natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
SDO submits that the present case and Commission decision C35/2006 cannot be compared.
Podjetje SDO trdi, da obravnavana zadeva in Odločba Komisije C35/2006 nista primerljivi.
In decision C35/2006, the independent valuation of the property was carried out almost two and a half years before the sale took place and that during such a long period of time, the value of the land may have changed significantly.
V zadevi C35/2006 je bila neodvisna ocena zemljišča izvedena skoraj dve leti in pol pred prodajo, v tako dolgem obdobju pa bi se lahko vrednost zemljišča občutno spremenila.
Secondly, SDO argues that the facts of case C35/2006 make it unclear whether the independent valuation was used for determining the contract value.
Drugič, po mnenju podjetja SDO ni jasno, ali je bila neodvisna ocena v zadevi C35/2006 uporabljena za določitev prodajne cene.
In the present case, on the other hand, SDO submits that the sale of land was conducted in accordance with the Authority’s Guidelines section 2.2.
V obravnavani zadevi pa je bila v skladu s trditvami podjetja SDO prodaja zemljišča sklenjena v skladu z oddelkom 2.2 Smernic Nadzornega organa.
SDO further maintains that OB’s offer appears to be part of a strategy to become the sole provider of ski services in the local market, which, according to SDO, explains why OB made a bid far exceeding the market value of the property.
Podjetje SDO poleg tega trdi, da je ponudba podjetja OB očitno del njegove strategije, da postane edini ponudnik smučarskih storitev na lokalnem trgu, kar po mnenju podjetja SDO pojasnjuje, zakaj njegova ponudba močno presega tržno vrednost zemljišča.
SDO also refers to the information provided by the Municipality of Oppdal in an overview dated 29 August 2008 [30] which shows that the sales price for the property is the highest price per square metre known to the Municipality.
Podjetje SDO se sklicuje tudi na podatke iz pregleda, ki ga je 29. avgusta 2008 predložila občina Oppdal [30] in iz katerega je razvidno, da je prodajna cena zemljišča glede na njene informacije najvišja cena za kvadratni meter zemljišča na zadevnem območju.
Further, SDO submits that the complainant has bought properties in the area for prices considerably lower than the sales price in the present case.
Poleg tega podjetje SDO trdi, da je pritožnik kupil zemljišča na zadevnem območju po cenah, ki so bile precej nižje od prodajne cene v obravnavani zadevi.
SDO also puts forward that according to Norwegian contract law, a contract is concluded and binding if the parties have agreed to the terms, independently of whether the actual contract is signed.
Podjetje SDO tudi poudarja, da v skladu z norveškim pogodbenim pravom pogodba velja za sklenjeno in zavezujočo, če sta se pogodbenici dogovorili o pogojih, tudi če ni dejansko podpisana.
Therefore, SDO is of the opinion that Oppdal municipality was legally obliged to sell the property to SDO at the time OB submitted its bid.
Zato podjetje SDO meni, da je bila občina Oppdal pravno zavezana, da zemljišče proda njemu, kljub ponudbi podjetja OB.
SDO considers the sale of the property to have been carried out at market value, seeing as the sales price is based on the assessment of the two independent experts in accordance with the Authority’s Guidelines.
Po mnenju podjetja SDO je bila prodajna cena zemljišča tržna, saj v skladu s Smernicami Nadzornega organa temelji na oceni dveh neodvisnih strokovnjakov.
Therefore, SDO argues that no state aid is involved.
Zato podjetje SDO trdi, da ne gre za državno pomoč.
The presence of state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Prisotnost državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP
State Aid Guidelines on state aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities [31]
Smernice o državni pomoči glede elementov državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti [31]
The aid must be granted by the State or through state resources.
Pomoč mora dodeliti država ali pa se mora dodeliti iz državnih sredstev.
Municipalities are for state aid purposes considered to be part of the State, thus Oppdal municipality’s resources can be considered state resources.
Občine za namene državne pomoči veljajo za del države, zato sredstva občine Oppdal veljajo za državna sredstva.
The State Aid Guidelines on state aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (“the Guidelines”) give further guidance on how the Authority interprets and applies the provisions of the EEA Agreement governing state aid when it comes to assessing sales of public land and buildings.
Smernice o državni pomoči glede elementov državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti (v nadaljevanju: Smernice) zagotavljajo dodatna navodila o tem, kako Nadzorni organ pri ocenjevanju prodaje javnih zemljišč in objektov razlaga in uporablja določbe o državni pomoči sporazuma EGP.
