natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For tingbogen vil dette indebære, at der ikke bliver krævet formel overførsel af ejendomsretten til ejendommene fra staten til aktieselskabet.
In relation to the Real Estate Register this will imply that there will be no need for a transfer of title.
Bestemmelsen medfører, at der helt klart ikke skal ske tinglysning af ejerskiftet.
The provision entails that there, with certainty, will be no need for a transfer of title.
Ordningen svarer i øvrigt til de ordninger, der blev fastlagt ved andre omdannelser til statsselskaber, jf. bl.a. lov af 24. juni 1994 nr. 45 om omdanning av forvaltningsbedrifta Televerket til aksjeselskap og lov af 22. november 1996 nr. 65 om statens postselskap, paragraf 73.
The proposal corresponds to rules given in connection with other transformations to State-owned undertakings, cf. e.g. Act of 24 June 1994 No 45 on the establishment of Televerket as a limited liability company, and Act of 22 November 1996 No 65 on the establishment of the State-owned Post company article 73.
Problemstillingen er, om denne ordning medfører, at statsaktieselskabet stilles i en anden konkurrencesituation end tilsvarende private aktører, som udskiller dele af ejendomsvirksomheden i et eget aktieselskab.
The question is whether this practice leads to a different competition situation for the State limited liability companies than that of private entities who separate parts of their property activity into their wholly owned limited liability company.
EFTA-Tilsynsmyndigheden har opstillet retningslinjer for anvendelsen af statsstøttereglerne i EØS-aftalens artikel 61 på økonomiske dispositioner mellem offentlige foretagender og myndighederne, jf. Tilsynsmyndighedens retningslinjer om statsstøtte, kap. 19-20.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) has published guidelines for the use of State aid rules in Article 61 of the EEA Agreement in connection with financial transactions between public undertakings and the authorities, cf. State Aid Guidelines Chapters 19 and 20.
Det centrale vurderingskriterium for bedømmelsen af, om der foreligger støtte eller ej, er ifølge disse retningslinjer det såkaldte »markedsinvestorprincip«.
The central assessment criteria of whether or not State aid exists is, according to these guidelines, the ‘market investor principle’.
Det indebærer et krav om, at staten med hensyn til økonomiske dispositioner overfor offentlige foretagender skal optræde på samme måde, som en fornuftig privat investor ville have gjort i samme situation overfor en tilsvarende/sammenlignelig privat virksomhed.
This means that the State in its economic dispositions is required to act as a private investor would have done in the same situation towards a similar or comparable private company.
Udgangspunktet i norsk ret er, at overdragelse af ejendomsret til fast ejendom fra et retssubjekt til et andet skal tinglyses for at have retsvirkning overfor tredjemand.
The starting point within Norwegian law is that transfer of rights to property from one legal subject to another shall be registered in order for it to be valid in relation to a third subject.
Private investorer vil dermed som udgangspunkt have pligt til at tinglyse overdragelsen af ejendomsret og betale stempelafgift.
Private investors will therefore, at the outset, be obliged to register the transfer of title and to pay stamp duties.
Et sådant udgangspunkt betyder, at statsaktieselskabet må have en tilsvarende pligt til tinglysning ved overdragelse af ejendomme fra staten.
A similar starting point entails that a limited liability company owned by the State has a similar duty to register transfer of title from the State.
På den anden side er det lidet sandsynligt, at en fornuftig investor ville have valgt en løsning hvor man ved udskillelsen af ejendomsvirksomheden også ville have foretaget en afgiftspligtig overførsel af ejendomsretten til ejendommene til det nye retssubjekt.
On the other hand, it is unlikely that a rational investor would have chosen a solution whereby he in connection with separation of the part of the undertaking dealing with real estate would have registered a transfer of title with the effect of being imposed the excise duty.
Da en sådan overførsel vil påføre selskabet betydelige omkostninger, er det yderst tvivlsomt, om en fornuftig privat aktør ville vælge en sådan løsning.
As such a transfer of title would cost the company dearly, it hardly seems likely to imagine that a rational investor would choose such a solution.
Det mest sandsynlige er, at man vælger løsninger, som ikke medfører pligt til at betale afgifter, og f.eks. beholder ejendommene i moderselskabet (koncernen) eller opretter et særskilt holdingselskab.
It would be more likely that one chooses a solution where the payment of fees is avoided, for example by keeping the title with the mother company, or to create a holding company.
