natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the valuation was based on the assumption that maximum rental was obtainable from the first day,
Cenitev je temeljila na predpostavki, da je najvišjo najemnino mogoče dobiti od prvega dne.
the impact of the ‘as-is’ clause in the sales contract was not assessed.
Vpliv klavzule „videno, kupljeno“ v prodajni pogodbi ni bil ocenjen.
An ‘as-is’ clause implies that the buyer takes the entire risk as to the peculiarities of the apartments bought, and that he must rely on his own examinations.
Klavzula „videno, kupljeno“ pomeni, da kupec prevzame celotno tveganje v zvezi s posebnostmi kupljenega stanovanja in da se mora zanesti na svoje preglede.
A second company, OPAK, was therefore asked to make a new appraisal.
Drugo podjetje, tj. OPAK, je bilo torej zaprošeno, da pripravi novo oceno.
The valuation from OPAK
Ocena podjetja OPAK
OPAK was engaged by the Municipality of Oslo to assess the apartments as a portfolio.
Občina Oslo je podjetje OPAK najela, da oceni stanovanja kot portfelj.
The (first) appraisal was dated 26 April 2001 and concluded that the market value was NOK 795 Million.
(Prva) ocena z dne 26. aprila 2001 je ugotovila, da tržna vrednost znaša 795 milijonov NOK.
The estimated sales value was calculated as follows:
Ocenjena prodajna vrednost je bila izračunana, kot sledi:
[12]Net yearly rental income in net present value terms
[12]Neto letni dohodek od najemnine v neto sedanji vrednosti
= NOK 835 Million
= 835 milijonov NOK
Cost of upgrading the apartments
Strošek posodobitve stanovanj
= NOK 150 Million
= 150 milijonov NOK
+ Net present value of ‘up-side’ [12] (sale after 10 years)
+ Neto sedanja vrednost „dodatnega iztržka“ [12] (prodaja po 10 letih)
= NOK 110 Million
= 110 milijonov NOK
= Sales value
= Prodajna vrednost
NOK 795 Million
795 milijonov NOK
An adjustment of the OPAK appraisal was requested by the Municipality of Oslo in order to reflect a correction of the value of certain leases due to factual circumstances not considered in the original appraisal.
Občina Oslo je zahtevala prilagoditev ocene podjetja OPAK, da bi izražala popravek vrednosti nekaterih najemov zaradi dejanskih okoliščin, ki niso bile upoštevane v prvotni oceni.
These factual corrections led OPAK to reduce the value of the assets to NOK 740 Million.
Ti dejanski popravki so podjetje OPAK pripeljali do znižanja vrednosti sredstev na 740 milijonov NOK.
The adjustments were presented to the Municipality of Oslo on 14 May 2001.
Prilagoditve so bile občini Oslo predložene 14. maja 2001.
The valuation from FIGA and Nortakst DA
Ocena podjetij FIGA in Nortakst DA
By letter dated 12 July 2001 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry to the Municipality of Oslo [13], the Ministry requested the Municipality to initiate a new value assessment.
S pismom z dne 12. julija 2001 Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo občini Oslo [13] je Ministrstvo zahtevalo, da občina naroči novo oceno vrednosti.
The Ministry also stated that the value assessment from OPAK did not fulfil the requirements of the State Aid Guidelines [14].
Ministrstvo je tudi izjavilo, da ocena vrednosti podjetja OPAK ni izpolnjevala zahtev smernic o državni pomoči [14].
The two firms FIGA and Nortakst DA, forming a committee [15] (hereinafter FIGA/Nortakst), were engaged by the Municipality to carry out a new value assessment.
Občina je najela podjetji FIGA in Nortakst DA, ki sta ustanovili odbor [15] (v nadaljnjem besedilu FIGA/Nortakst), za izvedbo nove ocene vrednosti.
The mandate for the assessment was agreed upon with the Ministry of Trade and Industry.
Naročilo za oceno je bilo dogovorjeno z Ministrstvom za trgovino in industrijo.
FIGA/Nortakst submitted its report on 26 April 2002 with the conclusion that the market value of the apartments was NOK 1055 Million.
