natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Asker Brygge has argued that the obligation to finance research work, which it is said to amount to approximately NOK 4 or 5 million, must be taken into consideration when assessing the remuneration for the option.
Podjetje Asker Brygge je trdilo, da je treba pri oceni plačila za nakupno opcijo upoštevati obveznost financiranja raziskovalnih del, ki naj bi znašala okoli 4 ali 5 milijonov NOK.
It is argued that this methodology is not unusual as a basis for fixing the price of an option as regards undeveloped land as in this case.
Podjetje trdi, da ta metodologija ni neobičajna podlaga za določanje cene nakupne opcije nerazvitega zemljišča kakor v tem primeru.
The Authority notes that Asker Brygge has not submitted any documentation on the claims mentioned above.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da podjetje Asker Brygge ni predložilo dokumentacije o navedenih trditvah.
The Norwegian Authorities have not been able to confirm neither the amounts spent on research, nor that this is a common method to fix the price on undeveloped land.
Norveški organi niso mogli potrditi niti zneskov, porabljenih za raziskave, niti dejstva, da je to običajni način določanja cene nerazvitega zemljišča.
In the Authority’s view, the option itself, independent of whether it was exercised or not, had a value in 2001 when the agreement was concluded.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa je sama nakupna opcija ob sklenitvi pogodbe leta 2001 imela vrednost, ne glede na to, ali je bila uveljavljena ali ne.
From the documentation and explanations the Authority has received so far, there is no information that the buyer paid remuneration for the option as such which a private investor would have accepted.
V dokumentaciji in obrazložitvah, ki jih je Nadzorni organ prejel doslej, ni podatkov, da je kupec z zneskom, ki bi bil sprejemljiv za zasebnega vlagatelja, plačal nakupno opcijo kot tako.
The option agreement refers to Asker Brygge’s possibility to conduct research works on the property with a view to its regulation for other purposes in exchange for the option to buy the property at market price.
Opcijska pogodba določa, da ima podjetje Asker Brygge možnost izvajati raziskovalna dela na nepremičnini z namenom njene ureditve za druge namene, pri čemer mu je podeljena opcija za nakup nepremičnine po tržni ceni.
However, there was no guarantee that the property actually would be properly researched.
Vendar ni bilo zagotovljeno, da bo nepremičnina dejansko ustrezno raziskana.
There was no unconditional obligation to carry out any particular type of research as the buyer could instead chose not to conclude a sales agreement, e.g. if the initial research works would show the project to be unprofitable, or for any other reason.
Ni bilo brezpogojne obveznosti glede izvajanja kakršnih koli posebnih raziskav, saj bi se kupec lahko odločil, da prodajne pogodbe ne sklene, na primer če bi začetna raziskovalna dela pokazala, da projekt ni dobičkonosen, ali iz drugih razlogov.
Thus, the risks on the buyer under the option agreement were minimal, while the municipality would not profit from it if the research showed that the property could be developed.
Tveganja za kupca na podlagi opcijske pogodbe so bila torej zelo majhna, medtem ko občina od nje ne bi imela dobička, če bi raziskave pokazale, da je razvoj nepremičnine mogoč.
The buyer would then be in a position to await the development of the real estate market over a long period, and could chose to buy the property for a fixed price at the time when it was considered to be most profitable for the buyer.
V tem primeru bi kupec lahko več let spremljal razvoj trga nepremičnin in bi se odločil kupiti nepremičnino po fiksni ceni takrat, ko bi mu to prineslo največ dobička.
Moreover, on the basis of the information available to the Authority, the requirement that Asker Brygge would have to carry out research works within certain time limits in order to maintain the option cannot be considered as a proper payment for the possibility to buy the land within the meaning of the market investor principle.
Poleg tega se na podlagi informacij, dostopnih Nadzornemu organu, zahteva, da podjetje Asker Brygge za ohranitev nakupne opcije raziskovalna dela izvede v določenem roku, ne more šteti kot ustrezno plačilo za možnost nakupa zemljišča v smislu načela tržnega vlagatelja.
The option agreement also included other elements that appear to be capable of increasing the value of the option.
Opcijska pogodba je vključevala tudi druge elemente, za katere se zdi, da bi lahko povečali vrednost nakupne opcije.
The first element concerns the mechanism to regulate the price.
Prvi element se nanaša na mehanizem določanja cene.
Asker Brygge had the right to request renegotiations of the price if property prices in Asker should decrease considerably before the option was invoked.
Podjetje Asker Brygge je imelo pravico zahtevati ponovna pogajanja glede cene, če bi se pred uveljavitvijo nakupne opcije cene nepremičnin v Askerju občutno znižale.
