantly before (and after) the transaction, with prices doubling in Karkkila, and in some instances increasing sixfold.
Ifølge officielle prognoser offentliggjort i 2000 skønnedes befolkningen i Karkkila at stige til 9600 indbyggere frem til 2025, hvilket ville medføre et behov for 600 nye boliger.
According to official forecasts published in 2000, the population of Karkkila was expected to rise to 9600 inhabitants by 2025, which would mean housing needs of 600 new homes.
Disse prognoser viste sig hurtigt at blive overhalet af den faktiske befolkningstilvækst.
These forecasts were soon seen to lag far behind the actual population increase.
I de fem år forud for transaktionen var priserne på fast ejendom i Karkkila steget med i gennemsnit 30 %.
During the five years preceding the transaction, real estate prices in Karkkila had increased on average by 30 %.
FINLANDS BEMÆRKNINGER
COMMENTS FROM FINLAND
Finland fremsendte tre efterfølgende ekspertundersøgelser om vurderingen af jordarealerne.
Finland submitted three ex-post expert studies on valuing the land.
Konklusionen af disse var, at den betalte pris svarede til markedsværdien.
They concluded that the price paid corresponded to the market price.
Den første af disse (undersøgelse B) indeholder kun en generel udtalelse om, at vurderingen af jordarealerne var korrekt, uden at den går i nærmere enkeltheder.
The first of these (Study B) contains only a general statement that the valuation of the land was correct without entering into details.
Den anden undersøgelse, KP&P-rapporten, (undersøgelse C) analyserer situationen på ejendomsmarkedet i Karkkila og nabokommuner nærmere.
The second study, the KP & P report, (Study C) analyses the real estate situation in Karkkila and the surrounding municipalities in more detail.
Finland anfører, at Karkkila erhvervede fuldt ejerskab over aktierne, fordi der var tale om en mellem- til langsigtet investering med lav risiko.
Finland argues that Karkkila acquired full ownership of the shares because it was a medium- to long-term, low-risk investment.
I betragtning af den konstante stigning i ejendomspriserne i nabokommunerne, Karkkilas skønnede befolkningstilvækst, mætningen af de eksisterende beboelsesområder samt behovet for udvidelse, fandt Karkkilas byråd, at fuldt ejerskab af KK ville være profitabelt.
Considering the constant rise in real estate prices in the neighbouring municipalities, Karkkila’s forecast population increase, saturation of existing neighbourhoods and the need for expansion, Karkkila City Council considered that purchasing full ownership of KK would be profitable.
Finland forklarede ligeledes, at muligheden for at fremskynde procedurerne var en anden praktisk årsag til ønsket om at opnå eneejerskab.
Finland also explained that the possibility of speeding up procedures was another practical reason for obtaining sole ownership.
Finland pegede på flere situationer, hvor et samarbejde mellem Karkkila og Componenta ikke var ideelt på grund af deres divergerende kommercielle interesser.
Finland hinted on several occasions that cooperation between Karkkila and Componenta was not ideal because of their diverging commercial interests.
Begge partnere forpligtede sig til at bringe det aftalte joint venture til ophør for at undgå at komme ud i situationer, hvor mange beslutninger går i hårdknude.
Both partners agreed to terminate the joint venture in order to avoid deadlock on many decisions.
Især måtte der træffes en lang række beslutninger i Haapala/Uusitalo-området om en opdeling af grunde for at fremme udstykningen af området.
In particular, a large number of decisions had to be taken in the Haapala/Uusitalo area on re-splitting plots to facilitate development of the area.
Eftersom ejendomstransaktioner ikke var Componentas kerneforretningsområde, var det i dens interesse at indstille denne særlige aktivitet, hvorimod det var i Karkkilas interesse at være i stand til at styre byggemodningen helt uafhængigt.
Since real estate activities were not Componenta’s core business, it was in its interests to cease this branch of activity, whereas it was in Karkkila’s interests to be able to steer land development completely independently.
Finland forklarede, hvorfor en sammenligning med Vihti, Lohja og Hyvinkää var relevant.
Finland explained why a comparison with Vihti, Lohja and Hyvinkää was pertinent.
Finland understregede bl.a., at der ikke var nogen persontogforbindelse til Vihti og Lohja, som ville sætte pendlere i stand til let at rejse mellem disse kommuner og Helsingfors.
