natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Tilsynsmyndigheden bemærker, at den foreliggende transaktion omfatter ydelse af støtte (i form af en investering), og ikke et salg, og vurderingen af, hvorvidt der er tale om statsstøtte, afhænger derfor ikke af en potentiel købers adfærd, men af om støtten giver Mesta AS en økonomisk fordel.
The Authority observes that the present transaction involves the grant of funding (in the context of an investment), not a sale, and the assessment of whether State aid is involved depends therefore, not on the behaviour of a potential buyer, but on whether such funding results in an economic advantage for Mesta AS.
De norske myndigheder har desuden anført, at myndighederne i stedet for at nedsætte værdien af indskuddet af naturalier valgte at kompensere Mesta AS for omkostningerne forbundet med ulempen ved omstruktureringsforanstaltningerne.
The Norwegian authorities have also argued that instead of reducing the value of the contribution in kind, the authorities chose rather to compensate Mesta AS for the costs related to the disadvantage of the restructuring measures.
Eftersom det ikke ville medføre en fordel at reducere aktivernes værdi, medfører kompensationen heller ikke en fordel.
Since reducing the value of the assets would not involve an advantage, neither does the cost compensation.
Tilsynsmyndigheden bemærker, at et sådant valg ikke nødvendigvis betyder, at Mesta AS ikke fik en økonomisk fordel gennem den ydede støtte.
The Authority observes that the existence of such a choice does not necessarily mean that Mesta AS did not receive an economic benefit from the funding provided.
Hvad angår spørgsmålenes indhold bestrider de norske myndigheder, at nogen af ovennævnte foranstaltninger indebærer en økonomisk fordel.
As to the substance of the issues the Norwegian authorities contest the fact that any of the abovementioned measures involve an economic advantage.
De gør i stedet gældende, at foranstaltningerne blev anvendt for at kompensere for en strukturel ulempe, som Mesta AS var blevet pålagt, og udligne de omkostningstunge ansættelsesvilkår for tjenestemandsansatte.
Rather, they claim that the measures were adopted to compensate for a structural disadvantage imposed on Mesta AS and make up for the costly employment conditions resulting from civil servant status.
Omkostningerne ved at betale yderligere støtte for (midlertidigt) at kompensere for pensionsrettigheder til tjenestemænd bør betragtes som en forpligtelse for staten, idet det var en direkte konsekvens af medarbejdernes ansættelse i staten som tjenestemænd.
The costs of paying additional sums to compensate (during a temporary period) for pension rights granted to civil servants should be considered to be an obligation of the State because it was a direct consequence of the employees’ state employment as civil servants.
Eftersom statens finansiering af sådanne yderligere omkostninger er begrænset til differencen mellem omkostningerne ved en almindelig pensionsordning og udgifterne til en tjenestemandspensionsordning (eller en alternativ foranstaltning), betaler staten kun de yderligere omkostninger, der er forbundet med det tidligere ansættelsesforhold. De norske myndigheder har med henvisning til Combus-dommen gjort gældende, at hvis de relevante omkostninger betragtes som en forpligtelse for staten, ville statens finansiering af sådanne omkostninger formentlig ikke udgøre en økonomisk fordel.
Since State financing of such additional sums is limited to funding the difference between the cost of an ordinary pension scheme and the cost of a civil servant pension scheme (or alternative measure), the State pays only the additional costs resulting from the previous employment relationship.
I Combus-sagen anførte Retten i Første Instans, at »formålet med den pågældende foranstaltning var at erstatte den gunstige og bekostelige ordning, som gjaldt for de tjenestemandsansatte, der var beskæftiget af Combus, med overenskomstvilkår svarende til dem, der gjaldt for ansatte i andre busselskaber, som var i konkurrence med Combus.
The Norwegian authorities have argued with reference to the Combus judgment, that if the relevant costs are considered to be an obligation of the State the provision of State funding to cover such costs would arguably not constitute an economic advantage.
Tilsynsmyndigheden mener, at en stor forskel med hensyn til statsstøttevurderingen er, at kompensationen i Combus-sagen blev betalt direkte til medarbejderne, hvorimod den norske stat i denne sag betaler Mesta AS direkte.
The Authority is of the opinion that an important difference with regard to the State aid assessment is that in Combus the compensation was paid directly to the employees, whereas in the present case the Norwegian State pays Mesta AS directly.
Endvidere var det i Combus-sagen medarbejderne der modtog betaling som kompensation for at opgive deres privilegerede status, da de blev overflyttet til et nyt selskab.
