# Euroopa Liidu C 277/10.

| | ISSN 1725-5171 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 277 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 48. köide10. november 2005 |

ISSN 1725-5171

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 277

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

48. köide10. november 2005

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Teave |
| | Nõukogu |
| 2005/C 277/1 | Taani avaldus viisa vastastikkuse kohta | 1 |
| 2005/C 277/2 | Rootsi avaldus viisa vastastikuse kohta | 1 |
| 2005/C 277/3 | Austria Vabariigi avaldus viisa vastastikkuse kohta | 2 |
| | Komisjon |
| 2005/C 277/4 | Euro vahetuskurss | 3 |
| 2005/C 277/5 | Liikmesriikide esitatud kokkuvõtlik teave riigiabi kohta, mis on antud kooskõlas komisjoni 23. detsembri 2003. aasta määrusega (EÜ) 1/2004, mis käsitleb EÜ asutamislepingu artiklite 87 ja 88 kohaldamist riigiabi suhtes, mida antakse põllumajandustoodete tootmise, töötlemise ja turustamisega tegelevatele väikestele ja keskmise suurusega ettevõtetele | 4 |
| 2005/C 277/6 | Eelteatis koondumise kohta (Juhtum nr COMP/M.3997 — Sun Capital/Sara Lee) — Juhtumi puhul võidakse rakendada lihtsustatud korda (
  1
  ) | 11 |
| 2005/C 277/7 | Euroopa ühenduste võõrtöötajate sotsiaalkindlustuse halduskomisjon — Valuutavahetuskursid vastavalt nõukogu määrusele (EMÜ) nr 574/72 | 12 |
| | EUROOPA MAJANDUSPIIRKOND |
| | EFTA järelevalveamet |
| 2005/C 277/8 | Kutse märkuste esitamiseks vastavalt järelevalve- ja kohtulepingu protokolli nr 3 I osa artikli 1 lõikele 2 riigiabi andmise kohta Islandi merealuse kaabli projektile (Farice) | 14 |
| 2005/C 277/9 | Riigiabi — Island — EFTA järelevalveameti teatis EFTA riikidele, EL liikmesriikidele ja muudele huvitatud pooltele — Riigiabimeede 47901 (endine SAM 030.02.006) — Riigigarantii kujul antav kavandatav abi deCODE Genetics'ile seoses ravimite väljatöötamise osakonna asutamisega | 29 |
| | Euroopa Keskpank |
| 2005/C 277/0 | Euroopa keskpanga soovitus, 26. oktoober 2005, Euroopa Liidu Nõukogule Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland [Iiri keskpanga] välisaudiitorite kohta (EKP/2005/10) | 30 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

I   Teave

Nõukogu

2005/C 277/1

Taani avaldus viisa vastastikkuse kohta

1

2005/C 277/2

Rootsi avaldus viisa vastastikuse kohta

1

2005/C 277/3

Austria Vabariigi avaldus viisa vastastikkuse kohta

2

Komisjon

2005/C 277/4

Euro vahetuskurss

3

2005/C 277/5

Liikmesriikide esitatud kokkuvõtlik teave riigiabi kohta, mis on antud kooskõlas komisjoni 23. detsembri 2003. aasta määrusega (EÜ) 1/2004, mis käsitleb EÜ asutamislepingu artiklite 87 ja 88 kohaldamist riigiabi suhtes, mida antakse põllumajandustoodete tootmise, töötlemise ja turustamisega tegelevatele väikestele ja keskmise suurusega ettevõtetele

4

2005/C 277/6

Eelteatis koondumise kohta (Juhtum nr COMP/M.3997 — Sun Capital/Sara Lee) — Juhtumi puhul võidakse rakendada lihtsustatud korda (
  1
  )

1

11

2005/C 277/7

Euroopa ühenduste võõrtöötajate sotsiaalkindlustuse halduskomisjon — Valuutavahetuskursid vastavalt nõukogu määrusele (EMÜ) nr 574/72

12

EUROOPA MAJANDUSPIIRKOND

EFTA järelevalveamet

2005/C 277/8

Kutse märkuste esitamiseks vastavalt järelevalve- ja kohtulepingu protokolli nr 3 I osa artikli 1 lõikele 2 riigiabi andmise kohta Islandi merealuse kaabli projektile (Farice)

14

2005/C 277/9

Riigiabi — Island — EFTA järelevalveameti teatis EFTA riikidele, EL liikmesriikidele ja muudele huvitatud pooltele — Riigiabimeede 47901 (endine SAM 030.02.006) — Riigigarantii kujul antav kavandatav abi deCODE Genetics'ile seoses ravimite väljatöötamise osakonna asutamisega

29

Euroopa Keskpank

2005/C 277/0

Euroopa keskpanga soovitus, 26. oktoober 2005, Euroopa Liidu Nõukogule Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland [Iiri keskpanga] välisaudiitorite kohta (EKP/2005/10)

30

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   EMPs kohaldatav tekst |

---

(1)   EMPs kohaldatav tekst

1

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

I Teave

Nõukogu

| 10.11.2005 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 277/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2005

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 277/1

---

Taani avaldus viisa vastastikkuse kohta (1)

(2005/C 277/01)

Taani teatab vastavalt nõukogu 2. juuni 2005. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 851/2005 (millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud seoses vastastikkuse mehhanismiga) artiklile 2, et Taani kodanikelt nõutakse viisat Austraaliasse sisenemisel.

Käesoleva kirja koopia saadetakse komisjoni õigus-, vabadus- ja turvalisusküsimuste peadirektoraadile.

---

(1)  Käesolev avaldus on avaldatud kooskõlas nõukogu 2. juuni 2005. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 851/2005 artikliga 2 (ELT L 141, 4.6.2005, lk 3), millega muudetakse 15. märtsi 2001. aasta määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001 (EÜT L 81, 21.3.2001, lk 1).

---

| 10.11.2005 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 277/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2005

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 277/1

---

Rootsi avaldus viisa vastastikuse kohta (1)

(2005/C 277/02)

Kooskõlas nõukogu 2. juuni 2005. aasta määrusega (EÜ) nr 851/2005, millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001, soovin Teile teatada, et tänasel kuupäeval kehtib Rootsi kuningriigi kodanike suhtes viisanõue järgmistes määruse (EÜ) nr 539/2001 II lisas loetletud kolmandates riikides:

| — | Austraalia |
| --- | --- |

—

Austraalia

| — | Brunei Darussalam (viibimisel rohkem kui 14 päeva; lühema viibimise korral väljastatakse viisa riiki sisenemise kohas) |
| --- | --- |

—

Brunei Darussalam (viibimisel rohkem kui 14 päeva; lühema viibimise korral väljastatakse viisa riiki sisenemise kohas)

| — | Venezuela (nõutav on turistikaart, mida väljastavad Venezuela konsulaaresindused välismaal ja mis kehtib 90 päeva) |
| --- | --- |

—

Venezuela (nõutav on turistikaart, mida väljastavad Venezuela konsulaaresindused välismaal ja mis kehtib 90 päeva)

---

(1)  Käesolev avaldus on avaldatud kooskõlas nõukogu 2. juuni 2005. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 851/2005 artikliga 2 (ELT L 141, 4.6.2005, lk 3), millega muudetakse 15. märtsi 2001. aasta määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001 (EÜT L 81, 21.3.2001, lk 1).

---

| 10.11.2005 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 277/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2005

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 277/2

---

Austria Vabariigi avaldus viisa vastastikkuse kohta (1)

(2005/C 277/03)

Kooskõlas nõukogu 2. juuni 2005. aasta määrusega (EÜ) nr 851/2005, millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest seoses vastastikkuse mehhanismiga vabastatud (ELT L 141, 4.6.2005), teatab Austria Vabariik, et Austria kodanike suhtes kehtib viisanõue järgmistes kolmandates riikides:

| — | Austraalia |
| --- | --- |

—

Austraalia

| — | Brasiilia (ainult turismi eesmärgil viibimine on viisavaba; ärireiside suhtes kehtib viisanõue) |
| --- | --- |

—

Brasiilia (ainult turismi eesmärgil viibimine on viisavaba; ärireiside suhtes kehtib viisanõue)

| — | Brunei (viisavabadus ainult kuni 30-päevaseks viibimiseks) |
| --- | --- |

—

Brunei (viisavabadus ainult kuni 30-päevaseks viibimiseks)

| — | Nicaragua (viisavabadus ainult kuni ühekuuliseks viibimiseks) |
| --- | --- |

—

Nicaragua (viisavabadus ainult kuni ühekuuliseks viibimiseks)

| — | Venezuela (viisavabadus ainult kuni 60-päevaseks viibimiseks) |
| --- | --- |

—

Venezuela (viisavabadus ainult kuni 60-päevaseks viibimiseks)

---

(1)  Käesolev avaldus on avaldatud kooskõlas nõukogu 2. juuni 2005. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 851/2005 artikliga 2 (ELT L 141, 4.6.2005, lk 3), millega muudetakse 15. märtsi 2001. aasta määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001 (EÜT L 81, 21.3.2001, lk 1).

---

Komisjon

| 10.11.2005 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 277/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2005

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 277/3

---

Euro vahetuskurss (1)

9. november 2005

(2005/C 277/04)

1 euro=

| | Valuuta | Kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | USA dollar | 1,1738 |
| JPY | Jaapani jeen | 137,68 |
| DKK | Taani kroon | 7,4613 |
| GBP | Inglise nael | 0,67530 |
| SEK | Rootsi kroon | 9,5645 |
| CHF | Šveitsi frank | 1,5431 |
| ISK | Islandi kroon | 72,47 |
| NOK | Norra kroon | 7,7485 |
| BGN | Bulgaaria lev | 1,9557 |
| CYP | Küprose nael | 0,5734 |
| CZK | Tšehhi kroon | 29,278 |
| EEK | Eesti kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Ungari forint | 248,85 |
| LTL | Leedu litt | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Läti latt | 0,6964 |
| MTL | Malta liir | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Poola zlott | 3,9978 |
| RON | Rumeenia leu | 3,6660 |
| SIT | Sloveenia talaar | 239,48 |
| SKK | Slovakkia kroon | 38,921 |
| TRY | Türgi liir | 1,5990 |
| AUD | Austraalia dollar | 1,5995 |
| CAD | Kanada dollar | 1,3951 |
| HKD | Hong Kongi dollar | 9,1054 |
| NZD | Uus-Meremaa dollar | 1,7167 |
| SGD | Singapuri dollar | 1,9968 |
| KRW | Korea won | 1 227,91 |
| ZAR | Lõuna-Aafrika rand | 7,9217 |
| CNY | Hiina jüaan | 9,4910 |
| HRK | Horvaatia kuna | 7,3645 |
| IDR | Indoneesia ruupia | 11 667,57 |
| MYR | Malaisia ringit | 4,434 |
| PHP | Filipiini peeso | 64,242 |
| RUB | Vene rubla | 33,8630 |
| THB | Tai baht | 48,366 |

Valuuta

Kurss

USD

USA dollar

1,1738

JPY

Jaapani jeen

137,68

DKK

Taani kroon

7,4613

GBP

Inglise nael

0,67530

SEK

Rootsi kroon

9,5645

CHF

Šveitsi frank

1,5431

ISK

Islandi kroon

72,47

NOK

Norra kroon

7,7485

BGN

Bulgaaria lev

1,9557

CYP

Küprose nael

0,5734

CZK

Tšehhi kroon

29,278

EEK

Eesti kroon

15,6466

HUF

Ungari forint

248,85

LTL

Leedu litt

3,4528

LVL

Läti latt

0,6964

MTL

Malta liir

0,4293

PLN

Poola zlott

3,9978

RON

Rumeenia leu

3,6660

SIT

Sloveenia talaar

239,48

SKK

Slovakkia kroon

38,921

TRY

Türgi liir

1,5990

AUD

Austraalia dollar

1,5995

CAD

Kanada dollar

1,3951

HKD

Hong Kongi dollar

9,1054

NZD

Uus-Meremaa dollar

1,7167

SGD

Singapuri dollar

1,9968

KRW

Korea won

1 227,91

ZAR

Lõuna-Aafrika rand

7,9217

CNY

Hiina jüaan

9,4910

HRK

Horvaatia kuna

7,3645

IDR

Indoneesia ruupia

11 667,57

MYR

Malaisia ringit

4,434

PHP

Filipiini peeso

64,242

RUB

Vene rubla

33,8630

THB

Tai baht

48,366

---

(1)

Allikas: EKP avaldatud viitekurss.

---

| 10.11.2005 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 277/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2005

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 277/4

---

Liikmesriikide esitatud kokkuvõtlik teave riigiabi kohta, mis on antud kooskõlas komisjoni 23. detsembri 2003. aasta määrusega (EÜ) 1/2004, mis käsitleb EÜ asutamislepingu artiklite 87 ja 88 kohaldamist riigiabi suhtes, mida antakse põllumajandustoodete tootmise, töötlemise ja turustamisega tegelevatele väikestele ja keskmise suurusega ettevõtetele

(2005/C 277/05)

Abi nr: XA 63/05

Liikmesriik: Prantsusmaa

Piirkond: Provence — Alpes — Côte d'Azur (PACA)

Abikava nimetus: Toetus materiaalsete investeeringute puhul keskkonna säilitamiseks

Õiguslik alus:

| — | Article 4 du règlement (CE) no 1/2004 de la Commission européenne |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 du règlement (CE) no 1/2004 de la Commission européenne

| — | Articles L 1511-1 et suivants du code général des collectivités territoriales |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles L 1511-1 et suivants du code général des collectivités territoriales

| — | Délibérations no 03-177 du 17/10/2003, no 03-250 du 5/12/2003 et no 04-44 du 24/06/2004 du Conseil régional de la région PACA |
| --- | --- |

—

Délibérations no 03-177 du 17/10/2003, no 03-250 du 5/12/2003 et no 04-44 du 24/06/2004 du Conseil régional de la région PACA

Kavas ettenähtud aastased kulutused: 400 000 EUR

Abi ülemmäär: Abi antakse toetusena 20—27 % abikõlblike investeeringute maksudeta maksumusest vastavalt abisaaja olemusele ja asjaomasele põllumaale. Abi ülemmäär on 7 700 EUR abisaaja kohta

Rakendamise kuupäev: Kui Euroopa Komisjon on kättesaamist kinnitanud

Abikava kestus: Kuni 31. detsembrini 2006

Abi eesmärk: Meede on kooskõlas komisjoni 23. detsembri 2003. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 1/2004 artikli 4 punkti 3 alapunktidega b, c ja d. Kõnealuse kavaga, millega soodustatakse keskkonnasäästlike põllumajandustootmisviiside rakendamist, aidatakse ühitada põllumajandustootmise säilitamist kvaliteedi parandamise, toiduainete ohutuse ning loodusvarade hoidmisega.

Abikava võimaldab rahastada järgmiseid investeeringuid:

| — | plastikmultši ja kasvuhoonekile kokkukerimisseade |
| --- | --- |

—

plastikmultši ja kasvuhoonekile kokkukerimisseade

| — | jäätmepress |
| --- | --- |

—

jäätmepress

| — | taimsete jäätmete purustaja |
| --- | --- |

—

taimsete jäätmete purustaja

| — | kompostimisseadmed |
| --- | --- |

—

kompostimisseadmed

| — | statsionaarsed heitveede ärajuhtimissüsteemid |
| --- | --- |

—

statsionaarsed heitveede ärajuhtimissüsteemid

| — | vedelate jäätmete töötlemis- või ringlussevõtuseadmed ja asjaomased investeeringud |
| --- | --- |

—

vedelate jäätmete töötlemis- või ringlussevõtuseadmed ja asjaomased investeeringud

| — | mittekeemiline umbrohutõrjematerjal |
| --- | --- |

—

mittekeemiline umbrohutõrjematerjal

| — | uue põlvkonna loputus- ja nivoo reguleerimisseadmega pulverisaatorid |
| --- | --- |

—

uue põlvkonna loputus- ja nivoo reguleerimisseadmega pulverisaatorid

| — | pinnadesinfektsioon aurutamise teel |
| --- | --- |

—

pinnadesinfektsioon aurutamise teel

| — | seadmed fütosanitaartoodete eemaldamiseks pulverisaatorite mahutipõhjadest |
| --- | --- |

—

seadmed fütosanitaartoodete eemaldamiseks pulverisaatorite mahutipõhjadest

| — | lägakogumisplaadid |
| --- | --- |

—

lägakogumisplaadid

| — | ohtlike toodete ladustamise turvalisuse tagamine |
| --- | --- |

—

ohtlike toodete ladustamise turvalisuse tagamine

| — | isoleeritud hoonete elektriga varustamine fotogalvaaniliste või tuulenergiaseadmete abil |
| --- | --- |

—

isoleeritud hoonete elektriga varustamine fotogalvaaniliste või tuulenergiaseadmete abil

| — | kompostilaotajad |
| --- | --- |

—

kompostilaotajad

| — | lägapaagid |
| --- | --- |

—

lägapaagid

Asjaomased majandusharud: Kõik tootmisettevõtted, kes on käibemaksukohustuslased ja keda juhib põllumajandusettevõtja, kes on registreeritud Mutualité sociale agricole(MSA) ja Assurance maladie des exploitants agricoles (AMEXA).

