natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, the Norwegian authorities have submitted that it could have achieved the same result by undertaking the relevant restructuring measures prior to the transformation of the Production Department into Mesta AS.
Poleg tega so norveški organi navedli, da bi lahko dosegli enak rezultat, če bi ustrezne ukrepe za prestrukturiranje izvedli pred preoblikovanjem Oddelka za gradnjo v družbo Mesta AS.
However, this would have been time consuming, less cost efficient and consequently delayed the liberalisation process.
Vendar bi to zahtevalo več časa, bilo bi manj stroškovno učinkovito in bi posledično upočasnilo proces liberalizacije.
In this context the Norwegian authorities note that if the restructuring measures would have been undertaken prior to the transformation no aid would have been involved and the net effect for Mesta AS is the same irrespectively of whether the measures are carried out before or after.
V tem okviru norveški organi navajajo, da v primeru ukrepov za prestrukturiranje, izvedenih pred preoblikovanjem, ne bi šlo za pomoč, neto učinek za družbo Mesta AS pa je enak, ne glede na to, ali so bili ukrepi izvedeni prej ali pozneje.
In the view of the Norwegian authorities the fact that the alternative approach would not raise State aid issues shows that compensating for restructuring costs does not entail an economic advantage for Mesta AS.
Po mnenju norveških organov dejstvo, da alternativni pristop ne bi postavil vprašanj o državni pomoči, kaže, da nadomestilo za stroške prestrukturiranja ne pomeni gospodarske prednosti za družbo Mesta AS.
In support of their arguments the Norwegian authorities refer to the Combus case where the Court of First Instance found that compensation for measures intended to offset a structural disadvantage does not constitute State aid [129].
Norveški organi se v podporo svojim argumentom sklicujejo na zadevo Combus, v kateri je Sodišče prve stopnje ugotovilo, da nadomestilo za ukrepe, namenjene izravnavi strukturne pomanjkljivosti, ne pomeni državne pomoči [129].
In that case the Danish Government paid DKK 100 million to civil servants for waiving their civil servant status (and related rights) in the context of being transferred to Combus.
V navedeni zadevi je danska vlada državnim uradnikom plačala 100 milijonov DKK, da so se odpovedali statusu državnega uradnika (in povezanim pravicam) v okviru premestitve v Combus.
The Norwegian authorities also point out that the Court of First Instance stated that the Danish Government could have achieved the same result by not transferring the officials to Combus: ‘… the Danish Government could have obtained the same result by reassigning their officials within the State, without paying any particular bonus, which would have enabled Combus to employ immediately employees on a contract basis falling under private law.’ [130]The Norwegian authorities have argued that based on the Combus judgment the decisive issue is whether compensation lightens the burdens normally assumed in an undertaking’s budget.
Norveški organi še poudarjajo, da je Sodišče prve stopnje navedlo, da bi danska vlada lahko dosegla enak rezultat, če uradnikov ne bi premestila v Combus: „[…] danska vlada bi lahko, namesto da je uradnikom podjetja Combus neposredno plačala 100 milijonov DKK, dosegla enak rezultat, če bi uradnike prerazporedila v javni upravi in bi plačala posebne premije, kar bi podjetju Combus omogočilo takojšnje zaposlovanje na podlagi pogodbe v okviru zasebnega prava“ [130].Norveški organi so trdili, da je na podlagi sodbe Combus odločilno vprašanje, ali nadomestilo razbremenjuje podjetje bremena, ki je običajno predvideno v proračunu podjetja.
Such compensation is to be regarded as an economic advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Tako nadomestilo je treba šteti kot gospodarsko prednost, ki je v običajnih tržnih pogojih podjetje prejemnik ne bi pridobilo.
According to the authorities the statement warrants an approach according to which a distinction should be drawn between ‘costs that have been incurred in the running of the company and costs that have been imposed on the Company, but which have not been incurred in the normal course of the Company’s budget’.
Po mnenju organov ta navedba upravičuje pristop, v skladu s katerim je treba ločevati med „stroški, nastalimi med poslovanjem podjetja, in stroški, naloženimi podjetju, ki pa niso nastali med običajno uporabo proračuna podjetja“.
The authorities consider that compensation for the latter costs does not amount to an economic advantage but compensates merely for a structural disadvantage which its competitors do not have.
Organi menijo, da nadomestilo za zadnje stroške ne pomeni gospodarske prednosti, temveč je le izravnava strukturne pomanjkljivosti, ki je tekmeci nimajo.
