natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finland also provided a copy of a letter from a certified real estate agent stating that the market value per square metre of the different land types was slightly above the price used in the transaction in question.
Finska je predložila tudi kopijo pisma pooblaščenega nepremičninskega zastopnika, v katerem je navedeno, da je bila tržna vrednost kvadratnega metra različnih vrst zemljišč malo nad ceno, ki se je uporabila v zadevni transakciji.
As regards a large area of land situated in the centre of Karkkila called Asemansuo, Finland claims that the purchase price was calculated on the basis of the lower limit of permitted building area specified in the city plan, but no information was provided on which base the amount in euro per square metre was fixed.
V zvezi z velikim zemljiščem v centru mesta Karkkila na območju, ki se imenuje Asemansuo, Finska trdi, da je bila nakupna cena izračunana na podlagi nižje meje dovoljenega območja gradnje v mestnem načrtu, predloženi pa niso bili podatki, na podlagi česa je bil določen znesek v eurih za kvadratni meter.
Finally, as regards the value of land designated for parks, a valuation of EUR 456000 was considered by the real estate agent to be the market value.
V zvezi z zemljiščem, namenjenim za parke, je nepremičninski zastopnik menil, da je vrednost 456000 EUR enaka tržni vrednosti.
The Commission requested Finland to make a market valuation of all the land owned by KK at the time of the sales agreement.
Komisija je od Finske zahtevala, da pridobi tržno vrednost vseh zemljišč, ki so bile v lasti KK v času kupoprodajne pogodbe.
Finland replied that this was not needed, since Karkkila and Componenta had used a real estate agent to estimate the unit value of land similar to the land involved in the transaction and that a market evaluation had therefore already been done.
Finska je odgovorila, da to ni potrebno, saj sta Karkkila in Componenta pooblastili nepremičninskega zastopnika, da oceni vrednost na enoto zemljišča, podobno zemljišču, vključenem v transakcijo, in da je torej tržna vrednost že znana.
As regards the condition in the sales agreement stipulating that Karkkila would buy the shares in KK from Componenta only if Componenta invested in new production facilities (thereby moving its foundry from Alvesta, Sweden to Karkkila), Finland denies allegations by the Commission that this clause is a sign that the transaction was not market-based.
V zvezi s pogojem v kupoprodajni pogodbi, ki določa, da bo Karkkila kupila delnice Componente v KK samo pod pogojem, da bo Komponenta investirala v nove proizvodne zmogljivosti (in tako prenesla svojo livarno iz Alveste, Švedska, v Karkkilo), Finska zanika obtožbe Komisije, da je ta klavzula znak, da transakcija ni bila tržno zasnovana.
It justifies the clause by the fact that if Componenta’s activity were increased in Karkkila this would be favourable for the city, boosting its revenue.
Klavzulo upravičuje z dejstvom, da bi bila povečana dejavnost Componente v Karkkili ugodna za mesto, saj bi zvišala njegove prihodke.
It would also increase the demand for real estate, thereby raising the value of the land owned by KK.
Prav tako bi povečala povpraševanje po nepremičninah, zato bi vrednost zemljišč v lasti KK narastla.
Otherwise, Karkkila would not ‘need’ to conclude the transaction.
V nasprotnem primeru Karkkili ne bi bilo „treba“ skleniti transakcije.
Asked by the Commission whether Componenta had tried to find another buyer for the shares, Finland replied that it had not, since Karkkila had the right of first refusal to redeem the shares at the market price in the event of Componenta wanting to sell its shares in KK.
Na vprašanje Komisije, ali je Componenta poskušala poiskati drugega kupca za delnice, je Finska odgovorila, da ne, saj je imela Karkkila pravico do prve zavrnitve za izplačilo delnic po tržni ceni v primeru, da bi Componenta želela prodati svoje delnice v KK.
Finally, as regards the loan transaction, Finland confirms that the repayment of Componenta’s shareholder loan by new funds from Karkkila to KK was an integral part of the share transaction between Karkkila and Componenta and that the ‘total purchase price’ consisted of the payment for the shares and the repayment of the loan.
V zvezi s kreditnim poslom Finska potrjuje, da je bilo povračilo posojila delničarjev Componente z novimi sredstvi iz Karkkile v KK sestavni del prenosa delnic med Karkkilo in Componento in da je bila „skupna nakupna cena“ sestavljena iz plačila delnic in vračila posojila.
