natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ScanCam AS gav overskud i årene 1998, 1999, 2000 og 2001 [6].I deres evaluering anførte skattemyndighederne, at virksomhederne kunne få status som nonprofitorganisationer på baggrund af følgende elementer: Norsk Film AS' vedtægter, hvori det var angivet, at virksomheden tjente et almennyttigt formål, det forhold, at 97,7 % af aktierne var ejet af staten og lokale kommuner, og det forhold, at virksomheden primært blev finansieret via statsstøtte.
ScanCam AS generated a profit in the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 [6].In their evaluation, the tax authorities considered that the companies could benefit from the non-profit organisation status on the basis of the following elements: the statutes of Norsk Film AS which provided that its purpose was non-profit, the fact that 97,7 % of the shares were held by the State and local municipalities and the fact that the company was funded essentially through state subsidies.
Skattemyndighederne anførte endvidere, at skattefritagelsen blev givet under forbehold af, at et eventuelt overskud skulle anvendes fuldt ud til at opfylde virksomhedens formål inden for rammerne af en nonprofitorganisation.
The tax authorities furthermore indicated that the tax exemption was given under the proviso that a possible profit should be used in full to achieve the purpose of the company within the framework of being a non-profit undertaking.
Datterselskabet Norsk FilmStudio AS blev betragtet som en integreret del af Norsk Film AS' aktiviteter og var omfattet af den samme skattefritagelse.
The subsidiary Norsk FilmStudio AS was regarded as an integrated part of Norsk Film AS’ activity and covered by the same tax exemption.
De norske myndigheder har anført, at Norsk FilmStudio AS ikke gav overskud i årene 1995-2001, og at anvendelsen af den gunstige beskatningsordning følgelig ikke havde nogen virkning.
The Norwegian authorities have indicated that Norsk FilmStudio AS did not generate a profit in the years 1995–2001 and that consequently, the application of the favourable tax regime was without effect.
Virksomhederne skal nu alle betale almindelig selskabsskat.
The companies are now all subject to standard corporate tax.
Myndigheden anførte i afgørelse nr. 491/09/KOL, at det var tvivlsomt, hvorvidt fritagelsen for at betale selskabsskat på baggrund af bestemmelsen om fritagelse for nonprofitorganisationer kan berettige skattefritagelsen i forbindelse med virksomhederne, som tilhører Norsk Film-koncernen.
The Authority, in Decision No 491/09/COL, considered that it was doubtful whether the application of the exemption from corporate tax based on the logic of exemption for non-profit organisations may justify the tax exemption in the case of the companies belonging to the Norsk Film group.
Støtten i form af en fritagelse for selskabsskat udgør driftsstøtte.
The aid in the form of an exemption from corporate tax is operating aid.
En sådan støtte er kun tilladt under særlige omstændigheder og især i situationer, hvor kriterierne i myndighedens retningslinjer er opfyldt (f.eks. for visse typer miljø- eller regionalstøtte).
Such aid is only allowed under special circumstances, and, in particular, in situations where the criteria set out in the Authority’s Guidelines are met (e.g. for certain types of environmental or regional aid).
Myndigheden rejste derfor tvivl om, hvorvidt de særlige skatteregler – som fandt anvendelse på nogle af de virksomheder, der tilhører Norsk Film-koncernen – kunne være berettigede i henhold til bestemmelserne om statsstøtte i EØS-aftalen.
The Authority therefore doubted that the special tax rules – as applied to some of the companies belonging to the Norsk Film group – could be justified under the state aid provisions of the EEA Agreement.
Udbetalingen af tilskuddet kan ikke betragtes som statsstøtte
The payment of the grant does not constitute state aid
De norske myndigheder fremfører, at udbetalingen af de 36 mio. NOK ikke kan betragtes som statsstøtte.
The Norwegian authorities argue that the payment of the NOK 36 million does not constitute state aid.
De norske myndigheder anlægger en effektbaseret synsvinkel og hævder, at det tilskud, der er under revision, faktisk ikke gav modtageren nogen økonomisk fordel.
Adopting an effects based approach, the Norwegian authorities claim that the grant under review did not actually confer any economic advantage upon the recipient.
De norske myndigheder anfører, at ingen af virksomhederne opnåede økonomiske fordele som følge af tilskuddet til forbedring og modernisering af Filmparken.
