# Eiropas Savienības C 229/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0952
  doi:10.3000/19770952.C_2013.229.lav |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229 |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 56. sējums2013. gada 8. augusts |

ISSN 1977-0952

doi:10.3000/19770952.C_2013.229.lav

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

56. sējums2013. gada 8. augusts

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Informācija |
| | EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI |
| | Eiropas Komisija |
| 2013/C 229/01 | Uzaicinājums iesniegt apsvērumus par projektu Komisijas Regulai par Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību 107. un 108. panta piemērošanu de minimis atbalstam | 1 |
| 2013/C 229/02 | Priekšlikums Komisijas Regulai (ES) Nr. .../... (2013. gada 17. jūlijs) par Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību 107. un 108. panta piemērošanu de minimis atbalstam (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

II   Informācija

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas Komisija

2013/C 229/01

Uzaicinājums iesniegt apsvērumus par projektu Komisijas Regulai par Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību 107. un 108. panta piemērošanu de minimis atbalstam

de minimis

1

2013/C 229/02

Priekšlikums Komisijas Regulai (ES) Nr. .../... (2013. gada 17. jūlijs) par Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību 107. un 108. panta piemērošanu de minimis atbalstam (
  1
  )

de minimis

1

1

| | IV   Paziņojumi |
| --- | --- |
| | EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI |
| | Eiropas Komisija |
| 2013/C 229/03 | Euro maiņas kurss | 10 |
| | DALĪBVALSTU SNIEGTA INFORMĀCIJA |
| 2013/C 229/04 | Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu | 11 |
| 2013/C 229/05 | Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu | 11 |
| | INFORMĀCIJA ATTIECĪBĀ UZ EIROPAS EKONOMIKAS ZONU |
| | EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde |
| 2013/C 229/06 | EBTA valstu paziņotā informācija par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar EEZ līguma XV pielikuma 1.j punktā minēto tiesību aktu (Komisijas Regula (EK) Nr. 800/2008, kas atzīst noteiktas atbalsta kategorijas par saderīgām ar kopējo tirgu, piemērojot Līguma 87. un 88. pantu (vispārējā grupu atbrīvojuma regula)) | 12 |
| 2013/C 229/07 | Pasākums nav valsts atbalsts EEZ līguma 61. panta 1. punkta nozīmē | 16 |
| 2013/C 229/08 | Pasākums nav valsts atbalsts EEZ līguma 61. panta 1. punkta nozīmē | 17 |
| 2013/C 229/09 | Uzaicinājums iesniegt piezīmes par valsts atbalstu saistībā ar Harpa koncertzāles un konferenču centra finansēšanu saskaņā ar Nolīguma starp EBTA valstīm par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu | 18 |
| 2013/C 229/10 | Uzaicinājums iesniegt piezīmes saskaņā ar Nolīguma starp EBTA valstīm par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu par valsts atbalstu saistībā ar potenciālo atbalstu Nasjonal digital læringsarena (NDLA) | 31 |

IV   Paziņojumi

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas Komisija

2013/C 229/03

Euro maiņas kurss

10

DALĪBVALSTU SNIEGTA INFORMĀCIJA

2013/C 229/04

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

11

2013/C 229/05

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

11

INFORMĀCIJA ATTIECĪBĀ UZ EIROPAS EKONOMIKAS ZONU

EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde

2013/C 229/06

EBTA valstu paziņotā informācija par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar EEZ līguma XV pielikuma 1.j punktā minēto tiesību aktu (Komisijas Regula (EK) Nr. 800/2008, kas atzīst noteiktas atbalsta kategorijas par saderīgām ar kopējo tirgu, piemērojot Līguma 87. un 88. pantu (vispārējā grupu atbrīvojuma regula))

12

2013/C 229/07

Pasākums nav valsts atbalsts EEZ līguma 61. panta 1. punkta nozīmē

16

2013/C 229/08

Pasākums nav valsts atbalsts EEZ līguma 61. panta 1. punkta nozīmē

17

2013/C 229/09

Uzaicinājums iesniegt piezīmes par valsts atbalstu saistībā ar Harpa koncertzāles un konferenču centra finansēšanu saskaņā ar Nolīguma starp EBTA valstīm par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu

Harpa

18

2013/C 229/10

Uzaicinājums iesniegt piezīmes saskaņā ar Nolīguma starp EBTA valstīm par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu par valsts atbalstu saistībā ar potenciālo atbalstu Nasjonal digital læringsarena (NDLA)

Nasjonal digital læringsarena

NDLA

31

| | V   Atzinumi |
| --- | --- |
| | CITI TIESĪBU AKTI |
| | Eiropas Komisija |
| 2013/C 229/11 | Pieteikuma publikācija saskaņā ar 50. panta 2. punkta a) apakšpunktu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulā (ES) Nr. 1151/2012 par lauksaimniecības produktu un pārtikas produktu kvalitātes shēmām | 43 |

V   Atzinumi

CITI TIESĪBU AKTI

Eiropas Komisija

2013/C 229/11

Pieteikuma publikācija saskaņā ar 50. panta 2. punkta a) apakšpunktu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulā (ES) Nr. 1151/2012 par lauksaimniecības produktu un pārtikas produktu kvalitātes shēmām

43

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ |

---

(1)   Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ

1

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

II Informācija

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas Komisija

| 8.8.2013 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229/1

---

Uzaicinājums iesniegt apsvērumus par projektu Komisijas Regulai par Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību 107. un 108. panta piemērošanu de minimis atbalstam

2013/C 229/01

Ieinteresētās personas var iesniegt savus apsvērumus viena mēneša laikā no šā regulas projekta publicēšanas dienas, nosūtot tos uz šādu adresi:

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

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State aid Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-pasts: stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu

Atsauce: HT.3572 — SAM — de minimis review

Teksts ir pieejams arī šādā tīmekļa vietnē:

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

---

| 8.8.2013 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229/1

---

PRIEKŠLIKUMS KOMISIJAS REGULAI (ES) Nr. .../...

(2013. gada 17. jūlijs)

par Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību 107. un 108. panta piemērošanu de minimis atbalstam

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

2013/C 229/02

EIROPAS KOMISIJA,

ņemot vērā Līgumu par Eiropas Savienības darbību un jo īpaši tā 108. panta 4. punktu,

ņemot vērā Padomes 1998. gada 7. maija Regulu (EK) Nr. 994/98 par to, kā piemērot Eiropas Kopienas dibināšanas līguma 92. un 93. pantu attiecībā uz dažu kategoriju valsts horizontālo atbalstu (1),

publicējusi šīs regulas projektu (2),

apspriedusies ar Valsts atbalsta padomdevēju komiteju,

tā kā:

| (1) | Valsts finansējums, kas atbilst Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību (“Līgums”) 107. panta 1. punkta kritērijiem, ir valsts atbalsts, un par to ir jāpaziņo Komisijai, kā paredzēts Līguma 108. panta 3. punktā. Tomēr Padome saskaņā ar Līguma 109. pantu var noteikt atbalsta kategorijas, kas ir atbrīvotas no minētās paziņošanas prasības. Saskaņā ar Līguma 108. panta 4. punktu Komisija var pieņemt regulas par šīm valsts atbalsta kategorijām. Ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 994/98 Padome saskaņā ar Līguma 109. pantu nolēma, ka viena no šādām kategorijām varētu būt de minimis atbalsts. Attiecīgi tiek uzskatīts, ka de minimis atbalsts, kas ir vienam uzņēmumam noteiktā laikposmā piešķirts atbalsts, kurš nepārsniedz konkrēti noteiktu summu, neatbilst visiem Līguma 107. panta 1. punkta kritērijiem, un tāpēc paziņošanas procedūra uz to neattiecas. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Valsts finansējums, kas atbilst Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību (“Līgums”) 107. panta 1. punkta kritērijiem, ir valsts atbalsts, un par to ir jāpaziņo Komisijai, kā paredzēts Līguma 108. panta 3. punktā. Tomēr Padome saskaņā ar Līguma 109. pantu var noteikt atbalsta kategorijas, kas ir atbrīvotas no minētās paziņošanas prasības. Saskaņā ar Līguma 108. panta 4. punktu Komisija var pieņemt regulas par šīm valsts atbalsta kategorijām. Ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 994/98 Padome saskaņā ar Līguma 109. pantu nolēma, ka viena no šādām kategorijām varētu būt de minimis atbalsts. Attiecīgi tiek uzskatīts, ka de minimis atbalsts, kas ir vienam uzņēmumam noteiktā laikposmā piešķirts atbalsts, kurš nepārsniedz konkrēti noteiktu summu, neatbilst visiem Līguma 107. panta 1. punkta kritērijiem, un tāpēc paziņošanas procedūra uz to neattiecas.

| (2) | Komisija daudzos lēmumos ir skaidrojusi jēdzienu “atbalsts” Līguma 107. panta 1. punkta nozīmē. Turklāt Komisija savu politiku par de minimis robežlielumu, līdz kuram var uzskatīt, ka Līguma 107. panta 1. punkts nav piemērojams, sākotnēji darīja zināmu paziņojumā par de minimis noteikumu valsts atbalstam (3) un pēc tam Komisijas Regulā (EK) Nr. 69/2001 (4) un Komisijas Regulā (EK) Nr. 1998/2006 (5). Ņemot vērā Regulas (EK) Nr. 1998/2006 piemērošanā gūto pieredzi, ir lietderīgi pārskatīt atsevišķus minētajā regulā paredzētos nosacījumus un aizstāt to. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Komisija daudzos lēmumos ir skaidrojusi jēdzienu “atbalsts” Līguma 107. panta 1. punkta nozīmē. Turklāt Komisija savu politiku par de minimis robežlielumu, līdz kuram var uzskatīt, ka Līguma 107. panta 1. punkts nav piemērojams, sākotnēji darīja zināmu paziņojumā par de minimis noteikumu valsts atbalstam (3) un pēc tam Komisijas Regulā (EK) Nr. 69/2001 (4) un Komisijas Regulā (EK) Nr. 1998/2006 (5). Ņemot vērā Regulas (EK) Nr. 1998/2006 piemērošanā gūto pieredzi, ir lietderīgi pārskatīt atsevišķus minētajā regulā paredzētos nosacījumus un aizstāt to.

| (3) | Ir lietderīgi de minimis atbalsta summai, kuru viens uzņēmums jebkurā triju gadu periodā drīkst saņemt no vienas dalībvalsts, robežlielumu atstāt EUR 200 000 apmērā. Minētais robežlielums joprojām ir nepieciešams, lai nodrošinātu, ka neviens pasākums, uz kuru attiecas šī regula, neietekmē tirdzniecību starp dalībvalstīm un/vai nerada vai nedraud radīt konkurences izkropļojumus. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Ir lietderīgi de minimis atbalsta summai, kuru viens uzņēmums jebkurā triju gadu periodā drīkst saņemt no vienas dalībvalsts, robežlielumu atstāt EUR 200 000 apmērā. Minētais robežlielums joprojām ir nepieciešams, lai nodrošinātu, ka neviens pasākums, uz kuru attiecas šī regula, neietekmē tirdzniecību starp dalībvalstīm un/vai nerada vai nedraud radīt konkurences izkropļojumus.

