natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to Spain and Real Madrid, the parties to the 1998 implementation agreement knew that the land was classified for basic sports use and assumed at the time that the agreement was concluded that land so classified could be transferred to a private party, so long as that party planned to use the plot for sport use.
Kui Madridi linnavolikogu vastu oleks hüvitisnõue, oleks maatüki B-32 asjakohane väärtus see väärtus, mis on maatükil Madridi linnavolikogu jaoks, kellel ei oleks kasu hüpoteetilisest väärtusest, mis oleks maatükil juhul, kui see oleks loovutatav.
However, there are no indications that that assumption was correct at the time the 1998 implementation agreement was concluded.
Kolmandaks sisaldab CEIAMi uuring kulude ja tulude hindamiseks üksikasjalikku ja hoolikat võrdlust muude eri laadi ja atraktiivsusega spordirajatistega.
With the adoption of law 9/2001, the parties should have certainly questioned that assumption since, according to that law, land in the public domain must remain in public ownership.
Mis puudutab väidet, et uuringus ei ole arvesse võetud tuluvooge, mille oleks võinud anda muu tegevus kui sport, ja kõiki maa hoonestamise võimalusi, siis uuringu jaos 1.6.4 on esitatud üksikasjalik hüpotees selle kohta, kuidas saaks kasutada maad mitmesuguste sporditaristute kombinatsioonide jaoks.
The Commission notes in this regard that the Madrid City Council only became the registered owner of plot B-32 in 2003 and, according to the 1998 implementation agreement, the Madrid City Council was obliged to transfer that plot seven days after it became the registered owner thereof.
See hõlmab ka maa kasutamist parkimiskohtade, poodide ja restoranide rajamiseks ning kasutustasudest saadavat eeldatavat tulu, mida on eri taristute puhul üksikasjalikult kirjeldatud.
Moreover, following the judgment of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid in 2004 [24], it should have been clear to both parties that plots of land like plot B-32 could not be legally transferred to a private person or entity.
CEIAM selgitab uuringu jaos 1.6.5, et ta on teadlik, et tema hinnangutes ei ole täielikult arvesse võetud kõiki seaduslikke maa kasutamise võimalusi maa hoonestamise seisukohast.
Therefore, when the Madrid City Council agreed under the 2011 settlement agreement to assume full legal liability for its failure to transfer plot B-32 under the 1998 implementation agreement, it must have been abundantly clear to both parties that plot B-32 could not be legally transferred.
Maakasutusprotsent kehtestatakse linnaplaneerimises sageli väga kõrge, et oleks võimalik reageerida aastate jooksul muutuvale nõudlusele kuni maad hakatakse kasutama eeldatud viisil.
Secondly, the consequences of the legal impossibility for Madrid City Council to perform its obligation under the 1998 implementation agreement to transfer plot B-32 as regards any potential claim for compensation for Real Madrid were also unclear from a legal perspective when the 2011 settlement agreement was entered into.
Üldkasutatava maa puhul on tavaline, et linnaplaneerimises ette nähtud maksimaalne maakasutusprotsent jääb täielikult kasutamata.
According to Spain, under the general rules of Spanish civil law, the legal impossibility to perform a contract would make that contract void under private law.
Maakasutuse intensiivsus sõltub eeldataval nõudlusel ja pakutava sporditegevuse või taristu liigil.
In that case, it is unclear that the aggrieved party would have a claim for compensation or damages, since the contract no longer exists, as opposed to a claim for restitution of what has already been given in consideration of the contract.
Seetõttu analüüsis CEIAM uuringus kasutatud stsenaariumi väljatöötamiseks 22 võrreldavat spordikompleksi.
In that regard, Spain and Real Madrid argue that the legal impossibility for Madrid City Council to transfer plot B-32 entails the nullity of the entire 1998 implementation agreement and thus a return of all the plots of land involved in that agreement and the 1996 swap agreement or, where such return is impossible, their value when they were lost, i.e. sold.
