# Úradný vestník C 229/2013

| | ISSN 1977-1037
  doi:10.3000/19771037.C_2013.229.slk |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 229 |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Zväzok 568. augusta 2013 |

ISSN 1977-1037

doi:10.3000/19771037.C_2013.229.slk

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 229

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Zväzok 568. augusta 2013

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Oznámenia |
| | OZNÁMENIA INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2013/C 229/01 | Výzva na predkladanie pripomienok k návrhu nariadenia Komisie o uplatňovaní článkov 107 a 108 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie na pomoc de minimis | 1 |
| 2013/C 229/02 | Návrh nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) č. .../... zo 17. júla 2013 o uplatňovaní článkov 107 a 108 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie na pomoc de minimis
   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

II   Oznámenia

OZNÁMENIA INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

2013/C 229/01

Výzva na predkladanie pripomienok k návrhu nariadenia Komisie o uplatňovaní článkov 107 a 108 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie na pomoc de minimis

de minimis

1

2013/C 229/02

Návrh nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) č. .../... zo 17. júla 2013 o uplatňovaní článkov 107 a 108 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie na pomoc de minimis
   (
  1
  )

de minimis

1

1

| | IV   Informácie |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2013/C 229/03 | Výmenný kurz eura | 10 |
| | INFORMÁCIE ČLENSKÝCH ŠTÁTOV |
| 2013/C 229/04 | Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu | 11 |
| 2013/C 229/05 | Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu | 11 |
| | INFORMÁCIE TÝKAJÚCE SA EURÓPSKEHO HOSPODÁRSKEHO PRIESTORU |
| | Dozorný úrad EZVO |
| 2013/C 229/06 | Informácie oznámené štátmi EZVO o štátnej pomoci poskytnutej v súlade s aktom uvedeným v bode 1j prílohy XV k Dohode o EHP [nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 800/2008 o vyhlásení určitých kategórií pomoci za zlučiteľné so spoločným trhom podľa článkov 87 a 88 zmluvy (Všeobecné nariadenie o skupinových výnimkách)] | 12 |
| 2013/C 229/07 | Neexistencia štátnej pomoci v zmysle článku 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP | 16 |
| 2013/C 229/08 | Neexistencia štátnej pomoci v zmysle článku 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP | 17 |
| 2013/C 229/09 | Výzva na predloženie pripomienok podľa článku 1 ods. 2 časti I protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu k štátnej pomoci týkajúcej sa koncertnej haly a konferenčného centra Harpa | 18 |
| 2013/C 229/10 | Výzva na predloženie pripomienok podľa článku 1 ods. 2 časti I protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu k štátnej pomoci týkajúcej sa možnej pomoci pre Nasjonal digital læringsarena (NDLA) | 31 |

IV   Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

2013/C 229/03

Výmenný kurz eura

10

INFORMÁCIE ČLENSKÝCH ŠTÁTOV

2013/C 229/04

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

11

2013/C 229/05

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

11

INFORMÁCIE TÝKAJÚCE SA EURÓPSKEHO HOSPODÁRSKEHO PRIESTORU

Dozorný úrad EZVO

2013/C 229/06

Informácie oznámené štátmi EZVO o štátnej pomoci poskytnutej v súlade s aktom uvedeným v bode 1j prílohy XV k Dohode o EHP [nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 800/2008 o vyhlásení určitých kategórií pomoci za zlučiteľné so spoločným trhom podľa článkov 87 a 88 zmluvy (Všeobecné nariadenie o skupinových výnimkách)]

12

2013/C 229/07

Neexistencia štátnej pomoci v zmysle článku 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP

16

2013/C 229/08

Neexistencia štátnej pomoci v zmysle článku 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP

17

2013/C 229/09

Výzva na predloženie pripomienok podľa článku 1 ods. 2 časti I protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu k štátnej pomoci týkajúcej sa koncertnej haly a konferenčného centra Harpa

18

2013/C 229/10

Výzva na predloženie pripomienok podľa článku 1 ods. 2 časti I protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu k štátnej pomoci týkajúcej sa možnej pomoci pre Nasjonal digital læringsarena (NDLA)

31

| | V   Oznamy |
| --- | --- |
| | INÉ AKTY |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2013/C 229/11 | Uverejnenie žiadosti podľa článku 50 ods. 2 písm. a) nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 o systémoch kvality pre poľnohospodárske výrobky a potraviny | 43 |

V   Oznamy

INÉ AKTY

Európska komisia

2013/C 229/11

Uverejnenie žiadosti podľa článku 50 ods. 2 písm. a) nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 o systémoch kvality pre poľnohospodárske výrobky a potraviny

43

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text s významom pre EHP |

---

(1)   Text s významom pre EHP

1

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

II Oznámenia

OZNÁMENIA INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

| 8.8.2013 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 229/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 229/1

---

Výzva na predkladanie pripomienok k návrhu nariadenia Komisie o uplatňovaní článkov 107 a 108 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie na pomoc de minimis

2013/C 229/01

Zainteresované strany môžu predložiť svoje pripomienky v lehote jedného mesiaca odo dňa uverejnenia tohto návrhu nariadenia na adresu:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| State aid Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| e-mail: stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State aid Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

e-mail: stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu

Ref.: HT.3572 — SAM — de minimis review

Znenie je dostupné aj na tejto webovej lokalite:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2013_second_de_minimis/index_en.html

---

| 8.8.2013 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 229/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 229/1

---

NÁVRH NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) č. .../...

zo 17. júla 2013

o uplatňovaní článkov 107 a 108 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie na pomoc de minimis

(Text s významom pre EHP)

2013/C 229/02

EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,

so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie, a najmä na jej článok 108 ods. 4,

so zreteľom na nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 994/98 zo 7. mája 1998 o uplatňovaní článkov 92 a 93 Zmluvy o založení Európskeho spoločenstva na určité kategórie horizontálnej štátnej pomoci (1),

po uverejnení návrhu tohto nariadenia (2),

po porade s Poradným výborom pre štátnu pomoc,

keďže:

| (1) | Štátne financovanie, ktoré spĺňa kritériá stanovené v článku 107 ods. 1 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie (ďalej len „zmluva“), predstavuje štátnu pomoc a podľa článku 108 ods. 3 zmluvy sa musí Komisii notifikovať. Podľa článku 109 zmluvy však Rada môže určiť kategórie pomoci, ktoré sú od tejto notifikačnej povinnosti oslobodené. V súlade s článkom 108 ods. 4 zmluvy Komisia môže prijať nariadenia týkajúce sa týchto kategórií štátnej pomoci. Podľa nariadenia (ES) č. 994/98 Rada v súlade s článkom 109 zmluvy rozhodla, že pomoc de minimis môže predstavovať jednu z takýchto kategórií. Na základe uvedenej skutočnosti sa pomoc de minimis poskytnutá tomu istému podniku počas určitého časového obdobia, ktorá neprevyšuje určitú stanovenú sumu, považuje za pomoc, ktorá nespĺňa všetky kritériá stanovené v článku 107 ods. 1 zmluvy, a nevzťahuje sa na ňu teda notifikačná povinnosť. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Štátne financovanie, ktoré spĺňa kritériá stanovené v článku 107 ods. 1 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie (ďalej len „zmluva“), predstavuje štátnu pomoc a podľa článku 108 ods. 3 zmluvy sa musí Komisii notifikovať. Podľa článku 109 zmluvy však Rada môže určiť kategórie pomoci, ktoré sú od tejto notifikačnej povinnosti oslobodené. V súlade s článkom 108 ods. 4 zmluvy Komisia môže prijať nariadenia týkajúce sa týchto kategórií štátnej pomoci. Podľa nariadenia (ES) č. 994/98 Rada v súlade s článkom 109 zmluvy rozhodla, že pomoc de minimis môže predstavovať jednu z takýchto kategórií. Na základe uvedenej skutočnosti sa pomoc de minimis poskytnutá tomu istému podniku počas určitého časového obdobia, ktorá neprevyšuje určitú stanovenú sumu, považuje za pomoc, ktorá nespĺňa všetky kritériá stanovené v článku 107 ods. 1 zmluvy, a nevzťahuje sa na ňu teda notifikačná povinnosť.

| (2) | Komisia v mnohých rozhodnutiach objasnila pojem pomoci v zmysle článku 107 ods. 1 zmluvy. Komisia takisto vysvetlila svoju politiku, pokiaľ ide o strop pomoci de minimis, v rámci ktorej sa na takúto pomoc neprekračujúcu tento strop neuplatňuje článok 107 ods. 1 zmluvy, a to najprv vo svojom oznámení o pravidle pomoci de minimis pri štátnej pomoci (3), neskôr v nariadení Komisie (ES) č. 69/2001 (4) a v nariadení Komisie (ES) č. 1998/2006 (5). Vzhľadom na skúsenosti nadobudnuté pri uplatňovaní nariadenia (ES) č. 1998/2006 sa zdá byť vhodné vykonať revíziu niektorých podmienok stanovených v uvedenom nariadení a uvedené nariadenie nahradiť. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Komisia v mnohých rozhodnutiach objasnila pojem pomoci v zmysle článku 107 ods. 1 zmluvy. Komisia takisto vysvetlila svoju politiku, pokiaľ ide o strop pomoci de minimis, v rámci ktorej sa na takúto pomoc neprekračujúcu tento strop neuplatňuje článok 107 ods. 1 zmluvy, a to najprv vo svojom oznámení o pravidle pomoci de minimis pri štátnej pomoci (3), neskôr v nariadení Komisie (ES) č. 69/2001 (4) a v nariadení Komisie (ES) č. 1998/2006 (5). Vzhľadom na skúsenosti nadobudnuté pri uplatňovaní nariadenia (ES) č. 1998/2006 sa zdá byť vhodné vykonať revíziu niektorých podmienok stanovených v uvedenom nariadení a uvedené nariadenie nahradiť.

| (3) | Je vhodné zachovať strop 200 000 EUR pre výšku pomoci de minimis, ktorú na jednotlivý členský štát môže jeden podnik dostať za každé obdobie troch rokov. Uvedený strop je naďalej potrebný na zabezpečenie toho, že žiadne opatrenie patriace do pôsobnosti tohto nariadenia nebude mať vplyv na obchod medzi členskými štátmi a/alebo narúšať hospodársku súťaž či hroziť jej narušením. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Je vhodné zachovať strop 200 000 EUR pre výšku pomoci de minimis, ktorú na jednotlivý členský štát môže jeden podnik dostať za každé obdobie troch rokov. Uvedený strop je naďalej potrebný na zabezpečenie toho, že žiadne opatrenie patriace do pôsobnosti tohto nariadenia nebude mať vplyv na obchod medzi členskými štátmi a/alebo narúšať hospodársku súťaž či hroziť jej narušením.

| (4) | Na účely pravidiel hospodárskej súťaže uvedených v zmluve je podnikom každý subjekt vykonávajúci hospodársku činnosť bez ohľadu na jeho právne postavenie a spôsob jeho financovania (6). Súdny dvor stanovil, že všetky subjekty, ktoré sú kontrolované (právne alebo de facto) tým istým subjektom, by sa mali pokladať za jeden podnik (7). V záujme právnej istoty a s cieľom znížiť administratívne zaťaženie by toto nariadenie malo poskytovať vyčerpávajúci zoznam jasných kritérií na určovanie toho, či sa dva alebo viaceré subjekty majú považovať za jeden podnik. Komisia vybrala z ustálených kritérií na vymedzenie „prepojených podnikov“ z vymedzenia pojmu MSP v prílohe I k nariadeniu (ES) č. 800/2008 (8) tie kritériá, ktoré sú vhodné na účely tohto nariadenia. Predmetné kritériá verejné orgány už poznajú a mali by sa vzhľadom na rozsah pôsobnosti tohto nariadenia uplatňovať na MSP, ako aj na veľké podniky. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Na účely pravidiel hospodárskej súťaže uvedených v zmluve je podnikom každý subjekt vykonávajúci hospodársku činnosť bez ohľadu na jeho právne postavenie a spôsob jeho financovania (6). Súdny dvor stanovil, že všetky subjekty, ktoré sú kontrolované (právne alebo de facto) tým istým subjektom, by sa mali pokladať za jeden podnik (7). V záujme právnej istoty a s cieľom znížiť administratívne zaťaženie by toto nariadenie malo poskytovať vyčerpávajúci zoznam jasných kritérií na určovanie toho, či sa dva alebo viaceré subjekty majú považovať za jeden podnik. Komisia vybrala z ustálených kritérií na vymedzenie „prepojených podnikov“ z vymedzenia pojmu MSP v prílohe I k nariadeniu (ES) č. 800/2008 (8) tie kritériá, ktoré sú vhodné na účely tohto nariadenia. Predmetné kritériá verejné orgány už poznajú a mali by sa vzhľadom na rozsah pôsobnosti tohto nariadenia uplatňovať na MSP, ako aj na veľké podniky.

| (5) | S cieľom zohľadniť malú priemernú veľkosť podnikov pôsobiacich v sektore cestnej nákladnej dopravy je vhodné stanoviť strop pre podniky vykonávajúce cestnú nákladnú dopravu v prenájme alebo za úhradu na 100 000 EUR. Poskytovanie integrovaných služieb, pri ktorých doprava tvorí len jeden prvok, ako sú sťahovacie služby, poštové a kuriérne služby alebo zber odpadu a jeho spracovanie, by sa nemalo pokladať za dopravné služby. Vzhľadom na nadbytočné kapacity sektora cestnej nákladnej dopravy a na ciele dopravnej politiky, pokiaľ ide o dopravné zápchy a nákladnú dopravu, by mala byť z rozsahu uplatňovania tohto nariadenia vylúčená pomoc na nadobúdanie vozidiel cestnej nákladnej dopravy podnikmi vykonávajúcimi cestnú nákladnú dopravu v prenájme alebo za úhradu. Vzhľadom na vývoj v sektore cestnej osobnej dopravy už nie je vhodné uplatňovať na tento sektor nižší strop. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

S cieľom zohľadniť malú priemernú veľkosť podnikov pôsobiacich v sektore cestnej nákladnej dopravy je vhodné stanoviť strop pre podniky vykonávajúce cestnú nákladnú dopravu v prenájme alebo za úhradu na 100 000 EUR. Poskytovanie integrovaných služieb, pri ktorých doprava tvorí len jeden prvok, ako sú sťahovacie služby, poštové a kuriérne služby alebo zber odpadu a jeho spracovanie, by sa nemalo pokladať za dopravné služby. Vzhľadom na nadbytočné kapacity sektora cestnej nákladnej dopravy a na ciele dopravnej politiky, pokiaľ ide o dopravné zápchy a nákladnú dopravu, by mala byť z rozsahu uplatňovania tohto nariadenia vylúčená pomoc na nadobúdanie vozidiel cestnej nákladnej dopravy podnikmi vykonávajúcimi cestnú nákladnú dopravu v prenájme alebo za úhradu. Vzhľadom na vývoj v sektore cestnej osobnej dopravy už nie je vhodné uplatňovať na tento sektor nižší strop.

| (6) | Vzhľadom na osobitné pravidlá uplatňované v sektoroch prvovýroby poľnohospodárskych výrobkov, rybolovu a akvakultúry a vzhľadom na riziko, že aj objem pomoci nepresahujúci strop stanovený v tomto nariadení by mohol spĺňať kritériá článku 107 ods. 1 zmluvy v týchto sektoroch, by sa toto nariadenie nemalo vzťahovať na uvedené sektory. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Vzhľadom na osobitné pravidlá uplatňované v sektoroch prvovýroby poľnohospodárskych výrobkov, rybolovu a akvakultúry a vzhľadom na riziko, že aj objem pomoci nepresahujúci strop stanovený v tomto nariadení by mohol spĺňať kritériá článku 107 ods. 1 zmluvy v týchto sektoroch, by sa toto nariadenie nemalo vzťahovať na uvedené sektory.

| (7) | Vzhľadom na podobnosti medzi spracovaním a marketingom poľnohospodárskych výrobkov a spracovaním a marketingom nepoľnohospodárskych výrobkov by sa toto nariadenie malo uplatňovať na spracovanie a marketing poľnohospodárskych výrobkov za predpokladu, že sa splnia určité podmienky. V tejto súvislosti by sa za spracovanie alebo marketing nemali považovať poľnohospodárske činnosti potrebné na prípravu výrobku na prvý predaj ako zber, sekanie a mlátenie obilnín alebo balenie vajec, ani prvotný predaj ďalším predajcom alebo spracovateľom. Súdny dvor stanovil (9), že hneď ako Únia prijme právny predpis týkajúci sa zriadenia spoločnej organizácie trhu v príslušnom sektore poľnohospodárstva, sú členské štáty povinné zdržať sa prijatia akéhokoľvek opatrenia, ktoré by ho mohlo narušiť alebo vytvoriť z neho výnimky. Z tohto dôvodu by sa toto nariadenie nemalo vzťahovať na pomoc, ktorej výška je stanovená na základe ceny alebo množstva kúpených výrobkov alebo výrobkov umiestnených na trhu. Rovnako by sa nemalo vzťahovať na podporu, na ktorú sa viaže povinnosť deliť sa o pomoc s prvovýrobcami. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Vzhľadom na podobnosti medzi spracovaním a marketingom poľnohospodárskych výrobkov a spracovaním a marketingom nepoľnohospodárskych výrobkov by sa toto nariadenie malo uplatňovať na spracovanie a marketing poľnohospodárskych výrobkov za predpokladu, že sa splnia určité podmienky. V tejto súvislosti by sa za spracovanie alebo marketing nemali považovať poľnohospodárske činnosti potrebné na prípravu výrobku na prvý predaj ako zber, sekanie a mlátenie obilnín alebo balenie vajec, ani prvotný predaj ďalším predajcom alebo spracovateľom. Súdny dvor stanovil (9), že hneď ako Únia prijme právny predpis týkajúci sa zriadenia spoločnej organizácie trhu v príslušnom sektore poľnohospodárstva, sú členské štáty povinné zdržať sa prijatia akéhokoľvek opatrenia, ktoré by ho mohlo narušiť alebo vytvoriť z neho výnimky. Z tohto dôvodu by sa toto nariadenie nemalo vzťahovať na pomoc, ktorej výška je stanovená na základe ceny alebo množstva kúpených výrobkov alebo výrobkov umiestnených na trhu. Rovnako by sa nemalo vzťahovať na podporu, na ktorú sa viaže povinnosť deliť sa o pomoc s prvovýrobcami.

| (8) | Toto nariadenie by sa nemalo vzťahovať na pomoc na vývoz ani na pomoc uprednostňujúcu domáce výrobky pred dovážanými výrobkami. Nemalo by sa uplatňovať najmä na pomoc, ktorou sa financuje založenie a prevádzka distribučnej siete v iných členských štátoch alebo tretích krajinách. Pomoc určená na náklady spojené s účasťou na obchodných veľtrhoch, so štúdiami alebo s poradenskými službami potrebnými na uvedenie nového alebo existujúceho výrobku na nový trh obvykle nepredstavuje pomoc na vývoz. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Toto nariadenie by sa nemalo vzťahovať na pomoc na vývoz ani na pomoc uprednostňujúcu domáce výrobky pred dovážanými výrobkami. Nemalo by sa uplatňovať najmä na pomoc, ktorou sa financuje založenie a prevádzka distribučnej siete v iných členských štátoch alebo tretích krajinách. Pomoc určená na náklady spojené s účasťou na obchodných veľtrhoch, so štúdiami alebo s poradenskými službami potrebnými na uvedenie nového alebo existujúceho výrobku na nový trh obvykle nepredstavuje pomoc na vývoz.

| (9) | Toto nariadenie by sa nemalo vzťahovať na podniky v ťažkostiach, keďže nie je vhodné poskytovať finančnú pomoc podnikom v ťažkostiach mimo plánu reštrukturalizácie. Okrem toho existujú ťažkosti súvisiace so stanovením ekvivalentu hrubého grantu pomoci poskytnutej tomuto druhu podnikov. Aby sa zabezpečila právna istota, je vhodné stanoviť jasné kritériá, ktoré si na určenie toho, či sa podnik pokladá za podnik v ťažkostiach na účely tohto nariadenia, nevyžadujú posúdenie všetkých konkrétnych aspektov situácie podniku. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Toto nariadenie by sa nemalo vzťahovať na podniky v ťažkostiach, keďže nie je vhodné poskytovať finančnú pomoc podnikom v ťažkostiach mimo plánu reštrukturalizácie. Okrem toho existujú ťažkosti súvisiace so stanovením ekvivalentu hrubého grantu pomoci poskytnutej tomuto druhu podnikov. Aby sa zabezpečila právna istota, je vhodné stanoviť jasné kritériá, ktoré si na určenie toho, či sa podnik pokladá za podnik v ťažkostiach na účely tohto nariadenia, nevyžadujú posúdenie všetkých konkrétnych aspektov situácie podniku.

| (10) | Trojročné obdobie, ktoré je potrebné zohľadniť na účely tohto nariadenia, by sa malo hodnotiť priebežne, pretože pre každý nový grant pomoci de minimis je potrebné zohľadniť celkovú výšku pomoci de minimis poskytnutú počas príslušného fiškálneho roka, ako aj počas dvoch predchádzajúcich fiškálnych rokov. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Trojročné obdobie, ktoré je potrebné zohľadniť na účely tohto nariadenia, by sa malo hodnotiť priebežne, pretože pre každý nový grant pomoci de minimis je potrebné zohľadniť celkovú výšku pomoci de minimis poskytnutú počas príslušného fiškálneho roka, ako aj počas dvoch predchádzajúcich fiškálnych rokov.

| (11) | Ak podniky pôsobia v sektoroch, ktoré sú vylúčené z rozsahu pôsobnosti tohto nariadenia, ako aj v iných sektoroch alebo ak vykonávajú iné činnosti, toto nariadenie by sa malo uplatňovať na tieto iné sektory alebo činnosti za predpokladu, že členské štáty zabezpečia pomocou primeraných prostriedkov, ako je oddelenie činností alebo rozlíšenie nákladov, že činnosti vykonávané v rámci vylúčeného sektora nebudú podporované z pomoci de minimis. Tá istá zásada by sa mala uplatňovať aj vtedy, ak podniky pôsobia v sektoroch, na ktoré sa uplatňujú nižšie stropy pomoci de minimis. Ak nie je možné zabezpečiť, aby činnosti vykonávané v sektoroch, na ktoré sa uplatňujú nižšie stropy pomoci de minimis, boli podporované z pomoci de minimis iba v rámci týchto nižších stropov, mal by sa na všetky činnosti podniku uplatniť najnižší strop. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Ak podniky pôsobia v sektoroch, ktoré sú vylúčené z rozsahu pôsobnosti tohto nariadenia, ako aj v iných sektoroch alebo ak vykonávajú iné činnosti, toto nariadenie by sa malo uplatňovať na tieto iné sektory alebo činnosti za predpokladu, že členské štáty zabezpečia pomocou primeraných prostriedkov, ako je oddelenie činností alebo rozlíšenie nákladov, že činnosti vykonávané v rámci vylúčeného sektora nebudú podporované z pomoci de minimis. Tá istá zásada by sa mala uplatňovať aj vtedy, ak podniky pôsobia v sektoroch, na ktoré sa uplatňujú nižšie stropy pomoci de minimis. Ak nie je možné zabezpečiť, aby činnosti vykonávané v sektoroch, na ktoré sa uplatňujú nižšie stropy pomoci de minimis, boli podporované z pomoci de minimis iba v rámci týchto nižších stropov, mal by sa na všetky činnosti podniku uplatniť najnižší strop.

| (12) | V tomto nariadení by sa mali stanoviť pravidlá na zabezpečenie toho, aby nebolo možné obchádzať maximálne intenzity pomoci stanovené v špecifických nariadeniach alebo rozhodnutiach Komisie. Mali by sa tu stanoviť aj jasné a jednoducho uplatniteľné kumulačné pravidlá. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

V tomto nariadení by sa mali stanoviť pravidlá na zabezpečenie toho, aby nebolo možné obchádzať maximálne intenzity pomoci stanovené v špecifických nariadeniach alebo rozhodnutiach Komisie. Mali by sa tu stanoviť aj jasné a jednoducho uplatniteľné kumulačné pravidlá.

| (13) | Toto nariadenie nevylučuje možnosť, že opatrenie sa nebude pokladať za štátnu pomoc v zmysle článku 107 ods. 1 zmluvy na základe iných dôvodov, než sú dôvody stanovené v tomto nariadení, napríklad preto, že spĺňa zásadu podnikateľského subjektu v trhovom hospodárstve alebo preto, že nezahŕňa presun verejných zdrojov. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Toto nariadenie nevylučuje možnosť, že opatrenie sa nebude pokladať za štátnu pomoc v zmysle článku 107 ods. 1 zmluvy na základe iných dôvodov, než sú dôvody stanovené v tomto nariadení, napríklad preto, že spĺňa zásadu podnikateľského subjektu v trhovom hospodárstve alebo preto, že nezahŕňa presun verejných zdrojov.

| (14) | Na účely transparentnosti, rovnakého zaobchádzania a účinného monitorovania by sa toto nariadenie malo uplatňovať len na pomoc de minimis, pri ktorej je možné vopred presne vypočítať ekvivalent hrubého grantu bez akejkoľvek potreby vykonať posúdenie rizika („transparentná pomoc“). Takýto presný výpočet sa môže urobiť napríklad v prípade grantov, bonifikácie úrokových sadzieb a obmedzených oslobodení od dane či iných nástrojov so stanovenou hornou hranicou, ktorá zaručuje, že nebude prekročený príslušný strop. Stanovenie hornej hranice znamená, že pokiaľ nie je známa alebo ešte nie je známa presná výška pomoci, členský štát musí vychádzať z predpokladu, že výška pomoci sa rovná hornej hranici, aby sa zabezpečilo, že viacero opatrení pomoci spolu nepresiahne strop stanovený v tomto nariadení, a aby sa dodržali kumulačné pravidlá. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Na účely transparentnosti, rovnakého zaobchádzania a účinného monitorovania by sa toto nariadenie malo uplatňovať len na pomoc de minimis, pri ktorej je možné vopred presne vypočítať ekvivalent hrubého grantu bez akejkoľvek potreby vykonať posúdenie rizika („transparentná pomoc“). Takýto presný výpočet sa môže urobiť napríklad v prípade grantov, bonifikácie úrokových sadzieb a obmedzených oslobodení od dane či iných nástrojov so stanovenou hornou hranicou, ktorá zaručuje, že nebude prekročený príslušný strop. Stanovenie hornej hranice znamená, že pokiaľ nie je známa alebo ešte nie je známa presná výška pomoci, členský štát musí vychádzať z predpokladu, že výška pomoci sa rovná hornej hranici, aby sa zabezpečilo, že viacero opatrení pomoci spolu nepresiahne strop stanovený v tomto nariadení, a aby sa dodržali kumulačné pravidlá.

| (15) | Na účely transparentnosti, rovnakého zaobchádzania a správneho uplatňovania stropu de minimis by všetky členské štáty mali uplatňovať tú istú metódu výpočtu. S cieľom uľahčiť tento výpočet je vhodné, aby sumy pomoci, ktoré sa neposkytujú formou hotovostného grantu, boli prekonvertované na ich ekvivalent hrubého grantu. Výpočet ekvivalentu hrubého grantu v prípade transparentných druhov pomoci iných než granty a v prípade pomoci splatnej v niekoľkých splátkach si vyžaduje používanie trhových sadzieb platných v čase poskytnutia takejto pomoci. S cieľom zabezpečiť jednotné, transparentné a jednoduché uplatňovanie pravidiel štátnej pomoci by uplatniteľnými trhovými sadzbami na účely tohto nariadenia mali byť referenčné sadzby, ktoré sú stanovené v oznámení Komisie o revízii spôsobu stanovenia referenčných a diskontných sadzieb (10). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Na účely transparentnosti, rovnakého zaobchádzania a správneho uplatňovania stropu de minimis by všetky členské štáty mali uplatňovať tú istú metódu výpočtu. S cieľom uľahčiť tento výpočet je vhodné, aby sumy pomoci, ktoré sa neposkytujú formou hotovostného grantu, boli prekonvertované na ich ekvivalent hrubého grantu. Výpočet ekvivalentu hrubého grantu v prípade transparentných druhov pomoci iných než granty a v prípade pomoci splatnej v niekoľkých splátkach si vyžaduje používanie trhových sadzieb platných v čase poskytnutia takejto pomoci. S cieľom zabezpečiť jednotné, transparentné a jednoduché uplatňovanie pravidiel štátnej pomoci by uplatniteľnými trhovými sadzbami na účely tohto nariadenia mali byť referenčné sadzby, ktoré sú stanovené v oznámení Komisie o revízii spôsobu stanovenia referenčných a diskontných sadzieb (10).

