Compatibility of the aid mintaszakaszok

Compatibility of the aid. The Norwegian authorities have argued that the transactions do not contain aid, and have not put forward arguments concer- ning compatibility. However, after assessing the likelihood that State aid may be involved in the transactions described above, it has to be considered whether any aid involved in the transac- tions could be compatible with the EEA Agreement under Article 61(3)(a)-(c) EEA. In the case of the sale of title numbers 1/152, 1/301 and 1/630 to Grunnsteinen, the information available to the Authority does not seem to indicate that any aid was granted to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment, to promote a project of common European interest or to facilitate the development of certain economic activities. Moreover, any aid granted to the sports club would not seem to promote cultural development. Against that background, Article 61(3)(a)-(c) appears to be inapplicable. For the same reasons, any possible aid involved in the sale of title number 4/165 to Bryne Industripark and the sale of title numbers 2/70 and 2/32 to Bryne FK does not seem to be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement by virtue of Article 61(3)(a)-(c).

Compatibility of the aid. Supposing that the contested funding constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA, it must be assessed whether, as a result of the derogations in Article 61(2) and (3) EEA or other relevant rules, it can be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. None of the situations foreseen in Article 61(2) EEA can be applied to the present case. The region in question does not fall within the scope of Article 61(3)(a) EEA. Indeed, Decision No 327/99/COL on the map of assisted areas and levels of aid (Norway) notes that the Norwegian authorities have not claimed that Norway has any area eligible for regional aid under that paragraph. Moreover, the Authority notes that, while the contested funding is specifically intended to cover operational costs, the State Aid Guidelines, Chapter 25 relating to national regional aid, clearly that operating aid is normally prohibited. Such aid may only be granted in exceptional cases in regions eligible under the derogation in Article 61(3) (a) EEA or, for aid intended partly to offset additional transport costs, in Article 61(3)(c) EEA on the basis of a population density test. Paragraph (b) of Article 61(3) EEA does not appear to apply to the present case. The contested funding does not appear to promote horizontal Community objectives within the meaning of Article 61(3)(c) EEA directly, such as research and development, employment, the environment etc. Indeed, the Norwegian authorities have not invoked this derogation. The Authority therefore considers that it is not in possession of information which suggests that the contested funding could be considered to be compa- tible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement within the meaning of that paragraph. To the extent that the Act referred to at point 1d of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid) appears not to apply in the present case and that, in any event, the Norwegian authorities have made no reference to that Act, the Authority considers that the contested funding is not covered by the exemption provided for by that Act. The Authority is not in possession of any information which suggests that NAC has been entrusted with any public service obligations within the meaning of Article 59(2) EEA. It would therefore appear that the Act referred to at point 1h of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, (Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of...

Compatibility of the aid. The Authority has assessed the two potential aid measures under Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement. With regard to the sale of the air base, the Authority has also assessed the measure in combination with the State Aid Guidelines, Chapter on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities.

Compatibility of the aid. 3.1. Act No 28/2007 amending the Harbour Act (1) See the Authority's State Aid Guidelines on national regional aid 2007-2013, point 2(8), fn. 8. (2) State aid N 554/06 — Germany, Rolandswerft which concerned the adaptation of a ship lift to lift heavier ships and State aid C-6/06 — Germany, Volkswerft Stralsund (OJ L 151, 13.6.2007, p. 33) also for the extension of a ship lift. (3) See the definition of investment aid in Section 4.1.1 of the Regional Aid Guidelines which limit investment aid to initial investment projects,

Compatibility of the aid. The Authority cannot declare State aid compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, if that aid would infringe other provisions of the EEA Agreement. SBV submitted in its initial complaint that the ‘Housing Financing Fund is incompatible with the EEA Agreement, in particular the competition rules, the rules on State aid, free movement of services, capital and the freedom of establishment’. In relation to the competition rules, the free movement of services, capital and the freedom of establishment, the Authority assessed these allegations and restated in its annulled Decision that they were unfounded. With regard to the alleged infringement of some of ‘the four freedoms’, the Authority found that it was the State aid which created the possible hindrances to the free movement of services, capital and establishment. The effect of these possible hindrances was indissolubly linked to the objective of the State aid. Therefore, the Authority concluded that the case should be assessed under the lex specialis of the State aid rules and that the rules on the ‘four freedoms’ should not be applicable (3). This view was confirmed by the EFTA Court in this judgment of 7 April 2006, when it held that: ‘With regard to the effects that the HFF general loans scheme may have on the free movement of services and capital and the right of establishment, the Court holds that any such effects would indeed seem inherent in the State-supportive elements of the HFF system and therefore are so indissolubly linked to the object of the aid that it is impossible to evaluate them separately (see to this effect Case 74/76 Xxxxxxxx S Volpi SpA v Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx [1977] ECR 557, at paragraph 14).’ (4) With regard to the alleged infringement of the competition rules (the complainant alleged in particular an infringement of Articles 59(1) and 54 of the EEA Agreement), the Authority stated in the annulled Decision that SBV's complaint did not warrant the initiation of formal proceedings, since SBV did not substantiate that the HFF abused or will abuse its position as a consequence of the legislative framework by which it was governed. In light of the above, it is the Authority's preliminary view that it sees no reasons why it should deviate from it original assessment on these points. 3.1. Article 61 paragraphs (2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement (1) The European Commission Decision No 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) EC (which corresponds to Article ...