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| Monsieur le Président du Conseil régional de la région PACA |
| --- |
| Hôtel de région |
| 27, place Jules Guesde |
| FR-13481 Marseille Cedex 20 |

Monsieur le Président du Conseil régional de la région PACA

Hôtel de région

27, place Jules Guesde

FR-13481 Marseille Cedex 20

Veebileht: www.cr-paca.fr

Abi nr: XA 23/05

Liikmesriik: Ühendkuningriik

Piirkond: Cheshire (sealhulgas Cheshire'i krahvkond ning Haltoni ja Warringtoni linnad)

Abikava nimetus või üksiktoetust saava ettevõtte nimi: Cheshire'i maaelu edendamise programm — P&M toetuse algatus (muudetud)

Õiguslik alus: Section 5 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998

Kavas ettenähtud aastased kulutused või ettevõttele antud üksiktoetuse üldsumma: Kogueraldis kavale selle kehtivusajal on 190 000 GBP. See jaguneb järgmiselt:

1. aasta 2005/2006 — 70 000 GBP

2. aasta 2006/2007 — 70 000 GBP

3. aasta (1. aprill kuni 30. juuni 2007) — 50 000 GBP

Abi ülemmäär: Abi ülemmäär on 40 %, täiendava ülemmääraga 62 500 GBP üksiktoetuse kohta.

Rakendamise kuupäev:

Kava või üksiktoetuse kestus: Kava on avatud uutele taotlejatele kuni 31. detsembrini 2006, kuid maksed (mis tehakse pärast töö lõpetamist) jätkuvad kuni 30. juunini 2007

Abi eesmärk: Kava eesmärk on kaasa aidata Cheshire'i maapiirkondade majanduse pikaajalisele arengule. See seisneb põllumajandusettevõtete konkurentsivõimelisemaks muutmises, ettevõtluse tõhustamises, tarbijate nõudmiste rahuldamises ja ettevõtete toodangule suurema väärtuse lisamises.

Abi makstakse vastavalt komisjoni määruse (EÜ) 1/2004 artiklile 7. Abikõlblikud kulud on a) kinnisvara ehitamine, omandamine või parandamine, b) uute või kasutatud tootmisvahendite ostmine ja c) üldkulud, näiteks arhitektide, inseneride ja konsultantide tasud ning teostatavusuuringud, patentide ja litsentside omandamine (ülempiiriga kuni 12 % punktides a ja b osutatud kuludest).

Asjaomane majandusharu (asjaomased majandusharud): Kavaga nähakse ette vaid töötlemis- ja turustustegevuse toetus, kuid see on avatud kõigile 1. lisa toodetele, välja arvatud metsandus-, kalandus- ja suhkrutooted. Abi ei anta ka piima või piimatooteid jäljendavate või asendavate toodete tootmiseks ja turustamiseks.

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| Cheshire Rural Recovery |
| --- |
| Philip Leverhulme Centre |
| Reaseheath College |
| Nantwich |
| UK-CW5 6DF |

Cheshire Rural Recovery

Philip Leverhulme Centre

Reaseheath College

Nantwich

UK-CW5 6DF

Veebileht: www.defra.gov.uk/farm/state-aid/setup/exist-exempt.htm.

Klõpsake teemal “Cheshire Rural Recovery Programme — P&M Grant Initiative”. Teiseks võimaluseks on veebileht http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/state-aid/setup/schemes/cheshire-pandm.pdf.

Muu teave: Käesolev abikava koostati algselt määruse 1/2004 kohaselt nagu abi nr XA 34/2004. Käesoleva dokumendiga muudetakse abi nr XA 34/2004, kaasates abikõlblike kulude alla kinnisvara ehitamise, omandamise ja parandamise ning üldkulud. Muudetud kava asendab abi nr XA 34/2004 ning abi nr XA 34/2004 eelarve kantakse üle käesolevasse kavasse.

Abi number: XA 34/05

Liikmesriik: Ühendkuningriik

Piirkond: Põhja-Iirimaa

Abikava nimetus või üksiktoetust saava ettevõtte nimi: Financial Assistance for Young Farmers Scheme for Northern Ireland (New Entrants Scheme) (finantsabi Põhja-Iirimaa noorte põllumajandustootjate kavale (uustulnukate kava)).

Õiguslik alus: Financial Assistance for Young Farmers Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2005.

Kavas ettenähtud aastased kulutused või ettevõttele antud üksiktoetuse üldsumma:

| Aasta | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Kava osalised | 100 | 200 | 300 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kokku | 100 | 300 | 600 | 600 | 600 | 500 | 400 | 300 |
| Keskmine intressitoetus GBP | 6 800 | 6 800 | 6 800 | 6 800 | 6 800 | 6 800 | 6 800 | 6 800 |
| Eelarve GBP | 680 000 | 2 040 000 | 4 080 000 | 4 080 000 | 4 080 000 | 3 400 000 | 2 720 000 | 2 040 000 |

Aasta

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Kava osalised

100

200

300

0

0

0

0

0

Kokku

100

300

600

600

600

500

400

300

Keskmine intressitoetus GBP

6 800

6 800

6 800

6 800

6 800

6 800

6 800

6 800

Eelarve GBP

680 000

2 040 000

4 080 000

4 080 000

4 080 000

3 400 000

2 720 000

2 040 000

Abi ülemmäär: Kava kohaselt antakse intressitoetust laenu võtnud noortele põllumajandustootjatele. Toetuse maksimumsuurus viie aasta kohta on 17 000 GBP. Intressimäära ülempiir, mille alusel toetust antakse, on 3,5 % kõrgem Inglise Panga baasintressimäärast (umbes 2,5 % kõrgem kohalike krediidiasutuste baasintressimäärast). Taotlejad, kes võtavad laenu intressimääraga üle nimetatud määra, vastutavad ülemäärase intressi maksmise eest.

Rakendamise kuupäev: Kava avatakse uutele taotlejatele 6. juunil 2005.

Kava või üksiktoetuse kestus: Kava kestab kolm aastat alates 2005. aasta juunist kuni 31. maini 2008. Subsideeritud intresside maksmise maksimaalne kestus on 5 aastat, lõppmaksed tehakse seega hiljemalt 31. mail 2013. Laenu summale ega pikkusele ei ole mingeid piiranguid, kuid kava lõpetatakse 31. maiks 2008 või varem, kui kõik kasutusel olevad vahendid on ära jagatud. Kuna määrusega 1/2004 on ette nähtud toetuskavade vabastamine vaid kuni 30. juunini 2007, taotletakse selle aja lähenedes täiendavat riigiabi katet kava ülejäänud kestuseks.

Abi eesmärk: Valdkondlik areng. Määruse 1/2004 artikli 8 kohaselt on abikõlblikeks kuludeks intressitoetus alla 40-aastastele laenu võtnud noortele põllumajandustootjatele, kes on esmakordselt põllumajandusettevõtte juhid. See soodustab lisainvesteeringuid põllumajandusettevõttesse, mis omakorda laiendab tegevusvaldkondi ja tõstab põllumajanduse väärtust Põhja-Iirimaal.

Asjaomased majandusharud: Kava on suunatud noortele põllumajandustootjatele, kes on seotud peamiselt tootmisega, kuigi ka töötlemine ja turustamine võivad olla osa põllumajandusettevõtte tegevusest. Kava kohaldatakse kõikide tootmisliikide suhtes.

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| Department of Agriculture and Rural Development |
| --- |
| Dundonald House |
| Upper Newtownards Road |
| UK-Belfast |
| IE-BT4 3SB |

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Dundonald House

Upper Newtownards Road

UK-Belfast

IE-BT4 3SB

Veebileht: www.defra.gov.uk/farm/state-aid/setup/exist-exempt.htm.

Klõpsake teemal “Financial Assistance for Young Farmers Scheme for Northern Ireland”. Võite kasutada ka otselinki www.defra.gov.uk/farm/state-aid/setup/schemes/financialassist-farmersni.pdf.

Abi number: XA 43/05

Liikmesriik: Ühendkuningriik

Piirkond: Looduskaunis Kent Downsi piirkond.

Abikava nimetus või üksiktoetust saava ettevõtte nimi: The Kent Downs Rural Advice Service

Õiguslik alus: Sections 84 and 85 of The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Kavas ettenähtud aastased kulud või ettevõttele antava üksiktoetuse üldsumma:: 1. september 2005—31. juuli 2006: 15 000 GBP

Abi ülemmäär: 100-protsendilised maksed kestavad ainult ühe aasta, kuid kõnesolevat ajavahemikku võib ettenägematute asjaolude ilmnemisel pikendada. Seda võib pikendada kuni 30. septembrini 2006, kulutusi sellega ei suurendata.

Rakendamise kuupäev:

Kava või üksiktoetuste kestus: Kava suletakse uutele taotlejatele 31. juulil. Toetust makstakse kuni 30. septembrini 2006

Abi eesmärk: Valdkonna areng.

Abi eesmärk on õigeaegne nõustamine majanduslikult põhjendatud, keskkonnasõbralike ja üldplaneeringuga sobivate mitmekesistamismeetmete läbiviimiseks. Abi antakse vastavalt määruse 1/2004 artiklile 14. Abi saamise tingimustele vastavad nõustamisteenused.

Asjakohased majandusharud: Taludeks ja põllumajandusettevõteteks loetakse ettevõtteid, kus toodetakse kombainiga koristatavaid põllukultuure, avamaaköögivilju, salatikultuure, ilutaimi (sealhulgas istikuid, lõikelilli või lillemugulaid), rohuseemet, turvast, looma-, lamba või sealiha, piimatooteid, kanaliha, mune, pakuvad turistidele majutusteenust talumajas (öömaja koos hommikusöögiga), iseteeninduslikku majutust, hobusekasvandusi ja ratsahobusetalle või turismiatraktsioone taludes.

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| Kent County Council |
| --- |
| Invicta House |
| County Hall |
| Maidstone |
| UK-Kent ME 14 1XX |

Kent County Council

Invicta House

County Hall

Maidstone

UK-Kent ME 14 1XX

Kava haldamisega tegeleb järgmine organisatsioon:

| The Kent Downs Rural Advice Service (KDAS) |
| --- |
| Kent Downs Unit |
| West Barn |
| Penstock Hall Farm |
| Canterbury Road |
| East Brabourne |
| Ashford |
| UK-Kent TN25 5LL |

The Kent Downs Rural Advice Service (KDAS)

Kent Downs Unit

West Barn

Penstock Hall Farm

Canterbury Road

East Brabourne

Ashford

UK-Kent TN25 5LL

Veebileht: http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/state-aid/setup/exist-exempt.htm.

Klõpsake teemal “The Kent Downs Rural Advice Service”. Võite kasutada ka otselinki: www.defra.gov.uk/farm/state-aid/setup/schemes (the Kent Downs Rural Advice Service)

Muu teave: Käesolev kava hõlmab kõiki maa kasutajaid, mitte üksnes põllumajandustootjaid. Mittepõllumajandusettevõtetele antakse abi vastavalt komisjoni määrusele 69/2001 vähese tähtsusega abi kohta. Abi antakse ka seoses mitmekesistamisega — üleminekuks põllumajanduslikult majandustegevuselt mittepõllumajanduslikule.

Abisaajad ei saa teenuseosutajat valida. Nõustamisteenuseid pakub The Kent Downs Rural Advice Service (KDAS) pakkumiste konkursiga valitud konsultantide kaudu

Abi nr: XA 44/05

Liikmesriik: Prantsusmaa

Abikava nimetus: Tehniline abi tapaloomadeks ettenähtud veiste ja lammaste kasvatusele suunatud projektidele

Õiguslik alus: Code rural, partie législative: articles L 621-1 à 621-11

Arrêté du ministre de l'agriculture, de l'alimentation, de la pêche et de la ruralité du 25 mai 2005

Kavas ettenähtud aastased kulutused: Ettenähtud abi eelarve 2005. aastaks on 1 500 000 EUR.

Seda uuendatakse olenevalt eelarvelistest vahenditest järgmisel kahel aastal ning vajaduse korral kauem, kuid mitte rohkem kui viis aastat.

Abi ülemmäär: Kuni 40 % abikõlblikest kulutustest kumulatiivselt järgmisi ülemmäärasid arvestades:

100 000 EUR abisaaja kohta kolme aasta jooksul,

100 000 EUR tootjaorganisatsiooni kava kohta, või 150 000 EUR tootjaorganisatsiooni kohta, kui kavaga hõlmatakse mitu tootjaorganisatsiooni.

Rakendamise kuupäev: Abikava rakendatakse alates kuupäevast, mil komisjon on kättesaamist kinnitanud, olenevalt asjaomastest eelarvelistest vahenditest ja sellekohasest avaldusest OFIVALi veebilehel.

Abikava kestus: Olenevalt asjaomaste eelarveliste vahendite eraldamisest kolm aastat, vajadusel viis aastat.

Abi eesmärk: Abikava on kooskõlas komisjoni 23. detsembri 2003. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 1/2004 artiklitega 13 ja 14.

Kaval on kolm eesmärki:

teha kindlaks ja iseloomustada müügivõimalustega kvaliteetsete nišitoodete turgusid,

tugevdada loomakasvatusettevõtjate ja teiste veise- ja kitseliha sektori ettevõtjate, k.a tapamajad, vahelisi lepingulisi suhteid toodangu väärtustamiseks ning muutuva nõudmisega kohanemiseks,

tagada tehniline abi, mis on vajalik toodangu kohandamiseks määratletud nõudmisega.

Kava võimaldab rahastada tehnilist nõustamist ja konsultante (uuringud, projektide läbiviimine ja järelevalve), tagades eespool nimetatud eesmärkidele vastavate sektorioraalsete projektide tõhusa läbiviimise, rahastada kontrollimist ja kvaliteediauditit ning edendamise, teavitamise, turu-uuringute ja küsitluste alast tegevust.

Asjaomane majandusharu: Tapaloomadeks ettenähtud veiste ja lammaste kasvatus

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| Office national interprofessionnel des viandes, de l'élevage et de l'aviculture (OFIVAL), peakontor asub 80, avenue des terroirs de France |
| --- |
| FR-75607 Paris Cedex 12 |

Office national interprofessionnel des viandes, de l'élevage et de l'aviculture (OFIVAL), peakontor asub 80, avenue des terroirs de France

FR-75607 Paris Cedex 12

Veebileht: www.legifrance.gouv.fr

teema “droit français”, “les autres textes législatifs”, otsida “JO no 124 du 29 mai 2005 texte no 72”

www.ofival.fr

Abi number: XA 46/05

Liikmesriik: Ühendkuningriik

Piirkond: Loode-Inglismaa

Üksiktoetust saava ettevõtte nimi: Homebred Limited

Õiguslik alus: Section 5 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.

