Comments by the Norwegian authorities. (62) The Norwegian authorities submit that the complaint, without further elaboration, mainly refers to an Authority Decision that concerned an entirely different case, i.e. bus transport in Oslo (37). The complainant, according to the Norwegian authorities, has not substantiated how Aust-Agder has violated the State aid rules, nor has it explained how the bus companies concerned have been overcompensated. Further, the Norwegian authorities reject as incorrect the complainant’s allegation that Aust-Agder has displayed a lack of interest in holding the companies to the terms of the contracts.
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. (15) The Norwegian authorities argue that the exemption rule for ambulant services is compatible with the function ing of the EEA Agreement on the basis of its Article 61(3)(c) and that it is in line with the Authority's Guidelines on Regional State Aid for 2014-2020 (the RAG) (2).
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. (21) The Norwegian authorities argue that the transactions described above do not result in the granting of State aid.
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. (23) The Norwegian authorities argue that BKK is not acting as an undertaking when providing operation and mainte nance services to the Municipality of Bergen. Hence, any advantage granted to it, falls outside the remit of state aid law. More specifically, the Norwegian authorities argue that no market can exist without private demand and private willingness to pay for the goods or services in question, i.e. where public authorities are the only purchasers (18).
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian authorities consider that the procedure described in paragraph 2.2 in the Authority’s guidelines for sales of land and public buildings had been followed, and that no State aid was involved in the transaction. The Norwegian authorities argue that the expert evaluations were obtained prior to any sale negotiations with SDO and reflected the market price. Oppdal municipality has in addition produced an overview dated 29 August 2008, of prices on sales of land in Oppdal, which shows that the price obtained for the property involved is the highest price per square meter known to the municipality. The authorities further maintain that when assessing the market price the expert should consider which price regular buyers would pay for the property by voluntary sale. Speculative buyers, and buyers with particular needs should be disregarded. Thus, the experts in this case have assessed the market price correctly. The offer of NOK 3,1 million from OB must in any case be regarded as coming from a party with a particular need, since OB has a dominant position in the local ski service market, and is willing to go far in eliminating it’s competitors.
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 interest’ (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 authorities claim that the principle laid down in the Altmark judgement 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
(1) According to paragraph 2a of Section 10-50, the provision only applies to cooperatives where more than 50 % of the regular turnover is related to trade with the members.
(2) Act of 6 June 2003 No 38 Lov om bustadbyggjelag (bustadbyggjelagslova).
(3) This is an expansion of the scheme compared to the scheme in force until 2005, cf. Section I.2.1 above.
(4) Case C-280/00, Altmark Trans GmbH, [2003] ECR I-7747.
(5) Section 1 of the letter from the Ministry of Finance dated 16 October 2007 (Event No 447272). certificates or securities in order to strengthen their equity capital, restrictions which the Norwegian authorities consider as essential. The intangible benefit is the public interest of keeping up and safeguarding the cooperative companies as alternatives to limited companies and other organisational forms. The Norwegian authorities argue that the case law on which the Authority's Public Service Compensation Guidelines is based ‘does not rule out that the market prin...
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian authorities provided their comments by way of a letter dated 11 augusti 2006 (Event No 383774).
4.1. Regarding the payment of NOK 36 000 000 for upgrading production facilities
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian authorities put forward the view that the increased compensation does not constitute State aid. They argue that on the basis of the renegotiation clause mentioned above, Xxxxxxxxxxx was entitled to demand a renegotiation and the authorities acted as a rational market operator during the renegotiation process. Alternatively, the Norwegian authorities are of the view that the measures are public service compensation under Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement, and as such compatible with the EEA Agreement. The Norwegian authorities also maintain that the measures taken in October 2008 were emergency measures taken in the acute difficult economic situation of Hurtigruten in 2008, in order to ensure continuous service in the interim period until a new tendering procedure could be finalised. The Norwegian authorities finally submit that Hurtigruten was a firm in difficulty within the meaning of the State Aid Guidelines and they argue that the measures meet the requirements for restructuring aid under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement and the Guidelines for aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty.
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian authorities, in their comments on the comp- laint, have argued that the recipients of the support scheme are private households and not undertakings within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA. Thus, for this reason the measure cannot be considered to constitute State aid. To support their view, the authorities refer to the Authority's decision of 3 May 2006, regarding the Norwegian Energy Fund, Commission Decision No 158/02 and Commission Decision No 369/05.
(1) St. prp. No 82 (2005-2006), press release from the Ministry of Petro- leum and Energy of 25 August 2006 and of 14 September 2006.
(2) It is not clear from the information available to the Authority whether the scheme is of limited duration. Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities argue that the scheme does not distort or threaten to distort competition since wood-burning stoves and the technologies entitled to support cannot be regarded as substitutable products and thus not within the same relevant product market. The Norwegian autho- rities define the market as ‘those technologies which can replace elec- tric heating and provide the same level of heating comfort as electric heating during day and night, or in a more technical language, base load heating systems’ (3). Wood-burning stoves are by the Government classified as a supplementary heat source used in addition to the base load source. According to the Government, wood-burning stoves can therefore be characterised as peak-load heating systems. On these grounds, the Norwegian authorities argue that the aid in question will not distort or threaten to distort competition, since there is no direct competition between the technologies covered by the scheme and wood-burning stoves.
Comments by the Norwegian authorities. The training of airline pilots, although regulated by the State through the provisions in the Aviation Act, is not integrated into the national education system. Citing geographic and demographic reasons, the Norwe- gian authorities highlight the importance of retaining in Norway a capacity to train airline pilots. Articles 149 and 150 EC are referred to as an indication that educational matters fall within the scope of national responsibility and the case law of the European Court of Justice (5) is invoked in support of the view that education falls outside the definition of ”service”. Troms County does not consider the remission of the loan to be unlawful State aid and cites the participa- tion of other creditors in the sanitation of the debt in support of this. It also argues that while it is true that no commercial guarantee commission has been levied for the loan guarantee, any such commission would, in any event, have fallen below the de minimis threshold. The Municipality of Målselv considers the loan to have been granted at the appropriate rate in light of the reference rates set out in Chapter 34 of the State Aid Guidelines.