natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
Španielske kráľovstvo predloží Komisii do dvoch mesiacov od oznámenia tohto rozhodnutia tieto informácie:
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.
celkovú sumu (istinu a úrok), ktorá sa má od príjemcu vymôcť;
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].
podrobný opis už prijatých a plánovaných opatrení na účely vykonania tohto rozhodnutia;
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.
dokumenty preukazujúce, že sa príjemcovi nariadilo vrátenie pomoci.
For that purpose it applies generally accepted standards which do not depend on the reason for the valuation.
Španielske kráľovstvo Komisiu priebežne informuje o vývoji vnútroštátnych opatrení na vykonanie tohto rozhodnutia, a to až dovtedy, kým nie je pomoc uvedená v článku 1 úplne vrátená.
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).
Na požiadanie Komisie bezodkladne predloží informácie o opatreniach, ktoré sa prijali alebo ktoré sa plánujú prijať na vykonanie tohto rozhodnutia.
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.
Takisto predloží podrobné informácie o výške pomoci a úrokoch z vymáhanej sumy, ktoré už od príjemcu získalo späť.
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.
Článok 5
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.
Toto rozhodnutie je určené Španielskemu kráľovstvu.
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.
V Bruseli 4. júla 2016
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.
Za Komisiu
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.
členka Komisie
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.
Ú. v. EÚ C 69, 7.3.2014, s. 108.
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.
Pozri poznámku pod čiarou č. 1.
It also includes parking, shop and restaurant use and the expected revenues from user fees, elaborated in detail for the various infrastructures.
Kráľovský dekrét č. 1020/1993 z 25. júna, ktorým sa schvaľujú technické normy určovania hodnoty a rámcová tabuľka hodnoty pozemkov a stavieb na určenie katastrálnej hodnoty nehnuteľného majetku mestského charakteru (BOE z 22. júla 1993).
CEIAM explains in Section 1.6.5 of the study that it is aware that its estimates do not fully exhaust the legally possible land use in terms of ground on which may be built.
Rozsudok správneho súdu Najvyššieho súdu v Madride (oddiel 2a) zo 6. októbra 2004.
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.
Rozsudok č. 77/2015 správneho súdu, prvý oddiel.
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.
„Pri všetkých zmenách plánu stanoveného územným plánom, ktoré […] by spôsobili vyradenie pozemku z verejného vlastníctva […], sa musia zohľadniť vyrovnávacie opatrenia vymedzené na udržanie kvality a kvantity prostriedkov určených na územné využívanie tohto pozemku […]“.
The intensity of the land use would depend on the expected demand and on the type of sport activities or infrastructure offered.
Správa Aguirre Newman predložená klubom Real Madrid, s. 122 – 126.
In this regard, CEIAM analysed 22 comparable sport complexes for the development of the scenario used by the study.
Správa Aguirre Newman, s. 113 – 117.
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.
Správa Aguirre Newman, s. 106 – 112.
The study also considers the possible demand by employees of the surrounding offices.
Rozsudok Najvyššieho súdu zo 6. júna 1997, odvolanie č. 1610/1993 („z dôvodu jej postúpenia tretím stranám v dobrej viere sa predaná vec stala nevymožiteľnou, a to nie prostredníctvom rozsudku, ktorý o tejto skutočnosti vypovedá vzhľadom na to, že tento rozsudok je objasňujúci, nie ustanovujúci a zameriava sa na zistenie existujúcej situácie, preto záväzok odškodnenia vzniká vo chvíli, keď predávajúci postúpili veci a stratili k nim dispozičné právo.“).
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.
Ú. v. ES C 209, 10.7.1997, s. 3.
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.
Kráľovský dekrét č. 1020/1993 z 25. júna, ktorým sa schvaľujú technické normy určovania hodnoty a rámcová tabuľka hodnoty pozemkov a stavieb na určenie katastrálnej hodnoty nehnuteľného majetku mestského charakteru.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Commission considers that the criticisms expressed by Spain and by Real Madrid on the CEIAM study are unfounded.
