natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The municipality of Asker will not charge any interest rate on the second instalment.
Občina Asker za drugi obrok ne bo zaračunala obresti.
The municipality of Asker has stressed that the sales price was not subject to negotiations as it was established in 2001.
Občina Asker je poudarila, da prodajna cena ni bila predmet pogajanj, saj je bila določena leta 2001.
Though no independent value assessment was made at the time of the option agreement in 2001, the municipality at the time made its own assessment based on its extensive experience in the property market in Asker.
Čeprav ob sklenitvi opcijske pogodbe leta 2001 ni bila opravljena neodvisna ocena vrednosti, je občina takrat izvedla lastno oceno na podlagi obsežnih izkušenj na nepremičninskem trgu v Askerju.
Asker Brygge submitted that the assessment of the alleged aid measures shall be based on the facts available to the Municipality at the time it entered into an option agreement in which Asker Brygge was given a right to purchase the property in question, i.e. in 2001.
Podjetje Asker Brygge je navedlo, da mora ocena domnevnih ukrepov pomoči temeljiti na dejstvih, dostopnih občini ob sklenitvi opcijske pogodbe, s katero je podjetje Asker Brygge pridobilo pravico do nakupa zadevne nepremičnine, tj. leta 2001.
Thus, the market value of the property has to be assessed at the time of the conclusion of the Option Agreement.
Zato je treba oceniti tržno vrednost nepremičnine v času sklenitve opcijske pogodbe.
It is not the role of the Authority to replace the Municipality’s judgment with regard to the economic assessment of the property’s value in 2001.
Naloga Nadzornega organa ni, da nadomesti presojo občine glede gospodarske ocene vrednosti nepremičnine leta 2001.
Thus, Asker Brygge submits that the Municipality enjoyed a margin of discretion in its assessment of the property’s market price in 2001.
Zato podjetje Asker Brygge trdi, da je imela občina pri oceni tržne cene nepremičnine leta 2001 določeno stopnjo diskrecije.
None of the value assessments of the property sufficiently takes into consideration the factual circumstances in 2001.
Nobena od ocen vrednosti nepremičnine ne upošteva v zadostni meri dejanskih okoliščin leta 2001.
Asker Brygge’s main objection to the valuations is that the estimation of the market price inter alia has been based on a presumption that further development of the marina was possible and intended for by the Municipality and Asker Brygge.
Glavni ugovor podjetja Asker Brygge na ocene vrednosti je, da je ocena tržne cene med drugim temeljila na predpostavki, da je bil možen nadaljnji razvoj marine, ki sta ga načrtovala občina in podjetje Asker Brygge.
The option thereby entailed a possibility for Asker Brygge to observe the development of property prices over a number of years, and thereafter to take up the option to buy the property for the price agreed in 2001.
Z nakupno opcijo je podjetje Asker Brygge tako dobilo možnost, da več let spremlja razvoj cen nepremičnin ter se nato odloči izkoristiti opcijo in kupiti nepremično po ceni, dogovorjeni leta 2001.
While the Authority fully recognises the right for public authorities also to operate in a market on commercial terms, it nevertheless finds reason to consider carefully whether a similar agreement would have been concluded by a private market operator.
Nadzorni organ se v celoti zaveda dejstva, da imajo tudi javni organi pravico do poslovanja na trgu pod tržnimi pogoji, vendar je po njegovem mnenju vseeno treba podrobno proučiti, ali bi bilo podobno pogodbo mogoče skleniti z zasebnim subjektom na trgu.
The Authority has then assessed whether the property was transferred at market value when the sales agreement was concluded in 2007 based on the price agreed in 2001.
Nadzorni organ je nato ocenil, ali je bila ob sklenitvi prodajne pogodbe leta 2007 na podlagi cene, dogovorjene leta 2001, nepremičnina prodana po tržni vrednosti.
The Authority has on this point concluded that the property was sold below market value in 2007.
Glede tega je Nadzorni organ sklenil, da je bila nepremičnina prodana pod tržno vrednostjo leta 2007.