Staten har ikke tilsvarende muligheder.
These options are not available for the State.
Når staten vælger at optræde som markedsaktør, er det mest hensigtsmæssigt at udskille denne virksomhed og organisere den i et eget selskab.
When the State chooses to become a player in the market, it is more convenient to separate this part of the business and organise it in a separate company.
Departementet finder følgelig, at fritagelsen for pligten til at tinglyse overførslerne af ejendomsret ikke vil stille Statens utleiebygg AS i en anden konkurrencesituation end en privat investor på markedet.
The Ministry therefore must assume that the exception from the requirement to register transfer of rights will not place Statens utleiebygg AS in a different competitive situation than that pertaining to a private investor on the market.
Fritagelsen anses derfor ikke at være i strid med EØS-aftalen.
The exception is not seen as being in conflict with the EEA Agreement.
For øvrigt er det en overordnet forudsætning, at værdiansættelsen af de aktiver, som skal overføres til Statens utleiebygg AS, sker til markedsværdi, og at eventuelle senere kapitaltilførsler fra staten sker på tilsvarende måde, som hvis en privat investor tilførte kapital til virksomheden.«
Further, it is a general assumption that the value assessment of the properties to be transferred to Statens utleiebygg AS is put at market value, and that any possible later transfer of capital from the State takes place in the same manner as a private investor providing contributions to the undertaking.’
De norske myndigheders argumenter før Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning om at indlede formel undersøgelsesprocedure
Arguments presented by the Norwegian authorities before the Authority decided to open the formal investigation procedure
Ved brev af 20. juni 2002 fremsendte arbejds- og administrationsministeriet oplysninger angående rammevilkårene for Entra og Entras åbningsbalance.
By letter of 20 June 2002, the Ministry of Labour and Government Administration provided information concerning the framework conditions for Entra and the establishment of its opening balance.
Ministeriet beskrev den cashflow-metode, man havde benyttet ved vurderingen af ejendomsporteføljens samlede værdi, og anførte, at man benyttede denne metode, »fordi den bedre tilgodeså de krav, der var indeholdt i lovforslag nr. 84 til Stortinget (1998-99), om at give selskabet rammevilkår, der vil bringe det på lige fod med andre aktører i samme sektor«.
The Ministry described the cash flow method used to assess the total value of the property portfolio and stated that this method was used ‘because it would better satisfy the requirements of Propostion No 84 to the Storting (1998-99) to provide the company with framework conditions on equal footing with other players in the same sector’.
Brevet indeholdt ikke nogen beskrivelse af, hvorvidt — og i så fald hvordan og i hvilket omfang — fritagelsen for stempelafgift påvirkede åbningsbalancen.
The letter did not describe whether, and if so how and to what extent, the lack of payment of the excise duty influenced the opening balance.
Man kom heller ikke ind på, om paragraf 3 i den anfægtede lov krævede, at fritagelsen for stempelafgift skulle afspejles i en forhøjelse af porteføljens værdi svarende til det beløb, der skulle være betalt, hvis tinglysningen var blevet foretaget som et ejerskifte og ikke som en navneændring.
Nor did it discuss whether paragraph 3 of the contested Act required that the exception from the excise duty should be met with an increase in the portfolio assessment corresponding to the amount that would have been paid had the registration in the real estate register been treated as a change of title and not as a change of name.
Ved brev af 7. november 2002 uddybede handels- og industriministeriet de argumenter, det allerede havde fremført i forarbejderne, om at private investorer kunne vælge løsninger, hvorved man undgik et formelt ejerskifte og dermed slap for at betale stempel- og tinglysningsafgifter.
By letter dated 7 November 2002, the Ministry of Trade and Industry developed in more detail its argument already presented in the preparatory works that private investors might choose solutions that avoid a formal transfer of the deed and thus avoid having to pay document duties and registration fees.
Eftersom tinglysning af overførslen af ejendomsretten ikke var obligatorisk, kunne virksomheder, uanset om de var offentligt eller privat ejet, helt legalt slippe for stempel- og tinglysningsafgift ved blot at undlade at tinglyse nogen overførsel af ejendomsret.
As the registration of the transfer of title was not mandatory, enterprises could, regardless of whether they were privately or publicly owned, lawfully avoid document duties and registration fees by simply not registering any transfer of ownership.
