natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det næste spørgsmål drejer sig om, hvorvidt primæromkostningerne ved de 29 bygninger kan fastlægges ved at fratrække værdien af de bygninger, som ikke blev solgt til Haslemoen AS.
The next question is whether the primary cost of the 29 buildings in question can be determined by deducting from the Inner Camp the value of the buildings that were not sold to Haslemoen AS.
Den beskrevne fremgangsmåde indebar hovedsagelig, at der ikke blev foretaget nogen detaljeret vurdering af de 29 bygninger, fordi meget tydede på, at andre dele af Indre Leir havde en tilstrækkelig stor værdi til at sikre, at den samlede værdi ville svare til kommunens angivne primæromkostninger ved Indre Leir.
The described method basically entailed that no detailed assessment was made of the 29 buildings in question because there were indications that other parts of the Inner Camp were of a sufficiently high value to ensure that the overall value corresponded to the municipality’s alleged primary cost for the Inner Camp.
Denne metode forekommer at være usikker og vilkårlig, fordi de 3 forskellige bygningsgrupper alle blev vurderet efter forskellige metoder.
This method appears uncertain and random due to the fact that the 3 different groups of buildings all were assessed according to different methods.
De 12,4 mio. NOK i primæromkostninger for Indre Leir blev fastlagt med udgangspunkt i middelværdierne.
In short, the bridge value report was used to establish the starting point, the NOK 12,4 million primary cost value of the Inner Camp as such.
I den efterfølgende vurdering af de 3 forskellige bygningsgrupper blev der sat en værdi på de 29 bygninger, der var betydeligt lavere end middelværdien, og der blev sat en højere værdi på både de bygninger, kommunen beholdt, og de 11 andre bygninger, man senere havde modtaget et bud på.
In the following assessment of the 3 different groups of buildings, a considerably lower value than the bridge value was put on the 29 buildings at issue and a higher value was put both on the buildings the municipality kept and the 11 others for which it had later received an offer.
Den lavere værdi blev sat på grundlag af den pris, kommunen havde forhandlet sig frem til med Haslemoen AS, og de højere værdier blev begge fastlagt på grundlag af efterfølgende, nyere oplysninger i form af en vurdering og et indkommet bud.
The lower value was established on the basis of the negotiated price with Haslemoen AS and the higher values were both established on the basis of subsequent and newer information in the form of value assessments and an offer received.
Dette medførte efter Tilsynsmyndighedens opfattelse en åbenbar risiko for, at selv om det overordnede udgangspunkt for vurderingen af Indre Leir havde været korrekt (hvilket det ikke var, jf. ovenfor), kunne prisen for de 29 bygninger blive for lav, idet de senere revurderinger af de andre områder resulterede i højere værdier.
This entailed in the view of the Authority the obvious risk that even if the overall starting point of the Inner Camp value had been correct (which it was not, see above), the price for the 29 buildings could be too low because later re-assessments of the other areas had established higher values.
Om ikke andet tydede de senere, højere vurderinger i denne sag i hvert fald på, at udgangspunktet med de 12,4 mio. NOK var sat for lavt.
Indeed, if anything, the later and higher value assessments in this case should point to little else than that the starting point at NOK 12,4 million was too low.
Tilsynsmyndigheden konkluderer derfor, at den metode, der er nævnt i vurderingen af 2. maj 2006, ikke var egnet til at bestemme primæromkostningerne ved og dermed markedsværdien af de 29 bygninger.
Thus, the Authority concludes that the method referred to in the assessment of 2 May 2006 was not suitable to determine the primary cost and thereby the market value of the 29 buildings in question.
Hvordan primæromkostningerne ved de 29 bygninger kan fastlægges korrekt
How to correctly determine the primary cost of the 29 buildings
Som nævnt ovenfor, kompliceres vurderingen af primæromkostningerne ved de 29 bygninger af, at det ikke af aftalen mellem staten og kommunen klart fremgik, hvad kommunen betalte for de forskellige bygninger i Indre Leir.
As mentioned above, the assessment of the primary cost of the 29 buildings at issue is complicated by the fact that it was not made clear in the agreement between the state and the municipality what the latter paid for the different buildings in the Inner Camp.
Kommunen betalte i stedet et samlet beløb på 15,5 mio. NOK for hele Indre Leir, hvori det ovennævnte nedslag på 30 % var indregnet.
Instead it paid a fixed sum of NOK 15,5 million for the whole Inner Camp which included the so called 30 % rebate mentioned above.
Denne middelværdi var baseret på de to foregående vurderinger.
