natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, by the 2011 settlement agreement the Madrid City Council settled its existing legal obligations towards Real Madrid under the 1998 implementation agreement.
Takšna uporaba ne bi sledila predpostavki največje in najboljše uporabe tal.
Concerning the possible change of the designated use of plot B-32 in the PGOU, Spain confirms that it is, in principle, within the powers of the Madrid City Council to propose to the Community of Madrid an amendment of the PGOU.
Zato je študija ponudila vrednost, ki je za 50 % nižja od vrednosti uporabe za namene javnih storitev (uso lucrativo de interés general, equipamiento singular: izobraževalne in kulturne storitve in ustanove, bolnišnice, cerkve), kar predstavlja največjo in najboljšo uporabo zemljišča za javne namene.
However, Spain claims that such changes need to serve the general interest.
Vrednost v primeru uporabe za zasebne namene, kot so stanovanja ali pisarne, bi bila še za 30 % višja.
It refers to a legal principle of maintenance of public domain land that forbids the sale of publicly owned land without the acquisition of new land of similar characteristics.
Po odbitku stroškov gradnje, ki so določeni v skladu s standardnim modelom, ki ga uporablja Občina Madrid, je Španija izračunala vrednost 22708633,52 EUR.
The aim of avoiding a high compensation claim would not justify a change of the land zoning in the present case, since such a change would be arbitrary.
Vendar pa je to vrednotenje izdelano na podlagi predpostavke, da gre za razvrstitev zemljišč za „javno uporabo različnih oblik“ in Španija priznava, da trenutna razvrstitev zemljišča ni predvidena za „javno uporabo različnih oblik“, temveč za „javno športno uporabo“ in da bi uporaba za druge dejavnosti in ne športne zahtevala spremembo načrta klasifikacije občinskih zemljišč s formalno spremembo tega načrta.
Article 67(2) of law 9/2001 does not allow re-affectation of land designated for public use without compensatory measures in the same area.
Španija predlaga tudi primerjavo z drugim zemljiščem, ki je namenjeno za bolnišnično dejavnost.
Finally, Spain remarked that if Real Madrid would have obtained the ownership of the plot in 2011 no State aid would be present, so that the compensation it receives under the 2011 settlement agreement from Madrid City Council for its failure to transfer that plot of land cannot constitute State aid since that compensation is equal to the value of that plot of land in 2011.
Neodvisno vrednotenje je za to zemljišče določilo vrednost 900 EUR na kvadratni meter stavbne površine.
Comments regarding the valuation of plot B-32
Mestni svet v Madridu je moral zemljišče še pridobiti in ga razviti.
Regarding the valuation of the land, Spain explains that the valuation was made by the technical services of the municipality of Madrid on the basis of established criteria used for all the land in the ownership of the municipality.
Tako bi minilo nekaj let, preden bi bilo na zemljišču mogoče začeti graditi.
The experts employed by those services are bound by the principles of objectivity, professionalism and impartiality.
Pripombe v zvezi z vrednostjo zemljišča okoli stadiona Bernabéu
The value of plot B-32 in 2011 was determined as follows:
Po objavi sklepa o začetku postopka je Komisija prejela pripombe Real Madrida, združenja Ecologistas en Acción, združenja Asociación para la Defensa del Estado de Derecho in državljanov, ki so Komisijo obvestili o poslovanju z nepremičninami v obravnavi.
Area: 70815 square metres, of which 35407 square metres allowed for construction;
Pripombe Real Madrida
MBR according to the Order of the Ministry of Economy and Industry EHA/1213/2005: EUR 588 per square metre;
Pripombe glede posledic neuspešnega prenosa zemljišča B-32 s strani Mestnega sveta v Madridu
The result of 35407 × 588 × 1,09 is EUR 22693054,44.
Real Madrid navaja, da je Mestni svet v Madridu večkrat zaprosil za prenos zemljišča B-32.
Spain also refers to the report of the Ministry of Finance of 2011, where the value of plot B-32 was estimated at EUR 25776296.