FIGA/Nortakst je predložil svoje poročilo 26. aprila 2002 z ugotovitvijo, da je bila tržna vrednost stanovanj 1055 milijonov NOK.
FIGA/Nortakst used three different methods to assess the value of the portfolio as of 30 May 2001: technical value, cash flow method and net capitalisation method.
FIGA/Nortakst je uporabil tri različne metode za oceno vrednost portfelja na dan 30. maja 2001: tehnično vrednost, metodo denarnih tokov in metodo čiste kapitalizacije.
The results of the calculations based on these three methods were:
Rezultati izračunov na podlagi teh treh metod so bili:
Technical value:
Tehnična vrednost:
NOK 1448 Million
1448 milijonov NOK
Cash flow method:
Metoda denarnih tokov:
NOK 1055 Million
1055 milijonov NOK
Net capitalisation method:
Metoda čiste kapitalizacije:
NOK 1005 Million
1005 milijonov NOK
FIGA/Nortakst concluded that the cash flow method reflected best what a potential investor would be willing to pay for the portfolio.
FIGA/Nortakst je zaključil, da metoda denarnih tokov najbolje izraža to, kar bi bil potencialni vlagatelj pripravljen plačati za portfelj.
The conclusion was thus that the market value of the apartments was NOK 1055 Million.
Sklepna ugotovitev je torej bila, da je bila tržna vrednost stanovanj 1055 milijonov NOK.
In the letter from the Municipality of Oslo attached to the letter dated 7 February 2003 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Municipality contested whether this appraisal reflected the value of the apartments and concluded that the appraisal from OPAK best reflected the market value.
V pismu občine Oslo, priloženem k pismu Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo z dne 7. februarja 2003, je občina spodbijala, da ta ocena izraža vrednost stanovanj, ter sklenila, da tržno vrednost najbolje izraža ocena podjetja OPAK.
Request for further information
Zahteva za nadaljnje informacije
By letter dated 9 April 2003 (Doc. No: 03-2133-D), the Authority requested further information.
S pismom z dne 9. aprila 2003 (Dok. št.: 03-2133-D) je Nadzorni organ zaprosil za nadaljnje informacije.
In this letter, the Competition and State Aid Directorate also expressed doubts about the compatibility of the sale with the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement.
V tem pismu je Direktorat za konkurenco in državno pomoč tudi izrazil dvome o združljivosti prodaje z določbami o državni pomoči Sporazuma EGP.
By letter from the Norwegian Mission to the European Union dated 5 June 2003, forwarding two letters dated 14 May 2003 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Municipality of Oslo, respectively, received and registered by the Authority on 10 June 2003 (Doc. No: 03-3630-A), the Norwegian authorities submitted additional information.
S pismom misije Norveške pri Evropski uniji z dne 5. junija 2003, ki sta mu bili priloženi pismi z dne 14. maja 2003 Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo in občine Oslo ter ki ga je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 10. junija 2003 (Dok. št.: 03-3630-A), so norveški organi poslali dodatne informacije.
The same documents were sent by telefax dated 14 May 2003 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, received and registered by the Authority on the same date (Doc. No: 03-3127-A).
Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo je iste dokumente poslalo po telefaksu dne 14. maja 2003, Nadzorni organ jih je istega dne prejel in evidentiral (Dok. št.: 03-3127-A).
The Ministry of Trade and Industry did not express any views in its letter dated 14 May 2003, but simply forwarded the letter from the Municipality of Oslo.
Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo v svojem pismu z dne 14. maja 2003 ni izrazilo nobenega mnenja, ampak je samo poslalo pismo občine Oslo.
In the letter dated 14 May 2003 from the Municipality of Oslo, the Municipality referred to the unconditional bidding procedure (cf. Chapter 18B.2.1 of the State Aid Guidelines) and stated that: ‘The Municipality will not argue that the procedure followed when the apartments were sold were in full compliance with the requirements set out in the Guidelines.
