Conclusion exempelklausuler
Conclusion. Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authori- ties, the Authority has doubts whether the aid measure(s) consti- tute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agree- ment. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts whether these measures can be regarded as complying with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, in combination with the requirements laid down in the Authority's State Aid Guidelines on environmental protection and on aid for research and development. The Authority thus doubts that the above measures are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Autho- the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, requests the Norwegian authorities to submit their comments within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision. In light of the foregoing consideration, the Authority requires that, within one month of receipt of this decision, the Norwegian authorities provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the support scheme. It requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the potential aid recipients of the aid immedia- tely, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: The EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement against Norway regarding the support scheme for alterative, renewable heating and electricity savings in private households. The Norwegian authorities are requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agree- ment, to submit their comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month from the notification of this Decision. The Norwegian authorities are required to provide within one month from notification of this decision, all documents, infor- mation and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the aid measure. This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway. Only the English version is authentic. Done at Brussels, 19 December 2007. rity is obliged to open the proce...
Conclusion. Based on an assessment of the information submitted by the Icelandic authorities, the Mortgage Loan Scheme appears to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Authority doubts that the Mortgage Loan Scheme can be regarded as complying with Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement, in combination with the requirements laid down in the IAG. The Authority thus doubts that the Mortgage Loan Scheme is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Icelandic authorities to submit their comments within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision. In light of the foregoing considerations, within one month of receipt of this decision, the Authority request the Icelandic authorities to provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the transfer of mortgage loans secured against collateral in residential property from financial undertakings to the HFF.
(1) See paragraph 48 et seq. of the IAG.
(2) In some cases the Commission required the plans to be submitted within three months.
(3) See the chapter on ‘Return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules’, under the State Aid Guidelines on the Authority’s home page.
(4) This table outlines good practices in presenting information of the bank’s activities related to the impaired assets that would feed into the viability review for cases of individual aid granting, but could be applied per analogy also to schemes. The Authority invites Iceland to forward a copy of this decision to any potential aid recipients of the aid immediately. The Authority would like to remind the Icelandic authorities that, according to the provisions of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully put at the disposal of the beneficiaries will have to be recovered, unless this recovery would be contrary to the general principal of law, HAS ADOPTE...
Conclusion. As appears from the above, the Authority has doubts as to whether the measures identified above involve State aid.
Conclusion. (419) as set out above, ESa has doubts as to whether the measures constitute existing aid and, in case the measures were considered new aid, as to whether the measures are compatible with the functioning of the EEa agreement.
Conclusion. (249) ESA preliminarily finds that the PSO compensation system for railway passenger services in Norway constitutes and ‘aid scheme’ within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Part II of Protocol 3.
Conclusion. The Authority’s preliminary conclusion, therefore, is that the measures taken by the Icelandic State to capitalise the new bank, as well as the liquidity facility, involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. It also cannot exclude that aid to Arion Bank may be present in the transfer to it of SPRON’s assets and liabilities and as a result of the government’s notice safeguarding deposits.
Conclusion. To limit the tonnage tax regime to companies with their seat, registered office or the place of residence according to their bylaw in Iceland (requirement of full tax liability), and, further- more, to extend the benefits of that tax regime only to the part of those companies' income which derives from the operation of ships registered in Iceland (requirement of registration in the IIS), appears liable to place comparable companies established in other EEA States, and/or operating ships registered in other EEA States, at a disadvantage. In the same manner, the tax regime appears liable to place providers of maritime transport services established in other EEA States, and providing services in Iceland, at a disadvantage, as compared to service providers established in Iceland. Based on the above, the Authority has doubts whether the registration requirement and the requirement of full tax liability in Iceland, are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in particular the right of establishment in Article 31 EEA and the freedom to provide services in Article 36 EEA, and can be allowed under the EEA State aid rules.
Conclusion. (82) As set out above, the Authority has formed the preliminary view that the measures fulfil all criteria in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, and therefore constitute state aid. The Authority furthermore has doubts as to whether the measures are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Conclusion. In light of the above, ESA has doubts concerning the existing nature of the scheme. ESA invites the Norwegian authorities to submit further information on the comparison of the compensation models in the PSO contracts before and after the introduction of the ex post mechanism as well as information concerning the rules from 1998.
Conclusion. Based on the above, the Authority comes to the preliminary conclusion that the measure at stake fulfils all the conditions to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.