natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since the production arm of Mesta AS was previously the State’s in-house service provider, Mesta AS was established with an organisation unfit for competition.
Ker je bila gradbena enota družbe Mesta AS prej ponudnik storitev v notranji strukturi države, je bila družba Mesta AS ustanovljena z organizacijo, ki ni primerna za konkurenco.
Without compensation Mesta AS’ competitive position would be affected.
Konkurenčni položaj družbe Mesta AS bi bil brez nadomestila prizadet.
The Commission has in its decision on ‘Destia’ considered that the opening of the market is a Community objective in the common interest [118].
Komisija je v odločbi o „Destii“ menila, da je odprtje trga cilj Skupnosti v skupnem interesu [118].
Moreover, the guidelines on State aid linked to stranded costs aim at facilitating the transition of undertakings to a competitive market.
Poleg tega je namen smernic o državni pomoči, povezani z nasedlimi stroški, olajšati prehod podjetij na konkurenčni trg.
Indeed aid (limited in time and effects) for attaining a common objective of facilitating transition from a closed market to a (partially) liberalised market is in the common interest and serves to counterbalance distortion of competition.
Pomoč (omejena v času in učinkih) za dosego skupnega cilja pospeševanja prehoda iz zaprtega trga v (delno) liberaliziran trg je dejansko v skupnem interesu in se uporablja kot protiutež izkrivljanju konkurence.
In this context attention is drawn to that Mesta AS must repay any excess restructuring funds.As regards the evaluation of machinery Arntzen submits that upon changing the evaluation principles from book value to real value the discounted cash flow analysis established a value of the business of NOK 600 million.
V tem okviru je treba opozoriti, da mora družba Mesta AS vrniti vsa čezmerna sredstva za prestrukturiranje.Glede ocene strojev družba Arntzen navaja, da je bila po spremembi načela vrednotenja s knjigovodske na realno vrednost z analizo diskontiranega denarnega toka ugotovljena vrednost podjetja 600 milijonov NOK.
The allocation of the value to the assets does not change the overall value and does therefore not raise State aid issues.
Dodelitev vrednosti sredstvom ne spremeni skupne vrednosti in zato ne postavlja vprašanj o državni pomoči.
Based on the result of the discounted cash flow analysis, the value of the assets (including short-term debt) was reduced from a real value of NOK 698 million to NOK 619 million.
Na podlagi izsledkov analize diskontiranega denarnega toka je bila vrednost premoženja (vključno s kratkoročnim dolgom) zmanjšana z realne vrednosti 698 milijonov NOK na 619 milijonov NOK.
Hence the adjustment represented NOK 79 million not NOK 200 million.
Zato je prilagoditev obsegala 79 milijonov NOK in ne 200 milijonov NOK.
With respect to the transitional contracts Arntzen submits that Mesta AS was only compensated for the cost of providing services under the relevant contracts and did therefore not receive any economic advantage within the meaning of the State aid rules.
Družba Arntzen glede prehodnih pogodb navaja, da so bili družbi Mesta AS nadomeščeni le stroški izvajanja storitev v skladu z zadevnimi pogodbami in da družba tako ni bila deležna nobene gospodarske prednosti v smislu pravil o državni pomoči.
Arntzen further submits that for purposes of establishing an advantage the Authority must establish a reference price which, when compared to the actual price of the contracts transferred to Mesta AS, will constitute the economic advantage.
Družba Arntzen še navaja, da mora Nadzorni organ za ugotovitev prednosti določiti referenčno ceno, ki bo po primerjavi z dejansko ceno pogodb, prenesenih na družbo Mesta AS, pomenila gospodarsko prednost.
It is only if the Authority can demonstrate that undertakings existing on 1 January 2003 could provide similar services at a cheaper price that the prices at which the contracts were transferred to Mesta AS were overpriced.
Samo če bo Nadzorni organ lahko dokazal, da bi podjetja, ki so delovala 1. januarja 2003, lahko ponudila podobne storitve po nižji ceni, bo to pomenilo, da so bile cene v pogodbah, prenesenih na družbo Mesta AS, previsoke.
