Procedure mintaszakaszok

Procedure. By letter dated 7 May 2007 from the Icelandic Ministry of Finance, forwarded by the Icelandic Mission to the EU, received and registered by the Authority on the same date (Event No 420581), the Icelandic authorities notified, pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, amendments to the Icelandic Harbour Act, with a view to including damage compensation for ship lifts. They also notified an envisaged application of that new provision in support of the repair of the Westman Islands Port ship lift faci- lity. By letter dated 14 May 2007 (Event No 421158), the Authority informed the Icelandic authorities that it considered the notifica- tion to be incomplete as, in particular, the notification form had not been submitted. On 19 June 2007, the Icelandic Mission to the EU forwarded a letter from the Icelandic Ministry of Finance, received and regis- tered by the Authority on the same date (Event No 425880), by which the Icelandic authorities submitted the notification form and provided further information on the notified measures. (1) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’. (2) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the EEA Agreement’. (3) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’. (4) Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, EEA Supplement No 32, 3 September 1994. The Guidelines were last amended on 31 May 2007. Hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Aid Guidelines’. By letter dated 4 July 2007 (Event No 427442), the Authority requested additional information, which the Icelandic authorities provided on 10 August 2007 (Event No 433162). The Confederation of Icelandic Employers (Samtök atvinnulífsins) filed a complaint with the Authority by way of a letter dated 31 August 2007, claiming that the additional funding for the Harbour Improvement Fund constitutes State aid which cannot be justified under the EEA State aid provisions. The Association refers, in particular, to the fact that aid under the Harbour Act is only available to publicly owned, but not to privately owned, harbours. By letter dated 19 September 2007 (Event No 441678), the Authority forwarded the above complaint to the Icelandic authorities for comment and requested further information, which was provided by the...

Procedure. The Authority learned about the sale of the Lista air base by way of a report issued by the Office of the Auditor General which concludes that the Norwegian Defence Estates Agency (hereinafter the ‘NDEA’) is unable to produce reliable evidence documenting that Lista air base was sold at market value (5). On 14 September 2005, the Authority sent a letter to the Norwegian authorities requesting information regarding the sale of Lista air base located in the municipality of Farsund in Sout- hern Norway (Event No 332322). By letter dated 28 October 2005 from the Norwegian Mission to the European Union, forwarding two letters, respectively dated 26 October 2005 from the Ministry of Modernisation and 24 October 2005 from the Ministry of Defence, the Norwegian authorities replied to the questions raised by the Authority. This letter was received and registered by the Authority on 29 October 2005 (Event No 348525). By letter dated 28 March 2007 (Event No 414743), the Autho- rity requested that the Norwegian authorities communicate additional information. By letter dated 4 May 2007 (Event No 420179), received and registered by the Authority on the same day, the Norwegian authorities provided further information. (1) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’. (2) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the EEA Agreement’. (3) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’. (4) Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 in Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1, EEA Supplements No 32, 3.9.1994. The Guidelines were last amended on 3 May 2007. Hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Aid Guidelines’. (5) Report No 3:7 (2004-2005), The Auditor General' s study of the sale of Lista air base.

Procedure. By letter dated 13 October 2006, Varmeprodusentenes Fore- ning (5) (the Association of heat producers) filed a complaint against The Kingdom of Norway (Ministry of Petroleum and Energy). The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 16 October 2006 (Event No 393383). Supplementary infor- mation was submitted by letter from the Complainant dated 19 October 2006. The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 26 October 2006 (Event No 395451). By letter dated 9 November 2006, the Authority forwarded the complaint to the Norwegian authorities for comments. The Norwegian authorities responded by letter, dated 15 January 2007, enclosed in a letter from the Norwegian Mission to the European Union, dated 17 January 2007, both received and registered by the Authority on 17 January 2007 (Event No 406849). (1) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’. (2) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the EEA Agreement’. (3) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’. (4) Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, EEA Supplement No 32, 3 September 1994. The Guidelines were last amended on 3 May 2007, by College Decision No 154/07/COL. Herei- nafter referred to as ‘the State Aid Guidelines’. (5) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’. By a letter dated 21 February 2007, the Complainant commented on the letter supplied by the Norwegian authorities. The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 23 February 2007 (Event No 411186). Supplementary informa- tion which included a report from ECON and a letter was submitted by the Complainant dated 2 May 2007. The letter and the report were received and registered by the Authority on 3 May 2007 (Event No 419979 and Event No 419977). By email dated 14 November 2007, the supplementary informa- tion submitted by the Complainant was forwarded to the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian authorities have not presented any comments as regards the Complainant's supple- mentary information.

