natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, in light of the considerable uncertainty inherent in a value assessment of a former military camp comprising various areas and types of buildings, located in a remote area with a relatively scarce population, the Authority, while in doubt, concludes that the Haslemoen Leir was sold from the state to Våler Municipality at market value.
Seega, võttes arvesse märkimisväärset ebakindlust, mis on seotud eri aladest ja erinevat liiki hoonetest koosneva ning kõrvalises ja suhteliselt hõreda asustusega kohas asuva endise sõjaväelaagri väärtuse hindamisega, järeldab järelevalveamet, kuigi jääb kahtlevale seisukohale, et riik müüs Haslemoen Leiri Våleri vallale turuväärtusega.
The next question is therefore whether the municipality in its subsequent sale of parts of the Inner Camp to Haslemoen AS sold at a price at least corresponding to its primary cost.
Järgmine küsimus on seetõttu: kas vald müüs siselaagri osad ettevõttele Haslemoen AS vähemalt algkuluga võrdväärse hinna eest.
Whether the price for the 29 buildings corresponded to the primary cost
Kas 29 hoone hind vastas algkulule?
The assessment of whether the sales price for the 29 buildings corresponded to the primary cost appears complicated since it was never made explicitly clear in the agreement between the state and the municipality what the latter paid for the different buildings in the Inner Camp.
Selle hindamine, kas 29 hoone müügihind vastas algkulule, näib keeruline, kuna riigi ja valla vahelises lepingus ei märgitud selgelt, kui palju vald maksis siselaagri eri hoonete eest.
Instead it paid a fixed sum of NOK 15,5 million, which included “an approximate 30 %” [21] rebate for acquiring the whole Inner Camp.
Selle asemel maksis vald kindla suurusega summa 15,5 miljonit Norra krooni, mis hõlmas „ligikaudu 30 % suurust” mahahindlust [21] terve siselaagri soetamise eest.
In the end the municipality received an additional 20 % rebate for acquiring all four areas of the military camp.
Lõpuks sai vald veel 20 % mahahindlust sõjaväelaagri kõigi nelja ala soetamise eest.
One may envisage different methods to try to establish how much the municipality actually paid for the relevant 29 buildings of the Inner Camp, for instance based on the number of buildings or value, compared with the total number of buildings or total value.
Võib vaid ette kujutada erinevaid meetodeid, mille abil võib proovida kindlaks teha, kui palju maksis vald tegelikult siselaagri kõnealuse 29 hoone eest, nt tuginedes hoonete arvule või väärtusele, võrreldes hoonete koguarvuga või koguväärtusega.
However, as described above, it is not clear to the Authority whether the municipality, before selling to Haslemoen AS, actually made any such calculations in order to determine its primary cost for the 29 buildings in question.
Siiski, nagu eespool kirjeldatud, ei ole järelevalveametile arusaadav, kas vald tegi enne müümist ettevõttele Haslemoen AS ka tegelikult sellised arvutused, et teha kindlaks kõnealuse 29 hoone algkulu.
The Authority has not received any contemporary documentation that such calculations were made during the course of the negotiations or later when the sale was put up for approval by the Municipal Council.
Järelevalveamet ei ole saanud ühtki ajakohast dokumenti selle kohta, et sellised arvutused on tehtud läbirääkimiste ajal või hiljem, kui müük ootas vallavolikogu heakskiitu.
The municipality has during the administrative procedure referred to different considerations and objectives such as creation of new employment possibilities and the future development of the Inner Camp as a whole for the benefit of the local community.
Vald osutas haldusmenetluse käigus erinevatele kaalutlustele ja eesmärkidele, näiteks uute tööhõivevõimaluste loomisele ja siselaagri tulevasele tervikuna arendamisele kohaliku kogukonna hüvanguks.
While such considerations do not necessarily conflict with a sale at market value, they neither, as such, support that the basic starting point was a sale without state aid elements.
Kuna sellised kaalutlused ei ole tingimata vastuolus turuväärtusega müügi toimumisega, ei toeta nad sellisena asjaolu, et peamiseks lähtepunktiks oli müük ilma riigiabi elementideta.
