natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, according to Article 6 of the Purchase Contract, until 31 December 2009, Sementsverksmiðjan hf. had the right to re-purchase the abovementioned sold properties in Reykjavik for a total price of ISK 95 million with a fixed annual interest of 7 % as of 1 August 2003.
Poleg tega je imela družba Sementsverksmiðjan hf. v skladu s členom 6 kupoprodajne pogodbe pravico, da do 31. decembra 2009 ponovno odkupi zgoraj navedeno prodano premoženje v Reykjaviku za skupno ceno 95 milijonov ISK s stalno 7-odstotno obrestno mero od 1. avgusta 2003.
In Decision No 421/04/COL, the Authority preliminarily considered the lack of remuneration for the use of assets located in Reykjavik which were sold to the Treasury to constitute State aid.
V Odločbi št. 421/04/COL je Nadzorni organ predhodno sklenil, da pomeni neplačevanje uporabe premoženja v Reykjaviku, ki je bilo prodano Državni zakladnici, državno pomoč.
The Authority considered that should Sementsverksmiðjan hf. make use of the abovementioned re-purchase price, the State might lose revenue if it would sell the assets for a price below its market value.
Nadzorni organ je menil, da če bi družba Sementsverksmiðjan hf. uporabila zgoraj navedeno ceno za ponovni odkup, bi država lahko izgubila prihodek, če bi prodala premoženje po ceni, ki bi bila nižja on njegove tržne vrednosti.
Take-over by the State Treasury of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.’s pension obligations.
Prevzem pokojninskih obveznosti družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf., ki ga je izvedla Državna zakladnica
In Decision 367/06/COL, the Authority preliminarily concluded that the take-over by the State of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.’s pension-related liabilities constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
V Odločbi št. 367/06/COL je Nadzorni organ predhodno sklenil, da pomeni prevzem pokojninskih obveznosti družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf., ki ga je izvedla država, državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority had doubts whether any of the exceptions to the general prohibition of State aid foreseen under Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement would be applicable.
Nadzorni organ je izrazil dvom, da bi se lahko uporabila katera koli izjema od splošne prepovedi državne pomoči iz člena 61(2) ali (3) Sporazuma EGP.
In case State aid would be involved, the Authority expressed its doubts as to whether it could be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Če je bila vključena državna pomoč, je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvom, da bi se lahko razglasila za združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
More specifically, the Authority raised concerns whether the aid could be considered compatible on the basis of the provisions of the State Aid Guidelines on Rescue and Restructuring Aid.
Nadzorni organ je namreč izrazil pomisleke glede vprašanja, ali bi se pomoč lahko štela za združljivo na podlagi določb Smernic o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
COMMENTS FROM THE ICELANDIC AUTHORITIES
PRIPOMBE ISLANDSKIH ORGANOV
In a letter dated 23 February 2005, the Icelandic authorities commented on the doubts expressed by the Authority in Decision No 421/04/COL.
V dopisu z dne 23. februarja 2005 so islandski organi dali svoje pripombe k dvomom, ki jih je izrazil Nadzorni organ v Odločbi št. 421/04/COL.
The Icelandic authorities explained that the repurchase of assets from Sementsverksmiðjan hf. took place as part of a restructuring: ‘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.’
Pojasnili so, da je ponovni odkup premoženja, ki ga je izvedla družba Sementsverksmiðjan hf., potekal v okviru prestrukturiranja: „Država naj bi od družbe kupila vse premoženje, ki ni bistveno za proizvodnjo in poslovanje, da se zmanjšajo stroški poslovanja in zagotovi rentabilno poslovanje.“
The Icelandic authorities considered that the valuation of the assets in Reykjavik was very favourable to the State since they had a strategic value, based on projected future value, ‘since plans were at the time of sale being made for a large bridge project closing off the Company’s harbour at Saeverhöfdi in Reykjavik and thus rendering the facilities useless for the operations of the Company.
