natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It seems however, that already in 2001 Asker Brygge saw that there was a potential in developing the property.
Vendar se zdi, da je podjetje Asker Brygge že leta 2001 menilo, da je nepremičnino mogoče razviti.
Such a potential would normally correspond to an added value.
Taka možnost običajno pomeni dodano vrednost.
Thus, the municipality pointed out in its letter to the assessors dated 11 April 2008, that the assessors should take into consideration whether the likelihood of adjusted regulations (presumably to a more profitable usage) should be assessed.
Zato je občina v dopisu z dne 11. aprila 2008 cenilce opozorila, naj proučijo, ali bi bilo treba oceniti verjetnost prilagojenih predpisov (verjetno za bolj dobičkonosno uporabo).
The assessors refused however to take the possibility of adjusted regulations into consideration, as they regarded this as speculative.
Vendar cenilci niso hoteli upoštevati verjetnosti prilagojenih predpisov, saj je bilo to po njihovem mnenju nezanesljivo.
The assessors added that the valuation would be quite different (meaning considerably higher) if the assessment should be based on that housing and industry were to be allowed on the property [23].
Cenilci so tudi menili, da bi bila ocena vrednosti precej drugačna (tj. vrednost bi bila precej višja), če bi temeljila na dejstvu, da se zemljišče lahko uporabi za namene stanovanj in industrije [23].
32/17 in 2007 for the price of NOK 8727462 was below its market price of NOK 12 million as established by the independent expert assessment carried out in June 2008, which the Norwegian authorities submitted.
Zato Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da je bila prodaja zemljišča s katastrsko št. 32/17 leta 2007 po ceni 8727462 NOK pod tržno ceno 12 milijonov NOK, kakor je bilo ugotovljeno z neodvisno izvedensko oceno iz junija 2008, ki so jo predložili norveški organi.
Conclusion on the market investor principle
Sklepna ugotovitev o načelu tržnega vlagatelja
For the above-mentioned reasons, the Authority finds that the price agreed upon in the option agreement did not corresponded to the market price for such an agreement, which should reflect the property value at the time of the agreement combined with the value of the option and the special arrangements granted to the buyer.
Na podlagi navedenih razlogov Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da cena, dogovorjena v opcijski pogodbi, ni ustrezala tržni ceni za tako pogodbo, ki bi morala odražati vrednost nepremičnine v času sklenitve pogodbe skupaj z vrednostjo nakupne opcije in posebnimi dogovori za kupca.
32/17 to Asker Brygge AS for the sales price of NOK 8727462 was not carried out in accordance with the market investor principle.
Zato Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da prodaja zadevnega zemljišča s katastrsko št. 32/17 podjetju Asker Brygge AS za kupnino 8727462 NOK ni bil izvedena v skladu z načelom tržnega vlagatelja.
In order to qualify as state aid, the measure must be granted by the State or through state resources.
Ukrep se šteje za državno pomoč, če ga dodeli država oziroma je dodeljen iz državnih sredstev.
The concept of State does not only refer to the central government but embraces all levels of the state administration (including municipalities) as well as public undertakings.
Pojem države se ne nanaša samo na centralno vlado, temveč zajema vse ravni državne uprave (vključno z občinami) in javna podjetja.
Given that the municipality has sold the land below its market price, it has foregone income.
Ker je občina zemljišče prodala pod njegovo tržno ceno, je izgubila prihodek.
In such circumstances, Asker Brygge should have paid more for the land and therefore there is a transfer of resources from the municipality.
V takih okoliščinah bi moralo podjetje Asker Brygge za zemljišče plačati višji znesek, zato gre za prenos sredstev z občine.
For these reasons, the Authority considers that since the sale did not take place in accordance with market conditions, state resources within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are involved.
Zato so po mnenju Nadzornega organa vključena državna sredstva v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, saj prodaja ni bila izvedena v skladu s tržnimi pogoji.
First, the measure must confer on Asker Brygge advantages that relieve the undertaking of charges that are normally borne from its budget.
Prvič, ukrep mora podjetju Asker Brygge zagotoviti ugodnosti, na podlagi katerih je oproščeno dajatev, ki običajno bremenijo njegov proračun.
Since the transaction was carried out under favourable terms, in the sense that Asker Brygge would have had to pay a higher price for the property if the sale of land had been conducted according to the market investor principle, and to have paid market interest rates for the loan if it was to borrow the same amount from a bank, the company received an advantage within the meaning of the state aid rules.
