natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Authority must therefore examine the exemption of excise duty in light of relevant case law to see whether it constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.1.1.
Seepärast peab järelevalveamet, selleks et näha, kas aktsiisimaksust vabastamine kujutab endast EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 tähenduses riigiabi, uurima seda asjakohast kohtupraktikat silmas pidades.1.1.
The aid must be granted by the state or through state resources
Abi antakse riigi poolt või riigi vahenditest
This is because the granting of state support to an undertaking may lead to the internal supply being maintained or increased, with the consequence that the opportunities for undertakings established in other EEA States to offer their services to the market of that State are reduced [61].According to Entra’s own Annual Accounts for 2001, Entra is engaged in ‘developing, letting, management, operation, sale, and purchase of real estate in Norway’.
[61]Entra 2001. aasta raamatupidamise aruande kohaselt tegeleb Entra „kinnisvara arenduse, üürimise, haldamise, sellega seotud toimingute, müügi ja ostuga Norras”.
The Association of Commercial Real Estate has 74 members (in October 2005).
Ärikinnisvara ühingul on 74 liiget (oktoobris 2005). Liikmete hulka kuuluvad sellised äriühingud nagu ABB AS Eiendom, Aberdeen Property Investors, Avantor AS, ICA Eiendom Norge AS, KLP Eiendom AS, Linstow ASA, Mustad Eiendom AS, NCC Property Development AS, Reitan Eiendom AS, Skanska Eiendomsutvikling AS, Smedvig Eiendom AS, Steen & Strøm ASA, Storebrand Eiendom AS, Umoe Sterkorder AS, Veidekke Eiendom AS, Vesta Forsikring AS-Eiendom ja Vital Eiendomsforvaltning AS.
In the Norwegian Government’s letter of 4 June 2002 it is stated, that the main rule in such situations was that ‘there must be a transfer of title.
Norra valitsuse 4. juuni 2002. aasta kirjas väidetakse, et peamine reegel sellistes olukordades on, et „omandiõigus peab üle minema. Järelikult tuleb maksta ka registreerimistasu ja dokumendivormistuslõivu.
However, it is up to the EFTA State to provide such justification.’
Selle tõendamisreegli on heaks kiitnud Euroopa Kohus.
Accordingly, registration fee and document duty are payable.
Õigust on niimoodi kohaldatud”.
This is the case with measures whose economic rationale makes them necessary to the smooth functioning and effectiveness of the tax system.
Nii on meetmete korral, mis tänu oma majanduslikele omadustele on vajalikud maksusüsteemi toimimiseks ja tõhususe tagamiseks. Kuid EFTA liikmesriik peab seda põhjendama.”
However, aid may affect trade within the EEA even if the recipient undertaking does not itself participate in cross-border activities [60].
Seda seetõttu, et riikliku toetuse andmine ettevõttele võib kaasa tuua ettevõttesiseste varude säilimise või suurenemise, mille tulemusena vähenevad teiste EMP riikide ettevõtete võimalused pakkuda selle riigi turul oma teenuseid.
St.prp.nr.84 (1998-99) ‘Om ny strategi for Statsbygg og etablering av Statens utleiebygg AS’.
St.prp. nr. 84 (1998–99)„Om ny strategi for Statsbygg og etablering av Statens utleiebygg AS”.
Presented on 4 June 1999.
Esitati 4. juunil 1999.
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. 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.
Kuna omandiõiguse ülemineku registreerimine ei olnud kohustuslik, oleksid ettevõtted, olenemata sellest, kas nad on eraettevõtted või riigi osalusega äriühingud, saanud seaduslikult dokumendivormistuslõive ja registreerimistasusid vältida, kui oleksid jätnud omandiõiguse ülemineku lihtsalt registreerimata.
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. The Ministry reiterated, firstly, its previously presented argument that the measure did not constitute an advantage for Entra.
Ministeerium viitas tõsiasjale, et peamine kriteerium EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 kohaldamiseks maksumeetme puhul on see, et meede teeb EFTA riigi teatavate ettevõtete kasuks erandi maksusüsteemi rakendamise osas.
