natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Norwegian authorities were aware that the market price was 25–30 % below the internal pricing between the Production Department and the Public Road Administration – which is precisely the reason for the liberalisation of the market.
Norveški organi so se zavedali, da je bila tržna cena za 25–30 % nižja od notranje cene med Oddelkom za gradnjo in Upravo za javne ceste – kar je pravzaprav razlog za liberalizacijo trga.
Reference is made to Report of December 2000 issued by the Public Road Administration which finds that the costs of the Production Department was far higher than the costs of similar contracts entered into by private entrepreneurs.
Sklicuje se na poročilo iz decembra 2000, ki ga je izdala Uprava za javne ceste in v katerem je ugotovljeno, da so bili stroški Oddelka za gradnjo precej višji od stroškov podobnih pogodb, ki so jih sklenili zasebni podjetniki.
Hence Thommessen submits that the market price was well documented.
Zato družba Thommessen navaja, da je bila tržna cena dobro dokumentirana.
Finally, Thommessen submits that if the market price should be established on the basis of the costs of Mesta AS, the relevant cost base of Mesta AS is the cost base existing after the restructuring measures have been paid off, that is, the cost base of a ‘competitive’ Mesta AS compared to the cost base of a Mesta AS subject to restructuring costs which has been (or will be) compensated.
Družba Thommessen na koncu navaja, da je v primeru določanja tržne cene na podlagi stroškov družbe Mesta AS ustrezna tista stroškovna osnova družbe Mesta AS, ki je obstajala po odplačilu ukrepov za prestrukturiranje, tj. stroškovna podlaga „konkurenčne“ družbe Mesta AS v primerjavi s stroškovno podlago družbe Mesta AS, obremenjeno s stroški prestrukturiranja, ki so bili (ali bodo) nadomeščeni.
If the cost base of a competitive Mesta AS is taken into account Thommessen submits that Mesta AS has been overcompensated with about NOK 1 81 million (which is the difference between the prices at which the contracts were transferred and the prices resulting from subsequent tenders).
Če se upošteva stroškovna osnova konkurenčne družbe Mesta AS, družba Thommessen navaja, da je družba Mesta AS prejela previsoka nadomestila za približno 181 milijonov NOK (kar je razlika med cenami, po katerih so bile pogodbe prenesene, in cenami, ki izhajajo iz poznejših razpisov).
As regards restructuring measures, the law firm, Schjødt, which have submitted comments on behalf of an anonymous complainant, points out that funding to maintain benefits derived from the civil servant status does not constitute State aid if such funding is granted to individual persons on the basis of objective criteria and does not result in benefits to certain companies.
Odvetniška družba Schjødt, ki je predložila pripombe v imenu anonimnega pritožnika, glede ukrepov za prestrukturiranje poudarja, da financiranje z namenom ohranitve prednosti, ki izhajajo iz statusa državnega uradnika, ne pomeni državne pomoči, če so taka sredstva dodeljena posameznikom na podlagi objektivnih meril in nimajo za posledico koristi za nekatere družbe.
Conversely funding for employee benefits which constitutes part of the normal burden of companies constitutes State aid.
Nasprotno pa sredstva za dajatve zaposlenih, ki so sestavni del običajnega bremena družb, pomenijo državno pomoč.
Hence, the question is what may be considered to constitute the normal financial burden of companies.
Tako se postavlja vprašanje, kaj je mogoče obravnavati kot običajno finančno breme družb.
Schjødt submits that State aid is only involved insofar as the benefit goes beyond what employees recruited on the market would be offered.
Družba Schjødt navaja, da gre za državno pomoč samo takrat, kadar korist presega tisto, kar bi bilo ponujeno zaposlenim na trgu.
The Combus judgment (which has never been appealed) showed that direct payments to employees in return for renouncement of the civil servant status involves no aid to the company [121].
