natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Authority reasoned that had the market value of 100 % of the State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf. been higher than the price of ISK 68 million paid by Íslenskt sement ehf., the State would have sold the company below its market price.
Nadzorni organ je to utemeljeval s tem, da če bi bila tržna vrednost 100-odstotnega državnega deleža v Sementsverksmiðjan hf. višja kot cena 68 milijonov ISK, ki jo je zanj plačal Íslenskt Sement ehf., bi država prodala podjetje pod njegovo tržno ceno.
State resources within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement would have been involved, in form of foregone revenue, because the State would have obtained a lower price than a private operator, acting on market terms, would have got for the same assets.
V smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP bi bila vpletena državna sredstva v obliki izpada dohodkov, ker bi država prejela nižje prihodke kot zasebni subjekt po tržnih pogojih za ista sredstva.
Comments from the Icelandic authorities
Pripombe islandskih organov
In a letter dated 23 February 2005, the Icelandic authorities submitted their comments on the Authority’s decision to open the formal investigation procedure regarding the sale of the State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
V dopisu z dne 23. februarja 2005 so islandski organi predložili svoje pripombe o odločbi Nadzornega organa, da sproži formalni postopek preiskave o prodaji državnih delnic v Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
The Icelandic authorities stressed that one of the most important reasons for the existence of the condition that cement production should continue was to raise the value of Sementsverksmiðjan hf. when selling the company to a third party.
Islandski organi so poudarili, da je bil eden najpomembnejših razlogov za obstoj pogoja o nadaljnji proizvodnji cementa dvig vrednosti Sementsverksmiðjan hf. pri prodaji podjetja tretji osebi.
The Icelandic authorities stated that: ‘If no such condition would be applicable the costs for clearing the site would be immediate for the buyer.
Islandski organi so navedli, da: „Če takega pogoja ne bi bilo, bi kupec takoj moral kriti stroške sanacije prostora.
By imposing a condition that cement production would continue this cost remained latent.
S postavitvijo pogoja, da se mora proizvodnja cementa nadaljevati, so ti stroški ostali latentni.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the condition was negotiated with the buyers and incorporated in the Share Purchase Agreement as solely an intention from the buyers to continue the operation of Sementsverksmiðjan hf. as long as it is economically viable.
Poleg tega je treba omeniti, da je bil s kupci med pogajanji o tem pogoju dogovorjeno in tudi vključeno v pogodbo o nakupu deleža, da gre zgolj za namen kupcev, da nadaljujejo z obratovanjem Sementsverksmiðjan hf. dokler bo to gospodarsko upravičeno.
The State cannot impose the buyers to run the company if not economically viable.
Država kupcem ne more ukazati, naj nadaljujejo s poslovanjem podjetja, če to ni gospodarsko upravičeno.
This cannot be seen as evidence that the State took considerations beyond the economic return into account.’
Tega ni mogoče videti kot dokaz, da je država upoštevala več kot zgolj gospodarski donos.“
In the opinion of the Icelandic authorities, as also stated in the authority’s guidelines, it is only where there are no objective grounds to reasonably expect that an investment gives an adequate rate of return that would be acceptable to a private investor in a comparable private enterprise operating under normal market conditions, that State aid can be involved.
Po mnenju islandskih organov in kot je navedeno tudi v Smernicah Nadzornega organa, je lahko državna pomoč vključena le v primerih, kadar ni objektivnih razlogov, po katerih bi lahko pričakovali, da bo investicija dajala enak donos, kot bi bil sprejemljiv za zasebnega vlagatelja v primerljivem zasebnem podjetju, ki bi delovalo v normalnih tržnih pogojih.
The Icelandic authorities submitted that: ‘In consideration of the above it cannot be held that there were no objective grounds for the State to believe that the sale of Sementsverksmiðjan would not give the State an adequate rate of return.
Islandski organi so navedli, da: „Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega ni mogoče sklepati, da ni bilo nikakršnih objektivnih razlogov, zaradi katerih bi država pričakovala, da prodaja podjetja Sementsverksmiðjan državi ne bo zagotovila ustrezne stopnje donosnosti.
On the contrary, the State could, after negotiations with the buyers, expect a purchase price for the company well above the market value.
Nasprotno, država je po pogajanjih s kupci pričakovala nakupno ceno podjetja, ki je bila bistveno višja od tržne cene.
