natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to Article 87(1) EC, ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.’
V skladu s členom 87(1) ES „je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami“.
Therefore, a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC if it fulfils the following four criteria:
Zato ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) ES, če izpolnjuje naslednja štiri merila:
It confers a selective advantage on the recipient(s)
pomeni selektivno ugodnost za prejemnika(-e)
It is granted by the State through State resources
ga država odobri iz državnih sredstev
It distorts or threatens to distort competition
izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljal konkurenco
It is likely to affect trade between Member States.
lahko prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.
In order to determine whether the application of the property tax to BT and Kingston has resulted in an economic advantage to these two firms, the Commission's analysis must be two-fold:
Da bi ugotovili, ali je odmera davka od premoženja pri BT in Kingstonu povzročila gospodarsko ugodnost za ti dve podjetji, mora biti analiza Komisije dvojna:
It must first determine whether the rules concerning the property tax have been correctly applied to BT and Kingston and in particular whether the application of the R&E method was justified and properly applied.
najprej mora ugotoviti, ali so bili predpisi v zvezi z davkom od premoženja pri BT in Kingstonu ustrezno uporabljeni in še zlasti, ali je bila uporaba metode prejemkov in izdatkov upravičena in ustrezna.
It must also consider whether the application of the R&E method to BT and Kingston confers an advantage on those firms in comparison with their competitors that are valued under the rental method.
Presoditi mora tudi, ali uporaba metode prejemkov in izdatkov pri BT in Kingstonu pomeni ugodnost za navedeni podjetji v primerjavi z njunimi konkurenti, ki so ovrednoteni po metodi najemnine.
Correct application of the rules on property tax to BT and Kingston
Pravilna uporaba predpisov v zvezi z davkom od premoženja pri BT in Kingstonu
The first point considered is whether it was appropriate for the UK authorities to apply the R&E method to BT and Kingston instead of the rental method, which appears to be the generally applied method in the telecommunications sector.
Prvo obravnavano vprašanje je, ali je bilo primerno, da so organi Združenega kraljestva pri BT in Kingstonu uporabili metodo prejemkov in izdatkov in ne metode najemnine, ki naj bi se običajno uporabljala v sektorju telekomunikacij.
The question is whether there was enough rental evidence to assess BT's and Kingston's networks taking into account the rental evidence for the 1995-2000, 2000-2005 and 2005-2010 periods.
Vprašanje je, ali je bilo na voljo dovolj dokazil o najemnini, da sta bili omrežji BT in Kingstona lahko ocenjeni ob upoštevanju dokazil o najemnini za obdobja 1995–2000, 2000–2005 in 2005–2010.
In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission suggested that the internal transfer prices between BT's retail businesses and BT wholesale as well as the rent received by BT when renting out its own infrastructure could provide a basis for applying the rental method.
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka menila, da so cene notranjega prenosa med maloprodajno in veleprodajno enoto BT ter najemnina, ki jo je BT prejel ob oddaji lastne infrastrukture v najem, lahko podlaga za uporabo metode najemnine.
Among the third parties that commented on the decision, the Altnet Task Force suggested specific sources of rental evidence, such as BT's wholesale line rental tariffs or its published prices for unbundled local loops, which could be used to determine the rental value of its copper cables.
Altnet Task Force, ena od tretjih strank, ki so podale pripombe k sklepu, je predlagal posebne vire dokazil o najemnini, na primer tarife BT za medoperaterski najem vodov ali njegove objavljene cene za razvezane krajevne zanke, ki bi se lahko uporabili pri določitvi najemne vrednosti njegovih bakrenih kablov.
On these points, BT and the UK authorities have explained that the rental method could not be applied to assess BT's and Kingston's hereditaments.
V zvezi s tem so BT in organi Združenega kraljestva pojasnili, da se metoda najemnine ne more uporabiti za oceno nepremičnin BT in Kingstona.
First, the evidence which the Commission or Altnet suggested using was not available for the first two valuation periods (i.e. 1995-2000 and 2000-2005).
Prvič, dokazila, katerih uporabo sta predlagala Komisija in Altnet, za prvi dve obdobji vrednotenja (tj. 1995–2000 in 2000–2005) niso bila na voljo.
That is the case of the LLU rental tariffs, which were applied from 31 May 2001 or the set of regulatory accounts that reflected transfer charges for BT's access services.
Takšen je primer najemnih tarif razvezavo krajevne zanke, ki so se uporabljale od 31. maja 2001, ali regulativnih računov, ki so odražali stroške prenosa za storitve dostopa BT.