In addition, in Combus, the payment was made to the employees in compensation for giving up their privileged status when transferring to the new company.
Da medarbejderne først var blevet overflyttet, var ansættelsesforholdet mellem dem og virksomheden derfor ikke påvirket af deres tidligere status.
As of the transfer, the employment relationship between the employees and the company was therefore not influenced by the employees’ previous status.
I den foreliggende sag beholdt de tjenestemænd, der blev overført til Mesta AS, visse tjenestemandsrettigheder midlertidigt gennem deres ansættelseskontrakt med Mesta AS.
However, in the present case, former civil servants transferred to Mesta AS continued to benefit from certain civil servant rights temporarily through their employment contract with Mesta AS.
Derfor mener Tilsynsmyndigheden, at dommen fra Retten i Første Instans i Combus-sagen omhandler en anden situation end den i den foreliggende sag [155].Hvad angår Domstolen, er det fast retspraksis, at eksistensen af statsstøtte skal vurderes i kraft af dens virkninger og ikke under hensyn til grundene til eller hensigten med de statslige interventioner [156].
Consequently, the Authority finds that the judgment by the Court of First Instance in Combus addresses a different situation from the one in the present case [155].The Court of Justice has, for its part, constantly ruled that the existence of aid must be assessed in relation to its effect and not the causes or objectives behind the state intervention [156].
Derfor mener Tilsynsmyndigheden, at vurderingen af, om de tre ovennævnte foranstaltninger omfatter en økonomisk fordel, må tage udgangspunkt i en undersøgelse af, hvorvidt den offentlige finansiering af omkostningerne ved sådanne foranstaltninger fritager Mesta AS for noget, der kan betragtes som en byrde, som normalt belaster en virksomheds budget [157].
Therefore, the Authority considers that in order to determine whether the three above mentioned measures involve an economic advantage the starting point is to examine whether the public financing of the costs of such measures relieves Mesta AS from what may be considered as normally included in the budget of an undertaking [157].
Alle foranstaltningerne er blevet indført for at muliggøre overførslen af produktionsafdelingens aktiviteter til Mesta AS.
All of the measures have been introduced in order to make possible the transfer of the activities of the Production Department to Mesta AS.
Som det allerede er beskrevet, var foranstaltningerne nødvendige for i) at tilskynde medarbejderne til at blive overflyttet til det nye selskab, og ii) reducere antallet af medarbejdere.
As already described, measures needed to be put in place in order to (i) encourage employees to transfer to the new company; and (ii) reduce the work force.
I den foreliggende sag var det et krav, at Mesta AS blev medlem af SPK for (midlertidigt) at kunne opretholde rettighederne til tjenestemandspension og den særlige pensionsalder.
In the present case, in order to be able (temporarily) to maintain civil servant pension and special retirement age rights, Mesta AS was effectively required to become member of the SPK.
I forbindelse med medlemskabet af SPK fik Mesta AS en juridisk forpligtelse til at betale pensionsbidrag til SPK for de overflyttede medarbejdere.
As a result of membership of SPK, Mesta AS came under a legal obligation to pay pension contributions to SPK for transferred employees.
Mesta AS var villig til at påtage sig denne forpligtelse, fordi selskabet ville få udgifterne refunderet af staten.
Mesta AS was prepared to accept that obligation because it would be reimbursed by the State for the costs thereof.
Derfor blev omkostningerne til pensionsrettigheder knyttet til SPK-medlemskab (midlertidig opretholdelse af tjenestemandspension og den særlige pensionsalder) i realiteten pålagt Mesta AS [158].
Consequently, the cost of the pension rights linked to the SPK membership (temporarily maintenance of civil servant pension rights and of special retirement age) was effectively imposed on Mesta AS [158].
Endvidere bemærker Tilsynsmyndigheden, at det i forarbejderne til lovgivningen (dvs. regeringens forslag til Stortinget) blev gjort klart, at finansieringen af de pågældende pensionsforanstaltninger ville blive ydet på grundlag af en aftale om, at Mesta AS skulle betale de relevante omkostninger til medarbejderne [159].
Moreover, the Authority observes that the legislative preparatory works (i.e., the Government’s proposal to the Parliament) made it clear that the funding for the pension measures at issue would be granted on the basis of the understanding that Mesta AS would pay the relevant costs for the employees [159].