| (4) | Uzņēmums Līguma konkurences noteikumu nozīmē ir ikviens subjekts, kas veic saimniecisko darbību, neatkarīgi no tā juridiskā statusa un finansēšanas veida (6). Eiropas Savienības Tiesa ir atzinusi, ka visi subjekti, kurus (juridiski vai faktiski) kontrolē viens un tas pats subjekts, ir uzskatāmi par vienu uzņēmumu (7). Lai nodrošinātu juridisko noteiktību un samazinātu administratīvo slogu, šajā regulā būtu jāparedz izsmeļošs saraksts ar skaidriem kritērijiem, lai noteiktu, kad divi vai vairāki subjekti ir uzskatāmi par vienu uzņēmumu. No iedibinātajiem kritērijiem, lai noteiktu “saistītus uzņēmumus” atbilstoši Regulas (EK) Nr. 800/2008 (8) I pielikumā sniegtajai MVU definīcijai, Komisija ir atlasījusi tos kritērijus, kas ir piemēroti šīs regulas mērķiem. Minētie kritēriji publiskajām iestādēm jau ir zināmi un, ņemot vērā šīs regulas darbības jomu, būtu jāpiemēro gan MVU, gan lielajiem uzņēmumiem. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Uzņēmums Līguma konkurences noteikumu nozīmē ir ikviens subjekts, kas veic saimniecisko darbību, neatkarīgi no tā juridiskā statusa un finansēšanas veida (6). Eiropas Savienības Tiesa ir atzinusi, ka visi subjekti, kurus (juridiski vai faktiski) kontrolē viens un tas pats subjekts, ir uzskatāmi par vienu uzņēmumu (7). Lai nodrošinātu juridisko noteiktību un samazinātu administratīvo slogu, šajā regulā būtu jāparedz izsmeļošs saraksts ar skaidriem kritērijiem, lai noteiktu, kad divi vai vairāki subjekti ir uzskatāmi par vienu uzņēmumu. No iedibinātajiem kritērijiem, lai noteiktu “saistītus uzņēmumus” atbilstoši Regulas (EK) Nr. 800/2008 (8) I pielikumā sniegtajai MVU definīcijai, Komisija ir atlasījusi tos kritērijus, kas ir piemēroti šīs regulas mērķiem. Minētie kritēriji publiskajām iestādēm jau ir zināmi un, ņemot vērā šīs regulas darbības jomu, būtu jāpiemēro gan MVU, gan lielajiem uzņēmumiem.

| (5) | Lai ņemtu vērā to, ka kravu autopārvadājumu nozarē vidusmēra uzņēmumi ir mazi, ir lietderīgi attiecībā uz uzņēmumiem, kuri veic kravu komercpārvadājumus ar autotransportu, robežlielumu noteikt EUR 100 000 apmērā. Par pārvadājumu pakalpojumu nebūtu uzskatāma tāda integrēta pakalpojuma sniegšana kā pārcelšanās pakalpojumi, pasta vai kurjera pakalpojumi vai atkritumu savākšanas un pārstrādes pakalpojumi, ja pārvadājumi ir tikai viens no šā pakalpojuma elementiem. Ņemot vērā jaudas pārpalikumu kravu autopārvadājumu nozarē un transporta politikas mērķus saistībā ar autoceļu pārslogotību un kravas pārvadājumiem, no šīs regulas piemērošanas jomas būtu jāizslēdz atbalsts kravas transportlīdzekļu iegādei uzņēmumiem, kuri veic kravu komercpārvadājumus ar autotransportu. Ņemot vērā pasažieru autopārvadājumu nozares attīstību, šajā nozarē vairs nav pamatoti piemērot zemāku robežlielumu. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Lai ņemtu vērā to, ka kravu autopārvadājumu nozarē vidusmēra uzņēmumi ir mazi, ir lietderīgi attiecībā uz uzņēmumiem, kuri veic kravu komercpārvadājumus ar autotransportu, robežlielumu noteikt EUR 100 000 apmērā. Par pārvadājumu pakalpojumu nebūtu uzskatāma tāda integrēta pakalpojuma sniegšana kā pārcelšanās pakalpojumi, pasta vai kurjera pakalpojumi vai atkritumu savākšanas un pārstrādes pakalpojumi, ja pārvadājumi ir tikai viens no šā pakalpojuma elementiem. Ņemot vērā jaudas pārpalikumu kravu autopārvadājumu nozarē un transporta politikas mērķus saistībā ar autoceļu pārslogotību un kravas pārvadājumiem, no šīs regulas piemērošanas jomas būtu jāizslēdz atbalsts kravas transportlīdzekļu iegādei uzņēmumiem, kuri veic kravu komercpārvadājumus ar autotransportu. Ņemot vērā pasažieru autopārvadājumu nozares attīstību, šajā nozarē vairs nav pamatoti piemērot zemāku robežlielumu.

| (6) | Ņemot vērā īpašos noteikumus, ko piemēro lauksaimniecības produktu primārās ražošanas, zvejas un akvakultūras nozarē, un risku, ka šajās nozarēs atbalsts, kura summa nepārsniedz šajā regulā noteikto robežlielumu, tomēr varētu atbilst Līguma 107. panta 1. punkta kritērijiem, šī regula minētajām nozarēm nebūtu piemērojama. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Ņemot vērā īpašos noteikumus, ko piemēro lauksaimniecības produktu primārās ražošanas, zvejas un akvakultūras nozarē, un risku, ka šajās nozarēs atbalsts, kura summa nepārsniedz šajā regulā noteikto robežlielumu, tomēr varētu atbilst Līguma 107. panta 1. punkta kritērijiem, šī regula minētajām nozarēm nebūtu piemērojama.

| (7) | Ņemot vērā lauksaimniecības produktu un nelauksaimniecības produktu pārstrādes un tirdzniecības līdzības, šī regula būtu jāpiemēro lauksaimniecības produktu pārstrādei un tirdzniecībai, ja ir izpildīti noteikti nosacījumi. Šajā saistībā par pārstrādi vai tirdzniecību nebūtu uzskatāmas ne saimniecībā veiktās darbības, lai produktu sagatavotu pirmajai pārdošanai, piemēram, ražas novākšana, graudaugu pļaušana un kulšana vai olu iepakošana, ne pirmā pārdošana tālākpārdevējiem vai pārstrādātājiem. Eiropas Savienības Tiesa ir noteikusi (9), ka, tiklīdz Savienība ir pieņēmusi tiesību aktu par tirgus kopīgu organizāciju konkrētā lauksaimniecības nozarē, dalībvalstu pienākums ir atturēties no tādu pasākumu veikšanas, kas varētu kaitēt kopīgajai organizācijai vai paredzēt izņēmumus no tās. Šā iemesla dēļ šī regula nebūtu piemērojama atbalstam, kura summa ir noteikta, pamatojoties uz iepirkto vai tirgū laisto produktu cenu vai daudzumu. Tāpat tā nebūtu piemērojama atbalstam, kas saistīts ar pienākumu šajā atbalstā dalīties ar primārajiem ražotājiem. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Ņemot vērā lauksaimniecības produktu un nelauksaimniecības produktu pārstrādes un tirdzniecības līdzības, šī regula būtu jāpiemēro lauksaimniecības produktu pārstrādei un tirdzniecībai, ja ir izpildīti noteikti nosacījumi. Šajā saistībā par pārstrādi vai tirdzniecību nebūtu uzskatāmas ne saimniecībā veiktās darbības, lai produktu sagatavotu pirmajai pārdošanai, piemēram, ražas novākšana, graudaugu pļaušana un kulšana vai olu iepakošana, ne pirmā pārdošana tālākpārdevējiem vai pārstrādātājiem. Eiropas Savienības Tiesa ir noteikusi (9), ka, tiklīdz Savienība ir pieņēmusi tiesību aktu par tirgus kopīgu organizāciju konkrētā lauksaimniecības nozarē, dalībvalstu pienākums ir atturēties no tādu pasākumu veikšanas, kas varētu kaitēt kopīgajai organizācijai vai paredzēt izņēmumus no tās. Šā iemesla dēļ šī regula nebūtu piemērojama atbalstam, kura summa ir noteikta, pamatojoties uz iepirkto vai tirgū laisto produktu cenu vai daudzumu. Tāpat tā nebūtu piemērojama atbalstam, kas saistīts ar pienākumu šajā atbalstā dalīties ar primārajiem ražotājiem.

| (8) | Šī regula nebūtu piemērojama eksporta atbalstam un atbalstam par labu vietējiem produktiem attiecībā pret importētiem produktiem. Tā jo īpaši nebūtu piemērojama atbalstam izplatīšanas tīkla izveides un darbības finansēšanai citās dalībvalstīs vai trešās valstīs. Atbalstu par izdevumiem saistībā ar dalību tirdzniecības izstādēs vai pētījumu vai konsultāciju pakalpojumiem, kas vajadzīgi jauna vai esoša produkta laišanai jaunā tirgū, parasti neuzskata par eksporta atbalstu. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Šī regula nebūtu piemērojama eksporta atbalstam un atbalstam par labu vietējiem produktiem attiecībā pret importētiem produktiem. Tā jo īpaši nebūtu piemērojama atbalstam izplatīšanas tīkla izveides un darbības finansēšanai citās dalībvalstīs vai trešās valstīs. Atbalstu par izdevumiem saistībā ar dalību tirdzniecības izstādēs vai pētījumu vai konsultāciju pakalpojumiem, kas vajadzīgi jauna vai esoša produkta laišanai jaunā tirgū, parasti neuzskata par eksporta atbalstu.

| (9) | Šī regula nebūtu piemērojama grūtībās nonākušiem uzņēmumiem, jo šādiem uzņēmumiem nav pamatoti piešķirt finansiālu atbalstu, ja nav pārstrukturēšanas plāna. Turklāt ir sarežģīti noteikt šāda veida uzņēmumiem piešķirtā atbalsta bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu. Juridiskās noteiktības labad ir lietderīgi noteikt skaidrus kritērijus, kas neprasa novērtēt visas uzņēmuma stāvokļa īpatnības, lai noteiktu, vai uzņēmums šīs regulas nozīmē ir uzskatāms par grūtībās nonākušu uzņēmumu. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Šī regula nebūtu piemērojama grūtībās nonākušiem uzņēmumiem, jo šādiem uzņēmumiem nav pamatoti piešķirt finansiālu atbalstu, ja nav pārstrukturēšanas plāna. Turklāt ir sarežģīti noteikt šāda veida uzņēmumiem piešķirtā atbalsta bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu. Juridiskās noteiktības labad ir lietderīgi noteikt skaidrus kritērijus, kas neprasa novērtēt visas uzņēmuma stāvokļa īpatnības, lai noteiktu, vai uzņēmums šīs regulas nozīmē ir uzskatāms par grūtībās nonākušu uzņēmumu.

| (10) | Trīs gadu laikposms, kuru ņem vērā šīs regulas mērķiem, būtu jānosaka pēc slīdošā principa, tas ir, pirms katras jaunas de minimis atbalsta dotācijas piešķiršanas ir jāņem vērā attiecīgajā fiskālajā gadā, kā arī iepriekšējos divos fiskālajos gados piešķirtā de minimis atbalsta kopsumma. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Trīs gadu laikposms, kuru ņem vērā šīs regulas mērķiem, būtu jānosaka pēc slīdošā principa, tas ir, pirms katras jaunas de minimis atbalsta dotācijas piešķiršanas ir jāņem vērā attiecīgajā fiskālajā gadā, kā arī iepriekšējos divos fiskālajos gados piešķirtā de minimis atbalsta kopsumma.

