natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 30 January 2008 the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure because the Dutch authorities had not provided sufficient evidence to allow the Commission to conclude that the notified investment by the municipality of Rotterdam did not constitute State aid or that any such aid was compatible with the EC Treaty.
Komisija se je 30. januarja 2008 odločila sprožiti formalni postopek preiskave, ker nizozemski organi niso predložili zadostnih dokazov, na podlagi katerih bi Komisija lahko ugotovila, da priglašena naložba občine Rotterdam ni pomenila državne pomoči ali da je bila kakršna koli takšna pomoč združljiva s Pogodbo ES.
In particular, the Commission doubted whether the design of the profit-sharing arrangement stipulated in the lease concluded between Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the municipality was adequate to ensure that the operator of the Ahoy complex would not be granted an economic advantage beyond normal market conditions as a result of the notified investment.
Komisija je zlasti dvomila glede tega, da oblikovanje dogovora o udeležbi pri dobičku, ki ga določa najemna pogodba, sklenjena med podjetjem Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in občino, zadostuje za zagotovitev, da upravljavec kompleksa Ahoy zaradi priglašene naložbe ne bi dobil gospodarske prednosti, ki presega običajne tržne pogoje.
The investigation also covered the sale of Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the lease of the Ahoy complex to the privatised operator, transactions which had been carried out by the municipality of Rotterdam but which had not been notified to the Commission by the Dutch authorities.
Preiskava je vključevala tudi prodajo podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in oddajo kompleksa Ahoy v najem privatiziranemu upravljavcu, transakciji, ki ju je izvršila občina Rotterdam, vendar ju nizozemski organi niso priglasili Komisiji.
Given that these transactions were closely interlinked with the notified investment, the Commission considered it necessary to verify whether any of them comprised any element of State aid.
Glede na to, da sta bili ti transakciji tesno povezani s priglašeno naložbo, je Komisija menila, da je treba preveriti, ali katera od njiju vključuje element državne pomoči.
The Commission also took account here of the fact that the Deloitte valuation reports used as a basis for these transactions were themselves to a certain extent based on the information provided by the management of Ahoy Rotterdam NV, which as a prospective buyer and lessee faced a conflict of interest.
Komisija je pri tem upoštevala tudi dejstvo, da so sama poročila o vrednotenju podjetja Deloitte, ki so bila uporabljena kot podlaga za ti transakciji, delno temeljila na informacijah, ki jih je predložila uprava podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V., ki je bila kot možen kupec in najemojemalec v navzkrižju interesov.
Finally, the Commission also initiated the formal investigation procedure in order to give the Dutch authorities and third parties the opportunity to submit their comments on its provisional assessment of the measure described and to give the Commission any relevant information related to the measure.
Komisija je sprožila tudi formalni postopek preiskave, da bi nizozemskim organom in tretjim strankam omogočila, da ji predložijo pripombe v zvezi z njeno začasno oceno opisanega ukrepa in ustrezne podatke, ki so povezani z ukrepom.
COMMENTS BY THIRD PARTIES
PRIPOMBE TRETJIH STRANK
Following the initiation of the procedure, the Commission received comments from three interested parties, namely Ahoy Rotterdam NV, the alleged recipient of State aid; Mojo and Music Dome, which submitted joint observations; and one individual person [10].
Po sprožitvi postopka je Komisija prejela pripombe treh zainteresiranih strank, tj. podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V., domnevnega prejemnika državne pomoči; podjetij Mojo in Music Dome, ki sta predložili skupne pripombe; in enega posameznika [10].
According to Ahoy Rotterdam NV, the sale of Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the lease of the Ahoy complex were at worst on market terms and might even be more generous to the municipality.
Po navedbah podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. sta bili prodaja podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in oddaja kompleksa Ahoy v najem v najslabšem primeru v skladu s tržnimi pogoji in morda celo ugodnejši za občino.
The alleged recipient drew attention to the restrictions and conditions included in the lease and price agreements, which considerably limited the value of the lease and the purchase price.
Domnevni prejemnik je opozoril na omejitve in pogoje, vključene v sporazume glede oddaje in cene, ki so znatno omejili vrednost najema in nabavne cene.
Ahoy Rotterdam NV stated that the investment in the Ahoy Arena related mainly to maintenance and renovation, and was aimed only to a limited extent at an increase in capacity [11].
Podjetje Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. je navedlo, da je bila naložba v stadion Ahoy povezana predvsem z vzdrževanjem in obnovo ter da je bilo povečanje zmogljivosti le delno njen cilj [11].