However, that bridge value was based on the two prior value assessments.
Den første Agdestein-rapport var baseret på en særkilt vurdering af alle bygningerne og er faktisk den eneste vurdering af dem, der forelå på daværende tidspunkt.
The first Agdestein report was based on individual assessment of the buildings and is in fact the only contemporary assessment thereof.
Eftersom denne vurdering dannede grundlag for middelværdien, der igen dannede basis for den faktiske pris, kommunen betalte, finder Tilsynsmyndigheden, at den første Agdestein-rapport indeholder de individuelle værdiansættelser, der er nødvendige for at kunne bestemme primæromkostningerne ved de 29 bygninger korrekt.
Since this assessment was the basis for the bridge value which again formed the basis for the actual price paid by the municipality, the Authority considers that the first Agdestein report provides the individual values necessary to accurately establish the primary cost of the 29 buildings in question.
Salgskontrakten omfattede følgende 29 bygninger i Indre Leir: [25] Bygning nr. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, (31,) 33, 92 og 16.
The sales contract in question comprises the following 29 buildings at the Inner Camp [25]: Nos 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, (31,) 33, 92 and 16.
Den første Agdestein-rapports vurdering af investorværdien af disse bygninger er som følger:
The investor values as assessed in the first Agdestein report of these buildings are the following:
Vagt/arrestbygning:
Guard/arrest stall: NOK
Velfærdsbygning, med kontorer, cafeteria, biograf, kapel osv.
Welfare House, including offices, cafeteria, cinema, chapel etc. NOK
Administrations- og kontorbygning
Administration and office Building NOK
Øvelsesbygning
Drill Building NOK
Administrations- og kontorbygning
Administration and office building NOK
Hospitalsbygning
Hospital Building NOK
Køkken- og kantinebygning for menigt personel
Kitchen and canteen building for soldiers personnel NOK
Køkken- og kantinebygning for officerer
Kitchen and canteen building for officers NOK
Barak
Barrack
Barak, samlet vurdering for nr. 12 og 13
Barrack, No 12-13 are assessed together NOK
Barak,
Barrack,
Barak, samlet vurdering for nr. 14 og 15
Barrack, No 14-15 are assessed together NOK
Garage,
Garage, NOK
Garage
Garage,
Værksted
Service garage,
Benzinstation
Gas/petrol station
Garage, samlet vurdering for nr. 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 og 27
Garage, No 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 are assessed together NOK
Regimentsbygning med undervisningslokale
Regiment building with education room
Postkontor, samlet vurdering for nr. 29 og 92
Post office, No 29 and 92 are assessed together NOK
Skolebygning
School building, NOK
(Lagerskur)
(Store shed),
Kultur- og undervisningsbygning
KO-building, school building NOK
Varmebygning
Fire/heating house NOK
I alt
NOK
Rapporten indeholdt ikke nogen særskilt vurdering af bygning nr. 6 og nr. 8 hver for sig (garager).
The report did not separately assess the value of the individual buildings No 6 and No 8 (garages).
De blev i stedet vurderet sammen med bygning nr. 45 (kombineret driftsbygning med lagerrum, kontorer og værksted, ikke med i aftalen med Haslemoen AS) til en samlet værdi på 1,9 mio. NOK.
Instead, they were assessed together with building No 45 (combined administration building with storage rooms, offices and workshop, not included in the contract with Haslemoen AS) at a total of NOK 1,9 million.
Bygning nr. 23 og 24 (garage og benzinstation) blev på samme måde vurderet sammen med bygning nr. 34 (kontorbygning, ikke med i aftalen med Haslemoen AS) til en samlet værdi på 800000 NOK.
Building No 23 and No 24 (garage and gas station) were, in the same manner, assessed together with building No 34 (the camp office building, which was not included in the contract with Haslemoen AS) at a total value of NOK 800000.
Spørgsmålet er derfor, om en del af den værdi, disse samlevurderede bygninger blev sat til, bør henføres til de bygninger, Haslemoen AS købte, nemlig de fire garager nr. 6, 8, 23 og 24.
The question is therefore whether some of the value put on these collectively assessed buildings should be allocated to the buildings acquired by Haslemoen AS, namely the four garages No 6, 8, 23 and 24.
Dette spørgsmål blev rejst i Tilsynsmyndighedens åbningsbeslutning, hvor den fulgte det mest favorable scenarie ved at se bort fra disse bygninger.
This issue was raised in the Authority’s opening decision referred to above, in which the Authority applied the most favourable scenario by disregarding these buildings.
