natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is supported by the various valuation reports submitted in this case, mentioned above at Paragraphs 7 and 10, that the selling of several buildings en bloc has a price reducing effect.
Različna poročila o oceni, predložena v zvezi s tem primerom in navedena v odstavkih 7 in 10, potrjujejo, da se ob prodaji več zgradb naenkrat cena zniža.
In addition to the two Agdestein reports, also the valuation of 15 March 2006 mentioned above at Paragraph 29 of 10 different buildings at the Inner Camp indicated that a rebate between “15-20 %” should be applicable in the event of a one unit sale of those 10 buildings.
Poleg dveh Agdesteinovih poročil je bilo tudi v oceni z dne 15. marca 2006, navedeni v odstavku 29, za 10 različnih zgradb v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča navedeno, da bi bilo treba v primeru prodaje teh 10 zgradb kot ene enote uporabiti „15–20-odstotno“ znižanje.
The Authority therefore considers that some quantity rebate would have been in accordance with the market terms.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da bi bilo nekaj količinskega popusta v skladu s tržnimi pogoji.
In this case, whether the rebate would have been 15, 20 or 25 %, is difficult to determine due to the lack of contemporary assessments and documentation.
V tem primeru je zaradi pomanjkanja aktualnih ocen in dokumentacije težko določiti, ali bi bilo znižanje 15-, 20- ali 25-odstotno.
All things considered and with reference to the assessment mentioned above of 10 other buildings in the Inner Camp and a likely quantity rebate of 15–20 %, the Authority, while in doubt, finds that an approximately similar quantity rebate as the one the municipality was granted, i.e. 25,64 %, could have been given to someone buying as much as 29 of the 44 buildings in the Inner Camp.
Ob upoštevanju vseh dejstev ter ob sklicevanju na zgoraj navedeno oceno za 10 drugih zgradb v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča in verjeten 15–20-odstotni količinski popust, Nadzorni organ, čeprav v dvomu, ugotavlja, da bi se lahko nekomu, ki bi kupil 29 od 44 zgradb v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča, priznal približno enak količinski popust, kot se je priznal občini, tj. 25,64 %.
Whether primary cost could be established by deducting value of other buildings
Ali bi se osnovni stroški lahko določili z odbitkom vrednosti drugih zgradb
The next question is whether the primary cost of the 29 buildings in question can be determined by deducting from the Inner Camp the value of the buildings that were not sold to Haslemoen AS.
Naslednje vprašanje je, ali je mogoče osnovne stroške za zadevnih 29 zgradb določiti tako, da se od ograjenega notranjega dela oporišča odšteje vrednost zgradb, ki niso bile prodane podjetju Haslemoen AS.
The described method basically entailed that no detailed assessment was made of the 29 buildings in question because there were indications that other parts of the Inner Camp were of a sufficiently high value to ensure that the overall value corresponded to the municipality’s alleged primary cost for the Inner Camp.
Opisana metoda je v bistvu pomenila, da v zvezi z zadevnimi 29 zgradbami ni bila izvedena nobena podrobna ocena, ker so obstajale navedbe, da je bila vrednost drugih delov ograjenega notranjega dela oporišča dovolj visoka za zagotovitev, da je splošna vrednost ustrezala domnevnim osnovnim stroškom občine za ograjeni notranji del oporišča.
This method appears uncertain and random due to the fact that the 3 different groups of buildings all were assessed according to different methods.
Ta metoda se zdi nezanesljiva in naključna, ker so bile 3 različne skupine zgradb ocenjene na podlagi različnih metod.
In short, the bridge value report was used to establish the starting point, the NOK 12,4 million primary cost value of the Inner Camp as such.
Skratka, poročilo o premostitveni vrednosti se je uporabilo za določitev izhodiščne točke, tj. 12,4 milijona NOK osnovnih stroškov ograjenega notranjega dela oporišča kot takega.
