natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The technical standard of the objects, rental losses during the rehabilitation phase, etc. had not been calculated.
Izračunani niso bili tehnični standard objektov, izgube najemnin med sanacijsko fazo itd.
The report by Agdestein Takst & Eiendomsrådgivning AS
Poročilo podjetja Agdestein Takst & Eiendomsrådgivning AS
Agdestein Takst & Eiendomsrådgivning AS (hereinafter Agdestein), represented by Mr. Pål Agdestein, was asked, in November 2002, by Fredensborg to analyse and comment on the three valuations mentioned above and to give his view on the market value of the portfolio.
Fredensborg je novembra 2002 zaprosil podjetje Agdestein Takst & Eiendomsrådgivning AS (v nadaljnjem besedilu Agdestein), ki ga je zastopal g. Pål Agdestein, da analizira tri zgoraj navedene ocene in izrazi svoje pripombe o njih ter navede svoje mnenje o tržni vrednosti portfelja.
Mr. Agdestein was previously employed by Catella, and responsible for the report submitted by that firm.
Gospod Agdestein je bil prej zaposlen v podjetju Catella in odgovoren za poročilo, ki ga je predložilo to podjetje.
Agdestein submitted his report to Fredensborg on 17 February 2003.
Agdestein je svoje poročilo predložil Fredensborgu 17. februarja 2003.
Agdestein commented in detail on the three previous reports and found several assumptions that, in his view, should be corrected.
Agdestein je podrobno podal pripombe v zvezi s tremi predhodnimi poročili in odkril več predpostavk, ki bi jih bilo po njegovem mnenju treba popraviti.
As the price paid by Fredensborg was in the mid-range of all the value assessments, Fredensborg considered that this supported the view that Fredensborg had paid the market price.
Ker je bila cena, ki jo je plačal Fredensborg, nekje med vsemi ocenami vrednosti, je Fredensborg menil, da to podpira stališče, da je plačal tržno ceno.
Comments from the Norwegian authorities to the third party comments
Pripombe norveških organov na pripombe tretjih strank
By letter dated 5 March 2004 (Event No: 258313), the Authority submitted the comments from Fredensborg to the Norwegian authorities, and invited them to reply within one month.
S pismom z dne 5. marca 2004 (Dogodek št.: 258313) je Nadzorni organ poslal pripombe Fredensborga norveškim organom in jih pozval, da odgovorijo v enem mesecu.
By letter dated 23 March 2004 from the Mission of Norway to the European Union, forwarding a letter dated 22 March 2004 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, both received and registered on 24 March 2004 (Event No: 260564), the Norwegian authorities asked ‘the Authority to accept that the Norwegian comments will be submitted by 10 May 2004.’.
S pismom z dne 23. marca 2004 misije Norveške pri Evropski uniji, ki je posredovalo pismo Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo z dne 22. marca 2004, obe pismi, prejeti in evidentirani 24. marca 2004 (Dogodek št.: 260564), so norveški organi zaprosili „Nadzorni organ, da sprejme, da bodo norveške pripombe predložene do 10. maja 2004“.
The Norwegian authorities referred to a pending conciliation between the Ministry of Health and the Municipality of Oslo regarding the ownership of the apartments.
Norveški organi so se sklicevali na tekoče usklajevanje med Ministrstvom za zdravje in občino Oslo v zvezi z lastništvom nad stanovanji.
The letter dated 22 March 2004 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry was also sent by telefax dated 22 March 2004, received and registered on the same date (Event No: 260191).
Pismo Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo z dne 22. marca 2004 je bilo poslano tudi po telefaksu dne 22. marca 2004, prejetim in evidentiranim istega dne (Dogodek št.: 260191).
By letter dated 25 March 2004, the Authority agreed to extend the deadline until 10 May 2004 (Event No: 260732).
S pismom z dne 25. marca 2004 je Nadzorni organ potrdil podaljšanje roka do 10. maja 2004 (Dogodek št.: 260732).
