The complaint. In March 2002, the Authority received a complaint alleging that the RCN had granted R&D aid to ‘projects in the maritime sector that violate the EEA rules. The projects that have received state aid are commercial software programs that are marketed and sold in the international markets. We refer specifically to the software program called TURBOROUTER’. According to the complainant, the Turborouter programme is distorting the competition with other Euro- pean or international companies which develop software programmes for the maritime industry. The complainant, who has software products in the same sector, has stated to have invested important sums of money in developing mathematical algorithms, which seem to be similar to the ones used in Turborouter. The complaint concerns not only the projects that led to the development of a commercial software prog- ramme called Turborouter but also its development in several sub-projects. Although the complainant iden- tified Project 136171 Algopt and Project 144214 Optimisation routines, it explicitly stated that the comp- laint is not limited to these projects but concerns ‘all of these projects that have been targeting the development of a commercial software program called Turborouter’. The complainant mainly argued that (1) the projects that received aid were too close to the market to be eligible for R&D aid and had been marketed for sale to third companies in Norway and abroad; (2) the research results had not been disseminated but the research institute Marintek, which developed the soft- ware programme Turborouter, had received the property rights to sell the programme; (3) the maximum aid intensities had not been respected due to the fact that the own capital contribution from the concerned companies was in reality lower than stated in the application form. The complainant brought forward the following arguments to support the complaint:
1) ‘The RCN has given aid to projects which are very close to the market. Turborouter has for more than two years been actively marketed for sale both domestically in Norway and abroad. This marketing has been done partly by the research institute Marintek and partly by Shipnet, a privately owned commercial vendor of software systems for the maritime industry with which, according to the information submitted by the complainant, Marintek has an agreement. The Turborouter projects cannot be classified into “fundamental research” nor “industrial research” according to the def...
The complaint. The complainant states that AS Oslo Sporveier transferred NOK 41 499 000 in new equity to AS Sporveisbussene in 2004, and alleges that this transaction may have involved State aid as no private market investor would inject capital in a loss-making company. The complainant furthermore questions whether capital has been injected in order to fund new activities taking place in a market exposed to competition.
The complaint. The complainant alleges that several transactions between the Port of Reykjavík (4), Dráttarbrautir Reykjavíkur ehf. and Stáltak hf. (5) (later Stálsmiðjan ehf.) involve State aid to Stáltak. The complainant considers that ever since December 1999, when Dráttarbrautir Reykjavíkur was founded as a private limited liability company established by the Port and Stáltak, the Port has directly and indirectly supported the operations of Stáltak and, on more than one occasion, unduly saved the company from financial difficulties or imminent bankruptcy. The complainant believes the aid granted amounted to several million ISK. In this manner, the complainant considers that the Port has disrupted the competitive position of enterprises that operate in the area, in particular ports that offer slipway services; dry-docking and ship repairs. The complainant has explained that only three companies, which are situated in the three largest harbours in Iceland, can offer dry-docking and ship repair slipway services. These companies are Stáltak, which operated in the Reykjavík Harbour, and two companies operating from the Hafnarfjörður Harbour and Akureyri Harbour respectively. The complainant has pointed out that through the Port of Reykjavík’s financial support, Stáltak has been able to offer the slipway services in question at a lower price than its competitors.
The complaint. (6) The complainant ‘Xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx’ is a privately owned Norwegian bus transport operator. It claims that the award of contracts by Aust-Agder without any form of competition has favoured Nettbus Sør AS and several other the complainant’s competitors during the period 2004-2016, as well as before that period. The complainant takes the view that the compensation paid according to these contracts involves unlawful State aid. It refers in particular to the Authority’s Decision No 254/10/COL of 21 June 2010 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene) submitting that the contracts in this present case also constitute unlawful State aid.
(7) The complainant furthermore submits that Aust-Agder has for many years granted substantial State aid under the contracts. In particular, Nettbuss Sør AS is claimed to have received significant advantages. The complainant argues that in 2009, Aust-Agder increased the compensation to Nettbuss Sør AS by as much as 37 % without any corresponding increase in the production level. According to the complainant, this shows that the compensation that Aust-Agder has been paying out is above the market price.
(8) The complainant alleges that in 2010 Nettbuss Sør AS received more than 70 % of the annual compensation that Aust-Agder paid to the bus transport operators and that this has led to a serious distortion in the local bus transport market, as well as in the express bus market.
(9) The complainant argues that the compensation paid by Aust-Agder represents as much as 68,5 % to 88,4 % of the expected costs of the bus operators for performing local transport services.
(10) Furthermore, the complainant refers to the compensation mechanisms in the contracts between Aust- Agder and the bus operators. These mechanisms set out: (1) that the parties can adjust productions and compensation annually and that the bus operators have a right to propose ‘production changes’;
The complaint. In July 2008, OB complained to the Authority alleging that Oppdal municipality was going to sell property 271/8, which served as a parking area for customers of a nearby ski resort, without notifying the sale. OB owns and operates a number of ski resorts in the Norwegian municipality Oppdal. The buyer of the plot in question, SDO, is a competitor who had previously leased an area from OB for use in its business related to ski equipment and ski instructor services. After OB increased the lease, SDO was looking for new premises.
(1) Minutes from meeting 30 June 2008 in Oppdal Municipality (Formannskapet). In its complaint, OB alleged that the property would be sold without conducting an unconditional bidding procedure, as described in the Authority’s guidelines for sales of land and public buildings, paragraph 2.1 (1). XX also argued that the municipality had not acted in accordance with the alternative procedure described in paragraph 2.2 in the Authority’s guidelines, since it had started sale negotiations with the potential buyer prior to obtaining an independent evaluation of the property. Moreover, OB maintained that it was unclear on which principles the evaluation reports are based. OB alleged that its own NOK 3,1 million offer, based on the same exploitation of the property as the buyer, showed that the market price was not reflected in the sales price, and that OB could not be considered to be a buyer with a particular interest in the property.