natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Government’s assessment presented in connection with the establishment of Entra
Ocena vlade, predstavljena v povezavi z ustanovitvijo podjetja Entra
‘The next question raised is whether the company can be absolved from the duty to register the transfer of title from Statsbygg to Statens utleiebygg AS and thereby not pay the registration fee and excise duty.
„Naslednje vprašanje je, ali je podjetje lahko oproščeno pristojbine za registracijo prenosa lastninske pravice s Statsbygga na podjetje Statens utleiebygg AS in s tem plačila pristojbine za registracijo in trošarine.
According to the Act on Court Charges Chapter 6 and Article 7 of the Act on Document Duty, duties in connection with registration of documents transferring rights to property shall be paid to the Treasury.
V skladu s poglavjem 6 zakona o sodnih stroških in členom 7 zakona o taksah za listine se takse v povezavi z registracijo dokumentov o prenosu lastniških pravic plača v državno blagajno.
The duty to pay costs therefore only becomes due when the transfer of title is registered in the real estate registry.
Obveznost plačila stroškov torej zapade šele takrat, ko je prenos pravic registriran v zemljiški knjigi.
Payment of excise duty is not required for a change of name in the register.
Za spremembo imena v zemljiški knjigi ni treba plačati trošarine.
The Ministry finds it highly uncertain whether the division of property between the State and Statens utleiebygg AS will imply a transfer of title that should be entered into the real estate register.
Ministrstvu se zdi zelo negotovo, ali bo delitev premoženja med državo in podjetjem Statens utleiebygg AS zajemala tudi prenos pravic, ki ga je treba vpisati v zemljiško knjigo.
It seems more natural to regard the situation as an organisational change in the State’s property portfolio where the State will retain the registered rights to the properties.
Bolj naravno se zdi, če nastali položaj obravnavamo kot organizacijsko spremembo v državnem premoženjskem portfelju, pri kateri bo država obdržala registrirane pravice do premoženja.
It is not a question of transfer of title, but merely a change of name in the register.
To ni vprašanje prenosa pravic, ampak le spremembe imena v zemljiški knjigi.
A consequence of this is that the situation does not require the payment of excise duty.
Posledično nastali položaj ne zahteva plačila trošarin.
The company is therefore not required to pay registration fees and excise duty.
Podjetju torej ni treba plačati pristojbin za registracijo in trošarin.
The Ministry, however, further suggests, in a separate proposal to the Odelsting, that re-registering in connection with organisational changes is carried only as a name change.
Kljub temu pa ministrstvo v ločenem predlogu Odelstingu (spodnji zbornici norveškega parlamenta) predlaga, da je ponovna registracija v zvezi z organizacijskimi spremembami izvedena le kot sprememba imena.
In relation to the Real Estate Register this will imply that there will be no need for a transfer of title.
V zvezi z zemljiško knjigo bo to izključilo potrebo po prenosu pravic.
The provision entails that there, with certainty, will be no need for a transfer of title.
Odločba pomeni, da zanesljivo ne bo potrebe po prenosu pravic.
The proposal corresponds to rules given in connection with other transformations to State-owned undertakings, cf. e.g. Act of 24 June 1994 No 45 on the establishment of Televerket as a limited liability company, and Act of 22 November 1996 No 65 on the establishment of the State-owned Post company article 73.
Predlog je v skladu s pravili, ki so bili predloženi v povezavi z drugimi preoblikovanji v podjetja v državni lasti, glej npr. Akt z dne 24. junija 1994 št. 45 o ustanovitvi Televerketa kot družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo in Akt z dne 22. novembra 1996 št. 65 o ustanovitvi poštnega podjetja v lasti države, člen 73.
The question is whether this practice leads to a different competition situation for the State limited liability companies than that of private entities who separate parts of their property activity into their wholly owned limited liability company.
Vprašanje je, ali takšna praksa družbe z omejeno odgovornostjo postavlja v drugačen konkurenčni položaj kot zasebna podjetja, ki ločijo dele svoje premoženjske dejavnosti in jih oblikujejo v družbo z omejeno odgovornostjo, ki je povsem v njihovi lasti.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) has published guidelines for the use of State aid rules in Article 61 of the EEA Agreement in connection with financial transactions between public undertakings and the authorities, cf. State Aid Guidelines Chapters 19 and 20.
Nadzorni organ EFTA je objavil smernice o uporabi državne pomoči v členu 61 Sporazuma EGP v povezavi s finančnimi transakcijami med javnimi podjetji in organi, glej smernice o državni pomoči, poglavji 19 in 20.
