natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As can been seen from the table above, most non-professional users of the stadium do not pay any rent.
Norveški organi menijo, da ta znesek ustreza tržni ceni najemnine, saj primerljive ekipe plačujejo najemnino v višini od 2000 do 5000 NOK na uro, kar je skupno manj kot 3 milijone NOK letno.
In contrast, the Elite team pays an annual rent of NOK 3 million plus 20 % of ticket sales for the use of the stadium.
Norveški organi zato menijo, da prva ekipa kluba Sandefjord Fotball ne uživa nobenih ugodnosti pri plačevanju najemnine za uporabo stadiona v primerjavi s svojimi konkurenti.
The Norwegian authorities consider this amount to correspond to market rent: comparable teams pay a rent per hour in the range of NOK 2000 to 5000, which in sum results in a lower total rent than NOK 3 million annually.
Poleg tega norveški organi poudarjajo, da bi bil kakršen koli vpliv na trgovino in konkurenco zelo omejen zaradi lokalnega značaja kluba.
The Norwegian authorities therefore consider that Sandefjord Fotball's Elite team does not benefit from any advantage over its competitors from the rent it pays for the stadium use.
Vstopnice za domače tekme se na splošno prodajajo samo lokalno in navijačem gostujočih ekip.
Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities highlight that any effect on trade and competition would be very limited due to the local character of the club.
Prihodki od prodaje na prodajnih okencih med tekmami nihajo med 600000 NOK in 1 milijonom NOK letno.
Tickets to home matches are in general only sold locally and to supporters of visiting Norwegian teams.
Kar zadeva prodajo izdelkov z zaščitnim znakom, je trg omejen predvsem na navijače v okrožju Vestfold.
Income from kiosk sales during matches varies between NOK 600000 and NOK 1 million annually.
Med klubi ni konkurence v zvezi s temi izdelki.
As regards branded merchandise, the market is mostly limited to the supporters in the county of Vestfold.
Ime arene je bilo prodano spletni trgovini za elektroniko Komplett.no s sedežem v Sandefjordu.
There is no competition between clubs regarding these products.
V areni oglašujejo samo lokalna podjetja.
The arena name has been sold to Komplett.no, which is a Sandefjord-based web shop for electronics.
Tudi kar zadeva trg za prestop igralcev je vpliv na trgovino in konkurenco omejen.
Only local firms advertise at the arena.
Sandefjord Fotball AS trguje z igralci v zelo omejenem obsegu in samo z drugimi norveškimi klubi.
Even regarding the market for players, the effect on trade and competition is limited.
Na primer, med leti 2011 in 2013 je s trgovanjem z igralci zaslužili zgolj 1,35 milijona NOK in imel 860000 NOK stroškov.
Sandefjord Fotball AS trades players only to a very limited extent and only with other Norwegian clubs.
Norveški organi v zvezi s televizijskimi pravicami pojasnjujejo, da jih centralno upravlja norveška nogometna zveza.
For instance, during the period 2011 to 2013, trading in players has resulted in an income of merely NOK 1,35 million and costs of NOK 860000.
Delež prihodkov kluba je odvisen od njegove razvrstitve v dveh najpomembnejših norveških ligah.
Regarding TV rights, the Norwegian authorities explain that these rights are administered centrally by the Norwegian Football Association.
Ker zunaj Norveške ni pravega zanimanja za norveško nogometno ligo, te televizijske pravice nimajo nobenega dejanskega učinka na trgovino in konkurenco.
A club's share of proceeds depends on its ranking in two highest Norwegian leagues.
OCENA
As there is no real interest for Norwegian league football outside Norway, these TV rights do not have any real impact on trade and competition.
Obstoj državne pomoči
ASSESSMENT
Člen 61(1) Sporazuma EEA določa: „Razen če ta sporazum ne določa drugače, je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodelijo države članice ES, države Efte ali je dodeljena v kakršni koli obliki iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva z delovanjem tega sporazuma, kolikor škodi trgovini med pogodbenicami.“
Presence of State aid
Iz tega sledi, da ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, če so izpolnjeni vsi naslednji pogoji: ukrep dodeli država ali je dodeljen iz državnih sredstev, podjetju zagotavlja selektivno gospodarsko prednost ter bi lahko vplival na trgovino med pogodbenicami in izkrivljal konkurenco.
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows: ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement’.
