natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Tilsynsmyndigheden henviste for det første til salgsprocessen, og eftersom salget ikke var annonceret i overensstemmelse med statsstøtteretningslinjerne, udtrykte den tvivl om, hvorvidt Oslo kommune opfyldte målsætningerne bag bestemmelserne i kapitel 18B.2.1 i statsstøtteretningslinjerne (salg ved betingelsesløst udbud).
Firstly, the Authority referred to the sales process and, taking into account that the sale was not advertised in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines, expressed doubts as to whether the Municipality of Oslo complied with the objectives behind the provisions of Chapter 18B.2.1 of the State Aid Guidelines (sale with an unconditional bidding procedure).
Hvad angår værdiansættelserne (kapitel 18B.2.2 i statsstøtteretningslinjerne), udtrykte Tilsynsmyndigheden for det andet tvivl om, hvorvidt OPAK's vurdering (den vurdering, der blev anvendt af kommunen) var gennemført før salgsforhandlingerne, om vurderingen var foretaget på grundlag af almindeligt accepterede markedsindikatorer og vurderingsstandarder, og om der — under hensyntagen til tidspresset — blev gjort en rimelig indsats for at sælge lejlighederne til markedsværdien.
Secondly, concerning the valuations (Chapter 18B.2.2 of the State Aid Guidelines), the Authority expressed doubts as to whether the evaluation by OPAK (the evaluation used by the Municipality) was carried out prior to the sales negotiations, whether the evaluation was carried out on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards and, taking into account the time constraint, whether a reasonable effort to sell the apartments at market value took place.
Endvidere var den aftalte (og anmeldte) salgspris 715 mio. NOK, mens resultatet af en ny værdiansættelse, som ønsket af handels- og industriministeriet, var 1055 mio. NOK (FIGA/Nortakst).
Furthermore, the sales price agreed (and notified) was NOK 715 Million, while the result of a new value appraisal, as requested by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, was NOK 1055 Million (FIGA/Nortakst).
I betragtning af det store misforhold mellem de to værdiansættelser udtrykte Tilsynsmyndigheden tvivl om, hvorvidt den aftalte salgspris (715 mio. NOK) afspejlede markedsværdien.
Taking into account the huge discrepancy between the two appraisals, the Authority expressed doubts as to whether the agreed sales price (NOK 715 Million) reflected the market value.
For det tredje henviste Tilsynsmyndigheden til det forhold, at kommunen hævdede, at selv om den opnåede pris blev anset for at være under markedsværdien, lå salget uden for anvendelsesområdet for EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, fordi det marked, som Fredensborg var involveret i, ikke indeholdt elementer af grænseoverskridende samhandel.
Thirdly, the Authority referred to the fact that the Municipality argued that even if the price obtained were found to be below market value, the sale fell outside the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement because the market in which Fredensborg was involved did not contain elements of cross-border trade.
Tilsynsmyndigheden mente, at markedet for fast ejendom i Oslo ikke var begrænset til lokale virksomheder, og at Fredensborg faktisk eller potentielt konkurrerede med lignende virksomheder i Norge og andre EØS-stater.
The Authority considered that the real estate market in Oslo was not limited to local undertakings and that Fredensborg was actually, or potentially, in competition with similar undertakings in Norway and other EEA States.
For det fjerde var Tilsynsmyndigheden i tvivl om, hvorvidt en salgspris under markedsværdien kunne være berettiget på grundlag af princippet om en investor i en markedsøkonomi, dvs. at kommunen optrådte som enhver anden privat investor, idet der blev taget hensyn til tidspresset og den hospitalsreform, som regeringen havde indledt.
Fourthly, the Authority expressed doubts as to whether a sales price below market value could be justified on the basis of the market economy investor principle, i.e. that the Municipality behaved as any other private investor, taking into account the time constraint and the hospital reform initiated by the Government.