Thus, the Authority has in the following firstly assessed the option agreement of 2001 (and the extension signed in 2004), and, secondly, whether the actual sale of land in 2007 was accomplished at market price.
Zato je Nadzorni organ v nadaljevanju najprej ocenil opcijsko pogodbo iz leta 2001 (in njeno podaljšanje, sklenjeno leta 2004), nato pa, ali je bila dejanska prodaja zemljišča leta 2007 izvedena po tržni ceni.
As regards the option agreement, it has to be examined whether a private investor operating in a market economy would have chosen to enter into a similar agreement regarding the price and terms as the one signed between the municipality of Asker and Asker Brygge in 2001.
V zvezi z opcijsko pogodbo je treba proučiti, ali bi zasebni vlagatelj v tržnem gospodarstvu sklenil pogodbo s podobno ceno in pogoji, kot sta jo leta 2001 sklenila občina Asker in podjetje Asker Brygge.
In making that assessment, the Authority cannot replace the municipality’s commercial judgement with its own, which implies that the municipality, as the seller of the plot of land, must enjoy a margin of judgement.
Pri oceni Nadzorni organ ne more nadomestiti tržne presoje občine s svojo, kar pomeni, da je treba občini kot prodajalcu zemljišča omogočiti določeno stopnjo diskrecije.
On the basis of the information available to the Authority, the conditions for the later sale were laid down in the option agreement signed in 2001.
Na podlagi informacij, dostopnih Nadzornemu organu, so bili pogoji za poznejšo prodajo določeni v opcijski pogodbi, sklenjeni leta 2001.
This agreement gave Asker Brygge a right, but not an obligation, to buy the property on pre-determined conditions at any given time until 31 December 2009.
S to pogodbo je podjetje Asker Brygge pridobilo pravico do nakupa nepremičnine kadar koli do 31. decembra 2009 po predhodno določenih pogojih, vendar ga pogodba ni zavezovala k nakupu.
On the other hand, the municipality was barred from selling the property to someone else in the same period.
Po drugi strani občina v istem obdobju ni smela prodati nepremičnine drugemu subjektu.
According to the information available to the Authority, the municipality did not carry out any independent value assessment of the property before it entered into the agreement with Asker Brygge in 2001.
Glede na informacije, dostopne Nadzornemu organu, občina ni izvedla neodvisne ocene vrednosti nepremičnine pred sklenitvijo pogodbe s podjetjem Asker Brygge leta 2001.
The Municipality has explained that it assessed the value based on its experience in the real estate market, but no details other than that has been provided to the Authority.
Občina je pojasnila, da je vrednost ocenila na podlagi lastnih izkušenj na trgu nepremičnin, vendar Nadzornemu organu ni predložila drugih podatkov.
Although the conditions for the sale were laid down in the 2001 option agreement, the sales contract was not concluded until 21 March 2007.
Čeprav so bili pogoji prodaje določeni v opcijski pogodbi iz leta 2001, je bila prodajna pogodba sklenjena šele 21. marca 2007.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that the sales price was not subject to negotiations in 2007 but had been agreed in 2001.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da prodajna cena ni bila predmet pogajanj leta 2007, temveč je bila dogovorjena leta 2001.
The value of the property in 2001 is not decisive for the assessment of whether state aid was granted with the current transaction since the sale was not carried out in 2001, but in 2007.
Pri oceni, ali je bila pri zadevni transakciji dodeljena državna pomoč, vrednost nepremičnine leta 2001 ni odločujoč dejavnik, saj prodaja ni bila izvedena leta 2001, temveč leta 2007.
Whereas the option agreement of 2001 gave Asker Brygge a right to buy the property for the next 10 years, the property remained with the municipality in the meantime, for as long as Asker Brygge did not call upon the option.
Z opcijsko pogodbo iz leta 2001 je podjetje Asker Brygge pridobilo pravico do nakupa nepremičnine v naslednjih desetih letih, vendar je do takrat oziroma do uveljavitve nakupne opcije s strani podjetja Asker Brygge nepremičnina ostala v lasti občine.