Hence, it must be concluded that the State did not obtain lower revenue than a private operator, acting on market terms, would have got for the same assets.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da država ni iztržila nižjega prihodka, kot bi ga za ista sredstva po tržnih pogojih lahko dobil zasebni subjekt.
The State therefore acted in accordance with the market economy investor principle.
Država je zato ravnala v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
It is for the Authority to show that the State could not expect an adequate rate of return.
Nadzorni organ mora dokazati, da država ni pričakovala ustrezne stopnje donosnosti.
Since this has not been shown, and in the State’s opinion cannot be shown, it must be concluded that the State has acted according to the market economy principle.’
Ker to ni bilo dokazano in ker mnenja države ni mogoče prikazati, je treba ugotoviti, da je država delovala v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.“
In the notification of the transaction, the Icelandic authorities argued that the value of the company corresponded to its liquidation value.
V priglasitvi transakcije so islandski organi trdili, da vrednost podjetja ustreza njegovi likvidacijski vrednosti.
The liquidation value of Sementsverksmiðjan hf. had been estimated to correspond to ISK – 46,5 million without taking into account the costs of clearing the plant in Akranes.
Likvidacijska vrednost podjetja Sementsverksmiðjan hf. je bila ocenjena na – 46,5 milijona ISK, brez upoštevanja stroškov sanacije tovarne v Arkanesu.
In the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Authority expressed doubts as to whether the market value of a company which was sold as going concern should be determined by using the liquidation value.
V Odločbi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvom, da je tržno vrednost podjetja, ki je bilo prodano kot delujoča družba, mogoče določiti z uporabo likvidacijske vrednosti.
In their comments to the Authority’s decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Icelandic authorities furthermore referred to the cash-flow valuations submitted to the Authority.
V pripombah na Odločbo Nadzornega organa o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave so se islandski organi nadalje sklicevali na vrednosti denarnih tokov, ki so jih predložili Nadzornemu organu.
In particular, according to the cash-flow valuation provided in the annex to their letter of 23 February 2005, the market value of Sementsverksmiðjan hf. amounted to an amount of ISK – 1,5 billion.
Zlasti je tržna vrednost podjetja Sementsverksmiðjan hf., glede na vrednost denarnih tokov, ki je bila prikazana v prilogi dopisa z dne 23. februarja 2005, znašala – 1,5 milijarde ISK.
On this basis, the Icelandic authorities considered that the market value of Sementsverksmiðjan hf. as a going concern was considerably lower than its liquidation value.
Na tej osnovi so islandski organi ocenili, da je tržna vrednost podjetja Sementsverksmiðjan hf. kot delujoče družbe bistveno nižja od njegove likvidacijske vrednosti.
The Icelandic authorities further contended that since the market value of Sementsverksmiðjan hf., whether applying a cash-flow valuation or a liquidation valuation was lower than the sales price of ISK 68 million, neither Sementsverksmiðjan hf. nor Íslenskt sement ehf., had obtained any economic advantage within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Islandski organi so nadalje trdili, da, ker je bila tržna cena podjetja Sementsverksmiðjan hf. ob upoštevanju bodisi vrednosti denarnih tokov bodisi likvidacijske vrednosti nižja od prodajne cene 68 milijonov ISK, niti Sementsverksmiðjan hf. niti Íslenskt sement ehf. nista prejela nikakršne gospodarske prednosti v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Icelandic authorities considered that when determining whether State aid was granted, the Authority should assess the total sales price of the company after the sale of the assets that were redundant to cement production back to the Icelandic State: ‘It is further the State’s opinion that if the Authority comes to the conclusion that a [cash-flow valuation] of the company is the correct valuation for determining the sales price […] [t]he Cash-Flow method should then be used, assessing the worth of the company after the sale of the assets.’
Islandski organi so menili, da mora Nadzorni organ pri ugotavljanju, ali je bila dodeljena državna pomoč, oceniti celotno prodajno ceno podjetja po prodaji sredstev, nepotrebnih za proizvodnjo cementa, nazaj državi Islandiji: „Nadaljnje mnenje države je, da, če Nadzorni organ ugotovi, da je [vrednost denarnih tokov] podjetja pravilni način cenitve za določanje prodajne cene […], je nato to metodo denarnih tokov treba uporabiti za oceno vrednosti podjetja po prodaji sredstev.“
The Icelandic authorities explained that the State was not prepared to negotiate a sales price corresponding to a calculated cash-flow value of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
Islandski organi so pojasnili, da se država ni bila pripravljena pogajati o prodajni ceni, ki bi ustrezala izračunani vrednosti denarnih tokov podjetja Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
‘[B]ecause of the accumulated losses of the company since the time of tender it became clear that for the sale of the company to the buyer it would be necessary to restructure the company.
