natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
BAVARIA stresses that the transaction was advertised as a package and perceived as such by NEUWOGES, as evidenced by the internal minutes documenting its decision-making process.
BAVARIA väidab ka, et arvesse tuleb võtta tehingu alusel saadud võlakergendust.
In consequence — according to BAVARIA — the MEO test has to be applied to the transaction as a whole, not to each individual contract.
Üks NEUWOGESi eesmärkidest kõnealuse tehingu sõlmimisel seisnes AHG kohase võlakergenduse saavutamises.
The transaction did not confer an advantage upon NEUWOGES
EBV ja GVV täpseid tingimusi kõrvale jättes tuleb BAVARIA väitel arvesse võtta ka eeliseid, mille NEUWOGES GPV kaudu sai.
According to BAVARIA, the possible existence of an advantage is already excluded by the fact that NEUWOGES undertook a bidding process (albeit a limited one) in order to survey the market.
BAVARIA kinnitab, et NEUWOGES nõudis korterite renoveerimise tellimist oma tütarettevõtjalt BRG-lt, teades hästi, et NEUWOGES saab endale kogu BRG teenitava kasumi (kuid vastutab sealjuures ka võimaliku kahjumi katmise eest).
It is asserted that there is no reason to doubt that NEUWOGES chose the economically most advantageous offer available.
Sellel taustal tuleb BRGga sõlmitud lepingu alusel teenitud kasumit, mille maht oli […] eurot, käsitleda NEUWOGESi olulise eelisena.
BAVARIA considers that, in order to determine whether, regardless of the bidding process, a MEO would have engaged in the transaction, the particular situation of NEUWOGES has to be taken into account.
Lõpuks väidab BAVARIA müügi- ja tagasirendimudeli üldise loogika kohta, et NEUWOGES peab iseenesestmõistetavalt tagasi maksma BAVARIA esialgse investeeringu koos intressidega.
This included the need to take up capital as well as to modernise the apartments in order to privatise them (while maintaining moderate rents) and obtain the debt write-off pursuant to the Inherited Debt Support Law.
BAVARIA viitab NEUWOGESi ettevõttesisese otsustusprotsessi protokollile näitamaks, et NEUWOGES oli täiesti teadlik asjaolust, et rendimääraga tuli BAVARIA esialgne investeering amortiseerida.
In the light of these factors, BAVARIA asserts that a MEO finding itself in the same circumstance would also have engaged in the transaction.
Kui vaadelda NEUWOGESi esitatud alternatiive, mis oleksid tema arvates olnud majanduslikult soodsamad, siis väidab BAVARIA, et need alternatiivid ei olnud kättesaadavad või ei oleks olnud soodsamad.
Regarding the provisions in the general management contract and the risks associated with a worse-than-expected development of the real-estate market in Neubrandenburg (such as a higher-than-expected vacancy rate, etc.), BAVARIA argues that the risk of not being able to achieve the desired rent and occupancy rate was not imposed on NEUWOGES, but rather remained with NEUWOGES If NEUWOGES had not undertaken the transaction with BAVARIA, it would also have had to bear the consequences of a worse-than-expected development of the market.
Esiteks peab BAVARIA seoses väidetava üürnikele otsemüügi võimalusega väga ebatõenäoliseks, et NEUWOGES oleks saanud müüa renoveerimata kortereid, kui tal ei olnud samal ajal isegi vahendeid vajaliku renoveerimise rahastamiseks.
With respect to the individual provisions of the general management contract, BAVARIA submits that the average rent per m2 underlying the calculation of the leasing payment was actually slightly lower than what could have been expected in the light of the relevant rent table for Neubrandenburg.
Teiseks selgitab BAVARIA, et NEUWOGESil oleks renoveerimise rahastamisel laenu abil tulnud kanda samu riske ja kulusid nagu tehingu puhul BAVARIAga.
BAVARIA further stresses that the same rent table assumed increasing rents for the period after 1 January 2000, with the result that expecting a rent increase of […]% per year was not unrealistic.
Lisaks ei oleks renoveeritud korterite otsemüük üürnikele või ettevõtjast ostjale olnud atraktiivne, sest NEUWOGES oleks pidanud suure protsentuaalse osa kõrgemast hinnast ETFile üle kandma.
