natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Firstly, the Norwegian authorities stress that the Authority, in its Decision No 491/09/COL, did not raise any doubts regarding the actual tax regime exempting from corporate tax non-profit undertakings, but investigated the application of such regime to certain companies belonging to the Norsk Film group.
Norveški organi uvodoma poudarjajo, da Nadzorni organ v Odločbi št. 491/09/COL ni izrazil dvomov glede dejanskega davčnega režima, po katerem so neprofitna podjetja oproščena plačila davka od dobička pravnih oseb, pač pa je preučil uporabo takega režima za nekatera podjetja, ki pripadajo skupini Norsk Film.
It is therefore the actual application or misapplication of the tax regime to certain companies that is under review.
Pregleduje se torej dejanska ali neustrezna uporaba davčnega režima pri nekaterih podjetjih.
Secondly, the Norwegian authorities argue that they have not themselves considered whether section 2-32 of the Tax Act was correctly applied to the companies belonging to the Norsk Film group as they are not a tax assessment authority.
Norveški organi nadalje trdijo, da sami niso preučili, ali se oddelek 2-32 zakona o davku pravilno uporablja za podjetja, ki pripadajo skupini Norsk Film, saj niso organ za odmero davka.
They have, however, indicated that “a possible misapplication by the tax authorities of a general tax provision to the advantage of a taxpayer, does not constitute state aid. (…) In the case of a misapplication of a national tax provision, this should primarily be corrected by the tax authorities or the courts under the relevant national law. (…) It would create an unworkable situation if any misapplication of national tax provisions resulting in an unjustified advantage to a particular tax payer would constitute state aid”.
Vendar so navedli, da „morebitna neustrezna uporaba splošnih davčnih določb s strani davčnih organov v korist davkoplačevalca ne pomeni državne pomoči. (…) V primeru neustrezne uporabe nacionalnih davčnih določb morajo to v skladu z zadevno nacionalno zakonodajo popraviti predvsem davčni organi ali sodišča. (…) Če bi vsaka neustrezna uporaba nacionalnih davčnih določb, katere posledica je neupravičena prednost za določenega davkoplačevalca, pomenila državno pomoč, bi nastala nerešljiva situacija.“
The Norwegian authorities stress that since the consequences of wrongful taxation could vary, unless it is a question of persistent misapplication, remedial action ought to be taken under national law and not reviewed under EEA state aid rules.
Norveški organi poudarjajo, da so posledice napačne obdavčitve lahko različne, razen kadar gre za stalno neustrezno uporabo, zato je treba popravne ukrepe sprejeti v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo in ne pa se pregledovati v skladu s pravili EGP o državni pomoči.
The application of the preferential tax treatment was in any event based on an existing system of aid
Uporaba prednostne davčne obravnave je v vsakem primeru temeljila na obstoječem sistemu pomoči
The Norwegian authorities furthermore argue that the application of a tax provision pre-dating the entry into force of the EEA Agreement would not, in any event, constitute new aid but would be the mere application of an existing system of aid.
Norveški organi tudi trdijo, da uporaba davčnih določb, ki izvirajo iz časa pred začetkom veljavnosti Sporazuma EGP, v nobenem primeru ne bi pomenila nove pomoči, temveč zgolj uporabo obstoječega sistema pomoči.
They consider that “an ordinary application of the general rule and the evaluation of whether or not it is applicable in a specific case cannot in any event constitute new aid, and did not as such require notification to the Authority. Indeed, if individual applications of an existing system of aid would constitute new aid, it would extend the scope of what could be considered as new aid in an unreasonable manner, and it would water out the scope of compatible aid in terms of existing aid within the meaning of state aid rules”.
