natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For this purpose plots located in the area Julian Camarillo Sur (plots 33 and 34) and plot B-32 in the Las Tablas area (plot B-32) were to be transferred to Real Madrid.
Španija meni, da so tehnične službe Mestne uprave Madrid pri vrednotenju zemljišča B-32 leta 1998 upoštevale raven razvoja in razvojni potencial območja.
Plot B-32 consists of an area of 70815 square metres.
Zlasti so upoštevale dejstvo, da je bil za območje narejen le urbanistični načrt, ne pa tudi urbanizacija območja, ter da se gradnja še ni začela.
For the purpose of that swap, the technical services of the municipal administration of Madrid had estimated the value of plot B-32 in 1998 at EUR 595194.
Kasneje, leta 1998, je Mestni svet v Madridu na klub prenesel zemljišči 33 in 34.
That valuation was performed on the basis of legislation which lays down a methodology to determine the value of urban real property (Real Decreto 1020/1993 [3]).
Mestni svet v Madridu leta 1998 zemljišča B-32 še ni prenesel, ker zanj še ni imel zakonite lastniške pravice.
According to Spain, the technical services of the municipal administration of Madrid had taken into account in the valuation of plot B-32 in 1998 the level of and potential for development of the area.
Izvedbeni sporazum iz leta 1998 je glede tega določal, da se prenos izvede sedem dni po vpisu Mestnega sveta v Madridu kot lastnika zemljišča B-32 v špansko zemljiško knjigo (Registro de la Propiedad).
They had in particular had regard to the fact that only the urban planning had been concluded for the area but not yet its urban development and the fact that no building activity had started yet.
Mestni svet v Madridu je dne 28. julija 2000 pridobil pravno lastništvo nad zemljiščem B-32.
Later on, in 1998, the Madrid City Council transferred plots 33 and 34 to the club.
Vendar pa je bil Mestni svet v Madridu kot lastnik zemljišča B-32 v zemljiško knjigo vpisan šele 11. februarja 2003.
Plot B-32 was not yet transferred because in 1998 the Madrid City Council did not yet hold legal ownership of that plot.
Zemljišče B-32 ni bilo nikoli preneseno.
On this point, the 1998 implementation agreement stipulated that the transfer should be effectuated seven days after the registration of the Madrid City Council as owner of plot B-32 in the Spanish Property Registry (Registro de la Propiedad).
Zemljišče B-32 je bilo v skladu s pravili urbanističnega načrtovanja namenjeno za osnovno športno uporabo (equipamiento básico deportivo).
However, plot B-32 was only registered in the Property Registry as property of the Madrid City Council on 11 February 2003.
Vendar je bilo s členom 64 zakona 9/2001 o zemljiščih Občine Madrid (Ley 9/2001 del Suelo de la Comunidad de Madrid, v nadaljnjem besedilu: zakon 9/2001) z dne 17. julija ugotovljeno, da se morajo vsa zemljišča, objekti, zgradbe in stavbe uporabljati skladno z njihovo kvalifikacijo, klasifikacijo ali mestnim pravnim statusom.
The transfer of plot B-32 did not ultimately take place.
Člen 7.7.2.a PGOU opisuje zemljišče s klasifikacijo za športno uporabo kot zemljišče v javni lasti.
Under urban planning rules, plot B-32 is classified for basic sport use (equipamiento básico deportivo).
Leta 2003, ko je bil Mestni svet v Madridu vpisan kot lastnik parcele B-32 in je bil dolžan parcelo prepisati Real Madridu, je zakon 9/2001 že začel veljati.
That classification was initially contained in the Partial Plan (plan parcial) of the territory ‘UZI 0.08 Las Tablas’ of 28 July 1995.
Po zakonu 9/2001 mora biti zemljišče, ki je namenjeno za osnovno športno uporabo, v javni lasti.
It was subsequently contained in the Land use plan of Madrid (Plan General de Ordenación Urbana de Madrid, hereinafter: ‘PGOU’), which was approved on 17 April 1997 by the Madrid City Council and the Community of Madrid.