As mentioned above, the agreement did not provide a corresponding right of renegotiation for the municipality should the property prices increase considerably.
Kot je bilo zgoraj navedeno, v pogodbi ni bila določena podobna pravica do ponovnih pogajanj za občino, če bi se cene nepremičnin občutno zvišale.
According to the Norwegian authorities, the background for including a right for Asker Brygge to renegotiate the agreement was that the municipality of Asker considered the property to be difficult to develop, inter alia due to the short distance to the highway (E18), and the transaction would therefore involve substantial economic risk.
Po navedbah norveških organov vključitev pravice do ponovnih pogajanj za podjetje Asker Brygge v pogodbo temelji na dejstvu, da je bil po mnenju občine Asker razvoj nepremičnine težaven, med drugim zaradi bližine avtoceste (E18), zato bi transakcija vključevala znatno gospodarsko tveganje.
The Authority finds however, that a private market investor would not have entered into such an agreement without a mutual right to adjustment if property prices should increase or decrease considerably.
Vendar Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da zasebni tržni vlagatelj ne bi sklenil takega dogovora brez medsebojne pravice do prilagoditve cene v primeru občutnega zvišanja ali znižanja cen nepremičnin.
In this regard, the right for the municipality to adjust the price in accordance with the consumer price index appears not to be sufficient to compensate for the lack of a corresponding right of renegotiation.
V zvezi s tem se zdi, da pravica občine do prilagoditve cene glede na indeks cen življenjskih potrebščin ne nadomesti v zadostni meri odsotnosti ustrezne pravice do ponovnih pogajanj.
In the Authority’s view, the consumer price index is not the correct index to use when adjusting for changes in property prices.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa indeks cen življenjskih potrebščin ni ustrezen indeks, ki bi se moral uporabljati pri spremembah cen nepremičnin.
The consumer price index is a measure estimating the change in the average price of consumer goods and services purchased by households, and does not reflect the price movements of the property market.
Indeks cen življenjskih potrebščin je merilo, s katerim se ocenjujejo spremembe povprečnih cen izdelkov za široko porabo in storitev, ki jih kupujejo gospodinjstva, ter ne odraža gibanja cen na trgu nepremičnin.
Property prices develop at a different pattern than other prices, and real estate prices for property such as the one at issue in the case at hand are therefore normally not taken into account when determining the consumer price index.
Cene nepremičnin se razvijajo drugače kot druge cene, pri čemer se cene nepremičnin, kot je nepremičnina, obravnavana v tem primeru, običajno ne upoštevajo pri določanju indeksa cen življenjskih potrebščin.
In addition, the Option Agreement contains the municipality of Asker’s agreement to postpone the payment of 70 % of the agreed sales price until 31 December 2011 at the latest [6] without charging any interest for this deferral.
Poleg tega opcijska pogodba vključuje soglasje občine Asker glede odloženega plačila 70 % dogovorjene kupnine do najpozneje 31. decembra 2011 [6] brez zaračunanih obresti na ta odlog.
According to the Norwegian authorities, the postponement of full payment without any interest was accepted because the property was considered difficult to develop.
Po navedbah norveških organov je bil odlog celotnega plačila brez obresti sprejet, ker se je štelo, da je razvoj nepremičnine težaven.
The Authority finds that a private operator would not have agreed to postpone the payment over such a long period of time without requiring any interest payments.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da zasebni subjekt ne bi sprejel odloga plačila za tako dolgo obdobje, ne da bi zahteval plačilo obresti.
Moreover, it finds that a private operator would not have transferred full ownership of the property before full payment had been received.
Poleg tega ugotavlja, da zasebni subjekt ne bi v celoti prenesel lastninske pravice na nepremičnini, dokler ne bi prejel celotnega plačila.
The municipality of Asker agrees that a private investor would have required remuneration for the postponed payment.
Občina Asker se strinja, da bi zasebni vlagatelj za odloženo plačilo zahteval plačilo.
Although the municipality of Asker has brought forward that any aid in this respect would be below the de minimis threshold, it has not provided any documentation to this extent.
Čeprav je občina Asker trdila, da bi bila kakršna koli pomoč v zvezi s tem pod pragom de minimis, glede tega ni predložila nobene dokumentacije.
For the reasons outlined above, the Authority finds that a private operator would not have entered into such a long option agreement, on similar conditions as the municipality of Asker without requiring remuneration for the option and the favourable conditions as such.
Iz navedenih razlogov Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da zasebni subjekt ne bi sklenil opcijske pogodbe za tako dolgo obdobje pod podobnimi pogoji kot občina Asker, tj. brez zahtevanega plačila za nakupno opcijo in ugodne pogoje kot take.