Den overordnede ramme (dvs. forslaget og den efterfølgende vedtagelse deraf i Stortinget), som den norske stat fastlagde, var derfor baseret på den betingelse, at Mesta AS skulle betale pensionsomkostningerne.
The overall framework (i.e., the proposal and subsequent endorsement thereof by Parliament) adopted by the Norwegian State was therefore based on the prerequisite that Mesta AS pays the pension costs.
Disse omstændigheder kunne tyde på, at Mesta AS var underlagt en juridisk forpligtelse til at afholde de relevante pensionsomkostninger, som derfor kunne betragtes som en byrde, som normalt belaster en virksomheds budget.
These circumstances could indicate the presence of a legal obligation for Mesta AS to cover the relevant pension costs and, thus, be considered as normally included in the budget of the undertaking.
Med hensyn til retten til førtidspensionering kunne denne foranstaltning endvidere bruges af selskabet til at gennemføre personalenedskæringer.
In addition, with regard to the early pension entitlement, this measure was to be used at the discretion of the company to reduce excess staff.
Denne alternative metode sikrede imidlertid også, at medarbejderne var beskyttet i tilfælde af personalenedskæringer.
However, the alternative downsizing measure also ensured protection for the employees in the case of redundancy.
Omkostninger afholdt i forbindelse med foranstaltninger til personalenedskæringer eller omstrukturering af et selskab bør betragtes som en udgift, som virksomheden normalt skal bære, uanset om de valgte foranstaltninger er dyrere end det, virksomheden er forpligtet til i henhold til den gældende arbejdsret eller overenskomst [160].
Costs related to measures introduced to reduce the workforce or reorganise the company should be considered as normal cost, even if the measures chosen are more costly than what the company is obliged to provide under the applicable labour law or collective agreement [160].
Endvidere udgør økonomiske forpligtelser knyttet til lønudgifter generelt en del af en virksomheds produktionsomkostninger og bør derfor betragtes som en virksomheds normale omkostninger, uanset om forpligtelserne er blevet pålagt i medfør af lovgivningen eller overenskomst eller er frivillige.
Moreover, from a general point of view financial obligations linked to labour costs form part of a company’s production cost and should thus, constitute normal costs of the company regardless of whether the obligations are imposed on the company by law, collective agreement or undertaken voluntarily.
Enhver fritagelse for sådanne forpligtelser betragtes derfor normalt som statsstøtte [161].En virksomheds lønudgifter omfatter ikke kun løn, men også aflønning i bredere forstand, og dækker pensionsomkostninger og andre omkostninger knyttet til virksomhedens arbejdsstyrke, herunder arbejdsløshedsunderstøttelse [162].
Hence, any relief from such obligations is normally considered as State aid [161].A company’s labour costs comprise not only salary, but also remuneration in a broader sense, and covers pensions costs and other costs linked to the company’s work force, such as unemployment benefits [162].
I den foreliggende sag fjerner den omstændighed, at foranstaltningerne skulle finansieres gennem statstilskud, ikke overgangsrettighedernes karakter af lønudgift, som virksomheden normalt skal bære [163].
In the present case, the fact that the measures would be funded through State grants, does not prevent the transitional right given to the employees from being a labour cost normally incurred by that undertaking [163].
Endvidere gav statens finansiering af pensionsforpligtelserne selskabet flere fordele.
Furthermore, the state funding of the pension obligations entailed additional advantages for the company.
Selv om det måske ikke var i Mesta AS' direkte kommercielle interesse at overtage alle produktionsafdelingens medarbejdere, var det afgørende for selskabet at have tilstrækkeligt personale, herunder visse nøglemedarbejdere, for at sikre effektiv drift helt fra starten.
Although it was perhaps not in Mesta AS’ direct commercial interest to take over the whole work force of the Production Department, it was crucial for the company to have sufficient staff, including key personnel, to ensure the efficient operation of the business from the start.
Statens støtte sikrede, at dette mål blev opfyldt.
The state funding ensured the achievement of that objective.
Endvidere finder Tilsynsmyndigheden det sandsynligt, at statens finansiering af de særlige pensionsrettigheder betød, at Mesta AS blev fritaget for udgifterne til andre typer supplerende pensionsordninger.
In addition, the Authority finds it likely that the presence of the state funding for the particular pension rights entailed that Mesta AS was relieved of costs for other types of supplementary pensions.
Dette er tilfældet, fordi i hvert fald et antal af de tidligere medarbejdere muligvis ville have kunnet forhandle sig frem til andre gunstigere supplerende pensionsordninger end en almindelig privat pensionsordning.
