natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De islandske myndigheder mente, at Tilsynsmyndigheden i sin vurdering af, om der var ydet statsstøtte, burde beregne selskabets samlede salgspris efter salg af de aktiver, der ikke var nødvendige for cementproduktion, til den islandske stat: »Det er endvidere statens mening, at hvis Tilsynsmyndigheden kommer til den konklusion at [en værdiansættelse efter cash flow-metoden] er den korrekte metode til at beregne salgsprisen […], så skal cash flow-metoden anvendes til at vurdere selskabets værdi efter frasalg af aktiver.«
The Icelandic authorities considered that when determining whether State aid was granted, the Authority should assess the total sales price of the company after the sale of the assets that were redundant to cement production back to the Icelandic State: ‘It is further the State’s opinion that if the Authority comes to the conclusion that a [cash-flow valuation] of the company is the correct valuation for determining the sales price […] [t]he Cash-Flow method should then be used, assessing the worth of the company after the sale of the assets.’
Staten ville opkøbe alle de aktiver i selskabet, der ikke var nødvendige for produktion og drift, for at mindske driftsomkostningerne og gøre selskabets drift mere levedygtig«.
The State would buy from the company all assets that were not elemental to the production and operation, to lessen the operational costs and make the operation of the company viable.’
Af ovennævnte grunde mente de islandske myndigheder ikke, at der var statsstøtte involveret i transaktionen.
For the abovementioned reasons, the Icelandic authorities considered that no State aid was involved in the transaction.
Hvis Tilsynsmyndigheden imidlertid skulle komme til den konklusion, at der var statsstøtte involveret, skulle en sådan statsstøtte ifølge de islandske myndigheder anses for berettiget i overensstemmelse med undtagelsen i artikel 61, stk. 3, litra c), i EØS-aftalen, navnlig bestemmelserne i kapitel 16 i retningslinjerne for statsstøtte til omstrukturering af en kriseramt virksomhed.
However, should the Authority come to the conclusion that State aid was involved, in their opinion such State aid should be regarded as justified in accordance with the derogation provided in Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, in particular the provisions of Chapter 16 of the State Aid Guidelines as aid for restructuring a firm in difficulty.
I brev af 2. november 2006 anmodede de islandske myndigheder Tilsynsmyndigheden om ikke at afslutte visse aspekter af den eksisterende formelle undersøgelse, da »der skal tages højde for alle aspekter af transaktionen for at få en klar forståelse for sagen.«
In a letter dated 2 November 2006, the Icelandic authorities requested the Authority to consider not closing some aspects of the existing formal investigation since ‘one has to regard all the aspects of the transaction in whole in order to have a clear understanding of the matter’.
Bemærkninger fra Íslenskt sement ehf.
Comments from Íslenskt sement ehf.
Ved brev af 20. juni 2005 fremsendte Íslenskt sement ehf. deres kommentarer til Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning nr. 421/04/KOL om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure vedrørende salg af statens aktier i Sementsverksmiðjan.
By letter dated 20 June 2005, Íslenskt sement ehf. submitted its comments to the Authority’s Decision No 421/04/COL to open the formal investigation procedure on the sale of the Icelandic State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan.
Íslenskt sement ehf. mener ikke, der var involveret statsstøtte i ovennævnte salg.
In the opinion of Íslenskt sement ehf., no State aid was involved in the abovementioned sale.
Selskabet anførte følgende: »Íslenskt sement er overbevist om, at det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip blev overholdt, navnlig da den samlede købspris for Sementsverksmiðjan var mindst tilsvarende — hvis ikke betydelig højere — end selskabets egentlige markedsværdi i den omhandlede transaktion«.
The company stated that: ‘Íslenskt Sement is convinced that the market investor principle was met, especially as the overall purchase price of Sementsverksmiðjan was at least equivalent, if not considerably higher, than the company’s real market value in the addressed transaction.’
Íslenskt sement ehf. mente, at en cash flow-værdiansættelse, der normalt bruges ved vurderinger af cementselskaber, var den eneste rimelige metode til værdiansættelse af selskabet.
Íslenskt sement ehf. considered that a cash-flow valuation, as generally used in the valuation of cement companies, was the only fair method of valuing the company.
Selskabet påstod imidlertid, at den islandske stat ikke var villig til at forhandle på dette grundlag, da det ville have betydet en negativ købspris.