By simply requiring a remuneration corresponding to the value of the property in 2001, the municipality of Asker ran the risk of granting state aid later in particular if property prices should increase.
Občina Asker je zgolj s tem, da je zahtevala plačilo glede na vrednost nepremičnine leta 2001, tvegala poznejšo odobritev državne pomoči, zlasti če bi se cene nepremičnin zvišale.
The Authority therefore concludes that the Option Agreement was not entered into on market conditions and accordingly the presence of state aid cannot be excluded.
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da opcijska pogodba ni bila sklenjena pod tržnimi pogoji in zato ni mogoče izključiti prisotnosti državne pomoči.
It is therefore necessary to examine whether the property was sold at a price below market value.
Zato je treba proučiti, ali je bila nepremičnina prodana po ceni, nižji od tržne vrednosti.
The market value of the property at the time of the sales agreement
Tržna vrednost nepremičnine v času sklenitve prodajne pogodbe
In 2005, Asker Brygge called upon the option.
Leta 2005 je podjetje Asker Brygge hotelo izkoristiti nakupno opcijo.
Thus, the relevant point in time for the Authority’s state aid assessment is the time when the property was sold and transferred to a new owner, in 2007.
Zato je pri oceni Nadzornega organa glede prisotnosti državne pomoči ključen čas prodaje nepremičnine in prenosa lastninske pravice na novega lastnika, tj. leto 2007.
In the following, the Authority will therefore compare the price of NOK 8727462 paid by Asker Brygge at the time the sale was carried out in 2007 with the market value of the property.
Zato bo Nadzorni organ v nadaljevanju primerjal ceno 8727462 NOK, ki jo je plačalo podjetje Asker Brygge v času prodaje leta 2007, s tržno vrednostjo nepremičnine.
According to the Authority's State Aid Guidelines on sale of land, a sale of land and buildings following a sufficiently well-publicised and unconditional bidding procedure, comparable to an auction, accepting the best or only bid, is by definition at market value and consequently does not contain state aid.
V skladu s smernicami Nadzornega organa o državni pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč je prodaja zemljišč in objektov po zadostno oglaševanem in brezpogojnem postopku za oddajo naročila, primerljivem z dražbo, v okviru katerega se sprejme najboljša ali edina ponudba, po opredelitvi prodaja po tržni vrednosti in zato ne vsebuje državne pomoči.
Alternatively, to exclude the existence of aid when a sale of land is conducted without an unconditional bidding procedure, an independent valuation should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to sales negotiations in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards.
Po drugi strani mora v primeru, da prodaja zemljišča ne temelji na brezpogojnem postopku za oddajo naročila, za izključitev obstoja pomoči eden ali več neodvisnih cenilcev pred pogajanji o prodaji izvesti neodvisno vrednotenje, da se določi tržna vrednost na podlagi splošno sprejetih tržnih kazalnikov in standardov vrednotenja.
The valuer should be independent in the execution of his tasks, i.e. public authorities should not be entitled to issue orders as regards the result of the valuation.
Cenilec mora biti pri izvajanju svojih nalog neodvisen, tj. javni organi ne smejo biti upravičeni do dajanja navodil v zvezi z rezultatom vrednotenja.
In the case at hand, the municipality of Asker did not arrange for an unconditional bidding procedure nor collect an independent expert evaluation before entering into the agreement.
V zadevnem primeru občina Asker pred sklenitvijo pogodbe ni izvedla brezpogojnega postopka za oddajo naročila niti ni pridobila neodvisne izvedenske ocene vrednosti.
Thus, the existence of state aid cannot automatically be excluded.
Zato obstoja državne pomoči ni mogoče samodejno izključiti.
In the notification, the Norwegian authorities have submitted 3 value assessments of the property in question.
V priglasitvi so norveški organi predložili tri ocene vrednosti zadevne nepremičnine.
None of the value assessments were conducted before the option agreement was entered into in 2001 but established the value of the property afterwards.
Nobena od ocen vrednosti ni bila izvedena pred sklenitvijo opcijske pogodbe leta 2001, vendar pa so se vse nanašale na poznejšo vrednost nepremičnine.
The first report dated 30 June 2006 was conducted by licensed property surveyors of Verditakst AS, Takst Senteret and Agdestein [7].
Prvo poročilo z dne 30 junija 2006 so sestavili sodni cenilci nepremičnin iz podjetij Verditakst AS, Takst Senteret in Agdestein [7].
According to this report the estimated value of the land in 2001, the time the option contract was entered into, was NOK 9,6 million, with a possible variation of +/– 15%.