By telefax dated 23 April 2004 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, received and registered on the same date (Event No: 279122), the Ministry submitted a copy of the agreement (‘Protokoll’) between the Municipality of Oslo and the Norwegian State concerning the ownership of the hospital apartments.
Po telefaksu Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo z dne 23. aprila 2004, prejetem in evidentiranem istega dne (Dogodek št.: 279122), je Ministrstvo poslalo kopijo sporazuma („Protokoll“) med občino Oslo in norveško državo o lastništvu bolnišničnih stanovanj.
By letter dated 13 May 2004 from the Mission of Norway to the European Union, forwarding a letter dated 10 May 2004 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, both received and registered on 15 May 2004 (Event No: 281488), the Norwegian authorities stated that they did ‘not have any comments to the third party comment received by the Authority’.
S pismom z dne 13. maja 2004 misije Norveške pri Evropski uniji, ki je posredovalo pismo Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo z dne 10. maja 2004, obe pismi, prejeti in evidentirani 15. maja 2004 (Dogodek št.: 281488), so norveški organi izjavili, da „nimajo nobenih pripomb k pripombi tretje stranke, ki jo je prejel Nadzorni organ“.
The letter dated 10 May 2004 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry was also sent by telefax dated 10 May 2004, received and registered on 11 May 2004 (Event No: 281014).
Pismo Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo z dne 10. maja 2004 je bilo poslano tudi po telefaksu dne 10. maja 2004, prejetem in evidentiranem dne 11. maja 2004 (Dogodek št.: 281014).
Expert report from Eirik Holm AS
Strokovno poročilo Eirika Holma AS
In 2004, the Authority engaged Eirik Holm AS (hereinafter Holm) with the purpose of carrying out a study regarding the market value of the 1744 apartments sold by the Municipality of Oslo.
Leta 2004 je Nadzorni organ najel Eirika Holma AS (v nadaljnjem besedilu Holm) za izvedbo študije v zvezi s tržno vrednostjo 1744 stanovanj, ki jih je prodala občina Oslo.
The contract referred to the fact that the Authority in the course of the proceedings had received 5 valuations/reports, but that the conclusions in these reports deviated from each other to such an extent that the Authority was still in doubt as to whether the sales price of NOK 715 Million reflected the market value.
Pogodba se je sklicevala na dejstvo, da je Nadzorni organ med postopkom prejel pet ocen/poročil, vendar so zaključki v teh poročilih med seboj tako odstopali, da je Nadzorni organ še vedno dvomil, ali je prodajna cena v višini 715 milijonov NOK izražala tržno vrednost.
The Authority therefore wanted to clarify whether or not the previous valuations/estimates of value were based on generally accepted principles for the valuation of fixed property and the degree to which the presumptions and discretion used in the calculations were reasonable.
Nadzorni organ je torej želel razjasniti, ali so predhodne cenitve/ocene vrednosti temeljile ali ne na splošno sprejetih načelih za vrednotenje nepremičnin, ter koliko so bile sprejemljive predpostavke in lastna presoja, uporabljeni v izračunih.
The Authority also wanted an assessment on the question as to whether the manner in which the sales process was executed had influenced the sales price.
Nadzorni organ je tudi želel oceno v zvezi z vprašanjem, ali je način izvedbe prodajnega postopka vplival na prodajno ceno.
Holm is an independent Chartered Engineer with long experience of the real estate market in Oslo.
Holm je neodvisni pooblaščeni inženir z dolgoletnimi izkušnjami na nepremičninskem trgu v Oslu.
In the execution of the contract, Holm engaged the services of Chartered Engineer Trygve Fossen and Engineer Sven P. Meyer, both of whom are experienced assessors with long practice.
Pri izvajanju pogodbe se je Holm obrnil na pooblaščenega inženirja Trygveja Fossena in inženirja Svena P. Meyerja, izkušena cenilca z dolgoletno prakso.
In addition, Lawyer Johan Hveding of the law company Grette DA, assisted in connection with questions concerning the rental contracts.
Poleg tega je pravnik Johan Hveding iz odvetniškega podjetja Grette DA pomagal pri vprašanjih o najemnih pogodbah.
