natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Non-ortho PCBs (pg/g or ng/kg)
Ne-orto PCB-ji (pg/g ali ng/kg)
Mono-ortho PCBs (pg/g or ng/kg)
Mono-orto PCB (pg/g ali ng/kg)
NON-DIOXIN-LIKE PCBs
PCB-JI, KI NISO PODOBNI DIOKSINOM
PCB-7 (6) (μg/kg or ppb)
PCB-7 (6) (μg/kg ali ppb)
Other PCBs (μg/kg or ppb)
Drugi PCB-ji (μg/kg ali ppb)
No 55/05/COL
št. 55/05/COL
to close the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to the sale of 1744 rental apartments in Oslo (Norway)
o zaključku uradnega preiskovalnega postopka, določenega v členu 1(2) dela I protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču, v zvezi s prodajo 1744 najemnih stanovanj v Oslu (Norveška)
HAVING REGARD TO the Agreement on the European Economic Area [1], in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,
OB UPOŠTEVANJU Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru [1] ter zlasti členov 61 do 63 in Protokola 26 Sporazuma,
HAVING REGARD TO the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice [2], in particular to Article 24 and Article 1 in Part I of Protocol 3 thereof,
OB UPOŠTEVANJU Sporazuma med državami Efte o ustanovitvi Nadzornega organa in Sodišča [2] ter zlasti člena 24 in člena 1 v delu I Protokola 3 Sporazuma,
HAVING REGARD TO the Authority's Guidelines [3] on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement, in particular to Chapter 18B thereof,
OB UPOŠTEVANJU Smernic Nadzornega organa [3] o uporabi in razlagi členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP ter zlasti poglavja 18B Smernic,
HAVING CALLED ON interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above [4] and having regard to their comments,
OB POZIVU zainteresiranih strani, da predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z zgoraj navedenimi določbami [4], in ob upoštevanju njihovih pripomb,
In March 2001, the Municipality of Oslo decided to sell a portfolio of 1744 rental apartments before the end of May 2001.
Marca leta 2001 se je občina Oslo odločila, da pred koncem maja 2001 proda portfelj 1744 najemnih stanovanj.
The 1744 apartments were mainly let to employees of municipal hospitals.
1744 stanovanj je bilo večinoma oddanih zaposlenim v občinskih bolnišnicah.
The decision to sell was taken after the Norwegian Government presented plans for the implementation of a hospital reform whereby i.a. the ownership of the county hospitals was to be transferred to the State [5].By letter dated 18 May 2001 (Doc. No: 01-3792-D), the Authority requested the Norwegian authorities to submit all relevant information regarding the sale of the apartments so that the Authority could assess whether the sale was in accordance with Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Chapter 18B, State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public Authorities, of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines.
Odločitev o prodaji je bila sprejeta potem, ko je norveška vlada predstavila načrte za izvedbo bolnišnične reforme, s katero naj bi, med drugim, lastništvo nad okrajnimi bolnišnicami prenesla na državo [5].S pismom z dne 18. maja 2001 (Dok. št.: 01-3792-D) je Nadzorni organ zaprosil norveške organe, da predložijo vse ustrezne informacije v zvezi s prodajo stanovanj, da bi Nadzorni organ lahko ocenil, ali je prodaja v skladu s členom 61 Sporazuma EGP in poglavjem 18B, Elementi državne pomoči pri prodaji zemljišč in objektov s strani javnih oblasti, smernic Nadzornega organa o državni pomoči.
On 30 May 2001, the Oslo City Council (‘Bystyret’) decided to sell the apartments, and on 31 May 2001 the Municipality signed a contract with Fredensborg Boligutleie ANS (hereinafter Fredensborg) on the sale of the apartments.
Dne 30. maja 2001 se je Mestni svet Osla („Bystyret“) odločil, da proda stanovanja, in 31. maja 2001 je občina podpisala pogodbo s Fredensborg Boligutleie ANS (v nadaljnjem besedilu Fredensborg) o prodaji stanovanj.
The sales price was NOK 715 Million (approximately EUR 89 Million [6]).
