natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This analysis demonstrates that the value of plot B-32 could at least approximate the value assumed by the Madrid City Council if it had a classification with more commercial potential.
Hispaania Kuningriik esitab komisjoni taotlusel viivitamata teabe käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks juba võetud ja kavandatavate meetmete kohta.
However, since the Madrid City Council did not change the classification of plot B-32, nor could legally have changed that classification from sport use, the appropriate reference for the ultimate outcome of the study is the sport use scenario.
Ta esitab ka üksikasjalikud andmed abisaajalt juba tagasi saadud abisummade ja intressi kohta.
Second, regarding the alleged valuation of the land on the basis of a ‘mortgage lending value’ or under the assumption of a mere land use right, the CEIAM study does not use these assumptions, as Real Madrid claims.
Artikkel 5
On the contrary, as explained in Section 2.5 of the part of the study referring to the sport use scenario, the study defines the value on the basis of the investment value of the land which is its value to a current or potential owner.
Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud Hispaania Kuningriigile.
The CEIAM study explains in Section 2.3.2 that the application of the method described in Order ECO/805/2003, criticised by Real Madrid, has the objective to determine the market value of a plot [28].
Brüssel, 4. juuli 2016
Independently of the purposes for which Order ECO/805/2003 applies, it describes a method for determining the value of land which can produce income linked to a certain economic activity and has nothing to do with a mortgage value.
Komisjoni nimel
For that purpose it applies generally accepted standards which do not depend on the reason for the valuation.
Margrethe Vestager
That method depends on the existence of an investment project, since the value is determined by the net present value of long term future cash flows of the most likely investment project (in the case of plot B-32 building and operating sport infrastructure).
ELT C 69, 7.3.2014, lk 108.
Unlike the static residual valuation method used in the Aguirre Newman report, supplied by Real Madrid, the CEIAM study bases its calculation not on the price which a sport infrastructure investor would make with the short term sale of the infrastructure, but with its commercial exploitation over the next decades.
Vt joonealune märkus 1.
The method proposed by CEIAM is particularly appropriate for plot B-32, since no opportunity exists to sell the land with the infrastructure because the type of use and the public ownership of that land are determined for the long term.
6. oktoobri 2004. aasta otsus, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Seccion 2a.
The static residual valuation method proposed by Real Madrid is not appropriate in a case of the intended operation of sport infrastructure against payment of user fees.
Otsus nr 77/2015, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Primera.
That method can only be applied if the land and the infrastructure on it can be sold and only if this sale occurs immediately following the construction.
„Toda alteración de la ordenación establecida por un Plan de Ordenación Urbanística que […], desafecte el suelo de un destino público […], deberá contemplar las medidas compensatorias precisas para mantener la cantidad y calidad de las dotaciones previstas respecto del aprovechamiento urbanístico del suelo […].“
For the purposes of determining the current value of a plot in order to determine the value of a compensation claim depending on that value, it does not appear to be appropriate to assume or determine a hypothetical value based on characteristics which influence the value of the land but which actually are not fulfilled.
Real Madridi esitatud Aguirre Newmani aruanne, lk 122–126.
If there were a claim for compensation against the Madrid City Council, the relevant value of plot B-32 is the value it has for the Madrid City Council, which could not benefit from a hypothetical value of the plot if it would be transferable.
Aguirre Newmani aruanne, lk 113–117.
Third, the CEIAM study contains a detailed and careful comparison with other sport installations of various characters and attractiveness for the estimation of the costs and revenues.
Aguirre Newmani aruanne, lk 106–112.
Regarding the alleged failure to consider revenue streams from other activities than sport and to fully exhaust the buildability of the land, the study provides in Section 1.6.4 a detailed hypothesis on the way in which the land could be used for several mixes of sport infrastructure.
Ülemkohtu 6. juuni 1997. aasta otsus, apellatsioonikaebus nr 1610/1993 („que por su enajenación a terceros de buena fe la cosa vendida se hizo irreivindicable, no el de la sentencia que así lo declara habida cuenta que esta sentencia es declarativa, no constitutiva, y se limita a constatar una situación preexistente; de ahí que la obligación de restitución surja en el momento en que los vendedores enajenaron las cosas, careciendo de poder dispositivo sobre ellas“).
It also includes parking, shop and restaurant use and the expected revenues from user fees, elaborated in detail for the various infrastructures.
EÜT C 209, 10.7.1997, lk 3.
Those percentages of land use are often set very high by urban planning to allow it to react to varying demands over the years until the expected use materialises.
