natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With respect to short-term credits, the annual fee is set at half the annual fee for a long-term credit by the above-mentioned Act governing State lending and the provision of State guarantees.
Pri kratkoročnih kreditih znaša letna pristojbina v skladu z navedenim zakonom o državnih posojilih in zagotavljanju državnih garancij polovico letne pristojbine dolgoročnega kredita.
Particularities of treatment for corporate income tax purposes
Podrobnosti o davku od dobička pravnih oseb
The treatment of State Enterprises with regard to corporate income tax is laid down in the Income Tax Act.
Obravnava državnih podjetij pri davku od dobička pravnih oseb je določena v Zakonu o davku na dohodek.
In line with the principles laid down in section 21(3) of the Act, State Enterprises which mainly operate to satisfy the needs of other State institutions are not liable to pay the tax.
V skladu z načeli iz razdelka 21(3) tega zakona državna podjetja, katerih delovanje zajema zlasti izpolnjevanje potreb drugih državnih organov, niso zavezana do plačila davka.
During the transitional period, most of Tieliikelaitos’ turnover was generated from contracts to another State institution (the Road Administration), and due to this, no taxes have been levied on the income received from this activity.
V prehodnem obdobju je večina prometa podjetja Tieliikelaitos nastala z naročili z drugimi državnimi organi (cestno upravo), zato za te dejavnosti ni bil obračunan davek na dohodek.
Furthermore, until July 2004, whenever Tieliikelaitos purchased land sites, the sellers were largely relieved of tax on the respective capital gains according to Section 49 of the Income Tax Act.
Razen tega so bili do julija 2004, ko je podjetje Tieliikelaitos kupilo zemljišče, prodajalci v skladu z 49. razdelkom Zakona o davku na dohodek oproščeni plačila davka na kapitalski dobiček.
In July 2004, this measure was removed from the Income Tax Act.
Julija 2004 so ta ukrep iz Zakona o davku na dohodek črtali.
THE COMMISSION’S DOUBTS
POMISLEKI KOMISIJE
In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission raised doubts:
Komisija je v svoji odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka izrazila pomisleke:
as to the question of whether the special provisions for staff transfer between Tieliikelaitos and government agencies and the special projects for redundant, but not laid-off workers conferred an advantage to Tieliikelaitos,
ali so posebni ukrepi za premestitev kadra med podjetjem Tieliikelaitos in vladnimi organi ter posebni projekti za delavce, ki jim je prenehalo delovno razmerje, predstavljali prednost za podjetje Tieliikelaitos,
as to the question whether the transfer of land and gravel sites from the Finnish State to Tieliikelaitos took place at market value,
ali je finska vlada prenos zemlje in gramoznega terena na podjetje Tieliikelaitos izvedla po tržni ceni,
as to the exact monetary value of the advantages the Finnish government has granted Tieliikelaitos,
kakšna je točna denarna vrednost prednosti, ki jo je finska vlada dodelila podjetju Tieliikelaitos,
as to the compatibility of the interest-reduced loan, the negotiated contracts and (potentially) the special projects for redundant, but not laid-off workers and the transfer of land and gravel sites with the Common market based on Article 86(2) of EC Treaty, and here especially as to the presence of a public service obligation and as to the absence of over-compensation,
ali so posojilo z nižjo obrestno mero, dodeljena naročila in (morebitni) posebni projekti za delavce, ki jim je prenehalo delovno razmerje, ter prenos zemlje in gramoznega terena združljivi s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 86(2) Pogodbe ES in še zlasti z obveznostmi javnih služb ter neobstoječega prekomernega nadomestila,
as to the compatibility of the interest-reduced loan, the negotiated contracts and (potentially) the special projects for redundant, but not laid-off workers and the transfer of land and gravel sites with the Common market based on Article 87(3)(c) of EC Treaty, and here especially as to the proportionality of the measures and as to the question whether the positive effects of the aid outweigh the negative effects on competition,
ali so posojilo z zmanjšano obrestno mero, dodeljena naročila in (morebitni) posebni projekti za delavce, ki jim je prenehalo delovno razmerje, ter prenos zemlje in gramoznega terena združljivi s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES in še zlasti s sorazmernostjo ukrepov, in ali so bili pozitivni učinki pomoči večji od negativnih učinkov nadomestila,
as to the compatibility of the special tax provisions and the absence of the application of the bankruptcy law with the Common market based on Article 87(3)(c) of EC Treaty.
