natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den statiske restværdimetode, som Real Madrid foreslår, kan ikke bruges, når det tilsigtede formål er at drive sportsinfrastruktur mod betaling af brugerafgifter.
Firstly, it is unclear whether the Madrid City Council could legally assume the obligation to transfer plot B-32 at the time the 1998 implementation agreement was concluded.
Denne metode kan kun anvendes, hvis jorden og infrastrukturen på den, kan sælges, og kun hvis dette salg sker umiddelbart efter opførelsen.
According to Spain and Real Madrid, the parties to the 1998 implementation agreement knew that the land was classified for basic sports use and assumed at the time that the agreement was concluded that land so classified could be transferred to a private party, so long as that party planned to use the plot for sport use.
For at vurdere den aktuelle værdi af en grund og dermed værdien af et krav om kompensation baseret på den værdi, synes det ikke at være hensigtsmæssigt at antage eller fastsætte en hypotetisk værdi baseret på faktorer, der påvirker jordens værdi, men som faktisk ikke sker.
However, there are no indications that that assumption was correct at the time the 1998 implementation agreement was concluded.
Hvis der var et krav om kompensation mod Madrids kommunalbestyrelse, er den relevante værdi af jordlod B-32 den værdi, den har for Madrids kommunalbestyrelse, som ikke ville kunne bruge en hypotetisk værdi af jordlodden, hvis den kunne overføres.
With the adoption of law 9/2001, the parties should have certainly questioned that assumption since, according to that law, land in the public domain must remain in public ownership.
For det tredje indeholder CEIAM-undersøgelsen en detaljeret og omhyggelig sammenligning med andre sportsanlæg af forskellig art og attraktivitet med henblik på vurdering af omkostninger og indtægter.
The Commission notes in this regard that the Madrid City Council only became the registered owner of plot B-32 in 2003 and, according to the 1998 implementation agreement, the Madrid City Council was obliged to transfer that plot seven days after it became the registered owner thereof.
Med hensyn til, at der ikke skulle være taget højde for indtægtsstrømme fra andre aktiviteter end sport, eller at mulighederne for at bebygge jorden ikke skulle være udtømt, indeholder undersøgelsen i afsnit 1.6.4 en detaljeret beskrivelse af, hvordan jorden kunne bruges til forskellige blandinger af sportsinfrastruktur.
Moreover, following the judgment of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid in 2004 [24], it should have been clear to both parties that plots of land like plot B-32 could not be legally transferred to a private person or entity.
Dette omfatter også parkering, butikker og restauranter og de forventede indtægter fra brugerafgifter, som er beskrevet i detaljer for de forskellige infrastrukturer.
Therefore, when the Madrid City Council agreed under the 2011 settlement agreement to assume full legal liability for its failure to transfer plot B-32 under the 1998 implementation agreement, it must have been abundantly clear to both parties that plot B-32 could not be legally transferred.
CEIAM forklarer i afsnit 1.6.5, at den er opmærksom på, at antagelserne ikke tager fuldt ud højde for den anvendelse af jorden med hensyn til bebyggeligt areal, der er tilladt i henhold til lovgivningen.
Secondly, the consequences of the legal impossibility for Madrid City Council to perform its obligation under the 1998 implementation agreement to transfer plot B-32 as regards any potential claim for compensation for Real Madrid were also unclear from a legal perspective when the 2011 settlement agreement was entered into.
Byplanlægningen sætter ofte disse procenttal for arealanvendelse højt, så den kan imødekomme forskellige behov i årenes løb, før den forventede anvendelse ligger fast.
According to Spain, under the general rules of Spanish civil law, the legal impossibility to perform a contract would make that contract void under private law.
Dette er imidlertid ikke usædvanligt for jord, der anvendes til offentlige formål, fordi det er normalt, at disse grænser udnyttes.
In that case, it is unclear that the aggrieved party would have a claim for compensation or damages, since the contract no longer exists, as opposed to a claim for restitution of what has already been given in consideration of the contract.
Arealanvendelse afhænger af den forventede efterspørgsel og af den type sportsaktiviteter eller infrastruktur, der tilbydes.
In that regard, Spain and Real Madrid argue that the legal impossibility for Madrid City Council to transfer plot B-32 entails the nullity of the entire 1998 implementation agreement and thus a return of all the plots of land involved in that agreement and the 1996 swap agreement or, where such return is impossible, their value when they were lost, i.e. sold.
I denne forbindelse analyserede CEIAM 22 sammenlignelige sportsanlæg for at udarbejde det scenarie, der anvendes i undersøgelsen.