| (16) | Pomoc v rámci úverov by sa nemala považovať za transparentnú pomoc de minimis, keď ekvivalent hrubého pomoci je vypočítaný na základe trhových úrokových sadzieb platných v čase poskytnutia grantu. Aby sa zjednodušilo nakladanie s malými krátkodobými úvermi, malo by byť v tomto nariadení uvedené jasné a jednoducho uplatniteľné pravidlo, ktoré zohľadňuje výšku úveru a dĺžku jeho trvania. Na základe skúseností Komisie možno úvery, ktoré sú zabezpečené zábezpekou, ktorá kryje aspoň 50 % úveru, a ktoré nepresahujú buď 1 000 000 EUR a dĺžku trvania päť rokov, alebo 500 000 EUR a dĺžku trvania desať rokov, považovať za úvery, ktorých ekvivalent hrubého grantu sa rovná stropu de minimis. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Pomoc v rámci úverov by sa nemala považovať za transparentnú pomoc de minimis, keď ekvivalent hrubého pomoci je vypočítaný na základe trhových úrokových sadzieb platných v čase poskytnutia grantu. Aby sa zjednodušilo nakladanie s malými krátkodobými úvermi, malo by byť v tomto nariadení uvedené jasné a jednoducho uplatniteľné pravidlo, ktoré zohľadňuje výšku úveru a dĺžku jeho trvania. Na základe skúseností Komisie možno úvery, ktoré sú zabezpečené zábezpekou, ktorá kryje aspoň 50 % úveru, a ktoré nepresahujú buď 1 000 000 EUR a dĺžku trvania päť rokov, alebo 500 000 EUR a dĺžku trvania desať rokov, považovať za úvery, ktorých ekvivalent hrubého grantu sa rovná stropu de minimis.

| (17) | Pomoc vo forme kapitálových injekcií by sa nemala pokladať za transparentnú pomoc de minimis, s výnimkou prípadu, keď celková výška vkladu z verejných zdrojov nepresahuje strop de minimis. Pomoc obsiahnutá v opatreniach rizikového financovania vo forme kapitálových alebo kvázi kapitálových investícií, ako je uvedené v (nových usmerneniach o rizikovom financovaní), by sa nemala považovať za transparentnú pomoc de minimis s výnimkou prípadu, keď príslušné opatrenie poskytuje kapitál nepresahujúci strop pomoci de minimis pre každý cieľový podnik. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Pomoc vo forme kapitálových injekcií by sa nemala pokladať za transparentnú pomoc de minimis, s výnimkou prípadu, keď celková výška vkladu z verejných zdrojov nepresahuje strop de minimis. Pomoc obsiahnutá v opatreniach rizikového financovania vo forme kapitálových alebo kvázi kapitálových investícií, ako je uvedené v (nových usmerneniach o rizikovom financovaní), by sa nemala považovať za transparentnú pomoc de minimis s výnimkou prípadu, keď príslušné opatrenie poskytuje kapitál nepresahujúci strop pomoci de minimis pre každý cieľový podnik.

| (18) | Pomoc v podobe záruk by sa mala pokladať za transparentnú, ak ekvivalent hrubého grantu bol vypočítaný na základe prémií typu „bezpečný prístav“ stanovených v oznámení Komisie pre druh dotknutého podniku. V prípade malých a stredných podnikov je to napríklad oznámenie Komisie o uplatňovaní článkov 87 a 88 Zmluvy o ES na štátnu pomoc vo forme záruk (11), kde sú uvedené úrovne ročných poplatkov, pričom pri ich prekročení by sa štátna záruka nepokladala za pomoc. Aby sa zjednodušilo nakladanie s krátkodobými zárukami zabezpečujúcimi maximálne 80 % relatívne malého úveru, malo by byť v tomto nariadení uvedené jasné a jednoducho uplatniteľné pravidlo, ktoré zohľadňuje výšku príslušného úveru a dĺžku trvania záruky. Toto pravidlo by sa nemalo uplatňovať na záruky príslušných transakcií, ktoré nepredstavujú úver, ako sú záruky na majetkové transakcie. Ak záruka nepresahuje 80 % príslušného úveru, garantovaná suma nepresahuje 1 500 000 EUR a trvanie záruky nepresahuje päť rokov, možno záruku považovať za záruku, ktorej ekvivalent hrubého grantu sa rovná stropu de minimis. Rovnaké pravidlo platí v prípadoch, keď záruka nepresahuje 80 % príslušného úveru, garantovaná suma nepresahuje 750 000 EUR a trvanie záruky nepresahuje desať rokov. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Pomoc v podobe záruk by sa mala pokladať za transparentnú, ak ekvivalent hrubého grantu bol vypočítaný na základe prémií typu „bezpečný prístav“ stanovených v oznámení Komisie pre druh dotknutého podniku. V prípade malých a stredných podnikov je to napríklad oznámenie Komisie o uplatňovaní článkov 87 a 88 Zmluvy o ES na štátnu pomoc vo forme záruk (11), kde sú uvedené úrovne ročných poplatkov, pričom pri ich prekročení by sa štátna záruka nepokladala za pomoc. Aby sa zjednodušilo nakladanie s krátkodobými zárukami zabezpečujúcimi maximálne 80 % relatívne malého úveru, malo by byť v tomto nariadení uvedené jasné a jednoducho uplatniteľné pravidlo, ktoré zohľadňuje výšku príslušného úveru a dĺžku trvania záruky. Toto pravidlo by sa nemalo uplatňovať na záruky príslušných transakcií, ktoré nepredstavujú úver, ako sú záruky na majetkové transakcie. Ak záruka nepresahuje 80 % príslušného úveru, garantovaná suma nepresahuje 1 500 000 EUR a trvanie záruky nepresahuje päť rokov, možno záruku považovať za záruku, ktorej ekvivalent hrubého grantu sa rovná stropu de minimis. Rovnaké pravidlo platí v prípadoch, keď záruka nepresahuje 80 % príslušného úveru, garantovaná suma nepresahuje 750 000 EUR a trvanie záruky nepresahuje desať rokov.

| (19) | Ak úver alebo záruka predstavujú nižšiu sumu alebo majú kratšie trvanie, než je špecifikované v odôvodneniach 16 a 18, ekvivalent hrubého grantu by sa mal vypočítať vynásobením pomeru medzi skutočnou sumou a maximálnou sumou uvedenou v odôvodneniach 16 a 18 pomerom medzi skutočným trvaním a dobou trvania päť rokov a následným vynásobením sumou 200 000 EUR. Tak by sa napríklad vychádzalo z toho, že úver vo výške 500 000 EUR na 2,5 roka má ekvivalent hrubého grantu 50 000 EUR. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Ak úver alebo záruka predstavujú nižšiu sumu alebo majú kratšie trvanie, než je špecifikované v odôvodneniach 16 a 18, ekvivalent hrubého grantu by sa mal vypočítať vynásobením pomeru medzi skutočnou sumou a maximálnou sumou uvedenou v odôvodneniach 16 a 18 pomerom medzi skutočným trvaním a dobou trvania päť rokov a následným vynásobením sumou 200 000 EUR. Tak by sa napríklad vychádzalo z toho, že úver vo výške 500 000 EUR na 2,5 roka má ekvivalent hrubého grantu 50 000 EUR.

| (20) | Komisia môže na základe oznámenia členského štátu preskúmať, či opatrenie, ktoré sa neskladá z grantu, úveru, záruky, kapitálovej injekcie alebo opatrenia rizikového financovania v podobe kapitálových alebo kvázi kapitálových investícií, vedie k ekvivalentu hrubého grantu, ktorý nepresahuje strop de minimis, a preto by mohlo spadať do rozsahu pôsobnosti tohto nariadenia. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Komisia môže na základe oznámenia členského štátu preskúmať, či opatrenie, ktoré sa neskladá z grantu, úveru, záruky, kapitálovej injekcie alebo opatrenia rizikového financovania v podobe kapitálových alebo kvázi kapitálových investícií, vedie k ekvivalentu hrubého grantu, ktorý nepresahuje strop de minimis, a preto by mohlo spadať do rozsahu pôsobnosti tohto nariadenia.

| (21) | Povinnosťou Komisie je zabezpečiť, aby sa dodržiavali pravidlá štátnej pomoci a v súlade so zásadou spolupráce stanovenou v článku 4 ods. 3 Zmluvy o Európskej únii by mali členské štáty uľahčiť plnenie tejto úlohy prostredníctvom vytvorenia potrebných nástrojov, ktoré by zabezpečili, aby celková suma pomoci de minimis poskytnutá jednému podniku v rámci pravidla de minimis nepresiahla celkový povolený strop. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Povinnosťou Komisie je zabezpečiť, aby sa dodržiavali pravidlá štátnej pomoci a v súlade so zásadou spolupráce stanovenou v článku 4 ods. 3 Zmluvy o Európskej únii by mali členské štáty uľahčiť plnenie tejto úlohy prostredníctvom vytvorenia potrebných nástrojov, ktoré by zabezpečili, aby celková suma pomoci de minimis poskytnutá jednému podniku v rámci pravidla de minimis nepresiahla celkový povolený strop.

| (22) | Členské štáty by mali pred poskytnutím pomoci de minimis za svoj členský štát overiť, že novou pomocou de minimis nebude prekročený strop pomoci de minimis a že boli dodržané ostatné podmienky uvedené v tomto nariadení. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Členské štáty by mali pred poskytnutím pomoci de minimis za svoj členský štát overiť, že novou pomocou de minimis nebude prekročený strop pomoci de minimis a že boli dodržané ostatné podmienky uvedené v tomto nariadení.

| (23) | Aby sa zabezpečilo, že členské štáty majú správne, spoľahlivé a úplné údaje na zaistenie toho, že sa poskytnutím novej pomoci de minimis nepresiahne strop, ktorý sa uplatňuje na predmetný podnik, malo by sa od členských štátov požadovať, aby vytvorili centrálnu evidenciu pomoci de minimis, ktorá bude obsahovať úplné informácie o každej pomoci de minimis poskytnutej v súlade s týmto nariadením akýmkoľvek orgánom v rámci členského štátu. Členské štáty by mali mať možnosť navrhnúť vlastnú koncepciu svojej evidencie a rozhodnúť o vhodnom mechanizme jej vytvorenia v súlade s ich ústavnou a administratívnou štruktúrou za predpokladu, že zabezpečia, že evidencia umožní všetkým verejným orgánom v členskom štáte skontrolovať sumu pomoci de minimis, ktorú každý podnik dostal. Členským štátom by sa mal poskytnúť dostatočný čas na vytvorenie takejto evidencie. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Aby sa zabezpečilo, že členské štáty majú správne, spoľahlivé a úplné údaje na zaistenie toho, že sa poskytnutím novej pomoci de minimis nepresiahne strop, ktorý sa uplatňuje na predmetný podnik, malo by sa od členských štátov požadovať, aby vytvorili centrálnu evidenciu pomoci de minimis, ktorá bude obsahovať úplné informácie o každej pomoci de minimis poskytnutej v súlade s týmto nariadením akýmkoľvek orgánom v rámci členského štátu. Členské štáty by mali mať možnosť navrhnúť vlastnú koncepciu svojej evidencie a rozhodnúť o vhodnom mechanizme jej vytvorenia v súlade s ich ústavnou a administratívnou štruktúrou za predpokladu, že zabezpečia, že evidencia umožní všetkým verejným orgánom v členskom štáte skontrolovať sumu pomoci de minimis, ktorú každý podnik dostal. Členským štátom by sa mal poskytnúť dostatočný čas na vytvorenie takejto evidencie.

| (24) | Kým členský štát nevytvorí centrálnu evidenciu, ktorá pokrýva obdobie troch rokov, členský štát by mal s výslovným odkazom na toto nariadenie informovať príslušný podnik o výške poskytnutej pomoci de minimis a o tom, že ide o pomoc de minimis. Okrem toho by mal príslušný členský štát pred poskytnutím takejto pomoci získať od podniku vyhlásenie o inej pomoci de minimis, na ktorú sa vzťahuje toto nariadenie alebo iné predpisy o pomoci de minimis a ktorú podnik prijal počas príslušného fiškálneho roka a počas dvoch predchádzajúcich fiškálnych rokov. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

Kým členský štát nevytvorí centrálnu evidenciu, ktorá pokrýva obdobie troch rokov, členský štát by mal s výslovným odkazom na toto nariadenie informovať príslušný podnik o výške poskytnutej pomoci de minimis a o tom, že ide o pomoc de minimis. Okrem toho by mal príslušný členský štát pred poskytnutím takejto pomoci získať od podniku vyhlásenie o inej pomoci de minimis, na ktorú sa vzťahuje toto nariadenie alebo iné predpisy o pomoci de minimis a ktorú podnik prijal počas príslušného fiškálneho roka a počas dvoch predchádzajúcich fiškálnych rokov.

| (25) | Aby Komisia mohla monitorovať uplatňovanie tohto nariadenia a zistiť možné narušenie hospodárskej súťaže, malo by sa od členských štátov vyžadovať, aby každoročne poskytovali základné informácie o sumách poskytovaných v súlade s týmto nariadením. Ak členský štát informoval Komisiu o tom, kde sú verejne prístupné informácie, ktoré je potrebné uvádzať v správach, nemalo by sa od neho požadovať predloženie správy Komisii. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

Aby Komisia mohla monitorovať uplatňovanie tohto nariadenia a zistiť možné narušenie hospodárskej súťaže, malo by sa od členských štátov vyžadovať, aby každoročne poskytovali základné informácie o sumách poskytovaných v súlade s týmto nariadením. Ak členský štát informoval Komisiu o tom, kde sú verejne prístupné informácie, ktoré je potrebné uvádzať v správach, nemalo by sa od neho požadovať predloženie správy Komisii.

| (26) | So zreteľom na skúsenosti Komisie, a najmä na častú potrebu revidovať politiku v oblasti štátnej pomoci, malo by sa obdobie uplatňovania tohto nariadenia obmedziť. Ak by sa účinnosť tohto nariadenia skončila bez jej predĺženia, členské štáty by mali mať šesťmesačné obdobie na prispôsobenie sa, pokiaľ ide o pomoc de minimis, na ktorú sa vzťahuje toto nariadenie, |
| --- | --- |

(26)

So zreteľom na skúsenosti Komisie, a najmä na častú potrebu revidovať politiku v oblasti štátnej pomoci, malo by sa obdobie uplatňovania tohto nariadenia obmedziť. Ak by sa účinnosť tohto nariadenia skončila bez jej predĺženia, členské štáty by mali mať šesťmesačné obdobie na prispôsobenie sa, pokiaľ ide o pomoc de minimis, na ktorú sa vzťahuje toto nariadenie,

PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:

Článok 1

Rozsah pôsobnosti

1.   Toto nariadenie sa vzťahuje na pomoc poskytnutú podnikom vo všetkých sektoroch okrem:

| a) | pomoci v prospech podnikov pôsobiacich v sektore rybolovu a akvakultúry, na ktoré sa vzťahuje nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 104/2000 (12); |
| --- | --- |

a)

pomoci v prospech podnikov pôsobiacich v sektore rybolovu a akvakultúry, na ktoré sa vzťahuje nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 104/2000 (12);

| b) | pomoci poskytovanej podnikom pôsobiacim v oblasti prvovýroby poľnohospodárskych výrobkov; |
| --- | --- |

b)

pomoci poskytovanej podnikom pôsobiacim v oblasti prvovýroby poľnohospodárskych výrobkov;

| c) | pomoci poskytovanej podnikom zaoberajúcim sa spracovaním a marketingom poľnohospodárskych výrobkov, a to v týchto prípadoch:






  i) | ak je výška pomoci stanovená na základe ceny alebo množstva takýchto výrobkov kúpených od prvovýrobcu alebo výrobkov umiestnených na trhu príslušnými podnikmi; |
| --- | --- | --- |

c)

pomoci poskytovanej podnikom zaoberajúcim sa spracovaním a marketingom poľnohospodárskych výrobkov, a to v týchto prípadoch:

i)

ak je výška pomoci stanovená na základe ceny alebo množstva takýchto výrobkov kúpených od prvovýrobcu alebo výrobkov umiestnených na trhu príslušnými podnikmi;

| ii) | ak je pomoc podmienená tým, že je čiastočne alebo úplne postúpená prvovýrobcom; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

ak je pomoc podmienená tým, že je čiastočne alebo úplne postúpená prvovýrobcom;

| d) | pomoci na činnosti súvisiace s vývozom do tretích krajín alebo členských štátov, konkrétne pomoci priamo súvisiacej s vyvážanými množstvami, na zriadenie a prevádzkovanie distribučnej siete alebo inými bežnými výdavkami súvisiacimi s vývoznou činnosťou; |
| --- | --- |

d)

pomoci na činnosti súvisiace s vývozom do tretích krajín alebo členských štátov, konkrétne pomoci priamo súvisiacej s vyvážanými množstvami, na zriadenie a prevádzkovanie distribučnej siete alebo inými bežnými výdavkami súvisiacimi s vývoznou činnosťou;

| e) | pomoci, ktorá je podmienená uprednostňovaním používania domáceho tovaru pred dovážaným; |
| --- | --- |

e)

pomoci, ktorá je podmienená uprednostňovaním používania domáceho tovaru pred dovážaným;

| f) | pomoci v prospech podnikov v ťažkostiach, ako sú definované v článku 2 písm. e). |
| --- | --- |

f)

pomoci v prospech podnikov v ťažkostiach, ako sú definované v článku 2 písm. e).

2.   Ak niektorý podnik pôsobí v sektoroch uvedených v bodoch a), b) alebo c) odseku 1 a v sektoroch, ktoré patria do rozsahu pôsobnosti tohto nariadenia, potom sa toto nariadenie vzťahuje na pomoc poskytovanú v týchto ďalších sektoroch alebo na tieto činnosti za podmienky, že členské štáty zabezpečia pomocou primeraných prostriedkov, ako je oddelenie činností alebo rozlíšenie nákladov, že činnosti vykonávané vo vylúčených sektoroch nie sú podporované z pomoci de minimis poskytovanej v súlade s týmto nariadením.

Článok 2

Vymedzenie pojmov

Na účely tohto nariadenia:

| a) | „poľnohospodárske výrobky“ sú výrobky vymenované v prílohe I k zmluve, s výnimkou produktov rybolovu a akvakultúry uvedených v prílohe I k nariadeniu (EÚ) č. [ešte nebolo prijaté; pozri návrh Komisie KOM(2011) 416] o spoločnej organizácii trhov s produktmi rybolovu a akvakultúry; |
| --- | --- |

a)

„poľnohospodárske výrobky“ sú výrobky vymenované v prílohe I k zmluve, s výnimkou produktov rybolovu a akvakultúry uvedených v prílohe I k nariadeniu (EÚ) č. [ešte nebolo prijaté; pozri návrh Komisie KOM(2011) 416] o spoločnej organizácii trhov s produktmi rybolovu a akvakultúry;

| b) | „spracovanie poľnohospodárskych výrobkov“ je akékoľvek pôsobenie na poľnohospodársky výrobok, výsledkom ktorého je taktiež poľnohospodársky výrobok, s výnimkou poľnohospodárskych činností potrebných na prípravu živočíšneho alebo rastlinného výrobku na prvý predaj; |
| --- | --- |

b)

„spracovanie poľnohospodárskych výrobkov“ je akékoľvek pôsobenie na poľnohospodársky výrobok, výsledkom ktorého je taktiež poľnohospodársky výrobok, s výnimkou poľnohospodárskych činností potrebných na prípravu živočíšneho alebo rastlinného výrobku na prvý predaj;

| c) | „marketing poľnohospodárskych výrobkov“ je prechovávanie alebo vystavovanie výrobku na účely jeho predaja, ponúkanie výrobku na predaj, jeho dodanie alebo akýkoľvek iný spôsob umiestňovania výrobku na trh, s výnimkou prvého predaja od prvovýrobcu obchodníkom alebo spracovateľom a akejkoľvek činnosti, ktorou sa výrobok pripravuje na takýto prvý predaj, predaj od prvovýrobcu konečným spotrebiteľom sa považuje za marketing, ak sa uskutoční v osobitných prevádzkach vyhradených na tento účel; |
| --- | --- |

c)

„marketing poľnohospodárskych výrobkov“ je prechovávanie alebo vystavovanie výrobku na účely jeho predaja, ponúkanie výrobku na predaj, jeho dodanie alebo akýkoľvek iný spôsob umiestňovania výrobku na trh, s výnimkou prvého predaja od prvovýrobcu obchodníkom alebo spracovateľom a akejkoľvek činnosti, ktorou sa výrobok pripravuje na takýto prvý predaj, predaj od prvovýrobcu konečným spotrebiteľom sa považuje za marketing, ak sa uskutoční v osobitných prevádzkach vyhradených na tento účel;

| d) | „jeden podnik“ na účely tohto nariadenia predstavuje všetky subjekty, medzi ktorými je aspoň jeden z týchto vzťahov:






  i) | jeden subjekt má väčšinu hlasovacích práv akcionárov alebo členov v inom subjekte; |
| --- | --- | --- |

d)

„jeden podnik“ na účely tohto nariadenia predstavuje všetky subjekty, medzi ktorými je aspoň jeden z týchto vzťahov:

i)

jeden subjekt má väčšinu hlasovacích práv akcionárov alebo členov v inom subjekte;

| ii) | jeden subjekt má právo vymenovať alebo odvolať väčšinu členov správneho, riadiaceho alebo dozorného orgánu iného subjektu; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

jeden subjekt má právo vymenovať alebo odvolať väčšinu členov správneho, riadiaceho alebo dozorného orgánu iného subjektu;

| iii) | jeden subjekt má právo dominantným spôsobom ovplyvňovať iný subjekt na základe zmluvy, ktorú s daným subjektom uzavrel, alebo na základe ustanovenia v zakladajúcom dokumente alebo stanovách spoločnosti; |
| --- | --- |

iii)

jeden subjekt má právo dominantným spôsobom ovplyvňovať iný subjekt na základe zmluvy, ktorú s daným subjektom uzavrel, alebo na základe ustanovenia v zakladajúcom dokumente alebo stanovách spoločnosti;

| iv) | jeden subjekt, ktorý je akcionárom alebo členom iného subjektu, sám kontroluje na základe zmluvy s inými akcionármi alebo členmi daného subjektu väčšinu hlasovacích práv akcionárov alebo členov v danom subjekte. |
| --- | --- |

iv)

jeden subjekt, ktorý je akcionárom alebo členom iného subjektu, sám kontroluje na základe zmluvy s inými akcionármi alebo členmi daného subjektu väčšinu hlasovacích práv akcionárov alebo členov v danom subjekte.

Subjekty, medzi ktorými je ktorýkoľvek z uvedených vzťahov prostredníctvom jedného alebo viacerých ďalších subjektov, sa takisto považujú za jeden podnik,

| e) | „podnik v ťažkostiach“ je podnik, ktorý spĺňa aspoň jednu z týchto podmienok:






  i) | v prípade spoločnosti s ručením obmedzeným, kde v dôsledku akumulovaných strát došlo k strate viac než polovice upísaného základného kapitálu, ide o prípad, keď odpočítanie akumulovaných strát z rezerv (a všetkých iných prvkov, ktoré sa vo všeobecnosti považujú za súčasť vlastných zdrojov spoločnosti) má za následok negatívny výsledok, ktorý presahuje polovicu upísaného základného kapitálu; |
| --- | --- | --- |

e)

„podnik v ťažkostiach“ je podnik, ktorý spĺňa aspoň jednu z týchto podmienok:

i)

v prípade spoločnosti s ručením obmedzeným, kde v dôsledku akumulovaných strát došlo k strate viac než polovice upísaného základného kapitálu, ide o prípad, keď odpočítanie akumulovaných strát z rezerv (a všetkých iných prvkov, ktoré sa vo všeobecnosti považujú za súčasť vlastných zdrojov spoločnosti) má za následok negatívny výsledok, ktorý presahuje polovicu upísaného základného kapitálu;

| ii) | v prípade spoločnosti, v ktorej aspoň niekoľko členov ručí neobmedzene za dlh spoločnosti, kde v dôsledku akumulovaných strát došlo k strate viac než polovice jej kapitálu zaznamenaného v účtovníctve spoločnosti; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

v prípade spoločnosti, v ktorej aspoň niekoľko členov ručí neobmedzene za dlh spoločnosti, kde v dôsledku akumulovaných strát došlo k strate viac než polovice jej kapitálu zaznamenaného v účtovníctve spoločnosti;

| iii) | podnik je predmetom kolektívneho konkurzného konania alebo spĺňa kritériá domácich právnych predpisov na to, aby sa stal predmetom kolektívneho konkurzného konania na žiadosť svojich veriteľov; |
| --- | --- |

iii)

podnik je predmetom kolektívneho konkurzného konania alebo spĺňa kritériá domácich právnych predpisov na to, aby sa stal predmetom kolektívneho konkurzného konania na žiadosť svojich veriteľov;

| iv) | účtovný pomer dlhu podniku k vlastnému kapitálu je vyšší než 7,5; |
| --- | --- |

iv)

účtovný pomer dlhu podniku k vlastnému kapitálu je vyšší než 7,5;

| v) | pomer zisku podniku pred odpočítaním úrokov a daní (EBIT) k úrokovému krytiu bol v uplynulých dvoch rokoch nižší než 1,0; |
| --- | --- |

v)

pomer zisku podniku pred odpočítaním úrokov a daní (EBIT) k úrokovému krytiu bol v uplynulých dvoch rokoch nižší než 1,0;

| vi) | podniku udelila minimálne jedna ratingová agentúra zaregistrovaná v súlade s nariadením (ES) č. 1060/2009 rating CCC+ („platobná schopnosť závisí od zachovania priaznivých podmienok“) alebo nižší (13). |
| --- | --- |

vi)

podniku udelila minimálne jedna ratingová agentúra zaregistrovaná v súlade s nariadením (ES) č. 1060/2009 rating CCC+ („platobná schopnosť závisí od zachovania priaznivých podmienok“) alebo nižší (13).

Na účely písm. e) prvého pododseku sa MSP existujúci kratšie než tri roky nepovažuje za podnik v ťažkostiach, ak nespĺňa podmienku stanovenú v bode iii) uvedeného písmena.

Článok 3

Pomoc de minimis

1.   Opatrenia pomoci sa považujú za opatrenia, ktoré nespĺňajú všetky kritériá článku 107 ods. 1 zmluvy, a preto sú oslobodené od notifikačnej povinnosti stanovenej v článku 108 ods. 3 zmluvy v prípade, že spĺňajú podmienky stanovené v ods. 2 až 8 tohto článku a v článkoch 4 a 5.

2.   Celková výška pomoci de minimis, ktorú členský štát poskytol jednému podniku podľa vymedzenia v článku 2 písm. d), nepresiahne 200 000 EUR v priebehu obdobia troch fiškálnych rokov.

Celková výška pomoci de minimis, ktorú členský štát poskytol jednému podniku podľa vymedzenia v článku 2 písm. d) vykonávajúcemu cestnú nákladnú dopravu v prenájme alebo za úhradu, nepresiahne 100 000 EUR v priebehu troch fiškálnych rokov. Pomoc de minimis sa nepoužije na nákup vozidiel cestnej nákladnej dopravy.

3.   Ak podnik vykonáva cestnú nákladnú dopravu v prenájme alebo za úhradu, ako aj iné činnosti, na ktoré sa uplatňuje strop vo výške 200 000 EUR, tento strop vo výške 200 000 EUR sa uplatňuje na podnik za predpokladu, že členské štáty zabezpečia pomocou primeraných prostriedkov, ako je oddelenie činností alebo rozlíšenie nákladov, že podpora pre činnosti cestnej nákladnej dopravy nepresiahne 100 000 EUR a že sa žiadna pomoc de minimis nepoužije na nákup vozidiel cestnej nákladnej dopravy.

4.   Pomoc de minimis sa poskytuje vo chvíli, keď je podniku priznané právo prijať pomoc podľa uplatniteľného vnútroštátneho právneho poriadku.

5.   Stropy stanovené v odseku 2 sa uplatňujú bez ohľadu na formu pomoci de minimis alebo stanovený účel, ako aj nezávisle od toho, či pomoc poskytnutá členským štátom je financovaná úplne alebo čiastočne zo zdrojov Únie. Obdobie troch fiškálnych rokov sa určí podľa fiškálnych rokov, ktoré daný podnik používa v príslušnom členskom štáte.

6.   Stropy uvedené v odseku 2 sa vyjadria ako hotovostný grant. Všetky číselné údaje sú uvedené v hrubom vyjadrení, čiže pred odrátaním dane alebo ďalších poplatkov. Ak sa pomoc poskytuje inou formou než formou grantu, výška pomoci sa rovná ekvivalentu hrubého grantu pomoci.

Pomoc splatná v niekoľkých splátkach je diskontovaná na jej hodnotu v čase jej poskytnutia. Ako úroková sadzba na diskontné účely sa použije diskontná sadzba uplatniteľná v čase poskytnutia pomoci.

7.   Ak by sa strop de minimis stanovený v odseku 2 presiahol udelením novej pomoci de minimis, na takúto novú pomoc sa nevzťahujú výhody spojené s týmto nariadením.

8.   V prípade fúzií alebo akvizícií sa pri zisťovaní toho, či prípadná nová pomoc de minimis pre tento nový alebo nadobúdajúci podnik presahuje stanovený strop, zohľadní každá pomoc de minimis poskytnutá predtým ktorémukoľvek z fúzujúcich podnikov bez toho, aby sa spochybnila pomoc de minimis zákonným spôsobom poskytnutá pred fúziou alebo akvizíciou.

V prípade rozdelenia jedného podniku na dva či viac podnikov, ktoré sú oddelené, sa pomoc de minimis poskytnutá pred rozdelením priradí tomu podniku, ktorý z nej profitoval, čo je v zásade ten podnik, ktorý preberá činnosti, na ktoré sa pomoc de minimis využila. Ak takéto priradenie nie je možné, pomoc de minimis sa priradí úmerne na základe účtovnej hodnoty vlastného kapitálu nových podnikov.

