natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
På dette grundlag konkluderer Tilsynsmyndigheden, at Mesta AS ikke har fået en økonomisk fordel med hensyn til de priser, Statens vegvesen betalte for »oprydningsarbejde« udført af Mesta AS.
On this basis the Authority considers that Mesta AS has not benefited from an economic advantage in the context of the prices paid by the Road Administration for ‘cleaning up’ services provided by Mesta AS.
Andre omstrukturerings- og omlægningsforanstaltninger — lønkompensation
Other restructuring and reorganisation measures – compensation for salary
Hvad angår lønkompensation har staten finansieret de pågældende omkostninger gennem et kapitalindskud i Mesta AS i form af egenkapital.
With respect to the compensation for salary the State has financed the relevant costs by means of a capital contribution to Mesta AS in the form of equity.
For det første bemærker Tilsynsmyndigheden, at det er irrelevant for anvendelsen af statsstøttereglerne, hvordan omkostningerne er blevet finansieret.
As a preliminary point, the Authority observes that the manner in which costs may be funded are irrelevant from the point of view of the application of the State aid rules.
Derfor påvirker det ikke vurderingen af, om statens finansiering af omkostningerne udgør statsstøtte, at de norske myndigheder har valgt at finansiere omkostningerne til lønkompensation i form af egenkapital.
Hence, the fact that the Norwegian authorities have chosen to finance the costs for compensation of salary in the form of equity does not influence the assessment as to whether the State’s financing of the relevant costs may constitute State aid.
Det bør erindres, at årsagen til, at de norske myndigheder valgte finansiering via egenkapital (i stedet for tilskud), simpelthen var at tilskynde virksomheden til at bruge midlerne til alternative metoder til personalenedskæringer i stedet for lønkompensation.
As may be recalled, the reason that the Norwegian authorities chose to fund it via equity (rather than by grants) was simply to induce the company to spend the funds for alternative instruments for reducing the work force than the compensation for salary arrangement.
Hvad angår den kendsgerning, at midlerne til lønkompensation i stedet blev brugt til alternative metoder til personalenedskæringer, nemlig fratrædelses- og pensionsordninger samt orlovsordninger, finder Tilsynsmyndigheden, at sådanne foranstaltninger blot udgør anerkendte alternativer til lønkompensation.
With respect to the fact that the funds intended for compensation for salary were spent on alternative measures to reduce the work force, namely the termination and pension packages as well as packages for leave of absence, the Authority considers that such measures merely represent acknowledged alternatives to compensation for salary.
Det, at statens midler til lønkompensation bruges til at dække omkostningerne ved alternative personalenedskæringsforanstaltninger, som har samme formål som lønkompensation, ændrer ikke vurderingen af, hvorvidt virksomheden har fået en økonomisk fordel i form af støtten til lønkompensation.
Indeed, if the State funding earmarked for compensation for salary is used to cover costs of alternative work force reducing measures, intending to achieve the same aim as compensation for salary, it does not alter the assessment of whether the company has received an economic advantage via funding for compensation for salary.
I denne forbindelse minder Tilsynsmyndigheden om, at statens hensigt med at finansiere lønkompensation via egenkapital blot var at nedbringe de samlede omkostninger ved at tilskynde virksomheden til at benytte billigere alternative metoder til at reducere arbejdsstyrken.
In this regard it is recalled that the State’s intention of funding compensation for salary by means of equity was simply to bring down overall costs by inducing the company to use cheaper alternative work force reducing instruments.
I spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt statens finansiering af omkostninger afholdt for at tilbyde lønkompensation udgør en økonomisk fordel, minder Tilsynsmyndigheden om, at virksomheders omkostninger begrundet i arbejdsretlige bestemmelser er omkostninger, der normalt indgår i en virksomheds budget.
As to whether State financing of costs incurred for purposes of offering compensation for salary constitutes an economic advantage, the Authority recalls that, as stated above, costs on undertakings arising from labour legislation are costs that form part of the budget of undertakings.
Eftersom de finansielle forpligtelser, der er forbundet med lønkompensation, er blevet pålagt Mesta AS i medfør af Mesta-loven [166], udgør omkostningerne virksomhedens »normale omkostninger«.
Since the financial obligations arising out of compensation for salary have been legally imposed on Mesta AS by the Mesta Act [166], the costs constitute the ‘normal costs’ of the company.