ali so bile posebne davčne obravnave in pomanjkljiva uporaba Zakona o stečaju združljive s skupnim trgom v skladu s členom 87(3)(c) Pogodbe ES.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES — COMMENTS JOINTLY SUBMITTED BY THE CONFEDERATION OF FINNISH CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES RT AND THE CENTRAL ASSOCIATION OF EARTH MOVING CONTRACTORS IN FINLAND
PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANK – PRIPOMBE, KI STA JIH SKUPAJ PREDLOŽILI ZDRUŽENJE FINSKE GRADBENE INDUSTRIJE RT IN OSREDNJE ZDRUŽENJE IZVAJALCEV ZEMELJSKIH DEL NA FINSKEM
The complainants consider that the interest rate set for the State loan granted to Tieliikelaitos is clearly below the market rate, and that the corresponding monetary advantage received by Tieliikelaitos was of approximately EUR 3,2 million during 2001-2004.
Pritožniki menijo, da je obrestna mera državnega posojila za podjetje Tieliikelaitos bistveno pod tržno stopnjo in da je bila ustrezna denarna prednost, ki jo je podjetje Tieliikelaitos prejelo v obdobju 2001–2004, približno 3,2 milijona EUR.
The complainants consider that the higher interest payments fixed for the period 2005-2015 does not really mitigate this advantage.
Pritožniki menijo, da višje obresti, določene za obdobje 2005–2015, te prednosti ne ublažijo.
As interest rates have been increasing since 2005 the 5 % interest rate determined for the period 2005-2015 may soon cease to be a higher interest rate than those currently prevailing on the market.
Ker so se obrestne mere od leta 2005 višale, petodstotna obrestna mera, določena za obdobje 2005–2015, kmalu ne bo več višja od trenutne tržne obrestne mere.
Land and gravel sites put at the disposal of Tieliikelaitos
Zemlja in gramozni teren, ki sta bila dana na voljo podjetju Tieliikelaitos
The complainants note that the value at which the land resources were entered into Tieliikelaitos’ opening balance sheet by the Finnish State is FIM 15 million lower than the estimate by an independent expert (Catella).
Pritožniki ugotavljajo, da je vrednost, po kateri je finska vlada zemeljske vire vknjižila v začetno bilanco stanja podjetja Tieliikelaitos, za 15 milijonov FIM nižja od vrednosti, ki jo je ocenila neodvisna svetovalna družba (Catella).
On the basis of the estimate by private earth-work sector the difference would be even bigger.
Glede na oceno zasebnega sektorja zemeljskih del naj bi bila razlika še večja.
Besides, in complainants view, it would be more appropriate if Tieliikelaitos was buying land resources needed for carrying out its contracts from external suppliers at market price.
Poleg tega bi bilo po mnenju pritožnikov primerneje, da podjetje Tieliikelaitos za izvajanje svojih naročil kupuje zemljo od zunanjih ponudnikov po tržni ceni.
The complainants also consider that non-marketability deductions with respect to the value of land and gravel sites that were done in Tieliikelaitos’ financial statements during years 2002-2004 and accepted by Tieliikelaitos’ auditors cannot be considered as a proof of absence of aid in the transfer of land and gravel sites.
Pritožniki tudi menijo, da se netržni odbitki vrednosti zemlje in gramoznega terena, ki so navedeni v finančnih izkazih podjetja Tieliikelaitos za obdobje 2002–2004 in ki so jih revizorji podjetja Tieliikelaitos sprejeli, ne morejo šteti kot dokaz o morebitni pomoči pri prenosu zemlje in gramoznega terena.
The complainants believe that the auditors of Tieliikelaitos did not possess sufficient expertise regarding land resources to carry out this kind of appraisal.