The central assessment criteria of whether or not State aid exists is, according to these guidelines, the ‘market investor principle’.
Glede na te smernice je osrednje ocenjevalno merilo tega, ali državna pomoč obstaja ali ne, tako imenovano ‚načelo tržnega vlagatelja‘.
This means that the State in its economic dispositions is required to act as a private investor would have done in the same situation towards a similar or comparable private company.
To pomeni, da mora država v svoji gospodarski ureditvi ukrepati tako, kot bi se v enakem položaju obnašal zasebni vlagatelj do podobnega ali primerljivega zasebnega podjetja.
The starting point within Norwegian law is that transfer of rights to property from one legal subject to another shall be registered in order for it to be valid in relation to a third subject.
Norveški zakoni izhajajo iz tega, da je prenos lastniških pravic z enega na drug pravni subjekt registriran zato, ker šele tako postane veljaven v povezavi s tretjim subjektom.
Private investors will therefore, at the outset, be obliged to register the transfer of title and to pay stamp duties.
Zasebni vlagatelji bodo torej na začetku dolžni registrirati prenos pravic in plačati takse s koleki.
A similar starting point entails that a limited liability company owned by the State has a similar duty to register transfer of title from the State.
Podobno izhodišče določa, da je družba z omejeno odgovornostjo v državni lasti na podoben način dolžna registrirati prevzem pravic od države.
On the other hand, it is unlikely that a rational investor would have chosen a solution whereby he in connection with separation of the part of the undertaking dealing with real estate would have registered a transfer of title with the effect of being imposed the excise duty.
Po drugi strani je malo verjetno, da bi razumen vlagatelj izbral rešitev, s katero bi pri ločitvi dela podjetja, ki se ukvarja z nepremičninami, registriral prenos pravic in bil posledično primoran plačati trošarino.
As such a transfer of title would cost the company dearly, it hardly seems likely to imagine that a rational investor would choose such a solution.
Ker bi takšen prenos pravic podjetje drago stal, si je težko predstavljati, da bi razumen vlagatelj izbral takšno rešitev.
It would be more likely that one chooses a solution where the payment of fees is avoided, for example by keeping the title with the mother company, or to create a holding company.
Bolj verjetno je, da bi nekdo izbral rešitev, pri kateri se lahko izogne plačilu pristojbin, na primer zadržanje pravic v matičnem podjetju ali oblikovanje holdinga.
These options are not available for the State.
Te možnosti državi niso na voljo.
When the State chooses to become a player in the market, it is more convenient to separate this part of the business and organise it in a separate company.
Ko se država odloči postati udeleženec na trgu, je bolj pripravno ločiti ta del posla in ga organizirati v ločenem podjetju.
The Ministry therefore must assume that the exception from the requirement to register transfer of rights will not place Statens utleiebygg AS in a different competitive situation than that pertaining to a private investor on the market.
Ministrstvo mora torej predvidevati, da izjema iz zahteve za registracijo prenosa pravic ne bo postavila podjetja Statens utleiebygg AS v drugačen konkurenčni položaj kot v takšnega, ki pripada zasebnemu vlagatelju na trgu.
The exception is not seen as being in conflict with the EEA Agreement.
Izjema ni v nasprotju s Sporazumom EGP.
Further, it is a general assumption that the value assessment of the properties to be transferred to Statens utleiebygg AS is put at market value, and that any possible later transfer of capital from the State takes place in the same manner as a private investor providing contributions to the undertaking.’
Poleg tega je predpostavljeno, da je ocena vrednosti premoženja za prenos na podjetje Statens utleiebygg AS oblikovana glede na tržno vrednost in da kakršen koli kasnejši prenos kapitala z države poteka na enak način kot če zasebni vlagatelj prispeva k podjetju.“
Arguments presented by the Norwegian authorities before the Authority decided to open the formal investigation procedure
Argumenti, ki so jih predstavili norveški organi oblasti pred odločbo Organa o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave
By letter of 20 June 2002, the Ministry of Labour and Government Administration provided information concerning the framework conditions for Entra and the establishment of its opening balance.
Ministrstvo za delo in državno upravo je v dopisu z dne 20. junija 2002 predstavilo informacije v zvezi z okvirnimi pogoji za podjetje Entra in oblikovanjem njegove otvoritvene bilance.