Procedure. On 3 March 2007, the Authority received a complaint from an association named Aksjonsgruppa ‘Ta vare på trivelige Bryne’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Aksjonsgruppa’), concerning the sales of property numbers 1/152, 1/301, 1/630, 4/165 in Time municipality by the municipal authorities to two different private entities, as well as the sale of title number 2/70 (Xxxxx xxxxxxx which also includes title No 2/32) by Bryne fotballk- lubb, previously given to the club by the municipality, to a private investor (Event No 414270). By letter dated 9 May 2007, the private investor Mr Gunnar Oma sent a complaint to the Authority concerning the sale by Time municipality of one of the abovementioned properties, i.e. number 4/165. Mr Xxx claimed that the sale had taken place without prior value assessment and without an uncondi- tional tendering procedure (Event No 421805). By letter dated 25 May 2007 (Event No 1080978), the Authority invited the Norwegian authorities to comment on the complaints and requested additional information. In addition to the property numbers mentioned above, the Authority also asked questions concerning the purchase by Time Municipality of a property to be used for the construction of a new high school (title numbers 1/125, 2/277, 2/278 and 2/284), next to (1) Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement. (2) Hereinafter referred to as the Surveillance and Court Agreement. (3) Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid — Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, EEA Supplement No 32, 3 September 1994, last amended by the Authority's Decision No 154/07/COL, hereinafter referred to as the State Aid Guidelines.

Procedure. By letter dated 5 March 2002 (Doc. No 02-1733-A), the Authority received a complaint alleging that state aid had been granted by Norway through the Research Council of Norway (hereinafter: ‘the RCN’) to various research projects in connection with the development of the software programme Turborouter. The Authority requested information from the Norwegian authorities by letter dated 26 April 2002 (Doc. No 02-2605-D). The Ministry of Trade and Industry replied by letter dated 3 June 2002 (Doc. No 02- 4177-A), which included RCN's comments on the so-called Turborouter project. In October 2002, a meeting between representatives from the Authority and the Norwegian authorities took place in Oslo in order to clarify some technical aspects. On 28 February 2003, the Authority requested further clarification and documentation on certain aspects raised during the above-mentioned meeting (Doc. No 03-1159-D). The required information was supplied by the Norwegian authorities by letter dated 11 April 2003 (Doc. No 03-2338 A) and completed by letter of 20 June 2003 (Doc. No 03-4083-A). (1) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’. (2) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the EEA Agreement’. (3) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’. (4) Hereinafter referred to as ‘Protocol 3’. (5) Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid, Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in OJ 1994 L 231, EEA Supplements

Procedure. According to an Article published in the regional Norwegian newspaper named Telen on 26 March 2007, the municipality of Notodden in Southern Norway had a power sales agreement, which was about to expire, with Becromal, an aluminium manu- facturing company having a plant at Notodden. According to the Article, in order to safeguard Xxxxxxxx'x establishment at Notodden, the prices under the expiring agreement were set equal to the municipality's own costs in purchasing certain amounts of power, see further below. However, the municipality was considering selling the power volumes on the open market. On the basis of that Article, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter ‘the Authority’), on 30 May this year, sent a letter to Norway requesting additional information on the municipality's sale of power to Becromal, (Event No 422613). By letter dated 19 July 2007, received and registered by the waterfall exploitation every year. The system of concession power is laid down in Section 2(12) of the Industrial Licensing Act and Section 12(15) of the Waterfalls Regulation Act (3). According to these provisions, which are identical in wording, counties and municipalities in which a power plant is located are entitled to receive up to 10 per cent of a plant's yearly production at a price determined by the State. With respect to concessions granted prior to 1959, such as the concession in the case at hand, the price is based on the so-called ‘individual costs’ of the plant, unless a lower price is agreed on (4). Thus, the price of concession power will normally be lower than the market price. Each municipality's entitlement to concession power is decided on the basis of its ‘general electric power supply needs’. Accor- ding to the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate, this includes electric power for industry, agriculture and house- holds, but not power for power intensive industries and wood conversion (5). From 1988 Notodden municipality had been entitled to approximately 3,9 GWh from the Tinfos power plant located in Notodden, which appears to have been raised to 7,114 GWh in 2002 (6). In addition to the concession power volumes that the municipality was entitled to under the regulations on concession power, Notodden municipality appears to have had rights of use of the waterfall Sagafoss in Notodden. This right of use was, however, exploited by Tinfos AS and not by the municipality itself. In return, the municipality was entitled to additional volumes...