Section 2.1 describes a sale through an unconditional bidding procedure, while Section 2.2 describes a sale by way of an independent expert valuation.
Oddelek 2.1 opredeljuje prodajo prek brezpogojnega ponudbenega postopka, oddelek 2.2 pa prodajo na podlagi neodvisne strokovne ocene.
Sales of publicly owned land and buildings below market value imply that state resources are involved.
Prodaja zemljišč in objektov v javni lasti pod tržno vrednostjo pomeni, da so vključena državna sredstva.
However, the Guidelines provide for two situations where, if the applicable conditions are met, the price paid for the property will be held to correspond to market value thereby excluding the presence of state resources.
Vendar pa Smernice predvidevajo dva primera, ko ob izpolnjenih veljavnih pogojih cena, plačana za zemljišče, velja za tržno, s čimer je izključena prisotnost državnih sredstev.
As noted above, these two situations are: (a) the sale has taken place through an unconditional bidding process; and (b) the sale has taken place after an independent expert valuation.
Kot že povedano, sta ta dva primera naslednja: (a) prodaja je potekala prek brezpogojnega ponudbenega postopka ter (b) prodaja je bila izvedena po neodvisni strokovni oceni.
In the present case, the municipality did not organise an unconditional bidding process but used two independent expert valuations as the basis for determining the sales price.
V obravnavani zadevi občina ni uporabila brezpogojnega ponudbenega postopka, pač pa je prodajno ceno določila na podlagi dveh neodvisnih strokovnih ocen.
Section 2.2 of the Authority’s Guidelines provides that “if public authorities intend not to use the procedure described under Section 2.1, an independent evaluation should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to the sale negotiations in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards. The market price thus established is the minimum purchase price that can be agreed without granting state aid.”
Oddelek 2.2 Smernic Nadzornega organa določa: „če javne oblasti ne nameravajo uporabiti postopka, opisanega v oddelku 2.1, mora pred dogovori o prodaji en cenilec ali več opraviti neodvisno oceno, da se določi tržna vrednost na podlagi splošno sprejetih tržnih kazalcev in cenilskih standardov. Tako določena tržna cena je najnižja nakupna cena, ki se lahko določi brez dodelitve državne pomoči.“
The Norwegian authorities have indicated that Oppdal municipality ordered two value assessments, by the independent appraisers Mr. Geir Husebø and Mr. Ragnar Lian.
Norveški organi so navedli, da je občina Oppdal naročila dve oceni vrednosti zemljišča, ki sta jih opravila neodvisna strokovnjaka g. Geir Husebø in g. Ragnar Lian.
Both reports estimated a similar market value for the property, NOK 800000 and NOK 850000 respectively.
Poročili sta določili podobni tržni vrednosti zemljišča, in sicer 800000 oziroma 850000 NOK.
The sale of the property
Prodaja zemljišča
As the Authority pointed out in the opening decision, the Guidelines do not expressly deal with a situation where a higher conflicting bid is received after the receipt of the expert evaluation but prior to the conclusion of the contract.
Kot je Nadzorni organ poudaril v odločitvi o začetku postopka, Smernice ne obravnavajo izrecno primerov, ko je po opravljeni strokovni oceni vrednosti, vendar še pred sklenitvijo kupoprodajne pogodbe, dana konkurenčna višja ponudba.
The Authority considers that in such a situation, the submission of a conflicting higher bid could be liable to cast doubts on whether the expert evaluations reflect the actual market value of the property.
Nadzorni organ meni, da v takem primeru oddaja konkurenčne višje ponudbe lahko zbuja pomisleke glede tega, ali strokovna ocena izraža tržno ceno zemljišča.
In the opening decision, the Authority referred to Commission decision C35/2006, which dealt with a situation where an offer was made after the receipt of the expert valuation.
Nadzorni organ se v odločitvi o začetku postopka sklicuje na odločitev Komisije v zadevi 35/2006, ki obravnava primer, ko je bila ponudba dana po opravljeni strokovni oceni vrednosti.
In its decision the Commission stated:
V tej odločitvi je Komisija navedla:
“Even if the expert evaluation had been carried out in accordance with the Communication [32], i.e. an evaluation of the actual plot of land that was to be sold carried out just before the sale and on the basis of generally accepted evaluation standards, this evaluation would only be a second best instrument to determine the market price of the land, in the absence of real price offers. From the moment that a credible and binding bid is submitted and provided that this bid is directly comparable to and higher than the price estimate according to the evaluation, the former must be preferred. The bid establishes a real market price and should be considered as a better proxy for the foregone State resources than an expert evaluation” [33].The Commission decision was appealed to the General Court.