Mis puudutab piirkonna spordiharrastajate osakaalu, mida Real Madrid pidas liiga väikseks, siis uuringus kasutati olemasolevaid statistilisi andmeid maatükil B-32 asuvate spordirajatiste teeninduspiirkonda jäävate elanike sporditegevuse kohta, mis on esitatud uuringu lisa jaos 3.2.
However, it is unclear whether the fact that only one obligation under the 1998 implementation agreement could not be performed by one party to that agreement, entails the nullity of the entire agreement under Spanish civil law.
Samuti on uuringus arvesse võetud ümbruskonna kontorite töötajate võimalikku nõudlust.
Partial nullity is a complex issue under Spanish civil law and the Madrid City Council did not obtain any legal advice before entering into the 2011 settlement agreement.
Real Mardid ei ole esitanud naabruskonnas tehtud turu-uuringutel põhinevaid näitajaid, mis toetaksid tema väidet, et spordiharrastajate osakaal on liiga väike, nii et komisjon peab nõustuma CEIAMi esitatud ettevaatlikumate hinnangutega.
In this regard, the Commission notes, first of all, that under the 1998 implementation agreement three separate plots valued at EUR 13522772 were to be transferred by the Madrid City Council to Real Madrid, of which plot B-32 was located in a different area and thus unconnected to the two other plots to be transferred (plots 33 and 34, which were located in the Julian Camarillo Sur area).
Seoses asjaoluga, et maa väärtust on hinnatud stsenaariumi põhjal, mille puhul on olemas pelk õigus maad kasutada (derecho de superficie), mitte ei ole toimunud omandiõiguse täielikku üleandmist, viitab komisjon lõpetuseks eespool esitatud põhjendusele 111, eelkõige tähelepanekule, et kuivõrd kõnealuse maa sihtotstarve ja kuulumine riigi omandisse on pikaks ajaks kindlaks määratud, ei ole mingit võimalust maad koos taristuga müüa.
Moreover, plot B-32 was valued at EUR 595194, representing less than 5 % of the value of the entire 1998 implementation agreement.
Kõigil eespool kirjeldatud põhjustel leiab komisjon, et Hispaania ja Real Madridi kriitika CEIAMi uuringu suhtes on põhjendamatu.
The Commission notes, next, that the 1998 implementation agreement was entered into by the Madrid City Council to fulfil its obligation to compensate Real Madrid for its transfer of the Ciudad Deportiva to the City Council under the 1996 swap agreement.
Real Madrid ei näita, kui suures ulatuses toovad CEIAMi aruande väidetavad puudused kaasa väärtuse olulise alahindamise.
It is clear from the 1996 swap agreement that there was a distinct interest on the part of the Madrid City Council to acquire the Ciudad Deportiva, as confirmed by Real Madrid, and that the 1998 implementation agreement was concluded so that the Madrid City Council could fulfil its obligation under the 1996 swap agreement to transfer lands to Real Madrid of a certain value as compensation for the Ciudad Deportiva.
Seega ei oleks saanud eeldada, et maatüki B-32 väärtus 2011. aastal oleks olnud suurem kui CEIAMi uuringus hinnatud 4275000 eurot, mistõttu turutingimustes tegutsev arukas ettevõtja ei oleks sõlminud sarnastel asjaoludel 2011. aasta kokkulepet, millega Madridi linnavolikogu nõustus maksma Real Madridile hüvitist summas 22693054,44 eurot, et vabaneda ebakindlast õiguslikust vastutusest selle eest, et ta ei olnud täitnud oma 1998. aasta rakenduslepingu kohast kohustust loovutada maatükk B-32.
There was therefore no distinct interest on the part of Real Madrid to include plot B-32 in the 1998 implementation agreement and, had the parties known of the legal impossibility to transfer that plot of land when the 1998 implementation agreement was concluded, that plot would likely have been replaced with another plot of land of similar value.