It did not change the capital structure, the solidity and the total value of the company. If document duties and registration fees were accrued in the opening balance sheet, there would have been an alternative opening balance.
Seega tuleks esmalt kindlaks määrata ühiselt rakendatav süsteem.
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. Moreover, the purpose of the main rule on document duties and registration fees is to tax real transfers between different economic entities. 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).
Kui maksumeede kaldub ühisest süsteemist kõrvale, tuleb uurida, kas kõrvalekaldumist saab põhjendada maksusüsteemi olemuse või üldskeemiga.
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. Entra was consequently not relieved from a charge normally borne from their budgets, according to the Norwegian authorities.
Ministeeriumi arvates ei kujutanud nimemuutusena vormistatud omandiõiguse üleminek maksusüsteemist kõrvalekaldumist.
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. 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.
Juhul kui järelevalveamet leiab, et selline tava kujutas endast maksusüsteemist kõrvalekaldumist, peab ministeerium kõrvalekaldumist põhjendatuks maksusüsteemi olemuse või üldskeemi tõttu.
Thirdly, the Norwegian authorities argued that the measure in question did not affect trade between the Contracting Parties. The Ministry considered that a market survey can show whether the real estate market for urban business premises in Norway was of a purely national character and not subject to cross-border competition.
Lõpuks viitas ministeerium komisjoni 5. juuni 2002. aasta otsusele C 27/99, [17] milles käsitletakse üleminekumaksudest vabastamist mõnede Itaalia riigiosalusega äriühingute ümberkorraldamisel kapitaliühinguteks.
The Ministry considered that except for foreign investments in financial institutions, non-Norwegian investors have not operated in the Norwegian real estate market. Fourthly, the Ministry argued that the exemption from the document duties and registration fees was not a selective measure.
Ministeeriumi sõnul sarnanesid Itaalia puhul asjaolud ja olukord käsitletava juhtumiga ning neid võiks hinnata ühtemoodi.
The Ministry referred to the fact that a main criterion in applying Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement to a tax measure is that the measure provides an exception to the application of the tax system in favour of certain undertakings in the EFTA State. The common system applicable should thus first be determined. If a tax measure derogates from the common system, it must be examined whether the derogation is justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
Ministeerium järeldas, et vabastamist õigustas süsteemi olemus või üldskeem ning see ei kujutanud endast EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 tähenduses riigiabi.30. juuni 2005. aasta kirjaga esitas kaubandus- ja tööstusministeerium lisapõhjendused, miks dokumendivormistamislõivudest ja registreerimistasudest vabastamine ei kujutanud endast Entra jaoks majanduslikku eelist.
The Ministry considered that the practice with name changes as a procedure for transferring property title did not constitute a derogation from the tax system. In case the Authority would find that the practice constituted a derogation from the tax system, the Ministry considered the derogation to be justified by the nature or general scheme of the tax system.
Ministeerium viitas asjaolule, et Entra algbilanss valmistati ette ajaldatud netoväärtuse meetodit kasutades.
Finally, the Ministry referred to Commission decision C 27/99 of 5 June 2002 [17] regarding exemptions from transfer taxes in the case of restructuring of certain public undertakings into joint stock companies in Italy. According to the Ministry, the factual situation in the Italian case was similar to the case in hand and that the same considerations could be made. The Ministry concluded that the exemption was justified by the nature or general scheme of the system and did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.By letter dated 30 June 2005, the Ministry of Trade and Industry submitted further arguments as to why the exemption from document duties and registration fees did not constitute an economic advantage for Entra.
Hinnati igast hoonest tulevikus eeldatavalt saadavat rahavoogu, mis diskonteeriti nõutavat tootlust arvestades.
The Ministry referred to the fact that the opening balance for Entra was prepared by using the Net Present Value method (NPV). The future expected cash flow from each building was estimated and discounted with a required rate of return. The rate of return was fixed by using the Capital Asset Pricing Model after having compared other competing real estate companies.
Tootlus fikseeriti pärast võrdlemist teiste konkureerivate kinnisvaraettevõtetega põhivara hindamise mudeli järgi.