Menijo, da „običajna uporaba splošnega pravila in ocena, ali v določenem primeru velja ali ne, v nobenem primeru ne moreta pomeniti nove pomoči, zato ju tudi ni bilo treba priglasiti Nadzornemu organu. Vsekakor bi posamezni primeri uporabe obstoječega sistema pomoči pomenili novo pomoč, pri čemer bi se obseg pomena nove pomoči nerazumljivo razširil, hkrati pa bi postal ohlapen obseg združljive pomoči v smislu obstoječe pomoči v smislu pravil o državni pomoči.“
The measure must be granted by the State or through state resources.
Ukrep mora odobriti država ali mora biti odobren prek državnih sredstev.
Payment of the NOK 36 million grant
Plačilo subvencije v višini 36 milijonov NOK
The grant of NOK 36 million was paid from the State’s budget section for grants to national cultural buildings.
Subvencija v višini 36 milijonov NOK je bila izplačana iz dela državnega proračuna, namenjenega subvencijam za nacionalne kulturne objekte.
The Authority therefore considers that the condition that state resources must be involved is met.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da je pogoj glede vključenosti državnih sredstev izpolnjen.
Preferential tax regime
Prednostni davčni režim
ScanCam AS (the subsidiary renting cameras) was given a tax exemption from 1998–2001 on the same grounds.
Podjetje ScanCam AS (hčerinsko podjetje, ki oddaja v najem kamere) je bilo plačila davka na isti osnovi oproščeno med letoma 1998 in 2001.
As a result of the favourable tax regime, the State renounced tax revenue which it would normally have received from the undertakings concerned.
Zaradi ugodnega davčnega režima se je država odpovedala davčnemu prihodku, ki bi ga sicer prejela od zadevnih podjetij.
Firstly, the measure must have conferred on Norsk FilmStudio AS/Filmparken AS advantages that relieved them of charges that are normally borne from their budget.
Prvič, ukrep je moral podjetjema Norsk FilmStudio AS in Filmparken AS dodeliti prednosti, na podlagi katerih sta bili oproščeni stroškov, ki običajno bremenijo njun proračun.
The grant of NOK 36 million gave the beneficiaries a financial benefit they would not have enjoyed in the normal course of business.
S subvencijo v višini 36 milijonov NOK sta upravičenca pridobila finančno ugodnost, ki je v običajnem poslovanju ne bi.
It thus strengthened the financial position of Norsk FilmStudio AS/Filmparken AS compared with the other undertakings active in the production of films within the EEA.
Na ta način se je v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji iz EGP, ki se ukvarjajo s filmsko produkcijo, finančni položaj podjetij Norsk FilmStudio AS in Filmparken AS okrepil.
Secondly, the aid measure must be selective in that it favours “certain undertakings or the production of certain goods”.
Poleg tega mora biti ukrep pomoči selektiven, s tem da daje prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“.
The Authority considers the payment of the amount of NOK 36 million for the upgrading of the studio facilities to have been selective as the beneficiary was expressly designated.
Nadzorni organ meni, da je bilo plačilo 36 milijonov NOK za nadgradnjo studijskih prostorov selektivno, ker je bil upravičenec izrecno določen.
Some of the companies of the Norsk Film group were exempted from payment of the normally applicable corporate tax and thus relieved from charges normally borne from a company’s budget.
Nekatera podjetja iz skupine Norsk Film so bila oproščena plačila običajno veljavnega davka od dobička pravnih oseb, s čimer so bila oproščena stroškov, ki običajno bremenijo njihov proračun.
They would not have enjoyed this advantage in the normal course of business.
Te prednosti v običajnem poslovanju ne bi bila deležna.
However, the Authority recognises that the European Court of Justice and the EFTA Court have consistently held that measures granting advantages to certain recipients are not selective if they can be justified by the nature and general scheme of the system of which they are part.
Vendar Nadzorni organ priznava, da sta Sodišče in Sodišče Efte vztrajno menila, da ukrepi, ki nekaterim prejemnikom zagotavljajo prednosti, niso selektivni, če jih je mogoče upravičiti z naravo in splošno shemo sistema, iz katerega izhajajo.