Compatibility of the aid. Supposing that the contested funding constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA, it must be assessed whether it can be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. In the Authority's view, the support scheme does not seem to comply with any of the exemptions provided for in Article 61(2) or (3)(a) or (b) of the EEA Agreement. The question is therefore whether the aid can be justified under Article 61(3)(c). Accor- ding to this provision aid may be declared compatible with the common market if it ‘… facilitates the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest’. The Authority will assess the support scheme according to Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement in conjunction with the Authority's State Aid Guidelines, in particular the chapters on aid for environmental protection and aid for research and deve- lopment and innovation (3). It is to be noted that the Norwegian authorities have not specifi- cally invoked this provision, nor have they provided any expla- nation of how the contested aid measure ‘does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest’. However, in their comments on the complaint the Norwegian authorities refer to Commission Decision No 369/05, where the Commission, inter alia held that aid granted to owners of dwel- ling houses for the conversion from direct-acting electro heat into district heating or heat pumps, could be authorised on the basis of point 30 of the Commission's Environmental Aid Guidelines (4).

Compatibility of the aid. In the following, the Authority will assess the potential justification grounds put forward by the Norwegian authorities, i.e. that the measure can be justified as public service compensation under Article 59(2) EEA, or, alternatively, as an emergency measure to ensure a continuous service until a new tender procedure could take place. Finally the Norwegian authorities have referred to the measure as a rescue and restructuring measure within the meaning of Article 61(3)(c) and the relevant Authority Guidelines. It follows from Article 4 of the Maritime cabotage regulation and Section 9 of the Authority’s Guidelines on Maritime transport that EFTA States may impose public service obligations or conclude public service contracts for certain maritime transport services provided that the compensation fulfils the rules of the EEA Agreement and the procedure governing State aid.

Compatibility of the aid. 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. The derogation of Article 61(2) is not applicable to the aid in question, which is not designed to achieve any of the aims listed in this provision. Neither Article 61(3)(a) nor Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement applies to the case at hand. The area where the property is located can benefit from regional aid within the meaning of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, according to the Authority’s Decision No 227/06 (1). However, the Authority’s guidelines on National Regional Aid 2007-2013 at paragraph 30 require that the beneficiary has applied for aid and the authority responsible for administering the aid scheme has confirmed in writing that, subject to detailed verification, the project in principle meets the conditions of eligibility laid down by the scheme before the start of work on the project (2). Thus, the Authority has doubts regarding whether aid could be granted according to the above mentioned guidelines. The Authority therefore doubts that the transaction under assessment can be justified under the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement.

Compatibility of the aid. Support measures caught by Article 6l(l) 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. The derogation laid down in Article 6l(2) is not applicable to the aid in question, which is not designed to achieve any of the aims listed in this provision. The aid can furthermore not be justified under Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement, as the aid is not given to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of Norway. The aid in question is not linked to any investment. It simply reduces the costs which companies would normally have to bear in the course of pursuing their day-to-day business activities and is consequently to be classified as operating aid. Operating aid is normally not considered suitable to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain regions as provided for in Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. On the basis of the information available to it, the Authority is of the opinion that none of the Authority's Guidelines apply to the scheme. In the notification, the Norwegian authorities claim that the notified scheme is in accordance with the EEA State aid rules and the principles expressed in Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions on the promotion of cooperative societies in Europe (1). At this stage of the proceedings, the Authority doubts that the Communication can be understood as arguing that State aid measures such as the notified scheme should be considered to be compatible with the State aid rules of the EEA Agreement (2). Against this background, the Authority is of the preliminary opinion that the Communication does not provide a basis for concluding that the scheme is compatible with the State aid provisions laid down in the EEA Agreement. On this basis, the preliminary conclusion of the Authority is that the notified scheme does not qualify for derogation under Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement and is therefore not compatible with the Agreement.

Compatibility of the aid. With respect to Article 61(2) of the EEA Agreement, it appears that none of the exceptions under this Article apply in the present case as none of the measures possibly involving State aid in favour of Mesta AS has been aimed at the objectives listed in those provisions. With respect to Article 61(3)(a) of the EEA Agreement, a State aid measure is considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement under this provision when it is designed to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemp- loyment. However, the measures which may involve State aid to Mesta AS are neither destined for such areas nor are they designed for this purpose. This provision is therefore not rele- vant. The exception in Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement does not apply to the present case either since any State aid granted to Mesta AS is not intended to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest nor to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of Norway. The exception laid down in Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agree- ment which provides that State aid may be considered compa- tible with the common market where it facilitates the develop- ment of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas may be relevant. For purposes of assessing the compatibility of the restructuring and reorganisation measures — except for those related to moving, commuting, moving offices and the transfer of archives — the Commission's decision practice is relevant. In the context of assessing compatibility of pension schemes, the Commission has considered that a partial relief of the financial burden on a company resulting from pension rights, acquired by employees in the past, and exceeding those provided under generally appli- cable pension regimes, could be declared compatible. The Commission's conclusion in this regard was motivated by the (3) See in this respect Case 730/79, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx v Commission, [1989] ECR 2671, at paragraph 11 where it is stated that “[t]hen State financial aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other underta- kings competing in intra-Community trade the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid”. fact that the pension regime in question removed previously existing barriers to entry to the respective market and that the financing of additional pension rights (acquired at a point in time when the market was still closed) a...