natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Even if the Habidite prefabricated modules could be considered a singular product because of their characteristics, in the present case, the relevant product market must be defined in a broader sense, as being the market for the construction and sale of houses in general – including both houses sold on the free market, and houses sold on the regulated segment of the market (social housing).
Isegi kui Habidite kokkupandavaid mooduleid saaks nende omaduste põhjal pidada ainulaadseks tooteks, tuleb praegusel juhul asjaomast tooteturgu määratleda laiemas tähenduses majade üldise ehitus- ja müügituruna, mis hõlmab nii vabaturul kui ka turu reguleeritud osas müüdavaid maju (sotsiaaleluruumid).
As Habidite itself argues, the prices of the houses to be sold to BIZKAILUR can be benchmarked against the prices of houses sold on the free market, or of those eventually sold in protected or semi-protected regime.
Nagu Habidite ise väidab, võib BIZKAILURile müüdavate majade hindu võrrelda vabaturul müüdavate majade või lõpuks täieliku või osalise sooduskava alusel müüdavate majade hindadega.
The fact that BIZKAILUR also contracted with constructors other than Habidite other houses to be sold under the semi-protected regime, demonstrates that other constructors were at the time indeed in competition with Habidite for providing to BIZKAILUR houses to be sold in protected and semi-protected regime.
See, et BIZKAILUR sõlmis osalise sooduskava alusel majade müümiseks lepinguid ka teiste ehitajatega peale Habidite, näitab, et teised ehitajad tõepoolest konkureerisid sel ajal Habiditega, et ehitada BIZKAILURile maju täieliku ja osalise sooduskava alusel müümiseks.
Furthermore, in the Business Plan submitted to the Basque government in support of its application for the 2008 regional aid (dated November 2008, at pp. 10-12), Habidite indicated itself that it would have been in competition with constructors of traditional houses on several Spanish regional markets on which it intended to sell its products (including in particular the Basque Country, Navarra, Cantabria, La Rioja, Madrid and Catalonia, but also other Spanish comunidades autónomas to a lesser extent).
Pealegi näitas Habidite Baskimaa omavalitsusele oma 2008. aasta regionaalabitaotluse toetuseks esitatud äriplaanis (dateeritud novembris 2008, lk 10–12), et ta on konkureerinud tavaliste majade müüjatega mitmel Hispaania piirkondlikul turul, kus ta kavatses oma tooteid müüa (sealhulgas eelkõige Baskimaal, Navarras, Kantaabrias, La Riojas, Madridis ja Kataloonias, kuid vähemal määral ka teistes Hispaania autonoomsete piirkondades).
Regarding the market in the Basque Country in particular, Habidite estimated a market share of 0,5 % in 2011 and up to 2,8 % as of 2014 onwards, assuming that the total yearly demand for housing in this region would have been of 8000 houses for the period 2011-2016.
Konkreetselt Baskimaa turul prognoosis Habidite 2011. aastaks turuosa 0,5 % ja alates 2014. aastast kuni 2,8 %, hinnates ajavahemikul 2011–2016 piirkonna aastaseks kogunõudluseks 8000 maja.
According to an established jurisprudence, aid is to be considered as distorting competition insofar as it strengthens the financial position and opportunities of the recipient company with respect to those of competitors not receiving aid [44].
Väljakujunenud kohtupraktika põhjal tuleb abi lugeda konkurentsi moonutavaks, kui see tugevdab abi saanud ettevõtte finantsseisundit nende konkurentide ees, kes abi ei saanud [44].
In the light of this principle and the above considerations, it must be concluded that the aid given to Habidite and the AFER group through the Land Contract would have had distortive effects on competition, because it would have allowed Habidite to reduce investment costs that normally are borne by the company itself, and thereby to derive a competitive edge vis-à-vis actual and potential competitors.
Pidades silmas seda põhimõtet ja eespool esitatud kaalutlusi, tuleb teha järeldus, et Habiditele ja AFERi kontsernile maalepingu alusel antud abi oleks avaldanud konkurentsile moonutavat mõju, kuna see oleks võimaldanud Habiditel vähendada tavaliselt ettevõtte enda kanda jäävaid investeerimiskulusid ning saada selle tulemusena tegelike ja võimalike konkurentide ees konkurentsieelis.
