natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since the development and management of this platform respond to the objective of promoting Norway as a tourism destination and this general task cannot be defined as an economic activity, nor can the IT services under scrutiny in this case be defined as such.
V sodni praksi se v določenih primerih priznava, da „za namene presoje narave te dejavnosti nakupa ni treba razmejiti dejavnosti nakupa proizvoda od poznejše uporabe, kar je bilo storjeno, in da gospodarska ali negospodarska narava poznejše uporabe kupljenega proizvoda nujno določa naravo dejavnosti nakupa“ [68].
The Authority maintains the opposite conclusion, confirming its preliminary view expressed in the opening decision.
Vendar Nadzorni organ opozarja, da prejemniki informacijskih storitev družbe IN, regionalni turistični uradi in organizacije za upravljanje destinacij, te storitve uporabljajo tudi za izvajanje gospodarskih in negospodarskih storitev.
The Authority notes, firstly, that the 2013 Budget letter [67] allows IN to provide both economic and non-economic activities, given that a difference is established regarding the financing of those activities: the economic activities must be provided on market terms and therefore financed by the clients.
Regionalni turistični uradi in organizacije za upravljanje destinacij zagotavljajo splošno turistično promocijo svojih geografskih območij, pa tudi posamezne turistične dejavnosti za svoje delničarje in stranke.
Consequently, the legal possibility exists for IN to provide simultaneously economic and non-economic services.
Nadzorni organ tako ugotavlja, da družba IN zagotavlja gospodarske storitve.
Secondly, the Authority considers that the fact that IN on certain occasions acts as an instrument of the State to ensure a general promotion of Norway and in this respect does not provide services or goods on the market, is not sufficient reason to conclude that IN is not offering other economic services in the tourism sector.
Četrtič, Nadzorni organ meni, da v nasprotju s trditvijo norveških organov, glej uvodno izjavo 90, za promocijo Norveške kot turistične destinacije ni nujno treba zagotavljati tudi spletne infrastrukture in povezanih storitev.
Thirdly, the Authority agrees that the promotion of Norway as a tourism destination is not an economic activity.
Dejansko je družba IN do leta 2013 uspešno promovirala turizem na Norveškem, čeprav šele od takrat ponuja navedene spletne storitve na podlagi elitnih pogodb o partnerstvu.
However, on the platform, IN offers different types of services.
Tako ne more ugotoviti, da so te storitve neločljivo povezane.
IN offers marketing and promotion of general contents regarding Norway, i.e. general information about the light nights, weather, geographic characteristics of the country, etc., but also specific tourism content, i.e. promotion of hotels, restaurants, or other business.
Petič, Nadzorni organ opozarja, da je pri opredelitvi storitve kot gospodarske pomembno, ali je na zadevnem trgu konkurenca, tj. ali drugi subjekti ponujajo enako ali zamenljivo blago in storitve [69].
Marketing general information on Norway is not an economic activity, but promoting specific tourism businesses constitutes an economic activity.
Spletno infrastrukturo in povezane storitve zagotavljajo tudi zasebni ponudniki, kot je pritožnik, zato Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je v obravnavani zadevi ta pogoj izpolnjen.
The Authority cannot accept the argument that providing web infrastructure and related services to the RTBs and DMOs does not constitute an economic activity because the final aim is to provide a non-economic activity, namely general promotion of Norway as a tourism destination.
Sodišče Evropske unije je v svoji sodni praksi poudarilo, da se gospodarske dejavnosti običajno ponujajo za plačilo [70].
It is the Authority's view that the aim of the Norwegian authorities is not relevant when establishing whether IN provides an economic activity.
Ker pritožnik in družba IN zagotavljata spletno infrastrukturo in povezane storitve za plačilo, Nadzorni organ meni, da je to še en razlog, zakaj bi bilo treba navedene storitve opredeliti kot gospodarske.
The Authority considers that the promotion of private tourism business entails an economic activity.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa to velja tudi, če družba IN spletne infrastrukture in povezanih storitev ne zagotavlja kot samostojne storitve; ko se spletna mesta regionalnih turističnih uradov in organizacij za upravljanje destinacij vključijo v platformo visitnorway.com, regionalni turistični uradi in organizacije za upravljanje destinacij prejemajo storitve platforme, ki so jih prej za plačilo kupovali od zasebnih ponudnikov.
