Comments by the Norwegian authorities. (38) When IN decided to conditionally grant the NOK 16 million of aid, it was aware of Xxxxx’x rejection of Finnfjord’s application for supplementary aid and the reason for the rejection. IN stresses that the aid awarded provides incentive effect and is fully compatible with the general objectives of the Environmental Aid Guidelines (‘EAG’) (3) and the Authority’s Decision No 248/11/COL on the Energy Fund.
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. (42) The Norwegian authorities are of the opinion that the contract with XXxX was concluded at market terms and that only the final arrangement regarding how the consideration was to be structured, as reflected in supplementary agreement of 29 November 2000, was influenced by the municipality’s ownership interest in NEaS. The Norwegian authorities point out that according to the decision of the Municipal Council dated 25 November 1999, it was an absolute precondition for the conclusion of any agreement with NEaS that the power would be sold on market terms (21).
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian authorities provided their comments by way of a letter dated 11 augustus 2006 (Event No 383774).
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian authorities have stated that the scheme has been notified to the Authority for reasons of legal certainty. The Norwegian authorities claim that the scheme cannot be supposed to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. This seems to be based on three different lines of argumentation. Firstly, the Norwegian authorities argue that the scheme does not confer any advantage on the cooperatives. In this regard, the Norwegian authorities argue that the general principle laid down in the Altmark doctrine (4), referred to by the Norwegian autho- rities as the market investor principle, ‘must apply where the measure consists of advantages given to the recipient to cover the extra costs for the undertaking to fulfil obligations imposed on it and by which the State in return is given an intangible benefit of public inte- rest’ (5). According to the Norwegian authorities, this should in any case apply where the obligation imposed is external to the interests of the undertakings concerned. The Norwegian autho- rities claim that the principle laid down in the Altmark judge- ment should apply in this case even though ‘the Norwegian authorities are not of the opinion that the notified scheme is in line with the Altmark judgement or compatible with the Authority's Guide- lines on State Aid in the Form of Public Service Compensation’ (5). The obligation imposed on the cooperatives is in this case the prohibition for cooperatives to issue shares or other capital
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. (30) Norway claims that its participation in the new RCF is on market terms since it participates in it pari passu (13) with the banks and KAW, thereby excluding the presence of State aid.