De norske myndigheders bemærkninger til beslutningen om at indlede proceduren
Comments to the opening decision from the Norwegian authorities
Ved brev af 12. september 2003 fra Norges Delegation ved EU, som var vedlagt to breve af 11. september 2003 fra henholdsvis handels- og industriministeriet og Oslo kommune, og som alle indgik til og blev registreret hos Tilsynsmyndigheden den 15. september 2003 (dok. nr. 03-6307-A), fremsatte de norske myndigheder deres bemærkninger til beslutningen om at indlede proceduren.
By letter dated 12 September 2003 from the Mission of Norway to the European Union, forwarding two letters dated 11 September 2003 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Municipality of Oslo, respectively, all received and registered by the Authority on 15 September 2003 (Doc. No: 03-6307-A), the Norwegian authorities submitted their comments to the opening decision.
De samme breve blev sendt med telefax af 11. september 2003 fra handels- og industriministeriet og indgik hos og blev registreret af Tilsynsmyndigheden samme dato (dok. nr. 03-6201-A).
The same letters were sent by telefax dated 11 September 2003 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, received and registered by the Authority on the same date (Doc. No: 03-6201-A).
I brevet fra handels- og industriministeriet af 11. september 2003 blev der ikke tilkendegivet nogen mening om sagen, men kun henvist til brevet fra Oslo kommune.
The letter from the Ministry of Trade and Industry dated 11 September 2003 did not express any views on the case, but only referred to the letter from the Municipality of Oslo.
Oslo kommune henviste til sine tidligere argumenter og fremførte for det første, at målsætningerne bag bestemmelserne i kapitel 18B.2.1, Salg ved betingelsesløst udbud, i statsstøtteretningslinjerne blev nået til trods for, at salget ikke blev offentliggjort på den måde, der er foreskrevet i retningslinjerne.
The Municipality of Oslo referred to its previous arguments and maintained, firstly, that the objectives behind the provisions of Chapter 18B.2.1, Sale through an unconditional bidding procedure, of the State aid Guidelines, were obtained despite that the sale was not made public in the way prescribed in the Guidelines.
Kommunen hævdede, at alle potentielle købere i Norge var blevet underrettet om det kommende salg, og at der blandt investorer, som ikke allerede var etableret i Norge, kun var ringe interesse for at investere i det norske boligudlejningsmarked.
The Municipality argued that all potential buyers established in Norway had been informed of the forthcoming sale and that there was little interest in investing in the Norwegian housing rental market among investors not already established in Norway.
For det andet hævdede kommunen, at OPAK's værdiansættelse overholdt procedurekravene i kapitel 18B.2.2, Salg uden betingelsesløst udbud, i statsstøtteretningslinjerne.
Secondly, the Municipality argued that the value assessment by OPAK complied with the procedural requirements of Chapter 18B.2.2, Sale without an unconditional bidding procedure, of the State Aid Guidelines.
Det indebar bl.a., at kommunen mente, at OPAK's vurdering var udført »for at fastlægge markedsværdien på grundlag af almindeligt accepterede markedsindikatorer og vurderingsstandarder«, og at vurderingen var foretaget »før salgsforhandlingerne«.
That implied i.a. that the Municipality considered that the evaluation by OPAK was carried out ‘in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards’ and that the evaluation was carried out ‘prior to the sale negotiations’.
Kommunen hævdede endvidere, at forskellen mellem salgsprisen (715 mio. NOK) og OPAK's værdiansættelse (740 mio. NOK) var i overensstemmelse med kapitel 18B.2.2, litra b), »Prismargen« i statsstøtteretningslinjerne [17].For det tredje mente kommunen, at der var grund til at være meget skeptisk med hensyn til den nye værdiansættelse fra FIGA/Nortakst, som konkluderede, at værdien var 1055 mio. NOK.
The Municipality furthermore argued that the difference between the sales price (NOK 715 Million) and the OPAK evaluation (NOK 740 Million) was in line with Chapter 18B.2.2(b), ‘Margin’, of the State Aid Guidelines [17].Thirdly, the Municipality considered that there were grounds for being very sceptical about the new value appraisal from FIGA/Nortakst, which concluded that the value was NOK 1055 Million.