This is so because at least a certain number of the former employees would possibly have been able to negotiate other more favourable supplementary pension arrangements than an ordinary private pension scheme.
Da de medarbejdere, der var omfattet af de relevante pensionsforanstaltninger, var ansat i Mesta AS på det tidspunkt, hvor omkostningerne blev afholdt, finder Tilsynsmyndigheden, at virkningen af de pågældende foranstaltninger derfor var at lette Mesta AS' normale budgetbyrder.
As the employees benefiting from the relevant pensions measures were part of the work force of Mesta AS at the point when the costs were accrued, the Authority finds that the effect of the contested measures was therefore to mitigate Mesta AS’ normal budgetary burdens.
Derfor mener Tilsynsmyndigheden, at statens finansiering af ovennævnte foranstaltninger indeholdt elementer af økonomiske fordele for Mesta AS.
Therefore, the Authority considers that the state funding of the abovementioned measures entailed elements of economic advantages for Mesta AS.
Med hensyn til den støtte, som staten ydede til Mesta AS til dækning af omkostningerne til »flytning« og »transport«, bemærker Tilsynsmyndigheden, at forpligtelsen til at dække sådanne omkostninger stammer fra en række incitamenter tilbudt til tidligere ledende eller administrative medarbejdere i Statens vegvesen (som f.eks. flytteomkostninger, transport, dobbelt husleje i privatbolig, rejseomkostninger osv.) med henblik på at tilskynde dem til at tage ansættelse i Mesta AS.
With respect to the funding provided by the State to Mesta AS in order to cover costs incurred for purposes of ‘moving’ and ‘commuting’ the Authority observes that the obligation to cover such costs results from a range of incentives offered to previous leading or administrative personnel in the Public Road Administration (such as, moving costs, commuting, double rent of domiciles, travel costs etc.) in order to induce them to take up employment at Mesta AS.
Som nævnt ovenfor omfatter en virksomheds normale økonomiske forpligtelser som udgangspunkt alle de lønudgifter, en virksomhed afholder i forbindelse med at ansætte eller tiltrække medarbejdere.
As referred to above, the normal financial obligations of an undertaking include as a starting point, any labour costs a company incurs for purposes of employing or attracting employees.
Det mest almindelige incitament, der bruges til at tiltrække medarbejdere, er løn, men andre incitamenter, såsom kompensation for de ulemper, der er forbundet med, at medarbejderne bor langt væk (som f.eks. finansiering af flytning og transport), er hverken mere eller mindre et redskab, som en virksomhed bruger til at tiltrække og betale attraktive medarbejdere.
While the most common incentive to attract employees is salary, other incentives, such as compensation for disadvantages related to the geographic location of employees’ domiciles (such as the financing of moving and commuting) are no more or no less a tool used by a company to obtain and pay desired employees.
Tilsynsmyndigheden har derfor antaget det synspunkt, at statens refundering af Mesta AS' omkostninger i forbindelse med posteringerne »flytning« og »transport« udgør en økonomisk fordel, som Mesta AS ikke ville have haft på sædvanlige forretningsvilkår.
The Authority has therefore taken the view that the reimbursement by the State to Mesta AS of the costs incurred under the items entitled ‘moving’ and ‘commuting’ constitutes an economic advantage which Mesta AS would not have received in the normal course of its business.
Hvad angår de statslige midler, som Mesta AS modtog til dækning af omkostningerne til flytning af kontorer samt støttefunktioner og vedligeholdelsesafdelinger fra Statens vegvesen til Mesta AS' nye kontorer samt omlægning af de tidligere kontorer og oprydning i de gamle arkiver med henblik på at etablere nye arkiver (til et samlet beløb på 50,2 mio. NOK), omfatter sådanne omkostninger ikke kun rydning af gamle kontorer i Statens vegvesen, men også klargøring og opgradering af nye kontorer til Mesta AS samt installation af elektroniske og fysiske arkiver hos Mesta AS.
With respect to the State funding received by Mesta AS to cover costs for purposes of moving offices and support and maintenance offices from the Public Road Administration to the new offices of Mesta AS as well as reorganising former offices and sorting out old archives for purposes of establishing new archives (covering a total amount of NOK 50,2 million), such costs include not only costs for purposes of cleaning out old offices at the Public Road Administration but also the preparation and upgrading of new offices for Mesta AS as well as installing electronic and physical archives in Mesta AS.