Mesta AS har derfor fået en økonomisk fordel i form af støtte til dækning af omkostningerne ved lønkompensation.
Mesta AS has therefore received an economic advantage in the form of funds to cover the costs related to compensation for salary.
Overskydende støtte
Surplus funding
De norske myndigheder har krævet, at Mesta AS skulle tilbagebetale de midler, som ikke blev brugt til dækning af omstruktureringsomkostninger.
The Norwegian authorities have required Mesta AS to repay any funding in excess of the amounts spent for purposes of the restructuring costs.
Derfor er henvisningerne i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren til brugen af de overskydende midler ikke længere relevante.
Hence, any issues raised in the Opening Decision as regards the spending of excess funding is no longer of relevance.
Tilførsel af aktiver
Contribution of assets
Mesta AS er en offentlig virksomhed i den i direktivet om gennemskuelighed anførte forstand [167].
Mesta AS qualifies as a public undertaking within the meaning of the Transparency Directive [167].
Ved undersøgelsen af, om overdragelsen af statsmidler til en offentlig virksomhed begunstiger denne virksomhed, anvender Tilsynsmyndigheden »det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip«, hvilket Domstolen flere gange har anerkendt [168].
In determining whether a financial transaction by the owner of a public undertaking involves an economic advantage the Authority applies the ‘market economy investor principle’ which has been confirmed several times by the Court of Justice [168].
Ifølge dette princip er der ikke nogen økonomisk fordel, hvis de offentlige myndigheder indskyder kapital eller aktiver i en af deres virksomheder på vilkår, som ville have været acceptable for en privat markedsinvestor [169].
According to this principle, if public authorities contribute capital or contribution in kind (e.g. assets) to one of their undertakings on conditions which would be acceptable to a private market investor no economic advantage is involved [169].
Derfor er der tale om en økonomisk fordel, hvis der indskydes penge eller andre aktiver i en offentlig virksomhed på vilkår, som er uacceptable for en privat markedsinvestor [170].
Conversely, if money or other assets are contributed to public undertakings on conditions which are unacceptable to a private market investor an economic advantage is involved [170].
Dette betragtes normalt som værende tilfældet, når virksomhedens struktur eller fremtidsperspektiver er af en sådan art, at der ikke inden for en rimelig tidsfrist kan forventes et normalt afkast af den investerede kapital, i forhold til en sammenlignelig privat virksomhed (i form af dividende eller forøgelse af kapitalværdien) [171].
This is normally considered to be the case where the structure and future prospects of the company is such that a normal return (by way of dividend payments or capital appreciation) by reference to a comparable private enterprise cannot be expected within a reasonable time [171].
Hvis afkastet f.eks. er fastsat på grundlag af aktivernes værdi, som er blevet vurderet til under markedsværdi, svarer afkastet måske ikke til det, en privat investor ville betragte som acceptabelt under lignende omstændigheder.
For example, if the rate of return is fixed on the basis of the value of assets, which have been assessed at below market value, the return may not be equivalent to what a private investor would consider acceptable in similar circumstances.
Det er på grundlag af ovenstående betragtninger, at Tilsynsmyndigheden har undersøgt værdiansættelsen af aktiverne i forbindelse med Mesta AS' etablering.
It is in the light of these considerations that the Authority has examined the value assessment of assets in the context of establishing Mesta AS.
For det første kan det udledes af retspraksis, at Tilsynsmyndighedens pligt til at undersøge sagens kendsgerninger omfatter, hvor det er relevant, en undersøgelse af indholdet af de foretagne ekspertvurderinger for at kunne efterprøve deres bevisværdi [172].
As a preliminary point, it can be inferred from case law that the Authority’s duty to establish the facts of the case extends to, where relevant, an obligation to examine expert evaluations in order to establish its evidentiary value [172].
Det fremgår også af denne retspraksis, at Tilsynsmyndigheden i tilfælde af usikkerhed kan, men ikke er forpligtet til at anmode om medvirken fra eksterne sagkyndige med henblik på at opnå de nødvendige oplysninger [173].
It is also clear from such case law that in case of uncertainties the Authority is entitled, but not bound, to engage outside consultants for purposes of establishing the facts of the case [173].
Endelig har Retten i Første Instans udtalt, at det eksklusive ansvar for at sikre overholdelsen af artikel 61 påhviler Tilsynsmyndigheden, og ikke de sagkyndige [174].