Pritožniki menijo, da revizorji podjetja Tieliikelaitos niso imeli dovolj strokovnega znanja in izkušenj v zvezi z zemeljskimi viri, da bi lahko izvedli takšno oceno.
According to the complainants, the auditors based their view on the estimate made by Tieliikelaitos’ management.
Po mnenju pritožnikov je stališče revizorjev temeljilo na oceni uprave podjetja Tieliikelaitos.
The complainants consider that the aid related to negotiated contracts given to Tieliikelaitos by the Road Administration has been EUR 21,5 million which they calculated on the basis of difference in margins of negotiated and tendered contracts undertaken by Tieliikelaitos.
Pritožniki menijo, da je pri naročilih, oddanih po postopku s pogajanji, pomoč, ki jo je podjetju Tieliikelaitos dodelila cestna uprava, znašala 21,5 milijona EUR, kar so izračunali na podlagi razlik v maržah med naročili, oddanimi po postopku s pogajanji, in naročili, oddanimi po odprtem postopku podjetju Tieliikelaitos.
Furthermore, complainants suspect that the margins of negotiated contracts could have been artificially lowered by taking into account also the costs of personnel not involved in implementation of the negotiated contracts.
Poleg tega pritožniki domnevajo, da bi se lahko razlike v maržah pri naročilih, oddanih po postopku s pogajanji, umetno znižale, če bi upoštevali stroške osebja, ki ni vključeno v izvajanje naročil, oddanih po postopku s pogajanji.
Besides, they believe that the so called expenditure adjustment procedure related to negotiated contracts gave Tieliikelaitos access to extra funds each year during 2001-2004 that it could use for about one year without having to pay interest on it to the Road Administration.
Poleg tega menijo, da je tako imenovani postopek prilagajanja izdatkov v zvezi z naročili, oddanih po postopku s pogajanji, vsako leto v obdobju 2001–2004 podjetju Tieliikelaitos omogočil dostop do dodatnih sredstev, ki bi jih lahko za približno eno leto uporabilo za plačevanje obresti cestni upravi.
Complainants consider that the aid received by Tieliikelaitos has, inter alia, allowed it to undertake plan-and-implement contracts which had a lower margin.
Pritožniki menijo, da je pomoč, ki jo je prejelo podjetje Tieliikelaitos, podjetju med drugim omogočila izvajanje naročil „načrtovanja in izvajanja“, ki so imela manjšo razliko v maržah.
The complainants believe that the fact that Tieliikelaitos’ financial performance compared with its competitors were below industry average only shows that the operations of Tieliikelaitos were inefficient and it used anti-competitive pricing policy in liberalised sectors.
Pritožniki menijo, da dejstvo, da je bila finančna uspešnost podjetja Tieliikelaitos v primerjavi s konkurenco pod povprečjem panoge, potrjuje, da so bile dejavnosti podjetja Tieliikelaitos neuspešne in da je podjetje v liberaliziranih sektorjih uporabilo politiko nekonkurenčnega oblikovanja cen.
The complainants consider that negotiated contracts for ferry traffic services confer an advantage to Tieliikelaitos.
Pritožniki menijo, da so sklenjena naročila za trajektne storitve podjetju Tieliikelaitos zagotovila prednosti.
They believe that Tieliikelaitos is able to provide ferry services at a comparatively low price only because it received ferry equipment from the Road Administration which either does not need to be renewed, or because the associated capital costs do not need to be taken into account in the value of the equipment.
Prav tako menijo, da lahko podjetje Tieliikelaitos zagotavlja trajektne storitve po sorazmerno nizki ceni le zato, ker je od cestne uprave prejelo opremo, ki je ni treba obnavljati, ali ker povezanih kapitalskih stroškov ni treba upoštevati pri vrednosti opreme.
Measures for the reduction of Tieliikelaitos’ staff
Ukrepi za zmanjšanje števila zaposlenih v podjetju Tieliikelaitos
In the complainants’ view, Tieliikelaitos received about EUR 100 million in State aid during 2001-2004 for solving the issue of overstaffing.
