ASSESSMENT. 1. The presence of State aid
ASSESSMENT. 1. The presence of State aid
1.1. State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
ASSESSMENT. 1. The presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA
(1) The definite time of the final settlement is normally specified in the agreement.
(2) Act No 125/2008 entered into force upon publication.
(3) According to the agreement between the parties of the swap, the final price was to be settled on 15.4.2009.
(4) Agreement signed on 20.5.2009 for the value of ISK […].
(5) Agreement signed on 3 July and 5 August 2009 for the final value of ISK […] and ISK […] respectively.
ASSESSMENT. 1. The presence of State aid
1.1. Alleged aid measures executed by the Port of Reykjavík
ASSESSMENT. 1. The presence of State aid State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA 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.’ It follows from this provision that, for State aid within the meaning of the EEA to be present, the following conditions must be met: — the aid must be granted through State resources, — the aid must favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, i.e. the measure must confer an economic advantage upon the recipient(s), which must be selective, — the beneficiary must be an undertaking within the meaning of the EEA Agreement, — the aid must be capable of distorting competition and affect trade between contracting parties. The fulfilment of these conditions will be considered further below.
ASSESSMENT. 1. The presence of State aid State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement 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.’ The criteria will be assessed below, first in relation to the noti- fied amendments to the Harbour Act and second in relation to the 2003 Harbour Act, which was never notified to the Autho- rity.
1.1. The notified amendments made to the Harbour Act in 2007
ASSESSMENT. 1. The presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA Agreement
(1) 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 Authority on 19.1.1994, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as OJ) L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994, p. 1. Hereinafter referred to as the State Aid Guidelines. The updated version of the State Aid Guidelines is published on the Authority’s website (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx/xxxxx-xxx/xxxxx-xxxxxxxxx/ state-aid-guidelines/).
(2) Hereinafter referred to the Guidelines on sale of land.
(3) Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (published in OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement No 26, 25.5.2006, p. 1), as amended. A consolidated version of the Decision can be found online (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx). 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’.
ASSESSMENT. 1. The presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA Article 61(1) EEA 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.” As demonstrated below, a initial examination of the contested funding would suggest that these elements are all present.
ASSESSMENT. 3. State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA and the classification of such aid as new or existing
3.1. The aid elements of the Icelandic system of implicit State guarantees
(1) The original Icelandic text is as follows: ‘Aðrar skuldbindingar Íbúðalánasjóðs eru hins vegar ekki undanþegnar gjaldskyldu þar sem ekki er lagt fé í varasjóð til að mæta útlánatöpum vegna lánveitinga á grundvelli þeirra.’.
(2) Opinion of the Economic and Commerce Committee of Alþingi, the Authority's unofficial translation.
(3) Case E-1/00 State Debt Management Agency [2000-2001] EFTA Court Report, p. 8. For a measure to be classified as State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, it must be granted by the State or through State resources, confer an advantage on the recipient undertaking, be selective and thereby distort or threaten to distort competition and be liable to affect trade between the Contracting Parties. Before examining each of these conditions in turn, the Authority makes the following remarks concerning the scope of the present decision to open the formal investigation procedure: As any other undertaking organised as a public institution, the HFF enjoys an implicit State guarantee in the same manner as did the predecessors of the HFF from the start of their operations in the 1950's, cf. Act No 42/1957. The HFF pays neither a market based premium for the guarantee, nor the premium laid down in Act No 121/1997 on State Guarantees. The implicit State guarantee for this type of public undertaking was at the outset granted without any obli- gation to pay a premium. However, Icelandic system for implicit State guarantees was changed in 1987. From this point in time, a guarantee premium was to be paid for foreign commitments, but not for domestic ones. The original State guarantee scheme, with the changes introduced in 1987, thus predates the EEA Agreement. The Icelandic system relating to implicit guarantees was changed again as of 1 January 1998 when a general obligation to pay a guarantee premium was also introduced as regards domestic commitments. Considering the size of the premium the Authority finds it unlikely that the guarantee premium removed aid contained in the original guarantee scheme. Therefore, in the Authority's preliminary opinion, the original guarantee scheme still contains State aid. The State aid element will generally be the difference between the appropriate market price for the guarantee provided and the price paid ...
ASSESSMENT