Economic advantage. Restructuring and other reorganisation measures
Economic advantage. The reimbursement of 90 % of the general NOx tax and later the annual NOx Fund contribution, which transport companies emitting NOx should normally pay, gives Hurtigruten an advantage by relieving it of charges that would normally be borne from its budget. The measure appears moreover to be selective in that it only favours Hurtigruten. The same assessment applies to the ‘general compensation’ which gave Hurtigruten a financial benefit the company would not have enjoyed in the normal course of its business. Regarding the reduction in the number of vessels, Hurtigruten thereby reduced its operating costs by being allowed to provide a more limited service than originally foreseen under the Hurtigruten Agreement while the amount of compensation was not accordingly reduced. This reduction in the costs thus confers a selective economic advantage to Hurtigruten. The Norwegian authorities have however, with reference to the above mentioned Article 8 of the Hurti gruten Agreement, argued that the increased compensation was made within the scope of the original agreement and that it therefore does not constitute State aid. In that regard they claim to have followed the so-called Altmark criteria (2) since the agreement, including the mentioned Article 8 formed part of the public procurement procedure in 2004. Therefore, in the Norwegian authorities’ view, the increase in the compensation negotiated in 2008 was also covered by that procurement procedure. The Authority has taken note of the fact that the Hurtigruten Agreement was awarded on the basis of a public procurement procedure. The revision clause formed part of that public tender procedure, i.e. it was not inserted subsequently. However, in the Authority’s preliminary view, that does not necessarily mean that any exercise of that provision later in the contract period, may be assessed as covered by the original tender procedure. Whether the amendments to the contract should be considered as new measures or adjustments within the scope of the tendered contract should rather be assessed in the light of the wording of the contract and general procurement principles. It is in the Authority’s view important whether the clause provided for a clear, transparent price adjustment based on objective criteria or whether it simply left subsequent adjustments to be addressed in new negotiations. It follows from the mentioned Article 8 that both parties may initiate a renegotiation procedure in the event of new regulation...
Economic advantage. Exempting the HFF from payment of the guarantee premium provides a financial advantage to that underta- king as the corresponding costs of the premium are not covered by the HFF. This advantage amounts to what the HFF would have had to pay each time on its commitments under the applicable rate of the guarantee premium. The advantage following from the non-payment of the State guarantee premium can be determined as follows:
Economic advantage. First, an aid measure must confer on the beneficiaries advantages that relieve them of charges that are normally borne from their budget. A financial measure granted by the State or through State resources to an undertaking which would relieve it from costs which would normally have to be borne by its own budget constitutes an economic advan- tage (7). As a preliminary remark, as stated above, a public authority is only considered to be an underta- king when it carries out an economic activity.
Economic advantage. (42) An advantage, within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, is any economic benefit which an undertaking could not have obtained under normal market conditions, that is to say in the absence of State intervention (41).