Prodajna cena je bila 715 milijonov NOK (približno 89 milijonov EUR [6]).
By letter dated 31 May 2001 (Doc. No: 01-4004-D), the Authority reminded the Norwegian authorities of the ‘standstill-clause’ in Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement and the injunction provisions (‘interim measures’) contained in Chapter 6, Specificities regarding aid unlawful on procedural grounds, of the State Aid Guidelines.
S pismom z dne 31. maja 2001 (Dok. št.: 01-4004-D) je Nadzorni organ opozoril norveške organe na „klavzulo o mirovanju“ v členu 1(3) v delu I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in sodišču ter na začasne določbe („začasni ukrepi“) iz poglavja 6, Posebnosti v zvezi s pomočjo, nezakonito zaradi postopkovnih razlogov, smernic o državni pomoči.
By letter dated 26 June 2001 from the Mission of Norway to the European Union, forwarding a letter dated 15 June 2001 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry containing 17 annexes from the Municipality of Oslo, received and registered by the Authority on 26 June 2001 (Doc. No: 01-5730-A), the Norwegian authorities submitted the documents that they, in agreement with the Municipality of Oslo, regarded as containing the most relevant available information in order to assess whether the sale was in accordance with Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.
S pismom z dne 26. junija 2001 misije Norveške pri Evropski uniji, ki mu je bilo priloženo pismo z dne 15. junija 2001 Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo s 17 prilogami občine Oslo ter ki ga je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 26. junija 2001 (Dok. št.: 01-5730-A), so norveški organi poslali dokumente, za katere so v soglasju z občino Oslo menili, da vsebujejo najpomembnejše razpoložljive informacije za oceno, ali je bila prodaja v skladu s členom 61 Sporazuma EGP.
In the documentation from the Municipality of Oslo [7], the Municipality argued firstly that the sale was within the requirements set by the Authority's State Aid Guidelines [8].
Občina Oslo je v svojih dokumentih [7], prvič, trdila, da je bila prodaja v okviru zahtev, ki jih določajo smernice Nadzornega organa o državni pomoči [8].
The Municipality claimed that an independent expert evaluation was carried out in accordance with Chapter 18B.2.2 of the State Aid Guidelines and that the divergence of 3,4 % between the sales price and the value assessment was in line with market conditions as described in Chapter 18B.2.2(b) of the State Aid Guidelines [9].
Občina je trdila, da je bila opravljena neodvisna strokovna ocena v skladu s poglavjem 18B.2.2 smernic o državni pomoči ter da je bilo odstopanje 3,4 % med prodajno ceno in oceno vrednosti v skladu s tržnimi pogoji, opisanimi v poglavju 18B.2.2(b) smernic o državni pomoči [9].
Secondly, the Municipality pointed out that the sales process had to be seen in light of the time constraints.
Drugič, občina je poudarila, da je bilo treba v zvezi s prodajnim postopkom upoštevati časovne omejitve.
The Government, implementing a hospital reform, was the cause of the time constraint that the Municipality was subject to.
Vzrok za časovno omejitev, ki ji je bila občina izpostavljena, je bila vlada, ki je izvajala bolnišnično reformo.
According to the Municipality, this might have resulted in a smaller number of bidders than desirable, and the buyers might have submitted bids lower than those submitted if they had had more time at their disposal [10].
Po mnenju občine je to morda privedlo do manjšega števila ponudnikov, kot bi bilo zaželeno, in kupci so morda predložili nižje ponudbe, kot bi jih, če bi imeli na voljo več časa [10].
The Municipality argued, however, that the Municipality conducted the sale with a bidding process in the same way as a private seller would have done.By letter dated 20 July 2001 to the Norwegian authorities (Doc. No: 01-5673-D), the Authority stated that it had doubts regarding whether the procedure provided for in Chapter 18B.2.2 of the State Aid Guidelines was followed.
Občina je vseeno trdila, da je prodajo s ponudbenim postopkom opravila enako, kot bi to storil zasebni prodajalec.V pismu z dne 20. julija 2001 norveškim organom (Dok. št.: 01-5673 D) je Nadzorni organ izjavil, da dvomi, da je bil upoštevan postopek iz poglavja 18B.2.2 smernic o državni pomoči.
