natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the case of BT, however, the fact that there is no evidence of the existence of an advantage at the level of the overall valuation of its hereditament does not necessarily exclude the possibility that marginal taxation, i.e. on the rating of newly lit fibres, does grant an advantage to this firm.
Vendar pa v primeru BT dejstvo, da ni nikakršnih dokazov o obstoju ugodnosti na ravni skupnega vrednotenja njegovih nepremičnin, nujno ne izključuje možnosti, da mejna obdavčitev, tj. na novo priključena vlakna, temu podjetju vendarle prinaša ugodnost.
In fact, the comments provided by several third parties indicate that the different way of rating BT and the other telecommunication operators when they light a new fibre may result in distortions of competition when these firms compete for the same contract.
Iz pripomb, ki jih je podalo več tretjih strank, dejansko izhaja, da lahko različen način odmere davka za BT in druge telekomunikacijske operaterje, ko priključijo novo optično vlakno, povzroči izkrivljanje konkurence, če se ta podjetja potegujejo za isto pogodbo.
This problem raises the more general question of the revisions of rateable values that are conducted annually by the VOA.
Na podlagi te težave se zastavlja splošnejše vprašanje glede popravkov obdavčljivih vrednosti, ki jih vsako leto izvaja VOA.
As explained above, when a telecoms operator to which the rental method is applied connects and lights a new fibre, its rateable value is increased by the rateable value of this new fibre.
Kot je razloženo zgoraj, se obdavčljiva vrednost telekomunikacijskega operaterja, pri katerem se uporabi metoda najemnine, poveča za obdavčljivo vrednost novega vlakna, ki ga ta poveže in priključi.
The opposite takes place when it switches off and disconnects a fibre: the fibres' rateable value is then deducted.
Nasprotno se zgodi, če vlakno prekine ali ga izključi: takrat se obdavčljiva vrednost optičnih vlaken odšteje.
Telecommunication operators that are assessed under the R&E method are not subject to this type of precise adjustment.
Za telekomunikacijske operaterje, ki so ocenjeni po metodi prejemkov in izdatkov, se tovrstna natančna prilagoditev ne uporablja.
In the case of BT, the annual revisions are based on a market adjustment mechanism: changes in BT's market shares are supposed to reflect changes in the value of its network.
Letni popravki v primeru BT temeljijo na mehanizmu tržne prilagoditve: spremembe tržnih deležev BT naj bi odražale spremembe vrednosti njegovega omrežja.
The question is therefore whether the different way of taking into account changes in the networks, such as the lighting of new fibres, is likely to confer an advantage on BT.
Gre torej za vprašanje, ali drugačen način upoštevanja sprememb v omrežjih, na primer priključitve novih optičnih vlaken, lahko pomeni ugodnost za BT.
It is the understanding of the Commission that, on the basis of the business plans provided by BT, the VOA assesses the hypothetical rent that can be expected from BT's hereditament on the basis of the anticipated receipts and expenditure deriving from the occupation of that hereditament.
Komisija to razume, kot da VOA na podlagi poslovnih načrtov, ki jih predloži BT, oceni hipotetično najemnino, ki se lahko pričakuje za nepremičnino BT, in sicer na podlagi pričakovanih prejemkov in izdatkov, ki izhajajo iz uporabe te nepremičnine.
The valuation will therefore include any extension of the network, including the lighting of new optic fibres, which will be required to meet the anticipated demand.
Vrednotenje bo torej vključevalo vsakršno razširitev omrežja, vključno s priključitvijo novih optičnih vlaken, ki bodo potrebna za izpolnitev pričakovanega povpraševanja.
The lighting of new optic fibres, whether leased or actually owned by BT, is therefore anticipated and taken into account by the VOA.
Priključitev novih optičnih vlaken, bodisi zakupljenih ali dejansko v lasti BT, je torej pričakovana in jo VOA upošteva.
In fact, because of this valuation method, and unlike the telecommunications operators that are assessed under the rental method, BT is rated on dark fibres as well, on the assumption that some of these dark fibres will be lit in the course of the following five year valuation period.