In this respect, Finland argues that the loan transaction too was market-based, since the total amount provided to Componenta for the shares and the loan, EUR 2,37 million, was less than the market value of half of KK.
V zvezi s tem Finska trdi, da je bil tudi kreditni posel tržno zasnovan, saj je bil skupni znesek, zagotovljen Componenti za delnice in posojilo, ki je znašal 2,37 milijona EUR, nižji od tržne vrednosti polovice KK.
Furthermore, Finland argues that KK’s financial situation had improved since 1996 when the loan was granted to KK by Componenta.
Poleg tega Finska trdi, da se je finančno stanje KK od leta 1996, ko je Componenta odobrila posojilo KK, izboljšalo.
Definition of aid
Opredelitev pomoči
According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, 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 is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market.
Člen 87(1) Pogodbe ES navaja, da 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.
Pursuant to the established case law of the European Courts, the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries out an economic activity involving trade between Member States.
V skladu z veljavno sodno prakso evropskih sodišč je merilo o vplivu na trgovino izpolnjeno, če podjetje prejemnik izvaja gospodarsko dejavnost, ki vključuje trgovino med državami članicami.
The activities of Componenta involve trade between Member States.
Dejavnosti Componente vključujejo trgovino med državami članicami.
Therefore, aid to this company would fall within the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
Zato pomoč tej družbi spada v okvir člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.
State resources include financial assistance granted by regional and local authorities.
Državna sredstva vključujejo finančno pomoč, ki jo odobrijo regionalne in lokalne oblasti.
In its decision to open the formal investigation the Commission stated that the aid amount would be the difference between the price a private investor would be willing to pay for the shares and the purchase price of EUR 2,37 million.
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi, da sproži formalni postopek preiskave, navedla, da je znesek pomoči razlika med ceno, ki bi jo bil za delnice pripravljen plačati zasebni investitor, in nakupno ceno v višini 2,37 milijona EUR.
The Commission notes that the total purchase price consisted of two parts.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila skupna nakupna cena sestavljena iz dveh delov.
First, Componenta received EUR 0,7 million in cash in return for its shares and, second, it was repaid EUR 1,67 million that it had provided as a loan to KK.
V prvem delu je Componenta prejela 0,7 milijona EUR v gotovini v zameno za delnice, v drugem delu pa ji je bilo povrnjenega 1,67 milijona EUR, ki jih je posodila KK.
Therefore, in total Componenta received EUR 2,37 million in the transaction concerned. The two elements will be assessed separately.
Skupaj je Componenta v zadevni transakciji torej prejela 2,37 milijona EUR. Ta dva dela bosta ocenjena ločeno.
The conditional clause
Pogojna klavzula
The Commission notes that one alternative for Componenta had been to move its foundry activities from Karkkila to Alvesta.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila alternativna možnost za Componento, da prenese svoje livarske dejavnosti iz Karkkile v Alvesto.
It is therefore understandable that Karkkila may have been concerned about the prospects of losing production facilities and thereby employment.
Zato je razumljivo, da je bila Karkkila zaskrbljena, saj bi lahko izgubila proizvodne zmogljivosti in s tem delovna mesta.
Furthermore, it may be correct that the demand for land would increase if a main employer in the city expanded its activities instead of reducing them.
Prav tako drži, da bi se lahko povpraševanje po zemljiščih povečalo, če bi glavni delodajalec v mestu svoje dejavnosti razširil namesto zmanjšal.
However, the fact that the issue of buying the shares in KK and providing a loan to KK was contractually linked with Componenta’s investment decision and that the city even had the right to cancel the entire transaction if Componenta did not make the promised investments in Karkkila proves that the decision of the city to perform the transaction with Componenta was not based only on the market value of KK, but took other considerations into account as well.
Vendar pa dejstvo, da sta bila nakup delnic v KK in zagotovitev posojila KK pogodbeno povezana z odločitvijo Componente glede naložb, in da je mesto imelo celo pravico prekiniti celotno transakcijo, če Componenta ne bi izvedla obljubljenih naložb v Karkkili, dokazuje, da odločitev mesta, da s Componento izvede transakcijo, ni temeljila le na tržni vrednosti KK, ampak so bili pri tem upoštevani tudi drugi vidiki.
However, according to the market economy investor principle, as established by the Court, a market economy investor takes his decisions having regard to the foreseeability of obtaining a return and leaving aside all social, regional policy and sectoral considerations.