Článok 4

Výpočet ekvivalentu hrubého grantu

1.   Toto nariadenie sa vzťahuje iba na pomoc, pri ktorej je možné vopred presne vypočítať ekvivalent hrubého grantu pomoci bez akejkoľvek potreby vykonať posúdenie rizika („transparentná pomoc“). Za transparentnú pomoc sa pokladajú najmä opatrenia pomoci uvedené v odsekoch 2 až 6.

2.   Pomoc vo forme úverov sa pokladá za transparentnú pomoc de minimis, ak:

| a) | je úver zabezpečený zábezpekou, ktorá kryje aspoň 50 % úveru, a úver nepresahuje buď 1 000 000 EUR (alebo 500 000 EUR pre podniky vykonávajúce cestnú nákladnú dopravu) a dĺžku trvania päť rokov, alebo 500 000 EUR (alebo 250 000 EUR pre podniky vykonávajúce cestnú nákladnú dopravu) a dĺžku trvania desať rokov. Ak je úver nižší ako uvedené sumy a/alebo sa poskytuje na obdobie kratšie ako päť alebo desať rokov, ekvivalent hrubého grantu úveru sa vypočíta ako zodpovedajúci podiel príslušného stropu stanoveného v článku 3 ods. 2 alebo |
| --- | --- |

a)

je úver zabezpečený zábezpekou, ktorá kryje aspoň 50 % úveru, a úver nepresahuje buď 1 000 000 EUR (alebo 500 000 EUR pre podniky vykonávajúce cestnú nákladnú dopravu) a dĺžku trvania päť rokov, alebo 500 000 EUR (alebo 250 000 EUR pre podniky vykonávajúce cestnú nákladnú dopravu) a dĺžku trvania desať rokov. Ak je úver nižší ako uvedené sumy a/alebo sa poskytuje na obdobie kratšie ako päť alebo desať rokov, ekvivalent hrubého grantu úveru sa vypočíta ako zodpovedajúci podiel príslušného stropu stanoveného v článku 3 ods. 2 alebo

| b) | ekvivalent hrubého grantu bol vypočítaný na základe referenčnej sadzby uplatniteľnej v čase poskytnutia grantu. |
| --- | --- |

b)

ekvivalent hrubého grantu bol vypočítaný na základe referenčnej sadzby uplatniteľnej v čase poskytnutia grantu.

3.   Pomoc vo forme kapitálových injekcií sa považuje za transparentnú pomoc de minimis len vtedy, ak celková výška vkladu z verejných zdrojov nepresahuje strop de minimis.

4.   Pomoc skladajúca sa z opatrení rizikového financovania vo forme kapitálových alebo kvázi kapitálových investícií sa, pokiaľ ide o cieľový podnik, považuje za transparentnú pomoc de minimis len vtedy, ak príslušné opatrenie poskytuje každému cieľovému podniku kapitál, ktorý nepresahuje strop pomoci de minimis.

5.   Pomoc vo forme záruk sa považuje za transparentnú pomoc de minimis, ak:

| a) | záruka nepresahuje 80 % príslušného úveru a buď garantovaná suma nepresahuje 1 500 000 EUR (alebo 750 000 EUR pre podniky vykonávajúce cestnú nákladnú dopravu) a trvanie záruky nepresahuje päť rokov, alebo garantovaná suma nepresahuje 750 000 EUR (alebo 375 000 EUR pre podniky vykonávajúce cestnú nákladnú dopravu) a trvanie záruky nepresahuje desať rokov. Ak je garantovaná suma nižšia než uvedené sumy a/alebo záruka má obdobie trvania kratšie ako päť alebo desať rokov, ekvivalent hrubého grantu záruky sa vypočíta ako zodpovedajúci podiel uplatniteľného stropu stanoveného v článku 3 ods. 2 alebo |
| --- | --- |

a)

záruka nepresahuje 80 % príslušného úveru a buď garantovaná suma nepresahuje 1 500 000 EUR (alebo 750 000 EUR pre podniky vykonávajúce cestnú nákladnú dopravu) a trvanie záruky nepresahuje päť rokov, alebo garantovaná suma nepresahuje 750 000 EUR (alebo 375 000 EUR pre podniky vykonávajúce cestnú nákladnú dopravu) a trvanie záruky nepresahuje desať rokov. Ak je garantovaná suma nižšia než uvedené sumy a/alebo záruka má obdobie trvania kratšie ako päť alebo desať rokov, ekvivalent hrubého grantu záruky sa vypočíta ako zodpovedajúci podiel uplatniteľného stropu stanoveného v článku 3 ods. 2 alebo

| b) | ekvivalent hrubého grantu bol vypočítaný na základe prémií typu „bezpečný prístav“ stanovených v oznámení Komisie (14) alebo |
| --- | --- |

b)

ekvivalent hrubého grantu bol vypočítaný na základe prémií typu „bezpečný prístav“ stanovených v oznámení Komisie (14) alebo

| c) | ešte pred jej uplatnením bola metodika na výpočet ekvivalentu hrubého grantu záruky podľa akéhokoľvek predpisu prijatého Komisiou v oblasti štátnej pomoci platného v danom čase oznámená Komisii a schválená Komisiou a táto schválená metodika výslovne upravuje druh záruky a druh príslušnej transakcie v kontexte uplatňovania tohto nariadenia. |
| --- | --- |

c)

ešte pred jej uplatnením bola metodika na výpočet ekvivalentu hrubého grantu záruky podľa akéhokoľvek predpisu prijatého Komisiou v oblasti štátnej pomoci platného v danom čase oznámená Komisii a schválená Komisiou a táto schválená metodika výslovne upravuje druh záruky a druh príslušnej transakcie v kontexte uplatňovania tohto nariadenia.

6.   Pomoc vo forme iných nástrojov sa pokladá za transparentnú pomoc de minimis, ak nástroj stanovuje hornú hranicu, ktorá zabezpečuje, že nebude prekročený príslušný strop.

Článok 5

Kumulácia

1.   Pomoc de minimis poskytnutá v súlade s týmto nariadením sa môže kumulovať s pomocou de minimis poskytnutou v súlade s nariadením Komisie (EÚ) č. 360/2012 (15) až do výšky stropov stanovených v uvedenom nariadení. Môže byť kumulovaná s pomocou de minimis poskytnutou v súlade s inými predpismi o pomoci de minimis až do výšky stropu stanoveného v článku 3 ods. 2.

2.   Pomoc de minimis sa nekumuluje so štátnou pomocou vo vzťahu k rovnakým oprávneným nákladom alebo štátnou pomocou na to isté opatrenie rizikového financovania, ak by takáto kumulácia presahovala najvyššiu intenzitu pomoci alebo výšku pomoci stanovenú v závislosti od osobitných okolností jednotlivých prípadov v nariadení alebo rozhodnutí o skupinovej výnimke prijatom Komisiou.

Článok 6

Monitorovanie a podávanie správ

1.   Členské štáty vytvoria centrálnu evidenciu pomoci de minimis do 31. decembra 2015. Centrálna evidencia obsahuje informácie o každom príjemcovi [vrátane údaju, či ide o malý, stredný alebo veľký podnik, a uvedenia hospodárskeho sektora (kód NACE na úrovni divízií (16)) jeho hlavnej činnosti], dátum udelenia pomoci a ekvivalent hrubého grantu každého opatrenia pomoci de minimis, ktoré v súlade s týmto nariadením poskytol ktorýkoľvek orgán predmetného členského štátu. Evidencia obsahuje všetky opatrenia de minimis poskytnuté v súlade s týmto nariadením od 1. januára 2016.

2.   Odsek 3 platí dovtedy, kým členský štát nevytvorí centrálnu evidenciu a evidencia nepokrýva obdobie troch rokov.

3.   Ak má členský štát v úmysle poskytnúť určitému podniku pomoc de minimis podľa tohto nariadenia, písomne informuje uvedený podnik o predpokladanej výške pomoci vyjadrenej ako ekvivalent hrubého grantu a o tom, že ide o pomoc de minimis, pričom výslovne uvedie odkaz na toto nariadenie, jeho názov a údaje o jeho uverejnení v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie. Ak sa pomoc de minimis poskytuje v súlade s týmto nariadením rôznym podnikom na základe určitej schémy a v rámci uvedenej schémy sa týmto podnikom poskytujú rôzne sumy individuálnej pomoci, príslušný členský štát sa môže rozhodnúť, že si splní uvedenú povinnosť informovaním podnikov o pevne stanovenej sume zodpovedajúcej maximálnej výške pomoci, ktorá sa má poskytnúť v rámci tejto schémy. V takom prípade sa prostredníctvom pevne stanovenej sumy zisťuje, či sa dodržal strop uvedený v článku 3 ods. 2. Pred poskytnutím pomoci by členský štát mal získať v písomnej alebo elektronickej forme vyhlásenie od príslušného podniku o akejkoľvek inej pomoci de minimis prijatej na základe tohto nariadenia alebo na základe iných predpisov o pomoci de minimis počas predchádzajúcich dvoch fiškálnych rokov a počas prebiehajúceho fiškálneho roka.

4.   Členský štát poskytne novú pomoc de minimis v súlade s týmto nariadením až po tom, ako si overí, že táto nezvýši celkový objem pomoci de minimis poskytnutej príslušnému podniku nad úroveň stropu uvedeného v článku 3 ods. 2, a že sú splnené všetky podmienky uvedené v článkoch 1 až 5.

5.   Členské štáty zaznamenávajú a zhromažďujú všetky informácie, ktoré sa týkajú uplatňovania tohto nariadenia. Tieto záznamy obsahujú všetky informácie potrebné na preukázanie splnenia podmienok tohto nariadenia. Záznamy týkajúce sa individuálnej pomoci de minimis sa uchovajú po dobu 10 fiškálnych rokov od dátumu jej poskytnutia. Záznamy týkajúce sa schémy pomoci de minimis sa uchovajú po dobu 10 rokov od dátumu, kedy sa poskytla posledná individuálna pomoc v rámci takejto schémy. Na písomnú žiadosť predloží príslušný členský štát Komisii do 20 pracovných dní alebo v rámci dlhšej lehoty uvedenej v žiadosti všetky informácie, ktoré Komisia považuje za potrebné na posúdenie, či boli dodržané podmienky tohto nariadenia, najmä celková výška pomoci de minimis, ktorú akýkoľvek podnik prijal v súlade s týmto nariadením alebo inými predpismi o pomoci de minimis.

6.   Členské štáty poskytujú Komisii každoročne správu o uplatňovaní tohto nariadenia. Tieto správy obsahujú:

| a) | celkovú výšku pomoci de minimis poskytnutej v príslušnom členskom štáte v súlade s týmto nariadením v priebehu predchádzajúceho kalendárneho roka, s rozdelením podľa sektorov hospodárstva a veľkosti príjemcov (malé, stredné alebo veľké podniky); |
| --- | --- |

a)

celkovú výšku pomoci de minimis poskytnutej v príslušnom členskom štáte v súlade s týmto nariadením v priebehu predchádzajúceho kalendárneho roka, s rozdelením podľa sektorov hospodárstva a veľkosti príjemcov (malé, stredné alebo veľké podniky);

| b) | celkový počet príjemcov, ktorým sa v príslušnom členskom štáte poskytla pomoc de minimis v súlade s týmto nariadením v priebehu predchádzajúceho kalendárneho roka, s rozdelením podľa sektorov hospodárstva a veľkosti príjemcov (malé, stredné alebo veľké podniky); |
| --- | --- |

b)

celkový počet príjemcov, ktorým sa v príslušnom členskom štáte poskytla pomoc de minimis v súlade s týmto nariadením v priebehu predchádzajúceho kalendárneho roka, s rozdelením podľa sektorov hospodárstva a veľkosti príjemcov (malé, stredné alebo veľké podniky);

| c) | akékoľvek iné informácie o uplatňovaní tohto nariadenia, ktoré vyžaduje Komisia a ktoré sú špecifikované v dostatočnom predstihu pred predložením správy. |
| --- | --- |

c)

akékoľvek iné informácie o uplatňovaní tohto nariadenia, ktoré vyžaduje Komisia a ktoré sú špecifikované v dostatočnom predstihu pred predložením správy.

Prvá správa sa predloží do 30. júna 2017 a bude zahŕňať kalendárny rok 2016. Ak členský štát zverejňuje všetky informácie, ktoré je potrebné uvádzať v správach, od takéhoto členského štátu sa nepožaduje predloženie správy Komisii. Komisia každý rok uverejní zhrnutie informácií uvedených vo výročných správach vrátane celkovej výšky pomoci de minimis, ktorú každý členský štát poskytol v súlade s týmto nariadením.

Článok 7

Prechodné ustanovenia

1.   Akákoľvek individuálna pomoc de minimis poskytnutá medzi 2. februárom 2001 a 30. júnom 2007 spĺňajúca podmienky nariadenia (ES) č. 69/2001 sa považuje za pomoc, ktorá nespĺňa všetky kritériá článku 107 ods. 1 zmluvy, a je teda oslobodená od notifikačnej povinnosti podľa článku 108 ods. 3 zmluvy.

2.   Akákoľvek individuálna pomoc de minimis poskytnutá medzi 2. februárom 2007 a 30. júnom 2014 spĺňajúca podmienky nariadenia (ES) č. 1998/2001 sa považuje za pomoc, ktorá nespĺňa všetky kritériá článku 107 ods. 1 zmluvy, a je teda oslobodená od notifikačnej povinnosti podľa článku 108 ods. 3 zmluvy.

3.   Po ukončení obdobia platnosti tohto nariadenia sa každá pomoc de minimis, ktorá spĺňa podmienky tohto nariadenia, bude môcť naďalej platne implementovať počas ďalšieho obdobia šiestich mesiacov.

Článok 8

Nadobudnutie účinnosti a obdobie platnosti

Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť 1. januára 2014 a uplatňuje sa od 1. januára 2014 do 31. decembra 2020.

Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.

V Bruseli 17. júla 2013

Za Komisiu

predseda

[...] [...]

---

(1)  Ú. v. ES L 142, 14.5.1998, s. 1.

1

(2)  Ú. v. EÚ C 229, 8.8.2013, s. 1.

2

(3)  Ú. v. ES C 68, 6.3.1996, s. 9.

3

(4)  Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 69/2001 z 12. januára 2001 o uplatňovaní článkov 87 a 88 Zmluvy ES pri pomoci de minimis (Ú. v. ES L 10, 13.1.2001, s. 30).

4

de minimis

(5)  Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 1998/2006 z 15. decembra 2006 o uplatňovaní článkov 87 a 88 zmluvy na pomoc de minimis (Ú. v. EÚ L 379, 28.12.2006, s. 5).

5

de minimis

(6)  Vec C-222/04, Ministero dell’Economica e delle Finanze/Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA et al, Zb. I-289.

6

Ministero dell’Economica e delle Finanze/Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA et al

(7)  Vec C-382/99 Holandsko/Komisia, Zb. 2002, s. I-5163.

7

Holandsko/Komisia

(8)  Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 800/2008 zo 6. augusta 2008 o vyhlásení určitých kategórií pomoci za zlučiteľné so spoločným trhom podľa článkov 87 a 88 zmluvy (Ú. v. EÚ L 214, 9.8.2008, s. 3).

8

(9)  Vec C-456/00 Francúzsko/Komisia, Zb. 2002, s. I-11949.

9

Francúzsko/Komisia

(10)  Ú. v. EÚ C 14, 19.1.2008, s. 6.

10

(11)  Ú. v. EÚ C 155, 20.6.2008, s. 10.

11

(12)  Nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 104/2000 zo 17. decembra 1999 o spoločnej organizácii trhov s výrobkami rybolovu a akvakultúry (Ú. v. ES L 17, 21.1.2000, s. 22).

12

(13)  Nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1060/2009 zo 16. septembra 2009 o ratingových agentúrach (Ú. v. EÚ L 302, 17.11.2009, s. 1).

13

(14)  Oznámenie Komisie o uplatňovaní článkov 87 a 88 Zmluvy ES na štátnu pomoc vo forme záruk (Ú. v. EÚ C 155, 20.6.2008, s. 10).

14

(15)  Nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) č. 360/2012 z 25. apríla 2012 o uplatňovaní článkov 107 a 108 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie na pomoc de minimis v prospech podnikov poskytujúcich služby všeobecného hospodárskeho záujmu (Ú. v. EÚ L 114, 26.4.2012, s. 8).

15

de minimis

(16)  V súlade s článkom 2 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1893/2006 z 20. decembra 2006, ktorým sa zavádza štatistická klasifikácia ekonomických činností NACE Revision 2 a ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie Rady (EHS) č. 3037/90 a niektoré nariadenia ES o osobitných oblastiach štatistiky (Text s významom pre EHP) a prílohou I k nemu (Ú. v. EÚ L 393, 30.12.2006, s. 1).

16

---

IV Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

| 8.8.2013 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 229/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 229/10

---

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

7. augusta 2013

2013/C 229/03

1 euro =

| | Mena | Výmenný kurz |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | Americký dolár | 1,3305 |
| JPY | Japonský jen | 129,21 |
| DKK | Dánska koruna | 7,4571 |
| GBP | Britská libra | 0,85955 |
| SEK | Švédska koruna | 8,7261 |
| CHF | Švajčiarsky frank | 1,2321 |
| ISK | Islandská koruna | |
| NOK | Nórska koruna | 7,8995 |
| BGN | Bulharský lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Česká koruna | 25,978 |
| HUF | Maďarský forint | 299,52 |
| LTL | Litovský litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Lotyšský lats | 0,7025 |
| PLN | Poľský zlotý | 4,2170 |
| RON | Rumunský lei | 4,4330 |
| TRY | Turecká líra | 2,5713 |
| AUD | Austrálsky dolár | 1,4878 |
| CAD | Kanadský dolár | 1,3868 |
| HKD | Hongkongský dolár | 10,3197 |
| NZD | Novozélandský dolár | 1,6826 |
| SGD | Singapurský dolár | 1,6868 |
| KRW | Juhokórejský won | 1 486,17 |
| ZAR | Juhoafrický rand | 13,2109 |
| CNY | Čínsky juan | 8,1416 |
| HRK | Chorvátska kuna | 7,4975 |
| IDR | Indonézska rupia | 13 683,68 |
| MYR | Malajzijský ringgit | 4,3301 |
| PHP | Filipínske peso | 58,258 |
| RUB | Ruský rubeľ | 43,9480 |
| THB | Thajský baht | 41,831 |
| BRL | Brazílsky real | 3,0641 |
| MXN | Mexické peso | 16,8685 |
| INR | Indická rupia | 81,4960 |

Mena

Výmenný kurz

USD

Americký dolár

1,3305

JPY

Japonský jen

129,21

DKK

Dánska koruna

7,4571

GBP

Britská libra

0,85955

SEK

Švédska koruna

8,7261

CHF

Švajčiarsky frank

1,2321

ISK

Islandská koruna

NOK

Nórska koruna

7,8995

BGN

Bulharský lev

1,9558

CZK

Česká koruna

25,978

HUF

Maďarský forint

299,52

LTL

Litovský litas

3,4528

LVL

Lotyšský lats

0,7025

PLN

Poľský zlotý

4,2170

RON

Rumunský lei

4,4330

TRY

Turecká líra

2,5713

AUD

Austrálsky dolár

1,4878

CAD

Kanadský dolár

1,3868

HKD

Hongkongský dolár

10,3197

NZD

Novozélandský dolár

1,6826

SGD

Singapurský dolár

1,6868

KRW

Juhokórejský won

1 486,17

ZAR

Juhoafrický rand

13,2109

CNY

Čínsky juan

8,1416

HRK

Chorvátska kuna

7,4975

IDR

Indonézska rupia

13 683,68

MYR

Malajzijský ringgit

4,3301

PHP

Filipínske peso

58,258

RUB

Ruský rubeľ

43,9480

THB

Thajský baht

41,831

BRL

Brazílsky real

3,0641

MXN

Mexické peso

16,8685

INR

Indická rupia

81,4960

---

(1)  Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

---

INFORMÁCIE ČLENSKÝCH ŠTÁTOV

| 8.8.2013 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 229/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 229/11

---

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

2013/C 229/04

V súlade s článkom 35 ods. 3 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1224/2009 z 20. novembra 2009, ktorým sa zriaďuje systém kontroly Spoločenstva na zabezpečenie dodržiavania pravidiel spoločnej politiky v oblasti rybného hospodárstva (1), sa prijalo rozhodnutie ukončiť rybolov v zmysle tejto tabuľky:

| Dátum a čas ukončenia | 4.7.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Trvanie | 4.7.2013 – 31.12.2013 |
| Členský štát | Portugalsko |
| Populácia alebo skupina populácií | BFT/AE45WM |
| Druh | Tuniak modroplutvý (Thunnus thynnus) |
| Zóna | Atlantický oceán východne od 45° z. d. a Stredozemné more |
| Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel | — |
| Referenčné číslo | 16/TQ40 |

Dátum a čas ukončenia

4.7.2013

Trvanie

4.7.2013 – 31.12.2013

Členský štát

Portugalsko

Populácia alebo skupina populácií

BFT/AE45WM

Druh

Tuniak modroplutvý (Thunnus thynnus)

Zóna

Atlantický oceán východne od 45° z. d. a Stredozemné more

Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel

—

Referenčné číslo

16/TQ40

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

| 8.8.2013 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 229/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 229/11

---

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

2013/C 229/05

V súlade s článkom 35 ods. 3 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1224/2009 z 20. novembra 2009, ktorým sa zriaďuje systém kontroly Spoločenstva na zabezpečenie dodržiavania pravidiel spoločnej politiky v oblasti rybného hospodárstva (1), sa prijalo rozhodnutie ukončiť rybolov v zmysle tejto tabuľky:

| Dátum a čas ukončenia | 4.7.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Trvanie | 4.7.2013 – 31.12.2013 |
| Členský štát | Spojené kráľovstvo |
| Populácia alebo skupina populácií | SAN/2A3A4. a oblasti riadenia
  SAN/123_1, _2, _3, _4, _6 |
| Druh | Piesočnica a súvisiace vedľajšie úlovky (Ammodytes spp.) |
| Zóna | Vody EÚ zón IIa, IIIa a IV a vody EÚ oblastí riadenia piesočníc 1, 2, 3, 4 a 6 (okrem vôd do šiestich námorných míľ od pobrežných línií Spojeného kráľovstva pri ostrovoch Shetlandy, Fair a Foula) |
| Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel | — |
| Referenčné číslo | 17/TQ40 |

Dátum a čas ukončenia

4.7.2013

Trvanie

4.7.2013 – 31.12.2013

Členský štát

Spojené kráľovstvo

Populácia alebo skupina populácií

SAN/2A3A4. a oblasti riadenia

SAN/123_1, _2, _3, _4, _6

Druh

Piesočnica a súvisiace vedľajšie úlovky (Ammodytes spp.)

Zóna

Vody EÚ zón IIa, IIIa a IV a vody EÚ oblastí riadenia piesočníc 1, 2, 3, 4 a 6 (okrem vôd do šiestich námorných míľ od pobrežných línií Spojeného kráľovstva pri ostrovoch Shetlandy, Fair a Foula)

Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel

—

Referenčné číslo

17/TQ40

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

INFORMÁCIE TÝKAJÚCE SA EURÓPSKEHO HOSPODÁRSKEHO PRIESTORU

Dozorný úrad EZVO

| 8.8.2013 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 229/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 229/12

---

Informácie oznámené štátmi EZVO o štátnej pomoci poskytnutej v súlade s aktom uvedeným v bode 1j prílohy XV k Dohode o EHP [nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 800/2008 o vyhlásení určitých kategórií pomoci za zlučiteľné so spoločným trhom podľa článkov 87 a 88 zmluvy (Všeobecné nariadenie o skupinových výnimkách)]

2013/C 229/06

ČASŤ I

| Č. pomoci | GBER 8/13/REG |
| --- | --- |
| Štát EZVO | Nórsko |
| Región | Všetky regióny v Rumunsku | Status regionálnej pomoci |
| Orgán poskytujúci pomoc | Názov | Innovation Norway |
| Adresa | PO Box 448 Sentrum |
| 0104 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Č. pomoci

GBER 8/13/REG

Štát EZVO

Nórsko

Región

Všetky regióny v Rumunsku

Status regionálnej pomoci

Orgán poskytujúci pomoc

Názov

Innovation Norway

Adresa

PO Box 448 Sentrum

0104 Oslo

NORWAY

Webová stránka

http://www.innovationnorway.no

Názov opatrenia pomoci

Nórsky finančný mechanizmus na obdobie rokov 2009 – 2014.

Program ekologických inovácií priemyslu v RUMUNSKU

Vnútroštátny právny základ (odkaz na príslušný vnútroštátny právny nástroj)

Prop. 1 S (2012 – 2013) „Ministerstvo zahraničných vecí“, str. 85 – 95

http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/dok/regpubl/prop/2012-2013/prop-1-s-20122013.html?id=703276

Webový odkaz na plné znenie opatrenia pomoci

http://www.norwaygrants-greeninnovation.no

Typ opatrenia

Schéma pomoci

Áno

Pomoc ad hoc

Neuplatňuje sa

Trvanie

Schéma pomoci

Od 12.3.2013 do 30.4.2016

Príslušné odvetvia hospodárstva

Všetky odvetvia hospodárstva oprávnené na pomoc

Všetky odvetvia hospodárstva

Typ príjemcu

MSP

Áno

Veľké podniky

Áno

Mikropodniky

Áno

MVO

Áno

Rozpočet

Celková ročná výška rozpočtu plánovaného podľa schémy pomoci

Celková výška (2013 – 2016) 21 768 200 EUR

Nástroj pomoci (čl. 5)

Grant

Áno

ČASŤ II

| Všeobecné ciele (uveďte) | Ciele (uveďte) | Maximálna intenzita pomoci v % alebo maximálna výška pomoci v NOK | Bonusy pre MSP v % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Regionálna investičná pomoc a pomoc na podporu zamestnanosti
  (čl. 13) | Schéma pomoci | Intenzita pomoci v súčasnom ekvivalente hrubého grantu nesmie presiahnuť strop regionálnej pomoci platný v čase poskytnutia pomoci v príslušnej podporovanej oblasti v Rumunsku. | 20 % pre malé podniky
  10 % pre stredné podniky |
| Investičná pomoc a pomoc na podporu zamestnanosti pre MSP
  (čl. 15) | | 20 % pre malé podniky
  10 % pre stredné podniky | |
| Pomoc na ochranu životného prostredia
  (čl. 17 – 25) | Investičná pomoc umožňujúca podnikom ísť nad rámec noriem Spoločenstva týkajúcich sa ochrany životného prostredia alebo zvýšiť úroveň ochrany životného prostredia v prípade absencie noriem Spoločenstva
  (čl. 18)
  Uveďte presný odkaz na príslušnú normu | 35 % | 20 % pre malé podniky
  10 % pre stredné podniky |
| | Pomoc určená na nákup nových dopravných prostriedkov, ktoré spĺňajú prísnejšie normy, ako sú normy Spoločenstva, alebo ktoré zvyšujú úroveň ochrany životného prostredia v prípade absencie noriem Spoločenstva
  (čl. 19) | 35 % | 20 % pre malé podniky
  10 % pre stredné podniky |
| | Pomoc pre MSP na včasné prispôsobenie sa budúcim normám Spoločenstva
  (čl. 20) | 15 % pre malé podniky a 10 % pre stredné podniky, ak sa implementácia a dokončenie uskutoční viac ako tri roky pred dátumom nadobudnutia účinnosti normy (10 % pre malé podniky v prípade menej ako troch rokov) | |
| | Environmentálna investičná pomoc na opatrenia zamerané na úsporu energie
  (čl. 21) | 60 % | 20 % pre malé podniky
  10 % pre stredné podniky |
| | Environmentálna investičná pomoc na vysokoúčinnú kombinovanú výrobu tepla a elektrickej energie
  (čl. 22) | 45 % | 20 % pre malé podniky
  10 % pre stredné podniky |
| | Environmentálna investičná pomoc na podporu výroby energie z obnoviteľných zdrojov energie
  (čl. 23) | 45 % | 20 % pre malé podniky
  10 % pre stredné podniky |
| | Pomoc na environmentálne štúdie
  (čl. 24) | 50 % | 20 % pre malé podniky
  10 % pre stredné podniky |
| Pomoc pre MSP na poradenské služby a na účasť MSP na veľtrhoch
  (čl. 26 – 27) | Pomoc pre MSP na poradenské služby
  (čl. 26) | 50 % | |
| | Pomoc na účasť MSP na veľtrhoch
  (čl. 27) | 50 % | |
| Pomoc na výskum, vývoj a inovácie
  (čl. 30 – 37) | Pomoc na výskumné a vývojové projekty
  (čl. 31) | Základný výskum
  (čl. 31 ods. 2 písm. a)) | 100 % | |
| | | Priemyselný výskum
  (čl. 31 ods. 2 písm. b)) | 50 % | 10 % pre stredné podniky
  20 % pre malé podniky
  Do maximálnej intenzity pomoci 80 % je prípustný bonus 15 % v prípade, že sú splnené podmienky v čl. 31 ods. 4 písm. b). |
| | | Experimentálny vývoj
  (čl. 31 ods. 2 písm. c)) | 25 % | 10 % pre stredné podniky
  20 % pre malé podniky
  Do maximálnej intenzity pomoci 80 % je prípustný bonus 15 % v prípade, že sú splnené podmienky v čl. 31 ods. 4 písm. b). |
| | Pomoc na štúdie technickej uskutočniteľnosti
  (čl. 32) | 75 % (priemyselný výskum) a 50 % (experimentálny vývoj) pre MSP
  65 % (priemyselný výskum) a 40 % (experimentálny vývoj) pre veľké podniky | |
| | Pomoc pre MSP na náklady súvisiace s právami priemyselného vlastníctva
  (čl. 33) | Intenzita pomoci by nemala prekročiť intenzitu pomoci na výskumné a vývojové projekty
  (čl. 31 ods. 3 – 4) | |
| | Pomoc mladým inovačným podnikom
  (čl. 35) | 1 mil. EUR | |
| | Pomoc na poradenské služby zamerané na inovácie a na služby na podporu inovácií
  (čl. 36) | 200 000 EUR na príjemcu pomoci v rámci ktoréhokoľvek trojročného obdobia | |
| | Pomoc na zapožičanie vysokokvalifikovaných pracovníkov
  (čl. 37) | | |
| Pomoc na podporu vzdelávania
  (čl. 38 – 39) | Špecifické vzdelávanie
  (čl. 38 ods. 1) | 25 % | 10 % pre stredné podniky
  20 % pre malé podniky |
| | Všeobecné vzdelávanie
  (čl. 38 ods. 2) | 60 % | 10 % pre stredné podniky
  20 % pre malé podniky |

Všeobecné ciele (uveďte)

Ciele (uveďte)

Maximálna intenzita pomoci v % alebo maximálna výška pomoci v NOK

Bonusy pre MSP v %

Regionálna investičná pomoc a pomoc na podporu zamestnanosti

(čl. 13)

Schéma pomoci

Intenzita pomoci v súčasnom ekvivalente hrubého grantu nesmie presiahnuť strop regionálnej pomoci platný v čase poskytnutia pomoci v príslušnej podporovanej oblasti v Rumunsku.