However, it is unclear whether the fact that only one obligation under the 1998 implementation agreement could not be performed by one party to that agreement, entails the nullity of the entire agreement under Spanish civil law.
Hvad angår procentdelen af sportsudøvere i området, som Real Madrid finder for lav, brugte undersøgelsen de eksisterende officielle statistiske data om sportsudøvelsen hos indbyggerne i området omkring sportsanlægget på jordlod B-32 i Madrid, som beskrevet i afsnit 3.2 i undersøgelsens bilag.
Partial nullity is a complex issue under Spanish civil law and the Madrid City Council did not obtain any legal advice before entering into the 2011 settlement agreement.
Undersøgelsen tager også højde for den mulige efterspørgsel fra personer, som arbejder i de omkringliggende kontorer.
In this regard, the Commission notes, first of all, that under the 1998 implementation agreement three separate plots valued at EUR 13522772 were to be transferred by the Madrid City Council to Real Madrid, of which plot B-32 was located in a different area and thus unconnected to the two other plots to be transferred (plots 33 and 34, which were located in the Julian Camarillo Sur area).
I denne henseende har Real Madrid ikke fremlagt nogen tal, der er baseret på markedsundersøgelser i området, til støtte for sine argumenter om, at andelen af sportsudøvere er for lav, hvorfor Kommissionen skal anvende de mere forsigtige skøn fra CEIAM.
Moreover, plot B-32 was valued at EUR 595194, representing less than 5 % of the value of the entire 1998 implementation agreement.
Endelig med hensyn til det, at grundværdien vurderes i et scenarie kun med en brugsret til jorden (derecho de superficie) og ikke med overdragelse af fuld besiddelse af og ejendomsret til jorden, henviser Kommissionen til betragtning 111 ovenfor, navnlig bemærkningen om, at der ikke er mulighed for at sælge jorden med infrastrukturen, fordi den type brug og det offentlige ejerskab af denne jord ligger fast på lang sigt.
The Commission notes, next, that the 1998 implementation agreement was entered into by the Madrid City Council to fulfil its obligation to compensate Real Madrid for its transfer of the Ciudad Deportiva to the City Council under the 1996 swap agreement.
Af alle ovenstående grunde mener Kommissionen, at Spaniens og Real Madrids kritik af CEIAM-undersøgelsen er ubegrundet.
It is clear from the 1996 swap agreement that there was a distinct interest on the part of the Madrid City Council to acquire the Ciudad Deportiva, as confirmed by Real Madrid, and that the 1998 implementation agreement was concluded so that the Madrid City Council could fulfil its obligation under the 1996 swap agreement to transfer lands to Real Madrid of a certain value as compensation for the Ciudad Deportiva.
Real Madrid har ikke påvist, hvor meget CEIAM-rapporten skulle have undervurderet værdien.
There was therefore no distinct interest on the part of Real Madrid to include plot B-32 in the 1998 implementation agreement and, had the parties known of the legal impossibility to transfer that plot of land when the 1998 implementation agreement was concluded, that plot would likely have been replaced with another plot of land of similar value.
Derfor kunne værdien af jordlod B-32 i 2011 ikke have været antaget at være højere end de 4275000 EUR, som blev vurderet i CEIAM-undersøgelsen, så en fornuftig markedsøkonomisk aktør i en tilsvarende situation ville ikke have indgået forligsaftalen fra 2011, hvor Madrids kommunalbestyrelse forpligtede sig til at kompensere Real Madrid med et beløb på 22693054,44 EUR for at sikre sig mod at pådrage sig et uvist juridisk ansvar for sin manglende opfyldelse af forpligtelsen til at overføre jordlod B-32 i henhold til gennemførelsesaftalen fra 1998.
Thirdly, the 2011 settlement agreement itself demonstrates that the parties wanted to address the legal impossibility of transferring plot B-32 separate from the implementation of the entire 1998 implementation agreement and did not call into question the validity of the transfer of the other plots of land concerned by that agreement.
I betragtning af den usikre sandsynlighed for, at Madrids kommunalbestyrelse blev fundet ansvarlig for sin manglende overførsel af jordlod B-32 i henhold til gennemførelsesaftalen fra 1998, og den store forskel mellem det beløb, som Madrids kommunalbestyrelse forpligtede sig til at betale til Real Madrid i forligsaftalen fra 2011 (22693054,44 EUR), og dens maksimale hæftelse (4275000 EUR), konkluderer Kommissionen, at en fornuftig markedsøkonomisk aktør, som var i samme situation som Madrids kommunalbestyrelse, ikke ville have indgået forligsaftalen fra 2011.