Tilsynsmyndigheden mener, at selv om det kan anerkendes, at omkostningerne til rydning af Statens vegvesens gamle kontorer vedrører arbejde, som tidligere er blevet udført af Statens vegvesen, svarer arten af omkostningerne til klargøring og opgradering af de kontorer, Mesta AS skal bruge, til nye virksomheders etableringsomkostninger.
The Authority considers that while it may be accepted that costs related to cleaning out old offices of the Public Road Administration relate to the work previously carried out by the latter, the nature of the costs for purposes of preparing and upgrading offices for the use of Mesta AS are similar to costs incurred for purposes of establishing a new company.
Sådanne omkostninger bør derfor afholdes af den nye virksomhed.
The latter costs should thus be borne by the new company.
I lyset af at omkostningerne omfattede opgaver såsom rydning af Statens vegvesens gamle kontorer, som skulle bruges af den nye virksomhed, oprydning i Statens vegvesens arkiver for at finde ud af, hvilke dokumenter der var relevante for den nye virksomhed, er det vanskeligt at adskille opgaverne fra hinanden.
However, given that the cost items have involved tasks such as cleaning out old offices of the Road Administration to be used by the new company, sorting out archives of the Road Administration in order to identify which files are relevant for the new company, it is difficult to separate the tasks from each other.
Ud fra disse betragtninger finder Tilsynsmyndigheden, at omkostningerne i tilknytning til flytning af kontorerne (herunder støttefunktioner og vedligeholdelsesafdelinger) samt overførsel af arkiver udgør omkostninger, som skulle bæres dels af staten, dels af den nye virksomhed.
Based on these considerations the Authority takes the view that the costs related to moving offices (including support and maintenance offices) as well as the transfer of archives are costs which should be partly borne by the State and partly by the new company itself.
Eftersom den nye virksomhed, Mesta AS, blev etableret den 1. januar 2003, skal omkostninger afholdt før denne dato betales af staten, mens omkostninger afholdt efter denne dato skal betales af Mesta AS.
Since the new company, Mesta AS, was established on 1 January 2003, costs incurred prior to that date must be borne by the State while costs incurred after that date must be covered by Mesta AS.
På dette grundlag vil de forskellige udgiftsposter blive fordelt (til staten eller Mesta AS) i overensstemmelse med det tidspunkt, hvor omkostningerne blev afholdt.
On this basis the various cost items will be allocated (to the State or Mesta AS) in accordance with when the costs were incurred.
Endelig med hensyn til omkostningerne til fornyelse af maskiner har Mesta AS modtaget kompensation for at rydde produktionsafdelingens byggepladser.
Finally, as regards the cost item of renovation of machines, Mesta AS has been compensated for cleaning out previous work sites of the Production Department.
Mesta AS har derfor udført en tjeneste for Statens vegvesen [164].
Mesta AS has therefore provided a service to the Public Road Administration [164].
Spørgsmålet er derfor, hvorvidt prisen for Mesta AS' tjeneste til Statens vegvesen svarer til markedsprisen for en sådan tjeneste.
The question is therefore whether the price of the service provided by Mesta AS to the Public Road Administration corresponds to the market price for such a service.
Tilsynsmyndigheden bemærker, at en del af arbejdet blev udført af underentreprenører på kommercielle vilkår, mens andet arbejde blev udført af Mesta AS selv til timepris [165].
The Authority observes that part of the work has been carried out by sub contractors on commercial terms and another part by Mesta AS itself at an hourly cost based rate [165].
Tilsynsmyndigheden finder, at anvendelsen af forskellige underentreprenører på kommercielle vilkår viser, at der blev anvendt markedsbaserede priser, samt at statens kompensation til Mesta AS i dette tilfælde derfor ikke indebærer en økonomisk fordel.
The Authority has taken the view that the engagement of a variety of subcontractors on commercial terms is evidence that market based prices were applied and that the State compensation to Mesta AS in this regard does therefore not involve an economic advantage.
Endvidere mener Tilsynsmyndigheden, at fordi det arbejde, som Mesta AS selv udførte, var baseret på kostpris, eksklusiv fortjeneste, er der ingen grund til at betvivle de norske myndigheders udsagn om, at disse priser ligger under markedspriserne.
Moreover, since the work carried out by Mesta AS itself was on the basis of cost prices, exclusive of any profits, the Authority takes the position that there is no reason to question the submission of the Norwegian authorities that such prices are below market prices.