natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Following various exchanges of correspondence [9], the Authority informed the Norwegian authorities by letter dated 18 July 2007 that it had adopted Decision No 350/07/COL to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement in respect of measures taken in the context of establishing Mesta AS (the ‘Opening Decision’).
Po več izmenjavah dopisov [9] je Nadzorni organ z dopisom z dne 18. julija 2007 norveške organe obvestil, da je glede sprejetih ukrepov v okviru ustanovitve družbe Mesta AS sprejel Odločbo št. 350/07/COL o sprožitvi postopka iz člena 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču („odločba o sprožitvi postopka“).
By letter submitted on 7 December 2007 the Norwegian authorities forwarded comments (Event No: 456844).
Norveški organi so z dopisom z dne 7. decembra 2007 predložili pripombe (ev. št. 456844).
The Opening Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto and called on interested parties to submit their comments [10].
Odločba o sprožitvi postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije in Dopolnilu EGP, v njej pa so bile zainteresirane stranke pozvane k predložitvi pripomb [10].
The Authority received comments from four interested parties on 29 January as well as on 4, 21 and 27 February 2008 (Event Nos: 461463, 463234, 466015 and 467170).
Nadzorni organ je prejel pripombe štirih zainteresiranih strank, in sicer 29. januarja ter 4., 21. in 27. februarja 2008 (ev. št. 461463, 463234, 466015 in 467170).
Additional comments were received on 4 April 2008 (Event No: 472381).
Dodatne pripombe so bile prejete 4. aprila 2008 (ev. št. 472381).
By letters submitted on 21 February and 7 April 2008 (Event Nos: 463245 and 472529) the Authority forwarded these to the Norwegian authorities which were given the opportunity to react.
Nadzorni organ je z dopisoma, predloženima 21. februarja in 7. aprila 2008 (ev. št. 463245 in 472529), te pripombe poslal norveškim organom, ki jim je bilo omogočeno, da se odzovejo nanje.
By letter dated 23 May 2008 (Event No: 478082) the Norwegian authorities submitted comments.
Norveški organi so pripombe predložili z dopisom z dne 23. maja 2008 (ev. št. 478082).
During the autumn of 2008 and spring of 2009, the Authority and the Norwegian authorities have had informal contact via both telephone and electronic mail regarding the case.
Jeseni leta 2008 in spomladi 2009 so Nadzorni organ in norveški organi v zvezi z zadevo vzpostavili neuraden stik po telefonu in elektronski pošti.
Information received by the Authority in this context has been consolidated by the Norwegian authorities in a letter submitted electronically on 6 July 2009 by the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform (Event no: 523766) [11].
Informacije, ki jih je Nadzorni organ prejel v zvezi s tem, so norveški organi združili v dopisu, ki ga je 6. julija 2009 po elektronski poti predložilo Ministrstvo za javno upravo in reforme (ev. št. 523766) [11].
BACKGROUND FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE ALLEGED AID
OZADJE OBSTOJA DOMNEVNE POMOČI
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE INVOLVEMENT OF STATE AID
PRITOŽBA ZARADI DOMNEVNE DRŽAVNE POMOČI
The Public Road Administration in Norway is in charge of the construction and maintenance of national and county municipality roads, bridges and tunnels.
Uprava za javne ceste na Norveškem je odgovorna za gradnjo in vzdrževanje državnih in okrožnih občinskih cest, mostov in predorov.
Prior to 1 January 2003 the Norwegian Road Administration operated in-house production departments (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the Production Department’) via district offices which carried out the construction work on behalf of the Public Road Administration.
Do 1. januarja 2003 je norveška Uprava za ceste notranje oddelke za gradnjo (v nadaljnjem besedilu skupaj imenovani: Oddelek za gradnjo) upravljala prek okrajnih uradov, ki so izvajali gradbena dela v imenu Uprave za javne ceste.
However, in 2001–2002 the Norwegian authorities decided to carry out an overall restructuring of the in-house production activities.
Vendar so se norveški organi v letih 2001–2002 odločili v celoti prestrukturirati notranje gradbene dejavnosti.
In this regard the Government proposed that the Parliament should separate the production activities from the Public Road Administration and transfer them to a limited liability company owned by the State [12].
Vlada je v zvezi s tem predlagala, naj Parlament loči gradbene dejavnosti od Uprave za javne ceste in jih prenese na družbo z omejeno odgovornostjo v državni lasti [12].
The administrative functions consisting of planning future construction activities, including the organisation of public tenders, remained within the state administration.As a result, on 1 January 2003, the production activities of the Production Department within the Public Road Administration was separated from the State and transferred to a newly established company, Mesta AS.