Finland underlined, inter alia, that there was no passenger rail link to Vihti and Lohja, which would allow commuters to travel easily between these municipalities and Helsinki.
Finland gør gældende, at Kommissionens beregning af støttebeløbet i beslutningen af 2005 var forvrænget, idet aktionærlånet var medtaget to gange.
Finland contends that the Commission’s calculation of the amount of aid in the 2005 decision was distorted because the shareholder loan was taken into account twice.
Lånet var blevet fratrukket virksomhedens værdi med henblik på beregningen af værdien af 50 % af aktierne og dets funktion som tilbagebetaling til Componenta.
The loan was deducted from the value of the company for the calculation of the value of 50 % of the shares and taken into account as repayment to Componenta.
Finland argumenterer således for, at prisen på aktierne (713092,50 EUR) allerede inkluderer lånet, idet beløbet var beregnet på grundlag af KK's nettoværdi.
Finland therefore argues that the price of the shares (EUR 713092,50) already includes the loan because that amount was calculated on the basis of KK’s net worth.
I henhold til EF-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.
Domstolen for Den Europæiske Union har konsekvent stadfæstet, at kriteriet for samhandel, der påvirkes, er opfyldt, hvis den modtagende virksomhed udfører en økonomisk aktivitet, der involverer samhandel mellem medlemsstater.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently held that the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries out an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
Andre selskaber på hjemmemarkedet producerer samme produkter som Componenta, og de handles intensivt mellem medlemsstaterne.
Other companies in the internal market also manufacture the same products as Componenta and they are intensively traded between Member States.
For så vidt angår artikel 107, stk. 1, i TEUF, omfatter statslige midler lokale myndigheders midler [6].
For the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, state resources include local authority resources [6].
Den pågældende transaktion, der blev finansieret med byen Karkkilas midler, indebærer statsmidler i den i artikel 107, stk. 1, nævnte forstand.
Thus the transaction in question, which was financed with Karkkila’s resources, involves state resources within the meaning of Article 107(1).
Derfor vil enhver fordel, som Componenta modtager inden for rammerne af transaktionen, og som Componenta ikke ville have modtaget under normale markedsvilkår, være omfattet af EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1.
Therefore, any advantage granted to Componenta in the context of the transaction which Componenta would not have received in normal market conditions would fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Det følger, at det vigtigste spørgsmål i denne sag er, om Componenta modtog en eller anden grad af betaling, som virksomheden ikke ville have fået under normale markedsvilkår.
It follows that the main question in the case at hand is whether Componenta received a level of payment that it would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Kommissionen bemærker, at indløsningsklausulen i handelsaftalen mellem Componenta og Karkkila kan ses som en indikation på, at købsbetingelserne, som Karkkila fik tilbudt, havde til hensigt at tilskynde Componenta til at bevare sit produktionssted i Karkkila og lukke højovnen i Alvesta.
The Commission notes that the redemption clause in the sales contract concluded between Componenta and Karkkila can be seen as an indication that the purchase conditions offered by Karkkila were intended to encourage Componenta to keep its production site in Karkkila and close the blast furnace in Alvesta.
I dommen afsagt af Retten i Første Instans [7] blev det stadfæstet, at handelen blev indgået på visse betingelser, men at den ikke angav følgevirkningerne nærmere.
The judgment of the Court of First Instance [7] held that the deal was conditional but did not specify the consequences.
Der er reelt ikke nogen fordel for Componenta, der klart udspringer af disse betingelsesklausuler, selv om disse betingelser antyder, at transaktionen kan være indgået på favorable vilkår for Componenta.
In fact, even if the conditionality hints at the fact that the transaction might have been concluded on favourable terms for Componenta, there is no advantage for Componenta that clearly stems from these clauses.
Faktisk oversteg, som det fremgår af nedenstående, den pris, der blev betalt til Componenta for salget af virksomhedens andel af KK, ikke markedsprisen, og samtidig fandt Kommissionen ikke nogen beviser på andre fordele, som Componanta kunne have fået i kraft af disse klausuler.
Indeed, on the one hand, as will be seen below, the price paid to Componenta for the sale of its stake in KK did not exceed the market price and, on the other hand, the Commission did not find any evidence of other advantages that Componenta might have received from those clauses.