natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the profit-sharing arrangement, the consultant concluded that the mechanism guaranteed a reasonable rent increase in conformity with market conditions in return for the planned investment by the municipality of Rotterdam.
V zvezi z dogovorom o udeležbi pri dobičku je svetovalec ugotovil, da mehanizem zagotavlja razumno povišanje najemnine v skladu s tržnimi pogoji v zameno za načrtovano naložbo občine Rotterdam.
As the thresholds set in the profit-sharing arrangement were not subject to indexation, the municipality, as the lessor, might well secure a windfall profit even if the operator, as the lessee, did not exploit the investment in the complex.
Ker mejne vrednosti, določene v dogovoru o udeležbi pri dobičku, niso bile predmet indeksacije, si je lahko občina kot najemodajalec zagotovila nepričakovani dobiček, tudi če upravljavec kot najemojemalec ne bi izkoristil naložbe v kompleks.
ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATE AID RULES
OCENA OB UPOŠTEVANJU PRAVIL GLEDE DRŽAVNIH POMOČI
The Commission has considered whether the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, which provides that ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.
Komisija je preučila, ali je ukrep državna pomoč v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES, ki določa, da „je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor prizadene trgovino med državami članicami.“
It will be seen that if it is to be classed as State aid the notified investment by the municipality of Rotterdam must meet all of the following conditions: (1) the measure must be funded out of State resources; (2) it must confer an economic advantage on undertakings; (3) the advantage must be selective and distort or threaten to distort competition; and (4) the measure must affect trade between Member States.
Da bi se štela kot državna pomoč, mora priglašena naložba občine Rotterdam izpolnjevati naslednje pogoje: 1. ukrep mora biti financiran iz državnih sredstev; 2. podjetjem mora omogočiti gospodarsko prednost; 3. prednost mora biti selektivna in izkrivljati ali pomeniti nevarnost izkrivljanja konkurence; ter 4. ukrep mora vplivati na trgovino med državami članicami.
The other transactions carried out by the municipality, namely the sale of the operation of Ahoy Rotterdam NV to the management and the lease concluded with the privatise operator, may thus likewise have involved State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1).
Prav tako so lahko torej druge transakcije, ki jih je izvedla občina, zlasti prodaja pravic do opravljanja dejavnosti podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. upravi in najemna pogodba, ki jo je sklenila s privatiziranim upravljavcem, vključevale državna sredstva v smislu člena 87(1).
Economic advantage to the operator
Gospodarska prednost upravljavca
As was pointed out in the decision initiating the procedure, the sale of the operation of Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the lease of the Ahoy complex would confer an economic advantage on the buyer/lessee only if the price of shares in Ahoy Rotterdam NV or the rent for the Ahoy complex were set below their market level.
Kot je bilo poudarjeno v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka, bi prodaja pravic do opravljanja dejavnosti podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in oddaja v najem kompleksa Ahoy kupcu/najemojemalcu omogočili gospodarsko prednost le, če bi bila cena delnic podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. določena pod tržno ravnjo.
In the decision initiating the procedure the Commission noted that the price for Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the level of rent for the Ahoy complex had been determined directly on the basis of valuation reports prepared by an independent valuer, Deloitte.
Komisija je v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka ugotovila, da sta bili cena podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in višina najemnine za kompleks Ahoy določeni neposredno na podlagi poročil o vrednotenju, ki jih je pripravil neodvisni cenilec Deloitte.
However, in view of the close link between these transactions and the notified investment, the Commission considered it necessary to verify the terms of the transactions, and n so doing to take account of the fact that Deloitte’s reports were to a certain extent based on information provided by the management of Ahoy Rotterdam NV, which as a prospective buyer/lessee faced a conflict of interest.
Vendar je Komisija menila, da je glede na tesno povezavo med temi transakcijami in priglašeno naložbo treba preveriti pogoje transakcij in pri tem upoštevati dejstvo, da so poročila podjetja Deloitte delno temeljila na informacijah, ki jih je predložila uprava podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V., ki je bila kot možen kupec/najemojemalec v navzkrižju interesov.
As part of the investigation, the Commission decided to obtain an independent consultant’s opinion on the reliability of the Deloitte reports, which had served as a basis for the municipality when it carried out these transactions.
