natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Authority notes that the comparison between the conduct of a public and private operator must be made by reference to the attitude of a private operator at the time of the investment or development of the business plan, ‘having regard to the available information and foreseeable developments at the time’ [110].
Nadzorni organ opozarja, da se lahko v skladu s sodno prakso povprečna donosnost v sektorju uporabi kot kazalnik neobstoja pomoči [123].
The changes to visitnorway.com that occurred after the business model of the new structure was drafted are therefore not relevant for the State aid assessment.
Zato ugotavlja, da je bil poslovni model družbe IN v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, saj bi bila […]-odstotna stopnja dobička pri zagotavljanju spletne infrastrukture in povezanih storitev sprejemljiva za vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
The relevant issue is whether the original business model aimed to obtain profits from providing services to RTBs and DMOs.
In nazadnje, družba IN je predložila nekatere informacije [124] v zvezi s trditvijo pritožnika, da ima platforma visitnorway.com vrednost sama po sebi, in sicer zaradi blagovne znamke in domene (kot ena od najbolj obiskanih turističnih platform na Norveškem), ki se ni upoštevala.
In the analysis of the two pilot projects — during the Pilot Alfa phase — it is stressed by the Norwegian authorities that VisitSørlandet and VisitTrondheim intensively contributed to develop the model and invested significant time in the projects.
Nadzorni organ razume trditev pritožnika, da ima blagovna znamka visitnorway.com ekonomsko vrednost in da bi zato morali regionalni turistični uradi in organizacije za upravljanje destinacij prav tako plačati za posredni dobiček od uporabe te blagovne znamke.
Annex 6 to IN's reply to the opening decision [111] provides a concrete list of the types of extra work performed in the pilots during 2013, while planning a new structure for visitnorway.com.
Družba IN meni, da je ta vrednost zanemarljiva.
Among these extra works performed by the pilot customers, IN refers to: (i) evaluate what content should continue to be part of the platform, (ii) planning of the transition of links from existing solutions to preserve search engine ranking from existing content, (iii) set up/evaluate the basic structure, front page, subpages and folder structure for content that is not their own pages, etc.
Za podkrepitev svoje ugotovitve je najela zunanjega svetovalca, družbo NetNames, ki je vrednost domene ocenila na 20000 USD [125].
As a consequence, the profitability of the pilot projects cannot be assessed in isolation but only as part of a long-term project.
Vrednost domene je temeljila na primerjavi z različnimi, a primerljivimi domenami.
The issue is not whether IN would obtain profits in the short term from the pilot projects, but rather whether the new structure and the premium partnership agreements would ensure long-term profitability [112].
Zunanji strokovnjak je ob upoštevanju stroškov platforme visitnorway.com potrdil ugotovitve družbe IN, da je vrednost domene zanemarljiva.
In fact, pilot projects, by their very nature, are not carried out by public or private companies with an immediate expectation of profitability, but rather to assess their economic and business rationale [113].
Nadzorni organ ne vidi razlogov, da bi podvomil v tako sklepanje.
The case-law accepts that there is not automatically State aid every time the State foregoes revenues.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da je družba IN ravnala pravilno, ko uporabe blagovne znamke visitnorway.com ni vključila med dodatne stroške za regionalne turistične urade in organizacije za upravljanje destinacij.
In fact, following CJEU [114] and Commission practice [115], the Authority considers that reduced prices do not entail State aid, if they are objectively justified by economic reasons.
Nadzorni organ tako ugotavlja, da so komercialne pogodbe družbe IN, vključno z elitnimi pogodbami, sklenjene v pričakovanju dolgoročne donosnosti in v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Furthermore, the Authority notes that since 2014, the two pilot project customers have been offered the same price structure on the premium partnership agreement as the remaining RTBs and DMOs [116].
Sklepna ugotovitev
In fact, this explains the reference made by the Complainant when referring to a ‘raise of price’ between the old premium agreements and the new premium agreements.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da ima družba IN pri zagotavljanju spletne infrastrukture in povezanih storitev regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij uveden ustrezen mehanizem razporejanja stroškov in računovodski sistem, ki omogoča pravilno opredelitev stroškov in prihodkov, povezanih z navedenimi storitvami.
Indeed, the partnership agreements signed as of 2014 provide for higher fees than the fees requested during the pilot phases (see recital 44 above) [117].
Dokazano je tudi, da se družba IN ni odpovedala dobičkom iz ponujanja teh storitev.