In the following assessment of the 3 different groups of buildings, a considerably lower value than the bridge value was put on the 29 buildings at issue and a higher value was put both on the buildings the municipality kept and the 11 others for which it had later received an offer.
Pri naslednji oceni 3 različnih skupin zgradb je bila za zadevnih 29 zgradb določena precej nižja vrednost od premostitvene vrednosti, za zgradbe, ki jih je občina obdržala, in 11 drugih zgradb, za katere je pozneje prejela ponudbo, pa višja vrednost.
The lower value was established on the basis of the negotiated price with Haslemoen AS and the higher values were both established on the basis of subsequent and newer information in the form of value assessments and an offer received.
Nižja vrednost je bila določena na podlagi dogovorjene cene s podjetjem Haslemoen AS, višji vrednosti pa na podlagi naknadnih in novejših informacij v obliki ocen vrednosti in prejete ponudbe.
This entailed in the view of the Authority the obvious risk that even if the overall starting point of the Inner Camp value had been correct (which it was not, see above), the price for the 29 buildings could be too low because later re-assessments of the other areas had established higher values.
Po mnenju Nadzornega organa je to pomenilo očitno tveganje, da bi bila cena za 29 zgradb lahko prenizka, tudi če je bila splošna izhodiščna točka ograjenega notranjega dela oporišča pravilna (kar pa ni bila, glej zgoraj), ker so bile v okviru poznejših ponovnih ocen drugih območij določene višje vrednosti.
Indeed, if anything, the later and higher value assessments in this case should point to little else than that the starting point at NOK 12,4 million was too low.
Poznejše ocene višje vrednosti v tem primeru bi morale dejansko opozarjati predvsem na to, da je bila izhodiščna točka v višini 12,4 milijona NOK prenizka.
Thus, the Authority concludes that the method referred to in the assessment of 2 May 2006 was not suitable to determine the primary cost and thereby the market value of the 29 buildings in question.
Zato je Nadzorni organ sklenil, da metoda iz ocene z dne 2. maja 2006 ni bila primerna za določitev osnovnih stroškov in s tem tržne vrednosti zadevnih 29 zgradb.
How to correctly determine the primary cost of the 29 buildings
Kako pravilno določiti osnovne stroške za 29 zgradb
As mentioned above, the assessment of the primary cost of the 29 buildings at issue is complicated by the fact that it was not made clear in the agreement between the state and the municipality what the latter paid for the different buildings in the Inner Camp.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je ocena osnovnih stroškov za zadevnih 29 zgradb zapletena, ker v pogodbi med državo in občino ni bilo pojasnjeno, koliko je slednja plačala za različne zgradbe v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča.
Instead it paid a fixed sum of NOK 15,5 million for the whole Inner Camp which included the so called 30 % rebate mentioned above.
Namesto tega je plačala fiksen znesek v višini 15,5 milijona NOK za celoten ograjeni notranji del oporišča, ki je vključeval tako imenovano 30-odstotno znižanje, navedeno zgoraj.
However, that bridge value was based on the two prior value assessments.
Vendar je premostitvena vrednost temeljila na dveh predhodnih ocenah vrednosti.
The first Agdestein report was based on individual assessment of the buildings and is in fact the only contemporary assessment thereof.
Prvo Agdesteinovo poročilo je temeljilo na individualni oceni zgradb in je dejansko edina aktualna ocena teh zgradb.
Since this assessment was the basis for the bridge value which again formed the basis for the actual price paid by the municipality, the Authority considers that the first Agdestein report provides the individual values necessary to accurately establish the primary cost of the 29 buildings in question.
Ker je bila ta ocena osnova za premostitveno vrednost, ta pa osnova za dejansko ceno, ki jo je plačala občina, Nadzorni organ meni, da prvo Agdesteinovo poročilo vsebuje posamezne vrednosti, potrebne za pravilno določitev osnovnih stroškov za zadevnih 29 zgradb.
The sales contract in question comprises the following 29 buildings at the Inner Camp [25]: Nos 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, (31,) 33, 92 and 16.