Kavas ettenähtud aastased kulutused või ettevõttele antud üksiktoetuse üldsumma: 1. august 2005—31. märts 2006: 20 000 GBP

1. aprill 2006—31. juuli 2006: 45 000 GBP

Abi suurim osatähtsus: 100-protsendilised maksed kestavad ainult ühe aasta, kuid kõnesolevat ajavahemikku võib ettenägematute asjaolude ilmnemisel pikendada. Seda võib pikendada kuni 2007. aasta märtsini, kulutusi sellega ei suurendata.

Rakendamise kuupäev: Esimene makse tehakse pärast 1. augustit 2005. (NB! Vt Abi suurim osatähtsus)

Üksiktoetuste määramise aeg: Kuni 30. juunini 2006

Abi eesmärk: Piirkondlik ja regionaalareng

Northwest Regional Development Agency rahastab punase liha turustamiskooperatiivi loomist kõnealuses piirkonnas. See peaks andma lisandväärtust ja avama uusi võimalusi tänu tarneahela ladusamale korraldusele, mis ühendab põllumajandusliku tootmise tõhusamalt turuga. See peaks tõstma jätkusuutlikkust.

Abi hõlmab järgmist

Abi tootjarühma moodustamiseks vastavalt määruse nr 1/2004 artiklile 10. Abikõlblikud kulud on halduskulud, õigus- ja halduslõivud.

Asjaomane sektor (asjaomased sektorid): Punase liha tootmine ja turustamine

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| Northwest Regional Development Agency |
| --- |
| Renaissance House |
| Centre Park |
| UK-Warrington |
| WA1 1HA |

Northwest Regional Development Agency

Renaissance House

Centre Park

UK-Warrington

WA1 1HA

Veebileht: http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/state-aid/setup/exist-exempt.htm.

Klõpsake teemal “Homebred Programme”. Võite kasutada ka otselinki www.defra.gov.uk/farm/state-aid/setup/schemes/(Homebred Programme.pdf)

Abi number: XA 49/05

Liikmesriik: Kreeka

Piirkond: Kõik piirkonnad

Üksiktoetust saava abikava või ettevõtte nimetus: Põllumajandustoodete tootmise ja töötlemisega seotud investeerimisprojektid, mis vastavad majandusliku arengu ja piirkondliku ühtsuse huvides tehtavate erainvesteeringute soodustamist käsitlevale õigusaktile 3299/2004

Õiguslik alus: α) Νόμος 3299/2004 “Κίνητρα Ιδιωτικών επενδύσεων για την Οικονομική Ανάπτυξη και την Περιφερειακή Σύγκλιση” και β) Κοινή Υπουργική Απόφαση των Υπουργών Οικονομίας και Οικονομικών και Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Τροφίμων 24935/30.6.2005 (υπό δημοσίευση)

Kavas ettenähtud aastased kulud või ettevõttele antud üksiktoetuse: Eelarveeraldiste aastane üldsumma (kohustused): 150 miljonit EUR.

Hinnanguliselt aastas saamata jääv maksutulu: 20 miljonit EUR (kümne aasta jooksul alates investeeringu tegemisest on võimalik luua maksuvaba reservfond)

Abi ülemmäär: Vastavalt määruses (EÜ) 1/2004 (artiklid 4 ja 7) sätestatud ülemmääradele.

Rakendamise kuupäev: Pärast ministeeriumide ühisotsuse avaldamist riigi ametlikus teatajas

Kava või üksiktoetuse kestus: Abikava kestus: kuni 31. detsembrini 2006

Abi eesmärk: Abi antakse vastavalt määruse (EÜ) 1/2004 artiklile 4 (Investeeringud põllumajandusettevõtetesse) ja artiklile 7 (Töötlemise ja turustamisega seotud investeeringud).

Abikõlblikud on: a) kinnisvara ehitamine, omandamine või parandamine; b) seadmete ostmine või liisimine ülempiiriga kuni vara ostuhinnani; c) üldised immateriaalsed kulutused amortiseeruvasse varasse (kulutused impordile, arendustegevusele, tehnosiirdele, patentide ja litsentside ostmisele, investeerimisprojekti uuringutele ning arhitektide, inseneride ja konsultantide tasudele) ülempiiriga kuni 8 % investeerimiskava kogumaksumusest

Asjaomane sektor (asjaomased sektorid): Abikavas käsitletakse mõlema, nii kariloomade kui ka taimekasvatussaaduste tootmist ja töötlemist tingimusel, et see on kooskõlas ühenduse õigusaktidega ja eriti piirangutega ühise turukorralduse raames.

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| Majandus- ja rahandusministeerium |
| --- |
| Nikis 5, |
| ΤΚ 10180, Ateena |

Majandus- ja rahandusministeerium

Nikis 5,

ΤΚ 10180, Ateena

| Maaelu arengu ja toiduministeerium |
| --- |
| Mesogion 119 |
| TK 10192, Ateena |

Maaelu arengu ja toiduministeerium

Mesogion 119

TK 10192, Ateena

13 piirkonna planeerimis- ja arendusdirektoraadid

Veebileht: http://www.mnec.gr/anaptyksiakos_nomos_3299_2004_main.aspx

Muu teave: Majandus- ja rahandusministeeriumi ning maaelu arengu ja toiduministeeriumi ühisotsus nr 24935/30.7.2005 on samuti kättesaadav kõnealusel veebilehel pärast otsuse avaldamist riigi ametlikus teatajas, s.t jõustumise ajast alates.

Abi nr: XA 53/05

Liikmesriik: Prantsusmaa

Piirkond: Picardie

Abikava nimetus: Põllumajanduse mitmekesistamise investeeringuabi

Õiguslik alus:

| — | Article 4 du règlement (CE) no 1/2004 du 23 décembre 2003 de la Commission |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 du règlement (CE) no 1/2004 du 23 décembre 2003 de la Commission

| — | Article L. 1511-1 et L. 1511-2 du code général des collectivités territoriales |
| --- | --- |

—

Article L. 1511-1 et L. 1511-2 du code général des collectivités territoriales

| — | Délibération no ECO 103-2 de la commission permanente du conseil régional du 29 octobre 2004 |
| --- | --- |

—

Délibération no ECO 103-2 de la commission permanente du conseil régional du 29 octobre 2004

Kavas ettenähtud aastased kulutused: 300 000 EUR

Abi ülemmäär:

| — | 25 % üldjuhtudel |
| --- | --- |

—

25 % üldjuhtudel

| — | 35 % põllumajandusettevõtjatele, kes on alustanud tegevust vähem kui viis aastat tagasi |
| --- | --- |

—

35 % põllumajandusettevõtjatele, kes on alustanud tegevust vähem kui viis aastat tagasi

Abikõlbliku investeeringu ülemmäär on 40 000 EUR projekti kohta ja abi ülemmäär 10 000 EUR üldjuhul ning 14 000 EUR põllumajandusettevõtjale, kes on alustanud tegevust vähem kui viis aastat tagasi.

Nimetatud määrasid võib vajaduse korral suurendada kuni 40 % ning abikõlblike investeeringute ülemmäärasid võib korrutada kahega, kui tegemist on teiste asutustega (departemang, piirkond, kommuun...) sõlmitud lepingutega, mille eesmärgiks on toetada teatavate geograafiliste aladega seotud projekte (näiteks põllumajandus linnalähedastes piirkondades).

Kui tegemist on struktuuridega, mille liikmeteks on mitmed ühinenud põllumajandusettevõtjad, võib abikõlblike investeeringute ülemmäärad ja seega ka kindlaksmääratud maksimaalsele tasemele vastava abi ülemmäärad korrutada kahega.

Rakendamise kuupäev: Kui Euroopa Komisjon on kättesaamist kinnitanud.

Abikava kestus: Piiramatu, kuid lähtuvalt eelarvelistest vahenditest

Abi eesmärk: Edendada Picardie' piirkonnas tootmistegevust mitmekesistavate töökodade arengut, mille abil oleks põllumajandusettevõtetes võimalik luua lisaväärtust.

Asjaomased majandusharud: Kõik põllumajandustoodete tootmise, töötlemise ja turustamisega seotud majandusharud.

Nimetatud abi võivad taotleda kõik põllumajandusettevõtted, kes soovivad teha investeeringuid seoses järgmiste projektidega: põllumajandustoodete töötlemise ja turustamise mitmekesistamine, elanikele ja asutustele pakutavate teenuste arendamine, taluturism, uute toodete käikulaskmise arendamine või ratsutamise arendamine.

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| Conseil régional de Picardie |
| --- |
| 11, mail Albert 1er |
| BP 2616 |
| FR-80026 Amiens cedex 1 |

Conseil régional de Picardie

11, mail Albert 1er

BP 2616

FR-80026 Amiens cedex 1

Veebileht: http://www.picardie.fr/fr/page.cfm?pageref=guidedesaidesagri

Abi nr: XA 54/05

Liikmesriik: Prantsusmaa

Piirkond: Limousin

Abikava nimetus: Abi mahepõllumajanduse sertifikaadi saamiseks

Õiguslik alus:

| — | Article 13 du règlement (CE) no 1/2004 du 23 décembre 2003 de la Commission |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 13 du règlement (CE) no 1/2004 du 23 décembre 2003 de la Commission

| — | Articles L. 1511-1 et L. 1511-2 du code général des collectivités territoriales |
| --- | --- |

—

Articles L. 1511-1 et L. 1511-2 du code général des collectivités territoriales

| — | Décision du Conseil régional du Limousin du 23 juin 2005 |
| --- | --- |

—

Décision du Conseil régional du Limousin du 23 juin 2005

Kavas ettenähtud aastased kulutused: 85 000 EUR

Abi ülemmäär: Immateriaalsed investeeringud. Piirkondlik omavalitsus kannab ühe osa sertifitseerimiskuludest — see toetus vastab 80 %le sertifitseerimisühiku maksumusest (ilma maksudeta) jäädes 2005. aastal vahemikku 200—800 EUR.

Rakendamise kuupäev: Kui Euroopa Komisjon on kättesaamist kinnitanud.

Abikava kestus: Kuni 31. detsembrini 2005

Abi eesmärk: Nõukogu määruse (EMÜ) nr 2092/91 kohaselt peavad kõik mahepõllumajandusettevõtjad laskma põllumajandusministeeriumi poolt vastavalt standardile (EN 45011) heakskiidetud sertifitseerimisasutusel oma tegevust kontrollida ja sertifitseerida. Nimetatud abi eesmärk on toetada mahepõllumajanduse arengut põllumajandusettevõtete sertifitseerimiskulude kandmise abil.

Asjaomased majandusharud: Iga Limousini piirkonnas mahepõllumajandusega tegelev põllumajandustootja, kelle 2005. aasta teatise kohane tegevus (1) on “mahepõllumajandus” või “üleminek mahepõllumajandusele”, ja kes ei ole saanud 1. juuli 2005. aasta seisuga mahepõllumajandusele ülemineku abi (CTE-CAB (2) või CAD (3)-CAB) või kelle CTE või CAD/CAB (viieks aastaks) (4) abisummad koos taotletava sertifitseerimisabiga ei ületa 15 000 EUR.

Vastutava ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| Monsieur le Président du Conseil Régional du Limousin |
| --- |
| 27 boulevard de la Corderie |
| FR-87031 Limoges cedex |

Monsieur le Président du Conseil Régional du Limousin

27 boulevard de la Corderie

FR-87031 Limoges cedex

Veebileht: http://www.cr-limousin.fr, rubriik “guide des aides”

Abi nr: XA 56/05

Liikmesriik: Saksamaa Liitvabariik

Piirkond: Baieri

Abikava nimetus või üksiktoetust saava ettevõtte nimi:

Õiguslik alus: Richtlinie zur Durchführung der bayerischen regionalen Förderungsprogramme für die gewerbliche Wirtschaft (veröffentlicht im Allgemeinen Ministerialblatt AllMBl. 2002 S. 168; Beihilfe Nr. XS 29/02)

Im Rahmen des Programms können Investitionen von KMU branchenunabhängig und ohne Beschränkung auf bestimmte Produkte gefördert werden. Zweck dieser Beihilferegelungen ist die Stärkung der Wettbewerbs- und Anpassungsfähigkeit der Wirtschaft und die Schaffung bzw. Sicherung von Arbeitsplätzen insbesondere in strukturschwachen und ländlichen Räumen. Gefördert werden Investitionen von förderungswürdigen Unternehmen der Industrie, des Handwerks, des Handels, des Fremdenverkehrsgewerbes und des sonstigen Dienstleistungsgewerbes.

Kavas ettenähtud aastased kulutused või ettevõttele antud üksiktoetuse üldsumma: 330 000 EUR

Abi suurim osatähtsus: Projekti toetusekvivalent: 14,96 %

Rakendamise kuupäev: Eeldatavalt 1.9.2005

Kava või üksiktoetuse kestus: Toetus kavatsetakse välja maksta 2005. aasta lõpuks

Abi eesmärk: Investeeringutoetus vastavalt komisjoni 23. detsembri 2003. aasta määrusele (EÜ) nr 1/2004, mis käsitleb EÜ asutamislepingu artiklite 87 ja 88 kohaldamist riigiabi suhtes, mida antakse põllumajandustoodete tootmise, töötlemise ja turustamisega tegelevatele väikestele ja keskmise suurusega ettevõtetele. Sellele aitavad kaasa kavandatud ettevõtte laiendustööd (ladude ja tootmishoonete ehitamine, samuti uute masinate ja seadmete hankimine). Abikava raames tagatakse 38 püsitöökohta ning luuakse lisaks 19 püsitöökohta, millest 10 on praktikakohad.

Asjaomane majandusharu (asjaomased majandusharud): Tee töötlemine, turustamine ja tootmine

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| Regierung von Oberfranken |
| --- |
| Ludwigstraße 20 |
| DE-95444 Bayreuth |

Regierung von Oberfranken

Ludwigstraße 20

DE-95444 Bayreuth

Veebileht: Veebilehel www.regierung.oberfranken.bayern.de\brf saab tutvuda kriteeriumide ja tingimustega, mis vastavad abi andmise otsusele.

Abi number: XA 58/05

Liikmesriik: Itaalia

Piirkond: Veneto

Abikava nimetus või üksiktoetust saava ettevõtte nimi: Aastane koolituskava 2005: koolitusprogrammid primaarsektoris: Veneto maakonnanõukogu 18. märtsi 2005. aasta otsus nr 1101

Õiguslik alus: L. 845/1978 “Legge quadro in materia di formazione professionale”

L.R. n. 10 del 30.1.1990. “Ordinamento del sistema della formazione professionale e organizzazione delle politiche regionali del lavoro”

Kavas ettenähtud aastased kulutused: Kava alusel võib primaarsektori koolitusprogrammide korraldamiseks eraldada kokku 2 000 000 EUR koolitusasutustele, mis on kiidetud heaks Veneto maakonna koolituskeskuses.

Abikõlblikud kavad hõlmavad seaduses 1101/2005 määratletud sektorite töötajatele suunatud koolitusprogramme.

Vastavalt määruse 1/2004 artikli 17 lõike 1 punktile a kinnitatakse, et kava teostamiseks on piirkondlikus eelarves eraldatud järgmine kogusumma:

72040. peatükk — rahaline abi 2 000 000 EUR ulatuses.

Abi ülemmäär: Abi antakse koolituse tunnitasu alusel, mis on praegu 110 EUR tunnis.

Rakendamise kuupäev: Abi antakse pärast seda, kui maakonnanõukogu on selle heaks kiitnud ning see on ilmunud Veneto maakonna ametlikus väljaandes.

Kava või üksiktoetuse kestus: Abikava lõpetatakse, kui igale koolitusasutusele on abi jääk pärast aruannete kontrollimist ja heakskiitmist välja makstud

Abi eesmärk: Igal aastal eraldab Veneto maakond ressursse jätkuva kutseõppeprogrammide rakendamise jaoks, millega toetatakse põllumajandustootjaid ja nende abilisi, tehnilise teenistuse personali ning põllumajandussektoris töötavaid muude elukutsete esindajaid (piirkondlik seadus nr 32, 9. august 2003) järgmistel eesmärkidel:

ettevõtluskultuuri edendamine;

põllumajandustöötajate kutsekvalifikatsiooni parandamine;

teadlikkuse tõstmine seoses tehnoloogilise uuendustegevusega.