The Ministry described the cash flow method used to assess the total value of the property portfolio and stated that this method was used ‘because it would better satisfy the requirements of Propostion No 84 to the Storting (1998-99) to provide the company with framework conditions on equal footing with other players in the same sector’.
Ministrstvo je opisalo metodo denarnih tokov, ki jo je uporabilo za oceno celotne vrednosti premoženjskega portfelja, in navedlo, da so to metodo uporabili, „ker bi bolje izpolnila zahteve Predloga št. 84 Stortingu (1998–99) za zagotovitev okvirnih pogojev za podjetje, da bi imelo enakopraven položaj z drugimi udeleženci v istem sektorju“.
The letter did not describe whether, and if so how and to what extent, the lack of payment of the excise duty influenced the opening balance.
V dopisu ne piše, ali je neplačilo trošarine vplivalo na otvoritveno bilanco, in če je, na kakšen način in v kakšnem obsegu.
Nor did it discuss whether paragraph 3 of the contested Act required that the exception from the excise duty should be met with an increase in the portfolio assessment corresponding to the amount that would have been paid had the registration in the real estate register been treated as a change of title and not as a change of name.
V dopisu prav tako ni omenjeno, ali odstavek 3 spornega zakona določa, da mora biti oprostitev plačila trošarine skladna s povišanjem v oceni portfelja, ki ustreza znesku, ki bi se plačal, če bi se registracija v zemljiško knjigo obravnavala kot sprememba lastninske pravice in ne kot sprememba imena.
By letter dated 7 November 2002, the Ministry of Trade and Industry developed in more detail its argument already presented in the preparatory works that private investors might choose solutions that avoid a formal transfer of the deed and thus avoid having to pay document duties and registration fees.
Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo je z dopisom z dne 7. novembra 2002 podrobneje obrazložilo svoj argument, ki ga je predstavilo že v pripravah, in sicer da bodo zasebni vlagatelji morda izbrali rešitve, s katerimi se bodo izognili uradnemu prenosu lastništva in s tem obveznosti plačila taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo.
As the registration of the transfer of title was not mandatory, enterprises could, regardless of whether they were privately or publicly owned, lawfully avoid document duties and registration fees by simply not registering any transfer of ownership.
Ker registracija prenosa lastninske pravice ni obvezna, bi se lahko podjetja, ne glede na to, ali so v zasebni ali javni lasti, zakonito izognila plačilu taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo enostavno tako, da ne bi registrirala prenosa lastništva.
To let the title remain with the original owner constituted a risk for the new owner for ‘holder of good faith’ towards a third party.
Če bi prvotni lastnik ohranil lastninsko pravico, bi to pomenilo tveganje za novega lastnika kot „imetnika dobre vere“ do tretje stranke.
However, it was possible to eliminate that risk by the registration of a ‘restriction of the right of ownership’.
Vendar je to tveganje mogoče odpraviti z registracijo „omejitve lastninske pravice“.
The registration of declaration on the restriction of the right to ownership did not exclude the risk of execution proceedings/creditor’s or bankruptcy estate’s extinction of the rights of a legal successor to the debtor’s property.
Registracija izjave o omejitvi lastninske pravice ni izključila tveganja izbrisa pravic upnika ali stečajne nepremičnine kot pravnega naslednika dolžnikovega premoženja.
According to the Norwegian authorities, that method was widely used by privately owned enterprises, especially between related parties.
Po mnenju norveških organov oblasti so to metodo veliko uporabljala podjetja v zasebni lasti, zlasti med povezanimi strankami.
In the view of the Ministry, a private owner of Statsbygg would, most probably, have demerged Statsbygg without releasing the obligation to pay registration fee or excise duty.
Po mnenju ministrstva bi zasebni lastnik podjetja Statsbygg le-tega najverjetneje razdružil brez odveze obveznosti plačila pristojbine za registracijo ali trošarine.
This method was not a realistic option in the case of the establishment of Entra. That is i.a. due to obstacles arising from the fact that Statsbygg is subject to public and political control.
Ta metoda pa ni bila izvedljiva v primeru ustanovitve podjetja Entra, med drugim zaradi ovir, ki izhajajo iz dejstva, da je podjetje Statsbygg pod javnim in političnim nadzorom.
Methods like keeping the title to the properties with Statsbygg would imply that Entra would be dependent on the approval from a public body for transactions concerning the properties.
Metode, kot so ohranitev lastninske pravice v podjetju Statsbygg, bi pomenile, da bi podjetje Entra za transakcije, povezane s premoženjem, moralo dobiti odobritev javnega organa.