The data sent to the Authority [118] demonstrates that the average profit initially foreseen from the premium partner agreements for the period 2013 to 2018 (between [… % to … %].) is in line with the margin obtained by private operators offering web services to the RTBs and the DMOs [119].
Družba IN je ravnala v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
IN has explained in its reply to the opening decision [120] that even if it does not know its competitor's pricing models, it has nevertheless collected publically available annual accounts for the top web development companies providing services to the RTBs and DMOs.
Nadzorni organ v skladu s tem ugotavlja, da družba IN ni prejela državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, ko je zagotavljala spletno infrastrukturo in povezane storitve regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij na podlagi elitnih pogodb o partnerstvu.
According to IN, private operators offering web services to the RTBs and DMOs have an average profit margin of […] [121].
Domnevna državna pomoč regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij
Therefore, IN maintains that its estimated profit margin between [… % to … %] is in accordance with the margins obtained in the market [122].
Ali je treba regionalne turistične urade in organizacije za upravljanje destinacij šteti za „podjetja“ ali ne?
The Authority recalls that according to case-law, the average return of the sector can be used as an indicator of the absence of aid [123].
Kot je bilo že pojasnjeno, glej uvodno izjavo 87, se člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP uporablja samo, če so prejemniki državne pomoči podjetja.
Therefore, the Authority finds that as a profit margin of […] % when providing web infrastructure and related services would be acceptable for a market investor, IN's business model was in line with the market economic investor principle.
Kot je bilo navedeno že v uvodni izjavi 18, Nadzorni organ opozarja, da regionalni turistični uradi in organizacije za upravljanje destinacij niso ustanovljeni za povečanje dobička v korist samega subjekta ali njegovih delničarjev, temveč za povečanje in promocijo poslovnih dejavnosti njihovih delničarjev in strank.
Finally, IN provided some information [124] on the argument put forward by the Complainant according to which visitnorway.com has a value in itself, because of the brand and the domain (being one of the most visited tourism platforms in Norway), that has not been taken into account.
Vendar Nadzorni organ opozarja, da uporaba pravil o državni pomoči ni odvisna od tega, ali je subjekt ustanovljen za ustvarjanje dobičkov.
The Authority understands that the Complainant's argument is that because visitnorway.com brand has an economic value, the RTBs and DMOs should also pay for the indirect profit of the use of this brand.
Glede na sodno prakso lahko tudi nepridobitni subjekti ponujajo blago in storitve na trgu [126].
IN considers that this value is negligible.
V takem primeru nepridobitni ponudniki spadajo na področje uporabe pravil o državni pomoči.
To support its conclusion, IN hired an external consultant, NetNames, which estimated the value of the domain to USD 20000 [125].
Nadzorni organ meni, da podobno kot družba IN tudi regionalni turistični uradi in organizacije za upravljanje destinacij zagotavljajo gospodarske in negospodarske storitve.
The value of the domain was based on a comparison with different, but comparable, domains.
Promocija posameznih turističnih storitev pomeni gospodarsko dejavnost, glej uvodno izjavo 28.
Taking into account the costs of visitnorway.com, the external expert confirmed IN's conclusions that the value of the domain is negligible.
Zato se navedeni subjekti v zvezi z navedenimi storitvami štejejo za podjetja.
The Authority can see no basis to question this conclusion.
Obstoj prednosti v korist regionalnih turističnih uradov in organizacij za upravljanje destinacij
Consequently, the Authority considers that IN acted correctly when not including the use of the brand visitnorway.com as an extra cost for the RTBs and DMOs.
Družba IN je dokazala, da so elitne pogodbe o partnerstvu, čeprav gra za nepridobitno organizacijo, podpisane v pričakovanju razumne dolgoročne donosnosti.
The Authority concludes therefore that IN's commercial agreements, including the premium agreements, are undertaken with the expectation of long-term profitability and in line with the market economy investor principle (MEIP).
V modelu oblikovanja cen družbe IN je predvidena donosnost v višini [… % do … %] (glej oddelek 1.2.2.2).
Conclusion
Podatki, ki jih je zagotovila družba IN, kažejo, da je ta pričakovana donosnost dosežena tudi v praksi.
The Authority concludes that when providing web infrastructure and related services to the RTBs and DMOs, IN has in place a proper cost allocation mechanism and accounting system which allows it to accurately identify costs and revenues associated with those services.
Povprečni dobiček je v skladu z dobičkom zasebnega subjekta, ki ponuja spletne storitve regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij [127].
It is also established that IN has not foregone profits from offering these services.