The municipality has moreover, in response to the Authority’s specific question, admitted that it cannot today document what the real value of the properties in question were at the time they were sold.
Lisaks tunnistas vald järelevalveameti konkreetsele küsimusele vastates, et ei saa praegu dokumenteerida, milline oli kõnealuse vara tegelik väärtus selle müümise ajal.
The way the sale was handled by the Municipal Council also adds to the uncertainty about possible state aid.
Vallavolikogu tegutsemine ostu-müügitehinguga seoses lisab samuti ebakindlust võimaliku riigiabi olemasolu suhtes.
As described above, the municipality did neither arrange for an open tender nor arrange for an independent expert to make an assessment of the buildings it sold.
Nagu eespool kirjeldatud, ei korraldanud vald ei avalikku pakkumist ega palunud sõltumatul eksperdil teha müüdud hoonete hindamist.
Later, the advice it received from its external legal advisor in KS and its own Chief Executive to postpone the sale and clarify the value, were not followed.
Hiljem ei võtnud vald kuulda nõu KSi väliselt õigusnõunikult ega vallavanemalt, et lükata edasi müüki ja selgitada väärtust.
While the Council approved the sale on the conditions that a risk assessment of potential competition problems should be made by KS and submitted to the Executive committee, the Authority has not received any further information about these subsequent risk assessments.
Kuigi vallavolikogu kiitis heaks müügi tingimusel, et KS korraldab võimalike konkurentsiprobleemide riskihindamise, ei saanud järelevalveamet lisateavet nimetatud riskihindamiste kohta.
The municipality has put forward two calculations dated 2 May 2006, from the municipality’s external property valuer, see description above in Paragraphs 20 and 21.
Vald esitas kaks arvutust, mille oli koostanud valla väline kinnisvarahindaja 2. mail 2006. aastal, vt kirjeldust eespool punktides 20 ja 21.
The municipality has submitted that the first assessment demonstrates that the primary cost for the municipality for acquiring the Inner Camp was NOK 12,4 million.
Vald tunnistas, et esimene hindamine näitab, et valla algkulu siselaagri soetamisel oli 12,4 miljonit Norra krooni.
The second is said to show that the value of the other buildings in the Inner Camp that were not sold to Haslemoen AS had an estimated value of approximately NOK 3,67 and 5 million respectively.
Teine hindamine näitab väidetavalt, et siselaagri teiste hoonete väärtus, mida ei müüdud ettevõttele Haslemoen AS, oli hinnanguliselt vastavalt 3,67 miljonit ja 5 miljonit Norra krooni.
Deducted from the primary cost of 12,4 million these assessments show, according to the municipality, that the primary cost for the 29 buildings in question was not more than NOK 4 million.
Kui lahutada need algkulust 12,4 miljonit Norra krooni, näitavad need hindamised valla sõnade kohaselt, et 29 kõnealuse hoone algkulu ei olnud suurem kui 4 miljonit Norra krooni.
The Authority does not share the view that these calculations demonstrate that the buildings at issue were sold at market value.
Järelevalveamet ei nõustu, et nende arvutuste põhjal on selge, et hooned müüdi turuväärtusega.
It disputes both the starting point regarding the primary cost of the Inner Camp as well as the method of deducting assumed value of other buildings in order to determine the “rest” primary cost.
See vaidlustab nii lähtepunkti seoses siselaagri algkuluga kui ka teiste hoonete eeldatava väärtuse lahutamise meetodi, et teha kindlaks „ülejäänud” algkulu.
The 20 % rebate
20 % suurune mahahindlus
As regards the starting point, the calculations refers to the value of the Inner Camp as established in the second Agdestein report at NOK 15,5 million.
Lähtepunktiga seoses viitavad arvutused siselaagri väärtusele, nagu see on kindlaks tehtud teises Agdesteini aruandes – 15,5 miljonit Norra krooni.
Then the 20 % rebate that the municipality was granted for acquiring the whole military camp was deducted so as to find an Inner Camp value of NOK 12,4 million.
