natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Authority observes that the present transaction involves the grant of funding (in the context of an investment), not a sale, and the assessment of whether State aid is involved depends therefore, not on the behaviour of a potential buyer, but on whether such funding results in an economic advantage for Mesta AS.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da obravnavana transakcija vključuje dodelitev sredstev (v okviru naložbe), ne pa prodaje, in zato ocena, ali gre za državno pomoč, ni odvisna od ravnanja potencialnega kupca, temveč od tega, ali je posledica takega financiranja gospodarska prednost za družbo Mesta AS.
The Norwegian authorities have also argued that instead of reducing the value of the contribution in kind, the authorities chose rather to compensate Mesta AS for the costs related to the disadvantage of the restructuring measures.
Norveški organi še trdijo, da so se namesto znižanja vrednosti prispevka v naravi raje odločili, da družbi Mesta AS nadomestijo stroške, povezane s slabimi stranmi ukrepov za prestrukturiranje.
Since reducing the value of the assets would not involve an advantage, neither does the cost compensation.
Ker znižanje vrednosti sredstev ne bi pomenilo prednosti, to velja tudi za nadomestilo stroškov.
The Authority observes that the existence of such a choice does not necessarily mean that Mesta AS did not receive an economic benefit from the funding provided.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da obstoj take izbire ne pomeni nujno, da družba Mesta AS z zagotovljenimi sredstvi ni prejela gospodarske ugodnosti.
As to the substance of the issues the Norwegian authorities contest the fact that any of the abovementioned measures involve an economic advantage.
Norveški organi glede vsebine vprašanj izpodbijajo dejstvo, da bi kateri koli od zgoraj navedenih ukrepov pomenil gospodarsko prednost.
Rather, they claim that the measures were adopted to compensate for a structural disadvantage imposed on Mesta AS and make up for the costly employment conditions resulting from civil servant status.
Nasprotno trdijo, da so bili ukrepi sprejeti, da bi izravnali strukturno pomanjkljivost, naloženo družbi Mesta AS, in pokrili stroške dragih zaposlitvenih pogojev, ki izhajajo iz statusa državnega uradnika.
The costs of paying additional sums to compensate (during a temporary period) for pension rights granted to civil servants should be considered to be an obligation of the State because it was a direct consequence of the employees’ state employment as civil servants.
Stroške plačila dodatnih zneskov za pokritje (v začasnem obdobju) pokojninskih pravic, zagotovljenih državnim uradnikom, je treba obravnavati kot obveznost države, saj so bili neposredna posledica državne zaposlitve zaposlenih kot državnih uradnikov.
Since State financing of such additional sums is limited to funding the difference between the cost of an ordinary pension scheme and the cost of a civil servant pension scheme (or alternative measure), the State pays only the additional costs resulting from the previous employment relationship.
Ker je državno financiranje takih dodatnih zneskov omejeno na pokritje razlike med stroški običajnega pokojninskega sistema in stroški pokojninskega sistema za državne uradnike (ali alternativnega ukrepa), država plača le dodatne stroške, ki izhajajo iz prejšnjega zaposlitvenega razmerja.
The Norwegian authorities have argued with reference to the Combus judgment, that if the relevant costs are considered to be an obligation of the State the provision of State funding to cover such costs would arguably not constitute an economic advantage.
Norveški organi so ob sklicevanju na sodbo Combus trdili, da zagotovitev državnih sredstev za pokritje takih stroškov najverjetneje ne bi pomenila gospodarske prednosti, če zadevni stroški veljajo za obveznost države.
The Authority is of the opinion that an important difference with regard to the State aid assessment is that in Combus the compensation was paid directly to the employees, whereas in the present case the Norwegian State pays Mesta AS directly.
Nadzorni organ meni, da je pomembna razlika glede ocene državne pomoči v tem, da je bilo v zadevi Combus nadomestilo plačano neposredno zaposlenim, medtem ko gre v obravnavanem primeru za neposredno plačilo države Norveške družbi Mesta AS.
In addition, in Combus, the payment was made to the employees in compensation for giving up their privileged status when transferring to the new company.
Poleg tega je šlo v zadevi Combus pri izplačilu zaposlenim za nadomestilo, ker so se ob premestitvi v novo družbo odpovedali privilegiranemu statusu.
As of the transfer, the employment relationship between the employees and the company was therefore not influenced by the employees’ previous status.
Prejšnji status zaposlenih tako od premestitve ni več vplival na zaposlitveno razmerje med zaposlenimi in družbo.
However, in the present case, former civil servants transferred to Mesta AS continued to benefit from certain civil servant rights temporarily through their employment contract with Mesta AS.
