natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det var grundlaget for den foreløbige konklusion, Tilsynsmyndigheden drog i sin beslutning om at indlede formel undersøgelse, om at Entra opnåede en fordel som omhandlet i EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1.
On that basis, the Authority, in its decision to open formal investigation, drew the preliminary conclusion that Entra did receive an advantage in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
De norske myndigheder har derimod gjort gældende, at denne betingelse ikke er opfyldt af to grunde: For det første fordi fritagelsen ikke stillede Entra bedre i konkurrencen sammenholdt med en privat investor.
In contrast, the Norwegian Authorities have argued that the condition is not fulfilled for two reasons: firstly, that the exemption did not place Entra in a better competitive position compared to a private investor.
For det andet fordi det ikke ville have ændret noget ved selskabets kapitalstruktur, soliditet og samlede værdier, hvis det havde skullet betale stempelafgift.
Secondly, that the capital structure, the solidity and the total values in the company would have been unchanged if the excise duty had been paid.
Disse argumenter vil Tilsynsmyndigheden komme nærmere ind på nedenfor.
In the following, the Authority will discuss these arguments in turn.
Sammenligningen med private virksomheder
The comparison with private firms
Som nævnt ovenfor under punkt I.3.1 anførte den norske regering i sit lovforslag, at en privat ejer kunne vælge at lade være med at overdrage skødet, men f.eks. beholde det i et holdingselskab, når der etableres et nyt selskab.
As referred to above under point I.3.1, in the proposal to the Parliament, the Norwegian Government stated that a private owner could choose not to transfer the title, but, for example, keep the title in a holding company, when a new company is established.
Ifølge de norske myndigheder skal staten overføre ejendommene til en ny retlig enhed.
The State, according to the Norwegian authorities, must transfer the properties to a new legal entity.
Efter deres opfattelse foreligger der derfor ingen konkurrencefordrejning, når Entra fritages for stempelafgift.
Thus, according to the Norwegian authorities, there is no distortion of competition when Entra is exempted from the document duty.
Ifølge Førsteinstansretten foreligger der ikke nødvendigvis nogen fordel efter EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1, (der svarer til EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1) i alle situationer, hvor der indføres en foranstaltning, der fritager en offentlig virksomhed fra en strukturel ulempe, denne virksomhed har i forhold til sine konkurrenter i den private sektor [52].
According to the European Court of First Instance, an advantage in the sense of Article 87(1) EC (corresponding to Article 61(1) EEA) does not necessarily exist in all situations where a measure is introduced in order to free a public company from a structural disadvantage that it has in relation to its private sector competitors [52].
EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, tilsigter alene at forbyde de fordele, som favoriserer visse virksomheder, idet begrebet støtte kun omfatter indgreb, der letter de byrder, som normalt belaster en virksomheds budget, og som må betragtes som en økonomisk fordel, som den støttemodtagende virksomhed ikke ville have opnået på normale markedsvilkår.
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is aimed merely at prohibiting advantages for certain undertakings, and the concept of aid covers only benefits or release of burdens normally assumed in an undertaking’s budget and which are to be regarded as an economic advantage, which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er imidlertid ikke enig med de norske myndigheder i, at der ud fra de argumenter, Norge har fremført, kan drages den konklusion, at en sammenligning med private virksomheder viser, at Entra ikke opnåede nogen fordel ved at blive fritaget for stempelafgift.De måder, hvorpå en privat ejer kan undgå at betale stempelafgift, kan også benyttes af virksomheder etableret i forbindelse med privatiseringer.
However, the Authority does not agree with the Norwegian authorities that the arguments advanced by Norway can lead to the conclusion that a comparison with private operators shows that Entra did not receive an advantage by being exempt from excise duties.The methods that a private owner can use to avoid paying excise duty are equally open to undertakings established in connection with state privatisations.
De strukturelle ulemper, som de norske myndigheder hævdede at stå overfor, var ikke af juridisk karakter.
The structural disadvantage that the Norwegian authorities claim to have faced was not of a legal kind.
Norsk ret ville ikke have været til hinder for etableringen af og overførslen af ejendommene til Entra uden tinglysning.
Norwegian law would not have precluded the establishment of and transfer of the properties to Entra without registering this in the Real Estate Register.