Piirkondlikus seaduses nr 1101/2005 viidatakse määruse (EÜ) nr 1/2004 artiklile 14. Kõnealuse abikavaga hõlmatud abikõlblikud kulud on eelkõige seotud koolitusprogrammi korraldamisega.

Asjaomane majandusharu (asjaomased majandusharud): Kava kohaldatakse sellistele üksikisikutele suunatud kutseõppe suhtes, kellel on õigus haridusele ja koolitusele seaduse nr 53/2003 alusel.

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| Regione Veneto |
| --- |
| Segreteria Formazione e Lavoro |
| Direzione regionale Formazione |
| Via G. Allegri n. 29 |
| IT-30174 Mestre — Venezia |

Regione Veneto

Segreteria Formazione e Lavoro

Direzione regionale Formazione

Via G. Allegri n. 29

IT-30174 Mestre — Venezia

Veebileht: www.regione.veneto.it /servizi alla persona/formazione e lavoro/formazione continua e permanente

Muu teave: Üksikasjalikuma teabe saamiseks võtke palun ühendust koolituskeskusega:

Direzione Formazione

Tel. 0039 412795030 — 5029

Faks 0039 412795085

---

(1)  Mahepõllunduse viljelemisesteatis tehakse mahepõllundusameti Agence Bio juures ning selle tegemine on kohustuslik.

(2)  CTA — Contrat Territorial d'Exploitation (piirkondlik põllumajandustegevuse leping), CAB — Conversion Agriculture Biologique (mahepõllumajandusele üleminek).

(3)  CAD — Contrat Agriculture Durable (säästva põllumajanduse leping).

(4)  Nimetatud summa tehakse kindlaks CTE/CAD/CAB lepingu koopia alusel.

---

| 10.11.2005 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 277/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2005

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 277/11

---

Eelteatis koondumise kohta

(Juhtum nr COMP/M.3997 — Sun Capital/Sara Lee)

Juhtumi puhul võidakse rakendada lihtsustatud korda

(2005/C 277/06)

(EMPs kohaldatav tekst)

| 1. | Komisjon sai 26. oktoobril 2005 nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (1) artikli 4 kohase teatise kavandatava koondumise kohta, millega Sun Groupi (edaspidi “Sun”, USA) kuuluv ettevõtja Sun Capital Partners IV, LP omandab aktsiate ostu teel kontrolli Sara Lee Corporationisse (USA) kuuluva European Branded Apparel allüksuse (edaspidi “ettevõte”) üle kõnealuse nõukogu määruse artikli 3 lõike 1 punkti b tähenduses. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Komisjon sai 26. oktoobril 2005 nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (1) artikli 4 kohase teatise kavandatava koondumise kohta, millega Sun Groupi (edaspidi “Sun”, USA) kuuluv ettevõtja Sun Capital Partners IV, LP omandab aktsiate ostu teel kontrolli Sara Lee Corporationisse (USA) kuuluva European Branded Apparel allüksuse (edaspidi “ettevõte”) üle kõnealuse nõukogu määruse artikli 3 lõike 1 punkti b tähenduses.

| 2. | Asjaomaste ettevõtjate majandustegevus hõlmab järgmist:






  — | Sun: eraõiguslike investeerimisfondide grupp; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Asjaomaste ettevõtjate majandustegevus hõlmab järgmist:

—

Sun: eraõiguslike investeerimisfondide grupp;

| — | ettevõte: kaubamärgiga tähistatud rõivatoodete, nagu naiste ja meeste aluspesu, sukktoodete ja sokkide disainimine, tootmine, turustamine ja müük Euroopas |
| --- | --- |

—

ettevõte: kaubamärgiga tähistatud rõivatoodete, nagu naiste ja meeste aluspesu, sukktoodete ja sokkide disainimine, tootmine, turustamine ja müük Euroopas

| 3. | Komisjon leiab pärast teatise esialgset läbivaatamist, et tehing, millest teatatakse, võib kuuluda määruse (EMÜ) nr 139/2004 reguleerimisalasse. Lõplikku otsust selle kohta ei ole siiski veel tehtud. Vastavalt komisjoni teatisele lihtsustatud korra kohta teatavate ettevõtjate koondumiste käsitlemiseks vastavalt nõukogu määrusele (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (2) tuleb märkida, et käesolevat juhtumit võidakse käsitleda teatises ettenähtud korra kohaselt. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Komisjon leiab pärast teatise esialgset läbivaatamist, et tehing, millest teatatakse, võib kuuluda määruse (EMÜ) nr 139/2004 reguleerimisalasse. Lõplikku otsust selle kohta ei ole siiski veel tehtud. Vastavalt komisjoni teatisele lihtsustatud korra kohta teatavate ettevõtjate koondumiste käsitlemiseks vastavalt nõukogu määrusele (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (2) tuleb märkida, et käesolevat juhtumit võidakse käsitleda teatises ettenähtud korra kohaselt.

| 4. | Komisjon kutsub asjast huvitatud kolmandaid isikuid esitama komisjonile oma võimalikke märkusi kavandatava toimingu kohta.
  Komisjon peab märkused kätte saama hiljemalt kümme päeva pärast käesoleva teatise avaldamist. Märkusi võib saata komisjonile faksi (faksi nr (32-2) 296 43 01 või 296 72 44) või posti teel, viitenumbriga COMP/M.3997 — Sun Capital/Sara Lee, järgmisel aadressil:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| BE-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

Komisjon kutsub asjast huvitatud kolmandaid isikuid esitama komisjonile oma võimalikke märkusi kavandatava toimingu kohta.

Komisjon peab märkused kätte saama hiljemalt kümme päeva pärast käesoleva teatise avaldamist. Märkusi võib saata komisjonile faksi (faksi nr (32-2) 296 43 01 või 296 72 44) või posti teel, viitenumbriga COMP/M.3997 — Sun Capital/Sara Lee, järgmisel aadressil:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

BE-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  ELT L 24, 29.1.2004, lk 1.

(2)  ELT C 56, 5.3.2005, lk 32.

---

| 10.11.2005 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 277/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2005

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 277/12

---

EUROOPA ÜHENDUSTE VÕÕRTÖÖTAJATE SOTSIAALKINDLUSTUSE HALDUSKOMISJON

Valuutavahetuskursid vastavalt nõukogu määrusele (EMÜ) nr 574/72

(2005/C 277/07)

Määruse (EMÜ) nr 574/72 artikli 107 lõiked 1, 2, 3 ja 4

Võrdlusperiood: oktoober 2005

Kohaldamisperiood: jaanuar, veebruar, märts 2006

| | EUR | CZK | DKK | EEK | CYP | LVL | LTL | HUF | MTL | PLN | SIT | SKK | SEK | GBP | NOK | ISK | CHF |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 EUR = | 1 | 29,6747 | 7,46196 | 15,6466 | 0,573186 | 0,696519 | 3,45280 | 251,847 | 0,429300 | 3,92287 | 239,525 | 38,9233 | 9,42225 | 0,681367 | 7,83471 | 73,2914 | 1,54897 |
| 1 CZK = | 0,0336987 | 1 | 0,251459 | 0,527270 | 0,0193156 | 0,0234718 | 0,116355 | 8,48691 | 0,0144669 | 0,132196 | 8,07169 | 1,31167 | 0,317518 | 0,0229612 | 0,264020 | 2,46983 | 0,0521984 |
| 1 DKK = | 0,134013 | 3,97680 | 1 | 2,09685 | 0,0768143 | 0,0933426 | 0,462720 | 33,7507 | 0,0575318 | 0,525715 | 32,0995 | 5,21623 | 1,26270 | 0,0913120 | 1,04995 | 9,82201 | 0,207582 |
| 1 EEK = | 0,0639116 | 1,89656 | 0,476906 | 1 | 0,0366332 | 0,0445157 | 0,220674 | 16,0959 | 0,0274373 | 0,250717 | 15,3085 | 2,48765 | 0,602192 | 0,0435473 | 0,500730 | 4,68418 | 0,0989973 |
| 1 CYP = | 1,74464 | 51,7716 | 13,0184 | 27,2976 | 1 | 1,21517 | 6,02388 | 439,381 | 0,748972 | 6,84397 | 417,884 | 67,9069 | 16,4384 | 1,18874 | 13,6687 | 127,867 | 2,70239 |
| 1 LVL = | 1,43571 | 42,6043 | 10,7132 | 22,4640 | 0,822929 | 1 | 4,95722 | 361,579 | 0,616351 | 5,63210 | 343,889 | 55,8826 | 13,5276 | 0,978246 | 11,2484 | 105,225 | 2,22388 |
| 1 LTL = | 0,289620 | 8,59439 | 2,16113 | 4,53157 | 0,166006 | 0,201726 | 1 | 72,9398 | 0,124334 | 1,13614 | 69,3713 | 11,2730 | 2,72887 | 0,197337 | 2,26909 | 21,2267 | 0,448613 |
| 1 HUF = | 0,00397067 | 0,117828 | 0,0296290 | 0,0621275 | 0,00227593 | 0,00276565 | 0,0137099 | 1 | 0,00170461 | 0,0155764 | 0,951076 | 0,154552 | 0,0374127 | 0,00270548 | 0,0311091 | 0,291016 | 0,00615045 |
| 1 MTL = | 2,32937 | 69,1235 | 17,3817 | 36,4468 | 1,33516 | 1,62245 | 8,04286 | 586,645 | 1 | 9,13782 | 557,944 | 90,6669 | 21,9479 | 1,58716 | 18,2500 | 170,723 | 3,60813 |
| 1 PLN = | 0,254916 | 7,56455 | 1,90217 | 3,98856 | 0,146114 | 0,177554 | 0,880173 | 64,1996 | 0,109435 | 1 | 61,0587 | 9,92215 | 2,40188 | 0,173691 | 1,99719 | 18,6831 | 0,394857 |
| 1 SIT = | 0,00417493 | 0,123890 | 0,0311531 | 0,0653234 | 0,00239301 | 0,00290792 | 0,0144152 | 1,05144 | 0,0017923 | 0,0163777 | 1 | 0,162502 | 0,0393372 | 0,00284466 | 0,0327093 | 0,305986 | 0,00646684 |
| 1 SKK = | 0,0256916 | 0,762390 | 0,191709 | 0,401986 | 0,0147260 | 0,0178947 | 0,0887078 | 6,47033 | 0,0110294 | 0,100785 | 6,15378 | 1 | 0,242072 | 0,0175054 | 0,201286 | 1,88297 | 0,0397955 |
| 1 SEK = | 0,106132 | 3,14943 | 0,791951 | 1,66060 | 0,0608332 | 0,0739228 | 0,366452 | 26,7289 | 0,0455624 | 0,416341 | 25,4212 | 4,13100 | 1 | 0,0723146 | 0,831512 | 7,77855 | 0,164395 |
| 1 GBP = | 1,46764 | 43,5518 | 10,9515 | 22,9636 | 0,841229 | 1,022240 | 5,06746 | 369,620 | 0,630057 | 5,75735 | 351,536 | 57,1253 | 13,8285 | 1 | 11,4985 | 107,565 | 2,27333 |
| 1 NOK = | 0,127637 | 3,78759 | 0,952423 | 1,99709 | 0,0731597 | 0,0889017 | 0,440705 | 32,1450 | 0,0547946 | 0,500703 | 30,5723 | 4,96805 | 1,20263 | 0,0869676 | 1 | 9,35470 | 0,197706 |
| 1 ISK = | 0,0136442 | 0,404887 | 0,101812 | 0,213485 | 0,00782064 | 0,00950342 | 0,0471106 | 3,43624 | 0,00585744 | 0,0535242 | 3,26812 | 0,531076 | 0,128559 | 0,00929668 | 0,106898 | 1 | 0,0211344 |
| 1 CHF = | 0,645590 | 19,1577 | 4,81737 | 10,1013 | 0,370043 | 0,449666 | 2,22909 | 162,590 | 0,277152 | 2,53256 | 154,635 | 25,1285 | 6,08291 | 0,439883 | 5,05801 | 47,3162 | 1 |

EUR

CZK

DKK

EEK

CYP

LVL

LTL

HUF

MTL

PLN

SIT

SKK

SEK

GBP

NOK

ISK

CHF

1 EUR =

1

29,6747

7,46196

15,6466

0,573186

0,696519

3,45280

251,847

0,429300

3,92287

239,525

38,9233

9,42225

0,681367

7,83471

73,2914

1,54897

1 CZK =

0,0336987

1

0,251459

0,527270

0,0193156

0,0234718

0,116355

8,48691

0,0144669

0,132196

8,07169

1,31167

0,317518

0,0229612

0,264020

2,46983

0,0521984

1 DKK =

0,134013

3,97680

1

2,09685

0,0768143

0,0933426

0,462720

33,7507

0,0575318

0,525715

32,0995

5,21623

1,26270

0,0913120

1,04995

9,82201

0,207582

1 EEK =

0,0639116

1,89656

0,476906

1

0,0366332

0,0445157

0,220674

16,0959

0,0274373

0,250717

15,3085

2,48765

0,602192

0,0435473

0,500730

4,68418

0,0989973

1 CYP =

1,74464

51,7716

13,0184

27,2976

1

1,21517

6,02388

439,381

0,748972

6,84397

417,884

67,9069

16,4384

1,18874

13,6687

127,867

2,70239

1 LVL =

1,43571

42,6043

10,7132

22,4640

0,822929

1

4,95722

361,579

0,616351

5,63210

343,889

55,8826

13,5276

0,978246

11,2484

105,225

2,22388

1 LTL =

0,289620

8,59439

2,16113

4,53157

0,166006

0,201726

1

72,9398

0,124334

1,13614

69,3713

11,2730

2,72887

0,197337

2,26909

21,2267

0,448613

1 HUF =

0,00397067

0,117828

0,0296290

0,0621275

0,00227593

0,00276565

0,0137099

1

0,00170461

0,0155764

0,951076

0,154552

0,0374127

0,00270548

0,0311091

0,291016

0,00615045

1 MTL =

2,32937

69,1235

17,3817

36,4468

1,33516

1,62245

8,04286

586,645

1

9,13782

557,944

90,6669

21,9479

1,58716

18,2500

170,723

3,60813

1 PLN =

0,254916

7,56455

1,90217

3,98856

0,146114

0,177554

0,880173

64,1996

0,109435

1

61,0587

9,92215

2,40188

0,173691

1,99719

18,6831

0,394857

1 SIT =

0,00417493

0,123890

0,0311531

0,0653234

0,00239301

0,00290792

0,0144152

1,05144

0,0017923

0,0163777

1

0,162502

0,0393372

0,00284466

0,0327093

0,305986

0,00646684

1 SKK =

0,0256916

0,762390

0,191709

0,401986

0,0147260

0,0178947

0,0887078

6,47033

0,0110294

0,100785

6,15378

1

0,242072

0,0175054

0,201286

1,88297

0,0397955

1 SEK =

0,106132

3,14943

0,791951

1,66060

0,0608332

0,0739228

0,366452

26,7289

0,0455624

0,416341

25,4212

4,13100

1

0,0723146

0,831512

7,77855

0,164395

1 GBP =

1,46764

43,5518

10,9515

22,9636

0,841229

1,022240

5,06746

369,620

0,630057

5,75735

351,536

57,1253

13,8285

1

11,4985

107,565

2,27333

1 NOK =

0,127637

3,78759

0,952423

1,99709

0,0731597

0,0889017

0,440705

32,1450

0,0547946

0,500703

30,5723

4,96805

1,20263

0,0869676

1

9,35470

0,197706

1 ISK =

0,0136442

0,404887

0,101812

0,213485

0,00782064

0,00950342

0,0471106

3,43624

0,00585744

0,0535242

3,26812

0,531076

0,128559

0,00929668

0,106898

1

0,0211344

1 CHF =

0,645590

19,1577

4,81737

10,1013

0,370043

0,449666

2,22909

162,590

0,277152

2,53256

154,635

25,1285

6,08291

0,439883

5,05801

47,3162

1

| 1. | Määrusega (EMÜ) nr 574/72 sätestatakse, et ühes valuutas denomineeritud summad konverteeritakse teise valuutasse komisjoni arvutatud kursi alusel, mis põhineb Euroopa Keskpanga avaldatud valuutade võrdluskursside ühe kuu keskmisel väärtusel lõikes 2 kindlaksmääratud võrdlusperioodi jooksul. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Määrusega (EMÜ) nr 574/72 sätestatakse, et ühes valuutas denomineeritud summad konverteeritakse teise valuutasse komisjoni arvutatud kursi alusel, mis põhineb Euroopa Keskpanga avaldatud valuutade võrdluskursside ühe kuu keskmisel väärtusel lõikes 2 kindlaksmääratud võrdlusperioodi jooksul.

| 2. | Võrdlusperioodid on:






  — | alates 1. aprillist kohaldatavate vahetuskursside puhul jaanuarikuu, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Võrdlusperioodid on:

—

alates 1. aprillist kohaldatavate vahetuskursside puhul jaanuarikuu,

| — | alates 1. juulist kohaldatavate vahetuskursside puhul aprillikuu, |
| --- | --- |

—

alates 1. juulist kohaldatavate vahetuskursside puhul aprillikuu,

| — | alates 1. oktoobrist kohaldatavate vahetuskursside puhul juulikuu, |
| --- | --- |

—

alates 1. oktoobrist kohaldatavate vahetuskursside puhul juulikuu,

| — | alates 1. jaanuarist kohaldatavate vahetuskursside puhul oktoobrikuu. |
| --- | --- |

—

alates 1. jaanuarist kohaldatavate vahetuskursside puhul oktoobrikuu.

