natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the view of the Commission it is evident that the value of land at the retail stage is considerably higher than when land is sold in large quantities (such as in this case, where KK owned 80 plots for detached houses) where the buyer's intention is not to use it, but to sell it on at a later date.
Po mnenju Komisije je jasno, da je vrednost zemljišè na ravni maloprodaje obèutno višja, kot èe se zemljišèa prodajajo v velikih kolièinah (kot je bilo v tem primeru, saj je KK imela v lasti 80 parcel za samostojne hiše), kjer jih kupec nima namena uporabljati, ampak pozneje prodati naprej.
Therefore, an evaluation whereby the estimated retail value for one type of land is simply multiplied by the total amount of land owned by KK contains two errors.
Zato ocena, pri kateri je ocenjena maloprodajna vrednost za eno vrsto zemljišè preprosto pomnožena s skupno kolièino zemljišè v lasti KK, vsebuje dve napaki.
First, the specific land in question is not valued and, second, the valuation does not indicate what a market investor buying all the land at once would be willing to pay at the time of the transaction, in particular taking into account the limited size of the market for such plots.
Prviè, zadevna specifièna zemljišèa niso vrednotena, in drugiè, vrednotenje ne kaže, koliko bi bil v èasu transakcije pripravljen plaèati tržni vlagatelj, ki bi kupil vsa zemljišèa naenkrat, zlasti ob upoštevanju omejenosti trga za takšne parcele.
As regards the land intended for construction of terraced houses and blocks of flats, in total valued at EUR 1136849, Finland refers to the valuation made by the real estate expert.
V zvezi z zemljišèi, namenjenimi za izgradnjo vrstnih hiš in stanovanjskih blokov, ki so bila ocenjena na skupno 1136849 EUR, se Finska sklicuje na cenitev nepremièninskega izvedenca.
These figures are thus in the middle of the range or slightly above those provided by the real estate expert.
Te številke so torej v sredini ali malo nad sredino razponov, ki ju je navedel nepremièninski izvedenec.
The expert furthermore stresses that there have been only a few comparable transactions in recent years and demand continues to be low.
Izvedenec nadalje poudarja, da je bilo v preteklih letih le malo primerljivih transakcij in da povpraševanje ostaja nizko.
The Commission notes that for these types of land too the expert appears to provide the retail value of the land, and not the wholesale value, which is the price that a market investor would pay to buy all the land in one transaction.
Komisija ugotavlja, da bi naj tudi za te vrste zemljišè izvedenec postavil maloprodajno vrednost zemljišè, ne pa veleprodajne vrednosti, ki je cena, kakršno bi tržni vlagatelj plaèal za nakup vseh zemljišè v eni transakciji.
Given that the expert stresses that the demand for this type of land continues to be low, the view of the Commission is that the wholesale market value at the time of the assessed transaction was greatly overestimated for these types of land too.
Glede na to, da izvedenec poudarja, da povpraševanje po tej vrsti zemljišè ostaja nizko, Komisija meni, da je bila veleprodajna tržna cena tudi v primeru teh vrst zemljišè v èasu zadevne transakcije obèutno precenjena.
As regards the estimated value of the land in the city centre (Asemansuo), which amounts to around half of the estimated value of KK’s land (EUR 2358158), it is unclear how the market valuation was made.
V zvezi z ocenjeno vrednostjo zemljišèa v središèu mesta (Asemansuo), ki znaša približno polovico ocenjene vrednosti zemljišè KK (2358158 EUR), ni jasno, kako je bila tržna vrednost doloèena.
Finland refers to a value per square metre to be built on (EUR 79,56), and multiplies this by the area allowed to be built on (29640 m2.
Finska se sklicuje na vrednost za kvadratni meter za gradnjo (79,56 EUR) in to pomnoži s površino, na kateri je gradnja dovoljena (29640 m2).