Sellest lahutati 20 % suurune mahahindlus, mis anti vallale sõjaväelaagri tervikuna soetamise eest, et arvutada välja siselaagri väärtus 12,4 miljonit Norra krooni.
The basis for this discount is explained in the second Agdestein report:
Selle allahindluse alust selgitati teises Agdesteini aruandes: „Me oleme veendunud, et nelja erineva ala ühismüügi turg hõlmaks hinnaalandust muu hulgas riski ja suuremate tegevuskulude tõttu. Siiski on ostjal võimalik pärast soetamist teha kiiresti muutus sellises lähenemisviisis ning müüa näiteks haritav maa või metsamaa eraldi, mis osutavad eraldi suunda.
“We believe that the market with a joint purchase of four such different activity areas, would include a price reduction for amongst other things risk and higher operating costs. However, the buyer would quickly be able to “turn around” after the acquisition and sell for instance the farm land or the forest separately, which point in the opposite direction. There is already included approximately 30 % “quantity discount” in the value assessments for both the housing and Inner Camp areas, due to the collective sale of each of these objects. We believe in an additional value reduction in the area of 20 % (– 12 mill) in the case of a joint sale of the whole camp in one go, i.e. to from NOK 58 mill to NOK 46 mill.” [22](55) Thus, the 20 % discount was specifically linked to the fact that the municipality bought the whole military camp, i.e. all four areas mentioned above in Paragraph 5.
Nii hoonete kui ka siselaagri alade väärtuse hindamised sisaldavad juba ligikaudu 30 % suurust „koguselt tehtavat allahindlust” nende objektide ühismüügi tõttu. Me usume täiendavasse väärtuse vähendamisse umbes 20 % võrra (–12 miljonit) terve laagri ühismüügi korral, st 58 miljonilt Norra kroonilt 46 miljoni Norra kroonile.” [22](55) Seega oli 20 % suurune allahindlus konkreetsemalt seotud asjaoluga, et vald ostis terve sõjaväelaagri korraga, st kõik punktis 5 nimetatud neli ala.
The mentioned assessment of 2 May 2006 does not contain any reasoning as to why the market would require a similar rebate in case a part of one of the four areas was up for sale.
2. mai 2006. aasta hindamine, millele on viidatud, ei sisalda ühtki põhjendust, miks vajab turumajanduslik investor sarnast mahahindlust, kui müüki pannakse üks ala neljast.
To justify the rebates to Haslemoen AS the municipality has referred to that the sales contract between Våler Municipality and Haslemoen AS was based on the assumption that the buyer would develop and operate the entire Inner Camp as well as the areas outside as one unit together with Våler Municipality.
Ettevõttele Haslemoen AS tehtud mahahindluste põhjendamiseks osutas vald asjaolule, et ostu-müügileping Våleri valla ja ettevõtte Haslemoen AS vahel põhines eeldusel, et ostja arendab ja kasutab tervet siselaagrit, nagu ka sellest väljapoole jäävaid alasid tervikuna koostöös Våleri vallaga.
This was according to the municipality the reason that both rebates, the 30 % rebate for the Inner Camp sold as one unit and the additional 20 % rebate for the entire Haslemoen Leir were given to Haslemoen AS.
See oli valla sõnul põhjus, miks ettevõttele Haslemoen AS tehti nii 30 % suurune mahahindlus siselaagri müümise eest tervikuna kui ka täiendav 20 % suurune mahahindlus terve Haslemoen Leiri eest.
While limitations on the future use of a property may represent a value reducing factor, the Authority is not aware of any such limitations in the present case that would warrant the considerable rebates.
Kuigi piirangud vara tulevase kasutamise suhtes võivad vähendada väärtust, ei ole järelevalveamet teadlik praegusel juhul piirangutest, mis võiksid tagada märkimisväärse mahahindluse.
There appears to be no provision in the sales contract or any other contemporary documentation submitted to the Authority that reflects such or other special obligations on the buyer to manage the properties in cooperation with the municipality.
Ostu-müügilepingus ega üheski teises järelevalveametile esitatud ajakohases dokumendis ei näi sisalduvat ühtki sätet, mis kajastaks selliseid või muid erikohustusi ostjale vara haldamise kohta koostöös vallaga.