Kot del preiskave se je Komisija odločila, da pridobi mnenje neodvisnega svetovalca o zanesljivosti poročil podjetja Deloitte, ki jih je občina uporabila kot podlago pri izvedbi teh transakcij.
As has been explained in recitals 38, 39 and 40, the study carried out by this independent consultant confirmed that the methodology followed in the reports was correct, and that Deloitte had based its final valuation on its own forecasts [21].
Kot je obrazloženo v uvodnih izjavah 38, 39 in 40, je študija, ki jo je izvedel ta neodvisni svetovalec, potrdila, da je metodologija, uporabljena v poročilih, pravilna in da je podjetje Deloitte svoje končno vrednotenje pripravilo na podlagi svojih lastnih napovedih [21].
The Dutch authorities have also indicated that Deloitte has confirmed that it undertook its own analysis of the available information and that its conclusions differed from those of the management on a number of points.
Tudi nizozemski organi so navedli, da je podjetje Deloitte potrdilo, da je izvedlo svojo analizo razpoložljivih podatkov, in da se njegove ugotovitve v številnih točkah razlikujejo od ugotovitev uprave.
The Commission has carried out its own in-depth assessment of these reports, and finds that Deloitte correctly applied the discounted cash flow method [22] to guide it in valuing the shares in Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the income approach to guide it in determining the rent for the complex.
Komisija je izvedla podrobno oceno teh poročil ter ugotovila, da je podjetje Deloitte pravilno uporabilo metodo diskontiranega denarnega toka [22] za usmerjanje pri vrednotenju delnic podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in dohodkovni pristop za usmerjanje pri določitvi najemnine za kompleks.
The Commission likewise finds that the reports correctly took into account the special features of the operating company that made it difficult to draw a proper comparison with other companies and transactions.
Komisija je tudi ugotovila, da so poročila pravilno upoštevala posebne značilnosti upravljajočega podjetja, zaradi katerih je bila ustrezna primerjava z drugimi podjetji in transakcijami otežena.
Finally, the Commission finds that in its valuations Deloitte took proper account of the close link between the sale of the operation and the lease of the Ahoy complex.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je podjetje Deloitte v svojih vrednotenjih ustrezno upoštevalo tesno povezavo med prodajo pravic do opravljanja dejavnosti in oddaje v najem kompleksa Ahoy.
On the basis of its own assessment and of the findings of the independent consultant, the Commission takes the view that there are no reasonable grounds to challenge Deloitte’s reports.
Komisija na podlagi svoje lastne ocene in ugotovitev neodvisnega svetovalca meni, da ni utemeljenih razlogov za izpodbijanje poročil podjetja Deloitte.
Both before and after the formal investigation was initiated Mojo and Music Dome argued that the results of the Deloitte reports were vitiated because Deloitte had applied the wrong methodology and because it had used biased information provided by the management; the Commission finds that these arguments have not been properly substantiated.
Preden je bila sprožena formalna preiskava in po njej sta podjetji Mojo in Music Dome trdili, da rezultati poročil podjetja Deloitte niso veljavni, ker je podjetje Deloitte uporabilo napačno metodologijo in pristranske informacije, ki jih je predložila uprava. Komisija ugotavlja, da te trditve niso bile ustrezno podprte z dokazi.
As has been explained, the Commission has concluded that Deloitte applied the correct methodology and that it based its valuation on its own forecasts, which differed from the management’s expectations.
Kot je bilo obrazloženo, je Komisija ugotovila, da je podjetje Deloitte uporabilo pravilno metodologijo in je pri svojem vrednotenju izhajalo iz svojih napovedi, ki so se razlikovale od pričakovanj uprave.
Mojo and Music Dome further contend that some of the results actually achieved by Ahoy Rotterdam NV differ from the results forecast in Deloitte’s valuation of the shares in Ahoy Rotterdam NV [23], and that if these forecasts were to be updated the result of the valuation, and thus the price for the shares in Ahoy Rotterdam NV, would be significantly higher.
Podjetji Mojo in Music Dome nadalje trdita, da se nekateri rezultati, ki jih je dejansko doseglo podjetje Ahoy Rotterdam N.V., razlikujejo od rezultatov, napovedanih v okviru vrednotenja delnic, ki ga je izvedlo podjetje Deloitte [23], ter da bi bila rezultat vrednotenja in s tem cena delnic podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. bistveno višja, če bi se te napovedi posodobile.
It should be pointed out that the valuation was based on forecasts made by Deloitte on the basis of the information available at the time.