The Norwegian authorities consider that none of the companies gained any economic advantage as a result of the grant for upgrading and modernisation of Filmparken.
Norsk FilmStudio AS havde ansvaret for at udleje faciliteterne til alle produktionsselskaber i Norge.
Norsk FilmStudio AS was responsible for renting out the facilities to all production companies in Norway.
Der var en klar selskabsretlig opsplitning i Norsk Film-koncernen af aktiviteterne i forbindelse med produktion af film og udlejning af produktionsfaciliteter.
There was a clear legal separation within the Norsk Film group of the activities of production of film and rental of production facilities.
Der var fri adgang til produktionsfaciliteterne for alle norske produktionsselskaber (herunder Norsk Film AS) på samme vilkår og betingelser.
Access to the production facilities was open and given to all Norwegian production companies (including Norsk Film AS) on equal terms and conditions.
Udlejningsaktiviteterne var ikke rentable og gav underskud for Norsk FilmStudio AS.
The rental activities were not profitable and generated deficits for Norsk FilmStudio AS.
De norske myndigheder fremfører, at det ikke kan siges, at foranstaltningen gav Norsk Film-koncernen en økonomisk fordel, da tilskuddet tydeligvis ikke havde denne effekt.
The Norwegian authorities argue that it cannot be said that the measure gave the Norsk Film group an economic advantage as this was clearly not the effect of the grant.
Hensigten med og effekten af foranstaltningen var snarere at give norske filmproducenter adgang til produktionsfaciliteter.
The intent and the effect of the measure were rather to provide Norwegian film producers with access to production facilities.
De understreger, at det kun var på grund af en markedsfejl, at Norsk FilmStudio AS fungerede som eneleverandør af udlejning af studiefaciliteter, hvor film af en vis længde og kvalitet kunne produceres.
They stress that it was only due to a market failure that Norsk FilmStudio AS acted as the sole provider of rental studio facilities where films of a certain length and quality could be produced.
Virksomheden gjorde dette til gavn for alle producenter og opnåede ikke nogen økonomisk fordel.
The company did so to the benefit of all producers and did not receive an economic advantage.
Foranstaltningen ville under alle omstændigheder udgøre eksisterende støtte
The measure would in any event constitute existing aid
De norske myndigheder fremfører, at selv hvis tilskuddet på 36 mio. NOK var statsstøtte, ville det under alle omstændigheder udgøre eksisterende støtte.
The Norwegian authorities argue that even if the grant of NOK 36 million amounted to state aid, it would, in any event, constitute existing aid.
De norske myndigheder anfører, at udbetalingen af tilskuddet på 36 mio. NOK var en del af den eksisterende støtteordning i form af udbetalingen af årlige tilskud.
Indeed, the Norwegian authorities consider that the payment of the NOK 36 million grant formed part of the existing system of aid in the form of the payment of the yearly grants.
De norske myndigheder hævder, at det forhold, at tilskuddet blev udbetalt fra et andet budget end det, der blev anvendt til de årlige tilskud, ikke er et klart tegn på, at tilskuddet udgjorde en særskilt og ny foranstaltning.
The Norwegian authorities state that the fact that the grant was paid out from a different budget than that used for the yearly grants is not a sufficient indication that the grant itself constituted a severable and new measure.
De forklarer, at det forhold, at tilskuddet i 1998-1999 blev tildelt via en anden budgetpost, "kun var en tilfældighed og et teknisk spørgsmål, og udbetalingen af de 36 mio. NOK kunne lige så vel have været tildelt via budgetsektionen for finansiering af film og fordelt over en periode på ti år og dermed være "smeltet sammen med" de årlige udbetalinger til Norsk Film AS, som omfatter både drifts- og investeringsstøtte. Det forhold, at tilskuddet i 1998-1999 blev tildelt via en anden budgetpost, var et resultat af den nye organisation af den [nationale] budgetsektion for bidrag til opførelsen af nationale bygninger".
They explain that the fact that the grant in 1998–1999 was allocated over another budget post was “merely coincidental and a question of technicalities and the payment of the NOK 36 million might as well have been allocated over the budget section for film funding and spread out over a period of ten years and thus been “melted into” the yearly payments to Norsk Film AS comprising both operating and investment aid. The fact that the grant 1998-1999 was allocated over another budget post was a result of a new way of organising the [national] budget section for contributions to the construction of national buildings”.