Sodba Combus (zoper katero ni bila nikoli vložena pritožba) je pokazala, da neposredna plačila zaposlenim, ki se v zameno odpovejo statusu državnega uradnika, ne pomenijo pomoči družbi [121].
However, the Combus judgement was delivered when there was a lot of uncertainty about structural disadvantages and in any event it is not clear whether the facts in Mesta AS is similar to those in Combus and hence whether Combus forms a reliable precedent for the present case.
Vendar je bila sodba Combus izdana v času precejšnje negotovosti glede strukturnih pomanjkljivosti in v nobenem primeru ni jasno, ali so dejstva v zadevi Mesta AS podobna tistim v zadevi Combus in ali je potemtakem zadeva Combus zanesljiv precedens za obravnavani primer.
Schjødt submits that compensation for moving personnel, commuting, moving offices, moving support and maintenance offices etc. qualify as State aid which appears not capable of being found compatible.
Družba Schjødt navaja, da se lahko nadomestilo za selitev osebja, prevoz na delo in z njega, selitev uradov, selitev uradov za podporo in vzdrževanje itd. opredeli kot državna pomoč, za katero se zdi, da je ni mogoče obravnavati kot združljivo.
Also, expenses related to renovation of machinery cannot be compensated and at the same time count as a negative asset.
Tudi stroškov, povezanih z obnovo strojev, ni mogoče nadomestiti in jih hkrati šteti kot negativno premoženje.
Schjødt objects to considering restructuring aid for Mesta AS as compatible by reference to the State aid Guidelines on rescue and restructuring measures.
Družba Schjødt oporeka temu, da bi pomoč za prestrukturiranje za družbo Mesta AS obravnavali kot združljivo s sklicevanjem na Smernice o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah.
Mesta AS and its predecessor was, and is, not in difficulty within the meaning of these guidelines which are in any event not applicable to new firms emerging from reorganisations.
Družba Mesta AS, tako kot njena predhodnica, ni bila in ni v težavah v smislu teh smernic, ki jih nikakor ni mogoče uporabljati za nova podjetja, nastala po reorganizacijah.
As to the evaluation of assets Schjødt points out that an independent assessment might provide guidance for purposes of assessing the alleged under evaluation of the assets.
Glede ocene sredstev družba Schjødt poudarja, da bi neodvisna ocena lahko zagotovila usmeritev za presojo navedenega pod oceno sredstev.
The under-evaluation together with the cash injection of NOK 1600 million could result in an equity ratio in excess of what would follow from a proper application of private market investor principle.
Posledica prenizke ocene, skupaj z denarno injekcijo v znesku 1600 milijonov NOK, bi bilo razmerje trajnega kapitala, ki presega tisto, kar bi sledilo iz pravilne uporabe načela zasebnega vlagatelja v tržno gospodarstvo.
In the context of verifying this it should also be verified whether the Norwegian authorities have foregone the payment of an adequate return on their investments.
V okviru preverjanja navedenega bi bilo treba še preveriti, ali so se norveški organi odrekli plačilu ustreznega donosa njihovih naložb.
As to the transitional contracts Schjødt points out that the arguments of the Norwegian authorities assume that (i) the contracts should be transferred at market price in order not to constitute aid; and (ii) that their actions must be assessed on the basis of the information available at the relevant point in time, implying that subsequent evidence (which shows that the prices of the transitional contracts were above market price) cannot be taken into account [122].
Glede prehodnih pogodb družba Schjødt poudarja, da norveški organi v argumentih predvidevajo, (i) da naj bi pogodbe prenesli po tržni ceni, da ne bi pomenile državne pomoči, in (ii) da je treba njihova ravnanja oceniti na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij v ustreznem trenutku, kar pomeni, da naknadnih dokazov (ki kažejo, da so cene prehodnih pogodb presegale tržno ceno) ni mogoče upoštevati [122].
However, Schjødt submits that evidence, post factum, can be taken into account to the extent that it just corroborates information available at the relevant point in time.