Vahetuskursid avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja C-seeria veebruari-, mai-, augusti- ja novembrikuu teises numbris.

---

EUROOPA MAJANDUSPIIRKOND

EFTA järelevalveamet

| 10.11.2005 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 277/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2005

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 277/14

---

Kutse märkuste esitamiseks vastavalt järelevalve- ja kohtulepingu protokolli nr 3 I osa artikli 1 lõikele 2 riigiabi andmise kohta Islandi merealuse kaabli projektile (Farice)

(2005/C 277/08)

Vastavalt järelevalveameti ja kohtu asutamise kohta sõlmitud EFTA riikide lepingu (edaspidi “järelevalve- ja kohtuleping”) protokolli nr 3 I osa artikli 1 lõikele 2 algatas EFTA järelevalveamet menetluse 26. mail 2005. aastal vastu võetud otsuse 125/05/COL alusel, mis on esitatud käesolevale kokkuvõttele järgnevatel lehekülgedel autentses keeles. Otsuse koopia on saadetud Islandi Valitsusele.

EFTA järelevalveamet teatab, et EFTA riikidel, Euroopa Liidu liikmesriikidel ja huvitatud isikutel on võimalik esitada kõnealust meedet käsitlevad märkused ühe kuu jooksul alates käesoleva teatise avaldamisest järgmisel aadressil:

| EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| --- |
| 35, Rue Belliard |
| BE-1040 Brussels |

EFTA Surveillance Authority

35, Rue Belliard

BE-1040 Brussels

Märkused edastatakse Islandi valitsusele. Märkuseid esitavad huvitatud isikud võivad taotleda kirjalikult neid puudutavate andmete konfidentsiaalset käsitlemist, esitades taotluse põhjused.

KOKKUVÕTE

Menetluskord

Islandi ametiasutused teatasid 27. veebruaril 2004. aastal EFTA järelevalveametile (edaspidi “amet”) saadetud kirjas riiklikust garantiist Islandi merealuse kaabli projekti kasuks. Projekt viidi ellu enne, kui ametil oli võimalus esitada omapoolseid märkusi. Samuti oli amet seoses muude konkurentsialaste menetlustega palunud Farice hf-lt teavet, et võimaldada Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu artikli 53 ja/või 54 kohast analüüsi.

Abi kirjeldus

Farice'i projekt seisnes Islandit ja Fääri saari Šotimaaga ühendava merealuse telekommunikatsioonikaabli ehitamises ja haldamises.

Alates 1994. aastast on Island ja Fääri saared rahvusvahelises ühenduses merealuse CANTAT-3 telekommunikatsioonikaabli kaudu. CANTAT-3 puhul oli tegemist rahvusvahelisest ja Islandi poolest (Og Vodafone ja Landssími Islands hf — edaspidi “Síminn”) koosneva konsortsiumiga. Ükski teine kiudoptilise kaabli süsteem ei ole kunagi Islandini ulatunud. Kuna CANTAT-3-l olid tehnilised piirangud ja satelliidid ei olnud majanduslikus mõttes elujõulised, otsiti muid usaldusväärset ühendust tagavaid ülekandealternatiive.

Farice'i projekti algatas peaaegu 100 % ulatuses riigi omanduses olev Islandi telekomioperaator Síminn ja Fääri saartel turgu valitsev operaator Føroya Tele. Aastal 2002 selgus, et Farice'i projekt ei ole võimalik käivitada puhtärilise ettevõtmisena. Seetõttu otsustati, et Islandi riik peaks projekti aktiivselt toetama. Teiseks taheti projekti kaasata Og Vodafone. Valdusettevõtja E-Farice, kelle omanduses on kõik Islandile kuuluvad Farice'i aktsiad (E-Farice'ile kuulub 80 % Farice hf aktsiatest), ostis Og Vodafone'i ja Síminni CANTAT-3 aktsiad. Kavandati edasisi läbirääkimisi, et rentida CANTAT-3 lisavõimsust CANTAT-3 konsortsiumi liikmelt Teleglobe'ilt. Kooskõlas teavitamisega peaks E-Farice tegelema kogu Islandi rahvusvahelise ühenduvusega.

Teavitamine puudutab Farice hf-ile antud 9,4 miljoni euro suuruse laenuga seotud riiklikku garantiid. Kõnealune laen moodustab osa laiemast pikaajalisest komplekslaenust (hõlmab kolm muud laenu, mille on andnud erinevad pangad) maksimumsummaga 34,5 miljonit eurot. Farice hf maksis ette aastase kaubandusliku lisatasu. Kahte ülejäänud laenu tagasid Síminn ja Føroya Tele; neljandal laenul tagatist ei olnud. Islandi riigi antud tagatisega laenul olid parimad turutingimused, s.t Euribor [...] (1) aastas (võrreldes Euriboriga [...] aastas tagatiseta laenu puhul).

2003. aasta jaanuaris suurendas Islandi riik Farice hf-i kogu aktsiakapitali suurendamise käigus oma osalust algselt 27 %-lt 46,5 %-le. Islandi ametiasutuste väitel ei tahtnud eraettevõtjad rohkem aktsiakapitali pakkuda. Síminn, millele oli enne kuulunud 47 % aktsiatest, vähendas oma aktsiakapitali 33,33 %-le.

Riigiabi Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 tähenduses

Amet märgib, et ameti hilinenud teavitamisega kahest toetavast meetmest ei ole Islandi ametiasutused kinni pidanud maksete peatamise kohustusest, mille tagajärjel moodustavad kõnealused meetmed “uue abi” järelevalve- ja kohtulepingu protokolli nr 3 II osa artikli 1 punkti f tähenduses, juhul kui meetmed loetakse riigiabiks Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 tähenduses.

Amet on seisukohal, et kõnealune laenutagatis ning Islandi riigi aktsiakapitali suurendamine Farice'i projekti huvides ei ole antud üldisele infrastruktuuriprojektile, mida ei peaks määratlema riigiabina. Ameti arvamuse kohaselt saavad projektist pigem tulu sihtgruppi kuuluvad ettevõtjad, näiteks telekomiteenuste pakkujad, kui et oleks tegemist infrastruktuuriprojektiga, mis oleks kedagi diskrimineerimata avatud kõigile kasutajatele. Kõnelaused ettevõtjad lõid eraalgatuse, millele riik vastas. Lisaks pakub Farice hf infrastruktuuri haldava organina tasulist teenust. Vastavalt komisjoni tavale ei saa seesuguses olukorras eitada eeliseid üksikule ettevõttele.

Amet lähtub laenutagatisega seotud riigiabi hindamisel ameti riigiabisuuniste peatüki 17.4 punktist 2, kus on loetletud tingimused, mille esinemisel ei pruugi tagatis vastata Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu artikli 61 lõikele 1. Amet märgib, et riigipoolse sekkumise tagajärjeks on paremad intressimäärad. Islandi ametiasutused seda ei vaidlusta, ent väidavad, et riikliku garantii tulemuseks on alati paremad turutingimused ning ainsaks määravaks asjaoluks on see, kas on makstud piisav garantiipreemia. Amet kahtleb, kas Farice hf oleks riikliku garantiita saanud 9,4 miljoni euro suurust laenu, võttes arvesse, et projekti rahastamiseks oli juba võetud muid laene. Amet võtab arvesse, et nelja laenu tuleb käsitleda eraldi, sest need on andnud eri pangad, neil on erinevad tagasimaksemehhanismid ja intressimäärad ning neid tagavad erinevad garandid. Seda silmas pidades, võtab amet arvesse ka Islandi riigipoolset 100 %-list garantiid 9,4 miljoni euro suurusele laenule. Lisaks arvestab amet ka seda, et makstud garantiipreemia ei võta ära ühtki riigipoolsest sekkumisest tulenevat eelist. Ameti esialgne seisukoht on, et Farice hf ei peaks lõikama kasu finantstingimustest, mida ta ei oleks riigi sekkumiseta turul saanud. Amet leiab, et eriti võrreldes tagatiseta laenuga lõikab Farice hf kasu parematest finantstingimustest, mille eest ta ei tasu piisavalt.

Amet hindas Islandi riigi suurendatud aktsiakapitali vastavalt ameti riigiabisuuniste peatükile 19. Amet märgib, et samas kui kogu Farice hf aktsiakapital suurenes oluliselt ning hõlmas ka eraettevõtjate poolseid aktsiakapitali suurendamisi, tõusis Islandi riigi osalus võrreldes eraosanikega ebaproportsionaalselt 20 protsendipunkti võrra. Kuna Islandi ametiasutused on väitnud, et Síminn pidas projekti rahaliselt riskantseks ettevõtmiseks, jääb amet esialgu seisukohale, et eraettevõtjate suhteliselt väiksem osalus projektis oli tingitud projekti kesisest väljavaatest teenida kasumit.

Ameti esialgne seisukoht on, et kõnealused meetmed tugevdavad Farice hf-i võrreldes konkurentidega, kes ei saa toetuda riigipoolsele osalusele või laenutagatistele, ning seega moonutatakse või on oht moonutada konkurentsi. Kuna telekomiteenuste pakkumine on kaubandustegevus, mõjutab see ka lepingupoolte vahelist kaubandust.

Vastavus Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu artikli 61 lõike 3 punktile c

Amet hindas meetmeid vahetult Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu artikli 61 lõike 3 punkti c alusel, sest ei ole ühtegi suunist või erandigruppi, mille alusel võiks kõnealuseid meetmeid õigustada.

Abimeetmete vajalikkuse osas tunnistab amet, et uuel merealusel kaablil, millest saab esmane ülekandeühendus Islandile, on suurem võimsus, see on usaldusväärsem ning ühes CANTAT-3 tugisüsteemiga on see võimeline tagama telekommunikatsiooniteenuste pakkumise Islandil. Lairibaühenduse kättesaadavus on õiguspärane eesmärk ja sellist tüüpi teenus, mis oma olemuselt on võimeline positiivselt mõjutama suure hulga sektorite ja tegevusvaldkondade tootlikkust ja kasvu. Riigi osaluseta oleks projekt kas viibinud või poleks üldse käiku läinudki, sest projekt iseenesest ei olnud ärilises mõttes elujõuline.

Proportsionaalsusele hinnangu andmisel peab amet ühest küljest arvestama Islandile usaldusväärsete telekommunikatsiooniteenuste pakkumise tagamisega seotud eeliseid ning kahjusid, mis on seotud konkurentsi moonutamisega võrdluses konkurentidega, kellel puudub samalaadsete projektide realiseerimisel ligipääs avaliku sektori rahastamisele. Seda silmas pidades uurib amet ametliku juurdluse käigus muu hulgas järgmisi punkte:

| — | Esiteks märgib amet, et ei kaabli ehitamist ega haldamist ei antud Farice hf-ile avaliku pakkumise järel. |
| --- | --- |

—

Esiteks märgib amet, et ei kaabli ehitamist ega haldamist ei antud Farice hf-ile avaliku pakkumise järel.

| — | Amet märgib, et aktsionäride leping näeb ette turutingimustel mittediskrimineeriva ja läbipaistva hinnakujundamise. Kuigi aktsionäride leping on üldjuhul avatud kõigile uutele tulijatele, võtab amet arvesse, et aktsionäride leping näeb ette, et asutajapooltele jääb alati võimalus säilitada oma aktsiapositsioon, mis asetab nad paremasse olukorda kui uustulnukad. |
| --- | --- |

—

Amet märgib, et aktsionäride leping näeb ette turutingimustel mittediskrimineeriva ja läbipaistva hinnakujundamise. Kuigi aktsionäride leping on üldjuhul avatud kõigile uutele tulijatele, võtab amet arvesse, et aktsionäride leping näeb ette, et asutajapooltele jääb alati võimalus säilitada oma aktsiapositsioon, mis asetab nad paremasse olukorda kui uustulnukad.

| — | Amet võtab arvesse abi kogusummat, mis on garantii osas piiratud. Riigi aktsiakapitali suurenemise osas märgib amet, et 2003. aasta juunis vähenes riigi aktsiakapital juba 41 %-le, samas kui Síminni osalus kasvas 29 %-ni. |
| --- | --- |

—

Amet võtab arvesse abi kogusummat, mis on garantii osas piiratud. Riigi aktsiakapitali suurenemise osas märgib amet, et 2003. aasta juunis vähenes riigi aktsiakapital juba 41 %-le, samas kui Síminni osalus kasvas 29 %-ni.

| — | Ametile valmistavad muret teatud konkurentsiprobleemid. Euroopa Kohus on ette näinud, et riigiabisätetele vastavuse hindamisel ei tohiks olla tagajärgi, mis on vastuolus muude lepingusätetega, sealhulgas Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu artikliga 52 ja/või 54. Seda silmas pidades märgib amet muu hulgas, et kuigi olemasolev infrastruktuur CANTAT-3 jääb endiselt paigale, on karta, et tulevikus juhitakse kogu CANTAT-3 ühenduvus läbi E-Farice hf-i, millele kuulub Farice hf-i aktsiate enamus. Seetõttu on oht, et Islandil kaotatakse konkurents ühenduvuse alal, sest turule jääb püsima ainult üks pakkuja. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ametile valmistavad muret teatud konkurentsiprobleemid. Euroopa Kohus on ette näinud, et riigiabisätetele vastavuse hindamisel ei tohiks olla tagajärgi, mis on vastuolus muude lepingusätetega, sealhulgas Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu artikliga 52 ja/või 54. Seda silmas pidades märgib amet muu hulgas, et kuigi olemasolev infrastruktuur CANTAT-3 jääb endiselt paigale, on karta, et tulevikus juhitakse kogu CANTAT-3 ühenduvus läbi E-Farice hf-i, millele kuulub Farice hf-i aktsiate enamus. Seetõttu on oht, et Islandil kaotatakse konkurents ühenduvuse alal, sest turule jääb püsima ainult üks pakkuja.

---

(1)  Sulud viitavad arvudele, mida ei esitata, kuna neile laieneb ametisaladus.

---

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 125/05/COL

of 26 May 2005

to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to State aid in favour of Farice hf.

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (2), in particular to Article 24 as well as Article 1(2) in Part I and Articles 4(4) and 10 in Part II of Protocol 3 thereof,

Having regard to the Authority's Guidelines (3) on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement, and in particular Chapter 17 on State guarantees and Chapter 19 on public authorities' holdings,

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

By letter dated 27 February 2004 of the Icelandic Mission to the European Union, forwarding a letter from the Ministry of Finance dated 26 February 2004, the Icelandic authorities notified the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter ‘the Authority’) of a State guarantee in favour of a submarine cable project in Iceland, i.e. the Farice project. The letter was received and registered on 1 March 2004 (Event No: 257593).