However, the real estate agent referred to by Finland has valued this particular land at EUR 50 per square metre to be built on, which would lead to a value of EUR 1480200. The difference between these valuations is EUR 877958. Since this concerns one large piece of land, it can be assumed that the estimate made by the real estate expert for Asemansuo was the retail value, and the figure provided by the real estate expert can therefore be considered as plausible by the Commission.
Vendar pa je nepremièninski zastopnik, na katerega se Finska sklicuje, to zemljišèe ocenil po 50 EUR za kvadratni meter za gradnjo, kar bi pomenilo vrednost 1480200 EUR. Razlika med tema vrednotenjema je 877958 EUR. Ker gre pri tem za velik kos zemljišèa, je mogoèe sklepati, da je ocena, ki jo je za Asemansuo dal nepremièninski izvedenec, maloprodajna vrednost, zato lahko Komisija številko, ki jo je dal nepremièninski izvedenec, upošteva kot verodostojno.
Finland has not provided any explanation for the substantial deviation from the expert report.
Finska ni predložila razlage za obèutno odstopanje od poroèila izvedenca.
As regards land intended for gardens and communal areas, valued at EUR 491738, the Commission questions whether it should be given much value at all, since such land, which cannot be exploited for productive use, will not provide any financial return, and a market economy investor would therefore not be willing to pay any significant amount for this.
V zvezi z zemljišèi, namenjenimi za vrtove in komunalne površine, ocenjenimi na 491738 EUR, Komisija dvomi, da so zemljišèa veliko vredna, saj takšno zemljišèe, ki ga ni mogoèe izkorišèati za proizvodno rabo, ne zagotavlja nobenega finanènega donosa, zato vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu za takšno zemljišèe ne bi bil pripravljen plaèati veliko.
Based on the above observations, the Commission considers that the valuation of the land owned by KK was not correctly done and did not comply with the valuation criteria in the Commission Communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities.
Na podlagi zgornjih ugotovitev Komisija meni, da cenitev zemljišè v lasti KK ni bila izvedena pravilno in ni v skladu z merili vrednotenja v Sporoèilu Komisije o elementih državne pomoèi pri prodaji zemljišè in objektov s strani javnih oblasti.
Taking just the overvaluation of Asemansuo, the total value of KK’s land, and thus of the value of the company, if calculated on the basis of asset value, is reduced by EUR 876158 to EUR 619760.
Že samo ob upoštevanju precenitve zemljišèa na obmoèju Asemansuo se skupna vrednost zemljišè KK, in s tem vrednost družbe, èe se ta raèuna na podlagi premoženjske vrednosti, zniža za 876158 EUR na 619760 EUR.
The Commission furthermore considers that the value of the land intended for detached houses, terraced houses and blocks of apartments, and communal land and gardens was considerably overvalued, being based on the two errors outlined above, namely that the specific land at stake was not valued and secondly, that the valuation did not indicate what a market investor selling all the land at once would receive at the time of the transaction.
Komisija prav tako meni, da je bila vrednost zemljišè, namenjenih za samostojne hiše, vrstne hiše in stanovanjske bloke ter komunalna zemljišèa in vrtove, obèutno precenjena, saj je temeljila na dveh napakah, obrazloženih zgoraj, to je, prviè, da niso bila vrednotena dejanska zemljišèa, o katerih teèe razprava, in drugiè, da ocenitev ne kaže, koliko bi tržni vlagatelj, ki bi prodal vsa zemljišèa naenkrat, prejel v èasu transakcije.
The total value of the land was, according to Finland, EUR 2660152. The Commission considers that the land was overvalued by more than EUR 619760, which would be the remaining net value of KK based on the calculation made by Finland, after correction of the overvaluation of Asemansuo.
Skupna vrednost zemljišè je bila po navedbah Finske 2660152 EUR. Komisija meni, da so bila zemljišèa precenjena za veè kot 619760 EUR, kar bi bila preostala neto vrednost KK na podlagi izraèuna, ki ga je podala Finska, in po popravku precenitve zemljišèa na obmoèju Asemansuo.