Kakršen koli prenos tovrstnega zemljišča v zasebno last je izključen, saj je zemljišče zaradi javnega značaja (bien de naturaleza demanial) neodtujljivo.
The parties to the 1998 implementation agreement were aware of the classification of plot B-32 for basic sport use but, according to Spain, they were of the opinion that the classification for sport would not exclude its transfer to private ownership and, since Real Madrid had intended to erect sport infrastructure on those premises, the Madrid City Council had assumed that plot B-32 could be transferred if the sport use classification of that plot of land was assured and respected by Real Madrid.
Zato je Mestni svet v Madridu presodil, da je zemljišče B-32 pravno nemogoče prenesti na Real Madrid.
However, Article 64 of Law 9/2001 of July 17 of the Land of the Community of Madrid (Ley 9/2001 del Suelo de la Comunidad de Madrid, hereinafter: ‘law 9/2001’) established that all plots of land, facilities, constructions and buildings have to be used in accordance with their qualification, classification, or urban legal status.
Iz tega razloga leta 2003 zemljišča ni prenesel, kot to zahteva izvedbeni sporazum iz leta 1998.
Article 7.7.2.a of the PGOU describes plots with the designation for sport use as plots of land in public ownership.
Nadalje je leta 2004 Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid odločil, da bi klasifikacija v urbanističnih načrtih, kot je PGOU, preprečila, da bi območja, ki so razvrščena kot zemljišče B-32 [4], prišla v zasebno last.
Law 9/2001 had already entered into effect, when the Madrid City Council was registered as owner of plot B-32 in 2003 and was obliged to transfer the plot to Real Madrid.
Ta sodba je pojasnila pravno razlago načel urbanističnega načrtovanja.
Law 9/2001 required a plot designated for basic sport use to be publicly owned.
Posledica tega je, da zemljišče B-32 ni bilo preneseno na Real Madrid.
Any transfer to a private entity of such a plot would be excluded because the public nature of the plot (bien de naturaleza demanial) would make it inalienable.
S sporazumom o poravnavi iz leta 2011 sta Mestni svet v Madridu in Real Madrid potrdila, da je bilo zemljišče B-32 pravno nemogoče prenesti na Real Madrid („Existe, aunque no una imposibilidad fisica, sí una imposibilidad jurídica de entregar la parcela“).
Therefore, the Madrid City Council considered that it was legally impossible to transfer plot B-32 to Real Madrid.
Pogodbeni stranki sta se dogovorili, da bo Mestni svet v Madridu kot nadomestilo za neuspešen prenos zemljišča B-32 na Real Madrid prenesel več drugih zemljišč.
Moreover, in 2004 the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid ruled that the classification made by urban plans, like the PGOU, would prevent any private entity from holding the legal property of an area classified like plot B-32 [4].
Tehnične službe, pristojne za vrednotenje zemljišč Mestnega sveta v Madridu, so skupno vrednost zemljišč določile na 19972348,96 EUR.
That judgment clarified the legal interpretation of the urban planning principles.
Pogodbeni stranki sta se dogovorili tudi, da Real Madrid dolguje Mestnemu svetu v Madridu znesek v višini 2812735,03 EUR kot nadomestilo za neupoštevanje svojih pogodbenih obveznosti v skladu s pogodbo iz leta 1991 glede izgradnje podzemnega parkirišča.
As a consequence, plot B-32 was not transferred to Real Madrid.
Real Madrid in Mestni svet v Madridu sta se dogovorila za kompenzacijo medsebojnih dolgov skladno s sporazumom o poravnavi iz leta 2011.
By the 2011 settlement agreement, the Madrid City Council and Real Madrid acknowledged that there was a legal impossibility to transfer plot B-32 to Real Madrid (‘Existe, aunque no una imposibilidad fisica, sí una imposibilidad jurídica de entregar la parcela’).
Rezultat tega je bila terjatev Real Madrida do Mestnega sveta v Madridu v višini 8,04 EUR.