The company alleged, however, that the Icelandic State was not willing to negotiate on this basis as it would have resulted in a negative purchase price.
Íslenskt sement ehf. mente, at hvis cash flow-metoden var blevet anvendt i forbindelse med Sementsverksmiðjan, ville den vurderede markedsværdi have været nul eller endda negativ.
According to Íslenskt sement ehf., had the cash-flow method been applied in the case of Sementsverksmiðjan, the estimated market value would have been zero or even negative.
Derfor mente Íslenskt sement ehf., at den værdi, der fremkom ved at anvende likvidationsmetoden svarede til selskabets maksimale markedsværdi på købstidspunktet.
For this reason, Íslenskt sement ehf. considered that the value obtained by the application of the liquidation method corresponded to the maximum market value of the company at the time of purchase.
Íslenskt sement ehf. anførte endvidere, at likvidationsværdien på 69,6 mio. ISK ikke tog højde for udgifter i forbindelse med likvidation og lukning af driften, herunder rydning af grunden.
Íslenskt sement ehf. further argued that the liquidation value of ISK 69,6 million did not take into account any expenses due in connection with the liquidation and closing down of operations, including the clearing of the ground.
Íslenskt sement ehf. påstod, at købsprisen for aktierne i Sementsverksmiðjan hf. langt oversteg selskabets likvidationsværdi.
Íslenskt sement ehf. claimed that the purchase price for the shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf. by far exceeded the company’s liquidation value.
Íslenskt sement ehf. medgav, at de særlige aktiver, som staten købte, ikke blev solgt individuelt, men sammen med salget af aktierne som en integreret del af den samlede købsaftale.
Íslenskt sement contended that the particular assets purchased by the National Treasury were not sold individually but in connection with the sale of the shares, as an integral part of the overall purchase agreement.
Derfor »kan Tilsynsyndigheden ikke ved vurderingen af, om der var involveret statsstøtte i salget af Semenstverksmidjan, foretage en individuel værdiansættelse af alle solgte aktiver, men skal tage højde for følgerne af salget af de individuelle aktiver for den samlede vurdering af selskabets værdiansættelse på salgstidspunktet.«
Therefore, ‘when assessing whether State aid was involved in the sale of Sementsverksmiðjan the Authority cannot place an individual evaluation on each asset sold but has to take into account the effect of the sale of the individual assets to the overall assessment of the valuation of the company at the time of sale’.
Bemærkninger fra Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf.
Comments from Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf.
Ved brev af 2. september 2005 fremsendte Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf. sine kommentarer til Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning nr. 421/04/KOL om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure vedrørende salg af statens aktier i Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
By letter of 2 September 2005, Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf. submitted comments on the Authority’s Decision 421/04/COL to open the formal investigation procedure regarding the sale of the State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
Selskabet var enig i de synspunkter, Tilsynsmyndigheden gav udtryk for i beslutningen, men henviste også til den islandske stats overtagelse af Sementsverksmiðjan hf.’s pensionsforpligtelser, der ikke var omhandlet i Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning.
The company shared the concerns and views expressed by the Authority in the said decision but also referred to the Icelandic State’s taking over of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.’s pension obligations which had not been addressed in the Authority’s Decision.
Tilstedeværelsen af statsstøtte i forbindelse med salget af den islandske stats aktier i Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
The existence of State aid in the sale of the State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
Ifølge oplysningerne fra de islandske myndigheder solgte staten sine aktier i Sementsverksmiðjan hf. for 68 mio. ISK i en transaktion, der var knyttet til den islandske stats erhvervelse af nogle af selskabets aktiver, der ikke var nødvendige for selskabets drift.
According to the information provided by the Icelandic authorities, the State sold its shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf. for a price of ISK 68 million, in a transaction linked to the acquisition by the National Treasury of Iceland of some assets of the company which were not necessary for the operation of the company.
Selv om disse to elementer i transaktionen er tæt forbundet, således at Íslenskt sement ehf. købte den operative del af Sementsverksmiðjan hf. frigjort for aktiver og aktier, der ikke var nødvendige for cementproduktion, vil Tilsynsmyndigheden i denne beslutning vurdere aktiesalget isoleret.