Transakcija je bila izvršena pod ugodnimi pogoji, saj bi podjetje Asker Brygge za nepremičnino moralo plačati višji znesek, če bi se zemljišče prodajalo po načelu tržnega vlagatelja, obenem pa bi moralo za posojilo, če bi si enak znesek izposodilo od banke, plačati obresti po tržni stopnji, zato je podjetje pridobilo ugodnost v smislu pravil o državni pomoči.
In the letter dated 11 May 2009 [24], the municipality explained how it calculated the level of eventual aid, estimated to NOK 5,3 million in the notification form to the Authority, point 5 [25].
Občina je v dopisu z dne 11. maja 2009 [24] pojasnila, kako je izračunala stopnjo morebitne pomoči, ki je bila v točki 5 obrazca za priglasitev, poslanega Nadzornemu organu, ocenjena na 5,3 milijona NOK [25].
The estimation is based on the difference between the value assessment of June 2008 [26] (which determined the value of the land in 2007, when the sales agreement was entered into) and the sales sum, which gives approximately NOK 3,3 million.
Ocena temelji na razliki med oceno vrednosti iz junija 2008 [26] (v kateri je bila ocenjena vrednost zemljišča leta 2007 ob sklenitvi prodajne pogodbe) in kupnino ter znaša približno 3,3 milijona NOK.
In addition the municipality has added the economic advantage of the postponed payment of the remaining 70 % of the sales price.
Poleg tega je občina z odloženim plačilom preostalih 70 % kupnine dodala gospodarsko prednost.
The municipality has based its calculations on 7 % interest over a period of 4 years and 9 months related to a sum of NOK 6 million, and found that the maximum advantage conferred by the soft loan is NOK 2 million.
Izračun občine temelji na 7-odstotni obrestni meri v obdobju 4 let in 9 mesecev v povezavi z zneskom 6 milijonov NOK, pri čemer je občina ugotovila, da je najvišja ugodnost, dodeljena z ugodnim posojilom, 2 milijona NOK.
Second, the measure must be selective in that it favours “certain undertakings or the production of certain goods”.
Drugič, ukrep mora dajati prednost „posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga“.
There is only one possible beneficiary of the measure under assessment, i.e. Asker Brygge.
Za ocenjevani ukrep obstaja samo en morebitni upravičenec, tj. podjetje Asker Brygge.
The measure is thus selective.
Ukrep je torej selektiven.
The aid must distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties of the EEA Agreement.
Pomoč mora izkrivljati konkurenco in vplivati na trgovino med pogodbenicami Sporazuma EGP.
A support measure granted by the State would strengthen the position of Asker Brygge vis-à-vis other undertakings that are competitors active in the same business areas of real estate and property development.
Ukrep podpore, ki ga je dodelila država, bi okrepil položaj podjetja Asker Brygge v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenti, ki se ukvarjajo z istimi dejavnostmi razvoja nepremičnin.
Any grant of aid strengthens the position of the beneficiary vis-à-vis its competitors and accordingly distorts competition within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Kakršna koli dodelitev pomoči krepi položaj upravičenca v primerjavi s konkurenti in torej izkrivlja konkurenco v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
To the extent that the company is active in areas subject to intra-EEA trade, the requirements of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement for a measure to constitute state aid are fulfilled.
Če se podjetje ukvarja z dejavnostmi, odprtimi za trgovino znotraj EGP, so izpolnjene zahteve iz člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, da ukrep pomeni državno pomoč.
The business of developing real estate is in principle and in practice open to intra-EEA trade.
Dejavnost razvoja nepremičnin je načeloma in v praksi odprta za trgovino znotraj EGP.
Thus, the Authority concludes that the aid threatens to distort competition and effects trade contrary to article 61(1) EEA.
Zato Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da obstaja nevarnost, da pomoč izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino v nasprotju s členom 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Authority finds that the transaction concerning the sale of the plot of land gbnr 32/17 to Asker Brygge as laid down in the option agreement signed in 2001 and later agreements entail the grant of state aid.
Zaradi navedenih razlogov Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da transakcija prodaje zemljišča, katastrska št. 32/17, podjetju Asker Brygge, kakor je določena v opcijski pogodbi, sklenjeni leta 2001, in poznejših pogodbah, pomeni dodelitev državne pomoči.
The Norwegian authorities submitted a notification of the sale on 13 February 2009 (Event No 508884).
Norveški organi so prodajo priglasili 13. februarja 2009 (ev. št. 508884).
However, the Norwegian authorities signed the Option Agreement laying down the conditions for the purchase of the plot of land in 2001 and put the sale into effect on 21 March 2007 when the sales contract was entered into.