Vendar pa po načelu vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki ga je določilo Sodišče, vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu svoje odločitve sprejema ob upoštevanju predvidevanj glede dobička, ne glede na socialne vidike, regionalno politiko ali sektorske vidike.
Given that Componenta’s investment in new production facilities was a direct condition for the financial transaction under investigation, it can be concluded that the behaviour of Karkkila did not comply with the market economy investor principle.
Glede na to, da je bila naložba Componente v nove proizvodne zmogljivosti neposreden pogoj za zadevno finančno transakcijo, je mogoče sklepati, da obnašanje Karkkile ni bilo v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
To accept boosting tax revenue and improving general welfare in the municipality as being market economy investor considerations would be to mix the roles of the city as a public authority and as commercial co-owner of KK.
Če bi sprejeli povečevanje davčnih prihodkov in izboljšanje splošne blaginje v občini kot vidike vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, bi pomešali vlogi mesta kot javne oblasti in mesta kot komercialnega solastnika KK.
The Commission also notes that that the Karkkila City Board at its meeting on 1 September 2003 stated that the transaction with Componenta was directly linked to its investment decision in Karkkila and that when Karkkila bought the shares of KK, Componenta would have the funds to make the investment in its Karkkila plant.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da je mestna oblast v Karkkili na seji dne 1. septembra 2003 izjavila, da je transakcija s Componento neposredno povezana z njeno odločitvijo glede naložb v Karkkili, in da bi Karkkila z nakupom delnic KK Componenti zagotovila sredstva, s katerimi bi slednja lahko izvedla naložbo v svojem obratu v Karkkili.
These observations further support the Commission’s findings below that the transaction was not market-based.
Te opombe dodatno podpirajo spodaj navedene ugotovitve Komisije, da transakcija ni bila tržno zasnovana.
The price for the shares
Cena za delnice
The price paid for the shares in KK is one part of the financial transaction between Karkkila and Componenta.
Cena, plačana za delnice v KK, je en del finančne transakcije med Karkkilo in Componento.
The issue is whether this price was market based.
Vprašanje je, ali je bila ta cena tržno zasnovana.
Finland justified the price of the shares in KK in terms of the net value of the assets owned by KK.
Finska je ceno delnic v KK upravičila z neto vrednostjo sredstev, ki so v lasti KK.
However, the transaction at issue is not a sale of real estate itself, but the acquisition of shares in a company.
Vendar pa zadevna transakcija ni prodaja nepremičnin, ampak pridobitev delnic v družbi.
For such investment, a market economy operator would base his assessment of the market price primarily on the likely return he could expect from his investment.
Vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu bi za takšno naložbo svojo oceno tržne cene osnoval predvsem na predvidenem donosu, ki bi ga lahko pričakoval od svoje naložbe.
This is because a market economy investor invests in view of the profits, i.e. the expected return on the investment.
To pa zato, ker vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu investira v želji po dobičku, tj. po pričakovanem donosu naložbe.
He would therefore have taken into account the ratio between the expected yearly return on the shares and the capital invested in order to see whether he could expect an appropriate return, compared to other investment alternatives.
Zato bi upošteval razmerje med pričakovanim letnim donosom delnic in investiranim kapitalom, da bi ocenil, ali lahko pričakuje ustrezen donos v primerjavi z drugimi naložbenimi alternativami.
On the basis of the results of the last few years, the return on an investment in KK would clearly be negative.
Na podlagi rezultatov zadnjih nekaj let je mogoče sklepati, da bi bil donos naložbe v KK zagotovo negativen.
Moreover, there are no signs that this situation is set to improve in the future.
Prav tako nič ne kaže, da naj bi se ta položaj v prihodnosti izboljšal.
Finland has not provided any KK business plan setting out measures planned to improve the profit situation nor has it even claimed that Karkkila had any expectations of improvement in profits and return.
Finska ni predložila nobenega poslovnega načrta KK, v katerem bi bili določeni ukrepi, načrtovani za izboljšanje dobička, niti ni trdila, da Karkkila pričakuje kakršno koli izboljšanje dobička in donosa.
The reason for the negative results is that KK was clearly in difficulties, the demand for its land was weak and revenue from its land was only marginal.
Vzrok za negativne rezultate so očitne težave KK, saj je bilo povpraševanje po njenih zemljiščih nizko, prihodek od zemljišč pa je bil le neznaten.
The company had shown losses for the past four years, had very low sales, could not distribute any dividends and had a precarious financial situation.