20 % pre malé podniky

10 % pre stredné podniky

Investičná pomoc a pomoc na podporu zamestnanosti pre MSP

(čl. 15)

20 % pre malé podniky

10 % pre stredné podniky

Pomoc na ochranu životného prostredia

(čl. 17 – 25)

Investičná pomoc umožňujúca podnikom ísť nad rámec noriem Spoločenstva týkajúcich sa ochrany životného prostredia alebo zvýšiť úroveň ochrany životného prostredia v prípade absencie noriem Spoločenstva

(čl. 18)

Uveďte presný odkaz na príslušnú normu

35 %

20 % pre malé podniky

10 % pre stredné podniky

Pomoc určená na nákup nových dopravných prostriedkov, ktoré spĺňajú prísnejšie normy, ako sú normy Spoločenstva, alebo ktoré zvyšujú úroveň ochrany životného prostredia v prípade absencie noriem Spoločenstva

(čl. 19)

35 %

20 % pre malé podniky

10 % pre stredné podniky

Pomoc pre MSP na včasné prispôsobenie sa budúcim normám Spoločenstva

(čl. 20)

15 % pre malé podniky a 10 % pre stredné podniky, ak sa implementácia a dokončenie uskutoční viac ako tri roky pred dátumom nadobudnutia účinnosti normy (10 % pre malé podniky v prípade menej ako troch rokov)

Environmentálna investičná pomoc na opatrenia zamerané na úsporu energie

(čl. 21)

60 %

20 % pre malé podniky

10 % pre stredné podniky

Environmentálna investičná pomoc na vysokoúčinnú kombinovanú výrobu tepla a elektrickej energie

(čl. 22)

45 %

20 % pre malé podniky

10 % pre stredné podniky

Environmentálna investičná pomoc na podporu výroby energie z obnoviteľných zdrojov energie

(čl. 23)

45 %

20 % pre malé podniky

10 % pre stredné podniky

Pomoc na environmentálne štúdie

(čl. 24)

50 %

20 % pre malé podniky

10 % pre stredné podniky

Pomoc pre MSP na poradenské služby a na účasť MSP na veľtrhoch

(čl. 26 – 27)

Pomoc pre MSP na poradenské služby

(čl. 26)

50 %

Pomoc na účasť MSP na veľtrhoch

(čl. 27)

50 %

Pomoc na výskum, vývoj a inovácie

(čl. 30 – 37)

Pomoc na výskumné a vývojové projekty

(čl. 31)

Základný výskum

(čl. 31 ods. 2 písm. a))

100 %

Priemyselný výskum

(čl. 31 ods. 2 písm. b))

50 %

10 % pre stredné podniky

20 % pre malé podniky

Do maximálnej intenzity pomoci 80 % je prípustný bonus 15 % v prípade, že sú splnené podmienky v čl. 31 ods. 4 písm. b).

Experimentálny vývoj

(čl. 31 ods. 2 písm. c))

25 %

10 % pre stredné podniky

20 % pre malé podniky

Do maximálnej intenzity pomoci 80 % je prípustný bonus 15 % v prípade, že sú splnené podmienky v čl. 31 ods. 4 písm. b).

Pomoc na štúdie technickej uskutočniteľnosti

(čl. 32)

75 % (priemyselný výskum) a 50 % (experimentálny vývoj) pre MSP

65 % (priemyselný výskum) a 40 % (experimentálny vývoj) pre veľké podniky

Pomoc pre MSP na náklady súvisiace s právami priemyselného vlastníctva

(čl. 33)

Intenzita pomoci by nemala prekročiť intenzitu pomoci na výskumné a vývojové projekty

(čl. 31 ods. 3 – 4)

Pomoc mladým inovačným podnikom

(čl. 35)

1 mil. EUR

Pomoc na poradenské služby zamerané na inovácie a na služby na podporu inovácií

(čl. 36)

200 000 EUR na príjemcu pomoci v rámci ktoréhokoľvek trojročného obdobia

Pomoc na zapožičanie vysokokvalifikovaných pracovníkov

(čl. 37)

Pomoc na podporu vzdelávania

(čl. 38 – 39)

Špecifické vzdelávanie

(čl. 38 ods. 1)

25 %

10 % pre stredné podniky

20 % pre malé podniky

Všeobecné vzdelávanie

(čl. 38 ods. 2)

60 %

10 % pre stredné podniky

20 % pre malé podniky

---

| 8.8.2013 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 229/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 229/16

---

Neexistencia štátnej pomoci v zmysle článku 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP

2013/C 229/07

Dozorný úrad EZVO nepovažuje nasledujúce opatrenie za štátnu pomoc v zmysle článku 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP:

| Dátum prijatia rozhodnutia | : | 10. apríl 2013 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vec č. | : | 69933 |
| Rozhodnutie č. | : | 144/13/COL |
| Štát EZVO | : | Nórsko |
| Názov (a/alebo meno príjemcu) | : | Bergen Kirkelige Fellesråd |
| Typ opatrenia | : | žiadna pomoc |
| Názov a adresa orgánu poskytujúceho pomoc | : | Bergen Kirkelige Fellesråd |
| Bjørns gate 1 |
| 5008 Bergen |
| NORWAY |

Dátum prijatia rozhodnutia

:

10. apríl 2013

Vec č.

:

69933

Rozhodnutie č.

:

144/13/COL

Štát EZVO

:

Nórsko

Názov (a/alebo meno príjemcu)

:

Bergen Kirkelige Fellesråd

Typ opatrenia

:

žiadna pomoc

Názov a adresa orgánu poskytujúceho pomoc

:

Bergen Kirkelige Fellesråd

Bjørns gate 1

5008 Bergen

NORWAY

Autentické znenie rozhodnutia, ktoré neobsahuje dôverné informácie, možno nájsť na webovej lokalite Dozorného úradu EZVO:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---

| 8.8.2013 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 229/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 229/17

---

Neexistencia štátnej pomoci v zmysle článku 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP

2013/C 229/08

Dozorný úrad EZVO nepovažuje nasledujúce opatrenie za štátnu pomoc v zmysle článku 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP:

| Dátum prijatia rozhodnutia | : | 10. apríl 2013 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vec č. | : | 70521 |
| Rozhodnutie č. | : | 145/13/COL |
| Štát EZVO | : | Island |
| Názov (a/alebo meno príjemcu) | : | údajná štátna pomoc banke Landsbankinn prostredníctvom zrieknutia sa očakávaného výnosu z verejných prostriedkov |
| Právny základ | : | článok 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP |
| Typ opatrenia | : | žiadna pomoc |
| Odvetvia hospodárstva | : | finančné služby |

Dátum prijatia rozhodnutia

:

10. apríl 2013

Vec č.

:

70521

Rozhodnutie č.

:

145/13/COL

Štát EZVO

:

Island

Názov (a/alebo meno príjemcu)

:

údajná štátna pomoc banke Landsbankinn prostredníctvom zrieknutia sa očakávaného výnosu z verejných prostriedkov

Právny základ

:

článok 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP

Typ opatrenia

:

žiadna pomoc

Odvetvia hospodárstva

:

finančné služby

Autentické znenie rozhodnutia, ktoré neobsahuje dôverné informácie, možno nájsť na webovej lokalite Dozorného úradu EZVO:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---

| 8.8.2013 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 229/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 229/18

---

Výzva na predloženie pripomienok podľa článku 1 ods. 2 časti I protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu k štátnej pomoci týkajúcej sa koncertnej haly a konferenčného centra Harpa

2013/C 229/09

Rozhodnutím č. 128/13/COL z 20. marca 2013, ktoré je uvedené v autentickom jazyku za týmto zhrnutím, Dozorný úrad EZVO začal konanie podľa článku 1 ods. 2 časti I protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu. Islandské orgány boli informované prostredníctvom kópie tohto rozhodnutia.

Dozorný úrad EZVO týmto oznámením vyzýva štáty EZVO, členské štáty EÚ a zainteresované strany, aby predložili svoje pripomienky k predmetnému opatreniu v lehote jedného mesiaca odo dňa uverejnenia tohto oznámenia na adresu:

| EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| --- |
| Registry |
| Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35 |
| 1040 Bruxelles/Brussels |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Registry

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35

1040 Bruxelles/Brussels

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Tieto pripomienky sa oznámia islandským orgánom. Zainteresované strany, ktoré predložia pripomienky, môžu písomne s uvedením dôvodov požiadať o dôverné zaobchádzanie s údajmi o ich totožnosti.

ZHRNUTIE

Postup

Dozornému úradu EZVO (ďalej len „dozorný úrad“) bola v septembri 2011 doručená sťažnosť týkajúca sa údajného poskytovania dotácií islandským štátom a mestom Reykjavík na konferenčné a reštauračné/stravovacie služby v koncertnej hale a konferenčnom centre Harpa (ďalej len „objekt Harpa“). Dozorný úrad následne poslal dve žiadosti o predloženie informácií, na ktoré islandské orgány odpovedali.

Opis opatrenia

V roku 2004 islandský štát a mesto Reykjavík uverejnili výzvu na predkladanie ponúk v rámci verejno-súkromného partnerstva týkajúceho sa výstavby, návrhu a prevádzky koncertnej haly a konferenčného centra s rozlohou 28 000 metrov štvorcových. Po určení najvýhodnejšej ponuky sa 12. januára 2007 začala výstavba koncertnej haly a konferenčného centra Harpa. Z dôvodu finančného kolapsu na Islande sa uvedená výstavba v roku 2008 prerušila. Krátko nato primátor Reykjavíku a minister školstva uzavreli dohodu, podľa ktorej bude štát a mesto pokračovať vo výstavbe projektu bez súkromného partnera. Budova bola formálne otvorená 20. augusta 2011.

Účelom existencie objektu Harpa je poskytovať prístrešie rôznym službám a činnostiam. Islandský symfonický orchester, ako aj Islandská opera uzavreli dlhodobé zmluvy o užívaní určitých priestorov a iných zariadení v objekte Harpa. Okrem toho objekt Harpa poskytuje priestory na konanie konferencií, konkrétne štyri konferenčné haly rôznych veľkostí. Harpa tiež slúži ako miesto konania rôznych ďalších umeleckých podujatí, ako napr. koncertov populárnej alebo rockovej hudby islandských alebo zahraničných umelcov. Iné činnosti v objekte Harpa, ako napr. stravovanie, reštaurácie, obchod s hudobninami a obchod s nábytkom, prevádzkujú súkromné spoločnosti, ktoré sú nájomcami priestorov v objekte Harpa. Tieto priestory sú prenajímané za trhových podmienok súkromným prevádzkovateľom, ktorí boli vybraní v postupoch verejného obstarávania na základe najvýhodnejšej ponuky.

Objekt Harpa je v úplnom vlastníctve islandského štátu (54 %) a mesta Reykjavík (46 %), ktoré naň každoročne v rozhodujúcej miere prispievajú v súlade s ich účasťou na projekte. Od svojho otvorenia je tento objekt prevádzkovaný so značným ročným deficitom, ktorý sa vykrýva prostriedkami z rozpočtov islandského štátu a mesta Reykjavík.

Pripomienky islandských orgánov

Islandské orgány tvrdia, že financovanie objektu Harpa nezahŕňa štátnu pomoc, keďže riadne zabezpečili vedenie oddelených účtov pre odlišné činnosti v rámci koncertnej haly a konferenčného centra. Na podporu tohto tvrdenia islandské orgány predložili správy od dvoch účtovných firiem týkajúce sa oddelenia účtov spoločností zúčastňujúcich sa na prevádzke objektu Harpa. Islandské orgány takisto predložili analýzu cenotvorby, keď porovnali ceny porovnateľných konferenčných zariadení v Reykjavíku vychádzajúc z ich veľkosti a kapacity. Okrem toho islandské orgány tvrdia, že podnikateľské činnosti súvisiace s konaním konferencií priaznivo vplývajú na ostatné činnosti v objekte Harpa a že bez nich by náklady na ostatné činnosti boli značne vyššie.

Existencia štátnej pomoci

Výhody týkajúce sa štátnych zdrojov poskytnutých podniku

Keďže islandský štát a mesto Reykjavík spoločne vykrývajú ročný deficit z prevádzkovania objektu Harpa každoročným prispievaním určitej sumy zo svojich rozpočtov, ide o pomoc poskytovanú zo štátnych prostriedkov v zmysle článku 61 Dohody o EHP.

Dozorný úrad zastáva názor, že tak výstavba, ako aj prevádzka infraštruktúry predstavujú hospodársku činnosť samu o sebe, ak sa taká infraštruktúra používa alebo bude používať na poskytovanie tovaru alebo služieb na trhu (1). Niektoré z týchto podujatí konaných v objekte Harpa, najmä konferencie, divadelné predstavenia, koncerty populárnej hudby atď., môžu pritiahnuť významný počet zákazníkov, pričom konkurujú súkromným konferenčným centrám, divadlám alebo iným miestam konania hudobných podujatí. Dozorný úrad preto zastáva predbežný názor, že spoločnosti zúčastňujúce sa na prevádzke objektu Harpa treba, pokiaľ vykonávajú komerčné činností, považovať za podniky.

Okrem toho sa dozorný úrad domnieva, že verejné financovanie výstavby objektu Harpa predstavuje hospodársku výhodu a teda pomoc, keďže projekt by nepochybne bez takého financovania nebol zrealizovaný. Okrem toho sa spoločnostiam zúčastňujúcim sa na prevádzke objektu Harpa poskytuje výhoda v podobe ušlého zisku, keďže štát a mesto nevyžadujú vrátenie svojich investícií do koncertnej haly a konferenčného centra, pokiaľ ide o vykonávanie komerčných činností týmito spoločnosťami, ako napr. usporadúvanie konferencií alebo iných umeleckých podujatí. Z predbežného posúdenia dozorného úradu vyplýva, že selektívnu hospodársku výhodu nemožno vylúčiť na žiadnej úrovni (výstavba, prevádzka a využívanie).

Narušenie hospodárskej súťaže a vplyv na obchod medzi zmluvnými stranami

Keďže trh organizovania medzinárodných podujatí, ako sú napr. konferencie a iné podujatia, je otvorený hospodárskej súťaži medzi prevádzkovateľmi priestorov a organizátormi podujatí, ktorí bežne vykonávajú činnosti predstavujúce predmet obchodu medzi štátmi EHP, vplyv na obchod možno predpokladať. V tomto prípade je vplyv na obchod medzi určitými susediacimi štátmi EHP dokonca ešte pravdepodobnejší, vzhľadom na povahu odvetvia konferencií (2). Preto podľa predbežného názoru dozorného úradu dané opatrenie predstavuje hrozbu narušenia hospodárskej súťaže a má vplyv na obchod v rámci EHP.

Zlučiteľnosť pomoci

Podľa článku 61 ods. 3 písm. c) Dohody o EHP, tak ako ho vykladá dozorný úrad a rozvinula Európska komisia na základe pôvodného článku 87 ods. 3 písm. d) Zmluvy o ES (teraz článok 107 ods. 3 písm. d) Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie), možno pomoc na podporu kultúry a zachovania kultúrneho dedičstva považovať za zlučiteľnú s fungovaním Dohody o EHP, ak taká pomoc neovplyvňuje podmienky obchodu a hospodársku súťaž v EHP v rozsahu, ktorý odporuje spoločnému záujmu. Islandské orgány uviedli, že primárnym cieľom predmetného opatrenia bolo podporiť kultúru prostredníctvom výstavby koncertnej haly, ktorá by slúžila ako prístrešie pre Islandský symfonický orchester a Islandskú operu. Dozorný úrad akceptoval, že výstavba a prevádzka zariadenia pre symfonický orchester a operu vzhľadom na jeho kultúrny účel by sa mohla považovať za pomoc na podporu kultúry.

Dozorný úrad akceptuje, že infraštruktúra akou je napr. objekt Harpa by tiež mohla slúžiť ako prístrešie pre rôzne komerčné činnosti, ako napr. reštaurácie, kaviarne, obchody, konferencie a koncerty populárnej hudby. Aby však nedochádzalo k narušeniu hospodárskej súťaže, musia sa zaviesť ochranné opatrenia, ktorá zabezpečia, že neexistujú žiadne krížové dotácie medzi komerčnými činnosťami a dotovanými činnosťami v oblasti kultúry. Dozorný úrad nemôže konštatovať, že by islandské orgány zaviedli potrebné ochranné opatrenia na zamedzenie takýchto krížových dotácií. Po predbežnom posúdení má teda dozorný úrad pochybnosti, či možno výstavbu a prevádzku objektu Harpa považovať za zlučiteľnú podľa článku 61 ods. 3 písm. c) Dohody o EHP.

Záver

Vzhľadom na uvedené skutočnosti sa dozorný úrad rozhodol začať konanie vo veci formálneho zisťovania v súlade s článkom 1 ods. 2 časti I protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu, pokiaľ ide o financovanie koncertnej haly a konferenčného centra Harpa. Zainteresované strany sú vyzvané, aby predložili svoje pripomienky v lehote jedného mesiaca odo dňa uverejnenia tohto oznámenia v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.

V súlade s článkom 14 protokolu 3 môže byť od príjemcov pomoci vymáhaná každá neoprávnená pomoc.

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 128/13/COL

of 20 March 2013

to initiate the formal investigation procedure into potential State aid involved in the financing of the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre

(Iceland)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (‘THE AUTHORITY’),

HAVING REGARD to:

The Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), in particular to Article 61 and Protocol 26,

The Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’), in particular to Article 24,

Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (‘Protocol 3’), in particular to Article 1 of Part I and Article 4(4) and Articles 6 and 13 of Part II,

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

| (1) | On 19 September 2011, the Authority received a complaint, dated 13 September 2011 (Event No 608967), concerning the alleged subsidising by the Icelandic State and the City of Reykjavík (‘the City’) of conference services and restaurant/catering services in the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre (‘Harpa’) (3). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 19 September 2011, the Authority received a complaint, dated 13 September 2011 (Event No 608967), concerning the alleged subsidising by the Icelandic State and the City of Reykjavík (‘the City’) of conference services and restaurant/catering services in the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre (‘Harpa’) (3).

| (2) | By letter dated 14 October 2011, the Authority requested additional information from the Icelandic authorities (Event No 609736). By a letter dated 30 November 2011 (Event No 617042), the Icelandic authorities replied to the request and provided the Authority with the relevant information. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By letter dated 14 October 2011, the Authority requested additional information from the Icelandic authorities (Event No 609736). By a letter dated 30 November 2011 (Event No 617042), the Icelandic authorities replied to the request and provided the Authority with the relevant information.

| (3) | The case was the subject of discussions between the Authority and the Icelandic authorities as well as the lawyer representing the holding company responsible for Harpa’s operations, at the package meeting in Reykjavík on 5 June 2012. Shortly after the meeting, the Authority sent a follow up letter, dated 9 July 2012 (Event No 637627), to the Icelandic authorities inviting them to provide information on certain outstanding issues. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The case was the subject of discussions between the Authority and the Icelandic authorities as well as the lawyer representing the holding company responsible for Harpa’s operations, at the package meeting in Reykjavík on 5 June 2012. Shortly after the meeting, the Authority sent a follow up letter, dated 9 July 2012 (Event No 637627), to the Icelandic authorities inviting them to provide information on certain outstanding issues.

| (4) | By letter dated 21 August 2012 (Event No 644771), the Icelandic authorities submitted additional information. By letter dated 27 September 2012 (Event No 648320), the Icelandic authorities submitted a memorandum concerning the separation of accounts as well as a statement from the accounting firm PWC. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

By letter dated 21 August 2012 (Event No 644771), the Icelandic authorities submitted additional information. By letter dated 27 September 2012 (Event No 648320), the Icelandic authorities submitted a memorandum concerning the separation of accounts as well as a statement from the accounting firm PWC.

| (5) | Finally, the Icelandic authorities submitted information by e-mail dated 11 February 2013 (Event No 662444) and by letter dated 7 March 2013 (Event No 665434). |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Finally, the Icelandic authorities submitted information by e-mail dated 11 February 2013 (Event No 662444) and by letter dated 7 March 2013 (Event No 665434).

2.   The complaint

| (6) | The complainant has alleged that unlawful State aid is being provided by the Icelandic State and the City to the companies involved in the operation of Harpa. The complainant referred to the State budget for the year 2011 where the Ministry of Finance allocated ISK 419 400 000 to the operation of Harpa and additional ISK 44 200 000 for building costs and maintenance. The Municipality’s budget foresaw a substantial allocation of funds to the Harpa project for the year 2011 amounting to a total of ISK 391 526 000. Furthermore, the Municipality contributed a substantial amount to the project in the years 2009-2010. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The complainant has alleged that unlawful State aid is being provided by the Icelandic State and the City to the companies involved in the operation of Harpa. The complainant referred to the State budget for the year 2011 where the Ministry of Finance allocated ISK 419 400 000 to the operation of Harpa and additional ISK 44 200 000 for building costs and maintenance. The Municipality’s budget foresaw a substantial allocation of funds to the Harpa project for the year 2011 amounting to a total of ISK 391 526 000. Furthermore, the Municipality contributed a substantial amount to the project in the years 2009-2010.

| (7) | The complainant claims that the contribution from both the Icelandic Government and the City is partly being used to subsidise the conference service and the restaurant/catering services in the music hall and conference centre. The contributions in question are fairly high and according to the complainant, there is no transparency in how they are being used. The complainant maintains that this State aid affects the market for the conference business in the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) as a whole and is not limited to competitors on the Icelandic market. It therefore constitutes an infringement of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The complainant claims that the contribution from both the Icelandic Government and the City is partly being used to subsidise the conference service and the restaurant/catering services in the music hall and conference centre. The contributions in question are fairly high and according to the complainant, there is no transparency in how they are being used. The complainant maintains that this State aid affects the market for the conference business in the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) as a whole and is not limited to competitors on the Icelandic market. It therefore constitutes an infringement of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.

| (8) | The complainant provided the Authority with extracts from the Icelandic State budget for the year 2011 as well as an extract from the City’s budget for the same year. Furthermore, the complainant provided a purchase agreement for Harpa and general information on the conference market in Iceland. However, the complainant noted that due to the lack of transparency it was difficult to gather detailed information on the obligations of the Icelandic State and the City to contribute funds to the companies involved in the operation of Harpa as well as information on Harpa’s business model and on the separation of accounts. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The complainant provided the Authority with extracts from the Icelandic State budget for the year 2011 as well as an extract from the City’s budget for the same year. Furthermore, the complainant provided a purchase agreement for Harpa and general information on the conference market in Iceland. However, the complainant noted that due to the lack of transparency it was difficult to gather detailed information on the obligations of the Icelandic State and the City to contribute funds to the companies involved in the operation of Harpa as well as information on Harpa’s business model and on the separation of accounts.

3.   Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre

3.1.   Background

| (9) | In 1999, the Mayor of Reykjavík along with representatives of the Icelandic Government announced that a concert and conference centre would be constructed in the centre of Reykjavík. In late 2002, the Icelandic State and the City signed an agreement regarding the project and the following year the company Austurhöfn-TR ehf. was founded with the purpose of overseeing the project. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In 1999, the Mayor of Reykjavík along with representatives of the Icelandic Government announced that a concert and conference centre would be constructed in the centre of Reykjavík. In late 2002, the Icelandic State and the City signed an agreement regarding the project and the following year the company Austurhöfn-TR ehf. was founded with the purpose of overseeing the project.

| (10) | In 2004, the Icelandic State and the City initiated a public-private partnership (‘PPP’) bid concerning the construction, design and operation of the concert hall and conference centre. There were four companies that bid for the contract. In 2005, the evaluation committee of Austurhöfn-TR ehf. concluded that the offer from Portus ehf. was the most favourable one and subsequently the Icelandic State and the City entered into a contract with Portus ehf. for the construction and operation of a concert and conference centre (4). The construction of Harpa began on 12 January 2007. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

In 2004, the Icelandic State and the City initiated a public-private partnership (‘PPP’) bid concerning the construction, design and operation of the concert hall and conference centre. There were four companies that bid for the contract. In 2005, the evaluation committee of Austurhöfn-TR ehf. concluded that the offer from Portus ehf. was the most favourable one and subsequently the Icelandic State and the City entered into a contract with Portus ehf. for the construction and operation of a concert and conference centre (4). The construction of Harpa began on 12 January 2007.

| (11) | Due to the financial collapse in Iceland in October 2008, the construction of Harpa was put on hold. However, shortly after the collapse, the Mayor of Reykjavík and the Minister for Education reached an agreement which entailed that the State and the City would continue with the construction of Harpa without the private partner. After an amended and restated project agreement was concluded, the construction project continued (hereinafter referred to as ‘the project agreement’) (5). On 20 August 2011, Harpa was formally opened. The building is 28 000 square meters and is located at Austurbakki 2, 101 Reykjavík. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Due to the financial collapse in Iceland in October 2008, the construction of Harpa was put on hold. However, shortly after the collapse, the Mayor of Reykjavík and the Minister for Education reached an agreement which entailed that the State and the City would continue with the construction of Harpa without the private partner. After an amended and restated project agreement was concluded, the construction project continued (hereinafter referred to as ‘the project agreement’) (5). On 20 August 2011, Harpa was formally opened. The building is 28 000 square meters and is located at Austurbakki 2, 101 Reykjavík.

| (12) | Harpa is meant to accommodate various services and operations. Both the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra and the Icelandic Opera have entered into long-term contracts for the use of certain facilities within Harpa. Moreover, Harpa accommodates conferences and there are four conference halls of different sizes. Harpa also houses various other events such as pop and rock concerts with both Icelandic and foreign artists. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Harpa is meant to accommodate various services and operations. Both the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra and the Icelandic Opera have entered into long-term contracts for the use of certain facilities within Harpa. Moreover, Harpa accommodates conferences and there are four conference halls of different sizes. Harpa also houses various other events such as pop and rock concerts with both Icelandic and foreign artists.

| (13) | Other activities in Harpa such as catering, restaurants, a music shop and a furniture shop are operated by private companies who rent the facilities. According to the Icelandic authorities, these facilities are leased on market terms and were subject to public tenders, where the most favourable offers were accepted. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Other activities in Harpa such as catering, restaurants, a music shop and a furniture shop are operated by private companies who rent the facilities. According to the Icelandic authorities, these facilities are leased on market terms and were subject to public tenders, where the most favourable offers were accepted.