Separately from this, the Norwegian authorities have argued that if the financial obligation is ‘included’ in the contribution in kind this reduces the overall net value of the business and the transferor may therefore compensate for such financial obligations so as to keep them neutral.
Poleg tega so norveški organi trdili, da finančna obveznost, če je „vključena“ v prispevek v naravi, zmanjšuje skupno neto vrednost podjetja in da lahko prenosnik zato izravna take finančne obveznosti z nadomestilom, da jih nevtralizira.
The contribution in kind to Mesta AS involved a number of items involving disadvantages not suited for commercial operations.
Prispevek v naravi za družbo Mesta AS je vključeval številne postavke, ki so vključevale pomanjkljivosti, neprimerne za komercialne posle.
Instead of reducing the value of the contribution in kind the authorities have maintained the original value and instead compensated for the disadvantages of the restructuring measures.
Namesto da bi zmanjšali vrednost prispevka v naravi, so organi ohranili prvotno vrednost in namesto tega z nadomestilom izravnali slabe strani ukrepov za prestrukturiranje.
In support of the argument that the value of the contribution in kind remained unaffected by the financial obligations (and that the authorities should therefore compensate for the negative impact of such obligations) the Norwegian authorities have referred to the Net Present Value calculation and the equity of Mesta AS.
V podporo trditvi, da finančne obveznosti niso vplivale na vrednost prispevka v naravi (in da bi zato organi morali z nadomestilom izravnati negativni učinek takih obveznosti), so se norveški organi sklicevali na izračun neto sedanje vrednosti in trajni kapital družbe Mesta AS.
In this regard reference is made to Deloitte & Touche which in its 12 December 2002 Report [131] states that ‘The [restructuring] costs are estimated on the basis of existing plans for reductions in the workforce and existing salary agreements. The company will take over the existing employment agreements and must cover these costs, but the costs derive from obligations belonging to the state and will therefore be covered through appropriations in 2003, 2004, and 2005.’ And ‘The restructuring of the company implies costs that must be observed as a lag from the past as a public entity and are as such already incurred at the time of establishment. The company will take over the existing employment agreements and must cover these costs, but the costs derive from obligations belonging to the state and will therefore be covered through appropriations in 2003, 2004 and 2005.’ Deloitte & Touche also states that this was also the reason that Mesta AS was granted funding to cover the restructuring costs (which did not form part of the opening balance) on an ongoing basis over three years.
V zvezi s tem so se sklicevali na družbo Deloitte & Touche, ki v svojem poročilu z dne 12. decembra 2002 [131] navaja: „Stroški (prestrukturiranja) so ocenjeni na podlagi veljavnih načrtov za zmanjšanje števila zaposlenih in veljavnih pogodb o plačah. Družba bo prevzela veljavne pogodbe o zaposlitvi in mora pokriti te stroške, vendar stroški izhajajo iz obveznosti države in bodo zato pokriti z odobrenimi proračunskimi sredstvi v letih 2003, 2004 in 2005.“ Poleg tega navaja: „Prestrukturiranje družbe pomeni stroške, ki jih je treba upoštevati kot ostanek iz preteklosti, ko je bila še oseba javnega prava, in so kot taki nastali že v času ustanovitve. Družba bo prevzela veljavne pogodbe o zaposlitvi in mora pokriti te stroške, vendar stroški izhajajo iz obveznosti države in bodo zato pokriti z odobrenimi proračunskimi sredstvi v letih 2003, 2004 in 2005“. Družba Deloitte & Touche poleg tega navaja, da je bil to tudi razlog, zakaj so bila družbi Mesta AS zaporedno odobrena sredstva za stroške prestrukturiranja (ki niso bila del začetne bilance) v obdobju treh let. Norveški organi trdijo, da mora biti lastnik zmožen izravnati enake pomanjkljivosti, kot bi to zahteval zasebni kupec, če bi bil Oddelek za gradnjo prodan, ne da bi zanj veljala pravila o državni pomoči.
The Norwegian authorities argue that the owner must be able to offset the same disadvantages as a private purchaser would have required if the Production Department would have been sold without being caught by the State aid rules: If the Production Department would have been sold, a purchaser would discover that the structure would be inappropriate for commercial operations and demand (i) a reduction, corresponding to the disadvantages in the purchase price; or (ii) that the seller (i.e., the authorities) covers the costs necessary to make the business fit for commercial operations.