The report from Holm dated 24 February 2005 was received and registered by the Authority on 1 March 2005 (Event No: 311859).
Nadzorni organ je poročilo Holma z dne 24. februarja 2005 prejel in evidentiral dne 1. marca 2005 (Dogodek št.: 311859).
The previous value assessments/reports
Predhodne ocene vrednosti/poročila
Holm's study of the five earlier assessments/reports showed i.a. partially deviating methods of calculation, differing estimates of both market rent rates, refurbishing costs/requirements, and the potential gains from sectioning.
Holmova študija petih predhodnih ocen/poročil je med drugim razkrila delno razhajajoče se metode izračuna, različne ocene višine tržnih najemnin, stroškov/zahtev obnove in potencialnih dobičkov od prodaje po delih.
Holm also found direct factual errors, omissions of information and generally superficial examinations/surveys of the properties.
Holm je tudi odkril neposredne dejanske napake, izpustitev informacij in splošno površne preglede/oglede nepremičnin.
After making corrections for obvious factual errors, there were still wide gaps between the valuations, that were attributed to differing in assessments and applied opinions.
Po popravkih očitnih dejanskih napak so med cenitvami še vedno obstajala velika razhajanja, ki so bila pripisana razlikam v ocenah in uporabljenih mnenjih.
Holm expressed that this is not in itself unusual in cases where there is more than one valuation.
Holm je izjavil, da to samo po sebi v primerih, kjer obstaja več kot ena cenitev, ni nenavadno.
He expressed that the deviations could be expected to be more pronounced in the case at hand than in other cases as there was a particularly unique portfolio put up for sale with no historic reference material anywhere in the country.
Navedel je, da je bilo za odstopanja pričakovati, da bodo izrazitejša v obravnavanem primeru kot v drugih primerih, ker je prodaja vključevala portfelj brez primere v zgodovini države.
The Catella appraisal
Ocena podjetja Catella
Catella has carried out a superficial inspection in connection with an earlier valuation (1999-2000).
Podjetje Catella je opravilo površen pregled v povezavi s predhodno cenitvijo (1999–2000).
The new valuation must be seen as an updating of the earlier valuation.
Novo cenitev je treba razumeti kot dopolnitev predhodne cenitve.
An external inspection was carried out with random sampling of inside areas.
Opravljen je bil zunanji pregled z naključnim vzorčenjem notranjih območij.
A thorough inspection/assessment should in Holm's opinion have been carried out in order to provide a better basis for the valuation.
Po Holmovem mnenju bi bilo treba opraviti celovit pregled/oceno, da bi zagotovili boljšo podlago za cenitev.
Holm concluded that the result of the valuation was much too high.
Holm je zaključil, da je bil rezultat cenitve mnogo previsok.
That was due i.a. to the fact that: the assumed market level for letting, in his view, was about 10 % too high; that Catella has ignored current rent contracts and has not taken into account that actual rents would be well below the market rates for a number of years; that Catella has been over-optimistic in relation to the number of apartments let out at anytime (there would always be vacancies due to change of tenants etc.); that initial refurbishment costs were too low (approximately NOK 60 Million).
To je bilo med drugim treba pripisati dejstvu: da je bila predvidena tržna raven za oddajanje po njegovem mnenju okoli 10 % previsoka; da podjetje Catella ni upoštevalo sedanjih najemnih pogodb in ni upoštevalo, da bodo sedanje najemnine vrsto let precej pod tržnimi cenami; da je bilo podjetje Catella preveč optimistično glede števila oddanih stanovanj (vedno bodo prazna stanovanja zaradi menjave najemnikov itd.); da so bili začetni stroški obnove prenizki (okoli 60 milijonov NOK).
Holm also refers to a property which was included but later withdrawn from the portfolio and that Catella has not taken into account worth-reducing limitations of the ‘as-is’ clause in the contract.