Vendar so norveški organi opcijsko pogodbo, v kateri so bili določeni pogoji nakupa zemljišča, podpisali leta 2001, prodaja pa je bila izvedena 21. marca 2007 z začetkom veljavnosti prodajne pogodbe.
Thus, the sale was put into effect before the Authority had taken a final decision as to its validity.
Prodaja je bila tako izvedena, preden je Nadzorni organ sprejel dokončno odločitev o njeni veljavnosti.
The Authority therefore concludes that the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da norveški organi niso upoštevali obveznosti, ki jim jih nalaga člen 1(3) dela I Protokola 3.
Support measures caught by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are generally incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, unless they qualify for a derogation in Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement.
Ukrepi podpore iz člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP so običajno nezdružljivi z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, razen če izpolnjujejo pogoje za odstopanje iz člena 61(2) ali (3) Sporazuma EGP.
Nor does Article 61(3)(a) or Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement apply to the case at hand.
Prav tako za zadevni primer ni mogoče uporabiti člena 61(3)(a) ali 61(3)(b) Sporazuma EGP.
Further, the area where the property is located cannot benefit from any regional aid within the meaning of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.
Poleg tega zemljišče, kjer je nepremičnina, ne more koristiti regionalnih pomoči v smislu člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority therefore finds that the transaction under assessment can not be justified under the state aid provisions of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ zato ugotavlja, da ocenjevane transakcije ni mogoče upravičiti v skladu z določbami Sporazuma EGP o državni pomoči.
According to Article 14 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, in cases of unlawful aid, should it be found incompatible, the Authority orders, as a rule, the EFTA State concerned to reclaim aid from the recipient.
Nadzorni organ v skladu s členom 14 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču v primerih obstoja nezakonite pomoči, če se ugotovi, da je nezdružljiva, zadevni državi Efte praviloma odredi, da od prejemnika zahteva vračilo pomoči.
The Authority is of the opinion that no general principles preclude repayment in the present case.
Nadzorni organ meni, da v tem primeru ni splošnih načel, ki bi izključevala vračilo.
According to settled case-law, abolishing unlawful aid by means of recovery is the logical consequence of a finding that it is unlawful.
V skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso je ukinitev nezakonite pomoči z izterjavo logična posledica ugotovitve, da je pomoč nezakonita.
Consequently, the recovery of state aid unlawfully granted, for the purpose of restoring the previously existing situation, cannot in principle be regarded as disproportionate to the objectives of the EEA Agreement in regard to state aid.
Zato izterjave državne pomoči, ki je bila dodeljena nezakonito, za namene vnovične vzpostavitve prejšnjega položaja načeloma ni mogoče obravnavati kot nesorazmerne s cilji Sporazuma EGP v zvezi z državno pomočjo.
By repaying the aid, the recipient forfeits the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to payment of the aid is restored [27].
Prejemnik se z vračilom pomoči odpove prednosti, ki jo je užival na trgu pred svojimi konkurenti, in ponovno se vzpostavi položaj, ki je obstajal pred izplačilom pomoči [27].
It also follows from that function of repayment of aid that, as a general rule, save in exceptional circumstances, the Authority will not exceed the bounds of its discretion, recognised by the case-law of the Court, if it asks the EFTA State concerned to recover the sums granted by way of unlawful aid since it is only restoring the previous situation [28].
Iz te funkcije vračila pomoči je mogoče sklepati, da Nadzorni organ na splošno, razen v izjemnih okoliščinah, ne bo presegel meja svoje diskrecije, ki mu jo priznava sodna praksa Sodišča, če od zadevne države Efte zahteva, da dobi nazaj zneske, ki jih je dodelila prek nezakonite pomoči, saj samo vzpostavlja prejšnji položaj [28].
Moreover, in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of state aid by the Authority under Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, undertakings to which aid has been granted cannot, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in the provisions of that Protocol [29].
Poleg tega Protokol 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču Nadzornemu organu nalaga obveznost nadziranja državne pomoči, zato podjetja, ki jim je bila pomoč dodeljena, načeloma ne morejo upravičeno pričakovati, da je pomoč zakonita, če ni bila dodeljena v skladu s postopkom, ki ga določajo določbe navedenega protokola [29].
There are no exceptional circumstances visible in this case, which would have led to legitimate expectations on the side of the aid beneficiaries.The recovery of the unduly granted state aid amounts should include compound interests, in line with Article 14 (2) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement and Article 9 and 11 of the Authority’s Decision 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004.
V tem primeru niso razvidne izjemne okoliščine, zaradi katerih bi prejemniki pomoči lahko imeli upravičena pričakovanja.Izterjava neupravičeno dodeljene državne pomoči mora v skladu s členom 14(2) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču ter členoma 9 in 11 Odločbe Nadzornega organa št. 195/04/COL z dne 14. julija 2004 vključevati obrestne obresti.