Supplementary information was submitted by letter from the Icelandic Mission dated 14 May 2004, forwarding a letter by the Icelandic Ministry of Finance dated 13 May 2004. The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 14 May 2004 (Event No: 281472).

The Authority requested further information on the notification by letter dated 22 April 2004 (Event No: 261084). The Icelandic authorities responded by letter dated 25 June from the Icelandic Mission, forwarding a letter from the Ministry of Finance. The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 28 June 2004 (Event No: 285971).

The Authority requested further information by letter dated 10 August (Event No: 286427), to which the Icelandic Mission responded by letter dated 8 September 2004, forwarding a letter from the Ministry of Finance dated 7 September 2004 (Event No: 291944).

By letter dated 16 December 2004, the Authority informed the Icelandic authorities about its doubts concerning the compatibility with the EEA Agreement of the notified guarantee and of the increase of the Icelandic State's share capital in Farice hf. (Event No: 299813). The Icelandic authorities reacted to that by letter dated 21 January 2005 from the Icelandic Mission, forwarding a letter from the Ministry of Finance dated 21 January 2005. The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 24 January 2004 (Event No: 306 312).

In addition, under separate competition proceedings, the Authority had, by letter to Farice hf. dated 31 January 2003, expressed certain competition concerns and requested information concerning the FARICE project in order to enable the Authority to facilitate the assessment of the project's competitive impact. By letter dated 6 May 2004 the Authority addressed a formal request for information to Farice hf. (4). Farice hf.'s reply was received by the Authority on 21 October 2004.

2.   Description of the Farice project

The Farice project concerns the construction and management of an undersea telecommunications cable connecting Iceland and the Faeroe Islands with Scotland.

Since 1994, Iceland and the Faeroe Islands were internationally connected with the undersea telecommunication cable CANTAT-3. CANTAT-3 was set up as a consortium cable. Access to CANTAT-3 was secured via membership of the consortium (5), by defeasible rights of use and by leasing capacity from the consortium member Teleglobe. CANTAT-3 has connection points in Canada, Iceland, the Faeroe Islands, Denmark, the United Kingdom and Germany. With the build-up of trans-Atlantic cable systems competing with CANTAT-3, the founders of CANTAT-3 had access to other, more economical connections. The Icelandic and the Faeroe parties, however, still had to rely on the CANTAT-3 connection. That was one consideration for these parties to consider the development of a new connectivity. Besides, the CANTAT-3 cable had certain technical limitations, as it was an older generation cable which is not always reliable and has limited capacity. No other single international fibre network project has reached these two countries since 1994, despite a general capacity growth of international and interregional telecommunications routes. According to information by the Icelandic authorities, the geographically isolated location of the two countries and the limited market size prevented this.

Satellite connections which serve as a second connectivity are expected to rise in costs and are, in any event, not considered appropriate for transmitting delay sensitive internet traffic. In order to handle the increased telecommunication traffic, an alternative had to be developed.

The Farice project came about from an initiative by the almost 100 % State owned Icelandic telecom operator Landssími Íslands hf (hereinafter Síminn) and the incumbent telecom operator in the Faeroe Islands, Føroya Tele, which were considering the development of a submarine cable linking Reykjavík, Tórshavn and Edinburgh. However, in 2002 it became clear that the FARICE project seemed unable to gain momentum as a purely commercial business case (6). A feasibility study conducted in March 2002 concluded that it would not be possible to fund the project through conventional project financing. A broad alliance behind the project was sought in order to secure its realisation. This resulted in two decisions:

Firstly, the communication authorities of Iceland and the Faeroe Islands became involved in the preparation of the project. In particular the largest sponsors, Síminn and Føroya Tele, made it clear that they were not interested in providing the necessary loan guarantees on behalf of the whole telecom market (7). The State would therefore have to participate and contribute actively in the project.

Secondly, it was considered important that Og Vodafone, a major player in the Icelandic telecom market, should participate actively in the project. It was decided that besides the establishment of Farice hf, a holding company Eignarhaldsfélagið Farice ehf. (hereinafter ‘E-Farice’) (8) should be established. This company, while holding all the Icelandic shares in Farice, should buy Og Vodafone's capacity in CANTAT-3. A similar offer was made to Síminn which, according to the IBM report submitted by the Icelandic authorities, resulted in E-Farice handling all international connectivity for Iceland. As stated in the notification, CANTAT-3 capacity will consequently be operated and sold by E-Farice (9).

In 2002 the new limited company, Farice hf, was established with the purpose of preparing, constructing and operating a submarine communication cable system to transfer telecommunications and internet traffic between Iceland, the Faeroe Islands and the UK. The shareholders of this company were Síminn (47,33 %), Og Vodafone (1,33 %), the Government of Iceland (27,33 %), three other Icelandic operators which held together 3,99 %, Føroya Tele (17,33 %), and two other Faeroe telecom operators, which each held 1,33 % (10). The new Farice cable includes an Iceland backhaul (Reykjavík to Seyðisfjörður), a submarine section (Seyðisfjörður to Dunnet Bay), a Faeroese backhaul (from Funningsfjörður to Tórshavn) and a UK backhaul (Dunnet Bay to Edinburgh). No public tender was carried out to entrust the management of the cable, which was granted to Farice hf.

A shareholders' agreement dated 12 September 2002 provided that the pricing policy of Farice should be based on the principles of cost orientation, transparency and non-discrimination.

The Icelandic authorities have further pointed out that the use of the Farice cable is open to foreign and domestic operators alike, on equal terms and prices. The shareholders' agreement is also open to new shareholders. It stipulates, however, that the existing shareholders will always be offered the possibility of maintaining their equity position in the company if the share capital is increased.

The formal opening of the Farice submarine transmission cable was in February 2004. While it will constitute the primary transmission line for Iceland's telecommunications, the CANTAT-3 capacities will be used as a back-up.

3.   Description of the aid measure

a.   The loan guarantee

The object of the notification concerns the grant by the State of a guarantee for a loan of EUR 9,4 million in favour of Farice (hereinafter: the A Term Loan). This loan forms part of a broader long-term loan package for a maximum amount of EUR 34,5 million.

According to the information provided by the Icelandic authorities, in particular the Agreement between Farice hf, Íslandsbanki hf, other financial institutions and other guarantors, on 27 February 2004 signed loans (hereinafter: the loan agreement) for a maximum amount of EUR 34,5 million, break down as follows:

| Loan | Million EUR | Lender | Interest rate (11) | Interest periods | Repayment | Guarantor |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Number of instalments | Start of repayment |
| A | 9,4 | The Nordic Investment Bank | [...] (12) | 6 months | 8 semi-annual payments | Sept. 2011 | Government of Iceland |
| B | 4,7 | The Nordic Investment Bank | [...] | 6 months | 5 semi-annual payments | Sept. 2009 | Landssími Íslands hf (Síminn) |
| 4,7 | Íslandsbanki hf |
| C | 4,7 | Føroya banki | [...] | 3 months | 10 quarterly payments | Sept. 2009 | Telefon verkið P/F |
| D | 11 | Íslandsbanki hf | [...] | 1 month | 48 monthly payments | Sept. 2005 | None |

Loan

Million EUR

Lender

Interest rate (11)

Interest periods

Repayment

Guarantor

Number of instalments

Start of repayment

A

9,4

The Nordic Investment Bank

[...] (12)

6 months

8 semi-annual payments

Sept. 2011

Government of Iceland

B

4,7

The Nordic Investment Bank

[...]

6 months

5 semi-annual payments

Sept. 2009

Landssími Íslands hf (Síminn)

4,7

Íslandsbanki hf

C

4,7

Føroya banki

[...]

3 months

10 quarterly payments

Sept. 2009

Telefon verkið P/F

D

11

Íslandsbanki hf

[...]

1 month

48 monthly payments

Sept. 2005

None

The State guarantee for the A term loan is a guarantee of collection, i.e. Farice hf.will be fully liable for payment of the loan and the creditor will need to exhaust the recourses for collection from the company before the State guarantee can take effect. Farice hf. was obliged to pay an annual market premium of [...] (established by the Icelandic National Debt Management) and a fee of [...] ISK. The payment was done in advance [...].

An earlier guarantee of collection was signed in July 2003 in relation to a bridge loan of EUR 16 million. The guarantee of collection covered EUR 6,4 million, i.e. 40 % of that loan. The bridge loan was paid up upon the release of the long-term loan of EUR 34,5 million and the guarantee of collection for the bridge loan ceased to exist the same day. Farice hf. paid a [...] guarantee fee and a guarantee charge of [...] ISK for that guarantee.

b.   The Icelandic government's increase in share capital

In the beginning of January 2003, the State participation in Farice hf increased from an initial share of 27 % up to 46,5 %. Following the explanation given by the Icelandic authorities in their reply of June 2004,

‘As the business plan evolved, the funding needs of the company became clearer and it was decided to increase the company's share capital. All operators in Iceland and Faeroe Islands were invited to buy shares in the share capital increase. As Síminn made it clear that the company would not want to provide more than 33,33 % of the share capital, Telefonverkið would provide necessary share capital from the Faroese site (19,93 %), the Icelandic government had to provide 46,53 % of the necessary share capital as other operators in Iceland did not have the financial capacity to buy more than 1,2 % of the share capital.’

As stated by the Icelandic authorities, the total share capital of Farice hf was increased from EUR 337 000 to EUR 14 million. Details on the share capital contribution of the different shareholders can be seen from the table below:

| | |
| --- | --- |

4.   Comments by the Icelandic authorities

The Icelandic government first states that the measures cannot constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, as the Farice project constitutes infrastructure, which is open to all potential users on a non-discriminatory basis.

Further, the Icelandic authorities argue that the State guarantee fulfils all the conditions set out in Chapter 17.4 of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines. The Icelandic authorities point out that — as can be seen from the three other tranches of the loan — Farice would have been able to secure a loan on market conditions. It is, however, clear that interest rates will always be more favourable in the case of a State guaranteed loan and that, therefore, these conditions should not be expected to be the same as normal conditions on the financial market. As long as the market price paid for the guarantee is correct, there is no room for State aid. The banks were asked to provide a non indicative bid for a loan up to EUR 32 million. Four offers varying in form and cost offered interest rates ranging from [...].

The authorities further point out that the EUR 34,5 million loan should be seen as one loan subdivided into four tranches. In that respect, the Farice project is financed to a large extent independently of the State guarantee, which only covers 27,25 % of the full loan.

one

As to the share capital increase, the Icelandic authorities point out that the increase in share capital took place in January 2003, i.e. only four months after the establishment of Farice hf. The Icelandic State's share increase should therefore not be seen as an injection of fresh capital, but rather as the initial setting up of a company. In this respect it should be noted that the private investors provided for almost 60 % of the total share capital increase or EUR 8,1 million compared to the government share of EUR 5,5 million (13). According to the Icelandic authorities, this does not only show that the private share holders were willing to participate in the company, but also that they were willing to participate to a significant degree.

13

In any event, given the size of the Farice project, the project would qualify as aid to small and medium sized undertakings.

In any event, given its significant importance for securing the necessary connectivity of Iceland to the world, the support should be allowed under Article 61(3)(b) or (c) of the EEA Agreement.

II.   APPRECIATION

1.   Obligation to notify

According to Article 2(1) read together with Article 3 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, ‘any plans to grant new aid shall be notified to the Authority in sufficient time by the EFTA State concerned and shall not be put into effect before the Authority has taken, or is deemed to have taken, a decision authorising such aid.’

any plans to grant new aid shall be notified to the Authority in sufficient time by the EFTA State concerned and shall not be put into effect before the Authority has taken, or is deemed to have taken, a decision authorising such aid.

Farice hf. was established in 2002 and the construction work started already in June 2003. The cable was officially opened in February 2004 (14). The share capital increase took place in January 2003 and the guarantee of collection by the Icelandic authorities dates to 27 February 2004, i.e. before the Authority had a chance to express a view on the notification of the measures on 27 February 2004.

14

The Authority therefore notes that the Icelandic government has not respected the stand-still obligation, with the consequence that if the measures were found to be State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, they would constitute ‘new aid’ within the meaning of Article 1(f) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, subject to potential recovery, if declared incompatible with the EEA Agreement.

2.   State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows: ‘...any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’

any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.

The Authority will therefore assess whether:

| — | there is an intervention by the State or through State resources; |
| --- | --- |

—

there is an intervention by the State or through State resources;

| — | which confers an advantage on the recipient; |
| --- | --- |

—

which confers an advantage on the recipient;

| — | distorts or threatens to distort competition; and |
| --- | --- |

—

distorts or threatens to distort competition; and

| — | which is liable to affect trade between the Contracting Parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

which is liable to affect trade between the Contracting Parties.

2.1   The Farice project as an infrastructure project

The Icelandic authorities argue that the support to the Farice project does not comprise any State aid, given that the submarine cable qualifies as infrastructure and support in its favour therefore constitutes a ‘general’ and not a selective measure. As stated in the European Commission Communication COM (2001) 35 final, ‘Reinforcing quality service in sea ports: a key for European transport’ (15), the criterion of selectivity is an important benchmark for deciding whether a concrete financing measure constitutes State aid.

15

In Commission practice State funding for the construction or management of infrastructure is not to be regarded as aid, if the infrastructure is directly managed by the State (which is not the case in the present project) or if there is a public tender for the selection of the manager and if access to the infrastructure is open to all potential users on a non-discriminatory basis (16).

16

The Authority notes that while wide participation might have been sought within the project, neither the construction nor the management of the company was organised by a public tender. The government participation rather responded to a private initiative, started by the two incumbent telecommunication operators (17).

17

The Authority also has doubts concerning the non-discriminatory access. While the participation in the company according to the shareholders' agreement is not restricted, the Authority notes that the founding shareholders keep certain pre-emptive rights (see section I.2 of this Decision), which seems to place them in a better position than new shareholders.

Regardless of this, in line with Commission practice, a measure in any event constitutes aid and not a general measure, if the body managing the infrastructure is pursuing an economic activity, as this may provide a potential advantage to the beneficiary (18) in relation to competing operators. In this respect it suffices to note that the State support benefits Farice hf. which manages the cable and sells users' rights to interested parties against remuneration. According to the case law of the European Court of First Instance, the management of infrastructure constitutes an economic activity within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement (19). Farice hf. is able to profit from an infrastructure construction secured with a State guarantee and with government participation in a situation in which private parties were not willing to ensure the full financing of the project, whereas other operators might have to finance 100 % of it on their own.

18

19

In addition, for State aid purposes, it should be noted that the participation in the company is mainly geared towards telecommunication operators. Connectivity via the Farice cable is currently only sold in large units to business operators who resell the service on the downstream market to end users. It was these business operators who took the initiative to which the State responded. The type of service is therefore targeted at commercial operators and not at the general public. The Authority therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, considers that the project should be looked at rather as being a dedicated facility for undertakings, which is within the scope of State aid control, rather than a general infrastructure (20).

20

2.2.   The loan guarantee by the Icelandic State

In general, a State guarantee enables its beneficiary to obtain better financial terms for a loan than those normally available on the financial markets. Therefore, guarantees given by the State may fall within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

However, on the basis of the provisions of Chapter 17.4 (2) of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines on State Guarantees (hereinafter: the Guidelines), the Authority considers that an individual State guarantee does not constitute State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if it fulfils all the following conditions:

| (a) | The borrower is not in financial difficulty; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

The borrower is not in financial difficulty;

| (b) | The borrower would, in principle, be able to obtain a loan on market conditions from the financial markets without any intervention by the State; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

The borrower would, in principle, be able to obtain a loan on market conditions from the financial markets without any intervention by the State;

| (c) | The guarantee is linked to a specific financial transaction, is for a fixed maximum amount, does not cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan and is not open-ended; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The guarantee is linked to a specific financial transaction, is for a fixed maximum amount, does not cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan and is not open-ended;

| (d) | The market price for the guarantee is paid (which reflects, amongst other things, the amount and duration of the guarantee, the security given by the borrower, the borrower's financial position, the sector of activity and the prospects, the rates of default, and other economic conditions). |
| --- | --- |

(d)

The market price for the guarantee is paid (which reflects, amongst other things, the amount and duration of the guarantee, the security given by the borrower, the borrower's financial position, the sector of activity and the prospects, the rates of default, and other economic conditions).