As mentioned above, the notion that a resale for at least primary cost may exclude state aid rests on the condition that the land or buildings were acquired at market value in the first place.
Nagu eespool märgitud, rajaneb mõte, et edasimüük vähemalt algkulu eest võib välistada riigiabi, tingimusel, et maa või hooned omandati alguses turuväärtusega.
When a public authority, as in the present case, bought something more than the property it resold, and in that connection was granted significant quantity rebates, it cannot as such be presumed that the same rebates are warranted in the resale.
Kui avalik-õiguslik asutus, nagu praegusel juhul, ostis vara suurema summa eest, kui ta selle edasi müüs, ning kui talle tehti sellega seoses oluline mahahindlus, ei saa eeldada, et samasugune mahahindlus on tagatud ka edasimüügi korral.
Instead, this will have to depend on an assessment of whether the market would have priced in the same rebates also for the second and more limited transaction.
Selle asemel peab see sõltuma hindamisest, kas turumajanduslik investor oleks teinud hinnast samasugused mahahindlused ka teise ja palju piiratuma tehingu puhul.
In the present case that seems unlikely already for the reason that both of the rebates were given as quantity rebates, specifically based on the fact that the buyer acquired the whole area in question.
Antud juhul näib see ebatõenäoline juba põhjusel, et mõlemad mahahindlused tehti kogusest sõltuvate mahahindlustena, tuginedes eelkõige asjaolule, et ostja ostis terve kõnealuse territooriumi.
Indeed, such a double discount seems to be excluded in the present case already for the reason that the so called 30 % discount was granted for the acquisition of the Inner Camp as such.
Tõepoolest näib, et selline kahekordne allahindlus on antud juhul välistatud juba põhjusel, et nn 30 % suurune allahindlus tehti siselaagri kui sellise soetamise eest.
Thus, the additional discount of 20 % must be linked to the fact that the buyer, the municipality, in addition also bought other areas.
Seega peab täiendav 20 % suurune mahahindlus olema seotud asjaoluga, et ostja ehk vald ostis lisaks ka ülejäänud alad.
This seems also to be the very basis for the rebate as explained in second Agdestein report quoted above.
See näib samuti olevat allahindluse alus, nagu on selgitatud teises Agdesteini aruandes, mida tsiteeriti eespool.
On that basis, and in the absence of any contemporary assessment to the opposite, the Authority must conclude that there was no basis for assuming that the market would have priced in an additional 20 % discount when only parts of the Inner Camp was for sale.
Selle põhjal ning mis tahes ajakohase vastupidise hindamise puudumise tõttu peab järelevalveamet järeldama, et ei olnud alust oletada, et turumajanduslik investor oleks teinud täiendava 20 % suuruse mahahindluse juhul, kui müüki oleks pandud ainult osa siselaagrist.
The 30 % rebate [23]
30 % suurune mahahindlus [23]
Turning to the so called 30 % rebate, the Authority recalls that the second Agdestein report made it clear that the Inner Camp value of NOK 15,5 million included the NOK 10 million rebate and that it was an estimate of what the market would require for acquiring the Inner Camp as a whole, i.e. all 44 buildings.
Niinimetatud 30 % suuruse mahahindlusega seoses tuletab järelevalveamet meelde, et teises Agdesteini aruandes selgitati, et siselaagri 15,5 miljoni Norra krooni suurune väärtus sisaldas 10 miljoni Norra krooni suurust mahahindlust ning see oli prognoositud hind, mida turumajanduslik investor oleks küsinud siselaagri tervikuna ostmisel, st kõigi 44 hoone eest.
It is therefore necessary to assess whether the municipality could grant a similar rebate to Haslemoen AS when it acquired parts of the Inner Camp.
Seepärast on tarvis hinnata, kas vald võis teha sarnase mahahindluse ettevõttele Haslemoen AS, kui see ostis siselaagri osad.
Measured in number of buildings, the sale included 29 out of 44 buildings [24], i.e. approximately 2/3 of the buildings.