| (11) | Ja uzņēmumi darbojas gan nozarēs, kuras ir izslēgtas no šīs regulas darbības jomas, gan citās nozarēs vai darbības jomās, šī regula būtu piemērojama attiecīgajās citās nozarēs vai darbības jomās ar nosacījumu, ka dalībvalstis ar tādiem piemērotiem līdzekļiem kā darbības vai izmaksu nošķiršana nodrošina, ka darbības izslēgtajās nozarēs negūst labumu no de minimis atbalsta. Šis pats princips būtu piemērojams, ja uzņēmumi darbojas nozarēs, kurās piemērojami zemāki de minimis robežlielumi. Ja nav iespējams nodrošināt, ka darbība nozarēs, kurās piemērojami zemāki de minimis robežlielumi, gūst labumu no de minimis atbalsta tikai apmērā, kas atbilst šiem zemākajiem robežlielumiem, visām uzņēmuma darbībām būtu jāpiemēro zemākais robežlielums. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Ja uzņēmumi darbojas gan nozarēs, kuras ir izslēgtas no šīs regulas darbības jomas, gan citās nozarēs vai darbības jomās, šī regula būtu piemērojama attiecīgajās citās nozarēs vai darbības jomās ar nosacījumu, ka dalībvalstis ar tādiem piemērotiem līdzekļiem kā darbības vai izmaksu nošķiršana nodrošina, ka darbības izslēgtajās nozarēs negūst labumu no de minimis atbalsta. Šis pats princips būtu piemērojams, ja uzņēmumi darbojas nozarēs, kurās piemērojami zemāki de minimis robežlielumi. Ja nav iespējams nodrošināt, ka darbība nozarēs, kurās piemērojami zemāki de minimis robežlielumi, gūst labumu no de minimis atbalsta tikai apmērā, kas atbilst šiem zemākajiem robežlielumiem, visām uzņēmuma darbībām būtu jāpiemēro zemākais robežlielums.

| (12) | Šajā regulā būtu jāparedz noteikumi, kas nodrošina, ka nav iespējams apiet atbalsta maksimālās intensitātes, kuras noteiktas īpašās regulās vai Komisijas lēmumos. Tajā būtu arī jāparedz skaidri un viegli piemērojami atbalsta kumulācijas noteikumi. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Šajā regulā būtu jāparedz noteikumi, kas nodrošina, ka nav iespējams apiet atbalsta maksimālās intensitātes, kuras noteiktas īpašās regulās vai Komisijas lēmumos. Tajā būtu arī jāparedz skaidri un viegli piemērojami atbalsta kumulācijas noteikumi.

| (13) | Šī regula neizslēdz iespēju, ka pasākums netiek uzskatīts par valsts atbalstu Līguma 107. panta 1. punkta nozīmē, to pamatojot ar šajā regulā neizklāstītiem apsvērumiem, piemēram, tāpēc, ka pasākums atbilst tirgus ekonomikas dalībnieka principam vai neparedz valsts līdzekļu nodošanu. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Šī regula neizslēdz iespēju, ka pasākums netiek uzskatīts par valsts atbalstu Līguma 107. panta 1. punkta nozīmē, to pamatojot ar šajā regulā neizklāstītiem apsvērumiem, piemēram, tāpēc, ka pasākums atbilst tirgus ekonomikas dalībnieka principam vai neparedz valsts līdzekļu nodošanu.

| (14) | Pārredzamības, vienlīdzīgas attieksmes un efektīvas uzraudzības labad šī regula būtu jāpiemēro tikai tādam de minimis atbalstam, kuram ir iespējams iepriekš precīzi aprēķināt bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu, neveicot riska novērtējumu (“pārredzams atbalsts”). Šādus precīzus aprēķinus ir iespējams veikt, piemēram, dotācijām, procentu likmju subsīdijām, nepārsniedzamiem nodokļu atbrīvojumiem vai citiem instrumentiem, kuros ir paredzēta maksimālā robeža, kas nodrošina, ka netiek pārsniegts piemērojamais robežlielums. Maksimālās robežas noteikšana nozīmē, ka tad, ja atbalsta precīzā summa nav vai vēl nav zināma, dalībvalstij ir jāpieņem, ka šī summa ir vienāda ar maksimālo robežu, lai tādējādi tiktu nodrošināts, ka vairāki paralēli atbalsta pasākumi nepārsniedz šajā regulā noteikto robežlielumu, un lai piemērotu atbalsta kumulācijas noteikumus. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Pārredzamības, vienlīdzīgas attieksmes un efektīvas uzraudzības labad šī regula būtu jāpiemēro tikai tādam de minimis atbalstam, kuram ir iespējams iepriekš precīzi aprēķināt bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu, neveicot riska novērtējumu (“pārredzams atbalsts”). Šādus precīzus aprēķinus ir iespējams veikt, piemēram, dotācijām, procentu likmju subsīdijām, nepārsniedzamiem nodokļu atbrīvojumiem vai citiem instrumentiem, kuros ir paredzēta maksimālā robeža, kas nodrošina, ka netiek pārsniegts piemērojamais robežlielums. Maksimālās robežas noteikšana nozīmē, ka tad, ja atbalsta precīzā summa nav vai vēl nav zināma, dalībvalstij ir jāpieņem, ka šī summa ir vienāda ar maksimālo robežu, lai tādējādi tiktu nodrošināts, ka vairāki paralēli atbalsta pasākumi nepārsniedz šajā regulā noteikto robežlielumu, un lai piemērotu atbalsta kumulācijas noteikumus.

| (15) | Pārredzamības, vienlīdzīgas attieksmes un de minimis robežlieluma pareizas piemērošanas labad visām dalībvalstīm būtu jāpiemēro viena un tā pati aprēķinu metode. Lai atvieglotu šo aprēķinu, atbalsta summas, kas nav naudas līdzekļu dotācijas, ir jāizsaka kā to bruto dotācijas ekvivalents. Lai aprēķinātu bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu pārredzamiem atbalsta veidiem, kas nav dotācijas, un vairākās daļās maksājamam atbalstam, ir jāizmanto šā atbalsta piešķiršanas laikā spēkā esošās tirgus likmes. Lai nodrošinātu valsts atbalsta noteikumu vienveidīgu, pārredzamu un vienkāršu piemērošanu, piemērojamajām tirgus likmēm šīs regulas nolūkiem vajadzētu būt atsauces likmēm, kas noteiktas Komisijas paziņojumā par atsauces likmes un diskonta likmes noteikšanas metodes pārskatīšanu (10). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Pārredzamības, vienlīdzīgas attieksmes un de minimis robežlieluma pareizas piemērošanas labad visām dalībvalstīm būtu jāpiemēro viena un tā pati aprēķinu metode. Lai atvieglotu šo aprēķinu, atbalsta summas, kas nav naudas līdzekļu dotācijas, ir jāizsaka kā to bruto dotācijas ekvivalents. Lai aprēķinātu bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu pārredzamiem atbalsta veidiem, kas nav dotācijas, un vairākās daļās maksājamam atbalstam, ir jāizmanto šā atbalsta piešķiršanas laikā spēkā esošās tirgus likmes. Lai nodrošinātu valsts atbalsta noteikumu vienveidīgu, pārredzamu un vienkāršu piemērošanu, piemērojamajām tirgus likmēm šīs regulas nolūkiem vajadzētu būt atsauces likmēm, kas noteiktas Komisijas paziņojumā par atsauces likmes un diskonta likmes noteikšanas metodes pārskatīšanu (10).

| (16) | Atbalsts aizdevumu veidā būtu jāuzskata par pārredzamu de minimis atbalstu, ja bruto dotācijas ekvivalents ir aprēķināts, pamatojoties uz tirgus procentu likmēm, kuras ir spēkā atbalsta piešķiršanas laikā. Lai vienkāršotu neliela apjoma īstermiņa aizdevumu izskatīšanu, šajā regulā būtu jāparedz skaidrs noteikums, kas ir viegli piemērojams un ņem vērā gan aizdevuma apjomu, gan ilgumu. Pamatojoties uz Komisijas pieredzi, aizdevumus, kuru nodrošinājums ir vismaz 50 % apmērā no aizdevuma un kuru summa nepārsniedz EUR 1 000 000 un ilgums – piecus gadus vai arī attiecīgi EUR 500 000 un desmit gadus, var uzskatīt par tādiem, kuru bruto dotācijas ekvivalents atbilst de minimis robežlielumam. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Atbalsts aizdevumu veidā būtu jāuzskata par pārredzamu de minimis atbalstu, ja bruto dotācijas ekvivalents ir aprēķināts, pamatojoties uz tirgus procentu likmēm, kuras ir spēkā atbalsta piešķiršanas laikā. Lai vienkāršotu neliela apjoma īstermiņa aizdevumu izskatīšanu, šajā regulā būtu jāparedz skaidrs noteikums, kas ir viegli piemērojams un ņem vērā gan aizdevuma apjomu, gan ilgumu. Pamatojoties uz Komisijas pieredzi, aizdevumus, kuru nodrošinājums ir vismaz 50 % apmērā no aizdevuma un kuru summa nepārsniedz EUR 1 000 000 un ilgums – piecus gadus vai arī attiecīgi EUR 500 000 un desmit gadus, var uzskatīt par tādiem, kuru bruto dotācijas ekvivalents atbilst de minimis robežlielumam.

| (17) | Atbalstu kapitāla ieguldījumu veidā nedrīkstētu uzskatīt par pārredzamu de minimis atbalstu, izņemot, ja publiskā kapitāla ieguldījuma kopsumma nepārsniedz de minimis robežlielumu. Atbalstu riska finansēšanas pasākumu veidā, kas izpaužas kā pašu kapitāla vai kvazikapitāla ieguldījumi, kā minēts (jaunās pamatnostādnes par riska finansēšanu), nedrīkstētu uzskatīt par pārredzamu de minimis atbalstu, izņemot, ja saskaņā ar attiecīgo pasākumu katram mērķuzņēmumam nodrošinātais kapitāls nepārsniedz de minimis robežlielumu. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Atbalstu kapitāla ieguldījumu veidā nedrīkstētu uzskatīt par pārredzamu de minimis atbalstu, izņemot, ja publiskā kapitāla ieguldījuma kopsumma nepārsniedz de minimis robežlielumu. Atbalstu riska finansēšanas pasākumu veidā, kas izpaužas kā pašu kapitāla vai kvazikapitāla ieguldījumi, kā minēts (jaunās pamatnostādnes par riska finansēšanu), nedrīkstētu uzskatīt par pārredzamu de minimis atbalstu, izņemot, ja saskaņā ar attiecīgo pasākumu katram mērķuzņēmumam nodrošinātais kapitāls nepārsniedz de minimis robežlielumu.

