natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
First, they stress that no such extra expense could be identified in Tieliikelaitos’ financial statements.
Prvič, poudarjajo, da takšni dodatni stroški niso bili razvidni iz finančnih izkazov podjetja Tieliikelaitos.
Second, the complainants believe that all companies must prepare for emergency conditions, and that it is a part of a private company’s risk management system.
Drugič, pritožniki poudarjajo, da morajo biti vsa podjetja pripravljena na izredne razmere in da je to del obvladovanja tveganja v zasebnih podjetjih.
Furthermore, the complainants believe that in Tieliikelaitos’ financial accounts there is no separation between costs and receipts associated with clearly identified service of general economic interest and those associated with other services, and that no parameter has been defined for allocating costs and revenue between two such categories of services.
Poleg tega pritožniki menijo, da v finančnih izkazih podjetja Tieliikelaitos niso ločeni stroški in prejemki, povezanimi s storitvami splošnega gospodarskega pomena, in tistimi, povezanimi z drugimi storitvami, ter da za porazdelitev stroškov in prihodkov med takšnima kategorijama storitev parametri niso bili določeni.
Therefore the complainants stress that the measures in favour of Tieliikelaitos cannot be qualified as compensation for public service obligation.
Zato pritožniki poudarjajo, da se ukrepi v korist podjetja Tieliikelaitos ne morejo šteti kot nadomestilo za obveznosti javnih služb.
As to restrictions imposed on operations of Tieliikelaitos, the complainants emphasize that the follow-up group established by the Ministry of Transport and Communications has noted that Tieliikelaitos has repeatedly violated respective restrictions, for example by building energy networks and municipal engineering.
V zvezi z omejitvami delovanja podjetja Tieliikelaitos pritožniki poudarjajo, da je skupina za nadaljnje spremljanje, ki jo je ustanovilo Ministrstvo za promet in zveze, ugotovila, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos večkrat kršilo zadevne omejitve, na primer z izgradnjo energetskih omrežij in komunalnim inženiringom.
Hence, they have not caused significant costs and loss of income, nor have such items been presented in Tieliikelaitos’ financial statements.
Zato te niso povzročile velikih stroškov in izgube dohodka ter takšne postavke tudi niso bile prikazane v finančnih izkazih podjetja Tieliikelaitos.
Overall conclusions by the complainants
Splošne ugotovitve pritožnikov
All in all, the complainants believe that the Tieliikelaitos has received at least EUR 164-171 million in prohibited aid:
Pritožniki menijo, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos skupaj prejelo vsaj 164–171 milijonov EUR prepovedane pomoči.
Resulting aid
Pomoč, ki izhaja iz tega
Interest rate subsidies from the loan 2001-2004,
βubvencije za obrestno mero posojila 2001–2004
Equipment,
Oprema
Extractable land resources,
Pridobljivi zemeljski viri
Extracted land resources,
Pridobljeni zemeljski viri
Negotiated contracts 2001-2004,
Naročila, oddana po postopku s pogajanji v obdobju 2001–2004
Adjustment of personnel 2001-2004,
Prilagoditev osebja 2001–2004
Tax benefits 2001-2004,
Davčne ugodnosti 2001–2004
According to the complainants, respective sums must be increased by the amount of aid received through negotiated contracts in ferry traffic and interest income on funds returned annually from negotiated contracts through the expenditure adjustment procedure.
Po mnenju pritožnikov je treba ustrezne vsote povečati za znesek pomoči, prejet z naročili za trajektni promet, oddanimi po postopku s pogajanji, in dohodki od obresti za sredstva, ki se v okviru prilagajanja izdatkov na leto vrnejo z naročili, oddanimi po postopku s pogajanji.
The complainants believe that Tieliikelaitos has received advantages which have reduced its expenses and which it could not have received under normal market conditions.
Pritožniki menijo, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos imelo koristi, ki so zmanjšale njegove stroške in ki jih ne bi moglo imeti v običajnih tržnih pogojih.