Kommunen anførte, at FIGA/Nortakst baserede sin værdiansættelse på en årlig prisstigning for ejendommen over de næste ti år på 4 %, mens priserne faldt med 5,2 % fra andet kvartal 2002 til andet kvartal 2003.
The Municipality stated that FIGA/Nortakst based its appraisal on an annual price increase for the property over the next 10 years of 4 %, while the prices fell by 5,2 % from the 2nd quarter 2002 to the 2nd quarter 2003.
Kommunen mente, at man ikke kunne have tillid til FIGA/Nortaksts vurdering.
The Municipality considered that the FIGA/Nortakst assessment could not be relied upon.
For det fjerde kunne kommunen »ikke se, at Tilsynsmyndigheden har defineret det relevante marked for lejeboliger, og hvordan dette får Tilsynsmyndigheden til at konkludere, at Fredensborg Boligutleie ANS faktisk eller potentielt konkurrerer med lignende virksomheder i Norge eller andre EØS-stater«.
Fourthly, the Municipality could ‘not see that the Authority has defined the relevant market for rental homes and how this leads the Authority to their conclusion that Fredensborg Boligutleie ANS is actually or potentially in competition with similar undertakings in Norway or other EEA States’.
Beslutningen om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure blev offentliggjort den 4. december 2003.
The Decision to open the formal investigation procedure was published on 4 December 2003.
Tilsynsmyndigheden modtog en bemærkning fra tredjemand til beslutningen om at indlede proceduren.
The Authority received one comment from third parties to the opening decision.
Ved brev af 19. december 2003, indgået hos og registreret af Tilsynsmyndigheden den 5. januar 2004 (dok. nr. 03-8980-A), fremsatte Fredensborg (køberen) sine bemærkninger.
By letter dated 19 December 2003, received and registered by the Authority on 5 January 2004 (Doc No: 03-8980 A), Fredensborg (the buyer) submitted comments.
Rapporten fra BER, Bygg og eiendomsrevisjon AS
The report by BER, Bygg og eiendomsrevisjon AS
BER, Bygg og eiendomsrevisjon AS (i det følgende benævnt BER), repræsenteret ved Arnt K. Svendsen, blev af Fredensborg bedt om at give deres vurdering af værdien af porteføljen og kommentere vurderingerne fra Catella, OPAK og FIGA.
BER, Bygg og eiendomsrevisjon AS (hereinafter BER), represented by Mr. Arnt K. Svendsen, was asked by Fredensborg to give their assessment of the value of the portfolio, and to comment upon the valuations from Catella, OPAK and FIGA.
Rapporten fra BER blev forelagt den 13. januar 2003.
The report from BER was submitted on 13 January 2003.
BER's vurdering var baseret på tre forskellige scenarier:
BER's assessment was based on three different scenarios:
Afkast af investeringsværdi baseret på udlejningsboliger:
Return on investment value based on rental housing:
630,0 mio. NOK
NOK 630,0 Million
Afkast af investering baseret på lejeindtægter i ti år, derefter individuelle salg over en treårs periode:
Return on investment based on rental for 10 years, thereafter individual sales over a three year period:
796,5 mio. NOK
NOK 796,5 Million
Som ovenfor, men salg af alle lejligheder individuelt i år 11:
Same as above, but sale of all apartments individually in year 11:
851,5 mio. NOK
NOK 851,5 Million
759,3 mio. NOK
NOK 759,3 Million
BER konkluderede, at markedsværdien lå i størrelsesordenen 700-800 mio. NOK.
BER concluded that the market value was in the range between NOK 700-800 Million.
BER vurderede ligeledes de tre tidligere værdiansættelser fra Catella, OPAK og FIGA.
BER also assessed the three previous assessments by Catella, OPAK and FIGA.
Catellas værdiansættelse var ifølge BER en teoretisk værdi baseret på den antagelse, at lejlighederne blev udlejet til markedsprisen fra dag et.