The case-law has accepted in certain cases that ‘there is no need to dissociate the activity of purchasing goods from the subsequent use to which they are put in order to determine the nature of that purchasing activity, and that the nature of the purchasing activity must be determined according to whether or not the subsequent use of the purchased goods amounts to an economic activity’ [68].
Zato ni pomembno, ali se te storitve ponujajo samo regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij, ne pa tudi drugim družbam za upravljanje destinacij.
The RTBs and DMOs provide general tourism promotion of their respective geographic areas, but also specific tourism activities on behalf of their shareholders and clients.
Gospodarska prednost
The Authority thus concludes that IN provides economic services.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, norveški organi trdijo, da je treba zagotavljanje spletne infrastrukture in povezanih storitev razumeti v okviru dejavnosti družbe IN za promocijo turizma, in sicer kot del cilja Norveške, da se zmanjša število regionalnih turističnih uradov in organizacij za upravljanje destinacij ter da turizem postane učinkovitejši.
Fourthly, the Authority considers that, contrary to the argument put forward by the Norwegian authorities, see recital 90 above, in order to promote Norway as a tourism destination it is not necessary also to provide web infrastructure and related services.
Nadzorni organ opozarja, da v členu 61(1) Sporazuma EGP ni razlikovanja med državnimi ukrepi glede na njihove vzroke ali cilje, temveč so opredeljeni glede na svoje učinke [71].
In fact, until 2013, IN was successfully promoting tourism in Norway despite the fact that only from this date it offers those web services through the premium partnership agreements.
Sodišče Evropske unije je navedlo, da iz tega „izhaja, da je pojem pomoči objektiven in da je presoja odvisna zgolj od vprašanja, ali je z državnim ukrepom podeljena ugodnost enemu ali več določenim podjetjem“ [72].
The Authority underlines that the Norwegian authorities have not provided any evidence to conclude that unless the referred web services are offered through visitnorway.com, IN's efforts promoting tourism in the country will be inefficient.
Zato cilji nove strukture norveškega turizma niso pomembni pri ugotavljanju, ali domnevni ukrepi pomenijo prednost in državno pomoč.
Therefore, the Authority does not accept that in order to promote Norway as a tourism destination it is necessary to also provide the web infrastructure and related services.
V obravnavani zadevi je obstoj prednosti odvisen od tega, (i) ali je družba IN svoje gospodarske dejavnosti navzkrižno subvencionirala z javnimi sredstvi, ki jih je prejela kot nadomestilo za negospodarske dejavnosti, in (ii) ali je družba IN zahtevala ustrezni donos kapitala (razumni dobiček) za gospodarske storitve, ki jih je zagotavljala regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij.
The Authority thus fails to see that the services are inseparable.
Ti vprašanji bosta preučeni v naslednjih dveh pododdelkih.
Fifthly, the Authority recalls that in defining a service as economic, a significant factor is whether competition exists on the market in question, i.e. if there are other entities offering the same or substitutable goods and services [69].
Nadzorni organ bo v preučitvi ugotovil, ali so se storitve, kupljene od družbe IN, regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij zaračunavale po nižji ceni, kot bi prevladala v razmerah konkurenčnega trga (tj. neobstoj tržne moči).
Web infrastructure and related services are also provided by private operators, such as the Complainant, and therefore the Authority concludes that this condition is met in the present case.
Nadzorni organ meni, da je razumen približek za tako konkurenčno raven cena, s katero se lahko pokrijejo dodatni stroški, tj. neposredno pripisljivi spremenljivi stroški in ustrezni delež splošnih (fiksnih) stroškov, čemur se prišteje ustrezen donos kapitala [73].
In its case-law, the CJEU has underlined that economic activities are normally offered against remuneration [70].
Navzkrižno subvencioniranje spletne infrastrukture in povezanih storitev
Both the Complainant and IN provide web infrastructure and related services against remuneration, therefore the Authority considers this another reason why these services should be defined as economic.
Kadar subjekt izvaja gospodarske in negospodarske dejavnosti, bi moral biti uveden sistem stroškovnega računovodstva za zagotovitev, da se gospodarske dejavnosti ne subvencionirajo z državnimi sredstvi, dodeljenimi za negospodarske dejavnosti navedenega subjekta [74].
It is the Authority's view that this conclusion holds even if IN does not provide the web infrastructure and related services as a stand-alone service; when the websites of RTBs and DMOs are integrated into visitnorway.com, the RTBs and DMOs receive services from the platform, which they previously used to purchase from private operators against remuneration.