As the contract between the municipality and Asker Brygge was entered into in 2001, this price was discounted to 2001 values.
Ker sta leta 2001 občina in podjetje Asker Brygge sklenila pogodbo, je bila ta cena diskontirana na vrednost iz leta 2001.
The discounted value of NOK 26 million of 2007 using a rate of 5,5 % over 7,5 years corresponded to NOK 17 million in 2001.
Diskontirana vrednost 26 milijonov NOK leta 2007 je ob 5,5-odstotni stopnji v obdobju sedmih let in pol ustrezala 17 milijonom NOK leta 2001.
The discounted value of NOK 12 million of 2007 using the same discount rate as before (i.e. 5,5 % over 7,5 years) corresponded to NOK 8 million in 2001.
Diskontirana vrednost 12 milijonov NOK leta 2007 je ob enaki diskontni stopnji (tj. 5,5 % v obdobju sedmih let in pol) ustrezala vrednosti 8 milijonov NOK leta 2001.
Thus, the discrepancy between the two reports is NOK 9 million for the value of the property in 2001 and NOK 14 million for the value of the property in 2007.
Tako je razlika med obema poročiloma 9 milijonov NOK za vrednost nepremičnine leta 2001 in 14 milijonov NOK za vrednost nepremičnine leta 2007.
The rental contract expired in June 2009.
Najemna pogodba je potekla junija 2009.
Furthermore, in clause 3 of the option agreement it is stated that Asker Brygge will, together with the municipality of Asker, reach a satisfying solution regarding the needs of Slependen Båtforening within the scope of the activity at the time of the agreement.When the option agreement was entered into in 2001, Slependen Båtforening paid an annual lease of NOK 19500 to the municipality of Asker [12].
Poleg tega člen 3 opcijske pogodbe določa, da bo podjetje Asker Brygge z občino Asker poiskalo zadovoljivo rešitev v zvezi s potrebami podjetja Slependen Båtforening glede na dejavnosti v času pogodbe.Ob sklenitvi opcijske pogodbe leta 2001 je podjetje Slependen Båtforening občini Asker plačevalo letno najemnino v višini 19500 NOK [12].
However, the Norwegian authorities are of the opinion that the sum of NOK 850000, which represents the fulfilment of the obligation towards Slependen Båtforening, had to be taken into consideration when the market value of the property was assessed for 2001 and 2007.
Vendar norveški organi menijo, da bi bilo treba pri oceni tržne vrednosti nepremičnine za leti 2001 in 2007 upoštevati znesek 850000 NOK, ki predstavlja izpolnitev obveznosti do podjetja Slependen Båtforening.
Thus, the municipality of Asker instructed TJB Eiendomstaksering – Ek & Mosveen AS – Bjørn Aarvik to use NOK 850000 as the basis for the value estimation of Slependen Båtforenings's 65 boat places in their assessment dated 16 June 2008.
Občina Asker je zato podjetjem TJB Eiendomstaksering, Ek & Mosveen AS in Bjørn Aarvik naročila, da kot osnovo pri oceni vrednosti 65 privezov podjetja Slependen Båtforening z dne 16. junija 2008 upoštevajo znesek 850000 NOK.
The Authority considers that this sum is relevant for the assessment of the 2007 property value, as this was known information at the time.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa je ta znesek ustrezen za oceno vrednosti nepremičnine leta 2007, saj je bil takrat ta podatek znan.
The two TBJ Eiendomstaksering – Ek & Mosveen AS – Bjørn Aarvik reports have determined the price of the land in 2007.
Poročili podjetij TJB Eiendomstaksering, Ek & Mosveen AS in Bjørn Aarvik sta ceno zemljišča določili leta 2007.
The first report prepared in January 2008 estimated the value of the land at NOK 26 million, well above the price of NOK 8,7 million paid by Asker Brygge AS.
V prvem poročilu iz januarja 2008 je bila vrednost zemljišča ocenjena na 26 milijonov NOK, kar je bistveno več od 8,7 milijona NOK, kolikor je plačalo podjetje Asker Brygge AS.