Desuden kunne Entra og de norske myndigheder have taget de samme sikkerhedsforanstaltninger som en privat virksomhed.
Moreover, Entra and the Norwegian authorities could have taken the same precautions as a private operator.
Grunden til, at man ikke benyttede disse fremgangsmåder for Statsbyggs og Entras vedkommende, var alene, at de norske myndigheder fandt, at det ville være forbundet med så store politiske, ledelsesmæssige og praktiske ulemper, at de foretrak, at Entra blev den nye indehaver af skøderne.
The reason for not using these methods in relation to Statsbygg and Entra was merely that the Norwegian authorities found that the political, managerial and practical inconveniencies connected to such methods were so negative that Entra should become the new title holder.
Efter Tilsynsmyndighedens opfattelse kan der ikke ud fra disse betragtninger drages den konklusion, at Entra ikke opnåede nogen fordel ved at blive fritaget for at betale stempel- og tinglysningsafgift.
In the opinion of the Authority, such considerations cannot lead to a conclusion that Entra was not granted an advantage by the exemption to pay the excise duty.
Det følger allerede af den omstændighed, at alle de metoder, der kan benyttes til at undgå at skulle betale afgift, er baseret på, at ejerskiftet ikke tinglyses (skødet forbliver hos den oprindelige ejer).
This follows already from the fact that the methods that can be used to avoid excise duties all are based on the non-registration of transfer of ownership (retaining of the title).
Hvis skødet (»grunnbokshjemmel«) ikke overføres, skal der ikke betales stempelafgift.
If the title (‘grunnbokshjemmel’) is not transferred, no excise duty is payable.
Men den beskyttelse, tinglysningen giver, vil private virksomheder ikke få, når de ikke overfører skødet, mens Entra fik den.
But the protection offered by the registration is not available to private operators not transferring the title, whereas Entra did obtain this protection.
Sådanne metoder er derfor ikke ækvivalente med den fremgangsmåde, der blev benyttet i denne sag, hvor Entra blev den nye ejer.
Such methods are therefore not equivalent to the procedure that took place in the present case where Entra became the new title holder.
Selv om det havde været tilfældet, kan Tilsynsmyndigheden desuden heller ikke se, at det strukturproblem, den norske stat hævdede at have, er af en fundamentalt anden karakter end det strukturproblem, som private virksomheder står overfor.
Moreover, even if that had been the case, the Authority cannot see that the claimed structural problem for the Norwegian State is of a fundamentally different character than the one faced by private operators.
Det er muligt, at det i praksis vil give en offentligt ejet virksomhed større problemer end en privatejet, at skødet ikke overføres.
It might be correct that a non-transfer of title in practice might, in some respects, pose greater inconveniencies to a publicly owned entity than to a privately owned company.
Men efter Tilsynsmyndighedens opfattelse har spørgsmål, der drejer sig om det indbyrdes forhold mellem den tidligere og den nuværende ejer af fast ejendom, intet at gøre med spørgsmålet om tinglysningen.
However, in the Authority’s opinion, questions concerning the inter partes relationship between the previous and the present owner of real estate should be viewed apart from the discussions relating to registration in the Real Estate Registry.
Tinglysning har normalt ingen indflydelse på det indbyrdes forhold mellem de to retssubjekter, men har kun betydning i forhold til tredjemand.
This registration will normally not affect the inter partes relation between the two legal subjects but only have importance in relation to third parties.
For køberen kan det kan således være vigtigt at få tinglyst ejerskiftet for at forhindre, at en tredjemand, som i god tro siden hen køber ejendommen af den tidligere ejer, kan gøre et stærkere krav gældende til den.
Thus, registration might be important in order for the buyer to avoid that a third party, who in good faith, later buys the property from the previous owner, would have a stronger title to the real estate.
Det har også stor betydning for beskyttelsen mod den tidligere ejers kreditorer, ligesom det kan have indvirkning på køberens mulighed for at opnå realkredit- og andre lån.
It also has important bearing on the protection against the creditors of the previous owner, just as it can influence the ability of the buyer to obtain mortgage and other loans.
I alle disse situationer er ulemperne ved at undlade tinglysning helt fundamentalt de samme for en privatejet som for en offentligt ejet virksomhed.