Riigi haldusasutuste vara käsitleva akti 33/2003 (Ley 33/2003, de 3 de noviembre, del Patrimonio de las Administraciones Públicas) artiklis 114.1 on sätestatud, et riigimaad võivad kõnealuse akti kohaldamisel hinnata i) loovutatavat vara või loovutatavaid õigusi haldava või nende soetamisest/rentimisest huvitatud avalik-õigusliku asutuse tehnilised töötajad, ii) rahanduse ja avaliku halduse ministeeriumi tehnilised töötajad, iii) Hispaania Panga hindamisettevõtete registrisse (Registro de Sociedades de Tasación del Banco de España) kantud hindamisettevõtted ning muud nõuetekohaselt volitatud hindamisettevõtted.
However, that would not be unusual in case of public use land, since it is common that those maximum percentages are not fully exhausted in those cases.
Vt otsus kohtuasjas C-399/08 P: komisjon vs. Deutsche Post AG (ECLI:EU:C:2010:481, punkt 38 ja selles tsiteeritud kohtupraktika).
The intensity of the land use would depend on the expected demand and on the type of sport activities or infrastructure offered.
Vt otsus kohtuasjas C-399/08 P: komisjon vs. Deutsche Post AG (ECLI:EU:C:2010:481, punkt 39 ja selles tsiteeritud kohtupraktika).
In this regard, CEIAM analysed 22 comparable sport complexes for the development of the scenario used by the study.
Otsus liidetud kohtuasjades C-180/98 kuni C-184/98: Pavlov jt (ECLI:EU:C:2000:428).
Regarding the percentage of sport users in the neighbourhood, which Real Madrid considers too low, the study used the existing official statistical data on sport activity of the inhabitants of the catchment area of sport installations on plot B-32 in Madrid, as reproduced in Section 3.2 of the study's information annex.
Otsus kohtuasjas C-415/93: Bosman (ECLI:EU:C:1995:463, punkt 73); otsus kohtuasjas C-519/04 P: Meca-Medina ja Majcen vs. komisjon(ECLI:EU:C:2006:492, punkt 22) ning otsus kohtuasjas C-325/08: Olympique Lyonnais (ECLI:EU:C:2010:143, punkt 23).
The study also considers the possible demand by employees of the surrounding offices.
Otsus kohtuasjas C-172/03: Heiser (ECLI:EU:C:2005:130, punkt 55); otsus liidetud kohtuasjades C-71/09 P, C-73/09 P ja C-76/09 P: Comitato „Venezia vuole vivere“ jt vs. komisjon, (ECLI:EU:C:2011:368, punkt 136).
In this regard, Real Madrid fails to provide figures based on market research in the neighbourhood to support its arguments that the percentage of sport users is too low, so that the Commission must accept the more prudent estimates provided by CEIAM.
Vt ka otsus kohtuasjas C-156/98: Saksamaa vs. komisjon(ECLI:EU:C:2000:467, punkt 30 ja selles tsiteeritud kohtupraktika).
Finally, regarding the fact that the land value is appraised under a scenario with a mere right to use the land (derecho de superficie) and not on the transfer of full possession and title to the land, the Commission refers to recital 111 above, in particular the observation that no opportunity exists to sell the land with the infrastructure because the type of use and the public ownership of that land are determined for the long term.
Otsus kohtuasjas C-342/96: Hispaania vs. komisjon (ECLI:EU:C:1999:210, punkt 41).
For all the foregoing reasons, the Commission considers that the criticisms expressed by Spain and by Real Madrid on the CEIAM study are unfounded.
Otsus kohtuasjas C-39/94: SFEI jt (ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, punktid 60 ja 61).
Real Madrid fails to show by how much the alleged shortcomings of the CEIAM report result in a material underestimation in value.
Otsus kohtuasjas C-73/11 P: Frucona Košice vs. komisjon (ECLI:EU:C:2013:32, punkt 71 ja selles tsiteeritud kohtupraktika).
Consequently, the value of plot B-32 in 2011 could not have been assumed to be higher than the EUR 4275000 value estimated by the CEIAM study, so that a prudent market economy operator in similar circumstances would not have entered into the 2011 settlement agreement by which the Madrid City Council agreed to compensate Real Madrid in the amount of EUR 22693054,44 to buy off an uncertain legal liability for its failure to fulfil its obligation to transfer plot B-32 under the 1998 implementation agreement.
Otsus kohtuasjas C-124/10 P: komisjon vs. EAF (ECLI:EU:C:2012:318, punktid 84, 85 ja 105); vt analoogia alusel komisjoni 12. märtsi 2014. aasta otsus seoses riigiabijuhtumiga SA.36249 (2014/N-3) – Hispaania – muudatus CEISSi restruktureerimisse integreerimise kaudu Unicaja Bancoga, põhjendused 59 ja 60 (ELT C 141, 9.5.2014, lk 1).