„Tudi če bi bila strokovna ocena opravljena v skladu s Sporočilom [32], tj. bi bila ocena dejanskega zemljišča, ki se prodaja, opravljena tik pred prodajo in na podlagi splošno sprejetih cenilskih standardov, bi bila ta ocena v odsotnosti dejanskih cenovnih ponudb samo drugi najboljši instrument za ugotavljanje tržne cene zemljišča. Od trenutka oddaje verodostojne in zavezujoče ponudbe in pod pogojem, da je ta ponudba neposredno primerljiva s ceno iz ocene in višja od nje, je treba dati prednost tej ponudbi. V ponudbi je določena dejanska tržna cena, zato je razlika med ceno iz ponudbe in prodajno ceno najboljši približek državnih sredstev, ki se jim je država odrekla“ [33].Zoper odločitev Komisije je bila vložena pritožba pri Splošnem sodišču.
The General Court [34] disagreed with the Commission’s assessment and found that no state aid was involved in the sale of land transaction.
Splošno sodišče [34] se ni strinjalo z oceno Komisije in je odločilo, da pri prodaji zemljišča ni šlo za državno pomoč.
The General Court concluded that the conflicting higher offer was neither credible nor comparable to the offer accepted by the municipality [35].
Splošno sodišče je ugotovilo, da konkurenčna višja ponudba ni bila niti verodostojna niti primerljiva s ponudbo, ki jo je občina sprejela [35].
Further, the General Court also pointed out that it is important to consider the specific circumstances of the case when determining whether a conflicting bid can be considered comparable [36].In the present case, the Norwegian authorities have submitted that OB was a buyer with a special interest in the property and as a consequence of this special interest, OB was willing to pay an abnormally high price for the property to prevent SDO from establishing a business competing with its own.
Poleg tega je poudarilo, da je treba pri odločitvi, ali je konkurenčna ponudba primerljiva, upoštevati posebne okoliščine zadeve [36].V obravnavani zadevi so norveški organi trdili, da je bilo podjetje OB kupec s posebnim interesom za zemljišče, zaradi česar je bilo zanj pripravljeno plačati nenormalno visoko ceno, da bi tako podjetju SDO preprečilo postati konkurenčno podjetje.
OB is the dominant supplier of ski services at the ski resort.
Podjetje OB ima prevladujoč položaj na področju smučarskih storitev v zadevnem smučarskem središču.
SDO’s business would be in direct competition with the services provided by OB and threaten OB’s market position.
Dejavnosti podjetja SDO bi neposredno konkurirale njegovim dejavnostim in tako ogrožale njegov tržni položaj.
OB objected to the rezoning of the property and when its complaint was rejected, OB wanted to buy the property.
Podjetje OB je najprej nasprotovalo spremembi namembnosti zemljišča, ko je bila njegova pritožba zavrnjena, pa ga je hotelo kupiti.
This demonstrates OB’s intentions.
Iz tega so razvidni nameni podjetja OB.
OB can therefore be considered as having a special interest in the property.
Zato je mogoče trditi, da ima podjetje OB poseben interes za zemljišče.
OB’s special interest is reflected in the high bid; the bid submitted by OB was over three times higher (NOK 3100000) than the price determined by the independent experts and the Authority has no indications that the value assessments carried out by the independent experts had any shortcomings.
Poseben interes podjetja OB je razviden iz visoke ponudbe; njegova ponudba je bila trikrat višja (3100000 NOK) od cene, ki sta jo določila neodvisna strokovnjaka. Nadzorni organ nima razloga za domnevo, da sta bili oceni vrednosti, ki sta jih opravila neodvisna strokovnjaka, pomanjkljivi.
In the present case, the Authority considers that the bids made by SDO and OB are not comparable because of OB’s special interest in the property.
V obravnavani zadevi Nadzorni organ meni, da ponudbi podjetij SDO in OB nista primerljivi, ker je imelo podjetje OB poseben interes za zemljišče.
As a consequence of this special interest, OB is willing to make an excessively high offer on the property.
Zaradi tega posebnega interesa je bilo podjetje OB pripravljeno dati pretirano visoko ponudbo za nakup zemljišča.