„[K]er je zaradi nakopičenih izgub podjetja od objave razpisa postalo jasno, da bo za prodajo podjetja kupcu treba podjetje prestrukturirati.
The State would buy from the company all assets that were not elemental to the production and operation, to lessen the operational costs and make the operation of the company viable.’
Država bi od podjetja kupila vsa sredstva, ki niso bila bistvenega pomena za proizvodnjo in poslovanje, da bi tako zmanjšala operativne stroške in omogočila nemoteno poslovanje podjetja.“
For the abovementioned reasons, the Icelandic authorities considered that no State aid was involved in the transaction.
Zaradi prej navedenih razlogov so islandski organi menili, da v transakciji ni bila vključena nikakršna državna pomoč.
However, should the Authority come to the conclusion that State aid was involved, in their opinion such State aid should be regarded as justified in accordance with the derogation provided in Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, in particular the provisions of Chapter 16 of the State Aid Guidelines as aid for restructuring a firm in difficulty.
Vendar če bi Nadzorni organ ugotovil, da je šlo za državno pomoč, bi po njihovem mnenju ta pomoč bila upravičena, v skladu z odstopanjem iz člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP, zlasti na podlagi določb iz Poglavja 16 Smernic o državni pomoči kot pomoč za prestrukturiranje podjetja v težavah.
In a letter dated 2 November 2006, the Icelandic authorities requested the Authority to consider not closing some aspects of the existing formal investigation since ‘one has to regard all the aspects of the transaction in whole in order to have a clear understanding of the matter’.
V dopisu z dne 2. novembra 2006 so islandski organi zaprosili Nadzorni organ, da preuči možnost, da nekaterih vidikov sedanje formalne preiskave še ne zaključi, ker „je treba upoštevati vse vidike transakcije kot celote, da bi lahko povsem razumeli zadevo.“
Comments from Íslenskt sement ehf.
Pripombe podjetja Íslenskt sement ehf.
By letter dated 20 June 2005, Íslenskt sement ehf. submitted its comments to the Authority’s Decision No 421/04/COL to open the formal investigation procedure on the sale of the Icelandic State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan.
V dopisu z dne 20. junija 2005 je podjetje Íslenskt sement ehf. predložilo svoje pripombe o Odločbi Nadzornega organa št. 421/04/COL, da sproži formalni postopek preiskave o prodaji islandskih državnih delnic v podjetju Sementsverksmiðjan.
In the opinion of Íslenskt sement ehf., no State aid was involved in the abovementioned sale.
Po mnenju podjetja Íslenskt sement ehf. omenjena prodaja ni vključevala nikakršne državne pomoči.
The company stated that: ‘Íslenskt Sement is convinced that the market investor principle was met, especially as the overall purchase price of Sementsverksmiðjan was at least equivalent, if not considerably higher, than the company’s real market value in the addressed transaction.’
Družba je sporočila: „Podjetje Islenskt Sement je prepričano, da je bilo načelo tržnega vlagatelja izpolnjeno, zlasti ker je bila skupna nakupna cena podjetja Sementsverksmiðjan vsaj enakovredna, če že ne bistveno višja, kot je bila prava tržna vrednost podjetja v zadevni transakciji.“
Íslenskt sement ehf. considered that a cash-flow valuation, as generally used in the valuation of cement companies, was the only fair method of valuing the company.
Podjetje Íslenskt sement ehf. je menilo, da je cenitev na podlagi denarnih tokov, ki se običajno uporablja v podjetjih za pridobivanje cementa, edina pravična metoda cenitve podjetja.
The company alleged, however, that the Icelandic State was not willing to negotiate on this basis as it would have resulted in a negative purchase price.
Vendar pa je podjetje trdilo, da se država Islandija ni bila pripravljena pogajati na tej osnovi, ker bi to privedlo do negativne nakupne cene.
According to Íslenskt sement ehf., had the cash-flow method been applied in the case of Sementsverksmiðjan, the estimated market value would have been zero or even negative.
