natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, nowhere in the preparatory works to the relevant legislation is it specified that it was a precondition for granting the advantage ensuing from the exemption to pay excise duty, that this advantage be met by a higher assessment of the value of the relevant real estate than a private party would have paid for the building in open sale.
Vendar pa ni bilo nikjer v pripravljalnih delih za ustrezno zakonodajo opredeljeno, da bi bil predpogoj za odobritev ugodnosti, izhajajoče iz izvzetja iz plačila trošarine, tak, da bi bilo treba to ugodnost kriti z višjo ocenjeno vrednostjo zadevne nepremičnine, kot bi jo zasebnik plačal za nepremičnino na javni dražbi.
On the contrary, the Norwegian authorities’ argument that Entra did not receive an advantage compared to a situation in which it would have paid the excise duty, seems to run counter to the explicitly stated aim behind relieving Entra from paying excise duty.
Nasprotno – videti je, da je argument norveških organov oblasti, da podjetje Entra ni bilo deležno ugodnosti v primerjavi z okoliščinami, pri katerih bi moralo plačati trošarino, v nasprotju z izrecno navedenim ciljem oprostiti podjetja Entra od plačila trošarine.
As cited above in point I.3.1, in the Government’s proposal to the Stortinget, it was explained that the purpose of the exemption clause was that Entra should not bear the economic burden of the excise duty, since private competing undertakings could, to a large extent, escape that burden by other means.
Kakor je navedeno v točki I.3.1 zgoraj, je bilo v vladnem predlogu norveškega parlamenta razloženo, da je bil cilj določbe o izvzetju, da podjetje Entra ne bi prenašalo gospodarske obremenitve s trošarino, ker bi se lahko konkurenčna zasebna podjetja večinoma izognila tej obremenitvi na druge načine.
In other words, in the proposal to the Parliament, there is an underlying assumption that payment of the excise duty would indeed put Entra in a less economically advantageous position than if Entra did not pay the duties.
Z drugimi besedami: predlog parlamentu vsebuje temeljno predpostavko, da bi plačilo trošarine za podjetje Entra resnično pomenilo gospodarsko manj ugodne okoliščine, kot če mu teh dajatev ne bi bilo treba plačati.
Furthermore, it was the intention of the Parliament that Entra should not be put in this non-advantageous position.1.3.3. Conclusion on advantage
Poleg tega je parlamenta ni nameraval prisiliti podjetja Entra v ta neugodni položaj.1.3.3 Sklepna ugotovitev glede ugodnosti
In conclusion, the Authority maintains that paragraph 3 of the contested Act did confer Entra an advantage in the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Sklep Organa je, da je člen 3 spornega zakona podjetju Entra prinesel ugodnost v skladu s pomenom člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The measure must distort or threaten to distort competition and it must affect trade between the Contracting Parties
Ukrep mora izkrivljati konkurenco ali bi jo lahko izkrivljal in mora vplivati na trgovino med pogodbenicami
In the opening decision, the Authority came to the preliminary conclusion that the measure did threaten to distort competition and affected intra EEA-trade within the meaning of Article 61 (1) of the EEA Agreement.
V uvodni odločbi je Organ prišel do predhodnega sklepa, da bi zadevni ukrep dejansko lahko izkrivljal konkurenco in vplival na trgovino znotraj EGP v skladu s pomenom člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
In contrast, The Norwegian authorities argue that the measure in question ‘will not affect trade between the Contracting Parties’ and that the Authority must assess the relevant market.
V nasprotju s tem so norveški organi oblasti trdili, da zadevni ukrep „ne bo vplival na trgovino med pogodbenicami“ in da mora Organ oceniti zadevni trg.
Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities claim that ‘non-Norwegian investors have not operated in the Norwegian real estate market’ [55].The ECJ has held [56] that competition is distorted from the moment that the state’s financial aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other competing undertakings.
Poleg tega so norveški organi oblasti trdili, da „vlagatelji, ki niso iz Norveške, niso delovali na norveškem trgu nepremičnin“ [55].Evropsko sodišče je bilo mnenja [56], da je konkurenca izkrivljena od trenutka, ko državna finančna pomoč okrepi položaj nekega podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenčnimi podjetji.
The granting of aid reduces costs and thereby gives beneficiaries a competitive advantage over those who have to bear all costs at their own expense.
Dodelitev pomoči zmanjša stroške in tako za upravičencem prinese konkurenčno prednost pred tistimi podjetji, ki morajo sami kriti vse stroške.