Državna sredstva
This means that a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled: the measure is granted by the state or through state resources, confers a selective economic advantage on an undertaking, and is liable to affect trade between Contracting Parties and to distort competition.
Ukrep pomeni državno pomoč, če ga dodeli država oziroma je dodeljen iz državnih sredstev.
State resources
Pojem države se ne nanaša samo na centralno vlado, temveč zajema vse ravni državne uprave (vključno z občinami) in javna podjetja [8].
In order to constitute State aid, a measure must be granted by the state or through state resources.
Občina Sandefjord je pridobila zadevno zemljišče in ga nato prenesla na dve hčerinski družbi družbe Sandefjord Fotball AS.
The concept of the state does not only refer to the central government, but embraces all levels of the state administration (including municipalities) as well as public undertakings [8].
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da prenos zemljišča vključuje državna sredstva.
The land at issue was acquired by Sandefjord municipality and then transferred to two subsidiaries of Sandefjord Fotball AS.
Podjetje
The Authority therefore concludes that the transfer of land involves state resources.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso so podjetja subjekti, ki opravljajo gospodarsko dejavnost ne glede na njihov pravni status in način financiranja [9].
Undertaking
Gospodarske dejavnosti so dejavnosti, ki na trgu ponujajo blago ali storitve [10].
It is well-established case law that undertakings are entities engaged in economic activities, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed [9].
Sandefjord Fotball AS je profesionalni nogometni klub, ki deluje kot zasebna družba.
Economic activities are activities consisting of offering goods or services on a market [10].
Dejaven je na različnih trgih, vključno s trgom za prestop nogometnih igralcev ter na trgih za prodajo vstopnic, televizijske pravice, spominske artikle kluba in sponzorstvo.
Sandefjord Fotball AS is a professional football club organised as a private company.
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da Sandefjord Fotball AS pomeni podjetje v smislu člena 61 Sporazuma EGP.
It is active on several markets, including the transfer market for football players as well as the markets for ticket sales, television rights, club memorabilia and sponsorship.
Gospodarska prednost
The Authority therefore concludes that Sandefjord Fotball AS constitutes an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.
Prenos zemljišča na podjetje lahko zagotovi gospodarsko prednost, zlasti če se izvede po ceni, ki je nižja od tržne.
Economic advantage
Transakcija, pri kateri se prenesejo državna sredstva, ne pomeni državne pomoči, kadar se izvede v skladu z običajnimi tržnimi pogoji, ki podjetju ne zagotavljajo prednosti [11].
A transfer of land to an undertaking may confer an economic advantage, in particular if it takes place at a price that is below the market price.
To je znano kot preskus udeleženca v tržnem gospodarstvu.
A transaction transferring state resources does not constitute State aid when it is carried out in line with normal market conditions so that it does not confer an advantage on an undertaking [11].
Prenos zemljiške parcele št. 152/96
This is known as the market economy operator test.
Zemljiška parcela št. 152/96 je bila v času prenosa na Sandefjord Fotball AS določena za gradnjo nogometnega stadiona in poslovno uporabo.
Transfer of plot 152/96
Za pridobitev gradbenega dovoljenja mora zato gradnja na zemljiški parceli vključevati stadion.
At the time of the transfer to Sandefjord Fotball AS, plot 152/96 was zoned for the construction of a football stadium and business use.
Glede na to, da so stroški gradnje stadiona prekoračili morebitno vrednost zemljišča, norveški organi trdijo, da je bila tržna cena za zemljiško parcelo št. 152/96 enaka nič oziroma je bila negativna.
Any construction on the plot of land therefore needs to include a stadium in order to receive planning permission.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da lahko obveznosti glede namembnosti zemljišča vplivajo na njegovo tržno ceno.
Given that the construction costs of the stadium exceeded any potential value of the land, the Norwegian authorities argue that the market price of plot 152/96 was zero, if not negative.
Vendar pa obveznost izgradnje nogometnega stadiona ne more zmanjšati tržne cene na nič, zlasti v primeru transakcije, ki je namenjena pomoči nogometnemu klubu pri gradnji novega stadiona [12].
The Authority notes that zoning obligations can influence the market price of land.
V nadaljevanju se nadzorni organ sklicuje na točko 2.2(d) Smernic za prodajo zemljišč, ki določajo, da načeloma „tržna vrednost ne sme biti postavljena pod osnovne [13] stroške za obdobje vsaj treh let po nakupu, razen če je neodvisni cenilec posebej opredelil splošen upad tržnih cen za zemljišča in objekte na upoštevanem trgu.“ V zadevnem primeru je občina Sandefjord pridobila zemljišče, ki je bilo nato razdeljeno na zemljiški parceli št. 152/96 in št. 152/97, za 3,7 milijona NOK.
