Background. The Hurtigruten companies operate maritime transport services consisting of the combined transport of persons and goods along the coastal line from Bergen to Kirkenes. From 1 January 2002 until 31 December 2004, these services were covered by the agreement between the Norwegian authorities and the Hurtigruten companies concerning operation of maritime services along the Norwegian coast (2). The ‘Hurtigruten Agreement’ was notified by the Norwegian authorities to the Authority in July 2000 and subsequently approved by the Authority on 19 December 2001 (3). The Hurtigruten companies are also engaged in commercial business activities which are not part of the Hurtigruten service, such as operating high-speed ferries. The Hurtigruten service itself is partly commercially viable, notably during the summer season, whereas it is, in general, not commercially viable during the winter season. The Authority in its 2001 Deci- sion considered that compensation under the Hurtigruten Agreement could be authorised under Article 59
Background. Hurtigruten ASA operates maritime transport services consisting of the combined transport of persons and goods along the Norwegian costal line from Bergen to Kirkenes, serving 34 ports of call on a daily basis throughout the year.
Background. The Icelandic authorities have explained that as a result of turmoil in the global financial markets, the Icelandic financial institutions have been faced with a shortage of liquidity and limited supply of credit. In response to this situation, the Icelandic authorities decided to adopt measures aimed at securing the functioning of financial markets. One of such measures consists of authorising the national housing agency, the Housing Financing Fund (the ‘HFF’), to purchase mortgage loans from financial undertakings. The Icelandic authorities have explained that this is the second scheme authorising the HFF to intervene on behalf of the State in the context of the financial crisis. The first scheme was approved by the Authority by means of Decision No 168/09/COL of 27 March 2009 on an additional loan category of the HFF on lending to banks, saving banks and other financial institutions for the purpose of temporarily refinancing mortgage loans (1). The major difference between the scheme already approved by the Authority and the Mortgage Loan Scheme is that the former contained an asset swap of a temporary nature whereas under the Mortgage Loan Scheme the asset swap would be permanent. The schemes do not overlap in the sense that they cover the same portfolio of mortgage loans at the same time, because the portfolio of the mortgage loans subject to the temporary scheme must be returned to the beneficiary undertaking before a purchase agreement is put into effect. The primary objective of the Mortgage Loan Scheme is to provide liquid funds to financial institutions. The market failure intended to be addressed by the measure is the lack of liquidity due to the collapse of the financial system. As a secondary objective, the Mortgage Loan Scheme aims at ensuring the availability of loans on the residential housing market and to safeguard the interests of the homeowners. The Mortgage Loan Scheme was originally designed as a financing measure for new mortgage loans to be offered by the financial institutions in order to complement the temporary scheme for the refinancing of financial institutions in respect of mortgage loans already given, which was subject to the Authority’s Decision No 168/09/COL. The Mortgage Loan Scheme, like the temporary scheme, is principally aimed at guaranteeing the security and availability of mortgage loans and promoting normal price formation in the real estate market (2). According to the information provided by the Icelandic authori...
Background. In 1992, the Norwegian authorities introduced a scheme concerning special tax deductions for cooperatives. According to the scheme, cooperatives within the agricultural and fisheries sectors as well as consumer cooperatives were entitled to incor- porate tax deductions on the basis of allocations to equity capital. Other forms of cooperatives were not covered by the scheme. The deduction was limited to maximum 15 % of the annual net income, and taken solely from the part of the income deriving from trade with the members of the cooperative. A deduction corresponding to the maximum allowed would imply a reduc- tion from the normal corporate tax rate of 28 % to 23,8 % (5). According to the Proposal by the Norwegian Government of 29 September 2006 (6), the aim of the scheme was to grant a fiscal advantage to the cooperatives on the basis that the coope- ratives were considered to have a more difficult access to equity capital than other undertakings.
Background. The Government indicated the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Government Decision 1079/2012. (III. 28.) on financing and operation of related tasks of the Electronic Information Service National Programme, to attend the operation of related tasks of the Electronic Information Service National Program under the control of his public bodies corporate budget, with the involvement of Elektronikus Információszolgáltatás the Library and Information Centre of the Nemzeti Program működtetésével Hungarian Academy of Sciences, kapcsolatos feladatokat.
Background. The Norwegian authorities notified an aid scheme for the trans- portation of round wood as existing aid in 1993. This scheme expired in 2006. Following the adoption of new guidelines for regional aid by the Authority applicable as of 1 January 2007, the Norwegian authorities have re-notified an aid scheme for the transportation of round wood in light of the new provisions for State aid guidelines for national regional aid. The scheme is called the regional grant for the transportation of round wood („Transporttilskudd til skogbruket”).
Background. In 1955, a basis for State involvement, both as regards policy making in the field of housing affairs and the provision of loans for private housing, was laid. Later the State Housing Agency (Húsnæðisstofnun ríkisins) was established by Act No 51/1980 and provided, inter alia, loans on preferential terms to private home buyers. In 1986 Icelandic Government assistance to private home-ownership was tied to access to pension funds, with the pension funds being required to provide partial funding for the system. The Icelandic banks gene- rally did not provide funding for private housing. At this time, the State Housing Agency issued housing loans at affordable rates. This led to a substantial increase in demand, which in turn stretched the resources of the pension funds beyond their limits. To remedy the situation and in order to generate more financial resources to finance housing, a Housing Bond system was introduced in 1989. The Housing Bond system generated funding for the provision of housing loans. The issuing of Housing Bonds and the operation of the system were entrusted to the State Housing Agency. The Housing Bond system was not a traditional mortgage loan system, but a bond swap system, meaning that homebuyers applied to the HFF to issue a mortgage bond, which was secured against the property to be bought. The State Housing Agency then bought this bond from the homebuyer and paid for it by issuing a Housing Bond to the seller. This Housing Bond could then be freely traded in the securities market. The seller could sell the Housing Bond on the securities market, use it as means of payment or keep it. The Housing Bonds had maximum loan periods of 40 years but were subject to prepayment without penalty. They were linked to the consumer price index and carried a fixed real interest of 4,75 %. The Housing Bonds were secured by all the assets of the State Housing Agency, which consisted primarily of the collateral (mortgage-secured bonds) that the Agency held in property. In addition, the Housing Bonds carried an implicit State guarantee, due to the State ownership of the State Housing Agency.