De norske myndigheder fremfører endvidere, at det, der er vigtigt, er, at udbetalingen var en del af en systematisk og løbende række af udbetalinger til den samme modtager, og at karakteren af støtten er uændret.
The Norwegian authorities furthermore argue that what is important is that the payment was part of a systematic and continuous chain of payments to the same recipient and that the nature of the aid is unchanged.
Ordningen har efter sigende altid bestået af en investeringsdel og en driftsdel.
The scheme is said to have always consisted of an investment part and an operating part.
Forbedrings- og moderniseringsprocessen havde været i gang i noget tid, og omkostningerne i forbindelse hermed var, indtil 1998-1999, blevet anslået til 13 mio. NOK.
The upgrading and modernising process had been ongoing for some time and the costs involved had, until 1998 – 1999, been estimated to NOK 13 million.
Dette beløb omfattede bidrag fra den norske stat via den eksisterende støtteordning, som blev indført i 1970'erne.
This amount included contributions from the Norwegian State through the existing support scheme which was in place since the 1970s.
I 1997 stod det imidlertid klart, at 13 mio. NOK ikke var nok til at færdiggøre arbejdet, og derfor blev det besluttet at tildele yderligere 36 mio. NOK for at fuldføre forbedringen.
In 1997, however, it became clear that NOK 13 million was not sufficient to complete the works and therefore it was decided to allocate an additional NOK 36 million to complete the upgrading.
De norske myndigheder fremlagde data for myndigheden til støtte for, at der også tidligere var blevet tildelt og øremærket beløb til forbedring og modernisering af infrastrukturer, som var nødvendige for at opretholde betingelserne for produktion af film.
The Norwegian authorities provided the Authority with data supporting that also in the past amounts had been allocated and earmarked for the upgrading and modernisation of infrastructures necessary for maintaining conditions for film production.
Endelig fremfører de norske myndigheder, at det forhold, at tilskuddet var meget større, end de årlige udbetalinger hidtil havde været, ikke var tegn på, at det udgjorde ny støtte.
Finally, the Norwegian authorities argue that the fact that the amount of the grant was much higher than the yearly payments had been until then was no indication that it constituted new aid.
De henviser til EU-Domstolens dom i sagen Namur-Les-Assurances [7]: "fremkomsten af ny støtte eller ændringen af eksisterende støtte kan ikke vurderes på basis af støttens omfang eller især beløbet heraf i finansiel henseende til enhver tid i virksomhedens levetid, hvis støtten ydes i henhold til tidligere lovbestemmelser, som forbliver uændrede".
They refer to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case Namur-Les-Assurances [7]: “the emergence of new aid or the alteration of existing aid cannot be assessed according to the scale of the aid or, in particular, its amount in financial terms at any moment in the life of the undertaking if the aid is provided under earlier statutory provisions which remain unaltered”.
Ny støtte ville under alle omstændigheder være forenelig
New aid would in any event be compatible
De norske myndigheder fremfører, at foranstaltningen, hvis myndigheden konkluderede, at den udgjorde ny støtte, under alle omstændigheder ville være forenelig med EØS-aftalens funktion.
The Norwegian authorities argue that the measure, if the Authority concluded that it amounted to new aid, would, in any event, be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
De anfører, at foranstaltningen ville være i overensstemmelse med artikel 61, stk. 3, litra c), i EØS-aftalen, da formålet med tilskuddet var kulturbevarelse, og foranstaltningen var nødvendig og rimelig for dette mål.
Indeed, they consider that the measure would be compatible with Article 61(3)(c) EEA as the grant’s purpose was cultural conservation, and the measure was necessary and proportionate to achieve such an aim.
De norske myndigheder anfører, at produktionen af film er en vigtig kulturel udtryksform og udgør en del af den nationale arv.
The Norwegian authorities state that the production of films constitutes an important cultural expression and forms part of the nation’s heritage.
Uden egnede produktionsfaciliteter ville der ikke være nogen filmproduktion.
Without suitable production facilities, no film production would take place.
Tilskuddet var endvidere et nødvendigt indgreb på grund af en markedsfejl.
Furthermore, the grant was a necessary intervention because of a market failure.