V obravnavanem primeru pa so nekdanji državni uradniki, premeščeni v družbo Mesta AS, s pogodbo o zaposlitvi z družbo Mesta AS začasno obdržali ugodnosti, ki izhajajo iz nekaterih pravic državnih uradnikov.
Consequently, the Authority finds that the judgment by the Court of First Instance in Combus addresses a different situation from the one in the present case [155].The Court of Justice has, for its part, constantly ruled that the existence of aid must be assessed in relation to its effect and not the causes or objectives behind the state intervention [156].
Nadzorni organ posledično ugotavlja, da je Sodišče prve stopnje v zadevi Combus obravnavalo okoliščine, ki se razlikujejo od okoliščin obravnavanega primera [155].Sodišče je pri svojih odločitvah vedno upoštevalo prakso, da je treba obstoj državne pomoči oceniti glede na njen učinek in ne glede na vzroke ali cilje državne intervencije [156].
Therefore, the Authority considers that in order to determine whether the three above mentioned measures involve an economic advantage the starting point is to examine whether the public financing of the costs of such measures relieves Mesta AS from what may be considered as normally included in the budget of an undertaking [157].
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da je treba pri določitvi, ali trije zgoraj navedeni ukrepi pomenijo gospodarsko prednost, najprej proučiti, ali javno financiranje stroškov takih ukrepov družbo Mesta AS razbremenjuje tistega, kar bi lahko obravnavali kot del običajnega proračuna podjetja [157].
All of the measures have been introduced in order to make possible the transfer of the activities of the Production Department to Mesta AS.
Vsi ukrepi so bili uvedeni, da bi omogočili prenos dejavnosti z Oddelka za gradnjo na družbo Mesta AS.
As already described, measures needed to be put in place in order to (i) encourage employees to transfer to the new company; and (ii) reduce the work force.
Kot je že bilo opisano, je bilo treba ukrepe uvesti, da bi (i) spodbudili zaposlene k premestitvi v novo družbo in (ii) zmanjšali število delavcev.
In the present case, in order to be able (temporarily) to maintain civil servant pension and special retirement age rights, Mesta AS was effectively required to become member of the SPK.
Da bi lahko (začasno) ohranili pokojninske pravice državnih uradnikov in pravico do posebne upokojitvene starosti, se je od družbe Mesta AS v obravnavanem primeru dejansko zahtevalo, da se pridruži skladu SPK.
As a result of membership of SPK, Mesta AS came under a legal obligation to pay pension contributions to SPK for transferred employees.
Posledica tega je bila, da je bila družba Mesta AS pravno zavezana plačevati pokojninske prispevke skladu SPK za premeščene zaposlene.
Mesta AS was prepared to accept that obligation because it would be reimbursed by the State for the costs thereof.
Družba Mesta AS je bila pripravljena prevzeti to obveznost, saj bi ji država povrnila stroške zanjo.
Consequently, the cost of the pension rights linked to the SPK membership (temporarily maintenance of civil servant pension rights and of special retirement age) was effectively imposed on Mesta AS [158].
Posledično so bili stroški pokojninskih pravic, povezani z zavarovanjem v SPK (začasno ohranitvijo pokojninskih pravic državnih uradnikov in pravice do posebne upokojitvene starosti), dejansko naloženi družbi Mesta AS [158].
Moreover, the Authority observes that the legislative preparatory works (i.e., the Government’s proposal to the Parliament) made it clear that the funding for the pension measures at issue would be granted on the basis of the understanding that Mesta AS would pay the relevant costs for the employees [159].
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da iz pripravljalnih zakonodajnih aktov (tj. predloga vlade parlamentu) jasno izhaja, da naj bi bilo financiranje zadevnih pokojninskih ukrepov zagotovljeno na podlagi dogovora, da bo družba Mesta AS plačala ustrezne stroške za zaposlene [159].
The overall framework (i.e., the proposal and subsequent endorsement thereof by Parliament) adopted by the Norwegian State was therefore based on the prerequisite that Mesta AS pays the pension costs.
Splošni okvir (tj. predlog in njegova poznejša potrditev v parlamentu), ki ga je sprejela država Norveška, je tako temeljil na pogoju, da družba Mesta AS plača pokojninske stroške.
These circumstances could indicate the presence of a legal obligation for Mesta AS to cover the relevant pension costs and, thus, be considered as normally included in the budget of the undertaking.
Te okoliščine bi lahko pomenile obstoj pravne zaveze družbe Mesta AS, da pokrije zadevne pokojninske stroške, ki bi jih tako lahko obravnavali kot del običajnega proračuna podjetja.