On that basis, the Authority finds that the aid granted to Entra in the form of no excise duty distorted competition within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Na tej podlagi Organ sklepa, da je pomoč, dodeljena podjetju Entra v obliki oprostitve od plačila trošarine, izkrivljala konkurenco v skladu s pomenom člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Indeed, the Norwegian authorities have not argued that competition is not distorted (but only that trade is not affected).Turning to the question concerning effect on trade, it must be examined whether the aid in question is capable of strengthening the position of an undertaking compared with that of undertakings competing in EEA trade [57].
Norveški organi oblasti dejansko niso zagovarjali mnenja, da konkurenca ni bila izkrivljena (ampak samo, da ni bilo vpliva na trgovanje).Pri vprašanju učinka na trgovino je treba preveriti, ali je zadevna pomoč lahko okrepila položaj enega podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi, ki temu podjetju konkurirajo na področju trgovine v EGP [57].
As held by the EFTA Court, the Authority is not required to establish that the aid has an appreciable effect on trade between the Contracting Parties, but only to examine whether the aid was liable to have such an effect [58].
Kakor je trdilo Sodišče EFTA, se od Organa ne pričakuje, da bo ugotovil, da ima pomoč znaten vpliv na trgovino med pogodbenicami, ampak samo, da bo preveril, ali bi ta pomoč utegnila imeti tak vpliv [58].
Hence, the criterion of the effect on trade has been traditionally interpreted in a non-restrictive way to the effect that, in general terms, a measure is considered to be State aid if it is capable of affecting trade between the EEA States [59].According to Chapter 17B.3(2) of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines, ‘[u]nder settled case-law, for the purposes of this provision, the criterion of trade being affected is met if the recipient firm carries on an economic activity involving trade between Contracting Parties’.
Zaradi tega se je merilo glede učinka na trgovino običajno razlagalo na omejevalni način, tako da je ukrep v splošnem štel za državno pomoč, če je lahko vplival na trgovino med državami EGP [59].V skladu s poglavjem 17B.3(2) smernic Organa o državni pomoči „v skladu s sodno prakso za namene te določbe šteje, da je merilo, po katerem mora biti zaznan vpliv na trgovino, izpolnjeno, če podjetje, ki pomoč prejme, opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost, ki vključuje trgovino med pogodbenicami“.
Entra is a member of ‘Association of Commercial Real Estate’ (‘Foreningen Næringseiendom’) [62], whose members wholly or partly conduct the same kind of activities as Entra.
Podjetje Entra je član „Združenja za komercialne nepremičnine“ („Foreningen Næringseiendom“) [62], katerega člani se v celoti ali delno ukvarjajo z enako vrsto dejavnosti kot podjetje Entra.
The biggest Norwegian owned real estate company (or group of companies), is the Olav Thon Gruppen.
Največja nepremičninska družba (ali skupina družb) v norveški lasti je Olav Thon Gruppen.
The Group was also active in 2000 when Entra was established.
Ta skupina je delovala že leta 2000, ko je bilo ustanovljeno podjetje Entra.
Olav Thon Gruppen currently owns 320 properties in Norway and 18 abroad (mainly in Brussels).
Skupina Olav Thon Gruppen ima trenutno v lasti 320 nepremičnin na Norveškem in 18 v tujini (v glavnem v Bruslju).
The first property in Brussels was bought in 1988 (Thon Belgium SA).
Prvo nepremičnino v Bruslju so kupili leta 1988 (Thon Belgium SA).
The Group employs about 3400 people.
Pri skupini je zaposlenih okrog 3400 ljudi.
In addition to letting of offices, the Group is also involved in hotels, restaurants and shopping centres [64].
Poleg tega, da daje pisarniške prostore v najem, se ta skupina ukvarja tudi s hoteli, restavracijami in nakupovalnimi centri [64].
One of the companies mentioned above, Linstow AS, owns and develops real estate in Norway as well as in the Baltic States, Portugal and Sweden.
Ena od zgoraj navedenih družb, Linstow AS, ima v lasti in razvija nepremičnine na Norveškem, v Baltskih državah, na Portugalskem in Švedskem.
Linstow AS is wholly owned by the Anders Wilhelmsen Group which purchased and delisted the company from the Oslo Stock Exchange in 1999.
Družba Linstow AS je v celoti v lasti skupine Anders Wilhelmsen Group, ki je to družbo leta 1999 kupilo in jo črtalo s seznama pri borzi v Oslu.
The Anders Wilhelmsen Group is one of the owners of the shipping company Royal Caribbean Cruise Line (RCCL).
Skupina Anders Wilhelmsen Group je eden od lastnikov ladjarja Royal Caribbean Cruise Line (RCCL).
Linstow AS i.a. manages the Norwegian portfolio (Nordea Portfolio) of properties owned by Curzon Global Partners.