Zadevna prodajna pogodba zajema naslednjih 29 zgradb v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča [25]: št. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, (31,) 33, 92 in 16.
The investor values as assessed in the first Agdestein report of these buildings are the following:
Vrednosti vlagatelja teh zgradb, kot so bile ocenjene v prvem Agdesteinovem poročilu, so:
Guard/arrest stall: NOK
Čuvajnica / prostor za pripor:
Welfare House, including offices, cafeteria, cinema, chapel etc. NOK
Versko-družabni center, vključno s pisarnami, menzo, kinom, kapelico itd.
Administration and office Building NOK
Upravna in pisarniška zgradba
Drill Building NOK
Zgradba za urjenje
Garage
Garaža
Administration and office building NOK
Upravna in pisarniška zgradba
Hospital Building NOK
Bolnišnica
Kitchen and canteen building for soldiers personnel NOK
Kuhinja in menza za vojaško osebje
Kitchen and canteen building for officers NOK
Kuhinja in menza za častnike
Barrack
Baraka
Barrack, No 12-13 are assessed together NOK
Baraki št. 12 in 13, ocenjeni skupaj
Barrack,
Baraka
Barrack, No 14-15 are assessed together NOK
Baraki št. 14 in 15, ocenjeni skupaj
Garage, NOK
Garaža
Garage,
Garaža
Service garage,
Avtomehanična delavnica
Gas/petrol station
Bencinska črpalka
Garage, No 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 are assessed together NOK
Garaže št. 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 in 27, ocenjene skupaj
Regiment building with education room
Polkovna zgradba z učilnico
Post office, No 29 and 92 are assessed together NOK
Pošta, zgradbi št. 29 in 92, ocenjeni skupaj
School building, NOK
Šola
(Store shed),
(Lopa)
KO-building, school building NOK
Zgradba referenta za pogodbe, šolska zgradba
Fire/heating house NOK
Kurilnica
NOK
Vsota
The report did not separately assess the value of the individual buildings No 6 and No 8 (garages).
V poročilu ni bila ločeno ocenjena vrednost posameznih zgradb št. 6 in 8 (garaži).
Instead, they were assessed together with building No 45 (combined administration building with storage rooms, offices and workshop, not included in the contract with Haslemoen AS) at a total of NOK 1,9 million.
Namesto tega sta bili ocenjeni skupaj z zgradbo št. 45 (kombinirana upravna zgradba s skladišči, pisarnami in delavnico, ki ni vključena v pogodbo s podjetjem Haslemoen AS) na skupno vrednost 1,9 milijona NOK.
Building No 23 and No 24 (garage and gas station) were, in the same manner, assessed together with building No 34 (the camp office building, which was not included in the contract with Haslemoen AS) at a total value of NOK 800000.
Zgradbi št. 23 in 24 (garaža in bencinska črpalka) sta bili na enak način ocenjeni skupaj z zgradbo št. 34 (pisarniška zgradba oporišča, ki ni bila vključena v pogodbo s podjetjem Haslemoen AS) na skupno vrednost 800000 NOK.
The question is therefore whether some of the value put on these collectively assessed buildings should be allocated to the buildings acquired by Haslemoen AS, namely the four garages No 6, 8, 23 and 24.
Vprašanje se torej glasi, ali bi bilo treba nekaj vrednosti, pripisane tem skupaj ocenjenim zgradbam, dodeliti zgradbam, ki jih je kupilo podjetje Haslemoen AS, in sicer štirim garažam št. 6, 8, 23 in 24.
This issue was raised in the Authority’s opening decision referred to above, in which the Authority applied the most favourable scenario by disregarding these buildings.
To vprašanje je bilo izpostavljeno v zgoraj navedenem sklepu Nadzornega organa o začetku postopka, v katerem je Nadzorni organ ob neupoštevanju teh zgradb uporabil najugodnejši scenarij.
While the Authority has not been presented with any documentation to the effect that the four mentioned garages were worthless, it assumes that they were of limited value since the first Agdestein report chose to include whatever value they had in the estimates for other buildings.