Zato Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij ni bila dodeljena prednost, ker so jim bile spletna infrastruktura in povezane storitve zagotovljene pod tržno ceno.
IN has acted in line with the MEIP.
Poleg tega je Nadzorni organ v nasprotju z navedbami pritožnika, glej uvodni izjavi 54 in 65, prepričan, da se regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij, ki se preselijo k družbi IN, ne zagotavljajo brezplačne prevajalske storitve.
The Authority concludes accordingly that IN has not obtained State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, when providing web infrastructure and related services to the RTBs and DMOs, through the premium partnership agreements.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da elitni partnerji ne dobijo brezplačnih prevajalskih storitev, nasprotno, prejmejo manj prevajalske podpore, kot je ponujena neelitnim partnerjem, tj. regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij, ki se ne preselijo na platformo visitnorway.com, glej uvodno izjavo 77.
Alleged State aid in favour of RTBs and DMOs
Na podlagi navedenega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da domnevni povezani pogoj podpisa elitnih pogodb ne obstaja.
Whether RTBs and DMOs can be considered ‘undertakings’
Na podlagi teh predpostavk Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da regionalni turistični uradi in organizacije za upravljanje destinacij niso prejeli državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, ko jim je družba IN zagotavljala spletno infrastrukturo in povezane storitve.
As already explained above, see recital 87, Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement only applies where the recipients of a State aid are undertakings.
SKLEPNA UGOTOVITEV
As already stated in recital 18 above, the Authority notes that the RTBs and DMOs are not established in order to maximise profit for the entity itself or for its shareholders, but rather to increase and promote the business activities of their shareholders and clients.
Ker Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da družbi IN ali regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij ni dodeljena prednost, ni treba oceniti, ali so izpolnjeni preostali pogoji iz člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP –
Based on the case-law, non-profit entities can offer goods and services on a market, too [126].
Člen 1
Where this is the case, non-profit providers remain within the scope of State aid rules.
Družba Innovation Norway ni prejela državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP z navzkrižnim subvencioniranjem njene spletne infrastrukture in povezanih storitev v turističnem sektorju z javnimi sredstvi, ki jih je prejela kot nadomestilo za svoje negospodarske storitve v istem sektorju, tj. splošno promocijo Norveške kot turistične destinacije.
The Authority considers that similarly to IN, the RTBs and DMOs provide economic and non-economic services.
Družba Innovation Norway ima mehanizem razporejanja stroškov in računovodsko metodologijo, ki ji omogoča, da ustrezno opredeli stroške in prihodke, povezane z njeno spletno infrastrukturo in povezanimi storitvami.
The promotion of specific tourism services constitutes an economic activity, see recital 28 above.
Družba IN ni pridobila državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, s tem ko se je odpovedala dobičkom pri zagotavljanju spletne infrastrukture in povezanih storitev regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij.
Therefore, those entities are considered undertaking regarding those services.
Člen 2
Existence of an advantage in favour of the RTBs and DMOs
Regionalni turistični uradi in organizacije za upravljanje destinacij niso prejeli državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, s tem ko so jim bile spletna infrastruktura in povezane storitve zagotovljene po cenah, nižjih od konkurenčne tržne cene.
IN has demonstrated that even if it is a non-profit organisation, the premium partnership agreements are signed with reasonable long-term profitability expectations.
Člen 3
IN pricing model foresees a return of [… % to … %] (see section 1.2.2.2 above).
Ta odločba je naslovljena na Kraljevino Norveško.
The data provided by IN demonstrates that in practice this expected profitability has also been achieved.
Člen 4
The data indicates that IN's investment in the new structure of visitnorway.com has generated a profit in 2013.
Besedilo te odločbe v angleškem jeziku je edino verodostojno.
In 2014 and 2015 a negative profit is expected, but a stable and reasonable profit is foreseen for the period 2016-2018.
V Bruslju, 4. novembra 2015
The average profit is in line with the one of private operator offering web services to the RTBs and DMOs [127].
Za Nadzorni organ Efte
Consequently, the Authority concludes that there is no advantage in favour of the RTBs and/or DMOs by means of obtaining web infrastructure and related services below market price.
Predsednik
Furthermore, contrary to the Complainant's statements, see recitals 54 and 65 above, the Authority has been reassured that no free translation services are provided to the RTBs and DMOs which migrate to IN.
Članica kolegija
The Norwegian authorities have explained that the premium partners do not obtain free translation services, but on the contrary, their translation support is less than that offered to the non-premium partners, i.e. the RTBs and DMOs which do not migrate to visitnorway.com, see recital 77 above.