Tilsynsmyndigheden har ikke fået noget belæg for, at de nævnte fire garager var værdiløse, men den antager, at de var af begrænset værdi, eftersom man i den første Agdestein-rapport havde valgt at lade enhver eventuel værdi af dem indgå i vurderingerne af andre bygninger.
While the Authority has not been presented with any documentation to the effect that the four mentioned garages were worthless, it assumes that they were of limited value since the first Agdestein report chose to include whatever value they had in the estimates for other buildings.
I mangel af enhver dokumentation for det modsatte og ud fra den antagelse, at deres værdi under alle omstændigheder må anses for at være lav, vil Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke medregne nogen konkret værdi for disse fire bygninger i sin vurdering af den relevante del af Indre Leir.
Thus, in the absence of any contemporary documentation to the opposite and on the assumption that the value in any case appeared to be low the Authority will not add any specific value for these four buildings in the assessment of the relevant part of the Inner Camp.
Den samlede værdi af de 29 bygninger når ifølge den første Agdestein-rapport op på 23840000 NOK.
The total value of the 29 buildings in question, as assessed in the first Agdestein report, reaches the sum of NOK 23840000.
Som nævnt ovenfor, fik kommunen et nedslag på 30 % [26] af den værdi, Indre Leir var vurderet til i den første Agdestein-rapport.
As mentioned above, the municipality was granted the so called 30 % rebate [26] on the Inner Camp value in the first Agdestein report.
Da Tilsynsmyndigheden finder, at det under de omstændigheder, der gør sig gældende i denne sag, var berettiget at yde et tilsvarende nedslag til Haslemoen AS, udgør den justerede værdi af de 29 bygninger ifølge vurderingen i den første Agdestein-rapport 23840000 - 25,64 % =
Since the Authority under the circumstances of the present case finds that it was justified to grant a similar rebate to Haslemoen AS, the adjusted value of the 29 buildings as established by this report is 23840000 - 25,64 % =
Ved anvendelse af middelværdimetoden udgjorde kommunens primæromkostninger ved de 29 bygninger 8863712 NOK.
Applying the bridge value method, the primary cost for the municipality for the 29 buildings in question was NOK 8863712.
Eftersom Tilsynsmyndigheden har accepteret, at staten solgte Haslemoen Leir til Våler kommune til dens markedsværdi, accepterer den, at beløbet på 8863712 NOK svarer til kommunens primæromkostninger ved bygningerne og udgjorde den nødvendige indikator for markedsværdien.
Given that the Authority has accepted that the state sold Haslemoen Leir to Våler municipality at market value, it accepts that a sum of NOK 8863712 was the municipality’s primary cost for the buildings and that this was the necessary indication of the market value.
På grundlag heraf har den draget den konklusion, at salget til Haslemoen AS for 4 mio. NOK indeholdt statsstøtte på 8863712 NOK - 4000000 NOK =
On that basis it concludes that the sale to Haslemoen AS at NOK 4 million contained state aid amounting to NOK 8863712 - NOK 4000000 =
Kommunen har desuden gjort gældende, at Tilsynsmyndigheden bør tage hensyn til den prisreducerende effekt, som muligheden for forurening af jorden og Haslemoen AS’ forpligtelse til at give gratis adgang til brug af skolebygningen i et år har.
The municipality has also submitted that the Authority should take into consideration the price-reducing elements consisting of possible pollution in the ground and the obligation on Haslemoen AS to allow free use of the school building for one year.
Der er imidlertid ikke blevet fremlagt nogen samtidig eller senere frembragt dokumentation for disse angiveligt prisreducerende faktorer og den virkning, de skulle have haft for prisen.
There has however not been submitted any particular contemporary or subsequently produced documentation concerning these alleged price reducing elements and the impact they allegedly have had on the price.
Forurening af jorden
Pollution in the ground
Med hensyn til spørgsmålet angående forurening af jorden vil Tilsynsmyndigheden medgive, at der vil være sandsynlighed for forurening i betragtning af, at lejren siden 1950’erne havde været brugt til militære formål.
As regards pollution in the ground the Authority would agree that this could be a rather obvious possibility given that the camp was used for military purposes since the 1950s.
Tilsynsmyndigheden har i den forbindelse bemærket, at den første Agdestein-rapport specielt nævnte muligheden for forurening af jorden i Indre Leir på grund af olietanke i jorden.
The Authority has in this regard noted that the first Agdestein report specifically mentioned possible pollution in the ground in the Inner Camp related to fuel and oil tanks in the ground.
Det blev der imidlertid ikke taget hensyn til i vurderingen.