Čeprav Nadzorni organ ni prejel nobene dokumentacije v zvezi s tem, da so štiri navedene garaže brez vrednosti, predvideva, da je bila njihova vrednost omejena, ker je bila v prvem Agdesteinovem poročilu njihova vrednost, kakršna koli že je bila, vključena v ocene za druge zgradbe.
Thus, in the absence of any contemporary documentation to the opposite and on the assumption that the value in any case appeared to be low the Authority will not add any specific value for these four buildings in the assessment of the relevant part of the Inner Camp.
Ob odsotnosti kakršne koli aktualne dokumentacije, ki bi dokazovala nasprotno, in na podlagi predpostavke, da se vrednost v vsakem primeru zdi nizka, Nadzorni organ pri oceni zadevnega dela ograjenega notranjega dela oporišča torej ne bo pripisal nobene posebne vrednosti tem štirim zgradbam.
The total value of the 29 buildings in question, as assessed in the first Agdestein report, reaches the sum of NOK 23840000.
Skupna vrednost zadevnih 29 zgradb, kot je bila ocenjena v prvem Agdesteinovem poročilu, znaša 23840000 NOK.
As mentioned above, the municipality was granted the so called 30 % rebate [26] on the Inner Camp value in the first Agdestein report.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, je bilo občini priznano tako imenovano 30-odstotno znižanje [26] na vrednost ograjenega notranjega dela oporišča iz prvega Agdesteinovega poročila.
Since the Authority under the circumstances of the present case finds that it was justified to grant a similar rebate to Haslemoen AS, the adjusted value of the 29 buildings as established by this report is 23840000 - 25,64 % =
Ker Nadzorni organ na podlagi okoliščin tega primera ugotavlja, da je bilo priznanje podobnega popusta podjetju Haslemoen AS utemeljeno, prilagojena vrednost 29 zgradb, kot je določena v tem poročilu, znaša 23840000 - 25,64 % =
Applying the bridge value method, the primary cost for the municipality for the 29 buildings in question was NOK 8863712.
Na podlagi metode premostitvene vrednosti so bili osnovni stroški občine za zadevnih 29 zgradb 8863712 NOK.
Given that the Authority has accepted that the state sold Haslemoen Leir to Våler municipality at market value, it accepts that a sum of NOK 8863712 was the municipality’s primary cost for the buildings and that this was the necessary indication of the market value.
Ker je Nadzorni organ priznal, da je država oporišče Haslemoen Leir prodala občini Våler po tržni vrednosti, priznava, da je znesek 8863712 NOK predstavljal osnovne stroške občine za zgradbe in da je to bil nujni pokazatelj tržne vrednosti.
On that basis it concludes that the sale to Haslemoen AS at NOK 4 million contained state aid amounting to NOK 8863712 - NOK 4000000 =
Nadzorni organ je na podlagi tega sklenil, da je prodaja podjetju Haslemoen AS po ceni 4 milijone NOK vključevala državno pomoč v znesku 8863712 NOK - 4000000 NOK =
The municipality has also submitted that the Authority should take into consideration the price-reducing elements consisting of possible pollution in the ground and the obligation on Haslemoen AS to allow free use of the school building for one year.
Občina je tudi navedla, da bi moral Nadzorni organ upoštevati elemente zniževanja cene, ki vključujejo morebitno onesnaženost tal in obveznost podjetja Haslemoen AS, da za eno leto dovoli brezplačno uporabo šolske zgradbe.
There has however not been submitted any particular contemporary or subsequently produced documentation concerning these alleged price reducing elements and the impact they allegedly have had on the price.
Vendar pa ni bila predložena nobena posebna aktualna ali naknadno pripravljena dokumentacija v zvezi s temi domnevnimi elementi zniževanja cene in učinkom, ki ga domnevno imajo na ceno.