At lade skødet forblive hos den oprindelige ejer, indebar en risiko for den nye ejer i relation til tredjemand.
To let the title remain with the original owner constituted a risk for the new owner for ‘holder of good faith’ towards a third party.
Denne risiko kunne imidlertid elimineres ved at tinglyse en »indskrænkning af ejendomsretten«.
However, it was possible to eliminate that risk by the registration of a ‘restriction of the right of ownership’.
Tinglysningen af indskrænkningen af ejendomsretten udelukkede ikke risikoen for tvangsfuldbyrdelse eller for kreditors eller konkursboets ekstinktion af de rettigheder, en retssuccessor vil have til debitors ejendom.
The registration of declaration on the restriction of the right to ownership did not exclude the risk of execution proceedings/creditor’s or bankruptcy estate’s extinction of the rights of a legal successor to the debtor’s property.
Ifølge de norske myndigheder var der tale om en metode, der var almindeligt anvendt i privatejede virksomheder, især mellem associerede parter.
According to the Norwegian authorities, that method was widely used by privately owned enterprises, especially between related parties.
Efter ministeriets opfattelse ville en privat ejer af Statsbygg sandsynligvis have splittet Statsbygg op, hvilket ikke ville udløse nogen forpligtelse til et betale tinglysnings- eller stempelafgift.
In the view of the Ministry, a private owner of Statsbygg would, most probably, have demerged Statsbygg without releasing the obligation to pay registration fee or excise duty.
En fremgangsmåde gående ud på, at Statsbygg beholdt skøderne til ejendommene, ville betyde, at Entra ville være afhængig af godkendelse fra et statsligt organ ved alle transaktioner angående disse ejendomme.
Methods like keeping the title to the properties with Statsbygg would imply that Entra would be dependent on the approval from a public body for transactions concerning the properties.
Hvis skøderne forblev i Statsbygg, ville det indebære, at staten både var lejer og formel indehaver af skødet til ejendommene.
If the title to the properties remained in Statsbygg, that would imply that the State was both the renter and the formal title holder of the properties.
Hvis man benyttede en sådan fremgangsmåde for Statsbygg/Entra, ville det udviske sondringen mellem de to enheders forskellige roller.
To use such methods for Statsbygg/Entra would blur the distinction between the two entities’ different roles.
Statsbygg har til opgave at eje og drive ikke-kommercielle offentlige bygninger, mens Entra opererer kommercielt.
Statsbygg is entrusted with the task of owning and operating non-commercial public buildings, while Entra operates on a commercial basis.
I brevet af 7. november 2002 fremførte ministeriet også et argument mod anvendelse af EØS-aftalens artikel 61, som ikke var nævnt i ovennævnte forarbejder.
In the letter dated 7 November 2002, the Ministry also brought forward an argument against the application of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement that was not mentioned in the preparatory works cited above.
Ministeriet fastholdt, at værdien af ejendomsporteføljen var ansat på basis af »nettokapitaliseringsmetoden«.
The Ministry reiterated that the value of the real estate portfolio was based on the method of ‘net capitalisation’.
Denne metode indebærer kort sagt, at ejendommens fremtidige cashflow (nettolejeindtægter på eksisterende lejemål plus værdien af fremtidige lejeindtægter efter de eksisterende kontrakters udløb) blev tilbagediskonteret til nutidsværdi med en faktor, der afspejlede et realistisk afkast.
In short this method implied that the property’s future cash flow (net rent from existing contracts plus assessment of future net rent after the expiry of existing contracts) was discounted to present value by a factor observing a relevant rate of return requirement.
Denne faktor blev sat til 9,5 %, svarende til benchmarket for tilsvarende private operatører i branchen.
This rate was set at 9,5 % as it reflected a benchmarking with similar private operators in the trade.
Ministeriet gjorde gældende, at hvis der havde skullet betales stempel- og tinglysningsafgift, ville disse omkostninger være blevet ført på aktivsiden, mens ejendommenes værdi ville være blevet tilsvarende reduceret.
According to the Ministry, if document duties and registration fees had been payable, the costs would have been activated as an asset, while the value of the properties would have been reduced correspondingly.
Det ville altså ikke have reduceret Entras samlede balance eller den samlede aktivvurdering.
Thus, this would not have reduced Entra’s total balance sheet or the total asset valuation.
