Procedural requirements. Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3: ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. … The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’.
Procedural requirements. Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, ‘the EFTA Surveil- lance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. […]. The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’. The Icelandic authorities did not notify the Authority of the above-mentioned measures in the form of exemption of the HFF from payment of the guarantee premium. The Authority therefore concludes that Iceland has not respected its obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Procedural requirements. Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. […] The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’. The Norwegian authorities submitted a notification of the sale of land on 13 February 2009 (Event No 508884). However, the municipality had, in 2001, already entered into an option agreement which determined the future conditions for the sale in March 2007. Moreover, the property was transferred and a soft loan granted to Asker Brygge in March 2007, when the sales agreement was signed, the transaction accomplished and the payment in instalments was agreed. Therefore, the Authority concludes that if the measure constitutes State aid, the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.
Procedural requirements. Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveil- lance and Court Agreement, ”the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid (…). The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision”. By submitting notification of the scheme for the regional aid for the transportation of round wood forwarded with a letter from the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform, received and registered by the Authority of 31 October 2007 (Event No 449962), the Norwegian authorities have complied with the notification requirement. By not putting the scheme into effect before getting the approval by the Authority, the Norwegian authorities have complied with the standstill obligation. The Authority can therefore conclude that the Norwegian authorities have respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Procedural requirements. Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveil- lance and Court Agreement, ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. […]. The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’. The Norwegian authorities have not notified the Authority of any measures taken in relation to the support granted to house-
(1) NTF-report 2005:2.
(2) ECON report 2007-040. holds' purchase of pellets stoves, heat pumps in water-born heating systems and control systems for electricity saving. Therefore, in the event that the Authority comes to the conclu- sion that the contributions given to households constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the Norwegian Authorities will be considered not to have respected the notification and stand still obligation pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement. The grant of State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, which has not been notified, constitutes unlawful State aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement. It follows from Article 14 in Part II of Protocol 3 the Surveillance and Court Agreement that the Authority shall decide that unlawful aid which is incompatible with the State aid rules under the EEA Agreement must be recovered from the benefi- ciaries unless it would be contrary to a general principle of law.
Procedural requirements. (308) Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘Protocol 3’): ‘The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. … The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision.’ (309) The Norwegian authorities did not notify the measures to ESA. ESA therefore reaches the preliminary conclusion that, provided the measures constitute new aid or alterations to an existing aid scheme subject to prior notification and insofar as these measures were not exempted from notification under Regulation 1370/2007, the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.
Procedural requirements. Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. […] The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’.
(1) Cf. Commission Decision 2003/521/EC ‘Bolzano’ paragraph 32, where it is stated that ‘… cableways used to support an activity capable of attracting non-local users will generally be regarded as having an effect on trade between Member States.’ In this case, the intended use of the land was to erect a service center in support of the ski-sport activities in Oppdal. OB’s web pages seem to indicate that its activities in Oppdal are capable of attracting customers from Sweden, cf. xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx/Xxxxx.xxxx?XxxxXX=000 and its rating among international ski resorts xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx/Xxxxx.xxxx?XxxxXX=000 The Norwegian authorities have not submitted a notification of the sale of land and the measure has been enacted. Therefore, the Authority concludes that if the measure constitutes State aid, the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.
Procedural requirements. Pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, ‘the EFTA Surveil- lance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. […]. The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’. By means of a letter dated 5 October 2005, the Norwegian authorities have submitted a notification for purposes of introducing the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme under which financial support may be granted to unpaid labour in research and development activities. As regards the entry into force of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme, it appears from legislative preparatory works (on the budget) that entry into force of the scheme is dependent on what would be determined in the context of adopting the Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme (44). The Norwegian authorities therefore consider the Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme as the legal measure determining when the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme enters into force. It appears from the adopted Tax law on the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme that the Ministry of Finance decides when the law enters into force. It appears, moreover, from the relevant preparatory legislative works that this provision is based on the prerequisite that the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme must be notified to, and approved by, the Authority before entering into force (45). Subject to approval by the Authority the original objective was to have the scheme enter into force during the autumn of 2005 (46). In these circumstances — where the power of the Ministry of Finance to command the entry into force of the Unpaid R&D Labour Scheme is subject to the condition of obtaining a prior approval by the Authority — the Authority considers that the Norwegian authorities have respected its notification requirement pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Procedural requirements. Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveil- lance and Court Agreement, “the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. […]. The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision”. The Norwegian authorities have not notified the Authority of any of the measures taken in relation to the transfer of the activities of the Production Department to Mesta AS. Therefore, in the event that the Authority comes to the conclusion that Mesta AS has received State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement the Norwegian authorities will be considered not to have respected their notification obli- gation pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement. The grant of State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement which has not been notified constitutes unlawful State aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement. It follows from Article 14 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveil- lance and Court Agreement that the Authority shall decide that unlawful aid which is incompatible with the State aid rules under the EEA Agreement must be recovered from the benefi- ciaries unless it would be contrary to a general principle of law.
Procedural requirements. Pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, ”the EFTA Surveil- lance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. […]. The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision”. The Norwegian authorities have not notified any measure relating to the funding of airline pilot education to the Authority. In particular, while the loan from Troms County may have been granted in accordance with the duly authorised Regional Loan Scheme, writing off that loan cannot be considered to fall within the conditions of the authorisation. The Authority therefore concludes that, in the event that the contested funding does indeed constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA, the Norwegian authorities did not respect their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.