Po mnenju pritožnikov je podjetje Tieliikelaitos v obdobju 2001–2004 prejelo približno 100 milijonov EUR državne pomoči, s katero je rešilo vprašanje prevelikega števila zaposlenih.
inter alia, the complainants believe that Tieliikelaitos has benefited from an aid related to the fact that its employees have been in a privileged position in filling vacant positions in the government agencies, including the Road Administration.
Pritožniki med drugim menijo, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos prejelo pomoč, zaradi česar so zaposleni imeli prednost pri zapolnjevanju praznih delovnih mest v vladnih organih, vključno s cestno upravo.
In total, this enabled Tieliikelaitos to reduce its problem of overstaffing by 116 persons.
Skupno je s tem podjetje Tieliikelaitos zmanjšalo preveliko število zaposlenih za 116 oseb.
The complainants believe that the respective employees’ transfer procedure led to a loss of the freedom for involved government agencies to choose the best and most affordable applicant available on the labour market for a position, and caused additional expenses to the State.
Pritožniki menijo, da so zadevni postopki premestitve zaposlenih omejili svobodo vključenih vladnih služb pri izbiri najboljših in najbolj poceni kandidatov za delovna mesta na trgu dela in s tem državi povzročili dodatne stroške.
The State might have been able to hire personnel from outside more affordably and with more favourable employment conditions.
Država bi lahko zaposlila zunanje osebje, ki bi bilo ceneje in ki bi delalo pod ugodnejšimi delovnimi pogoji.
Individuals from Tieliikelaitos were transferred with their old employment conditions into new positions and treated as veteran staff.
Posamezniki iz podjetja Tieliikelaitos so bili premeščeni ob upoštevanju starih pogojev zaposlovanja na nova delovna mesta in obravnavani kot dolgoletni uslužbenci.
Besides, the complainants point out that Tielliikelaitos received EUR 20,1 million as State aid from the Road Administration’s budget for the purposes of helping Tieliikelaitos employees to find new jobs, financing supplementary education and retraining and for supporting pensions for early retirement.
Poleg tega pritožniki poudarjajo, da je podjetje Tielliikelaitos prejelo 20,1 milijona EUR državne pomoči iz proračuna cestne uprave, ki je zaposlenim v podjetju Tielliikelaitos olajšala iskanje nove zaposlitve, z njo pa so bili financirani tudi dodatno izobraževanje in preusposabljanje ter pokojnine pri predčasni upokojitvi.
The complainants also believe that the personnel involved in special service projects constituted Tieliikelaitos’ own labour reserve whereas its expenses were paid by the Finnish State.
Pritožniki tudi menijo, da je osebje, vključeno v posebne projekte, predstavljalo nadomestno delovno silo podjetja Tieliikelaitos, medtem ko je stroške osebja plačala finska vlada.
The complainants assert that opportunities for this kind of arrangement do not exist in the private sector; rather, when a project or contract ends, a private employer is still obliged to pay the employee his or her salary or alternatively give a layoff notice and pay his or her salary during the notice period.
Trdijo tudi, da v zasebnem sektorju takšnih ureditev ni; ob zaključku projekta ali naročila mora zasebni delodajalec zaposlenim izplačati plačo oziroma jih odpustiti ter jim izplačati plačo za obdobje odpovednega roka.
Finally, the complainants doubt that Tieliikelaitos contributed sufficiently from its own resources for financing staff reduction measures.
Pritožniki tudi dvomijo, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos za financiranje ukrepov za zmanjšanje števila zaposlenih prispevalo dovolj lastnih sredstev.
According to them, the financial statements of Tieliikelaitos do not give any evidence in this respect.
Po njihovem mnenju finančni izkazi podjetja Tieliikelaitos tega ne dokazujejo.
Indirect fiscal aid related to land purchase
Posredna davčna pomoč za nakup zemlje
The complainants note that to the extent that Tieliikelaitos purchased land sites during the transitional period, the sellers were largely relieved of tax on capital gains that also constitutes indirect State aid for the benefit of Tieliikelaitos.