The burden of proof is on the Authority.
Dokazno breme je na Nadzornem organu.
Arntzen further submits that, in fact, there was no market price on 1 January 2003 since all operation and maintenance services were carried out in-house and a de facto monopoly was created on 1 January 2003 with the establishment of Mesta AS.
Družba Arntzen še navaja, da 1. januarja 2003 dejansko ni bilo nobene tržne cene, saj so se vse upravljavske in vzdrževalne storitve izvajale notranje in je z ustanovitvijo družbe Mesta AS 1. januarja 2003 nastal dejanski monopol.
The prices resulting from the public tenders of the pilot projects cannot be used as reference prices: First, the Authority has not established that other undertakings were actually ready and able to deliver the relevant services at a cheaper price.
Cen, ki so rezultat javnih razpisov pilotnih projektov, ni mogoče uporabiti kot referenčnih cen. Prvič, Nadzorni organ ni ugotovil, da so bila druga podjetja dejansko pripravljena in zmožna izvajati zadevne storitve po nižji ceni.
Considering the importance of the case the Authority ought to carry out a detailed assessment of whether other undertakings were actually ready to provide the relevant services at a cheaper price.
Glede na pomembnost zadeve bi moral Nadzorni organ podrobno presoditi, ali so bila druga podjetja dejansko pripravljena ponuditi zadevne storitve po nižji ceni.
It is only if this is the case that State aid may be involved.
Samo v tem primeru bi lahko šlo za vpletenost državne pomoči.
Secondly, while the price levels resulting from the public tenders of the pilot contracts were lower than the prices at which the contracts have been transferred to Mesta AS, the two groups of contracts are not similar.
Drugič, medtem ko so bile ravni cen, ki so izhajale iz javnih razpisov pilotnih projektov, nižje od cen, po katerih so bile pogodbe prenesene na družbo Mesta AS, ti dve skupini pogodb nista podobni.
This means that the pilot contracts cannot be considered to represent the market price.
To pomeni, da za pilotne pogodbe ne more veljati, da predstavljajo tržno ceno.
In this regard it is noted that the original contract price of one of the pilot contracts, i.e., the Bærum contract, was raised with 25 % due to additional works.
Glede tega je treba navesti, da je bila prvotna pogodbena cena ene od pilotnih pogodb, tj. pogodbe Bærum, zvišana za 25 % zaradi dodatnih del.
A large part of such additional works is included in the base price of the transitional contracts transferred to Mesta AS.
Velik del teh dodatnih del je vključen v osnovno ceno prehodnih pogodb, prenesenih na družbo Mesta AS.
Finally, the Authority does not have information demonstrating that undertakings which won the pilot contracts or the contracts tendered out after 2003 actually cover their costs of providing the services.
Končno, Nadzorni organ tudi nima informacij, ki bi dokazovale, da so podjetja, ki so bila izbrana za pilotne pogodbe ali pogodbe, razpisane po letu 2003, dejansko pokrila stroške izvajanja storitev.
If the undertakings do not cover their costs it is not an efficient opening of opening the market.
Če podjetja ne pokrijejo svojih stroškov, odpiranje trga ni učinkovito.
The law firm, Thommessen Krefting Greve Lund AS (‘Thommessen’), has submitted arguments on behalf of Veidekke ASA.
Odvetniška družba Thommessen Krefting Greve Lund AS (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Thommessen) je predložila argumente v imenu družbe Veidekke ASA.
As regards the restructuring measures, Thommessen submits that the Combus judgment recognises that State financing of cost inefficiencies originating in past labour legislation does not constitute State aid provided it is proportional to the structural disadvantage.
Družba Thommessen glede ukrepov za prestrukturiranje navaja, da je v sodbi Combus ugotovljeno, da državno financiranje stroškovne neučinkovitosti, ki izhaja iz pretekle delovne zakonodaje, ne pomeni državne pomoči, če je sorazmerno s strukturno pomanjkljivostjo.