This offer can therefore not be considered comparable to the offer made by SDO, which reflects the value of the property determined by the independent experts.
Te ponudbe torej ni mogoče šteti za primerljivo s ponudbo podjetja SDO, ki ustreza vrednosti zemljišča, ki sta jo določila neodvisna strokovnjaka.
Therefore, in view of the circumstances of the case, the Authority concludes that the property was sold at market price in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 2.2 of the Authority’s Guidelines on the sales of land and buildings by public authorities.
Glede na okoliščine zadeve Nadzorni organ tako zaključuje, da je bilo zemljišče prodano po tržni ceni v skladu s postopkom iz oddelka 2.2 njegovih smernic o prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti.
In light of the above, the Authority considers that no state aid was involved in Oppdal municipality’s sale of the property to SDO, as the conflicting offer made by OB has to be considered as coming from a buyer with a special interest in the property.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega Nadzorni organ meni, da pri prodaji zemljišča občine Oppdal podjetju SDO ni šlo za državno pomoč, saj je bila konkurenčna ponudba podjetja OB ponudba kupca s posebnim interesom za zemljišče.
The Authority thus considers the sale to have been carried out at market value in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 2.2 of the Authority’s Guidelines on the sales of land and buildings by public authorities.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da je bilo zemljišče prodano po tržni ceni v skladu s postopkom iz oddelka 2.2 njegovih smernic o prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti.
Conclusion
7 Zaključek
On the basis of the foregoing assessment, the Authority considers that Oppdal municipality’s sale of property gnr 271/8 to Strand Drift Oppdal AS did not constitute state aid within the meaning of the state aid provisions in the EEA Agreement.
Na podlagi zgornje ocene Nadzorni organ meni, da prodaja zemljišča gnr 271/8 podjetju Strand Drift Oppdal AS s strani občine Oppdal ni vključevala državne pomoči v smislu določb o državni pomoči Sporazuma EGP –
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that Oppdal municipality’s sale of property gnr 271/8 to Strand Drift Oppdal AS did not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ Efte meni, da prodaja zemljišča gnr 271/8 podjetju Strand Drift Oppdal AS s strani občine Oppdal ni vključevala državne pomoči v smislu člena 61 Sporazuma EGP.
The procedure initiated pursuant to Article 4(4), read in conjunction with Article 13, of Part II of Protocol 3 concerning the sale of property gnr 271/8 by Oppdal municipality is hereby closed.
Postopek, začet v skladu s členom 4(4) v povezavi s členom 13 dela II Protokola 3 v zvezi s prodajo zemljišča gnr 271/8 s strani občine Oppdal, se zaključi.
Done at Brussels, 9 May 2012.
V Bruslju, 9. maja 2012
Available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf
Na voljo na naslovu: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf
Published in the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ C 34, 3.2.2011, and in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal No 6, 3.2.2011.
Objavljeno v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, UL C 34 z dne 3.2.2011, in v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije št. 6 z dne 3.2.2011.
These documents were published in the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ C 34, 3.2.2011, and in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal No 6, 3.2.2011.
Ti dokumenti so bili objavljeni v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, UL C 34 z dne 3.2.2011, in v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije št. 6 z dne 3.2.2011.
Event No 491369.
Ev. št. 491369.
See minutes from meeting 31.03.2008 in Oppdal municipality (building authority) (Event No 490914).
Glej zapisnik sestanka z dne 31. marca 2008 v občini Oppdal (gradbena uprava) (ev. št. 490914).
See minutes from meeting 26.05.2008 in Oppdal municipality (building authority) (Event No 490914).
Glej zapisnik sestanka z dne 26. maja 2008 v občini Oppdal (gradbena uprava) (ev. št. 490914).
See minutes from meeting 30.6.2008 in Oppdal municipality (local executive committee) (Event No 493593).
Glej zapisnik sestanka z dne 30. junija 2008 v občini Oppdal (lokalni izvršilni odbor) (ev. št. 493593).
Event No 484869.
Ev. št. 484869.
Event No 490914.
Ev. št. 490914.
See minutes from meeting 16.7.2008 - Event No 491369.
Glej zapisnik sestanka z dne 16. julija 2008 (ev. št. 491369).
See the signed sales contract between SDO and Oppdal municipality (Event No 490914).
Glej podpisano kupoprodajno pogodbo med podjetjem SDO in občino Oppdal (ev. št. 490914).
Event Numbers 491369 and 493593.