The Authority concludes that the Norwegian authorities have unlawfully implemented the aid in question in breach of Article 1(3) of Part I to Protocol 3.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so norveški organi nezakonito izvedli zadevno pomoč in tako kršili člen 1(3) dela I Protokola 3.
to Asker Brygge AS entail state aid which – for the reasons set out above – is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement and should be recovered, from the date of the sales agreement signed on 21 March 2007.
, podjetju Asker Brygge AS pomenijo državno pomoč, ki zaradi navedenih razlogov ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP in bi jo bilo treba izterjati od datuma sklenitve prodajne pogodbe 21. marca 2007 –
by the Municipality of Asker to Asker Brygge AS entails state aid which is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
, s strani občine Asker podjetju Asker Brygge AS pomeni državno pomoč, ki ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Norwegian authorities shall take all necessary measures to recover from Asker Brygge AS the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully made available to the beneficiary.
Norveški organi sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe, s katerimi od podjetja Asker Brygge AS izterjajo pomoč iz člena 1, ki je bila nezakonito dana na voljo upravičencu.
Recovery shall be affected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision.
Izterjava se izvede nemudoma in v skladu s postopki nacionalne zakonodaje, če ti omogočajo takojšnjo in učinkovito uveljavitev odločbe.
The aid to be recovered shall include interest and compound interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of Asker Brygge AS until the date of its recovery.
Za pomoč, ki jo je treba izterjati, se od datuma, ko je bila dana na razpolago podjetju Asker Brygge AS, do datuma izterjave zaračunavajo obresti in obrestne obresti.
Interest shall be calculated on the basis of Article 9 in the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 195/04/COL.
Obresti se izračunajo v skladu s členom 9 Odločbe Nadzornega organa Efte št. 195/04/COL.
By 13 September 2011, Norway shall inform the Authority of the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary as well as of the measures planned or taken to recover the aid.
Norveška do 13. septembra 2011 Nadzorni organ obvesti o skupnem znesku (glavnica in obresti izterjave), ki ga je treba izterjati od upravičenca, in o drugih ukrepih, ki jih načrtuje ali jih je sprejela za izterjavo pomoči.
By 13 November 2011, Norway must have executed the Authority’s decision and fully recovered the aid.
Norveška mora do 13. novembra 2011 izvršiti odločbo Nadzornega organa in v celoti izterjati pomoč.
Available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf
Na voljo na spletni strani: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf.
Published in OJ C184 of 8.7.2010, p. 20 and EEA Supplement No 35 of 8.7.2010.
Objavljeno v UL C 184, 8.7.2010, str. 20, in Dopolnilu EGP št. 35, 8.7.2010.
See OJ C 184, 8.7.2010 and the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal No 35, 8.7.2010.
Glej UL C 184, 8.7.2010, in Dopolnilo EGP k Uradnemu listu št. 35, 8.7.2010.
Event # 518079, enclosure 1.
Ev. št. 518079, priloga 1.
Whether this corresponds to the market price will be assessed in Section 1.1.2 below.
V oddelku 1.1.2 spodaj bo ocenjeno, ali to ustreza tržni ceni.
According to the sales contract clause 3, the payment shall take place prior to any building activity starts and in any case within 31.12.2011, see event # 508884, enclosure 1.
Glede na člen 3 prodajne pogodbe bi moralo biti plačilo izvedeno pred začetkom gradbenih del in najpozneje do 31. decembra 2011, glej ev. št. 508884, priloga 1.
Event # 508884, Enclosure 9 to the notification.
Ev. št. 508884, priloga 9 k priglasitvi.
Event # 508884, Enclosure 9 to the notification, the assessment at page 15.
Ev. št. 508884, priloga 9 k priglasitvi, ocena na strani 15.
Event # 508884, Enclosure 5 to the notification.
Ev. št. 508884, priloga 5 k priglasitvi.
Event # 508884, Enclosure 3 to the notification.
Ev. št. 508884, priloga 3 k priglasitvi.
Event # 518079, the municipality’s letter to the Authority dated 11.5.2009, pages 2–3.
Ev. št. 518079, dopis občine Nadzornemu organu z dne 11. maja 2009, strani 2 in 3.
This sum was determined on the basis of an agreement signed in 1999 between the Municipality of Asker and Slependen Båtforening.
Znesek je bil določen na podlagi pogodbe, ki sta jo leta 1999 sklenila občina Asker in podjetje Slependen Båtforening.