3.2.   The ownership and corporate structure of Harpa

| (14) | Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre is owned by the Icelandic State (54 %) and Reykjavík City (46 %) and therefore constitutes a public undertaking. The entire Harpa project has been overseen by Austurhöfn-TR ehf. which is a limited liability company, established by the Ministry of Finance on behalf of the Icelandic State and the City in order to take over the construction and running of the Harpa project (6). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre is owned by the Icelandic State (54 %) and Reykjavík City (46 %) and therefore constitutes a public undertaking. The entire Harpa project has been overseen by Austurhöfn-TR ehf. which is a limited liability company, established by the Ministry of Finance on behalf of the Icelandic State and the City in order to take over the construction and running of the Harpa project (6).

| (15) | Until recently there were several limited liability companies involved in Harpa's operations, namely: Portus ehf., which was responsible for Harpa real estate and operations, and Situs ehf., which was responsible for other buildings planned in the same area. Portus had two subsidiaries: Totus ehf., which owned the real estate itself, and Ago ehf., which was responsible for all operations in Harpa and leased the property from Totus. Situs also had two subsidies: Hospes ehf., which would have owned and operated a hotel which is to be constructed in the area, and Custos ehf., which was to own and operate any other buildings in the area. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Until recently there were several limited liability companies involved in Harpa's operations, namely: Portus ehf., which was responsible for Harpa real estate and operations, and Situs ehf., which was responsible for other buildings planned in the same area. Portus had two subsidiaries: Totus ehf., which owned the real estate itself, and Ago ehf., which was responsible for all operations in Harpa and leased the property from Totus. Situs also had two subsidies: Hospes ehf., which would have owned and operated a hotel which is to be constructed in the area, and Custos ehf., which was to own and operate any other buildings in the area.

| (16) | However, in order to minimise operational costs and increase efficiency, the board of Austurhöfn-TR ehf. decided in December 2012 to simplify the operational structure of Harpa by merging most of the limited liability companies involved in its operations into one company. The State and the City therefore founded the company Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf. which is to oversee all of Harpa's operations. Simplifying the infrastructure of Harpa is a part of a long-term plan to make Harpa’s operations sustainable. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

However, in order to minimise operational costs and increase efficiency, the board of Austurhöfn-TR ehf. decided in December 2012 to simplify the operational structure of Harpa by merging most of the limited liability companies involved in its operations into one company. The State and the City therefore founded the company Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf. which is to oversee all of Harpa's operations. Simplifying the infrastructure of Harpa is a part of a long-term plan to make Harpa’s operations sustainable.

| (17) | The following chart explains in broad terms the organisational structure of Harpa after the changes to its corporate structure entered into effect (7): |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The following chart explains in broad terms the organisational structure of Harpa after the changes to its corporate structure entered into effect (7):

Image

3.3.   The financing of Harpa’s operations

| (18) | As previously noted, Harpa is fully owned by the Icelandic State and the City through Austurhöfn-TR ehf. The obligations of the State and the City are regulated by Article 13 of the project agreement from 2006 (8). The annual payments of the State and the City are covered by their respective budgets. According to the State budget for 2011, the annual State contribution was expected to amount to ISK 424,4 million. For the year 2012, the expected amount to be contributed by the State was ISK 553,6 million. In the year 2013, there is expected to be an increase in the public funding of Harpa as the City and the State have approved an additional ISK 160 million contribution. All public contributions to Harpa are borne in accordance with the participation in the project, i.e. the State pays 54 % and the City 46 %. The contributions are also indexed with the consumer price index. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

As previously noted, Harpa is fully owned by the Icelandic State and the City through Austurhöfn-TR ehf. The obligations of the State and the City are regulated by Article 13 of the project agreement from 2006 (8). The annual payments of the State and the City are covered by their respective budgets. According to the State budget for 2011, the annual State contribution was expected to amount to ISK 424,4 million. For the year 2012, the expected amount to be contributed by the State was ISK 553,6 million. In the year 2013, there is expected to be an increase in the public funding of Harpa as the City and the State have approved an additional ISK 160 million contribution. All public contributions to Harpa are borne in accordance with the participation in the project, i.e. the State pays 54 % and the City 46 %. The contributions are also indexed with the consumer price index.

| (19) | In addition to the contribution provided for in the State and the City’s budgets, the Government and the City have undertaken an obligation to grant a short-term loan for the operation of Harpa until long-term financing necessary to fully cover the cost of the project is completed. As from 2013, the total amount of the loan was ISK 794 million with an interest rate of 5 % and a 200 bp premium. The Icelandic authorities have however announced their intention to convert the loan into share capital in the companies operating Harpa (9). |
| --- | --- |

(19)

In addition to the contribution provided for in the State and the City’s budgets, the Government and the City have undertaken an obligation to grant a short-term loan for the operation of Harpa until long-term financing necessary to fully cover the cost of the project is completed. As from 2013, the total amount of the loan was ISK 794 million with an interest rate of 5 % and a 200 bp premium. The Icelandic authorities have however announced their intention to convert the loan into share capital in the companies operating Harpa (9).

| (20) | The State and the City allocate funds on a monthly basis in order pay off loan obligations in connection with Harpa. Since the project is meant to be self-sustainable, the profits must cover all operational costs. The funds from the owners are therefore, according to the Icelandic authorities, only meant to cover outstanding loans (10). |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The State and the City allocate funds on a monthly basis in order pay off loan obligations in connection with Harpa. Since the project is meant to be self-sustainable, the profits must cover all operational costs. The funds from the owners are therefore, according to the Icelandic authorities, only meant to cover outstanding loans (10).

| (21) | According to the project agreement, there is to be a financial separation between the different companies involved in the operation of Harpa and between the different operations and activities: |
| --- | --- |

(21)

According to the project agreement, there is to be a financial separation between the different companies involved in the operation of Harpa and between the different operations and activities:

| (22) | 13.11.1 | The private partner will at all times ensure that there is financial separation between the real estate company, the operation company, Hringur and the private partner. Each entity shall be managed and operated separately with regards to finances. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(22)

13.11.1

The private partner will at all times ensure that there is financial separation between the real estate company, the operation company, Hringur and the private partner. Each entity shall be managed and operated separately with regards to finances.

| (23) | 13.11.2 | The private partner will at all times ensure that there is sufficient financial separation, i.e. separation in book-keeping, between the paid for work and other operations and activities within the CC. The private partner shall at all times during the term be able to demonstrate, upon request from the client, that such financial separation exists. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(23)

13.11.2

The private partner will at all times ensure that there is sufficient financial separation, i.e. separation in book-keeping, between the paid for work and other operations and activities within the CC. The private partner shall at all times during the term be able to demonstrate, upon request from the client, that such financial separation exists.

| (24) | The operations of Harpa are divided into several categories: 1. the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra; 2. the Icelandic Opera; 3. other art events; 4. conference department; 5. operations; 6. ticket sales; 7. operating of facilities; 8. management cost. All these cost categories now fall under Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf. and the revenue and costs attributed to each of these categories are included in the budget under the relevant category. Common operational costs such as salary, housing (heating and electricity) and administrative costs are divided among the categories according to a cost allocation model (11). |
| --- | --- |

(24)

The operations of Harpa are divided into several categories: 1. the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra; 2. the Icelandic Opera; 3. other art events; 4. conference department; 5. operations; 6. ticket sales; 7. operating of facilities; 8. management cost. All these cost categories now fall under Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf. and the revenue and costs attributed to each of these categories are included in the budget under the relevant category. Common operational costs such as salary, housing (heating and electricity) and administrative costs are divided among the categories according to a cost allocation model (11).

| (25) | According to the projected annual account of Austurhöfn-TR ehf. for the year 2012, the company was expected to sustain a significant operating loss corresponding to a total negative EBITDA of ISK 406,5 million. The conference part of Harpa's operation was run at a negative EBITDA of ISK 120 million in 2012 and the same goes for ‘other art events’ (negative EBITDA of ISK 131 million). The projected annual accounts and earning analysis for the year 2013 also foresee a considerable operating loss, a total negative EBITDA of around ISK 348 million, with both the conference activities and ‘other art events’ operating at a loss (12). |
| --- | --- |

(25)

According to the projected annual account of Austurhöfn-TR ehf. for the year 2012, the company was expected to sustain a significant operating loss corresponding to a total negative EBITDA of ISK 406,5 million. The conference part of Harpa's operation was run at a negative EBITDA of ISK 120 million in 2012 and the same goes for ‘other art events’ (negative EBITDA of ISK 131 million). The projected annual accounts and earning analysis for the year 2013 also foresee a considerable operating loss, a total negative EBITDA of around ISK 348 million, with both the conference activities and ‘other art events’ operating at a loss (12).

| (26) | As previously noted, the operation in Harpa is now overseen by a single company, Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf., which is devoted to making the Harpa project as profitable as possible. According to the Icelandic authorities, the overall aim is to make the operations gradually sustainable. Nevertheless, Harpa has since its opening been operated with an annual deficit that has been covered over the budgets of the Icelandic State and Reykjavík City (13). According to projections submitted by the Icelandic authorities, the conference activities in Harpa are expected to become gradually sustainable and by the year 2016 the authorities project that Harpa’s conference operations will run at a positive EBITDA of ISK 3,5 million (14). However, by the year 2016 the ‘other art events’ are still expected to run at a negative EBITDA of around ISK 93 million. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

As previously noted, the operation in Harpa is now overseen by a single company, Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf., which is devoted to making the Harpa project as profitable as possible. According to the Icelandic authorities, the overall aim is to make the operations gradually sustainable. Nevertheless, Harpa has since its opening been operated with an annual deficit that has been covered over the budgets of the Icelandic State and Reykjavík City (13). According to projections submitted by the Icelandic authorities, the conference activities in Harpa are expected to become gradually sustainable and by the year 2016 the authorities project that Harpa’s conference operations will run at a positive EBITDA of ISK 3,5 million (14). However, by the year 2016 the ‘other art events’ are still expected to run at a negative EBITDA of around ISK 93 million.

4.   Comments by the Icelandic authorities

| (27) | The Icelandic authorities argue that the financing of the companies involved in the operation of Harpa does not involve State aid since they have properly ensured that the companies keep separate accounts for the different activities within the concert hall and the conference centre. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The Icelandic authorities argue that the financing of the companies involved in the operation of Harpa does not involve State aid since they have properly ensured that the companies keep separate accounts for the different activities within the concert hall and the conference centre.

| (28) | The Icelandic authorities have claimed that revenues from conference and concert activities have been accounted for separately from other activities, while costs had not been accounted for separately up until now. The Icelandic authorities have acknowledged the need for accounting for conference activities separately from concert activities, as well as costs associated with these activities, and they aimed at having such a separation functional in January 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

The Icelandic authorities have claimed that revenues from conference and concert activities have been accounted for separately from other activities, while costs had not been accounted for separately up until now. The Icelandic authorities have acknowledged the need for accounting for conference activities separately from concert activities, as well as costs associated with these activities, and they aimed at having such a separation functional in January 2012.

| (29) | Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities claim that there is now a sufficient separation of accounts. In order to validate this claim, they have put forward statements from two accounting firms, PWC and KPMG. According to PWC, the separation of accounts for the companies involved in the operation of Harpa is sufficient. The profits are attributed to the relevant operational category and the common operational costs are divided between all operational categories. According to the report from KPMG, the property management team of Harpa has divided the building’s square meters based on function and usage and the related costs are allocated accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities claim that there is now a sufficient separation of accounts. In order to validate this claim, they have put forward statements from two accounting firms, PWC and KPMG. According to PWC, the separation of accounts for the companies involved in the operation of Harpa is sufficient. The profits are attributed to the relevant operational category and the common operational costs are divided between all operational categories. According to the report from KPMG, the property management team of Harpa has divided the building’s square meters based on function and usage and the related costs are allocated accordingly.

| (30) | With regard to the conference operations, according to the Icelandic authorities, Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf. is not itself active on the conference market. The company however leases conference rooms either to one-off conference organisers or to specialised conference businesses. Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities have noted that that there are no competing conference centres in Iceland capable of hosting large-scale conferences like Harpa. According to the Icelandic authorities, the conference business positively contributes to other activities in Harpa. If Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf. would not operate the conference business, the costs other activities would have to carry would be considerably higher. In order to show that the conference aspect of Harpa is not being subsidised, the Icelandic authorities submitted a pricing analysis from KPMG where they compared the prices of comparable conference facilities, based on size and capacity. According to KPMG’s analysis, the price for a full day, the price per guest and the price per square meter are on average much higher for the facilities in Harpa than for comparable facilities offered in competing conference facilities. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

With regard to the conference operations, according to the Icelandic authorities, Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf. is not itself active on the conference market. The company however leases conference rooms either to one-off conference organisers or to specialised conference businesses. Furthermore, the Icelandic authorities have noted that that there are no competing conference centres in Iceland capable of hosting large-scale conferences like Harpa. According to the Icelandic authorities, the conference business positively contributes to other activities in Harpa. If Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf. would not operate the conference business, the costs other activities would have to carry would be considerably higher. In order to show that the conference aspect of Harpa is not being subsidised, the Icelandic authorities submitted a pricing analysis from KPMG where they compared the prices of comparable conference facilities, based on size and capacity. According to KPMG’s analysis, the price for a full day, the price per guest and the price per square meter are on average much higher for the facilities in Harpa than for comparable facilities offered in competing conference facilities.

| (31) | Lastly, the Icelandic authorities maintain that the financial contributions from the State and the City are fully allocated for payment of outstanding loans and are not used in order to subsidise the conference hosting aspect. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

Lastly, the Icelandic authorities maintain that the financial contributions from the State and the City are fully allocated for payment of outstanding loans and are not used in order to subsidise the conference hosting aspect.

II.   ASSESSMENT

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

| (32) | Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows: |
| --- | --- |

(32)

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:

| (33) | ‘Save as otherwise provided in 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.’ |
| --- | --- |

(33)

‘Save as otherwise provided in 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.’

| (34) | In the following chapters the financing of the companies involved in the operation of Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre will be assessed with respect to these criteria. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

In the following chapters the financing of the companies involved in the operation of Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre will be assessed with respect to these criteria.

1.1.   State resources

State resources

| (35) | According to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must be granted by the State or through State resources in order to constitute State aid. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

According to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must be granted by the State or through State resources in order to constitute State aid.

| (36) | At the outset, the Authority notes that both local and regional authorities are considered to be equivalent to the State (15). Consequently, the state for the purpose of Article 61(1) covers all bodies of the State administration, from the central government to the City level or the lowest administrative level as well as public undertakings and bodies. Furthermore, municipal resources are considered to be State resources within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement (16). |
| --- | --- |

(36)

At the outset, the Authority notes that both local and regional authorities are considered to be equivalent to the State (15). Consequently, the state for the purpose of Article 61(1) covers all bodies of the State administration, from the central government to the City level or the lowest administrative level as well as public undertakings and bodies. Furthermore, municipal resources are considered to be State resources within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement (16).

15

16

| (37) | Since the Icelandic State and the City of Reykjavík cover jointly the annual deficit of the companies involved in the operation of Harpa by annually contributing a certain amount from their budgets, State resources are involved. Furthermore, the converting of loans into share capital also entails a transfer of State resources since the State and the City would forgo their entitlement to receive a full repayment of the outstanding loans. Therefore, the first criterion of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

Since the Icelandic State and the City of Reykjavík cover jointly the annual deficit of the companies involved in the operation of Harpa by annually contributing a certain amount from their budgets, State resources are involved. Furthermore, the converting of loans into share capital also entails a transfer of State resources since the State and the City would forgo their entitlement to receive a full repayment of the outstanding loans. Therefore, the first criterion of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is fulfilled.

1.2.   Undertaking

Undertaking

| (38) | In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, the measure must confer an advantage upon an undertaking. Undertakings are entities engaged in an economic activity, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed (17). Economic activities are activities consisting of offering goods or services on a market (18). Conversely, entities that are not commercially active in the sense that they are not offering goods and services on a given market do not constitute undertakings. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, the measure must confer an advantage upon an undertaking. Undertakings are entities engaged in an economic activity, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed (17). Economic activities are activities consisting of offering goods or services on a market (18). Conversely, entities that are not commercially active in the sense that they are not offering goods and services on a given market do not constitute undertakings.

17

18

| (39) | The Authority is of the opinion that both the construction and operation of an infrastructure constitute an economic activity in itself (and are thus subject to State aid rules) if that infrastructure is, or will be used, to provide goods or services on the market (19). In this case, the conference hall and concert centre is intended for e.g. hosting conferences as well as music, culture and ‘other art events’ on a commercial basis, i.e. for the provision of services on the market. This view has been confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Leipzig/Halle case (20). Consequently, in infrastructure cases, aid may be granted at several levels: construction, operation and use of the facilities (21). |
| --- | --- |

(39)

The Authority is of the opinion that both the construction and operation of an infrastructure constitute an economic activity in itself (and are thus subject to State aid rules) if that infrastructure is, or will be used, to provide goods or services on the market (19). In this case, the conference hall and concert centre is intended for e.g. hosting conferences as well as music, culture and ‘other art events’ on a commercial basis, i.e. for the provision of services on the market. This view has been confirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Leipzig/Halle case (20). Consequently, in infrastructure cases, aid may be granted at several levels: construction, operation and use of the facilities (21).

19

Leipzig/Halle

20

21

| (40) | As previously noted, Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre hosts concerts by the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra, the Icelandic Opera, various other art events as well as conferences. In the view of the Icelandic authorities, only the conference aspect of Harpa’s operation constitutes an economic activity. All other activities should therefore be classified as non-economic. However, the Authority has certain doubts in this regard. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

As previously noted, Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre hosts concerts by the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra, the Icelandic Opera, various other art events as well as conferences. In the view of the Icelandic authorities, only the conference aspect of Harpa’s operation constitutes an economic activity. All other activities should therefore be classified as non-economic. However, the Authority has certain doubts in this regard.

| (41) | Some of the activities taking place in Harpa, notably conferences, theatre performances, popular music concerts etc., can attract significant numbers of customers while they are in competition with private conference centres, theatres or other music venues. Therefore, the Authority takes the view that the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre and the companies involved in its operation, in so far as they engage in commercial activities, qualify as an undertaking (22). The companies involved in the operation of Harpa must be regarded as vehicles for pursuing the common interest of its owners, that is to support cultural activities in Iceland. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

Some of the activities taking place in Harpa, notably conferences, theatre performances, popular music concerts etc., can attract significant numbers of customers while they are in competition with private conference centres, theatres or other music venues. Therefore, the Authority takes the view that the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre and the companies involved in its operation, in so far as they engage in commercial activities, qualify as an undertaking (22). The companies involved in the operation of Harpa must be regarded as vehicles for pursuing the common interest of its owners, that is to support cultural activities in Iceland.

22

1.3.   Advantage

Advantage

| (42) | In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 6l of the EEA Agreement, the measure must confer an economic advantage on the recipient. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 6l of the EEA Agreement, the measure must confer an economic advantage on the recipient.

| (43) | Regarding the financing of the construction of Harpa, State aid can only be excluded if it is in conformity with the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’) (23). According to the Icelandic authorities, the State and the City had initially hoped that a private investor would finance the realisation of the project. However, due to the financial crisis, it became impossible to carry out the project without public funding. The direct grant by the State and the City is thus claimed to be necessary, as without it there were not enough funds to finance the project. The Authority therefore considers, at this stage, that the public financing of the construction of Harpa would constitute an economic advantage and thus aid, since the project would admittedly not have been realised in the absence of public funding and the participation by the State and the City was essential to the Harpa project as a whole. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

Regarding the financing of the construction of Harpa, State aid can only be excluded if it is in conformity with the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’) (23). According to the Icelandic authorities, the State and the City had initially hoped that a private investor would finance the realisation of the project. However, due to the financial crisis, it became impossible to carry out the project without public funding. The direct grant by the State and the City is thus claimed to be necessary, as without it there were not enough funds to finance the project. The Authority therefore considers, at this stage, that the public financing of the construction of Harpa would constitute an economic advantage and thus aid, since the project would admittedly not have been realised in the absence of public funding and the participation by the State and the City was essential to the Harpa project as a whole.

23

| (44) | It follows from the Authority’s decisional practice that when an entity carries out both commercial and non-commercial activities, a cost-accounting system that ensures that the commercial activities are not financed through State resources allocated to the non-profit making activities must be in place (24). This principle is also laid down in the Transparency Directive (25). The Directive does not apply directly to the case at hand. However, the Authority is of the opinion that the principles of operating economic activities on commercial terms with separate accounts, and a clear establishment of the cost accounting principles according to which separate accounts are maintained, still apply. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

It follows from the Authority’s decisional practice that when an entity carries out both commercial and non-commercial activities, a cost-accounting system that ensures that the commercial activities are not financed through State resources allocated to the non-profit making activities must be in place (24). This principle is also laid down in the Transparency Directive (25). The Directive does not apply directly to the case at hand. However, the Authority is of the opinion that the principles of operating economic activities on commercial terms with separate accounts, and a clear establishment of the cost accounting principles according to which separate accounts are maintained, still apply.

24

25

| (45) | As described in Section I.3 above, the operations of Harpa are divided into several categories, e.g. hosting the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra and the Icelandic Opera as well as other art events and conferences, which can be divided into economic and non-economic activities (i.e. cultural activities). The Icelandic authorities have however not properly ensured, through either amending the organisational structure of Harpa or by other administrative action, that there is a clear and consistent separation of the accounts for the different activities of the concert hall and conference centre. Simply dividing the losses associated with the operation of the building and common administrative costs between the different activities of Harpa, both the economic and non-economic, based on estimated usage and other criteria cannot be seen as a clear separation of accounts under EEA law. This situation therefore may lead to cross-subsidisation between non-economic and economic activities. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

As described in Section I.3 above, the operations of Harpa are divided into several categories, e.g. hosting the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra and the Icelandic Opera as well as other art events and conferences, which can be divided into economic and non-economic activities (i.e. cultural activities). The Icelandic authorities have however not properly ensured, through either amending the organisational structure of Harpa or by other administrative action, that there is a clear and consistent separation of the accounts for the different activities of the concert hall and conference centre. Simply dividing the losses associated with the operation of the building and common administrative costs between the different activities of Harpa, both the economic and non-economic, based on estimated usage and other criteria cannot be seen as a clear separation of accounts under EEA law. This situation therefore may lead to cross-subsidisation between non-economic and economic activities.

| (46) | Additionally, an advantage is conferred on the companies involved in the operation of Harpa in the form of foregone profits when the State and the City do not require a return on their investment in the concert hall and conference centre, in so far as those companies engage in commercial activities, such as the hosting of conferences or ‘other art events’. Any business owner or investor will normally require a return on its investment in a commercial undertaking. Such a requirement effectively represents an expense for the undertaking. If a State- and municipally-owned undertaking is not required to generate a normal rate of return for its owner this effectively means that the undertaking benefits from an advantage whenever the owner foregoes that profit (26). |
| --- | --- |

(46)

Additionally, an advantage is conferred on the companies involved in the operation of Harpa in the form of foregone profits when the State and the City do not require a return on their investment in the concert hall and conference centre, in so far as those companies engage in commercial activities, such as the hosting of conferences or ‘other art events’. Any business owner or investor will normally require a return on its investment in a commercial undertaking. Such a requirement effectively represents an expense for the undertaking. If a State- and municipally-owned undertaking is not required to generate a normal rate of return for its owner this effectively means that the undertaking benefits from an advantage whenever the owner foregoes that profit (26).

26

| (47) | The Authority considers that the announced conversion of loans, in the amount of ISK 904 million, could also constitute an advantage, should the conversion not be concluded on market terms. However, since the Authority has not received a detailed description of the loan conversion agreement it is not in the position to assess whether an advantage is present or not. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

The Authority considers that the announced conversion of loans, in the amount of ISK 904 million, could also constitute an advantage, should the conversion not be concluded on market terms. However, since the Authority has not received a detailed description of the loan conversion agreement it is not in the position to assess whether an advantage is present or not.

| (48) | The preliminary assessment of the Authority thus shows that an economic advantage cannot be excluded at any level (construction, operation and use). |
| --- | --- |

(48)

The preliminary assessment of the Authority thus shows that an economic advantage cannot be excluded at any level (construction, operation and use).

1.4.   Selectivity

Selectivity

| (49) | In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 6l of the EEA Agreement, the measure must be selective. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 6l of the EEA Agreement, the measure must be selective.

| (50) | The Icelandic authorities provide funding to the companies involved in the operation of Harpa. The funding is used to cover the losses stemming from the different activities within Harpa, including economic activities such as the hosting of conferences. This system of compensation, under which cross-subsidisation may occur, is not available to other companies that are active on the conference market in Iceland or elsewhere. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

The Icelandic authorities provide funding to the companies involved in the operation of Harpa. The funding is used to cover the losses stemming from the different activities within Harpa, including economic activities such as the hosting of conferences. This system of compensation, under which cross-subsidisation may occur, is not available to other companies that are active on the conference market in Iceland or elsewhere.

| (51) | In light of the above, it is the Authority’s preliminary view that the companies involved in the operation of Harpa receive a selective economic advantage compared to their competitors on the market. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

In light of the above, it is the Authority’s preliminary view that the companies involved in the operation of Harpa receive a selective economic advantage compared to their competitors on the market.

1.5.   Distortion of competition and effect on trade between contracting parties

Distortion of competition and effect on trade between contracting parties

| (52) | The measure must be liable to distort competition and affect trade between the contracting parties to the EEA Agreement to be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

The measure must be liable to distort competition and affect trade between the contracting parties to the EEA Agreement to be considered State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

| (53) | According to settled case law, the mere fact that a measure strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade is considered to be sufficient in order to conclude that the measure is likely to affect trade between contracting parties and distort competition between undertakings established in other EEA States (27). The State resources allocated to the companies involved in the operation of Harpa, in order to cover their losses, constitute an advantage that strengthens Harpa’s position compared to that of other undertakings competing in the same market. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

According to settled case law, the mere fact that a measure strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade is considered to be sufficient in order to conclude that the measure is likely to affect trade between contracting parties and distort competition between undertakings established in other EEA States (27). The State resources allocated to the companies involved in the operation of Harpa, in order to cover their losses, constitute an advantage that strengthens Harpa’s position compared to that of other undertakings competing in the same market.

27

| (54) | As the market for organising international events is open to competition between venue providers and event organisers, which generally engage in activities which are subject to trade between EEA States, the effect on trade can be assumed. In this case, the effect on trade between certain neighbouring EEA States is even more likely due to the nature of the conference industry. Moreover, the General Court has recently, in its Order concerning the Ahoy complex in the Netherlands, held that there was no reason to limit the market to the territory of that Member State (28). |
| --- | --- |

(54)

As the market for organising international events is open to competition between venue providers and event organisers, which generally engage in activities which are subject to trade between EEA States, the effect on trade can be assumed. In this case, the effect on trade between certain neighbouring EEA States is even more likely due to the nature of the conference industry. Moreover, the General Court has recently, in its Order concerning the Ahoy complex in the Netherlands, held that there was no reason to limit the market to the territory of that Member State (28).

28

| (55) | Therefore, in the preliminary view of the Authority, the measure threatens to distort competition and affect trade within the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

Therefore, in the preliminary view of the Authority, the measure threatens to distort competition and affect trade within the EEA.

1.6.   Conclusion with regard to the presence of State aid

Conclusion with regard to the presence of State aid

| (56) | With reference to the above considerations the Authority cannot, at this stage and based on its preliminary assessment, exclude that the measure under assessment includes elements of State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Under the conditions referred to above, it is thus necessary to consider whether the measure can be found to be compatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

(56)

With reference to the above considerations the Authority cannot, at this stage and based on its preliminary assessment, exclude that the measure under assessment includes elements of State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Under the conditions referred to above, it is thus necessary to consider whether the measure can be found to be compatible with the internal market.

2.   Compatibility assessment

Compatibility assessment

| (57) | The Icelandic authorities have not put forward any arguments demonstrating that the State aid involved in the financing of the companies involved in the operation of Harpa could be considered as compatible State aid. |
| --- | --- |

(57)

The Icelandic authorities have not put forward any arguments demonstrating that the State aid involved in the financing of the companies involved in the operation of Harpa could be considered as compatible State aid.

| (58) | Support measures caught by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are generally incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, unless they qualify for a derogation under Article 61(2) or (3) or Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement and are necessary, proportional and do not cause undue distortion of competition. |
| --- | --- |

(58)

Support measures caught by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are generally incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, unless they qualify for a derogation under Article 61(2) or (3) or Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement and are necessary, proportional and do not cause undue distortion of competition.

| (59) | The derogation in Article 61(2) is not applicable to the aid in question, which is not designed to achieve any of the aims listed in this provision. Further, the aid under assessment in this case cannot be considered to qualify as public service compensation within the meaning of Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(59)

The derogation in Article 61(2) is not applicable to the aid in question, which is not designed to achieve any of the aims listed in this provision. Further, the aid under assessment in this case cannot be considered to qualify as public service compensation within the meaning of Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement.

| (60) | The EEA Agreement does not include a provision corresponding to Article 107(3)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Authority nevertheless acknowledges that State aid measures may be approved on cultural grounds on the basis of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement (29). |
| --- | --- |

(60)

The EEA Agreement does not include a provision corresponding to Article 107(3)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Authority nevertheless acknowledges that State aid measures may be approved on cultural grounds on the basis of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement (29).

29

| (61) | On the basis of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, aid to promote culture and heritage conservation may be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the EEA to the extent that is considered to be contrary to the common interest. The Authority must therefore assess whether granting aid to the various activities in Harpa can be justified as aid to promote culture on the grounds of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(61)

On the basis of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, aid to promote culture and heritage conservation may be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the EEA to the extent that is considered to be contrary to the common interest. The Authority must therefore assess whether granting aid to the various activities in Harpa can be justified as aid to promote culture on the grounds of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

| (62) | It should be noted that the principles laid down in Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement have been applied to cases somewhat similar to the case at stake (30). The Icelandic authorities have stated that the primary objective of the measure in question was to promote culture through the construction of a concert hall that could house both the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra and the Icelandic Opera. Similar multipurpose cultural centres already exist in most other European cities. Harpa is to be Iceland’s national concert hall, providing a necessary cultural infrastructure that was missing in Iceland and it will act as the focal point for the development and advancement of those performance arts in Iceland. The concert centre will therefore contribute to the development of cultural knowledge and bring access to cultural educational and recreational values to the public (31). |
| --- | --- |

(62)

It should be noted that the principles laid down in Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement have been applied to cases somewhat similar to the case at stake (30). The Icelandic authorities have stated that the primary objective of the measure in question was to promote culture through the construction of a concert hall that could house both the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra and the Icelandic Opera. Similar multipurpose cultural centres already exist in most other European cities. Harpa is to be Iceland’s national concert hall, providing a necessary cultural infrastructure that was missing in Iceland and it will act as the focal point for the development and advancement of those performance arts in Iceland. The concert centre will therefore contribute to the development of cultural knowledge and bring access to cultural educational and recreational values to the public (31).