Consequently, even calculating the value of the shares in this way, the entire amount paid for the shares in KK by Karkkila was aid to Componenta.
To pomeni, da èetudi se vrednost delnic izraèuna na ta naèin, je bil celoten znesek, ki ga je Karkkila plaèala za delnice v KK, pomoè Componenti.
Commission estimate of aid linked to the price of the shares in KK:
Ocene Komisije za pomoè, povezano s ceno delnic v KK
Net value KK according to Finland
Neto vrednost KK po navedbah Finske
Reduction based on real estate expert valuation of Asemansuo
Zmanjšanje na podlagi ocenitve zemljišča na območju Asemansuo s strani nepremičninskega izvedenca
Estimated net value of KK after this correction
Ocenjena neto vrednost KK po tem popravku
Further overvaluation of land according to the Commission
Nadaljnja precenitev zemljišè po mnenju Komisije
At least 619760
vsaj 619760
Net value of KK, based on asset value
Neto vrednost KK na podlagi premoženjske vrednosti
0(49) Since an investor buying the shares in KK could not expect a return on the capital and since the land was overvalued, the Commission concludes that the net value of the shares in KK was zero.
0(49) Ker vlagatelj, ki bi kupil delnice KK, ne bi mogel prièakovati donosa od vloženega kapitala in ker so bila zemljišèa precenjena, Komisija sklepa, da je bila neto vrednost delnic v KK enaka niè.
Furthermore, Componenta did not even try to find another buyer for its shares in KK, which is also an indication that Karkkila paid a price above market price, since at least an attempt to find another buyer of the shares would have been a useful manner to determine their market price.
Poleg tega Componenta niti ni poskušala poiskati drugega kupca za svoje delnice v KK, kar tudi kaže, da je Karkkila plaèala ceno, ki je bila višja od tržne vrednosti, saj bi bil vsaj poskus poiskati drugega kupca dober naèin za doloèitev njihove tržne cene.
The Commission therefore concludes, on the basis of the valuation of both the company itself and the land owned by it, that the shares in KK had no value at all at the time of the change in ownership, and that the price paid for them by Karkkila (EUR 713092) therefore is aid in its entirety to Componenta.
Komisija torej na podlagi cenitve družbe same in zemljišè, ki so v njeni lasti, sklepa, da delnice KK v èasu spremembe lastništva niso imele nobene vrednosti in da je cena, ki jo je za njih plaèala Karkkila (713092 EUR), zato v celoti pomoè Componenti.
The evaluation should estimate the wholesale value of all the land owned by KK at the time of the transaction and, therefore, how much KK could have received if all its land was sold at that time on market terms.
Vrednotenje mora vsebovati oceno veleprodajne vrednosti vseh zemljišè, ki so bila v èasu transakcije v lasti KK, in, posledièno, koliko bi KK prejela, èe bi po tržnih pogojih prodala vsa zemljišèa hkrati.
The loan repayment
Povraèilo dolga
The other part of the financial transaction between Karkkila and Componenta was that Karkkila granted KK an interest-free loan of EUR 1,67 million, which KK used to immediately repay a loan it had been granted by Componenta in 1996.
Drugi del finanène transakcije med Karkkilo in Componento je bil, da je Karkkila KK odobrila brezobrestno posojilo v višini 1,67 milijona EUR, ki ga je KK uporabila, da je takoj odplaèala posojilo, ki ji ga je Componenta odobrila leta 1996.
Two equal loans were provided to KK in 1996, one from Karkkila and one from Componenta, on equal terms, since KK at the time was not able to meet its obligations towards private creditors.
KK je leta 1996 prejela dve enakovredni posojili, eno od Karkkile in drugo od Componente, in sicer pod enakimi pogoji, saj KK takrat ni mogla izpolnjevati svojih obveznosti do zasebnih upnikov.
That means that the total amount of the two loans was EUR 3,34 million.
To pomeni, da je bila skupna vrednost teh dveh posojil 3,34 milijona EUR.
Finland claims that KK was in a good financial position in 2003.