Med drugim družba Linstow AS upravlja norveški portfelj (Nordea Portfolio) nepremičnin v lasti družbe Curzon Global Partners.
The portfolio consists of 31 properties (by November 2005) spread all over Norway.
V tem portfelju je bilo do novembra 2005 31 nepremičnin po vsej Norveški.
Curzon Global Partners is a London-based investment management company owned by IXIS AEW Europe (IAE).
Družba Curzon Global Partners je družba za upravljanje investicijskih skladov s sedežem v Londonu in v lasti družbe IXIS AEW Europe (IAE).
IAE is a European real estate investment manager owned by Groupe Caisse d'Epargne and Caisse des Dépôts in France.
Družba IAE je evropski upravitelj investicij v nepremičnine v lasti francoskih družb in .
IAE is responsible for approximately EUR 11 billion of assets under management [65].
Družba IAE je odgovorna za upravljanje premoženja, vrednega približno 11 milijard EUR [65].
One of the other companies, ICA Eiendom Norge AS, is a daughter company of ICA Fastigheter AB, a Swedish company.
Ena od drugih družb, ICA Eindom Norge AS, je hčerinska družba švedske družbe ICA Fastigheter AB.
ICA Fastigheter AB is a wholly owned subsidiary to ICA AB.
Družba Fastigheter AB je podružnica družbe ICA AB, ki je lastnica te družbe v celoti.
ICA Fastigheter AB builds, manages and sells real estate in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries.
Družba Fastigheter AB gradi, upravlja in prodaja nepremičnine v Skandinaviji in v baltskih državah.
The portfolio has a book value of SEK 5,7 billion and consists mainly of store facilities and warehouse facilities.
Ta portfelj ima knjigovodsko vrednost 5,7 milijarde SEK in večinoma vključuje trgovine in skladišča.
Besides ICA stores and companies, the company also offers real estate to external clients.
Poleg trgovin ICA in družb ta družba ponuja tudi nepremičnine zunanjim strankam.
The ICA Group (ICA AB) is one of the Nordic region's leading retail companies, with just over 2600 of its own and associated stores in Scandinavia and the Baltic countries [66].
Skupina ICA (ICA AB) je ena od glavnih maloprodajnih podjetij v skandinavski regiji, ki ima v Skandinaviji in v baltskih državah več kot 2600 svojih in povezanih trgovin [66].
At the same time as Entra was established (in 2000), Aberdeen Property Investors Norway AS was established as a daughter company of Aberdeen Property Investors.
V istem času, kot je bilo ustanovljeno podjetje Entra (leta 2000), je bila družba Aberdeen Property Investors Norway AS ustanovljena kot hčerinska družba družbe Aberdeen Property Investors.
Aberdeen Property Investors is a part of Aberdeen Asset Management PLC, an independent fund management group listed on the London Stock Exchange.
Družba Aberdeen Property Investors je del skupine Aberdeen Asset Management PLC, neodvisne skupine za upravljanje sredstev, ki kotira na londonski borzi.
Currently, Aberdeen Property Investors manages EUR 7,8 billion in property investments in Northern Europe, of which NOK 9 billion (some EUR 1,1 billion) is in Norway.
Trenutno družba Aberdeen Property Investors upravlja za 7,8 milijarde EUR investicij v nepremičnine v severni Evropi; od tega se nepremičnine v vrednosti 9 milijard NOK (okrog 1,1 milijarde EUR) nahajajo na Norveškem.
In 2001, Aberdeen Property Investors Norway AS bought Norske Liv Eiendom, another real estate company on the Norwegian market, and today the company manages the real estate portfolios of i.a. NSB, Nordea Liv and API Eiendomsfond.
Leta 2001 je družba Aberdeen Property Investors Norway AS kupila družbo Norske Liv Eiendom, še eno nepremičninsko družbo na norveškem trgu, tako da ta družba danes med drugim upravlja nepremičninske portfelje NSB, Nordea Liv in API Eiendomsfond.
Aberdeen Property Investors has 200 employees in Norway [67].
Družba Aberdeen Property Investors ima na Norveškem 200 zaposlenih [67].
Of the companies mentioned above which are active in the same market as Entra (the developing, letting, management, operation, sale and purchase of real estate in Norway), and which were active in 2000 when Entra was established, it is thus clear that several had non-Norwegian owners, several were active both in Norway and outside Norway and several managed real estate portfolios owned by foreign clients.