30

31

| (63) | In view of the above, the Authority considers that, given its cultural purpose, the construction and operation of a Symphony and Opera facility would qualify as aid to promote culture within the meaning of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. However, the Authority has doubts as to whether aid granted to subsidise conference and other art events, on a commercial basis, can be justified under Article 61(3)(c) and this aid must therefore be assessed separately. |
| --- | --- |

(63)

In view of the above, the Authority considers that, given its cultural purpose, the construction and operation of a Symphony and Opera facility would qualify as aid to promote culture within the meaning of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. However, the Authority has doubts as to whether aid granted to subsidise conference and other art events, on a commercial basis, can be justified under Article 61(3)(c) and this aid must therefore be assessed separately.

| (64) | Concerning necessity, proportionality and whether the measure is likely to distort competition, the Authority has the following observations. As previously noted the main reason for constructing Harpa was the apparent need for a suitable concert hall to accommodate both the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra and the Icelandic Opera. Given the scale of the project it is understandable that an infrastructure such as Harpa would also be used to house various commercial activities such as restaurants, coffee shops, stores, conferences and popular concerts. However, in order not to distort competition, safeguards must be put in place to ensure that there is no cross subsidisation between the commercial activities and the heavily subsidised cultural activities. This can be achieved by either tendering out facilities for the commercial activities, thereby ensuring that the economic operator pays market price for the facilities and does not benefit from cross subsidisation, or by sufficiently separating the economic activities from the non-commercial activities by establishing a separate legal entity or a sufficient system of cost allocation and separate accounts that ensures a reasonable return on investment. The Icelandic authorities have already taken the former approach with regard to the restaurants, catering services and shops within Harpa. The same approach has however not been taken with regard to the hosting of conference and ‘other art events’ which are currently overseen by a company owned by the State and the City, Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf., and run at a considerable negative EBITDA. The Authority therefore cannot see that the Icelandic authorities have put the necessary safeguards in place to ensure that cross subsidisation does not occur between the cultural and the purely commercial activities within Harpa. |
| --- | --- |

(64)

Concerning necessity, proportionality and whether the measure is likely to distort competition, the Authority has the following observations. As previously noted the main reason for constructing Harpa was the apparent need for a suitable concert hall to accommodate both the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra and the Icelandic Opera. Given the scale of the project it is understandable that an infrastructure such as Harpa would also be used to house various commercial activities such as restaurants, coffee shops, stores, conferences and popular concerts. However, in order not to distort competition, safeguards must be put in place to ensure that there is no cross subsidisation between the commercial activities and the heavily subsidised cultural activities. This can be achieved by either tendering out facilities for the commercial activities, thereby ensuring that the economic operator pays market price for the facilities and does not benefit from cross subsidisation, or by sufficiently separating the economic activities from the non-commercial activities by establishing a separate legal entity or a sufficient system of cost allocation and separate accounts that ensures a reasonable return on investment. The Icelandic authorities have already taken the former approach with regard to the restaurants, catering services and shops within Harpa. The same approach has however not been taken with regard to the hosting of conference and ‘other art events’ which are currently overseen by a company owned by the State and the City, Harpa — tónlistar- og ráðstefnuhús ehf., and run at a considerable negative EBITDA. The Authority therefore cannot see that the Icelandic authorities have put the necessary safeguards in place to ensure that cross subsidisation does not occur between the cultural and the purely commercial activities within Harpa.

| (65) | Consequently, following its preliminary assessment, the Authority has doubts whether the proposed project could be deemed compatible under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, at this stage at all three levels of possible aid (construction, operation and use) in accordance with the above. |
| --- | --- |

(65)

Consequently, following its preliminary assessment, the Authority has doubts whether the proposed project could be deemed compatible under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, at this stage at all three levels of possible aid (construction, operation and use) in accordance with the above.

| (66) | At this stage, the Authority has not carried out an assessment with respect to other possible derogations, under which the measure could be found compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. In this respect, the Icelandic authorities have not brought forward any further specific arguments. |
| --- | --- |

(66)

At this stage, the Authority has not carried out an assessment with respect to other possible derogations, under which the measure could be found compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. In this respect, the Icelandic authorities have not brought forward any further specific arguments.

3.   Procedural requirements

Procedural requirements

| (67) | Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, ‘[t]he EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. [...] The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until th[e] procedure has resulted in a final decision.’ |
| --- | --- |

(67)

Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, ‘[t]he EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. [...] The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until th[e] procedure has resulted in a final decision.’

| (68) | The Icelandic authorities did not notify the aid measures to the Authority. Moreover, the Icelandic authorities have, by constructing and operating Harpa, put those measures into effect before the Authority has adopted a final decision. The Authority therefore concludes that the Icelandic authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3. The granting of any aid involved is therefore unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

(68)

The Icelandic authorities did not notify the aid measures to the Authority. Moreover, the Icelandic authorities have, by constructing and operating Harpa, put those measures into effect before the Authority has adopted a final decision. The Authority therefore concludes that the Icelandic authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3. The granting of any aid involved is therefore unlawful.

4.   Opening of the formal investigation procedure

Opening of the formal investigation procedure

| (69) | Based on the information submitted by the complainant and the Icelandic authorities, the Authority, after carrying out the preliminarily assessment, is of the opinion that the financing of the companies involved in the operation of the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre — within the context of the project as outlined above — might constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, as outlined above, the Authority has doubts as regards the compatibility of the potential State aid with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(69)

Based on the information submitted by the complainant and the Icelandic authorities, the Authority, after carrying out the preliminarily assessment, is of the opinion that the financing of the companies involved in the operation of the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre — within the context of the project as outlined above — might constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, as outlined above, the Authority has doubts as regards the compatibility of the potential State aid with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| (70) | Given these doubts and the impact of potential State aid on the investments of private operators it appears necessary that the Authority opens the formal investigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(70)

Given these doubts and the impact of potential State aid on the investments of private operators it appears necessary that the Authority opens the formal investigation procedure.

| (71) | Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement or that they do not constitute aid. |
| --- | --- |

(71)

Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement or that they do not constitute aid.

| (72) | The opening of the procedure will also enable interested third parties to comment on the questions raised and on the impact of the Harpa project on relevant markets. |
| --- | --- |

(72)

The opening of the procedure will also enable interested third parties to comment on the questions raised and on the impact of the Harpa project on relevant markets.

| (73) | In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, hereby invites the Icelandic authorities to submit their comments and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the compatibility of the measures within one month from the date of receipt of this Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(73)

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, hereby invites the Icelandic authorities to submit their comments and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the compatibility of the measures within one month from the date of receipt of this Decision.

all documents, information and data

| (74) | The Authority must remind the Icelandic authorities that, according to Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully granted already to the beneficiaries will have to be recovered, unless (exceptionally) this recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EEA law. |
| --- | --- |

(74)

The Authority must remind the Icelandic authorities that, according to Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully granted already to the beneficiaries will have to be recovered, unless (exceptionally) this recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EEA law.

| (75) | Attention is drawn to the fact that the Authority will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European. All interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication, |
| --- | --- |

(75)

Attention is drawn to the fact that the Authority will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European. All interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication,

Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The financing and operation of the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The Authority has doubts as regards the compatibility of the State aid with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

Article 2

The formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 is initiated regarding the aid referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

The Icelandic authorities are invited, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Part II of Protocol 3, to submit their comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month from the notification of this Decision.

Article 4

The Icelandic authorities are requested to provide, within one month from notification of this Decision, all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the measures under the State aid rules of the EEA Agreement.

Article 5

This Decision is addressed to Iceland.

Article 6

Only the English language version of this Decision is authentic.

Done at Brussels, 20 March 2013.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Oda Helen SLETNES

President

Sabine MONAUNI-TÖMÖRDY

College Member

---

(1)  Pozri rozhodnutie Komisie vo veci SA.33618 (Švédsko) Financovanie arény v Uppsale (Ú. v. EÚ C 152, 30.5.2012, s. 18) bod 19.

1

Financovanie arény v Uppsale

(2)  Pozri vec T-90/09 Mojo Concerts BV a Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie BV proti Európskej komisii, Uznesenie Všeobecného súdu z 26. januára 2012, bod 45, uverejnené v Ú. v. EÚ C 89, 24.3.2012, s. 22.

2

Mojo Concerts BV a Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie BV proti Európskej komisii

(3)  For the purposes of this Decision, ‘Harpa’ will refer to the building itself and its facilities.

3

(4)  Project agreement between Austurhofn-TR ehf. and Eignarhaldsfelagid Portus ehf, signed on 9 March 2006.

4

(5)  Amended and restated project agreement between Austurhofn-TR ehf. and Eignarhaldsfelagid Portus ehf, signed on 19 January 2010.

5

(6)  Further information on Austurhöfn-TR ehf. can be found on their website: http://www.austurhofn.is/

6

(7)  Information available online at: http://en.harpa.is/media/english/skipur-1.jpg

7

(8)  As amended and restated in 2010.

8

(9)  The Icelandic authorities have not yet outlined the particulars of this arrangement.

9

(10)  See memorandum issued by the Director of Harpa, dated 24 September 2012 (Event No 648320).

10

(11)  See report by KPMG, dated 7 February 2013 (Event No 662444).

11

(12)  Ibid.

12

(13)  According to the Icelandic authorities, Harpa’s losses mostly stem from high real estate taxes.

13

(14)  The key factor in this revenue growth is the expected increase in the conference business.

14

(15)  See Article 2 of Commission Directive 2006/111/EC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (OJ L 318, 17.11.2006, p. 17), incorporated at point 1a of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement.

15

(16)  See the Authority’s Decision No 55/05/COL, Section II.3, p. 19 with further references, published in OJ L 324, 23.11.2006, p. 11 and EEA Supplement No 56, 23.11.2006, p. 1.

16

(17)  Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser v Macroton [1991] ECR I-1979, paragraphs 21-23 and Case E-5/07 Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2008] Ct. Rep. 61, paragraph 78.

17

Höfner and Elser

Macroton

Private Barnehagers Landsforbund

EFTA Surveillance Authority

(18)  Case C-222/04 Ministero dell’Economica e delle Finanze v Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA [2006] ECR I-289, paragraph 108.

18

Ministero dell’Economica e delle Finanze

Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA

(19)  See the Commission Decision in Case SA.33618 (Sweden) Financing of the Uppsala arena (OJ C 152, 30.5.2012, p. 18), paragraph 19.

19

Financing of the Uppsala arena

(20)  Case C-288/11 P Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle v The European Commission, 19 December 2012, paragraphs 40-43, not yet published.

20

Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle

The European Commission

(21)  See the Commission Decision in Case SA.33728 (Denmark) Financing of a new multiarena in Copenhagen (OJ C 152, 30.5.2012, p. 6), paragraph 24.

21

Financing of a new multiarena in Copenhagen

(22)  See the Commission Decision in Case N 293/08 (Hungary) Cultural aid for multifunctional community cultural centres, museums, public libraries (OJ C 66, 20.3.2009, p. 22), paragraph 19.

22

Cultural aid for multifunctional community cultural centres, museums, public libraries

(23)  See the Commission Decision in Case SA.33728 (Denmark) Financing of a new multiarena in Copenhagen (OJ C 152, 30.5.2012, p. 6), paragraph 25.

23

Financing of a new multiarena in Copenhagen

(24)  ESA Decision No 142/03/COL regarding reorganisation and transfer of public funds to the Work Research Institute (OJ C 248, 16.10.2003, p. 6, EEA Supplement No 52, 16.10.2003, p. 3), ESA Decision No 343/09/COL on the property transactions engaged in by the Municipality of Time concerning property numbers 1/152, 1/301, 1/630, 4/165, 2/70, 2/32 (OJ L 123, 12.5.2011, p. 72, EEA Supplement No 27, 12.5.2011, p. 1).

24

(25)  Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ L 318, 17.11.2006, p. 17), incorporated at point 1a of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement.

25

(26)  Case C-234/84 Belgium v Commission [1986] ECR I-2263, paragraph 14.

26

Belgium

Commission

(27)  Case E-6/98 The Government of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [1999] Report of the EFTA Court p. 76, paragraph 59; Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paragraph 11.

27

The Government of Norway

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Philip Morris

Commission

(28)  Case T-90/09 Mojo Concerts BV and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie BV v The European Commission, Order of the General Court of 26 January 2012, paragraph 45, published in OJ C 89, 24.3.2012, p. 36.

28

Mojo Concerts BV and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie BV

The European Commission

(29)  See for example paragraph 7 (with further references) of the Authority’s Guidelines on State aid to cinematographic and other audiovisual work, available at the Authority’s webpage at: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/

29

(30)  See Commission Decision in Case N 122/10 (Hungary) State aid to Danube Cultural Palace (OJ C 147, 18.5.2011, p. 3) and Commission Decision in Case N 293/08 (Hungary) Cultural aid for multifunctional community cultural centres, museums, public libraries (OJ C 66, 20.3.2009, p. 22).

30

State aid to Danube Cultural Palace

Cultural aid for multifunctional community cultural centres, museums, public libraries

(31)  See Commission Decision in Case SA.33241 (Cyprus) State support to the Cyprus Cultural Centre (OJ C 377, 23.12.2011, p. 11), paragraphs 36-39.

31

State support to the Cyprus Cultural Centre

---

| 8.8.2013 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 229/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 229/31

---

Výzva na predloženie pripomienok podľa článku 1 ods. 2 časti I protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu k štátnej pomoci týkajúcej sa možnej pomoci pre Nasjonal digital læringsarena (NDLA)

2013/C 229/10

Rozhodnutím č. 136/13/COL z 27. marca 2013, ktoré je uvedené v autentickom jazyku na stranách nasledujúcich po tomto zhrnutí, Dozorný úrad EZVO začal konanie podľa článku 1 ods. 2 časti I protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu. Nórske orgány boli informované prostredníctvom kópie tohto rozhodnutia.

Dozorný úrad EZVO týmto oznamuje štátom EZVO, členským štátom EÚ a zainteresovaným stranám, že môžu predložiť svoje pripomienky k predmetnému opatreniu v lehote jedného mesiaca odo dňa uverejnenia tohto oznámenia na adresu:

| EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| --- |
| Registry |
| Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35 |
| 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Registry

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35

1040 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Pripomienky budú oznámené nórskym orgánom. Zainteresované strany, ktoré predložia pripomienky, môžu písomne s uvedením dôvodov požiadať o dôverné zaobchádzanie s údajmi o ich totožnosti.

ZHRNUTIE

Súvislosti

Vzdelávanie v Nórsku je povinné pre všetky deti vo veku od 6 do 16 rokov a poskytuje sa prostredníctvom systému bezplatných verejných škôl. V roku 2006 sa nórske orgány rozhodli v rámci iniciatívy zameranej na podporu poznatkov (Kunnskapsløftet), že všetky nórske školy by mali podporovať schopnosť osvojovať si poznatky v danom predmete pomocou využitia informačných a komunikačných technológií. V tejto súvislosti nórske orgány zmenili zákon o vzdelávaní a nariadili krajským samosprávam poskytovať žiakom potrebné tlačené a digitálne učebné materiály bezplatne.

V máji 2006 nórska vláda uvoľnila 50 miliónov NOK na rozvoj a používanie digitálnych učebných zdrojov. V júni 2006 ministerstvo školstva vyzvalo krajské samosprávy, aby sa spoločne uchádzali o dostupné finančné prostriedky. V auguste 2006 vedúci predstavitelia školstva z 18 (z celkovo 19) krajských samospráv prijali rozhodnutie o začatí spolupráce medzi jednotlivými samosprávami a o zriadení NDLA ako subjektu pre spoluprácu medzi samosprávnymi krajmi podľa §27 zákona o miestnej samospráve.

Zúčastnené krajské samosprávy predložili žiadosť o finančné prostriedky na ministerstvo školstva, ktoré poskytlo na projekt 30,5 milióna NOK pod podmienkou, že zodpovedný právny subjekt bude dozerať na povinnosti, ktoré samosprávam vyplývajú z iniciatívy, nebude vykonávať hospodársku činnosť a že nákup digitálnych učebných materiálov a služby vývoja budú vykonávané v súlade s predpismi o verejnom obstarávaní.

Krajské samosprávy následne na projekt vyčlenili 21,1 mil. NOK (v roku 2008), 34,7 mil. NOK (v roku 2009), 58,8 mil. NOK (v roku 2010) a 57,7 mil. NOK (v roku 2011). Tieto prostriedky boli čiastočne financované z bežného komunálneho financovania školských činností a čiastočne prostredníctvom uvedených dodatočných prostriedkov, ktoré ministerstvo školstva poskytlo krajským samosprávam na tento konkrétny projekt.

Rozhodnutie a rozsudok súdu

Dňa 12. októbra 2011 dozorný úrad prijal rozhodnutie č. 311/11/COL o tom, že opatrenie nepredstavuje štátnu pomoc v zmysle článku 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP (ďalej len „rozhodnutie“). Dňa 9. januára 2012 podal žalobca proti tomuto rozhodnutiu žalobu a Súd EZVO svojím rozsudkom z 11. decembra 2012 predmetné rozhodnutie zrušil (1).

Posúdenie opatrenia

Existencia štátnej pomoci

Na základe tohto rozsudku má dozorný úrad pochybnosti, či NDLA nevykonáva hospodársku činnosť. Dozorný úrad najmä požaduje podrobnejšie informácie, pokiaľ ide o prechod iniciatívy od fázy projektu k formálnemu zriadeniu subjektu pre spoluprácu medzi samosprávnymi krajmi podľa §27 zákona o miestnej samospráve.

Okrem toho dozorný úrad požaduje viac informácií o tom, do akej miery zmena právneho postavenia ovplyvnila rozhodovací proces. Dozorný úrad potrebuje predovšetkým zistiť, do akej miery môže NDLA zväčšiť rozsah svojich činností bez súhlasu zúčastnených samospráv či dokonca proti ich vôli, a či sa súčasná situácia líši od situácie pred formálnym zriadením subjektu.

Okrem toho dozorný úrad podrobnejšie preskúma financovanie NDLA, a to vo fáze projektu, ako aj po jeho formálnom zriadení.

Dozorný úrad takisto potrebuje podrobnejšie zistiť, ako sú stanovené parametre pre postupy verejného obstarávania, prostredníctvom ktorých NDLA nakupuje tovar a prijíma zamestnancov.

Napokon dozorný úrad požaduje viac informácií o vplyve opatrenia na hospodársku súťaž a obchod.

Zlučiteľnosť pomoci

Na základe dostupných informácií dozorný úrad nemôže v tomto štádiu dospieť k záveru o zlučiteľnosti opatrenia. Dozorný úrad preto v tejto súvislosti požaduje dodatočné informácie.

Záver

Vzhľadom na uvedené úvahy sa dozorný úrad rozhodol začať konanie vo veci formálneho zisťovania v súlade s článkom 1 ods. 2 časti I protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu. Dozorný úrad vyzýva zainteresované strany, aby predložili svoje pripomienky v lehote jedného mesiaca od uverejnenia tohto oznámenia v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 136/13/COL

of 27 March 2013

opening the formal investigation procedure into potential aid to the Nasjonal digital læringsarena (NDLA)

(Norway)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (‘THE AUTHORITY’)

HAVING REGARD to:

The Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26,

The Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘SCA’), in particular to Article 24,

Protocol 3 to the SCA (‘Protocol 3’), in particular to Article 1 of Part I and Articles 4(4) and 6 of Part II,

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

| (1) | By letter dated 15 April 2010 Den Norske Forleggerforening, the Norwegian Publishers Association (‘NPA’), sent a complaint alleging that illegal State aid has been granted to the Nasjonal digital læringsarena (‘NDLA’). The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 16 April 2010 (Event No 553723). Following a telephone conference on 15 July 2011 the complainant provided additional information by email on the same day (Event No 608593). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By letter dated 15 April 2010 Den Norske Forleggerforening, the Norwegian Publishers Association (‘NPA’), sent a complaint alleging that illegal State aid has been granted to the Nasjonal digital læringsarena (‘NDLA’). The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 16 April 2010 (Event No 553723). Following a telephone conference on 15 July 2011 the complainant provided additional information by email on the same day (Event No 608593).

| (2) | By letter dated 2 July 2010 (Event No 558201), the Authority requested additional information from the Norwegian authorities. By letter dated 9 August 2010 (Event No 566179), the Norwegian authorities requested an extension of the time limit for sending a response. The request for an extension was granted by the Authority by letter dated 12 August 2010 (Event No 566397). By letter dated 9 September 2010 (Event No 568942), the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request. In addition, discussions between the Authority and the Norwegian authorities regarding the case took place at a meeting in Norway on 13-14 October 2010. Additional information from the Norwegian authorities was sent to the Authority by letter dated 1 December 2010 (Event No 579405). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By letter dated 2 July 2010 (Event No 558201), the Authority requested additional information from the Norwegian authorities. By letter dated 9 August 2010 (Event No 566179), the Norwegian authorities requested an extension of the time limit for sending a response. The request for an extension was granted by the Authority by letter dated 12 August 2010 (Event No 566397). By letter dated 9 September 2010 (Event No 568942), the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request. In addition, discussions between the Authority and the Norwegian authorities regarding the case took place at a meeting in Norway on 13-14 October 2010. Additional information from the Norwegian authorities was sent to the Authority by letter dated 1 December 2010 (Event No 579405).

| (3) | The Authority considered that further information was necessary and sent another request for information by letter dated 4 February 2011 (Event No 574762). The Norwegian authorities replied to the information request by letter dated 7 March 2011 (Event No 589528). Upon request the Norwegian authorities provided further clarifications by emails 2 May 2011 (Event No 596402) and 12 August 2011 (Event No 608596). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Authority considered that further information was necessary and sent another request for information by letter dated 4 February 2011 (Event No 574762). The Norwegian authorities replied to the information request by letter dated 7 March 2011 (Event No 589528). Upon request the Norwegian authorities provided further clarifications by emails 2 May 2011 (Event No 596402) and 12 August 2011 (Event No 608596).

| (4) | On 12 October 2011 the Authority adopted Decision No 311/11/COL deciding that the measure did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA (hereafter: the Decision). On 9 January 2012 the applicant brought an action against the decision and by its judgment dated 11 December 2012 the EFTA Court annulled the decision (hereafter: the Judgment) (2). |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 12 October 2011 the Authority adopted Decision No 311/11/COL deciding that the measure did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA (hereafter: the Decision). On 9 January 2012 the applicant brought an action against the decision and by its judgment dated 11 December 2012 the EFTA Court annulled the decision (hereafter: the Judgment) (2).

2.   The complaint

| (5) | The complainant is the Norwegian Publishers Association, which represents i.a. companies which are or could be active in the development and distribution of digital learning material. The complaint concerns the Norwegian government’s and the county municipalities granting of funds as well as the transfer of a content management system to the NDLA. The NDLA is an entity which has been founded as an inter-county cooperation body by 18 Norwegian municipalities (3) in order to develop or purchase digital learning material with a view to publishing the material on the internet free of charge. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The complainant is the Norwegian Publishers Association, which represents i.a. companies which are or could be active in the development and distribution of digital learning material. The complaint concerns the Norwegian government’s and the county municipalities granting of funds as well as the transfer of a content management system to the NDLA. The NDLA is an entity which has been founded as an inter-county cooperation body by 18 Norwegian municipalities (3) in order to develop or purchase digital learning material with a view to publishing the material on the internet free of charge.

| (6) | The complainant submits that the NDLA has four main areas of activity: firstly, the NDLA develops and supplies learning resources for the upper secondary school; secondly, the NDLA procures learning resources from third party suppliers; thirdly, the NDLA ensures the quality of learning resources; and fourthly, the NDLA develops and manages the content management system which operates the website through which the digital learning material is published (these activities are hereafter also referred to as ‘purchase, development and supply of digital learning materials’). |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The complainant submits that the NDLA has four main areas of activity: firstly, the NDLA develops and supplies learning resources for the upper secondary school; secondly, the NDLA procures learning resources from third party suppliers; thirdly, the NDLA ensures the quality of learning resources; and fourthly, the NDLA develops and manages the content management system which operates the website through which the digital learning material is published (these activities are hereafter also referred to as ‘purchase, development and supply of digital learning materials’).

| (7) | The complainant submits that the granting of funds to the NDLA for the purchase, development and supply of digital learning material constitutes illegal State aid to the NDLA. In that regard the complainant emphasises that — in his view — the NDLA is not an integrated part of the public administration but rather an undertaking within the meaning of State aid rules. The complainant recalls that according to established case law an undertaking is an entity which is engaged in economic activities. The complainant suggests that according to the ECJ case law an economic activity is an activity, which could, at least in principle, be carried out by a private undertaking in order to make profits. Then, the complainant argues that any entity, which carries out an activity which could be carried out to make profits, is engaged in an economic activity. The complainant further submits that there was a market for digital learning material prior to the activities of the NDLA and that the NDLA competes at present with private undertakings offering digital learning resources. The complainant claims that on this basis the development and supply of digital learning resources constitutes an economic activity. The complainant further suggests that the other activities of the NDLA are closely linked to the development and supply of digital learning resources and are therefore also to be considered as economic in nature. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The complainant submits that the granting of funds to the NDLA for the purchase, development and supply of digital learning material constitutes illegal State aid to the NDLA. In that regard the complainant emphasises that — in his view — the NDLA is not an integrated part of the public administration but rather an undertaking within the meaning of State aid rules. The complainant recalls that according to established case law an undertaking is an entity which is engaged in economic activities. The complainant suggests that according to the ECJ case law an economic activity is an activity, which could, at least in principle, be carried out by a private undertaking in order to make profits. Then, the complainant argues that any entity, which carries out an activity which could be carried out to make profits, is engaged in an economic activity. The complainant further submits that there was a market for digital learning material prior to the activities of the NDLA and that the NDLA competes at present with private undertakings offering digital learning resources. The complainant claims that on this basis the development and supply of digital learning resources constitutes an economic activity. The complainant further suggests that the other activities of the NDLA are closely linked to the development and supply of digital learning resources and are therefore also to be considered as economic in nature.

| (8) | Furthermore, the complainant argues that the funds offered by the Ministry of Education and from the county municipalities to the NDLA for the purchase of digital learning material from third party suppliers also constitute State aid. Finally, the complainant submits that the fact that the State also made its content management system available to the NDLA free of charge — according to the complainant — also amounts to State aid. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Furthermore, the complainant argues that the funds offered by the Ministry of Education and from the county municipalities to the NDLA for the purchase of digital learning material from third party suppliers also constitute State aid. Finally, the complainant submits that the fact that the State also made its content management system available to the NDLA free of charge — according to the complainant — also amounts to State aid.

| (9) | The complainant notes that the measure has not been notified. He continues to argue that Article 59(2) EEA is not applicable and concludes that — in the absence of a notification — the Norwegian State has granted State aid contrary to State aid rules. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The complainant notes that the measure has not been notified. He continues to argue that Article 59(2) EEA is not applicable and concludes that — in the absence of a notification — the Norwegian State has granted State aid contrary to State aid rules.