While the complainants do not contest that there were the cost savings achieved through the opening up of the market to competition, they stress that during the transitional period Tieliikelaitos received aid that was almost equal to the savings for the State for the same period.
Pritožniki ne dvomijo, da so bili stroški prihranjeni z odpiranjem trga konkurenci, vendar poudarjajo, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos v prehodnem obdobju prejelo pomoč, ki je bila skoraj enaka prihrankom države v enakem obdobju.
The complainants consider the aid granted to Tieliikelaitos has distorted competition in the infrastructure sector and allowed Tieliikelaitos to carry out contracts at a lower margin than private actors in a competitive market.
Pritožniki menijo, da je pomoč, dodeljena podjetju Tieliikelaitos, izkrivljala konkurenco v sektorju infrastrukture in podjetju Tieliikelaitos omogočila izvajanje naročil z nižjimi maržami kot pri zasebnih akterjih na konkurenčnem trgu.
In the complainants’ view Tieliikelaitos has enjoyed a dominant market position in road maintenance contracts throughout the transitional period, and in 2005 it got 88 % of new maintenance contracts awarded by the Road administration.
Po mnenju pritožnikov je imelo podjetje Tieliikelaitos prevladujoč položaj pri naročilih za vzdrževanje cest v prehodnem obdobju, medtem ko je leta 2005 dobilo 88 % novih naročil za vzdrževanje, ki jih je dodelila cestna uprava.
This would show that the opening up of the market has failed.
To potrjuje, da odpiranje trga ni bilo uspešno.
Thus, the complainants dispute that the State aid measures have been necessary and proportionate to the results, in other words the liberalisation of Finland’s road maintenance and ferry traffic markets.
Pritožniki oporekajo, da so bili ukrepi državne pomoči potrebni in sorazmerni z rezultati, tj. z liberalizacijo finskega trga vzdrževanja cest in trajektnega prometa.
Therefore, in the complainants’ view, the State aid received by Tieliikelaitos has not been justified and is thus incompatible with the common market.
Zato po mnenju pritožnikov državna pomoč, ki jo je prejelo podjetje Tieliikelaitos, ni bila upravičena in je zato neskladna s skupnim trgom.
COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE FINNISH AUTHORITIES
PRIPOMBE, KI SO JIH PREDLOŽILI FINSKI ORGANI
First, the Finnish authorities explain the reasons underlying the approach which was chosen for liberalising road services market in Finland.
Finski organi najprej razlagajo razloge za pristop, ki je bil izbran za liberalizacijo trga cestnih storitev na Finskem.
In their view, the gradual opening of the market together with granting a job security to the employees of Tieliikelaitos was necessary to achieve a political compromise on the market opening.
Po njihovem mnenju je bilo istočasno postopno odpiranje trga in zagotovitev varnih delovnih mest zaposlenih v podjetju Tieliikelaitos nujno za doseganje političnega kompromisa pri odpiranju trga.
In fact, the Finnish government started to work on the design of the road services reform already in 1994.
Dejansko je finska vlada reformo cestnih storitev začela pripravljati že leta 1994.
Nevertheless, given the vested interests involved, for a long time it was not possible to reach an agreement on the market liberalisation and on 20 May 1997 the Government’s Committee on Economic policy decided to keep the existing system largely unchanged except for introducing certain ‘border-lines’ between administrative and ‘production’ functions of the Road Service.
Ker zaradi različnih interesov dolgo ni bilo mogoče doseči dogovora o liberalizaciji trga, se je vladni Odbor za gospodarsko politiko 20. maja 1997 odločil, da ohrani veljavni sistem ter hkrati uvede nekatere „razmejitve“ med upravnim in „proizvodnim“ delovanjem službe za ceste.
It is only at the beginning of 2000 that the Government could reach a political agreement on the gradual liberalisation of the road services' market.