V článku 114 ods. 1 zákona č. 33/2003 z 3. novembra o majetku verejnej správy sa stanovuje, že hodnotenie verejných pozemkov môže podľa citovaného zákona vykonávať i) technický personál oddelenia alebo orgánu, ktorý majetok alebo práva spravuje alebo ktorý sa o jeho nadobudnutie alebo prenájom zaujíma, ii) zvolení technici ministerstva financií, iii) oceňovacie spoločnosti riadne zapísané v obchodnom registri Španielskej centrálnej banky oceňovacích spoločností a spoločnosti, ktoré sú na to na základe zákona oprávnené.
Real Madrid fails to show by how much the alleged shortcomings of the CEIAM report result in a material underestimation in value.
Pozri vec C-399/08 P, Komisia/Deutsche Post, ECLI:EU:C:2010:481, odsek 38 a už citovaná judikatúra.
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.
Pozri vec C-399/08 P, Komisia/Deutsche Post, ECLI:EU:C:2010:481, odsek 39 a už citovaná judikatúra.
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.
Spojené veci C-180/98 a C-184/98, Pavlov a i., ECLI:EU:C:2000:428.
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.
Vec C-415/93, Bosman, ECLI:EU:C:1995:463, odsek 73, vec C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina a Majcen/Komisia, ECLI:EU:C:2006:492, odsek 22, a C-325/08, Olympique Lyonnais, ECLI:EU:C:2010:143, odsek 23
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.
Vec C-342/96, Španielsko/Komisia, ECLI:EU:C:1999:210, odsek 41
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.
Vec C-39/94, SFEI a i., ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, odseky 60 a 61.
The Madrid City Council could only have transferred plot B-32 if it was legally entitled to do so.
Vec C-73/11 P, Frucona Košice/Komisia, ECLI:EU:C:2013:32, odsek 71 a už citovaná judikatúra.
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.
Vec C-124/10 P, Komisia/EDF, ECLI:EU:C:2012:318, odseky 84, 85 a 105, pozri analogicky rozhodnutie Komisie z 12. marca 2014 vo veci SA.36249 (2014/N-3):Španielsko – Zmena plánu uznesenia banky CEISS s účasťou banky Unicaja, odôvodnenia 59 a 60 (DO C 141 z 9.5.2014, s. 1).
In other words, the Madrid City Council would have implemented the 1998 implementation agreement, which is not the subject-matter of the present decision.
Vec C-124/10 P, Komisia/EDF, ECLI:EU:C:2012:318, odsek 85
Compatibility of the aid
Španielsko potvrdilo neexistenciu tohto typu externého stanoviska v telefonickej konferencii zo 6. novembra 2015 a v písomnej podobe 9. marca 2016.
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].
Pozri poznámku pod čiarou č. 4.
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].
Vo vzťahu k očakávanej výnosnosti investície pomocou príjmov by optimistický scenár predstavoval sumu 6350000 EUR a pesimistický scenár sumu 2350000 EUR.
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.
Pripomienky Španielska z 15. júna 2015 o štúdii úradu CEIAM poskytnuté Komisiou 22. apríla 2015.
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.
Informácia, ktorú zaslal klub Real Madrid 10. júla 2015.
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.
Výnimky stanovené v článku 107 ods. 2 ZFEÚ sa vzťahujú na: a) pomoc sociálnej povahy poskytovanú jednotlivým spotrebiteľom, b) pomoc určenú na náhradu škody spôsobenej prírodnými katastrofami alebo mimoriadnymi udalosťami, c) pomoc poskytovanú určitým oblastiam Spolkovej republiky Nemecko.
Consequently, the State aid granted to Real Madrid through the 2011 settlement agreement is incompatible with the internal market.