Võttes arvesse ebakindlust seoses tõenäosusega, et Madridi linnavolikogu oleks peetud vastutavaks maatüki B-32 loovutamata jätmise eest 1998. aasta rakenduslepingu alusel, ning selle summa, mille Madridi linnavolikogu oli nõus Real Madridile 2011. aasta kokkuleppe alusel hüvitisena maksma (22693054,44 eurot), ja Madridi linnavolikogu õigusliku vastutuse ülemmäära (4275000 eurot) märkimisväärset erinevust, järeldab komisjon, et turutingimustes tegutsev arukas ettevõtja ei oleks, tegutsedes sellises olukorras nagu Madridi linnavolikogu, sõlminud 2011. aasta kokkulepet.
Thirdly, the 2011 settlement agreement itself demonstrates that the parties wanted to address the legal impossibility of transferring plot B-32 separate from the implementation of the entire 1998 implementation agreement and did not call into question the validity of the transfer of the other plots of land concerned by that agreement.
Seetõttu järeldab komisjon, et Madridi linnavolikogu ei käitunud Real Madridiga 2011. aasta kokkuleppe sõlmimisel nii, nagu oleks käitunud võrreldavatel asjaoludel turutingimustes tegutsev ettevõtja.
Furthermore, in its submission of information of 18 June 2012 during the preliminary investigation of this case, Spain declared that the parties to the 2011 settlement agreement had an interest to keep in force the parts of the 1998 implementation agreement which did not concern plot B-32.
Seepärast tuleks leida, et 2011. aasta kokkuleppega antakse Real Madridile majanduslik eelis summas, mis vastab hüvitise ja Madridi linnavolikogu õigusliku vastutuse ülemmäära vahele, ning seega kujutab kõnealune kokkulepe endast riigiabi aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses.
Fourthly, it was unclear at the time of the 2011 settlement agreement whether the Madrid City Council could have remedied the legal impossibility arising under the 1998 implementation agreement by changing the classification of the land under urban planning rules as being reserved for basic sport use.
Kui see oleks nii olnud, ei oleks mitte üksnes puudunud vajadus sõlmida 2011. aasta kokkuleppe, vaid Real Madrid oleks saanud maatüki, millele tal oli 1998. aasta rakenduslepingu alusel õigus, ja seega ei oleks olnud mingit vajadust hinnata, kas hüvitis, mida pakuti Real Madridile kõnealuse maatüki asemel, vastas maatüki väärtusele.
Real Madrid argued that such a change would be possible.
Teisisõnu oleks Madridi linnavolikogu viinud ellu 1998. aasta rakenduslepingu, mis ei ole käesoleva otsuse ese.
Indeed, the Madrid City Council did offer such an amendment of the PGOU in the context of the 2011 urban development agreement.
Abi kokkusobivus siseturuga
However, Spain explained that the Madrid City Council could not make such a change on its own, but would have had to propose an amendment of the PGOU to the Community of Madrid.
Riigiabi loetakse siseturuga kokkusobivaks, kui see kuulub ükskõik millisesse aluslepingu artikli 107 lõikes 2 nimetatud kategooriasse, [29] ja seda võib lugeda siseturuga kokkusobivaks, kui komisjon leiab, et see kuulub ükskõik millisesse aluslepingu artikli 107 lõikes 3 nimetatud kategooriasse [30].
Furthermore, such a change needs to serve the general interest.
Kohustus tõendada, et antud riigiabi on aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 2 või artikli 107 lõike 3 alusel siseturuga kokkusobiv, lasub liikmesriigil, kes on asjaomase abi andnud [31].
That view has since been confirmed by a 2015 judgment in which the Tribunal Superior de Justicia annulled the modification of the PGOU in relation to the land surrounding the Bernabéu Stadium which was the subject of the 2011 urban development agreement.
Ei Hispaania ega Real Madrid ole väitnud, et käesoleva juhtumi puhul on kohaldatav mõni aluslepingu artikli 107 lõikes 2 või artikli 107 lõikes 3 sätestatud erand.
However, since the 2011 urban development agreement was concluded shortly after the 2011 settlement agreement was concluded, that legal issue did not appear to be adequately settled at that time, so that there was legal uncertainty whether the Madrid City Council could have remedied the legal impossibility arising from the 1998 implementation agreement by changing the classification of plot B-32.