Finska trdi, da je bila KK leta 2003 v dobrem finanènem stanju.
It refers, for example, to a footnote in KK’s annual report 2003 where it is stated that the present value of the land owned by KK was estimated to be EUR 5052459, which is EUR 1971845 higher than the book value of the land.
Sklicuje se na primer na opombo v letnem poroèilu KK za leto 2003, v kateri je navedeno, da se trenutna vrednost zemljišè v lasti KK ocenjuje na 5052459 EUR, kar je 1971845 EUR veè od knjižne vrednosti zemljišè.
However, as stated in the previous section, the Commission’s assessment is that the KK land was not worth this much.
Vendar pa, kakor je navedeno v prejšnjem poglavju, Komisija ocenjuje, da zemljišèa v lasti KK niso bila vredna toliko.
The annual reports of KK for the years 2001 to 2003 provide the following key figures:
V letnih poroèilih KK za leti 2001 in 2003 so navedene naslednje kljuène številke:
(amount in Euro)
(Znesek v EUR)
Sales/income
Prodaja/dohodek
Cash (year end)
Denarna sredstva (ob koncu poslovnega leta)
Own capital (year end)
Lastni kapital (ob koncu poslovnega leta)
From this table it is clear that the demand for land was very limited during those four years.
Iz podatkov v tej tabeli je jasno, da je bilo povpraševanje po zemljišèih v navedenih štirih letih zelo omejeno.
It also reveals that the company receives very little revenue from its land in the form of land sales or rental income.
Podatki kažejo tudi, da družba od svojih zemljišè prejema zelo malo prihodka v obliki prodaje zemljišè ali v obliki dohodka od najemnin.
It is also clear that the company was running out of cash and that it had an unusual balance sheet situation with a permanent negative own capital.
Prav tako je oèitno, da je družbi zmanjkovalo denarnih sredstev in da je imela nenavadno bilanco stanja, saj je imela trajno negativen lastni kapital.
It can furthermore be noted that the company’s main financing, the two loans of a total sum of EUR 3,34 million from Karkkila and from Componenta, were interest-free.
Prav tako je mogoèe poudariti, da sta bila dva glavna vira financiranja družbe, posojili v skupni vrednosti 3,34 milijonov EUR s strani Karkkile in Componente, brez obresti.
With a normal interest rate on the loans the financial situation would have been much worse.
Èe bi se za ti dve posojili obraèunavala obièajna obrestna mera, bi bilo finanèno stanje mnogo slabše.
Based on this information, the Commission does not agree with statements from Finland that the financial situation of the KK was good.
Na podlagi teh podatkov se Komisija ne strinja z navedbami Finske, da je bilo finanèno stanje KK dobro.
The question is whether KK would have been able to repay its loan to Componenta without the action taken by Karkkila.
Vprašanje je, ali bi KK lahko odplaèala svoj dolg Componenti brez pomoèi Karkkile.
The Commission first notes that there were two interest-free loans of equal amounts provided to KK in 1996, from Componenta and from Karkkila, in order to rescue KK.
Komisija najprej ugotavlja, da sta bili dve brezobrestni posojili v enakih zneskih, ki jih je KK od Componente in Karkkile prejela leta 1996, namenjeni reševanju KK.
These two loans clearly provided a benefit to KK.
Oèitno je, da sta ti dve posojili pomenili ugodnost za KK.
Any market economy investor who had provided such a loan would require that repayment of the loans be made in equal parts to both the parties that granted them.
Vsak vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki bi zagotovil takšno posojilo, bi zahteval, da se povraèilo posojil izvaja v enakih delih obema strankama, ki sta posojili odobrili.
The partial or total repayment of these loans should therefore be done equally to both lenders (Componenta and Karkkila) in order to avoid giving an advantage to one of them.
Delno oziroma celotno povraèilo teh posojil bi se zato moralo izvajati enako do obeh posojilodajalcev (Componente in Karkkile), da se ne bi dajala prednost enemu pred drugim.