Upravne funkcije, ki zajemajo načrtovanje prihodnjih gradbenih dejavnosti, vključno z organizacijo javnih razpisov, so ostale del državne uprave.Tako so bile 1. januarja 2003 gradbene dejavnosti Oddelka za gradnjo v Upravi za javne ceste ločene od države in prenesene na novo ustanovljeno družbo Mesta AS.
All assets, rights and obligations pertaining to the Production Department were transferred to Mesta AS as contributions in kind [13].
Vsa sredstva, pravice in obveznosti Oddelka za gradnjo so bili preneseni na družbo Mesta AS kot prispevki v naravi [13].
The assets included machinery and equipment as well as service contracts entered into between the Production Department and the Public Road Administration.
Sredstva so vključevala stroje in opremo ter pogodbe o storitvah, sklenjene med Oddelkom za gradnjo in Upravo za javne ceste.
In return the State received shares in the new company.
Država je v zameno dobila delnice v novi družbi.
Currently, Mesta AS carries out construction and maintenance activities in competition with other operators active on this market.The complainant has argued that Mesta AS has received State aid contrary to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement on four accounts: (i) the State has financed the restructuring costs; (ii) the fixed assets transferred to Mesta AS have been assessed at below market value in the opening balance; (iii) Mesta AS has been cross-subsidized as a result of the takeover by the company of the Production Department’s previous contract portfolio; and (iv) Mesta AS has not paid document and registration duties normally falling due in the case of transfer of ownership of real estate.
Družba Mesta AS izvaja gradbene in vzdrževalne dejavnosti v konkurenci z drugimi ponudniki, dejavnimi na tem trgu.Pritožnik trdi, da je družba Mesta AS prejela državno pomoč v nasprotju s členom 61(1) Sporazuma EGP na štiri načine: (i) država je financirala stroške prestrukturiranja, (ii) v začetni bilanci so bila osnovna sredstva, prenesena na družbo Mesta AS, ocenjena pod tržno vrednostjo, (iii) družba Mesta AS je bila navzkrižno subvencionirana, ker je prevzela prejšnji pogodbeni portfelj Oddelka za gradnjo, in (iv) družba Mesta AS ni plačala taks za dokumente in vpis v zemljiško knjigo, ki jih je običajno treba plačati v primeru prenosa lastništva nepremičnin.
The following describes the facts relevant for assessing whether each of these alleged measures involve State aid.
V nadaljevanju so opisana dejstva, ki so pomembna za oceno, ali kateri od teh domnevnih ukrepov vključuje državno pomoč.
RESTRUCTURING AND OTHER REORGANISATION MEASURES
UKREPI ZA PRESTRUKTURIRANJE IN DRUGI UKREPI ZA REORGANIZACIJO
It appears from preparatory legislative work that about 4750 of all employees (totalling approximately 5000) previously employed in the Production Department were to be transferred to the newly established company, Mesta AS [14].
Iz pripravljalnih zakonodajnih aktov je videti, da naj bi približno 4750 od vseh zaposlenih (skupaj jih je približno 5000), ki so bili prej zaposleni v Oddelku za gradnjo, premestili v novoustanovljeno družbo Mesta AS [14].
Upon transfer to Mesta AS, the employees would loose their status as civil servants.
Po premestitvi v družbo Mesta AS bi zaposleni izgubili status državnih uradnikov.
As the employees were entitled to refuse such a transfer it was necessary to give incentives to employees in order to encourage them to accept the transfer [15].
Ker so imeli zaposleni pravico zavrniti tako premestitev, jim je bilo treba ponuditi spodbude, da bi premestitev sprejeli [15].
In addition, in order to ensure the establishment of a commercially viable company it was necessary to reduce the workforce by approximately 1700 to approximately 3050 [16].The preparatory legislative work sets out different ‘restructuring’ measures foreseen by the Norwegian authorities.
Poleg tega je bilo treba zaradi zagotovitve, da bo ustanovljena družba sposobna gospodarskega preživetja, zmanjšati število delavcev za približno 1700 na približno 3050 [16].Pripravljalni zakonodajni akti določajo različne ukrepe „prestrukturiranja“, ki so jih predvideli norveški organi.
Four measures consisted of (i) temporary maintenance of civil servant pension rights [17]; (ii) maintenance of the right to a special retirement age [18]; (iii) early pension packages; and various other measures involving (iv) moving, commuting, maintenance of salary and renovation of machines [19].