Furthermore, in its submission of information of 18 June 2012 during the preliminary investigation of this case, Spain declared that the parties to the 2011 settlement agreement had an interest to keep in force the parts of the 1998 implementation agreement which did not concern plot B-32.
Kommissionen konkluderer derfor, at Madrids kommunalbestyrelse, da den indgik forligsaftalen fra 2011 med Real Madrid, ikke handlede som en markedsøkonomisk aktør i en tilsvarende situation ville have handlet.
Fourthly, it was unclear at the time of the 2011 settlement agreement whether the Madrid City Council could have remedied the legal impossibility arising under the 1998 implementation agreement by changing the classification of the land under urban planning rules as being reserved for basic sport use.
Derfor bør forligsaftalen fra 2011 anses for at give Real Madrid en økonomisk fordel svarende til forskellen mellem beløbet for kompensationen og den maksimale hæftelse og derfor udgør statsstøtte som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1.
Real Madrid argued that such a change would be possible.
Hvis det var tilfældet, ville det ikke have været nødvendigt at indgå forligsaftalen fra 2011, og Real Madrid ville heller ikke have fået den jordlod, den var berettiget til i henhold til gennemførelsesaftalen fra 1998, hvorfor det ikke ville have været nødvendigt at vurdere, hvorvidt den kompensation, der blev tilbudt Real Madrid i stedet for denne jordlod, svarede til værdien af den.
Indeed, the Madrid City Council did offer such an amendment of the PGOU in the context of the 2011 urban development agreement.
Med andre ord ville Madrids kommunalbestyrelse have gennemført gennemførelsesaftalen fra 1998, som ikke er genstanden for denne afgørelse.
However, Spain explained that the Madrid City Council could not make such a change on its own, but would have had to propose an amendment of the PGOU to the Community of Madrid.
Støttens forenelighed
Furthermore, such a change needs to serve the general interest.
Statsstøtte skal anses for at være forenelig med det indre marked, hvis den er omfattet af en af kategorierne i traktatens artikel 107, stk. 1, [29] og den kan anses for at være forenelig med det indre marked, hvis Kommissionen vurderer, at den er omfattet af en af kategorierne i traktatens artikel 107, stk. 3 [30].
That view has since been confirmed by a 2015 judgment in which the Tribunal Superior de Justicia annulled the modification of the PGOU in relation to the land surrounding the Bernabéu Stadium which was the subject of the 2011 urban development agreement.
Det er imidlertid den medlemsstat, der yder støtten, som skal bevise, at den statsstøtte, den har ydet, er forenelig med det indre marked i henhold til traktatens artikel 107, stk. 2 eller 3 [31].
However, since the 2011 urban development agreement was concluded shortly after the 2011 settlement agreement was concluded, that legal issue did not appear to be adequately settled at that time, so that there was legal uncertainty whether the Madrid City Council could have remedied the legal impossibility arising from the 1998 implementation agreement by changing the classification of plot B-32.
Hverken Spanien eller Real Madrid har gjort gældende, at nogen af undtagelserne i traktatens artikel 107, stk. 2 og 3, finder anvendelse i denne sag.
In light of the above, the Commission considers that a prudent market economy operator, faced with the same legal uncertainties, would have sought legal advice before entering into the 2011 settlement agreement and accepting full legal liability for its failure to transfer plot B-32 under the 1998 implementation agreement, which the Madrid City Council did not do.
Kommissionen bemærker i den forbindelse, at eftersom den pågældende støtte giver Real Madrid en fordel, som den normalt ikke ville have opnået i sin virksomhed, bør forligsaftalen fra 2011 anses for at give driftsstøtte til Real Madrid.
The possible amount of compensation
Som hovedregel kan en sådan støtte ikke betragtes som forenelig med det indre marked i henhold til traktatens artikel 107, stk. 3, litra c), fordi den ikke fremmer udviklingen af visse erhvervsgrene.
As regards the amount of compensation the Madrid City Council agreed to pay Real Madrid to settle the legal dispute arising from the 1998 implementation agreement, the Commission considers that the EUR 22693054,44 value Madrid City Council agreed to for plot B-32 as a result of the 2011 settlement agreement far exceeds the maximum extent of its legal liability for its failure to transfer that plot to Real Madrid.
Derfor er den statsstøtte, der blev ydet til Real Madrid med forligsaftalen fra 2011, uforenelig med det indre marked.