However, the obligation to build a football stadium cannot reduce the market price to zero, in particular in case of a transaction aimed at assisting a football club in building a new stadium [12].
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je bil prenos zemljišča na Sandefjord Fotball AS izveden po ceni, ki je bila nižja od stroškov, ki jih je imela občina z njegovo pridobitvijo.
In addition, the Authority refers to Section 2.2(d) of its Sale of Land Guidelines, which states that in principle, ‘the market value should not be set below primary [13] costs during a period of at least three years after acquisition unless the independent valuer specifically identifies a general decline in market prices for land and buildings in the relevant market.’
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je prenos zemljiške parcele št. 152/96 na Sandefjord Fotball AS zagotovil gospodarsko prednost tej družbi.
In the case at hand, the municipality of Sandefjord acquired the land that was later divided into plots 152/96 and 152/97 for NOK 3,7 million.
Prenos zemljiške parcele št. 152/97
The Authority notes that the transfer of land to Sandefjord Fotball AS took place at a price below the acquisition cost for the municipality.
Zemljiška parcela št. 152/97 je bila ob prenosu na Sandefjord Fotball AS določena za poslovno uporabo.
Based on the above, the Authority concludes that the transfer of plot 152/96 conferred an economic advantage on Sandefjord Fotball AS.
Norveški organi trdijo, da bi bilo treba prenos zemljiške parcele št. 152/97 oceniti v okviru pogodbe z dne 28. novembra 2006, ki nogometni klub obvezuje predvsem, da v zameno za zemljišče zgradi stadion.
Transfer of plot 152/97
Ker so ocenjeni stroški gradnje stadiona presegli vrednost zemljišča, prenos ni mogel povzročiti gospodarske prednosti.
Plot 152/97 was zoned for business use at the time of the transfer to Sandefjord Fotball AS.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je zemljiška parcela št. 152/97 namenjena poslovni uporabi.
The Norwegian authorities argue that the transfer of plot 152/97 should be assessed in the context of the contract of 28 November 2006, which obliges the football club in particular to build the stadium in exchange for the land.
V skladu s pravili prostorskega načrtovanja torej ni obveznosti za gradnjo stadiona na tem zemljišču.
Given that the estimated construction costs of the stadium exceeded the value of the land, the transfer could not result in the granting of an economic advantage.
Prav tako ni obstajala nobena zavezujoča omejitev v času prenosa zemljišča na Sandefjord Fotball AS, ki bi izhajala iz njegovega predhodnega statusa kmetijskega zemljišča.
The Authority notes that plot 152/97 is zoned for business use.
Samo pogodba z dne 28. novembra 2006 obvezuje Sandefjord Fotball AS, da uredi in financira izgradnjo stadiona.
According to the planning rules, there is thus no obligation to build a stadium in relation to this plot of land.
To je edini pravni instrument, ki določa, da se zemljiška parcela št. 152/97 proda za namene financiranja dela gradnje.
Nor was there any binding restriction based on its former zoning as agricultural land in existence at the time of the transfer to Sandefjord Fotball AS.
Nadzorni organ meni, da udeleženec v tržnem gospodarstvu, ki prodaja zemljišče, ne bi določil takšnih pogojev za gradnjo ali financiranje stadiona.
Only the contract of 28 November 2006 obliges Sandefjord Fotball AS to organise and finance the construction of the stadium.
Nadzorni organ zato ne more sprejeti trditve, da bi bilo treba pri oceni, ali obstaja gospodarska prednost, upoštevati pogodbeno vez med prenosom zemljiške parcele št. 152/97 na družbo Sandefjord Fotball AS in gradnjo stadiona.
It is the only legal instrument foreseeing that plot 152/97 would be sold to finance part of the construction.
Nadzorni organ nadalje ugotavlja, da je družba Sandefjord Fotball AS kmalu po prenosu prodala svoje delnice v družbi Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, ki je imela v lasti zemljiško parcelo št. 152/97, družbi Pindsle Property AS za 40 milijonov NOK.
The Authority considers that a market economy operator selling land would not have imposed such conditions in relation to the construction or financing of a stadium.
Ta prodaja kaže, da je zadevno zemljišče imelo gospodarsko vrednost.