Štirje ukrepi so vključevali (i) začasno ohranitev pokojninskih pravic za državne uradnike [17], (ii) ohranitev pravice do posebne upokojitvene starosti [18], (iii) pakete predčasnega upokojevanja in razne druge ukrepe, vključno s (iv) selitvijo, prevozom na delo in z njega, ohranitvijo plač in obnovo strojev [19].
These are referred to as the ‘restructuring measures’ and are financed by direct grants.
Ti ukrepi se imenujejo „ukrepi za prestrukturiranje“ in so financirani z neposrednimi subvencijami.
Initially a further cost item (v) compensation for salary, was foreseen to be financed through direct funding [20].
Na začetku je bila predvidena še ena stroškovna postavka: (v) nadomestilo plače, ki naj bi jo financirali neposredno [20].
However, immediately prior to fixing the opening balance of Mesta AS the Norwegian authorities decided that the relevant costs should instead be covered by a capital contribution to Mesta AS in the form of equity.The total cost of the four restructuring measures financed by a direct grant was initially estimated at NOK 1468 million (discounted to present values) and foreseen to be reimbursed by the State to Mesta AS in instalments over a three-year period from 2003 to 2005 [21].
Vendar so se norveški organi tik pred končno določitvijo začetne bilance družbe Mesta AS odločili, da namesto tega zadevne stroške pokrijejo s kapitalskim vložkom družbi Mesta AS v obliki trajnega kapitala.Celotni stroški ukrepov za prestrukturiranje, financirani z neposredno subvencijo, so bili na začetku ocenjeni na 1468 milijonov NOK (diskontirano na sedanje vrednosti), država pa naj bi jih družbi Mesta AS predvidoma izplačala v obrokih v triletnem obdobju od leta 2003 do leta 2005 [21].
These restructuring costs were not included in the opening balance of Mesta AS since the restructuring costs were to be funded by the State via the State budget for the three years of 2003, 2004 and 2005 [22].
Ti stroški prestrukturiranja niso bili vključeni v začetno bilanco družbe Mesta AS, saj naj bi jih država financirala iz državnega proračuna za leta 2003, 2004 in 2005 [22].
It appears from the State budget for 2006 that Mesta AS has received a total of NOK 993,6 million from the State to cover restructuring costs [23].
Videti je, da je družba Mesta AS za pokritje stroškov prestrukturiranja iz državnega proračuna za leto 2006 od države prejela skupaj 993,6 milijona NOK [23].
By 30 June 2008 Mesta AS had spent NOK 879,6 million of this amount while total restructuring costs were estimated to amount to NOK 1097,8 million (until the year of 2013) [24].
Družba Mesta AS je do 30. junija 2008 porabila 879,6 milijona NOK tega zneska, skupni stroški prestrukturiranja pa so bili ocenjeni na 1097,8 milijona NOK (do leta 2013) [24].
The Norwegian authorities have explained that although it was initially foreseen that the State should cover all restructuring costs (implying that if the original estimate of the restructuring costs of NOK 1468 million would be insufficient the State would grant additional funds), the State budgets for 2007 and 2008 make it clear that Mesta AS will not be granted further restructuring funds than the amount already received of NOK 993,6 million [25].The Norwegian authorities have explained that although very unlikely, if, at the end of the period, the restructuring costs should turn out to be less than the amount received by Mesta AS, the surplus amount must be repaid to the State.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da je iz državnih proračunov za leti 2007 in 2008 jasno razvidno, da družbi Mesta AS poleg zneska 993,6 milijona NOK, ki ga je že prejela, ne bodo dodeljena dodatna sredstva za prestrukturiranje, čeprav je bilo prvotno predvideno, da naj bi država pokrila vse stroške prestrukturiranja (kar pomeni, da bi država, če prvotna ocena stroškov prestrukturiranja 1468 milijonov NOK ne bi zadoščala, dodelila dodatna sredstva) [25].Norveški organi so pojasnili, da je treba presežni znesek vrniti državi, če bi se na koncu obdobja izkazalo, da so stroški prestrukturiranja nižji od zneska, ki ga je prejela družba Mesta AS, čeprav je to zelo malo verjetno.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that the main challenge with respect to transferring employees from Production Department to Mesta AS was to enable the new company to operate on terms similar to that of its competitors and thereby create a level playing field.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da je bil glavni izziv glede premestitve zaposlenih iz Oddelka za gradnjo v družbo Mesta AS v tem, da bi novi družbi omogočili, da deluje v podobnih pogojih kot tekmeci in si s tem ustvari enake pogoje delovanja.
The Norwegian authorities decided to transfer the work force to Mesta AS and let Mesta AS (as opposed to the Road Administration) be in charge of implementing the measures involved in the transfer and reduction of the work force.