Moving on to the land-lease and sale contract, BAVARIA stresses that no direct comparison can be made with the 1997 and 2007 valuations, since these valuations concerned an outright sale, whereas the land-lease and sale contract, while constituting a sale of the buildings, involved only the creation of a ground lease on the land.
Viimaks väidab BAVARIA, et tehing ei hõlma riigi vahendeid ega ole seostatav riigiga.
As the ownership of the land remained with NEUWOGES, the value of the land as stated in the valuations could not be considered.
NEUWOGES on tavaline eraõiguslik ettevõtja, kes ei saa otseselt ega kaudselt riigi vahendeid.
BAVARIA further maintains that, in any event, the valuations have no continuing significance since they determined only the theoretical value of the property, not the actual market value.
Enamjaolt kohaliku omavalitsuse esindajatest koosneva nõukogu teostatavast üldisest kontrollist ei piisa tehingu seostamiseks riigiga.
BAVARIA further submits that the debt write-off obtained through the transaction has to be considered.
NEUWOGESi väide, et Neubrandenburgi linn sundis NEUWOGESi poliitilistel põhjustel tehingut sõlmima, ei ole usutav.
It submits that securing this write-off pursuant to the Inherited Debt Support Law was one of NEUWOGES’ goals in entering into the transaction at issue.
NEUBRANDENBURGI LINN
BAVARIA also submits that, apart from the precise conditions of the land-lease and sale contract and the general management contract, the advantages obtained by NEUWOGES through the global lump-sum contract must be considered.
Neubrandenburgi linn, kes on NEUWOGESi omanik, väidab, et kõnealused lepingud hõlmavad riigiabi.
BAVARIA maintains that NEUWOGES insisted on charging its subsidiary BRG with the modernisation of the properties, bearing in mind that NEUWOGES would receive all profits made by BRG (but was also liable to cover any losses).
Linn ühineb NEUWOGESi esitatud väidetega ja esitab hulga punktide kohta enda märkused.
In this light, the profits generated from the contract with BRG, EUR […], have to be considered a relevant benefit for NEUWOGES.
Eelis
As regards the overall logic of the sale-and-lease-back model, BAVARIA submits, finally, that it is only natural that NEUWOGES has to repay BAVARIA’s initial investment plus interest.
Neubrandenburg on esiteks seisukohal, et EBVd ja GVVd tuleb hinnata eraldi, sest lepingupooled eraldasid need hoolikalt nii õiguslikus kui ka majanduslikus tähenduses.
Indeed, BAVARIA refers to the minutes of NEUWOGES’ internal decision-making process to show that the latter was perfectly aware that the purpose of the leasing payment was to pay back BAVARIA’s initial investment.
Teiseks viitab Neubrandenburg NEUWOGESi esitatud argumentidele elanike arvu prognoositud kahanemise kohta, millega turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev ettevõtja oleks arvestanud.
With respect to the alternatives that NEUWOGES puts forward and believes would have been economically more advantageous, BAVARIA submits that these alternatives were either not actually available or not more advantageous.
Neubrandenburg rõhutab, et kõrge tühjalt seismise määr oli turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtja jaoks selgelt ettenähtav.
First, with respect to the alleged option of selling directly to the tenants, BAVARIA argues that it is very unlikely that NEUWOGES would have succeeded in selling unmodernised flats, but that it was at the same time lacking the funds to finance the necessary modernisation.
Kolmandaks on Neubrandenburg seisukohal, et BAVARIA tellitud renoveerimine oli nii lihtsat laadi, et kõrget täituvusmäära ja üüri märkimisväärset tõstmist ei olnud oodata.
Second, as regards financing the modernisation with a loan, BAVARIA claims that NEUWOGES would have had all the same risks and costs it had under the BAVARIA deal.
Neubrandenburg lükkab BAVARIA edasised argumendid tagasi.
Additionally, selling modernised apartments, either directly to the tenants or to a commercial buyer, would not have been attractive, since NEUWOGES would have had to pass on a significant percentage of the higher price to the inherited debt relief fund.
Neubrandenburg on eelkõige seisukohal, et pakkumismenetlust ei saa võtta kaudse tõendina selle kohta, et BAVARIA pakkumus oli kõige soodsam turul olemasolev pakkumus.