Furthermore, the Authority’s Guidelines on the application of state aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation provide specifically that “obviously, profit tax cannot be levied if no profit is earned. It may thus be justified by the nature of the tax system that non-profit-making undertakings, for example foundations or associations, are specifically exempt from the taxes on profits if they cannot actually earn any profits.”
Poleg tega je v smernicah Nadzornega organa o uporabi pravil o državni pomoči v zvezi z neposredno obdavčitvijo podjetij izrecno navedeno, da „[s]eveda davka od dobička ni mogoče zaračunati, če dobička ni. Narava davčnega sistema torej lahko upravičuje, da so neprofitna podjetja, kot so fundacije ali združenja, še posebej oproščena davka od dobička, če dobička dejansko ne morejo ustvariti.“
The Authority did not in its Decision No 491/09/COL, challenge the fact that the preferential tax regime may as such be justified by the nature and logic of the system.
Nadzorni organ v Odločbi št. 491/09/COL ni izpodbijal dejstva, da je prednostni davčni režim kot tak mogoče upravičiti z naravo in logiko sistema.
It had doubts concerning the application of the regime to the undertakings in question.
Pomisleke je imel glede uporabe režima za zadevna podjetja.
These undertakings were granted an exemption from the corporate tax in application of Section 26, first paragraph, litra k, of the former Tax Act of 18 August 1911 No 8, replaced by the Tax Act of 26 March 1999, No 14.
Ta podjetja so bila oproščena plačila davka od dobička pravnih oseb na podlagi točke (k) prvega odstavka oddelka 26 nekdanjega zakona o davku št. 8 z dne 18. avgusta 1911, ki ga je nadomestil zakon o davku št. 14 z dne 26. marca 1999.
Upon application, this regime provides exemption from corporate tax to organisations which fulfil certain criteria, mainly related to their non-profit purpose.
Z uporabo tega režima so organizacije, ki izpolnjujejo določena merila, predvsem v zvezi z njihovim neprofitnim namenom, oproščene plačila davka od dobička pravnih oseb.
According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, Norsk Film AS, Norsk FilmStudio AS and ScanCam AS were granted a tax exemption based on the fact that the purpose of the companies was non-profit.
Na podlagi informacij, ki so jih predložili norveški organi, so bila podjetja Norsk Film AS, Norsk FilmStudio AS in ScanCam AS plačila davka oproščena zaradi svojega neprofitnega namena.
The Authority, in its assessment, cannot substitute itself for the Norwegian local tax authorities.
Nadzorni organ v svoji oceni ne more delovati enako kot norveški lokalni davčni organi.
On the basis of the information it has been provided with, the Authority does not consider that it has sufficient evidence that the preferential regime has been misapplied to the three undertakings and that therefore the measure can be said to be of a selective nature.
Na podlagi prejetih informacij Nadzorni organ meni, da nima zadostnih dokazov glede neustrezne uporabe prednostnega režima za tri zadevna podjetja in da zato ne more skleniti, da je ukrep selektiven.
The Authority for that reason cannot conclude that the application of the preferential tax treatment to Norsk FilmStudio AS/Filmparken AS/ScanCam AS based on the criteria originally established in the Tax Act 1911 entails any state aid.
Zato Nadzorni organ ne more skleniti, da uporaba prednostne davčne obravnave za podjetja Norsk FilmStudio AS, Filmparken AS in ScanCam AS na podlagi meril, prvotno določenih v zakonu o davku iz leta 1911, pomeni državno pomoč.
State aid to specific undertakings is regarded as distorting competition and affecting trade between the Contracting Parties if the recipient carries out an economic activity involving trade between the Contracting Parties.
Za državno pomoč določenim podjetjem velja, da izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami, če prejemnik opravlja gospodarsko dejavnost, ki vključuje trgovino med pogodbenicami.