Furthermore, even when that information was available, for instance for the latest valuation period of 2005-2010, it was not relevant and could not be used for a valuation of BT's and Kingston's very specific networks.
Poleg tega ti podatki, tudi ko so bili na voljo, na primer za zadnje obdobje vrednotenja 2005–2010, niso bili pomembni in jih ni bilo mogoče uporabiti pri vrednotenju zelo specifičnih omrežij BT in Kingstona.
For instance, the UK authorities have explained that the Wholesale Line Rental Tariff and the LLU Tariff are a payment for a service and, under existing case-law on the property tax, cannot be considered rental evidence to value the relevant part of BT's network.
Organi Združenega kraljestva so na primer pojasnili, da tarifa za medoperaterski najem vodov in tarifa za razvezavo krajevne zanke pomenita plačilo za storitev in se na podlagi obstoječe sodne prakse v zvezi z davkom od premoženja ne moreta šteti za dokazilo o najemnini za določitev vrednosti zadevnega dela omrežja BT.
Furthermore the tariffs are regulated by OFCOM and as such are not ‘open market rents’.
Poleg tega tarifi določa OFCOM in kot takšni nista „najemnini na odprtem trgu“.
As such, little weight can be given to those fees as evidence of rateable value.
Zato imata navedeni pristojbini lahko le majhno težo kot dokazili o obdavčljivi vrednosti.
For these reasons, there is no actual market-based evidence concerning the access part of BT's or Kingston's networks, which is a unique characteristic of their networks.
Zaradi teh razlogov ni dejanskih tržnih dokazil v zvezi z dostopovnim delom omrežij BT ali Kingstona, ki je edinstvena značilnost njunih omrežij.
It also appears that even when rental evidence derived from other telecommunication operators exists, for instance on optic fibres, the differences between the use of optic fibres by those operators and the use that is made of them by BT and Kingston means that this rental evidence is not fully relevant to value the latter undertakings' hereditaments.
Zdi se tudi, da čeprav obstajajo dokazila o najemnini, pridobljena od drugih telekomunikacijskih operaterjev, na primer v zvezi z optičnimi vlakni, pa ta dokazila o najemnini zaradi razlik v uporabi teh optičnih vlaken s strani navedenih operaterjev ter BT in Kingstona niso v celoti pomembna za določitev vrednosti nepremičnin zadnjih dveh navedenih podjetij.
The fibre rent quoted by Vtesse is based on market evidence for fibre trunk networks serving a small number of high value, high volume customers.
Najemnina za optično vlakno, ki jo je navedel Vtesse, temelji na tržnih dokazilih za glavna omrežja iz optičnih vlaken, ki jih uporablja malo zelo pomembnih in velikih uporabnikov.
BT's and Kingston's network are mainly local access networks serving millions of individuals in the case of BT.
Omrežji BT in Kingstona sta predvsem omrežji za lokalni dostop, ki ju v primeru BT uporabljajo milijoni posameznikov.
The role of their optic fibre network is mainly that of a backbone which interconnects their local loops.
Njuno omrežje iz optičnih vlaken ima predvsem vlogo hrbtenice, ki medsebojno povezuje njune krajevne zanke.
Their networks are for this reason unique and cannot be compared with any other in the United Kingdom, including large networks such as that of Cable & Wireless.
Zaradi tega sta njuni omrežji edinstveni in ju ni mogoče primerjati z nobenim drugim omrežjem v Združenem kraljestvu, vključno z velikimi omrežji, kakršno je omrežje Cable & Wireless.
It is true that parts of BT's network may be used by BT to provide services that compete with Vtesse, but they remain physically and functionally incapable of being disaggregated from BT's whole network.
Že res, da lahko BT dele svojega omrežja uporabi za zagotavljanje storitev, ki konkurirajo Vtesse, vendar jih je s fizičnega in uporabniškega vidika še vedno nemogoče ločiti od celotnega omrežja BT.
Therefore, on the whole, the two types of network do not fulfil the same function, and are unlikely to have the same rental value.
Zato ti dve vrsti omrežja na splošno ne izpolnjujeta enake funkcije in tako verjetno nimata enake najemne vrednosti.
This view is confirmed by OFCOM in particular, which pointed out that the average value of a route kilometre of a fibre network can be very different according to the characteristics of the network to which it belongs and that BT's core network topology is likely to be very different to that of a backbone operator catering for the corporate market.
Tako meni zlasti OFCOM, ki je poudaril, da je povprečna vrednost kilometra povezav za usmerjanje v omrežju iz optičnih vlaken lahko zelo različna glede na značilnosti omrežja, ki mu pripada, in da se topologija osrednjega omrežja BT verjetno zelo razlikuje od topologije hrbteničnega operaterja, ki oskrbuje trg podjetij.