Poudariti je treba, da je vrednotenje temeljilo na napovedih, ki jih je podjetje Deloitte pripravilo na podlagi informacij, ki so bile takrat na voljo.
There is no evidence that Deloitte used incorrect information to assess the market value of Ahoy Rotterdam NV.
Ni dokazov, da je podjetje Deloitte pri oceni tržne vrednosti podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. uporabilo napačne informacije.
The fact that some financial indicators turned out to be different from what had originally been forecast did not affect the circumstances and the information available to Deloitte at the time when it drew up its valuation report, and therefore could not affect the outcome of that valuation.
Dejstvo, da so se nekateri finančni kazalniki izkazali za drugačne, kot je bilo prvotno napovedano, ni vplivalo na okoliščine in informacije, ki so bile na voljo podjetju Deloitte, ko je pripravljalo svoje poročilo o vrednotenju, ter zato ni moglo vplivati na rezultat navedenega vrednotenja.
The Commission finds, therefore, that the differences between the forecasts and the actual financial indicators supplied ex post by Mojo and Music Dome do not vitiate the correctness of the valuation carried out by Deloitte.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da zaradi razlik med napovedmi in dejanskimi finančnimi kazalniki, ki sta jih naknadno predložili podjetji Mojo in Music Dome, vrednotenje, ki ga je izvedlo podjetje Deloitte, ni nepravilno.
On the basis of this assessment, the Commission considers that Deloitte’s market valuation reports presented a reliable basis for the prices that were set for purposes of the sale of the operation of Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the lease of the Ahoy complex by the municipality.
Na podlagi te ocene Komisija meni, da so bila poročila o tržnem vrednotenju podjetja Deloitte zanesljiva podlaga za cene, ki so bile določene za prodajo pravic do opravljanja dejavnosti podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in najemnino za kompleks Ahoy, ki ga daje v najem občina.
Taking into account the relevant obligations imposed by the municipality in the lease, the Commission concludes that these transactions were carried out in conformity with market conditions and did not confer an undue economic advantage on the operator of the complex.
Komisija ob upoštevanju ustreznih obveznosti, ki jih v najemni pogodbi določa občina, ugotavlja, da so bile te transakcije izvedene v skladu s tržnimi pogoji in upravljavcu kompleksa niso omogočile neupravičene gospodarske prednosti.
As regards the part of the notified investment relating specifically to the upgrading and expansion of the capacity of the Ahoy Arena, in the decision initiating the procedure the Commission said it could not rule out the possibility that this investment might confer a selective advantage on the operator of the complex going beyond normal market conditions, even when account was taken of the safeguard provided by the profit-sharing mechanism laid down in the lease concluded between the municipality and Ahoy Rotterdam NV.
Komisija je glede dela priglašene naložbe, povezanega prav z nadgraditvijo in razširitvijo zmogljivosti kompleksa Ahoy, v odločitvi o sprožitvi postopka navedla, da ne more izključiti možnosti, da bi ta naložba upravljavcu kompleksa omogočila selektivno prednost, ki presega običajne tržne pogoje, kljub upoštevanju zaščitnega ukrepa, ki je zagotovljen z mehanizmom za udeležbo pri dobičku iz najemne pogodbe, sklenjene med občino in podjetjem Ahoy Rotterdam N.V.
In particular, according to the Commission’s initial assessment, the arguments put forward by the Dutch authorities did not show that the design of the profit-sharing arrangement was such as to ensure that the rent would be at a market level following the investment; those arguments consequently did not show that there would be no economic advantage to the operator of the complex after the completion of the investment.
V skladu s prvotno oceno Komisije utemeljitve, ki so jih predložili nizozemski organi, zlasti niso pokazale, da se lahko z oblikovanjem dogovora o udeležbi pri dobičku zagotovi najemnina na tržni ravni po naložbi; zato navedene utemeljitve niso pokazale, da upravljavec kompleksa po zaključku naložbe ne bi imel gospodarske prednosti.
As part of the investigation, the Commission carried out an in-depth analysis of the profit-sharing mechanism in the light of the additional information provided by the Dutch authorities and the third parties.
Kot del preiskave je Komisija izvedla podrobno analizo mehanizma za udeležbo pri dobičku ob upoštevanju dodatnih informacij, ki so jih predložili nizozemski organi in tretje stranke.