De norske myndigheder understreger også, at myndigheden har godkendt støtteforanstaltninger for audiovisuelle ordninger, som ikke ville have nogen effekt, hvis den nødvendige infrastruktur til produktion af audiovisuelle værker ikke fandtes.
The Norwegian authorities also stress that the Authority has approved support measures for audiovisual schemes which would remain without effect if the necessary infrastructure to produce audiovisual works did not exist.
Anvendelsen af den skattemæssige præferencebehandling kan ikke betragtes som statsstøtte
The application of the preferential tax treatment does not constitute state aid
De norske myndigheder understreger for det første, at myndigheden i sin afgørelse nr. 491/09/KOL ikke rejste tvivl om den faktiske fritagelsesordning for selskabsskat for nonprofitorganisationer, men undersøgte anvendelsen af en sådan ordning for visse virksomheder, som tilhører Norsk Film-koncernen.
Firstly, the Norwegian authorities stress that the Authority, in its Decision No 491/09/COL, did not raise any doubts regarding the actual tax regime exempting from corporate tax non-profit undertakings, but investigated the application of such regime to certain companies belonging to the Norsk Film group.
Det er derfor den faktiske anvendelse eller den uretmæssige anvendelse af beskatningsordningen på visse virksomheder, som er under revision.
It is therefore the actual application or misapplication of the tax regime to certain companies that is under review.
For det andet fremfører de norske myndigheder, at de ikke selv har overvejet, hvorvidt afsnit 2-32 i den norske skattelov blev anvendt korrekt for virksomhederne, som tilhører Norsk Film-koncernen, da de ikke er en skattevurderingsmyndighed. De har imidlertid anført, at "skattemyndighedernes eventuelle uretmæssige anvendelse af en generel skattebestemmelse til fordel for skatteyderen ikke udgør statsstøtte.
Secondly, the Norwegian authorities argue that they have not themselves considered whether section 2-32 of the Tax Act was correctly applied to the companies belonging to the Norsk Film group as they are not a tax assessment authority.
(…) Hvis der er tale om, at en national skattebestemmelse er blevet anvendt uretmæssigt, skal det primært korrigeres af skattemyndighederne eller domstolene i henhold til den relevante nationale lovgivning. (…) Det ville skabe en umulig situation, hvis enhver uretmæssig anvendelse af nationale skattebestemmelser, som medførte en uberettiget fordel for en bestemt skatteyder, udgjorde statsstøtte".
They have, however, indicated that “a possible misapplication by the tax authorities of a general tax provision to the advantage of a taxpayer, does not constitute state aid. (…) In the case of a misapplication of a national tax provision, this should primarily be corrected by the tax authorities or the courts under the relevant national law. (…) It would create an unworkable situation if any misapplication of national tax provisions resulting in an unjustified advantage to a particular tax payer would constitute state aid”.
De norske myndigheder understreger, at eftersom konsekvenserne af uretmæssig beskatning kan variere, medmindre det er et spørgsmål om vedvarende uretmæssighed, bør der træffes afhjælpende foranstaltninger i henhold til national lovgivning, og der bør ikke foretages revision i henhold til statsstøttereglerne i EØS-aftalen.
The Norwegian authorities stress that since the consequences of wrongful taxation could vary, unless it is a question of persistent misapplication, remedial action ought to be taken under national law and not reviewed under EEA state aid rules.
Anvendelsen af den skattemæssige præferencebehandling var under alle omstændigheder baseret på en eksisterende støtteordning
The application of the preferential tax treatment was in any event based on an existing system of aid
De norske myndigheder fremfører endvidere, at anvendelsen af en skattebestemmelse, som har været gældende før EØS-aftalens ikrafttræden, ikke under nogen omstændigheder ville udgøre ny støtte, men blot anvendelse af en eksisterende støtteordning.
The Norwegian authorities furthermore argue that the application of a tax provision pre-dating the entry into force of the EEA Agreement would not, in any event, constitute new aid but would be the mere application of an existing system of aid.
De anfører, at "den almindelige anvendelse af den generelle regel og evalueringen af, hvorvidt den finder anvendelse i et specifikt tilfælde, ikke under nogen omstændigheder kan udgøre ny støtte og ikke som sådan kræver nogen anmeldelse til myndigheden. Hvis individuelle anvendelser af en eksisterende støtteordning udgjorde ny støtte, ville grænserne for, hvad der kan betragtes som ny støtte, blive udvidet på en urimelig måde, og omfanget af forenelig støtte i form af den eksisterende støtte i henhold til statsstøttereglerne ville blive udvandet".