To poročilo navaja, da je bila ocenjena vrednost zemljišča leta 2001, v času sklenitve opcijske pogodbe, 9,6 milijona NOK z možnim odstopanjem +/–15 %.
However, this appears to be a very approximate estimation.
Vendar se zdi, da je ta ocena zelo približna.
The assessors have simply considered the property’s value based on the allowed usage (mainly to marina purposes) according to the existing regulatory regime at the time of the assessment (which was the same as in 2001), and the value with an alternative combined usage of marina, housing and industry, and assessed the property’s value as being the middle value of these two alternatives [8].
Cenilci so zgolj upoštevali vrednost nepremičnine na podlagi dovoljene uporabe (predvsem za namene marine) v skladu s predpisi, veljavnimi v času ocene (torej leta 2001), ter vrednost pri drugi kombinirani uporabi za namene marine, stanovanj in industrije, pri čemer so vrednost nepremičnine ocenili kot srednjo vrednost teh dveh možnosti [8].
However, as explained above, it is the value of the land in 2007 when the property was sold and transferred to the new owner which is relevant for a state aid assessment.
Kot je bilo razloženo zgoraj, pa je za oceno državne pomoči ustrezna vrednost zemljišča leta 2007, ko je bila nepremičnina prodana in je bila lastninska pravica prenesena na novega lastnika.
The Norwegian authorities enclosed with the notification two additional value assessments which TJB Eiendomstaksering – Ek & Mosveen AS – Bjørn Aarvik had carried out on behalf of the municipality.
Norveški organi so priglasitvi priložili dve dodatni oceni vrednosti, ki so ju v imenu občine izvedla podjetja TJB Eiendomstaksering, Ek & Mosveen AS in Bjørn Aarvik.
In the first report dated 18 January 2008 [9], the market value of the land in 2007 was estimated at NOK 26 million.
V prvem poročilu z dne 18. januarja 2008 [9] je bila tržna vrednost zemljišča leta 2007 ocenjena na 26 milijonov NOK.
In the second report dated 16 June 2008 [10], TJB Eiendomstaksering – Ek & Mosveen AS – Bjørn Aarvik estimated the market value of the land in 2007 at NOK 12 million.
V drugem poročilu z dne 16. junija 2008 [10] so podjetja TJB Eiendomstaksering, Ek & Mosveen AS in Bjørn Aarvik tržno vrednost zemljišča leta 2007 ocenila na 12 milijonov NOK.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that this difference is based mainly on the estimated value reduction of an additional obligation on Asker Brygge with regard to the use of part of the property by Slependen Båtforening AS [11].
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da ta razlika temelji predvsem na zmanjšanju ocenjene vrednosti zaradi dodatne obveznosti podjetja Asker Brygge, da del nepremičnine da v uporabo podjetju Slependen Båtforening AS [11].
The option agreement of 2001 includes a clause stating that a part of the property is let to Slependen Båtforening as a marina for small boats, and that Asker Brygge would have to compensate for its right to a small-boat marina/compensation vis-à-vis the municipality of Asker if development of the property started before the rental contract expires.
Opcijska pogodba iz leta 2001 vključuje člen, ki navaja, da se del nepremičnine da podjetju Slependen Båtforening v najem kot marina za majhne čolne, pri čemer bi moralo podjetje Asker Brygge nadomestiti svojo pravico do marine za majhne čolne oziroma ponuditi nadomestilo občini Asker, če bi se razvoj nepremičnine začel pred iztekom najemne pogodbe.
Although it was difficult to state the exact economic consequence of the obligation for Asker Brygge at the time the option agreement was entered into, Asker Brygge and Slependen Båtforening signed an agreement on 1 June 2006 according to which the latter was to pay NOK 850000 (cf. clause 2,4 in the agreement) [13].
Čeprav je bilo ob sklenitvi opcijske pogodbe težko natančno napovedati gospodarske posledice obveznosti za podjetje Asker Brygge, sta podjetji Asker Brygge in Slependen Båtforening 1. junija 2006 sklenili pogodbo, po kateri je moralo slednje podjetje plačati 850000 NOK (glej klavzulo 2(4) pogodbe) [13].
According to the explanations provided by the Norwegian authorities, the value assessment from January 2008 was based on an incorrect interpretation of an agreement between Asker Brygge and Slependen Båtforening since it did not reflect the latter’s right to pay only NOK 850000 for the area in question.
Glede na pojasnila norveških organov je ocena vrednosti iz januarja 2008 temeljila na nepravilni razlagi pogodbe med podjetjema Asker Brygge in Slependen Båtforening, saj ni odražala pravice slednjega, da za zadevno zemljišče plača samo 850000 NOK.