Šele na začetku leta 2000 je vlada dosegla politični dogovor o postopni liberalizaciji trga cestnih storitev.
This agreement was reflected in the package of legislative proposals submitted to the Parliament, namely the proposals for the Act on the Road Administration and the Act governing Tieliikelaitos, as well as the preliminary proposal for the annual budget law (the latter containing the foreseen financing necessary to measures accompanying the reform).
Ta dogovor je bil izražen v paketu zakonodajnih predlogov, predloženih parlamentu, in sicer kot predlog zakona o cestni upravi in predlog zakona o upravljanju podjetja Tieliikelaitos ter predhodni predlog zakona o letnem proračunu (slednji je vseboval predvideno financiranje, potrebno za reforme ukrepe).
When approving the respective acts, the Parliament not only endorsed the package of support measures for the benefit of Tieliikelaitos proposed by the Government, but decided that additional safeguards for the benefit of the undertaking’s employees would be introduced.
Pri sprejemanju teh zakonov je parlament potrdil paket podpornih ukrepov v korist podjetja Tieliikelaitos, ki jih je predlagala vlada, ter celo uvedel dodatne zaščitne ukrepe v korist zaposlenih v podjetju.
On top of the political and social considerations, there was also a competition-related aspect underpinning the market liberalisation model chosen by the Finnish Government.
Model liberalizacije trga, ki ga je izbrala finska vlada, je poleg političnih in socialnih vidikov podprl tudi konkurenčni vidik.
In view of the Finnish authorities, market opening without transition may have led to an oligopoly or even monopoly on the market, as Tieliikelaitos would have disappeared from the market, with its share being picked up by the biggest private competitors.
Po mnenju finskih organov bi lahko odprtje trga brez prehodnega obdobja na trgu povzročilo oligopol ali celo monopol, ker bi podjetje Tieliikelaitos izginilo s trga, medtem ko bi njegov delež prevzeli največji zasebni konkurenčni ponudniki.
Finland believes that the actions it has carried out do not constitute State aid.
Finska meni, da ukrepi, ki jih je izvedla, ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
Even if the Commission were to hold that the actions include State aid, the Finnish authorities believe that the aid should be declared compatible with the common market.
Tudi če Komisija meni, da ukrepi vključujejo državno pomoč, so finski organi prepričani, da mora biti pomoč opredeljena kot skladna s skupnim trgom.
To substantiate its position, Finland submitted , inter alia, an expert economic statement from brokerage company Icecapital Securities Ltd related to the alleged economic advantages conferred to Tieliikelaitos (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Expert statement’).
Za utemeljitev svojega stališča je Finska v zvezi z očitanimi gospodarskimi prednostmi, ki jih je imelo podjetje Tieliikelaitos, med drugim predložila poročilo gospodarskih strokovnjakov borznoposredniške družbe Icecapital Securities Ltd (v nadaljnjem besedilu „strokovno poročilo“).
While the complainants doubt the validity of this Expert statement, on the grounds that Icecapital would be economically dependent on Tieliikelaitos, the Finnish authorities argue that Tieliikelaitos is only one of Icecapital’s clients among many others.
Pritožniki dvomijo o veljavnosti tega strokovnega poročila, saj je družba Icecapital gospodarsko odvisna od podjetja Tieliikelaitos, finski organi pa temu nasprotujejo in poudarjajo, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos le ena od mnogih strank družbe Icecapital.
IceCapital’s work for Tieliikelaitos was occasional during the two years they had business relation (In 2005 IceCapital’s work for Tieliikelaitos brought 4,7 % from its annual revenues; in 2006 — 3,1 %).
Družba Icecapital je za podjetje Tieliikelaitos delala občasno v dveh letih njunega poslovnega sodelovanja (leta 2005 je delo družbe Icecapital za podjetje Tieliikelaitos zajemalo 4,7 % njenega letnega prihodka, leta 2006 pa 3,1 %).
The Finnish government has subjected the provision of the Expert statement to tender, and Icecapital was chosen to provide the statement.