The limited liability company was established on 1 January 2005. The activities were previously carried out by the production unit of the Norwegian Coastal Administration (‘Kystverket’). Secora AS is 100 % owned by the Norwegian State represented by the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs. The Norwegian Coastal Administration is the Norwegian national agency for coastal management, marine safety and communication.
Secora ASi asutamise ettepanek tehti aktidega St.prp. nr. 1 (2004–2005)„Om omdanning av Kystverkets produksjonsvirksomhet til statlig aksjeselskap m.m.”
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows: ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States 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 shall, insofar as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’ To be considered as State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must fulfil all the following four criteria:
Selleks et meedet saaks EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 alusel pidada riigiabiks, peab see vastama järgmisele neljale tingimusele.
A benefit in the form of a tax exemption covered by Article 61(1) is typically made by way of an express exemption. However, as Article 61(1) focuses on the effect of, and not the formality behind, the national legal system, it also covers situations where a tax relief is brought about indirectly by reference to a particular legal notion (in casu‘name change’) the result of which is that no tax should be paid.
Kuna aga artikli 61 lõikes 1 keskendutakse riigi õigussüsteemile avaldatavale mõjule ja mitte selle aluseks olevate sätete sõnastusele, hõlmab see ka olukordi, kus maksudest vabastatakse kaudselt teatavaid õigustermineid kasutades (antud juhul „nimemuutus”), mille tulemusena ei pea makse maksma.
It might be correct that a non-transfer of title in practice might, in some respects, pose greater inconveniencies to a publicly owned entity than to a privately owned company. However, in the Authority’s opinion, questions concerning the inter partes relationship between the previous and the present owner of real estate should be viewed apart from the discussions relating to registration in the Real Estate Registry.
On tõsi, et omandiõiguse üle andmata jätmine oleks võinud riigile kuuluvale üksusele põhjustada mõnes mõttes suuremaid ebamugavusi kui eraomanikule kuuluvale äriühingule, kuid järelevalveameti arvates tuleks kinnisvara eelmise ja praeguse omaniku inter partes suhetega seotud küsimusi vaadelda kinnistusraamatus registreerimisest lahus.
According to Norwegian legislation, Entra would, in the absence of paragraph 3 in the contested Act, have been obliged to pay to the tax authorities the excise duty on the agreed transaction price for the registration that took place, without it being relevant whether the transaction price might have looked different. The tax has never been paid and it is this missing tax payment which is under consideration in the present case. The appearance of Entra’s opening balance sheet influenced by other circumstances, in particular whether the seller would have accepted a lower value on the buildings if Entra had paid the excise duty, are factors which cannot be taken into account when determining whether the company has received an advantage or not. The argument of the Norwegian authorities that the tax exemption should be seen in conjunction with an otherwise different price on the real estate, builds on the reasoning that the aid flowing from the tax exemption led Entra to have a net loss in the form of a higher price setting of the transferred real estate. However, to take account of an all ensuing more or less direct possible economic consequences of an aid measure for the particular aid beneficiary would, in the Authority’s opinion, be contrary to the approach generally applied in State aid cases.
Seda arvestades rõhutab järelevalveamet, et Norra riiki maksukoguja ja kinnisvara müüjana tuleb riigiabiga seoses vaadelda kahe eraldiseisva üksusena.
In the same vein, it can normally not be admitted that the ensuing economic effects of the aid measure in contractual relations between the aid beneficiary and other legal subject should be taken into account when assessing whether, and to what extent, the aid measure qualifies as an advantage in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. In this respect, the Authority emphasises that the Norwegian State as a tax collector and as a seller of real estate should be viewed as two distinct entities for the purpose of the State aid regime. The Authority cannot therefore agree with the Norwegian Government that Entra did not receive an advantage in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement by being exempt from excise duty, and still receiving the protection afforded by being in the Real Estate Register.
Seepärast ei saa järelevalveamet nõustuda Norra valitsusega selles, et Entra ei saanud aktsiisimaksust vabastamisega EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 tähenduses eelist, kuigi sai samal ajal siiski kinnistusraamatus registreerimisega kaasneva kaitse.