Affectation of intra-EU trade
Mõju EL-i sisesele kaubandusele
Similar to the discussion in recitals (84) to (87), the argument made by Habidite that the relevant geographic market is only local or regional when it comes to prefabricated houses in particular, because of the costs associated with the transportation of the prefabricates, cannot be accepted.
Sarnaselt põhjendustes (84)–(87) osutatule, ei saa nõustuda Habidite väitega, et asjaomane geograafiline turg on kokkupandavate moodulite transpordikulu tõttu eeskätt moodulmajade puhul kohaliku või piirkondliku tähtsusega.
Due to the geographic vicinity of the Basque Country to other Member States and its closeness to the sea, the additional transportation costs would probably not be decisive for eliminating potential competitors of Habidite in this comunidad autónoma.
Tänu Baskimaa geograafilisele lähedusele teistele liikmesriikidele ja merele ei oleks täiendavad transpordikulud tõenäoliselt Habidite võimalike konkurentide võitmisel selles autonoomses piirkonnas otsustavaks saanud.
Conversely, transportation costs might not represent an obstacle for Habidite to compete for the construction of homes in close Member States.
Vastupidi, transpordikulud ei oleks pruukinud osutuda Habidite jaoks takistuseks konkureerimisel majade ehitamiseks lähedal asuvatesse liikmesriikidesse.
According to the same line of jurisprudence as cited in recital (88), when state aid strengthens the financial position of a company compared with others competing in intra-Union trade, the latter must be regarded as impaired by the aid.
Sama kohtupraktika kohaselt, millele viidati põhjenduses (88), on olukord selline, et kui riigiabi tugevdab ettevõtte finantsseisundit teiste liidusiseses kaubanduses konkureerijatega võrreldes, on abi konkurentsi kahjustanud.
Aid may be of such kind as to affect intra-Union trade even if the recipient undertaking does not participate itself in cross-border activities [45].
Abi võib olla selline, et see mõjutab liidusisest kaubandust isegi siis, kui abi saanud ettevõtja ise ei osale piiriüleses tegevuses [45].
On the basis of the considerations at recitals (89) and (90), the Commission concludes that the aid involved in the Land Contract would have been likely to affect trade between the Member States.
Põhjendustes (89) ja (90) osutatud kaalutluste põhjal teeb komisjon järelduse, et maalepinguga seotud abi oleks liikmesriikide vahelist kaubandust tõenäoliselt mõjutanud.
Measure 2: Houses Contract
Meede 2: eluruumide leping
The considerations made at recitals (64) to (67), (84) to (88) and (89) to (90) on the criteria of use of State resources and imputability of the State, distortion of competition and affectation of intra-Union trade in the definition of state aid are also applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the Houses Contract.
Põhjendustes (64)–(67), (84)–(88) ja (89)–(90) esitatud kaalutlused, mis käsitlevad riigi vahendite kasutamist ja riigiga seostatavuse kriteeriumi, konkurentsi moonutamist ja liidusisese kaubanduse moonutamise määratlust, kehtivad mutatis mutandis ka eluruumide lepingu puhul.
Consequently, in recitals (93) to (96), only the criterion of selective advantage shall be examined.
Järelikult käsitletakse põhjendustes (93)–(96) ainult valikulise eelise kriteeriumi.
As explained in recital (45), Habidite argues that the Houses Contract did not convey to it any advantage, because, in essence, the prices to be paid by BIZKAILUR for the 1500 homes to be constructed by Habidite under this contract were actually below market levels.
Nagu põhjenduses (45) selgitatud, väidab Habidite, et eluruumide lepinguga ei antud talle eelist, kuna tegelikult jäid hinnad, mida BIZKAILUR pidi maksma 1500 eluruumi eest, mis Habidite pidi kõnealuse lepingu alusel ehitama, allapoole turu taset.
