natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since the only significant asset of KK was its land, Finland has specified in more detail how the land owned by KK was valued when setting the price of the shares.
Kuna KK ainus märkimisväärne vara oli temale kuulunud maa, on Soome üksikasjalikumalt selgitanud, kuidas KKle kuulunud maad aktsiate hinda määrates hinnati.
For land to be used for private homes and apartment buildings the value was based on the land sales criteria used by the city itself when selling land.
Eramukruntide ning korrusmaja- ja ridaelamukruntide hindamisel kasutati linna omanduses olevate maade müügikriteeriume.
According to Finland this was equal to or below the market price.
Soome arvates vastas see turuhinnale või oli sellest madalam.
Finland also provided a copy of a letter from a certified real estate agent stating that the market value per square metre of the different land types was slightly above the price used in the transaction in question.
Soome edastas ka koopia atesteeritud kinnisvaramaakleri kirjast, millest selgub, et eriliiki maakruntide turuhind ruutmeetri kohta on veidike kõrgem kui hinnatavas tehingus kasutatud hind.
As regards a large area of land situated in the centre of Karkkila called Asemansuo, Finland claims that the purchase price was calculated on the basis of the lower limit of permitted building area specified in the city plan, but no information was provided on which base the amount in euro per square metre was fixed.
Karkkila keskuses asuva suure Asemansuo maatüki kohta väidab Soome, et ostuhind arvutati detailplaneeringus lubatud väiksema ehitusõiguse alusel. Soome ei edastanud siiski teavet selle kohta, kuidas ruutmeetrihind määrati.
Finally, as regards the value of land designated for parks, a valuation of EUR 456000 was considered by the real estate agent to be the market value.
Pargialaks mõeldud maa-alade 456000eurone hind vastab kinnisvaramaakleri sõnul turuhinnale.
The Commission requested Finland to make a market valuation of all the land owned by KK at the time of the sales agreement.
Komisjon palus Soomel hinnata KKle kuulunud maatükkide turuhinda müügihetkel.
Finland replied that this was not needed, since Karkkila and Componenta had used a real estate agent to estimate the unit value of land similar to the land involved in the transaction and that a market evaluation had therefore already been done.
Soome vastas, et see polnud vajalik, kuna Karkkila ja Componenta olid palunud kinnisvaramaaklerit hindama tehingu objektiks olevaid maid sarnaste maatükkidega, mistõttu oli turuhinnang juba tehtud.
As regards the condition in the sales agreement stipulating that Karkkila would buy the shares in KK from Componenta only if Componenta invested in new production facilities (thereby moving its foundry from Alvesta, Sweden to Karkkila), Finland denies allegations by the Commission that this clause is a sign that the transaction was not market-based.
Soome lükkab tagasi süüdistused, et müügitehingu tingimus, mille kohaselt Karkkila ostab KK aktsiad Componentalt ainult juhul, kui Componenta investeerib uutesse tootmisüksustesse (kolides Rootsis asuva Alvesta valukoja Karkkilasse), tähendaks, et tehing tehti turutingimusi eirates.
It justifies the clause by the fact that if Componenta’s activity were increased in Karkkila this would be favourable for the city, boosting its revenue.
Soome põhjendas klauslit sellega, et Componenta tootmise suurendamine oleks linna huvides, sest see suurendaks linna tulusid.
It would also increase the demand for real estate, thereby raising the value of the land owned by KK.
See tõstaks ka nõudlust kinnisvara järele ja seetõttu ka KKle kuuluvate maatükkide hinda.
Otherwise, Karkkila would not ‘need’ to conclude the transaction.
Muul juhul ei oleks Karkkilal “vajadust” tehingu sooritamiseks.
Asked by the Commission whether Componenta had tried to find another buyer for the shares, Finland replied that it had not, since Karkkila had the right of first refusal to redeem the shares at the market price in the event of Componenta wanting to sell its shares in KK.
Soome vastas komisjonile, et Componenta ei otsinud aktsiatele teist ostjat, sest Karkkila oli aktsiate turuhinnaga ostuks ostueesõigus, kui Componenta tahaks KK aktsiaid müüa.
Finally, as regards the loan transaction, Finland confirms that the repayment of Componenta’s shareholder loan by new funds from Karkkila to KK was an integral part of the share transaction between Karkkila and Componenta and that the ‘total purchase price’ consisted of the payment for the shares and the repayment of the loan.
Laenuga seoses kinnitab Soome, et aktsionäri ettemakse tagasimaksmine Karkkila KKle eraldatud uutest vahenditest oli oluline osa Karkkila ja Componenta vahelisest aktsiatehingust ja “ostu kogusumma” moodustus aktsiate eest makstud hinnast ja laenu tagasimaksust.