Pravzaprav je BT zaradi takšne metode vrednotenja in v nasprotju s telekomunikacijskimi operaterji, ki so ocenjeni po metodi najemnine, obdavčen tudi na temna vlakna, in sicer ob domnevi, da se bodo nekatera od teh temnih vlaken priključila med naslednjim petletnim obdobjem.
Finally, the annual reassessment based on the evaluation of BT's market shares is meant to capture the material changes to BT's network.
In končno, letna ponovna ocenitev, ki temelji na oceni tržnih deležev BT, naj bi zajela bistvene spremembe omrežja BT.
Therefore, it is not correct to say that BT does not face any incremental tax liability, as suggested by the complainant or third parties such as Altnet.
Potemtakem je napak reči, da za BT ne velja nobena dodatna davčna obveznost, kot namigujejo pritožnik in tretje stranke, na primer Altnet.
Certainly, with a network hereditament in England currently with a rateable value of GBP 530000000 which is valued as a whole, a small incremental change such as the additional lighting of a fibre is less likely to have a discernible impact on BT than on a small operator such as Vtesse.
Vsekakor je pri BT z omrežno nepremičnino v Angliji, katere trenutna obdavčljiva vrednost znaša 530000000 GBP in je ovrednotena kot celota, manj verjeten opazen vpliv majhne postopne spremembe, kakršna je dodatna priključitev optičnega vlakna, kot pri majhnem operaterju, kakršen je Vtesse.
Furthermore, increases in value of BT's network are offset by factors resulting in a decrease of that value, such as the rolling out of competing capacity.
Poleg tega se povečanja vrednosti omrežja BT izravnajo z dejavniki, ki povzročijo zmanjšanje navedene vrednosti, na primer razvitje konkurenčne zmogljivosti.
This makes the impact of the lighting of new fibres by BT even less visible.
Zaradi tega je vpliv priključitve novih optičnih vlaken, ki jo izvede BT, še manj opazen.
That does not mean however, that these newly lit fibres are not rated.
Kljub temu pa to ne pomeni, da ta novo priključena optična vlakna niso obdavčena.
It is also alleged by Vtesse that, in a typical bid such as the one for the provision of backbone and access telecommunication links to Kent MAN, its rate liability represented 16 % of expected recurring revenues.
Vtesse tudi trdi, da je pri značilni ponudbi, kakršna je ponudba za zagotavljanje hrbteničnih in telekomunikacijskih povezav dostopa za Kent MAN, njegova davčna obveznost pomenila 16 % pričakovanih tekočih prihodkov.
On the same bid, it claims that BT was, at most, rated at 2 %, which is BT's alleged average rates/receipts ratio.
V zvezi z isto ponudbo trdi, da je bil BT obdavčen z največ 2 %, kar je domnevno povprečno razmerje med davkom in prejemki BT.
Vtesse concludes that BT is much less taxed on a comparable and in this case identical transaction and therefore that it receives a clear advantage.
Vtesse ugotavlja, da je BT mnogo manj obdavčen za primerljiv in v tem primeru identičen posel ter da je zato deležen očitne ugodnosti.
That approach cannot be retained.
Navedenega pristopa ni mogoče ohraniti.
First of all, it is not correct to assume that, since BT has an average rates/receipts ratio of 2 %, it was taxed at 2 % on that bid.
Prvič, napak je domnevati, da je BT na to ponudbo plačal 2-odstotni davek, ker njegovo povprečno razmerje med davkom in prejemki znaša 2 %.
That ratio is calculated on the basis of BT's overall rateable value, to which the value of the fibres lit by BT following the Kent MAN contract were added, either in anticipation or on the basis of the market share based revision mechanism.
Navedeno razmerje je izračunano na podlagi skupne obdavčljive vrednosti BT, ki ji je bila dodana vrednost optičnih vlaken, ki jih je BT priključil po pogodbi Kent MAN, in sicer vnaprej ali na podlagi mehanizma popravkov, ki temelji na tržnem deležu.