In so far as the increase in capacity would lead to better operating possibilities, Ahoy Rotterdam NV asserted, on the basis of the financial data supplied, that the profit-sharing arrangement would ensure that the municipality would benefit more than would be required by the market economy investor principle.
Podjetje Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. je na podlagi predloženih finančnih podatkov trdilo, da bi dogovor o udeležbi pri dobičku občini zagotovil večji dobiček, kot je potrebno v skladu z načelom tržnega vlagatelja, v kolikor bi povečanje zmogljivosti vodilo v boljše možnosti za opravljanje dejavnosti.
Mojo and Music Dome maintained the position they had put forward in the complaint they submitted before the initiation of the formal investigation [12], to the effect that the planned investment in the Ahoy complex and the related transactions (the privatisation of the operation of Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the lease of the property) involved illegal State aid.
Podjetji Mojo in Music Dome sta vztrajali pri stališču, ki sta ga predložili v pritožbi pred sprožitvijo formalne preiskave [12], da so načrtovana naložba v kompleks Ahoy in z njo povezani transakciji (privatizacija pravic do upravljanja podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in oddaja nepremičnine v najem) vključevale nezakonito državno pomoč.
Mojo and Music Dome argued that the planned investment conferred an advantage on the operator of the complex, in particular because the expansion of the capacity of the Ahoy Arena would increase the operator’s revenues.
Podjetji Mojo in Music Dome sta trdili, da je načrtovana naložba omogočila prednost upravljavcu kompleksa, zlasti ker bi razširitev zmogljivosti stadiona Ahoy povečala prihodke upravljavca.
Even if the operator’s revenues did not increase, the improvement of the facilities would still confer a competitive advantage on Ahoy Rotterdam NV, as it would have the benefit of an improvement in the facilities free of charge, whereas any private undertaking would have had to pay the cost itself.
Tudi če se prihodki upravljavca ne bi povečali, bi izboljšava objektov podjetju Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. omogočila konkurenčno prednost, ker bi podjetje pridobilo z brezplačnim izboljšanjem objektov, medtem ko bi druga zasebna podjetja morala stroške poravnati sama.
The improvement would help the operator to consolidate its position in the market or even to improve it.
Izboljšava bi upravljavcu omogočila utrditev ali celo izboljšavo položaja na trgu.
Furthermore, the investment was not profitable for the municipality of Rotterdam and therefore could not satisfy the market economy investor test.
Poleg tega naložba občini Rotterdam ni prinesla dobička in zato ni mogla zadostiti preskusu vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji.
According to Mojo and Music Dome, the profit-sharing mechanism did not remove the operator’s advantage.
Po navedbah podjetij Mojo in Music Dome mehanizem za udeležbo pri dobičku ni odpravil prednosti upravljavca.
It was clear that the final profit-sharing arrangement had not been tested by any independent consultant.
Bilo je jasno, da končnega dogovora o udeležbi pri dobičku ni preveril noben neodvisni svetovalec.
Furthermore, the mechanism would not be consistent with the market: even if the operator were to repay the investment in full under the profit-sharing mechanism, the operator would still receive an economic advantage, because the municipality of Rotterdam was to bear the entire economic risk of the investment.
Poleg tega mehanizem ne bi bil skladen s trgom: tudi če bi upravljavec v okviru mehanizma za udeležbo pri dobičku naložbo v celoti povrnil, bi vseeno dobil gospodarsko prednost, ker bi občina Rotterdam prevzela celotno gospodarsko naložbeno tveganje.
If the investment did not result in increased revenue, the municipality would get nothing at all.
Če naložba ne bi ustvarila večjega prihodka, občina ne bi prejela ničesar.
Only if there was indeed extra revenue would the municipality recover part of its investment.
Le če bi bil dejansko ustvarjen dodaten prihodek, bi občina dobila povrnjen del svoje naložbe.
No private investor would have accepted such conditions.
Takih pogojev ne bi sprejel noben zasebni vlagatelj.
As regards the price of shares in Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the rent for the Ahoy complex, Mojo and Music Dome argued that the conflict of interest faced by the management and prospective buyer when it submitted the information to Deloitte had resulted in a valuation of the shares in Ahoy Rotterdam NV that was too low.
V zvezi s cenami delnic podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in najemnino za kompleks Ahoy sta podjetji Mojo in Music Dome trdili, da je navzkrižje interesov, v katerem sta bila uprava in možen kupec, ko je uprava predložila podatke podjetju Deloitte, prispevalo k vrednotenju delnic podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V., ki je bilo prenizko.
They again questioned the reliability of the forecasts by the management of Ahoy Rotterdam that were used by Deloitte to value the shares of the company.