Výnimky stanovené v článku 107 ods. 3 ZFEÚ sa vzťahujú na: a) pomoc na podporu hospodárskeho rozvoja určitých oblastí, b) pomoc na podporu vykonávania dôležitého projektu spoločného európskeho záujmu alebo na nápravu vážnej poruchy fungovania v hospodárstve členského štátu, c) pomoc na rozvoj určitých hospodárskych činností alebo určitých hospodárskych oblastí, d) pomoc na podporu kultúry a zachovania kultúrneho dedičstva, e) iné druhy pomoci, ako ich vymedzia rozhodnutia Rady.
UNLAWFULNESS OF THE AID
Vec T-68/03, Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies/Komisia, ECLI:EU:T:2007:253, bod 34.
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).
Nariadenie Rady (EÚ) 2015/1589 z 13. júla 2015 stanovujúce podrobné pravidlá na uplatňovanie článku 108 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie (Ú. v. EÚ L 248, 24.9.2015, s. 9).
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.
Pozri vec C-70/72, Komisia/Nemecko, ECLI:EU:C:1973:87, bod 13.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 [32], the 2011 settlement agreement constitutes unlawful aid, put into effect in contravention of Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
Pozri spojené veci C-278/92, C-279/92 y C-280/92, Španielsko/Komisia, ECLI:EU:C:1994:325, bod 75.
RECOVERY
Pozri vec C-75/97, Belgicko/Komisia, ECLI:EU:C:1999:311, body 64 – 65.
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].
Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 794/2004 z 21. apríla 2004, ktorým sa vykonáva nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 659/1999, ustanovujúce podrobné pravidlá na uplatňovanie článku 93 Zmluvy o ES (Ú. v. EÚ L 140, 30.4.2004, s. 1).
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].
Pozri vec C-441/06, Komisia/Francúzsko, ECLI:EU:C:2007:616, bod 29 a už citovaná judikatúra.
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].
Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 271/2008 z 30. januára 2008, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie (ES) č. 794/2004, ktorým sa vykonáva nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 659/1999 ustanovujúce podrobné pravidlá na uplatňovanie článku 93 Zmluvy o ES (Ú. v.
Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 establishes an obligation on the Commission to order recovery of unlawful and incompatible aid.
EÚ L 82, 25.3.2008, s. 1).
That provision also provides that the Member State concerned shall take all necessary measures to recover unlawful aid that is found to be incompatible.
Španielsko bolo 20. decembra 2011 vyzvané, aby k tejto informácii predložilo svoje pripomienky, čo vykonalo 23. decembra 2011 a 20. februára 2012.
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.
Na základe žiadosti Komisie o informácie z 2. apríla 2012 poskytlo Španielsko 18. júna 2012 ďalšie informácie.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 [36] elaborates the methods to be used for the calculation of recovery interest.
Komisia ich zaslala Španielsku, ktoré malo možnosť na ne reagovať, a jeho pripomienky boli doručené listom zo 17. novembra 2014.
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’.
Dňa 4. novembra 2015 a 14. marca 2016 sa Komisia stretla so zástupcami klubu Real Madrid.
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.
Táto klasifikácia bola pôvodne zahrnutá do čiastkového plánu „UZI 0.08 Las Tablas“ 28. júla 1995.
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].
Neskôr sa začlenila do hlavného plánu mestského plánovania mesta Madrid (ďalej len „plán PGOU“), ktorý 17. apríla 1997 schválila Obecná rada mesta Madrid a autonómna oblasť Madrid.
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.
V rozhodnutí o začatí konania Komisia vyjadrila svoje pochybnosti v súvislosti so značným nárastom údajnej hodnoty parcely B-32 medzi rokmi 1998 a 2011.
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.
Táto parcela, ktorej hodnota bola v čase nadobudnutia 595194 EUR, zvýšila svoju údajnú hodnotu na viac ako 22 miliónov EUR, čo predstavuje 37-násobok jej počiatočnej hodnoty.