BAVARIA finally submits that the transaction does not involve state resources and is not imputable to the State.
Turumajanduse tingimustes tegutsev ettevõtja ei oleks BAVARIA pakkumusega mingil juhul nõustunud, isegi kui see oleks tõepoolest olnud kõige soodsam pakkumus turul.
In particular, it argues that NEUWOGES is a normal company governed by private law that does not receive any state funds, directly or indirectly.
Mis puudutab väidetavaid alternatiive, siis toetub Neubrandenburg põhiliselt NEUWOGESi argumentidele.
The general control exercised by the supervisory board, which is dominated by representatives of the City of Neubrandenburg, is insufficient to impute the transaction to the State.
Seoses turuväärtuse kohta koostatud eksperdiarvamuste ja BAVARIA väitega, et kindlaks tehtud hindu ei oleks olnud võimalik saavutada, selgitab Neubrandenburg, et turuväärtuse kohta koostatud eksperdiarvamus tuleb võtta aluseks tolleaegse turuhinna parameetrina, sest seda, millise hinna oleks NEUWOGES 1998. aastal turul tegelikult võinud saada, ei ole enam võimalik kindlaks teha.
NEUWOGES’ argument, according to which the City of Neubrandenburg urged NEUWOGES to conclude this transaction for political reasons, is not plausible.
Neubrandenburgi linn on seisukohal, et õigustoiming on temaga seostatav, sest ta kontrollis NEUWOGESi piisaval määral üldiselt ja eriti seoses müügi- ja tagasirenditehinguga.
CITY OF NEUBRANDENBURG
Linnal oli ainuosanikuna enda andmetel NEUWOGESi üle täielik kontroll.
The City of Neubrandenburg, the owner of NEUWOGES, submits that the contracts at issue involve state aid.
NEUWOGESi juhtimine oli seetõttu seotud linna korraldustega.
While the city endorses the arguments put forward by NEUWOGES, it presents its own reasoning with regard to a number of points.
Lisaks on NEUWOGESi nõukogu kümnest liikmest kaheksa linna esindajad, nii et linnal on kasutada täiendav kontrollimehhanism.
Advantage
Neubrandenburgi linn oli kohaliku omavalitsuse õigusaktide alusel kohustatud tagama, et tal on võimalik NEUWOGESi mõistlikult mõjutada.
First, Neubrandenburg maintains that the land-lease and sale contract and the general management contract must be assessed separately, since the contracting parties carefully kept them apart, both in a legal and an economic sense.
Kõnealuse tehinguga seoses selgitab Neubrandenburgi linn, et tal ei olnud mitte ainult võimalus kontrollida, vaid et ta tegigi seda tegelikult selle tehingu puhul.
Second, Neubrandenburg refers to NEUWOGES’ arguments regarding the forecast decrease in its population which, it maintains, a MEO would have taken into account.
Neubrandenburg on seisukohal, et linna esindajate aktiivne kaasamine nähtub muu hulgas nõukogu protokollidest ja et enne tehingu sõlmimist oli vajalik nõukogu otsus.
Neubrandenburg also stresses that high vacancy rates would have been clearly foreseeable by a MEO.
Tehingu tingimustega seoses täpsustab Neubrandenburg, et linn nõudis kohaliku omavalitsuse poliitiliste huvide järgimist.
Third, Neubrandenburg asserts that the modernisation commissioned by BAVARIA was of such a basic nature that it did not justify the expectation of high occupancy rates and large rent increases.
Kokkuvõttes märgib Neubrandenburgi linn, et linna kontroll müügi- ja tagasirenditehingu üle ning tema vastutus selle eest on tõendatud faktidega, nii et tehing on temaga seostatav.
Moreover, Neubrandenburg rebuts the additional arguments put forward by BAVARIA.
BERLIINI LIIDUMAA
Most relevantly, it argues that the bidding process cannot be taken as an indicator that BAVARIA’s offer was the best available on the market.
Berliini liidumaa, kes on tihedalt BAVARIAga [19] seotud, väidab, et kõnealused lepingud ei sisalda abi elementi, kuna BAVARIA-le ei antud eelist.