Ponovno sta podvomili v zanesljivost napovedi uprave podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam, ki jih je podjetje Deloitte uporabilo pri vrednotenju delnic podjetja.
According to Mojo and Music Dome, the management report accompanying the financial accounts for 2004/2005 suggested that there was a trend in Ahoy’s turnover in which ‘good’ years alternated with ‘moderate’ years.
Po navedbah podjetij Mojo in Music Dome je poslovno poročilo, ki je bilo predloženo finančnim poročilom za leto 2004/2005, pokazalo, da se v zvezi s prihodkom kompleksa Ahoy „dobra“ leta izmenjujejo z „zmernimi“ leti.
The operator had indicated this trend to Deloitte as well, but in the light of the very small differences in the number of events scheduled each year the alleged trend could not be considered credible [13].
Upravljavec je to gibanje sporočil tudi podjetju Deloitte, vendar glede na zelo majhne razlike v številu prireditev, ki so vsako leto načrtovane, to domnevno gibanje ne more biti verodostojno [13].
This trend did not correspond to the actual turnover either, because the financial year 2005/2006, which would have been expected to be ‘moderate’, had in fact turned out to be a ‘good’ year It was not realistic to suppose that the operator could not have envisaged the high turnover in the year 2005/2006, especially given that the events organised in Ahoy were booked well in advance.
To gibanje prav tako ni ustrezalo dejanskemu prihodku, ker se je poslovno leto 2005/2006, ki naj bi bilo po pričakovanjih „zmerno“, dejansko izkazalo za „dobro“ leto. Ni bilo realno domnevati, da upravljavec ne bi mogel predvideti visokega prihodka v letu 2005/2006, zlasti glede na to, da so bile prireditve, organizirane v kompleksu Ahoy, rezervirane precej vnaprej.
The theoretical series of future cash flows in the Deloitte report was artificial.
Teoretični nizi prihodnjih tokov denarja v poročilu podjetja Deloitte so bili umetni.
The forecast in the Deloitte report began with a ‘bad’ year and ended with a ‘good’ year.
Napoved v poročilu podjetja Deloitte se je začela s „slabim“ letom in končala z „dobrim“ letom.
If it had started with a ‘good’ year and ended with a ‘bad’ year, the present value of the future cash flow, and thus the value of the shares, would have been much more positive.
Če bi se začela z „dobrim“ letom in končala s „slabim“ letom, bi bila sedanja vrednost prihodnjega denarnega toka in s tem vrednost delnic veliko bolj pozitivna.
Finally, if Deloitte had made an accurate forecast of the expected result for the financial year 2005/2006, the value of the company would have been put considerably higher.
Če bi podjetje Deloitte točno napovedalo pričakovani rezultat za poslovno leto 2005/2006, bi bila vrednost podjetja določena bistveno višje.
It could be argued that other things being equal the difference between the actual EBITDA, EUR 5,745 million, and the forecast EBITDA, EUR 1,252 million, constituted extra cash flow in the first forecast year, which would result in an increase of EUR 4,493 million in the indicative value of the company [14].
Lahko bi se trdilo, da bi ob enakih okoliščinah razlika med dejanskim dobičkom pred obrestmi, davki in amortizacijo v višini 5,745 milijona EUR in napovedanim dobičkom pred obrestmi, davki in amortizacijo v višini 1,252 milijona EUR predstavljala dodatni denarni tok v prvem napovedanem letu, zaradi česar bi se okvirna vrednost podjetja povečala za 4,493 milijona EUR [14].
V. POSITION OF THE DUTCH AUTHORITIES
V. STALIŠČE NIZOZEMSKIH ORGANOV
The Dutch authorities also replied to the third-party observations on the decision to initiate the procedure, and commented on a non-confidential version of the ECORYS NV report.
Nizozemski organi so odgovorili tudi na pripombe tretjih strank v zvezi z odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka in predložili pripombe v zvezi z različico poročila podjetja ECORYS N.V., ki ni zaupna.
Throughout their submissions, the Dutch authorities maintained the position they had put forward before the formal investigation was initiated [15], to the effect that neither the investment in the Ahoy complex by the municipality of Rotterdam nor the sale of Ahoy Rotterdam NV and lease of the complex constituted State aid.
Nizozemski organi so v svojih prispevkih ohranili stališče, ki so ga imeli pred sprožitvijo formalne preiskave [15], in sicer da naložba občine Rotterdam v kompleks Ahoy ter prodaja podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in oddaja kompleksa v najem ne pomenijo državne pomoči.
Comments on the decision to initiate the procedure
Pripombe v zvezi z odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka
The Dutch authorities for the most part referred back to information submitted before the decision to initiate the procedure, and maintained their position that the planned investment did not contain any State aid component.