According to the information provided by the Icelandic authorities, the project could not gain momentum as a purely commercial business case and required the involvement of the State. Although the borrower was not technically in financial difficulty, the fact that the banks did not only require a guarantee of the State for the A Term Loan but also of the two former State telecommunication monopolists (Síminn for the B Term Loan and Telefonverkið P/F for the C Term Loan), which are still owned by the respective States, shows that Farice was not in the position to obtain a loan on market conditions without any intervention by the State. For this reason, it is questionable whether the second condition is fulfilled.

The Icelandic authorities however argue that the second condition should be understood to be that the borrower was able to obtain ‘a’ loan, not necessarily ‘the loan on the same conditions’. In particular the D tranche loan shows that it was possible for Farice hf. to obtain a loan ‘as such’. Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities argue that it is evident that, backed up with the State guarantee, the loan would be granted at more favourable conditions. The decisive factor therefore is only whether the price for the guarantee is a market price.

The Authority agrees that the first condition only states that the borrower would ‘in principle’ be able to obtain a loan on market conditions. However, it still needs to be considered that point 17.1(1) of the Guidelines describes State guarantees as normally enabling the borrower to obtain better financial terms than those normally available on the financial markets, which leads to distortions of competition and the potential classification as ‘aid’. It is exactly that advantage resulting from the State intervention which raises a State aid concern. Against this background, there would be no aid element involved if the State backed-up loan did not lead to any advantages in the interest rate. However, if the State intervention leads to ‘better’ market conditions, this must be taken into account for the assessment under the State aid provisions. The Authority does not exclude, at this stage of the proceedings, that the distortive effect resulting from better market conditions can be adequately — but then also would have to be — considered in the assessment of the adequacy of the market premium (fourth condition), and will investigate that further in the formal investigation procedure.

better

However, the Authority notes, that while Farice hf. was able to secure an EUR 11 million loan on market conditions (D loan), it is not clear whether the banks would have granted any further loans to the project without any intervention from the State. This aspect would have to be assessed under the first condition. The Authority is therefore not entirely certain about the relevance of the argument that Farice hf. was able to negotiate the EUR 11 million loan.

further

This

The overall loan package is made up of four (or five) different loan amounts with different borrowing conditions, different lenders and different guarantees. Therefore, the Authority is of the preliminary opinion that each part of the overall loan amount constitutes an independent loan as such. For this reason, the Authority initially considers that the guarantee of the State covers 100 % of the guaranteed A Term Loan for a maximum amount of EUR 9,4 million. Hence, the third condition laid down in Chapter 17.4(2) of the Guidelines to exclude the existence of State aid does not seem to be fulfilled.

The Icelandic authorities argue that there is only one loan at stake, at EUR 34,5 million. However, as can be seen from the loan agreement, while granted for the same collateral, the four loans are granted by different banks which assume the responsibility for their loan amount only. None of the banks would take over — in case of a failure of Farice hf. — the liability for any of the other loans. The different loans do not only have different repayment periods and a different number of instalments, but also different guarantors. Against this background, the combination of the loans in one joint document does not appear to be of significant relevance.

their

It should further be noted that the 80 % rule should ensure that the creditor still has an incentive to reflect on the risk which he is willing to assume. Against this background, it does not seem correct to take into account — in relation to the business decision made by the Nordic Investment bank and in order to establish the loan basis to which the 80 % rule applies — that other loans are granted by Íslandsbanki. The Nordic investment bank has not assumed any responsibility for these loans and would not consider them in its decision to support Farice.

If anything, the A loan could be considered together with the second loan granted by the Nordic Investment bank, i.e. the first part of the B loan. However, the Authority still has doubts on this perspective, as the B loan is secured by the 100 % State owned company Síminn. The incentive for Nordic investment bank to assume an ordinary risk assessment, the same as it would undertake for a borrower who cannot rely on the State or State owned companies, is therefore considerably reduced.

Regarding the fourth condition, the Authority notes that the Icelandic State Guarantee Fund assessed the appropriate guarantee fee and guarantee charge for a State guarantee in relation to the A Term Loan. It charged a fee of ISK [...] plus a proportional fee of [...] p.a. on the balance of the loan at the beginning of each period. The total charge amounted to [...] and was already paid in advance.

Assuming only that the State Guarantee Fund took into account, in the assessment of the premium, the concrete characteristics of the guaranteed loan, in particular the conditions for repayment (21) and that it followed for its assessment the so-called market investor principle, would the fourth condition laid down in Chapter 17.4(2) of the Guidelines be fulfilled. However, despite being invited to prove that this is a market rate, the Icelandic authorities have not substantiated this point, but mainly limited themselves to repeat the relevant provisions of the State Guarantee Fund Act. The Authority notes that while taking into account that the guarantee in question is a guarantee of collection with a lesser risk, the premium charged to Farice is at the very low end of the spectrum of interest rates to be fixed by the National Debt Management Agency [...], which has not been reasoned by the Icelandic authorities.

21

Further indication of the appropriate market rate can be derived from point 17.1(2) of the Guidelines which identifies the amount of aid, i.e. the cash grant equivalent, for an individual guarantee, as the difference between the market rate and the rate obtained thanks to the State guarantee after any premiums have been deducted. This is based on the understanding that if the borrower profits from a favourable interest rate, which he would not have gotten without State intervention, the aid element is the amount which remains in comparison to the market rate and after the premium has been deducted. If the premium does not fully remove this advantage, the State guarantee would still benefit the recipient and thus distort the market. In such circumstances the advantage resulting from the guarantee has not been clawed away by the premium and would have to be classified as aid (22).

after

22

The Authority notes that the difference between the A tranche loan of [...] points compared to [...] of the B loan, is [...], which is not fully compensated by the [...] premium paid by the State. However, the Authority still considers comparing the interest rate of the A tranche with the D tranche of the loan, which is the only tranche not backed up by the State or a State owned company, which results in a remaining aid element of [...]. Firstly, the Authority assumes that the guarantee given by the 100 % owned telecom operators Síminn is also imputable to the State, but will investigate that point further during the investigation. In any event, operators in similar projects might not be able to secure such guarantees — and the favourable market conditions resulting therefrom — so that in the Authority's preliminary view the comparison with the D loan seems to be the valid comparison (23).

23

The intervention of the State strengthens the position of Farice hf. in securing the project financing versus competitors who do not profit from such a guarantee and would have to make the investment solely on market terms. The guarantee is given for a project which is carried out by multinational business operators and constitutes an activity which is subject to trade between the Contracting Parties.

2.3   The increase in the participation of the State as shareholder of Farice hf.

Between the time of the establishment of the company in September 2002 and the time of the notification at the beginning of 2004, the State participation in Farice hf increased from an initial share of 27 % up to 46,5 %. Following the explanation given by the Icelandic authorities in their reply of June 2004, Síminn made it clear that it did not intend to provide more than 33,33 % of the share capital (24).

24

For State aid purposes, it has to be established whether the capital increase at Farice engaged by the State is directly in conformity with the market investor principle. Chapter 19 of the Guidelines establishes the general approach of the Authority with regard to the acquisition of share holdings by public authorities.

According to Chapter 19.6.(b) of the Guidelines, no State aid is involved where fresh capital is contributed to an undertaking in circumstances that would be acceptable to a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions. This can apply when public holdings in a company are to be increased, provided that the capital injected is proportionate to the number of shares held by the authorities and goes together with the injection of capital by a private shareholder. The private investor's holding must have real economic significance.

On the other hand, there is State aid where fresh capital is contributed in circumstances that would not be acceptable to a private investor operating under normal market economy conditions. Following Chapter 19.6.(c) of the Guidelines, this is, amongst others, the case where the injection of capital into companies whose capital is divided between private and public shareholders makes the public holding reach a significantly higher level than it was originally and the relative disengagement of private shareholders is largely due to the companies' poor profit outlook.

The Icelandic authorities point out that the Icelandic's State share capital increase should not be looked at as an injection of fresh capital, but rather as the initial setting up of the company. The Authority points out that the State Aid Guidelines consider the share capital increase, regardless of at what point in time it takes place, as a subcategory of the injection of fresh capital. As the Guidelines reflect the general principle of private market investor behaviour, the share capital increase must be analysed on its merits. Even if the Government had assumed the higher share already during the preparation phase, this still would have made the increase subject to an analysis under the State aid provisions. For that assessment it is therefore only relevant whether the share capital increase reflects the rationale of a private market investor.

The Authority does not deny that in real terms the private operators' holdings occurred at the same time of the capital increase by the State. However, the Authority takes the (preliminary view) that the share increase of the private operators was not proportionate to the share capital increase by the State.

As can be seen from the table above (see section I.3.b. of this Decision) Farice hf.'s capital rose from EUR 337 000 to EUR 14 646 000 in January 2003. The share of the Icelandic State grew from 27,33 % (EUR 92 000) to 46,5 % (EUR 6 206 000), i.e. by almost 20 percentage points. While it is correctly stated by the Icelandic authorities that the share of Síminn grew from EUR 160 000 to EUR 4 446 000, in relative terms the share of Síminn fell from 47,33 % to 33,33 % (14 percentage points). Except for Telefonverkið, the shares of all other participants also fell (from 1,33 % to 0,33 %), which shows that in relative terms the private operators disengaged from the project.

This is likely to result from the poor outlook of the company's profit. In their letter of September 2004, the Icelandic authorities have submitted that:

‘Síminn felt that increasing the capacity to meet foreseeable demand, as well as providing an alternate route for emergencies, was a financially risky undertaking, providing little return on investment (especially for a limited company in line for privatisation). In order to facilitate the necessary upgrade in capacity, particularly in view of the short time frame available until capacity would be outstripped by the demand, the Government stepped in.’

The Icelandic authorities further state that the market's reluctance towards the project was indicated in the preparatory phase when Síminn and Telefonverkið engaged IBM Consulting to advise them on the economic viability of the project and its financing possibilities. The findings strongly suggested that the funding could not be done via traditional means (25).

market's reluctance

25

It seems from this that the initial lack of engagement from private investors was the reason for the subscription of the necessary capital increase by the Government in early 2003 (26), which raised the State participation in Farice hf.

26

The increase in the State's share of Farice was further accompanied by the grant of a State guarantee to cover the A Term Loan of EUR 9,4 million. It is thus the preliminary opinion of the Authority that State aid can be presumed in the capital injection subscribed by the Icelandic authorities in Farice which led to an increase in the State share in the company from 27 % to up to 46,5 %. Additionally, according to Chapter 19.6(d) of the Guidelines, there is a presumption that there is State aid where the authorities' intervention takes the form of acquisition of a holding combined with other types of interventions which need to be notified pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

The intervention of the State strengthens the position of Farice hf. in securing the project financing versus competitors who do not profit from such a State participation in a situation in which private operators are not willing to raise additional funds. The share increase concerns a project which is carried out by multinational business operators and constitutes an activity which is subject to trade between the Contracting Parties.

a.   Conclusion

In the Authority's preliminary view, the State guarantee and the capital share increase by the Icelandic State constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

3.   Compatibility

In the Authority's view, the aid measures do not comply with any of the exemptions provided for under Article 59(2) (27) and Article 61(2) or (3)(a) and (d) of the EEA Agreement. In the Authority's preliminary view, the State support also cannot be justified under Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement. Despite the fact that the project is transnational, the aid in question presents itself in the form of sector aid, benefiting an individual company (Farice hf) and brought about by a private initiative of a group of business operators. It is therefore questionable that this can be regarded as a project which is of common European interest.

27

It needs to be assessed whether the aid could be justified under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. Under this provision aid may be declared compatible if ‘it facilitates the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest’.

it facilitates the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest

However, the Authority finds that none of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines can be applied to assess aid measures that target this objective. The Authority in particular does not share the Icelandic authorities' view that the measure falls under the Act mentioned in point 1 f) of the EEA Agreement concerning aid to small and medium sized undertakings (28). In order to fall under the block exemption, Farice would have to be an independent enterprise in the meaning of Article 1(3) in conjunction with Article 1(1) in Annex I of the Act. However, more than 25 % of the capital is owned by operators which fall outside the SME definition (this goes both for the State owned Síminn and the share ownership of the Icelandic State).

28

The Authority therefore considers that the compatibility assessment is to be based directly on Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

In this respect, the Authority will have to investigate the necessity and the proportionality of the measure. The Authority, however, notes that the Icelandic authorities have not yet provided sufficient information to enable the Authority to carry out a full analysis of this issue. On the basis of the information available, the Authority has come to the preliminary conclusions below.

3.1   The necessity of the aid measures

The Authority notes that the project intends to secure internet connectivity to Iceland by having a reliable transmission method to which the former CANTAT-3 connection will serve as a back-up. Because of its geographic location, Iceland is particularly dependent on having access to economic and reliable telecom connectivity. As can be seen from section I.2 of this Decision, alternatives in the form of the existing CANTAT-3 cable or satellites were no longer options, either because of their technical limitations or dependencies on other consortium shareholders (CANTAT-3 (29)) or their rising costs (satellites). The new submarine cable, which is to become the primary transmission connection to Iceland, has greater capacities, is more reliable and — together with the backup by CANTAT-3 — is able to secure the provision of telecommunication services to Iceland. The availability of broadband (30) has been acknowledged in Commission policy and State aid decisions (31) as a legitimate objective and type of service which is by its nature capable of positively affecting the productivity and growth of a large number of sectors and activities.

29

30

31

As can be seem from its history (in particular the feasibility study of March 2002), the Farice project was not able to emerge as a purely private initiative. Both, State guarantees and share capital increases resulted from the need of a greater State participation to make the project economically viable. Without State participation, the project would either have been delayed or not undertaken at all, so that the Authority takes the preliminary view that the State support was necessary.

3.2   The proportionality of the aid measures

In order for the aid measures to be compatible with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, it must be proportionate to the objective and not distort competition to an extent contrary to the common interest. The trade-off between the advantages in terms of guaranteeing a reliable provision of telecommunication services to Iceland must be weighed against the disadvantages of the distortion of competition in comparison to competitors, which do not have access to public funding when realising similar projects.

The Authority cannot yet make a final assessment of that question on the basis of the available information. However, it will — in the formal investigation procedure — consider the following aspects:

| — | The Authority first notes that neither the construction nor the management of the cable were given to Farice hf. after an open tender. The Authority is not yet convinced that the widespread information on this project as claimed by the Icelandic authorities can replace a formal tender procedure, in particular as the desirable widespread participation was limited to Icelandic and Faeroe parties (32). The Authority points out that the open tender was considered a positive, although not necessarily mandatory, element for the approval of broadband projects in Commission practice (33). In these decisions it was, in particular, stressed that the tendering out of the management of the cable to an independent asset manager secured the neutrality of the infrastructure manager better than in a situation in which the service provider has control over the infrastructure, as is the case here. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Authority first notes that neither the construction nor the management of the cable were given to Farice hf. after an open tender. The Authority is not yet convinced that the widespread information on this project as claimed by the Icelandic authorities can replace a formal tender procedure, in particular as the desirable widespread participation was limited to Icelandic and Faeroe parties (32). The Authority points out that the open tender was considered a positive, although not necessarily mandatory, element for the approval of broadband projects in Commission practice (33). In these decisions it was, in particular, stressed that the tendering out of the management of the cable to an independent asset manager secured the neutrality of the infrastructure manager better than in a situation in which the service provider has control over the infrastructure, as is the case here.