In any event, it submits that a MEO would not have accepted BAVARIA’s offer even if it had indeed been the best offer available on the market.
Berliin väidab esmalt, et kõnealuseid lepinguid tuleb vaadelda üheainsa tehinguna, sest need on müügi- ja tagasirenditehingu üksteist täiendavad osad.
As regards alleged alternatives, Neubrandenburg essentially seizes on the arguments put forward by NEUWOGES.
NEUWOGES neid sellisena ka käsitles.
With regard to the valuations and BAVARIA’s argument that the estimated prices could not have been achieved, Neubrandenburg asserts that, since it is no longer possible to ascertain what price NEUWOGES could actually have obtained on the market in 1998, the valuation has to be used as an indication of the market price at the relevant time.
Turumajanduse tingimustes tegutseva ettevõtja kriteeriumiga seoses viitab Berliini liidumaa sellele, et pidades silmas NEUWOGESi tolleaegset (1997/1998) majanduslikku olukorda ja eesmärgiks olnud tehingu liiki (erastamine kooskõlas AHG kohase võlakergenduse tingimustega, elamispindade renoveerimine, objektide haldamise jätkamine, sotsiaalselt vastutustundlike üüritasude säilitamine), pakkus BAVARIA tasakaalustatud lahendust.
The City of Neubrandenburg argues that the transaction is imputable to it, since it exercised a sufficient degree of control over NEUWOGES in general and over the sale-and-lease-back transaction in particular.
Eelkõige seoses EBVga selgitab Berliini liidumaa esiteks, et NEUWOGESi pakkumismenetlus näitab, et NEUWOGES pidas BAVARIA pakkumust tol ajal (1997/1998) kõige soodsamaks turul kättesaadavaks rahastamispakkumiseks.
As its sole shareholder, the City of Neubrandenburg claims to have had full control over NEUWOGES.
Teiseks väidab Berliin, et arvesse tuleb võtta AHG kohast võlakergendust, sest erastamiskohustuse täitmine vastavalt AHG-le oli NEUWOGESi oluline eesmärk.
In particular, NEUWOGES’ management was duty-bound to follow the City’s directives.
Kolmandaks rõhutab Berliin, et suhteliselt madala hinnaga müük (valides renoveerimiskohustusega seotud võõrandamise, selle asemel et võõrandada pärast enda teostatud renoveerimistööde lõppu) oli NEUWOGESi majanduslikes huvides, kuna madalam hind tähendas, et ETFile tuli üle kanda vähem raha.
Furthermore, eight of the ten members of NEUWOGES’ supervisory board are representatives of the City, giving the latter another mechanism through which it can exert its control.
GVV kohta selgitab Berliini liidumaa esiteks, et näidislepingute põhjal ei olnud lepinguperiood ega rendi indekseerimine […] %ga aastas ebatavaline.
In fact, the City of Neubrandenburg was under a legal duty under regional law to ensure that it could exercise appropriate influence over NEUWOGES.
Teiseks oli indekseerimine tolleaegset (1997/1998) eeldatud keskmist inflatsioonimäära arvesse võttes põhjendatud.
As regards the transaction in question, the City of Neubrandenburg claims that not only did it have the ability to exert control, but that it actually did so in this transaction.
Kolmandaks jäi üür ruutmeetri kohta Neubrandenburgi kehtivas üüritasude ülevaates toodud näitajate piiridesse.
Neubrandenburg is of the view that, inter alia, the minutes of the supervisory board demonstrate the close involvement of city representatives, and that a decision of that board was necessary before the transaction could be concluded.
Sarnaselt BAVARIAga leiab Berliini liidumaa, et Neubrandenburgi linn ei anna NEUWOGESile vahendeid kasutada.
With regard to the terms of the transaction, Neubrandenburg submits that the City demanded that local political interests had to be satisfied.
Pigem oli NEUWOGESil kasutada ainult enda teenitud tulu, mille üle kohaliku omavalitsuse asutustel puudub otsene kontroll.
In conclusion, the City of Neubrandenburg submits that the City’s control over the sale-and-lease-back transaction, and its responsibility for this, is borne out by the facts, so that the transaction must be imputed to it.