Nizozemski organi so se večinoma sklicevali na podatke, predložene pred odločitvijo o sprožitvi postopka, in ohranili stališče, da načrtovana naložba ne vključuje elementov državne pomoči.
They reiterated that the investment should be regarded as an investment in public infrastructure, which did not confer a selective advantage on any undertaking and which guaranteed the multifunctional character of the complex.
Poudarili so, da je treba naložbo obravnavati kot naložbo v javno infrastrukturo, ki nobenemu podjetju ni omogočila selektivne prednosti in je zagotovila večnamenskost kompleksa.
The contractor who would carry out the investment was to be selected through an open tender procedure.
Pogodbenik, ki bi izvedel naložbo, bi se izbral v okviru javnega razpisnega postopka.
The investment, including the expansion of capacity, was needed to maintain the value of the Ahoy complex; of the total EUR 42 million, only EUR 7 million was to be used to increase the capacity of the Ahoy Arena.
Naložba, ki vključuje razširitev zmogljivosti, je bila potrebna za ohranitev vrednosti kompleksa Ahoy; od skupnega zneska 42 milijonov EUR bi bilo le 7 milijonov EUR namenjenih povečanju zmogljivosti stadiona Ahoy.
The rent and share price calculated in the Deloitte reports would ensure a price consistent with the market.
Višina najemnine in cene delnic, izračunane v poročilih podjetja Deloitte, bi zagotovile ceno, skladno s trgom.
The Dutch authorities said that Deloitte confirmed that it undertook its own analyses of the available information, and that its conclusions differed from those of the management on a number of points.
Nizozemski organi so navedli, da je podjetje Deloitte potrdilo, da je izvajalo svoje analize razpoložljivih podatkov, in da se ugotovitve podjetja Deloitte v številnih točkah razlikujejo od ugotovitev uprave.
The Deloitte reports consequently provided a firm basis for drawing conclusions regarding a rent and share price consistent with the market.
Poročila podjetja Deloitte so zato zagotovila trdno podlago za oblikovanje ugotovitev v zvezi z višino najemnine in cene delnic, ki bi bila skladna s trgom.
The profit-sharing mechanism was an effective way of ensuring that no undue advantage was conferred even after the completion of the investment.
Mehanizem za udeležbo pri dobičku je učinkovito zagotavljal, da niti po zaključku naložbe ni bila pridobljena neupravičena prednost.
The threshold triggering the profit-sharing mechanism was set in nominal terms, and was not subject to indexation.
Mejna vrednost, ki sproži mehanizem za udeležbo pri dobičku, je bila nominalno določena in ni bila predmet indeksacije.
If the latest results of Ahoy Management NV were simply increased by an expected annual inflation rate of 2 %, additional rent would be received under the profit-sharing mechanism from 2010/2011 onwards.
Če bi se najnovejši rezultati uprave podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. povečali le za pričakovano letno stopnjo inflacije 2 %, bi se od leta 2010/2011 dalje prejemala dodatna najemnina v okviru mehanizma za udeležbo pri dobičku.
From 2013/2014, in that scenario, the rent paid by Ahoy Management NV would be higher than the rent calculated by the complainants Mojo and Music Dome.
V skladu s takim potekom dogodkov bi bila od leta 2013/2014 najemnina, ki jo plačuje uprava podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V., višja od najemnine, ki sta jo izračunala pritožnika, podjetji Mojo in Music Dome.
The profit-sharing mechanism was thus an effective tool for ensuring that the rent was consistent with the market.
Mehanizem za udeležbo pri dobičku je bil torej učinkovito orodje za zagotavljanje, da je najemnina skladna s trgom.
Comments on the third-party observations and the independent consultant’s report
Pripombe v zvezi z ugotovitvami tretjih strank in poročilom neodvisnega svetovalca
A significant proportion of the events were organised on a two-yearly basis, and some of them produced substantial additional income [16].
Velik delež prireditev je bil organiziran na dve leti, pri čemer so nekatere od njih ustvarile znaten dodaten prihodek [16].
In addition, the turnover of an event could easily differ from expectations.
Poleg tega bi se lahko prihodek prireditve hitro razlikoval od pričakovanj.
The Dutch authorities therefore rejected the view put forward by Mojo and Music Dome.
Nizozemski organi so zato zavrnili stališče, ki sta ga predložili podjetji Mojo in Music Dome.
As regards the independent consultant’s report, the Dutch authorities noted that the observations in the report were largely in line with the Deloitte reports.