In order to make an appropriate and correct comparison with Vtesse's tax liability on that bid, it would be necessary to determine by how much the contract concerned increased the rateable value of BT's network, either in anticipation or via the annual revision mechanism.
Za ustrezno in natančno primerjavo z obveznostjo plačila davka, ki jo ima Vtesse v zvezi s to ponudbo, bi bilo treba ugotoviti, za koliko je zadevna pogodba povečala obdavčljivo vrednost omrežja BT, in sicer vnaprej ali na podlagi letnega mehanizma popravkov.
The anticipated valuation makes an overall assessment from which it is not possible to identify individual contracts.
Z vnaprejšnjim vrednotenjem se izvede skupna ocena, iz katere ni mogoče opredeliti posameznih pogodb.
Therefore, it is not possible to determine by how much the Kent Man contract has increased the rateable value of BT's network.
Tako ni mogoče ugotoviti, za koliko je pogodba Kent Man povečala obdavčljivo vrednost omrežja BT.
In any case, it would not lead to definitive conclusions concerning the possible existence of an advantage and therefore the existence of State aid.
Vsekakor pa to ne bi pripeljalo do dokončnih ugotovitev v zvezi z morebitnim obstojem ugodnosti, torej v zvezi z obstojem državne pomoči.
Vtesse's rate liability on this bid cannot be seen as a benchmark on the basis of which it is possible to assess the existence of an advantage to BT within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
Davčna obveznost Vtesse v zvezi s to ponudbo se ne more šteti za merilo uspešnosti, na podlagi katerega bi se lahko ocenil obstoj ugodnosti za BT v smislu člena 87(1) ES.
The tax liability is in fact likely to change depending on the technical solution chosen, the cost structure of the firms presenting a bid and the length of the optic fibre network operators will use to provide the services and, most importantly, will depend on the extent to which they will have to light new fibres.
Davčna obveznost se bo dejansko verjetno spremenila, odvisno od izbrane tehnične rešitve, stroškovne strukture podjetij, ki so predložila ponudbo, dolžine omrežja iz optičnih vlaken, ki ga bodo operaterji uporabljali za zagotavljanje storitev, in kar je najpomembneje, odvisna bo od obsega, v katerem bodo morali priključiti nova optična vlakna.
Thus, under the rental method, a telecommunications operator who provided the service by using an already lit fibre would not face any increase in rates.
Potemtakem za telekomunikacijske operaterje, ki bi storitev zagotavljali z uporabo že priključenega optičnega vlakna, po najemni metodi ne bi veljalo nikakršno zvišanje davka.
The same reasoning can be applied to the argument Vtesse based on a comparison between the prices of BT's Wholesale Extension Services (‘WES’) and the rates that an operator valued under the rental method would have to pay if it were lighting optic fibres for the purpose of providing the same service.
Enako sklepanje lahko uporabimo pri trditvi, ki jo je Vtesse utemeljil na primerjavi cen medoperaterskih storitev razširitve (Wholesale Extension Services) BT z davkom, ki bi ga moral plačati operater, ovrednoten po metodi najemnine, če bi zaradi zagotavljanja enake storitve priključil optična vlakna.
Depending on the capacity and distances of the WES, Vtesse claims that such an operator could have to pay rates worth up to 87 % of the price charged by BT and sees that as further evidence of the fact that BT's optic network is undervalued or not properly taxed at the margin.
Vtesse trdi, da je mogoče, da bi glede na zmogljivost in oddaljenost medoperaterskih storitev razširitve takšen operater moral plačati davek, vreden do 87 % cene, ki jo zaračunava BT, in to šteje za dodaten dokaz dejstva, da je omrežje iz optičnih vlaken BT ovrednoteno prenizko in ni ustrezno obdavčeno po najvišji stopnji.
However, the argument is based on the assumption that the hypothetical operator would have a single pair of lit fibre on the same route as the one chosen by BT.
