Introduction mintaszakaszok

Introduction. On 11 August 2004, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’) adopted Decision No 213/04/COL. In this Decision the Authority declared, according to Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement, the Icelandic Housing Financing Fund (Íbúðalánasjóður) to be compatible with the State aid rules. The Icelandic Housing Financing Fund (hereinafter referred to as ‘the HFF’ or ‘the HFF system’), an institution wholly owned by the Icelandic State, provides mortgage-secured housing loans to residents in Iceland. The Authority found that in funding and operating its loan system, the HFF received State aid from the Icelandic State within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Authority found that the HFF system, established in 1999, constituted ‘new aid’, unlawful on procedural grounds, which should have been notified to and approved by the Authority pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, prior to putting it into effect.

Introduction. The Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Estonia, the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Finland, the Government of Hungary, the Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of Lithuania, the Minister of Defence of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Ministry of Defence of the Kingdom of Norway, the Minister of National Defence of the Republic of Poland, the Government of Romania, the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia, the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Department of Defense of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the „Participants”); Considering the Memorandum of Understanding among the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Estonia, the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Finland, the Government of the Republic of Hungary, the Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of Lithuania, the Minister of Defence of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Ministry of Defence of the Kingdom of Norway, the Minister of National Defence of the Republic of Poland, the Government of Romania, the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia, the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Department of Defense of the United States of America Concerning Strategic Airlift Capability, which entered into effect on September 23, 2008, as amended October 13, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the „SAC MOU”); This Amendment Two amends and restates the SAC MOU in its entirety, and upon entry into effect of this Amendment Two to the SAC MOU, the SAC MOU will be considered to have been superseded and replaced in its entirety by this Amendment Two to the SAC MOU. Having determined that the SAC MOU should be amended and restated to reflect the will of the Participants and the organizational changes resulting from NATO Agencies Reform; In accordance with Section 30 (Amendment, Withdrawal, and Termination) of the SAC MOU, as amended; Have determined to amend the SAC MOU to read as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD PART I: PRELIMINARY MATTERS Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Acronyms and Definitions Section 3 Objectives and Scope Section 4 Organization and Management of the SAC Program PART II: NAMP AND NAM PO ACTIVITIES Section 5 Status of Sweden and Finland in the NAMP Section 6 Organization and Management of the NATO Airlift Management Programme (NAMP) Section 7 Acquisition and Ownership Section 8 Financial Principles...

Introduction. Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows: ‘Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’.

Introduction. The Authority has assessed the compatibility of the notified scheme for Regional aid for the transportation of round wood with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement in light of the State Aid Guidelines on National Regional Aid (1). Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement concerns aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent cont- rary to the common interest of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement. Regional aid is designed to develop the disadvantaged regions by supporting investment and job creation in a sustainable context and, in exceptional cases, if the structural handicaps of the region concerned are too great, by granting operating aid. It promotes the expansion, modernisation and diversification of the activities of establishments located in those regions and encourages new firms to set up there.

Introduction. All real estate in Norway is identified in the real estate registry („Grunnboken”), established pursuant to the Registration Act 1935 No 2 („Lov om tinglysing”). Every property is identified by a registry identification under which information about the ownership, title and encumbrances etc. may be entered. In short, the register contains information on various rights and obligations to the property in question. Interested parties acting in good faith are entitled to rely on the information contained in the real estate registry. There is no legal obligation to register rights related to real estate (ownership etc.) in the registry. It is not necessary to register transfer of title in order to affect the transfer of ownership. The holder of the rights may however choose to register his rights in order to protect his rights against third parties. Pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Excise Tax Act 1975 No 59 („Lov om dokumentavgift”), the registration of transfer of ownership title („skjøte”) to real property releases an obligation to pay document duties („doku- mentavgift”). The tax rate is 2.5 % based on the sales value of the property. In addition, the registration of transfer of title in the real estate registry is subject to a registration fee („tinglysingsgebyr”) pursuant to the Court fee Act 1982 No 86 („Rettsgebyrloven”). This fee is currently (as of 1 January 2004) fixed at NOK 1.480,- (some EUR 180,-) (1) per document registered. The provisions concerning the conditions for levying the document duty and registration fee are identical. Hereinafter, „excise duty” will be used as the common term for document duty and registration fee. As mentioned above, the excise duty is released by the registration of the transfer of title to another legal entity. Consequently, if there is no transfer of title to another legal entity, but only a change of name of the same legal entity in the registry, no excise duty will be payable. In cases where real estate is transferred in connection with restructuring or reorganisation of companies or other legal persons, the general point of departure is that a transfer of title occurs and that registration trig- gers the levy of excise duty since the property is transferred to another legal entity. However, exemptions may follow either from the Registration Act construed in the light of the company legislation or from special legislation.