| (18) | Atbalsts garantiju veidā būtu jāuzskata par pārredzamu atbalstu, ja bruto dotācijas ekvivalents ir aprēķināts, pamatojoties uz drošības zonas prēmijām, kas attiecīgajam uzņēmumu veidam noteiktas Komisijas paziņojumā. Piemēram, maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem Komisijas Paziņojumā par EK līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu valsts atbalstam garantiju veidā (11) ir norādīti gada prēmijas līmeņi, kurus pārsniedzot, valsts garantiju neuzskata par atbalstu. Lai vienkāršotu izskatīšanas procedūru īstermiņa garantijām, ar kurām sedz lielākais 80 % no salīdzinoši neliela apjoma aizdevuma, šajā regulā būtu jāparedz skaidrs noteikums, kas ir viegli piemērojams un ņem vērā gan attiecīgā aizdevuma apjomu, gan garantijas ilgumu. Šis noteikums nebūtu piemērojams garantijām par darījumiem, kas nav aizdevumi, piemēram, garantijām par pašu kapitāla darījumiem. Ja garantijas apmērs nepārsniedz 80 % no attiecīgā aizdevuma, garantētā summa nepārsniedz EUR 1 500 000 un garantijas ilgums nepārsniedz piecus gadus, garantiju var uzskatīt par tādu, kuras bruto dotācijas ekvivalents atbilst de minimis robežlielumam. Tas pats attiecas uz garantiju, kuras apmērs nepārsniedz 80 % no attiecīgā aizdevuma, garantētā summa nepārsniedz EUR 750 000 un garantijas ilgums nepārsniedz desmit gadus. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Atbalsts garantiju veidā būtu jāuzskata par pārredzamu atbalstu, ja bruto dotācijas ekvivalents ir aprēķināts, pamatojoties uz drošības zonas prēmijām, kas attiecīgajam uzņēmumu veidam noteiktas Komisijas paziņojumā. Piemēram, maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem Komisijas Paziņojumā par EK līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu valsts atbalstam garantiju veidā (11) ir norādīti gada prēmijas līmeņi, kurus pārsniedzot, valsts garantiju neuzskata par atbalstu. Lai vienkāršotu izskatīšanas procedūru īstermiņa garantijām, ar kurām sedz lielākais 80 % no salīdzinoši neliela apjoma aizdevuma, šajā regulā būtu jāparedz skaidrs noteikums, kas ir viegli piemērojams un ņem vērā gan attiecīgā aizdevuma apjomu, gan garantijas ilgumu. Šis noteikums nebūtu piemērojams garantijām par darījumiem, kas nav aizdevumi, piemēram, garantijām par pašu kapitāla darījumiem. Ja garantijas apmērs nepārsniedz 80 % no attiecīgā aizdevuma, garantētā summa nepārsniedz EUR 1 500 000 un garantijas ilgums nepārsniedz piecus gadus, garantiju var uzskatīt par tādu, kuras bruto dotācijas ekvivalents atbilst de minimis robežlielumam. Tas pats attiecas uz garantiju, kuras apmērs nepārsniedz 80 % no attiecīgā aizdevuma, garantētā summa nepārsniedz EUR 750 000 un garantijas ilgums nepārsniedz desmit gadus.

| (19) | Ja aizdevuma vai garantijas summa vai ilgums ir mazāki nekā noteikts 16. un 18. apsvērumā, bruto dotācijas ekvivalents būtu jāaprēķina, reizinot EUR 200 000 ar attiecību starp faktisko summu un 16. un 18. apsvērumā noteikto maksimālo summu un ar attiecību starp faktisko ilgumu un pieciem gadiem. Tā, piemēram, būtu uzskatāms, ka aizdevumam EUR 500 000 apmērā uz 2,5 gadiem bruto dotācijas ekvivalents ir EUR 50 000. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Ja aizdevuma vai garantijas summa vai ilgums ir mazāki nekā noteikts 16. un 18. apsvērumā, bruto dotācijas ekvivalents būtu jāaprēķina, reizinot EUR 200 000 ar attiecību starp faktisko summu un 16. un 18. apsvērumā noteikto maksimālo summu un ar attiecību starp faktisko ilgumu un pieciem gadiem. Tā, piemēram, būtu uzskatāms, ka aizdevumam EUR 500 000 apmērā uz 2,5 gadiem bruto dotācijas ekvivalents ir EUR 50 000.

| (20) | Pamatojoties uz dalībvalsts paziņojumu, Komisija var pārbaudīt, vai pasākums, kas nav dotācija, aizdevums, garantija, kapitāla ieguldījums vai riska finansēšanas pasākums pašu kapitāla vai kvazikapitāla ieguldījumu veidā, atbilst bruto dotācijas ekvivalentam, kurš nepārsniedz de minimis robežlielumu, un uz ko tādējādi varētu attiekties šī regula. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Pamatojoties uz dalībvalsts paziņojumu, Komisija var pārbaudīt, vai pasākums, kas nav dotācija, aizdevums, garantija, kapitāla ieguldījums vai riska finansēšanas pasākums pašu kapitāla vai kvazikapitāla ieguldījumu veidā, atbilst bruto dotācijas ekvivalentam, kurš nepārsniedz de minimis robežlielumu, un uz ko tādējādi varētu attiekties šī regula.

| (21) | Komisijai ir pienākums nodrošināt, ka tiek ievēroti valsts atbalsta noteikumi, un saskaņā ar Līguma par Eiropas Savienību 4. panta 3. punktā paredzēto sadarbības principu dalībvalstīm būtu jāatvieglo šā mērķa sasniegšana, izveidojot vajadzīgos instrumentus, lai nodrošinātu, ka de minimis atbalsta kopsumma, kas piešķirta vienam uzņēmumam saskaņā ar de minimis noteikumiem, nepārsniedz kopējo pieļaujamo robežlielumu. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Komisijai ir pienākums nodrošināt, ka tiek ievēroti valsts atbalsta noteikumi, un saskaņā ar Līguma par Eiropas Savienību 4. panta 3. punktā paredzēto sadarbības principu dalībvalstīm būtu jāatvieglo šā mērķa sasniegšana, izveidojot vajadzīgos instrumentus, lai nodrošinātu, ka de minimis atbalsta kopsumma, kas piešķirta vienam uzņēmumam saskaņā ar de minimis noteikumiem, nepārsniedz kopējo pieļaujamo robežlielumu.

| (22) | Pirms jebkura de minimis atbalsta piešķiršanas dalībvalstīm attiecībā uz savu valsti būtu jāpārbauda, vai ar jauno de minimis atbalstu netiks pārsniegts de minimis robežlielums un vai ir izpildīti pārējie šīs regulas nosacījumi. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Pirms jebkura de minimis atbalsta piešķiršanas dalībvalstīm attiecībā uz savu valsti būtu jāpārbauda, vai ar jauno de minimis atbalstu netiks pārsniegts de minimis robežlielums un vai ir izpildīti pārējie šīs regulas nosacījumi.

| (23) | Lai nodrošinātu, ka dalībvalstu rīcībā ir precīzi, uzticami un pilnīgi dati, kas ļauj pārliecināties, ka, piešķirot jaunu de minimis atbalstu, netiek pārsniegts attiecīgajam uzņēmumam piemērojamais robežlielums, būtu jāpieprasa, lai dalībvalstis izveido centrālu de minimis atbalsta reģistru, kurā ir informācija par visu de minimis atbalstu, ko saskaņā ar šo regulu piešķīrusi jebkura attiecīgās dalībvalsts iestāde. Dalībvalstīm būtu jādod iespēja brīvi izstrādāt savu reģistru un lemt par piemērotāko tā izveides mehānismu saskaņā ar to konstitucionālo un administratīvo struktūru ar nosacījumu, ka tās nodrošina, ka reģistrs visām dalībvalsts publiskajām iestādēm dod iespēju pārbaudīt katra uzņēmuma saņemto de minimis atbalsta summu. Dalībvalstīm būtu jādod pietiekami ilgs laiks šāda reģistra izveidei. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Lai nodrošinātu, ka dalībvalstu rīcībā ir precīzi, uzticami un pilnīgi dati, kas ļauj pārliecināties, ka, piešķirot jaunu de minimis atbalstu, netiek pārsniegts attiecīgajam uzņēmumam piemērojamais robežlielums, būtu jāpieprasa, lai dalībvalstis izveido centrālu de minimis atbalsta reģistru, kurā ir informācija par visu de minimis atbalstu, ko saskaņā ar šo regulu piešķīrusi jebkura attiecīgās dalībvalsts iestāde. Dalībvalstīm būtu jādod iespēja brīvi izstrādāt savu reģistru un lemt par piemērotāko tā izveides mehānismu saskaņā ar to konstitucionālo un administratīvo struktūru ar nosacījumu, ka tās nodrošina, ka reģistrs visām dalībvalsts publiskajām iestādēm dod iespēju pārbaudīt katra uzņēmuma saņemto de minimis atbalsta summu. Dalībvalstīm būtu jādod pietiekami ilgs laiks šāda reģistra izveidei.

| (24) | Līdz laikam, kad dalībvalsts izveido centrālu reģistru un tajā ir dati par triju gadu periodu, dalībvalstij attiecīgais uzņēmums būtu jāinformē par piešķirtā de minimis atbalsta summu un tā de minimis raksturu un konkrēti jāatsaucas uz šo regulu. Turklāt pirms šāda atbalsta piešķiršanas attiecīgajai dalībvalstij no uzņēmuma būtu jāiegūst deklarācija par citu de minimis atbalstu, uz kuru attiecas šī regula vai citas de minimis regulas un kas saņemts attiecīgajā fiskālajā gadā un iepriekšējos divos fiskālajos gados. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

Līdz laikam, kad dalībvalsts izveido centrālu reģistru un tajā ir dati par triju gadu periodu, dalībvalstij attiecīgais uzņēmums būtu jāinformē par piešķirtā de minimis atbalsta summu un tā de minimis raksturu un konkrēti jāatsaucas uz šo regulu. Turklāt pirms šāda atbalsta piešķiršanas attiecīgajai dalībvalstij no uzņēmuma būtu jāiegūst deklarācija par citu de minimis atbalstu, uz kuru attiecas šī regula vai citas de minimis regulas un kas saņemts attiecīgajā fiskālajā gadā un iepriekšējos divos fiskālajos gados.

| (25) | Lai Komisijai dotu iespēju uzraudzīt šīs regulas piemērošanu un atklāt iespējamos konkurences kropļojumus, būtu jāpieprasa, lai dalībvalstis reizi gadā sniedz pamatinformāciju par saskaņā ar šo regulu piešķirtajām summām. Ja dalībvalsts ir informējusi Komisiju par to, kur tiek publiskoti visi ziņojumos prasītie dati, no šīs dalībvalsts nebūtu jāprasa iesniegt Komisijai ziņojumu. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

Lai Komisijai dotu iespēju uzraudzīt šīs regulas piemērošanu un atklāt iespējamos konkurences kropļojumus, būtu jāpieprasa, lai dalībvalstis reizi gadā sniedz pamatinformāciju par saskaņā ar šo regulu piešķirtajām summām. Ja dalībvalsts ir informējusi Komisiju par to, kur tiek publiskoti visi ziņojumos prasītie dati, no šīs dalībvalsts nebūtu jāprasa iesniegt Komisijai ziņojumu.

| (26) | Ņemot vērā Komisijas pieredzi un jo īpaši to, cik bieži parasti ir jāpārskata valsts atbalsta politika, šīs regulas piemērošanas periodam vajadzētu būt ierobežotam. Ja šīs regulas piemērošanas laiks beidzas un netiek pagarināts, dalībvalstīm attiecībā uz de minimis atbalstu, uz ko attiecas šī regula, būtu jādod sešu mēnešu pielāgošanās periods, |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Ņemot vērā Komisijas pieredzi un jo īpaši to, cik bieži parasti ir jāpārskata valsts atbalsta politika, šīs regulas piemērošanas periodam vajadzētu būt ierobežotam. Ja šīs regulas piemērošanas laiks beidzas un netiek pagarināts, dalībvalstīm attiecībā uz de minimis atbalstu, uz ko attiecas šī regula, būtu jādod sešu mēnešu pielāgošanās periods,

IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO REGULU.