In this respect, Finland argues that the loan transaction too was market-based, since the total amount provided to Componenta for the shares and the loan, EUR 2,37 million, was less than the market value of half of KK.
Sellega seoses väidab Soome, et laen anti turutingimustel, sest Componentale aktsiate eest makstud hinna ja laenuna saadud kogusumma, 2,37 miljonit eurot, oli vähem kui pool KK turuväärtusest.
Furthermore, Finland argues that KK’s financial situation had improved since 1996 when the loan was granted to KK by Componenta.
Lisaks sellel väidab Soome, et KK majanduslik olukord oli alates 1996. aastast paranenud, kui Componenta andis KKle laenu.
Definition of aid
Abi määratlemine
According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market.
Vastavalt EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõikele 1 on igasugune liikmesriigi poolt või riigi ressurssidest ükskõik missugusel kujul antav abi, mis kahjustab või ähvardab kahjustada konkurentsi, soodustades teatud ettevõtjaid või teatud kaupade tootmist, ühisturuga kokkusobimatu niivõrd, kuivõrd see kahjustab liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
Pursuant to the established case law of the European Courts, the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries out an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
Euroopa Ühenduste kohtu kohtupraktika kohaselt on täidetud kaubanduse kahjustamise kriteerium, kui soodustatud ettevõtte majandustegevus hõlmab liikmesriikidevahelist kaubandust.
The activities of Componenta involve trade between Member States.
Componenta tegevus hõlmab liikmesriikide vahelist kaubandust.
Therefore, aid to this company would fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Seetõttu kuuluks ettevõttele antud abi EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 87 lõike 1 kohaldamisalasse.
State resources include financial assistance granted by regional and local authorities.
Piirkondlike ja kohalike ametiasutuste antud finantsabi on riigi ressursside osa.
In its decision to open the formal investigation the Commission stated that the aid amount would be the difference between the price a private investor would be willing to pay for the shares and the purchase price of EUR 2,37 million.
Komisjon tõdes ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsuses, et abi suurus on vahe, mis saadakse lahutades aktsiate 2,37 miljoni eurosest müügihinnast hind, mida erainvestor oleks nende aktsiate eest valmis maksma.
The Commission notes that the total purchase price consisted of two parts.
Komisjon märgib, et ostu koguhind koosneb kahest osast.
First, Componenta received EUR 0,7 million in cash in return for its shares and, second, it was repaid EUR 1,67 million that it had provided as a loan to KK.
Esiteks sai Componenta aktsiate eest 0,7 miljonit eurot sularahas ja teiseks maksti talle tagasi 1,67 miljonit eurot, mille ta oli KKle laenanud.
The conditional clause
Tingimuslik säte
The Commission notes that one alternative for Componenta had been to move its foundry activities from Karkkila to Alvesta.
Komisjon märgib, et Componenta oleks alternatiivina võinud kolida oma valukoja Karkkilast Alvestasse.
It is therefore understandable that Karkkila may have been concerned about the prospects of losing production facilities and thereby employment.
Seetõttu on mõistetav, et Karkkila võis olla mures võimaluse pärast kaotada linnas tootmisüksused ja seega töökohad.
Furthermore, it may be correct that the demand for land would increase if a main employer in the city expanded its activities instead of reducing them.
Võib olla tõsi, et maatükkide nõudlus kasvaks, kui suur tööandja laiendaks linnas oma tootmisvõimsusi nende vähendamise asemel.
However, the fact that the issue of buying the shares in KK and providing a loan to KK was contractually linked with Componenta’s investment decision and that the city even had the right to cancel the entire transaction if Componenta did not make the promised investments in Karkkila proves that the decision of the city to perform the transaction with Componenta was not based only on the market value of KK, but took other considerations into account as well.
See, et KK aktsiate ostmine ja laenu andmine KKle oli lepingus ühendatud Componenta investeerimisotsusega ja et linnal oli isegi õigus peatada kogu tehing, kui Componenta ei teeks Karkkilasse lubatud investeeringuid, tõestab, et linna otsus sooritada tehing Componentaga ei põhinenud ainult KK turuväärtusel, vaid seda mõjutasid ka muud asjaolud.
However, according to the market economy investor principle, as established by the Court, a market economy investor takes his decisions having regard to the foreseeability of obtaining a return and leaving aside all social, regional policy and sectoral considerations.