Če bi bil Oddelek za gradnjo prodan, bi kupec ugotovil, da bi bila struktura neprimerna za komercialne posle, in bi zahteval, da (i) se zniža nakupna cena v skladu s pomanjkljivostmi ali (ii) prodajalec (tj. organi) pokrije stroške, ki so potrebni za usposobitev družbe za komercialne posle.
According to the Norwegian authorities it is incorrect to maintain that such an arrangement implies that Mesta AS received the benefit of the work carried out by such employees without paying the full costs of their employment terms.
Po mnenju norveških organov ni pravilno trditi, da taka ureditev pomeni, da je družba Mesta AS imela korist od dela, ki so ga opravili taki zaposleni, ne da bi plačala celotnih stroškov v skladu z njihovimi zaposlitvenimi pogoji.
It would have been more expensive for the State to keep the employees than to transfer them to Mesta AS and reimburse the latter for early pension arrangements [132].
Za državo bi bilo dražje, če bi zaposlene obdržala, kot pa, da jih je premestila v družbo Mesta AS in ji povrnila stroške za ureditev predčasnega upokojevanja [132].
Hence compensation for early pension falls outside Article 61(1) EEA.The Norwegian authorities argue that compensation for maintenance of civil servant pension is a direct consequence of the employee’s previous status as civil servant and should therefore be considered as a liability of the Norwegian authorities.
Zato nadomestilo za predčasno upokojevanje ne spada pod člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.Norveški organi trdijo, da je nadomestilo za ohranitev pokojninskih pravic za državne uradnike neposredna posledica prejšnjega statusa zaposlenih kot državnih uradnikov in da bi ga zato bilo treba upoštevati kot obveznost norveških organov.
The same conclusion applies to maintenance of the special retirement age scheme (from which certain employees benefited during their employment in the Production Department).
Enaka ugotovitev velja za shemo ohranitve pravice do posebne upokojitvene starosti (od katere so imeli nekateri zaposleni korist med zaposlitvijo v Oddelku za gradnjo).
In both cases the compensation has only covered the difference between the additional costs for civil servant pensions or special retirement age scheme, on the one hand, and an ordinary pension scheme, on the other.
V obeh primerih je nadomestilo le pokrilo razliko med dodatnimi stroški za pokojnine državnih uradnikov ali shemo posebne upokojitvene starosti na eni strani ter običajnim pokojninskim sistemom na drugi.
No competitors of Mesta AS have been imposed such obligations in respect of their employees and hence compensation for these measures do not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.
Nobenemu od tekmecev družbe Mesta AS niso bile naložene take obveznosti v zvezi z njegovimi zaposlenimi in zato nadomestilo za te ukrepe ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Moving offices, moving of support and maintenance offices, transfer of archives, moving
Selitev uradov, selitev uradov za podporo in vzdrževanje, prenos arhivov, selitev
The costs of moving of offices were not a result of activities carried out in Mesta AS but were incurred as a consequence of the geographical location of the Production Department.
Stroški selitve uradov niso bili posledica dejavnosti, ki so se izvajale v družbi Mesta AS, temveč so nastali kot posledica geografske lokacije Oddelka za gradnjo.
Also, the costs for moving support and maintenance offices originate from activities carried out prior to the establishment of Mesta AS and can therefore not be considered as costs normally assumed in an undertakings budget but derive rather from State obligations.
Tudi stroški selitve uradov za podporo in vzdrževanje izvirajo iz dejavnosti, opravljenih pred ustanovitvijo družbe Mesta AS, in zato ne morejo veljati za stroške, ki so običajno predvideni v proračunu podjetja, temveč izhajajo iz obveznosti države.
The same goes for the costs for transferring archives.
Enako velja za stroške prenosa arhivov.
Contrary to the Authority’s statement in the Opening Decision this is also true for the moving costs incurred by personnel of the Production Department which had to move domiciles to take up employment in the new premises of Mesta AS.
V nasprotju z navedbo Nadzornega organa v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka to velja tudi za stroške selitve, ki so jih imeli zaposleni Oddelka za gradnjo, ker so se morali preseliti, da bi začeli delati v novih prostorih družbe Mesta AS.
In this regard the Norwegian authorities have also pointed out that it was necessary to offer key personnel incentives in order to minimise the risk that they would resign.
V zvezi s tem so norveški organi še poudarili, da je bilo treba ključnemu osebju ponuditi spodbude, da bi čim bolj zmanjšali nevarnost njihove odpovedi.
Finally, commuting costs during two years (i.e., up until 1 January 2005) for key personnel were also a result of the activities in the Production Department to discourage such personnel from leaving Mesta AS.