3.   Background

3.1.   
  The educational system in Norway

| (10) | Education in Norway is mandatory for all children aged from 6 to 16 and is provided through a system of free public schools. This system is divided into a compulsory elementary school (age 6 to 13), a compulsory lower secondary school (age 13 to 16), and the upper secondary school (age 16 to 19). |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Education in Norway is mandatory for all children aged from 6 to 16 and is provided through a system of free public schools. This system is divided into a compulsory elementary school (age 6 to 13), a compulsory lower secondary school (age 13 to 16), and the upper secondary school (age 16 to 19).

| (11) | In 2006 the Norwegian authorities decided in the course of the ‘Knowledge Promotion Initiative’ (Kunnskapsløftet) that all Norwegian schools were to emphasise certain basic skills in all subjects. One of these skills is the ability to learn a given subject by using information and communication technology. This requirement was introduced in the national curricula for pupils in the 10-year compulsory school (i.e. school for grades 1 to 9) and for pupils in the first year of upper secondary education (i.e. school for grades 10 to 12) and apprenticeships. Under the Norwegian Education Act (4) the county municipalities are responsible for meeting these requirements. Furthermore, in 2007 the Norwegian authorities amended the Education Act and obliged the county municipalities to provide the pupils with the necessary printed and digital learning materials free of charge. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

In 2006 the Norwegian authorities decided in the course of the ‘Knowledge Promotion Initiative’ (Kunnskapsløftet) that all Norwegian schools were to emphasise certain basic skills in all subjects. One of these skills is the ability to learn a given subject by using information and communication technology. This requirement was introduced in the national curricula for pupils in the 10-year compulsory school (i.e. school for grades 1 to 9) and for pupils in the first year of upper secondary education (i.e. school for grades 10 to 12) and apprenticeships. Under the Norwegian Education Act (4) the county municipalities are responsible for meeting these requirements. Furthermore, in 2007 the Norwegian authorities amended the Education Act and obliged the county municipalities to provide the pupils with the necessary printed and digital learning materials free of charge.

| (12) | It should be noted that until that time, pupils in Norwegian upper secondary school (grades 10 to 12) had to purchase their learning material themselves based on the choice of learning material designated by the schools in compliance with the national curricula (5). Under the new Education Act, county municipalities are obliged to provide all learning material, i.e. digital learning material as well as physical learning material such as books, to pupils free of charge (6). |
| --- | --- |

(12)

It should be noted that until that time, pupils in Norwegian upper secondary school (grades 10 to 12) had to purchase their learning material themselves based on the choice of learning material designated by the schools in compliance with the national curricula (5). Under the new Education Act, county municipalities are obliged to provide all learning material, i.e. digital learning material as well as physical learning material such as books, to pupils free of charge (6).

| (13) | The obligation of providing digital and physical learning material for free constitutes a considerable financial burden for the Norwegian county municipalities. In view of these additional costs, the Norwegian government decided already in 2006 to provide additional funds. The provision of these funds is laid down in a revised State budget which was adopted in May 2006:
  ‘The Government aims to introduce free teaching material for secondary education. At the same time, it is desirable to encourage the use of digital learning materials in secondary education. As part of the efforts to bring down the cost for each student through increased access to and use of digital teaching aids, the Government proposes to allocate NOK 50 million as a commitment to the development and use of digital learning resources.
  Counties are invited to apply for funding for the development and use of digital learning resources. Applications from counties may include one, several, or all secondary schools in the county, and may include one or more subjects. The objective of the grant is to encourage the development and use of digital learning resources, and to help reduce students' expenses for teaching aids.
  The funds can be used for the provision or for local development of digital learning resources. The funds shall not be used for the preparation of digital infrastructure for learning. The intention is to give priority to applications that involve inter-county cooperation.’ (7) |
| --- | --- |

(13)

The obligation of providing digital and physical learning material for free constitutes a considerable financial burden for the Norwegian county municipalities. In view of these additional costs, the Norwegian government decided already in 2006 to provide additional funds. The provision of these funds is laid down in a revised State budget which was adopted in May 2006:

‘The Government aims to introduce free teaching material for secondary education. At the same time, it is desirable to encourage the use of digital learning materials in secondary education. As part of the efforts to bring down the cost for each student through increased access to and use of digital teaching aids, the Government proposes to allocate NOK 50 million as a commitment to the development and use of digital learning resources.

Counties are invited to apply for funding for the development and use of digital learning resources. Applications from counties may include one, several, or all secondary schools in the county, and may include one or more subjects. The objective of the grant is to encourage the development and use of digital learning resources, and to help reduce students' expenses for teaching aids.

The funds can be used for the provision or for local development of digital learning resources. The funds shall not be used for the preparation of digital infrastructure for learning. The intention is to give priority to applications that involve inter-county cooperation.’ (7)

| (14) | In June 2006 the Ministry of Education submitted an invitation to the county municipalities to jointly apply for the available funds of NOK 50 million. The letter describes the objectives and the concept of the initiative as follows:
  ‘The Ministry of Education has the following objectives for the initiative:






  — | To increase access to and use of digital learning materials in secondary education. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(14)

In June 2006 the Ministry of Education submitted an invitation to the county municipalities to jointly apply for the available funds of NOK 50 million. The letter describes the objectives and the concept of the initiative as follows:

‘The Ministry of Education has the following objectives for the initiative:

—

To increase access to and use of digital learning materials in secondary education.

| — | To develop secondary schools and school owners’ competence as developers and/or purchasers of digital learning materials. |
| --- | --- |

—

To develop secondary schools and school owners’ competence as developers and/or purchasers of digital learning materials.

| — | To Increase the volume and diversity of digital teaching materials aimed at secondary schools. |
| --- | --- |

—

To Increase the volume and diversity of digital teaching materials aimed at secondary schools.

| — | Over time to reduce students' expenses for teaching aids. |
| --- | --- |

—

Over time to reduce students' expenses for teaching aids.

[...]

The funds can be used to purchase digital learning resources and to locally develop digital learning resources.’ (8)

| (15) | In August 2006 the heads of education of the 19 Norwegian county municipalities met to discuss the possibility of a joint application for the funds in question based on the requested inter-county cooperation. While the municipality of Oslo decided not to participate in a cooperative project, the other 18 municipalities decided to enter into the inter-county cooperation and to set up the NDLA to manage the process. Each of these municipalities subsequently adopted the following resolution:
  ‘The County Council passes a resolution for the following counties, Akershus, Aust-Agder, Buskerud, Finnmark, Hedmark, Hordaland, Nordland, Nord-Trondelag, More og Romsdal, Oppland, Rogaland, Sogn og Fjordane, Sor-Trondelag, Telemark, Troms, Vest-College, Vesold and Østfold, to establish an inter-county cooperation body, the NDLA, with its own Board in accordance with §27 of the Local Government Act. The purpose of this collaboration is to facilitate the purchase, development, deployment and organisation of digital learning resources for all subjects in upper secondary education. The result shall be free digital learning material that facilitates active learning and sharing...’ (9) |
| --- | --- |

(15)

In August 2006 the heads of education of the 19 Norwegian county municipalities met to discuss the possibility of a joint application for the funds in question based on the requested inter-county cooperation. While the municipality of Oslo decided not to participate in a cooperative project, the other 18 municipalities decided to enter into the inter-county cooperation and to set up the NDLA to manage the process. Each of these municipalities subsequently adopted the following resolution:

‘The County Council passes a resolution for the following counties, Akershus, Aust-Agder, Buskerud, Finnmark, Hedmark, Hordaland, Nordland, Nord-Trondelag, More og Romsdal, Oppland, Rogaland, Sogn og Fjordane, Sor-Trondelag, Telemark, Troms, Vest-College, Vesold and Østfold, to establish an inter-county cooperation body, the NDLA, with its own Board in accordance with §27 of the Local Government Act. The purpose of this collaboration is to facilitate the purchase, development, deployment and organisation of digital learning resources for all subjects in upper secondary education. The result shall be free digital learning material that facilitates active learning and sharing...’ (9)

| (16) | Subsequently, an application for the State funds was submitted to the Ministry of Education, which in April 2007 granted the funds under a number of conditions:
  ‘The Ministry requests further that the counties jointly identify a responsible legal entity that will take care of the counties’ responsibility for digital learning resources under this initiative. Such an entity can be e.g. a corporation, an inter (county) municipal corporation or a host (county) municipality but it cannot itself engage in economic activity.
  [...]
  The Ministry expects that the purchase of digital learning materials and development services are performed in accordance with the regulations for public procurement. The development of digital learning resources by county employees is to be regarded as an activity for its own account, provided that the counties do not gain any profits from this activity. The development by people who are not county employees must be regarded as the purchase of services and should be evaluated based on the rules and regulations for public procurement in the usual way.’ (10) |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Subsequently, an application for the State funds was submitted to the Ministry of Education, which in April 2007 granted the funds under a number of conditions:

‘The Ministry requests further that the counties jointly identify a responsible legal entity that will take care of the counties’ responsibility for digital learning resources under this initiative. Such an entity can be e.g. a corporation, an inter (county) municipal corporation or a host (county) municipality but it cannot itself engage in economic activity.

[...]

The Ministry expects that the purchase of digital learning materials and development services are performed in accordance with the regulations for public procurement. The development of digital learning resources by county employees is to be regarded as an activity for its own account, provided that the counties do not gain any profits from this activity. The development by people who are not county employees must be regarded as the purchase of services and should be evaluated based on the rules and regulations for public procurement in the usual way.’ (10)

| (17) | Following the approval of the funds the Ministry of Education transferred over a period of three years NOK 30,5 million (NOK 17 million in 2007, NOK 9 million in 2008 and NOK 4,5 million in 2009) to the participating municipalities for the NDLA project. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Following the approval of the funds the Ministry of Education transferred over a period of three years NOK 30,5 million (NOK 17 million in 2007, NOK 9 million in 2008 and NOK 4,5 million in 2009) to the participating municipalities for the NDLA project.

| (18) | Besides, following the amendment of the Education Act in 2007, the county municipalities were compensated for the obligations to provide (physical and digital) learning material through an increase in the county municipal grant scheme. This compensation was based on the estimated costs of providing learning materials in all subjects. The compensation amounted to NOK 287 million in 2007, NOK 211 million in 2008, NOK 347 million in 2009 and NOK 308 million in 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Besides, following the amendment of the Education Act in 2007, the county municipalities were compensated for the obligations to provide (physical and digital) learning material through an increase in the county municipal grant scheme. This compensation was based on the estimated costs of providing learning materials in all subjects. The compensation amounted to NOK 287 million in 2007, NOK 211 million in 2008, NOK 347 million in 2009 and NOK 308 million in 2010.

| (19) | The participating municipalities decided to use part of these funds for the NDLA project. The county municipalities allocated NOK 21,1 million (2008), NOK 34,7 million (2009), NOK 58,8 million (2010) and NOK 57,7 million (2011) to the project. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The participating municipalities decided to use part of these funds for the NDLA project. The county municipalities allocated NOK 21,1 million (2008), NOK 34,7 million (2009), NOK 58,8 million (2010) and NOK 57,7 million (2011) to the project.

| (20) | The EFTA Court emphasised that it is apparent from the case file that the NDLA was active as an ad hoc cooperation before it was formally established as an inter-county cooperation body pursuant Article 27 of the Norwegian Local Government Act (11). |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The EFTA Court emphasised that it is apparent from the case file that the NDLA was active as an ad hoc cooperation before it was formally established as an inter-county cooperation body pursuant Article 27 of the Norwegian Local Government Act (11).

| (21) | There are currently two other projects concerning digital learning in Norway. Firstly, the municipality of Oslo has applied for a similar grant for its own project (Real Digital). Secondly, the Ministry of Education itself is working on a similar project (Utdanning). |
| --- | --- |

(21)

There are currently two other projects concerning digital learning in Norway. Firstly, the municipality of Oslo has applied for a similar grant for its own project (Real Digital). Secondly, the Ministry of Education itself is working on a similar project (Utdanning).

| (22) | The municipality of Oslo does not participate in the NDLA project and has submitted an application for funding for its own project called Real Digital. The Norwegian government accepted the application from Oslo and granted NOK 13,5 million to the municipality of Oslo over a period of two years (NOK 8 million in 2007 and NOK 5,5 million in 2008). It should be noted that the funds provided to the municipality of Oslo are not subject to the complaint at hand. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The municipality of Oslo does not participate in the NDLA project and has submitted an application for funding for its own project called Real Digital. The Norwegian government accepted the application from Oslo and granted NOK 13,5 million to the municipality of Oslo over a period of two years (NOK 8 million in 2007 and NOK 5,5 million in 2008). It should be noted that the funds provided to the municipality of Oslo are not subject to the complaint at hand.

| (23) | The Ministry of Education has decided to provide its own system for access to digital learning material. In that regard the Ministry can both develop digital learning material and/or acquire such learning material from third party suppliers. The Ministry acknowledges that there might be areas where the activities of the Ministry of Education might overlap with the activities of the NDLA. In its letter stating the conditions of the grant the Ministry of Education reserved itself the right to reallocate funds originally earmarked for the NDLA to the Ministry’s own project. The relevant funds provided to the Ministry of Education are not subject to the complaint at hand. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

The Ministry of Education has decided to provide its own system for access to digital learning material. In that regard the Ministry can both develop digital learning material and/or acquire such learning material from third party suppliers. The Ministry acknowledges that there might be areas where the activities of the Ministry of Education might overlap with the activities of the NDLA. In its letter stating the conditions of the grant the Ministry of Education reserved itself the right to reallocate funds originally earmarked for the NDLA to the Ministry’s own project. The relevant funds provided to the Ministry of Education are not subject to the complaint at hand.

3.2.   
  National legal basis for the measure

| (24) | The legal basis for the funds paid by the Ministry of Education to the NDLA is the State budget resolution of the Stortinget in combination with the delegation of competence to the Ministry of Education to approve applications for grants. The legal basis for the grants from the county municipalities to the NDLA is budget resolution of the participating county municipalities. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

The legal basis for the funds paid by the Ministry of Education to the NDLA is the State budget resolution of the Stortinget in combination with the delegation of competence to the Ministry of Education to approve applications for grants. The legal basis for the grants from the county municipalities to the NDLA is budget resolution of the participating county municipalities.

3.3.   
  Recipient

| (25) | The NDLA is organised as an inter-county cooperation body under Article 27 of the Local Government Act. This provision stipulates that municipalities or county municipalities may join forces to solve mutual tasks. The cooperation should take place through a board appointed by the relevant municipal or county municipal boards. The board may be empowered to adopt decisions concerning the operation and organisation of the inter municipal cooperation. Moreover, the provision stipulates that the articles of association of such cooperation shall determine the appointment and representation in the board, the area of activities, whether the participating municipalities shall make financial contributions, whether the board may enter into loan agreements or in other ways make the participating municipalities liable for financial obligations and, finally, how such cooperation shall be abolished. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The NDLA is organised as an inter-county cooperation body under Article 27 of the Local Government Act. This provision stipulates that municipalities or county municipalities may join forces to solve mutual tasks. The cooperation should take place through a board appointed by the relevant municipal or county municipal boards. The board may be empowered to adopt decisions concerning the operation and organisation of the inter municipal cooperation. Moreover, the provision stipulates that the articles of association of such cooperation shall determine the appointment and representation in the board, the area of activities, whether the participating municipalities shall make financial contributions, whether the board may enter into loan agreements or in other ways make the participating municipalities liable for financial obligations and, finally, how such cooperation shall be abolished.

| (26) | Participation in such cooperation is only open for municipalities and county municipalities. Neither the State nor other State entities or private parties can participate. The cooperation must be sincere in the sense that the law prohibits that the competence to govern the cooperation is delegated to one municipality. This is so since municipal tasks and obligations shall remain the responsibility of each municipality (12). |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Participation in such cooperation is only open for municipalities and county municipalities. Neither the State nor other State entities or private parties can participate. The cooperation must be sincere in the sense that the law prohibits that the competence to govern the cooperation is delegated to one municipality. This is so since municipal tasks and obligations shall remain the responsibility of each municipality (12).

3.4.   
  Amount

| (27) | As indicated above, so far the county municipalities have transferred NOK 21,1 million in 2008, NOK 34,7 million in 2009 and NOK 61,6 million in 2010 to the NDLA project. In 2010 the county municipalities allocated NOK 58,8 million to the project and in 2011 this amount was NOK 56,9 million. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

As indicated above, so far the county municipalities have transferred NOK 21,1 million in 2008, NOK 34,7 million in 2009 and NOK 61,6 million in 2010 to the NDLA project. In 2010 the county municipalities allocated NOK 58,8 million to the project and in 2011 this amount was NOK 56,9 million.

3.5.   
  Duration

| (28) | The NDLA project is not subject to a limited duration. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

The NDLA project is not subject to a limited duration.

4.   The Decision

| (29) | On 12 October 2011 the Authority adopted Decision No 311/11/COL holding that the measure did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA. The Authority found that the NDLA was not to be considered as an undertaking because it did not carry out an economic activity. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

On 12 October 2011 the Authority adopted Decision No 311/11/COL holding that the measure did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA. The Authority found that the NDLA was not to be considered as an undertaking because it did not carry out an economic activity.

| (30) | In that regard the Authority, firstly, noted that, according to established case law and decision practice, in setting up and maintaining the national education system the State fulfils its duties towards its own population in the social, cultural and educational fields (13). The Authority observed that the purchase, development and supply of learning material is inextricably linked to the provision of teaching content and is thus an inherent part of the actual teaching itself. In that regard it noted that the learning material forms both the basis and the framework for teaching and that the development of learning material is closely linked to the curriculum which is also established by the public authorities. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

In that regard the Authority, firstly, noted that, according to established case law and decision practice, in setting up and maintaining the national education system the State fulfils its duties towards its own population in the social, cultural and educational fields (13). The Authority observed that the purchase, development and supply of learning material is inextricably linked to the provision of teaching content and is thus an inherent part of the actual teaching itself. In that regard it noted that the learning material forms both the basis and the framework for teaching and that the development of learning material is closely linked to the curriculum which is also established by the public authorities.

| (31) | Secondly, the Authority pointed out that, for a service to be considered as non-economic, it must be provided based on the principle of national solidarity, which means that the activity must be funded by the public purse and not through remuneration. In other words, there should be no connection between the actual costs of the service provided and the fee paid by those benefiting from the activity (14). In that regard the Authority concluded that this requirement was fulfilled because the NDLA is entirely funded by the State and distributes the developed or purchased learning material free of any charge. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

Secondly, the Authority pointed out that, for a service to be considered as non-economic, it must be provided based on the principle of national solidarity, which means that the activity must be funded by the public purse and not through remuneration. In other words, there should be no connection between the actual costs of the service provided and the fee paid by those benefiting from the activity (14). In that regard the Authority concluded that this requirement was fulfilled because the NDLA is entirely funded by the State and distributes the developed or purchased learning material free of any charge.

| (32) | Thirdly, the Authority noted that in cases in which the activity in question is carried out by entities other than the State itself, the recipient of the funds (public or private) must be subject to the control of the State to the extent that the recipient merely applies the law and cannot influence the statutory conditions of the service (i.e. the amount of the contributions, the use of assets and the fixing of the level of benefits) (15). In that regard the Authority noted that the participating municipalities have established the NDLA as an inter-county cooperation body in accordance with Article 27 of the local government act, referred to above. In view of the above, the Authority concluded in its Decision that the NDLA did not carry out an economic activity. Consequently, the NDLA did not act as an undertaking and the funds which the county municipalities transferred to it did not constitute State aid. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

Thirdly, the Authority noted that in cases in which the activity in question is carried out by entities other than the State itself, the recipient of the funds (public or private) must be subject to the control of the State to the extent that the recipient merely applies the law and cannot influence the statutory conditions of the service (i.e. the amount of the contributions, the use of assets and the fixing of the level of benefits) (15). In that regard the Authority noted that the participating municipalities have established the NDLA as an inter-county cooperation body in accordance with Article 27 of the local government act, referred to above. In view of the above, the Authority concluded in its Decision that the NDLA did not carry out an economic activity. Consequently, the NDLA did not act as an undertaking and the funds which the county municipalities transferred to it did not constitute State aid.

5.   Judgment in Case E-1/12

| (33) | On 11 December 2012 the EFTA Court annulled Decision No 311/11/COL. The EFTA Court concluded that the Authority did not carry out a sufficient examination into several issues and should have opened the formal investigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

On 11 December 2012 the EFTA Court annulled Decision No 311/11/COL. The EFTA Court concluded that the Authority did not carry out a sufficient examination into several issues and should have opened the formal investigation procedure.

| (34) | Firstly, the EFTA Court noted that the NDLA was active as an ad hoc cooperation before it was formally established as an inter-county cooperation body pursuant to Article 27 of the Norwegian Local Government Act. According to the EFTA Court it remains unclear how this change in the legal and organisational status may have changed the decision-making process and the source of funding (16). |
| --- | --- |

(34)

Firstly, the EFTA Court noted that the NDLA was active as an ad hoc cooperation before it was formally established as an inter-county cooperation body pursuant to Article 27 of the Norwegian Local Government Act. According to the EFTA Court it remains unclear how this change in the legal and organisational status may have changed the decision-making process and the source of funding (16).

| (35) | Secondly, the EFTA Court stated that it remains unclear whether the legislation imposes the obligation to provide the services free of charge on the counties or on the NDLA (17). According to the EFTA Court this circumstance raises serious difficulties with regard to the application of the principle of solidarity. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

Secondly, the EFTA Court stated that it remains unclear whether the legislation imposes the obligation to provide the services free of charge on the counties or on the NDLA (17). According to the EFTA Court this circumstance raises serious difficulties with regard to the application of the principle of solidarity.

| (36) | Thirdly, the EFTA Court stated that there are aspects related to the autonomy of the NDLA which remain unclear. First, the EFTA Court noted that it is unclear, how the decisions to expand the NDLA’s activities were taken and by whom (18). Furthermore, the EFTA Court pointed out that Article 8 of the Articles of Association of the NDLA states that ‘the board (of the NDLA) has the competence to impose financial obligations on the participants (19).’ Moreover, it follows from the judgment that the annulled decision lacked information as regards the autonomy of the the NDLA to set the parameters for the public procurement procedure through which it purchases goods on the market and hires staff (20). |
| --- | --- |

(36)

Thirdly, the EFTA Court stated that there are aspects related to the autonomy of the NDLA which remain unclear. First, the EFTA Court noted that it is unclear, how the decisions to expand the NDLA’s activities were taken and by whom (18). Furthermore, the EFTA Court pointed out that Article 8 of the Articles of Association of the NDLA states that ‘the board (of the NDLA) has the competence to impose financial obligations on the participants (19).’ Moreover, it follows from the judgment that the annulled decision lacked information as regards the autonomy of the the NDLA to set the parameters for the public procurement procedure through which it purchases goods on the market and hires staff (20).

II.   ASSESSMENT

1.   The presence of State aid

| (37) | According to Article 61(1) EEA ‘[s]ave as otherwise provided in 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.’ |
| --- | --- |

(37)

According to Article 61(1) EEA ‘[s]ave as otherwise provided in 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.’

1.1.   
  State resources

| (38) | A measure is financed by the State or through State resources, if it results in a burden on the budget of a public authority or on a public or private undertaking provided that the measure is imputable to the State (21). In the case at hand the financing of the project results in a burden on the budget of the counties and of the Ministry of Education and Research. Consequently, the measure is financed by the State within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

A measure is financed by the State or through State resources, if it results in a burden on the budget of a public authority or on a public or private undertaking provided that the measure is imputable to the State (21). In the case at hand the financing of the project results in a burden on the budget of the counties and of the Ministry of Education and Research. Consequently, the measure is financed by the State within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA.

1.2.   
  Advantage to an undertaking

| (39) | As mentioned above, the Authority concluded in its previous decision that the county municipalities’ provision of free, and in this case digital learning material for pupils in the national elementary and secondary school system to be a part of the State's fulfilment of its duty in the educational field and hence a non-economic activity provided under the principle of solidarity as such material is fully funded by the State. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

As mentioned above, the Authority concluded in its previous decision that the county municipalities’ provision of free, and in this case digital learning material for pupils in the national elementary and secondary school system to be a part of the State's fulfilment of its duty in the educational field and hence a non-economic activity provided under the principle of solidarity as such material is fully funded by the State.

| (40) | However, in its judgment the EFTA Court addressed several aspects relating not to the nature of the activity as such but rather to organisational aspects of the NDLA, its financing and autonomy, which should have led the Authority to open a formal investigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

However, in its judgment the EFTA Court addressed several aspects relating not to the nature of the activity as such but rather to organisational aspects of the NDLA, its financing and autonomy, which should have led the Authority to open a formal investigation procedure.

| (41) | The EFTA Court noted that the Articles of Association of the NDLA foresaw that the formalised cooperation would enter into force on 1 July 2009 (22). At the same time, the EFTA Court noted that the county municipalities resolutions of August 2006 foresaw that the inter-county cooperation would enter into force on 1 January 2010 (23). In view of the above and taking into account that the NDLA was already active as an ad hoc cooperation before it was formally established, the EFTA Court found that the Authority should have investigated the effects of the organisational changes and legal status of the NDLA may have affected its decision making process and the sources of its funding and how it may have changed over time (24). |
| --- | --- |

(41)

The EFTA Court noted that the Articles of Association of the NDLA foresaw that the formalised cooperation would enter into force on 1 July 2009 (22). At the same time, the EFTA Court noted that the county municipalities resolutions of August 2006 foresaw that the inter-county cooperation would enter into force on 1 January 2010 (23). In view of the above and taking into account that the NDLA was already active as an ad hoc cooperation before it was formally established, the EFTA Court found that the Authority should have investigated the effects of the organisational changes and legal status of the NDLA may have affected its decision making process and the sources of its funding and how it may have changed over time (24).

| (42) | The Authority’s Decision described the project phase of the NDLA; the Authority thus acknowledges that the information in the case file does indeed suggest that the NDLA entered into force on 1 July 2009 and thus six months earlier than originally foreseen in the resolutions which the county-municipalities had adopted several years earlier. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

The Authority’s Decision described the project phase of the NDLA; the Authority thus acknowledges that the information in the case file does indeed suggest that the NDLA entered into force on 1 July 2009 and thus six months earlier than originally foreseen in the resolutions which the county-municipalities had adopted several years earlier.

| (43) | The complainant has not alleged that the NDLA in its project phase, i.e. before its entry into force as a inter municipal cooperation under Article 27 of the local government act, did engage in any other activities than what it has done after its formal establishment Nevertheless, the EFTA Court points out that the lack of information about how the county municipalities organised their cooperation to comply with their obligations to provide learning material in the NDLA project phase may have an impact on the classification of the activities as non-economic. For that reason the Court emphasised that the Authority should have carried out an investigation on the effects of the change in legal status on the decision making process in the NDLA (25). |
| --- | --- |

(43)

The complainant has not alleged that the NDLA in its project phase, i.e. before its entry into force as a inter municipal cooperation under Article 27 of the local government act, did engage in any other activities than what it has done after its formal establishment Nevertheless, the EFTA Court points out that the lack of information about how the county municipalities organised their cooperation to comply with their obligations to provide learning material in the NDLA project phase may have an impact on the classification of the activities as non-economic. For that reason the Court emphasised that the Authority should have carried out an investigation on the effects of the change in legal status on the decision making process in the NDLA (25).

| (44) | In that regard it is the Authority’s understanding that prior to the formal establishment the project was managed by the ‘forum for the county municipalities Heads of Education’ (hereafter: FFU) (26), which appointed board members to carry out delegated tasks in the project phase. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

In that regard it is the Authority’s understanding that prior to the formal establishment the project was managed by the ‘forum for the county municipalities Heads of Education’ (hereafter: FFU) (26), which appointed board members to carry out delegated tasks in the project phase.

| (45) | After the NDLA had been formally established and according to §7(2) of the Articles of Association the forum of the counties’ Heads of Education became the Supervisory Board which remains responsible for the overall management. The forum of the counties’ Heads of Education appoints the Management Board management board. According to §7(1) of the Articles of Association the Management Board is composed of five members with one member of the FFU and at least one representative of the training regions (i.e. Northern Region, South Western Region and Eastern Region. According to §8 of the Articles of Association, the task of the Management Board is to ensure that the NDLA is able to perform its duties under §2 of the Articles of Association, namely to ensure that (1) that digital educational materials are available to users free of charge, (2) that secondary school is characterised by collaboration and sharing (3) that students and teacher actively participate in teaching and learning, (4) that academic institutions and networks across the country are a driving force in the development of excellent digital learning material and (5) that the market provides content and services for students and teachers needs. Furthermore, the Management Board has the authority to incur financial obligations on the participants in that regard. However, §7(2) of the Articles of Association explicitly states that the Management Board only exercises its authority on the basis of delegation decisions of the Supervisory Board and that the Supervisory Board may instruct the Management Board and overrule its decisions. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

After the NDLA had been formally established and according to §7(2) of the Articles of Association the forum of the counties’ Heads of Education became the Supervisory Board which remains responsible for the overall management. The forum of the counties’ Heads of Education appoints the Management Board management board. According to §7(1) of the Articles of Association the Management Board is composed of five members with one member of the FFU and at least one representative of the training regions (i.e. Northern Region, South Western Region and Eastern Region. According to §8 of the Articles of Association, the task of the Management Board is to ensure that the NDLA is able to perform its duties under §2 of the Articles of Association, namely to ensure that (1) that digital educational materials are available to users free of charge, (2) that secondary school is characterised by collaboration and sharing (3) that students and teacher actively participate in teaching and learning, (4) that academic institutions and networks across the country are a driving force in the development of excellent digital learning material and (5) that the market provides content and services for students and teachers needs. Furthermore, the Management Board has the authority to incur financial obligations on the participants in that regard. However, §7(2) of the Articles of Association explicitly states that the Management Board only exercises its authority on the basis of delegation decisions of the Supervisory Board and that the Supervisory Board may instruct the Management Board and overrule its decisions.

| (46) | The Authority requests the Norwegian government and any interested third parties to explain whether they consider the NDLA to be an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA. In particular they are asked to explain in more detail how the counties cooperated in the NDLA project phase and, in particular, to clarify at what time the NDLA entered into force and whether this entry into force of the municipal cooperation affected the decision making process and the sources of the NDLA’s funding. Moreover, the Norwegian authorities are invited to elaborate on the nature, practice and use of inter municipal cooperation under Article 27 of the local government act, including whether such cooperation is considered separate legal entities or not under Norwegian law. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

The Authority requests the Norwegian government and any interested third parties to explain whether they consider the NDLA to be an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA. In particular they are asked to explain in more detail how the counties cooperated in the NDLA project phase and, in particular, to clarify at what time the NDLA entered into force and whether this entry into force of the municipal cooperation affected the decision making process and the sources of the NDLA’s funding. Moreover, the Norwegian authorities are invited to elaborate on the nature, practice and use of inter municipal cooperation under Article 27 of the local government act, including whether such cooperation is considered separate legal entities or not under Norwegian law.

| (47) | The Authority moreover requests the Norwegian authorities to explain to what extent the change in legal status effected the decision making process, in particular, to what extent the NDLA can expand the scope of its activities without the consent of the participating municipalities or even against their will, and if the present situation differs from the situation prior to the formal establishment of the NDLA on 1 July 2009 (27). The Authority also invites the Norwegian authorities to explain in more detail the funding of the NDLA, both in its project phase and after the formal entry into force up to and including 2012 (28). |
| --- | --- |