Ühenduste kohtu kinnitatud turumajandusliku investeerimise põhimõtte kohaselt võtab turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev investor otsust tehes arvesse võimalikku kasumit, arvestamata mis tahes ühiskondlikke, regionaalpoliitilisi või valdkondlikke seisukohti.
Given that Componenta’s investment in new production facilities was a direct condition for the financial transaction under investigation, it can be concluded that the behaviour of Karkkila did not comply with the market economy investor principle.
Kuna Componenta investeering uude tootmisüksusesse oli kõnealuse tehingu teostamise vahetuks tingimuseks, võib järeldada, et Karkkila tegevus ei vastanud turumajandusliku investeerimise põhimõttele.
To accept boosting tax revenue and improving general welfare in the municipality as being market economy investor considerations would be to mix the roles of the city as a public authority and as commercial co-owner of KK.
Kui pidada maksutulu ja üldise heaolu kasvu linnas turumajandusliku investeerimise põhimõttest tulenevateks, tähendaks see seda, et linna roll avaliku võimu kandjana ja KK ärilise omanikuna seguneksid.
The Commission also notes that that the Karkkila City Board at its meeting on 1 September 2003 stated that the transaction with Componenta was directly linked to its investment decision in Karkkila and that when Karkkila bought the shares of KK, Componenta would have the funds to make the investment in its Karkkila plant.
Komisjon märgib samuti, et Karkkila linnavolikogu teatas 1. septembril 2003 toimunud koosolekul, et Componentaga tehtud tehing on otseselt seotud Componenta otsusega investeerida Karkkilasse ja kui Karkkila ostab KK aktsiad, on Componental piisavad vahendid investeeringu tegemiseks Karkkila valukotta.
These observations further support the Commission’s findings below that the transaction was not market-based.
Nimetatud asjaolud toetavad allpool toodud komisjoni järeldusi, et tehingut ei tehtud turutingimustel.
The price for the shares
Aktsiate müügihind
The price paid for the shares in KK is one part of the financial transaction between Karkkila and Componenta.
KK aktsiate eest makstud hind moodustab osa Karkkila ja Componenta vahelisest tehingust.
The issue is whether this price was market based.
Aktsiate eest makstud hinna puhul tuleb selgitada, kas see vastas turuhinnale.
Finland justified the price of the shares in KK in terms of the net value of the assets owned by KK.
Soome on põhjendanud KK aktsiate hinda KK varade netoväärtusega.
However, the transaction at issue is not a sale of real estate itself, but the acquisition of shares in a company.
Kõnealuse tehingu puhul ei ole siiski tegemist kinnisvara müügiga, vaid ettevõtte aktsiate ostmisega.
For such investment, a market economy operator would base his assessment of the market price primarily on the likely return he could expect from his investment.
Kõnealust investeeringut tehes kasutaks turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev investor turuhinna hindamise alusena peamiselt investeeringust loodetavat kasumit.
This is because a market economy investor invests in view of the profits, i.e. the expected return on the investment.
See tuleneb sellest, et turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev investor investeerib kasumi ehk investeeringust loodetava kasumi pärast.
He would therefore have taken into account the ratio between the expected yearly return on the shares and the capital invested in order to see whether he could expect an appropriate return, compared to other investment alternatives.
Seetõttu oleks turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev investor võtnud arvesse aktsiate ja investeeritud kapitali aastase kasumiootuse, et näha, kas investeeringust võib võrreldes teiste investeerimisvõimalustega oodata realistlikku kasumit.
On the basis of the results of the last few years, the return on an investment in KK would clearly be negative.
Paari viimase aasta tulemuste põhjal on KKsse tehtud investeeringute tootlikkus olnud selgelt negatiivne.
Moreover, there are no signs that this situation is set to improve in the future.
Ei ole ka näha märke olukorra paranemisest.
Finland has not provided any KK business plan setting out measures planned to improve the profit situation nor has it even claimed that Karkkila had any expectations of improvement in profits and return.
Soome ei ole edastanud sellist KK äriplaani, mille kohaselt kavandataks meetmeid kasumlikkuse parandamiseks, Soome pole ka väitnud, et Karkkila oleks lootnud kasumi ja tulu suurenemist.
The reason for the negative results is that KK was clearly in difficulties, the demand for its land was weak and revenue from its land was only marginal.
Negatiivsete tulemuste põhjuseks on see, et KK oli selgelt raskustes, tema maatükkide nõudlus oli madal ja maatükkidest saadavad tulud olid minimaalsed.
The company had shown losses for the past four years, had very low sales, could not distribute any dividends and had a precarious financial situation.