Norveški organi so se odločili za premestitev delavcev v družbo Mesta AS in tej družbi (ne pa Upravi za ceste) prepustili odgovornost za izvajanje ukrepov, potrebnih za premestitev delavcev in zmanjšanje njihovega števila.
These issues and their resolution formed part of and were a pre-requisite for the liberalisation and opening of the national road network market.
Ta vprašanja in njihovo reševanje so bili del liberalizacije in odprtja trga državnega cestnega omrežja in pogoj zanju.
The Norwegian State would not have opened this market without being able to establish a new company with sufficient staff.
Norveška država ne bi odprla tega trga, če ne bi mogla ustanoviti nove družbe z zadostnim številom zaposlenih.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that this formed the background for the State’s negotiations with the trade unions on the transfer of employees from the Production Department to Mesta AS.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da je bilo to ozadje pogajanj med državo in sindikati o premestitvi zaposlenih iz Oddelka za gradnjo v družbo Mesta AS.
The negotiations resulted in an ‘understanding’ between the parties on 4 June 2002 on a temporary continuation of certain civil servant rights and the possibility to offer measures, such as early pension, aimed at reducing the work force [27].
Izid pogajanj je bil „dogovor“ med strankami z dne 4. junija 2002 o začasnem nadaljevanju nekaterih pravic državnih uradnikov in možnosti, da se ponudijo ukrepi, kot je predčasna upokojitev, katerih cilj je zmanjšati število zaposlenih [27].
The specific elements of this understanding are set out in the sub-sections below [28].
Posamezni elementi tega dogovora so navedeni v spodnjih pododdelkih [28].
Prior to 1 January 2003 an interim board of directors of Mesta AS (the ‘Interim Board’) was established to represent the future company.
Pred 1. januarjem 2003 je bil ustanovljen začasni upravni odbor družbe Mesta AS („začasni upravni odbor“), da bi zastopal prihodnjo družbo.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that the Interim Board was not a party to any of the negotiations regarding the employees.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da začasni upravni odbor ni bil stranka v pogajanjih glede zaposlenih.
However, the right to compensation for salary was included in the Mesta Act [29].
Pravica do nadomestila plače je bila kljub temu vključena v zakon o družbi Mesta AS [29].
By contrast, there was no law or other legal instrument regulating other civil servant rights.Prior to describing the terms of the understanding it is useful to briefly outline the status of the employees in the Production Department prior to their transfer to Mesta AS: The Norwegian authorities have explained that the employees in the Production Department were employed by the State.
Nasprotno ni bilo nobenega zakona ali drugega pravnega instrumenta, ki bi urejal druge pravice državnih uradnikov.Preden opišemo pogoje dogovora, je koristno na kratko opisati status zaposlenih v Oddelku za gradnjo pred njihovo premestitvijo v družbo Mesta AS. Norveški organi so pojasnili, da je bil delodajalec zaposlenih v Oddelku za gradnjo država.
It follows from Norwegian law that State employees hold the status of civil servants [30] and that for such employees membership of the State pension fund ( ‘Statens pensjonskasse’ or ‘SPK’) is mandatory [31].
V skladu z norveško zakonodajo imajo zaposleni, katerih delodajalec je država, status državnega uradnika [30] in za take zaposlene je obvezno, da so zavarovanci državnega pokojninskega sklada ( „Statens pensjonskasse“ ali „SPK“) [31].
Hence membership of the SPK ensures civil servants pension rights.
Tako so pokojninske pravice za državne uradnike zagotovljene z zavarovanjem pri SPK.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that under Norwegian law the transfer of the Production Department to Mesta AS qualifies as a ‘business transfer’ [34].
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da je po norveški zakonodaji prenos Oddelka za gradnjo v družbo Mesta AS opredeljen kot „prenos podjetja“ [34].
With reference to the rules on the transfer of undertakings, the employment contracts of transferred employees were transferred to the new company, except with respect to pension rights [35].
Glede na pravila o prenosu podjetij so bile pogodbe o zaposlitvi premeščenih zaposlenih prenesene na novo družbo, razen pokojninskih pravic [35].
As the new employer did not form part of the State, the Norwegian authorities have explained that the civil servants employed in the Production Department were entitled to refuse transfer to Mesta AS.
Ker novi delodajalec ni spadal pod državo, so norveški organi pojasnili, da so imeli državni uradniki, zaposleni v Oddelku za gradnjo, pravico zavrniti premestitev v družbo Mesta AS.