The Authority furthermore expressed doubts whether the assessments of the market value of the apartments were carried out prior to the sales negotiations, whether the evaluations were carried out on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards and whether a sales price 3,4 % below the evaluation was in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.
Nadzorni organ je poleg tega izrazil dvome o tem, ali so bile ocene tržne vrednosti stanovanj opravljene pred dogovori o prodaji, ali so bile ocene opravljene na podlagi splošno sprejetih tržnih kazalnikov in cenilskih standardov ter ali je bila prodajna cena 3,4 % pod oceno v skladu s smernicami o državni pomoči.
The Authority invited the Norwegian authorities to submit comments on this matter, which the Authority would take into consideration before taking a decision on whether to open a formal investigation procedure.
Nadzorni organ je norveške organe pozval, da predložijo pripombe k tej zadevi, ki jih bo upošteval, preden se bo odločil, ali bo uvedel uradni preiskovalni postopek.
The Ministry of Trade and Industry submitted its comments by telefax dated 27 July 2001, received and registered by the Authority on the same date (Doc. No: 01-6026-A).
Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo je svoje pripombe poslalo po telefaksu dne 27. julija 2001, ki ga je istega dne Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral (Dok. št.: 01-6026 A).
The Ministry stated that it did not disagree with the Authority that there might be doubts as to whether the sale is in accordance with Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and that further proceedings ‘will be carried out with the purpose to ensure that Norway's obligations under Article 61 of the EEA Agreement are respected’.
Ministrstvo je izjavilo, da se strinja z Nadzornim organom, da bi lahko obstajali dvomi o tem, ali je bila prodaja v skladu s členom 61 Sporazuma EGP, in da „bodo opravljeni nadaljnji postopki za zagotovitev upoštevanja obveznosti Norveške na podlagi člena 61 Sporazuma EGP“.
The Ministry informed the Authority that on 25 July 2001 the County Governor of Oslo and Akershus had decided that the Municipality of Oslo can not lawfully transfer the right of ownership before the County Governor had made his final decision.
Ministrstvo je obvestilo Nadzorni organ, da je dne 25. julija 2001 okrajni guverner Osla in Akershusa odločil, da občina Oslo ne more zakonito prenesti lastninske pravice, preden okrajni guverner ne sprejme svoje dokončne odločitve.
A new expert evaluation of the value of the buildings would also be carried out.
Prav tako naj bi bila opravljena nova strokovna ocena vrednosti objektov.
By letter dated 31 July 2001 (Doc. No: 03-829-A), the Authority stated that it was awaiting a formal notification of the sale in accordance with its State Aid Guidelines.
S pismom z dne 31. julija 2001 (Dok. št.: 03-829-A) je Nadzorni organ izjavil, da pričakuje uradno priglasitev prodaje v skladu s svojimi smernicami o državni pomoči.
The notification
Priglasitev
By letter from the Mission of Norway to the European Union dated 10 February 2003 (Doc. No: 03-829-A), forwarding a letter from the Ministry of Trade and Industry dated 7 February 2003 and a letter without date from the Municipality of Oslo (containing 31 annexes), all received and registered by the Authority on 11 February 2003, the Norwegian authorities submitted a notification pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, of the Municipality of Oslo's decision to sell the apartments.
S pismom misije Norveške pri Evropski uniji z dne 10. februarja 2003 (Dok. št.: 03-829-A), ki sta mu bili priloženi pismi Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo z dne 7. februarja 2003 ter pismo brez datuma občine Oslo (z 31 prilogami), kar je Nadzorni organ vse prejel in evidentiral 11. februarja 2003, so norveški organi, v skladu s členom 1(3) v delu I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču, poslali uradno obvestilo o odločitvi občine Oslo, da proda stanovanja.
The letter dated 7 February 2003 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the letter from the Municipality of Oslo (without annexes) were also sent by telefax, received and registered by the Authority on 7 February 2003 (Doc. No: 03-768-A).
