Conclusion. For the above mentioned reasons, the Authority has doubts as to whether or not the transaction concerning the sale of the plot of land gbnr 32/17 to Asker Brygge as laid down in the option agreement signed in 2001 and later agreements entail the grant of State aid.
Conclusion. A summary of the aforementioned corrections in the equity value of Sirowa is provided in the fol- lowing table. Each of the aforementioned correc- tions has been determined per a specific (historic) reference date. In order to calculate the value of Sirowa as per valuation date (5 July 2016), an in- terest rate of 5% has been taken into account. In the calculation we also took into account expected corporate income tax on the interest income. (...) We consider an interest of 5% as a deemed fair return on financial assets (loans etc.). In our analysis we reviewed the loans provided by Sirowa to both Meriton and Xxxxxxxx. The Meriton loan carried an interest of 0.25% which, in our view, cannot be considered as ‘normal’. The loan pro- vided to Warzecha (loan agreement dated 1 Octo- ber 2004), carried an interest of 5% which, in general, seems to be not unreasonable as an ex- pected return on financial assets. The book value of equity of Sirowa as per 31 December 2015 is € 1,006K. The net profit (loss) for the period from 1 January 2016 to 5 July 2016 is estimated at € 6K negative (the loss in 2015 was € 11K). The aforementioned corrections are added to the book value of equity. This provides an estimated market value of € 7,581,000 as per 5 July 2016. An overview is provided in the following table.
Conclusion. At this stage, based on the information submitted by the Icelandic authorities and for the abovementioned reasons, the Authority has doubts about the classification of the notified sale and accompanying measures as non-aid falling outside the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Authority is obliged to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority. Should the Authority during this formal investigation procedure come to the conclusion that State aid has been granted in the framework of the privatisation of Iceland Cement, it would like to note that the Icelandic authorities have not provided any arguments and respective documentary evidence so far to assess compatibility with the rules of the EEA Agreement. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, requests Iceland to submit its comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the aid measure notified, within two months of the date of receipt of this Decision, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Conclusion. For the above-mentioned reasons, the authority takes the preliminary view that the tax relief on the management companies own assets constitutes state aid with the meaning of article 61(1) of the EEa agreement.
Conclusion. A PS60 sectional door, with the clear dimensions of 4 m x 4 m, is classified as follows: Fire resistance FR 1 h EI1 60 fire, must close from any position if a fire occurs. − The fire closing system must be controlled by a fairly sensitive detection system, so that the door closes at a fairly low temperature, in order to ensure that the door functions effectively. − Sectional doors should not be seen as an emergency exit.