The assessment by Catella was, according to BER, a theoretic value based on the assumption that the apartments were let out at market price from day one.
OPAK's værdiansættelse tog ifølge BER ikke hensyn til det forhold, at lejeindtægterne var halvdelen af den regulære markedspris på tidspunktet for udbuddet.
The OPAK assessment did not take into account that rentals were half of the regular market price at the time of the bid, according to BER.
Endvidere var der i beregningerne ikke taget hensyn til det fremtidige tab som følge af løbende kontrakter under markedsprisen.
Furthermore, the future loss due to current contracts below market price was not taken into account in the calculations.
Der var heller ikke blevet udregnet lejetab under renoveringsfasen.
Neither were rental losses during rehabilitation phase calculated.
Der var ikke indregnet projektgevinster eller -risici i overslagene.
No project gains or risks had been incorporated in the estimates.
Ifølge BER var FIGA/Nortaksts vurdering også en teoretisk »going concern«-værdiansættelse.
According to BER, the FIGA/Nortakst appraisal was also a theoretic ‘going concern’ value assessment.
Der var ikke taget hensyn til projektrisici eller -gevinster.
No project risks or gains had been taken into account.
Dette afspejlede ikke den måde, hvorpå bydende normalt opfører sig på denne type marked.
This did not reflect the way bidders normally act in this type of market.
Der var ikke foretaget beregninger af genstandenes tekniske standard, lejetab under renoveringsfasen osv.
The technical standard of the objects, rental losses during the rehabilitation phase, etc. had not been calculated.
Rapporten fra Agdestein Takst & Eiendomsrådgivning AS
The report by Agdestein Takst & Eiendomsrådgivning AS
Agdestein Takst & Eiendomsrådgivning AS (i det følgende benævnt Agdestein), repræsenteret ved Pål Agdestein, blev i november 2002 af Fredensborg bedt om at analysere og kommentere de tre ovennævnte vurderinger og tilkendegive sin mening om porteføljens markedsværdi.
Agdestein Takst & Eiendomsrådgivning AS (hereinafter Agdestein), represented by Mr. Pål Agdestein, was asked, in November 2002, by Fredensborg to analyse and comment on the three valuations mentioned above and to give his view on the market value of the portfolio.
Pål Agdestein havde tidligere været ansat hos Catella med ansvar for den rapport, som dette firma havde fremlagt.
Mr. Agdestein was previously employed by Catella, and responsible for the report submitted by that firm.
Agdestein forelagde sin rapport for Fredensborg den 17. februar 2003.
Agdestein submitted his report to Fredensborg on 17 February 2003.
Agdestein kommenterede i detaljer de tre tidligere rapporter og fandt flere antagelser, som efter hans opfattelse burde korrigeres.
Agdestein commented in detail on the three previous reports and found several assumptions that, in his view, should be corrected.
På grundlag af nye »korrigerede« antagelser nåede Agdestein frem til, at den justerede værdi i Catella-rapporten var 744 mio. NOK, i OPAK-rapporten 560 mio. NOK og i FIGA/Nortakst-rapporten 560 mio. NOK (eller 760 mio. NOK, hvis værdien af opdelingen blev holdt på 200 mio. NOK) [18].
Based on new ‘corrected’ assumptions, Agdestein found that the adjusted value in the Catella report was NOK 744 Million, in the OPAK report NOK 560 Million and in the FIGA/Nortakst report NOK 560 Million (or 760 NOK Million if the value of the sectioning was kept at NOK 200 Million) [18].
Agdestein konkluderede, at porteføljens markedsværdi (i maj 2001) lå mellem 670 mio. NOK og 800 mio. NOK.
Agdestein concluded that the market value of the portfolio (in May 2001) was between NOK 670 Million and NOK 800 Million.
Eftersom den pris, Fredensborg havde betalt, lå i midten af alle værdiansættelserne, mente Fredensborg, at dette understøttede det synspunkt, at Fredensborg havde betalt markedsprisen.