Pritožniki ugotavljajo, da so bili pri nakupu zemlje podjetja Tieliikelaitos prodajalci v prehodnem obdobju večinoma oproščeni davka na kapitalski dobiček, kar je predstavljalo posredno državno pomoč za podjetje Tieliikelaitos.
Advantages conferred to Tieliikelaitos on a permanent basis: the inapplicability of bankruptcy law and deviations from normal tax law
Stalne ugodnosti za podjetje Tieliikelaitos: neuporaba stečajne zakonodaje in odstopanje od običajne davčne zakonodaje
Bankruptcy legislation
Stečajna zakonodaja
The complainants consider that the fact that Tieliikelaitos is not included within the scope of bankruptcy legislation constitutes prohibited State aid.
Pritožniki menijo, da dejstvo, da podjetje Tieliikelaitos ni vključeno v področje uporabe stečajne zakonodaje, pomeni prepovedano državno pomoč.
They point out that although the current Bankruptcy Act entered into force only on 1 September 2004, the possibility to declare Tieliikelaitos bankrupt did not exist before either.
Poudarjajo, da čeprav je sedanji Zakon o stečaju začel veljati šele 1. septembra 2004, podjetje Tieliikelaitos pred tem ni moglo sprožiti stečajnega postopka.
The complainants believe that it is sufficient that the possibility for this sort of aid exists, even if the threat of bankruptcy never arose.
Pritožniki menijo, da zadostuje, da možnost za takšno vrsto pomoči obstaja, čeprav stečaj podjetja nikoli ni bil verjeten.
They stress that Tieliikelaitos had a possibility to receive financing on more favourable conditions thanks to the respective legal provision.
Poudarjajo, da je imelo podjetje Tieliikelaitos zaradi zadevnih predpisov možnost prejemanja financiranja pod ugodnejšimi pogoji.
In addition, Tieliikelaitos continually orders services and materials from external suppliers, which constitutes debt by Tieliikelaitos to these external actors.
Poleg tega podjetje Tieliikelaitos stalno naroča storitve in material pri zunanjih ponudnikih, zaradi česar je zadolženo pri zunanjih izvajalcih.
Tieliikelaitos can thereby obtain a competitive advantage as it cannot be declared bankrupt.
Vendar je podjetje bolj konkurenčno, ker ne more razglasiti stečaja.
Furthermore, they draw the Commission’s attention to the fact that the guarantee fee on the loans raised and guarantees granted by a State Enterprise, the purpose of which is to compensate for the fact that an organisation operating as a part of the State may receive external financing on more favourable terms, was introduced only in 2003 (Article 5 of the State Enterprise Act).
Poleg tega pritožniki Komisijo opozarjajo, da garancije za posojila in garancije, ki jih zagotovi državno podjetje, katerih namen je izravnava za to, da lahko organizacija, ki deluje kot del države, prejme zunanje financiranje pod ugodnejšimi pogoji, uvedeno šele leta 2003 (člen 5 Zakona o državnih podjetjih).
This implies that Tieliikelaitos has not paid such a fee so far (it is not applicable retroactively to pre-2003 loans raised by Tieliikelaitos).
To pomeni, da podjetje Tieliikelaitos do zdaj te pristojbine ni plačalo (pravilo se ne uporablja retroaktivno za posojila podjetju Tieliikelaitos pred letom 2003).
In any case, the complainants note that private undertakings, which can be declared bankrupt under Finnish law, must also give the loan provider guarantees which match the cost of the State guarantee fee.
Pritožniki vsekakor ugotavljajo, da morajo zasebna podjetja, ki lahko razglasijo stečaj v skladu s finsko zakonodajo, posojilodajalcu zagotoviti garancije, ki ustrezajo stroškom plačila državne garancije.
Expenses of this kind are incurred due to, for example, the mortgaging of immovable property and permanent leases, as well as guarantees provided by financial institutions and other parties.
Te vrste izdatki nastanejo zaradi hipoteke na nepremičnine in stalnega najema ter garancij finančnih institucij in drugih strank.