V pismu občine Oslo z dne 14. maja 2003 se je občina sklicevala na brezpogojni ponudbeni postopek (glej poglavje 18B.2.1 smernic o državni pomoči) in izjavila: „Občina ne bo trdila, da je bil postopek, uporabljen pri prodaji stanovanj, popolnoma v skladu z zahtevami, določenimi v smernicah.
As to Chapter 18B.2.2 of the State Aid Guidelines, sale without an unconditional bidding procedure (value assessment by independent expert), the Municipality maintained that the sale was conducted in compliance with this provision.
Kar zadeva poglavje 18B.2.2 smernic o državni pomoči, tj. prodaja brez brezpogojnega ponudbenega postopka (ocena vrednosti neodvisnega strokovnjaka), je občina trdila, da je bila prodaja opravljena v skladu s to določbo.
Furthermore, the Municipality considered that the valuation carried out by OPAK (the value assessment used by the Municipality) was obtained ‘prior to the sale negotiations’ and according to ‘generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards’.
Poleg tega je občina menila, da je bila ocena, ki jo je opravilo podjetje OPAK (ocena vrednosti, ki jo je uporabila občina), pridobljena „pred dogovori o prodaji“ in v skladu s „splošno sprejetimi tržnimi kazalniki in cenilskimi standardi“.
Finally, ‘the Municipality cannot from the arguments presented by the Authority, see that the time pressure caused by the hospital reform is not relevant when assessing whether the price obtained for the apartments are below market value’.
In na koncu, „občina iz utemeljitev, ki jih je predstavil Nadzorni organ, ne more razumeti, da časovni pritisk, ki ga je povzročila bolnišnična reforma, ni pomemben pri oceni, ali je cena, dosežena za stanovanja, pod tržno vrednostjo“.
The Decision to open the formal investigation procedure
Odločba o uvedbi uradnega preiskovalnega postopka
On 11 July 2003, the Authority decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (hereinafter ‘the formal investigation procedure’) with regard to the sale of the 1744 rental apartments in Oslo [16].
Dne 11. julija 2003 se je Nadzorni organ odločil, da uvede uradni preiskovalni postopek, določen v členu 1(2) v delu I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in sodišču (v nadaljnjem besedilu uradni preiskovalni postopek), v zvezi s prodajo 1744 najemnih stanovanj v Oslū [16].
In the opening Decision, the Authority described the notification, the background of the case and the correspondence with the Norwegian authorities.
V uvodni odločbi je Nadzorni organ opisal priglasitev, ozadje zadeve in korespondenco z norveškimi organi.
As to the reasons for opening the formal investigation, the Authority expressed doubts on several points as to whether the sale was in compliance with Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Kar zadeva razloge za uvedbo uradne preiskave, je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvome o več točkah v zvezi s tem, ali je bila prodaja v skladu s členom 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
Firstly, the Authority referred to the sales process and, taking into account that the sale was not advertised in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines, expressed doubts as to whether the Municipality of Oslo complied with the objectives behind the provisions of Chapter 18B.2.1 of the State Aid Guidelines (sale with an unconditional bidding procedure).
Prvič, Nadzorni organ se je skliceval na prodajni postopek in ob upoštevanju, da prodaja ni bila oglaševana v skladu s smernicami o državni pomoči, izrazil dvome o tem, ali je občina Oslo ravnala v skladu s cilji, na katerih temeljijo določbe poglavja 18B.2.1 smernic o državni pomoči (prodaja z brezpogojnim ponudbenim postopkom).
Secondly, concerning the valuations (Chapter 18B.2.2 of the State Aid Guidelines), the Authority expressed doubts as to whether the evaluation by OPAK (the evaluation used by the Municipality) was carried out prior to the sales negotiations, whether the evaluation was carried out on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards and, taking into account the time constraint, whether a reasonable effort to sell the apartments at market value took place.
Drugič, kar zadeva ocene (poglavje 18B.2.2 smernic o državni pomoči), je Nadzorni organ izrazil dvome o tem, ali je bila ocena podjetja OPAK (ocena, ki jo je uporabila občina) opravljena pred dogovori o prodaji, ali je bila ocena opravljena na podlagi splošno sprejetih tržnih kazalnikov in cenilskih standardov ter, ob upoštevanju časovne omejitve, ali je bil vložen ustrezen trud za prodajo stanovanj po tržni vrednosti.