Finska vlada je pripravo strokovnega poročila objavila na razpisu, družba Icecapital pa je bila izbrana, da ga pripravi.
The Finnish authorities also observe that the fact that Tieliikelaitos has used Icecapital’s services in the past has deepened Icecapital’s understanding of the earth-moving sector, which has been of benefit in the preparation of the Expert statement.
Finski organi so tudi ugotovili, da je dejstvo, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos v preteklosti že koristilo storitve družbe Icecapital, pri družbi Icecapital pripomoglo k razumevanju sektorja zemeljskih del, kar ji je koristilo tudi pri pripravi strokovnega poročila.
The Finnish authorities assert that it was not a case of a normal granting of a loan, where a company is granted a loan of a certain size, which is repaid with interest within a certain time.
Finski organi zatrjujejo, da to ni bil primer običajne dodelitve posojila, ko se družbi dodeli posojilo določene vsote, ki se v določenem obdobju vrne z obrestmi.
Rather, it was a transfer of assets to Tieliikelaitos with a repayment obligation.
To je bil prenos sredstev na podjetje Tieliikelaitos z obveznim vračilom.
Finland believes that if the entire stock of assets had been disbursed to Tieliikelaitos as equity, a distortion of competition might have been created.
Finska meni, da bi lahko prišlo do izkrivljanja konkurence, če bi bila celotna sredstva podjetju Tieliikelaitos izplačana kot kapital.
When examining the balance sheets of private undertakings in this sector, the undertakings have fixed assets in their balance sheets acquired both as equity and as loans.
Pri pregledu bilanc stanja zasebnih podjetij v tem sektorju je bilo ugotovljeno, da so podjetja osnovna sredstva v bilancah stanja pridobila kot kapital in kot posojila.
Therefore, it was important that Tieliikelaitos’ balance sheet included assets acquired as loans.
Zato je bilo pomembno, da je bilanca stanja podjetja Tieliikelaitos vključevala sredstva, pridobljena kot posojila.
If this had not been done, Finland claims that Tieliikelaitos would have gained a competitive advantage financially equal to the capital repayment of the loan.
Finska meni, da bi podjetje Tieliikelaitos v nasprotnem primeru imelo konkurenčne prednosti, ki bi bila enaka vračilu glavnice posojila.
The Finnish authorities believe that the structure of Tieliikelaitos’ opening balance sheet was created in line with the balance sheets of private undertakings in the sector.
Finski organi menijo, da je bila struktura začetne bilance stanja podjetja Tieliikelaitos pripravljena v skladu z bilancami stanja zasebnih podjetij v tem sektorju.
If the measure is examined as a normal long-term loan, Finland believes that the cost of the loan should be compared with the financing available on the market during the whole term of the loan.
Če se ukrep šteje za običajno dolgoročno posojilo, Finska meni, da je treba stroške posojila primerjati s financiranjem, ki je bilo na voljo na trgu med celotnim obdobjem trajanja posojila.
A comparison which only compares some years of the loan with market alternatives does not give a total picture of the cost of the loan.
Primerjava, ki posojilo primerja z drugimi možnostmi na trgu le v obdobju nekaj let, ne odraža celotnih stroškov posojila.
Therefore, Finland believes that the period 2005-2015 must be considered alongside the transitional period 2001-2004.
Zato Finska meni, da je treba poleg prehodnega obdobja 2001–2004 upoštevati tudi obdobje 2005–2015.
The Finnish authorities state that Tieliikelaitos has not the possibility of terminating the loan agreement during the term of the loan without the consent of the lender.
Finski organi navajajo, da podjetje v obdobju trajanja posojila brez soglasja posojilodajalca ne more odstopiti od sporazuma o posojilu.
Therefore, in calculating the possible advantage conferred by the long-term loan, due account must be taken of the entire time period during which Tieliikelaitos has to pay interest.