Po navedbah podjetja Íslenskt sement ehf. bi ocenjena tržna vrednost, če bi se v primeru podjetja Sementsverksmiðjan uporabila metoda denarnih tokov, bila enaka nič ali celo negativna.
For this reason, Íslenskt sement ehf. considered that the value obtained by the application of the liquidation method corresponded to the maximum market value of the company at the time of purchase.
Zato je podjetje Íslenskt sement ehf. menilo, da je vrednost, določena z uporabo likvidacijske metode, ustrezala najvišji tržni vrednosti podjetja v času nakupa.
Íslenskt sement ehf. further argued that the liquidation value of ISK 69,6 million did not take into account any expenses due in connection with the liquidation and closing down of operations, including the clearing of the ground.
Nadalje je podjetje Íslenskt sement ehf. trdilo, da likvidacijska vrednost 69,9 milijona ISK ni upoštevala nikakršnih stroškov, povezanih z likvidacijo in prenehanjem poslovanja, vključno s sanacijo zemljišča.
Íslenskt sement ehf. claimed that the purchase price for the shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf. by far exceeded the company’s liquidation value.
Podjetje Íslenskt sement ehf. je trdilo, da je bila nakupna cena za delnice v podjetju Sementsverksmiðjan hf. bistveno višja od likvidacijske vrednosti podjetja.
Íslenskt sement contended that the particular assets purchased by the National Treasury were not sold individually but in connection with the sale of the shares, as an integral part of the overall purchase agreement.
Podjetje Islenskt Sement je trdilo, da sredstva, ki jih je kupila nacionalna zakladnica, niso bila prodana ločeno, temveč v povezavi s prodajo delnic, kot sestavni del celotne pogodbe o nakupu.
Therefore, ‘when assessing whether State aid was involved in the sale of Sementsverksmiðjan the Authority cannot place an individual evaluation on each asset sold but has to take into account the effect of the sale of the individual assets to the overall assessment of the valuation of the company at the time of sale’.
Zato „pri ocenjevanju, ali je bila pri prodaji podjetja Semenstverksmidjan vključena državna pomoč, Nadzorni organ ne more ločeno ocenjevati vsake posamezne prodaje sredstev, temveč mora upoštevati učinek, ki ga je prodaja posameznih sredstev imela na celotno oceno vrednosti podjetja v času prodaje.“
Comments from Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf.
Pripombe podjetja Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf.
By letter of 2 September 2005, Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf. submitted comments on the Authority’s Decision 421/04/COL to open the formal investigation procedure regarding the sale of the State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
V dopisu z dne 2. septembra 2005 je podjetje Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf. predložilo pripombe o Odločbi Nadzornega organa št. 421/04/COL, da sproži formalni postopek preiskave o prodaji državnih delnic v podjetju Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
The company shared the concerns and views expressed by the Authority in the said decision but also referred to the Icelandic State’s taking over of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.’s pension obligations which had not been addressed in the Authority’s Decision.
Podjetje je imelo enake pomisleke in stališča, kot jih je podal Nadzorni organ v navedeni odločbi, sklicevalo pa se je tudi na prevzem pokojninskih obveznosti podjetja Sementsverksmiðjan hf. s strani države Islandije, ki ni bil vključen v Odločbo Nadzornega organa.
The existence of State aid in the sale of the State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
Obstoj državne pomoči pri prodaji islandskih državnih delnic v podjetju Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
According to the information provided by the Icelandic authorities, the State sold its shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf. for a price of ISK 68 million, in a transaction linked to the acquisition by the National Treasury of Iceland of some assets of the company which were not necessary for the operation of the company.
Po informacijah, ki so jih zagotovili islandski organi, je država prodala svoje delnice v podjetju Sementsverksmiðjan hf. po ceni 68 milijonov ISK v transakciji, povezani z nakupom s strani Islandske nacionalne zakladnice nekaterih sredstev podjetja, ki niso bila potrebna za poslovanje podjetja.
Although these two elements of the transaction are closely connected, so that what Íslenskt sement ehf. bought was the operative part of Sementsverksmiðjan hf. released from assets and shares redundant to cement production, in this decision, the Authority will assess the sale of shares on its own merits.
Čeprav sta ta elementa transakcije tesno povezana, tako da je podjetje Íslenskt sement ehf. kupilo operativni del podjetja Sementsverksmiðjan hf. brez sredstev in delnic, nepotrebnih za proizvodnjo cementa, bo v tej odločbi Nadzorni organ ločeno ocenil zgolj prodajo delnic.