Končno, stroški dnevnega prevoza iz kraja bivanja na delo in nazaj v dveh letih (tj. do 1. januarja 2005) za ključne zaposlene so bili prav tako posledica prizadevanj v Oddelku za gradnjo, da bi jih odvrnili od odpovedi službe v družbi Mesta AS.
Conclusion and arguments on compatibility
Ugotovitve in argumenti glede združljivosti
Based on the above, the Norwegian authorities conclude that none of the measures for which restructuring funding has been provided involves an economic advantage to Mesta AS.
Na podlagi navedenega norveški organi ugotavljajo, da nobeden od ukrepov, za katere so bila prejeta sredstva za prestrukturiranje, ne pomeni gospodarske prednosti za družbo Mesta AS.
In fact, since the State has awarded Mesta AS only NOK 993,6 million to cover restructuring costs (although the estimated total restructuring cost amount to NOK 1097,8 million) Mesta AS is undercompensated with about NOK 104,2 million [133].
Ker je država družbi Mesta AS za pokritje stroškov prestrukturiranja dodelila le 993,6 milijona NOK (čeprav ocenjeni skupni stroški prestrukturiranja obsegajo 1097,8 milijona NOK), je družba Mesta AS prejela za približno 104,2 milijona NOK prenizko nadomestilo [133].
Should the Authority nonetheless come to the conclusion that State aid is involved in the restructuring measures, the Norwegian authorities have submitted that the aid is compatible by reference to Article 61(3)(c) as (i) the measures pursues an objective of common European interest; (ii) the restructuring of Mesta AS is necessary to achieve this objective; and (iii) the aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent which is contrary to the common interest.
Če bo Nadzorni organ kljub temu sklenil, da gre pri ukrepih za prestrukturiranje za državno pomoč, norveški organ navajajo, da je pomoč združljiva, pri čemer se sklicujejo na člen 61(3)(c), ker (i) ukrepi uresničujejo cilj skupnega evropskega interesa, (ii) je prestrukturiranje družbe Mesta AS potrebno za dosego tega cilja in (iii) ta pomoč nima tolikšnega škodljivega učinka na pogoje trgovanja, da bi bila v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
As to the pursuit of a common European interest, the Norwegian authorities argue that the opening up of markets to competition is a Community objective in the common European interest [134].
Glede uresničevanja skupnega evropskega interesa norveški organi trdijo, da je odpiranje trgov za konkurenco cilj Skupnosti v skupnem evropskem interesu [134].
In the present case the establishment of a State owned undertaking to compete on a level playing field with new entrants was a necessary step in the context of opening up the market.
V obravnavani zadevi je bila ustanovitev podjetja v lasti države, ki bo enakopravno tekmovalo z novimi tekmeci na trgu, potreben korak v okviru odpiranja trga.
The Norwegian authorities recall that the national authorities remain free to decide on how the opening of the market should take place.
Norveški organi se sklicujejo, da se lahko državni organi prosto odločajo, kako bo potekalo odpiranje trga.
The authorities also note that the opening of the road operation and maintenance markets for competition is better for competition than any of the alternatives of continuing to carry out the services within the State, or open up the market for competition only in part.Finally, when the effect on competition is considered account must be taken of the overall economic effect of restructuring the road maintenance and operation activities: Mesta AS was established with a structural disadvantage compared to its competitors.
Organi še navajajo, da je odpiranje trga za upravljanje in vzdrževanje cest konkurenci za konkurenco boljše od katere koli alternativne možnosti nadaljnjega izvajanja storitev države ali le delnega odprtja trga za konkurenco.Končno, ko se obravnava učinek na konkurenco, je treba upoštevati splošni gospodarski učinek prestrukturiranja dejavnosti vzdrževanja in upravljanja cest. V primerjavi s tekmeci je bila družba Mesta AS ustanovljena s strukturnimi pomanjkljivostmi.
Hence from an economic perspective Mesta AS was not in a situation comparable to that of its competitors as Mesta AS bore the burden derived from the former Production Department within the State.
Tako z gospodarskega vidika družba Mesta AS ni bila v primerljivem položaju s tekmeci, saj je nosila breme, ki je izhajalo iz nekdanjega Oddelka za gradnjo v državi.
Therefore, when analysing the effects on competition account must be taken of the principle of neutrality set out in Article 125 EEA.
Zato je treba pri analizi učinkov na konkurenco upoštevati načelo nevtralnosti iz člena 125 Sporazuma EGP.