In particular, Habidite first argues that the 1500 houses which were to be delivered by Habidite under this contract would have been sold by BIZKAILUR under the semi-protected regime (as viviendas tasadas), at a maximum price limited by the applicable regional law to 1,7 of the price established by the Basque government's Order of 1.8.2004, as successively indexed on the basis of the Consumption Price Index (IPC) determined by the Spanish National Institute of Statistics (see in this sense recitals (17) and (18)).
Nimelt väidab Habidite kõigepealt, et 1500 eluruumi, mille Habidite pidi lepingu kohaselt üle andma, oleks BIZKAILUR ära müünud osalise sooduskava alusel (viviendas tasadas) kõrgeima võimaliku hinna eest, mis vastavalt kehtivale piirkonnaseadusele oli Baskimaa omavalitsuse 1. augusti 2004. aasta korraldusega kehtestatud 1,7-kordne hind, mida seejärel tuli Hispaania statistikaameti määratud tarbijahinnaindeksi alusel korrigeerida (selle kohta vt põhjendused (17) ja (18)).
Second, Habidite argues that the price that it would have obtained from BIZKAILUR under the Houses Contract for the 1500 houses was comparable to the prices obtained by other construction companies which had concluded similar contracts with BIZKAILUR in that period (examples are indicated in recital (45)).
Teiseks väidab Habidite, et hind, mida ta oleks BIZKAILURilt eluruumide lepingu alusel 1500 eluruumi eest saanud, oli võrreldav hindadega, mida said teised ehitusettevõtted, kes olid sõlminud kõnealusel perioodil BIZKAILURi omaga sarnaseid lepinguid (näited on esitatud põhjenduses (45)).
Finally, Habidite also argued that, under Legislative Decree 78/1986 and Article 31 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 31 March 2004 on public procurement [46], such contracts can also be concluded directly, i.e. without public tender, when justified by the technical nature of the project or for protecting exclusivity rights.
Lõpuks väitis Habidite samuti, et vastavalt seadusandlikule dekreedile 78/1986 ning Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 31. märtsi 2004. aasta direktiivi 2004/18/EÜ (ehitustööde riigihankelepingute, asjade riigihankelepingute ja teenuste riigihankelepingute sõlmimise korra kooskõlastamise kohta) [46] artiklile 31 võib selliseid lepinguid sõlmida ka otse, st ilma riigihanketa, kui see on põhjendatud projekti tehnilise laadiga või ainuõiguste kaitsega.
Having assessed the information and arguments provided by Habidite, the Commission has the following observations to make in recitals (98) to (107).
Olles hinnanud Habidite esitatud teavet ja argumente, esitab komisjon põhjendustes (98)-(107) järgmised tähelepanekud.
First, it should be noted that the information concerning average prices obtained by other construction companies which had concluded similar contracts with BIZKAILUR relies exclusively on press publications.
Esiteks tuleb märkida, et teave keskmiste hindade kohta, mida saavad teised BIZKAILURi omaga sarnaseid lepinguid sõlminud ehitusettevõtted, tugineb ainult ajakirjanduses avaldatud andmetel.
The Commission did not receive direct information on this aspect from the Diputación – for example, in the form of copies of similar contracts concluded by BIZKAILUR with other construction companies.
Komisjon ei saanud Diputaciónilt selle küsimuse kohta otsest teavet – näiteks koopiatena sarnastest lepingutest, mida BIZKAILUR on sõlminud teiste ehitusettevõtetega.
At any rate, the price estimates provided by both Habidite and the Diputación refer to the years 2006 and 2007, whereas, according to Article A(c) in the Houses Contract and to the Business Plan of Habidite as made publicly-available in 2009, the 1500 houses would have been delivered to BIZKAILUR over the period 2009-2011.
Igatahes viitavad nii Habidite kui ka Diputacióni hinnaprognoosid aastatele 2006 ja 2007, samal ajal kui eluruumide lepingu artikli A punkti c ja Habidite 2009. aastal avalikustatud äriplaani kohaselt oleks kõnealused 1500 eluruumi BIZKAILURile üle antud ajavahemikul 2009–2011.