Any compensation beyond the difference between the costs of the structural disadvantage and relevant labour costs of a comparable undertaking is State aid.
Vsako nadomestilo, ki presega razliko med stroški strukturne pomanjkljivosti in ustreznimi stroški dela primerljivega podjetja, je državna pomoč.
The State intervention should not alleviate Mesta AS from pension obligations incurred in the past but only from structural disadvantages for the future (i.e., as of 2003 onwards).
Intervencija države naj ne bi ublažila pokojninskih obveznosti družbe Mesta AS, ki so nastale v preteklosti, temveč le strukturne pomanjkljivosti za prihodnost (tj. od leta 2003).
Thommessen submits that Mesta AS was overcompensated for the structural disadvantages.
Družba Thommessen navaja, da je družba Mesta AS prejela previsoka nadomestila za strukturne pomanjkljivosti.
The Authority should therefore verify whether the overstaffing of Mesta AS resulted in some benefits for the company which meant that the structural disadvantage (of overstaffing) was overrated.
Zato bi moral Nadzorni organ preveriti, ali so bile posledica čezmernega števila zaposlenih v družbi Mesta AS kakšne koristi za družbo, kar je pomenilo, da je bila strukturna pomanjkljivost (čezmernega števila zaposlenih) precenjena.
In other words, the Authority must clarify whether the disadvantage of overstaffing was neutralised by access to surplus and cheap work force.
Povedano drugače, Nadzorni organ mora pojasniti, ali je bila pomanjkljivost čezmernega števila zaposlenih nevtralizirana z dostopom do presežne in poceni delovne sile.
In this regard attention is drawn to the fact that Mesta AS’ profitability was significantly better than first anticipated during the first three years of its existence.
Glede tega se opozarja na dejstvo, da je bila dobičkonosnost družbe Mesta AS precej višja, kot je bilo prvotno pričakovano v prvih treh letih njenega delovanja.
St.prp. nr 1 (2007–2008) shows that the funds awarded for each year covered more than the relevant liability of the restructuring measures, thus indicating overcompensation.
Iz dokumenta St. prp. nr. 1 (2007–2008) je razvidno, da so sredstva, dodeljena za vsako leto, pokrila več kot ustrezno obveznost ukrepov za prestrukturiranje, kar pomeni čezmerno nadomestilo.
In particular, the Authority should verify whether the State had the possibility to retransfer, reallocate or replace some employees instead of offering them early pension.
Nadzorni organ bi moral predvsem preveriti, ali je država imela možnost, da bi nekatere zaposlene premestila, prerazporedila ali nadomestila, namesto da jim je ponudila predčasno upokojitev.
The Authority should request the Norwegian authorities to produce evidence showing that early pension was necessary for handling the personnel issue.
Nadzorni organ bi moral od norveških organov zahtevati, naj predložijo dokaze o tem, da je bilo predčasno upokojevanje potrebno za reševanje kadrovskega vprašanja.
The Authority should verify whether the authorities only compensated for the difference between average costs of an ordinary private pension scheme and membership in the state pension fund and whether compensation was limited to civil servants.
Nadzorni organ bi moral preveriti, ali so organi le nadomestili razliko med povprečnimi stroški običajnega zasebnega pokojninskega sistema in stroški zavarovanja v državnem pokojninskem skladu ter ali je bilo nadomestilo omejeno na državne uradnike.
The Authority is requested to verity whether costs for maintenance of special retirement age are costs normally included in the budget of an undertaking and therefore not a structural disadvantage meaning that the compensation may amount to State aid.
Od Nadzornega organa se zahteva, da preveri, ali so stroški ohranjanja pravice do posebne upokojitvene starosti enaki stroškom, ki so običajno vključeni v proračun podjetja, in tako niso strukturna pomanjkljivost, kar pomeni, da bi nadomestilo lahko pomenilo državno pomoč.
The Authority should also assess the transaction under directive on the transfer of undertakings.