Although these two elements of the transaction are closely connected, so that what Íslenskt sement ehf. bought was the operative part of Sementsverksmiðjan hf. released from assets and shares redundant to cement production, in this decision, the Authority will assess the sale of shares on its own merits.
Det skyldes, at den potentielle modtager af statsstøtte i forbindelse med salget af den islandske stats aktier i Sementsverksmiðjan hf. vil være Íslenskt sement ehf.
This is because the potential beneficiary of State aid in the case of the sale of the State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf. would be Íslenskt sement ehf.
Derimod vil den potentielle modtager af en eventuel statsstøtte ydet i forbindelse med statens omstrukturering af selskabets aktiver-passiver i forbindelse med aktiesalget være cementproducenten, dvs. Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
In contrast, the potential beneficiary of any possible State aid granted in the context of the assets-liabilities restructuring of the company made by the State in connection to the sale of shares would be the cement producer itself, i.e. Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
Det er fra sidstnævnte, at staten opkøbte forskellige aktiver og overtog pensionsforpligtelserne.
It is from the latter that the State purchased various assets and took over pension liabilities.
Det hedder i artikel 61, stk. 1, i EØS-aftalen, at:
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement provides that:
Før det vurderes, om det omhandlede salg indebærer statsstøtte ifølge EØS-aftalens artikel 61, vil Tilsynsmyndigheden tage stilling til den islandske regerings argumenter, hvorefter statsstøtte kan udelukkes, da kapitel 18B i retningslinjerne for »Statsstøtte ved offentlige myndigheders salg af jord og bygninger« finder anvendelse.
Before assessing whether the present sale contains State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, the Authority will address the Icelandic Government’s arguments that the presence of State aid can be excluded due to the application of Chapter 18B of the State Aid Guidelines on ‘State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities’.
Kapitel 18B i retningslinjerne for »Statsstøtte ved offentlige myndigheders salg af jord og bygninger«
Chapter 18B of the State Aid Guidelines regarding ‘State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities’
Kapitel 18B i retningslinjerne for »Statsstøtte ved offentlige myndigheders salg af jord og bygninger« giver oplysninger om, hvordan Tilsynsmyndigheden fortolker og anvender bestemmelserne i EØS-aftalen om statsstøtte, når der er tale om at vurdere offentlige myndigheders salg af jord og bygninger.
Chapter 18B of the State Aid Guidelines ‘State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities’ gives information on how the Authority interprets and applies the provisions of the EEA Agreement governing State aid when it comes to assessing sales of land and buildings by public authorities.
Hvis procedurerne i kapitel 18B i Tilsynsmyndighedens retningslinjer for statsstøtte ved offentlige myndigheders salg af jord og bygninger følges, er der en formodning om, at der ikke er statsstøtte involveret i salget.
If the procedures laid down in Chapter 18B of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines related to public authorities’ sales of land and buildings are followed, there is a presumption that no State aid is involved in the sale.
Selv om de islandske myndigheder anmeldte betingelserne for salget af statens aktier i Sementsverksmiðjan hf, mente de, at salget var foretaget i overensstemmelse med kapitel 18B i retningslinjerne for statsstøtte ved offentlige myndigheders salg af jord og bygninger.
Although the Icelandic authorities notified the terms of the transaction regarding the sale of the State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf., they held the view that the sale had taken place in accordance with Chapter 18B of the State Aid Guidelines on the sales of land and buildings.
De mener derfor ikke, at der er involveret statsstøtte i transaktionen.
Therefore, in their opinion, no State aid had been involved in the transaction.
Som allerede nævnt i beslutningen om at indlede den officielle undersøgelsesprocedure mener Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke, at kapitel 18B kan anvendes på den her omhandlede transaktion.
As already stated in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Authority considers that Chapter 18B cannot be applied to the transaction at stake.
Staten solgte ikke blot jord og bygninger, som den ejede, men sine aktier i et 100 % ejet selskab, som fortsætter driften.
The State did not merely sell land and buildings which it owned, but its shares in a 100 %-owned undertaking which continues operations.
Selv om kapitel 18B fandt anvendelse, blev procedurerne til udelukkelse af statsstøtte ikke fulgt.
Even if Chapter 18B was applicable, the procedures described to exclude the presence of State aid were not followed.
Den udbudsprocedure, der blev fulgt i dette tilfælde, er ikke i overensstemmelse med definitionen i kapitel 18B.2.1(1)(b).