1. pants

Darbības joma

1.   Šo regulu piemēro visu nozaru uzņēmumiem piešķirtam atbalstam, izņemot:

| a) | atbalstu, ko piešķir uzņēmumiem, kuri darbojas zvejas un akvakultūras nozarēs, uz ko attiecas Padomes Regula (EK) Nr. 104/2000 (12); |
| --- | --- |

a)

atbalstu, ko piešķir uzņēmumiem, kuri darbojas zvejas un akvakultūras nozarēs, uz ko attiecas Padomes Regula (EK) Nr. 104/2000 (12);

| b) | atbalstu, ko piešķir uzņēmumiem, kuri nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu primāro ražošanu; |
| --- | --- |

b)

atbalstu, ko piešķir uzņēmumiem, kuri nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu primāro ražošanu;

| c) | atbalstu, ko piešķir uzņēmumiem, kuri nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu pārstrādi un tirdzniecību, šādos gadījumos:






  i) | ja atbalsta summa ir noteikta, pamatojoties uz šādu produktu, kurus attiecīgais uzņēmums iepircis no primārajiem ražotājiem vai laidis tirgū, cenu un daudzumu; |
| --- | --- | --- |

c)

atbalstu, ko piešķir uzņēmumiem, kuri nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu pārstrādi un tirdzniecību, šādos gadījumos:

i)

ja atbalsta summa ir noteikta, pamatojoties uz šādu produktu, kurus attiecīgais uzņēmums iepircis no primārajiem ražotājiem vai laidis tirgū, cenu un daudzumu;

| ii) | ja atbalstu piešķir ar nosacījumu, ka to daļēji vai pilnībā nodod primārajiem ražotājiem; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

ja atbalstu piešķir ar nosacījumu, ka to daļēji vai pilnībā nodod primārajiem ražotājiem;

| d) | atbalstu darbībām, kas saistītas ar eksportu uz trešām valstīm vai dalībvalstīm, tas ir, atbalstu, kas tieši saistīts ar eksportētajiem daudzumiem, izplatīšanas tīkla izveidi un darbību vai citiem kārtējiem izdevumiem, kas saistīti ar eksporta darbībām; |
| --- | --- |

d)

atbalstu darbībām, kas saistītas ar eksportu uz trešām valstīm vai dalībvalstīm, tas ir, atbalstu, kas tieši saistīts ar eksportētajiem daudzumiem, izplatīšanas tīkla izveidi un darbību vai citiem kārtējiem izdevumiem, kas saistīti ar eksporta darbībām;

| e) | atbalstu, ko piešķir ar nosacījumu, ka importa preču vietā tiek izmantotas vietējās preces; |
| --- | --- |

e)

atbalstu, ko piešķir ar nosacījumu, ka importa preču vietā tiek izmantotas vietējās preces;

| f) | atbalstu, ko piešķir grūtībās nonākušiem uzņēmumiem, kā definēts 2. panta e) punktā. |
| --- | --- |

f)

atbalstu, ko piešķir grūtībās nonākušiem uzņēmumiem, kā definēts 2. panta e) punktā.

2.   Ja uzņēmums darbojas gan nozarēs, kas minētas 1. punkta a), b) vai c) apakšpunktā, gan nozarēs, uz kurām attiecas šīs regulas darbības joma, atbalstam, ko piešķir pēdējām minētajām nozarēm vai darbībām, šo regulu piemēro ar nosacījumu, ka dalībvalstis ar tādiem piemērotiem līdzekļiem kā darbības vai izmaksu nošķiršana nodrošina, ka darbības izslēgtajās nozarēs negūst labumu no de minimis atbalsta, ko piešķir saskaņā ar šo regulu.

2. pants

Definīcijas

Šajā regulā:

| a) | “lauksaimniecības produkti” ir Līguma I pielikumā uzskaitītie produkti, izņemot zvejas un akvakultūras produktus, kas uzskaitīti Regulas (ES) Nr. (vēl nav pieņemta; skatīt Komisijas priekšlikumu COM(2011) 416) par zvejas un akvakultūras produktu tirgu kopīgu organizāciju I pielikumā; |
| --- | --- |

a)

“lauksaimniecības produkti” ir Līguma I pielikumā uzskaitītie produkti, izņemot zvejas un akvakultūras produktus, kas uzskaitīti Regulas (ES) Nr. (vēl nav pieņemta; skatīt Komisijas priekšlikumu COM(2011) 416) par zvejas un akvakultūras produktu tirgu kopīgu organizāciju I pielikumā;

| b) | “lauksaimniecības produktu pārstrāde” ir jebkura darbība ar lauksaimniecības produktu, kuras rezultātā tiek iegūts produkts, kurš arī ir lauksaimniecības produkts, izņemot saimniecībā veiktas darbības, kas vajadzīgas, lai dzīvnieku vai augu produktu sagatavotu pirmajai pārdošanai; |
| --- | --- |

b)

“lauksaimniecības produktu pārstrāde” ir jebkura darbība ar lauksaimniecības produktu, kuras rezultātā tiek iegūts produkts, kurš arī ir lauksaimniecības produkts, izņemot saimniecībā veiktas darbības, kas vajadzīgas, lai dzīvnieku vai augu produktu sagatavotu pirmajai pārdošanai;

| c) | “lauksaimniecības produktu tirdzniecība” ir glabāšana vai izlikšana pārdošanai, piedāvāšana pārdošanai, piegāde vai jebkāda cita veida laišana tirgū, izņemot primārā ražotāja veikto pirmo pārdošanu tālākpārdevējiem vai pārstrādātājiem un darbības, lai sagatavotu produktu šādai pirmajai pārdošanai; primārā ražotāja veiktu pārdošanu galapatērētājiem uzskata par tirdzniecību, ja tā notiek šim nolūkam paredzētās atsevišķās telpās; |
| --- | --- |

c)

“lauksaimniecības produktu tirdzniecība” ir glabāšana vai izlikšana pārdošanai, piedāvāšana pārdošanai, piegāde vai jebkāda cita veida laišana tirgū, izņemot primārā ražotāja veikto pirmo pārdošanu tālākpārdevējiem vai pārstrādātājiem un darbības, lai sagatavotu produktu šādai pirmajai pārdošanai; primārā ražotāja veiktu pārdošanu galapatērētājiem uzskata par tirdzniecību, ja tā notiek šim nolūkam paredzētās atsevišķās telpās;

| d) | “viens uzņēmums” šīs regulas nolūkā ir visi subjekti, kuru starpā pastāv vismaz vienas no šādām attiecībām:






  i) | vienam subjektam ir akcionāru vai dalībnieku balsstiesību vairākums citā subjektā; |
| --- | --- | --- |

d)

“viens uzņēmums” šīs regulas nolūkā ir visi subjekti, kuru starpā pastāv vismaz vienas no šādām attiecībām:

i)

vienam subjektam ir akcionāru vai dalībnieku balsstiesību vairākums citā subjektā;

| ii) | vienam subjektam ir tiesības iecelt vai atlaist cita subjekta pārvaldes, vadības vai uzraudzības struktūras locekļu vairākumu; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

vienam subjektam ir tiesības iecelt vai atlaist cita subjekta pārvaldes, vadības vai uzraudzības struktūras locekļu vairākumu;

| iii) | vienam subjektam ir tiesības īstenot dominējošu ietekmi pār citu subjektu saskaņā ar līgumu, kas noslēgts ar šo subjektu, vai saskaņā ar tā dibināšanas līguma klauzulu vai statūtiem; |
| --- | --- |

iii)

vienam subjektam ir tiesības īstenot dominējošu ietekmi pār citu subjektu saskaņā ar līgumu, kas noslēgts ar šo subjektu, vai saskaņā ar tā dibināšanas līguma klauzulu vai statūtiem;

| iv) | viens subjekts, kas ir cita subjekta akcionārs vai dalībnieks, vienpersoniski kontrolē akcionāru vai dalībnieku vairākuma balsstiesības minētajā subjektā saskaņā ar vienošanos, kas panākta ar pārējiem minētā subjekta akcionāriem vai dalībniekiem. |
| --- | --- |

iv)

viens subjekts, kas ir cita subjekta akcionārs vai dalībnieks, vienpersoniski kontrolē akcionāru vai dalībnieku vairākuma balsstiesības minētajā subjektā saskaņā ar vienošanos, kas panākta ar pārējiem minētā subjekta akcionāriem vai dalībniekiem.

Subjekti, kuriem kādas no iepriekš minētajām attiecībām pastāv ar viena vai vairāku citu subjektu starpniecību, arī ir uzskatāmi par vienu uzņēmumu;

| e) | “grūtībās nonācis uzņēmums” ir uzņēmums, kas atbilst vismaz vienam no šādiem nosacījumiem:






  i) | attiecībā uz sabiedrību ar ierobežotu atbildību – uzkrāto zaudējumu dēļ ir zaudēta vairāk nekā puse no parakstītā pamatkapitāla, tas ir, ja, no rezervēm (un visām pārējām pozīcijām, kuras vispārpieņemts uzskatīt par piederīgām sabiedrības pašu kapitālam) atņemot uzkrātos zaudējumus, negatīvā starpība ir lielāka par pusi no parakstītā pamatkapitāla; |
| --- | --- | --- |

e)

“grūtībās nonācis uzņēmums” ir uzņēmums, kas atbilst vismaz vienam no šādiem nosacījumiem:

i)

attiecībā uz sabiedrību ar ierobežotu atbildību – uzkrāto zaudējumu dēļ ir zaudēta vairāk nekā puse no parakstītā pamatkapitāla, tas ir, ja, no rezervēm (un visām pārējām pozīcijām, kuras vispārpieņemts uzskatīt par piederīgām sabiedrības pašu kapitālam) atņemot uzkrātos zaudējumus, negatīvā starpība ir lielāka par pusi no parakstītā pamatkapitāla;

| ii) | attiecībā uz tādu sabiedrību, kurā vismaz dažiem dalībniekiem ir neierobežota atbildība par sabiedrības parādsaistībām, – uzkrāto zaudējumu dēļ ir zaudēta vairāk nekā puse no sabiedrības grāmatvedības uzskaitē uzrādītā kapitāla; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

attiecībā uz tādu sabiedrību, kurā vismaz dažiem dalībniekiem ir neierobežota atbildība par sabiedrības parādsaistībām, – uzkrāto zaudējumu dēļ ir zaudēta vairāk nekā puse no sabiedrības grāmatvedības uzskaitē uzrādītā kapitāla;

| iii) | uzņēmumam tiek piemērota kolektīva maksātnespējas procedūra vai tas atbilst savas valsts tiesību aktos noteiktiem kritērijiem, lai tam pēc kreditoru pieprasījuma piemērotu kolektīvu maksātnespējas procedūru; |
| --- | --- |

iii)

uzņēmumam tiek piemērota kolektīva maksātnespējas procedūra vai tas atbilst savas valsts tiesību aktos noteiktiem kritērijiem, lai tam pēc kreditoru pieprasījuma piemērotu kolektīvu maksātnespējas procedūru;

| iv) | uzņēmuma parādsaistību un pašu kapitāla bilances vērtību attiecība pārsniedz 7,5; |
| --- | --- |

iv)

uzņēmuma parādsaistību un pašu kapitāla bilances vērtību attiecība pārsniedz 7,5;

| v) | uzņēmuma peļņas pirms procentiem un nodokļiem (EBIT) un procentu seguma attiecība iepriekšējos divus gadus ir bijusi mazāka par 1,0; |
| --- | --- |

v)

uzņēmuma peļņas pirms procentiem un nodokļiem (EBIT) un procentu seguma attiecība iepriekšējos divus gadus ir bijusi mazāka par 1,0;

| vi) | vismaz viena kredītreitingu aģentūra, kas reģistrēta saskaņā ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 1060/2009 (13), uzņēmumam ir noteikusi reitingu, kas līdzvērtīgs CCC+ (“maksātspēja ir atkarīga no labvēlīgu apstākļu noturīguma”) vai zemāks par to. |
| --- | --- |

vi)

vismaz viena kredītreitingu aģentūra, kas reģistrēta saskaņā ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 1060/2009 (13), uzņēmumam ir noteikusi reitingu, kas līdzvērtīgs CCC+ (“maksātspēja ir atkarīga no labvēlīgu apstākļu noturīguma”) vai zemāks par to.