Pollution in the ground
Onesnaženost tal
As regards pollution in the ground the Authority would agree that this could be a rather obvious possibility given that the camp was used for military purposes since the 1950s.
Kar zadeva onesnaženost tal, se Nadzorni organ strinja, da je ta precej verjetna glede na to, da se je oporišče od petdesetih let 20. stoletja uporabljalo za vojaške namene.
The Authority has in this regard noted that the first Agdestein report specifically mentioned possible pollution in the ground in the Inner Camp related to fuel and oil tanks in the ground.
Nadzorni organ je v zvezi s tem ugotovil, da je bila v prvem Agdesteinovem poročilu izrecno navedena morebitna onesnaženost tal v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča, povezana z rezervoarji goriva in nafte v tleh.
This was however not taken into account in the value assessment.
Vendar se to ni upoštevalo v oceni vrednosti.
The Alhaug/Bakke value assessment, which estimate the value of the Inner Camp at NOK 0, mentioned both the possibility of pollution in the ground and possible asbestos in the buildings, without making an attempt at specifying possible costs related thereto.
V Alhaug/Bakkovi oceni vrednosti, po kateri je vrednost ograjenega notranjega dela oporišča 0 NOK, sta bili navedeni tako možnost onesnaženosti tal kot tudi morebitni azbest v zgradbah, brez kakršnega koli poskusa določitve morebitnih stroškov v zvezi s tem.
However, the Authority recalls that the reports were used as a basis for the halfway settlement.
Vendar Nadzorni organ opozarja, da so se poročila uporabila kot osnova za poravnavo s srednjo vrednostjo.
Thus, any price reducing or negative element in the report must be assumed taken into account by the subsequent halfway settlement.
Zato je treba predvidevati, da so se v poznejši poravnavi s srednjo vrednostjo upoštevali vsi elementi zniževanja cene ali negativni elementi.
Indeed, the Authority sees no basis for any additional price reduction for any element or circumstance that was known between the parties to the first transaction.
Nadzorni organ dejansko ne vidi nobenega razloga za kakršno koli dodatno znižanje cene zaradi kakršnega koli elementa ali okoliščine, s katerimi so bile seznanjene stranke v prvi transakciji.
This is so since the effect of such measures must be assumed taken into account in the bridge value sales price.
To pa zato, ker je treba predvidevati, da se je učinek teh ukrepov upošteval v prodajni ceni na podlagi premostitvene vrednosti.
A resale at primary cost must be assumed to cover the same price reducing elements.
Treba je predvidevati, da nadaljnja prodaja po vrednosti osnovnih stroškov vključuje enake elemente zniževanja cene.
Finally, the contract between the state and the municipality explicitly referred to the possibility of pollution in the ground and made a reference to the polluter pays principle in the Norwegian Pollution act.
Poleg tega sta bila v pogodbi med državo in občino izrecno navedena možnost onesnaženosti tal in sklicevanje na načelo onesnaževalec plača iz norveškega zakona o onesnaževanju.
The subsequent contract between the municipality and Haslemoen AS specifically referred to this obligation and that the seller, i.e. the Norwegian state remained liable for ground pollution linked to the military activity.
V poznejši pogodbi med občino in podjetjem Haslemoen AS je bila posebej navedena ta obveznost in dejstvo, da prodajalec, tj. Norveška država, ostaja odgovoren za onesnaženost tal, povezano z vojaško dejavnostjo.
For those reasons the Authority sees no basis for any further price reduction on ground of possible pollution.
Zato Nadzorni organ ne vidi nobenega razloga za kakršno koli nadaljnje znižanje cene zaradi morebitne onesnaženosti.
The use of the school building
Uporaba šolske zgradbe
As regards the right for the municipality to free use of the school building for one year, the Authority notes that this was a new obligation on the buyer in the sense that no such obligation was already imposed by the state on the municipality.
Kar zadeva pravico občine do enoletne brezplačne uporabe šolske zgradbe, Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je bila to nova obveznost kupca, saj država občini ni naložila nobene takšne obveznosti.