The bidding procedure followed in the case at hand did not comply with the definition foreseen under Chapter 18B.2.1(1)(b).
For det første var udbuddet ikke tilstrækkeligt offentliggjort.
First of all, it was not sufficiently publicised.
Endvidere var formålet udelukkende at udvælge en kommende køber, som prisen efterfølgende blev forhandlet med.
Moreover, it only served to select a future buyer with whom the price was negotiated afterwards.
Hvad angår den alternative procedure, dvs. salg på basis af en uafhængig ekspertvurdering, fastsatte en ekspert, MP-verðbréf hf., i dette tilfælde likvidationsværdien for Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
Regarding the alternative procedure, i.e. the sale on the basis of an independent expert evaluation, in the case at hand, an expert, MP-verðbréf hf. established the liquidation value of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
Selskabet blev alligevel solgt som en igangværende koncern, hvilket medfører en fortsættelse af cementproduktionen.
Nevertheless, the company was sold as an on-going concern, implying that cement production would continue.
I den situation kan det ikke formodes, at likvidationsværdien svarede til markedsværdien, og tilstedeværelsen af statsstøtte kan derfor ikke udelukkes uden en yderligere vurdering.
In these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the liquidation value corresponded to the market value excluding the existence of State aid without further assessment.
Det er nødvendigt at fastslå, hvilken metode der er mest hensigtsmæssig til at beregne et selskabs markedsværdi på disse vilkår, og foretage en værdiansættelse i den henseende.
It seems necessary to determine which is the more appropriate method to determine the market value of a company in these circumstances and to carry out an assessment accordingly.
En yderligere analyse af, hvad selskabets markedspris kunne være, og om der var involveret statsstøtte i salget af Sementsverksmiðjan hf.’s aktier til Íslenskt sement ehf., foretages nedenfor.
A further analysis of what the market price of the company could be and whether any State aid was involved in the sale of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.’s shares to Íslenskt sement ehf. is given in the following.
Vurdering af tilstedeværelsen af statsstøtte ved aktiesalget
State aid assessment of the sale of shares
For at en foranstaltning betragtes som statsstøtte i henhold til EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, skal den opfylde følgende kumulative betingelser:
In order for a measure to be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, it must fulfil the following cumulative conditions:
Støtten udgør en selektiv fordel.
the aid constitutes a selective advantage,
Støtten er ydet med statsmidler.
the aid is granted through State resources,
Støtten fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencen.
the aid distorts or threatens to distort competition,
Støtten påvirker samhandelen mellem EØS-aftalens kontraherende parter.
and affects trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
En selektiv fordel — markedspris
A selective advantage — market price
En foranstaltning, der giver visse støttemodtagere en særlig fordel, og som ikke er en generel foranstaltning, opfylder den første af ovennævnte betingelser.
A measure which grants an advantage to certain specific beneficiaries, and which is not a general measure, fulfils the first of the conditions mentioned above.
Det er derfor nødvendigt at fastslå, om den virksomhed, foranstaltningen er rettet til, opnår en økonomisk fordel, som den ikke ville have opnået på sædvanlige markedsbetingelser [10].
It is therefore necessary to establish whether the undertaking concerned receives an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions [10].
EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, sondrer ikke mellem statsstøtteforanstaltninger efter grundene til eller hensigten med de pågældende interventioner, men alene efter deres virkninger [11].
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement does not distinguish between State interventions by reference to their causes or their objectives but defines them by reference to their effects [11].
Det følger heraf, at begrebet støtte er et objektivt begreb, ved hvis afgrænsning det alene har betydning, om en statslig foranstaltning giver en eller nogle virksomheder en fordel [12].Erhvervelse af aktiver til under markedsprisen udgør i princippet en fordel.
It follows that the concept of aid is an objective one, the test being whether a State measure confers an advantage on one or more particular undertakings [12].The acquisition of assets for a price under their market value constitutes, in principle, an advantage.
Hvis Íslenskt sement ehf. havde købt Sementsverksmiðjan hf. til en pris, der svarede til selskabets markedspris, ville selskabet ikke have opnået en fordel ved denne transaktion.
Therefore, had Íslenskt sement ehf. paid for Sementsverksmiðjan hf. a price which corresponded to the market value of the company, it would have obtained no advantage from this transaction.