Furthermore, the sales price agreed (and notified) was NOK 715 Million, while the result of a new value appraisal, as requested by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, was NOK 1055 Million (FIGA/Nortakst).
Poleg tega je bila dogovorjena (in priglašena) prodajna cena 715 milijonov NOK, medtem ko je bil rezultat nove ocene vrednosti, ki jo je zahtevalo Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo, 1055 milijonov NOK (FIGA/Nortakst).
Taking into account the huge discrepancy between the two appraisals, the Authority expressed doubts as to whether the agreed sales price (NOK 715 Million) reflected the market value.
Nadzorni organ je ob upoštevanju velikega razhajanja med ocenama izrazil dvome o tem, ali je dogovorjena prodajna cena (715 milijonov NOK) izražala tržno vrednost.
Thirdly, the Authority referred to the fact that the Municipality argued that even if the price obtained were found to be below market value, the sale fell outside the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement because the market in which Fredensborg was involved did not contain elements of cross-border trade.
Tretjič, Nadzorni organ se je skliceval na dejstvo, da je občina trdila, da četudi bi bilo za doseženo ceno ugotovljeno, da je pod tržno vrednostjo, prodaja ni spadala v področje uporabe člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, ker trg, v katerega je bil vključen Fredensborg, ni vseboval elementov čezmejne trgovine.
The Authority considered that the real estate market in Oslo was not limited to local undertakings and that Fredensborg was actually, or potentially, in competition with similar undertakings in Norway and other EEA States.
Nadzorni organ je menil, da nepremičninski trg v Oslu ni bil omejen na lokalna podjetja in da je Fredensborg dejansko ali potencialno konkuriral podobnim podjetjem na Norveškem in v drugih državah EGP.
Fourthly, the Authority expressed doubts as to whether a sales price below market value could be justified on the basis of the market economy investor principle, i.e. that the Municipality behaved as any other private investor, taking into account the time constraint and the hospital reform initiated by the Government.
Četrtič, Nadzorni organ je izrazil dvome o tem, ali bi bilo mogoče prodajno ceno pod tržno vrednostjo upravičiti na podlagi načela vlagatelja v tržnem gospodarstvu, tj. da je občina ravnala tako kot kateri koli drug zasebni vlagatelj ter pri tem upoštevala časovno omejitev in bolnišnično reformo, ki jo je začela vlada.
Comments to the opening decision from the Norwegian authorities
Pripombe norveških organov na uvodno odločbo
By letter dated 12 September 2003 from the Mission of Norway to the European Union, forwarding two letters dated 11 September 2003 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Municipality of Oslo, respectively, all received and registered by the Authority on 15 September 2003 (Doc. No: 03-6307-A), the Norwegian authorities submitted their comments to the opening decision.
S pismom misije Norveške pri Evropski uniji z dne 12. septembra 2003, ki sta mu bili priloženi pismi z dne 11. septembra 2003 Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo in občine Oslo ter ki ju je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 15. septembra 2003 (Dok. št.: 03-6307 A), so norveški organi poslali svoje pripombe na uvodno odločbo.
The same letters were sent by telefax dated 11 September 2003 from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, received and registered by the Authority on the same date (Doc. No: 03-6201-A).
Ministrstvo za trgovino in industrijo je isti pismi poslal po telefaksu dne 11. septembra 2003, Nadzorni organ ju je istega dne prejel in evidentiral (Dok. št.: 03-6201 A).
The letter from the Ministry of Trade and Industry dated 11 September 2003 did not express any views on the case, but only referred to the letter from the Municipality of Oslo.
Pismo Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo z dne 11. septembra 2003 ni izražalo nobenega mnenja o zadevi, ampak se je samo sklicevalo na pismo občine Oslo.