This was however not taken into account in the value assessment.
Alhaug/Bakke-vurderingen, der satte værdien af Indre Leir til 0 NOK, nævnte både muligheden for forurening af jorden og asbest i bygningerne, uden at gøre noget forsøg på at beregne eventuelle omkostninger i forbindelse hermed.
The Alhaug/Bakke value assessment, which estimate the value of the Inner Camp at NOK 0, mentioned both the possibility of pollution in the ground and possible asbestos in the buildings, without making an attempt at specifying possible costs related thereto.
Tilsynsmyndigheden erindrer dog om, at rapporterne blev brugt som grundlag for middelværdiberegninger.
However, the Authority recalls that the reports were used as a basis for the halfway settlement.
Der må derfor antages at være taget højde for enhver prisreduktion og ethvert andet negativt element med den middelværdiløsning, der derefter blev valgt.
Thus, any price reducing or negative element in the report must be assumed taken into account by the subsequent halfway settlement.
Tilsynsmyndigheden ser da heller ingen grund til at foretage nogen yderligere prisreduktion på grund af noget element eller nogen omstændighed, som parterne i den første transaktion var vidende om.
Indeed, the Authority sees no basis for any additional price reduction for any element or circumstance that was known between the parties to the first transaction.
For det må antages, at der må være taget højde for virkningerne heraf i den middelværdibaserede salgspris.
This is so since the effect of such measures must be assumed taken into account in the bridge value sales price.
Et videresalg til en pris svarende til primæromkostningerne må antages at dække de samme prisreducerende faktorer.
A resale at primary cost must be assumed to cover the same price reducing elements.
Endelig blev der i salgsaftalen mellem staten og kommunen udtrykkeligt henvist til muligheden for forurening af jorden og til princippet i den norske miljølov om, at det er forureneren, der skal betale.
Finally, the contract between the state and the municipality explicitly referred to the possibility of pollution in the ground and made a reference to the polluter pays principle in the Norwegian Pollution act.
Den efterfølgende salgsaftale mellem kommunen og Haslemoen AS nævnte udtrykkeligt denne forpligtelse samt at sælger, dvs. den norske stat, fortsat hæftede for forurening af jorden på grund af den militære aktivitet.
The subsequent contract between the municipality and Haslemoen AS specifically referred to this obligation and that the seller, i.e. the Norwegian state remained liable for ground pollution linked to the military activity.
Af disse årsager ser Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke nogen grund til nogen yderligere prisreduktion i forbindelse med mulig forurening.
For those reasons the Authority sees no basis for any further price reduction on ground of possible pollution.
Brug af skolebygningen
The use of the school building
Med hensyn til kommunens ret til gratis at bruge skolen i et år bemærker Tilsynsmyndigheden, at der var tale om en ny forpligtelse for køberen i den forstand, at der ikke allerede fandtes en sådan forpligtelse, som staten havde pålagt kommunen.
As regards the right for the municipality to free use of the school building for one year, the Authority notes that this was a new obligation on the buyer in the sense that no such obligation was already imposed by the state on the municipality.
Den kan derfor ikke som sådan anses for at være indregnet i middelværdiprisen.
Thus it cannot be as such presumed to be covered by the bridge value price.
Men i mangel af enhver dokumentation for denne forpligtelses økonomiske virkning, dvs. det tab, Haslemoen AS eventuelt kommer til at lide ved ikke at kunne udleje bygningen i et år, kan Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke acceptere nogen prisreducerende effekt i forbindelse hermed.
However, in the absence of any supporting documentation as to the economic impact of this obligation, i.e. the possible loss for Haslemoen AS in not being able to lease out that building for one year, the Authority cannot accept any price reducing effect as such.
Forpligtelsen gjaldt kun en af bygningerne, og der var allerede i prisen taget højde for, at det ville være vanskeligt at få lejet alle bygningerne ud med det samme, eftersom der i forvejen var for mange udlejningsemner i området.
The obligation concerned just one of the buildings and it was already taken into account in the price that it would be difficult to lease out all the properties immediately as there was already a surplus of available lease objects in the area.
Det blev fremhævet i begge vurderinger.
This was emphasised by both value assessments.
Desuden skulle kommunen dække sin andel af de faste omkostninger og opvarmning i denne periode.
Moreover, the municipality would cover the share of fixed costs and heating for the building for the same period.
Endelig henviser Tilsynsmyndigheden til den vurdering, den anlagde ovenfor, hvor den accepterede, at kommunen gav Haslemoen AS det samme nedslag, som den selv havde fået ved købet af hele Indre Leir.