In addition, with regard to the early pension entitlement, this measure was to be used at the discretion of the company to reduce excess staff.
Poleg tega naj bi se ta ukrep glede upravičenosti do predčasne upokojitve uporabljal ob diskrecijski pravici družbe, da zmanjša število presežnih delavcev.
However, the alternative downsizing measure also ensured protection for the employees in the case of redundancy.
Vendar je tudi alternativni ukrep za zmanjšanje števila zaposlenih zagotovil zaščito za zaposlene v primeru presežka delovne sile.
Costs related to measures introduced to reduce the workforce or reorganise the company should be considered as normal cost, even if the measures chosen are more costly than what the company is obliged to provide under the applicable labour law or collective agreement [160].
Stroške, povezane z ukrepi, uvedenimi zaradi zmanjšanja števila delavcev ali reorganizacije družbe, je treba obravnavati kot običajne stroške, čeprav so izbrani ukrepi dražji od tistega, kar mora družba zagotoviti v skladu z veljavno delovno zakonodajo ali kolektivno pogodbo [160].
The fact that Mesta AS only makes recourse to the more costly measures because they are guaranteed state funding does not change the nature of the cost.
Dejstvo, da se je družba Mesta AS zatekla k dražjim ukrepom le zato, ker so bila zanje odobrena državna sredstva, ne spremeni narave stroškov.
The state funding with regard to the early pension could also therefore be considered as relieving Mesta AS of its normal cost of doing business.
Tako bi lahko državno financiranje v zvezi s predčasnim upokojevanjem obravnavali kot razbremenitev družbe Mesta AS njenih običajnih stroškov poslovanja.
Moreover, from a general point of view financial obligations linked to labour costs form part of a company’s production cost and should thus, constitute normal costs of the company regardless of whether the obligations are imposed on the company by law, collective agreement or undertaken voluntarily.
Poleg tega so finančne obveznosti, povezane s stroški dela, če nanje gledamo bolj splošno, del proizvodnih stroškov družbe in tako njeni običajni stroški, ne glede na to, ali so obveznosti družbi naložene po zakonu, kolektivni pogodbi ali prevzete prostovoljno.
Hence, any relief from such obligations is normally considered as State aid [161].A company’s labour costs comprise not only salary, but also remuneration in a broader sense, and covers pensions costs and other costs linked to the company’s work force, such as unemployment benefits [162].
Zato vsaka razbremenitev takih obveznosti običajno pomeni državno pomoč [161].Stroški dela družbe ne vključujejo le plač, temveč tudi nadomestila v širšem pomenu, zajemajo pa tudi pokojninske in druge stroške, povezane z zaposlenimi v družbi, kot so nadomestila za brezposelnost [162].
In the present case, the fact that the measures would be funded through State grants, does not prevent the transitional right given to the employees from being a labour cost normally incurred by that undertaking [163].
V obravnavanem primeru dejstvo, da bodo ukrepi financirani z državnimi sredstvi, ne preprečuje, da ne bi mogli prehodne pravice, zagotovljene zaposlenim, obravnavati kot običajen strošek dela podjetja [163].
Furthermore, the state funding of the pension obligations entailed additional advantages for the company.
Poleg tega je državno financiranje pokojninskih obveznosti pomenilo dodatne prednosti za družbo.
Although it was perhaps not in Mesta AS’ direct commercial interest to take over the whole work force of the Production Department, it was crucial for the company to have sufficient staff, including key personnel, to ensure the efficient operation of the business from the start.
Čeprav morda ni bilo v neposrednem interesu družbe Mesta AS, da prevzame vse zaposlene iz Oddelka za gradnjo, je bilo za družbo pomembno, da ima dovolj ljudi, vključno s ključnimi zaposlenimi, da se od začetka zagotovi učinkovito poslovanje podjetja.
The state funding ensured the achievement of that objective.
Doseganje navedenega cilja je bilo zagotovljeno z državnimi sredstvi.
In addition, the Authority finds it likely that the presence of the state funding for the particular pension rights entailed that Mesta AS was relieved of costs for other types of supplementary pensions.
Poleg tega Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je obstoj državnega financiranja določenih pokojninskih pravic verjetno pomenil, da je bila družba Mesta AS razbremenjena stroškov drugih vrst dodatnega pokojninskega zavarovanja.
This is so because at least a certain number of the former employees would possibly have been able to negotiate other more favourable supplementary pension arrangements than an ordinary private pension scheme.