As a result, the Madrid City Council agreed to compensate Real Madrid for its failure to transfer plot B-32 under the 1998 agreement with an amount which represented the 2011 value of plot B-32.
V okviru slednjega prenosa sta Mestni svet in Občina Madrid spremenila PGOU tako, da sta preklasificirala območje pred stadionom in na njem omogočila gostejšo pozidavo in komercialno uporabo.
The parties agreed that the compensation would be paid by replacing the transfer of plot B-32 with the transfer by the Madrid City Council of several other plots of land to Real Madrid.
V sklepu o začetku postopka je Komisija zavzela predhodno stališče, da nadomestilo za Real Madrid, ki ga je Mestni svet v Madridu dodelil v okviru sporazuma o poravnavi iz leta 2011, predstavlja državno pomoč za Real Madrid v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
The parties also agreed that Real Madrid owed the Madrid City Council an amount of EUR 2812735,03, as compensation for its failure to comply with its contractual obligation under the 1991 agreement to construct an underground carpark.
V sklepu o začetku postopka Komisija meni, da določbe o ničnosti pogodb v španskem civilnem zakoniku pogodbeni stranki, ki ne more izpolniti svoje obveznosti, ne nalagajo nujno plačilo nadomestila.
Under the 2011 settlement agreement, Real Madrid and the Madrid City Council agreed to offset their mutual debts.
Komisija poleg tega dvomi, da je predvidena vrednost zemljišča B-32 v sporazumu o poravnavi iz leta 2011 odraz tržne cene.
First, an amount of EUR 92037,59 of property taxes, which Real Madrid had been paying since 2002 for plot B-32, was added to Real Madrid's claim of EUR 22693054,44 for plot B-32.
Čeprav so španski organi predložili poročila o vrednotenju, ki dokazujejo visoko vrednost domnevno primerljivih zemljišč, namenjenih za različne uporabe, ki pa niso javne narave, so zemljišča na območjih, ki jih je navedla Španija neprimerljiva, saj se jih lahko prenese na zasebne subjekte in se jih lahko trži.
Then, the EUR 2812735,03 of outstanding debts under the 1991 agreement was deducted from Real Madrid's claim, leading to a claim of Real Madrid against the Madrid City Council of EUR 19972357,00.
Komisija je španske organe vprašala, zakaj se Mestni svet v Madridu ni poskušal izogniti terjatvi v višini več kot 22 milijonov EUR.
That claim was offset against the value of EUR 19972348,96 of the estates compensating Real Madrid for the inability to transfer plot B-32.
Komisija je prav tako izrazila dvome o tem, ali je bila vrednost zemljišč, ki so bila prenesena na Real Madrid z nadaljnjo menjavo zemljišča v okolici stadiona Bernabéu v okviru urbanističnega sporazuma iz leta 2011, v skladu z njihovo tržno vrednostjo.
The result was a remaining net claim of EUR 8,04 for Real Madrid against the Madrid City Council.
Zato Komisija meni, da bi bila lahko tudi te transakcije pomenile pomoč v smislu člena 107(1) Pogodbe.
Under a subsequent agreement concluded in September 2011 between the Madrid City Council and Real Madrid (hereinafter: the ‘2011 urban development agreement’), Real Madrid undertook to transfer the Mercedes Arteaga/Jacinto Verdaguer properties, which formed part of the real estate assets transferred to Real Madrid by the 2011 settlement agreement, back to the Madrid City Council, to transfer a shopping mall complex it owns to the Madrid City Council and to make a one off payment of EUR 6,6 million to the Madrid City Council.
Komisija je prav tako izrazila dvome o združljivosti morebitne pomoči z notranjim trgom.
In return, the Madrid City Council undertook to transfer to Real Madrid an area of land of 5216 square metres it owned in front of Real Madrid's Bernabéu Stadium, on which Real Madrid intended to construct a shopping mall and a hotel.
Zaradi neobstoja podrobnih smernic o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči za komercialne športne dejavnosti, bi morala vsaka ocena temeljiti neposredno na členu 107(3)(c) Pogodbe.