Real Madrid se strinja, da razvrstitev zemljišča kot zemljišče za „osnovno športno uporabo“ (deportivo de carácter básico) predstavlja pravno oviro za njegovo prodajo zasebnim strankam.
Regarding the study prepared for the Commission by CEIAM, Spain criticises that study since it bases one of the scenarios of the valuation on the use of the plot for social housing.
Klasifikacija v okviru urbanističnega načrtovanja ni bila niti nespremenljiva niti izven nadzora Mestnega sveta v Madridu.
Such a use would not follow the assumption of highest and best use of the ground.
Mestni svet v Madridu je imel možnost preklicati obstoječo klasifikacijo zemljišča (desafectación) in jo klasificirati drugače.
Therefore the study arrived at a value that was 50 % below the value of a use for public services (uso lucrativo de interés general, equipamiento singular: education, cultural services and institutions, hospitals, churches) which represents the highest and best use of land devoted for public purposes.
To bi zemljišče spremenilo iz „javnega“ v „zasebno“ in zagotovilo izpolnitev pogodbene obveznosti prenosa zemljišča na Real Madrid.
The value in the scenario of use for private purposes, like housing or offices, would be another 30 % higher.
Takšno spremembo obstoječe klasifikacije bi bilo leta 1998 mogoče izvesti brez posebnih zakonskih ovir.
On the basis of land use for public services, Spain proposes a calculation of the land value by the method of simple capitalisation.
Vendar pa so se razmere leta 2001 spremenile zaradi začetka veljavnosti zakona 9/2001.
It starts from the expected sales price per building square metre which is based on comparable projects in 2011 in that part of Madrid.
Člen 67.2 zakona 9/2001 določa, da morajo spremembo klasifikacije zemljišča, ki je namenjeno za javno uporabo (desafecte el suelo de un destino público), spremljati izravnalni ukrepi, da bi ohranili kakovost in količino takšnih javnih sredstev na prizadetem območju [6].
After deduction of the construction costs, determined according to a standard model applied by the municipality of Madrid, Spain arrives at a value of EUR 22708633,52.
Posledično, ko bi leta 2003 Mestni svet v Madridu moral prenesti zemljišče B-32, ga ni mogel preklasificirati, ne da bi obenem sprejel ukrepe, ki zagotavljajo, da se ne bosta spremenila kakovost in količina osnovnih športnih objektov v Las Tablas.
However, this valuation is made under the assumption that the land classification is for ‘public use of various kinds’ and Spain admits that the current classification of the land is not for ‘public service use of various kinds’ but for ‘public sport use’, and that a use for other activities than sport would require a change in the municipal land classification plan by a formal amendment of this plan.
Posledično bi moral Mestni svet v Madridu pridobiti zemljišče v Las Tablas, ki bi bilo po velikosti podobno zemljišču B-32, in ga klasificirati za „osnovno športno uporabo“.
Spain also proposes a comparison with another plot of land which is classified for hospital use.
To bi bilo zelo drago, saj so bila vsa razpoložljiva zemljišča na tem območju leta 2011 razvrščena kot „stanovanjska“ ali „komercialna“.
An independent valuation determined a value of EUR 900 per square metre of building surface for that plot.
Tako razvrščeno zemljišče dosega veliko višjo ceno na trgu kot zemljišča, razvrščena za „osnovno športno uporabo“.
Regarding the difference between the land valuation in 1998 and 2011, Spain explains that the substantial difference can be explained by the very early and basic urban development state of the land in 1998.
Študija, ki jo Real Madrid predložil, ocenjuje, da so stroški Mestnega sveta v Madridu za tovrstne izravnalne ukrepe med 58 milijoni EUR in 240 milijoni EUR, tj. veliko več kot nadomestilo v višini 22693054,44 EUR, ki je bilo dogovorjeno v skladu s sporazumom o poravnavi iz leta 2011 [7].
At that point in time, only the planning was concluded.
Mestni svet v Madridu bi torej iz pravnega vidika lahko, če bi želel, odpravil ovire za izpolnitev pogodbenih obveznosti.
The land had still to be acquired by the Madrid City Council and be developed.