Asker Brygge has claimed that to the extent the 2007 value is relevant, the Authority shall take into consideration and deduct added value resulting from the works undertaken by Asker Brygge from 2001–2007.
Podjetje Asker Brygge je trdilo, da bi moral Nadzorni organ, če je vrednost iz leta 2007 ustrezna, upoštevati dodano vrednost zaradi del, ki jih je navedeno podjetje izvedlo v letih od 2001 do 2007, ter to vrednost odšteti.
The works consisted of Asker Brygge’s research of the property [19].
Dela so zajemala raziskave, ki jih je podjetje Asker Brygge opravilo na nepremičnini [19].
The Authority finds that there is no basis for deducting from the value the works conducted by Asker Brygge in the period of 2001–2007.
Nadzorni organ meni, da ni razloga, da bi se od vrednosti odštela dela, ki jih je podjetje Asker Brygge opravilo v obdobju 2001–2007.
In this respect, the Authority notes that the value assessments of 2008 are based on the regulatory status of the property as it was in 2001 and 2007.
V zvezi s tem Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so ocene vrednosti iz leta 2008 temeljile na pravnem statusu nepremičnine leta 2001 in leta 2007.
The regulations were unchanged since 1998, according to the value assessment of June 2008 [20].
V skladu z oceno iz junija 2008 se predpisi od leta 1998 niso spremenili [20].
The expected usage of the property was thus considered to be as a marina and storage area for boats in 2001 and in 2007 [21].
Kot pričakovana uporaba nepremičnine sta se tako leta 2001 in 2007 štela marina in prostor za shranjevanje plovil [21].
The Authority can not see that this assessment was affected due to the research carried out by Asker Brygge.
Nadzorni organ ne more skleniti, da so na to oceno vplivale raziskave podjetja Asker Brygge.
The Authority has some doubt as to whether a private investor would have taken into account the likelihood that the property would be regulated for other and more valuable usage in the future and whether such possibilities would have led to a higher market value, i.e. (considerably) higher than the assessment of June 2008.
Nadzorni organ ima pomisleke glede tega, ali bi zasebni vlagatelj upošteval verjetnost, da bi zakonska ureditev v prihodnosti dovoljevala uporabo nepremičnine za drug namen višje vrednosti, in ali bi taka verjetnost povzročila višjo tržno vrednost, tj. (znatno) višjo od ocene iz junija 2008.
The Authority has however taken note of the particular uncertainties connected to the future use of the property in question, inter alia pollution and regulatory requirements connected to the motorway near to the property.
Nadzorni organ pa je upošteval posebne negotovosti v povezavi s prihodnjo uporabo zadevne nepremičnine, med drugim onesnaženost in pravne zahteve v zvezi z avtocesto v bližini nepremičnine.
Thus, the assessment of June 2008, which did not take into account any potential of developing the property into another form of usage than the existing, is moderate but appears in the Authority’s view accurate when one takes into account the particular characteristics of the property under assessment. For these reasons, the Authority concludes that the sale of the land gbnr.
Tako je ocena iz junija 2008, v kateri ni bila upoštevana nobena možnost razvoja nepremičnine za druge namene uporabe od obstoječega, zmerna, vendar je po mnenju Nadzornega organa ob upoštevanju posebnih značilnosti ocenjevane nepremičnine, točna.
Moreover, the Authority finds that the actual price agreed upon in the sales agreement did not corresponded to the market price of the property at the time the sales agreement was concluded. Therefore, the Authority concludes that the sale of the concerned plot of land gbnr.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da dejanska cena, dogovorjena v prodajni pogodbi, ni ustrezala tržni ceni nepremičnine v času sklenitve prodajne pogodbe.