32

33

| — | The Authority notes that the shareholders' agreement provides for a non-discriminatory, transparent pricing on market terms. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Authority notes that the shareholders' agreement provides for a non-discriminatory, transparent pricing on market terms.

| — | The Authority will also consider that the shareholders' agreement is in principle open to new entrants. The Authority has however doubts on the position of new entrants in relation to the founding parties, as section 7 of the Shareholders agreements protects the founders' position by giving them the possibility to maintain their equity position. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Authority will also consider that the shareholders' agreement is in principle open to new entrants. The Authority has however doubts on the position of new entrants in relation to the founding parties, as section 7 of the Shareholders agreements protects the founders' position by giving them the possibility to maintain their equity position.

| — | The total amount of aid is, with regard to the State guarantee, rather limited. As to the State's share increase, the Authority notes that in June 2003 the State's share capital has already decreased to 41 %, whereas Síminn's participation rose to 29 %. The Authority also notes that while the State disproportionately increased its share capital in January 2003, the private operators showed willingness to multiply their support. |
| --- | --- |

—

The total amount of aid is, with regard to the State guarantee, rather limited. As to the State's share increase, the Authority notes that in June 2003 the State's share capital has already decreased to 41 %, whereas Síminn's participation rose to 29 %. The Authority also notes that while the State disproportionately increased its share capital in January 2003, the private operators showed willingness to multiply their support.

| — | The Authority has, in its correspondence with Farice hf. under the competition proceedings, raised certain competition concerns. The European Court of Justice has established that a compatibility assessment under the State aid provisions should not produce a result which is contrary to other treaty provisions. Consequently, for the assessment under the State aid provisions, it is also relevant whether State support is given to a project which might raise competition concerns under the application of Article 53 and/or 54 of the EEA Agreement (34). In this regard, the Authority inter alia notes that although the existing infrastructure CANTAT-3 still remains in place (35), there is a concern that in the future, all CANTAT-3 connectivity to Iceland will be channelled through E-Farice hf, which holds the majority of shares in Farice hf. (36). Hence, there is a risk that competition in connectivity to Iceland would be eliminated, as only one supplier would remain on the market. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Authority has, in its correspondence with Farice hf. under the competition proceedings, raised certain competition concerns. The European Court of Justice has established that a compatibility assessment under the State aid provisions should not produce a result which is contrary to other treaty provisions. Consequently, for the assessment under the State aid provisions, it is also relevant whether State support is given to a project which might raise competition concerns under the application of Article 53 and/or 54 of the EEA Agreement (34). In this regard, the Authority inter alia notes that although the existing infrastructure CANTAT-3 still remains in place (35), there is a concern that in the future, all CANTAT-3 connectivity to Iceland will be channelled through E-Farice hf, which holds the majority of shares in Farice hf. (36). Hence, there is a risk that competition in connectivity to Iceland would be eliminated, as only one supplier would remain on the market.

34

inter alia

35

36

4.   Conclusion

The Authority therefore concludes that it has doubts as to whether the support in favour of Farice hf. is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in particular with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority. The Authority may conclude that the measures in question would be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, if they were necessary and proportionate and thus would fulfil the requirements for being exempted from the prohibition against State aid as laid down in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, requests the Icelandic authorities to submit its comments within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision.

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority requires the Icelandic government, within one month of receipt of this Decision, to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the compatibility of the support measures in favour of Farice hf.,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

| 1. | The Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to the support measures in favour of Farice hf. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to the support measures in favour of Farice hf.

| 2. | The Icelandic government is requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, to submit its comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month from the notification of this Decision and to provide all such information as may help to assess the aid measure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Icelandic government is requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, to submit its comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month from the notification of this Decision and to provide all such information as may help to assess the aid measure.

one month

| 3. | The Icelandic government shall be informed by means of a letter containing a copy of this Decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Icelandic government shall be informed by means of a letter containing a copy of this Decision.

| 4. | The Icelandic Government is invited to notify without delay the potential aid beneficiary of the initiation of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Icelandic Government is invited to notify without delay the potential aid beneficiary of the initiation of the proceedings.

| 5. | The EC Commission shall be informed, in accordance with Protocol 27(d) of the EEA Agreement, by means of a copy of this Decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The EC Commission shall be informed, in accordance with Protocol 27(d) of the EEA Agreement, by means of a copy of this Decision.

| 6. | Other EFTA States, EU Member States, and interested parties shall be informed by the publishing of this Decision in its authentic language version, accompanied by a meaningful summary in languages other than the authentic language version, in the EEA Section of the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto, inviting them to submit comments within one month from the date of publication. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Other EFTA States, EU Member States, and interested parties shall be informed by the publishing of this Decision in its authentic language version, accompanied by a meaningful summary in languages other than the authentic language version, in the EEA Section of the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto, inviting them to submit comments within one month from the date of publication.

Official Journal of the European Union

| 7. | This Decision is authentic in the English language. |
| --- | --- |

7.

This Decision is authentic in the English language.

Done at Brussels, 26 May 2005.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Einar M. BULL

Acting President

Bernd HAMMERMANN

College Member

---

(1)  Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.

1

(2)  Hereinafter referred to as the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

2

(3)  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 1994 L 231, EEA Supplement 3.9.1994 No 32. The Guidelines were last amended on 15.12.2004.

3

(4)  In accordance with the provisions of Protocol 21 to the EEA Agreement and Article 11 of Chapter II, Protocol 4 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

4

(5)  The consortium included inter alia the Icelandic telecom operator Landssími Íslands hf., Teleglobe and Deutsche Telekom.

5

inter alia

(6)  See Summary Report, provided as Annex 1 to the notification.

6

(7)  See also the following comment by the Icelandic authorities: “Although the designated universal service provider, and as such required to provide secure long-distance communication, Síminn felt that increasing the capacity to meet demand, as well as providing an alternative route for emergencies, was a financially risky undertaking, providing little return on investment. In order to facilitate the necessary upgrade in capacity, particularly in view of the short time frame available until capacity would be outstripped by demand, the government stepped in.”

7

Although the designated universal service provider, and as such required to provide secure long-distance communication, Síminn felt that increasing the capacity to meet demand, as well as providing an alternative route for emergencies, was a financially risky undertaking, providing little return on investment. In order to facilitate the necessary upgrade in capacity, particularly in view of the short time frame available until capacity would be outstripped by demand, the government stepped in

(8)  In 2003, E-Farice ehf held 80 % of the shares in Farice hf, with the 20 % remaining shares held by Føroya Tele (17,3 %) and other Faeroe parties (together 2,7 %).

8

(9)  The IBM report stresses the business possibility that E-Farice's purchase of CANTAT-3 connectivity gives the possibility to ring-connect the two cable systems in such a way that Farice hf. can offer its customers secured connectivity. The report further describes negotiations of E-Farice with Teleglobe to further lease CANTAT-3. It has been discussed whether Farice hf. or E-Farice should lease all available capacity to Iceland and the Faeroe Islands.

9

all

(10)  Initial capital contributions, which were later changed. The holding company E-Farice holds all the shares of the Icelandic parties in Farice hf.

10

(11)  Although in the letter accompanying the notification reference is made to Libor as the basis for establishing the rate of interest to the Loan for each tranche, clause 7.1 of the Loan Agreement refers to Euribor. For this reason, the Authority considers the Euribor rate to be the valid reference for the determination of the rate of interest applicable to the Loan for each interest period.

11

(12)  Brackets throughout the text indicate figures which have been deleted because they are covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.

12

(13)  It seems however, that this statement by the Icelandic authorities rather refers to the share capital split between the capital holder in June 2003. In January 2003, the Icelandic government had a share of EUR 6,2 million.

13

(14)  Press release of 3 February 2004.

14

(15)  Communication of 13.2.2001, COM (2001) 35 final.

15

(16)  Commission decision N 527/02 — Greece Financial support of a private company for the design, construction, testing and commissioning of the aviation fuel pipelines for supply of the new Athens International Airport.

16

(17)  See Commission decision C 67-69/2003 concerning aid for the construction of a propylene pipeline between Rotterdam, Antwerp and the Ruhr-area, paragraph 48. The Authority will further look at the argument of the Icelandic authorities that according to Directive 2002/20/EC the license can only be granted by way of authorisation and that therefore the requirement of a public tender cannot be relevant. The Authority takes the preliminary view that, given all the other circumstances in this case, even if the argument was found valid, it is not likely to make a difference for the assessment.

17

(18)  See Commission decision N 527/02 with further references in footnote 8. Also Commission decision N 860/01 — Austria on the ski resort Mutterer Alm where the running of ski lifts was considered to be an economic activity benefiting the operator of the ski lift and therefore not constituting an infrastructure measure. See Commission decision C 67-69/2003, paragraph 48.

18

(19)  See Case T-128/98, Aéroports de Paris v. European Commission, [2000] ECR II-3929.

19

Aéroports de Paris

European Commission

(20)  See Commission decision N 213/2003 — Project Atlas, broadband infrastructure for business parks.

20

(21)  The provisions of the loan agreement foresee the possibility of prepaying the whole or part of the loan, except for the A term loan, without any prepayment fee.

21

(22)  The Icelandic authorities do not consider that aspect, but look at the adequacy of the market price as such. The result is that the fact that the State guarantee has led to better loan conditions than market conditions, is neither considered under the first condition (see above) nor under the fourth condition.

22

(23)  According to Clause 7.4 of the Loan Agreement, solely the margin for the A Term Loan can be modified after signature of the agreement. Such an amendment may take place on 18 March 2011 and will be effective until the loan maturity. As this is depending on the future negotiations, the Authority is not in a position to assess whether such a modified margin would constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement or whether such aid could be authorised. However, the Icelandic authorities would be able to identify the existence of an aid element for any future modification by applying the calculation parameters laid down in the previous paragraph and, in case of the existence of an aid element, would have to notify the aid measure to the Authority.

23

(24)  See section I 3.b of this Decision.

24

(25)  See letter by the Icelandic authorities dated 25 June 2004, page 3.

25

(26)  The Authority is aware of the reference of the Icelandic authorities to the speech of the chairman on 24 January 2004. However, this speech only states that there is a ‘modestly profitable business case’ and that the private operators also provided securities. The latter point has never been denied by the Authority; the question whether the share increase by the State is proportionate is, however, not answered.

26

modestly profitable business case

(27)  The Icelandic authorities have not provided information which enables the Authority to make an assessment under that provision.

27

(28)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 364/2004 of 25 February 2004 (OJ L 63, 28.2.2004, p. 22). The point ‘Aid to small and medium enterprises’ was inserted by Joint Committee Decision No 88/2002 (OJ L 266, 3.10.2002, p. 56 and EEA Supplement No 49, 3.10.2002, p. 42), e.i.f. 1.2.2003. The amendment was inserted by Decision No 131/2004 (OJ No L 64, 10.3.2005, p. 67 and EEA Supplement No 12, 10.3.2005, p. 49), e.i.f. 25.9.2004.

28

(29)  As stated in the summary report submitted by the Icelandic authorities in the notification dated 27 February 2004, the consortium member Teleglobe, in particular, was faced with business difficulties.

29

(30)  Data transmission in which a single medium can carry several channels at once. The term is also used to compare frequency bandwidth greater than 3 MHz narrowband frequencies. Broadband can transmit more data at a higher speed.

30

(31)  See e-Europe 2004 Action Plan, Communication from the Commission, An information society for all, 28.5.2002, COM (2002) 263 final, see Commission Decision N 231/2003 Project Atlas — broadband infrastructure for business parks and N 307/2004 Broadband in Scotland — remote and rural areas.

31

(32)  The Icelandic authorities state: ‘Widespread participation was sought in Iceland and the Faeroe Islands for shareholders in the Farice project and all telecoms operators were invited to participate in the foundation of the company.’

32

Widespread participation was sought in Iceland and the Faeroe Islands for shareholders in the Farice project and all telecoms operators were invited to participate in the foundation of the company

(33)  Commission Decision N 307/2004, N 199/2004 and N 213/2003.

33

(34)  Cf. Case C-225/91, Matra SA v Commission, [1993] ECR-3203, paragraph 41.

34

Matra SA

Commission

(35)  On the co-existence of existing infrastructure, see Commission Decision N 307/2004, paragraph 45, where it is positively outlined that this minimises the risk of unnecessary duplication and limits the economic impact for operators that already have infrastructure in place. See also Commission Decision N 199/2004, paragraph 41, N 213/2003, paragraph 47.

35

(36)  See footnote 8 of this Decision.

36

---

| 10.11.2005 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 277/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2005

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 277/29

---

RIIGIABI — ISLAND

EFTA järelevalveameti teatis EFTA riikidele, EL liikmesriikidele ja muudele huvitatud pooltele

Riigiabimeede 47901 (endine SAM 030.02.006) — Riigigarantii kujul antav kavandatav abi deCODE Genetics'ile seoses ravimite väljatöötamise osakonna asutamisega

(2005/C 277/09)

27. mai 2002. aasta kirjaga teatas Islandi valitsus EFTA järelevalveametile ettepanekust anda garantii äriühingule deCODE Genetics Inc. (USA) seoses biotehnoloogiaalase teadus- ja arendusprojektiga, mida kõnealune äriühing kavatseb Islandil läbi viia.

2002. aasta mais volitas Islandi parlament Rahandusministeeriumi andma ettevõttele deCODE Genetics Inc. (USA) garantii võlakirjale väärtusega on 200 miljonit USA dollarit. Võlakirjast saadavat tulu kasutatakse Islandil uue ravimite väljatöötamise osakonna asutamiseks ning mitme ravimite väljatöötamise programmi rahastamiseks.

16. juulil 2003 algatas järelevalveamet abi suhtes järelevalve- ja kohtulepingu protokolli nr 3 artikli 1 lõikes sätestatud ametliku uurimismenetluse. Otsus on avaldatud Euroopa Liidu Teataja (1) EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.

14. aprilli 2004. aasta kirjaga tühistas Island eespool nimetatud teatise.

Kuna Islandi ametiasutused on teatise tühistanud ega kavatse selles nimetatud abi anda, on järelevalveamet otsustanud lõpetada järelevalve- ja kohtulepingu protokolli nr 3 artikli 1 lõike 2 kohaselt algatatud menetluse.

---

(1)  ELT C 308, 18.12.2003, lk 22, ja sama kuupäeva Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP kaasanne nr 63, lk 10.

---

Euroopa Keskpank

| 10.11.2005 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 277/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2005

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 277/30

---

EUROOPA KESKPANGA SOOVITUS,

26. oktoober 2005,

Euroopa Liidu Nõukogule Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland [Iiri keskpanga] välisaudiitorite kohta

(EKP/2005/10)

(2005/C 277/10)

EUROOPA KESKPANGA NÕUKOGU,

võttes arvesse Euroopa Keskpankade Süsteemi ja Euroopa Keskpanga põhikirja, eelkõige selle artiklit 27.1,

ning arvestades järgmist:

| (1) | Euroopa Keskpanga (EKP) ja eurosüsteemi riikide keskpankade raamatupidamist auditeerivad sõltumatud välisaudiitorid, keda soovitab EKP nõukogu ja kiidab heaks Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Euroopa Keskpanga (EKP) ja eurosüsteemi riikide keskpankade raamatupidamist auditeerivad sõltumatud välisaudiitorid, keda soovitab EKP nõukogu ja kiidab heaks Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu.

| (2) | Praeguste Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland [Iiri keskpanga] välisaudiitorite volitus on lõppenud ja seda ei uuendata. Seetõttu on vaja määrata välisaudiitor alates 2005. majandusaastast. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Praeguste Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland [Iiri keskpanga] välisaudiitorite volitus on lõppenud ja seda ei uuendata. Seetõttu on vaja määrata välisaudiitor alates 2005. majandusaastast.

| (3) | Iiri keskpank on valinud oma välisaudiitoriks alates 2005. majandusaastast Deloitte & Touche ja ning EKP leiab, et valitud audiitor vastab ametikohale nimetamise tingimustele. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Iiri keskpank on valinud oma välisaudiitoriks alates 2005. majandusaastast Deloitte & Touche ja ning EKP leiab, et valitud audiitor vastab ametikohale nimetamise tingimustele.

| (4) | Välisaudiitorite volitus on kolmeks aastaks ja seda võib uuendada, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Välisaudiitorite volitus on kolmeks aastaks ja seda võib uuendada,

ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA SOOVITUSE:

Iiri keskpanga välisaudiitoriks soovitatakse alates 2005. majandusaastast Deloitte & Touche kolmeaastaseks perioodiks, mida võib uuendada.

Frankfurt Maini ääres, 26. oktoober 2005

EKP president

Jean-Claude TRICHET

---