natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As demonstrated above under point 1.1 and 1.2, these duties would otherwise have been payable from its budgets.
Kakor je navedeno zgoraj v točkah 1.1 in 1.2, bi moralo te dajatve drugače plačati iz svojega proračuna.
On that basis, the Authority, in its decision to open formal investigation, drew the preliminary conclusion that Entra did receive an advantage in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Na podlagi tega je Organ ob odločbi o začetku uradne preiskave sprejel predhodni sklep, da je podjetje Entra prejelo ugodnost v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
In contrast, the Norwegian Authorities have argued that the condition is not fulfilled for two reasons: firstly, that the exemption did not place Entra in a better competitive position compared to a private investor.
V nasprotju s tem so norveški organi oblasti ugovarjali, da ta pogoj ni izpolnjen iz dveh razlogov: najprej, da izvzetje ni postavilo podjetja Entra v boljši konkurenčni položaj v primerjavi z zasebnim vlagateljem.
Secondly, that the capital structure, the solidity and the total values in the company would have been unchanged if the excise duty had been paid.
In drugič, da bi struktura kapitala, trdnost in skupne vrednosti v družbi ostali nespremenjeni, če bi bila trošarina plačana.
In the following, the Authority will discuss these arguments in turn.
V nadaljevanju bo Organ razpravljal o teh argumentih.
The comparison with private firms
Primerjava z zasebnimi podjetji
As referred to above under point I.3.1, in the proposal to the Parliament, the Norwegian Government stated that a private owner could choose not to transfer the title, but, for example, keep the title in a holding company, when a new company is established.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj v točki I.3.1, je norveška vlada v predlogu Parlamentu navedla, da bi se zasebni lastnik lahko odločil, da ne bo prenesel lastninske pravice, ampak, na primer, obdržal lastninsko pravico v holdingu ob ustanovitvi nove družbe.
The State, according to the Norwegian authorities, must transfer the properties to a new legal entity.
Država mora po navedbah norveških organov oblasti prenesti premoženje na nov pravni subjekt.
Thus, according to the Norwegian authorities, there is no distortion of competition when Entra is exempted from the document duty.
Zato norveški organi oblasti trdijo, da pri izvzetju podjetja Entra iz plačila takse za listine ni izkrivljanja konkurence.
According to the European Court of First Instance, an advantage in the sense of Article 87(1) EC (corresponding to Article 61(1) EEA) does not necessarily exist in all situations where a measure is introduced in order to free a public company from a structural disadvantage that it has in relation to its private sector competitors [52].
V skladu z mnenjem Evropskega sodišča prve stopnje prednost v smislu člena 87(1) ES (ki ustreza členu 61(1) EGP) ne obstaja nujno v vseh okoliščinah, kadar je ukrep uveden, da bi prieprečili strukturno prikrajšanost javnega podjetja v primerjavi z njegovimi tekmeci iz zasebnega sektorja [52].
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is aimed merely at prohibiting advantages for certain undertakings, and the concept of aid covers only benefits or release of burdens normally assumed in an undertaking’s budget and which are to be regarded as an economic advantage, which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under normal market conditions.
Namen člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP je samo prepovedati ugodnosti za določena podjetja, koncept pomoči pa zajema samo ugodnosti ali oprostitev bremen, ki so ponavadi predvidena v proračunu podjetja, in morajo veljati za gospodarsko ugodnost, ki je upravičeno podjetje ne bi pridobilo pod običajnim tržnimi pogoji.
However, the Authority does not agree with the Norwegian authorities that the arguments advanced by Norway can lead to the conclusion that a comparison with private operators shows that Entra did not receive an advantage by being exempt from excise duties.The methods that a private owner can use to avoid paying excise duty are equally open to undertakings established in connection with state privatisations.
Vendar pa se Organ ne strinja z norveškimi organi oblasti, da argumenti, ki jih je predstavila Norveška, lahko pripeljejo do ugotovitve, da primerjava z zasebnimi subjekti kaže, da podjetje Entra ni dobilo ugodnosti s tem, ko je bilo oproščeno plačila trošarin.Metode, ki jih lahko uporabi zasebni lastnik, da se izogne plačilu trošarine, so prav tako na voljo podjetjem, ustanovljenim v okviru državnih privatizacij.
The structural disadvantage that the Norwegian authorities claim to have faced was not of a legal kind.
Strukturna prikrajšanost, za katero norveški organi oblasti trdijo, da jih je doletela, ni bila pravnega značaja.