Real Madrid v zvezi s tem trdi, da morajo zato, da bi bila pogodbena obveznost neveljavna v skladu s španskim zasebnim pravom, obstajati ovire za izpolnjevanje obveznosti že od samega začetka, da morajo biti absolutne, trajne in izven nadzora pogodbenih strank.
Thus several years would have passed until it was possible to build something on the land.
Iz istega razloga se Mestni svet v Madridu ne bi mogel izogniti svoji pogodbeni obveznosti prenosa zemljišča B-32 na klub s sklicevanjem na špansko doktrino prava poznejše nezmožnosti (imposibilidad sobrevenida).
That situation had completely changed in 2011.
Mestni svet v Madridu bi se odgovornosti lahko izognil le, če bi bile ovire za izpolnitev nepremostljive in popolnoma izven njegovega nadzora.
In both cases the valuation followed the usual standards applied by the Madrid City Council for land valuation.
V kolikor bi Mestni svet v Madridu deloval skladno s svojo pogodbeno obveznostjo in leta 2011 na Real Madrid prenesel zemljišče B-32, bi to pomenilo, da bi Real Madrid pridobil zemljišče s tržno vrednostjo 22693054,44 EUR.
Comments regarding the value of the land around the Bernabéu stadium
Zato je gospodarska vrednost pravice Real Madrida, da zahteva izpolnitev pogodbe, enaka tržni vrednosti zemljišča B-32 v letu 2011.
Regarding the intended real estate arrangements under the 2011 urban development agreement, Spain considered that the judgment No 77/2015 of the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid of 2 February 2015 annulled the modification of the PGOU with regard to the land around the Bernabéu Stadium and prevents the entry into force of the 2011 urban development agreement.
Real Madrid meni, da zanj ne bi bilo smiselno sprejeti poravnave, ki njegovi pogodbeni pravici do zemljišča B-32 dodeljuje vrednost, ki je nižja od trenutne tržne vrednosti zemljišča.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
Alternativa sporazumu o poravnavi iz leta 2011 bi bilo Real Madridovo vztrajanje pri svojih pogodbenih pravicah.
Following the publication of the opening decision, the Commission received observations from Real Madrid, the association Ecologistas en Acción, the Asociación para la Defensa del Estado de Derecho, and from the citizens who had informed the Commission about the real estate transaction under consideration.
To bi lahko bilo nadomestilo zaradi kršitve pogodbe, če je bila kršitev povzročena namenoma ali iz malomarnosti na podlagi člena 1101 civilnega zakonika.
Comments by Real Madrid
Real Madrid poudarja, da je sporazum o poravnavi iz leta 2011 ugodnejši za Mestni svet v Madridu kot polno vračilo.
Comments regarding the consequences of the failure of the Madrid City Council to transfer plot B-32
Vendar pa vrnitev zemljišča kot taka ne bi bila izvedljiva.
Regarding the background of the 1998 implementation agreement, Real Madrid explains that the Madrid City Council had an interest in the Ciudad Deportiva, because it planned to develop that centrally located area, and Real Madrid needed to divest fixed assets to repay debts.
Pogodbeni stranki sta zemljišči prodali pred mnogimi leti tretjim osebam, ki so zemljišče kupile v dobri veri.
Real Madrid states that it had repeatedly requested the Madrid City Council to transfer plot B-32.
V takih primerih morajo stranke, skladno s španskim pravom, namesto tega drugi stranki vrniti trenutno vrednost zemljišča, ki je predmet vrnitve v času izreka sodbe.
Real Madrid agrees that the classification of the plot as for ‘basic sport use’ (deportivo de carácter básico) constitutes a legal obstacle for its sale to private parties.
Na podlagi pravnega svetovanja in poročila o vrednotenju zemljišč družbe za nepremičninsko svetovanje Aguirre Newman (v nadaljnjem besedilu: poročilo Aguirre Newman), ki ga je pridobil aprila 2014, Real Madrid pojasnjuje, kako bi bila vrnitev pogodbenih dajatev v letu 2011 obravnavana v okviru španskega zasebnega prava in kakšne bi bile finančne posledice vračila.