As to the possibility of applying the rental method to parts of BT's or Kingston's hereditaments for which rental evidence may be available and the R&E method to the rest, that has also been ruled out by the VOA.
VOA je izključila tudi možnost, da bi se metoda najemnine uporabila za dele nepremičnin BT in Kingstona, za katere so lahko na voljo dokazila o najemnini, metoda prejemkov in izdatkov pa za ostalo.
The reason is that the R&E method can only be applied to the whole hereditament and it is not possible to separate parts of these firms' hereditaments, such as their optic fibre networks, since the hereditament has to be assessed as a whole under British case-law, since these parts are fully integrated with the rest of the network.
To pa zato, ker se metoda prejemkov in izdatkov lahko uporabi samo za celotno nepremičnino, nepremičnin teh dveh podjetij, na primer njunih omrežij iz optičnih vlaken, pa ni mogoče ločiti, ker se mora nepremičnina v skladu z britansko sodno prakso oceniti kot celota, saj so ti deli v celoti povezani s preostalim omrežjem.
The independent experts of the VOA therefore concluded that the rental method cannot be applied to BT and Kingston.
Zato so neodvisni strokovnjaki agencije VOA sklenili, da se metoda najemnine ne more uporabiti pri BT in Kingstonu.
That conclusion that the R&E method was the correct one, was confirmed by the Valuation Tribunal.
Ugotovitev, da je bila metoda prejemkov in izdatkov ustrezna, je potrdil Valuation Tribunal.
The Commission considers that there is no probative evidence showing the contrary.
Komisija meni, da ni dokazov o nasprotnem.
Consequently, the Commission concludes that there was not enough rental evidence to assess BT's and Kingston's networks in the periods under consideration and that the application of the R&E method to assess the rateable value of their networks was therefore justified.
Na podlagi tega Komisija ugotavlja, da ni bilo dovolj dokazil o najemnini za oceno omrežij BT in Kingstona v zadevnih obdobjih ter da je bila uporaba metode prejemkov in izdatkov za oceno obdavčljive vrednosti njunih omrežij torej upravičena.
Correct application of the R&E method to BT and Kingston
Pravilna uporaba metode prejemkov in izdatkov pri BT in Kingstonu
The next question is whether the R&E method has been correctly applied to BT and Kingston.
Naslednje je na vrsti vprašanje, ali se je metoda prejemkov in izdatkov pri BT in Kingstonu uporabila pravilno.
On the basis of the extended explanations provided by the UK authorities and described at recitals 74 to 93, it appears to the Commission that the method was applied in accordance with the general rules on the R&E method, as laid down in the RICS Guidance Note on the R&E method of valuation for non-domestic.
Na podlagi obširnih razlag, ki so jih predložili organi Združenega kraljestva in so opisane v uvodnih izjavah 74 do 93, Komisija meni, da je bila metoda prejemkov in izdatkov uporabljena v skladu s splošnimi pravili o metodi prejemkov in izdatkov, določenimi v navodilih RICS (Kraljevega inštituta pooblaščenih ocenjevalcev) o metodi vrednotenja prejemkov in izdatkov za nestanovanjsko lastnino.
The use of anticipated revenues and costs over a five-year period in the case of BT is not explicitly contemplated in the RICS Guidance Note.
Uporaba pričakovanih prihodkov in stroškov v petletnem obdobju v primeru BT ni izrecno predvidena v navodilih RICS.
However, the guidance note does refer to the estimated future profitability when considering the hypothetical tenant's bid in the light of cyclical economic changes which are predictable as at the AVD.
Vendar se ta navodila v resnici sklicujejo na ocenjeno prihodnjo donosnost, ko ponudbo hipotetičnega najemnika obravnavajo z vidika cikličnih gospodarskih sprememb, ki jih je mogoče predvideti na datum predhodnega vrednotenja.
Furthermore, a method based on anticipated receipts and costs over a certain number of years has also been used in the assessment of the rateable values of hereditaments of gas and electricity operators, and is therefore not specific to BT.
Poleg tega se je metoda, ki temelji na pričakovanih prejemkih in stroških v določenih letih, uporabila tudi za oceno obdavčljivih vrednosti nepremičnin podjetij za plin in električno energijo, zato ni značilna samo za BT.
In the case of BT, given the prospect of increased competition and significant growth in competitors' networks which characterise the telecommunications sector, the use of forecast revenues and costs over five years is a reasonable methodology for assessing the hypothetical rent that a tenant with a reasonable prospect of continued occupation would be ready to pay for BT's network.