Norwegian law would not have precluded the establishment of and transfer of the properties to Entra without registering this in the Real Estate Register.
Norveška zakonodaja ne bi izključila ustanovitve in prenosa premoženja na podjetje Entra, ne da bi bilo to registrirano v zemljiški knjigi.
Moreover, Entra and the Norwegian authorities could have taken the same precautions as a private operator.
Poleg tega bi podjetje Entra in norveški organi oblasti lahko sprejeli enake previdnostne ukrepe kot zasebni subjekt.
The reason for not using these methods in relation to Statsbygg and Entra was merely that the Norwegian authorities found that the political, managerial and practical inconveniencies connected to such methods were so negative that Entra should become the new title holder.
Razlog, da te metode niso bile uporabljene v zvezi z organizacijo Statsbygg in podjetjem Entra, je bil le, da so norveški organi oblasti ugotovili, da so politične, upravne in praktične nevšečnosti, povezane s zadevnimi metodami, tako negativne, da bi moralo podjetje Entra postati novi lastnik.
In the opinion of the Authority, such considerations cannot lead to a conclusion that Entra was not granted an advantage by the exemption to pay the excise duty.
Po mnenju Organa takšni preudarki ne morejo pripeljati do ugotovitve, da podjetje Entra ni pridobilo ugodnosti z izvzetjem iz plačila trošarine.
This follows already from the fact that the methods that can be used to avoid excise duties all are based on the non-registration of transfer of ownership (retaining of the title).
To izhaja že iz dejstva, da vse metode, ki se lahko uporabijo za izogibanje trošarinam, temeljijo na tem, da se ne registrira prenos lastništva (lastništvo se obdrži).
If the title (‘grunnbokshjemmel’) is not transferred, no excise duty is payable.
Če se lastništvo („grunnbokshjemmel“) ne prenese, ni treba plačati trošarine.
But the protection offered by the registration is not available to private operators not transferring the title, whereas Entra did obtain this protection.
Vendar zaščita, ki jo nudi registracija, ni na voljo zasebnim subjektom, ki ne prenesejo lastništva, medtem ko je podjetje Entra dobilo to zaščito.
Such methods are therefore not equivalent to the procedure that took place in the present case where Entra became the new title holder.
Takšne metode torej niso enakovredne postopku, ki je bil opravljen v zadevnem primeru, ko je podjetje Entra postalo novi lastnik.
Moreover, even if that had been the case, the Authority cannot see that the claimed structural problem for the Norwegian State is of a fundamentally different character than the one faced by private operators.
Poleg tega si tudi Organ v tem primeru ne predstavlja, da je navedeni strukturni problem za norveško državo bistveno drugačnega značaja kot tisti, s katerim se srečujejo zasebni subjekti.
It might be correct that a non-transfer of title in practice might, in some respects, pose greater inconveniencies to a publicly owned entity than to a privately owned company.
Morda je res, da bi lahko dejstvo, da se lastništvo v praksi ne prenese, v nekaterih pogledih prineslo večje nevšečnosti subjektu v javni lasti kot zasebnemu podjetju.
However, in the Authority’s opinion, questions concerning the inter partes relationship between the previous and the present owner of real estate should be viewed apart from the discussions relating to registration in the Real Estate Registry.
Vendar pa je treba po mnenju Organa vprašanja, ki zadevajo odnose inter partes med prejšnjim in sedanjim lastnikom nepremičnine, obravnavati ločeno od razprav v zvezi z registracijo v zemljiški knjigi.
This registration will normally not affect the inter partes relation between the two legal subjects but only have importance in relation to third parties.
Ta registracija ponavadi ne vpliva na odnose inter partes med dvema pravnima subjektoma, temveč je pomembna samo v zvezi s tretjimi stranmi.
Thus, registration might be important in order for the buyer to avoid that a third party, who in good faith, later buys the property from the previous owner, would have a stronger title to the real estate.
Zato je registracija lahko pomembna za kupca, da se izogne temu, da bi tretja stran, ki v dobri veri kasneje kupi premoženje od prejšnjega lastnika, imela večjo lastniško pravico do nepremičnine.
It also has important bearing on the protection against the creditors of the previous owner, just as it can influence the ability of the buyer to obtain mortgage and other loans.
To je pomembno tudi za zaščito pred upniki prejšnjega lastnika, ker lahko vpliva na sposobnost kupca za pridobitev hipoteke in drugih posojil.
In all these situations, the disadvantages of not registering in the Real Estate Registry is fundamentally the same for privately and publicly owned undertakings.