Vendar družba Schjødt navaja, da je mogoče dokaze naknadno upoštevati toliko, kolikor le podkrepijo informacije, ki so na voljo v ustreznem trenutku.
The Norwegian authorities were aware that the prices of the contracts transferred to Mesta AS were in all likelihood above the market price.
Norveški organi so se zavedali, da so bile cene pogodb, prenesenih na družbo Mesta AS, po vsej verjetnosti nad tržno ceno.
Indeed the driving force behind the reorganisation was efficiency gains and ‘more value for less money’ [123].
Dejansko sta bila gibalo reorganizacije večja učinkovitost in „več vrednosti za manj denarja“ [123].
It appears from a report issued in 2001 by Statskonsult that as of 1996 Oslo Municipality exposed its road operation and maintenance activities to competition which resulted in a cost reduction in the field of operation and maintenance of about 20 %.
Iz poročila, ki ga je leta 2001 izdal Statskonsult, je razbrati, da je mestna občina Oslo od leta 1996 dejavnosti upravljanja in vzdrževanja cest urejala z razpisi, posledica česar je bilo približno 20-odstotno znižanje stroškov upravljanja in vzdrževanja.
Finally, the Report issued in 2001 by the Public Road Administration itself also showed that the operation and maintenance contracts awarded to private operators were more competitive than those performed by the Production Department.
Končno, tudi poročilo, ki ga je leta 2001 izdala Uprava za javne ceste, je pokazalo, da so bile pogodbe o upravljanju in vzdrževanju, dodeljene zasebnim ponudnikom, konkurenčnejše od tistih, ki jih je izvajal Oddelek za gradnjo.
Rather than acting on the basis of the information available to them, the Norwegian authorities ignored previous experiences and transferred the contracts at prices above the market price.
Namesto da bi ukrepali na podlagi informacij, ki so jih imeli na voljo, se norveški organi niso zmenili za prejšnje izkušnje in so pogodbe prenesli po cenah, ki so presegale tržno ceno.
Schjødt submits that the Norwegian authorities cannot write off such information.
Družba Schjødt navaja, da norveški organi takih informacij ne morejo kar odpisati.
The authorities could easily have applied a general reduction rate the contract portfolio.
Organi bi lahko brez težav uporabili splošno stopnjo znižanja v pogodbenem portfelju.
Schjødt further submits that an approval of excess pricing may not be authorised as Mesta AS has already been compensated for restructuring measures, and the contract prices were not based on public tenders nor did they include an adjustment mechanism.
Družba Schjødt še navaja, da presežne cene ne smejo biti dovoljene, saj je družba Mesta AS že prejela nadomestilo za ukrepe za prestrukturiranje, pogodbene cene pa niso temeljile na javnih razpisih niti niso vključevale prilagoditvenega mehanizma.
The Mesta AS case is therefore entirely different from the Destia case [124].The Norwegian authorities repeatedly state there were no private operators on the market for operation and maintenance although it appears from St. prp. nr. 1 (2001–2002) that 30 % of operation and maintenance works is put up for competition between market operators.
Primer družbe Mesta AS je torej popolnoma drugačen od primera Destia [124].Norveški organi vedno znova ponavljajo, da na trgu za upravljanje in vzdrževanje ni bilo zasebnih ponudnikov, čeprav je iz dokumenta St. prp. nr. 1 (2001–2002) razvidno, da je bilo 30 % upravljavskih in vzdrževalnih del prek razpisov ponujenih ponudnikom na trgu.
Moreover, the aforementioned Statskonsult report states that while most operation and maintenance work is carried out by the Public Road Administration in 2000, 28 % had been put on the market.
Poleg tega iz zgoraj navedenega poročila Statskonsult izhaja, da je v letu 2000 večino upravljavskih in vzdrževalnih del opravila Uprava za javne ceste, 28 % pa jih je bilo danih na trg.
As regards the attainment of relevant skills by the Public Road Administration for tendering out works Schjødt points out that the Public Road Administration had been using that skill via the operation and maintenance agreement (‘funksjonsavtale’) with the Production Department so that by 2003 the skill should have been attained.