V primeru BT je glede na pričakovanje povečanja konkurence in precejšnje rasti omrežij konkurentov, ki sta značilna za sektor telekomunikacij, uporaba napovedanih prihodkov in stroškov v petih letih sprejemljiva metodologija za oceno hipotetične najemnine, ki bi jo bil najemnik z razumnim pričakovanjem neprekinjene uporabe pripravljen plačati za omrežje BT.
Conversely, the stability of the market on which Kingston is present, which is characterised by limited competition, justified that a five year projection was not deemed to be necessary.
Nasprotno pa je bila stabilnost trga, na katerem je prisoten Kingston in za katerega je značilna omejena konkurenca, upravičen razlog, da se petletna napoved ni štela za nujno potrebno.
On the specific question of the settlement concerning the 1995-2000 period, the UK authorities have provided detailed explanations as to the reasons why the final rateable value (GBP 445 million in England, GBP 25 million in Wales) was lower than the rateable value initially set by the Valuation Tribunal in its decision of 19 March 1998 (GBP 523 million for England and GBP 30 million in Wales).
V zvezi s posebnim vprašanjem o poravnavi, ki se je nanašala na obdobje 1995–2000, so organi Združenega kraljestva predložili podrobna pojasnila o tem, zakaj je bila končna obdavčljiva vrednost (445 milijonov GBP v Angliji, 25 milijonov GBP v Walesu) nižja od obdavčljive vrednosti, ki jo je Valuation Tribunal na začetku določil v svojem sklepu z dne 19. marca 1998 (523 milijonov GBP za Anglijo in 30 milijonov GBP za Wales).
These explanations, which are summarised in recitals 88 to 92, show that the final lower rateable value of BT's network was not negotiated between the VOA and BT, as claimed by Vtesse, but was arrived at through the use of revised and more precise data, which were disclosed by BT following the decision of the Valuation Tribunal and which were not available at the time of the 1997 valuation, and through the use of more precise methods of valuation following the Valuation Tribunal's decision.
Iz teh pojasnil, ki so povzeta v uvodnih izjavah 88 do 92, izhaja, da končne nižje obdavčljive vrednosti omrežja BT nista s pogajanji dosegla VOA in BT, kot to trdi Vtesse, ampak je bila določena z uporabo popravljenih in natančnejših podatkov, ki jih je BT razkril na podlagi sklepa Valuation Tribunal in jih ob vrednotenju iz leta 1997 ni bilo na voljo, ter natančnejšimi metodami vrednotenja, ki so se uporabljale po sklepu Valuation Tribunal.
In relation to a point raised in the decision to initiate the procedure, it is also to be noted that, when applying the R&E method, the UK authorities do consider the level of profitability of BT.
V zvezi z vprašanjem iz odločitve o sprožitvi postopka je treba tudi navesti, da organi Združenega kraljestva ob uporabi metode prejemkov in izdatkov upoštevajo stopnjo donosnosti BT.
As already explained in recital 93, valuation under the R&E method must proceed on the assumption of an average level of efficiency, and the UK authorities have established that BT fulfils this criterion.
Kot je bilo pojasnjeno že v uvodni izjavi 93, mora vrednotenje po metodi prejemkov in izdatkov temeljiti na predvideni povprečni ravni učinkovitosti, in organi Združenega kraljestva so dokazali, da BT izpolnjuje to merilo.
The Commission also notes that the Universal Services Obligations are correctly taken into account since both the costs and revenues deriving from such obligations are included in the overall valuation.
Komisija tudi navaja, da se obveznosti univerzalnih storitev ustrezno upoštevajo, saj so v celotno vrednotenje vključeni tako stroški kot prihodki, ki izhajajo iz takšnih obveznosti.
Concerning the application of a revision mechanism based on the evolution of market shares, described at recitals 96 to 99, and discontinued in 2005, the information received indicates that this was an ad-hoc adjustment mechanism.
Kar zadeva uporabo mehanizma pregledov, ki temelji na gibanju tržnih deležev in je opisan v uvodnih izjavah 96 do 99 in se po letu 2005 več ne uporablja, iz prejetih podatkov izhaja, da je šlo za ad hoc prilagoditveni mehanizem.
It is the Commission's understanding that, under Schedule 6 to the LGFA, the VOA is under a statutory obligation to alter the rateable value of an undertaking if a material change in circumstances (MCC) takes place and to take this MCC into account as if taking place at the Antecedent Valuation Date.