Nadzorni organ bi moral transakcijo oceniti tudi v skladu z direktivo o prenosu podjetij.
Thommessen also states that the ‘Government’s guidelines states that the employer may apply for continued membership to the Labour ministry. If refused the individual may be linked to the pension scheme through so called closed membership arrangement’ and asks whether closed membership has been considered as an alternative to compensation Mesta AS for restructuring measures.
Družba Thommessen še navaja, da „je v smernicah vlade navedeno, da lahko delodajalec pri Ministrstvu za delo zaprosi za nadaljevanje zavarovanja. V primeru zavrnitve je posameznika mogoče povezati s pokojninskim sistemom prek tako imenovane ureditve zaprtega zavarovanja“, zato družba Thommessen sprašuje, ali je bilo zaprto zavarovanje obravnavano kot alternativa nadomestilu družbi Mesta AS za ukrepe za prestrukturiranje.
Thommessen submits that Mesta AS might have taken on an obligation which it was not obliged to take on.
Družba Thommessen navaja, da je družba Mesta AS morda prevzela obveznost, ki ji je ne bi bilo treba prevzeti.
If the restructuring costs of Mesta AS in this regard is a consequence of voluntarily taking over (or maintaining) obligations, this is a decision of Mesta AS.
Če so stroški prestrukturiranja družbe Mesta AS v zvezi s tem le posledica prostovoljnega prevzemanja (ali ohranjanja) obveznosti, je to odločitev družbe Mesta AS.
Compensation for costs which Mesta AS was not legally bound to observe are costs normally included in the budget of a company and state funding for this purpose constitutes State aid.
Nadomestilo za stroške, ki jih družba Mesta AS pravno ni bila zavezana prevzeti, je strošek, ki je običajno vključen v proračun podjetja, in državna sredstva v ta namen pomenijo državno pomoč.
Compensating restructuring costs may be compatible under Article 61(3)(c) EEA provided the conditions of necessity and proportionality are respected.
Nadomestilo za stroške prestrukturiranja je lahko združljivo v skladu s členom 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP, če se spoštujeta pogoja potrebnosti in sorazmernosti.
In this regard the aim of increasing the efficiency of the former Production Department must be balanced against the objective to make the market more competitive.
V tem smislu mora biti namen povečevanja učinkovitosti nekdanjega Oddelka za gradnjo uravnotežen s ciljem konkurenčnejšega trga.
Thommessen submits that the competitiveness of Mesta AS has indeed materialized via a high share of public procurement contracts won at the cost of effective competition in the market.
Družba Thommessen navaja, da se je konkurenčnost družbe Mesta AS dejansko udejanjila prek visokega deleža pogodb o javnih naročilih, za katere je bila izbrana na račun delujočih konkurentov na trgu.
Mesta AS is, by far, the largest player with a market share of 60 %.
Družba Mesta AS je s 60-odstotnim tržnim deležem največji igralec na trgu.
The steadily decreasing number of bidders in public tenders confirms this.
To potrjuje stalno zmanjševanje števila ponudnikov na javnih razpisih.
The problem is that Mesta AS was overcompensated for its structural disadvantages.
Težava je v tem, da je družba Mesta AS prejela previsoka nadomestila za strukturne pomanjkljivosti.
The market has simply moved from an oligopolistic market to a duopolistic market with Mesta AS as the dominant player.
Trg se je iz oligopolnega preprosto preoblikoval v duopolnega, kjer je prevladujoči igralec družba Mesta AS.
The Authority must review that the measures in question do not confer an advantage with market distortion as a consequence.
Nadzorni organ mora preveriti, ali zadevni ukrepi ne zagotavljajo prednosti, katere posledica je izkrivljanje trga.
On the issue of asset evaluation Thommessen submits that the Authority must examine the case independently of whether the opening balance complies with Norwegian accounting and company regulations.
Glede vrednotenja sredstev družba Thommessen navaja, da mora Nadzorni organ primer proučiti neodvisno od tega, ali začetna bilanca izpolnjuje zahteve norveških predpisov o računovodstvu in gospodarskih družbah.