Komisjon märgib, et kuna kõnealune abi toob Real Madridile tulu, mida ta oma äritegevuse käigus ei oleks muidu saanud, tuleks 2011. aasta kokkulepet käsitada Real Madridile tegevusabi andmisena.
In light of the above, the Commission considers that a prudent market economy operator, faced with the same legal uncertainties, would have sought legal advice before entering into the 2011 settlement agreement and accepting full legal liability for its failure to transfer plot B-32 under the 1998 implementation agreement, which the Madrid City Council did not do.
Üldjuhul ei saa sellist abi pidada siseturuga kokkusobivaks aluslepingu artikli 107 lõike 3 punkti c alusel, sest see ei soodusta teatud majandustegevuse arengut.
The possible amount of compensation
Seega ei ole Real Madridile 2011. aasta kokkuleppega antud riigiabi siseturuga kokkusobiv.
As regards the amount of compensation the Madrid City Council agreed to pay Real Madrid to settle the legal dispute arising from the 1998 implementation agreement, the Commission considers that the EUR 22693054,44 value Madrid City Council agreed to for plot B-32 as a result of the 2011 settlement agreement far exceeds the maximum extent of its legal liability for its failure to transfer that plot to Real Madrid.
ABI EBASEADUSLIKKUS
The value of plot B-32 in 2011 was established by the technical services of Madrid to be EUR 22693054,44, according to the same general criteria for determining the value of municipal assets which were already applied in 1998.
Vastavalt aluslepingu artikli 108 lõikele 3 peavad liikmesriigid teavitama komisjoni kõikidest plaanidest abi määramise kohta (teavitamiskohustus) ja nad ei tohi rakendada ühtki kavandatud meedet enne, kui komisjon on teinud asjaomase abi kohta lõpliku otsuse (rakendamiskeeld).
Spain notes that that valuation has the character of a cadastral value, which is used as a reference base for e.g. taxation of land transfers or the internal value for the municipality, for accounting purposes.
Komisjon märgib, et Hispaania ei teavitanud komisjoni ühestki plaanist anda 2011. aasta kokkuleppe kaudu abi ega pidanud kinni aluslepingu artikli 108 lõikes 3 sätestatud rakendamiskeelust.
Spain and Real Madrid refer in that regard to the report of the Ministry of Finance of 2011, which estimated the cadastral value of plot B-32 at EUR 25776296.
Seepärast kujutab 2011. aasta kokkulepe endast kooskõlas nõukogu määruse (EL) 2015/1589 [32] artikli 1 punktiga f ebaseaduslikku abi, mis on kehtestatud vastuolus aluslepingu artikli 108 lõikega 3.
Spain stresses that it would be legally obliged to valuate for its inventory all plots of land it owns, irrespective of their legal nature of public or private domain.
ABI TAGASINÕUDMINE
Real Madrid points to the valuation of EUR 22690000 made in the Aguirre Newman report, which was prepared after the adoption of the Opening Decision.
Aluslepingu ja Euroopa Kohtu väljakujunenud praktika kohaselt võib komisjon juhul, kui ta leiab, et abi ei ole siseturuga kokkusobiv, otsustada, et asjaomane riik peab sellise abi andmise lõpetama või seda muutma [33].
The Commission notes that all these valuations are based on the mistaken assumption that plot B-32 could have been transferred in 2011, which, as explained in recital 97 above, appears to be legally impossible.
Samuti on Euroopa Kohus korduvalt sedastanud, et liikmesriigi kohustus lõpetada sellise abi andmine, mida komisjon peab siseturuga kokkusobimatuks, on kehtestatud selleks, et taastada varasem olukord [34].
Assuming the Madrid City Council could not be held liable for that legal impossibility, for which it never solicited legal advice, it is at least arguable that the market value of the plot in its relationship with Real Madrid would be zero, since the land in question cannot be transferred.