Hvis stempelafgiften derimod var blevet indregnet uden nogen justering af ejendommenes værdi, ville det have ført til »en højere værdi for de samlede aktiver, der ville resultere i et afkast på kun 9,1 %, hvilket er et godt stykke under det krævede niveau for Entra Eiendom AS.
In contrast, if the excise duty would have been introduced without adjusting the value of the properties, this would have resulted in ‘a higher value of total assets, resulting in a rate of return of only 9,1 %, which is well below Entra Eiendom AS required level.
Det ville betyde et væsentligt handicap for Entra Eiendom AS sammenlignet med private operatører.«
This would give Entra Eiendom AS a considerable disadvantage compared to private operators’.
Ved brev af 4. juni 2003 fremsendte handels- og industriministeriet supplerende oplysninger og argumenter, bl.a. om private virksomheders adfærd.
By letter dated 4 June 2003, the Ministry of Trade and Industry submitted additional information and arguments concerning i.a. the measures used by private undertakings.
Ministeriet gentog desuden de argumenter, det havde fremført i brevet af 7. november 2002, for sin opfattelse af, at afgiftsfritagelsen ikke påvirkede selskabets kapitalstruktur, soliditet og samlede værdi.
The Ministry, moreover, reiterated the arguments in the letter dated 7 November 2002 as to why it believed that the non-payment of the duty did not affect the company’s capital structure, solidity and total value.
Som et tredje argument for ikke at betragte fritagelsen for stempelafgift som statsstøtte henviste ministeriet til det såkaldte »kontinuitetsprincip« i norsk ret.
As an additional third argument for not viewing the exemption from the excise duty as aid, the Ministry referred to the ‘continuity principle’ in Norwegian law.
Den gjorde gældende, at dette princip dækker over en række regler, der lægges til grund for en formodning om, at den overtagende virksomhed overtager den overtagne virksomheds retsstilling.
It stated that this principle is an umbrella term for a number of rules that presuppose that the acquiring undertaking takes over the legal position of the transferring company.
Formålet med kontinuitetsprincippet er at lette fusioner og opløsning af fusioner.
The purpose of the continuity principle is to facilitate mergers and demergers.
Når kontinuitetsprincippet finder anvendelse, anses den overtagne virksomheds retsstilling at fortsætte i den overtagende virksomhed.
When the continuity principle applies, the transferring undertaking’s legal situation is deemed to continue in the acquiring company.
Ifølge ministeriet er kontinuitet med hensyn til afgiftssituationen et vigtigt aspekt ved dette princip.
According to the Ministry, continuity with regard to tax and duty positions was an important aspect of the principle.
Set i lyset af selskabsretten indebar tinglysningsloven således, at der i mange tilfælde kunne gennemføres en reorganisation af private aktiviteter, uden at det udløste krav om betaling af tinglysnings- og stempelafgift.
Indeed, the Registration Act construed in light of the company legislation implied that reorganisation of private activities in numerous cases could occur without triggering demands for registration fees and document duties.
På grundlag heraf argumenterede ministeriet for, at denne fritagelse var en generel foranstaltning, der ikke udgjorde statsstøtte efter EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1.
On this basis, the Ministry argued that the exemption was a general measure, which did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
I punkt 9 (konklusion) i brevet af 4. juni 2003 hedder det:
Point 9, Conclusion, of the letter dated 4 June 2003, reads:
»For tinglysnings- og stempelafgiften gælder generelt, at kontinuitetsprincippet er afgørende for, om omdannelsesprocessen, både for offentlige og private virksomheders vedkommende, kan gennemføres som en navneændring, bl.a. i relation til reglerne om tinglysnings- og stempelafgift.
‘The common system regarding registration fee and document duty is that the continuity principle determines if conversion processes, both public and private, may be done as a name change in relation to inter alia the rules on registration fee and document duty.
Formålet med kontinuitetsprincippet er at lette fusioner, opløsning af fusioner og omstruktureringer, der anses for at være samfundsmæssigt ønskelige.
The purpose of the continuity principle is to facilitate the implementation of mergers, demergers and restructurings, which is regarded as socio-economically desirable.
Det er de samme overvejelser, der lå til grund for særlovgivningen og tilbagebetalingen af stempelafgifterne i forbindelse med reorganiseringen af vandkraft- og elselskaberne.