V vseh teh okoliščinah je prikrajšanost, če se ne opravi registracija v zemljiški knjigi, v bistvu enaka za podjetja v zasebni in javni lasti.
In fact, in some aspects, the methods described may be less favourable for private undertakings compared to public ones, since the registration of declaration on the restriction of the right to ownership does not exclude the risk of execution proceedings/creditor’s or bankruptcy estate’s extinction of the rights of a legal successor to the debtor’s property.
V bistvu so lahko v nekaterih pogledih navedene metode manj ugodne za zasebna podjetja v primerjavi z javnimi, ker registracija izjave o omejitvi pravice do lastništva ne izključuje tveganja prenehanja pravic upnika ali stečajne mase kot zakonitega naslednika dolžnikovega premoženja.
Finally, the Authority emphasises that the Norwegian authorities have not demonstrated that a private party would choose with certainty not to transfer the title.
Nazadnje Organ poudarja, da norveški organi oblasti niso dokazali, da bi se zasebna stranka zagotovo odločila, da ne bi prenesla lastništva.
Norway has merely argued that it was more likely than not that a private operator in similar circumstances would have decided not to transfer the title in the Real Estate Registry.
Norveška je samo ugovarjala, da bi bilo bolj verjetno, da bi se zasebni subjekt v podobnih okoliščinah odločil, da ne bi prenesel lastništva v zemljiški knjigi.
The argument concerning the opening balance
Argument v zvezi z otvoritveno bilanco
As already mentioned, the Norwegian authorities have argued [53] that the exemption from excise duty should not be viewed separately from the opening balance sheet of the company.
Kakor je že navedeno, so norveški organi oblasti trdili [53], da se izvzetje iz plačila trošarine ne sme upoštevati ločeno od otvoritvene bilance stanja podjetja.
They argue that the measure in question did not change the capital structure, the solidity and the total value of the company.
Trdili so, da zadevni ukrep ni vplival na strukturo kapitala, trdnost in skupno vrednost družbe.
Theoretically, if excise duties were to be accrued in the opening balance sheet, there would have been an alternative opening balance where the value of the properties would have been reduced with the same amount as the excise duty.As demonstrated above in point 1.2, according to the normal rules of the Norwegian tax system, Entra was obliged to pay the excise duty.
Teoretično bi bilo treba v primeru, da bi morali trošarine upoštevati v otvoritveni bilanci stanja, imeti nadomestno otvoritveno bilanco, v kateri bi bila vrednost premoženja zmanjšana za znesek, ustrezen trošarini.Kakor je navedeno v točki 1.2 zgoraj, je bilo podjetje Entra v skladu z običajnimi pravili norveškega davčnega sistema dolžno plačati trošarino.
Consequently, irrespective of how the opening balance was established, it is the transaction value between the seller and the buyer which constitutes the tax base for the excise duty.
Posledično je davčna osnova za trošarino transakcijska vrednost med prodajalcem in kupcem, ne glede na to, kako je bila določena otvoritvena bilanca.
Whatever considerations the buyer (Entra) or the seller (the State) would have in relation to the agreed price, it is that price and nothing else that the tax authorities will apply when they calculate the excise duty to be paid.
Ne glede na to, kaj bi lahko kupec (Entra) ali prodajalec (država) menila glede dogovorjene cene, morajo davčni organi pri izračunavanju trošarine, ki jo je treba poravnati, upoštevati to ceno in nič drugega.
As a matter of principle, the Authority disagrees with the Norwegian Authorities that the existence of this tax relief would not constitute an advantage in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the exemption from excise duty has influenced the settingup of the opening balance sheet of Entra in a way that, allegedly, has neutralised the advantage flowing from the tax exemption.
Načeloma se Organ ne strinja z norveškimi organi oblasti, da ta davčna olajšava ne bi mogla pomeniti ugodnosti v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, če je izvzetje iz plačila trošarine vplivalo na pripravo otvoritvene bilance stanja podjetja Entra na način, ki bi domnevno nevtraliziral ugodnost, izhajajočo iz izvzetja iz plačila davkov.
According to Norwegian legislation, Entra would, in the absence of paragraph 3 in the contested Act, have been obliged to pay to the tax authorities the excise duty on the agreed transaction price for the registration that took place, without it being relevant whether the transaction price might have looked different.
V skladu z norveško zakonodajo bi bilo podjetje Entra v primeru, da ne bi obstajal odstavek 3 spornega zakona, davčnim organom dolžno plačati trošarino na dogovorjeno transakcijsko ceno opravljene registracije, pri čemer to ni povezano s tem, da je bila transakcijska cena morda drugačna.