Družba je imela izgube v preteklih štirih letih, imela je zelo nizko prodajo, ni mogla razdeliti dividend in je bila v negotovem finančnem stanju.
Furthermore, this difficult financial situation existed even though the company was benefiting from interest-free loans.
Še več, družba je bila v tako težkem finančnem stanju, kljub temu da je prejemala brezobrestna posojila.
Had it financed its activities by normal loans with interest, the situation would have been even worse.
Če bi svoje dejavnosti financirala z običajnimi posojili z obrestmi, bi bilo stanje še slabše.
On the basis of past experience, and lacking any prospects of an improvement in the company's financial situation, a market investor could not have expected any return on investment when purchasing the shares of KK.
Tržni vlagatelj na podlagi preteklih izkušenj in na podlagi pomanjkanja kakršnih koli obetov za izboljšanje finančnega stanja družbe pri nakupu delnic KK ne bi mogel pričakovati donosa od svoje naložbe.
Based on this, the Commission considers that the value of the shares in KK was zero.
Zato Komisija meni, da je bila vrednost delnic v KK enaka nič.
This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that KK was, as explained above, to a large extent financed by two interest-free shareholder loans.
To ugotovitev potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da je KK, kakor je razloženo zgoraj, sredstva v veliki meri črpala iz dveh brezobrestnih posojil delničarjev.
This means that a change of ownership in the shares would have to be accompanied by the takeover of the interest-free loans, which, as will be explained below, a market investor would not have done.
To pomeni, da bi moral spremembi lastništva delnic slediti tudi prevzem brezobrestnih posojil, česar pa, kakor bo razloženo spodaj, tržni vlagatelj ne bi mogel storiti.
As already stated above, what is decisive is the expected return in the long run, which might differ from the return actually generated in the past.
Kakor je navedeno že zgoraj, je odloèilen prièakovani dolgoroèni donos, ki bi se lahko razlikoval od dejanskega donosa v preteklosti.
Nevertheless, a market economy investor would also take past performance into account.
Kljub temu pa bi vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu upošteval tudi uspešnost v preteklosti.
As regards expected returns, the crucial question is whether KK could reasonably be expected to generate adequate income through sale of land and through the leasing out of land.
V zvezi s prièakovanimi donosi je kljuèno vprašanje, ali je mogoèe razumno prièakovati, da bi KK ustvarila ustrezen prihodek s prodajo zemljišè in z oddajanjem zemljišè v zakup.
This is linked to the valuation of the real estate in its totality as discussed below.
To je povezano z vrednotenjem vseh nepremiènin, kakor je pojasnjeno spodaj.
Finland explained that the value of the land owned by KK was the basis for the valuation of the shares.
Finska je obrazložila, da je bila vrednost zemljišè, ki so v lasti KK, osnova za vrednotenje delnic.
It is true that the net value of assets is also considered by a market economy investor for his decision.
Res je, da vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu pri svoji odloèitvi upošteva tudi neto vrednost sredstev.
The Finnish argumentation for the valuation of the shares is summarised in the table below:
Finska utemeljitev vrednotenja delnic je povzeta v spodnji tabeli:
Value of KK according to Finland:
Vrednost KK po mnenju Finske
Land type
Vrsta zemljišča
Value according to Finland (Euro)
Vrednost po mnenju Finske (EUR)
For detached houses
Za samostojne hiše
For terraced houses and apartment blocks
Za vrstne hiše in stanovanjske bloke
Parks and communal land
Parki in komunalna zemljišča
Other area (Haapala)
Druga površina (Haapala)
Total land value
Skupna vrednost zemljišč
Book equity of KK
Knjižna sredstva KK
Debts of KK
Dolgovi KK
Net value KK
Neto vrednost KK
Net value 50 % of KK
Neto vrednost 50 % KK
Price paid by city
Cena, ki jo je plačalo mesto
0(36) The considerations of the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities do not apply directly, because the transaction does not concern individual pieces of real estate, but shares in a company.
0(36) Preudarki Sporočila Komisije o elementih državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti ne veljajo neposredno, ker transakcija ne zadeva posameznih delov nepremičnin, ampak delnice v družbi.
However, they can be applied by analogy in this case, since the aim of the Commission’s Communication, which is to ensure that transactions between public and private undertakings involving land are free from aid, is relevant for both the sale and purchase of land by public undertakings and also because in this case Finland argues that the valuation of the land was the basis for setting the price of the shares.