In light of the uncertain probability that the Madrid City Council would have been found liable for its failure to transfer plot B-32 under the 1998 implementation agreement and the considerable disparity between the amount the Madrid City Council agreed to compensate Real Madrid under the 2011 settlement agreement (EUR 22693054,44) and the maximum extent of its legal liability (EUR 4275000), the Commission concludes that a prudent market economy operator, operating in circumstances similar to the Madrid City Council, would not have entered into the 2011 settlement agreement.
Otsus kohtuasjas C-124/10 P: komisjon vs. EAF (ECLI:EU:C:2012:318, punkt 85).
The Commission therefore concludes that the Madrid City Council, in concluding the 2011 settlement agreement with Real Madrid, did not behave as a market economy operator would have in comparable circumstances.
Hispaania kinnitas sellise väljastpoolt saadud nõu puudumist 6. novembril 2015 toimunud telefonikonverentsil ja 9. märtsil 2016 esitatud kirjalikus teabes.
Consequently, the 2011 settlement agreement should be considered to confer an economic advantage on Real Madrid amounting to the difference between the amount of the compensation and the maximum amount of its legal liability and therefore constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Vt joonealune märkus 4.
Finally, regarding Spain's claim that if the Madrid City Council had transferred plot B-32 to Real Madrid in 2011 instead, no aid would be present, the Commission considers that claim irrelevant for its conclusion that Real Madrid obtained an economic advantage under the 2011 settlement agreement.
Tulu teenimise kaudu saavutatavat eeldatavat investeeringutasuvust käsitleva parima ja halvima stsenaariumi korral oleks väärtus vastavalt 6350000 eurot ja 2350000 eurot.
The Madrid City Council could only have transferred plot B-32 if it was legally entitled to do so.
Hispaania 15. juuni 2015. aasta märkused komisjonilt 22. aprillil 2015 saadud CEIAMi uuringu kohta.
If that were the case, not only would there have been no need to enter into the 2011 settlement agreement, but Real Madrid would have obtained the actual plot of land to which it was entitled under the 1998 implementation agreement, so that there would have been no need to assess whether the compensation offered to Real Madrid in lieu of that plot of land corresponded to the value of that land.
Teave, mille Real Madrid esitas 10. juulil 2015.
In other words, the Madrid City Council would have implemented the 1998 implementation agreement, which is not the subject-matter of the present decision.
Vt orden ECO/805/2003, de 27 de marzo, sobre normas de valoración de bienes inmuebles y de determinados derechos para ciertas finalidades financieras, BOE núm.
Compatibility of the aid
85, de 9 de abril de 2003, lk 13678, artikli 24 lõige 2.
State aid shall be deemed compatible with the internal market if it falls within any of the categories listed in Article 107(2) of the Treaty [29] and it may be deemed compatible with the internal market if it is found by the Commission to fall within any of the categories listed in Article 107(3) of the Treaty [30].
Aluslepingu artikli 107 lõikes 2 sätestatud erandid käsitlevad a) üksiktarbijatele antavat sotsiaalabi; b) loodusõnnetuste ja erakorraliste sündmuste tekitatud kahju korvamiseks antavat abi ning c) Saksamaa Liitvabariigi teatud piirkondade majandusele antavat abi.
However, it is the Member State granting the aid which bears the burden of proving that State aid granted by it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Articles 107(2) or 107(3) of the Treaty [31].
Aluslepingu artikli 107 lõikes 3 sätestatud erandid käsitlevad a) abi majandusarengu edendamiseks teatud piirkondades; b) abi teatavate üleeuroopalist huvi pakkuvate tähtsate projektide elluviimiseks või mõne liikmesriigi majanduses tõsise häire kõrvaldamiseks; c) abi teatud majandustegevuse või teatud majanduspiirkondade arendamiseks; d) abi kultuuri edendamiseks ja kultuuripärandi säilitamiseks ning e) nõukogu otsusega kindlaksmääratavat abi.
Neither Spain nor Real Madrid have claimed that any of the exceptions provided for in Article 107(2) and 107(3) of the Treaty apply in the present case.
Otsus kohtuasjas T-68/03: Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies vs. komisjon (ECLI:EU:T:2007:253, punkt 34).
The Commission notes in this regard that since the aid in question results in an income from which Real Madrid would not normally have benefited in the course of its business operations, the 2011 settlement agreement should be considered as granting operating aid to Real Madrid.