The Authority therefore cannot accept the argument that the contractual link between the transfer of plot 152/97 to Sandefjord Fotball AS and the construction of the stadium should be taken into account in the assessment of whether there is an economic advantage.
Na podlagi navedenega nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je prenos zemljiške parcele št. 152/97 na Sandefjord Fotball AS zagotovil gospodarsko prednost tej družbi.
The Authority further notes that shortly after the transfer, Sandefjord Fotball AS sold the shares in Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, the company owning plot 152/97, to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million.
Selektivnost
This sale indicates that the land at issue had an economic value.
Domnevna državna pomoč izhaja iz transakcije med občino Sandefjord in družbo Sandefjord Fotball AS.
Based on the foregoing, the Authority concludes that the transfer of plot 152/97 conferred an economic advantage on Sandefjord Fotball AS.
V skladu s členom 61 Sporazuma EGP je to selektiven ukrep, saj se nanaša samo na eno določeno podjetje.
Selectivity
Izkrivljanje konkurence in vpliv na trgovino med pogodbenicami
The alleged State aid results from a transaction between the municipality of Sandefjord and Sandefjord Fotball AS.
V skladu s sodno prakso o vplivu na trgovino in izkrivljanju konkurence nadzornemu organu „ni treba dokazati dejanskega vpliva odobrene pomoči na trgovino […] niti dejanskega izkrivljanja konkurence, ampak mora le preučiti, ali taka pomoč lahko vpliva na trgovino in na izkrivljanje konkurence“ [14].
It represents a selective measure within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, in the sense that it only concerns one particular undertaking.
Že dejstvo, da pomoč krepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki konkurirajo v trgovini znotraj EGP, zadostuje za sklep, da ukrep lahko izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami Sporazuma EGP [15].
Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties
Leta 2006 je prva ekipa kluba Sandefjord Fotball igrala v najvišji norveški ligi z možnostjo uvrstitve na evropska tekmovanja.
According to the case law regarding effect on trade and distortion of competition, the Authority ‘[i]s required, not to establish that such aid has a real effect on trade […] and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition’ [14].
Profesionalni nogometni klubi so poleg udeležbe na nogometnih tekmovanjih vključeni tudi v več drugih gospodarskih dejavnostih, kot so trg za prestop poklicnih igralcev, oglaševanje, sponzorstvo, trženje ali medijske pravice.
The mere fact that aid strengthens an undertaking's position compared to that of other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade is enough to conclude that the measure is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement [15].
Pomoč profesionalnemu nogometnemu klubu lahko zato krepi njegov položaj na vsakem od teh trgov, ki večinoma zajemajo več držav EGP.
In 2006, Sandefjord Fotball's Elite team was playing in the highest Norwegian division, with the possibility of qualifying for European championships.
Družba Sandefjord Fotball AS je bila v tistem času dejavna na trgu za prestop igralcev (in je še vedno) z možnostjo kupovanja igralcev iz drugih držav EGP.
Moreover, professional football clubs deploy economic activities in several markets other than participating in football competitions, such as the transfer market for professional players, publicity, sponsorship, merchandising or media rights.
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da bi ta ukrep lahko izkrivljal konkurenco in vplival na trgovino med pogodbenicami Sporazuma EGP.
Aid to a professional football club thus potentially strengthens its position on each of those markets, most of which may cover several countries in the EEA.
Sklepna ugotovitev glede obstoja pomoči
As regards the market for the transfer of players, Sandefjord Fotball AS was at the time — and still is today — active on the transfer market, potentially recruiting players from other countries in the EEA.
Na podlagi zgornjih ugotovitev nadzorni organ meni, da ukrep pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority therefore concludes that the measure is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Znesek pomoči
Conclusion on the existence of aid
Glede zemljiške parcele št. 152/96 nadzorni organ priznava, da obveznost glede namembnosti zemljišča, vključno z gradnjo stadiona, zmanjša vrednost zemljišča [16].
Based on the above findings, the Authority concludes that the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Vendar kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi 50 zgoraj, tržne cene enake nič v tem primeru ni mogoče upravičiti.
Aid amount
Na podlagi točke 2.2(d) Smernic Nadzornega organa za prodajo zemljišč bi morala občina Sandefjord prodati zemljišče vsaj po ceni, ki bi krila njene stroške pridobitve zemljišča.