Cinema films may be produced in alternative locations within the EEA.
Kinematografske filme je mogoče ustvarjati na različnih lokacijah v EGP.
They are subsequently traded between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Pogodbenice Sporazuma EGP lahko nato z njimi trgujejo.
Support to an undertaking producing feature films and providing studio services may therefore alter the competition existing between different locations for the realisation of films.
Podpora podjetju, ki se ukvarja s produkcijo celovečernih igranih filmov in ponuja studijske storitve, lahko spremeni obstoječo konkurenco med različnimi lokacijami za ustvarjanje filmov.
Thus the measure under scrutiny may be considered as distorting competition and affecting trade between the Contracting Parties.
Zato se lahko za ukrep, ki se preiskuje, šteje, da izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
On the basis of the elements reviewed above, the Authority concludes that the payment of NOK 36 million constituted state aid and that the grant of the favourable tax treatment to Norsk FilmStudio AS/Filmparken AS/ScanCam AS did not entail any state aid.
Na podlagi pregledanih elementov Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je plačilo 36 milijonov NOK pomenilo državno pomoč ter da odobritev ugodne davčne obravnave za podjetja Norsk FilmStudio AS, Filmparken AS in ScanCam AS ni pomenila državne pomoči.
The Authority will therefore only analyse the payment of the grant of NOK 36 million in the following.
Nadzorni organ bo zato v nadaljevanju analiziral le plačilo subvencije v višini 36 milijonov NOK.
The procedure for new aid is laid down in Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3.
Postopek za novo pomoč je določen v členu 1(3) dela I Protokola 3.
If the Authority is in doubt about the compatibility of such an aid measure, it shall open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 and in Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3.
Če ima Nadzorni organ pomisleke glede združljivosti takega ukrepa pomoči, začne formalni postopek preiskave iz člena 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 in člena 4(4) dela II Protokola 3.
A separate procedure for existing aid is laid down in Article 1(1) in Part I of Protocol 3.
Ločen postopek za obstoječo pomoč je določen v členu 1(1) dela I Protokola 3.
Pursuant to that provision, the Authority shall, in cooperation with the EFTA States, keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States.
V skladu s to določbo Nadzorni organ v sodelovanju z državami Efte stalno pregleduje vse sisteme pomoči, ki so na voljo v navedenih državah.
Any assessment made in a decision to open the formal investigation procedure as to whether a potential aid measure constitutes new or existing aid is necessarily only of a preliminary nature.
Vsaka ocena v okviru odločitve o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave glede tega, ali morebitni ukrep pomoči pomeni novo ali obstoječo pomoč, je nujno zgolj predhodna ocena.
Even if the Authority, based on the information provided at the time, decided to open a formal investigation procedure on the basis of Article 1(3) and (2) of Part I of Protocol 3, it can still, in the decision concluding that procedure, find that the measure in fact constitutes existing aid [10].
Tudi če se je Nadzorni organ na podlagi informacij, ki jih je imel takrat, odločil začeti formalni postopek preiskave na podlagi člena 1(3) in (2) dela I Protokola 3, lahko v odločitvi o končanju navedenega postopka še vedno ugotovi, da ukrep dejansko pomeni obstoječo pomoč [10].
Where existing aid is involved, the Authority must follow the procedure for existing aid [11].
Kadar gre za obstoječo pomoč, mora Nadzorni organ uporabiti postopek za obstoječo pomoč [11].
Accordingly, in such a case, the Authority would have to close the formal investigation procedure and, as the case may be, open the procedure for existing aid laid down in Articles 17–19 in Part II of Protocol 3 [12].The information presented to the Authority at the time when it decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure was not such as to justify the provisional conclusion of any aid involved being existing aid, and the Authority therefore dealt with these measures in the framework of the rules pertaining to new aid.