Prvotni pritožnik, družba tellUs IT AS, se je oktobra 2013 z družbo New Mind združila v družbo New Mind _BAR_ tellUs.
Based on the above, the Authority concludes that the alleged tie-in condition to subscribe to premium agreements does not exit.
Glej www.newmind.co.uk.
On these premises, the Authority finds that the RTBs and the DMOs have not received State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement when receiving web infrastructure and related services from IN.
Objavljeno v UL C 334, 25.9.2014, str. 8, in Dopolnilu EGP št. 53, 25.9.2014, str. 1.
CONCLUSION
Dokument št. 720775 in 12 prilog (dokumenti št. 720776 do 720788).
As the Authority has now concluded that there is no advantage in favour of IN, or the RTBs and DMOs, it is not necessary to assess whether the remaining conditions of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are met,
Dokument št. 726058.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Dokument št. 725167.
Article 1
Dokument št. 725174.
Innovation Norway has not received State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement by cross-subsidising its web infrastructure and related services in the tourism sector with public funds received to compensate its non-economic services in the same sector, i.e. the general promotion of Norway as a tourism destination.
Dokumenti št. 730559, 730560 in 730561.
Innovation Norway has had a cost allocation mechanism and accounting methodology allowing it to adequately identify the costs and revenues linked to its web infrastructure and related services.
Nadzorni organ je od pritožnika in družbe IN prejel več elektronskih sporočil, s katerimi sta zagotovila dodatne informacije.
Innovation Norway has not obtained State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement by foregoing profits when providing web infrastructure and related services to the Regional Tourist Boards and Destination Management Organisations.
Družba TellUs je poslala elektronsko sporočilo z dne 1. januarja 2015 (dokument št. 734800).
Article 3
Glej informacije, ki so na voljo na spletnem naslovu: http://www.slideshare.net/hanspetteraalmo/new-structure-for-destinations-on-visitnorwayvom, in dokument št. 758656.
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.
V norveščini „Regionalt selskap“.
Article 4
V norveščini „Destinasjonsselskap“.
Only the English language version of this decision is authentic.
Nadzorni organ bo te storitve opisal v oddelkih 2.2 in 2.3.
Done at Brussels, 4 November 2015.
LOV-2003-12-19-130 (v norveščini „Lov om Innovasjon Norge“), na voljo na spletnem naslovu: http://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2003-12-19-130?q=lov+om+innovasjon+norge.
For the EFTA Surveillance Authority
Oddelek 2 zakona o družbi IN.
President
Naloge, ki jih zdaj izvaja družba IN, so prej na splošno opravljale štiri organizacije, njene predhodnice, to so norveški sklad za industrijski in regionalni razvoj (SND), vladni svetovalni urad za izumitelje (SVO), norveški turistični svet (NTC) in norveški izvozni svet (NEC).
College Member
V norveščini: „Statens nærings- og distriktsutviklingsfond“, „Statens Veiledningskontor for Oppfinnere“, „Norges Turistråd“ in „Norges Eksportråd“.
Document No 678002 and Annexes at Documents No 678003 to 678007, 678010 to 678013 and 678017.
Navedeni štirje subjekti so bili leta 2004 ukinjeni in povezani v družbo IN.
In October 2013, the original complainant, tellUs IT AS, merged with the company New Mind forming New Mind _BAR_
Dopis družbe IN z dne 28. oktobra 2013 (dokument št. 688213).
See www.newmind.co.uk
Glej „Vladna turistična strategija.
Published in OJ C 334, 25.9.2014, p. 8 and EEA Supplement No 53, 25.9.2014, p. 1.
Destinacija Norveška.
Document No 720775, together with 12 annexes (Documents No 720776 to 720788).
Nacionalna strategija za turizem“.
Document No 726058.
Norveško ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo.
Document No 725167.
10. april 2012, stran 44.
Document No 725174.
Ta dokument je bil Nadzornemu organu poslan kot Priloga 4 (dokument št. 688216) k dopisu družbe IN z dne 28. oktobra 2013 (dokument št. 688213).
Documents No 730559, 730560 and 730561.
Prav tam.
The Authority has received a number of emails from the Complainant and IN providing additional information.
Iz poslovnega profila družbe Visit Trondheim AS (regionalni turistični urad) je razvidno, da ni namenjena zagotavljanju neposredne gospodarske koristi za delničarje (v prostem prevodu).
TellUs sent an email dated 1 January 2015 (Document No 734800).
V norveščini: „Selskapet har ikke som formål å skaffe eierne direkte økonomisk utbytte“ (poudarek je dodan).