Po mnenju islandskih organov je bila ocena premoženja v Reykjaviku zelo ugodna za državo, saj ima strateško vrednost, ki temelji na predvideni prihodnji vrednosti, „ker so se v času prodaje pripravljali načrti za izgradnjo velikega mostu, ki bo zaprl pristanišče družbe v Saeverhöfdiju v Reykjaviku in tako napravil objekte neuporabne za poslovanje družbe.
This bridge will however lead to changed city planning for the area and it is expected that the land will be reserved for a residential area, increasing its value greatly.’
Ta most bo spremenil urbanistično načrtovanje za to območje in predvidoma se bo to zemljišče namenilo za stanovanjsko območje, kar bo zelo povečalo njegovo vrednost.“
As far as the repurchase right of certain assets laid down in Article 6 of the Purchase Agreement of 2 October 2003 is concerned, the Icelandic authorities indicated in this letter their will to amend the agreement and replace this option with a right of first refusal at market value.
Glede pravice ponovnega odkupa določenega premoženja iz člena 6 kupoprodajne pogodbe z dne 2. oktobra 2003 so islandski organi v navedenem dopisu pokazali pripravljenost, da pogodbo spremenijo in to možnost nadomestijo s pravico prve zavrnitve po tržni vrednosti.
Finally, the Icelandic authorities brought forward arguments to justify that if aid had been involved in the sales process of Sementsverksmiðjan hf., this aid could be considered compatible on the basis of the State Aid Guidelines on Rescue and Restructuring Aid.
Na koncu so islandski organi predstavili argumente, s katerimi so skušali utemeljiti trditev, da če je bila v prodajo družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf. vključena državna pomoč, se ta pomoč lahko šteje za združljivo na podlagi Smernic o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.
To this extent, they enclosed a restructuring plan for Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
V ta namen so priložili načrt za prestrukturiranje družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
The Icelandic authorities did not comment on the Authority’s Decision No 367/06/COL on the taking over by the Icelandic State of pension-related liabilities of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
Islandski organi niso dali svojih pripomb k Odločbi Nadzornega organa št. 367/06/COL o prevzemu pokojninskih obveznosti družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf., ki ga je izvedla država.
COMMENTS FROM ÍSLENSKT SEMENT EHF.
PRIPOMBE SKUPINE VLAGATELJEV ÍSLENSKT SEMENT EHF.
Íslenskt sement ehf. submitted comments to the Authority’s Decision No 421/04/COL on 20 June 2005 (Event No 323552).
Skupina vlagateljev Íslenskt sement ehf. je 20. junija 2005 predložila pripombe k Odločbi Nadzornega organa št. 421/04/COL (št. dogodka 323552).
In this letter, the company argued that the assets repurchased by the State from Sementsverksmiðjan hf. were not sold individually but in connection with the sale of the shares.
V tem dopisu so zagovarjali stališče, da premoženje, ki ga je država ponovno odkupila od družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf., ni bilo prodano posebej, temveč v povezavi s prodajo deležev.
This notwithstanding, in the opinion of Íslenskt sement ehf. the objective market value of the right to use these assets would be negligible ‘if not considered absolutely worthless’ since they could only be used by Sementsverksmiðjan hf. as the only cement producer in Iceland.
Ne glede na to bi bila po mnenju skupine Íslenskt sement ehf. objektivna tržna vrednost pravice do uporabe teh sredstev zanemarljiva, „če ne popolnoma brez vrednosti“, saj bi ta sredstva lahko uporabljala samo družba Sementsverksmiðjan hf. kot edina proizvajalka cementa v Islandiji.
Finally, Íslenskt sement ehf. contested that the company’s right to reacquire the assets it has the right to use for a total of ISK 95 million contains State aid since these specialised cement production facilities were of little market value.
Na koncu je skupina Íslenskt sement ehf. izpodbijala mnenje, da pravica družbe do ponovnega odkupa premoženja, ki ga ima pravico uporabljati, za vsega skupaj 95 milijonov ISK, vključuje državno pomoč, ker so imele te specializirane zmogljivosti za proizvodnjo cementa majhno tržno vrednost.