Vzpostavljeni morajo biti objektivni in pregledni mehanizmi razporejanja stroškov, ki zagotavljajo, da se z državnimi sredstvi, dodeljenimi za negospodarske dejavnosti navedenega subjekta, ne krijejo dodatni stroški, povezani z gospodarskimi dejavnostmi.
Consequently, it is not relevant whether the provision of these services is only offered to RTBs and DMOs and not to other destination management companies.
Če taki mehanizmi niso vzpostavljeni, lahko gospodarske dejavnosti pridobijo prednosti iz javnih sredstev, dodeljenih za negospodarske dejavnosti.
Consequently, the Authority concludes that IN is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement when providing web infrastructure and related services.
Poleg tega bi morali biti iz notranjih računovodskih izkazov razvidni stroški in prihodki, ki ustrezajo različnim storitvam [75].
Economic advantage
Zato bo Nadzorni organ preveril, ali ima družba IN uvedeno metodologijo, s katero lahko loči stroške in prihodke iz svojih gospodarskih in negospodarskih dejavnosti, da se tako izključi tveganje za navzkrižno subvencioniranje med različnimi dejavnostmi družbe IN.
As already stated, the Norwegian authorities have argued that the provision of web infrastructure and related services must be understood in the context of IN's activities to promote tourism, as part of the Norwegian objective to reduce the number of RTBs and DMOs and render the tourism industry more efficient.
Nadzorni organ bo tudi preučil računovodske izkaze družbe IN v zvezi z gospodarskimi dejavnostmi, ki jih zagotavlja regionalnim turističnim uradom in organizacijam za upravljanje destinacij.
The Authority recalls that Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement does not distinguish between State interventions by reference to their causes or their objectives but defines them by reference to their effects [71].
Mehanizem razporejanja stroškov
The CJEU has stated that ‘it follows that the concept of State aid is objective; the test being whether a state measure confers an advantage on one or more particular undertakings’ [72].
Kot je bilo že navedeno, mora javno podjetje, ki izvaja gospodarske in negospodarske dejavnosti, vzpostaviti računovodske sisteme in postopke, ki mu omogočajo, da vse dodatne stroške, nastale pri zagotavljanju gospodarske storitve, razporedi v računovodske izkaze, ki vsebujejo gospodarske dejavnosti [76].
Therefore, the purposes of the new Norwegian tourism structure are not relevant in order to determine whether the alleged measures entail and advantage and a State aid.
Nadzorni organ je na podlagi informacij, ki jih je zagotovila družba IN, ugotovil, da so splošni stroški naslednji: (i) razvojni stroški projekta nove strukture, (ii) splošni operativni stroški, tj. spremljanje izvajanja in upravljanje, podpora spletnega skrbnika itd., ter (iii) tehnični operativni stroški platforme, tj. svetovalci s področja informacijske tehnologije, letne licenčnine za programsko opremo, vzdrževanje strojne in programske opreme itd. [77].
In the present case, the existence of an advantage depends on (i) whether IN has cross-subsidised its economic activities with the public funds received to compensate its non-economic activities, and (ii) whether IN has required an adequate return on capital (reasonable profit) for the economic services provided to the RTBs and DMOs.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da razvojni stroški pomenijo stroške vodenja projekta, razvoja zasnove, tehničnega razvoja in izboljšav, preskušanja in dela, ki so ga svetovalci opravili za pripravo platforme visitnorway.com na projekt nove strukture.
These two issues will be assessed in the next two subsections.
Razvojni stroški so v letu 2013 znašali približno 18 milijonov NOK [78].
For the purpose of the assessment, the Authority will determine whether the RTBs and DMOs were charged for the services purchased from IN a price below the level which would prevail in a competitive market setting (i.e. absent market power).
Po navedbah norveških organov v odgovoru na sklep o začetku postopka [79] so bili gospodarskim storitvam, ki so se zagotavljale prek platforme, dodeljeni 4 milijoni NOK.
The Authority considers that a reasonable proxy for such a competitive level is a price sufficient to cover the incremental costs, i.e. the directly attributable variable costs and an appropriate share of common (fixed) costs, plus an adequate return on capital [73].
Glede na zagotovljene informacije in ob upoštevanju delitve stroškov na podlagi popolne preglednosti med splošnim trženjem in posebnim trženjem [80] je velika večina operativnih in tehničnih stroškov nove strukture (približno 89 %) povezana s splošnim trženjem Norveške (negospodarska dejavnost).