Enclosure 8 to the letter dated 11.5.2009, event # 518079.
Priloga 8 k dopisu z dne 11. maja 2009, ev. št. 518079.
The agreement is assessed by the law firm Hjort, see event # 508884, enclosure 7.
Pogodbo je ocenila odvetniška družba Hjort, glej ev. št. 508884, priloga 7.
Event # 508884, see enclosure 3 to the notification, the assessment at page 5, and the Municipality’s letter to the assessors dated 5.5.2008, enclosure 8 to the notification, and the municipality’s comments in its letter to the Authority dated 29.1.2010 at page 3–4, event # 544706.
Ev. št. 508884, glej prilogo 3 k priglasitvi, stran 5 ocene, in dopis občine cenilcem z dne 5. maja 2008, priloga 8 k priglasitvi, ter pripombe občine na straneh 3 in 4 dopisa Nadzornemu organu z dne 29. januarja 2010, ev. št. 544706.
Event # 508884, see enclosure 3 to the notification, the assessment at pages 4 and 7, and the municipality’s letter to the assessors dated 5.5.2008, enclosure 8 to the notification, and the municipality’s comments in its letter to the Authority dated 29.1.2010 at page 4 (point 3.3, last paragraph), event # 544706.
Ev. št. 508884, glej prilogo 3 k priglasitvi, strani 4 in 7 ocene, in dopis občine cenilcem z dne 5. maja 2008, priloga 8 k priglasitvi, ter pripombe občine na strani 4 (zadnji odstavek točke 3(3)) dopisa Nadzornemu organu z dne 29. januarja 2010, ev. št. 544706.
Event # 545173, comments from Asker Brygge, point 4.
Ev. št. 545173, pripombe podjetja Asker Brygge, točka 4.
Event # 544706, see pages 3–4, and event # 518079, the municipality’s letter to the Authority where it uses the assessment as its basis for explaining the calculations of the amount of aid possibly granted as stated in the notification to the Authority.
Ev. št. 544706, glej strani 3–4, in ev. št. 518079, dopis občine Nadzornemu organu, v katerem je na podlagi ocene razložen izračun zneska pomoči, ki bi se lahko dodelil, kot je navedeno v priglasitvi Nadzornemu organu.
Enclosure 3 to the notification.
Priloga 3 k priglasitvi.
Event # 545173, point 3.
Ev. št. 545173, točka 3.
See event # 508884, enclosure 3.
Glej ev. št. 508884, priloga 3.
See event # 508884, enclosure 3, the value assessment at page 6–7.
Glej ev. št. 508884, priloga 3, strani 6 in 7 ocene vrednosti.
See event # 508884, enclosure 3, the value assessment at page 5.
Glej ev. št. 508884, priloga 3, stran 5 ocene vrednosti.
See event # 508884, enclosure 8, the municipality’s letter at page 2, and the assessors’ (undated) letter at page 1.
Glej ev.št. 508884, priloga 8, stran 2 dopisa občine in stran 1 dopisa cenilcev (brez datuma).
Event # 518079 at pages 1–2.
Ev. št. 518079, strani 1 in 2.
Event # 508884, annex 1, the notification form, point 5.
Ev.št. 508884, priloga 1, obrazec za priglasitev, točka 5.
Of the three assessments, the valuation of June 2008 which estimated the market value of the land in 2007 at NOK 12 million gives in the view of the Authority the best indication on the property’s market value in 2007.
Od treh opravljenih ocen ocena vrednosti iz junija 2008, s katero je bila tržna vrednost zemljišča leta 2007 ocenjena na 12 milijonov NOK, po mnenju Nadzornega organa najbolje predstavlja tržno vrednost nepremičnine leta 2007.
Case C-350/93 Commission v Italy [1995] ECR I-699, paragraph 22.
Zadeva C-350/93, Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Italijanski republiki, Recueil 1995, str. I-699, točka 22.
Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I-3671, paragraph 66, and Case C-310/99 Italy v Commission [2002] ECR I-2289, paragraph 99.
Zadeva C-75/97, Kraljevina Belgija proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, Recueil 1999, str. I-3671, točka 66, in zadeva C-310/99, Italijanska republika proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, Recueil 2002, str. I-2289, točka 99.
Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135, paragraph 51.
Zadeva C-169/95, Kraljevina Španija proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, Recueil 1997, str. I-135, točka 51.
The second and largest instalment, 70 % of the sales sum (NOK 6109223), is due at the latest 31 December 2011.
Drugi in največji obrok, ki znaša 70 % kupnine (6109223 NOK), zapade v plačilo najpozneje 31. decembra 2011.