Hoonete arvus mõõdetuna hõlmas müük 29 hoonet 44st, [24] st ligikaudu 2/3 hoonetest.
This could indicate a basis for a quantity rebate.
See võiks olla kogusest sõltuva mahahindluse alus.
Measured in value, the municipality’s own calculations suggests that the 29 buildings represented a considerably smaller share of the total value of the Inner Camp than the remaining buildings.
Väärtuses mõõdetuna näitavad valla enda arvutused, et 29 hoonet moodustavad oluliselt väiksema osa siselaagri koguväärtusest kui ülejäänud hooned.
A value of NOK 4 million to the 29 buildings in question represents just under 1/3 of the total value compared with the NOK 3,67 million for the buildings kept by the municipality and the NOK 5 million for the 11 remaining buildings.
4 miljoni Norra krooni suurune väärtus kõnealuse 29 hoone eest moodustab natuke vähem kui 1/3 koguväärtusest võrreldes 3,67 miljoni Norra krooniga hoonete eest, mis vald jättis endale, ning 5 miljoni Norra krooniga 11 ülejäänud hoone eest.
It is supported by the various valuation reports submitted in this case, mentioned above at Paragraphs 7 and 10, that the selling of several buildings en bloc has a price reducing effect.
Erinevad hindamisaruanded, mis on antud juhtumi puhul esitatud ja mida on nimetatud eespool punktides 7 ja 10, toetavad asjaolu, et mitme hoone tervikuna müük võimaldab mahahindlust.
In addition to the two Agdestein reports, also the valuation of 15 March 2006 mentioned above at Paragraph 29 of 10 different buildings at the Inner Camp indicated that a rebate between “15-20 %” should be applicable in the event of a one unit sale of those 10 buildings.
Kahele Agdesteini aruandele lisaks märgiti 15. märtsi 2006. aasta hindamises (eespool punktis 29) 10 siselaagri hoone kohta, et mahahindlus vahemikus „15–20 %” oleks kohaldatav nimetatud 10 hoone müümisel ühe tervikuna.
The Authority therefore considers that some quantity rebate would have been in accordance with the market terms.
Järelevalveamet on seetõttu seisukohal, et teatav kogusest sõltuv mahahindlus oleks seetõttu olnud turutingimustega kooskõlas.
In this case, whether the rebate would have been 15, 20 or 25 %, is difficult to determine due to the lack of contemporary assessments and documentation.
Praegusel juhul on raske kindlaks teha, kas mahahindlus oleks võinud olla 15, 20 või 25 %, kuna ajakohased hindamised ja dokumendid puuduvad.
All things considered and with reference to the assessment mentioned above of 10 other buildings in the Inner Camp and a likely quantity rebate of 15–20 %, the Authority, while in doubt, finds that an approximately similar quantity rebate as the one the municipality was granted, i.e. 25,64 %, could have been given to someone buying as much as 29 of the 44 buildings in the Inner Camp.
Kõiki asjaolusid arvesse võttes ja osutades siselaagri eespool märgitud 10 hoone hindamisele ja tõenäolisele 15–20 % suurusele kogusest sõltuvale mahahindlusele järeldab järelevalveamet, kuigi jääb kahtlevale seisukohale, et sarnane kogusest sõltuv mahahindlus, nagu anti vallale, st 25,64 %, oleks võidud teha sellele, kes ostab 29 siselaagri hoonet 44st.
Whether primary cost could be established by deducting value of other buildings
Kas algkulu on võimalik kindlaks teha ülejäänud hoonete väärtuse lahutamise teel?
The next question is whether the primary cost of the 29 buildings in question can be determined by deducting from the Inner Camp the value of the buildings that were not sold to Haslemoen AS.
Järgmine küsimus seisneb selles, kas 29 kõnealuse hoone algkulu on võimalik kindlaks teha, lahutades siselaagri väärtusest nende hoonete väärtuse, mida ei müüdud ettevõttele Haslemoen AS.