Cross-subsidisation of the web infrastructure and related services
V poslovni model družbe IN so bili torej vključeni 4 milijoni NOK razvojnih stroškov kot naložbeni stroški.
When an entity carries out both economic and non-economic activities, a cost-accounting system should be in place to ensure that the economic activities are not subsidised through state resources allocated to the non-economic activities of that entity [74].
Norveški organi so zagotovili informacije, ki potrjujejo, da gre za smiselno razporeditev razvojnih stroškov.
Objective and transparent cost allocation mechanisms should be in place to ensure that the state resources allocated to the non-economic activities of that entity do not cover incremental costs related to the economic activities.
Natančneje, družba IN je Nadzorni organ obvestila, da je bilo s preverjanjem 15766 uredniških strani in 19000 imenikov izračunano, da je bilo v obdobju od 23. marca 2014 do 23. marca 2015 84,3 % vseh ogledov strani opredeljenih kot splošno trženje, 15,7 % vseh ogledov strani pa je bilo poslovnih imenikov [81].
Without such mechanisms in place, the economic activities may gain advantages from the public funds granted to non-economic activities.
Zato bi bilo treba največji del razvojnih stroškov razporediti med negospodarske storitve platforme.
Furthermore, internal accounts should allow for the identification of the costs and revenues corresponding to the different services [75].
Nadzorni organ na podlagi zagotovljenih informacij, navedenih zgoraj, navaja, da je delež razvojnih stroškov, razporejenih med gospodarske storitve družbe IN, višji od 20 %, kar presega dejanski delež stroškov, povezanih s promocijo posameznih vsebin, navedenih zgoraj.
Consequently, the Authority will check whether IN has had in place a methodology allowing it to separate costs and revenues of its economic and non-economic activities, as a means to exclude the risk of cross subsidisation between IN's different activities.
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da je dodelitev 4 milijonov NOK v poslovni model elitnih pogodb o partnerstvu smiselna in upravičena.
The Authority will also assess IN's accounts regarding the economic services provided to the RTBs and DMOs.
Vendar pritožnik trdi, da bi morali razvojni stroški vključevati tudi dele stroškov, povezanih z vzpostavitvijo platforme leta 2007.
Cost allocation mechanism
Družba IN potrjuje, da ti stroški niso bili vključeni v izračun stroškov.
As already stated, a public undertaking carrying out economic and non-economic activities must implement accounting systems and procedures which permit it to allocate all incremental costs incurred in providing the economic service to the accounts containing economic activities [76].
Trdi, da je platforma obstajala že pred podpisom elitnih pogodb o partnerstvu, regionalni turistični uradi in organizacije za upravljanje destinacij pa so že imeli pogodbe o sodelovanju, pri čemer so plačevali letno partnersko pristojbino, ki je pripomogla k vzpostavitvi platforme [82].
On the basis of the information provided by IN, the Authority has concluded that the common costs are the following (i) development costs of the new structure project, (ii) general operating costs, i.e. follow up and administration, webmaster support, etc., and (iii) technical operating costs of the platform, i.e. IT consultants, annual software licence fees, maintenance hardware and software, etc.
Poleg tega začetni stroški niso bili vključeni, ker niso bili kapitalizirani [83], kot je dovoljeno z norveškimi računovodskimi standardi (NRS 19) [84].
[77].
NRS 19 se nanaša na zadevne neposredne stroške in kapitalizacijo stroškov.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that the development costs represent costs for the project management, concept development, technical development and improvements, testing and work done by consultants to prepare visitnorway.com for the new structure project.
V skladu s tem standardom neopredmetenih sredstev, tj. nedenarnih sredstev, ki fizično ne obstajajo ter jih podjetje uporablja pri proizvodnji ali prodaji blaga in storitev, ni treba kapitalizirati.
The development costs were approximately NOK 18 million in 2013 [78].
V skladu s temi pravili v primeru platforme visitnorway.com tako noben razvojni strošek ni bil kapitaliziran.
According to the reply from the Norwegian authorities to the opening decision [79], NOK 4 million were allocated to the economic services provided through the platform.
Poleg tega norveški organi pojasnjujejo, da bo leta 2015 za visitnorway.com uvedena nova platforma sistema za upravljanje destinacij v oblaku.
According to the information provided, taking into account cost sharing based on full transparency between generic marketing and specific marketing [80], the large majority of the operating and technical costs of the new structure (approximately 89 %) is connected to generic marketing of Norway (non-economic activity).