For at fastslå, om Íslenskt sement ehf. betalte en pris for statens aktier, der lå under markedsværdien, pålagde Tilsynsmyndigheden en uafhængig ekspert at fastsætte markedsværdien for Sementsverksmiðjan hf. på salgstidspunktet.
In order to determine whether Íslenskt sement ehf. paid a price of the State’s shares below their market value, the Authority entrusted an independent expert with the assessment of the market value of Sementsverksmiðjan hf. at the time the sale took place.
Den uafhængige ekspert vurderede selskabets markedsværdi, da hele transaktionen var afsluttet under hensyntagen til, at selskabet fortsatte sin virksomhed.
The independent expert assessed the market value of the company once the whole transaction was completed, taking into account the undertaking which continues operations.
Det vil sige, at den uafhængige ekspert vurderede markedsværdien for Sementsverksmiðjan hf., efter at Islands finansministerium havde tilbagekøbt nogle af selskabets aktiver, der ikke var nødvendige for cementproduktion [13], og finansministeriet havde overtaget selskabets pensionsforpligtelser.
This means that the independent expert assessed the market value of Sementsverksmiðjan hf. after the National Treasury of Iceland had re-purchased some assets of the company which were not necessary for cement production [13], and the Ministry of Finance had taken over pension-related liabilities of the company.
Med andre ord fastsatte den uafhængige ekspert markedsværdien af det, Íslenskt sement ehf. egentlig købte, nemlig aktierne i et tømt selskab.
In other words, the independent expert assessed the market value of what Íslenskt sement ehf. really purchased, i.e. the shares in a stripped-off company.
Ifølge den uafhængige ekspert er den eneste metode, der kan give en idé om den rimelige pris for selskabet i en transaktion som salget af statens aktier i Sementsverksmiðjan hf., den såkaldte discounted cash flow-metode (brugsværdi) [14].
In the opinion of the independent expert, the only method that can give an idea of what might be the fair value of the company in a transaction like the sale of the State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf. is the method of discounting estimated future cash flows (value in use) [14].
Nettonutidsværdien af de forventede likviditetsstrømme ved fremtidig brug af et anlægsaktiv udgør en investors beregning af resultatet af et givet projekt.
The net present value of the expected cash-flows from future use of a fixed asset represents the calculation of an investor for the outcome of a potential project.
Cash flow-beregninger kan derfor variere afhængig af de individuelle investorers strategier.
Cash-flow projections may therefore vary with the strategies of each individual investor.
Derfor mente den uafhængige ekspert, at den bedste fremgangsmåde var at identificere en række mulige resultater for brugsværdien og fastsætte en øvre og en nedre grænse for disse resultater.
Therefore, in the opinion of the independent expert, the best approach to follow was to identify a range of possible outcomes for the value in use, establishing an upper and a lower limit to the outcomes.
De islandske myndigheder blev bedt om at fremlægge de oplysninger og beregninger, der var nødvendige for at fastsætte disse grænser [15], for at få en idé om den objektive værdi af hovedaktiviteten, som er cementproduktion.
The Icelandic authorities were asked to provide information and calculations necessary to establish these limits [15] to obtain an idea of the fair value of the core activity, which is cement production.
Da driftsværdien var blevet fastsat, udgjorde ethvert aktiv, der ikke indgik i hovedaktiviteten (som f.eks. finansielle aktiver), en forhøjelse af værdien, og enhver forpligtelse (som f.eks. gæld eller andre finansielle forpligtelser) udgjorde en nedsættelse af denne værdi.Cash flow-scenarier fremlagt af de islandske myndigheder
Once the operational value had been established, any asset added that did not belong to the core activity (such as any financial asset) represented an addition to the value, and any liability (such as any debt or other financial obligation) represented a reduction.Cash-flow scenarios presented by the Icelandic authorities
Efter anmodning fra den uafhængige ekspert blev de islandske myndigheder på dette grundlag bedt om at fremlægge to scenarier, nemlige scenario I baseret på cememtimport til Island svarende til 30 % af det samlede marked, og scenario II baseret på ingen import.
On this basis, upon the request made by the independent expert, the Icelandic authorities were asked to produce two scenarios, Scenario I that assumed cement imports to Iceland at 30 % of the total market, and Scenario II that assumed no import.