Pismi Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo z dne 7. februarja 2003 in občine Oslo (brez prilog) sta bili poslani tudi po telefaksu ter ju je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 7. februarja 2003 (Dok. št.: 03-768 A).
The letter from the Municipality of Oslo contained i.a. a description of the apartments, information about the sales process, descriptions of the different value assessments as well as an assessment of potential cross border impact.
Pismo občine Oslo je med drugim vsebovalo opis stanovanj, informacije o prodajnem postopku, opise različnih ocen vrednosti in oceno morebitnega čezmejnega vpliva.
Concerning the apartments, the Municipality provided certain comments.
Kar zadeva stanovanja, je občina navedla nekatere pripombe.
Firstly, the size of the portfolio implied that there were not many actors in the market who could be expected to be potential buyers.
Prvič, velikost portfelja je pomenila, da na trgu ni bilo mnogo akterjev, za katere bi lahko pričakovali, da bodo potencialni kupci.
That would influence the possibility of carrying out the sale and also the terms of any transaction.
To naj bi vplivalo na možnost izvedbe prodaje in tudi na pogoje kakršne koli transakcije.
Secondly, the price was dependent on when and how fast existing rents could be increased, which was highly uncertain.
Drugič, cena je bila odvisna od tega, kdaj in kako hitro bi bilo mogoče zvišati obstoječe najemnine, kar je bilo zelo negotovo.
Thirdly, the uncertain circumstances with the existing contracts, an unfamiliarity with Norwegian mandatory tenant law, made an investment less attractive for undertakings not already established in the rental market in Norway.
Tretjič, zaradi negotovih okoliščin pri obstoječih pogodbah, neseznanjenosti z norveškim zakonom o obveznem najemu je bila naložba manj privlačna za podjetja, ki še niso bila uveljavljena na najemnem trgu na Norveškem.
Fourthly, the apartments were of a varying age, standard and location which influenced the renovation costs.
Četrtič, stanovanja so bila različnih starosti, standardov in lokacij, kar je vplivalo na stroške obnove.
Concerning the sales process (see point 2.2 below), the Municipality stated that: ‘It is not disputed that the procedural requirements of the State aid Guidelines have not been fully observed in the present case.’
Kar zadeva prodajni postopek (glej točko 2.2 spodaj), je občina izjavila, da „ni sporno, da postopkovne zahteve smernic o državni pomoči v tem primeru niso bile v celoti upoštevane“.
The Municipality concluded that: ‘The sale was conducted through a well-publicized, open and unconditional bidding process, albeit the period in which the apartments were marketed was shorter than the period required according to the State Aid Guidelines.
Občina je sklenila: „Prodaja je bila opravljena prek zadostno oglaševanega, odprtega in brezpogojnega ponudbenega postopka, čeprav je bilo obdobje, v katerem so se stanovanja tržila, krajše od obdobja, ki ga zahtevajo smernice o državni pomoči.
There is, however, no reason to assume that the sale was conducted in a manner not likely to achieve market value for the apartments sold, or likely to exclude foreign investors.
Vendar pa ni razloga za domnevo, da je bila prodaja opravljena na način, za katerega ni bilo verjetno, da bo dosegel tržno vrednost prodanih stanovanj, ali ki bi verjetno izključil tuje vlagatelje.
Even if the Authority should be of the opinion that the sale comprises an element of aid, we submit that it should be concluded that the transaction does not fall within the ambit of Article 61(1) EEA, as intra-EEA trade is not affected.’
Četudi bi Nadzorni organ menil, da prodaja vsebuje element pomoči, predlagamo, da je treba zaključiti, da transakcija ne spada na področje člena 61(1) EGP, saj trgovina v EGP ni prizadeta.“
The sales process
Prodajni postopek
The sales process was described in the notification received by the Authority on 11 February 2003, i.a. in Annex 1 and 10 to the notification.
Prodajni postopek je bil opisan v priglasitvi, ki jo je Nadzorni organ prejel 11. februarja 2003, med drugim v prilogah 1 in 10 k priglasitvi.