In all these situations, the disadvantages of not registering in the Real Estate Registry is fundamentally the same for privately and publicly owned undertakings.
Faktisk kan de beskrevne fremgangsmåder på nogle punkter være mindre fordelagtige for private virksomheder end for offentlige, eftersom tinglysning af begrænsninger i ejendomsretten ikke udelukker risikoen for tvangsfuldbyrdelse eller for kreditorernes eller konkursboets ekstinktion af en retssuccessors rettigheder til debitors ejendom.
In fact, in some aspects, the methods described may be less favourable for private undertakings compared to public ones, since the registration of declaration on the restriction of the right to ownership does not exclude the risk of execution proceedings/creditor’s or bankruptcy estate’s extinction of the rights of a legal successor to the debtor’s property.
Endelig understreger Tilsynsmyndigheden, at de norske myndigheder ikke har fremlagt belæg for påstanden om, at en privat aktør helt sikkert ville have valgt ikke at overdrage skødet.
Finally, the Authority emphasises that the Norwegian authorities have not demonstrated that a private party would choose with certainty not to transfer the title.
Norge har blot peget på, at der var størst sandsynlighed for, at en privat aktør under tilsvarende omstændigheder ville have besluttet ikke at tinglyse ejerskiftet.
Norway has merely argued that it was more likely than not that a private operator in similar circumstances would have decided not to transfer the title in the Real Estate Registry.
Påstanden angående åbningsbalancen
The argument concerning the opening balance
Som allerede nævnt, har de norske myndigheder gjort gældende [53], at fritagelsen for stempel- og tinglysningsafgift ikke bør ses isoleret, men må vurderes i sammenhæng med selskabets åbningsbalance.
As already mentioned, the Norwegian authorities have argued [53] that the exemption from excise duty should not be viewed separately from the opening balance sheet of the company.
De fremfører, at denne foranstaltning ikke ændrede noget ved selskabets kapitalstruktur, soliditet og samlede værdi.
They argue that the measure in question did not change the capital structure, the solidity and the total value of the company.
Rent teoretisk gælder, at hvis der skulle have været opført stempel- og tinglysningsafgifter i åbningsbalancen, ville der have været en alternativ åbningsbalance, hvor ejendommens værdi ville være nedskrevet med et beløb svarende til stempelafgiften.Som beskrevet ovenfor under punkt 1.2, skulle Entra efter de normale regler i det norske afgiftssystem have betalt stempelafgift.
Theoretically, if excise duties were to be accrued in the opening balance sheet, there would have been an alternative opening balance where the value of the properties would have been reduced with the same amount as the excise duty.As demonstrated above in point 1.2, according to the normal rules of the Norwegian tax system, Entra was obliged to pay the excise duty.
Uanset hvordan åbningsbalancen opstilles, er det derfor transaktionsværdien mellem sælger og køber, der skal lægges til grund for stempel- og tinglysningsafgiftens beregning.
Consequently, irrespective of how the opening balance was established, it is the transaction value between the seller and the buyer which constitutes the tax base for the excise duty.
Uanset hvilke betragtninger køberen (Entra) eller sælgeren (staten) vil anlægge i relation til den aftalte pris, er det den pris og intet andet, myndighederne lægger til grund, når afgiften skal beregnes.
Whatever considerations the buyer (Entra) or the seller (the State) would have in relation to the agreed price, it is that price and nothing else that the tax authorities will apply when they calculate the excise duty to be paid.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er helt principielt uenig med de norske myndigheder, når de påstår, at denne afgiftslempelse ikke vil udgøre nogen fordel efter EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, hvis fritagelsen for stempel- og tinglysningsafgift får en indvirkning på Entras åbningsbalance, der neutraliserer fordelen ved afgiftsfritagelsen.
As a matter of principle, the Authority disagrees with the Norwegian Authorities that the existence of this tax relief would not constitute an advantage in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the exemption from excise duty has influenced the settingup of the opening balance sheet of Entra in a way that, allegedly, has neutralised the advantage flowing from the tax exemption.
Uden bestemmelserne i paragraf 3 i den anfægtede lov ville Entra ifølge norsk lovgivning skulle have betalt stempelafgift for tinglysning beregnet på basis af den aftalte transaktionsværdi, uanset om den havde set anderledes ud eller ej.