They consider that “an ordinary application of the general rule and the evaluation of whether or not it is applicable in a specific case cannot in any event constitute new aid, and did not as such require notification to the Authority. Indeed, if individual applications of an existing system of aid would constitute new aid, it would extend the scope of what could be considered as new aid in an unreasonable manner, and it would water out the scope of compatible aid in terms of existing aid within the meaning of state aid rules”.
»Medmindre andet er bestemt i denne aftale, er støtte, som ydes af EF's medlemsstater, EFTA-lande eller 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.«
“Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States 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 shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.”
Forekomst af statsmidler
Presence of state resources
Foranstaltningen skal være ydet af staten eller ved hjælp af statsmidler.
The measure must be granted by the State or through state resources.
Betaling af tilskuddet på 36 mio. NOK
Payment of the NOK 36 million grant
Tilskuddet på 36 mio. NOK blev udbetalt via statsbudgettets sektion for tilskud til nationale kulturbygninger.
The grant of NOK 36 million was paid from the State’s budget section for grants to national cultural buildings.
Myndigheden anser derfor betingelsen om, at der skal være tale om statsmidler, for at være opfyldt.
The Authority therefore considers that the condition that state resources must be involved is met.
Gunstig beskatningsordning
Preferential tax regime
ScanCam AS (det datterselskab, der udlejede kameraer) blev fritaget for at betale skat i 1998-2001 af samme årsag.
ScanCam AS (the subsidiary renting cameras) was given a tax exemption from 1998–2001 on the same grounds.
Som følge af den gunstige beskatningsordning gav staten afkald på de skatteindtægter, den normalt ville have modtaget fra de pågældende virksomheder.
As a result of the favourable tax regime, the State renounced tax revenue which it would normally have received from the undertakings concerned.
For det første skal foranstaltningen have givet Norsk FilmStudio AS/Filmparken AS fordele, som har mindsket de byrder, der normalt belaster deres budget.
Firstly, the measure must have conferred on Norsk FilmStudio AS/Filmparken AS advantages that relieved them of charges that are normally borne from their budget.
Tilskuddet på 36 mio. NOK gav modtagerne en økonomisk fordel, de ikke ville have haft som led i deres normale forretningsførelse.
The grant of NOK 36 million gave the beneficiaries a financial benefit they would not have enjoyed in the normal course of business.
Det styrkede dermed Norsk FilmStudio AS'/Filmparken AS' finansielle stilling sammenlignet med andre virksomheder, som producerer film i EØS.
It thus strengthened the financial position of Norsk FilmStudio AS/Filmparken AS compared with the other undertakings active in the production of films within the EEA.
For det andet skal foranstaltningen være selektiv, forstået således, at den begunstiger "visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner".
Secondly, the aid measure must be selective in that it favours “certain undertakings or the production of certain goods”.
Myndigheden anser udbetalingen af tilskuddet på 36 mio. NOK til forbedring af studiefaciliteterne for at have været selektiv, eftersom modtageren udtrykkeligt blev angivet.
The Authority considers the payment of the amount of NOK 36 million for the upgrading of the studio facilities to have been selective as the beneficiary was expressly designated.
Nogle af virksomhederne i Norsk Film-koncernen blev fritaget for at betale den normalt gældende selskabsskat, og de blev dermed fritaget for udgifter, som normalt belaster en virksomheds budget.
Some of the companies of the Norsk Film group were exempted from payment of the normally applicable corporate tax and thus relieved from charges normally borne from a company’s budget.
De ville ikke have haft denne fordel i deres normale forretningsførelse.
They would not have enjoyed this advantage in the normal course of business.
Myndigheden anerkender dog, at EU-Domstolen og EFTA-Domstolen konsekvent har fastholdt, at foranstaltninger, der giver visse modtagere fordele, ikke er selektive, hvis de kan retfærdiggøres af karakteren og opbygningen af den ordning, som de er en del af.
However, the Authority recognises that the European Court of Justice and the EFTA Court have consistently held that measures granting advantages to certain recipients are not selective if they can be justified by the nature and general scheme of the system of which they are part.