Procedure. By letter dated 30 August 2004, the Authority received a comp- laint against the Norwegian authorities in relation to the estab- lishment of Mesta AS which was created to take over the production activities carried out within the Public Road Admi- nistration in Norway (5). The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 2 September 2004 (Event No: 291537). By letter dated 15 September 2004 (Event No: 291631), the Authority requested information from the Norwegian authori- ties. By letter dated 24 September 2004 from the Norwegian authorities, both received and registered by the Authority on 24 September 2004 (Event No: 293749) the Norwegian autho- rities requested an extension of the deadline within which it had to reply (6). The Authority granted the request by letter dated 28 September 2004 (Event No: 294074).
(1) Hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”.
(2) Hereinafter referred to as “the EEA Agreement”.
(3) Hereinafter referred to as “the Surveillance and Court Agreement”.
(4) Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid — 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 EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1, EEA Supple- ment No 32, 3.9.94, p. 1, last amended by the Authority's Decision No 388/06/COL of 13 December 2006 for purposes of prolonging Chapter 14 on Aid for research and development, hereinafter referred to as the “State Aid Guidelines”).
(5) Translation from “Statens vegvesen”
(6) The request for an extension of the time limit was officially confirmed by letter dated 28 September 2004 from the Norwegian Mission to the European Union, forwarding the letter dated 24 September 2004 from the Norwegian authorities, both received and registered by the Autho- rity on 29 September 2004 (Event No 294279). By letter dated 4 November 2004 from the Norwegian Mission to the European Union, forwarding a letter from the Norwegian authorities dated 1 November 2004, both received and regis- tered by the Authority on 4 November 2004 (Event No: 298076), the Norwegian authorities replied to the informa- tion request. The Authority considered that further information was neces- sary and sent another request for information dated 8 September 2005 (Event No: 306025). By letter dated 17 October 2005 the Norwegian authorities requested an extension of the ...
Procedure. (1) By letter dated 23 March 2011 (Event No 591767) the Authority received a complaint (‘the complaint’) from the Norwegian bus company Xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx (‘the complainant’) alleging that unlawful State aid is involved in the contracts awarded by Aust-Agder County, Norway (‘Aust- Agder’) to several bus operators for the supply of local bus transport services in Aust-Agder.
(2) Furthermore, the complaint alleges breaches of the EEA procurement rules. That aspect of the complaint is dealt with by the Authority’s Internal Market Affairs Directorate as Cases No 69656 and 69548. On 12 October 2011, the Authority issued a letter of formal notice to Norway for failure to comply with the principles of non-discrimination and transparency laid down in Articles 4 and 48 of the EEA Agreement by allowing Aust-Agder to award, and prolong bus transport concessions without any form of publication (Event No 607316). On the same grounds, on 22 June 2012, the Authority delivered a reasoned opinion to Norway (Event No 620449).
(3) The present decision only covers the State aid part of the complaint which has been investigated by the Authority’s Competition and State aid Directorate.
(4) By letter dated 10 November 2011 (Events Nos 612071 and 614791), the Authority informed the Norwegian authorities that the complainant also alleges that unlawful State aid is involved in the award of the contracts for local bus transport services, and sent a request for information. By letter dated 9 December 2011 (Event No 618202), the Norwegian authorities replied to the Authority’s request. Additional requests for information were sent to the Norwegian authorities on 13 March 2012 (Event No 624061) and on 17 October 2012 (Event No 648686), to which the Norwegian authorities replied by letters dated 10, 11 May 2012 (Events Nos 634034 and 634269) and 15 November 2012 (Event No 653639), respectively. By email dated 15 January 2013 (Event No 659645), the Authority asked for additional information, to which it received replies by emails dated 17, 22, 23, 24 January and 30 January 2013 (Events Nos 660036, 660348, 660467, 660486, 660960, 661258 and 661576).
(5) On 19 December 2012 the Authority adopted its Decision closing the formal investigation into potential aid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene. This case concerned an existing aid scheme in local public transport that was governed by the same legislative framework as the present case. In the view of the Authority, it was necessary to ...
Procedure. In the context of pre-notification discussions, the Icelandic authorities submitted three letters dated
Procedure. (1) By letter dated 16 July 2010 (Event No 565828), Míla ehf. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Míla’ or ‘the complainant’) lodged a complaint with the EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’) concerning alleged unlawful State aid granted by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Iceland through leases for the use and operation of two optical fibres which were previously operated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
(2) By letter dated 30 August 2010 (Event No 567175), the Authority requested the Icelandic authorities to provide all information and observations relevant for the Authority to determine whether or not the measures complained of involved State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and, in the event that the measures were to be considered to involve State aid, whether they might nevertheless qualify for an exemp tion from the general prohibition of State aid. The Icelandic authorities responded to this request by way of two letters, dated 28 September 2010 (Event No 571101) and 3 December 2010 (Event No 579784).