Since in the transaction at issue Componenta was fully repaid for the loan it had granted, it has to be assessed whether KK, in a normal market situation, would have been able to repay not only its loan to Componenta but also its loan to Karkkila, in order to ensure that no advantage was granted to Componenta.
Ker je bilo Componenti v zadevni transakciji posojilo, ki ga je odobrila, povrnjeno v celoti, je treba oceniti, ali bi lahko KK v normalnih tržnih pogojih odplaèala ne le svoje posojilo pri Componenti, ampak tudi svoje posojilo pri Karkkili, da ne bi dajala prednosti Componenti.
The issue is thus whether KK would have been able to raise EUR 3,34 million on the market, to be used to repay its two shareholder loans.
Vprašanje je torej, ali bi lahko KK na trgu zbrala 3,34 milijona EUR za odplaèilo dveh posojil svojih delnièarjev.
Given the company's income over the past years and its cash situation, KK would have to sharply increase its annual income in order to service an interest-bearing debt of this amount.
KK bi morala, glede na svoj prihodek v preteklih letih in glede na denarna sredstva, moèno poveèati svoj letni prihodek, èe bi želela odplaèevati posojilo v tem znesku, ki bi se obrestovalo.
Since the land apparently did not generate any, or only marginal, rental income, the only way for KK to service its debt would have been to sharply increase its sales of land.
Ker zemljišèa oèitno niso proizvajala prihodka oziroma so proizvajala le neznaten prihodek od najemnin, bi lahko KK svoj dolg odplaèevala le, èe bi moèno poveèala prodajo svojih zemljišè.
Since, according to the real estate expert, demand for most of the land owned by KK was low (for terraced houses and apartment blocks) and that the Asemansuo area was not ready for exploitation it is difficult to see how KK could suddenly increase its annual income sharply.
Ker pa je bilo po mnenju nepremièninskega izvedenca povpraševanje po veèini zemljišè v lasti KK nizko (za vrstne hiše in stanovanjske bloke) in ker obmoèje Asemansuo ni bilo pripravljeno za izkorišèanje, je težko uvideti, kako bi KK lahko nenadoma moèno poveèala svoj letni prihodek.
Even more importantly, such land sales to service the debt would mean that the company would be getting rid of its main assets just to service debt.
In še pomembneje, èe bi družba prodajala zemljišèa, da bi odplaèevala dolg, bi s tem izgubljala svoja glavna sredstva, in sicer samo za to, da bi odplaèevala dolg.
This would mean that if KK had to sell land for at least EUR 300000 per year to service its debt and to cover some minimal administrative costs, it would after ten years, for example, have basically no assets left, but still owe the principal of EUR 3,34 million.
To pomeni, da KK, èe bi morala prodati zemljišèa v vrednosti vsaj 300000 EUR letno, da bi odplaèevala svoj dolg in pokrila minimalne administrativne stroške, po desetih letih na primer skorajda ne bi veè imela sredstev, še vedno pa bi dolgovala glavnico v višini 3,34 milijona EUR.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that even on the basis of a simple calculation it is evident that KK would not have been able to replace its two interest-free loans with a loan at the market rate.
Komisija torej ugotavlja, da je celo na podlagi preprostega izraèuna jasno, da KK svojih dveh brezobrestnih posojil ne bi mogla nadomestiti s posojilom s tržno obrestno mero.
Given the state of its finances, it is even unlikely that KK would be able to receive a smaller market-based loan, allowing it to repay part of its interest-free loans.
Glede na finanèno stanje KK je celo malo verjetno, da bi lahko dobila manjše tržno zasnovano posojilo, da bi odplaèala del svojih brezobrestnih posojil.
The Commission’s conclusion is that the transaction whereby KK received an interest-free loan of EUR 1,67 million from Karkkila, which KK immediately used to repay Componenta, did not comply with the market economy investor principle and is state aid to Componenta.