V zvezi s poročilom neodvisnega svetovalca so nizozemski organi ugotovili, da so bile ugotovitve v poročilu v veliki meri v skladu s poročili podjetja Deloitte.
In particular, the report concluded that the profit-sharing mechanism ensured that the operator would not derive an economic advantage from the planned investment.
Poročilo je zlasti ugotovilo, da je mehanizem za udeležbo pri dobičku zagotovil, da upravljavec z načrtovano naložbo ne bi dobil gospodarske prednosti.
The report thus confirmed that the agreements concluded were consistent line with market conditions.
Poročilo je tako potrdilo, da so bili sklenjeni sporazumi v skladu s tržnimi pogoji.
THE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT’S STUDY
ŠTUDIJA NEODVISNEGA SVETOVALCA
As part of the investigation, the Commission selected an independent consultant, ECORYS Nederland BV, to carry out a review of the valuation reports prepared by Deloitte [17], which had served as a basis for the municipality when it sold the operation of Ahoy Rotterdam NV and leased the Ahoy complex.
Komisija je kot del preiskave izbrala neodvisnega svetovalca, podjetje ECORYS Nederland B.V., da izvede pregled poročil o vrednotenju, ki jih je pripravilo podjetje Deloitte [17] ter ki jih je občina uporabila kot podlago pri prodaji pravic do opravljanja dejavnosti podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in oddaje kompleksa Ahoy v najem.
The consultant was also requested to review the valuation report of DTZ Zadelhoff (DTZ) that had been submitted by the complainants before the initiation of the investigation [18], and to assess whether the profit-sharing arrangement stipulated in the lease between Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the municipality was consistent with the market.
Svetovalca je tudi prosila, da pregleda poročilo o vrednotenju podjetja DTZ Zadelhoff (v nadaljnjem besedilu: podjetje DTZ), ki sta ga pred sprožitvijo preiskave predložila pritožnika [18], ter oceni, ali je dogovor o udeležbi pri dobičku, določen v najemni pogodbi med podjetjem Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in občino, skladen s trgom.
For all of these valuation reports, the consultant was requested to state a view on the correctness of the methodology applied.
Svetovalca je prosila za mnenje o pravilnosti uporabljene metodologije za vsa ta poročila o vrednotenju.
The consultant found that in the Deloitte reports valuing the shares in Ahoy Rotterdam NV and determining the rent for the Ahoy complex, the methodology applied was correct.
Svetovalec je ugotovil, da je bila v poročilih podjetja Deloitte o vrednotenju delnic podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in določitvi najemnine za kompleks Ahoy uporabljena metodologija pravilna.
It was reasonable for Deloitte to make use among other things of the information provided by the management, but Deloitte had based its final valuation on its own forecasts, which differed from the management’s expectations.
Razumljivo je bilo, da je podjetje Deloitte med drugim uporabilo informacije, ki jih je predložila uprava, vendar je pri svojem končnem vrednotenju izhajalo iz svojih lastnih napovedi, ki so se razlikovale od pričakovanj uprave.
According to the consultant, the discrepancy between the valuations of the rent for the Ahoy complex arrived at by Deloitte and DTZ resulted from the different methods they had applied.
Po navedbah svetovalca je neskladje med vrednotenji najemnine kompleksa Ahoy, ki sta ju pripravili podjetji Deloitte in DTZ, posledica različnih metod, ki sta jih uporabili.
The consultant approved of the approach taken by Deloitte [19].
Svetovalec je odobril pristop, ki ga je uporabilo podjetje Deloitte [19].
Underlining the close relation between Deloitte’s valuation of the shares in Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the determination of the rent for the complex, the independent consultant confirmed that given that Deloitte’s valuation of the shares was fair the method Deloitte had followed provided the most accurate estimate of the market level of the rent for the Ahoy complex.
Neodvisni svetovalec je s poudarkom tesne povezave med vrednotenjem delnic podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in določitvijo najemnine za kompleks pri podjetju Deloitte potrdil, da je metoda, ki jo je uporabilo podjetje Deloitte, zagotovila najbolj točno oceno najemnine za kompleks Ahoy na tržni ravni glede na to, da je bila določitev vrednosti delnic podjetja Deloitte pravična.
The independent consultant’s report confirmed that the assumption in the Deloitte report that an increase in the capacity of the Ahoy Arena as a result of the intended investment would not automatically produce additional value for the operator was a defensible one [20].
Poročilo neodvisnega svetovalca je potrdilo, da je bila predpostavka v poročilu podjetja Deloitte, da povečanje zmogljivosti stadiona Ahoy zaradi predvidene naložbe ne bo samodejno pomenilo dodane vrednosti za upravljavca [20], upravičena.