Pirmās daļas e) apakšpunkta piemērošanas nolūkā tādu MVU, kas ir pastāvējis mazāk nekā trīs gadus, neuzskata par grūtībās nonākušu uzņēmumu, izņemot, ja tas atbilst minētā apakšpunkta iii) punkta nosacījumam.

3. pants

De minimis atbalsts

1.   Atbalsta pasākumus, kas atbilst šā panta 2. līdz 8. punktā un 4. un 5. pantā paredzētajiem nosacījumiem, uzskata par tādiem, kuri neatbilst visiem Līguma 107. panta 1. punkta kritērijiem un tādējādi ir atbrīvoti no Līguma 108. panta 3. punktā noteiktās paziņošanas prasības.

2.   Kopējā de minimis atbalsta summa, ko viena dalībvalsts piešķīrusi vienam uzņēmumam, kā definēts 2. panta d) punktā, jebkurā triju fiskālo gadu periodā nevar pārsniegt EUR 200 000.

Kopējā de minimis atbalsta summa, ko viena dalībvalsts piešķīrusi vienam kravu komercpārvadājumu autotransporta uzņēmumam, kā definēts 2. panta d) punktā, jebkurā triju fiskālo gadu periodā nevar pārsniegt EUR 100 000. De minimis atbalstu nevar izmantot kravas transportlīdzekļu iegādei.

3.   Ja uzņēmums veic gan kravu komercpārvadājumus ar autotransportu, gan citas darbības, uz kurām attiecas EUR 200 000 robežlielums, uzņēmumam ir piemērojams EUR 200 000 robežlielums, ja vien dalībvalstis ar tādiem piemērotiem līdzekļiem kā darbības vai izmaksu nošķiršana nodrošina, ka kravu autopārvadājumiem piešķirtais atbalsts nepārsniedz EUR 100 000 un de minimis atbalsts nav izmantots kravas transportlīdzekļu iegādei.

4.   De minimis atbalstu uzskata par piešķirtu brīdī, kad uzņēmumam saskaņā ar piemērojamo valsts tiesisko regulējumu ir nodotas likumīgās tiesības saņemt atbalstu.

5.   Šā panta 2. punktā noteiktos robežlielumus piemēro neatkarīgi no de minimis atbalsta veida vai izvirzītā mērķa un neatkarīgi no tā, vai dalībvalsts piešķirto atbalstu pilnībā vai daļēji finansē no Savienības resursiem. Triju fiskālo gadu periodu nosaka, ņemot vērā fiskālo gadu sistēmu, kuru uzņēmums izmanto attiecīgajā dalībvalstī.

6.   Šā panta 2. punktā noteiktos robežlielumus izsaka kā naudas līdzekļu dotāciju. Izmanto bruto summas, tas ir, summas pirms nodokļiem vai citiem atskaitījumiem. Ja atbalstu piešķir citā veidā, nevis kā dotāciju, atbalsta summa ir atbalsta bruto dotācijas ekvivalents.

Atbalstu, kas izmaksājams vairākās daļās, diskontē atbilstoši tā vērtībai piešķiršanas brīdī. Procentu likme, ko izmanto diskontēšanai, ir atbalsta piešķiršanas laikā piemērojamā diskonta likme.

7.   Ja, piešķirot jaunu de minimis atbalstu, tiktu pārsniegts 2. punktā noteiktais de minimis robežlielums, šo regulu nevar piemērot nevienai minētā jaunā atbalsta daļai.

8.   Lai uzņēmumu apvienošanās vai iegādes gadījumā noteiktu, vai ar jaunu de minimis atbalstu jaunajam uzņēmumam vai uzņēmumam, kas veic iegādi, netiktu pārsniegts robežlielums, ņem vērā visu katram apvienošanā iesaistītajam uzņēmumam iepriekš piešķirto de minimis atbalstu, tomēr netiek apstrīdēts pirms apvienošanās vai iegādes likumīgi piešķirtais de minimis atbalsts.

Ja vienu uzņēmumu sadala divos vai vairākos atsevišķos uzņēmumos, pirms sadalīšanas piešķirto de minimis atbalstu attiecina uz uzņēmumu, kurš no šā atbalsta guva labumu un kurš principā ir uzņēmums, kas pārņem darbības, kurām tika izmantots attiecīgais de minimis atbalsts. Ja šāda attiecināšana nav iespējama, attiecīgo de minimis atbalstu attiecina proporcionāli, pamatojoties uz jauno uzņēmumu pašu kapitāla bilances vērtību.

4. pants

Bruto dotācijas ekvivalenta aprēķins

1.   Šo regulu piemēro vienīgi atbalstam, kuram ir iespējams iepriekš precīzi aprēķināt bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu, neveicot riska novērtējumu (“pārredzams atbalsts”). Par pārredzamu atbalstu uzskata jo īpaši 2. līdz 6. punktā minētos atbalsta pasākumus.

2.   Atbalstu aizdevumu veidā uzskata par pārredzamu de minimis atbalstu, ja:

| a) | aizdevuma nodrošinājums ir vismaz 50 % apmērā no aizdevuma un vai nu aizdevuma summa nepārsniedz EUR 1 000 000 (vai EUR 500 000 kravu autopārvadājumu uzņēmumiem) un ilgums – piecus gadus, vai arī summa nepārsniedz EUR 500 000 (vai EUR 250 000 kravu autopārvadājumu uzņēmumiem) un ilgums – desmit gadus. Ja aizdevuma summa ir mazāka par minētajām summām un/vai aizdevums ir piešķirts uz mazāk nekā attiecīgi pieciem vai desmit gadiem, aizdevuma bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu aprēķina kā attiecīgo proporciju no piemērojamā robežlieluma, kas noteikts 3. panta 2. punktā; vai |
| --- | --- |

a)

aizdevuma nodrošinājums ir vismaz 50 % apmērā no aizdevuma un vai nu aizdevuma summa nepārsniedz EUR 1 000 000 (vai EUR 500 000 kravu autopārvadājumu uzņēmumiem) un ilgums – piecus gadus, vai arī summa nepārsniedz EUR 500 000 (vai EUR 250 000 kravu autopārvadājumu uzņēmumiem) un ilgums – desmit gadus. Ja aizdevuma summa ir mazāka par minētajām summām un/vai aizdevums ir piešķirts uz mazāk nekā attiecīgi pieciem vai desmit gadiem, aizdevuma bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu aprēķina kā attiecīgo proporciju no piemērojamā robežlieluma, kas noteikts 3. panta 2. punktā; vai

| b) | bruto dotācijas ekvivalents ir aprēķināts, pamatojoties uz piešķiršanas laikā piemērojamo atsauces likmi. |
| --- | --- |

b)

bruto dotācijas ekvivalents ir aprēķināts, pamatojoties uz piešķiršanas laikā piemērojamo atsauces likmi.

3.   Atbalstu kapitāla ieguldījumu veidā uzskata par pārredzamu de minimis atbalstu vienīgi tad, ja publiskā ieguldījuma kopsumma nepārsniedz de minimis robežlielumu.

4.   Atbalstu riska finansēšanas pasākumu veidā, kas izpaužas kā pašu kapitāla vai kvazikapitāla ieguldījumi, attiecībā uz mērķuzņēmumu uzskata par pārredzamu de minimis atbalstu vienīgi tad, ja saskaņā ar attiecīgo pasākumu katram mērķuzņēmumam nodrošinātais kapitāls nepārsniedz de minimis robežlielumu.

5.   Atbalstu garantiju veidā uzskata par pārredzamu de minimis atbalstu, ja:

| a) | garantijas apmērs nepārsniedz 80 % no attiecīgā aizdevuma un vai nu garantētā summa nepārsniedz EUR 1 500 000 (vai EUR 750 000 kravu autopārvadājumu uzņēmumiem) un garantijas ilgums – piecus gadus, vai arī garantētā summa nepārsniedz EUR 750 000 (vai EUR 375 000 kravu autopārvadājumu uzņēmumiem) un garantijas ilgums – desmit gadus. Ja garantētā summa ir mazāka par minētajām summām un/vai garantijas ilgums ir mazāks nekā attiecīgi pieci vai desmit gadi, šīs garantijas bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu aprēķina kā attiecīgo proporciju no piemērojamā robežlieluma, kas noteikts 3. panta 2. punktā; vai |
| --- | --- |

a)

garantijas apmērs nepārsniedz 80 % no attiecīgā aizdevuma un vai nu garantētā summa nepārsniedz EUR 1 500 000 (vai EUR 750 000 kravu autopārvadājumu uzņēmumiem) un garantijas ilgums – piecus gadus, vai arī garantētā summa nepārsniedz EUR 750 000 (vai EUR 375 000 kravu autopārvadājumu uzņēmumiem) un garantijas ilgums – desmit gadus. Ja garantētā summa ir mazāka par minētajām summām un/vai garantijas ilgums ir mazāks nekā attiecīgi pieci vai desmit gadi, šīs garantijas bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu aprēķina kā attiecīgo proporciju no piemērojamā robežlieluma, kas noteikts 3. panta 2. punktā; vai

| b) | bruto dotācijas ekvivalents ir aprēķināts, pamatojoties uz drošības zonas prēmijām, kas noteiktas Komisijas paziņojumā (14); vai |
| --- | --- |

b)

bruto dotācijas ekvivalents ir aprēķināts, pamatojoties uz drošības zonas prēmijām, kas noteiktas Komisijas paziņojumā (14); vai

| c) | pirms atbalsta īstenošanas garantijas bruto dotācijas ekvivalenta aprēķināšanas metode ir apstiprināta pēc šīs metodes paziņošanas Komisijai saskaņā ar attiecīgajā valsts atbalsta jomā pieņemtu Komisijas regulu, kas ir spēkā attiecīgajā laikā, un apstiprinātā metode šīs regulas piemērošanas kontekstā attiecas tieši uz attiecīgo garantijas veidu un attiecīgo pamatā esošā darījuma veidu. |
| --- | --- |

c)

pirms atbalsta īstenošanas garantijas bruto dotācijas ekvivalenta aprēķināšanas metode ir apstiprināta pēc šīs metodes paziņošanas Komisijai saskaņā ar attiecīgajā valsts atbalsta jomā pieņemtu Komisijas regulu, kas ir spēkā attiecīgajā laikā, un apstiprinātā metode šīs regulas piemērošanas kontekstā attiecas tieši uz attiecīgo garantijas veidu un attiecīgo pamatā esošā darījuma veidu.

6.   Atbalstu citu instrumentu veidā uzskata par pārredzamu de minimis atbalstu, ja instrumentā ir paredzēta maksimālā robeža, kas nodrošina, ka netiek pārsniegts piemērojamais robežlielums.

5. pants

Atbalsta kumulācija

1.   De minimis atbalstu, ko piešķir saskaņā ar šo regulu, var kumulēt ar de minimis atbalstu, ko piešķir saskaņā ar Komisijas Regulu (ES) Nr. 360/2012 (15), ievērojot minētajā regulā noteiktos robežlielumus. To var kumulēt ar de minimis atbalstu, ko piešķir saskaņā ar citām de minimis regulām, ievērojot 3. panta 2. punktā noteikto robežlielumu.