Finally, the Court has stated that it is the exclusive competence of the Authority to ensure that Article 61 is observed and not that of the experts [174].
I den foreliggende sag blev værdien af de aktiver, der blev indskudt i Mesta AS, vurderet af Ernst & Young og Deloitte & Touche.
In the present case the value of the assets contributed to the establishment of Mesta AS has been the subject of assessments carried out by Ernst & Young and Deloitte & Touche.
På grundlag af revisionsrapporterne fandt Tilsynsmyndigheden i sin beslutning om at indlede proceduren, at der var usikkerhed med hensyn til vurderingen af aktiverne og anvendelsen af vurderingsmetoderne.
Based on the auditor reports the Authority found in its Opening Decision that there were uncertainties as regards the assessment of assets and the application of the evaluation methods.
De norske myndigheder har efter beslutningen fremsendt forklaringer fra revisoren, Ernst & Young.
Following the Opening Decision, the Norwegian authorities have submitted explanations from the auditor, Ernst & Young.
Tilsynsmyndigheden mener, at disse forklaringer har opklaret følgende usikre punkter i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren:
In the view of the Authority such explanations have clarified the following uncertainties first identified in the Opening Decision:
For det første har Ernst & Young forklaret, at det princip, der blev anvendt til at vurdere aktivernes værdi fra oktober 2002, var »nutidsværdi«, hvorfor de første vurderinger, som tog udgangspunkt i bogført værdi eller simuleret bogført værdi, ikke længere var relevante.
First, Ernst & Young have clarified that as of October 2002 the principle applied for determining the value of the assets is ‘real value’ and hence the initial evaluations based on book value or simulated book value were no longer relevant.
For det andet var fastsættelsen af aktivernes nutidsværdi baseret på en kombination af resultaterne af i) en vurdering af virksomhedens samlede værdi (dvs. metoden med tilbagediskonteret pengestrøm) og ii) en vurdering af de enkelte aktiver (eller grupper af aktiver) hver for sig.
Secondly, the identification of the real value of assets was based on a combination of the results of (i) evaluating the total value of the business (i.e., the discounted cash flow method); and (ii) assessing individual assets (or groups thereof) separately.
For det tredje var det nødvendigt at reducere værdien af visse aktiver, fordi den samlede værdi af virksomheden (på grundlag af tilbagediskonteret pengestrøm) var mindre end den samlede værdi af aktiverne (på grundlag af vurderingen af de enkelte aktiver), og fordi egenkapitalen i henhold til norsk selskabsret ikke må overstige den samlede værdi af virksomheden.
Thirdly, based on the fact that the total value of the business (resulting from the discounted cash flow) was less than the total value of assets (resulting from evaluating assets individually) and that Norwegian company law stipulates that equity may not exceed the total value of the business, it was necessary to reduce the value of certain assets.
På dette grundlag blev værdien af aktiverne reduceret med 79 mio. NOK fordelt på i) fast ejendom (reduceret med 54 mio. NOK fra 335 mio. NOK til 281 mio. NOK) og ii) maskiner (reduceret med 25 mio. NOK fra 572 mio. NOK til 547 mio. NOK) [175].
On this basis the real value of assets was reduced with NOK 79 million divided between (i) real estate (reduced with NOK 54 million from NOK 335 million to NOK 281 million); and (ii) machinery (reduced with NOK 25 million from NOK 572 million to NOK 547 million) [175].
Dette betyder også, at værdien af maskiner ikke blev nedjusteret med 200 mio. NOK (fra 747 mio. NOK til 547 mio. NOK), som klagerne hævdede.
This also means that machinery was not adjusted downwards with NOK 200 million (from NOK 747 million to NOK 547 million) as has been alleged by the complainants.
Værdien på 747 mio. NOK udgjorde ikke grundlaget for nedjusteringen, da denne værdi var baseret på »simuleret kontinuitet«, hvilket princip ikke længere blev anvendt [176].
The NOK 747 million value did not constitute the basis for the downward assessment as it was a value based on the ‘simulated continuity’ principle, no longer applied [176].
Ernst & Young har bekræftet, at de første beregninger, som skulle forklare forbindelsen mellem værdien baseret på simuleret kontinuitet (747 mio. NOK) og nutidsværdien (572 mio. NOK) for maskiner, er vildledende og derfor ikke er blevet brugt i processen med vurdering af aktivernes nutidsværdi.