According to Norwegian legislation, Entra would, in the absence of paragraph 3 in the contested Act, have been obliged to pay to the tax authorities the excise duty on the agreed transaction price for the registration that took place, without it being relevant whether the transaction price might have looked different.
Afgiften blev aldrig betalt, og det er denne manglende betaling af afgifter, denne sag drejer sig om.
The tax has never been paid and it is this missing tax payment which is under consideration in the present case.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt sælger ville have accepteret en lavere værdi af bygningerne, hvis Entra havde betalt stempelafgift, er en af de omstændigheder, der har indvirkning på, hvordan Entras åbningsbalance kommer til at se ud, men det er faktorer, der ikke kan tages med i betragtning, når man skal afgøre, om virksomheden opnåede en fordel eller ej.
The appearance of Entra’s opening balance sheet influenced by other circumstances, in particular whether the seller would have accepted a lower value on the buildings if Entra had paid the excise duty, are factors which cannot be taken into account when determining whether the company has received an advantage or not.
De norske myndigheders argument om, at afgiftsfritagelsen skulle ses i sammenhæng med, at prisen på ejendommene ellers ville have været anderledes, bygger på det ræsonnement, at denne statsstøtte i form af afgiftsfritagelsen påførte Entra et nettotab i form af en højere pris for de ejendomme, Entra fik overført.
The argument of the Norwegian authorities that the tax exemption should be seen in conjunction with an otherwise different price on the real estate, builds on the reasoning that the aid flowing from the tax exemption led Entra to have a net loss in the form of a higher price setting of the transferred real estate.
Men at tage hensyn til alle de mere eller mindre direkte økonomiske konsekvenser, som en støtteforanstaltning kan få for den konkrete støttemodtager, ville efter Tilsynsmyndighedens opfattelse være i strid med den praksis, der normalt følges i statsstøttesager.
However, to take account of an all ensuing more or less direct possible economic consequences of an aid measure for the particular aid beneficiary would, in the Authority’s opinion, be contrary to the approach generally applied in State aid cases.
På samme måde vil det normalt ikke være rimeligt at tage hensyn til en støtteforanstaltnings økonomiske virkninger i kontraktforholdet mellem støttemodtageren og andre retssubjekter ved vurderingen af, hvorvidt og i hvilket omfang støtteforanstaltningen skal anses for at have givet støttemodtageren en fordel som omhandlet i EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1.
In the same vein, it can normally not be admitted that the ensuing economic effects of the aid measure in contractual relations between the aid beneficiary and other legal subject should be taken into account when assessing whether, and to what extent, the aid measure qualifies as an advantage in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
I den forbindelse må Tilsynsmyndigheden understrege, at der i relation til statsstøttereglerne må sondres mellem den norske stats rolle som afgiftsopkræver og dens rolle som sælger af fast ejendom.
In this respect, the Authority emphasises that the Norwegian State as a tax collector and as a seller of real estate should be viewed as two distinct entities for the purpose of the State aid regime.
Tilsynsmyndigheden er derfor ikke enig med den norske regering i, at Entra ikke modtog nogen fordel som omhandlet i EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, ved at blive fritaget for stempelafgift, men samtidig nyde den beskyttelse, tinglysningen gav virksomheden.
The Authority cannot therefore agree with the Norwegian Government that Entra did not receive an advantage in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement by being exempt from excise duty, and still receiving the protection afforded by being in the Real Estate Register.
I sit brev af 4. juni 2003 anfører handels- og industriministeriet, at »teoretisk set, hvis åbningsbalancen havde indeholdt stempel- og tinglysningsafgift, ville der have været en alternativ, justeret åbningsbalance som den i bilag 2 angivne«.
In the letter dated 4 June 2003 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry states that: ‘Theoretically, if document duty and registration fee were to be accrued in the opening balance sheet, the adjusted and alternative opening balance would have been as described in attachment 2’).
Bilag 2 beskriver en alternativ åbningsbalance, hvor de samlede aktiver og passiver er de samme, men hvor bl.a. ejendommenes værdi er nedskrevet med et beløb svarende til afgifterne.