Ettevõte oli viimase nelja aasta jooksul kahjumis, müüginumbrid olid väga madalad, ta ei suutnud välja maksta dividende ning oli majanduslikult ebakindlas olukorras.
Furthermore, this difficult financial situation existed even though the company was benefiting from interest-free loans.
Võib veel lisada, et see raske majanduslik olukord jätkus, kuigi ettevõttele anti intressita laenu.
Had it financed its activities by normal loans with interest, the situation would have been even worse.
Kui ettevõte oleks finantseerinud oma tegevust tavaliste intressiga laenudega, oleks olukord olnud veelgi halvem.
On the basis of past experience, and lacking any prospects of an improvement in the company's financial situation, a market investor could not have expected any return on investment when purchasing the shares of KK.
Varasema kogemuse põhjal, ja kuna ettevõtte majanduslik olukord ei tundunud võimalik, ei oleks turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev investor võinud KK aktsiaid ostes loota mingisugust tulu oma investeeringult.
Based on this, the Commission considers that the value of the shares in KK was zero.
Selle põhjal on komisjon arvamusel, et KK aktsiate väärtus oli null.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that KK was, as explained above, to a large extent financed by two interest-free shareholder loans.
Seda järeldust kinnitab fakt, et KK tegevust rahastati suures osas kahe intressita aktsionärilaenuga, nagu eespool nimetatud.
This means that a change of ownership in the shares would have to be accompanied by the takeover of the interest-free loans, which, as will be explained below, a market investor would not have done.
See tähendab seda, et aktsiate üleminekul uuele omanikule oleks üle pidanud minema ka intressita laenud, mida turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev investor ei oleks vastu võtnud, nagu allpool märgitakse.
As already stated above, what is decisive is the expected return in the long run, which might differ from the return actually generated in the past.
Nagu eespool juba mainitud, on otsustavaks teguriks pikaajaline kasumiootus, mis võib erineda eelnevate aastate tegelikust tulust.
Nevertheless, a market economy investor would also take past performance into account.
Turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev investor võtaks siiski arvesse ka varasemad tulemused.
As regards expected returns, the crucial question is whether KK could reasonably be expected to generate adequate income through sale of land and through the leasing out of land.
Kasumiootuse puhul on otsustavaks asjaolu, et kas oleks mõistlik oodata, et KK maatükke müües ja rentides saaks piisavalt tulu.
This is linked to the valuation of the real estate in its totality as discussed below.
See on seotud kinnisvarale antud koguhinnanguga, nagu allpool märgitakse.
Finland explained that the value of the land owned by KK was the basis for the valuation of the shares.
Soome selgitas, et aktsiate hindamise alusena kasutati KKle kuulunud maatükkide väärtust.
It is true that the net value of assets is also considered by a market economy investor for his decision.
On õige, et ka turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev investor võtab otsuseid tehes arvesse vara netoväärtust.
The Finnish argumentation for the valuation of the shares is summarised in the table below:
Aktsiate hindamist käsitlevad Soome põhjendused esitatakse lühidalt järgmises tabelis:
Table 1
I tabel –
Value of KK according to Finland:
KK väärtus vastavalt Soome hinnangule:
Land type
Maatüki liik:
Value according to Finland (Euro)
Väärtus vastavalt Soome hinnangule (eurodes)
For detached houses
Eramukrundid
For terraced houses and apartment blocks
Rida- ja korrusmajakrundid
Parks and communal land
Pargid ja kommunaalmaa
Other area (Haapala)
Muud piirkonnad (Haapala)
Total land value
Maatükkide koguväärtus
Book equity of KK
KK raamatupidamuslik omakapital
Debts of KK
KK võlad
Net value KK
KK netoväärtus
Net value 50 % of KK
50 % KK netoväärtusest
Price paid by city
Linna makstud hind
0(36) The considerations of the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities do not apply directly, because the transaction does not concern individual pieces of real estate, but shares in a company.
0(36) Ametivõimude korraldatavas maa ja hoonete müügis sisalduvate riigiabi elemente käsitlevat komisjoni teatist ei saa vahetult kohaldada, sest tehingu objektiks ei ole eravalduses olev kinnisvara, vaid ettevõtte aktsiad.
However, they can be applied by analogy in this case, since the aim of the Commission’s Communication, which is to ensure that transactions between public and private undertakings involving land are free from aid, is relevant for both the sale and purchase of land by public undertakings and also because in this case Finland argues that the valuation of the land was the basis for setting the price of the shares.