(47)

The Authority moreover requests the Norwegian authorities to explain to what extent the change in legal status effected the decision making process, in particular, to what extent the NDLA can expand the scope of its activities without the consent of the participating municipalities or even against their will, and if the present situation differs from the situation prior to the formal establishment of the NDLA on 1 July 2009 (27). The Authority also invites the Norwegian authorities to explain in more detail the funding of the NDLA, both in its project phase and after the formal entry into force up to and including 2012 (28).

| (48) | The EFTA Court also found that it was unclear from the Decision whether the obligation to provide digital learning material free of charge falls upon the county municipalities or upon the NDLA (29). The EFTA Court noted that in the annulled Decision, the Authority ‘refers to the Norwegian legislation and states that it obliged the counties to provide the pupils with the necessary printed and digital learning materials free of charge’ (emphasis added) (30). The EFTA Court further noted that in the assessment on the autonomy of the NDLA, the annulled decision states that the NDLA cannot decide on charging fees to the end consumer ‘... since the legal framework obliges the NDLA to provide its services free of charge’ (emphasis added) (31). The judgment also refers to that the Authority at the oral hearing explained that it is the counties which bear the statutory obligation to offer this service free of charge and that they had decided to offer this service jointly through the NDLA (32). |
| --- | --- |

(48)

The EFTA Court also found that it was unclear from the Decision whether the obligation to provide digital learning material free of charge falls upon the county municipalities or upon the NDLA (29). The EFTA Court noted that in the annulled Decision, the Authority ‘refers to the Norwegian legislation and states that it obliged the counties to provide the pupils with the necessary printed and digital learning materials free of charge’ (emphasis added) (30). The EFTA Court further noted that in the assessment on the autonomy of the NDLA, the annulled decision states that the NDLA cannot decide on charging fees to the end consumer ‘... since the legal framework obliges the NDLA to provide its services free of charge’ (emphasis added) (31). The judgment also refers to that the Authority at the oral hearing explained that it is the counties which bear the statutory obligation to offer this service free of charge and that they had decided to offer this service jointly through the NDLA (32).

| (49) | In the view of that the EFTA Court considered the above mentioned statements in the decision to represent an implicit contradiction (as it was not clear who was the client of the NDLA), the Authority notes that the notion of ‘legal framework’ is wider than that of ‘legislation’. The reference to the legal framework encompasses not only the statutory obligation in national law (such as the Education Act), but also resolutions (such as the resolutions passed by the county municipalities in August 2006), as well as administrative acts (such as the April 2007 award of funding by the Ministry of Education) and the Articles of Association of the NDLA. The Authority does therefore not consider the above mentioned statements to contain any implicit contradiction. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

In the view of that the EFTA Court considered the above mentioned statements in the decision to represent an implicit contradiction (as it was not clear who was the client of the NDLA), the Authority notes that the notion of ‘legal framework’ is wider than that of ‘legislation’. The reference to the legal framework encompasses not only the statutory obligation in national law (such as the Education Act), but also resolutions (such as the resolutions passed by the county municipalities in August 2006), as well as administrative acts (such as the April 2007 award of funding by the Ministry of Education) and the Articles of Association of the NDLA. The Authority does therefore not consider the above mentioned statements to contain any implicit contradiction.

| (50) | However, based on the EFTA Court’s judgment the Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to explain in more details how the obligation to provide free learning material has been imposed on the county municipalities in the Public Education Act, and how the county municipalities involved in the NDLA have fulfilled this obligation through the NDLA cooperation as set out in the Articles of Association. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

However, based on the EFTA Court’s judgment the Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to explain in more details how the obligation to provide free learning material has been imposed on the county municipalities in the Public Education Act, and how the county municipalities involved in the NDLA have fulfilled this obligation through the NDLA cooperation as set out in the Articles of Association.

| (51) | Finally, the Court found that the decision did not contain sufficient information on the possibility of the NDLA to set the parameters for the public procurement procedures through which it purchases goods and hires staff (33). |
| --- | --- |

(51)

Finally, the Court found that the decision did not contain sufficient information on the possibility of the NDLA to set the parameters for the public procurement procedures through which it purchases goods and hires staff (33).

| (52) | The Authority therefore invites the Norwegian authorities to provide more detail on how the parameters for the public procurement procedures through which the NDLA purchases goods and hires staff are set. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

The Authority therefore invites the Norwegian authorities to provide more detail on how the parameters for the public procurement procedures through which the NDLA purchases goods and hires staff are set.

| (53) | Consequently the Authority expresses doubts as to whether the NDLA, wholly or partly, before or after its formal entry into force, may be considered as an undertaking under the EEA State aid rules. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

Consequently the Authority expresses doubts as to whether the NDLA, wholly or partly, before or after its formal entry into force, may be considered as an undertaking under the EEA State aid rules.

1.3.   
  Selectivity

| (54) | It is established case law that a measure is selective if it derogates from the common regime inasmuch as it differentiates between economic operators who are otherwise in the same legal and factual situation (34). In that regard the Authority notes that if the NDLA were to be considered as an undertaking, the funding of it would be selective since other operators would not benefit from a similar funding. |
| --- | --- |

(54)

It is established case law that a measure is selective if it derogates from the common regime inasmuch as it differentiates between economic operators who are otherwise in the same legal and factual situation (34). In that regard the Authority notes that if the NDLA were to be considered as an undertaking, the funding of it would be selective since other operators would not benefit from a similar funding.

1.4.   
  Effect on competition and trade

| (55) | It is established case law that a measure distorts or threatens to distort competition in a way that affects trade between Contracting Parties if it strengthens the position of the recipient compared with other companies (35) and if the recipient is active in a sector, in which trade between Contracting Parties takes place (36). In that regard the Norwegian authorities noted that the relevant geographic market for provision of learning materials made to fit the national Norwegian curricula should to a great extent be limited to Norway, so that the effects on cross-border trade are not significant. The Authority cannot at this stage and based on the information at hand conclude on the effects of the measure on competition and trade. The Authority therefore invites Norway to provide further information in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

It is established case law that a measure distorts or threatens to distort competition in a way that affects trade between Contracting Parties if it strengthens the position of the recipient compared with other companies (35) and if the recipient is active in a sector, in which trade between Contracting Parties takes place (36). In that regard the Norwegian authorities noted that the relevant geographic market for provision of learning materials made to fit the national Norwegian curricula should to a great extent be limited to Norway, so that the effects on cross-border trade are not significant. The Authority cannot at this stage and based on the information at hand conclude on the effects of the measure on competition and trade. The Authority therefore invites Norway to provide further information in that regard.

2.   Compatibility

| (56) | The Norwegian authorities submitted that if one were to view the funding of the NDLA as State aid, then it would qualify as a compensation for a service of general economic interest under Article 59(2) EEA. However, based on the information at hand the Authority cannot at this stage conclude on the compatibility of the measure. The Authority therefore invites Norway to provide further information in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

(56)

The Norwegian authorities submitted that if one were to view the funding of the NDLA as State aid, then it would qualify as a compensation for a service of general economic interest under Article 59(2) EEA. However, based on the information at hand the Authority cannot at this stage conclude on the compatibility of the measure. The Authority therefore invites Norway to provide further information in that regard.

3.   Conclusion

| (57) | Based on the information submitted by the complainant and by the Norwegian authorities, and taking into account the judgment of the EFTA Court, the Authority has doubts as to whether the grants to the NDLA constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts regarding the compatibility of the measure with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(57)

Based on the information submitted by the complainant and by the Norwegian authorities, and taking into account the judgment of the EFTA Court, the Authority has doubts as to whether the grants to the NDLA constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA. Furthermore, the Authority has doubts regarding the compatibility of the measure with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| (58) | Given these doubts and the impact of potential State aid on the investments of private operators it appears necessary that the Authority opens the formal investigation procedure. Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. |
| --- | --- |

(58)

Given these doubts and the impact of potential State aid on the investments of private operators it appears necessary that the Authority opens the formal investigation procedure. Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3.

| (59) | The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement or that they do not constitute State aid. |
| --- | --- |

(59)

The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement or that they do not constitute State aid.

| (60) | The opening of the procedure will also enable interested third parties to comment on the questions raised and on the impact of the measure on the relevant markets. |
| --- | --- |

(60)

The opening of the procedure will also enable interested third parties to comment on the questions raised and on the impact of the measure on the relevant markets.

| (61) | In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, hereby invites the Norwegian authorities to submit their comments and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the compatibility of the measures within one month from the date of receipt of this Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(61)

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, hereby invites the Norwegian authorities to submit their comments and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the compatibility of the measures within one month from the date of receipt of this Decision.

| (62) | Further, the Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this Decision to the potential recipients of the aid immediately. |
| --- | --- |

(62)

Further, the Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this Decision to the potential recipients of the aid immediately.

| (63) | The Authority would like to remind the Norwegian authorities that, according to Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully put at the disposal of the beneficiaries will have to be recovered, unless this recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EEA law. Moreover, according to Article 15 Part II of Protocol 3, the powers of the Authority to order the recovery of aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years. This period begins on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded. Any action taken by the Authority with regard to this unlawful aid shall interrupt the limitation period. |
| --- | --- |

(63)

The Authority would like to remind the Norwegian authorities that, according to Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully put at the disposal of the beneficiaries will have to be recovered, unless this recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EEA law. Moreover, according to Article 15 Part II of Protocol 3, the powers of the Authority to order the recovery of aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years. This period begins on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded. Any action taken by the Authority with regard to this unlawful aid shall interrupt the limitation period.

| (64) | Attention is drawn to the fact that the Authority will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the EEA Supplement of the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European. All interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication, |
| --- | --- |

(64)

Attention is drawn to the fact that the Authority will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the EEA Supplement of the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European. All interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The formal investigation procedure, provided for in Article 1(2) of part I of Protocol 3 is initiated regarding the potential State aid to the NDLA.

Article 2

The Norwegian authorities are invited, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Part II of Protocol 3, to submit their comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month of the notification of this Decision.

Article 3

The Norwegian authorities are requested to provide within one month from notification of this Decision, all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the nature and compatibility of the aid measure.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 5

Only the English version of this Decision is authentic.

Done at Brussels, 27 March 2013.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Oda Helen SLETNES

President

Sabine MONAUNI-TÖMÖRDY

College Member

---

(1)  Vec E-1/12 Den norske Forleggerforening (zatiaľ neuverejnené).

1

Den norske Forleggerforening

(2)  See footnote 1.

2

(3)  Norway is divided into 19 municipalities, all of which participate in the NDLA project with the exception of the county municipality of Oslo. Participants are therefore the municipalities of Akershus, Aust-Agder, Buskerud, Finnmark, Hedmark, Hordaland, Nordland, Nord-Trøndelag, Møre og Romsdal, Oppland, Rogaland, Sogn og Fjordane, Sør-Trøndelag, Telemark, Troms, Vest-Agder, Vestfold and Østfold.

3

(4)  Act of 17 July 1998 No 61 relating to Primary and Secondary Education and Training (The Education Act).

4

(5)  As the national curricula set out the objectives for the learning outcome of all classes, the content of the learning material must respect the objectives of the national curricula.

5

(6)  Sections 3-l and 4A-3 of the Education Act states that the county municipality is responsible for providing pupils with the necessary printed and digital teaching material as well as digital equipment free of charge.

6

(7)  Translation made by the Authority.

7

(8)  See footnote 7.

8

(9)  See footnote 7.

9

(10)  See footnote 7.

10

(11)  Case E-1/12 Den norske Forleggerforening, para. 117 (not yet published).

11

Den norske Forleggerforening

(12)  NOU 1996:5 pkt. 8.1.2.

12

(13)  Case 263/86 Humbel [1988] ECR 5383, para. 18; Case E-05/7 Private Barnehagers Landsforbund [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. 64, para. 82; Commission decision No 118/2000 France — Aide aux clubs sportifs professionels, OJ C 333, 28.11.2001, p. 6.

13

Humbel

Private Barnehagers Landsforbund

France — Aide aux clubs sportifs professionels

(14)  Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01 and C-355/01 AOK Bundesverband and Others [2004] ECR I-2493, para. 47; Case C-160/91 Poucet [1993] ECR I-637, paras. 11 and 12.

14

AOK Bundesverband and Others

(15)  Case C-160/91 Poucet [1993] ECR I-637, para. 15 and 18; Joined Cases C-264/01, C-306/01 and C-355/01 AOK Bundesverband and Others [2004] ECR I-2493, paras. 46-57; Case C-218/00 Cisal die Battistello Venanzi [2002] ECR I-691, para. 31-46. These cases concern health and social insurances. However, the fact that the Commission explicitly refers to these cases in the context of professional services indicates that the assessment can be generally applied (see Commission Communication ‘Report on Competition in Professional Services’ of 9.2.2004 (COM(2004) 83 final, Fn. 22).

15

Poucet

AOK Bundesverband and Others

Cisal die Battistello Venanzi

(16)  See footnote 11.

16

(17)  Case E-1/12 Den norske Forleggerforening, para. 123 (not yet published).

17

Den norske Forleggerforening

(18)  Case E-1/12 Den norske Forleggerforening, para. 127 (not yet published).

18

Den norske Forleggerforening

(19)  Case E-1/12 Den norske Forleggerforening, paras. 128-130 (not yet published).

19

Den norske Forleggerforening

(20)  Case E-1/12 Den norske Forleggerforening, para. 131 (not yet published).

20

Den norske Forleggerforening

(21)  Case C-482/99 France v Commission (Stardust) [2002] ECR I-4397, para. 52.

21

France

Commission (Stardust)

(22)  Case E-1/12 Den norske Forleggerforening, para. 115 (not yet published).

22

Den norske Forleggerforening

(23)  The EFTA Court refers to the submission from Norway dated 9 September 2010, p. 3.

23

(24)  See footnote 11.

24

(25)  See footnote 11.

25

(26)  The Norwegian wording is: ‘Forum for fylkesutdanningssjefer’.

26

(27)  See footnote 11.

27

(28)  See footnote 11.

28

(29)  Case E-1/12 Den norske Forleggerforening, paras. 121-123 (not yet published).

29

Den norske Forleggerforening

(30)  The EFTA Court seems to refer to para. 12 and footnote 4 of the annulled decision according to which ‘Section 3-1 and 4A-3 of the Education Act states that the county municipality is responsible for providing pupils with the necessary printed and digital teaching material as well as digital equipment free of charge.’

30

(31)  The EFTA Court refers to para. 45 of the annulled decision in para. 121 of the Judgment.

31

(32)  See footnote 17.

32

(33)  See footnote 20.

33

(34)  Case C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline [2001] ECR I-8365, para. 41; Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P Commission and Spain v Gibraltar and UK (Gibraltar corporate tax) [2011] not yet published, para. 36.

34

Adria-Wien Pipeline

Commission and Spain

Gibraltar and UK (Gibraltar corporate tax)

(35)  Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission, [2005] ECR, 2671, para. 11.

35

Holland

(36)  Case 102/87, France v Commission (SEB), [1988], 4067, Case C-310/99, Italian Republic v Commission, [2002] EC R I-289, para. 85, Case C-280/00, Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Altmark), [2003] ECR, I-7747, para. 77; Case T-55/99, Confederación Espanola de Tranporte de Mercancias (CETM) v Commission, [2000] ECR II-3207, para. 86.

36

France

Commission

Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg

Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Altmark)

Confederación Espanola de Tranporte de Mercancias (CETM)

Commission

---

V Oznamy

INÉ AKTY

Európska komisia

| 8.8.2013 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 229/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 229/43

---

Uverejnenie žiadosti podľa článku 50 ods. 2 písm. a) nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 o systémoch kvality pre poľnohospodárske výrobky a potraviny

2013/C 229/11

Týmto uverejnením sa poskytuje právo vzniesť námietku proti žiadosti podľa článku 51 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 (1).

JEDNOTNÝ DOKUMENT

NARIADENIE RADY (ES) č. 510/2006

o ochrane zemepisných označení a označení pôvodu poľnohospodárskych výrobkov a potravín
   (2)

„ANTEP BAKLAVASI“/„GAZİANTEP BAKLAVASI“

ES č.: TR-PGI-0005-0781-10.07.2009

CHZO ( X ) CHOP ( )

1.   Názov

„Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“

2.   Členský štát alebo tretia krajina

Turecko

3.   Opis poľnohospodárskeho výrobku alebo potraviny

3.1.   Druh výrobku

| Trieda 2.4. | Chlieb, pečivo, koláče, cukrovinky, sušienky a ostatné pekárske výrobky |
| --- | --- |

Trieda 2.4.

Chlieb, pečivo, koláče, cukrovinky, sušienky a ostatné pekárske výrobky

3.2.   Opis výrobku, na ktorý sa vzťahuje názov uvedený v bode 1

„Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ je sladké pečivo vyrobené z vrstiev lístkového cesta, plnené krupicovým krémom a pistáciami Antep a osladené sirupom.

V závislosti od predávaného druhu (suché alebo čerstvé) musí byť priemerný obsah základných surovín takýto (tolerancia ± 3 %):

| | Bežné (čerstvé) | Suché |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Cesto | 25 % | 30 % |
| Pistácie Antep (Antep fıstığı) | 10 – 11 % | 10 – 11 % |
| Krupicový krém | 12 – 13 % | — |
| Obyčajné maslo | 15 – 20 % | 20 – 25 % |
| Sirup | 35 – 36 % | 35 – 36 % |

Bežné (čerstvé)

Suché

Cesto

25 %

30 %

Pistácie Antep (Antep fıstığı)

10 – 11 %

10 – 11 %

Krupicový krém

12 – 13 %

—

Obyčajné maslo

15 – 20 %

20 – 25 %

Sirup

35 – 36 %

35 – 36 %

Rozdiel medzi suchou a čerstvou baklavou je v tom, že suchá baklava neobsahuje krupicový krém.

Vlastnosti pečiva „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“:

| | Vôňa: vonia po pistáciách Antep (Antep fıstığı) a obyčajnom masle; |
| --- | --- |

Vôňa: vonia po pistáciách Antep (Antep fıstığı) a obyčajnom masle;

| | Farba: povrch pečiva „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ má zlatožltú farbu a spodná časť je vďaka pistáciám Antep (Antep fıstığı) tmavozelená; |
| --- | --- |

Farba: povrch pečiva „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ má zlatožltú farbu a spodná časť je vďaka pistáciám Antep (Antep fıstığı) tmavozelená;

| | Textúra: vrchná časť je vďaka vrstvám cesta mierne chrumkavá. Spodná časť je nasiaknutá sirupom; |
| --- | --- |

Textúra: vrchná časť je vďaka vrstvám cesta mierne chrumkavá. Spodná časť je nasiaknutá sirupom;

| | Tvar: výrobok by sa mal pred pečením nakrájať. Nakrájané kúsky môžu mať rôzne tvary, ale väčšinou sú rovnaké a majú tvar krátkych obdĺžnikov, loďky (diamantu), amuletu (trojuholníka) alebo štvorca, alebo tvarovo pripomínajú mrkvu (dlhé trojuholníkové kúsky siahajúce zo stredu ku krajom kruhovej tácky). |
| --- | --- |

Tvar: výrobok by sa mal pred pečením nakrájať. Nakrájané kúsky môžu mať rôzne tvary, ale väčšinou sú rovnaké a majú tvar krátkych obdĺžnikov, loďky (diamantu), amuletu (trojuholníka) alebo štvorca, alebo tvarovo pripomínajú mrkvu (dlhé trojuholníkové kúsky siahajúce zo stredu ku krajom kruhovej tácky).

3.3.   Suroviny (len pri spracovaných výrobkoch)

Prísady použité na výrobu pečiva „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“:

| — | Pistácie Antep (Antep fıstığı) pri výrobe pečiva „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ sa musia použiť pistácie Antep. Pistácie Antep, pôvodom z provincie Gaziantep, sú v Turecku registrovaným poľnohospodárskym výrobkom. Majú tmavozelenú farbu a sýtu vôňu. Podľa špecifikácie výrobku existuje päť druhov týchto pistácií. Pistácie sú dlhé, majú oválny alebo kruhový tvar a tmavozelenú farbu. Obsah bielkovín sa pohybuje v rozmedzí 21,77 % až 23,77 % a obsah tukov je 56,27 % až 59,89 %. Pistácie Antep sa môžu nasekať najemno alebo nahrubo; |
| --- | --- |

—

Pistácie Antep (Antep fıstığı) pri výrobe pečiva „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ sa musia použiť pistácie Antep. Pistácie Antep, pôvodom z provincie Gaziantep, sú v Turecku registrovaným poľnohospodárskym výrobkom. Majú tmavozelenú farbu a sýtu vôňu. Podľa špecifikácie výrobku existuje päť druhov týchto pistácií. Pistácie sú dlhé, majú oválny alebo kruhový tvar a tmavozelenú farbu. Obsah bielkovín sa pohybuje v rozmedzí 21,77 % až 23,77 % a obsah tukov je 56,27 % až 59,89 %. Pistácie Antep sa môžu nasekať najemno alebo nahrubo;

| — | obyčajné maslo: 99,9 % čisté maslo vyrobené z mlieka, ktoré neobsahuje soľ, ani iné prídavné látky, |
| --- | --- |

—

obyčajné maslo: 99,9 % čisté maslo vyrobené z mlieka, ktoré neobsahuje soľ, ani iné prídavné látky,

| — | krupicový krém [používa sa iba pri „bežnom“ (čerstvom) výrobku]: mlieko sa nechá zovrieť na teplotu 105 – 108 °C a potom sa do neho pridá krupica (100 g krupice na 1 kg mlieka). Zmes za zahreje na 100 °C, až kým nestuhne a potom sa nechá vychladnúť, |
| --- | --- |

—

krupicový krém [používa sa iba pri „bežnom“ (čerstvom) výrobku]: mlieko sa nechá zovrieť na teplotu 105 – 108 °C a potom sa do neho pridá krupica (100 g krupice na 1 kg mlieka). Zmes za zahreje na 100 °C, až kým nestuhne a potom sa nechá vychladnúť,

| — | múka: vyrobená z tvrdej pšenice, |
| --- | --- |

—

múka: vyrobená z tvrdej pšenice,

| — | škrob: pšeničný škrob, |
| --- | --- |

—

škrob: pšeničný škrob,

| — | sirup: s cukrom alebo sladidlom (pre diabetikov). Zhruba 350 – 360 g sirupu sa pridá do 1 kg zmesi na baklavu. Nemal by sa používať med, |
| --- | --- |

—

sirup: s cukrom alebo sladidlom (pre diabetikov). Zhruba 350 – 360 g sirupu sa pridá do 1 kg zmesi na baklavu. Nemal by sa používať med,

| — | vajcia: tri vajcia na 1 kg múky (na prípravu cesta), |
| --- | --- |

—

vajcia: tri vajcia na 1 kg múky (na prípravu cesta),

| — | soľ: 10 g kamennej soli na 1 kg múky (na prípravu cesta). |
| --- | --- |

—

soľ: 10 g kamennej soli na 1 kg múky (na prípravu cesta).

3.4.   Krmivo (len pri výrobkoch živočíšneho pôvodu)

—

3.5.   Špecifické kroky výroby, ktoré sa musia uskutočniť v označenej zemepisnej oblasti

Príprava cesta, výroba baklavy a pečenie.

3.6.   Špecifické pravidlá krájania, strúhania, balenia atď.

Pečivo „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ sa môže predávať na váhu alebo na kusy uložené na táckach alebo v baleniach. Na balenie sa môžu používať kartónové škatule, ktoré však musia byť vystlané alobalom alebo podobne vodotesným materiálom. Do škatule sa môže vložiť lístok z návrhom na servírovanie „Isıtarak servis yapınız“ („Pred podávaním ohrejte“).

3.7.   Špecifické pravidlá označovania

Ak sa pečivo „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ predáva v suchej forme, na balení sa musí nachádzať výraz kuru („suché“).

Na viditeľnej strane balenia sa musí nachádzať skratka „CHZO“ a označenie „Antep Baklavası“ alebo „Gaziantep Baklavası“, ako aj toto logo:

Image

4.   Stručné vymedzenie zemepisnej oblasti

Do oblasti výroby patrí celá provincia Gaziantep, ktorá sa nachádza v juhovýchodnej Anatólii. Provincia hraničí na juhu so Sýriou, na východe s okresmi Birecik a Halfeti, na severovýchode s provinciou Adiyaman, na severe s provinciou Kahramanmaras, na západe s provinciou Osmaniye a na juhozápade s provinciou Hatay.

5.   Súvislosť so zemepisnou oblasťou

5.1.   Špecifickosť zemepisnej oblasti

Provincia Gaziantep je centrum pestovania pistácií v Turecku. Pistácie sa v Turecku nazývajú antep fıstığı („pistácie Antep“), keďže turecký výraz pre pistácie bol odvodený z názvu mesta Gaziantep.

Produkty vyrobené z pistácií Antep sa v meste Gaziantep pripravujú a konzumujú už po stáročia.

Prax pekárov:

Príprava cesta na baklavu, vyvaľkanie cesta na požadovanú hrúbku, nasypanie škrobu medzi vrstvy, položenie vrstiev na tácku, natieranie krému a pistácií Antep, nakrájanie baklavy na rovnaké kúsky, potretie baklavy obyčajným maslom, pečenie a nakoniec pridanie sirupu – to všetko si vyžaduje veľkú zručnosť. Pečivo „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ by mali pripravovať a piecť pekári, ktorí tieto zručnosti získali priamo v oblasti Gaziantep.

5.2.   Špecifickosť výrobku

Pečivo „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ sa od iných bakláv odlišuje jasnou zlatožltou farbou, textúrou, štruktúrou a tmavozelenou spodnou časťou. Hlavný rozdiel však spočíva v chuti a vôni pistácií Antep a obyčajného masla.

Výroba pečiva „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ si vyžaduje veľkú zručnosť.

Za svoje dobré meno vďačí pečivo „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ kombinácii množstva prísad a ručnej príprave skúsenými pekármi. Pred konzumáciou je najvýraznejšie cítiť vôňu čistého masla. Správne pripravená baklava sa v ústach okamžite rozplýva. To sú najdôležitejšie špecifické znaky pečiva „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“.

5.3.   Príčinná súvislosť medzi zemepisnou oblasťou a akosťou alebo typickou vlastnosťou výrobku (CHOP), alebo špecifickou akosťou, povesťou alebo inou typickou vlastnosťou výrobku (CHZO)

Už od 19. storočia požíva pečivo „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ z mesta Gaziantep veľkú vážnosť pre osobitý spôsob výroby, mimoriadne vlastnosti prísad a ručná príprava skúsenými pekármi. Niekoľko známych rodín sa tradičnej výrobe pečiva „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ venuje už celé generácie (od 70. rokov 19. storočia).

Najdôležitejšou surovinou sú pistácie Antep (Antep fıstığı), ktoré sú v Turecku registrovaným poľnohospodárskym výrobkom. Ich výrazná chuť a sýta vôňa sú zachované aj v hotovom výrobku. Vďaka nim má spodná časť pečiva „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ tmavozelenú farbu.

Pečivo „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ sa spomína v knihách o meste Gaziantep a tureckej kuchyni a tiež v brožúrach ministerstva kultúry a turistických prospektoch o meste Gaziantep.

V knihe Gaziantep Folklorundan Notlar (Zápisky o folklóre mesta Gaziantep), ktorú v roku 1959 napísal špecialista na výskum pochádzajúci z mesta Gaziantep Cemil Cahit Güzelbey, sa na strane 86 uvádza, že „pistácie používajú výrobcovia baklavy“. Na strane 87 kniha opisuje aj návštevu tureckého ministra zdravotníctva v meste Gaziantep. Počas večere, po tom, ako mu naservírovali polievku s pistáciami, ryžu s pistáciami, baklavu s pistáciami a nakoniec aj pistáciovú zmrzlinu, si zažartoval: „Mohol by som dostať pohár vody bez pistácií?“.

Vo vydaní turistického sprievodcu Frommer’s Turkey (Frommerov sprievodca Tureckom) z roku 2001 (Lynn A. Levine, 2001; John Wiley & Sons) sa píše, že „mesto Gaziantep sa najviac preslávilo skvelou baklavou. V meste sa nachádza viac ako 500 pekární, kde pečú baklavu, a preto si „túra po pekárňach spojená s ochutnávkou baklavy“ nemožno nechať ujsť, a to najmä v septembri počas zberu pistácií“.

Aj v knihe Cooking the Turkish Way (Varenie po turecky, Kari Cornell, 2004) sa na strane 14 píše, že „mesto Gaziantep vo východnej Anatólii je známe svojimi pistáciami a baklavou sladkou ako sirup“.

Odkaz na uverejnenie špecifikácie

[Článok 5 ods. 7 nariadenia (ES) č. 510/2006 (3)]

Zverejnením žiadosti o registráciu „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“ ako CHZO v Úradnom vestníku Tureckej republiky č. 26505 z 27. apríla 2007 začala turecká vláda vnútroštátne námietkové konanie.

Úplne znenie špecifikácie výrobku je dostupné na webovej lokalite Tureckého patentového úradu:

http://www.turkpatent.gov.tr/portal/default_en.jsp?sayfa=172 (kliknite na „Antep Baklavası“/„Gaziantep Baklavası“).

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 14.12.2012, s. 1.

(2)  Nahradené nariadením (EÚ) č. 1151/2012.

(3)  Porovnaj poznámku pod čiarou 2.

---