Common use of Conclusion Clause in Contracts

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 comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month of the notification of this Decision. The Norwegian Government is 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, in particular:

Conclusion. Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian Govern- mentGovernment, the Authority cannot exclude the possibility that the cont- ract between compensation to the Municipality of Notodden and Becromal of 10 May 2002, as well as its prolongation until 31 March 2007, involve State Hurtigruten companies for increased social security contributions constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 61(161 (1) of the EEA Agreement. The Authority cannot see that any exceptions under Article 61 (2) or (3) to the general prohibition of State aid under Article 61 (1) of the EEA Agreement applies to the aid. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts that these measures may the measure can be considered compatible regarded as complying with Article 61(3)(c59 (2) of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, the Authority has doubts that the above measures are measure is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, it is the Authority's preliminary view that the aid is to be considered as new aid within the meaning of Article 1 c) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement. This implies that the compensation should have been notified to the Authority, according to Article 1 (3) in Part I and Article 2 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement. The compensation is therefore consi- dered as ‘unlawful aid’ within the meaning of Article 1 f) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement and subject to possible recovery. Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4Articles 13 (1) and 4 (4) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Autho- rity Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1 (2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agree- mentAgreement. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice preju- dice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures measure in question are is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. The Authority also draws In the attention light of the Norwegian autho- rities to foregoing considerations, the fact that Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(31 (2) 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, requests Norway to submit its comments on and to provide all such information as may help to assess the opening of compensation to the formal investigation procedure Hurtigruten companies for increased social security contribution, within one month of the notification two months from receipt of this Decision. The Norwegian Government is 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, in particular:decision.

Conclusion. Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian Govern- mentauthorities, the Authority cannot exclude the possibility that the cont- ract between funds received by the Municipality of Notodden and Becromal of 10 May 2002, as well as its prolongation until 31 March 2007, involve fitness centre at the KLC constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. FurthermoreAs explained under Section II.1.2 above, the Authority considers that the funds stemming from Norsk Tipping AS have been granted in accordance with an existing aid scheme, they are not covered by this Decision to open the formal investigation procedure. The Authority has doubts that these measures may be considered as to whether the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC with funds stemming from the municipality of Vefsn, in particular concerning those funds allocated on the basis of the two expansions in 1997 and 2006/07, constitute ‘new aid’, which pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 should have been notified to the Authority prior to its implementation. The Authority has doubts as to whether the aid granted is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 59(2) or 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 In accordance with Article 4(4) in of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement3, the Autho- rity Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1 (21(2) in of Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agree- ment3. 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, are to be classified as existing aid or 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 requiresAuthority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Norwegian 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 Norwegian Government authorities to provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the contract between Notodden financing of the fitness centre at the KLC. In particular, the Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to provide detailed information regarding any funding from the county municipality and Becromal of 10 May 2002Nordland to the fitness centre at the KLC, as well as the extension mentioned under Section II.1.1 of the contract until 31 March 2007this Decision. It requests invites the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this Decision to the potential aid recipient of the aid immediately, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: . The Authority has decided would like to open remind the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I Norwegian authorities that, according to the provisions of Protocol 3 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully put at the disposal of the beneficiaries will have to be recovered, unless this recovery would be contrary to the Surveillance and Court Agreement against Norway concer- ning the contract between Becromal AS and the Municipality general principle 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 comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month of the notification of this Decision. The Norwegian Government is 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, in particular:law,