Od zgoraj navedenih družb, ki delujejo na istem trgu kot Entra (razvoj, dajanje v najem, upravljanje, dejavnosti, prodajanje in kupovanjem nepremičnin na Norveškem) in ki so delovale že leta 2000, ko je bila ustanovljena Entra, je torej jasno, da je nekaj teh družb imelo lastnike, ki niso Norvežani; nekaj od teh je delovalo tako na Norveškem kot zunaj Norveške; nekaj od njih pa je upravljalo več nepremičninskih portfeljev, katerih lastniki so bile tuje stranke.
It follows from the description in point I above that the assets and activities transferred to Entra were exposed to competition.
Iz opisa v točki I zgoraj sledi, da so bili premoženje in dejavnosti, preneseni na podjetje Entra, izpostavljeni konkurenci.
Accordingly, Entra competes with other providers of buildings/properties.
Skladno s tem podjetje Entra konkurira drugim ponudnikom nepremičnin.
This applies to Entra as owner, purchaser, seller, operator and administrator of real estate.
To velja za podjetje Entra kot lastnika, kupca, prodajalca, vlagatelja in upravljavca nepremičnin.
Entra operates all over Norway in a market where economic agents from other EEA States are active.
Podjetje Entra deluje po vsej Norveški na trgu, na katerem delujejo tudi gospodarski subjekti iz drugih držav EGP.
Consequently, condition 4 is also fulfilled as the measure affects or threatens to affect competition and trade between the Contracting Parties.
Posledično je izpolnjen tudi pogoj 4, ker navedeni ukrep vpliva na konkurenco ali bi lahko vplival na konkurenco in na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
Based on the foregoing considerations, the tax exemptions at issue constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Na podlagi navedenih preudarkov so zadevna izvzetja iz plačila davkov pomoč v skladu s pomenom člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Norwegian authorities have argued that the measure at issue does not contain aid, and have not put forward any arguments concerning compatibility.
Norveški organi oblasti so zagovarjali stališče, da zadevni ukrep ni pomoč in niso predstavili nobenega argumenta glede združljivosti.
However, after assessing the likely involvement of State aid, it has to be considered whether such aid could be compatible with the EEA Agreement by virtue of Article 61(2) and (3) of the Agreement.
Vendar pa je treba potem, ko se oceni verjetni vpliv državne pomoči, presoditi, ali bi bila takšna pomoč lahko združljiva s Sporazumom EGP na podlagi členov 61(2) in (3) Sporazuma.
The application of the exceptions under Article 61(2) is not appropriate.
Uporaba izjem v skladu s členom 61(2) ni ustrezna.
The establishment of Entra does not entail aid having a social character granted to individual consumers or aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences.
Ustanovitev podjetja Entra nima za posledico nobene pomoči, ki bi imela socialni značaj, odobren posameznim potrošnikom, ali pomoči, ki bi nadomestila škodo, povzročeno zaradi naravnih nesreč ali izjemnih okoliščin.
Under Article 61(3)(a) aid may be considered compatible with the EEA Agreement when it is designed to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment.
V skladu s členom 61(3)(a) lahko pomoč šteje za skladno s Sporazumom EGP, kadar je namenjena pospeševanju gospodarskega razvoja območij, kjer je življenjska raven izjemno nizka ali kjer je podzaposlenost velika.
Since the measure in question is not limited to such areas, this provision does not apply.
Ker zadevni ukrep ni omejen na taka območja, ta določba ne velja.
Also the exemption laid down in Article 61(3)(b) is not applicable.
Poleg tega tudi ne velja izvzetje, določeno v členu 61(3)(b).
Lastly, as regards the exemption laid down in Article 61(3)(c), the Authority cannot see that the aid can be considered to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas in the meaning of this Article.
Hkrati pa Organ glede izvzetja, določenega v členu 61(3)(c), ne sme meniti, da lahko ta pomoč šteje za spodbujanje razvoja določenih gospodarskih dejavnosti na določenih gospodarskih področjih v skladu s pomenom tega člena.
Consequently, the aid does not qualify for any of the exemptions provided for in Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement.
Posledično ta pomoč ni upravičena do nobenih izvzetij, predvidenih v členu 61(3) Sporazuma.
Procedural requirements and the character of the aid
Postopkovne zahteve in narava pomoči
The notification obligation
Obveznost glede obveščanja
The exemption from excise duties provided for in the establishment of Entra was not notified to the Authority and it was put into effect.
Organ ni bil obveščen o izvzetju iz plačila trošarine, zagotovljenem ob ustanovitvi podjetja Entra, izvzetje pa je začelo veljati.
Recovery
Povračilo
The Authority draws the attention of the Norwegian Government to Article 1 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Organ norveško vlado opozarja na člen 1 dela II Protokola 3 Sporazuma o nadzoru in sodišču.