Ernst & Young have confirmed that early calculations made for purposes of explaining any connection between the value based on simulated continuity (of NOK 747 million) and the real value (of NOK 572 million) of machinery are misleading and have not formed part of the process for assessing the real value of assets.
For det fjerde er det med hensyn til tildeling af en værdi til overgangskontrakterne blevet præciseret, at overgangskontrakterne udgjorde en del af den tilbagediskonterede pengestrøm (og derfor blev medtaget i vurderingen af virksomhedens samlede værdi), men værdien af kontraktporteføljen var for lav til at få tildelt en værdi, hvorfor kontrakterne ikke blev medtaget i åbningsbalancen [177].
Fourthly, as regards allocating value to the transitional contracts, it has been clarified that while the transitional contracts formed part of the discounted cash flow (and were therefore taken into account when assessing the total value of the business) the value of the contract portfolio was too low to be allocated any value and the contracts were therefore not included in the opening balance [177].
Som det fremgår af processen, har Tilsynsmyndigheden foretaget en tilbundsgående undersøgelse af materialet i revisionsrapporterne ved at stille spørgsmål og anmode om mere materiale, og på den måde har Tilsynsmyndigheden fået afklaret nogle indledende tvivlsspørgsmål og usikkerheder.
As is evident from the process, the Authority has thoroughly examined the material presented in the auditor reports by inquiring and requesting further material and on that basis clarified initial doubts and uncertainties.
Eftersom, som det fremgår ovenfor, sådanne tvivlsspørgsmål og usikkerheder er blevet afklaret, og i betragtning af at vurderingerne er udført på grundlag af almindeligt accepterede vurderingsmetoder, har Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke fundet nogen grund til at anfægte bevisværdien af revisionsrapporterne med hensyn til værdiansættelsen af faste aktiver i Mesta AS' endelige åbningsbalance.
Since, as appears from above, such doubts and uncertainties have been resolved, and considering that the evaluations have been carried out on the basis of generally accepted valuation methods, the Authority has not found reason to doubt the evidentiary value of the auditor reports in relation to the value assessment of fixed assets set out in the final opening balance of Mesta AS.
Det vurderes derfor ikke at være nødvendigt at indhente en anden udtalelse fra en sagkyndig.
It has therefore not been deemed necessary to obtain another expert opinion.
På grundlag af ovenstående mener Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke, at der er grund til at anfægte værdiansættelsen af aktiver i Mesta AS' endelige åbningsbalance.
Based on the above the Authority considers that there is no reason to question the value assessment of assets in the final opening balance of Mesta AS.
Overførsel af overgangskontrakter
Transfer of transitional contracts
Ét eksempel på anvendelsen af det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip er, at hvis staten sælger jord og bygninger til markedspris, antages det ikke at omfatte statsstøtte, eftersom staten har handlet som en privat markedsinvestor [178].
One example of the application of the private market investor principle is that if the State sells land and buildings at market price, State aid is presumed not to be involved since the State has behaved like a private market investor [178].
Det markedsøkonomiske investorprincip finder imidlertid også anvendelse, når staten køber varer og tjenesteydelser [179].
However, the private market investor principle applies equally when the State is purchasing goods and services [179].
Hvis staten derfor indgår en kontrakt om en markedsoperatørs levering af tjenester, omfatter det ikke statsstøtte, hvis staten handler som privat markedsinvestor ved at betale markedsprisen.
Thus, if the State enters into a contract for purposes of having services provided by a market operator, no State aid will be involved if the State behaves as a private market investor by paying the market price.
Hvis prisen derimod er højere end markedsprisen, kan kontrakten give tjenesteudbyderen en økonomisk fordel, svarende til differencen mellem markedsprisen for tilsvarende tjenester og prisen for levering af de pågældende tjenester i henhold til kontrakten [180].
Conversely, if the price is higher than the market price the contract may involve an economic advantage for the service provider, corresponding to the difference between the market price for providing similar services and the price at which such services are provided under the contract [180].
Staten kan f.eks. få en indikation af markedsprisen ved at iværksætte et ikke-diskriminerende offentligt udbud.
One way for the State to obtain an indication of the market price is to launch a non-discriminatory public tender.
Den kan også indhente en vurdering fra en sagkyndig.