In a letter dated 7 May 2007 (Event No 421504), Íslenskt sement ehf. firstly expressed its views on the approach taken by the Authority to divide the case in two parts, i.e. the sale of the shares and the other measures.
V dopisu z dne 7. maja 2007 (št. dogodka 421504) je skupina Íslenskt sement ehf. najprej izrazila svoje stališče glede pristopa Nadzornega organa, ko je primer razdelil na dva dela, tj. na prodajo deležev in druge ukrepe.
In the view of this company, the different transactions had to be viewed as a whole.
Po mnenju te skupine je treba na različne transakcije gledati kot na celoto.
‘It was a precondition, both on behalf of the seller (the Icelandic Government) and the buyer (Íslenskt sement ehf.), that the agreements concluded on the same day constituted one transaction that could not be split up.
„Določen je bil predpogoj, v imenu prodajalca (islandska vlada) in kupca (Íslenskt sement ehf.), da pogodbe, ki so bile sklenjene istega dne, pomenijo eno transakcijo, ki se ne more razdeliti.
One or more of the agreements would thus not have been concluded without all the others being concluded at the same time and in relation to each other.’
Ena ali več pogodb tako ne bi bilo sklenjenih, če ne bi bile istega dne in v medsebojni povezavi sklenjene vse druge.“
Second, Íslenskt sement ehf. provided arguments to demonstrate that no State aid was involved in the take-over by the Icelandic State of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.’s pension-related liabilities.
Drugič, skupina Íslenskt sement ehf. je navedla argumente v dokaz, da pri prevzemu pokojninskih obveznosti družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf., ki ga je izvedla država, ni bila vključena državna pomoč.
Íslenskt sement ehf. explained that the pension liabilities were not included in the balance sheet of the annual accounts for 1996 but only noted as an off balance sheet contingent liability.
Pojasnila je, da pokojninske obveznosti niso bile vključene v bilanco stanja zaključnega računa za leto 1996, temveč so bile navedene samo kot pogojna obveznost, ki ni zajeta v računovodskem izkazu.
In 1997, the pension liabilities of the company were released against the issuing of bonds.
Leta 1997 so bile pokojninske obveznosti družbe sproščene z izdajo obveznic.
This means that they were financed through a debt (bonds) to the Pension Fund of State Employees, which was then booked as a long-term liability in the balance sheet of the annual accounts for 1997 and the following years.
To pomeni, da so se financirale z dolgom (obveznicami) do Pokojninskega sklada državnih uslužbencev, ki je bil tedaj knjižen kot dolgoročna obveznost v bilanci stanja zaključnega računa za leto 1997 in naslednja leta.
Third, Íslenskt sement ehf. referred to the sale of assets from Sementsverksmiðjan hf. to the State for a purchase sum of ISK 450 million, which was addressed in the Authority’s Decision No 421/04/COL.
Tretjič, skupina Íslenskt sement ehf. se je sklicevala na prodajo premoženja družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf. državi za nakupno ceno 450 milijonov ISK, kar obravnava Odločba Nadzornega organa št. 421/04/COL.
All the shares and bonds were sold to the State at market value [21].
Vse delnice in obveznice so bile prodane državi po tržni vrednosti [21].
The Saevarhófdi property in Reykjavík and the part of the office building in Akranes were respectively valued at ISK 276 million and ISK 74,4 million and sold to the State for ISK 280 million and ISK 72,5 million.
Premoženje Saevarhófdi v Reykjavíku in del poslovne stavbe v Akranesu sta bila ocenjena na 276 milijonov ISK oziroma 74,4 milijona ISK, državi pa prodana za 280 milijonov oziroma 72,5 milijona ISK.
Therefore, Íslenskt sement ehf. was of the opinion that ‘the total liquidation costs exceeded the total cost for selling the Company by 70376683 ISK [22] and thus the State has acted in accordance with the market economy investor principle.