The Commission also asked the independent consultant to assess whether the profit-sharing arrangement laid down in the lease was in line with market conditions.
Komisija je neodvisnega svetovalca prosila tudi, da oceni, ali je dogovor o udeležbi pri dobičku iz najemne pogodbe v skladu s tržnimi pogoji.
As explained in recitals 15 and 16, the privatisation of the operation of Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the lease of the complex were based on the assumption that the planned investment [24] was necessary to maintain the value of the complex but would not produce any additional revenues for the operator [25].
Kot je obrazloženo v uvodnih izjavah 15 in 16, sta privatizacija pravic do opravljanja dejavnosti podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in oddaja v najem temeljili na predpostavki, da je bila načrtovana naložba [24] potrebna za ohranitev vrednosti kompleksa, vendar upravljavcu ne bo prinesla dodatnih prihodkov [25].
In this respect, the Commission would point out that the independent consultant has confirmed that the assumption made 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, in view of the dynamics of the events market, possible new competitors, and the related uncertainties and risks.
V zvezi s tem Komisija poudarja, da je neodvisni svetovalec potrdil, da je bila predpostavka v poročilu podjetja Deloitte, da povečanje zmogljivosti stadiona Ahoy zaradi predvidene naložbe ne bo samodejno pomenilo dodane vrednosti za upravljavca, upravičena glede na dinamiko trga za organizacijo prireditev, mogoče nove konkurente ter s tem povezane negotovosti in tveganja.
The Commission agrees with the findings of the independent consultant, and concludes that this assumption was justified, taking into account among other things Ahoy’s unique market position, the presence and behaviour of other operators in the market [26], and the fact that the operation of the complex could be hampered by the renovation work for a fairly long time.
Komisija se strinja z ugotovitvami neodvisnega svetovalca in ugotavlja, da je bila ta predpostavka upravičena, ob upoštevanju, med drugim, edinstvenega položaja podjetja Ahoy na trgu, prisotnosti in obnašanja drugih upravljavcev na trgu [26] ter dejstva, da bi lahko upravljanje kompleksa precej dolgo ovirala obnovitvena dela.
The Commission would also point out that the municipality included a profit-sharing mechanism in the lease as a safeguard.
Komisija tudi poudarja, da je občina v najemno pogodbo vključila mehanizem za udeležbo pri dobičku kot zaščitni ukrep.
This arrangement was designed to ensure that the level of the rent for the complex would rise if the notified investment were to increase the value of the complex to the operator.
Ta dogovor je bil oblikovan za zagotovitev, da bi se najemnina za kompleks povišala, če bi priglašena naložba povečala vrednost kompleksa za upravljavca.
According to the independent consultant the profit-sharing arrangement guarantees a reasonable rent increase in conformity with market conditions in return for the planned investment by the municipality of Rotterdam.
Po navedbah neodvisnega svetovalca dogovor o udeležbi pri dobičku zagotavlja razumno povišanje najemnine v skladu s tržnimi pogoji v zameno za načrtovano naložbo občine Rotterdam.
The independent consultant has confirmed that both the degressive structure of the mechanism and the differentiation of the pace of the rent increase are reasonable.
Neodvisni svetovalec je potrdil, da sta degresivna struktura mehanizma in diferenciacija hitrosti poviševanja najemnine razumni.
The independent consultant has also pointed out that as the thresholds set in the profit-sharing arrangement are not subject to indexation, the municipality, as the lessor, may well secure a windfall profit even if the operator, as the lessee, does not exploit the investment in the complex.
Neodvisni svetovalec je tudi poudaril, da si lahko občina kot najemodajalec zagotovi nepričakovani dobiček, tudi če upravljavec kot najemojemalec ne izkoristi naložbe v kompleksu, ker mejne vrednosti, določene v dogovoru o udeležbi pri dobičku, niso predmet indeksacije.
[…] Over the period of the lease, the gross margins forecast by Deloitte (less the rent) are on average higher than the EUR 16,5 million threshold in the financial years following the projected completion of the investment, even when no account is taken of possible additional gross margin generated by the increase in value of the complex.
[…] V najemni dobi so bruto marže, napovedane v poročilu podjetja Deloitte (brez najemnine), v povprečju višje od mejne vrednosti 16,5 milijona EUR v poslovnih letih po načrtovanem zaključku naložbe, tudi če se ne upošteva morebitne dodatne bruto marže zaradi povečanja vrednosti kompleksa.