Vendar trditev temelji na domnevi, da bi hipotetični operater na istem usmerjanju, kot ga je izbral BT, imel priključen samo en par optičnih vlaken.
However, if this operator uses an already lit fibre in order to provide its WES, the extra costs in rates under the rental method will be nil.
Če ta operater za zagotavljanje svojih medoperaterskih storitev razširitve uporabi že priključeno optično vlakno, pa po najemni metodi ne bo dodatnih stroškov v obliki davka.
Furthermore, if he lights new fibres on a route on which he already has several lit optic fibres, than the marginal costs of the operation will be much lower since the more optic fibres per route, the lower the rates per fibre.
Še več, če priključi nova optična vlakna na usmerjanju, na katerem ima priključenih že več optičnih vlaken, potem bodo spremenljivi stroški poslovanja mnogo nižji, kajti več ko je optičnih vlaken na posameznem usmerjanju, manjši je davek na optično vlakno.
Again, no conclusion can be drawn from this argument.
Tudi iz te trditve ni mogoče izpeljati nikakršnega sklepa.
In the light of these facts, the allegation that BT is not rated at the margin is not correct.
Z vidika teh dejstev trditev, da BT ni obdavčen po najvišji stopnji, ni pravilna.
Even if, as suggested by Vtesse, the unit of analysis is the taxation of contracts on which Vtesse and BT compete, it appears that there is no obvious advantage to BT: it is taxed on newly lit fibres, albeit differently and less transparently.
Tudi če je, kot to domneva Vtesse, enota za analizo obdavčitev pogodb, pri katerih si Vtesse in BT konkurirata, se zdi, da pri tem ni nikakršne očitne ugodnosti za BT: obdavčen je na novo priključena vlakna, čeprav drugače in manj pregledno.
The Commission also notes that, because the R&E method is based on anticipated revenues, BT is rated on dark fibres on the assumption that these fibres will have to be lit to meet the anticipated demand.
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da je zato, ker metoda prejemkov in izdatkov temelji na pričakovanih prihodkih, BT obdavčen na temna vlakna ob domnevi, da se bodo ta optična vlakna morala priključiti za izpolnitev pričakovanega povpraševanja.
Therefore, unlike other telecommunications operators which are rated only once they light a fibre, BT is also rated on dark fibres.
Potemtakem je BT v nasprotju z drugimi telekomunikacijskimi operaterji, ki so obdavčeni šele, ko optično vlakno priključijo, obdavčen tudi na temna vlakna.
The Commission can therefore concur with OFCOM when it says that ‘the system [of revisions] would appear to provide a materially symmetrical outcome in the long-term in each case, albeit through different routes and with low levels of transparency.’
Komisija torej lahko soglaša z uradom OFCOM, ko pravi, da „se zdi, da bi sistem [popravkov] v vsakem primeru dolgoročno zagotovil bistveno simetričen rezultat, čeprav po različnih poteh in z nizkimi ravnmi preglednosti“.
The absence of any obvious competition issue is further confirmed when the market shares on the market for the provision of high bandwidth services to corporate customers are considered, on which BT is in direct competition with Vtesse.
Pomanjkanje vsakršnega očitnega vprašanja glede konkurence se nadalje potrjuje, če upoštevamo tržne deleže na trgu za zagotavljanje širokopasovnih storitev podjetjem, na katerem BT neposredno konkurira Vtesse.
According to figures provided by BT, BT's share on that market is 12 %, and it is only the fourth largest player.
Po podatkih, ki jih je zagotovil BT, ima na navedenem trgu 12-odstotni delež in je šele četrti največji udeleženec.
According to figures provided by OFCOM, BT has [10-15] % of the market in the provision of traditional interface leased lines of 622 Mbit/s and above.
Po podatkih, ki jih je zagotovil OFCOM, ima BT [10-15] % trga pri zagotavljanju tradicionalnih zakupljenih vodov prek vmesnika s 622 Mbit/s in več.
Despite being the incumbent in the telecommunications sector, it therefore appears that BT had a relatively low market share in this specific market.