The Authority understands that the sales process took place as follows:
Nadzorni organ razume, da je prodajni postopek potekal, kot sledi:
On 16 March 2001, the independent real estate agency, Akershus Eiendom AS (hereinafter Akershus), was given the task of selling the apartments en bloc on behalf of the Municipality of Oslo.
Dne 16. marca 2001 je bila neodvisna nepremičninska agencija Akershus Eiendom AS (v nadaljnjem besedilu Akershus) odgovorna za prodajo stanovanj en bloc (v paketu) v imenu občine Oslo.
Akershus launched the sale on 2 April 2001, with a value assessment from Catella Eiendoms-Consult AS (hereinafter Catella), which estimated the value at NOK 1143 Million (see point 2.3 below for a description of the assessment).
Akershus je začel prodajo 2. aprila 2001 z oceno vrednosti, ki jo je opravilo podjetje Catella Eiendoms-Consult AS (v nadaljnjem besedilu Catella), v višini 1143 milijonov NOK (glej točko 2.3 spodaj za opis ocene).
The following six companies were contacted directly by Akershus:
Akershus je navezal neposredne stike z naslednjimi šestimi podjetji:
Another nine companies contacted Akershus on their own initiative.
Z drugimi devetimi podjetji je Akershus navezal stike na njihovo pobudo.
These were:
To sta bili:
The inhabitants, represented by Ole Løken, attorney at law
Prebivalci, ki jih je zastopal odvetnik Ole Løken
An offer for the sale of the apartments was made public by a press release dated 19 April 2001.
Ponudba za prodajo stanovanj je bila objavljena s sporočilom za javnost z dne 19. aprila 2001.
A prospectus covering the apartments was distributed to the 15 companies mentioned above on 23 April 2001.
Prospekt o stanovanjih je bil 15 zgoraj navedenim podjetjem razposlan dne 23. aprila 2001.
On 26 April 2001, OPAK AS (hereinafter OPAK) submitted a value assessment concluding that the market value was NOK 795 Million, which was also distributed (see point 2.3 below for a description of the assessment).
Dne 26. aprila 2001 je OPAK AS (v nadaljnjem besedilu OPAK) predložil oceno vrednosti, ki je ugotavljala, da je bila tržna vrednost 795 milijonov NOK, in je bila prav tako razposlana (glej točko 2.3 spodaj za opis ocene).
Investors were asked to submit their bids by 2 May 2001, and the bidding contest was brought to an end on 3 May 2001.
Vlagatelji so bili pozvani, da predložijo svoje ponudbe do 2. maja 2001, in ponudbeni postopek je bil zaključen 3. maja 2001.
The inhabitants, represented by Ole Løken, attorney at law:
Prebivalci, ki jih je zastopal odvetnik Ole Løken:
NOK 300 Million
300 milijonov NOK
NOK 500 Million
500 milijonov NOK
NOK 505 Million
505 milijonov NOK
NOK 690 Million
690 milijonov NOK
NOK 725 Million
725 milijonov NOK
On 3 May 2001, the five companies could change or increase their offers after having been informed about the highest offer submitted on 2 May 2001.
Dne 3. maja je teh pet podjetij lahko spremenilo ali zvišalo svoje ponudbe, potem ko je bilo obveščenih o najvišji ponudbi, predloženi 2. maja 2001.
The following new offers were received:
Prejeti sta bili naslednji novi ponudbi:
NOK 735 Million
735 milijonov NOK
The Municipality of Oslo chose to accept the offer from Sunndal Collier & Co ASA and on 8 May 2001, Sundal Collier & Co ASA, Fredensborg being its successor, signed the contract.
Občina Oslo se je odločila za ponudbo podjetja Sunndal Collier & Co ASA in dne 8. maja 2001 je podjetje Sunndal Collier & Co ASA, katerega naslednik je Fredensborg, podpisalo pogodbo.
After the offer was accepted, it was discovered that two buildings (Internat A og B) in connection with one of the hospitals (Ullevål Sykehus) was being used by Oslo og Akerhus høgskolenes studentsamskipnad (OAS) without any rent being paid (based on a contract not signed by the Municipality, but adhered to by Ullevål Sykehus and OAS, according to which OAS i.a. would only cover operating costs).
