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 the Municipality of Notodden and Becromal of 10 May 2002, as well as its prolongation until 31 March 2007, involve State measure under scrutiny constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts that these as to whether this measures may can be considered compatible regarded as complying with Article 61(3)(c61(3) of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, the The Authority has thus doubts that the above measures are measure is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) 10 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 (21(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agree- mentAgreement. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice 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 the attention In 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 Agreement, requests the Norwegian authorities to submit their comments within one month of that Protocol provides thatthe date of receipt of this Decision. (1) See e.g. Case C 730/79, in the event of a negative decisionXxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx BV v EC Commission, all unlawful aid may be reco- vered from the beneficiaryECR 1980, save in exceptional circumstancesp. 2671. At this stage, the Authority has not been presented with any facts In light of the foregoing considerationsconsideration, the Authority requiresrequires that, within one month of receipt of this Decisiondecision, the Norwegian Government to authorities provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the contract between Notodden municipality and Becromal sale of 10 May 2002, as well as certain buildings at the extension of Inner Camp at the contract until 31 March 2007Haslemoen Leir to Haslemoen AS. It requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this Decision letter to Haslemoen AS immediately. The Authority would like to remind the Norwegian authorities that, according 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 provisions of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, to submit its comments on any incompatible aid unlawfully put at the opening disposal of the formal investigation procedure within one month beneficiaries will have to be recovered, unless this recovery would be contrary to a general principle 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:EEA law.