Teatist võib siiski kõnealuses juhtumis kohaldada analoogselt, sest komisjoni teatis, mille eesmärk on kindlustada, et riigi osalusega ettevõtete ja eraettevõtete vahelised maaga seotud tehingud ei sisaldaks abi, see käib nii maatükkide müügi kui ostutehingute kohta, kus üheks osapooleks on riigi osalusega ettevõte, ja kuna Soome väidab käesolevas juhtumis, et aktsiate hindamise aluseks on maatükkide väärtus.
The Communication states that land evaluation, if not based on an unconditional bidding procedure, should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale, in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards.
Teatise kohaselt juhul kui müük toimub ilma tingimusteta pakkumismenetluseta, peab üks või enam sõltumatut hindajat enne müüki teostama turuväärtuse kinnitamiseks sõltumatu hindamise vastavalt üldtunnustatud turunäitajatele ja hindamisstandarditele.
The Commission notes that the land was not evaluated on the basis of an unconditional bidding procedure.
Komisjon tõdeb, et maatükkide väärtus ei ole määratud tingimusteta pakkumismenetluse alusel.
Therefore a valuation should have been made by an independent asset valuer.
Seetõttu oleks pidanud hindamise teostama sõltumatu hindaja.
The question is whether the valuation made by Finland fulfils the requirement for such an independent asset valuation.
Tuleb küsida, kas Soome teostatud hindamine vastab sellisele sõltumatule hindamisele.
The Commission firstly notes that the short report from a real estate agent provided by Finland does not clearly indicate that it concerns the valuation of land owned by KK.
Komisjon märgib esiteks, et Soome edastatud kinnisvaramaakleri lühikeses aruandes ei märgita konkreetselt, et see käsitleb KKle kuulunud maatükkide hindamist.
The relevance of this report will be further assessed below.
Kõnealuse aruande tähtsust analüüsitakse järgmisena.
The Commission notes that the land owned by KK was valued in different ways for different types of land, i.e. land for detached houses, land for terraced houses and blocks of flats, a specific area called Asemansuo, and parks and communal land.
Komisjon märgib, et KKle kuulunud maatükke hinnati erinevalt maatüki tüübist sõltuvalt (eramukrunt, ridaelamu- ja korrusmajakrunt, Asemansuo piirkond ning pargid ja kommunaalmaad).
These different land types will be analysed separately.
Nimetatud erinevaid maatükiliike analüüsitakse eraldi.
As regards land for detached houses, the valuation was based on Karkkila’s official unit sales price for such land of EUR 10,19 per square metre.
Eramukruntide hindamise aluseks oli Karkkila kohaldatud ametlik ruutmeetrihind, mis eramukruntide puhul oli 10,19 eurot ruutmeetri kohta.
The Commission notes that this was the price used by the city to sell land to individual buyers and thus the retail price.
Komisjon märgib, et tegemist oli jaehinnaga ehk hinnaga, millega linn müüs krunte ostjatele.
Finland also provided information from a real estate expert on the unit value (for the final customer, i.e. also in this case the retail value) of different types of land in Karkkila.
Soome edastas ka kinnisvaraeksperdi aruande eriliiki maatükkide ruutmeetrihinna kohta Karkkilas (lõppkliendilt küsitav hind, st jaehind).
The expert notes that such land was sold in Karkkila for between EUR 9,43 and EUR 14,76 per square metre in 2003, but also notes that the price used by Karkkila is close to the going value for land, without providing any further details.
Ekspert märgib, et selliste maatükkide ruutmeetrihinnad Karkkilas olid aastal 2003 vahemikus 9,43 kuni 14,76 eurot ja et Karkkila kasutatud hind on maatükkide turuhinna lähedane, jättes selle täpsemalt selgitamata.
However, the Commission notes that there was no actual external valuation made of the specific land to be used for detached houses that was owned by KK.
Komisjon on siiski arvamusel, et KKle kuulunud eramukrunte tegelikult ei hinnatud.
Furthermore, there was no estimation of the wholesale value of the land.
Samuti jäeti hindamata maatükkide hulgimüügihind.
In the view of the Commission it is evident that the value of land at the retail stage is considerably higher than when land is sold in large quantities (such as in this case, where KK owned 80 plots for detached houses) where the buyer's intention is not to use it, but to sell it on at a later date.
Komisjoni arvates on selge, et maatükkide väärtus jaemüügis on märgatavalt kõrgem kui suuri maatükke müües (nagu kõnealusel puhul, kui KKle kuulus 80 eramukrunti) ja kui ostja eesmärk ei ole kõnealust maad ise kasutada, vaid see hiljem edasi müüa.