In the context of the latter transfer, the Council and the Community of Madrid amended the PGOU, reclassifying the area in front of that stadium to enable a more dense coverage by buildings and its commercial use.
V skladu z navedeno določbo se pomoč lahko šteje za združljivo z notranjim trgom, če v skupnem interesu pospešuje razvoj določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti ali določenih gospodarskih območij.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
Skladno s tem je Komisija pozvala Španijo in zainteresirane strani, da zagotovijo ustrezne informacije o tem, ali je bilo v skladu z izvedbenim sporazumom iz leta 1998 za Mestni svet v Madridu dejansko pravno nemogoče prenesti zemljišče B-32 na Real Madrid ter o morebitnih posledicah v skladu s špansko zakonodajo.
In the opening decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that the compensation of Real Madrid by the Madrid City Council under the 2011 settlement agreement constituted State aid in favour of Real Madrid within in the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Komisija je zahtevala tudi pripombe na vrednost zemljišč, ki so vključena v sporazum o poravnavi iz leta 2011 in urbanistični sporazum iz leta 2011.
In submissions to the Commission prior to the opening of the formal investigation procedure, Spain argued that, due to the legal impossibility of fulfilling its obligation under the 1998 implementation agreement to transfer plot B-32 to Real Madrid, the Madrid City Council was legally obliged to compensate Real Madrid with the 2011 value of the plot of land in question.
PRIPOMBE ŠPANIJE
This raised the question for the Commission whether it was indeed not possible to transfer the land to Real Madrid and what consequences Spanish civil law could impose on the impossibility on the part of one party of a contract to fulfil its contractual obligation.
Pripombe glede nezmožnosti za prenos zemljišča B-32
In the opening decision, the Commission considered that the provisions of nullity of contracts in the Spanish Civil Code do not necessarily lead to an obligation to pay compensation for the party which is not able to fulfil its obligation.
Španija je potrdila, da je prenos zemljišča B-32 bil in je pravno nemogoč.
The Commission furthermore considered that it was doubtful that the value of plot B-32 assumed in the 2011 settlement agreement reflected a market price.
Španija trdi, da je bil pravni položaj v zvezi s prenosljivostjo zemljišča vsaj nejasen, ko je bil sklenjen sporazum iz leta 1998.
Although the Spanish authorities submitted valuation reports demonstrating the high value of allegedly comparable plots of land, designated e.g. for various uses, but not of a public nature, the comparability would be hampered because the areas referred to by Spain were transferable to private parties and thus marketable.
Pravna nezmožnost je končno postala jasna leta 2004 s sodbo št. 77/2015 Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, navedeno v uvodni izjavi 20.
In the opening decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to the considerable increase of the alleged value of plot B-32 between 1998 and 2011.
Španija je mnenja, da se je ta sodba nanašala na zakonodajo, ki je bila že v veljavi leta 1998, ko je bil sklenjen izvedbeni sporazum iz leta 1998 med Mestnim svetom v Madridu in Real Madridom.
This plot of land, which at the time of its acquisition was valued at EUR 595194, had allegedly increased in value to more than EUR 22 million, a 37-fold increase.
Španija se zato strinja, da je bil prenos zemljišča B-32 nemogoč ab initio.
The Commission asked the Spanish authorities why the Madrid City Council had not attempted to avoid a claim of more than EUR 22 million.
Španija meni, da je posledica te pravne nezmožnosti, skladno s členom 1303 civilnega zakonika, da si pogodbeni stranki medsebojno vrneta, kar sta prejeli.
The Commission also expressed doubts as to whether the value of the properties which were transferred to Real Madrid by the further exchange of land around its Bernabéu Stadium, under the 2011 urban development agreement, was in line with their market value.
V skladu s členom 1307 civilnega zakonika, v primeru, da stvari iz nične pogodbe ni mogoče vrniti, ker je bila izgubljena, mora pogodbena stranka povrniti znesek v višini vrednosti stvari v času njene izgube.
Therefore the Commission considered that there could also be aid present in those transactions within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Cilj je, da se ponovno vzpostavi stanje, kot da pogodba ni nikoli obstajala.