In the view of the Norwegian authorities this means that it must be acceptable to compensate Mesta AS for structural disadvantages for purposes of establishing a commercially geared company.
Po mnenju norveških organov to pomeni, da mora biti sprejemljivo, da se družbi Mesta AS odobri nadomestilo stroškov strukturnih pomanjkljivosti, če se želi ustanoviti komercialno usmerjeno podjetje.
The authorities also note that the aid for the restructuring measures was limited to what was necessary in order to open up the market for competition.
Organi še navajajo, da je bila pomoč za ukrepe za prestrukturiranje omejena na obseg, ki je bil potreben za odprtje trga za konkurenco.
Finally, the process has not adversely affected trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.
Končno, postopek ni imel tolikšnega škodljivega učinka na pogoje trgovanja, da bi bil v nasprotju s skupnim interesom.
TRANSITIONAL CONTRACTS
PREHODNE POGODBE
The Norwegian authorities point out that the prices at which both the construction contracts and the operation and maintenance contracts were transferred to Mesta AS are the same as those used for determining the generation of revenue in the context of the discounted cash flow analysis.
Norveški organi poudarjajo, da so bile cene, po katerih so bile na družbo Mesta AS prenesene pogodbe o gradbenih delih ter pogodbe o upravljanju in vzdrževanju, enake cenam, uporabljenim za določitev ustvarjenega prihodka v okviru analize diskontiranega denarnega toka.
Hence the contracts, as assets, formed part of the assessment of the total value of the business which in turn formed part of the contribution in kind.
Tako so bile pogodbe, kot sredstva, del ocene skupne vrednosti podjetja, kar je bil po drugi strani tudi del prispevka v naravi.
There is therefore no State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA in the contracts as contribution in kind.
Zato pri pogodbah kot prispevkih v naravi ne gre za državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Consequently it is not necessary to assess whether the contracts were transferred to Mesta AS at market price.
Posledično ni treba ocenjevati, ali so bile pogodbe prenesene na družbo Mesta AS po tržni ceni.
In any event, with respect to the construction contracts the Norwegian authorities point out that due to having followed internal guidelines, the prices at which the construction contracts were transferred correspond to the price level resulting from public tenders.
Glede pogodb o gradbenih delih norveški organi v vsakem primeru poudarjajo, da zaradi upoštevanja notranjih smernic cene, po katerih so bile prenesene pogodbe o gradbenih delih, ustrezajo ravni cen, doseženi na javnih razpisih.
As regards operation and maintenance contracts, on 1 January 2003 there was no market price, or any reliable source indicating a market price since all operation and maintenance services were carried out by the Production Department [135].
Glede pogodb o upravljanju in vzdrževanju velja, da 1. januarja 2003 ni bilo nobene tržne cene ali zanesljivega vira, ki bi navajal tržno ceno, saj je vse upravljavske in vzdrževalne storitve izvajal Oddelek za gradnjo [135].
In the view of the Norwegian authorities the market for operation and maintenance works was not opened for competition on 1 January 2003 but only on 1 September 2003 (and only in part) [136].
Norveški organi menijo, da trg za upravljavska in vzdrževalna dela ni bil odprt za konkurenco 1. januarja 2003, temveč šele 1. septembra 2003 (in še to le deloma) [136].
Until 1 January 2003 the Public Road Administration had been responsible for 100 % of the operation and maintenance works in relation to the public road network.
Uprava za javne ceste je bila do 1. januarja 2003 odgovorna za 100 % upravljavskih in vzdrževalnih del v zvezi z javnim cestnim omrežjem.
Since there was therefore no market for the relevant services on 1 January 2003, there was no alternative than to transfer the transitional contracts at the cost based prices previously fixed in the Production Department.
Ker 1. januarja 2003 torej ni bilo trga za zadevne storitve, ni bilo nobene druge možnosti, kot da se prehodne pogodbe prenesejo po cenah na podlagi stroškov, ki jih je predhodno določil Oddelek za gradnjo.
None of the third party comments weaken this point of view.
Nobena od pripomb tretjih strank ne omaje tega stališča.
In this context the Norwegian authorities have also argued that the reason that there was no (mature) market was because private operators were not prepared to provide the relevant services for maintaining road safety on 1 January 2003 [137].
V tem okviru so norveški organi še trdili, da je bil razlog za neobstoj (zrelega) trga v tem, da zasebni ponudniki storitev 1. januarja 2003 niso bili pripravljeni za izvajanje ustreznih storitev za ohranjanje varnosti v cestnem prometu [137].