Ev. št. 491369 in 493593.
This Chapter of the Guidelines corresponds to the Commission Communication on state aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (OJ C 209, 10.7.1997, p. 3) also available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/
To poglavje Smernic ustreza Sporočilu Komisije o elementih državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti (UL C 209, 10.7.1997, str. 3), ki je na voljo tudi na naslovu: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/ state-aid-guidelines/
Event No 493593.
Ev. št. 493593.
Commission decision of 30.1.2008 in case C 35/06, OJ 2008, 14.5.2008, L 126/3.
Odločba Komisije z dne 30. januarja 2008 v zadevi C 35/06, UL L 126, 14.5.2008, str. 3.
Event No 579649.
Ev. št. 579649.
Available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/
Na voljo na spletni strani: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/
Section 2.2 of the State Aid Guidelines on state aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities corresponds to the Commission Communication on state aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (OJ C 209, 10.7.1997, p. 3).
Oddelek 2.2 Smernic o državni pomoči glede elementov državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti ustreza Sporočilu Komisije o elementih državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti (UL C 209, 10.7.1997, str. 3).
Commission decision of 30.1.2008 in case C 35/06, OJ 2008, 14.5.2008, L 126/3, paragraph 59.
Odločba Komisije z dne 30. januarja 2008 v zadevi C 35/06, UL L 126, 14.5.2008, str. 3, točka 59.
Case T-244/08 Konsum Nord v Commission, Judgment of 13 December 2011, not yet reported.
Sodba Sodišča v zadevi Konsum Nord proti Komisiji, T-244/08, 13. december 2011, še neobjavljena.
Case T-244/08 Konsum Nord v Commission, paragraphs 72-76.
Sodba Sodišča v zadevi Konsum Nord proti Komisiji, T-244/08, točke 72–76.
Case T-244/08 Konsum Nord v Commission, paragraph 73.
Sodba Sodišča v zadevi Konsum Nord proti Komisiji, T-244/08, točka 73.
The Authority referred to Commission decision C35/2006 [26] which dealt with the sale of land by the Swedish municipality of Åre, where the municipality had received a conflicting higher offer on the property.Moreover, the Authority expressed doubts as to whether the sale of land could be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, especially on the basis of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ se je skliceval na Odločbo Komisije C35/2006 [26], ki obravnava prodajo zemljišča švedske občine Åre, pri kateri je občina dobila konkurenčno višjo ponudbo za zemljišče.Poleg tega je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvom, ali je prodajo zemljišča mogoče šteti za združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, zlasti na podlagi člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma.
Comments by the Norwegian authorities
5 Pripombe norveških organov
In a letter dated 3 December 2010 [27], the Norwegian authorities refer to their letter to the Authority dated 9 September 2008 [28].
Norveški organi so se v dopisu z dne 3. decembra 2010 [27] sklicevali na svoj dopis Nadzornemu organu z dne 9. septembra 2008 [28].
In the letter dated 9 September 2008, the Norwegian authorities put forward that the procedure described in paragraph 2.2 of the Guidelines has been followed and thus no state aid is involved in the transaction.
V dopisu z dne 9. septembra 2008 so norveški organi poudarili, da so upoštevali postopek iz oddelka 2.2 Smernic, zato prodaja ni vključevala državne pomoči.
Further, the Norwegian authorities argue that the expert valuations were obtained prior to any sales negotiations with SDO and that the reports reflect the market price of the property.
Poleg tega so trdili, da so zadevni strokovni oceni vrednosti pridobili pred pogajanji s podjetjem SDO in da sta poročili odražali tržno vrednost zemljišča.
Additionally, the Norwegian authorities submitted an overview produced by Oppdal municipality showing that the price for the property is the highest price paid per square metre in the area known to the municipality.
Norveški organi so predložili tudi pregled, ki ga je pripravila občina Oppdal, iz katerega je razvidno, da je glede na njene informacije cena navedenega zemljišča najvišja cena za kvadratni meter zemljišča na zadevnem območju.
Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities argue that the market price should reflect the value a regular buyer would be willing to pay for the property, excluding buyers with special interests.
Poleg tega norveški organi trdijo, da bi morala tržna cena zemljišča ustrezati ceni, ki bi jo bil pripravljen plačati kupec, ki nima posebnega interesa.
These were carried out in July 2008, respectively on the 7 and 9 of July.
Oceni sta bili opravljeni 7. in 9. julija 2008.