The conditions of the sale of the property at Nesøyveien 8, gnr. 32 bnr. 17
Pogoji prodaje nepremičnine na naslovu Nesøyveien 8, katastrska št. 32/17
The sale of the plot of land at Nesøyveien 8, gnr. 32 bnr. 17
Prodaja zemljišča na naslovu Nesøyveien 8, katastrska št. 32/17
No 364/11/COL
št. 364/11/COL
to close the formal investigation procedure concerning the relief of the Icelandic Housing Financing Fund Íbúðalánasjóður (HFF) from payment of a State guarantee premium (Iceland)
o zaključku formalnega postopka preiskave v zvezi z oprostitvijo plačila premije za državno jamstvo za islandski stanovanjski finančni sklad Íbúðalánasjóður (Islandija)
THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (THE AUTHORITY),
NADZORNI ORGAN EFTE (V NADALJNJEM BESEDILU: NADZORNI ORGAN) JE –
HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the EEA Agreement), in particular to Article 61 and Protocol 26,
OB UPOŠTEVANJU Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP), ter zlasti člena 61 Sporazuma in Protokola 26 k Sporazumu,
HAVING REGARD to Article 1(3) of Part I and 7(2) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (Surveillance and Court Agreement) (Protocol 3),
OB UPOŠTEVANJU člena 1(3) dela I in člena 7(2) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum o nadzornem organu in sodišču) (Protokol 3),
HAVING REGARD to the consolidated version of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 of Part II of Protocol 3 (the Implementing Provisions Decision) [1],
OB UPOŠTEVANJU prečiščene različice Odločbe Nadzornega organa št. 195/04/COL z dne 14. julija 2004 o izvedbenih določbah iz člena 27 dela II Protokola 3 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Odločba o izvedbenih določbah) [1],
HAVING CALLED on interested parties to submit their comments [2],
PO POZIVU zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo pripombe [2],
By letter dated 28 September 2007 (Event No 442805), the Authority requested information from the Icelandic authorities regarding State guarantees and the obligation to pay a State guarantee premium under the Icelandic Act on State Guarantees.
Nadzorni organ je v dopisu z dne 28. septembra 2007 (ev. št. 442805) od islandskih organov zahteval podatke o državnih jamstvih in obveznosti plačila premije za državno jamstvo na podlagi islandskega zakona o državnih jamstvih.
By letter from the Icelandic Mission to the European Union dated 24 October 2007, forwarding the letter from the Icelandic Ministry of Finance of the same date, received and registered by the Authority on 25 October 2007 (Events No 448739 and No 449598), the Icelandic authorities responded to this request.
Z dopisom Islandske misije pri Evropski uniji z dne 24. oktobra 2007, v katerem je posredovala dopis islandskega Ministrstva za finance z istega dne ter ga je Nadzorni Organ prejel in evidentiral 25. oktobra 2007 (ev. št. 448739 in 449598), so islandski organi odgovorili na to zahtevo.
The case was subject to discussions between the representatives of the Authority and the Icelandic Government on 7 September 2007 in Brussels and on 29 October 2007 in Reykjavik as well as between the representatives of the Authority and the Icelandic Financial Services Association in a meeting on 6 March 2008 in Brussels.
O zadevi so 7. septembra 2007 v Bruslju in 29. oktobra 2007 v Reykjaviku razpravljali predstavniki Nadzornega organa in islandske vlade, na sestanku 6. marca 2008 v Bruslju pa še predstavniki Nadzornega organa in islandskega združenja finančnih služb.
The Authority’s Decision No 406/08/COL of 27 June 2008 to initiate the formal investigation procedure with regard to the relief of the Icelandic Housing Financing Fund from payment of a State guarantee premium was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and in the EEA Supplement to it [3].
Odločba Nadzornega organa št. 406/08/COL z dne 27. junija 2008 o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave v zvezi z oprostitvijo plačila premije za državno jamstvo za islandski stanovanjski finančni sklad je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije in v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu [3].
By means of this Decision, the Authority called on interested parties to submit their comments.
Nadzorni organ je na podlagi navedene odločbe pozval zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo pripombe.
The Authority has not received any comments from interested parties.
Nadzorni organ ni od zainteresiranih strani prejel nobenih pripomb.