The tax has never been paid and it is this missing tax payment which is under consideration in the present case.
Ta davek ni bil nikoli plačan in v tem primeru se obravnava to neplačilo davka.
The appearance of Entra’s opening balance sheet influenced by other circumstances, in particular whether the seller would have accepted a lower value on the buildings if Entra had paid the excise duty, are factors which cannot be taken into account when determining whether the company has received an advantage or not.
Vplivi drugih okoliščin na otvoritveno bilanco stanja podjetja Entra, zlasti vprašanje, ali bi prodajalec v primeru, da bi Entra plačala trošarino, sprejel nižje plačilo za stavbe, so dejavniki, ki jih ni mogoče upoštevati pri ugotavljanju, ali je bilo podjetje deležno ugodnosti ali ne.
The argument of the Norwegian authorities that the tax exemption should be seen in conjunction with an otherwise different price on the real estate, builds on the reasoning that the aid flowing from the tax exemption led Entra to have a net loss in the form of a higher price setting of the transferred real estate.
Argument norveških organov oblasti, da bi morali obravnavati to izvzetje iz plačila davkov v povezavi s sicer drugačnimi cenami nepremičnin, temelji na utemeljitvi, da je pomoč, izhajajoča iz izvzetja iz plačila davkov, povzročila izgubo podjetja Entra v obliki višje cene za prenesene nepremičnine.
However, to take account of an all ensuing more or less direct possible economic consequences of an aid measure for the particular aid beneficiary would, in the Authority’s opinion, be contrary to the approach generally applied in State aid cases.
Vendar pa bi bilo po mnenju Organa upoštevanje vsega, kar lahko izhaja iz bolj ali manj neposrednih ekonomskih posledic ukrepa pomoči za določenega upravičenca do pomoči, v nasprotju s pristopom, ki se ponavadi uporablja v primerih državne pomoči.
In the same vein, it can normally not be admitted that the ensuing economic effects of the aid measure in contractual relations between the aid beneficiary and other legal subject should be taken into account when assessing whether, and to what extent, the aid measure qualifies as an advantage in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
V podobnem smislu ponavadi ni mogoče priznati, da je treba ekonomske posledice, ki izhajajo iz ukrepov pomoči, dogovorjenih s pogodbenimi razmerji med upravičencem do pomoči in drugo pravno osebo, upoštevati pri presoji, ali ukrep pomoči šteje za ugodnost v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP in v kakšnem obsegu.
In this respect, the Authority emphasises that the Norwegian State as a tax collector and as a seller of real estate should be viewed as two distinct entities for the purpose of the State aid regime.
V zvezi s tem Organ poudarja, da bi morala norveška država kot pobiralka davkov in prodajalka nepremičnin v okviru režima državne pomoči veljati za dve ločeni pravni osebi.
The Authority cannot therefore agree with the Norwegian Government that Entra did not receive an advantage in the sense of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement by being exempt from excise duty, and still receiving the protection afforded by being in the Real Estate Register.
Zaradi tega se Organ ne more strinjati z norveško vlado, da podjetje Entra ni bilo deležno ugodnosti v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP na tak način, da je bilo izvzeto iz plačila trošarine, poleg tega pa je bilo še vedno deležno zaščite, ki je posledica registracije v zemljiški knjigi.
The Ministry concludes that Entra has not received any economic advantages as a consequence of the exemption from excise duties.
Ministrstvo je sklenilo, da podjetje Entra zaradi izvzetja iz plačila trošarine ni bilo deležno ekonomskih prednosti.
The hypothetical opening balance sheet described by the Norwegian authorities is based on the assumptions that the buyer (Entra) would not reduce its demanded rate of return (9,5 %) and equity ratio (40 %) if the excise duty had to be paid.
Hipotetična otvoritvena bilanca stanja, ki jo opisujejo norveški organi oblasti, temelji na predpostavki, da kupec (Entra) ne bi zmanjšal svoje zahtevane stopnje donosa (9,5 %) in udeleženosti lastnega kapitala v celotnem kapitalu podjetja (40 %), če bi moral plačati trošarino.
This implies that the hypothetical opening balance sheet is based on the assumption that the seller will always pay 100 % of the excise duty and that the value of the buildings in an alternative opening balance would be reduced by exactly the same amount as the excise duty.
To pomeni, da hipotetična otvoritvena bilanca stanja temelji na predpostavki, da mora prodajalec vedno plačati 100 % trošarine in da bi bila vrednost nepremičnin v nadomestni otvoritveni bilanci stanja znižana za vsoto, ki bi točno ustrezala trošarini.