As cited above in point I.3.1, in the Government’s proposal to the Stortinget, it was explained that the purpose of the exemption clause was that Entra should not bear the economic burden of the excise duty, since private competing undertakings could, to a large extent, escape that burden by other means. In other words, in the proposal to the Parliament, there is an underlying assumption that payment of the excise duty would indeed put Entra in a less economically advantageous position than if Entra did not pay the duties. Furthermore, it was the intention of the Parliament that Entra should not be put in this non-advantageous position.1.3.3. Conclusion on advantage In conclusion, the Authority maintains that paragraph 3 of the contested Act did confer Entra an advantage in the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Kokkuvõtteks jääb järelevalveamet arvamuse juurde, et vaidlustatud seaduse § 3 andis Entrale eelise EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 tähenduses.
Decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority
EFTA järelevalveameti otsus
No 319/05/COL
nr 319/05/KOL,
on amendments to College Decision No 195/04/COL on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice
millega muudetakse EFTA järelevalveameti nõukogu otsust nr 195/04/KOL EFTA riikide vahelist järelevalveameti ja kohtu asutamist käsitleva lepingu protokolli nr 3 II osa artikli 27 kohaste rakendussätete kohta
HAVING REGARD TO the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice [2], in particular to Articles 5(2)(a) and 24 thereof and Article 27 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,
VÕTTES ARVESSE EFTA riikide vahelist järelevalveameti ja kohtu asutamist käsitlevat lepingut, [2] eriti selle artikli 5 lõike 2 punkti b, artiklit 24 ja nimetatud lepingu protokolli nr 3 II osa artiklit 27,
WHEREAS on 14 July 2004, the EFTA Surveillance Authority adopted Decision No 195/04/COL on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,
ARVESTADES, et 14. juulil 2004. aastal võttis EFTA järelevalveamet vastu otsuse nr 195/04/KOL riikide vahelist järelevalveameti ja kohtu asutamist käsitleva lepingu protokolli nr 3 II osa artikli 27 kohaste rakendussätete kohta,
WHEREAS the EFTA Surveillance Authority, as required by Article 3(1) of Decision No 195/04/COL, will implement a electronic notification system as of 1 January 2006,
ARVESTADES, et vastavalt otsuse nr 195/04/KOL artikli 3 lõikele 1 seadis EFTA järelevalveamet alates 1. jaanuarist 2006 sisse elektroonilise teatamise süsteemi,
WHEREAS the EFTA States, for the purposes of submission of electronic notifications and related correspondence, have designated one contact point,
ARVESTADES, et EFTA riigid määrasid igaüks ühe kontaktpunkti elektrooniliste teadete ja seonduva kirjavahetuse edastamiseks,
AFTER CONSULTING the Advisory Committee on State Aid by letter dated 30 November 2005 in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 29 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,
olles KONSULTEERINUD 30. novembri 2005. aasta kirjas riigiabi nõuandekomiteega vastavalt riikide vahelist järelevalveameti ja kohtu asutamist käsitleva lepingu protokolli nr 3 II osa artiklile 29,
Article 3(1) of Decision No 195/04/COL shall be replaced by the following,
Otsuse 195/04/KOL artikli 3 lõige 1 asendatakse järgmise tekstiga:
‘The notification shall be transmitted to the Authority by the Mission to the European Union of the EFTA State concerned or any other contact point designated by the EFTA State.
“Teade tuleb nõuandekomiteele edastada asjaomase EFTA riigi esinduse kaudu Euroopa Liidu juures või asjaomase riigi poolt määratud mõne teise kontaktpunki kaudu.
The Competition and State Aid Directorate of the Authority may nominate contact points for the receipt of notifications’.
Ameti konkurentsi ja riigiabi direktoraat võib määrata teadete vastuvõtmise kontaktpunktid.”
Article 3(6) of Decision No 195/04/COL shall be replaced by the following,
Otsuse 195/04/KOL artikli 3 lõige 6 asendatakse järgmise tekstiga:
‘After consulting the EFTA States, the Authority shall publish in the EEA Section of and the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union details of the arrangements for the electronic transmission of notifications, including addresses together with any necessary arrangements for the protection of confidential information’.
“Pärast konsulteerimist EFTA riikidega avaldab Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes teadete elektroonilise edastamise korra üksikasjad, kaasa arvatud aadressid ja salajaste andmete kaitset käsitleva korra.”