In this regard Thommessen submits that the Norwegian limited liability Act includes a rule to ensure that the share capital contribution is not beyond fair value.
Družba Thommessen glede tega navaja, da norveški zakon o družbah z omejeno odgovornostjo vključuje predpis, ki naj bi zagotovil, da delež osnovnega kapitala ne presega poštene vrednosti.
However, while the Board of Directors may be liable for an assessment beyond fair value there is no liability for assessments below fair value.
Vendar, medtem ko je upravni odbor odgovoren za vrednotenje, ki presega pošteno vrednost, ni nobene odgovornosti za vrednotenje pod pošteno vrednostjo.
Therefore, Thommessen expects a separate independent expert evaluation of whether the assets have been fixed at market value.
Zato družba Thommessen pričakuje ločeno neodvisno strokovno presojo, ali je bilo premoženje določeno po tržni vrednosti.
Thommessen agrees that the assets should be based on fair value as a going concern which could be based on a discounted cash flow analysis.
Družba Thommessen se strinja, da bi moralo premoženje temeljiti na pošteni vrednosti kot načelu časovne neomejenosti delovanja, ki bi lahko temeljilo na analizi diskontiranega denarnega toka.
According to section 4(2) of the Norwegian Accounting Act the analysis must be based on the principle of ‘best estimate’.
V skladu z oddelkom 4(2) norveškega zakona o računovodstvu mora analiza temeljiti na načelu „najboljše ocene“.
However, Thommessen submits that the estimate submitted by the Norwegian authorities is not in accordance with this principle but has been based on one-sided arguments to bring down the value of the assets.
Vendar družba Thommessen navaja, da ocena, ki so jo predložili norveški organi, ni skladna s tem načelom, temveč temelji na enostranskih argumentih z namenom znižanja vrednosti sredstev.
First, although the discounted cash flow analysis acknowledged that there are inherent uncertainties, the fair value assessment of the individual assets showed that the real value was substantially higher and so the discounted cash flow analysis should have been adjusted upwards.
Prvič, čeprav je analiza diskontiranega denarnega toka potrdila neločljivo povezane negotovosti, je ocena poštene vrednosti posameznih sredstev pokazala, da je bila realna vrednost precej večja, tako da bi bilo treba analizo diskontiranega denarnega toka prilagoditi navzgor.
Secondly, it appears from the discounted cash flow analysis that the terminal value was NOK 900 million but that this was adjusted downwards because the cash flows over the period 2003–2012 were estimated at –300 m. Thommessen submits that the uncertainties in setting up Mesta AS and how it would perform were exaggerated and were aimed at adjusting the fair value of the assets downwards.
Drugič, iz analize diskontiranega denarnega toka je videti, da je bila končna vrednost 900 milijonov NOK, vendar je bila ta prilagojena navzdol, ker je bila vrednost denarnih tokov v obdobju 2003–2012 ocenjena na –300 milijonov. Družba Thommessen meni, da so bile negotovosti ob ustanavljanju družbe Mesta AS in glede njene uspešnosti pretirane ter namenjene prilagoditvi poštene vrednosti sredstev navzdol.
Thirdly, the external evaluation of 18 machinery groups was estimated to NOK 424 million.
Tretjič, zunanja ocena 18 skupin strojev je bila 424 milijonov NOK.
This is considerably higher than NOK 148 million which was the resulting value of evaluating an even higher number i.e., 37 machinery groups.
To je veliko več od 148 milijonov NOK, kar je končna vrednost ocene še večjega števila skupin strojev, tj. 37.
Thommessen submits that it is incomprehensible how machinery of Mesta AS, larger in quantity than that of Veidekke ASA, is fixed at a market price below that of Veidekke ASA.
Po mnenju družbe je nerazumljivo, kako je lahko vrednost strojev družbe Mesta AS, katerih količina presega količino v družbi Veidekke ASA, določena po tržni ceni, ki je nižja od cene Veidekke ASA.