Holm se tudi sklicuje na nepremičnino, ki je bila vključena, a pozneje umaknjena iz portfelja, in da podjetje Catella ni upoštevalo omejitev zaradi klavzule „videno, kupljeno“ v pogodbi, ki znižujejo vrednost.
The OPAK appraisal
Ocena podjetja OPAK
OPAK has inspected the majority of the buildings externally, but has only inspected ten flats/bed-sitters.
OPAK je pregledal večino stavb od zunaj, vendar pa je pregledal samo deset stanovanj/garsonjer.
This was in Holm's view insufficient to estimate the correct figures for refurbishments and maintenance.
To po mnenju Holma ni bilo dovolj za pravilno oceno številk za obnovo in vzdrževanje.
It is Holm's opinion that all the properties should have been inspected, and a more thorough inspection of the internal areas should have been carried out to attain a better basis on which to calculate the estimate.
Holm meni, da bi bilo treba pregledati vse nepremičnine in opraviti temeljitejši pregled notranjih prostorov, da bi dobili boljšo podlago za izračun ocene.
Holm concluded i.a. that the market rents were underestimated.
Holm je med drugim zaključil, da so bile tržne najemnine podcenjene.
On the contrary, OPAK did not take into account that there were limitations as to how fast rents could be brought up to market level.
Nasprotno pa OPAK ni upošteval, da obstajajo omejitve glede tega, kako hitro se bo dalo najemnine dvigniti na tržno raven.
Assessment of value potential because of sectioning was based on too small a saleable area with added worth too low as a result, and initial refurbishment costs were approximately NOK 30 million too low.
Ocena vrednostnega potenciala zaradi prodaje po delih je temeljila na premajhni površini za prodajo, zaradi česar je bila prenizka dodana vrednost, začetni stroški obnove pa so bili približno 30 milijonov NOK prenizki.
Holm concludes that these items influenced the valuation both positively and negatively and it was thus difficult to estimate the net effect.
Holm ugotavlja, da so ti elementi na cenitev vplivali pozitivno in negativno ter je zato težko oceniti čisti učinek.
The FIGA/Nortakst appraisal
Ocena podjetij FIGA/Nortakst
Holm referred to the fact that it was stated that FIGA/Nortakst had carried out inspections/surveys of a sufficient number of flats to be able to complete their commission.
Holm se je skliceval na dejstvo, da je bilo navedeno, da je FIGA/Nortakst opravil preglede/oglede zadostnega števila stanovanj, da je lahko opravil svojo nalogo.
However, no information has been provided as to the extent and scope of the inspections/surveys.
Vendar pa ni bilo nobenih informacij o obsegu pregledov/ogledov.
Holm holds forth, in particular, that the estimates of potential gains from sectioning were largely overestimated as the method of calculation of the sectioning value was unacceptable, among other things, based on technical value and due to assumptions on high annual rise in sales worth.
Holm trdi zlasti, da so bile ocene potencialnih dobičkov od prodaje po delih mnogo precenjene, saj je bila metoda izračuna vrednosti, ki naj bi jo prinesla prodaja stanovanj po delih, nesprejemljiva, saj je med drugim temeljila na tehnični vrednosti in predpostavkah o visokem letnem zvišanju prodajne vrednosti.
Holm states that he finds ‘these calculations to be irrelevant for the sales value and the sectioning potential.’
Holm navaja, da se mu zdijo „ti izračuni neustrezni za prodajno vrednost in možnosti prodaje po delih“.
Furthermore he points out that rent revenues from two buildings were wrongly included up to 2008; market rent rates that were a little too high have been used in the calculations without taking necessary refurbishment costs into consideration.
Nadalje poudarja, da so bili prihodki od najemnin za dva objekta napačno vključeni do leta 2008; višine tržnih najemnin, ki so bile nekoliko previsoke, so bile uporabljene v izračunih brez upoštevanja potrebnih stroškov obnove.
(Holm has estimated these costs to be considerably higher than FIGA/Nortakst); it was unrealistic to calculate with the sale of all the dwellings (flats) in a single year; and the ‘as- is’ clause in the contracts has not been afforded any value-reducing influence.