Ko je bila ponudba sprejeta, je bilo ugotovljeno, da dve stavbi (Internat A og B) v povezavi z eno od bolnišnic (Ullevål Sykehus) uporablja Oslo og Akerhus høgskolenes studentsamskipnad (OAS), ne da bi plačeval kakršno koli najemnino (na podlagi pogodbe, ki je občina ni podpisala, vendar sta se je Ullevål Sykehus in OAS držala, ter po kateri naj bi OAS med drugim kril le obratovalne stroške).
As a consequence of this, the contract between the Municipality and Fredensborg was amended on several points.
Zaradi tega je bila pogodba med občino in Fredensborgom spremenjena v več točkah.
By letter dated 11 May 2001, the Municipality asked OPAK to assess the consequence of this for their value assessment.
S pismom z dne 11. maja 2001 je občina zaprosila OPAK, da oceni posledice tega za njihovo oceno vrednosti.
On 14 May 2001, OPAK submitted a corrected value assessment of NOK 740 Million (see point 2.3 below).
Dne 14. maja 2001 je OPAK predložil popravljeno oceno vrednosti v višini 740 milijonov NOK (glej točko 2.3 spodaj).
By signing the contract on 31 May 2001, the Municipality of Oslo sold the 1744 apartments en bloc at a price of NOK 715 Million to Fredensborg.
S podpisom pogodbe dne 31. maja 2001 je občina Oslo prodala 1744 stanovanj en bloc (v paketu) po ceni 715 milijonov NOK podjetju Fredensborg.
The value assessments submitted as part of the notification
Ocene vrednosti, predložene kot del priglasitve
The notification contained three appraisals: one from Catella (Annex 16 to the notification), one from OPAK (Annex 18 to the notification) and one from FIGA/Nortakst (Annex 21 to the notification).
Priglasitev je vsebovala tri ocene: oceno podjetja Catella (priloga 16 k priglasitvi), oceno podjetja OPAK (priloga 18 k priglasitvi) in oceno podjetij FIGA/Nortakst (priloga 21 k priglasitvi).
The valuation from Catella
Ocena podjetja Catella
Catella was engaged by the Municipality of Oslo on 14 March 2003 with a mandate to assess the market value of the apartments as a portfolio (all apartments sold at the same time to one buyer).
Občina Oslo je 14. marca 2003 najela podjetje Catella, da oceni tržno vrednost stanovanj kot portfelja (vsa stanovanja so se prodala hkrati enemu kupcu).
The report was originally made in order to set up an opening balance sheet relating to the hospitals.
Poročilo je bilo prvotno izdelano, da bi določilo otvoritveno bilanco stanja v zvezi z bolnišnicami.
The appraisal was to be finished by 30 March 2001.
Cenitev naj bi bila končana do 30. marca 2001.
Catella stated that the appraisal was not in accordance with the rules of the Norwegian Appraisers Association (‘Norges Takseringsforbund’) and was conducted in a superficial way [11].
Podjetje Catella je izjavilo, da cenitev ni bila izvedena po pravilih norveškega združenja cenilcev („Norges Takseringsforbund“) in je bila opravljena površno [11].
Catella came to the conclusion that the market value was NOK 1143 Million.
Podjetje Catella je tržno vrednost ocenilo na 1143 milijonov NOK.
The Municipality of Oslo referred to the fact that Akershus considered that the value calculated by Catella did not reflect market value.
Občina Oslo se je sklicevala na dejstvo, da je Akershus menil, da vrednost, ki jo je izračunalo podjetje Catella, ni izražala tržne vrednosti.
One reason for this was that Akershus considered that the stipulated rentals were too high and the estimated initial costs too low.
En razlog za to je bil, da je Akershus menil, da so bile predvidene najemnine previsoke in ocenjeni začetni stroški prenizki.
the report included real estate not included in the sale (Trondheimsveien 235, estimated value NOK 61 million),
Poročilo je vključevalo nepremičnino, ki ni bila vključena v prodajo (Trondheimsveien 235, ocenjena vrednost 61 milijonov NOK).