The asset valuers interpreted the clause in the option agreement in such a way that Slependen Båtforening would have had the right to rent or buy the boat places at market price after the expiry of the rental contract.
Cenilci so zadevno klavzulo opcijske pogodbe razlagali tako, da bi imelo podjetje Slependen Båtforening po izteku najemne pogodbe pravico do najema ali nakupa privezov po tržni ceni.
In addition, the assessment of June 2008 took into consideration the risks in relation to pollution in the ground, as pointed out by the municipality [14].
Poleg tega so bila v oceni iz junija 2008 upoštevana tveganja v zvezi z onesnaženostjo tal, kot je opozorila občina [14].
Finally, the assessment of June 2008 no longer included storage for boats under the road (E18), as pointed out by the municipality [15].Asker Brygge has disputed the validity of the assessments.
Ne nazadnje v oceni iz junija 2008 ni bil več upoštevan prostor za shranjevanje plovil pod cesto (E18), kot je opozorila občina [15].Podjetje Asker Brygge je izpodbijalo veljavnost ocen.
Its main objection is that the assessments include the possibility to dredge the shoreline to establish further boat spaces, and to establish storage yards for boats on the land area.
Njegov glavni ugovor je bil, da ocena vključuje možnost poglobitve obrežja, s čimer bi pridobili prostor za nove priveze, in pridobitve prostora za shranjevanje plovil na kopnem.
According to Asker Brygge no development of the property would be foreseeable at all in 2001, and the public road administration had prohibited further dredging in the area [16].
Po navedbah podjetja Asker Brygge leta 2001 ne bi bil možen nikakršen razvoj nepremičnine, uprava za javne ceste pa je prepovedala nadaljnje poglabljanje zemljišča [16].
The Authority notes that Asker Brygge has not provided any documentation that the factual premises for the assessment of June 2008 are incorrect.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da podjetje Asker Brygge ni predložilo dokumentacije, ki bi dokazovala nepravilnost dejanskih predpostavk za oceno iz junija 2008.
Further, the Authority notes that the municipality has not disputed the validity of the assessment of June 2008, which it seems to consider as fairly accurate [17].
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da občina ni izpodbijala veljavnosti ocene iz junija 2008, za katero očitno meni, da je precej natančna.
On the contrary, the municipality in its comments to the Authority quotes the assessment on the part where it considers dredging (in relation to the assessment of pollution in the ground) and makes no comment on that dredging would not be possible at all.
Nasprotno, občina se v pripombah Nadzornemu organu sklicuje na del ocene o poglabljanju zemljišča (v zvezi z oceno onesnaženosti tal), pri čemer ne navaja, da poglabljanje sploh ni mogoče.
Thus, the Authority can not see that there has been provided documentation which gives reason to question the factual premises for the assessment of June 2008.
Nadzorni organ tako ne more skleniti, da je bila predložena dokumentacija, ki utemeljuje dvom o dejanskih predpostavkah za oceno iz junija 2008.
The latest (and lowest) value assessment, the second report, dated 16 June 2008 [18], estimated the market value of the land in 2007 at NOK 12 million, which is NOK 3272538 more than the price paid.
Po najnovejši (in najnižji) oceni vrednosti iz drugega poročila z dne 16. junija 2008 [18] je bila tržna vrednost zemljišča leta 2007 12 milijonov NOK, kar je 3272538 NOK več od plačane cene.
Contrary to the first report, according to the information provided by the municipality of Asker, this second report takes into account more accurate information which was known in 2007, at the time the sale was finalised.
V nasprotju s prvim poročilom in v skladu z informacijami, ki jih je predložila občina Asker, so v drugem poročilu upoštevane bolj točne informacije, ki so bile znane ob prodaji leta 2007.
In addition, the assessment of June 2008 mentions the risk of pollution in the ground, but adds that the assessors have not conducted any closer research into this matter [22].
Poleg tega je v oceni iz junija 2008 omenjeno tveganje onesnaženosti tal, vendar je navedeno tudi, da cenilci te zadeve niso podrobneje proučili [22].
Thus, it appears that the research carried out by Asker Brygge was rightly not taken into consideration by the assessors when determining the value of the plot of land.
Tako se zdi, da cenilci pri določanju vrednosti zemljišča upravičeno niso upoštevali raziskav podjetja Asker Brygge.
As mentioned, the assessment of June 2008 was based on usage of the area as a marina, according to the existing regulations.
Kot je bilo navedeno, je ocena iz junija 2008 v skladu z veljavnimi predpisi temeljila na uporabi zemljišča za namene marine.