Conclusion. Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority cannot exclude the possibi- lity that the contested funding constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts that this funding can be regarded as complying with Article 61(3)(c) EEA. The Autho- rity thus doubts that the said measures are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agree- ment, the Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of that Protocol. 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 within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA or, if they do, that they are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, requests that the Norwegian authorities submit their comments within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision. Furthermore, the Authority requires that, within one month of receipt of this Decision, the Norwegian authorities provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the nature of the contested funding and its compatibility with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, including, in particular, the specific questions raised at points I.2.1(d) and II.1.2(a) and (b). It requests that the Norwegian authorities forward a copy of this letter to the recipients of the funding immediately. The Authority would also draw the attention of the Norwegian authorities to the fact that Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement constitutes a standstill obligation and that Article 14 in Part III of that Protocol provides that, in the event of a negative decision, all unlawful aid may be recovered from the beneficiary, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: The EFTA Surveillance 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 regarding the various forms of contested funding described in the foregoing at point I.2.1. The Norwegian authorities are requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) in Part II of Protocol 3...
Conclusion. Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authori- ties, the Authority cannot exclude the possibility that the measure(s) under scrutiny 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(3) of the EEA Agreement. The Authority thus doubts that the above measures are compatible with the functio- ning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, and in accordance with Article 10 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. 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 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 Norwe- gian authorities provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of both the sale of the air base and the renting out of the air base to LILAS. It requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the potential recipient of the aid immediately. The Authority would like to remind the Norwegian authorities that, according to the provisions of Protocol 3 to the Surveil- lance and Court Agreement, any incompatible aid unlawfully put at the disposal of the beneficiaries will have to be recovered, unless this recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EEA law, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: The EFTA Surveillance 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 regarding the sale of Lista air base and the lease agree- ment between the Norwegian Defence Estates Agency and LILAS. The Norwegian authorities are requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agree- ment, to submit their comments on the opening of the formal i...
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. Doubts are raised, in light of the EFTA Court's ruling of 7 April 2006, whether the HFF system, partly or in its entirety, can be declared compatible with the State aid rules, according to Article 59(2) of the EEA Agree- ment.
Conclusion. In light of the above, it is the Authority's preliminary conclusion that the HFF system involves State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. To enable the Authority to calculate the amount of potential State aid involved, it is necessary, in the course of this formal investigation procedure, to obtain up-dated figures concerning the HFF's financing mechanisms.
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. It is the Authority's preliminary conclusion that the HFF system constitutes unlawful aid on procedural grounds. Doubts are raised whether the HFF system, either partly or in its entirety, can be declared compa- tible with the State aid rules, according to Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement. Any unlawful aid which ulti- mately will be declared incompatible with the State aid rules will be subject to recovery.
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.