It considers, however, that the transfer of the plot could be made possible.
Po mnenju Real Madrida bi vrnitev sprožila naslednja plačila med Mestnim svetom v Madridu in Real Madridom: Mestni svet v Madridu bi moral Real Madridu plačati trenutno vrednost (v letu 2011) za 15000 kvadratnih metrov zemljišča v Ciudad Deportiva, ki ga je družba Aguirre Newman ocenila na 65,346 milijona EUR [8]; Real Madrid bi moral Mestnemu svetu v Madridu plačati vrednost zemljišč 33 in 34 iz leta 2011, ki ga je družba Aguirre Newman ocenila na 32,246 milijona EUR [9].
The urban planning classification was neither inalterable nor beyond the control of the Madrid City Council.
Nazadnje, Real Madrid trdi, da bi lahko zahteval odškodnino za škodo, ki jo je Mestni svet v Madridu povzročil s kršenjem pogodbe.
Such a step would have shifted the land from the ‘public domain’ into the ‘private domain’, with a view to enabling compliance with the contractual obligation to transfer the plot to Real Madrid.
Namen take odškodnine je, da upnika postavi v enak položaj, kot če bi dolžnik izpolnil svoje obveznosti po pogodbi.
In 1998, such a change to the existing classification could have been implemented without facing any specific statutory obstacles.
Če bi bil sporazum o izvajanju iz leta 1998 ničen, bi bila po mnenju Real Madrida pravna posledica ničnosti pogodbe, v skladu s členom 1303 civilnega zakonika, vrnitev stvari pogodbenih strank v skladu z razveljavljeno pogodbo.
Article 67.2 of law 9/2001 provides that the decision to declassify land intended for public use (desafecte el suelo de un destino público) must be accompanied by compensatory measures with a view to maintain the quality and quantity of such public resources in the affected area [6].
Prodaja tretji osebi v dobri veri je izenačena z izgubo [10], kar pomeni, da zemljiščem, ki so bila prodana po sklenitvi izvedbenega sporazuma iz leta 1998, ni mogoče pripisati njihove trenutne vrednosti, temveč vrednost, ki so jo imela ob prodaji tretji osebi.
In consequence, the Madrid City Council would have had to acquire land at Las Tablas that was similar in size to plot B-32 and classify it as for ‘basic sport use’.
Real Madrid bi moral Mestnemu svetu v Madridu plačati izkupiček od svoje prodaje v letu 1999 na zemljiščih 33 in 34 v vrednosti približno 12,9 milijona EUR skupaj z obrestmi.
To have done so would have been very expensive, since any available land in that area was classified, in 2011, as ‘residential’ or ‘commercial’.
Pripombe v zvezi z vrednostjo zemljišča B-32
Land with those classifications commanded a much higher market price than land classified as for ‘basic sport use’.
Domnevno vrednost zemljišč v letu 1998 so določili izkušeni strokovni uradniki Oddelka za urbani razvoj Mestnega sveta v Madridu („Gerencia Municipal de Urbanismo“) v skladu z metodologijo vrednotenja, ki je določena v španskem pravu.
In fact, a study submitted by Real Madrid estimates the cost for the Madrid City Council for such compensatory measures to be between EUR 58 million and EUR 240 million, i.e. much more than the EUR 22693054,44 compensation agreed to under the 2011 settlement agreement [7].
V skladu s tem vrednotenjem je bila velikost zemljišč, ki bi morala biti prenesena na klub, enaka skupni vrednosti 15000 kvadratnih metrov, ki bi morala biti prenesena na Mestni svet v Madridu.
Therefore, from a legal point of view, the Madrid City Council could have overcome the obstacles to contractual performance had it wanted to.
Tabela 1
The Madrid City Council could only have avoided liability if the obstacles to performance were insuperable and wholly beyond its control.
Zemljišče, ki se prenese na Real Madrid
For the Madrid City Council to have complied with its contractual obligation to transfer plot B-32 to Real Madrid in 2011 would have implied that Real Madrid would have obtained land with a market value of EUR 22693054,44.