Introduction. 23.1.1. With this contract, the parties stipulate that the service provider is the customer's data operator for the provision of the technical service, and the client (dental company) is the data controller for the provision of the dental service. 23.1.2. The parties shall, within the framework of this contract, lay down the rules of the data processing activity performed by the data operator on behalf of the data controller in accordance with Article 27 (1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter GDPR). 23.1.3. Assignment is valid for specific data processing tasks.

Introduction. If the transaction was carried out in accordance with the market economy investor principle, i.e. if the municipality sold the land for its market value and the conditions of the transaction would have been acceptable for a private seller, the transaction would not involve the grant of State aid. In the following the Authority will assess whether the municipality of Asker has granted illegal State aid to Asker Brygge in connection with the sale of the plot of land gbnr 32/17. The sale of land could qualify as State aid if the sale was not carried out at market price. As a point of departure, the assessment of whether a property has been sold at market value should be assessed at the time of the conclusion of the contract. The circumstances of this sale of land are somewhat particular in the sense that there exists several agreements concerning the sale: An option agreement from 2001, an extended option agreement from 2004 and a sales agreement from 2007. The option agreement not only gave Asker Brygge a right to acquire the property at any given time over the years to come but also fixed the price for a later transfer. The option thereby entailed a possibility for Asker Brygge to observe the development of property prices over a number of years, thereafter to take up the option to buy the property for the price agreed in 2001. While the Authority fully recognises the right for public authorities also to operate in a market on commercial terms, it nevertheless finds reason to consider carefully whether a similar agreement would have been concluded by a private market operator. The Authority will in that regard consider whether Asker Brygge paid for the option as such, and whether the favourable conditions for the buyer appear to be balanced by corresponding obligations for the buyer or rights for the seller. If the option agreement as such cannot be said to comply with the private market investor principle, the Authority will assess whether the property was transferred at market value when the sales agreement was concluded in 2007. Thus, the Authority will in the following firstly assess the option agreement of 2001 (and the extension signed in 2004) and, secondly, whether the actual sale of land in 2007 was accomplished at market price.

Introduction. Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows: First, it must be noted that, as a general rule, the tax system of an EFTA State is not covered by the EEA Agreement. It must be understood that it is for each EFTA State to design and apply a tax system according to its own choices of policy. However, application of a tax measure, such as the input tax compensation provided for in Article 3 of the VAT Compensation Act, may have consequences that would bring it within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. According to the case-law (2), Article 61(1) does not distinguish between measures of State intervention by reference to their causes or aims but defines them in relation to their effects. Second, the question as to whether the measure at issue constitutes State aid arises only in so far as it concerns an economic activity (3), that is, an activity consisting of offering goods and services on a given market (4). A measure constitutes State aid only if it benefits an undertaking, a concept that, for the purposes of application of the rules on competition, encompasses, according to settled case-law, ‘every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way in which it is financed’ (5). (1) Page 3 of the letter from the Norwegian Ministry of Finance dated 30 November 2005. (2) Case E-6/98 The Government of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [1999] EFTA Court Report, page 76, paragraph 34; Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord, Pil and others and The Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2005] Report of the EFTA Court, page 121, paragraph 76; Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, paragraph 13; and Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR I-4551, paragraph 20. (3) The Authority would like to refer to the decision of the European Commission on case N630/2003, local museums in the region of Sardinia. In this decision, the Commission considered that the measures foreseen by the notified scheme were to support museum activities to be undertaken by natural and non-profit institutions and of such a scale that they could be considered as not being economic activities. (4) Joined cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and others [2000] ECR I-6451, paragraph 75. (5) Case C-41/90 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ [1991] ECR I-1979, paragraph 21. Third, aid may be granted to public undertakings as well as to private undertakings (1). A public underta- king, in order to be regarded as reci...

Introduction. A preliminary assessment of the complaint concerning the alleged cross-subsidisation and the 2004 capital injection is set out below. Concerning the complaint that cross-subsidisation has occurred between the public service activities and the commercial activities of AS Oslo Sporveier, AS Sporveisbussene, Arctic Express AS and Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS, the Authority understands the allegation to be that compensation for the provision of the local scheduled transport service has subsidised the commercial activities carried out by the Oslo Sporveier Group.