(3) The Authority subsequently engaged in further correspondence with both the complainant and the Icelandic authorities. At the request of the complainant, the Authority's representative attended a meeting with the com plainant in Reykjavik on 10 June 2011, where the complainant explained further its views regarding the com plaint. By letter dated 6 September 2011 (Event No 608312), the complainant submitted further information to substantiate its claim regarding the allegation of State aid.
(4) At the complainant's request, a teleconference took place on 13 October 2011. Following this contact, the Authority received, by letter of 16 December 2011 (Event No 619096), supplementary information from the complainant regarding certain aspects of the complaint.
(5) By letter dated 5 June 2012 (Event No 641906) the complainant submitted further information in relation to the complaint.
(6) By letter of 16 July 2012 (Event No 641937), the Authority requested certain additional information from the Icelandic authorities and invited them to comment on the further information which the Authority had received from the complainant. By letter dated 10 September 2012 (Event No 646364), the Icelandic authori ties responded to this request.
(7) On 24 September 2012, the Authority received further information from the complainant by letter dated 19 September 2012 (Event No 647465).
(8) By emails of 16 November 2012 (Ev...
Procedure. (1) Denmark notified the measures on 6 March 2012.
(2) Denmark exceptionally accepts that the decision is taken in the English language.
Procedure. (1) Following complaints and market information submitted by concerned citizens, the Authority notified the Norwegian authorities of the State aid allegations on 31 October 2013 (Event No 686574). In the same corre spondence, the Authority requested information on the alleged aid measure, which the Norwegian authorities provided on 29 November 2013 (Events No 691773 and 691774).
(2) The Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities on 16 January 2014 (Event No 694963), which was provided on 14 February 2014 (Event No 699518).
Procedure. (1) In an email dated 24 March 2015 (3), the Icelandic authorities asked the Authority to clarify whether Landsvirkjun’s financial obligations from derivatives contracts could be guaranteed under Iceland’s existing state guarantee scheme. That scheme was the subject matter of the Authority’s decision No 159/13/COL (4).
(2) Following the Authority’s letter of 13 April 2015 (5) and email of 20 April 2015 (6) asking for additional infor mation, the Icelandic authorities responded in a letter dated 11 February 2016 (7).
(3) In a letter dated 24 February 2016 (8), the Authority requested additional information from the Icelandic authori ties. The Icelandic authorities replied to the information request in a letter dated 22 March 2016 (9).
(4) Moreover, the matter was discussed during a meeting between the Icelandic authorities and the Authority in Reykjavík on 31 May 2016. Following the meeting, the Authority sent a letter to the Icelandic authorities, recording the content of the meeting and requesting additional clarifications (10). By an email dated 31 October 2016 (11), the Icelandic authorities responded to the Authority’s letter and submitted some additional documents.
Procedure. (1) On 19 September 2011, the Authority received a complaint, dated 13 September 2011 (Event No 608967), concerning the alleged subsidising by the Icelandic State and the City of Reykjavík (‘the City’) of conference services and restaurant/catering services in the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre (‘Harpa’) (3).
(2) By letter dated 14 October 2011, the Authority requested additional information from the Icelandic authorities (Event No 609736). By a letter dated 30 November 2011 (Event No 617042), the Icelandic authorities replied to the request and provided the Authority with the relevant information.
(3) The case was the subject of discussions between the Authority and the Icelandic authorities as well as the lawyer representing the holding company responsible for Harpa’s operations, at the package meeting in Reykjavík on 5 June 2012. Shortly after the meeting, the Authority sent a follow up letter, dated 9 July 2012 (Event No 637627), to the Icelandic authorities inviting them to provide information on certain outstanding issues.
Procedure. (1) The Norwegian authorities approached the Authority in June 2011 regarding their plan to establish a Charter Fund Scheme for Northern Norway (‘the Scheme’). A pre-notification document setting out the main elements of the Scheme was communicated on 24 June 2011 (Event No 602898).
(2) The Authority provided some initial feedback on 5 August 2011 (Event No 605972).
(3) After several exchanges of e-mail, the Authority, by e-mail dated 16 January 2012 (Event No 621292), informed the Norwegian authorities that the pre-notification phase could be considered as complete. It furthermore identified some issues which the notification should address and alleviate.
(4) The Norwegian authorities notified the Scheme, pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, by letter of 2 May 2012 (Event Nos 632837 and 322824).
Procedure. (1) The Norwegian authorities notified the regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme 2014-2020 pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 by letter of 13 March 2014 (1). On the basis of that notification and information submitted thereafter (2), the Authority approved the notified aid scheme by its Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014.
(2) By its judgment of 23 September 2015 in case E-23/14 Xxxxx Offshore AS v ESA (3) the EFTA Court annulled, in part, the Authority's decision.
(3) By letter dated 15 October 2015 (4), the Authority requested information from the Norwegian authorities. By letter dated 6 November 2015 (5), the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request.