As the price paid by Fredensborg was in the mid-range of all the value assessments, Fredensborg considered that this supported the view that Fredensborg had paid the market price.
De norske myndigheders bemærkninger til bemærkningerne fra tredjemand
Comments from the Norwegian authorities to the third party comments
Ved brev af 5. marts 2004 (ref. nr. 258313) forelagde Tilsynsmyndigheden Fredensborgs bemærkninger for de norske myndigheder og opfordrede dem til at svare inden en måned.
By letter dated 5 March 2004 (Event No: 258313), the Authority submitted the comments from Fredensborg to the Norwegian authorities, and invited them to reply within one month.
Ved brev af 23. marts 2004 fra Norges Delegation ved Den Europæiske Union, vedlagt et brev af 22. marts 2004 fra handels- og industriministeriet, begge indgået og registreret den 24. marts 2004 (ref. nr. 260564), bad de norske myndigheder »Tilsynsmyndigheden om at acceptere, at de norske bemærkninger fremsendes senest den 10. maj 2004«.
By letter dated 23 March 2004 from the Mission of Norway to the European Union, forwarding a letter dated 22 March 2004 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, both received and registered on 24 March 2004 (Event No: 260564), the Norwegian authorities asked ‘the Authority to accept that the Norwegian comments will be submitted by 10 May 2004.’.
De norske myndigheder henviste til en verserende mægling mellem sundhedsministeriet og Oslo kommune om ejendomsretten til lejlighederne.
The Norwegian authorities referred to a pending conciliation between the Ministry of Health and the Municipality of Oslo regarding the ownership of the apartments.
Brevet af 22. marts 2004 fra handels- og industriministeriet blev også fremsendt med telefax af 22. marts 2004, indgået og registreret samme dato (ref. nr. 260191).
The letter dated 22 March 2004 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry was also sent by telefax dated 22 March 2004, received and registered on the same date (Event No: 260191).
Ved brev af 25. marts 2004 godkendte Tilsynsmyndigheden, at fristen forlænges til den 10. maj 2004 (ref. nr. 260732).
By letter dated 25 March 2004, the Authority agreed to extend the deadline until 10 May 2004 (Event No: 260732).
Ved telefax af 23. april 2004 fra handels- og industriministeriet, indgået og registreret samme dato (ref. nr. 279122), indsendte ministeriet en kopi af aftalen (»Protokoll«) mellem Oslo kommune og den norske stat om ejendomsretten til hospitalslejlighederne.
By telefax dated 23 April 2004 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, received and registered on the same date (Event No: 279122), the Ministry submitted a copy of the agreement (‘Protokoll’) between the Municipality of Oslo and the Norwegian State concerning the ownership of the hospital apartments.
Ved brev af 13. maj 2004 fra Norges Delegation ved Den Europæiske Union, vedlagt et brev af 10. maj 2004 fra handels- og industriministeriet, begge indgået og registreret den 15. maj 2004 (ref. nr. 281488), anførte de norske myndigheder, at de »ikke har nogen bemærkninger til den bemærkning fra tredjemand, som Tilsynsmyndigheden har modtaget«.
By letter dated 13 May 2004 from the Mission of Norway to the European Union, forwarding a letter dated 10 May 2004 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, both received and registered on 15 May 2004 (Event No: 281488), the Norwegian authorities stated that they did ‘not have any comments to the third party comment received by the Authority’.
Brevet af 10. maj 2004 fra handels- og industriministeriet blev også fremsendt med telefax af 10. maj 2004, indgået og registreret den 11. maj 2004 (ref. nr. 281014).
The letter dated 10 May 2004 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry was also sent by telefax dated 10 May 2004, received and registered on 11 May 2004 (Event No: 281014).
Sagkyndig rapport fra Eirik Holm AS
Expert report from Eirik Holm AS
I 2004 engagerede Tilsynsmyndigheden Eirik Holm AS (i det følgende benævnt Holm) med det formål at foretage en undersøgelse af markedsværdien af de 1744 lejligheder, der var solgt af Oslo kommune.