Nõukogu 13. juuli 2015. aasta määrus (EL) 2015/1589, millega kehtestatakse üksikasjalikud eeskirjad Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 108 kohaldamiseks (ELT L 248, 24.9.2015, lk 9).
As a general rule, such aid can normally not be considered compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty in that it does not facilitate the development of certain activities.
Vt otsus kohtuasjas C-70/72: komisjon vs. Saksamaa (ECLI:EU:C:1973:87, punkt 13).
Consequently, the State aid granted to Real Madrid through the 2011 settlement agreement is incompatible with the internal market.
Vt otsus liidetud kohtuasjades C-278/92, C-279/92 ja C-280/92: Hispaania vs. komisjon (ECLI:EU:C:1994:325, punkt 75).
UNLAWFULNESS OF THE AID
Vt otsus kohtuasjas C-75/97: Belgia vs. komisjon (ECLI:EU:C:1999:311, punktid 64 ja 65).
According to Article 108(3) of the Treaty, Member States are obliged to inform the Commission of any plan to grant aid (notification obligation) and they may not put into effect any proposed aid measures until the Commission has taken a final position decision on the aid in question (standstill obligation).
Komisjoni 21. aprilli 2004. aasta määrus (EÜ) nr 794/2004, millega rakendatakse nõukogu määrust (EÜ) nr 2015/1589, millega kehtestatakse üksikasjalikud eeskirjad EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 108 kohaldamiseks (ELT L 140, 30.4.2004, lk 1).
The Commission notes that Spain did not notify the Commission of any plan to grant aid through the 2011 settlement agreement, nor did it respect the standstill obligation laid down in Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Vt otsus kohtuasjas C-441/06 P: komisjon vs. Prantsusmaa (ECLI:EU:C:2007:616, punkt 29 ja selles tsiteeritud kohtupraktika).
RECOVERY
20. detsembril 2011 paluti Hispaanial seda teavet kommenteerida, mida Hispaania 23. detsembril 2011 ja 20. veebruaril 2012 ka tegi.
According to the Treaty and the Court's established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the Member State concerned must abolish or alter aid when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market [33].
2. aprillil 2012 saadetud komisjoni järgmise teabenõude peale esitas Hispaania 18. juunil 2012 lisateavet.
The Court has also consistently held that the obligation on a Member State to abolish aid regarded by the Commission as being incompatible with the internal market is designed to re-establish the previously existing situation [34].
Komisjon sai Hispaania märkused 17. novembri 2014. aasta kirjaga.
In this context, the Court has established that this objective is attained once the recipient has repaid the amounts granted by way of unlawful aid, thus forfeiting the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to the payment of the aid is restored [35].
4. novembril 2015 ja 14. märtsil 2016 kohtus komisjon Real Madridi esindajatega.
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 establishes an obligation on the Commission to order recovery of unlawful and incompatible aid.
Sellele liigitusele oli algselt viidatud 28. juulil 1995 koostatud piirkonna osalises plaanis (plan parcial) „UZI 0.08 Las Tablas“.
That provision also provides that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover unlawful aid that is found to be incompatible.
Seejärel oli seda arvesse võetud Madridi maakasutuskavas (Plan General de Ordenación Urbana de Madrid, edaspidi „PGOU“), mille Madridi linnavolikogu ja Madridi autonoomne piirkond kiitsid heaks 17. aprillil 1997.
Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 establishes that the aid is to be recovered, including interest from the date on which the unlawful aid was at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its effective recovery.
Seepärast oli Madridi linnavolikogu nõus maksma Real Madridile 1998. aasta rakenduslepingus ette nähtud maatüki B-32 loovutamise toimumata jäämise eest hüvitist summas, mis vastas kõnealuse maatüki väärtusele 2011. aastal.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [36] elaborates the methods to be used for the calculation of recovery interest.
Komisjon väljendas menetluse algatamise otsuses kahtlust maatüki B-32 väidetava väärtuse märkimisväärse suurenemise suhtes aastatel 1998–2011.
Finally, Article 16(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 states, that ‘recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures under the national law of the Member State concerned, provided that they allow for the immediate an effective execution of the Commission decision’.
Kõnealuse maatüki väärtus, mis selle omandamise ajal oli hinnangute kohaselt 595194 eurot, oli väidetavalt suurenenud enam kui 22 miljonile eurole, mis tähendab 37-kordset tõusu.
No provision of Union law requires the Commission, when ordering the recovery of aid declared incompatible with the internal market, to quantify the exact amount of the aid to be recovered.