The Authority should investigate this.
Nadzorni organ bi moral to raziskati.
Finally, Thommessen submits that it is unusual that the fair value of a going concern does not contain any goodwill.
Končno, družba Thommessen navaja, da je neobičajno, da poštena vrednost po načelu časovne neomejenosti delovanja ne vsebuje nobenega dobrega imena podjetja.
Aside from this Thommessen submits that the downward adjustment of NOK 200 million of machinery and NOK 50 million of real estate (i.e., the difference between NOK 331 million and NOK 281 million) involves advantages because a lower evaluation of assets means that depreciation is lower and hence operating income is higher.
Poleg tega družba Thommessen navaja, da prilagoditev navzdol v vrednosti 200 milijonov NOK za stroje in 50 milijonov NOK za nepremičnine (tj. razlika med 331 milijoni NOK in 281 milijoni NOK) vključuje prednosti, saj nižja ocena sredstev pomeni nižjo amortizacijo in s tem višji prihodek iz poslovanja.
The extra operating income is State aid.
Dodatni prihodek iz poslovanja je državna pomoč.
Moreover, the higher the evaluation of the assets, the higher the required rate of return should be.
Poleg tega, višja ko je ocena sredstev, višja bi morala biti zahtevana donosnost.
Hence a lower assessment means that the annual profits of the Norwegian authorities are too low and the difference between that, and the profits based on a correct assessment, amounts to State aid.
Zato nižja ocena pomeni, da so letni dobički norveških organov prenizki, razlika med njimi in dobički na podlagi pravilne ocene pa pomeni državno pomoč.
As to the transitional contracts, Thommessen welcomes that the Norwegian authorities acknowledge the difference between the market price (resulting from public tenders) and the price at which the transitional operation and maintenance contracts were transferred; the difference being about NOK 2 billion [119].
Glede prehodnih pogodb družba Thommessen pozdravlja, da norveški organi priznavajo razliko med tržno ceno (ki izhaja iz javnih razpisov) in ceno, po kateri so bile prenesene prehodne pogodbe o upravljanju in vzdrževanju; razlika je približno 2 milijardi NOK [119].
As to the argument of the Norwegian authorities that the estimated gross revenue of the contracts form part of the opening balance and that it is not necessary to assess the market value of them, Thommessen submits that the discounted cash flow analysis incorrectly presupposes that the contracts have been transferred at market value [120].
Glede argumenta norveških organov, da je ocenjeni bruto prihodek pogodb del začetne bilance in da ni treba oceniti njihove tržne vrednosti, družba Thommessen navaja, da analiza diskontiranega denarnega toka napačno predvideva, da so bile pogodbe prenesene po tržni vrednosti [120].
As to the argument that no market price or reliable indicators of a market price existed on 1 January 2003, the Norwegian authorities are ignoring the prices resulting from the pilot cases, the market price in similar markets of other Nordic countries and the market price resulting from public tenders undertaken in 2003 and onwards.
Glede argumenta, da 1. januarja 2003 ni bilo tržne cene ali zanesljivih kazalnikov tržne cene, norveški organi ne upoštevajo cen, ki so rezultat pilotnih projektov, tržne cene na podobnih trgih drugih nordijskih držav in tržne cene, ki izhaja iz javnih razpisov v letu 2003 in po njem.
Hence Mesta AS was compensated for structural disadvantages by restructuring funding of NOK 993,6 million, cash injection of NOK 1600 million and excess prices of the transitional contracts transferred to Mesta AS.
Tako je družba Mesta AS prejela nadomestilo za strukturne pomanjkljivosti prek sredstev za prestrukturiranje v znesku 993,6 milijona NOK, denarne injekcije v znesku 1600 milijonov NOK in previsokih cen prehodnih pogodb, prenesenih na družbo Mesta AS.
Mesta AS has been compensated twice for the same restructuring costs.
Družba Mesta AS je dvakrat prejela nadomestilo za iste stroške prestrukturiranja.