In 2004, the Authority engaged Eirik Holm AS (hereinafter Holm) with the purpose of carrying out a study regarding the market value of the 1744 apartments sold by the Municipality of Oslo.
I kontrakten blev der henvist til det forhold, at Tilsynsmyndigheden under proceduren havde modtaget 5 værdiansættelser/rapporter, men at konklusionerne i disse rapporter afveg fra hinanden i en sådan grad, at Tilsynsmyndigheden stadig var i tvivl om, hvorvidt salgsprisen på 715 mio. NOK afspejlede markedsværdien.
The contract referred to the fact that the Authority in the course of the proceedings had received 5 valuations/reports, but that the conclusions in these reports deviated from each other to such an extent that the Authority was still in doubt as to whether the sales price of NOK 715 Million reflected the market value.
Tilsynsmyndigheden ønskede derfor at få klarlagt, om de tidligere værdiansættelser/overslag var baseret på almindeligt accepterede principper for vurdering af fast ejendom, og i hvor høj grad de forudsætninger og skøn, der var anvendt ved beregningerne, var rimelige.
The Authority therefore wanted to clarify whether or not the previous valuations/estimates of value were based on generally accepted principles for the valuation of fixed property and the degree to which the presumptions and discretion used in the calculations were reasonable.
Tilsynsmyndigheden ønskede også en vurdering af, hvorvidt den måde, hvorpå salgsprocessen var gennemført, havde påvirket salgsprisen.
The Authority also wanted an assessment on the question as to whether the manner in which the sales process was executed had influenced the sales price.
Holm er en uafhængig, autoriseret ingeniør med lang tids erfaring på ejendomsmarkedet i Oslo.
Holm is an independent Chartered Engineer with long experience of the real estate market in Oslo.
Under gennemførelsen af kontrakten engagerede Holm autoriseret ingeniør Trygve Fossen og ingeniør Sven P. Meyer, som begge er vurderingsmænd med lang tids erfaring.
In the execution of the contract, Holm engaged the services of Chartered Engineer Trygve Fossen and Engineer Sven P. Meyer, both of whom are experienced assessors with long practice.
Desuden bistod advokat Johan Hveding fra advokatfirmaet Grette DA i forbindelse med spørgsmål om lejekontrakterne.
In addition, Lawyer Johan Hveding of the law company Grette DA, assisted in connection with questions concerning the rental contracts.
Holms rapport af 24. februar 2005 indgik hos og blev registreret af Tilsynsmyndigheden den 1. marts 2005 (ref. nr. 311859).
The report from Holm dated 24 February 2005 was received and registered by the Authority on 1 March 2005 (Event No: 311859).
De tidligere værdiansættelser/rapporter
The previous value assessments/reports
Holms undersøgelse af de fem tidligere vurderinger/rapporter påviste bl.a. delvis afvigende beregningsmetoder og forskellige overslag over markedslejesatser, renoveringsudgifter/-behov og potentielle gevinster ved opdeling.
Holm's study of the five earlier assessments/reports showed i.a. partially deviating methods of calculation, differing estimates of both market rent rates, refurbishing costs/requirements, and the potential gains from sectioning.
Holm konstaterede desuden direkte faktuelle fejl, udeladelser af oplysninger og generelt overfladiske undersøgelser/besigtigelser af ejendommene.
Holm also found direct factual errors, omissions of information and generally superficial examinations/surveys of the properties.
Efter at have korrigeret for indlysende faktuelle fejl var der stadig store forskelle mellem vurderingerne, som blev tilskrevet forskelle i vurderinger og skøn.
After making corrections for obvious factual errors, there were still wide gaps between the valuations, that were attributed to differing in assessments and applied opinions.
Holm udtalte, at dette ikke i sig selv er usædvanligt i sager, hvor der er mere end én vurdering.
Holm expressed that this is not in itself unusual in cases where there is more than one valuation.