Conclusion. Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority cannot exclude the possibility that the aid measures referred to above in Part II, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this decision constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts that these measures can be regarded as complying with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. The Authority thus doubts that the above measures are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, and in accordance with 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 Norwegian authorities to submit their comments within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision. Moreover, the Authority requests the Norwegian authorities, within one month of receipt of this decision, to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the compatibility of the two measures examined here above. The Norwegian authorities are invited to forward a copy of this decision to the potential aid recipient of the aid immediately. The Authority would like to remind the Norwegian 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 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 against Norway regarding (i) the payment of an ad hoc aid of NOK 36 000 000 to Norsk Film AS for the upgrading of infrastructure and (ii) the application of the preferential tax treatment to Norsk Film AS, Norsk FilmStudio AS and ScanCam AS. The Norwegian authorities are invited, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Part II of Protocol 3, 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 requested to provide within one month from ...
Conclusion. Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authori- ties, the Authority has doubts as to whether the measures in favour of Mesta AS involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and whether the measures may be considered as compatible with Article 61(2) or (3) 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- rity is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1 (2) of Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agree- ment. 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 or do not involve State aid at all. 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 measures in favour of Mesta AS and requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the potential aid recipient of the aid imme- diately, 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 restructuring and reorganisation measures in favour of Mesta AS, the contribution of assets and the transfer of transitional contracts to Mesta AS as well as the exemption of Mesta AS from paying document duty and regist- ration fee. 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. The EC Commission shall be informed, in accordance with Protocol 27 (d) of ...
Conclusion. (125) The Authority preliminarily concludes that the annual compensation disbursed until 2008 and the 2004 capital injection of NOK 111 760 000 in Oslo constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Conclusion. (187) Based on the information submitted by the complainant and the Norwegian authorities, the Authority has come to the conclusion that the complainant’s allegations that guarantees provided by AS Sporveisbussene may involve unlawful State aid are unfounded.
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. (300) 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. (41) As set out above, the Authority has doubts as to whether the exemption rule for ambulant services under the scheme on differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020 is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
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. (46) as a result, the Commission concludes that the measure as a package constitutes State aid within the meaning of article 107(1) TFEU.
Conclusion. (55) 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.