Vrednost
Therefore, the economic value of Real Madrid's right to require performance of the contract was identical to the market value of plot B-32 in 2011.
Zemljišče, ki se prenese na Mestni svet v Madridu
Real Madrid suggests that it would not have made any sense for it to accept a settlement that assigned a value to its contractual right to plot B-32 that was lower than the plot's current market value.
Zemljišče B-32
Real Madrid would not have been willing to accept a settlement that valued its right to plot B-32 at the market value of that plot in 1998 or in 2003.
15000 m2 v Ciudad Deportiva
Real Madrid would have brought court proceedings to protect the full value of its right to require performance of the 1998 implementation agreement.
Zemljišči B-33 in B-34
The alternative to the 2011 settlement agreement would have been that Real Madrid would have insisted on its contractual rights.
Skupaj
That could have been compensation for breach of contract if the breach is caused intentionally or by negligence on the basis of Article 1101 of the Civil Code.
Iz vrednotenj, ki jih je leta 1998 uporabil Mestni svet v Madridu kot podlago za prenos zemljišč B-32, 33 in 34 ni razvidno, da bi bilo nadomestilo Real Madridu previsoko.
Real Madrid could also have terminated the contract pursuant to Article 1124 of the Civil Code, with the consequence of the right to restitution of what has already been performed according to Article 1123 of the Civil Code and a claim for damages.
Sklicuje se na Sporočilo Komisije o elementih državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti [11] (sporočilo o prodaji zemljišč), ki priznava, da se državne cenilske pisarne in javni cenilci ali uslužbenci štejejo kot neodvisni, če je učinkovito izključen neupravičen vpliv na njihove izsledke.
Real Madrid underlines that the 2011 settlement agreement is more advantageous for the Madrid City Council than full restitution.
Metodologijo vrednotenja, ki je bila uporabljena za oceno vrednosti zemljišč v sporazumu iz leta 1998, uporabljajo javni organi po vsej Španiji za objektivno določanje vrednosti zemljišča [12].
Restitution would have entailed a return to the situation existing before the 1998 implementation agreement.
Uradniki, ki pripravljajo poročila o vrednotenju, so strokovnjaki na tem področju in imajo osebno dolžnost, da delujejo v skladu z veljavnim pravom in postopki ter uveljavljajo načela objektivnosti, nevtralnosti in nepristranskosti.
In principle, the Madrid City Council would be compelled to return the 15000 square metres it received at Ciudad Deportiva to Real Madrid and Real Madrid would have had to return to the Madrid City Council plots 33 and 34.
Za vrednotenja, ki jih pripravljajo, se predpostavlja, da so poštena in natančna, tudi če se jih uporablja v sodnih postopkih pred španskim sodiščem.
However, to return the plots as such would not be feasible.
Namerno prilagoditi vrednotenje (navzgor ali navzdol) v korist zasebne stranke na račun javne uprave bi bilo nezakonito v skladu s španskim pravom.
The parties sold the land many years ago to third parties that acquired the land in good faith.
Zato Real Madrid meni, da so vrednotenja, ki so bila opravljena leta 1998 v okviru izvedbenega sporazuma iz leta 1998, neodvisna strokovna vrednotenja v smislu sporočila o prodaji zemljišč.
In such cases, the parties must instead, according to Spanish law, return to the other party the current value of the land that is subject to restitution at the time the judgment is handed down.
Poleg tega poročilo Aguirre Newman ocenjuje tržno vrednost zemljišča B-32 leta 1998 in 15000 kvadratnih metrov veliko zemljišče v Ciudad Deportiva.
Based on legal advice and on a land valuation report from the real estate consultancy Aguirre Newman (hereinafter ‘the Aguirre Newman Report’) it obtained in April 2014, Real Madrid explains how restitution of the contractual performances in 2011 would be dealt with under Spanish private law and what the financial consequences of restitution would be.