Če je odgovor na to vprašanje pritrdilen, je treba upoštevati, da je država ravnala v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, kajti zasebni vlagatelj bi prevzel dolg in prodal deleže v družbi na podlagi zdrave ekonomske logike.“ Zato je skupina Íslenskt sement ehf. menila, da „so skupni stroški likvidacije presegli skupne stroške prodaje družbe za 70376683 ISK [22] in je zato država ravnala v skladu z načelom vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu.
Therefore, there can be no State aid involved in the State’s taking-over by the Company’s debt towards the Pension Fund in connection to the State’s sale of the shares in the Company.’
Zato v prevzem dolga družbe do pokojninskega sklada, ki ga je izvedla država, v zvezi s prodajo deležev, ki jih je imela država v družbi, ne more biti vključena državna pomoč.“
COMMENTS FROM AALBORG PORTLAND ÍSLANDI EHF.
PRIPOMBE DRUŽBE AALBORG PORTLAND ÍSLANDI EHF.
By letter dated 2 September 2005, the complainant Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf. submitted observations to the Authority’s Decision No 421/04/COL.
Z dopisom z dne 2. septembra 2005 je pritožnik Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf. predložil svoje pripombe k Odločbi Nadzornega organa št. 421/04/COL.
It expressed its agreement with the Authority’s concerns but pointed out that the taking over of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.’s pension obligations had not been addressed in the opening decision.
Izrazil je strinjanje s pomisleki Nadzornega organa, vendar je poudaril, da prevzem pokojninskih obveznosti družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf. ni bil obravnavan v odločbi, s katero je bil postopek sprožen.
That notwithstanding, Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf. did not present any comments on the Authority’s Decision No 367/06/COL to extend the opening to cover the taking over by the Icelandic State of pension-related liabilities of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
Ne glede na to družba Aalborg Portland Íslandi ehf ni dala pripomb k Odločbi Nadzornega organa št. 367/06/COL o razširitvi postopka zaradi vključitve prevzema pokojninskih obveznosti družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf., ki ga je izvedla država.
FURTHER COMMENTS FROM ICELAND
DODATNE PRIPOMBE ISLANDIJE
In a letter dated 8 April 2008, the Icelandic authorities put forward additional information on a previously submitted restructuring plan and included a market survey which had not been yet presented to the Authority.
V dopisu z dne 8. aprila 2008 so islandski organi predložili dodatne informacije o predhodno predloženem načrtu za prestrukturiranje in priložili tržno raziskavo, ki še ni bila predstavljena Nadzornemu organu.
THE PRESENCE OF STATE AID
PRISOTNOST DRŽAVNE POMOČI
THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES, ASSETS, SHARES AND BONDS
NAKUP PREMOŽENJA, SREDSTEV, DELNIC IN OBVEZNIC
On the basis of the Purchase Contract, the National Treasury of Iceland purchased the properties and assets of the company in Reykjavík, the office building of the company in Akranes with the exception of one and half floors, and the shares and bonds owned by Sementsverksmiðjan hf. in other companies, for the price of ISK 450 million.
Na podlagi kupoprodajne pogodbe je Državna zakladnica Islandije za 450 milijonov ISK kupila premoženje in sredstva družbe v Reykjavíku, poslovno stavbo družbe v Akranesu, razen enega nadstropja in pol, ter delnice in obveznice drugih družb, ki jih je imela v lasti družba Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
The following table provides a comparison between the market value of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.’s properties and assets in Reykjavik and Akranes as well as of the shares and bonds as established by independent experts [23] and the price the National Treasury paid for them:
V naslednji razpredelnici je navedena primerjava med tržno vrednostjo premoženja in sredstev družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf. v Reykjaviku in Akranesu ter delnic in obveznic, kot so jo določili neodvisni strokovnjaki [23], in ceno, ki jo je zanje plačala Državna zakladnica:
(ISK million)
(v mio. ISK)
Valuation made by independent experts
Ocena neodvisnih strokovnjakov
Price paid by the National Treasury of Iceland
Cena, ki jo je plačala Državna zakladnica Islandije
Land, real estate and equipment at Saeverhöfdi 31 in Reykjavik
Zemljišče, nepremičnine in oprema na Saeverhöfdi 31 v Reykjaviku
Office building in Akranes (minus one and a half floors)
Poslovna stavba v Akranesu (razen enega nadstropja in pol)
Shares in Geca
Delnice v družbi Geca
Shares in Spölur
Delnice v družbi Spölur
Bonds in Spölur
Obveznice v družbi Spölur
There is therefore a difference of 2,1 MISK (equivalent to 21214 euros) which the National Treasury paid above the market value of the purchased assets as estimated by independent experts.