Vendar pa jih je mogoče v tem primeru uporabiti po podobnosti, saj je namen Sporočila Komisije, ki je zagotoviti, da transakcije med javnimi in zasebnimi podjetji, ki vključujejo zemljišča, ne vsebujejo pomoči, pomemben za prodajo in tudi za nakup zemljišč s strani javnih podjetij, in ker v tem primeru Finska trdi, da je ocena vrednosti zemljišč služila kot osnova za določitev cene delnic.
The Communication states that land evaluation, if not based on an unconditional bidding procedure, should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale, in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards.
Sporočilo določa, da mora vrednotenje zemljišča, če ne temelji na brezpogojnem ponudbenem postopku, pred prodajo izvesti eden ali več neodvisnih cenilcev, da se določi tržna vrednost na podlagi splošno sprejetih tržnih kazalnikov in standardov vrednotenja.
The Commission notes that the land was not evaluated on the basis of an unconditional bidding procedure.
Komisija ugotavlja, da zemljišèe ni bilo vrednoteno na podlagi brezpogojnega ponudbenega postopka.
Therefore a valuation should have been made by an independent asset valuer.
Zato bi moral vrednotenje izvesti neodvisni cenilec.
The question is whether the valuation made by Finland fulfils the requirement for such an independent asset valuation.
Vprašanje je, ali vrednotenje, ki ga je izvedla Finska, izpolnjuje zahtevo za takšno neodvisno vrednotenje osnovnih sredstev.
The Commission firstly notes that the short report from a real estate agent provided by Finland does not clearly indicate that it concerns the valuation of land owned by KK.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da v kratkem poroèilu nepremièninskega zastopnika, ki ga je predložila Finska, ni jasno navedeno, da zadeva vrednotenje zemljišèa v lasti KK.
The relevance of this report will be further assessed below.
Relevantnost tega poroèila bo podrobneje ocenjena spodaj.
The Commission notes that the land owned by KK was valued in different ways for different types of land, i.e. land for detached houses, land for terraced houses and blocks of flats, a specific area called Asemansuo, and parks and communal land.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so bila zemljišèa v lasti KK vrednotena razlièno glede na vrsto zemljišè, tj. zemljišèa za samostojne hiše, zemljišèa za vrstne hiše in stanovanjske bloke, posebno obmoèje, imenovano Asemansuo, ter parki in komunalna zemljišèa.
These different land types will be analysed separately.
Te razliène vrste zemljišè bodo analizirane loèeno.
As regards land for detached houses, the valuation was based on Karkkila’s official unit sales price for such land of EUR 10,19 per square metre.
Pri zemljišèih za samostojne hiše je vrednotenje temeljijo na uradni prodajni ceni Karkkile na enoto za takšno zemljišèe, ki znaša 10,19 EUR za kvadratni meter.
The Commission notes that this was the price used by the city to sell land to individual buyers and thus the retail price.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila to cena, ki jo je mesto uporabljalo za prodajo zemljišè posameznim kupcem, torej je bila to maloprodajna cena.
Finland also provided information from a real estate expert on the unit value (for the final customer, i.e. also in this case the retail value) of different types of land in Karkkila.
Finska je predložila tudi podatke nepremièninskega izvedenca za vrednost enote (za konènega kupca, tj. v tem primeru tudi za maloprodajno ceno) razliènih vrst zemljišè v Karkkili.
The expert notes that such land was sold in Karkkila for between EUR 9,43 and EUR 14,76 per square metre in 2003, but also notes that the price used by Karkkila is close to the going value for land, without providing any further details.
Izvedenec ugotavlja, da so se takšna zemljišèa v letu 2003 v Karkkili prodajala za ceno med 9,43 EUR in 14,76 EUR za kvadratni meter, ugotavlja pa tudi, da je cena, ki jo je uporabila Karkkila, blizu dejanske vrednosti zemljišèa, pri èemer pa ne podaja natanènejše razlage.
However, the Commission notes that there was no actual external valuation made of the specific land to be used for detached houses that was owned by KK.
Vendar Komisija ugotavlja, da dejansko zunanje ocenjevanje specifiènih zemljišè v lasti KK, namenjenih za samostojne hiše, ni bilo izvedeno.
Furthermore, there was no estimation of the wholesale value of the land.
Prav tako ni bila podana ocena veleprodajne vrednosti zemljišè.