Thus it cannot be as such presumed to be covered by the bridge value price.
Zato ni mogoče kar predvidevati, da je vključena v ceno na podlagi premostitvene vrednosti.
However, in the absence of any supporting documentation as to the economic impact of this obligation, i.e. the possible loss for Haslemoen AS in not being able to lease out that building for one year, the Authority cannot accept any price reducing effect as such.
Vendar Nadzorni organ ob odsotnosti kakršne koli dokazne dokumentacije glede ekonomskega učinka te obveznosti, tj. morebitne izgube za podjetje Haslemoen AS, ker zadevne zgradbe eno leto ne bi moglo oddati v najem, ne more priznati nobenih učinkov zniževanja cene kot takih.
The obligation concerned just one of the buildings and it was already taken into account in the price that it would be difficult to lease out all the properties immediately as there was already a surplus of available lease objects in the area.
Obveznost se je nanašala samo na eno od zgradb, pri čemer se je pri določitvi cene že upoštevalo, da bo težko takoj oddati vse nepremičnine, ker je na zadevnem območju že presežek razpoložljivih objektov za najem.
This was emphasised by both value assessments.
To je bilo poudarjeno v obeh ocenah vrednosti.
Moreover, the municipality would cover the share of fixed costs and heating for the building for the same period.
Poleg tega bi občina za isto obdobje krila delež fiksnih stroškov in stroškov ogrevanja zgradbe.
Finally, the Authority refers to its assessment above in which it has accepted that the municipality gave the same quantity rebate to Haslemoen AS as it obtained itself for acquiring the whole Inner Camp.
Nenazadnje se Nadzorni organ sklicuje na svojo zgoraj navedeno oceno, v kateri sprejema, da je občina podjetju Haslemoen AS priznala isti količinski popust, kot je bil priznan njej za nakup celotnega ograjenega notranjega dela oporišča.
Moreover, the Authority did not add any specific value for the four garages sold to Haslemoen AS that were valued together with other buildings at the Inner Camp, which Haslemoen AS did not buy.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ ni pripisal nobene posebne vrednosti štirim garažam, prodanim podjetju Haslemoen AS, ki so bile ocenjene skupaj z drugimi zgradbami v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča, ki jih podjetje Haslemoen AS ni kupilo.
Thus, the Authority assumes that any possible loss from not being able to lease out the school for a year after the acquisitions should be considered neutralised by these for Haslemoen AS favourable considerations.
Zato Nadzorni organ predvideva, da bi morali kakršno koli morebitno izgubo zaradi tega, ker podjetje eno leto od nakupa ne bo moglo oddajati šole, izravnati ti za podjetje Haslemoen AS ugodni vidiki.
Conclusion on the market investor principle
Sklepna ugotovitev o načelu vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji
In light of the above, the Authority concludes that the sale of the 29 buildings to Haslemoen AS was not carried out in accordance with the market investor principle.
Ob upoštevanju navedenega je Nadzorni organ sklenil, da prodaja 29 zgradb podjetju Haslemoen AS ni bila izvedena v skladu z načelom vlagatelja pod tržnimi pogoji.
The buildings were sold at a price below market value that entailed state aid of NOK 4863712.
Zgradbe so bile prodane po ceni, nižji od tržne vrednosti, ki je pomenila državno pomoč v višini 4863712 NOK.
Consequently, in the following, the Authority will assess whether the sale of the buildings fulfils the additional criteria under Article 61(1) EEA.
Zato bo Nadzorni organ v nadaljevanju ocenil, ali prodaja zgradb izpolnjuje dodatna merila iz člena 61(1) EGP.
State resources and selective advantage
Državna sredstva in selektivna prednost
In order to qualify as state aid, the measure must be granted by the state or through state resources.
Da se ukrep lahko šteje za državno pomoč, ga mora odobriti država ali pa se mora odobriti iz državnih sredstev.
The concept embraces all levels of the state, including municipalities.
Pojem zajema vse ravni države, vključno z občinami.