Razlika znaša 2,1 milijona ISK (kar ustreza vrednosti 21214 EUR), ki jo je Državna zakladnica plačala nad tržno vrednostjo kupljenega premoženja, kot so ga ocenili neodvisni strokovnjaki.
The difference relates to the sale of the properties in Reykjavik which were sold for ISK 4 million more than the valuation and the office building in Akranes which was sold for ISK 1,9 million less than the valuation.
Razlika se nanaša na prodajo premoženja v Reykjaviku, ki je bilo prodano za štiri milijone ISK več, kot je znašala ocena, in poslovne stavbe v Akranesu, ki je bila prodana za 1,9 milijona pod ocenjeno vrednostjo.
According to case law, the Authority cannot arbitrarily fix a market price in this decision on the sole basis of an expert assessment [24].
V skladu s sodno prakso Nadzorni organ v tej odločbi ne more samovoljno določiti tržne cene samo na podlagi izvedenske ocene [24].
An acceptable market value, after testing the market, may rather be found within a reasonable margin.
Bolj verjetno je, da po preizkusu trga določimo sprejemljivo tržno vrednost v nekem razponu.
In the Authority’s view, there is no obvious answer to how wide such a margin should be.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa ni jasnega odgovora, kako širok naj bi bil ta razpon.
That would possibly differ from case to case.In the opinion of the Authority, this difference in net price of ISK 2,1 million between the estimations made by the independent expert and the price finally paid by the State Treasury is so minimal that it provides no evidence that the purchase price did not reflect market terms.
Verjetno bi se razlikoval od primera do primera.Po mnenju Nadzornega organa je razlika v neto ceni 2,1 milijona ISK med oceno neodvisnega strokovnjaka in ceno, ki jo je na koncu plačala Državna zakladnica, tako majhna, da ne zagotavlja dokazov, da nakupna cena ni izražala tržnih pogojev.
The price established by the independent expert may be considered as an orientation.
Cena, ki jo je določil neodvisni strokovnjak, se lahko šteje za orientacijsko.
Strong deviations from that estimate may indicate the existence of State aid.
Velika odstopanja od ocene lahko kažejo obstoj državne pomoči.
However, in the opinion of the Authority [26], such a minor difference as the one in this case is not sufficient to establish the existence of State aid in favour of Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa [26] tako majhna razlika, kot je razlika v tem primeru, ne zadostuje za določitev obstoja državne pomoči v korist družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
Rather, it indicates that the payment constituted a fair market price.
Prej kaže, da je plačilo pomenilo pošteno tržno ceno.
Moreover, according to Article 6 of the Purchase Contract, until 31 December 2009, Sementsverksmiðjan hf. had the right to re-purchase the abovementioned sold properties in Reykjavik for a total price of ISK 95 million with accrued interests calculated on the basis of a fixed annual interest of 7 % as of 1 August 2003.
V skladu s členom 6 kupoprodajne pogodbe je imela družba Sementsverksmiðjan hf. tudi pravico, da do 31. decembra 2009 ponovno odkupi zgoraj navedeno prodano premoženje v Reykjaviku za skupno ceno 95 milijonov ISK skupaj z obrestmi, obračunani po 7-odstotni fiksni letni obrestni meri od 1. avgusta 2003.