To pa zato, ker bi si vsaj določeno število nekdanjih zaposlenih verjetno lahko izpogajalo ugodnejše ureditve dodatnega pokojninskega zavarovanja kot v običajnem zasebnem pokojninskem sistemu.
As the employees benefiting from the relevant pensions measures were part of the work force of Mesta AS at the point when the costs were accrued, the Authority finds that the effect of the contested measures was therefore to mitigate Mesta AS’ normal budgetary burdens.
Ker so bili zaposleni, ki so imeli koristi od zadevnih pokojninskih ukrepov, del delovne sile družbe Mesta AS, ko so ti stroški nastali, Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so izpodbijani ukrepi posledično ublažili običajne proračunske obremenitve družbe Mesta AS.
Therefore, the Authority considers that the state funding of the abovementioned measures entailed elements of economic advantages for Mesta AS.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da je državno financiranje zgoraj navedenih ukrepov vsebovalo elemente gospodarske prednosti za družbo Mesta AS.
With respect to the funding provided by the State to Mesta AS in order to cover costs incurred for purposes of ‘moving’ and ‘commuting’ the Authority observes that the obligation to cover such costs results from a range of incentives offered to previous leading or administrative personnel in the Public Road Administration (such as, moving costs, commuting, double rent of domiciles, travel costs etc.) in order to induce them to take up employment at Mesta AS.
Glede sredstev, ki jih je družbi Mesta AS zagotovila država, da bi pokrila stroške, ki so nastali zaradi „selitve“ in „prevoza na delo in z njega“, Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je obveznost za pokritje takih stroškov posledica vrste pobud, ponujenih nekdanjemu vodilnemu ali upravnemu osebju v Upravi za javne ceste (kot so stroški selitve, dnevnega prevoza iz kraja bivanja na delo in nazaj, dvojne najemnine, potni stroški itd.), da bi jih prepričali, naj ohranijo zaposlitev v družbi Mesta AS.
As referred to above, the normal financial obligations of an undertaking include as a starting point, any labour costs a company incurs for purposes of employing or attracting employees.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, običajne finančne obveznosti podjetja v izhodišču vključujejo vse stroške dela, ki nastanejo zaradi zaposlovanja ali pritegnitve kandidatov k zaposlitvi.
While the most common incentive to attract employees is salary, other incentives, such as compensation for disadvantages related to the geographic location of employees’ domiciles (such as the financing of moving and commuting) are no more or no less a tool used by a company to obtain and pay desired employees.
Medtem ko je najbolj običajna spodbuda za pritegnitev zaposlenih plača, družbe kot orodje za pridobitev želenih zaposlenih in njihovo plačilo več ali manj uporabljajo tudi druge spodbude, kot je nadomestilo za neugodnosti, povezane z geografsko lokacijo bivališč zaposlenih (npr. financiranje selitve ter prevoza na delo in z njega).
The Authority has therefore taken the view that the reimbursement by the State to Mesta AS of the costs incurred under the items entitled ‘moving’ and ‘commuting’ constitutes an economic advantage which Mesta AS would not have received in the normal course of its business.
Zato Nadzorni organ meni, da državno povračilo stroškov družbi Mesta AS, nastalo pod postavkama „selitev“ in „prevoz na delo in z njega“, pomeni gospodarsko prednost, ki je družba Mesta AS ne bi bila deležna pri običajnem poteku poslovanja.
With respect to the State funding received by Mesta AS to cover costs for purposes of moving offices and support and maintenance offices from the Public Road Administration to the new offices of Mesta AS as well as reorganising former offices and sorting out old archives for purposes of establishing new archives (covering a total amount of NOK 50,2 million), such costs include not only costs for purposes of cleaning out old offices at the Public Road Administration but also the preparation and upgrading of new offices for Mesta AS as well as installing electronic and physical archives in Mesta AS.
Glede državnih sredstev, ki jih je družba Mesta AS prejela za pokritje stroškov selitve uradov ter uradov za podporo in vzdrževanje iz Uprave za javne ceste v nove prostore družbe Mesta AS ter stroškov reorganizacije prejšnjih uradov in urejanja starih arhivov zaradi vzpostavitve novih (v skupnem znesku 50,2 milijona NOK) velja, da taki stroški ne vključujejo le stroškov izpraznitve starih uradov v Upravi za javne ceste, temveč tudi stroške priprave in nadgradnje novih uradov za družbo Mesta AS ter namestitve elektronskih in fizičnih arhivov v družbi Mesta AS.
The Authority considers that while it may be accepted that costs related to cleaning out old offices of the Public Road Administration relate to the work previously carried out by the latter, the nature of the costs for purposes of preparing and upgrading offices for the use of Mesta AS are similar to costs incurred for purposes of establishing a new company.