Tabela 2
According to Real Madrid, restitution would have triggered the following payments between the Madrid City Council and Real Madrid: the Madrid City Council would have had to pay Real Madrid the current value (in 2011) of the 15000 square metres at Ciudad Deportiva, estimated by Aguirre Newman at EUR 65,346 million [8]; Real Madrid would have had to pay the Madrid City Council the 2011 value of plots 33 and 34, estimated by Aguirre Newman at EUR 32,246 million [9].
Vrednotenje v izvedbenem sporazumu iz leta 1998 v primerjavi s poročilom Aguirre Newman
Accordingly, the net effect of restitution would be that the Madrid City Council should pay Real Madrid EUR 33,1 million, which figure is EUR 10,407 million more than what the club received under the 2011 settlement agreement.
Vrednost (Aguirre Newman)
This means that Real Madrid essentially relinquished an additional EUR 10,407 million claim against the Madrid City Council by agreeing to the 2011 settlement agreement.
Vrednost (sporazum iz 1998)
Real Madrid therefore argues that termination of the 1998 implementation agreement and full restitution under that contract and the 1996 swap agreement was a real and tangible risk for the Madrid City Council in 2011.
Razlika
By entering into the 2011 settlement agreement, the Madrid City Council was able to avoid that risk at a cost that was about EUR 10,407 million lower than what Real Madrid could have claimed had it terminated the 1998 implementation agreement and sought restitution.
Zemljišči B-33 in B-34
Lastly, Real Madrid argues that it could have sought compensation for any damage caused as a result of the Madrid City Council's breach of contract.
Ti elementi podpirajo stališče, da je Mestni svet v Madridu s sklenitvijo sporazuma o menjavi iz leta 1996 in izvedbenega sporazuma iz leta 1998 ravnal kot zasebni kupec in da Real Madrid od tega ni imel nobenih koristi.
Article 1124 of the Civil Code and established case-law holds that termination and contractual damages are mutually compatible remedies.
Poznejša prodaja Ciudad Deportiva za 53 milijonov EUR potrjuje, da Real Madrid ob prodaji Ciudad Deportiva očitno ni prejel previsokega nadomestila.
The purpose of such damages being to place the creditor in the same position as if the debtor had complied with its obligations under the contract.
Da je bilo vrednotenje Mestnega sveta v Madridu natančno, kaže tudi Real Madridova prodaja zemljišča na Julián Camarillo Sur tretjim osebam v letu 1999 po ceni, ki je bila skoraj enaka vrednosti v izvajalnem sporazumu iz leta 1998.
If one were to assume the nullity of the 1998 implementation agreement, Real Madrid argues that the legal consequence of nullity of the contract would be, according to Article 1303 of the Civil Code, restitution of the parties' performances under the void contract.
Real Madrid meni, da je ocena zemljišča B-32 v letu 2011, ki so ga opravile tehnične službe Oddelka za urbani razvoj Mestnega sveta v Madridu, neodvisna.
Article 1307 of the Civil Code provides that a thing which cannot be returned because it has been lost should be substituted for its value at the time of the loss, plus interest.
Posledično leta 2011 tržna vrednost zemljišča B-32 ne bi smela biti nižja od 25776296 EUR.
A sale to a third party in good faith is equated to a loss [10], which means that the plots sold since the 1998 implementation agreement was concluded should, in principle, not be attributed their current value, but the value they had when they were sold to third parties.
Real Madrid povečanje vrednosti od leta 1998 pojasnjuje z dejstvom, da je bilo leta 1998 območje zemljišča B-32 neproduktiven kos zemljišča, ki se je nahajal na povsem nerazvitem območju.
That approach would lead to the following payments between Madrid City Council and Real Madrid: Madrid City Council should pay Real Madrid the proceeds from its sale in 2003 of the 15000 square metres at Ciudad Deportiva of about EUR 53 million, plus interests from that date.
Čeprav je Mestni svet v Madridu leta 1997 odobril urbanistični načrt, takšna odobritev ne zagotavlja dejanskega razvoja zemljišča, ki zahteva precejšnje naložbe zasebnih investitorjev, ki so pripravljeni prevzeti tveganje.