In a letter dated 17 February 2006 (Event No 363608), the Icelandic authorities forwarded to the Authority an English copy of an Agreement between Sementsverksmiðjan hf. and the Ministry of Industry on behalf of the Government of Iceland.
V dopisu z dne 17. februarja 2006 (št. dogodka 363608) so islandski organi poslali Nadzornemu organu angleški izvod sporazuma, ki ga je Ministrstvo za industrijo v imenu islandske vlade sklenilo z družbo Sementsverksmiðjan hf.
On the basis of this Agreement, the company’s option to repurchase some assets in Reykjavik was withdrawn.
Na podlagi tega sporazuma je bila možnost, da družba ponovno odkupi del premoženja v Reykjaviku, preklicana.
The monthly lease for the assets [28] is ISK […].
Mesečna najemnina za premoženje [28] znaša […] ISK.
The lease is adjusted once a year according to the building cost index.
Najemnina se uskladi enkrat letno v skladu z indeksom gradbenih stroškov.
The Icelandic authorities explained that the lease amount was calculated using the normal ratio for the Icelandic real estate market.
Islandski organi so pojasnili, da je bil znesek najemnine izračunan na podlagi normalnega razmerja za islandski trg nepremičnin.
The Authority does not have a reason to doubt about the veracity and accuracy of the information provided by the Icelandic authorities according to which Sementsverksmiðjan hf. pays a market price for the lease of these assets [29].
Nadzorni organ nima razloga, da bi dvomil o verodostojnosti in točnosti informacij, ki so jih zagotovili islandski organi, v skladu s katerimi plačuje družba Sementsverksmiðjan hf. za najemnino tega premoženja tržno ceno [29].
Thus, following the abovementioned amendments to the agreement, the Authority considers that no State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is involved.
Zato Nadzorni organ glede na zgoraj navedene spremembe sporazuma meni, da ni vključena državna pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
THE TAKE-OVER OF THE PENSION OBLIGATIONS
PREVZEM POKOJNINSKIH OBVEZNOSTI
These obligations were to be paid and settled annually.
Te obveznosti naj bi se plačevale in poravnavale letno.
Presence of state resources
Prisotnost državnih virov
To constitute State aid, the aid measure must firstly be granted by the State or through state resources.
Da pomeni državno pomoč, mora, prvič, ukrep pomoči dodeliti država ali se mora dodeliti prek državnih virov.
On the basis of the Agreement between the Ministry of Finance and the Pension Fund of State Employees signed in October 2003, the Treasury will pay to the Pension Fund, on behalf of Sementsverksmiðjan hf., the amounts due by the company.
V skladu s sporazumom, ki sta ga sklenila Ministrstvo za finance in Pokojninski sklad državnih uslužbencev oktobra 2003, bo Državna zakladnica Pokojninskemu skladu v imenu družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf. plačala zneske, ki mu jih je dolgovala družba.
At the time the Agreement was signed, the liabilities of Sementsverksmiðjan hf. towards the Pension Fund for the payment of pensions to already retired employees were estimated at ISK 412 million.
Ob sklenitvi sporazuma so bile obveznosti družbe Sementsverksmiðjan hf. do Pokojninskega sklada za plačilo pokojnin za že upokojene zaposlene ocenjene na 412 milijonov ISK.
Further, future liabilities for the remaining employees of the company affiliated to Section B of the Pension Fund still in active service, were estimated within a range between ISK 10 to 15 million.
Prihodnje obveznosti za še aktivne zaposlene v družbi, vključene v oddelek B Pokojninskega sklada, so bile ocenjene v razponu od deset do petnajst milijonov ISK.
Taking over the pension-related liabilities and paying it from the Treasury involves state resources.
Prevzem pokojninskih obveznosti in njihovo plačilo iz Državne zakladnice vključuje državne vire.
Secondly, the aid measure must confer on the recipient advantages that relieve it of charges that are normally borne from its budget.
Drugič, ukrep pomoči mora prejemniku prinesti ugodnosti, na podlagi katerih je oproščen dajatev, ki običajno bremenijo njegov proračun.