The value of plot B-32 in 2011 was established by the technical services of Madrid to be EUR 22693054,44, according to the same general criteria for determining the value of municipal assets which were already applied in 1998.
STØTTENS ULOVLIGHED
Spain notes that that valuation has the character of a cadastral value, which is used as a reference base for e.g. taxation of land transfers or the internal value for the municipality, for accounting purposes.
Ifølge traktatens artikel 108, stk. 3, skal medlemsstaterne underrette Kommissionen om enhver påtænkt indførelse af støtteforanstaltninger (anmeldelsespligt) og må ikke gennemføre de påtænkte foranstaltninger, før den nævnte fremgangsmåde har ført til endelig afgørelse fra Kommissionen (standstill-klausul).
Spain and Real Madrid refer in that regard to the report of the Ministry of Finance of 2011, which estimated the cadastral value of plot B-32 at EUR 25776296.
Kommissionen bemærker, at Spanien ikke underrettede Kommissionen om den påtænkte statsstøtte med forligsaftalen fra 2011, ligesom den ikke overholdt standstill-klausulen i traktatens artikel 108, stk. 3.
Spain stresses that it would be legally obliged to valuate for its inventory all plots of land it owns, irrespective of their legal nature of public or private domain.
I overensstemmelse med artikel 1, litra f), i Rådets forordning (EU) 2015/1589 [32] udgør forligsaftalen fra 2011 derfor ulovlig støtte, som er gennemført i strid med traktatens artikel 108, stk. 3.
Real Madrid points to the valuation of EUR 22690000 made in the Aguirre Newman report, which was prepared after the adoption of the Opening Decision.
TILBAGEBETALING
The Commission notes that all these valuations are based on the mistaken assumption that plot B-32 could have been transferred in 2011, which, as explained in recital 97 above, appears to be legally impossible.
Hvis Kommissionen har konstateret, at en støtte er uforenelig med det indre marked, er den i henhold til traktaten og Domstolens faste retspraksis bemyndiget til at afgøre, at den pågældende medlemsstat skal ophæve eller ændre den [33].
Assuming the Madrid City Council could not be held liable for that legal impossibility, for which it never solicited legal advice, it is at least arguable that the market value of the plot in its relationship with Real Madrid would be zero, since the land in question cannot be transferred.
Domstolen har ligeledes konsekvent statueret, at formålet med en medlemsstats forpligtelse til at ophæve støtteforanstaltninger, som Kommissionen anser for uforenelige med det indre marked, er at genoprette den tidligere situation [34].
Nevertheless, the Commission accepts that the purpose of concluding a settlement agreement is to buy legal certainty in return for compensation.
I den forbindelse har Domstolen bestemt, at dette mål er nået, når støttemodtageren har tilbagebetalt det beløb, der er modtaget i ulovlig støtte og således mister sin fordel i forhold til sine konkurrenter på markedet, og situationen forud for støtteudbetalingen er genoprettet [35].
Assuming the Madrid City Council could be held fully liable for the impossibility to transfer plot B-32 to Real Madrid, then its financial exposure for that liability cannot exceed the value of the plot at the time the 2011 settlement agreement was concluded.
I henhold til artikel 16, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2015/1589 er Kommissionen forpligtet til at kræve ulovlig og uforenelig støtte tilbagebetalt.
Spain admits, in this regard, that the technical services of the Madrid City Council did not use the correct classification of plot B-32 (public sport use) when preparing their valuation in 2011, but considered that plot to fall into the category ‘public service use of various kinds’ when preparing that valuation.
Samme artikel bestemmer også, at den pågældende medlemsstat skal træffe alle nødvendige foranstaltninger til at kræve ulovlig støtte, der erklæres uforenelig, tilbagebetalt.
In addition, the cadastral value of EUR 25776296 referred to by Spain and Real Madrid was, inter alia, based on information regarding actual market transactions in the reference area, while the valuation of EUR 22690000 made in the Aguirre Newman report was based on the static residual value method, which is based on a scenario of a sale of the various units shortly after the construction of sport infrastructure on that land.
Ifølge artikel 16, stk. 2, i samme forordning tilbagebetales støtten og renterne heraf fra det tidspunkt, hvor den ulovlige støtte var til støttemodtagerens rådighed, og indtil den tilbagebetales.
Since the classification of plot B-32 in 2011 was for sport use and Real Madrid had the intention to use plot B-32 for sport use, the Commission considers the correct parameter for the valuation of that plot is the long-term exploitation of the land for sport use.
Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 794/2004 [36] opstiller den nærmere metode til fastsættelse af rentesatsen for tilbagebetaling.