Glede pridobivanja ustreznih veščin Uprave za javne ceste za oddajanje del na razpisih družba Schjødt poudarja, da je Uprava za javne ceste te veščine uporabljala prek sporazuma o upravljanju in vzdrževanju („funksjonsavtale“), sklenjenega z Oddelkom za gradnjo, tako da so bile te veščine do leta 2003 že pridobljene.
The authorities have not explained how the skills for tendering out works to market operators would be any different from the skills used in the context of the agreements with the Production Department.
Organi niso razložili, kako bi se veščine za oddajanje del prek razpisov ponudnikom na trgu lahko kakor koli razlikovale od veščin, uporabljenih v okviru sporazumov z Oddelkom za gradnjo.
Finally as to document duty Schjødt submits that the exemption amounts to an economic advantage for Mesta AS and that the continuity principle is not valid as there is no actual transfer of title.
Končno, glede takse za dokumente družba Schjødt navaja, da oprostitev pomeni gospodarsko prednost za družbo Mesta AS in da načelo kontinuitete ne velja, saj ni dejanskega prenosa lastninske pravice.
The facts of the Mesta AS case are similar to that of the Entra case, and hence as in the Entra case, the advantages granted to Mesta AS constitute State aid.
Dejstva v zadevi Mesta AS so podobna dejstvom v zadevi Entra in zato, tako kot v zadevi Entra, prednosti, dodeljene družbi Mesta AS, pomenijo državno pomoč.
Since the value of real estate has been adjusted downwards in the opening balance the amount of aid cannot be calculated on that basis but must be assessed on the basis of the market value of the transferred real estate.
Ker je bila vrednost nepremičnin v začetni bilanci prilagojena navzdol, zneska pomoči ni mogoče izračunati na tej podlagi, temveč ga je treba oceniti na podlagi tržne vrednosti prenesenih nepremičnin.
The law firm, Wiersholm, submitted comments on behalf of Skanska.
Odvetniška družba Wiersholm je predložila pripombe v imenu družbe Skanska.
Wiersholm submits that a rate of return fixed on the basis of assets evaluated below the market price does not comply with the private market investor test.
Družba Wiersholm navaja, da donosnost, določena na podlagi sredstev, ocenjenih pod tržno ceno, ne zdrži preizkusa zasebnega vlagatelja v tržno gospodarstvo.
Wiersholm points out that, as referred to by the Authority, there is considerable uncertainty with respect to the value of fixed assets and fails to see how the Norwegian authorities have complied with the private market investor test.
Družba Wiersholm poudarja, kakor je navedel že Nadzorni organ, da je precej negotovosti glede vrednosti osnovnih sredstev in ne vidi, kako so norveški organi izpolnili zahteve preizkusa zasebnega vlagatelja v tržno gospodarstvo.
The Norwegian authorities have failed to explain why not all groups of machinery were subject to external review of real values (which included only 18 out of 55) as well as the reason for the differences in evaluation methods between the different groups.
Norveški organi niso razložili, zakaj ni bil zunanji pregled realnih vrednosti opravljen za vse skupine strojev (pregledanih je bilo le 18 od 55 skupin) in kakšen je bil razlog za razlike v metodah vrednotenja med različnimi skupinami.
Wiersholm submits that an independent evaluation is necessary.
Družba Wiersholm navaja, da je potrebna neodvisna ocena.
Considering the extent of figures submitted in this case, the doctrine according to which the transfer of assets at book value does not constitute aid (i.e. the ‘book value doctrine’) adopted by the Commission in its decision on Destia cannot be directly applied [125].
Glede na obseg podatkov, predloženih v tem primeru, ni mogoče neposredno uporabiti doktrine, ki jo je sprejela Komisija v odločbi o Destii in v skladu s katero prenos sredstev po knjigovodski vrednosti ne pomeni pomoči (tj. „doktrine knjigovodske vrednosti“) [125].