Even if it were to be accepted that the prices to be obtained by Habidite from BIZKAILUR for the 1500 houses on the basis of this contract were comparable with those obtained by other construction companies from BIZKAILUR on the basis of similar contracts, and were at any rate under the prices observable on the free market for such houses, this argument is not sufficient to enable the Commission to conclude that Habidite did not derive an advantage from this contract.
Isegi kui on tõsi, et hind, mida Habidite pidi kõnealuse lepingu kohaselt BIZKAILURilt nende 1500 eluruumi eest saama, oli võrreldav hinnaga, mida said BIZKAILURilt sarnaste lepingute alusel teised ehitusettevõtted, ning jäi igal juhul alla selliste eluruumide vabaturul kehtivale hinnale, ei piisa sellest argumendist komisjoni järelduseks, et Habidite ei saanud kõnealuse lepinguga eelist.
As also noted in the opening Decision [47], the advantage derived by Habidite from this contract consists mainly in the fact that the contract secured the sale of an important part of its initial production, thus considerably reducing the risks inherently associated with a new investment project, which are by definition even higher at the launch of a new product, such as the Habidite modules were.
Samuti nagu märgitud menetluse algatamise otsuses [47], hõlmab eelis, mida Habidite lepingust sai, peamiselt asjaolu, et leping tagas tema esimese toodangu olulise osa müügi, vähendades sellega märkimisväärselt uue investeerimisprojektiga seostatavaid riske, mis on määratluse kohaselt uue toote tootmise käivitamisel (nagu olid Habidite moodulid) isegi suuremad.
It is commonly known that competition on the Spanish construction market was at the time, and continues to be, very intense.
On üldteada, et sel ajal valitses Hispaania ehitusturul ja valitseb praegugi väga tihe konkurents.
The fact that BIZKAILUR contracted 1500 homes from Habidite should confer from this perspective a not-so-negligible advantage to Habidite vis-à-vis its competitors, even if only demand for the construction of houses to be sold under the protected and semi-protected regime were to be considered.
See, et BIZKAILUR sõlmis Habiditega lepingu 1500 eluruumi kohta, peab andma Habiditele tema konkurentidega võrreldes olulise eelise, isegi kui võtta arvesse ainult nõudlust täieliku ja osalise sooduskava alusel müüdavate majade ehitamise järele.
The fact that, as the Diputación informs, according to the Plan Foral (see recital (19)) BIZKAILUR was supposed to provide a total of 3000 houses to be sold under the protected regime over the period 2004-2007, is a good indication that the number of houses contracted from Habidite was not negligible at all.
Asjaolu, et – nagu märkis Diputación – omavalitsuse kava (vt põhjendus (19)) kohaselt pidi BIZKAILUR ehitama kokku 3000 täieliku sooduskava alusel ajavahemikul 2004-2007 müüdavat eluruumi, näitab kujukalt, et eluruumide arv, mis Habiditelt lepingu alusel telliti, ei olnud tähtsusetu.
It is true that the Plan Foral covers the period 2004 to 2007, whereas the 1500 homes contracted with BIZKAILUR by Habidite were foreseen to be delivered over the period 2009 to 2011 (according to the company's Business Plan in the version made public in 2009).
On tõsi, et omavalitsuse kava hõlmab ajavahemikku 2004–2007, samal ajal kui need 1500 eluruumi, mis BIZKAILUR Habiditelt lepingu alusel tellis, pidi üle antama ajavahemikul 2009–2011 (vastavalt ettevõtte äriplaani 2009. aastal avaldatud versioonile).
It is nevertheless an indication of the total number of houses that BIZKAILUR was intending to sell under the protected regime at the time when the Houses Contract was concluded.
Sellegipoolest iseloomustab see eluruumide koguarvu, mis BIZKAILUR kavatses eluruumide lepingu sõlmimise ajal täieliku sooduskava alusel maha müüa.
This element needs to be assessed in light of the ratio of houses contracted by the Diputación and BIZKAILUR from the estimated total output of Habidite for the relevant period.
Seda asjaolu tuleb hinnata, võttes arvesse osakaalu, mille Diputacióni ja BIZKAILURi lepingus sisalduvad eluruumid moodustavad Habidite prognoositavast kogutoodangust asjaomasel perioodil.