If the title to the properties remained in Statsbygg, that would imply that the State was both the renter and the formal title holder of the properties.
Če bi podjetje Statsbygg ohranilo lastninsko pravico, bi to pomenilo, da je država tako najemodajalec kot uradni lastnik premoženjske pravice.
To use such methods for Statsbygg/Entra would blur the distinction between the two entities’ different roles.
Uporaba take metode v primeru Statsbygg/Entra bi zabrisala razliko med različnimi vlogami teh dveh pravnih oseb.
Statsbygg is entrusted with the task of owning and operating non-commercial public buildings, while Entra operates on a commercial basis.
Podjetju Statsbygg je zaupana naloga lastništva in upravljanja negospodarskih javnih zgradb, medtem ko podjetje Entra deluje na gospodarski osnovi.
In the letter dated 7 November 2002, the Ministry also brought forward an argument against the application of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement that was not mentioned in the preparatory works cited above.
Ministrstvo je v dopisu z dne 7. novembra 2002 predstavilo tudi argument proti uporabi člena 61 Sporazuma EGP, ki ni bil omenjen v zgoraj navedenih pripravah.
The Ministry reiterated that the value of the real estate portfolio was based on the method of ‘net capitalisation’.
Ministrstvo je ponovilo, da je vrednost nepremičninskega portfelja temeljila na metodi „neto kapitalizacije“.
In short this method implied that the property’s future cash flow (net rent from existing contracts plus assessment of future net rent after the expiry of existing contracts) was discounted to present value by a factor observing a relevant rate of return requirement.
Ta metoda je na kratko pomenila, da so se prihodnji denarni tokovi premoženja (neto najemnina iz obstoječih pogodb plus ocena prihodnjih neto najemnin po izteku obstoječih pogodb) diskontirali na sedanjo vrednost s faktorjem, ki je upošteval ustrezno zahtevo po stopnji donosnosti.
This rate was set at 9,5 % as it reflected a benchmarking with similar private operators in the trade.
Ta stopnja je bila določena na 9,5 % in je odražala primerjavo s podobnimi zasebnimi pravnimi osebami v panogi.
According to the Ministry, if document duties and registration fees had been payable, the costs would have been activated as an asset, while the value of the properties would have been reduced correspondingly.
Če bi bilo treba plačati takse za listine in pristojbine za registracijo, bi se po mnenju ministrstva stroški prikazali kot aktiva, vrednost premoženja pa bi se ustrezno zmanjšala.
Thus, this would not have reduced Entra’s total balance sheet or the total asset valuation.
Zato se s tem skupna bilanca stanja ali skupna ocena sredstev podjetja Entra ne bi zmanjšala.
In contrast, if the excise duty would have been introduced without adjusting the value of the properties, this would have resulted in ‘a higher value of total assets, resulting in a rate of return of only 9,1 %, which is well below Entra Eiendom AS required level.
Če pa bi trošarino uvedli brez prilagoditve vrednosti premoženja, bi to pomenilo „višjo vrednost bilančne vsote, zaradi česar bi bila stopnja donosa le 9,1 %, kar je precej pod zahtevano ravnjo podjetja Entra Eiendom AS.
This would give Entra Eiendom AS a considerable disadvantage compared to private operators’.
To bi za podjetje Entra Eiendom AS pomenilo precej neugoden položaj v primerjavi z zasebnimi podjetji“.
By letter dated 4 June 2003, the Ministry of Trade and Industry submitted additional information and arguments concerning i.a. the measures used by private undertakings.
Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo je z dopisom z dne 4. junija 2003 predložilo dodatne informacije in argumente, med drugim glede ukrepov, ki so jih uporabila zasebna podjetja.
The Ministry, moreover, reiterated the arguments in the letter dated 7 November 2002 as to why it believed that the non-payment of the duty did not affect the company’s capital structure, solidity and total value.
Poleg tega je ministrstvo ponovilo argumente iz dopisa z dne 7. novembra 2002 o tem, zakaj meni, da neplačilo takse ni vplivalo na strukturo kapitala, trdnost in skupno vrednost podjetja.
As an additional third argument for not viewing the exemption from the excise duty as aid, the Ministry referred to the ‘continuity principle’ in Norwegian law.
Kot dodatni tretji argument proti obravnavi izvzetja iz plačila trošarine kot pomoči je Ministrstvo navedlo tako imenovano „načelo kontinuitete“ v norveški zakonodaji.