IN sent several e-mails Documents No 742759 (mail dated 16 January 2015), 744264 (mail dated 5 February 2015), 753927 (mail dated 14 April 2015), 754218 (mail dated 17 April 2015), 757843 (mail dated 20 May 2015) and 758656 (mail dated 29 May 2015) and had a conference call with IN on 16 April 2015.
Glej informacije, ki so javno dostopne v osrednjem usklajevalnem registru za pravne subjekte, ki je del registrov Brønnøysund.
In particular, visitnorway.com had 22,5 million visits and 50 million page views in 2013 and 21,3 million visits and 50,3 million page views in 2014.
Povezava je na voljo na spletnem naslovu: http://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=955715209.V zvezi z družbo Visit Sørlandet AS (organizacija za upravljanje destinacij) je navedeno, da njene dejavnosti niso namenjene zagotavljanju dobičkov za njene delničarje.
See information available at: http://www.slideshare.net/hanspetteraalmo/new-structure-for-destinations-on-visitnorwayvom and Document No 758656.
V norveščini: „Områdemarkedsføring, profilering og merkevarebygging via tilrettelegging for salg og markedsføring for reiselivet på Sørlandet.
In Norwegian ‘Regionalt selskap’.
Selskapets virksomhet tar ikke sikte på å skaffe aksjeeierne økonomisk utbytte.
In Norwegian ‘Destinasjonsselskap’.
Eventuelt overskudd skal benyttes til å fremme selskapets formål.
The Authority will provide a description of these services in sections 2.2 and 2.3 below.
Selskapet kan eie aksjer/andeler i andre selskap“ (poudarek je dodan).
LOV-2003-12-19-130 (in Norwegian ‘Lov om Innovasjon Norge’), available at: http://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2003-12-19-130?q=lov+om+innovasjon+norge
Glej poslovni profil družbe, ki je na voljo v osrednjem usklajevalnem registru za pravne subjekte, ki je del registrov Brønnøysund, na spletnem naslovu: http://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=993995282.
Section 2 of the Act on IN.
Opredeljen kot „[s]istemi, s katerimi se najrazličnejši turistični produkti povezujejo in razširjajo prek različnih poti in platform ter ki so običajno usmerjeni na posamezno regijo in podpirajo dejavnosti organizacije za upravljanje destinacij v navedeni regiji.
The tasks currently carried out by IN were, broadly speaking, previously accomplished by its four predecessor organisations: the Norwegian Industrial and Regional Development Fund (‘SND’), the Government Consultative Office for Inventors ( ‘SVO’), the Norwegian Tourist Council ( ‘NTC’) and the Norwegian Export Council ( ‘NEC’).
Sistemi za upravljanje destinacij poskušajo uporabljati pristop, osredotočen na stranke, za upravljanje in trženje destinacije kot enovite celote, običajno z zagotavljanjem zanesljivih informacij v zvezi z destinacijami, rezervacij v realnem času in orodij za upravljanje destinacij ter zlasti s posvečanjem posebne pozornosti podpiranju majhnih in samostojnih turističnih ponudnikov“.
In Norwegian: ‘Statens nærings- og distriktsutviklingsfond’, ‘Statens Veiledningskontor for Oppfinnere’, ‘Norges Turistråd’ and ‘Norges Eksportråd’.
Opredelitev pojma „sistem za upravljanje destinacij“ je na voljo na spletnem naslovu: http://www.newmind.co.uk/technology-platform/destination-management-system.
In 2004, those four entities were discontinued and merged into IN.
Pojem družbe za upravljanje destinacij je izraz, ki se v turističnem sektorju uporablja za družbe, ki zagotavljajo strokovne storitve, pri čemer ponujajo lokalno znanje, strokovno znanje in vire, ter so specializirane za načrtovanje in izvedbo dogodkov, dejavnosti, izletov, prevoza itd. Na splošno se ta izraz nanaša na družbe, ki zagotavljajo strokovne storitve na področju potovanj.
IN's letter dated 28 October 2013 (Document No 688213).
Dopis družbe IN z dne 20. decembra 2013 (dokument št. 694258).
See ‘The Government's tourism strategy.
Od leta 2004, po združitvi obeh subjektov, naloge NTC izvaja družba IN.
Destination Norway.
Podrobnejše informacije o subjektih, ki so tradicionalno pristojni za promocijo Norveške kot počitniške destinacije, so bile navedene tudi v dopisu družbe IN z dne 20. decembra 2013 (dokument št. 694258).