2.   De minimis atbalstu nedrīkst kumulēt ar valsts atbalstu attiecībā uz vienām un tām pašām attiecināmajām izmaksām vai valsts atbalstu tam pašam riska finansēšanas pasākumam, ja šīs kumulācijas rezultātā tiktu pārsniegta maksimālā atbalsta intensitāte vai summa, kāda konkrētā gadījuma īpašajiem apstākļiem noteikta Komisijas grupu atbrīvojuma regulā vai lēmumā.

6. pants

Uzraudzība un ziņojumu sniegšana

1.   Dalībvalstis līdz 2015. gada 31. decembrim izveido centrālu de minimis atbalsta reģistru. Centrālajā reģistrā attiecībā uz katru de minimis atbalsta pasākumu, ko saskaņā ar šo regulu apstiprinājusi jebkura attiecīgās dalībvalsts iestāde, ietver informāciju par katru atbalsta saņēmēju (tostarp norādot, vai tas ir mazs, vidējs vai liels uzņēmums, un tā galvenās saimnieciskās darbības nozari (NACE kods nodaļu līmenī (16))), atbalsta piešķiršanas datumu un bruto dotācijas ekvivalentu. Reģistrā iekļauj visus de minimis pasākumus, kuri saskaņā ar šo regulu apstiprināti no 2016. gada 1. janvāra.

2.   Līdz laikam, kad dalībvalsts izveido centrālu reģistru un tajā ir dati par triju gadu periodu, piemēro 3. punktu.

3.   Ja dalībvalsts kādam uzņēmumam plāno piešķirt de minimis atbalstu saskaņā ar šo regulu, tā rakstiski informē šo uzņēmumu par atbalsta iespējamo summu, kas izteikta kā bruto dotācijas ekvivalents, un par atbalsta de minimis raksturu, skaidri atsaucoties uz šo regulu un norādot tās nosaukumu un atsauci uz publikāciju Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī. Ja de minimis atbalstu saskaņā ar šo regulu, pamatojoties uz kādu shēmu, piešķir dažādiem uzņēmumiem un ja šiem uzņēmumiem saskaņā ar minēto shēmu tiek piešķirtas dažādas individuālā atbalsta summas, attiecīgā dalībvalsts var izvēlēties šīs saistības pildīt, informējot attiecīgos uzņēmumus par fiksētu summu, kas atbilst maksimālajai atbalsta summai, kuru var piešķirt atbilstoši minētajai shēmai. Šādā gadījumā, nosakot, vai nav pārsniegts 3. panta 2. punktā noteiktais robežlielums, izmanto fiksēto summu. Pirms atbalsta piešķiršanas dalībvalsts no attiecīgā uzņēmuma pieprasa rakstisku vai elektronisku deklarāciju par visu citu de minimis atbalstu, kuru iepriekšējo divu fiskālo gadu un kārtējā fiskālā gada laikā uzņēmums ir saņēmis saskaņā ar šo regulu vai citām de minimis regulām.

4.   Dalībvalsts jaunu de minimis atbalstu saskaņā ar šo regulu piešķir tikai pēc tam, kad ir pārbaudījusi, ka šis atbalsts nepalielina attiecīgajam uzņēmumam piešķirtā de minimis atbalsta kopsummu virs 3. panta 2. punktā noteiktajiem robežlielumiem un ir ievēroti visi 1. līdz 5. panta noteikumi.

5.   Dalībvalstis reģistrē un apkopo visu informāciju par šīs regulas piemērošanu. Šajā informācijā ietver visus datus, kas vajadzīgi, lai pierādītu, ka šīs regulas nosacījumi ir ievēroti. Datus par individuālo de minimis atbalstu glabā 10 fiskālos gadus, sākot no šā atbalsta piešķiršanas dienas. Datus par de minimis atbalsta shēmu glabā 10 gadus, sākot no dienas, kurā saskaņā ar šo shēmu piešķirts pēdējais individuālais atbalsts. Pēc rakstiska pieprasījuma attiecīgā dalībvalsts 20 darbdienu laikā vai tādā ilgākā laikposmā, kāds noteikts pieprasījumā, sniedz Komisijai visu informāciju, ko Komisija uzskata par vajadzīgu, lai novērtētu, vai šīs regulas nosacījumi ir izpildīti, un jo īpaši informāciju par de minimis atbalsta kopsummu, ko uzņēmums saņēmis saskaņā ar šo regulu un saskaņā ar citām de minimis regulām.

6.   Dalībvalstis katru gadu iesniedz Komisijai ziņojumu par šīs regulas piemērošanu. Ziņojumā norāda:

| a) | attiecīgajā dalībvalstī saskaņā ar šo regulu piešķirtā de minimis atbalsta kopsummu iepriekšējā kalendārajā gadā sadalījumā pa atbalsta saņēmēju saimnieciskās darbības nozarēm un lielumu (mazi, vidēji vai lieli uzņēmumi); |
| --- | --- |

a)

attiecīgajā dalībvalstī saskaņā ar šo regulu piešķirtā de minimis atbalsta kopsummu iepriekšējā kalendārajā gadā sadalījumā pa atbalsta saņēmēju saimnieciskās darbības nozarēm un lielumu (mazi, vidēji vai lieli uzņēmumi);

| b) | attiecīgajā dalībvalstī saskaņā ar šo regulu piešķirtā de minimis atbalsta saņēmēju kopskaitu iepriekšējā kalendārajā gadā sadalījumā pa atbalsta saņēmēju saimnieciskās darbības nozarēm un lielumu (mazi, vidēji vai lieli uzņēmumi); |
| --- | --- |

b)

attiecīgajā dalībvalstī saskaņā ar šo regulu piešķirtā de minimis atbalsta saņēmēju kopskaitu iepriekšējā kalendārajā gadā sadalījumā pa atbalsta saņēmēju saimnieciskās darbības nozarēm un lielumu (mazi, vidēji vai lieli uzņēmumi);

| c) | citu informāciju par šīs regulas piemērošanu, kuru Komisija prasījusi un precizējusi laikus pirms ziņojuma iesniegšanas. |
| --- | --- |

c)

citu informāciju par šīs regulas piemērošanu, kuru Komisija prasījusi un precizējusi laikus pirms ziņojuma iesniegšanas.

Pirmo ziņojumu iesniedz līdz 2017. gada 30. jūnijam, ietverot datus par 2016. kalendāro gadu. Ja dalībvalsts visus ziņojumos prasītos datus publisko, šai dalībvalstij nav pienākuma iesniegt Komisijai ziņojumu. Komisija katru gadu publicē gada ziņojumos ietvertās informācijas apkopojumu, tostarp par katru dalībvalsti norādot saskaņā ar šo regulu piešķirtā de minimis atbalsta kopsummu.

7. pants

Pārejas noteikumi

1.   Uzskata, ka jebkurš individuālais de minimis atbalsts, kas piešķirts laikā no 2001. gada 2. februāra līdz 2007. gada 30. jūnijam un atbilst Regulas (EK) Nr. 69/2001 nosacījumiem, neatbilst visiem Līguma 107. panta 1. punkta kritērijiem un tādējādi ir atbrīvots no Līguma 108. panta 3. punktā noteiktās paziņošanas prasības.

2.   Uzskata, ka jebkurš individuālais de minimis atbalsts, kas piešķirts laikā no 2007. gada 1. janvāra līdz 2014. gada 30. jūnijam un atbilst Regulas (EK) Nr. 1998/2006 nosacījumiem, neatbilst visiem Līguma 107. panta 1. punkta kritērijiem un tādējādi ir atbrīvots no Līguma 108. panta 3. punktā noteiktās paziņošanas prasības.

3.   Pēc šīs regulas spēkā esības perioda beigām jebkuru de minimis atbalstu, kas atbilst šīs regulas nosacījumiem, var likumīgi īstenot vēl sešus turpmākos mēnešus.

8. pants

Stāšanās spēkā un spēkā esība

Šī regula stājas spēkā 2014. gada 1. janvārī, un to piemēro no 2014. gada 1. janvāra līdz 2020. gada 31. decembrim.

Šī regula uzliek saistības kopumā un ir tieši piemērojama visās dalībvalstīs.

Briselē, 2013. gada 17. jūlijā

Komisijas vārdā –

priekšsēdētājs

[...] [...]

---

(1)  OV L 142, 14.5.1998., 1. lpp.

1

(2)  OV C 229, 8.8.2013., 1. lpp.

2

(3)  OV C 68, 6.3.1996., 9. lpp.

3

(4)  Komisijas 2001. gada 12. janvāra Regula (EK) Nr. 69/2001 par EK Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu de minimis atbalstam (OV L 10, 13.1.2001., 30. lpp.).

4

de minimis

(5)  Komisijas 2006. gada 15. decembra Regula (EK) Nr. 1998/2006 par Līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu de minimis atbalstam (OV L 379, 28.12.2006., 5. lpp.).

5

de minimis

(6)  Spriedums lietā C-222/04 Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze / Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA un citi, 2006, Krājums, I-289. lpp.

6

Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze / Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA

(7)  Spriedums lietā C-382/99 Nīderlande/Komisija, 2002, Recueil, I-5163. lpp.

7

Recueil

(8)  Komisijas 2008. gada 6. augusta Regula (EK) Nr. 800/2008, kas atzīst noteiktas atbalsta kategorijas par saderīgām ar kopējo tirgu, piemērojot Līguma 87. un 88. pantu (OV L 214, 9.8.2008., 3. lpp.).

8

(9)  Spriedums lietā C-456/00 Francija/Komisija, 2002, Recueil, I-11949. lpp.

9

Recueil

(10)  OV C 14, 19.1.2008., 6. lpp.

10

(11)  OV C 155, 20.6.2008., 10. lpp.

11

(12)  Padomes 1999. gada 17. decembra Regula (EK) Nr. 104/2000 par zivsaimniecības un akvakultūras produktu tirgu kopīgo organizāciju (OV L 17, 21.1.2000., 22. lpp.).

12

(13)  Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2009. gada 16. septembra Regula (EK) Nr. 1060/2009 par kredītreitingu aģentūrām (OV L 302, 17.11.2009., 1. lpp.).

13

(14)  Pašlaik: Komisijas paziņojums par EK līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu valsts atbalstam garantiju veidā (OV C 155, 20.6.2008., 10. lpp.).

14

(15)  Komisijas 2012. gada 25. aprīļa Regula (ES) Nr. 360/2012 par Līguma par Eiropas Savienības darbību 107. un 108. panta piemērošanu de minimis atbalstam, ko piešķir uzņēmumiem, kuri sniedz pakalpojumus ar vispārēju tautsaimniecisku nozīmi (OV L 114, 26.4.2012., 8. lpp.).

15

de minimis

(16)  Saskaņā ar 2. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunktu un I pielikumu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2006. gada 20. decembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1893/2006, ar ko izveido NACE 2. red. saimniecisko darbību statistisko klasifikāciju, kā arī groza Padomes Regulu (EEK) Nr. 3037/90 un dažas EK regulas par īpašām statistikas jomām, dokuments attiecas uz EEZ (OV L 393, 30.12.2006., 1. lpp.).