The Municipality of Oslo referred to its previous arguments and maintained, firstly, that the objectives behind the provisions of Chapter 18B.2.1, Sale through an unconditional bidding procedure, of the State aid Guidelines, were obtained despite that the sale was not made public in the way prescribed in the Guidelines.
Občina Oslo se je sklicevala na svoje predhodne utemeljitve in je trdila, prvič, da so bili cilji, na katerih temeljijo določbe poglavja 18B.2.1, Prodaja prek brezpogojnega ponudbenega postopka, smernic o državni pomoči, doseženi, čeprav prodaja ni bila objavljena tako, kot je določeno v smernicah.
The Municipality argued that all potential buyers established in Norway had been informed of the forthcoming sale and that there was little interest in investing in the Norwegian housing rental market among investors not already established in Norway.
Občina je trdila, da so bili vsi potencialni kupci s sedežem na Norveškem obveščeni o prihodnji prodaji in da je bilo med vlagatelji, ki na Norveškem še niso imeli svojega sedeža, malo zanimanja za vlaganje v norveški trg najemnih stanovanj.
Secondly, the Municipality argued that the value assessment by OPAK complied with the procedural requirements of Chapter 18B.2.2, Sale without an unconditional bidding procedure, of the State Aid Guidelines.
Drugič, občina je trdila, da je bila ocena vrednosti, ki jo je opravilo podjetje OPAK, v skladu s postopkovnimi zahtevami poglavja 18B.2.2, Prodaja brez brezpogojnega ponudbenega postopka, smernic o državni pomoči.
That implied i.a. that the Municipality considered that the evaluation by OPAK was carried out ‘in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards’ and that the evaluation was carried out ‘prior to the sale negotiations’.
To med drugim pomeni, da je občina menila, da je bila ocena podjetja OPAK opravljena, „da bi določili tržno vrednost na podlagi splošno sprejetih tržnih kazalnikov in cenilskih standardov“, in da je bila ocena opravljena „pred dogovori o prodaji“.
The Municipality furthermore argued that the difference between the sales price (NOK 715 Million) and the OPAK evaluation (NOK 740 Million) was in line with Chapter 18B.2.2(b), ‘Margin’, of the State Aid Guidelines [17].Thirdly, the Municipality considered that there were grounds for being very sceptical about the new value appraisal from FIGA/Nortakst, which concluded that the value was NOK 1055 Million.
Občina je poleg tega trdila, da je bila razlika med prodajno ceno (715 milijonov NOK) in oceno podjetja OPAK (740 milijonov NOK) v skladu s poglavjem 18B.2.2(b), „Odstopanje“, smernic o državni pomoči [17].Tretjič, občina je menila, da so obstajali razlogi za to, da je zelo dvomila glede nove ocene vrednosti FIGA/Nortaksta, ki je zaključil, da je bila vrednost 1055 milijonov NOK.
The Municipality stated that FIGA/Nortakst based its appraisal on an annual price increase for the property over the next 10 years of 4 %, while the prices fell by 5,2 % from the 2nd quarter 2002 to the 2nd quarter 2003.
Občina je izjavila, da je FIGA/Nortakst za podlago svoje ocene vzel 4-odstotno letno zvišanje cen nepremičnin v naslednjih 10 letih, medtem ko so cene padle za 5,2 % od drugega četrtletja 2002 do drugega četrtletja 2003.
The Municipality considered that the FIGA/Nortakst assessment could not be relied upon.
Občina je menila, da se ni bilo mogoče zanesti na oceno, ki jo je pripravil FIGA/Nortakst.
Fourthly, the Municipality could ‘not see that the Authority has defined the relevant market for rental homes and how this leads the Authority to their conclusion that Fredensborg Boligutleie ANS is actually or potentially in competition with similar undertakings in Norway or other EEA States’.
Četrtič, občina „ni mogla razumeti, da je Nadzorni organ opredelil zadevni trg za najemna stanovanja in kako na podlagi tega Nadzorni organ sklepa, da Fredensborg Boligutleie ANS dejansko ali potencialno konkurira podobnim podjetjem na Norveškem ali v drugih državah EGP“.