Ugotovitev Komisije je, da transakcija, s katero je KK od Karkkile prejela brezobrestno posojilo v višini 1,67 milijona EUR, ki jih je KK nemudoma porabila za odplaèilo posojila Componenti, ni bila v skladu z naèelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu in pomeni državno pomoè Componenti.
Conclusion on aid amount
Sklepna ugotovitev o znesku pomoèi
In conclusion, the aid amount based on information provided by Finland is the entire amount provided to Componenta in the transaction at issue.
Znesek pomoèi na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je predložila Finska, je torej celoten znesek, ki ga je v zadevni transakciji prejela Componenta.
This comprises the payment for shares in KK (EUR 713092,50) and the loan to KK, enabling it to repay a loan (EUR 1670184) granted by Componenta.
To zajema plaèilo za delnice v KK (713092,5 EUR) in posojilo KK, s katerim je slednja lahko odplaèala posojilo (1670184 EUR), ki ji ga je odobrila Componenta.
The total sum of the aid is thus EUR 2383276,5. However, if Finland can provide evidence that the overvaluation of the land, by the method described above, is less than EUR 619760, the aid element in the share transaction (EUR 713092,5) could be reduced accordingly.
Skupni znesek pomoèi je torej 2383276,5 EUR. Vendar pa je mogoèe element pomoèi v transakciji delnic (713092,5 EUR) ustrezno znižati, èe lahko Finska predloži dokaz, da je precenitev zemljišè po metodi, opisani zgoraj, nižja od 619760 EUR.
Appraisal of the compatibility of the aid in the light of the doubts expressed by the Commission
Ocena združljivosti pomoèi glede na dvome, ki jih je izrazila Komisija
The Commission notes that its doubts on whether the transaction between Karkkila and Componenta was market-based have been confirmed, and that Componenta received aid of EUR 2383276,5.
Komisija ugotavlja, da so bili njeni dvomi, da je bila transakcija med Karkkilo in Componento tržno zasnovana, potrjeni in da je Componenta prejela pomoè v višini 2383276,5 EUR.
The Commission also notes that this state aid was illegal, since it was not notified to the Commission.
Komisija prav tako ugotavlja, da je bila ta državna pomoè nezakonita, saj ni bila priglašena Komisiji.
The Commission further notes that the activities of Componenta involve trade between Member States and that state resources include financial assistance granted by regional and local authorities.
Komisija nadalje ugotavlja, da dejavnosti Componente vkljuèujejo trgovino med državami èlanicami in da državna sredstva vkljuèujejo finanèno pomoè, ki so jo odobrile regionalne in lokalne oblasti.
The Commission therefore concludes that the aid, the existence of which has been established above, falls under the prohibition of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, since it was granted through state resources, threatens to distort competition by favouring an undertaking (Componenta), and affects trade between Member States.
Komisija zato sklepa, da pomoè, katere obstoj je bil dokazan zgoraj, spada v okvir prepovedi iz èlena 87.1 Pogodbe, saj je bila odobrena iz državnih virov, bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti podjetju (Componenti) in vpliva na trgovino med državami èlanicami.
The only exception to this prohibition is where the aid falls under one of the derogations stated in Article 87 of the Treaty.
Edina izjema te prepovedi je, èe pomoè spada v okvir enega izmed odstopanj, navedenih v èlenu 87 Pogodbe.
Since the aid was intended to finance a new investment in Karkkila, the Commission has assessed whether Componenta would have been eligible for regional investment aid.
Ker je bila pomoè namenjena financiranju nove naložbe v Karkkili, je Komisija ocenila, ali bi bila Componenta upravièena do regionalne pomoèi za naložbe.
The Commission's conclusion is that this would not be possible for two reasons.
Komisija sklepa, da to ne bi bilo mogoèe iz dveh razlogov.
First, Karkkila is situated in a non-assisted area according to the regional aid map for Finland for the years 2000 to 2006.
Prviè, Karkkila ima sedež na obmoèju, ki po karti regionalnih pomoèi za Finsko za obdobje od 2000 do 2006 ni upravièeno do pomoèi.