The Commission concludes that the threshold is at a level likely to capture potential increases in the operator’s gross margin that might arise if the investment were to increase the value to the operator, rather than merely preserving it.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je mejna vrednost določena na ravni, ki bi verjetno zajela morebitna povišanja bruto marž upravljavca, ki bi se lahko pojavila, če bi naložbe povečale vrednost za upravljavca in je ne bi samo ohranjale.
Once the gross margin threshold of EUR 16,5 million is exceeded, the additional rent for the municipality substantially increases, although at a decreasing pace, until the operation is achieving a gross margin of EUR 25 million [28].
Ko je mejna vrednost bruto marže v višini 16,5 milijona EUR presežena, se dodatna najemnina za občino bistveno poviša, čeprav z manjšo hitrostjo, dokler opravljanje dejavnosti ne doseže bruto marže v višini 25 milijonov EUR [28].
At that point the rent received by the municipality is EUR 5,2 million, double the figure determined by Deloitte [29].
Takrat najemnina, ki jo prejme občina, znaša 5,2 milijona EUR, kar je dvakratnik zneska, ki ga je določilo podjetje Deloitte [29].
As the effect of the upgrading/expansion of the Ahoy Arena on the operator’s revenues cannot be expected to be unlimited, the Commission takes the view that it is justified in this case to differentiate the pace of the rent increase and at the same time to put a cap on the maximum rent surcharge [30].
Ker se ne more pričakovati, da bi bil učinek nadgradnje/razširitve stadiona Ahoy na prihodke upravljavca neomejen, Komisija meni, da sta v tem primeru diferenciacija hitrosti poviševanja najemnine in hkrati omejitev najvišjega doplačila k najemnini upravičeni [30].
The Commission therefore accepts the independent consultant’s opinion and concludes that the design of the profit-sharing mechanism laid down in the lease is in line with market conditions and provides an effective safeguard to ensure that the rent for the complex following the planned investment is at a market level.
Zato se Komisija strinja z mnenjem neodvisnega svetovalca in ugotavlja, da je oblikovanje mehanizma za udeležbo pri dobičku iz najemne pogodbe v skladu s tržnimi pogoji in predstavlja učinkovit zaščitni ukrep za zagotovitev, da je najemnina za kompleks po načrtovani naložbi na tržni ravni.
Mojo and Music Dome have argued that even if the investment (and in particular the expansion of the Ahoy Arena) did not increase the operator’s revenues, 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; the Commission does not consider this argument convincing.
Podjetji Mojo in Music Dome sta trdili, da bi izboljšava objektov podjetju Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. omogočila konkurenčno prednost, tudi če se z naložbo (in zlasti razširitvijo stadiona Ahoy) ne bi povečali njegovi prihodki, ker bi podjetje pridobilo z brezplačnim izboljšanjem objektov, medtem ko bi druga zasebna podjetja morala stroške poravnati sama; Komisija meni, da ta trditev ni prepričljiva.
In its valuations Deloitte itself worked with a scenario according to which the investment would not generate additional revenues but was nevertheless necessary in order to preserve the value of the complex.
V svojih vrednotenjih je podjetje Deloitte uporabilo potek dogodkov, v skladu s katerim naložba ne bi ustvarila dodatnih prihodkov, vendar bi bila kljub temu potrebna za ohranitev vrednosti kompleksa.
When the price for Ahoy Rotterdam NV and the rent for the complex were set, the investment was taken into account.
Pri določitvi cene podjetja Ahoy Rotterdam N.V. in višine najemnine za kompleks se je naložba upoštevala.
Thus the investment does not confer an economic advantage on the operator.
Zato naložba ne pomeni gospodarske prednosti za upravljavca.
Mojo and Music Dome also argue that the arrangement cannot be in line with the market, since even if the operator were to repay the investment in full under the profit-sharing mechanism, the operator would still receive an economic advantage, as the entire economic risk of the investment would be borne by the municipality of Rotterdam.
Podjetji Mojo in Music Dome sta tudi trdili, da dogovor ne more biti v skladu s trgom, ker bi upravljavec dobil gospodarsko prednost, tudi če bi moral v okviru mehanizma za udeležbo pri dobičku naložbo v celoti povrniti, ker bi občina Rotterdam prevzela celotno gospodarsko naložbeno tveganje.