The Commission also expressed doubts regarding the compatibility of any possible aid with the internal market.
Španija zatrjuje, da se mora pogodba, ki zajema več predmetov in obveznosti šteti za nično v celoti, razen če je mogoče domnevati, da je volja pogodbenih strank ohraniti preostalo pogodbo.
In the absence of specific guidelines on the application of the State aid rules to commercial sport activities, any assessment would have to be based directly under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.
To je odvisno od hipotetične volje pogodbenih strank.
According to that provision, aid may be considered compatible with the internal market if it facilitates, in the common interest, the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas.
Španija meni, da domneva, da bi Mestni svet v Madridu in Real Madrid nadaljevala z izvedbenim sporazumom iz leta 1998, če bi vedela, da je v skladu s tem sporazumom prenos zemljišča B-32 pravno nemogoč, ni utemeljena.
The Commission doubted that there was an objective of common interest which could justify selective support to a very strong actor in a highly competitive economic sector.
Z drugimi besedami, Mestni svet v Madridu je Real Madridu dolžan plačati vrednost 15000 kvadratnih metrov zemljišča v „Ciudad Deportiva“, po vrednosti v času prodaje, ki je po mnenju Španije znašala 53578623 EUR.
Accordingly, the Commission invited Spain and interested parties to provide relevant information on whether the transfer of plot B-32 to Real Madrid under the 1998 implementation agreement was indeed legally impossible for the Madrid City Council and on the possible consequences under Spanish law thereof.
Tak izid bi veliko bolj koristil Real Madridu in bi Mestni svet v Madridu stal veliko več, kot je bilo dogovorjeno v okviru sporazuma o poravnavi iz leta 2011.
The Commission also invited comments on the value of the plots of land involved in the 2011 settlement agreement and the 2011 urban development agreement.
Španija meni, da ta sodna praksa temelji na ohranitvi veljavnosti pogodbe in njene neizpolnitve s strani ene od pogodbenih strank; pogodbena stranka, ki izpolnjuje svoje obveznosti, je upravičena do trenutne vrednosti za tisto, česar ni prejela, vendar bi moralo biti v njeni lasti.
COMMENTS FROM SPAIN
Ta trditev bi obstajala neodvisno od namena ali krivde upnika.
Comments regarding the impossibility to transfer plot B-32
Španija se sklicuje na člen 1124 civilnega zakonika, v skladu s katerim lahko pogodbena stranka od svojega pogodbenega partnerja zahteva odškodnino zaradi neizpolnitve veljavne dvostranske pogodbe, v primeru, da ta izpolnitev ni več mogoča.
Spain confirmed that the transfer of plot B-32 was and is legally impossible.
Zato je na podlagi sporazuma o poravnavi iz leta 2011 Mestni svet v Madridu poravnal svoje obstoječe pravne obveznosti do Real Madrida iz izvedbenega sporazuma iz leta 1998.
Spain argues that the legal situation regarding the transferability of the plot was at least unclear when the 1998 Agreement was concluded.
V zvezi z morebitno spremembo namenske uporabe zemljišča B-32 v PGOU Španija potrjuje, da je v pristojnosti Mestnega sveta v Madridu, da Občini Madrid predlaga spremembo PGOU.
Spain is of the opinion that that judgment concerned legislation already in force in 1998, when the 1998 implementation agreement between the Madrid City Council and Real Madrid was concluded.
To se nanaša na pravno načelo ohranjanja javnega prostora, ki prepoveduje prodajo zemljišč v javni lasti brez pridobitve novih zemljišč s podobnimi lastnostmi.
According to Spain, the consequence of that legal impossibility would be, in accordance with Article 1303 of the Civil Code, that the contracting parties return what they received mutually.
Člen 67(2) zakona 9/2001 ne dovoljuje prerazvrstitve zemljišča za javno uporabo brez izravnalnih ukrepov na istem območju.
In accordance with Article 1307 of the Civil Code, where the thing subject of the void contract cannot be returned, because it has been lost, the party must return the value of the thing at the time it has been lost.