The Decision to open the formal investigation procedure was published on 4 December 2003.
Odločba o uvedbi uradnega preiskovalnega postopka je bila objavljena 4. decembra 2003.
The Authority received one comment from third parties to the opening decision.
Nadzorni organ je na uvodno odločbo prejel eno pripombo tretjih strank.
By letter dated 19 December 2003, received and registered by the Authority on 5 January 2004 (Doc No: 03-8980 A), Fredensborg (the buyer) submitted comments.
S pismom z dne 19. decembra 2003, ki ga je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 5. januarja 2004 (Dok. št.: 03-8980 A), je Fredensborg (kupec) predložil pripombe.
The report by BER, Bygg og eiendomsrevisjon AS
Poročilo podjetja BER, Bygg og eiendomsrevisjon AS
BER, Bygg og eiendomsrevisjon AS (hereinafter BER), represented by Mr. Arnt K. Svendsen, was asked by Fredensborg to give their assessment of the value of the portfolio, and to comment upon the valuations from Catella, OPAK and FIGA.
Fredensborg je zaprosil podjetje BER, Bygg og eiendomsrevisjon AS (v nadaljnjem besedilu BER), ki ga je zastopal g. Arnt K. Svendsen, da predloži svojo oceno vrednosti portfelja in da izrazi svoje pripombe k ocenam podjetij Catella, OPAK in FIGA.
The report from BER was submitted on 13 January 2003.
Poročilo podjetja BER je bila predloženo dne 13. januarja 2003.
BER's assessment was based on three different scenarios:
Ocena podjetja BER je temeljila na treh različnih scenarijih:
Return on investment value based on rental housing:
Donosnost vrednosti naložbe na podlagi najemnih stanovanj:
NOK 630,0 Million
630,0 milijonov NOK
Return on investment based on rental for 10 years, thereafter individual sales over a three year period:
Donosnost naložbe na podlagi najema za 10 let, nato individualne prodaje v triletnem obdobju:
NOK 796,5 Million
796,5 milijona NOK
Same as above, but sale of all apartments individually in year 11:
Enako kot zgoraj, vendar prodaja vseh stanovanj posamezno v 11. letu:
NOK 851,5 Million
851,5 milijona NOK
NOK 759,3 Million
759,3 milijona NOK
BER concluded that the market value was in the range between NOK 700-800 Million.
BER je zaključil, da je tržna vrednost med 700 in 800 milijoni NOK.
BER also assessed the three previous assessments by Catella, OPAK and FIGA.
BBER je poleg tega ocenil tri predhodne ocene podjetij Catella, OPAK in FIGA.
The assessment by Catella was, according to BER, a theoretic value based on the assumption that the apartments were let out at market price from day one.
Po mnenju BER-a je bila ocena podjetja Catella teoretična vrednost, ki je temeljila na predpostavki, da se bodo stanovanja oddajala po tržni ceni od prvega dne dalje.
The OPAK assessment did not take into account that rentals were half of the regular market price at the time of the bid, according to BER.
BER je tudi menil, da ocena OPAK-a ni upoštevala, da so bile najemnine med ponudbo polovica redne tržne cene.
Furthermore, the future loss due to current contracts below market price was not taken into account in the calculations.
Poleg tega v izračunih ni bila upoštevana prihodnja izguba zaradi sedanjih pogodb pod tržno ceno.
Neither were rental losses during rehabilitation phase calculated.
Niti niso bile izračunane izgube najemnine med sanacijsko fazo.
No project gains or risks had been incorporated in the estimates.
V ocene tudi niso bile vključene pridobitve ali tveganja projekta.
According to BER, the FIGA/Nortakst appraisal was also a theoretic ‘going concern’ value assessment.
Po mnenju BER-a je bila ocena, ki jo je opravil FIGA/Nortakst, prav tako teoretična ocena vrednosti.
No project risks or gains had been taken into account.
Upoštevane niso bile nobene pridobitve ali tveganja projekta.
This did not reflect the way bidders normally act in this type of market.
To ni izražalo načina, kako ponudniki ponavadi delujejo na tej vrsti trga.