CONCLUSION
Na základe toho španielske orgány usúdili, že dohoda z roku 1998 je neplatná v celom rozsahu a zastávajú názor, že klub Real Madrid a Obecná rada mesta Madrid mali vrátiť ostatné parcely uvedené v dohode o výmene z roku 1996 a v dohode o vykonávaní z roku 1998.
Article 1
Odkazuje sa na rozsudky, ktoré sa týkajú nemožnosti ex post spôsobenej úmyselne alebo zanedbaním jednou zo strán.
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.
Čo sa týka rozdielu medzi ocenením pozemku z roku 1998 a 2011, Španielsko vysvetľuje, že tento podstatný rozdiel je možné zdôvodniť počiatočným a veľmi základným stavom urbanizácie tohto pozemku v roku 1998.
Article 2
V tom čase prebehla zatiaľ iba fáza plánovania.
The Kingdom of Spain shall recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiary.
Táto situácia sa však úplne zmenila v roku 2011.
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.
V oboch prípadoch sa pri oceňovaní zohľadňovali zvyčajné predpisy, ktoré pri určovaní hodnoty pozemkov používala Obecná rada mesta Madrid.
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.
Klub Real Madrid by nebol ochotný prijať riešenie, na základe ktorého by sa jeho nárok na parcelu B-32 ohodnotil trhovou hodnotou tejto parcely z roku 1998 alebo 2003.
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.
Klub Real Madrid by začal súdne konanie na ochranu plnej hodnoty svojho práva požadovať splnenie dohody o vykonávaní z roku 1998.
Article 3
Klub Real Madrid by tiež bol mohol dohodu v súlade s článkom 1124 občianskeho zákonníka ukončiť s následným právom na vrátenie toho, čo už bolo splnené v súlade s článkom 1123 občianskeho zákonníka, a nárokom na náhradu škody.
Recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.
Odškodné by znamenalo návrat do stavu pred uzatvorením dohody o vykonávaní z roku 1998.
The Kingdom of Spain shall ensure that this decision is implemented within four months following the date of notification of this Decision.
Najskôr by bola Obecná rada mesta Madrid povinná vrátiť klubu Real Madrid 15000 štvorcových metrov, ktoré dostala v oblasti Ciudad Deportiva, a klub Real Madrid by musel vrátiť Obecnej rade mesta Madrid parcely 33 a 34.
the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary;
Klub Real Madrid tvrdí, že odstúpenie od dohody o vykonávaní z roku 1998, celkové odškodnenie podľa tejto zmluvy a dohoda o výmene z roku 1996 by v roku 2011 znamenali reálne a hmatateľné riziko pre Obecnú radu mesta Madrid.
a detailed description of the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision;
Podpísaním dohody z roku 2011 sa Obecná rada mesta Madrid tomuto riziku vyhla a vyplatila sumu nižšiu približne o 10,407 milióna EUR menej, ako by klub Real Madrid požadoval, ak by odstúpil od zmluvy o vykonávaní z roku 1998 a požadoval odškodnenie.
documents demonstrating that the beneficiary has been ordered to repay the aid.
Výsledky z tejto správy sa čiastočne líšia od ocenení uvedených v dohode o vykonávaní z roku 1998.
The Kingdom of Spain shall keep the Commission informed of the progress of the national measures taken to implement this Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has been completed.
Napriek tomu tieto výsledky dokazujú tvrdenie, že klub Real Madrid v roku 1998 nadmernú náhradu neprijal.
It shall immediately submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on the measures already taken and planned to comply with this Decision.
Zo správy teda vyplýva, že dohoda o vykonaní z roku 1998 podhodnotila 15000 štvorcových metrov v oblasti Ciudad Deportiva z roku 1998 a nadhodnotila parcely B-32, ako aj parcely 33 a 34.