Tax treatment
Davčna obravnava
In the complainants’ view, the fact that Tieliikelaitos does not pay corporate income tax to the State, because State contracts make up more than half of its turnover, constitutes prohibited aid.
Po mnenju pritožnikov je to prepovedana pomoč tudi zato, ker podjetje Tieliikelaitos državi ne plačuje davka od dobička pravnih oseb, ker državna naročila predstavljajo več kot polovico njegovega prometa.
The complainants consider that Tieliikelaitos obtained an advantage of EUR 14,5 million through this tax exemption for the years 2001 to 2004 alone, as it would have had to pay EUR 14,5 million more taxes, had it been subject to the 29 % tax rate applicable to private undertakings in the years 2001 to 2004 (in 2005 the rate was lowered to 26 %).
Pritožniki menijo, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos s to davčno oprostitvijo samo v letih 2001 do 2004 imelo korist v vrednosti 14,5 milijona EUR, saj bi moralo plačati 14,5 milijona EUR več davkov, če bi zanj veljala 29-odstotna davčna stopnja, ki se je uporabljala za zasebna podjetja v letih 2001 do 2004 (leta 2005 se je stopnja znižala na 26 %).
The fact that Tieliikelaitos has disbursed part of its earnings to the State corresponds to the payment of a dividend by a private limited company, the size of which is always decided by the shareholders at the Annual General Meeting.
Dejstvo, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos del zaslužka odstopilo državi, je enako dividendi, ki jo plača družba z omejeno odgovornostjo, pri kateri višino vedno določijo delničarji na skupščini družbe.
The dividend is only paid from earnings that are left over after the payment of corporate income tax.
Dividenda se plača s prihodki, ki preostanejo po plačilu davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
Burdens ensuing from the specific status of Tieliikelaitos
Obremenitve, nastale zaradi posebnega statusa podjetja Tieliikelaitos
With respect to Tieliikelaitos being legally obliged to submit offers to every call for tenders for the maintenance of the road network, both during the transition period and after its expiry, the complainants do not see any additional financial burden on Tieliikelaitos.
Pravna zavezanost podjetja Tieliikelaitos, da predloži ponudbe za vsak javni razpis za vzdrževanje cestnega omrežja v prehodnem obdobju in po njegovem izteku, za pritožnike za podjetje Tieliikelaitos ne predstavlja dodatnega finančnega bremena.
In any case, complainants consider that Tieliikelaitos’ financial statements do not show such additional expenditure.
V vsakem primeru pritožniki menijo, da finančni izkazi podjetja Tieliikelaitos ne prikazujejo takšnih dodatnih izdatkov.
As Tieliikelaitos has offices throughout Finland, complainants believe it has an excellent opportunity to provide maintenance services in the whole country.
Ker ima podjetje Tieliikelaitos poslovalnice po vsej Finski, pritožniki verjamejo, da lahko odlično zagotavlja storitve vzdrževanja v vsej državi.
In addition, the Road Administration has introduced, in order to support participation to tenders, a EUR 5,000 fee that it pays to all bidders whose bids corresponded to tender documentation.
Poleg tega je cestna uprava, da bi povečala sodelovanje pri javnih razpisih, uvedla dodatek 5000 EUR, ki ga plača vsem ponudnikom, katerih ponudbe ustrezajo razpisni dokumentaciji.
On average, 4-4,7 contractors submitted their bids for each maintenance contract put for tender in 2001-2004.
Povprečno je 4–4,7 izvajalca predložilo ponudbe za vsako naročilo za vzdrževanje, ki je bilo objavljeno na javnem razpisu v obdobju 2001–2004.
This demonstrates companies’ interest in making bids.
To potrjuje zanimanje družb za predložitev ponudb.
Similarly the complainants contest that Tieliikelaitos’ had additional expenses compared to other companies active in the sector due to its obligation to be prepared for providing its services in emergency situations.
Podobno poskušajo pritožniki ovreči, da je imelo podjetje Tieliikelaitos zaradi svoje obveznosti, da mora zagotoviti storitve v izrednih razmerah, dodatne stroške v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji v sektorju.