The second sentence of the fourth paragraph of Annex I to Decision No 195/04/COL shall be replaced by the following,
Otsuse nr 195/04/KOL I lisa neljanda lõigu teine lause asendatakse järgmisega:
‘The completed form shall be transmitted to the Authority by the Mission to the European Union of the EFTA State concerned or any other contact point designated by the EFTA State’.
“Teade tuleb nõuandekomiteele edastada asjaomase EFTA riigi esinduse kaudu Euroopa Liidu juures või asjaomase riigi poolt määratud mistahes muu kontaktpunki kaudu.”
In the Annexes to Decision No 195/04/COL, the reference to the Mission to the European Union of the EFTA State concerned or the EEA Coordination Unit of the EFTA State shall be read as referring to the Mission to the European Union of the EFTA State concerned or any other contact point designated by the EFTA State.
Otsuse nr 195/04/KOL lisades käsitatakse asjaomase EFTA riigi esindust Euroopa Liidu juures või EFTA riigi EMP kooskõlastamisüksust kui asjaomase EFTA riigi esindust Euroopa Liidu juures või asjaomase riigi poolt määratud mistahes muud kontaktpunki.
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway.
Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud Islandi Vabariigile, Liechtensteini Vürstiriigile ja Norra Kuningriigile.
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its adoption by the Authority.
Otsus jõustub selle vastuvõtmisele järgneval päeval.
College Member
Nõukogu liige
No 328/05/COL
nr 328/05/COL,
amending for the 53rd time the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid by introducing a new Chapter 18C: State aid in the form of public service compensation
millega viiekümne kolmandat korda muudetakse riigiabi käsitlevaid menetlus- ja sisulisi eeskirju, lisades uue peatüki 18C: Riigiabi, mida antakse avalike teenuste eest makstava hüvitisena
WHEREAS under Article 5(2)(b) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall issue notices or guidelines on matters dealt with in the EEA Agreement, if that Agreement or the Surveillance and Court Agreement expressly so provides or if the EFTA Surveillance Authority considers it necessary;
ARVESTADES, et järelevalve- ja kohtulepingu artikli 5 lõike 2 punkti b kohaselt väljastab EFTA järelevalveamet teateid või suuniseid küsimuste kohta, mida EMP leping käsitleb, kui see on sätestatud kõnealuses lepingus või järelevalve- ja kohtulepingus või kui EFTA järelevalveamet seda vajalikuks peab,
RECALLING the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid [3] adopted on 19 January 1994 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority [4];WHEREAS, on 13 July 2005, the European Commission adopted a Communication framework setting out the rules for State aid in the form of public service compensation [5];WHEREAS this Communication is also of relevance for the European Economic Area;
MEENUTADES riigiabi käsitlevaid menetlus- ja sisulisi eeskirju, [3] mis EFTA järelevalveamet võttis vastu 19. jaanuaril 1994, [4]ARVESTADES, et 13. juulil 2005 võttis Euroopa Komisjon vastu raamistiku, millega sätestatakse eeskirjad riigiabi jaoks, mida antakse avalike teenuste eest makstava hüvitisena, [5]ARVESTADES, et kõnealune teatis on oluline ka Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna jaoks,
WHEREAS, according to point II under the heading ‘GENERAL’ at the end of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, the EFTA Surveillance Authority is to adopt, after consultation with the Commission, acts corresponding to those adopted by the European Commission;
ARVESTADES, et EMP lepingu XV lisa lõpus oleva peatüki “ÜLDIST” punkti II kohaselt peab EFTA järelevalveamet pärast komisjoniga konsulteerimist vastu võtma Euroopa Komisjoni poolt vastuvõetud õigusaktidega kooskõlas olevaid õigusakte,
HAVING consulted the European Commission;
OLLES konsulteerinud Euroopa Komisjoniga,
RECALLING that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has consulted the EFTA States by letter dated 19 October 2005 on the subject,
MEENUTADES, et EFTA järelevalveamet on kõnealusel teemal konsulteerinud EFTA riikidega 19. oktoobril 2005 saadetud kirjas,