Čeprav bi lahko sprejeli, da se stroški izpraznitve starih uradov Uprave za javne ceste nanašajo na delo, ki ga je prej upravljala Uprava, pa Nadzorni organ meni, da so stroški priprave in nadgradnje uradov za uporabo v družbi Mesta AS po svoji naravi podobni stroškom, nastalim zaradi ustanovitve nove družbe.
The latter costs should thus be borne by the new company.
Zadnje stroške bi tako morala nositi nova družba.
However, given that the cost items have involved tasks such as cleaning out old offices of the Road Administration to be used by the new company, sorting out archives of the Road Administration in order to identify which files are relevant for the new company, it is difficult to separate the tasks from each other.
Ker pa so stroškovne postavke vključevale naloge, kot sta izpraznitev starih uradov Uprave za ceste, ki naj bi jih uporabljala nova družba, in ureditev arhivov Uprave za ceste zaradi ugotovitve, kateri arhivi so pomembni za novo družbo, je te naloge težko medsebojno ločiti.
Based on these considerations the Authority takes the view that the costs related to moving offices (including support and maintenance offices) as well as the transfer of archives are costs which should be partly borne by the State and partly by the new company itself.
Na podlagi teh razmišljanj Nadzorni organ meni, da bi morala stroške selitve uradov (vključno z uradi za podporo in vzdrževanje) in prenosa arhivov delno kriti država, delno pa nova družba.
Since the new company, Mesta AS, was established on 1 January 2003, costs incurred prior to that date must be borne by the State while costs incurred after that date must be covered by Mesta AS.
Ker je bila nova družba Mesta AS ustanovljena 1. januarja 2003, mora stroške, nastale pred tem datumom, nositi država, stroške, nastale po njem, pa družba Mesta AS.
On this basis the various cost items will be allocated (to the State or Mesta AS) in accordance with when the costs were incurred.
Na podlagi tega bodo različne stroškovne postavke dodeljene (državi ali družbi Mesta AS) v skladu s trenutkom nastanka stroškov.
Finally, as regards the cost item of renovation of machines, Mesta AS has been compensated for cleaning out previous work sites of the Production Department.
Končno, glede stroškovne postavke obnove strojev je družba Mesta AS prejela nadomestilo za ureditev nekdanjih delovišč Oddelka za gradnjo.
Mesta AS has therefore provided a service to the Public Road Administration [164].
Družba AS je torej opravila storitev za Upravo za javne ceste [164].
The question is therefore whether the price of the service provided by Mesta AS to the Public Road Administration corresponds to the market price for such a service.
Zato se postavlja vprašanje, ali cena storitve, ki jo je družba Mesta AS opravila za Upravo za javne ceste, ustreza tržni ceni take storitve.
The Authority observes that part of the work has been carried out by sub contractors on commercial terms and another part by Mesta AS itself at an hourly cost based rate [165].
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so nekaj dela opravili podizvajalci pod komercialnimi pogoji, nekaj pa sama družba Mesta AS po stroškovni postavki na uro [165].
The Authority has taken the view that the engagement of a variety of subcontractors on commercial terms is evidence that market based prices were applied and that the State compensation to Mesta AS in this regard does therefore not involve an economic advantage.
Nadzorni organ meni, da je zaposlitev vrste podizvajalcev pod komercialnimi pogoji dokaz, da so bile uporabljene tržne cene in da državno nadomestilo družbi Mesta AS tako ne pomeni gospodarske prednosti.
Moreover, since the work carried out by Mesta AS itself was on the basis of cost prices, exclusive of any profits, the Authority takes the position that there is no reason to question the submission of the Norwegian authorities that such prices are below market prices.
Ker je družba Mesta AS delo opravila na podlagi lastnih cen, brez kakršnega koli dobička, Nadzorni organ meni, da ni razloga za dvom glede trditev norveških organov, da so take cene pod tržnimi cenami.
On this basis the Authority considers that Mesta AS has not benefited from an economic advantage in the context of the prices paid by the Road Administration for ‘cleaning up’ services provided by Mesta AS.
Na podlagi tega Nadzorni organ meni, da družba Mesta AS v smislu cen, ki jih je plačala Uprava za ceste za storitve „urejanja“, ki jih je opravila družba Mesta AS, ni bila deležna ugodnosti zaradi gospodarske prednosti.
Other restructuring and reorganisation measures – compensation for salary
Drugi ukrepi za prestrukturiranje in reorganizacijo – nadomestilo plače