This is because the potential beneficiary of State aid in the case of the sale of the State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf. would be Íslenskt sement ehf.
To je zato, ker bi bil morebitni prejemnik državne pomoči v primeru prodaje državnih delnic v podjetju Sementsverksmiðjan hf. podjetje Íslenskt sement ehf.
In contrast, the potential beneficiary of any possible State aid granted in the context of the assets-liabilities restructuring of the company made by the State in connection to the sale of shares would be the cement producer itself, i.e. Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
V nasprotju s tem pa bi bil morebitni prejemnik kakršne koli državne pomoči, dodeljene v okviru prestrukturiranja sredstev in obveznosti podjetja, ki bi ga država izvedla v povezavi s prodajo delnic, sam proizvajalec cementa, tj. podjetje Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
It is from the latter that the State purchased various assets and took over pension liabilities.
Država je namreč od slednjega kupila različna sredstva in prevzela pokojninske obveznosti.
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement provides that:
Člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP določa, da:
‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’
„Razen če ta sporazum ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica ES, država Efte, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti določenim podjetjem ali proizvodnji določenega blaga, če to vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami, nezdružljiva z delovanjem tega sporazuma.“
Before assessing whether the present sale contains State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, the Authority will address the Icelandic Government’s arguments that the presence of State aid can be excluded due to the application of Chapter 18B of the State Aid Guidelines on ‘State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities’.
Preden oceni, ali ta prodaja vključuje državno pomoč v smislu člena 61 Sporazuma EGP, bo Nadzorni organ obravnaval navedbe islandske vlade, da je prisotnost državne pomoči mogoče izključiti zaradi uporabe Poglavja 18B Smernic o državni pomoči o „Elementih državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti“.
Chapter 18B of the State Aid Guidelines regarding ‘State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities’
Poglavje 18B Smernic o državni pomoči o „Elementih državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti“
Chapter 18B of the State Aid Guidelines ‘State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities’ gives information on how the Authority interprets and applies the provisions of the EEA Agreement governing State aid when it comes to assessing sales of land and buildings by public authorities.
Poglavje 18B Smernic o državni pomoči „Elementi državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti“ daje navodila, kako Nadzorni organ razlaga in uporablja določbe sporazuma EGP o državni pomoči, kadar gre za ocenjevanje prodaje zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih organov.
If the procedures laid down in Chapter 18B of the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines related to public authorities’ sales of land and buildings are followed, there is a presumption that no State aid is involved in the sale.
Če se v povezavi s prodajo zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih organov upoštevajo postopki, določeni v Poglavju 18B Smernic Nadzornega organa o državni pomoči, velja domneva, da v prodajo ni bila vključena nikakršna državna pomoč.
Although the Icelandic authorities notified the terms of the transaction regarding the sale of the State’s shares in Sementsverksmiðjan hf., they held the view that the sale had taken place in accordance with Chapter 18B of the State Aid Guidelines on the sales of land and buildings.
Čeprav so islandski organi priglasili pogoje transakcije glede prodaje državnih delnic v podjetju Sementsverksmiðjan hf., so bili mnenja, da je prodaja potekala v skladu s Poglavjem 18B Smernic o državni pomoči glede prodaje zemljišč in objektov.
Therefore, in their opinion, no State aid had been involved in the transaction.
Zato po njihovem mnenju transakcija ni vključevala nikakršne državne pomoči.
As already stated in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, the Authority considers that Chapter 18B cannot be applied to the transaction at stake.
Kot je bilo navedeno že v odločbi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave, Nadzorni organ meni, da pri tej transakciji ni mogoče uporabljati Poglavja 18B.
The State did not merely sell land and buildings which it owned, but its shares in a 100 %-owned undertaking which continues operations.
Država ni zgolj prodala zemljišča in stavb, ki jih je imela v lasti, temveč njene delnice v podjetju, ki je bilo 100-odstotno v njeni lasti in ki še vedno posluje.
Even if Chapter 18B was applicable, the procedures described to exclude the presence of State aid were not followed.
Tudi če bi se uporabljale določbe Poglavja 18B, pa niso bili upoštevani zahtevani postopki, ki izključujejo prisotnost državne pomoči.