Kljub temu da gre za operaterja s precejšnjim tržnim deležem v sektorju telekomunikacij, se torej zdi, da ima BT na tem specifičnem trgu dokaj nizek tržni delež.
It could be assumed that, if BT was indeed enjoying such a substantial advantage in the form of an exemption from marginal taxation on new fibres, its market share would be significantly higher.
Če bi bil BT v resnici deležen tako velike ugodnosti v obliki izvzetja od mejne obdavčitve na nova vlakna, bi lahko domnevali, da bo njegov tržni delež precej višji.
Therefore, data available to the Commission do not confirm the allegation that BT benefits from a competitive advantage which would make it very difficult for other telecommunications operators to compete with it on this specific market.
Podatki, ki jih ima na razpolago Komisija, torej ne potrjujejo trditve, da je BT deležen konkurenčne ugodnosti, zaradi katere naj bi mu drugi telekomunikacijski operaterji zelo težko konkurirali na tem specifičnem trgu.
As a final point on the question of revisions, the Commission also raised the concern in its decision to initiate the procedure that ‘while BT does enjoy a downward revision mechanism, there does not seem to be a similar systematic review of market conditions faced by competitors’.
Kot zadnjo točko v zvezi z vprašanjem popravkov je Komisija v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka izrazila tudi pomislek, da „za BT v resnici velja mehanizem popravkov navzdol, medtem ko se zdi, da ni podobnega sistematičnega pregleda tržnih pogojev, ki veljajo za konkurente“.
In view of the explanations provided by the UK authorities and BT, the Commission is satisfied that this concern is unfounded.
Ob upoštevanju pojasnil, ki so jih zagotovili organi Združenega kraljestva in BT, je Komisija zadovoljna, da je ta pomislek neutemeljen.
BT is not subject to a downward revision mechanism only: as already explained, the revision mechanism applied to BT is based on the evolution of its market shares.
Za BT ne velja samo mehanizem popravkov navzdol: kot je bilo že pojasnjeno, mehanizem popravkov, ki se uporablja za BT, temelji na gibanju njegovih tržnih deležev.
It is true that for a certain number of years, its market shares, and therefore its rateable value, decreased, which reflected a loss in value due to increased competition.
Res je, da so se njegovi tržni deleži in s tem tudi njegova obdavčljiva vrednost nekaj let zmanjševali, kar je odražalo izgubo vrednosti zaradi povečane konkurence.
In 2003 and 2004, however, its rateable value increased by GBP 4 million and GBP 7,1 million respectively.
Vendar se je njegova obdavčljiva vrednost v letu 2003 povečala za 4 milijone GBP, leta 2004 pa za 7,1 milijona GBP.
As to competitors, they can, and have indeed, benefited from downward revisions: for instance, they received a 15 % discount on the rateable value of their optic fibre networks as of 1 April 2001 and a 25 % discount as of 1 April 2002 in order to reflect oversupply in that sector.
Tudi za konkurente so se lahko in so se tudi dejansko uporabljali popravki navzdol: na primer, po 1. aprilu 2001 so bili deležni 15-odstotnega in po 1. aprilu 2002 25-odstotnega znižanja obdavčljive vrednosti svojih omrežij iz optičnih vlaken, da bi se odražala prevelika ponudba v navedenem sektorju.
As a result, the rateable value of a fibre pair fell from GBP 1000 per km outside the London area in 2000 to GBP 850 per km in 2001, and GBP 750 between 2002 and 2004.
Na podlagi tega je se obdavčljiva vrednost para optičnih vlaken s 1000 GBP na km zunaj območja Londona v letu 2000 znižala na 850 GBP na km v letu 2001 in na 750 GBP med letoma 2002 in 2004.
Under the 2005-2010 list, the rateable value of km of fibre pair has further fallen to GBP 500.
Na podlagi seznama za obdobje 2005–2010 se je obdavčljiva vrednost kilometra para optičnih vlaken nadalje znižala še na 500 GBP.