(Holm je te stroške ocenil bistveno višje kot FIGA/Nortakst); nerealno je bilo računati s prodajo vseh stanovanj v enem samem letu; in klavzuli „videno, kupljeno“ ni bil pripisan nikakršen vpliv na zmanjšanje vrednosti.
The sum of these factors indicates a stipulation of market value that was far too high.
Vsota vseh teh dejavnikov kaže določitev daleč previsoke tržne vrednosti.
BER
Podjetje BER
BER has not inspected or surveyed the properties, but bases its conclusions on the assessments and valuations already presented by Catella, OPAK and FIGA/Nortakst together with the application of own expertise.
Podjetje BER ni pregledalo ali si ogledalo nepremičnin, ampak sprejema zaključke na podlagi ocen in vrednotenj, ki so jih predstavila že podjetja Catella, OPAK in FIGA/Nortakst, ter lastnega strokovnega znanja.
Holm's conclusions on the BER report are as follows: owner's operating costs were too high; BER has not carried out own inspections/surveys of the properties which can have an effect on both the cost estimate of initial refurbishing and for stipulating the market rent rate; BER has used wrong figures for current rent revenues (NOK 56 Million instead of NOK 42,5 Million per annum); insufficient time has been allowed for increasing current rent rates to market levels.
Holmovi zaključki o poročilu podjetja BER so naslednji: obratovalni stroški lastnika so bili previsoki; podjetje BER ni opravilo lastnih pregledov/ogledov nepremičnin, ki lahko vplivajo na oceno začetnih stroškov obnove in določitev višine tržnih najemnin; podjetje BER je uporabilo napačne številke za sedanje prihodke od najemnin (56 milijonov NOK namesto 42,5 milijona NOK na leto); na voljo ni bilo dovolj časa za povišanje sedanje višine najemnin na tržno raven.
The sum of these discrepancies resulted in a worth estimate that was too high, mainly due to the rent revenue flow being too high.
Vsota teh odstopanj je privedla do ocene vrednosti, ki je bila previsoka, predvsem zaradi previsokega toka prihodkov od najemnin.
Mr. Agdestein, who was previously in the employ of Catella and responsible for valuations/assessments at that time, has in Holm's view provided a comprehensive report on the valuations/assessments provided by Catella, OPAK and FIGA/Nortakst.
Gospod Agdestein, ki je bil prej zaposlen pri podjetju Catella in v tem času odgovoren za vrednotenja/ocene, je po Holmovem mnenju predložil izčrpno poročilo o vrednotenjih/ocenah, ki so jih opravila podjetja Catella, OPAK in FIGA/Nortakst.
In his comments on the various valuations/assessments Agdestein has provided an estimate of corrections he feels should be made in order to arrive at a more correct result that those given in the submitted valuations/assessments.
V pripombah k različnim vrednotenjem/ocenam je g. Agdestein predložil oceno popravkov, ki jih je po njegovem mnenju treba narediti zaradi zagotovitve rezultata, ki bo pravilnejši od tistih v predloženih vrednotenjih/ocenah.
These corrections reflected both factual errors that may be due to information not available at the time of valuation, insufficient regard taken of the actual situation, direct errors and mistakes etc. and larger and smaller deviations in comparison to Agdestein's own estimates.
Ti popravki so izražali dejanske napake, ki lahko izhajajo iz informacij, ki med vrednotenjem niso bile na voljo, nezadostnega upoštevanja dejanskega stanja, neposrednih napak in zmot itd. ter večjih in manjših odstopanj v primerjavi z ocenami g. Agdesteina.
Holm considered this to be a blend of objective and concrete corrections and more subjective stipulations and estimates.
Holm je ocenil, da gre za kombinacijo objektivnih in konkretnih popravkov ter subjektivnejših določitev in ocen.
Holm's own assessment of the market value of the portfolio
Holmova lastna ocena tržne vrednosti portfelja
Holm's assessment has been based on all the documents that have been submitted to the Authority by the Norwegian authorities.