Regarding plot 152/96, the Authority recognises that the zoning obligation including the construction of a stadium reduces the market value of the land [16].
Na podlagi tega Nadzorni organ meni, da je znesek pomoči za to zemljiško parcelo znašal 1,9 milijonov NOK [17].
However, as explained in recital 50 above, a market price of zero cannot be justified in the present case.
Glede zemljiške parcele št. 152/97 nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je družba Sandefjord Fotball AS kmalu po prenosu prodala svoje delnice v družbi Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, ki je imela v lasti zemljiško parcelo št. 152/97, družbi Pindsle Property AS za 40 milijonov NOK.
Based on Section 2.2(d) of the Authority's Sale of Land Guidelines, Sandefjord municipality should have sold the land at least for a price that covered its own acquisition costs.
Pindsle Property AS je zasebna družba in v času transakcije ni bila del iste skupine kot Sandefjord Fotball AS.
On that basis, the Authority considers the aid amount regarding this plot of land to amount to NOK 1,9 million [17].
Prodaja se je torej izvedla med dvema neodvisnima družbama [18].
Regarding plot 152/97, the Authority notes that Sandefjord Fotball AS sold the shares in Sandefjord Fotball Næring AS, the company owning plot 152/97, to Pindsle Property AS for NOK 40 million.
Nadzorni organ ni prejel nobenega prepričljivega dokaza, da ta transakcija ni bila izvedena po tržni ceni.
Pindsle Property AS is a private company, and was not part of the same group as Sandefjord Fotball AS at the time of the transaction.
Zato nadzorni organ meni, da je to najboljši razpoložljivi pokazatelj tržne vrednosti za zemljiško parcelo št. 152/97.
The sale thus took place between two independent companies [18].
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je skupna tržna vrednost zemljišča, prenesenega na Sandefjord Fotball AS, v času transakcije znašala 41,9 milijona NOK.
The Authority has not received any convincing evidence that this transaction did not take place at market price.
Vendar je v skladu s sporazumom z dne 28. novembra 2006 družba Sandefjord Fotball AS prevzela tudi več obveznosti za izvedbo del v imenu občine Sandefjord.
Accordingly, the Authority considers that it represents the best available indication of market value for plot 152/97.
Kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 26 zgoraj je v času sklenitve sporazuma skupni strošek teh obveznosti znašal 9,5 milijona NOK.
Based on the above, the Authority concludes that the total market value of the land transferred to Sandefjord Fotball AS amounted to NOK 41,9 million at the time of the transaction.
Norveški organi so pojasnili, da bi v odsotnosti pogojev sporazuma ta dela izvedla občina.
However, under the agreement dated 28 November 2006, Sandefjord Fotball AS also assumed several obligations to carry out works on behalf of Sandefjord municipality.
V skladu s tem se nadzorni organ strinja, da bi bilo treba njihov skupni strošek (kot je bil predviden v času sporazuma) odšteti od zneska pomoči.
As set out in recital 26 above, the estimated total cost of these obligations was NOK 9,5 million at the time of the agreement.
Nadzorni organ zato meni, da je skupna pomoč, dodeljena družbi Sandefjord Fotball AS, znašala 32,4 milijona NOK.
The Norwegian authorities have explained that but for the terms of the agreement, these works would have been carried out by the municipality.
Postopkovne zahteve
Accordingly, the Authority accepts that their total cost — as foreseen at the time of the agreement — should be deducted from the aid amount.
V skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 „mora biti nadzorni organ Efte o vseh načrtih za dodelitev ali spremembo pomoči obveščen dovolj zgodaj, da lahko predloži pripombe […].
The Authority therefore concludes that the total aid granted to Sandefjord Fotball AS amounted to NOK 32,4 million.
Zadevna država ne sme izvajati svojih predlaganih ukrepov, dokler v tem postopku ni sprejeta dokončna odločitev.“
Procedural requirements
Nadzorni organ ni bil predhodno obveščen o prenosu zadevnega zemljišča.
The transfer of the land at issue has not been the object of a prior notification to the Authority.
Ta ukrep bo zato ocenjen neposredno na podlagi člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority therefore concludes that the Norwegian authorities have not complied with their obligations stemming from Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.
Ob upoštevanju prakse iz obdobja, ko je bila pomoč odobrena, se ocena Nadzornega organa opravi na podlagi naslednjih ugotovitev:
Compatibility
Ali je ukrep pomoči namenjen natančno opredeljenemu cilju skupnega interesa?