According to the Business Plan made public in 2009, Habidite estimated that in 2009 its entire production of 433 houses would have been purchased exclusively by BIZKAILUR.
aastal avaldatud äriplaanis hindas Habidite, et 2009. aastal ostab kõik tema toodetud 433 eluruumi ainuisikuliselt ära BIZKAILUR.
In 2010, BIZKAILUR would have purchased 670 houses, whereas the total production of Habidite would have been of 1113 houses.
aastal oleks BIZKAILUR ostnud 670 eluruumi, kusjuures Habidite kogutoodang oleks olnud 1113 eluruumi.
In 2011, BIZKAILUR would have purchased 342 houses, whereas the total production of Habidite would have been of 3151 houses.
aastal oleks BIZKAILUR ostnud 342 eluruumi, kusjuures Habidite kogutoodang oleks olnud 3151 eluruumi.
This is an indication that, at the time when the Houses Contract was concluded, Habidite itself estimated that the Diputación and BIZKAILUR would have purchased a notable part of the production during the first 2 productive years of the Habdite factory in Alonsotegi (2009 and 2010).
See näitab, et eluruumide lepingu sõlmimise ajal prognoosis Habidite ise, et Diputación ja BIZKAILUR ostavad Habidite Alonsotegi tehase kahe esimese tegevusaasta (2009 ja 2010) toodangust ära olulise osa.
This supports the conclusion that, indeed, the Houses Contract considerably reduced the risks inherently associated with a new investment project, and particular with the launch of a new product on the market (the Habidite modules).
See kinnitab järeldust, et eluruumide lepinguga vähendati märkimisväärselt uue investeerimisprojekti, eelkõige uue toote (Habidite moodulite) turuletoomisega seotud riske.
The same Business Plan mentions that Habidite intended to sell with priority on the regulated segment of the market (social housing), both in the Basque Country and in other regions of Spain.
Samas äriplaanis mainitakse, et Habidite kavatses toodangut müüa nii Baskimaal kui ka teistes Hispaania piirkondades eelkõige turu reguleeritud osas (sotsiaaleluruumid).
In particular, in 2011 Habidite foresaw that it would have sold on the regulated market in Spain a total of 289 houses, from a total production of 1403 houses in the same year.
Täpsemalt prognoosis Habidite 2011. aastal, et samal aastal ühtekokku toodetud 1403 eluruumist müüb ta Hispaania reguleeritud turul kokku 289 eluruumi.
This shows that, after the end of the Houses Contract (as the 1500 houses ordered by the Diputación and BIZKAILUR were to be delivered by May 2011 at the latest), the share of houses Habidite was hoping to sell on the regulated market from its total annual production, i.e. 289 houses from a total production of 1403 houses, compared much lower than the same ratio in the first three years of functioning of the Habidite plant in Alonsotegi, which were covered by the Houses Contract.
See näitab, et pärast eluruumide lepingu lõppu (kuna 1500 Diputacióni ja BIZKAILURi tellitud eluruumi tuli üle anda hiljemalt maiks 2011) oli nende majade osakaal, mida Habidite lootis reguleeritud turul müüa oma aastatoodangust, st 289 eluruumi ühtekokku toodetud 1403 eluruumist, palju madalam kui sama näitaja Habidite tehase esimese kolme tegevusaasta jooksul Alonsotegis, mille suhtes kehtis eluruumide leping.
Another relevant aspect is the actual demand for social housing in the province of Bizkaia that was covered by BIZKAILUR through the Houses Contract.
Teine oluline aspekt on tegelik nõudlus sotsiaaleluruumide järele Biskaia provintsis, mida BIZKAILUR rahuldas eluruumide lepingu kaudu.
Neither the Diputación nor Habidite produced specific evidence regarding the actual demand for social housing that was to be covered by BIZKAILUR by means of the Houses Contract concluded with Habidite on the given terms.
Diputación ega Habidite kumbki ei esitanud konkreetseid tõendeid tegeliku nõudluse kohta sotsiaaleluruumide järele, mida BIZKAILUR Habiditega antud tingimustel sõlmitud eluruumide lepingu kaudu rahuldas.