Holmova ocena temelji na celotni dokumentaciji, ki so jo Nadzornemu organu predložili norveški organi.
The Municipality's tabular overview of the properties, which forms part of the sales prospectus and the sales contract, has been the main basis for data about the properties.
Občinski tabelarni pregled nepremičnin, ki sestavlja del prodajnega prospekta in prodajne pogodbe, je bil glavna podlaga za podatke o nepremičninah.
In addition, Holm has received information about the rental contracts for buildings related to two of the hospitals (Ullevål and Aker), in particular the number of non time-limited contracts.
Poleg tega je Holm dobil informacije o najemnih pogodbah za objekte za dve bolnišnici (Ullevål in Aker), zlasti število pogodb za nedoločen čas.
In order to be able to stipulate the technical condition of the buildings and the need for rehabilitation as precisely as possible, external and internal inspections/surveys have been carried out on all buildings together with hospital staff.
Da je mogoče kar najbolj natančno določiti tehnično stanje objektov in potrebo po sanaciji, so bili na vseh objektih, skupaj z bolnišničnim osebjem, opravljeni zunanji in notranji pregledi/ogledi.
Approximately 70 flats of all types and in varying condition have been inspected.
Pregledanih je bilo približno 70 stanovanj vseh vrst v različnem stanju.
Further, rental statistics and sales statistics have been obtained for 2001, which have formed the basis for the assessment of market rent levels and the calculation of the potential for sectioning.
Pridobljeni so bili tudi statistični podatki o najemu in prodaji za leto 2001, ki so sestavljali podlago za oceno višine tržnih najemnin in izračun možnosti prodaje po delih.
All assessments, calculations and estimates have, to the degree this was possible, been based on the 1st quarter of 2001 without taking later price and market developments into consideration.
Vse ocene, izračuni in vrednotenja so, kolikor je bilo mogoče, temeljili na prvem trimesečju leta 2001, pri čemer ni bil upoštevan poznejši razvoj cen in trga.
Holm's assessment of the portfolio showed a resulting valuation of NOK 752772286.
Holmova ocena portfelja je pokazala končno vrednotenje 752772286 NOK.
The result was arrived at as follows (all amounts are discounted to 2001 values):
Rezultat je bil dobljen na naslednji način (vsi zneski so znižani na vrednosti iz leta 2001):
Worth created through rent revenues mid 2001 to mid 2011:
Vrednost prihodkov od najemnin od sredine leta 2001 do sredine leta 2011:
+ Net worth of sectioning and rent revenues in 2001:
+ neto vrednost prihodkov od prodaje po delih in najemnin v letu 2001:
Deductions for liens and contractual limitations:– :
Odbitki za pravice do zadržanja in pogodbene omejitve:– n v letu 2001:
Deductions for initial refurbishments during the period 2001-2005:– 2001 values):
Odbitki za začetno obnovo v obdobju 2001–2005:– jitve:
= Total value of the portfolio:
= Skupna vrednost portfelja:
Holm's calculations are i.a. based on that the Municipality's pre-emptive rights to rent means that the portfolio must be considered to be a letting object throughout the whole of the ten-year period from 2001 onwards, while the portfolio will be sold (sectioning) over a three-year period after 2011.
Holmovi izračuni med drugim temeljijo na tem, da predkupne pravice občine do najema pomenijo, da je treba portfelj skozi vse desetletno obdobje od leta 2001 naprej imeti za predmet oddaje v najem, medtem ko bo portfelj prodan (prodaja po delih) v treh letih po letu 2011.
The worth created through rent revenues from mid 2001 to mid 2011 is the capitalised worth of the estimated real net revenues for each year up to 2011.
Vrednost prihodkov od najemnin od sredine leta 2001 do sredine leta 2011 je kapitalizirana vrednost ocenjenih realnih neto vrednosti za vsako leto do leta 2011.
These revenues are foreseen to increase year-by-year and to achieve market rents for all leases in 2011.
Predvideno je, da bodo ti prihodki iz leta v leto naraščali in dosegli tržne najemnine za vse zakupe v letu 2011.