Skladno s tem bi moral Nadzorni organ v takem primeru končati formalni postopek preiskave in, odvisno od posameznega primera, začeti postopek za obstoječo pomoč iz členov 17–19 dela II Protokola 3 [12].Informacije, ki jih je Nadzorni organ imel ob odločitvi o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave, niso upravičile začasne sklepne ugotovitve, da gre pri kateri koli zadevni pomoči za obstoječo pomoč, zato je Nadzorni organ te ukrepe obravnaval v okviru pravil, ki se nanašajo na novo pomoč.
The Authority will conclude on the existence and compatibility of new aid measures under the formal investigation procedure.
Nadzorni organ bo obstoj in združljivost novih ukrepov pomoči ugotavljal v okviru formalnega postopka preiskave.
If existing aid is involved, as the two measures under investigation have now ended, it will close the formal investigation procedure without opening the procedure for existing aid as such procedure would be without object.
Ker sta se ukrepa, ki se preiskujeta, zaključila, bo v primeru, da gre za obstoječo pomoč, zaključil formalni postopek preiskave, ne da bi začel postopek za obstoječo pomoč, saj bi bil tak postopek brezpredmeten.
Payment of the grant of NOK 36 million – existing aid
Plačilo subvencije v višini 36 milijonov NOK – obstoječa pomoč
The Norwegian authorities have submitted additional information in the context of their comments to Decision No 491/09/COL (see Section 4.1.2 above).
Norveški organi so s pripombami k Odločbi št. 491/09/COL predložili dodatne informacije (glej točko 4.1.2).
The Authority, as indicated in Decision No 491/09/COL, considers that the yearly payments made by the Norwegian State since the 1970s to Norsk FilmStudio AS/Filmparken AS for the production of feature films and to maintain the infrastructure necessary for the production of films were based on an existing system of aid.
Kot je navedeno v Odločbi št. 491/09/COL, so po mnenju Nadzornega organa letna plačila, ki jih je norveška država od sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja izplačevala podjetjema Norsk FilmStudio AS in Filmparken AS za produkcijo celovečernih igranih filmov in vzdrževanje infrastrukture, potrebne za filmsko produkcijo, temeljila na obstoječem sistemu pomoči.
The Authority considers that the payment of the NOK 36 million was made in the context of the existing system of aid.
Nadzorni organ meni, da je bilo 36 milijonov NOK izplačanih v okviru obstoječega sistema pomoči.
Firstly, it appears that yearly grants made over the years had always included an investment aid part and an operating aid part [13].
Prvič, zdi se, da so vsa letna plačila vključevala del pomoči za naložbe in del pomoči za poslovanje [13].
Thus, the Norwegian authorities have indicated that the upgrading and modernisation process had already started and had until 1998–1999 been estimated to amount to NOK 13 million covered by the yearly grants.
Norveški organi so tako navedli, da se je postopek nadgradnje in posodobitve že začel ter je bil do leta 1998/1999 ocenjen na 13 milijonov NOK, ki so se krili z letnimi subvencijami.
The Norwegian authorities provided extracts from budget proposals revealing that several considerable amounts had been allocated to Norsk Film AS for upgrading and modernising the infrastructure necessary to produce films [14].
Norveški organi so predložili izvlečke osnutkov proračuna, iz katerih je bilo razvidno, da je bilo podjetju Norsk Film AS dodeljenih več večjih zneskov za nadgradnjo in posodobitev infrastrukture, potrebne za filmsko produkcijo [14].
The fact that the specific grant had been earmarked for the renovation works of the jar site should not therefore be held to constitute an alteration to the existing aid system.Secondly, the fact that the payment of the grant had been made from a different budget than that used for the yearly grants is irrelevant under the circumstances of the present case.
Dejstvo, da je bila posebna subvencija namenjena prenovi dvorane za posebne učinke, zato ne more pomeniti spremembe obstoječega sistema pomoči.Drugič, dejstvo, da je bila subvencija izplačana iz drugega proračuna in ne iz proračuna, ki se uporablja za letne subvencije, v okoliščinah zadevnega primera ni pomembno.