Zato je treba pri izračunu mogočih ugodnosti zaradi dolgoročnega posojila ustrezno upoštevati celotno časovno obdobje, v katerem je podjetje Tieliikelaitos plačevalo obresti.
Such a calculation results in a significantly different result from the calculations of the complainants.
Rezultat takšnega izračuna se bistveno razlikuje od rezultata izračunov pritožnikov.
With respect to the relevant rate of interest, the Finnish authorities observe that 12-month Euribor is generally used as the reference rate of interest in corporate loans.
V zvezi z ustrezno obrestno mero finski organi ugotavljajo, da se 12-mesečna obrestna mera Euribor splošno uporablja kot referenčna obrestna mera pri posojilih za podjetja.
Finland notes that a forward curve exists that predicts what the level of market interest rates will be till 2015.
Finska navaja, da obstaja krivulja terminskih cen, ki napoveduje, kako visoka bo tržna obrestna mera do leta 2015.
The curve is based on the expectations of the development of interest rates by various market participants.
Krivulja temelji na pričakovanem razvoju obrestnih mer različnih udeležencev na trgu.
The reference rates of interest used in the calculations of the Expert statement are based on information available from the forward market, and thus describe the market’s understanding of what the future rate of interest will be.
Referenčne obrestne mere, uporabljene v izračunih strokovnega poročila, temeljijo na podatkih, ki so na voljo na terminskem trgu, ter odražajo, kakšno obrestno mero predvideva trg v prihodnje.
Based on this, it is evident from the Expert statement that from the end of the transitional period until the end of the term of the loan, Tieliikelaitos must pay about EUR 2,0 million more than for financing at the market rate of interest, as they were forecast by market analysts as of 8 May 2006.
Na podlagi tega je iz strokovnega poročila razvidno, da bi moralo podjetje Tieliikelaitos od konca prehodnega obdobja do konca trajanja posojila plačati približno 2,0 milijona EUR več kot za financiranje po tržni obrestni meri, ki so jo 8. maja 2006 napovedali tržni analitiki.
Thus, Finland concludes that, in any event, this amount of EUR 2 million should be deducted from the EUR 3,2 million evaluated by the complainants, with the result that Tieliikelaitos’ maximum possible advantage from the State loan is EUR 1,2 million.
Na podlagi tega Finska sklepa, da je treba znesek 2 milijona EUR v vsakem primeru odšteti od zneska 3,2 milijona EUR, kot so ga ocenili pritožniki, kar pomeni, da je največja možna korist državnega posojila za podjetje Tieliikelaitos1,2 milijona EUR.
To start with, the Finnish authorities explain that one of the main principles underlying the split-up of the Road Services into the Road Administration and Tieliikelaitos was that assets covered by road legislation, i.e. mainly the roads themselves, had to be kept by the Road Administration, whereas assets formerly used by the ‘production part’ of the Road Service (Tieliikelaitos’ predecessor) in the course of road maintenance had to be kept for road maintenance purposes by Tieliikelaitos.
Finski organi trdijo, da je bilo eno glavnih načel, na katerem je temeljila razdelitev službe za ceste na cestno upravo in podjetje Tieliikelaitos, da mora premoženje, ki ga ureja zakonodaja o cestah, to so bile predvsem ceste, zadržati cestna uprava, medtem ko mora premoženje, ki ga je prej uporabljal „proizvodni del“ službe za ceste (predhodnik podjetja Tieliikelaitos) pri vzdrževanju cest, zadržati podjetje Tieliikelaitos.
As to the valuation of land and gravel sites at the disposal of Tieliikelaitos, Finnish authorities believe that the appraisal of land sites and gravel sites was carried out in accordance with the principles described in the Commission’s communication on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities.
Glede ocene zemlje in gramoznega terena, ki ga ima na voljo podjetje Tieliikelaitos, finski organi menijo, da je bila ocena zemljišč in gramoznega terena izvedena v skladu z načeli iz Sporočila Komisije o elementih državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih organov.