In that regard, the CEIAM study commissioned by the Commission starts, with regard to the envisaged sport use of plot B-32, from the assumption that an investor acquires the land, constructs the infrastructure for various types of sport, and generates revenues by charging user fees.
Endelig fremgår det af artikel 16, stk. 3, i forordning (EU) 2015/1589, at »tilbagebetalingen [skal] ske omgående og i overensstemmelse med gældende procedurer i den pågældende medlemsstats nationale ret, forudsat at disse giver mulighed for omgående og effektiv gennemførelse af Kommissionens afgørelse«.
The scenario proposed by CEIAM appears to be reasonable because the long term exploitation of the sport infrastructures on plot B-32 by a single operator is the only realistic option under the land classification of that plot, which determines its use and excludes its further sale.
Ingen bestemmelse i EU-retten kræver, at Kommissionen, når den fastslår, at en støtte, som er erklæret uforenelig med det indre marked, skal tilbagebetales, skal fastsætte den nøjagtige størrelse af det tilbagebetalingspligtige støttebeløb.
Under that assumption, the CEIAM study arrives at a valuation for plot B-32 in 2011 of EUR 4275000 [25].
Det er tilstrækkeligt, at Kommissionens beslutning indeholder anvisninger, hvorved beslutningens adressat uden overdrevne vanskeligheder selv kan fastslå beløbet [37].
Spain criticises the fact that the CEIAM study bases one of the scenarios of the valuation on the use of the plot for social housing arriving at a value between EUR 12245000 and EUR 18000000, since that scenario would not assure highest and best use of the ground [26].
KONKLUSION
According to Spain, the CEIAM study arrived at a value that was 50 % below the value of a comparable plot for use for public services (uso lucrativo de interés general: education, cultural services and institutions, hospitals, churches) which would represent the highest and best use of land devoted for public purposes.
Kommissionen finder, at Spanien med den forligsaftale fra 2011, der blev indgået mellem Madrids kommunalbestyrelse og Real Madrid, ulovligt har ydet statsstøtte til Real Madrid i strid med traktatens artikel 108, stk. 3, som Spanien skal kræve tilbagebetalt i medfør af artikel 16 i forordning (EU) 2015/1589 fra Real Madrid —
In response, the Commission notes that that alternative scenario under the CEIAM study was done for the purpose of comparison.
VEDTAGET DENNE AFGØRELSE:
The appropriate reference for the ultimate outcome of the study is the sport use scenario, since the Madrid City Council did not change the public service use classification of plot B-32, nor could it legally have changed that classification from sport use, for the reasons given in recital 104 above.
Artikel 1
Real Madrid criticises the CEIAM study on several points [27].
Den statsstøtte på 18418054,44 EUR, der ulovligt blev ydet den 29. juli 2011 af Kongeriget Spanien i strid med artikel 108, stk. 3, i traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde, til fordel for Real Madrid Club de Fútbol, er uforenelig med det indre marked.
First, it criticises the valuation of the alternative, non-sport, scenarios, because they would be based on too many subjective and discretional elements and, moreover, presuppose a use of plot B-32 that is not consistent with the profit-maximising behaviour of a hypothetical private property owner.
Artikel 2
Second, regarding the valuation based on sport use, Real Madrid observes that the result of the study is not a proper market value.
Kongeriget Spanien skal tilbagesøge den i artikel 1 nævnte støtte fra støttemodtageren.
CEIAM would use a national valuation method (the ‘order ECO 805/2003’) which leads only to a ‘mortgage lending value’, which is a particularly cautious estimate of an enduring, long-term value and would tend to be lower than the ‘market value’ which refers to the value in an arm's-length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
De beløb, der skal tilbagesøges, tilskrives rente fra den dato, hvor de blev stillet til rådighed for modtageren, indtil de er tilbagebetalt.
This market value should be determined on the basis of the static residual valuation method, as described in recital 110.
Renten beregnes med renters rente i overensstemmelse med kapitel V i forordning (EF) nr. 794/2004 og Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 271/2008 [38] om ændring af forordning (EF) nr. 794/2004.
Third, Real Madrid criticises the CEIAM on several other grounds:
Artikel 3
CEIAM did not consider e.g. the revenue streams from the 25 % of the land which the owner could have used, under existing regulations, for shops and parking spaces;
Tilbagesøgningen af den i artikel 1 omhandlede støtte skal være øjeblikkelig og effektiv.
the fact that its assumptions do not fully exhaust the legally possible land use in terms of ground on which may be built (buildability);