By letter dated 8 September 2008 (Event No 490696), the Icelandic authorities submitted comments on the Authority’s Decision No 406/08/COL.
Pripombe glede Odločbe Nadzornega organa št. 406/08/COL pa so z dopisom z dne 8. septembra 2008 (ev. št. 490696) predložili islandski organi.
In October 2008, the Authority put the case on hold due to the collapse of the Icelandic banking sector.
Nadzorni organ je oktobra 2008 začasno ustavil obravnavo te zadeve zaradi sesutja islandskega bančnega sektorja.
However, some discussions concerning this case took place at a Package Meeting in Reykjavik on 4-5 November 2009.
Vendar je bila tudi ta zadeva omenjena v razpravah v okviru sestanka o paketu kršitev v Reykjaviku 4. in 5. novembra 2009.
Following this meeting, on 16 November 2009, a letter was sent by the Authority with a reminder to submit information concerning compatibility assessment of the measure under investigation.
V skladu z ugotovitvami s tega sestanka je Nadzorni organ 16. novembra 2009 poslal dopis z opominom, naj se predložijo podatki o oceni združljivosti zadevnega ukrepa.
A reply was provided by the Icelandic authorities by letter dated 7 December 2009 (Event No 539538).
Islandski organi so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 7. decembra 2009 (ev. št. 539538).
In a parallel investigation concerning State aid measures granted to the Icelandic Housing Financing Fund, the Authority concluded in its Decision No 405/08/COL of 27 June 2008 [4] that the State guarantee granted to HFF constitutes an existing aid measure.
Nadzorni organ je v vzporedni preiskavi o ukrepih državne pomoči, dodeljene islandskemu stanovanjskemu finančnemu skladu, ugotovil in v Odločbi št. 405/08/COL z dne 27. junija 2008 [4] odločil, da državno jamstvo, zagotovljeno islandskemu stanovanjskemu finančnemu skladu, pomeni obstoječ ukrep pomoči.
Subsequently, on 18 July 2011, the Authority adopted Decision No 247/11/COL on a proposal for appropriate measures in the financing of the Icelandic Housing Financing Fund Íbúðalánasjóður (HFF) [5], inter alia, in the form of the State guarantee.
Nato je Nadzorni organ 18. julija 2011 sprejel Odločbo št. 247/11/COL o predlogu za uvedbo ustreznih ukrepov pri financiranju islandskega stanovanjskega finančnega sklada [5], med drugim v obliki državnega jamstva.
Description of the measure under investigation
Opis ukrepa v preiskavi
The Housing Financing Fund Íbúðalánasjóður (HFF) is a State-owned institution, which operates on an arms-length basis under the Icelandic Housing Act No 44/1998 (lög um húsnæðismál) [6].
Stanovanjski finančni sklad Íbúðalánasjóður (v nadaljnjem besedilu: SFS) je državna institucija, ki deluje po tržnih pogojih v skladu z islandskim stanovanjskim zakonom št. 44/1998 (lög um húsnæðismál) [6].
HFF is managed by a board of directors within the administrative purview of the Minister of Welfare.
SFS upravlja upravni odbor v okviru upravne pristojnosti ministrstva za socialne zadeve.
The purpose of HFF is to promote security of, and equal rights to, housing.
Namen SFS je spodbujanje varstva stanovanjskih pravic oziroma enakih pravic do stanovanja.
This is done through the granting of mortgages to individuals and loans to entities that provide rental accommodation, and through general organisation of matters relating to housing.
To se izvaja prek dodeljevanja hipotekarnih posojil posameznikom in posojil subjektom, ki oddajajo nastanitvene zmogljivosti, ter prek splošne organizacije stanovanjskih vprašanj.
Funding is provided for the specific purpose of increasing people’s prospects of acquiring or renting housing on manageable terms (cf. Article 1 of the Housing Act).
Financiranje je namenjeno točno povečanju možnosti za pridobitev oziroma najem stanovanj po obvladljivih pogojih (glej člen 1 stanovanjskega zakona).