However, by refusing a transfer they would run the risk of being dismissed according to the generally applicable rules for civil servants unless another suitable position could be found: in such circumstances civil servants have a right of priority to vacant positions within the state administration (but not to compensation for salary) [36].While employees could therefore choose to remain in State employment, transfer of the employees of the Production Department to the new entity (Mesta AS) was a prerequisite in order for the liberalisation to take place at all.
Vendar bi z zavrnitvijo premestitve tvegali odpustitev v skladu s splošno veljavnimi pravili za državne uradnike, če jim ne bi bilo mogoče najti drugega ustreznega delovnega mesta: v takih okoliščinah imajo državni uradniki prednostno pravico do praznih delovnih mest v državni upravi (nimajo pa pravice do nadomestila plače) [36].Medtem ko so se zaposleni tako lahko odločili, da ohranijo državno zaposlitev, je bila premestitev Oddelka za gradnjo v nov subjekt (družbo Mesta AS) pogoj, da bi sploh lahko prišlo do liberalizacije.
In that light the Norwegian authorities had to offer the employees additional incentives to encourage them to agree freely to the transfer.
Glede na to so norveški organi zaposlenim morali ponuditi dodatne spodbude, da bi jih spodbudili k prostovoljni premestitvi.
Temporary maintenance of civil servant pension rights
Začasna ohranitev pokojninskih pravic za državne uradnike
As described above, the employees of the Public Road Administration had the status of a civil servant but lost this status upon their transfer to Mesta AS.
Kot je opisano zgoraj, so imeli zaposleni v Upravi za javne ceste status državnega uradnika, vendar so ga po premestitvi v družbo Mesta AS izgubili.
Nonetheless, based on the above-mentioned understanding between the trade unions and the State, the employees were to benefit from maintaining civil servant pension rights during a transitional period of five years (i.e. from 1 January 2003 to the end of 2007).
Kljub temu so lahko zaposleni na podlagi zgoraj navedenega dogovora med sindikati in državo v prehodnem petletnem obdobju (tj. od 1. januarja 2003 do konca leta 2007) ohranili prednosti, ki jih prinašajo pokojninske pravice za državne uradnike.
The State funding awarded to Mesta AS is intended to cover the additional costs for purposes of ensuring that employees would be guaranteed pension contributions equal to that of civil servants during the relevant period [37].
Državna sredstva, dodeljena družbi Mesta AS, so namenjena pokritju dodatnih stroškov, da bi zaposlenim zagotovili plačilo pokojninskih prispevkov, ki so enaki prispevkom državnih uradnikov v zadevnem obdobju [37].
As stated above, membership of the SPK ensures pension rights of civil servants and the costs relating to such rights are paid into SPK.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, so pokojninske pravice za državne uradnike zagotovljene z zavarovanjem pri SPK in stroški, povezani s takimi pravicami, se vplačujejo v SPK.
Therefore, in order to ensure the five-year transitional regime the membership of the SPK for the employees was maintained.
Zato so zaposleni ostali zavarovani pri SPK, da bi zagotovili petletni prehodni režim.
Furthermore, in order to enable Mesta AS to pay contributions in respect of its employees Mesta AS applied for, and was granted, membership in SPK [38].The State funding to Mesta AS is limited to the difference between the average costs of an ordinary private pension scheme and the (higher) costs of maintenance of membership in the SPK.
Poleg tega je družba Mesta AS, da bi lahko plačevala prispevke za svoje zaposlene, zaprosila za zavarovanje pri SPK, ki ji je bilo tudi odobreno [38].Državno financiranje družbe Mesta AS je omejeno na razliko med povprečnimi stroški običajnega zasebnega sistema pokojninskega zavarovanja in (višjimi) stroški ohranjanja zavarovanja pri SPK.
While the original cost estimate was about NOK 395 million [39], the Norwegian authorities have stated that by 30 June 2007 accrued costs amounted to NOK 277,3 million (excluding administration costs) [40].
Prvotna ocena stroškov je bila 395 milijonov NOK [39], norveški organi pa so navedli, da so do 30. junija 2007 skupni nastali stroški obsegali 277,3 milijona NOK (brez upravnih stroškov) [40].
Maintenance of the right to a special retirement age
Ohranitev pravice do posebne upokojitvene starosti
As referred to above, certain of the civil servants who were transferred to Mesta AS were entitled to retire at an earlier age (i.e., at 65 years) than the normal retirement age of 67 years.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, so imeli nekateri državni uradniki, premeščeni v družbo Mesta AS, pravico, da se upokojijo prej kot pri običajni upokojitveni starosti 67 let (tj. pri 65 letih).