Also to be noted that the Houses Contract was not concluded following a public tender - whereas, according to the information provided by Habidite itself when referring to similar contracts concluded by BIZKAILUR with other construction companies, it seems that BIZKAILUR should have normally tendered such a contract.
Samuti tuleb märkida, et eluruumide lepingut ei sõlmitud riigihanke tulemusena – isegi kui Habidite enda viidete põhjal BIZKAILURi ja teiste ehitusettevõtetega sõlmitud sarnastele lepingutele tundub, et BIZKAILUR oleks pidanud lepingu sõlmimiseks sellise hanke korraldama.
From this perspective, the argument made by Habidite (see recital (96)) that the special technical nature of this project allowed for direct contracting, without a public tender, cannot be accepted.
Sellest seisukohast ei saa nõustuda Habidite väitega (vt põhjendus (96)), et kõnealuse lepingu eriline tehniline laad võimaldas lepingu sõlmida otse, ilma riigihanketa.
First, the provisions invoked by Habidite do not address situations such as the present one, where the special nature of the project consisted in introducing a new product on the market.
Esiteks ei käsitleta Habidite viidatud sätetes selliseid juhtumeid nagu praegune, mille puhul projekti eriline laad seisnes uue toote turuletoomises.
The object of the Houses Contract was the purchase of houses to be then sold under the semi-protected regime for the disadvantaged citizens.
Eluruumide lepingu ese oli eluruumide ostmine, et müüa need seejärel osalise sooduskava alusel ebasoodsas olukorras olevatele kodanikele.
The technology used for building such houses is irrelevant, and homes constructed with prefabricated modules were in direct competition with homes constructed through traditional methods.
Selliste eluruumide ehitamiseks kasutatav tehnoloogia ei ole oluline ning kokkupandavatest moodulitest ehitatavad hooned konkureerisid otseselt traditsioonilistel meetoditel ehitatud hoonetega.
Second, in a report of January 2009 [48], the Tribunal Vasco de Cuentas Públicas (the Basque Court of Auditors) expressed doubts on the legality of the Land and Houses Contracts in a context where it drew attention to public contracts concluded in breach of the principles of transparency and competitive tendering.
Teiseks väljendas Baskimaa kontrollikoda (Tribunal Vasco de Cuentas Públicas) 2009. aasta jaanuari aruandes [48] kahtlusi maa- ja eluruumide lepingu õiguspärasuse suhtes, juhtides tähelepanu riigihankelepingutele, mis on sõlmitud läbipaistvuse ja pakkumismenetluste põhimõtet rikkudes.
According to the P&O Ferries jurisprudence [49], the mere fact that a public authority purchases good on market pricing terms is not sufficient in itself in order to conclude that the transaction is market-conform, if the State did not have an actual need for those good, particularly where such goods were contracted without a public tender.
P&O Ferriese kohtuasja [49] kohaselt ei piisa ainuüksi asjaolust, et avaliku sektori asutus ostab kaupu turuhinnaga, tegemaks järeldust, et tehing on sõlmitud tavapärastel tingimustel, kui riigil ei olnud nende kaupade järele tegelikku vajadust, eriti kui selliseid kaupu käsitlev leping on sõlmitud ilma riigihanketa.
In the present case, the absence of information concerning the actual demand for BIZKAILUR to sell the 1500 contracted houses under the semi-protected regime over the period 2009-2011, coupled with the absence of a public tender, are indications that the transaction was not concluded on market terms.
Praegusel juhul näitab teabe puudumine selle kohta, kas oli olemas tegelik vajadus, et BIZKAILUR müüks 1500 lepingu alusel ehitatud eluruumi ajavahemikul 2009–2011 osalise sooduskava alusel, koos riigihanke puudumisega, et tehingut ei sõlmitud turutingimustel.
In the light of the considerations made at recitals (97) to (106), the Commission concludes that the Houses Contract cannot be considered to be a normal market operation.
Pidades silmas põhjendustes (97)–(106) sätestatud kaalutlusi, teeb komisjon järelduse, et eluruumide lepingut ei saa lugeda tavapäraseks turutehinguks.