Riigiga seostatavuse puhul peab Berliini liidumaa väheusutavaks, et Neubrandenburgi linn otsustas anda Berliini kinnisvarafondile omaenda kohaliku elamuehitusühingu arvel abi.
BERLIN LAND
Lisaks puuduvad piisavad viited selle kohta, et Neubrandenburgi linn soovis lasta lepingute sõlmimise endaga seostada.
Berlin Land, which is closely connected to BAVARIA [19], submits that the contracts at issue do not contain any state aid component as no advantage was conferred upon BAVARIA.
AMETLIKU UURIMISMENETLUSE ALGATAMISE PÕHJUSED
Berlin first argues that the contracts at issue have to be viewed as one transaction, as they formed mutually complementary parts of a sale-and-lease-back transaction.
Ametliku uurimismenetluse algatamise otsuses esitas komisjon mitmes küsimuses esialgse seisukoha ja kutsus huvitatud isikuid üles edastama teavet eelkõige kolme küsimuse kohta.
Berlin asserts that they were also treated as such by NEUWOGES itself.
Kõigepealt nõustus komisjon algul sellega, et EBVd ja GVVd tuleb vaadelda ühe üksusena, mitte üksteisest eraldi, sest mõlemad on müügi ja tagasirentimise variandi puhul tehingu osad [20].
Regarding the MEO test, Berlin submits that, considering NEUWOGES’ economic position at the relevant time (1997/98) and the type of transaction it sought (privatisation in compliance with the conditions under the Inherited Debt Support Law in order to secure the debt write-off, modernisation and continued administration of the apartments, and the maintenance of moderate rents), BAVARIA offered a balanced solution.
Seetõttu põhineb võimaliku majandusliku eelise hindamine nende tulude analüüsil, mida NEUWOGES võis 1998. aastal EBV ja GVV ühisest sõlmimisest oodata [21].
More particularly with regard to the land-lease and sale contract, Berlin first argues that the bidding process undertaken by NEUWOGES demonstrates that NEUWOGES considered BAVARIA’s offer to be the best financing offer available on the market at the relevant time (1997/98).
EBV kohta esitas komisjon eelkõige kaks küsimust.
Second, it submits that the debt write-off pursuant to the Inherited Debt Support Law must be considered, since compliance with the privatisation obligation under that law was a central motivation of NEUWOGES.
Esiteks on vaja selgeks teha, kas hinnangusse tuleb kaasata AHG kohane võlakergendus [22].
Third, Berlin underlines that it was in NEUWOGES’ economic interest to sell at a relatively low price (by selling unmodernised buildings with the obligation to modernise, rather than undertake the modernisation itself and then sell), since a lower price meant that less money had to be passed on to the inherited debt relief fund.
Teiseks soovis komisjon lisateavet turuväärtuse kohta koostatud 1997. aasta ja 2007. aasta eksperdiarvamuste erinevuste kohta, sest edasiste täpsustusteta ei ole võimalik kindlaks teha, milline nendest eksperdiarvamustest kajastab kinnisomandi tegelikku turuväärtust aastatel 1997/1998 [23].
With respect to the general management contract, Berlin first argues that the comparison contracts demonstrate that neither the duration nor the indexation of the leasing payment by […]% per year were uncommon.
GVVga seoses osutas komisjon esiteks sellele, et näidislepingute põhjal ei olnud NEUWOGESi ja BAVARIA vahel kokkulepitud tingimused tol ajal (1997/1998) turul ebatavalised [24].
Second, the indexation is justified in the light of the average inflation rate at the relevant time (1997/98).
Teiseks väitis komisjon, et NEUWOGESi korraldatud piiratud pakkumismenetlus tõendab, et NEUWOGESil oli võimalus turu kohta teavet koguda ja teha majanduslikult mõistlik otsus [25].
Third, the rent per m2 was within the applicable rent table rates for Neubrandenburg.
Kolmandaks viitas komisjon asjaolule, et lepingus 2008. aastaks kokkulepitud üüritasud vastasid tõepoolest 2008. aasta keskmisele üüritasule asjaomases linnaosas või olid sellest ainult veidi allpool [26].
Like BAVARIA, Berlin Land argues that the City of Neubrandenburg did not fund NEUWOGES.