Komisija razume, da ima VOA na podlagi Schedule (specifikacija dohodkov pri davčni napovedi) 6 k LGFA zakonsko obveznost, da ob bistvenih spremembah okoliščin spremeni obdavčljivo vrednost podjetja in takšno spremembo okoliščin upošteva, kot da se je zgodila na datum predhodnega vrednotenja.
Given the size of BT's network, and the conditions of the telecommunications market, with the increasing development of competing networks, it is accepted that MCCs take place on a daily basis and are therefore difficult to take into account, especially in the context of the application of the R&E method.
Glede na velikost omrežja BT in razmere na trgu telekomunikacij, kjer se konkurenčna omrežja vedno bolj razvijajo, je razumljivo, da se bistvene spremembe okoliščin dogajajo vsak dan in jih je zato težko upoštevati, še posebej v okviru uporabe metode prejemkov in izdatkov.
This market share based mechanism is supposed to reflect physical extensions of BT's network (which should result in an increase of its market shares) and the roll-out of its competitors' networks (which should result in a decrease of BT's market shares).
Ta mehanizem, ki temelji na tržnem deležu, naj bi odražal fizične razširitve omrežja BT (kar bi moralo povzročiti povečanje njegovih tržnih deležev) in razvijanje omrežij njegovih konkurentov (kar bi moralo povzročiti zmanjšanje tržnih deležev BT).
Therefore, this revision mechanism appears to be a reasonable way of taking MCCs into account and can be justified by the characteristics of BT's network and the telecommunications markets.
Zato se ta mehanizem popravkov zdi smiseln način za upoštevanje bistvenih sprememb okoliščin in se lahko upraviči na podlagi značilnosti omrežja BT in trgov telekomunikacij.
The result of the application of this revision mechanism has led to fluctuations in the evolution of BT's rateable values.
Posledica uporabe tega mehanizma popravkov so bila nihanja pri gibanju obdavčljivih vrednosti BT.
For instance, in 1999, in the last year of the 1995-2000 period, BT's rateable value in England and Wales was GBP 366 million.
Na primer v letu 1999, zadnjem letu obdobja 1995–2000, je bila obdavčljiva vrednost BT v Angliji in Walesu 366 milijonov GBP.
In 2000, in the first year of the 2000-2005 period, its rateable value was set at GBP 493 million.
Leta 2000, v prvem letu obdobja 2000–2005, je bila njegova obdavčljiva vrednost določena na 493 milijonov GBP.
These fluctuations can be explained by the characteristics of the property tax and by the economic situation of the telecommunications sector in the United Kingdom.
Takšna nihanja je mogoče razložiti z značilnostmi davka od premoženja in gospodarskim položajem sektorja telekomunikacij v Združenem kraljestvu.
It must first be recalled that, under statutory requirements, for the 1995 valuation, BT's network was valued as it physically existed as at 1 April 1995, but on the assumption that it existed in that state in the economic conditions of 1 April 1993.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je bilo omrežje BT pri vrednotenju iz leta 1995 na podlagi zakonskih zahtev ovrednoteno, kot je fizično obstajalo 1. aprila 1995, vendar s predpostavko, da je v tem stanju obstajalo v gospodarskih razmerah 1. aprila 1993.
Material changes in circumstances were also treated as having occurred at 1 April 1993.
Tudi za bistvene spremembe okoliščin je veljalo, da so se zgodile 1. aprila 1993.
For the 2000 valuation, the same exercise was carried out, but having regard to the assumption that the hereditament was let in the economic context of 1 April 1998.
Vrednotenje iz leta 2000 je bilo izvedeno enako, vendar ob upoštevanju predpostavke, da je bila nepremičnina oddana v najem v gospodarskem okviru na dan 1. aprila 1998.
This is also true for Kingston.
To velja tudi za Kingston.
That means that the 1999 rateable value is the value of the hereditament as it physically existed in 1999, but in the economic context of 1993, i.e. at 1993 price levels and in a telecommunication market of the size it was in 1993.
To pomeni, da je obdavčljiva vrednost za leto 1999 vrednost nepremičnine, kot je fizično obstajala leta 1999, vendar v gospodarskem okviru iz leta 1993, tj. po ravneh cen iz leta 1993 in na trgu telekomunikacij v obsegu iz leta 1993.
However, the following year's rateable value, i.e. in 2000, was calculated by reference to the economic conditions, price levels and size of the telecommunications market as they were in 1998.
Vendar se je obdavčljiva vrednost v naslednjem letu, tj. leta 2000, izračunala z upoštevanjem gospodarskih razmer, ravni cen in obsega trga telekomunikacij iz leta 1998.