Sedanja platforma bo z vso vsebino, rutinami, licencami za programsko opremo itd. na voljo do konca leta 2015, nato pa bo ukinjena.
Therefore, IN's business model included NOK 4 million of the development costs as investments costs.
Na novo platformo bodo preseljena samo besedila in fotografije, pri čemer stara tehnična platforma zaradi tehničnega razvoja na trgu ne bo ohranila nobene vrednosti.
The Norwegian authorities have provided information confirming that this is a reasonable allocation of development costs.
Zato po navedbah družbe IN ni gospodarskih razlogov za kapitalizacijo projektov informacijske tehnologije, kot je visitnorway.com.
In particular, IN has informed the Authority that by screening 15766 editorial pages and 19000 listings, it has been calculated that 84,3 % of all page views are defined as generic marketing and 15,7 % of all the page views are business listings in the period 23 March 2014 to 23 March 2015 [81].
Nadzorni organ to utemeljitev sprejema, glede na to, da norveški računovodski standardi dovoljujejo, da se tovrstni stroški ne kapitalizirajo.
Therefore, the largest part of the development costs should be allocated to the non-economic services of the platform.
Nadzorni organ meni, da kolikor imajo vse družbe na Norveškem pravico, da tovrstnih stroškov ne kapitalizirajo, tudi če bi se to lahko štelo za prednost, potem ta prednost ni selektivna.
Based on the information provided and referred to above, the Authority notes that the percentage of development costs allocated to IN's economic services is over 20 %, which is larger than the actual share of costs related to the promotion of specific contents as referred to above.
Ukrep (možnost, da se stroški ne kapitalizirajo) je na voljo vsem sektorjem gospodarstva, vsem oblikam družb in vsem oblikam proizvodnje.
The Authority concludes therefore that the allocation of NOK 4 million to the business model of the premium partnership agreements is reasonable and justified.
Pri stroških, ki jih zajema pravilo NRS 19, ukrep tako ne bi pomenil niti selektivne prednosti niti državne pomoči [85].
The Complainant argues, however, that the development costs should also include parts of the costs related to the establishment of the platform itself in 2007.
Kar zadeva splošne operativne stroške za obdobje 2013–2018, družba IN različne stroške razporeja na podlagi metodologije urne postavke celotnih stroškov [86].
IN confirms that these costs have not been included in the costs calculation.
Ta metodologija temelji na smernicah, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 73, ki so bile sprejete leta 2011 in se uporabljajo od takrat.
IN argues that the platform existed already before the premium agreements were signed, and the RTBs and DMOs already had cooperation agreements, paying an annual partner-fee, which contributed to the establishment of the platform [82].
V skladu s to metodologijo je cena storitev odvisna od števila ur, ki jih zaposleni namenijo za zagotovitev takih storitev [87].
Furthermore, the initial costs were not included because they were not capitalised [83], as permitted by Norwegian accounting standards (NRS 19) [84].
Urne postavke družbe IN obsegajo neposredne stroške dela za osebo, ki delo opravlja, in režijske stroške, s katerimi se zagotovi, da ta oseba lahko svoje delo opravi [88].
NRS 19 relates to relevant direct cost and capitalisation of costs.
Režijski stroški vključujejo stroške najemnine, prostorov, telefonije, uprave in skupnih služb, kot so finančna služba, služba za informacijsko tehnologijo, kadrovska služba itd. Družba IN od leta 2014 urno postavko vsako leto zviša za 3 %, da zagotovi nadaljnje kritje vseh stroškov [89].
According to this standard, intangible assets, i.e. non-monetary assets without physical substance, which the company uses in the manufacture or sale of goods and services, do not need to be capitalised.
Družba IN z uporabo te metodologije zagotovi, da se različni projekti financirajo s plačili posameznih strank, s čimer se krijejo stroški, ki jih ima družba IN s tem, da jim zagotovi storitev.
Following these rules, in the case of visitnorway.com, none of the development costs have therefore been capitalised.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da je to vsaj v obravnavanem primeru zadostna metodologija razporejanja splošnih stroškov.
In addition, the Norwegian authorities explain that in 2015 a new cloud based DMS platform for visitnorway.com will be implemented.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je bila med pilotno študijo (2012–2013) urna postavka, vključena v računovodske izkaze obeh pilotnih študij, nižja od standardne urne postavke celotnih stroškov, ki jo je določila družba IN [90].