Kuigi kõik need tegurid näitasid GVV vastavust tavapärastele turutingimustele, palus komisjon lisateavet kinnisvaraturul osalejate ootuste kohta 1998. aastal, et asjakohaseid argumente oleks võimalik põhjalikumalt uurida [27].
Rather, it argues, only revenue generated from its own activities was available to NEUWOGES, over which the local authorities had no direct control.
Lõpuks uuris komisjon NEUWOGESi esitatud rahavoogude analüüsi ja tuli viimaks järeldusele, et metoodiliste puuduste tõttu ei suuda see analüüs BAVARIA-le antud majanduslikku eelist tõendada [28].
As regards imputability, Berlin asserts that it is not plausible to maintain that the City of Neubrandenburg decided to grant aid to a real-estate fund from Berlin, to the detriment of its own local housing company.
Komisjon jõudis seetõttu arusaamani, et esitatud teabe alusel ei ole tal võimalik tõendada majandusliku eelise andmist BAVARIA-le [29].
Further, it alleges that there are no sufficient indications that the City of Neubrandenburg intended the conclusion of the contracts to be imputed to it.
Siiski tegi ta teatavaks kavatsuse turuosaliste argumente põhjalikumalt uurida ja palus kõikidel huvitatud isikutel esitada asjakohast lisateavet [30].
REASONS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
LIIKMESRIIGI KOHTUMENETLUSED
In its decision opening the formal investigation procedure, the Commission took a preliminary position on a range of issues and called on interested parties to submit information with respect to three issues in particular.
28. novembril 2008 tegi LG Rostock teatavaks oma otsuse BAVARIA ja NEUWOGESi vahelises esimese astme kohtumenetluses.
First, the Commission provisionally accepted that the land-lease and sale contract and the general management contract have to be assessed as a unit, not in isolation from each other, as both were integral parts of a real estate sale-and-lease-back transaction [20].
BAVARIA oli esitanud hagi, sest NEUWOGES oli alates 2006. aasta oktoobrist keeldunud maksmast GVVs kokkulepitud igakuist renti põhjendusega, et leping on tühine, kuna sisaldab easeaduslikku riigiabi.
It concluded that the assessment of a potential economic advantage was therefore based on an analysis of the returns that NEUWOGES could have expected in 1998 from the joint conclusion of the land-lease and sale contract and the general management contract [21].
LG Rostock märkis oma otsuses kõigepealt, et EBVd ja GVVd tuleb vaadelda ühe üksusena, mitte eraldi, sest mõlemad lepingud on ühe ja sama müügi- ja tagasirenditehingu osad [31].
As regards the land-lease and sale contract in particular, the Commission expressed two doubts:
EBV puhul tegi LG Rostock esmalt kindlaks iga-aastase rendimäära EBV lepinguperioodi esimese 30 aasta jooksul; see oli […] % aastas.
First, clarification was required as to whether the debt write-off pursuant to the Inherited Debt Support Law could be taken into account in the assessment [22].
LG Rostock oli seisukohal, et tegemist ei ole ebamõistlikult väikese hüvitisega, sest NEUWOGES sai esimese 30 aasta eest hoonestusõiguse tasu ette ja tal oli võimalik see tulutoovalt investeerida, mis ei oleks nii olnud iga-aastaste maksete puhul [32].
Second, the Commission sought further information on the differences between the 1997 and 2007 valuations, asserting that without further clarification it was impossible to determine which, if any, represented the actual market value of the property in 1997/98 [23].
Edasi leidis LG Rostock, et NEUWOGESile müügi- ja tagasirenditehingu alusel antud vabastust varasematest kohustustest tuleb täies ulatuses arvesse võtta, kuna see tehing lõi eeldused varasematest kohustustest vabastamiseks [33].
With respect to the general management contract, the Commission reasoned first that the comparison contracts indicated that the conditions agreed between NEUWOGES and BAVARIA were not unusual on the market at the relevant time (1997/98) [24].
Kui varasematest kohustustest vabastamise summa hoonete ostuhinnale juurde arvestatakse, jääks sellest tulenev väärtus vaid 16 % turuväärtuse kohta koostatud 2007. aasta eksperdiarvamuses märgitud hoonete väärtusest väiksemaks ja seega ei ole see hoonete väärtusega võrreldes ebaproportsionaalne [34].