The Authority has no reason to question the legitimacy of the Net Present Value method used when the opening balance of Entra was established.
Organ nima razloga, da bi dvomil o pravni veljavnosti metode čiste sedanje vrednosti pri določanju otvoritvene bilance stanja podjetja Entra.
However, as the Norwegian Government’s own attempts to find the correct value of the real estate shows (see point I 2.2 above and the considerable differences between the alternative values), other methods could have been used.
Vendar pa bi, kakor kažejo poskusi norveške vlade, da bi ugotovila pravilno vrednost nepremičnin (glej točko I.2.2 zgoraj in znatne razlike med vrednostmi), lahko uporabili druge metode.
Other assumptions could also have been used, and those other methods and assumptions could very well have resulted in a situation where the burden of the tax would not have been born 100 % by the seller.
Lahko bi uporabili tudi druge predpostavke; te drugačne metode in predpostavke pa bi lahko imele za posledico tudi situacijo, v kateri stroškov zaradi davkov ne bi v celoti kril prodajalec.
In a normal market situation with several bidders, it is more likely that the extra burden of the excise duty through the agreed transaction price would have been split between the seller and the buyer.
Pri normalnih razmerah na trgu, v katerih nastopa več ponudnikov, je bolj verjetno, da bi si prodajalec in kupec morala razdeliti stroške zaradi trošarin na dogovorjeno transakcijsko ceno.
The Authority does not find it possible to establish a general rule according to which the market price of a building will always rise with exactly the amount that the buyer should normally pay in indirect taxes for registering that building in situations where those taxes have either already been paid or shall not be incurred due to a legislative exemption.
Organ meni, da ni mogoče določiti splošnega pravila, po katerem bi tržna cena nepremičnine vedno zrasla natančno za vrednost, ki bi jo kupec ponavadi moral plačati zaradi posrednih davkov na registracijo te nepremičnine v okoliščinah, ko so bili ti davki že plačani ali pa ne bodo obračunani zaradi zakonskega izvzetja iz plačila.
Indeed, in the letter dated 30 June 2005 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry acknowledges that one cannot make such a sweeping conclusion and that the Government’s argument about the net effect on the non-payment on the excise duty is based purely on the use of the specific method for value assessment that the Government chose to apply to Entra.
Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo v svojem dopisu z dne 30. junija 2005 priznava, da ni mogoče sprejeti tako splošnega sklepa in da argument vlade o čistem učinku na neplačevanje trošarin temelji izključno na uporabi posebne metode za ocenjevanje vrednosti, ki se jo je vlada odločila uporabiti pri podjetju Entra.
In the present case, Norway chose not to levy the excise duty on Entra and did specify that the later assessment of the value of the real estate depended on this premise.
V zadevnem primeru se Norveška ni odločila, da bi odmerila trošarino podjetju Entra, in je opredelila, da je bila kasnejša ocenjena vrednost teh nepremičnin odvisna od tega dejstva.
Norway, therefore, basically argues that in the hypothetical situation it had decided that Entra should be subject to normal excise duty, it would still have chosen the net-present-value method and used the same assumptions for calculating the sales price.
Zaradi tega Norveška v bistvu trdi, da bi se v hipotetičnih okoliščinah, v katerih bi za podjetje Entra veljale normalne trošarine, še vedno odločila za uporabo metode čiste sedanje vrednosti in bi za izračun prodajne cene uporabila iste predpostavke.
To admit such an argument would be to let the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement depend on an EEA State’s ability to persuade the Authority and the EFTA Court that it would have taken imaginary steps in hypothetical situations.
Priznavanje takega argumenta bi pomenilo, da bi bilo področje veljavnosti člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP odvisno od zmožnosti države EGP, da prepriča Nadzorni svet in Sodišče EFTA, da bi v hipotetičnih situacijah sprejelo zadevne ukrepe.
Finally, the Authority emphasises that in the very few cases where the Court of Justice — in different kinds of situations — has accepted a quid pro quo argument, it has always been a precondition that the countervailing mechanism was decided beforehand (and not ex post facto) in a clearly defined, objective and transparent manner [54].
Končno pa Organ poudarja, da je bil v zelo malo primerih, ko je Sodišče v različnih okoliščinah sprejelo argumente quid pro quo, predpogoj, da se je o izravnalnem mehanizmu vedno odločilo prej (in ne za nazaj) na jasno opredeljen, objektiven in pregleden način [54].