It means that an operator whose optic fibre network remained stable over that period would have enjoyed a 50 % reduction of its rateable value.
To pomeni, da naj bi bil operater, katerega omrežje iz optičnih vlaken je bilo v navedenem obdobju ves čas stabilno, deležen 50-odstotnega znižanja svoje obdavčljive vrednosti.
In conclusion, it should be recalled that business rates are a tax on the value of the property concerned.
Na koncu je treba opozoriti, da poslovni davek pomeni davek na vrednost zadevnega premoženja.
They are not a tax on profits or revenues.
Ne gre za davek na dobiček ali prihodek.
They are normally applied on all non-domestic properties, and consequently are applied to all telecommunications networks.
Običajno se odmeri na vso nestanovanjsko lastnino in posledično tudi na vsa telekomunikacijska omrežja.
According to British case-law, all telecommunications networks are valued as a whole.
V skladu z britansko sodno prakso so vsa telekomunikacijska omrežja ovrednotena kot celota.
There are several methods for valuing such property.
Za določitev vrednosti takšnega premoženja obstaja več metod.
When all methods can be applied, they should result in the same valuation.
Kadar se lahko uporabijo vse metode, morajo vse dati enako vrednotenje.
The use of a specific valuation method depends on the circumstances of the case.
Uporaba posebne metode vrednotenja je odvisna od okoliščin primera.
It now appears that the VOA has applied to BT and Kingston the general rules concerning business rates as laid down in the legislation and case-law.
Zdaj kaže, da je VOA za BT in Kingston uporabila splošna pravila o poslovnem davku, določena z zakonodajo in sodno prakso.
It is clear that the valuation of BT's and Kingston's hereditaments as well as the revisions of these rateable values, are carried out on the basis of a different method than in the case of their competitors.
Jasno je, da se vrednotenje nepremičnin BT in Kingstona ter popravki teh obdavčljivih vrednosti izvajajo na podlagi drugačne metode kot pri drugih konkurentih.
However, the Commission can conclude that there is no evidence that the use of this different method is not justified by the objective differences between those firms and their competitors and by the extent of the evidence available to the VOA.
Vendar Komisija lahko ugotovi, da ni nikakršnih dokazov, da uporaba takšne drugačne metode ni upravičena zaradi objektivnih razlik med navedenima podjetjema in njunimi konkurenti ter obsega dokazov, ki jih ima na razpolago VOA.
There is no evidence that the application of a different valuation method to BT and to Kingston has resulted in an advantage to these firms in comparison with their competitors.
Nobenega dokaza ni, da je uporaba drugačne metode vrednotenja pri BT in Kingstonu tema podjetjema prinesla ugodnost v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenti.
Since there is no evidence of an advantage, the Commission can conclude that the non-domestic rates system has not provided State aid to BT and/or Kingston within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC during the period considered by the Commission i.e. 1995-2005.
Ker ni dokazov o ugodnosti, Komisija lahko ugotovi, da sistem za odmero davka na nestanovanjsko lastnino v obdobju, ki ga obravnava Komisija, tj. 1995–2005, BT in/ali Kingstonu ni zagotavljal državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) ES –
The application by the United Kingdom of the tax on non-domestic property to BT plc and Kingston Communications plc from 1995 until the end of 2005 does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.
Davek na nestanovanjsko lastnino, ki ga je Združeno kraljestvo odmerilo za BT plc in Kingston Communications plc od leta 1995 do konca leta 2005, ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe.
Done at Brussels, 12 October 2006.
V Bruslju, 12. oktober 2006.
OJ C 62,12.3.2005, p. 10.
UL C 62, 12.3.2005, str. 10.
Available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880041_en_1.htm
Na voljo na spletni strani http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880041_en_1.htm
The 2005-2010 rental value of optic fibre set by the VOA is the object of an appeal, and could be lowered if the appeal is successful.
Najemna vrednost optičnega vlakna za obdobje 2005–2010, ki jo je določila VOA, je predmet pritožbe in se lahko zniža, če bo pritožba uspešna.