The special legislation and the reimbursement of accrued document duty resulting from the reorganisation of hydropower/electricity companies are a result of the same considerations.
Der er følgelig tale om en generel praksis, der ifølge fast retspraksis ikke udgør statsstøtte som omhandlet i EØS-aftalens artikel 61.«
Thus, the practice is a general measure, which according to well established case law does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.’
De norske myndigheders argumenter efter Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning om at indlede formel undersøgelsesprocedure
Arguments presented by the Norwegian authorities after the Authority opened the formal investigation procedure
I brevet fra handels- og industriministeriet af 16. september 2004 fremsatte de norske myndigheder deres bemærkninger til Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning om at indlede formel undersøgelse.
In the letter from the Ministry of Trade and Industry dated 16 September 2004, the Norwegian authorities commented upon the Authority’s decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Den norske regerings synspunkt var, at ingen af betingelserne i EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1, var opfyldt.
The view of the Norwegian Government was that none of the conditions of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement were fulfilled.
At Entra ikke skulle betale stempelafgift, kunne derfor ikke betragtes som statsstøtte efter EØS-aftalens artikel 61, stk. 1.
Hence, the non-payment for Entra of excise duty did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Ministeriet gentog for det første det tidligere fremførte argument om, at foranstaltningen ikke indebar nogen fordel for Entra.
The Ministry reiterated, firstly, its previously presented argument that the measure did not constitute an advantage for Entra.
Den ændrede ikke noget ved selskabets kapitalstruktur, soliditet og samlede værdi.
It did not change the capital structure, the solidity and the total value of the company.
Hvis der skulle have været opført stempel- og tinglysningsafgifter på åbningsbalancen, ville der have været en alternativ åbningsbalance.
If document duties and registration fees were accrued in the opening balance sheet, there would have been an alternative opening balance.
Ministeriet anførte, at det er den norske regerings opfattelse, at den her omhandlede afgiftsforanstaltning ikke skulle angives særskilt på selskabets åbningsbalance.
It stated that it is the Norwegian Government’s opinion that the tax measure in question should not be distinctly separated from the opening balance of the company.
Formålet med hovedreglen angående stempel- og tinglysningsafgift er desuden at beskatte reelle overførsler mellem forskellige økonomiske ender.
Moreover, the purpose of the main rule on document duties and registration fees is to tax real transfers between different economic entities.
Når der kun er tale om fiktive overførsler, og den overførende og den modtagende virksomhed i alt væsentligt er den samme, vil hovedprincippet i norsk ret ifølge ministeriet være at lade den overtagende virksomhed bevare den overtagne virksomheds retsstilling (kontinuitetsprincippet).
Where the transfer is in appearance only and the entities transferring and acquiring are substantially the same, the main principle in Norwegian law, according to the Ministry, would be to let the acquiring undertaking keep the legal position of the transferring undertaking (continuity principle).
Ministeriet finder, at kontinuitetsprincippet ikke kun gælder for specifikke overførsler, men må være hovedreglen, når den overførende og den modtagende virksomhed stort set er den samme.
The Ministry considers that the continuity principle is not restricted to specific transfers, but is regarded as the main rule where the transferring entity and the acquiring entity are substantially the same.
Ifølge de norske myndigheder var der derfor ikke tale om, at Entra blev fritaget for en byrde, virksomheden normalt skulle bære over sit budget.
Entra was consequently not relieved from a charge normally borne from their budgets, according to the Norwegian authorities.
For det andet pegede ministeriet på, at overførslen af ejendomsretten i denne sag jf. paragraf 3 i den anfægtede lov skete gennem en navneændring og ikke ved en overskødning.
Secondly, the Ministry referred to the fact that the transfer of title in the case at hand by paragraph 3 of the contested Act was done as a change of name and not by transfer of title.
Entras pligt til at betale stempelafgift blev derfor aldrig udløst, og der var ifølge de norske myndigheder intet tab af afgiftsprovenu og dermed heller ikke noget forbrug af statsmidler.
Thus, the obligation on Entra to pay document duty was never released and there was, according to the Norwegian authorities, no loss of tax revenue and hence, no consumption of State resources.
For det tredje gjorde de norske myndigheder gældende, at den omhandlede foranstaltning ikke påvirkede samhandelen mellem de kontraherende stater.
Thirdly, the Norwegian authorities argued that the measure in question did not affect trade between the Contracting Parties.