Finland asserts that Catella’s valuation which was taken as the basis for establishing the value of the gravel and land sites can be considered to be the result of estimate by an impartial valuator.
Finska zatrjuje, da se lahko ocena družbe Catella, ki je bila uporabljena kot podlaga za določitev vrednosti zemlje in gramoznega terena, šteje kot ocena nepristranskega cenilca.
The adjustment of Catella’s estimate (downwards revision from FIM 128 million to FIM 113 million) was made because the Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communication considered that the price of concrete gravel would decrease when Tieliikelaitos would enter on the respective market as a seller, that value added in the extraction process was lower on the basis of the National Land Survey of Finland and that after-treatment costs would be higher based on new requirements concerning the after-treatment of land resource areas.
Ocena družbe Catella (znižanje s 128 milijonov FIM na 113 milijonov FIM je bila prilagojena, ker je finsko Ministrstvo za promet in zveze menilo, da se bi cena gramoza znižala, ko bi podjetje Tieliikelaitos vstopilo na zadevni trg kot prodajalec, da se bo dodana vrednost pridobljene zemlje po ocenah nacionalnega finskega urada za geodetsko dejavnost znižala in da bi bili stroški po obdelavi višji zaradi novih zahtev v zvezi z naknadno obdelavo območij zemeljskih virov.
In view of the downwards revision of the value of the land assets done in Tieliikelaitos financial reports during the transitional period and accepted by Tieliikelaitos auditors (Ernst and Young) the Finnish authorities estimate, that land and gravel sites were still entered into Tieliikelaitos’ balance sheet at an excessive value compared with the audited book values.
V zvezi z znižanjem vrednosti zemljišč v poslovnih poročilih podjetja Tieliikelaitos za prehodno obdobje, ki so ga sprejeli revizorji podjetja Tieliikelaitos (Ernst & Young), finski organi ocenjujejo, da sta bili za zemljo in gramozni teren v bilanci stanja podjetja Tieliikelaitos navedeni preveliki vrednosti v primerjavi z vrednostmi iz revidiranih poslovnih knjig.
This conclusion was confirmed by IceCapital which carried out the overall evaluation of the arrangements for the benefit of Tieliikelaitos.
To ugotovitev je potrdila družba Icecapital, ki je izvedla splošno oceno ureditve v korist podjetja Tieliikelaitos.
Therefore, Tieliikelaitos did not gain an economic advantage, but rather incurred an economic disadvantage of EUR 4,3 million.
Zato podjetje Tieliikelaitos ni pridobilo gospodarske prednosti, ampak je prej imelo gospodarsko škodo v višini 4,3 milijona EUR.
Finland notes that the auditors are experts in the evaluation of the bases of expected income and therefore had necessary qualification to verify the validity of the non-marketability deductions made by the company.
Finska ugotavlja, da so revizorji strokovnjaki za ocenjevanje pričakovanega dohodka in so zato ustrezno usposobljeni za preverjanje veljavnosti netržnih odbitkov, ki jih je izvedlo podjetje.
With respect to the complainants’ preference for no land being entered in Tieliikelaitos’ books and for Tieliikelaitos buying all land resources it needed externally at market prices (Cf. Section 4.2), Finland notes that during the transitional period Tieliikelaitos bought significant amounts of land resources from external parties at market prices: 47 % in 2001, 39 % in 2002, 41 % in 2003 and 34 % in 2004.
V zvezi z željo pritožnikov, da v poslovnih knjigah podjetja Tieliikelaitos ne bi bila navedena zemlja in da bi podjetje Tieliikelaitos kupilo vse potrebne zemeljske vire po tržnih cenah (glej oddelek 4.2), Finska ugotavlja, da je podjetje Tieliikelaitos v prehodnem obdobju kupilo velike količine zemeljskih virov od zunanjih strank po tržnih cenah: 47 % leta 2001, 39 % leta 2002, 41 % leta 2003 in 34 % leta 2004.