Reference is made to the Authority’s decision in Arcus [126] in which production facilities and other assets were transferred from a State monopoly to the Arcus Group.
Sklicuje se na odločbo Nadzornega organa v zadevi Arcus [126], v kateri so bili proizvodne zmogljivosti in druga sredstva preneseni z državnega monopola na skupino Arcus.
In the Arcus case the Authority found that the transferred assets were assessed at below market value with an amount of NOK 264 million and that the State was undercompensated by the same amount.
V zadevi Arcus je Nadzorni organ ugotovil, da so bila prenesena sredstva za 264 milijonov NOK ocenjena pod tržno vrednostjo in da je država prejela za isti znesek prenizko nadomestilo.
The transaction implied that the Arcus Group received State aid in the same order.
Ta transakcija je pomenila, da je skupina Arcus prejela državno pomoč v isti višini.
The decision shows that a scrutiny of the evaluation of assets in the Mesta AS case is relevant.As to the transitional contracts, Wiersholm refers to the Authority’s statement in the Opening Decision from which it appears that a contract price below market price involves an economic advantage for the service provider.
Odločba kaže, da je v primeru družbe Mesta AS pomemben temeljit pregled ocene sredstev.Glede prehodnih pogodb se družba Wiersholm sklicuje na izjavo Nadzornega organa v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka, iz katere je videti, da pogodbena cena pod tržno vrednostjo pomeni gospodarsko prednost za ponudnika storitev.
According to Wiersholm the position of the Norwegian authorities is that it is not so important whether the contracts were transferred to Mesta AS at market price.
Po mnenju družbe Wiersholm norveški organi zastopajo stališče, da ni tako pomembno, ali so bile pogodbe prenesene na družbo Mesta AS po tržni ceni.
The main point is that the gross revenues of the contracts are included in the cash flow analysis and has been taken into account in the opening balance of Mesta AS as contribution in kind.
Najpomembnejše je, da so bruto prihodki pogodb vključeni v analizo denarnega toka in upoštevani v začetni bilanci družbe Mesta AS kot prispevki v naravi.
However, the Norwegian authorities have also stated that the transitional contracts constituted only a small part of this value.
Vendar so norveški organi še navedli, da so prehodne pogodbe pomenile le majhen del te vrednosti.
Wiersholm submits that the authorities cannot disregard the necessity of establishing a market price by reference to gross revenues in the discounted cash flow.
Družba Wiersholm navaja, da organi ne morejo prezreti potrebe po določitvi tržne cene s sklicevanjem na bruto prihodke v diskontiranem denarnem toku.
The Commission clearly stated in its opening decision on Destia that the mark-up constitutes State aid: ‘This confers an economic advantage to Tieliikelaitos [Destia], which is financed through State resources: Tieliikelaitos [Destia] obtains from the State more money than a normal market operator would obtain for an equivalent service.’ [127]Skanska disagrees with the argument of the Norwegian authorities that no market price existed at the time of establishing Mesta AS.
Komisija je v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka v zadevi Destia navedla, da pribitek pomeni državno pomoč: „To daje gospodarsko prednost podjetju Tieliikelaitos (Destia), ki se financira z državnimi sredstvi. Podjetje Tieliikelaitos (Destia) od države dobi za enakovredno storitev več denarja kot običajen ponudnik na trgu“ [127].Družba Skanska se ne strinja z argumentom norveških organov, da v času ustanovitve družbe Mesta AS ni bilo nobene tržne cene.
A market price already existed via the pilot contracts and Veidekke ASA’s analysis, referred to in the Opening Decision, clearly demonstrates a difference between the prices at which the contracts were transferred and the prices resulting from subsequent tendering of the same contracts.
Tržna cena je že veljala prek pilotnih pogodb, analiza družbe Veidekke ASA, navedena v odločbi o sprožitvi postopka, pa jasno kaže razliko med cenami, po katerih so bile prenesene pogodbe, in cenami, ki so posledica poznejšega oddajanja istih pogodb na razpisih.