Another way is to obtain an expert evaluation.
Under alle omstændigheder skal der tages højde for alle aspekter ved transaktionen for at vurdere, om en markedspris er blevet anvendt.I den foreliggende sag blev en række af de kontrakter, der var indgået, om produktionsafdelingens levering af tjenester til Statens vegvesen overført fra produktionsafdelingen til Mesta AS i den forstand, at Mesta AS erstattede produktionsafdelingen som tjenesteudbyder.
In any event all circumstances of the transaction must be taken into account for purposes of determining whether a market price has been applied.In the present case a number of the service contracts, entered into between the Public Road Administration and the Production Department for purposes of the provision of services by the latter to the former, were transferred from the Production Department to Mesta AS in the sense that Mesta AS replaced the Production Department in its capacity as a service provider.
Tilsynsmyndigheden skal derfor undersøge, om de priser, som kontrakterne mellem Statens vegvesen og Mesta AS blev »indgået« til, afspejler markedspriserne.
The Authority must therefore examine whether the prices at which the contracts have been ‘entered into’ between the Public Road Administration and Mesta AS reflect market prices.
For fuldstændighedens skyld skal det bemærkes, at den kendsgerning, at Tilsynsmyndigheden har vurderet elementer, som er relevante for at kunne konstatere, om staten har handlet som en privat markedsinvestor (ved at overføre overgangskontrakterne) over for et 100 % ejet selskab, betyder ikke, at Tilsynsmyndigheden ikke også vurderer tilstedeværelsen af statsstøtte i andre transaktioner mellem staten [181] og det pågældende selskab.
For the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that the fact that the Authority has assessed elements relevant for determining whether the State has acted as a private market investor (by contributing the transitional contracts) to its fully owned company, does not exclude the Authority from assessing the presence of aid in other transactions between the State [181] and that company.
Tværtimod er en sådan vurdering endnu mere aktuel, når staten er kunde i et af sine egne selskaber.
On the contrary, such an assessment is even more pertinent where the State is a customer in one of its own companies.
Som forklaret ovenfor skal staten, når den køber tjenester fra en virksomhed (også en af sine egne 100 % ejede virksomheder), handle som en »privat markedsinvestor« og betale markedsprisen.
As explained above, when the State is a procurer of services from an undertaking (including one of its 100 % owned undertakings) it must act like a ‘private market investor’ and pay the market price.
Byggekontrakter
Construction contracts
Efter beslutningen om at indlede proceduren har de norske myndigheder præciseret de nærmere omstændigheder ved de priser, som de eksisterende byggekontrakter blev overført til Mesta AS til.
Following the Opening Decision the Norwegian authorities have clarified the circumstances in which the prices of the existing construction contracts were transferred to Mesta AS.
Kontrakterne blev overført til Mesta AS til de priser, der oprindeligt var fastsat for de enkelte kontrakter.
The contracts were transferred to Mesta AS at the prices originally fixed for the individual contract.
Tilsynsmyndigheden har vurderet alle de forhåndenværende oplysninger, herunder især Statens vegvesens interne retningslinjer om prisfastsættelsen for interne kontrakter.
The Authority has taken account of all the information provided, in particular, the internal guidelines of the Public Road Administration on how to price internal contracts.
Retningslinjerne viser, at kontrakternes pris blev fastsat direkte på grundlag af markedspriser (nemlig de priser, der fremkom i de offentlige udbud) eller på betingelser, der burde sikre, at priserne i sidste ende afspejler en markedspris (dvs. overslag justeret til at stemme overens med markedsprisen).
The guidelines show that the price of the contracts were fixed directly on the basis of market prices (namely the prices resulting from public tenders) or at premises which should ensure that prices ultimately reflect a market price (i.e., estimates adjusted to be in line with market price).
Der er også taget højde for, at Statens vegvesen havde som generel betingelse for at indgå aftaler med produktionsafdelingen, at priserne skulle afspejle markedspriserne, og at produktionsafdelingen med dette for øje havde erhvervet kendskab til priserne gennem offentlige udbud på byggemarkedet — som var et velfungerende og udviklet marked.
Account has also been taken of the fact that it was an overall condition of the Road Administration for entering into agreements with the Production Department that the prices reflect market prices and that for this purpose the Production Department had obtained price experience from public tenders in the construction market – which was a well functioning and developed market.