Attachment 2 describes an alternative opening balance sheet where total assets and liabilities/equity are the same, but where i.a the value of the properties is reduced with the same amount as the excise duty.
Ministeriet konkluderer, at Entra ikke har fået nogen økonomisk fordel som følge af fritagelsen for stempel- og registreringsafgifter.
The Ministry concludes that Entra has not received any economic advantages as a consequence of the exemption from excise duties.
Den hypotetiske åbningsbalance, som de norske myndigheder beskriver, er baseret på den antagelse, at køberen (Entra) vil nedjustere sit krav til afkast (9,5 %) og egenkapitalandel (40 %), hvis der skal betales stempel- og registreringsafgift.
The hypothetical opening balance sheet described by the Norwegian authorities is based on the assumptions that the buyer (Entra) would not reduce its demanded rate of return (9,5 %) and equity ratio (40 %) if the excise duty had to be paid.
Det betyder, at den hypotetiske åbningsbalance er baseret på den antagelse, at sælger altid vil bære afgiftsbyrden 100 %, og at ejendommens værdi i en alternativ åbningsbalance vil blive reduceret med et beløb, der nøjagtigt svarer til afgifterne.
This implies that the hypothetical opening balance sheet is based on the assumption that the seller will always pay 100 % of the excise duty and that the value of the buildings in an alternative opening balance would be reduced by exactly the same amount as the excise duty.
Tilsynsmyndigheden har ingen grund til at sætte spørgsmålstegn ved den nettonutidsværdimetode, der blev brugt, da Entras åbningsbalance blev opstillet.
The Authority has no reason to question the legitimacy of the Net Present Value method used when the opening balance of Entra was established.
Men som det fremgår af den norske regerings egne forsøg på at finde frem til ejendommenes reelle værdi (se punkt I 2.2 ovenfor og de betydelige forskelle mellem de alternative værdiansættelser), kunne der også være benyttet andre metoder.
However, as the Norwegian Government’s own attempts to find the correct value of the real estate shows (see point I 2.2 above and the considerable differences between the alternative values), other methods could have been used.
Man kunne have lagt andre antagelser til grund, og disse metoder og antagelser kunne meget vel have ført til en situation, hvor afgiftsbyrden ikke ville være blevet båret 100 % af sælger.
Other assumptions could also have been used, and those other methods and assumptions could very well have resulted in a situation where the burden of the tax would not have been born 100 % by the seller.
I en normal markedssituation med flere interesserede købere er det mere sandsynligt, at den yderligere afgiftsbyrde, den aftalte transaktionspris indebar, ville være blevet splittet op mellem sælger og køber.
In a normal market situation with several bidders, it is more likely that the extra burden of the excise duty through the agreed transaction price would have been split between the seller and the buyer.
Tilsynsmyndigheden finder det ikke muligt at opstille nogen generel regel om, at markedsprisen på en ejendom altid vil blive øget med nøjagtigt det beløb, køberen normalt skulle betale i afgifter for at få tinglyst ejendommen i situationer, hvor disse afgifter enten allerede er blevet betalt eller ikke skal betales på grund af en lovhjemlet fritagelse.
The Authority does not find it possible to establish a general rule according to which the market price of a building will always rise with exactly the amount that the buyer should normally pay in indirect taxes for registering that building in situations where those taxes have either already been paid or shall not be incurred due to a legislative exemption.
Og i sit brev af 30. juni 2005 erkender handels- og industriministeriet da også, at man ikke kan drage en sådan entydig konklusion, og at regeringens argument angående nettovirkningen af, at afgifterne ikke blev betalt, udelukkende er baseret på den specifikke værdiansættelsesmetode, regeringen valgte at anvende i relation til Entra.
Indeed, in the letter dated 30 June 2005 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry acknowledges that one cannot make such a sweeping conclusion and that the Government’s argument about the net effect on the non-payment on the excise duty is based purely on the use of the specific method for value assessment that the Government chose to apply to Entra.
I denne sag valgte Norge at undlade at opkræve stempel- og tinglysningsafgift af Entra og pointerede, at dette indgik som en forudsætning for den senere værdiansættelse af ejendommene.
In the present case, Norway chose not to levy the excise duty on Entra and did specify that the later assessment of the value of the real estate depended on this premise.