Finally, the Authority refers to its assessment above in which it has accepted that the municipality gave the same quantity rebate to Haslemoen AS as it obtained itself for acquiring the whole Inner Camp.
Tilsynsmyndigheden har desuden heller ikke medregnet nogen særskilt værdi for de fire garager, der blev solgt til Haslemoen AS, og som blev vurderet sammen med andre bygninger i Indre Leir, som Haslemoen AS ikke købte.
Moreover, the Authority did not add any specific value for the four garages sold to Haslemoen AS that were valued together with other buildings at the Inner Camp, which Haslemoen AS did not buy.
Tilsynsmyndigheden finder, at ethvert tab, Haslemoen AS måtte lide ved ikke at være i stand til at leje skolen ud i et år efter købet, må være udlignet af disse for Haslemoen AS favorable betingelser.
Thus, the Authority assumes that any possible loss from not being able to lease out the school for a year after the acquisitions should be considered neutralised by these for Haslemoen AS favourable considerations.
Konklusion angående det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip
Conclusion on the market investor principle
I lyset af det ovenstående har Tilsynsmyndigheden draget den konklusion, at salget af de 29 bygninger til Haslemoen AS ikke foregik i overensstemmelse med det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip.
In light of the above, the Authority concludes that the sale of the 29 buildings to Haslemoen AS was not carried out in accordance with the market investor principle.
Bygningerne blev solgt til en pris under markedsværdien, som indebar statsstøtte på 4863712 NOK.
The buildings were sold at a price below market value that entailed state aid of NOK 4863712.
I det følgende vil Tilsynsmyndigheden derfor se på, om salget af bygningerne opfylder de yderligere kriterier i EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1.
Consequently, in the following, the Authority will assess whether the sale of the buildings fulfils the additional criteria under Article 61(1) EEA.
Statsmidler og selektiv fordel
State resources and selective advantage
For at en foranstaltning skal kunne kvalificeres som statsstøtte, må den være ydet af staten eller med statsmidler.
In order to qualify as state aid, the measure must be granted by the state or through state resources.
Dette begreb omfatter alle statslige niveauer, herunder også kommuner.
The concept embraces all levels of the state, including municipalities.
Som det fremgår af det ovenstående, var der tale om statsmidler, da Våler kommune solgte de 29 bygninger i Indre Leir til en pris, der lå betydeligt under markedsprisen.
As demonstrated above, state resources were involved because Våler Municipality sold the 29 buildings in the Inner Camp at a price substantially below the market price.
Denne handel gav Haslemoen AS en selektiv fordel, eftersom den blev ydet på grundlag af en kontrakt, som alene begunstigede dette selskab.
The transaction provided Haslemoen AS with a selective advantage as it was received on the basis of a contract according to which it was the only beneficiary.
Det følger af fast retspraksis [27], at ved anvendelsen af disse bestemmelser indebærer alene det forhold, at støtten styrker en virksomheds stilling i forhold til andre virksomheder, som den konkurrerer med i samhandelen inden for EØS, at der er tale om en påvirkning af samhandelen inden for EØS.
It follows from settled case law [27] for the purpose of these provisions the mere fact that aid strengthens a firm’s position compared with that of other firms, which are competitors in intra-EEA trade, entails that intra-EEA trade is affected.
Tilsynsmyndigheden erindrer om, at de her omhandlede bygninger blev vurderet og købt på basis af investorværdien, dvs. deres værdi baseret på fremtidige lejeindtægter.
The Authority recalls that the buildings in questions were valued and bought on the basis of the investor value, i.e. the value based on future rental income.
Investering i fast ejendom med det formål at leje ud til virksomheder må som sådan anses for at være en økonomisk aktivitet, hvis marked omfatter hele EØS, og i Norge findes der aktører på dette marked fra mange EØS-lande.
Investing in real property for the purposes of leasing out to businesses must as such be considered as an EEA wide economic activity, which in Norway takes place with market participants from many EEA States.
Hvad den konkrete støttemodtager angår, fremgår det af det norske virksomhedsregister [28], at Haslemoen AS har aktiviteter i hotel-, motel- og restaurationsbranchen [29].
As for the specific aid recipient, according to the national company register in Norway [28], Haslemoen AS is involved in activities concerning hotels, motels and restaurants [29].
Selskabet driver Haslemoen Hotell i Indre Leir og udlejer bygninger til den norske stat til et asylcenter.
It operates Haslemoen Hotell at the Inner Camp and rents out buildings for an asylum centre to the Norwegian state.