In končno, Španija je pripomnila, da če bi Real Madrid pridobil lastništvo zemljišča v letu 2011, državne pomoči ne bi bilo, tako da nadomestilo, ki ga je na podlagi sporazuma o poravnavi iz leta 2011 zaradi nezmožnosti prenosa zemljišča prejel od Mestnega sveta v Madridu, ne more pomeniti državne pomoči, saj je nadomestilo enako vrednosti tega zemljišča v letu 2011.
The objective would be to re-establish the situation as if the contract never existed.
Pripombe v zvezi z vrednotenjem zemljišča B-32
Spain argues that a contract covering several objects and obligations should be considered void in its entirety except if one can assume that it would have been the will of the parties to maintain the rest of the contract.
Španija pojasnjuje, da so vrednotenje zemljišča opravile tehnične službe Občine Madrid na podlagi uveljavljenih meril, ki se uporabljajo za vsa občinska zemljišča.
This depends on the hypothetical will of the parties.
Za strokovnjake, zaposlene v teh službah, veljajo načela objektivnosti, strokovnosti in nepristranskosti.
Spain is of the opinion that nothing seems to justify the assumption that the Madrid City Council and Real Madrid would have continued with the rest of the 1998 implementation agreement, had they known of the legal impossibility to transfer plot B-32 under that agreement.
Po zakonu morajo v javnih upravah vrednost zemljišč določili najprej s svojimi uradniki in storitvami.
In that context, Spain assumes that the 1998 Agreement is void in its entirety and concludes that Real Madrid and the Madrid City Council would also have to return the other pieces of land covered by the 1996 swap agreement and the 1998 implementation agreement.
Cena na kvadratni meter za Madrid je določena na osnovi modela izračunavanja (Módulo básico de repercusión de suelo, v nadaljnjem besedilu: MBR).
However, since those plots of land have been sold in the meantime and cannot be returned in kind, the Madrid City Council would have to return the values of those plots at the time they were sold.
Vrednost zemljišča B-32 je bila leta 2011 določena tako:
In other words, the Madrid City Council is obliged to pay Real Madrid the value of the 15000 square metres of the land in ‘Ciudad Deportiva’ when it was sold which, according to Spain, amounted to EUR 53578623.
površina: 70815 kvadratnih metrov, od katerih je na 35407 kvadratnih metrih dovoljena gradnja;
Such an outcome would be much more beneficial for Real Madrid and much more onerous for the Madrid City Council than what was agreed to under the 2011 settlement agreement.
MBR v skladu z odredbo Ministrstva za gospodarstvo in industrijo EHA/1213/2005: 588 EUR na kvadratni meter;
Spain furthermore refers to case-law that supports its view that the Madrid City Council would have to compensate Real Madrid for the non-fulfilment of its obligations under the 1998 implementation agreement.
koeficient indeksacije: 1,09.
It refers to judgments which concern impossibility ex post, intentionally or by negligence caused by one of the parties.
Rezultat 35407 × 588 × 1,09 je 22693054,44 EUR.
According to Spain, that case-law is based on the continuing validity of the contract and the non-fulfilment of it by one of the parties; the party which fulfils its part is entitled to the present value of what it did not receive because normally it should be in possession of it.
Španija se sklicuje tudi na poročilo Ministrstva za finance iz leta 2011, kjer je bila vrednost zemljišča B-32 ocenjena na 25776296 EUR.
That claim would exist independently from the intentions or the fault of the creditor.
Španija poudarja, da je pravno zavezana za svojo evidenco ovrednotiti vsa zemljišča v njeni lasti, ne glede na njihovo javno ali zasebno pravno naravo.
Spain refers to Article 1124 of the Civil Code, according to which a party may request compensation from its counterpart because of non-fulfilment of a valid bilateral contract, in case specific performance is no longer possible.
Španija opozarja, da v študiji, ki jo je za Komisijo pripravil CEIAM, eden od načinov vrednotenja temelji na predpostavki uporabe zemljišča za socialna stanovanja.