Sellega seoses on Euroopa Kohus leidnud, et kõnealune eesmärk on saavutatud, kui abisaaja on ebaseadusliku abina saadud summad tagasi maksnud ja seega loobunud eelisest, mis tal turul konkurentide ees oli, ja kui on taastatud abi väljamaksmisele eelnenud olukord [35].
Nevertheless, the Commission accepts that the purpose of concluding a settlement agreement is to buy legal certainty in return for compensation.
Määruse (EL) 2015/1589 artikli 16 lõikega 1 on kehtestatud komisjonile kohustus nõuda tagasi ebaseaduslik ja siseturuga kokkusobimatu abi.
Assuming the Madrid City Council could be held fully liable for the impossibility to transfer plot B-32 to Real Madrid, then its financial exposure for that liability cannot exceed the value of the plot at the time the 2011 settlement agreement was concluded.
Samuti on kõnealuses sättes ette nähtud, et asjaomased liikmesriigid võtavad kõik vajalikud meetmed, et saada tagasi ebaseaduslik abi, mis on tunnistatud siseturuga kokkusobimatuks.
Spain admits, in this regard, that the technical services of the Madrid City Council did not use the correct classification of plot B-32 (public sport use) when preparing their valuation in 2011, but considered that plot to fall into the category ‘public service use of various kinds’ when preparing that valuation.
Kõnealuse määruse artikli 16 lõikes 2 on sätestatud, et abi tuleb tagasi nõuda koos intressidega, mida makstakse ajavahemiku eest, mil ebaseaduslik abi oli abisaaja käsutuses, kuni selle tagastamise kuupäevani.
In addition, the cadastral value of EUR 25776296 referred to by Spain and Real Madrid was, inter alia, based on information regarding actual market transactions in the reference area, while the valuation of EUR 22690000 made in the Aguirre Newman report was based on the static residual value method, which is based on a scenario of a sale of the various units shortly after the construction of sport infrastructure on that land.
Komisjoni määruses (EÜ) nr 794/2004 [36] on täpsustatud tagasinõudmisel kohaldatava intressi arvutamisel kasutatavaid meetodeid.
Since the classification of plot B-32 in 2011 was for sport use and Real Madrid had the intention to use plot B-32 for sport use, the Commission considers the correct parameter for the valuation of that plot is the long-term exploitation of the land for sport use.
Lõpetuseks on määruse (EL) 2015/1589 artikli 16 lõikes 3 sätestatud, et „tagastamine [toimub] viivitamata ja vastavalt kõnealuse liikmesriigi siseriiklikus õiguses kehtivale korrale, tingimusel et see võimaldab komisjoni otsuse kohest ja tõhusat täitmist“.
In that regard, the CEIAM study commissioned by the Commission starts, with regard to the envisaged sport use of plot B-32, from the assumption that an investor acquires the land, constructs the infrastructure for various types of sport, and generates revenues by charging user fees.
Üheski liidu õiguse sättes ei ole nõutud, et komisjon peab siseturuga kokkusobimatuks tunnistatud abi tagasi nõudes määrama kindlaks tagastatava abi täpse suuruse.
The scenario proposed by CEIAM appears to be reasonable because the long term exploitation of the sport infrastructures on plot B-32 by a single operator is the only realistic option under the land classification of that plot, which determines its use and excludes its further sale.
Piisab sellest, kui komisjoni otsus sisaldab teavet, mis võimaldab otsuse adressaadil selle summa ilma liigsete raskusteta ise kindlaks määrata [37].
Under that assumption, the CEIAM study arrives at a valuation for plot B-32 in 2011 of EUR 4275000 [25].
KOKKUVÕTE
Spain criticises the fact that the CEIAM study bases one of the scenarios of the valuation on the use of the plot for social housing arriving at a value between EUR 12245000 and EUR 18000000, since that scenario would not assure highest and best use of the ground [26].