It stated that this principle is an umbrella term for a number of rules that presuppose that the acquiring undertaking takes over the legal position of the transferring company.
Navedlo je, da je to načelo skupni izraz za več predpisov, ki predpostavljajo, da prevzemno podjetje prevzame pravni status prevzetega podjetja.
The purpose of the continuity principle is to facilitate mergers and demergers.
Namen načela kontinuitete je omogočiti združitve in razdružitve.
When the continuity principle applies, the transferring undertaking’s legal situation is deemed to continue in the acquiring company.
Načelo kontinuitete velja v primerih, ko se šteje, da se pravni položaj prevzetega podjetja nadaljuje v prevzemnem podjetju.
According to the Ministry, continuity with regard to tax and duty positions was an important aspect of the principle.
Po mnenju ministrstva je kontinuiteta statusa davkov in taks pomemben vidik načela.
Indeed, the Registration Act construed in light of the company legislation implied that reorganisation of private activities in numerous cases could occur without triggering demands for registration fees and document duties.
Zakon o registraciji, ki je bil sestavljen v skladu s pravom družb, je resnično navajal, da se preoblikovanje zasebnih dejavnosti v številnih primerih lahko izvede brez obveznosti plačaila pristojbin za registracijo in taks za listine.
On this basis, the Ministry argued that the exemption was a general measure, which did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Na tej podlagi je ministrstvo trdilo, da je izvzetje splošni ukrep, ki ni pomenil državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Point 9, Conclusion, of the letter dated 4 June 2003, reads:
Točka 9 sklepa dopisa z dne 4. junija 2003 se glasi:
‘The common system regarding registration fee and document duty is that the continuity principle determines if conversion processes, both public and private, may be done as a name change in relation to inter alia the rules on registration fee and document duty.
„V skladu s skupnim sistemom za pristojbine za registracijo in takse za listine načelo kontinuitete določa, ali se lahko postopek preoblikovanja, ki je lahko bodisi javen bodisi zaseben, izvede kot sprememba imena, v povezavi med drugim s predpisi o pristojbinah za registracijo in taksah za listino.
The purpose of the continuity principle is to facilitate the implementation of mergers, demergers and restructurings, which is regarded as socio-economically desirable.
Namen načela kontinuitete je omogočiti izvedbo združitev, razdružitev in prestrukturiranj, ki veljajo za družbeno in gospodarsko zaželene.
The special legislation and the reimbursement of accrued document duty resulting from the reorganisation of hydropower/electricity companies are a result of the same considerations.
Posebna zakonodaja in povračilo vnaprej izračunanih taks za listine, ki sta nastala s preoblikovanjem podjetij za vodno energijo/električno energijo, sta rezultat istih preudarkov.
Thus, the practice is a general measure, which according to well established case law does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.’
Zato gre pri tej praksi za splošni ukrep, ki v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61 Sporazuma EGP.“
Arguments presented by the Norwegian authorities after the Authority opened the formal investigation procedure
Argumenti, ki so jih predstavili norveški organi oblasti po tem, ko je Organ sprožil formalni postopek preiskave
In the letter from the Ministry of Trade and Industry dated 16 September 2004, the Norwegian authorities commented upon the Authority’s decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
V dopisu Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo z dne 16. septembra 2004 so norveški organi oblasti predstavili pripombe glede odločbe Organa o sprožitvi formalnega postopka preiskave.
The view of the Norwegian Government was that none of the conditions of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement were fulfilled.
Po mnenju norveške vlade ni izpolnjen noben od pogojev iz člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Hence, the non-payment for Entra of excise duty did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Zato neplačilo trošarin s strani podjetja Entra ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
If document duties and registration fees were accrued in the opening balance sheet, there would have been an alternative opening balance.
Če bi se takse za listine in pristojbine za registracijo vnaprej izračunale v otvoritveni bilanci stanja, bi obstajala nadomestna otvoritvena bilanca.
Where the transfer is in appearance only and the entities transferring and acquiring are substantially the same, the main principle in Norwegian law, according to the Ministry, would be to let the acquiring undertaking keep the legal position of the transferring undertaking (continuity principle).
Kadar je prenos le navidezen in so pravne osebe, ki opravljajo prenos in prevzem, dejansko iste, bi bilo v norveški zakonodaji po mnenju ministrstva glavno načelo dovoliti prevzemnemu podjetju, da ohrani pravni status prevzetega podjetja (načelo kontinuitete).