Expectations of subsequent price reductions do not imply that there was no economic advantage involved in the prices at which the contracts were transferred to Mesta AS.
Pričakovanja naknadnih znižanj cen ne pomenijo, da pri cenah, po katerih so bile pogodbe prenesene na družbo Mesta AS, ni šlo za gospodarsko prednost.
The authorities try to justify the pricing policy by arguing that the market was not entirely open to competition in 2003–2006.
Organi poskušajo cenovno politiko upravičiti z argumentom, da trg v letih 2003–2006 še ni bil popolnoma odprt za konkurenco.
However, Mesta AS benefited from the overpriced contracts still in force during the opening of the market.
Vendar je imela družba Mesta AS koristi od previsokih cen pogodb, ki so še vedno veljale med odpiranjem trga.
Indeed Mesta AS’ average price level has increased during the transitional period while Skanska’s average price level has been stable.
Povprečna raven cen družbe Mesta AS se je v prehodnem obdobju dejansko zvišala, povprečna raven cen družbe Skanska pa je ostala nespremenjena.
This shows that the contracts transferred to Mesta AS involved an economic advantage amounting to State aid.
To kaže, da so pogodbe, prenesene na družbo Mesta AS, vključevale gospodarsko prednost, ki pomeni državno pomoč.
RESTRUCTURING AND REORGANISATION MEASURES
UKREPI ZA PRESTRUKTURIRANJE IN REORGANIZACIJO
The Norwegian authorities have argued that no State aid is involved in the State funding for restructuring measures.
Norveški organi so trdili, da državno financiranje ukrepov za prestrukturiranje ne vključuje državne pomoči.
In this regard the Norwegian authorities have argued that Mesta AS was established on 1 January 2003 with a number of disadvantages originating in the fact that the Production Department formed part of the State administration and that the employees held a civil servant status.
Glede tega so norveški organi dokazovali, da je bila družba Mesta AS ustanovljena 1. januarja 2003 s številnimi slabimi stranmi, ki so izhajale iz dejstva, da je bil Oddelek za gradnjo del državne uprave in da so imeli zaposleni status državnega uradnika.
Disadvantages included the transfer to Mesta AS of an excessive number of employees (1700) for whom civil servant pension rights (or alternative rights) were maintained for a transitional period.
Med slabimi stranmi je bila premestitev presežnega števila zaposlenih (1700) v družbo Mesta AS, za katere so se v prehodnem obdobju ohranile pokojninske (ali alternativne) pravice državnih uradnikov.
Mesta AS paid the additional costs of maintaining such rights during the transitional period [128].
Družba Mesta AS je plačala dodatne stroške ohranjanja takih pravic med prehodnim obdobjem [128].
The intention behind granting Mesta AS funding for the restructuring measures was to compensate Mesta AS for having been established with costs which are inappropriate for commercial operations, such as the additional pension costs of civil servants, and which no competitors have.
Sredstva za ukrepe za prestrukturiranje so bila družbi Mesta AS dodeljena kot nadomestilo, ker je bila družba ustanovljena s stroški, ki so neprimerni za komercialne posle, kot so dodatni pokojninski stroški državnih uradnikov, in jih tekmeci nimajo.
The Norwegian authorities consider that such costs (which are subject to compensation) derive from obligations incurred as a consequence of the Production Department having formed part of the State administration and constitute therefore a State liability.
Norveški organi so menili, da taki stroški (ki se izravnajo z nadomestilom) izhajajo iz obveznosti, nastalih kot posledica dejstva, da je bil Oddelek za gradnjo del državne uprave, zato je zanj odgovorna država.
Hence compensation for such costs does therefore not constitute an economic advantage for Mesta AS.
Iz tega sledi, da nadomestilo za take stroške ne pomeni gospodarske prednosti za družbo Mesta AS.