Procedure. 1.1. Administrative procedure leading to the Authority’s Decision No 254/10/COL (1) By letter dated 11 August 2006, the Authority received a complaint from Xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx AS (‘the complainant’) alleging that the Norwegian authorities had granted State aid to AS Oslo Sporveis­ bussene (‘the complaint’). The letter was registered by the Authority on 16 August 2006 (Event No 384017). By letter dated 17 August 2006 to the complainant, the Authority acknowledged the receipt of the complaint (Event No 384134). (2) By letter dated 7 September 2006, the Authority forwarded the complaint to the Norwegian au­ thorities and invited them to comment (Event No 387163). By letter dated 11 October 2006, the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request. The letter was registered by the Authority on 19 October 2006 (Event No 392725). (3) By letter dated 20 October 2006, the complainant submitted further comments. The letter was registered by the Authority on 23 October 2006 (Event No 394520). (4) By letter dated 29 November 2006, the Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities (Event No 394397). The Norwegian authorities replied by letter dated 11 January 2007. The letter was registered by the Authority on 12 January 2007 (Event No 406541). (5) By letter dated 19 June 2007, the Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities (Event No 425271). The Norwegian authorities replied by letter submitted electronically on 16 August 2007 (Event No 434326). By e-mail dated 20 February 2008, the complainant submitted further information (Event No 466226). (6) By letter submitted electronically on 2 April 2008, the Authority requested yet further information from the Norwegian authorities (Event No 471926). The Norwegian authorities replied by letter submitted electronically on 29 April 2008 (Event No 475480). (7) The complainant submitted further information by e-mails dated 25 May 2008 (Event No 478132), 2 June 2008 (Event No 479743), 9 July 2008 (Events No 489623 and 489626), 14 August 2008 (Event No 489591), 15 August 2008 (Event No 488527), 1 September 2008 (Event No 489591), 20 January 2009 (Event No 505210) and 22 January 2009 (Event No 505503). (1) Available at: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx/xxxxx/xxxxxxxxx/000-00-XXX.xxx (8) During the beginning of 2010, the Authority and the Norwegian authorities had informal contact both via telephone and e-mail regarding the case. Information received by the Authority in this context ...

Procedure. (1) In an email dated 24 March 2015 (3), the Icelandic authorities asked the Authority to clarify whether Landsvirkjun’s financial obligations from derivatives contracts could be guaranteed under Iceland’s existing state guarantee scheme. That scheme was the subject matter of the Authority’s decision No 159/13/COL (4). (2) Following the Authority’s letter of 13 April 2015 (5) and email of 20 April 2015 (6) asking for additional infor­ mation, the Icelandic authorities responded in a letter dated 11 February 2016 (7). (3) In a letter dated 24 February 2016 (8), the Authority requested additional information from the Icelandic authori­ ties. The Icelandic authorities replied to the information request in a letter dated 22 March 2016 (9). (4) Moreover, the matter was discussed during a meeting between the Icelandic authorities and the Authority in Reykjavík on 31 May 2016. Following the meeting, the Authority sent a letter to the Icelandic authorities, recording the content of the meeting and requesting additional clarifications (10). By an email dated 31 October 2016 (11), the Icelandic authorities responded to the Authority’s letter and submitted some additional documents.

Procedure. On 2 August 2004, the Authority sent an information request to the Norwegian authorities regarding a prospective payment to Ofotens og Vesteraalens Dampskibsselskap ASA and Troms Fylkes Dampskibsselskap ASA (1) as a possible compensation due to the changes in the Norwegian differentiated social security system (Event No 289240). The Norwegian authorities replied by letter from the Ministry of Trade and Industry dated 1 September 2004, forwarding a letter from the Ministry of Transport and Communications of the same date, received and registered by the Authority on 1 September 2004 (Event No 291435). By letter dated 12 October 2004, the Authority asked for further information (Event No 294990). In this letter, the Authority's Competition and State Aid Directorate stated its view that as the payment was not notified to the Authority and was apparently already put into effect, it would have to be considered as unlawful aid in the meaning of Article 1 f) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement. The Norwegian authorities replied by letter from the Norwegian Mission dated 18 November 2004, forwar- ding letters from the Ministry of Modernisation dated 17 November 2004 and the Ministry of Transport and Communications dated 16 November 2004. The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 22 November 2004 (Event No 300326). By letter dated 26 October 2005, the Authority's Competition and State Aid Directorate informed the Norwegian authorities that it had doubts concerning the compatibility of the payment to the Hurtigruten companies with the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Event No 329347). The Norwegian authorities replied by letter from the Norwegian Mission dated 22 December 2005, forwar- ding letters from the Ministry of Modernisation dated 15 December 2005 and the Ministry of Transport and Communications dated 15 December 2005, received and registered by the Authority on 3 January 2006 (Event No 355950). By letter dated 9 March 2006 the Authority commented on the Norwegian reply (Event No 364024). The Norwegian authorities responded by letter from the Norwegian Mission dated 29 March 2006, forwarding letters from the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform dated 27 March 2006 and the Ministry of Transport and Communications dated 24 March 2006. The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 30 March 2006 (Event No 368446).

Procedure. By letter dated 5 February 2007, the Authority received a complaint regarding a sale of land by the Municipality of Våler. The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 22 February 2007 (Event No 427226). By letters dated 25 May 2007 and 14 November 2007 (Event No 422506 and Event No 449988), the Authority requested information from the Norwegian authorities. By letters dated 6 July 2007 and 21 December 2007 (Event No 428521 and Event No 458787 respec­ tively), the Norwegian authorities replied to the information requests. Various mail correspondence has also taken place with the complainant.