Kokkuvõtteks leiab komisjon, et Hispaania on andnud Madridi linnavolikogu ja Real Madridi vahel sõlmitud 2011. aasta kokkuleppega Real Madridile aluslepingu artikli 108 lõiget 3 rikkudes ebaseaduslikult riigiabi, mille Hispaania peab tulenevalt määruse (EL) 2015/1589 artiklist 16 Real Madridilt tagasi nõudma,
According to Spain, the CEIAM study arrived at a value that was 50 % below the value of a comparable plot for use for public services (uso lucrativo de interés general: education, cultural services and institutions, hospitals, churches) which would represent the highest and best use of land devoted for public purposes.
ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
In response, the Commission notes that that alternative scenario under the CEIAM study was done for the purpose of comparison.
Artikkel 1
The appropriate reference for the ultimate outcome of the study is the sport use scenario, since the Madrid City Council did not change the public service use classification of plot B-32, nor could it legally have changed that classification from sport use, for the reasons given in recital 104 above.
Riigiabi summas 18418054,44 eurot, mille Hispaania Kuningriik andis 29. juulil 2011 spordiklubile Real Madrid Club de Fútbol ebaseaduslikult, rikkudes Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõiget 3, on siseturuga kokkusobimatu.
Real Madrid criticises the CEIAM study on several points [27].
Artikkel 2
First, it criticises the valuation of the alternative, non-sport, scenarios, because they would be based on too many subjective and discretional elements and, moreover, presuppose a use of plot B-32 that is not consistent with the profit-maximising behaviour of a hypothetical private property owner.
Hispaania Kuningriik nõuab artiklis 1 nimetatud abi abisaajalt tagasi.
Second, regarding the valuation based on sport use, Real Madrid observes that the result of the study is not a proper market value.
Tagasinõutavatelt summadelt arvestatakse intressi alates kuupäevast, mil need anti abisaaja käsutusse, kuni nende tegeliku tagasimaksmiseni.
CEIAM would use a national valuation method (the ‘order ECO 805/2003’) which leads only to a ‘mortgage lending value’, which is a particularly cautious estimate of an enduring, long-term value and would tend to be lower than the ‘market value’ which refers to the value in an arm's-length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
Intress arvutatakse liitintressina vastavalt määruse (EÜ) nr 794/2004 V peatükile ja komisjoni määrusele (EÜ) nr 271/2008, [38] millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 794/2004.
This market value should be determined on the basis of the static residual valuation method, as described in recital 110.
Hispaania Kuningriik tühistab kõik artiklis 1 nimetatud abi tasumata maksed alates käesoleva otsuse vastuvõtmise kuupäevast.
Third, Real Madrid criticises the CEIAM on several other grounds:
Artikkel 3
CEIAM did not consider e.g. the revenue streams from the 25 % of the land which the owner could have used, under existing regulations, for shops and parking spaces;
Hispaania Kuningriik tagab käesoleva otsuse täitmise nelja kuu jooksul alates käesoleva otsuse teatavaks tegemisest.
the fact that its assumptions do not fully exhaust the legally possible land use in terms of ground on which may be built (buildability);
Artikkel 4
its underestimation of the existing demand in an attractive and affluent area.
Hispaania Kuningriik esitab komisjonile kahe kuu jooksul alates käesoleva otsuse teatavaks tegemisest järgmise teabe:
Real Madrid contests the estimate by CEIAM of 42,9 % of the population which practises sport and proposes 50 %, also referring to the possible demand by the many employees working in the area;
abisaajalt tagasinõutava abi kogusumma (põhisumma ja intressid);
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.
käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks juba võetud ja kavandatavate meetmete üksikasjalik kirjeldus;
These criticisms fail to convince.
dokumendid, mis tõendavad, et abisaajale on antud korraldus abi tagasi maksta.
First, regarding the hypothetical alternative use scenarios, as explained in recital 114, they serve only for the purposes of comparison of various hypothetical types of land use, since the classification of the land has not and cannot be changed from sport use.
Hispaania Kuningriik teavitab komisjoni käesoleva otsuse täitmiseks võetud meetmete rakendamisest, kuni artiklis 1 nimetatud abi on täielikult tagasi makstud.