The described method basically entailed that no detailed assessment was made of the 29 buildings in question because there were indications that other parts of the Inner Camp were of a sufficiently high value to ensure that the overall value corresponded to the municipality’s alleged primary cost for the Inner Camp.
Kirjeldatud meetod tähendas põhimõtteliselt seda, et 29 kõnealuse hoone kohta ei tehtud üksikasjalikku hindamist, kuna oli viiteid, et siselaagri muud osad olid piisavalt kõrge väärtusega tagamaks kogumaksumuse vastavuse valla väidetavale algkulule siselaagri soetamisel.
This method appears uncertain and random due to the fact that the 3 different groups of buildings all were assessed according to different methods.
See meetod näib ebakindel ja juhuslik asjaolu tõttu, et kolme eri hoonerühma hinnati erinevate meetodite alusel.
In short, the bridge value report was used to establish the starting point, the NOK 12,4 million primary cost value of the Inner Camp as such.
Lühidalt öeldes kasutati koondväärtuse aruannet, et teha kindlaks lähtepunkt ehk 12,4 miljonit Norra krooni siselaagri kui sellise algkuluna.
In the following assessment of the 3 different groups of buildings, a considerably lower value than the bridge value was put on the 29 buildings at issue and a higher value was put both on the buildings the municipality kept and the 11 others for which it had later received an offer.
Kolme eri hoonerühma edasisel hindamisel oli kõne all oluliselt väiksem väärtus kui 29 hoone koondväärtus ning suurem väärtus määrati hoonetele, mis vald endale jättis, ning 11 ülejäänud hoone eest, mille kohta sai vald pakkumise hiljem.
The lower value was established on the basis of the negotiated price with Haslemoen AS and the higher values were both established on the basis of subsequent and newer information in the form of value assessments and an offer received.
Väiksem väärtus tehti kindlaks ettevõttega Haslemoen AS läbi räägitud hinna alusel ning suurem väärtus tehti kindlaks järgmise ja uuema teabe alusel, mis oli esitatud väärtuse hindamise ja saadud pakkumise kujul.
This entailed in the view of the Authority the obvious risk that even if the overall starting point of the Inner Camp value had been correct (which it was not, see above), the price for the 29 buildings could be too low because later re-assessments of the other areas had established higher values.
See hõlmas järelevalveameti arvates ilmselget riski, et isegi kui siselaagri väärtuse üldine lähtepunkt oli olnud õige (mida see aga ei olnud, vt eespool), on 29 hoone hind liiga väike, kuna muude piirkondade hilisemas uues hindamises määrati suurem väärtus.
Indeed, if anything, the later and higher value assessments in this case should point to little else than that the starting point at NOK 12,4 million was too low.
Tõepoolest, kui üldse, siis osutavad antud juhul hilisemad ja suuremad väärtuse hindamised sellele, et 12,4 miljoni Norra krooni suurune lähtepunkt oli liiga madal.
Thus, the Authority concludes that the method referred to in the assessment of 2 May 2006 was not suitable to determine the primary cost and thereby the market value of the 29 buildings in question.
Seega teeb järelevalveamet järelduse, et 2. mai 2006. aasta hindamises osutatud meetod ei olnud sobilik algkulu ja seetõttu 29 kõnealuse hoone turuväärtuse kindlaksmääramiseks.
How to correctly determine the primary cost of the 29 buildings
Kuidas teha õigesti kindlaks 29 hoone algkulu?
As mentioned above, the assessment of the primary cost of the 29 buildings at issue is complicated by the fact that it was not made clear in the agreement between the state and the municipality what the latter paid for the different buildings in the Inner Camp.
Nagu eespool märgitud, muudab kõnealuse 29 hoone algkulu hindamise keeruliseks asjaolu, et riigi ja valla vahelises lepingus ei ole selgitatud, kui palju maksis vald siselaagri eri hoonete eest.
Instead it paid a fixed sum of NOK 15,5 million for the whole Inner Camp which included the so called 30 % rebate mentioned above.
Selle asemel tasus ta 15,5 miljoni Norra krooni suuruse kindla suurusega summa terve siselaagri eest, mis sisaldas eespool viidatud nn 30 % suurust mahahindlust.