Indeed, this resulted from a purely budgetary technique and was the result of a new way to organise the budget.
To je bila zgolj posledica proračunske tehnike in nove organizacije proračuna.
Finally, the fact that the amount of the grant was much higher than the yearly payments had been is not an indication that the grant amounts to new aid.
Končno, dejstvo, da je bil znesek subvencije bistveno višji od letnih plačil, ne pomeni, da gre pri subvenciji za novo pomoč.
The European Court of Justice has held that: “the emergence of new aid or the alteration of existing aid cannot be assessed according to the scale of the aid or, in particular, its amount in financial terms at any moment in the life of the undertaking if the aid is provided under earlier statutory provisions which remain unaltered.” [15].The Authority therefore concludes in the light of the above that the payment of NOK 36 million was part of an existing system of aid which was terminated in 2006.
Sodišče je menilo, da: „nastanka nove pomoči ali spremembe obstoječe pomoči ni mogoče ocenjevati glede na obseg pomoči ali zlasti njen znesek v finančnem smislu v katerem koli obdobju delovanja podjetja, če se pomoč dodeli v skladu s predhodnimi zakonskimi določbami, ki se niso spremenile.“ [15]Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da je bilo glede na navedeno plačilo 36 milijonov NOK del obstoječega sistema pomoči, ki se je zaključil leta 2006 –
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the grant of NOK 36 million was part of an existing system of aid.
Nadzorni organ Efte meni, da je bila subvencija v višini 36 milijonov NOK del obstoječega sistema pomoči.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the application of the preferential tax treatment to Norsk Film AS, Norsk FilmStudio AS and ScanCam AS does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.
Nadzorni organ Efte meni, da uporaba prednostne davčne obravnave za podjetja Norsk Film AS, Norsk FilmStudio AS in ScanCam AS ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Only the English language version of this Decision is authentic.
Besedilo te odločbe v angleškem jeziku je edino verodostojno.
OJ C 174, 1.7.2010 and EEA Supplement No. 34, 1.7.2010.
UL C 174, 1.7.2010, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 34, 1.7.2010.
The Chimney Pot Oslo AS, Dagslys AS, Egg & Bacon AS, Grip Teknikk AS, Bob Aas Carho ENK, Kamerautleien AS, Lydhodene AS, Megaphon AS and Krypton Film AS.
The Chimney Pot Oslo AS, Dagslys AS, Egg & Bacon AS, Grip Teknikk AS, Bob Aas Carho ENK, Kamerautleien AS, Lydhodene AS, Megaphon AS in Krypton Film AS.
This regime provides exemption from corporate tax for so-called “ideal organisations”.
Ta režim določa oprostitev od davka od dobička pravnih oseb pri tako imenovanih „idealnih organizacijah“.
Section 2-32(2) of the Norwegian Tax Act provides that revenue is subject to corporate tax where the annual turnover from the commercial activities amount to more than NOK 70000 or NOK 140000 as the case may be.
Oddelek 2-32(2) norveškega zakona o davku določa, da se za prihodek plačuje davek od dobička pravnih oseb, če je letni promet iz trgovinskih dejavnostih večji od 70000 NOK ali 140000 NOK, odvisno od posameznega primera.
See letter by Norwegian authorities dated 11.8.2006 (Event No 383774).
Glej dopis norveških organov z dne 11. avgusta 2006 (ev.št. 383774).
Case C-44/93 Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit SA v Office National du Ducroire and Belgian State [1994] ECR I-3829, para. 28.
Zadeva C-44/93, Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit SA proti Office National du Ducroire in Belgijski državi. Recueil, str. I-3829, točka 28.
Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 26.
Zadeva C-156/98, Nemčija proti Komisiji, Recueil, str. I-6857, točka 26.