Sellega seoses eeldab Hispaania, et 1998. aasta rakendusleping on tühine tervikuna, ning järeldab, et Real Madrid ja Madridi linnavolikogu peavad tagastama ka muud 1996. aasta vahetuslepinguga ja 1998. aasta rakenduslepinguga hõlmatud maatükid.
Rather, it is sufficient for the Commission's decision to include information enabling the addressee of the decision to work out that amount itself without overmuch difficulty [37].
Ent kuna kõnealused maatükid on vahepeal ära müüdud ja neid ei saa tagastada, peab Madridi linnavolikogu tagastama kõnealuste maatükkide väärtuse nende müümise hetke seisuga.
Nevertheless, in the present case, the Commission deems the aid resulting from the 2011 settlement agreement which Spain must recover from Real Madrid to be equal to the difference between the value of plot B-32 as agreed to in the 2011 settlement agreement, being EUR 22693054,44, and the maximum extent of its legal liability under the 1998 implementation agreement, taking EUR 4275000 as the accurate market value of plot B-32 in 2011.
Edasi viitab Hispaania kohtupraktikale, mis toetab tema seisukohta, et Madridi linnavolikogu peab hüvitama Real Madridile oma 1998. aasta rakenduslepingu kohaste kohustuste täitmatajätmise.
Thus to remove the advantage granted to Real Madrid as a result of the 2011 settlement agreement, Spain must recover EUR 18418054,44 from that entity.
Hispaania osutab kohtuotsustele, mis käsitlevad juhtumeid, kus üks lepingupool on tahtlikult muutnud kohustuste täitmise tagantjärele võimatuks või on selline olukord tekkinud ühe lepingupoole hooletuse tõttu.
CONCLUSION
1998. aastal ja 2011. aastal maale antud hinnangute erinevuse kohta märgib Hispaania, et suurt erinevust on võimalik selgitada sellega, et maa oli 1998. aastal väga varajases ja algelises linnaarenduse etapis.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that Spain, by way of the 2011 settlement agreement concluded between Madrid City Council and Real Madrid, has unlawfully granted State aid to Real Madrid, in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty, which Spain is required to recover by virtue of Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 from Real Madrid,
Tollal oli lõpule jõutud üksnes planeerimisega.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
2011. aastal muutus olukord täielikult.
Article 1
Mõlemal juhul lähtuti hindamisel tavalistest standarditest, mida Madridi linnavolikogu kohaldas maa hindamisel.
The State aid amounting to EUR 18418054,44, unlawfully granted on 29 July 2011 by the Kingdom of Spain in breach of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in favour of Real Madrid Club de Fútbol is incompatible with the internal market.
Real Madrid ei oleks olnud valmis nõustuma lahendusega, millega tema õigusele saada maatükk B-32 oleks määratud väärtus asjaomase maatüki 1998. või 2003. aasta turuhinna põhjal.
Article 2
Real Madrid oleks algatanud kohtumenetluse, et kaitsta oma 1998. aasta rakenduslepingu täitmise nõudmise õiguse täielikku väärtust.
The Kingdom of Spain shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiary.
See oleks kaasa toonud hüvitisnõude väärtuses, mis vastab maa väärtusele kohtuotsuse tegemise ajal, milleks oleks olnud 2011. aasta kokkuleppes eeldatud väärtus.
The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiary until their actual recovery.
Tsiviilseadustiku artikli 1124 kohaselt oleks Real Madrid võinud ka lepingu lõpetada, millega oleks kaasnenud õigus ennistamisele vastavalt tsiviilseadustiku artiklile 1123 ja kahjunõue.
The interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 and to Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 [38] amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.
Ennistamine oleks tähendanud 1998. aasta rakenduslepingu eelse olukorra taastamist.
The Kingdom of Spain shall cancel all outstanding payments of the aid referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of adoption of this decision.
Põhimõtteliselt oleks Madridi linnavolikogu olnud kohustatud tagastama Real Madridile Ciudad Deportiva piirkonnas saadud 15000 m2 ning Real Madrid oleks pidanud tagastama Madridi linnavolikogule maatükid 33 ja 34.
Article 3
Seega oleks ennistamise netomõju olnud selline, et Madridi linnavolikogu oleks pidanud maksma Real Madridile 33,1 miljonit eurot, mida on 10,407 miljonit eurot rohkem kui summa, mille klubi sai 2011. aasta kokkuleppe alusel.
Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.
See tähendab, et olles nõus 2011. aasta kokkuleppega, Real Madrid sisuliselt loobus 10,407 miljoni euro suurusest nõudest Madridi linnvolikogu vastu.