The exemption from excise duties was introduced after the entry into force of the EEA Agreement.
Izvzetje iz plačila trošarine je bilo uvedeno po začetku veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP.
Any aid in this case should therefore be qualified as new aid.
Zato bi kakršna koli pomoč v tem primeru morala veljati za novo pomoč.
As stated above no notification of such aid has been received.
Kakor je navedeno zgoraj, ni bilo prejeto nikakršno obvestilo o taki pomoči.
The aid is in this case to be considered unlawful as defined in Article 1(f) of Part II to Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
V tem primeru pomoč velja za nezakonito, kakor je opredeljeno v členu 1(f) dela II Protokola 3 Sporazuma o nadzoru in sodišču.
According to Article 14 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, in cases of unlawful aid, should it be found incompatible, the Authority orders, as a rule, the EFTA State concerned to reclaim aid from the recipient.
Organ odreja, da mora zadevna država EFTE v primerih nezakonitih pomoči (če bi ugotovili, da so te pomoči nezdružljive) v skladu s členom 14 dela II Protokola 3 Sporazuma o nadzoru in sodišču praviloma dobiti povrnjeno pomoč od prejemnika pomoči.
The Authority is of the opinion that no general principles preclude repayment in the present case.
Organ meni, da v pričujočem primeru ne obstajajo splošna načela, ki bi izključevala povračilo.
According to settled case law, abolishing unlawful aid by means of recovery is the logical consequence of a finding that it is unlawful.
V skladu s sodno prakso je odpravljanje nezakonitih pomoči s povračili logična posledica ugotovitve, da so take pomoči nezakonite.
Consequently, the recovery of State aid unlawfully granted, for the purpose of restoring the previously existing situation, cannot in principle be regarded as disproportionate to the objectives of the EEA Agreement in regard to State aid.
Posledično povračilo državne pomoči, ki je bila protipravno dodeljena, z namenom ponovne vzpostavitve prejšnjih okoliščin, ne more načeloma veljati za nesorazmerno s cilji Sporazuma EGP glede državnih pomoči.
By repaying the aid, the recipient forfeits the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to payment of the aid is restored [68].
S povračilom pomoči prejemnik te pomoči izgubi ugodnost, ki jo je prej užival v primerjavi s svojimi konkurenti na trgu, in spet se vzpostavijo okoliščine, kakršne so obstajale pred dodelitvijo te pomoči [68].
It also follows from that function of repayment of aid that, as a general rule, save in exceptional circumstances, the Authority will not exceed the bounds of its discretion, recognised by the case law of the Court, if it asks the EFTA State concerned to recover the sums granted by way of unlawful aid since it is only restoring the previous situation [69].
Iz te funkcije povračila pomoči sledi, da Organ razen v izrednih okoliščinah načeloma ne bo presegel meja svojih pooblastil, ki so mu priznane s sodno prakso Sodišča, če bo od zadevne države EFTE zahteval, naj povrne vsote, odobrene z nezakonito pomočjo, ker samo ponovno vzpostavlja prejšnje okoliščine [69].
Moreover, in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of State aid by the Authority under Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, undertakings to which aid has been granted cannot, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in the provisions of that Protocol [70].4.
In ne samo to, glede na to, da mora Organ v skladu s Protokolom 3 o nadzoru in sodišču obvezno nadzorovati državne pomoči, podjetja, ki jim je bila odobrena pomoč, načeloma ne morejo pravno utemeljeno pričakovati, da je pomoč zakonita, če ni bila odobrena v skladu s postopkom, določenim s tem protokolom [70].4.
In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority finds that the exemption from document duties and registration fees adopted in connection with the establishment of Entra is State aid which is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Na podlagi navedenih preudarkov Organ ugotavlja, da je izvzetje iz plačila taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo, sprejeto ob ustanovitvi podjetja Entra, državna pomoč, ki ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
Consequently, the Authority closes the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement with a negative decision and orders the Norwegian authorities to recover the State aid plus accrued interest from Entra,
Posledično Organ postopek, predviden v členu 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 o nadzoru in sodišču, zaključuje z negativnim mnenjem in odreja norveškim organom oblasti, naj povrnejo državno pomoč in zamudne obresti, nastale v primeru podjetja Entra –
The exemption of document duties and registration fees provided for in the establishment of Entra Eiendom AS (ref. Paragraph 3 of Law of 18 February 2000, No 11) constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Izvzetje iz plačila taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo, predvideno ob ustanovitvi podjetja Entra Eiendom AS (navedeno v odstavku 3 Akta z dne 18. februarja 2000, št. 11), je državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.