Conclusion. Based on the information submitted by the Icelandic authorities, the Authority cannot exclude the possibility that the 2007 amendments to the Harbour Act and certain aspects of the 2003 Harbour Act constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts that these measures can be regarded as complying with Article 61(2)(b) or 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, possibly in combination with the require- ments laid down in the Shipbuilding Guidelines or the Regional Aid Guidelines or by way of direct application. The Authority thus doubts that the above measures are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Autho- rity is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1 (2) of Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agree- ment. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question do not constitute aid or are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. The Authority notes that were the measures to be identified as new aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) in Part II to Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, any breach of the standstill operation leads to the classification of the aid as unlawful within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement. Unlawful aid which is not compatible with the EEA State aid provisions is subject to recovery. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, invites the Icelandic authorities to submit their comments on this Decision within one month of the date of receipt thereof. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority invites the Icelandic authorities within one month of receipt of this decision, to provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the above measures, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: The EFTA Surveillance Authority finds that as far as breakwater constructions, marking of approach channels, depth, protective installations and dredging are concerned, no State aid is involved as regards support for these projects under Article 24(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the 2003 Harbour Act. The damage comp...
Conclusion. Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian Govern- ment, the Authority cannot exclude the possibility that the cont- ract between the Municipality of Notodden and Becromal of 10 May 2002, as well as its prolongation until 31 March 2007, involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts that these measures may be considered compatible with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, the Authority has doubts that the above measures are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Autho- rity is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1 (2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agree- ment. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. The Authority also draws the attention of the Norwegian autho- rities to the fact that Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement constitutes a standstill obliga- tion and that Article 14 in Part III of that Protocol provides that, in the event of a negative decision, all unlawful aid may be reco- vered from the beneficiary, save in exceptional circumstances. At this stage, the Authority has not been presented with any facts In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority requires, within one month of receipt of this Decision, the Norwegian Government to provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the contract between Notodden municipality and Becromal of 10 May 2002, as well as the extension of the contract until 31 March 2007. It requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this Decision to the potential recipient of the aid immediately, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: The Authority has 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 against Norway concer- ning the contract between Becromal AS and the Municipality of Notodden in force from 14 May 2001 to 31 March 2006 and its prolongation until 31 March 2007. The Norwegian Government is requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, to submit its ...
Conclusion. Based on the information available to the Authority, including the information submitted by the Norwegian Government, the Authority cannot exclude that the sales of title numbers 1/152, 1/301, 1/630 (to Grunnsteinen AS), 4/165 (to Bryne Industri- park AS), 2/70, 2/32 (to Bryne FK) constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts, to the extent that State aid is involved, that they can be regarded as complying with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, the Authority has doubts that the transactions referred to above do not constitute State aid or are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agree- ment. Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Autho- rity is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1 (2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agree- ment. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question do not constitute State aid or are compa- tible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. The Authority also draws the attention of the Norwegian autho- rities to the fact that Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement constitutes a standstill obliga- tion and that Article 14 in Part III of that Protocol provides that, in the event of a negative decision, all unlawful aid may be reco- vered from the beneficiary, save in exceptional circumstances. At this stage, the Authority has not been presented with any facts indicating the existence of exceptional circumstances on the basis of which the beneficiary may legitimately have assumed the aid to be lawful. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, requests Norway to submit its comments and to provide all such infor- mation as may help to assess the transactions described above, within one month of the date of receipt of this decision. It requests your authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the potential aid recipient of the aid immediately. In the light of the foregoing consideration, the Authority requires, within one month of receipt of this decision, to provide all documents, information and data needed for assess- ment of the compatibility of the property tr...
Conclusion. In light of the above, the Authority has doubts as to whether all or any of the above-mentioned four projects have received aid in compliance with the R&D State Aid Guidelines. In particular regarding the projects related to the further development of the software programme Turbo- router, on the basis of the information available to it at this stage of the procedure, the Authority is not in the position of ascertaining whether these projects were correctly classified as pre-competitive development activities or whether, on the contrary, they were already too close to the market to be eligible for state aid. The Authority has doubts regarding the real research costs of the projects. Should the Authority, in the framework of the current investigation, find out that they were lower than alleged in the application for funding to the RCN, the aid intensities will have to be reviewed.
Conclusion. The Authority takes the preliminary view that the notified amendments made to the Harbour Act in 2007 to include ship lifts in the damage compensation clause in Article 26(3) subpa- ragraph 3 of the Act constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Under the 2003 Harbour Act, the support for breakwater const- ructions, dredging, the marking of approach channels, depth, and protective installations do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. On the basis of the information available to it, support for the use of pilot vessels referred to in Article 24(2)(a) and support for quay installations provided for in Article 24(2)(b) and (c) would appear not to fall clearly into the category of general infrastructure and must therefore be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The damage compensation clause in Article 26(3) subparag- raph 3 constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, in so far as it applies to projects which do not qualify as general infrastructure.
Conclusion. The Authority, after having reviewed all the data in its posses- sion, considers that it cannot be excluded that both the sale of the Lista air base and the leasing out of part of the air base could both constitute aid measures.
Conclusion. Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authori- ties, the Authority has doubts whether the aid measure(s) consti- tute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agree- ment. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts whether these measures can be regarded as complying with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, in combination with the requirements laid down in the Authority's State Aid Guidelines on environmental protection and on aid for research and development. The Authority thus doubts that the above measures are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Autho- the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, requests the Norwegian authorities to submit their comments within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision. In light of the foregoing consideration, the Authority requires that, within one month of receipt of this decision, the Norwegian authorities provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the support scheme. It requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the potential aid recipients of the aid immedia- tely, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: The EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement against Norway regarding the support scheme for alterative, renewable heating and electricity savings in private households. The Norwegian authorities are requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agree- ment, to submit their comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month from the notification of this Decision. The Norwegian authorities are required to provide within one month from notification of this decision, all documents, infor- mation and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the aid measure. This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway. Only the English version is authentic. Done at Brussels, 19 December 2007. rity is obliged to open the proce...
Conclusion. As appears from the above, the Authority has doubts as to whether the measures identified above involve State aid.
Conclusion. Based on an assessment of the information submitted by the Icelandic authorities, the Mortgage Loan Scheme appears to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Authority doubts that the Mortgage Loan Scheme can be regarded as complying with Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement, in combination with the requirements laid down in the IAG. The Authority thus doubts that the Mortgage Loan Scheme is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Icelandic authorities to submit their comments within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision. In light of the foregoing considerations, within one month of receipt of this decision, the Authority request the Icelandic authorities to provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the transfer of mortgage loans secured against collateral in residential property from financial undertakings to the HFF.
Conclusion. The Authority therefore takes the preliminary view that the noti- fied support measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement (1).