16

NACE

---

IV Paziņojumi

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas Komisija

| 8.8.2013 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229/10

---

Euro maiņas kurss (1)

2013. gada 7. augusts

2013/C 229/03

1 euro =

| | Valūta | Maiņas kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | ASV dolārs | 1,3305 |
| JPY | Japānas jena | 129,21 |
| DKK | Dānijas krona | 7,4571 |
| GBP | Lielbritānijas mārciņa | 0,85955 |
| SEK | Zviedrijas krona | 8,7261 |
| CHF | Šveices franks | 1,2321 |
| ISK | Islandes krona | |
| NOK | Norvēģijas krona | 7,8995 |
| BGN | Bulgārijas leva | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Čehijas krona | 25,978 |
| HUF | Ungārijas forints | 299,52 |
| LTL | Lietuvas lits | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvijas lats | 0,7025 |
| PLN | Polijas zlots | 4,2170 |
| RON | Rumānijas leja | 4,4330 |
| TRY | Turcijas lira | 2,5713 |
| AUD | Austrālijas dolārs | 1,4878 |
| CAD | Kanādas dolārs | 1,3868 |
| HKD | Hongkongas dolārs | 10,3197 |
| NZD | Jaunzēlandes dolārs | 1,6826 |
| SGD | Singapūras dolārs | 1,6868 |
| KRW | Dienvidkorejas vona | 1 486,17 |
| ZAR | Dienvidāfrikas rands | 13,2109 |
| CNY | Ķīnas juaņa renminbi | 8,1416 |
| HRK | Horvātijas kuna | 7,4975 |
| IDR | Indonēzijas rūpija | 13 683,68 |
| MYR | Malaizijas ringits | 4,3301 |
| PHP | Filipīnu peso | 58,258 |
| RUB | Krievijas rublis | 43,9480 |
| THB | Taizemes bāts | 41,831 |
| BRL | Brazīlijas reāls | 3,0641 |
| MXN | Meksikas peso | 16,8685 |
| INR | Indijas rūpija | 81,4960 |

Valūta

Maiņas kurss

USD

ASV dolārs

1,3305

JPY

Japānas jena

129,21

DKK

Dānijas krona

7,4571

GBP

Lielbritānijas mārciņa

0,85955

SEK

Zviedrijas krona

8,7261

CHF

Šveices franks

1,2321

ISK

Islandes krona

NOK

Norvēģijas krona

7,8995

BGN

Bulgārijas leva

1,9558

CZK

Čehijas krona

25,978

HUF

Ungārijas forints

299,52

LTL

Lietuvas lits

3,4528

LVL

Latvijas lats

0,7025

PLN

Polijas zlots

4,2170

RON

Rumānijas leja

4,4330

TRY

Turcijas lira

2,5713

AUD

Austrālijas dolārs

1,4878

CAD

Kanādas dolārs

1,3868

HKD

Hongkongas dolārs

10,3197

NZD

Jaunzēlandes dolārs

1,6826

SGD

Singapūras dolārs

1,6868

KRW

Dienvidkorejas vona

1 486,17

ZAR

Dienvidāfrikas rands

13,2109

CNY

Ķīnas juaņa renminbi

8,1416

HRK

Horvātijas kuna

7,4975

IDR

Indonēzijas rūpija

13 683,68

MYR

Malaizijas ringits

4,3301

PHP

Filipīnu peso

58,258

RUB

Krievijas rublis

43,9480

THB

Taizemes bāts

41,831

BRL

Brazīlijas reāls

3,0641

MXN

Meksikas peso

16,8685

INR

Indijas rūpija

81,4960

---

(1)  Datu avots: atsauces maiņas kursu publicējusi ECB.

---

DALĪBVALSTU SNIEGTA INFORMĀCIJA

| 8.8.2013 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229/11

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

2013/C 229/04

Saskaņā ar 35. panta 3. punktu Padomes 2009. gada 20. novembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1224/2009, ar ko izveido Kopienas kontroles sistēmu, lai nodrošinātu atbilstību kopējās zivsaimniecības politikas noteikumiem (1), ir pieņemts lēmums aizliegt zveju, kā noteikts turpmāk tabulā.

| Aizlieguma datums un laiks | 4.7.2013. |
| --- | --- |
| Ilgums | 4.7.2013.–31.12.2013. |
| Dalībvalsts | Portugāle |
| Krājums vai krājumu grupa | BFT/AE45WM |
| Suga | Zilā tunzivs (Thunnus thynnus) |
| Zona | Atlantijas okeāns uz austrumiem no 45° rietumu garuma un Vidusjūra |
| Zvejas kuģu tips(-i) | — |
| Atsauces numurs | 16/TQ40 |

Aizlieguma datums un laiks

4.7.2013.

Ilgums

4.7.2013.–31.12.2013.

Dalībvalsts

Portugāle

Krājums vai krājumu grupa

BFT/AE45WM

Suga

Zilā tunzivs (Thunnus thynnus)

Zona

Atlantijas okeāns uz austrumiem no 45° rietumu garuma un Vidusjūra

Zvejas kuģu tips(-i)

—

Atsauces numurs

16/TQ40

---

(1)  OV L 343, 22.12.2009., 1. lpp.

---

| 8.8.2013 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229/11

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

2013/C 229/05

Saskaņā ar 35. panta 3. punktu Padomes 2009. gada 20. novembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1224/2009, ar ko izveido Kopienas kontroles sistēmu, lai nodrošinātu atbilstību kopējās zivsaimniecības politikas noteikumiem (1), ir pieņemts lēmums aizliegt zveju, kā noteikts turpmāk tabulā.

| Aizlieguma datums un laiks | 4.7.2013. |
| --- | --- |
| Ilgums | 4.7.2013.–31.12.2013. |
| Dalībvalsts | Apvienotā Karaliste |
| Krājums vai krājumu grupa | SAN/2A3A4. un pārvaldības apgabali
  SAN/123_1, _2, _3, _4, _6 |
| Suga | Tūbītes un saistītās piezvejas sugas (Ammodytes spp.) |
| Zona | ES ūdeņi IIa, IIIa un IV zonā un ES ūdeņi 1., 2., 3., 4. un 6. tūbīšu pārvaldības apgabalā (izņemot ūdeņus līdz sešu jūras jūdžu attālumam no Apvienotās Karalistes bāzes līnijām pie Šetlandes, Fēras salas un Fūlas) |
| Zvejas kuģu tips(-i) | — |
| Atsauces numurs | 17/TQ40 |

Aizlieguma datums un laiks

4.7.2013.

Ilgums

4.7.2013.–31.12.2013.

Dalībvalsts

Apvienotā Karaliste

Krājums vai krājumu grupa

SAN/2A3A4. un pārvaldības apgabali

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

Suga

Tūbītes un saistītās piezvejas sugas (Ammodytes spp.)

Zona

ES ūdeņi IIa, IIIa un IV zonā un ES ūdeņi 1., 2., 3., 4. un 6. tūbīšu pārvaldības apgabalā (izņemot ūdeņus līdz sešu jūras jūdžu attālumam no Apvienotās Karalistes bāzes līnijām pie Šetlandes, Fēras salas un Fūlas)

Zvejas kuģu tips(-i)

—

Atsauces numurs

17/TQ40

---

(1)  OV L 343, 22.12.2009., 1. lpp.

---

INFORMĀCIJA ATTIECĪBĀ UZ EIROPAS EKONOMIKAS ZONU

EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde

| 8.8.2013 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229/12

---

EBTA valstu paziņotā informācija par valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts saskaņā ar EEZ līguma XV pielikuma 1.j punktā minēto tiesību aktu (Komisijas Regula (EK) Nr. 800/2008, kas atzīst noteiktas atbalsta kategorijas par saderīgām ar kopējo tirgu, piemērojot Līguma 87. un 88. pantu (vispārējā grupu atbrīvojuma regula))

2013/C 229/06

I   DAĻA

| Atbalsta Nr. | GBER 8/13/REG |
| --- | --- |
| EBTA valsts | Norvēģija |
| Reģiona nosaukums | Visi Rumānijas reģioni | Reģionālā atbalsta statuss |
| Piešķīrēja iestāde | Nosaukums | Innovation Norway |
| Adrese | PO Box 448 Sentrum |
| 0104 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Atbalsta Nr.

GBER 8/13/REG

EBTA valsts

Norvēģija

Reģiona nosaukums

Visi Rumānijas reģioni

Reģionālā atbalsta statuss

Piešķīrēja iestāde

Nosaukums

Innovation Norway

Adrese

PO Box 448 Sentrum

0104 Oslo

NORWAY

Tīmekļa vietne

http://www.innovationnorway.no

Atbalsta pasākuma nosaukums

Norvēģijas finanšu mehānisms 2009.–2014. gadam (Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009-2014.)

RUMĀNIJAS “zaļās” rūpniecības inovāciju programma (Green Industry Innovation Programme ROMANIA)

Valsts līmeņa juridiskais pamats (atsauce uz attiecīgo valsts oficiālo publikāciju)

Priekšlikums 1 S (2012–2013) “Ārlietu ministrija”, 85.–95. lpp.

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

Tīmekļa saite uz atbalsta pasākuma pilnu tekstu

http://www.norwaygrants-greeninnovation.no

Pasākuma veids

Shēma

Jā

Ad hoc atbalsts

n. p.

Ilgums

Shēma

No 12.3.2013. līdz 30.4.2016.

Attiecīgā(-ās) tautsaimniecības nozare(-es)

Visas tautsaimniecības nozares, kas ir tiesīgas saņemt atbalstu

Visas tautsaimniecības nozares

Saņēmēja veids

MVU

Jā

Lielie uzņēmumi

Jā

Mikrouzņēmumi

Jā

NVO

Jā

Budžets

Kopējais saskaņā ar shēmu ieplānotais gada budžets

Kopējā summa (2013–2016) EUR 21 768 200;

Atbalsta instruments (5. pants)

Dotācija

Jā

II   DAĻA

| Vispārēji mērķi (saraksts) | Mērķi (saraksts) | Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte % vai atbalsta maksimālā summa NOK | MVU atvieglojumi % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reģionālais atbalsts ieguldījumiem un nodarbinātībai
  (13. pants) | Shēma | Atbalsta intensitāte pēc pastāvošā bruto dotācijas ekvivalenta nedrīkst pārsniegt reģionālā atbalsta robežvērtību, kas ir spēkā atbalsta piešķiršanas laikā attiecīgajam atbalstāmajam reģionam Rumānijā | 20 % maziem uzņēmumiem
  10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem |
| MVU ieguldījumu atbalsts un atbalsts nodarbinātībai
  (15. pants) | | 20 % maziem uzņēmumiem
  10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem | |
| Atbalsts vides aizsardzībai
  (17.–25. pants) | Ieguldījumu atbalsts vides aizsardzībai, kas uzņēmumiem dod iespēju noteikt vides aizsardzībai augstākas prasības par Kopienas standartiem vai kas paaugstina vides aizsardzības līmeni, ja Kopienas standartu nav
  (18. pants)
  Lūdzam dot konkrētu norādi uz attiecīgo standartu | 35 % | 20 % maziem uzņēmumiem
  10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem |
| | Atbalsts tādu jaunu transportlīdzekļu iegādei, kas atbilst augstākiem standartiem nekā Kopienas standarti vai paaugstina vides aizsardzības līmeni, ja nav noteikti Kopienas standarti
  (19. pants) | 35 % | 20 % maziem uzņēmumiem
  10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem |
| | Atbalsts MVU, lai uzsāktu savlaicīgu pielāgošanos turpmākajiem Kopienas standartiem
  (20. pants) | 15 % mazajiem uzņēmumiem un 10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem, ja īstenošana un pabeigšana notiek ilgāk nekā trīs gadus pirms standartu stāšanās spēkā (10 % mazajiem uzņēmumiem, ja mazāk nekā trīs gadi) | |
| | Ieguldījumu atbalsts vides aizsardzībā energotaupības pasākumiem
  (21. pants) | 60 % | 20 % maziem uzņēmumiem
  10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem |
| | Vides aizsardzības atbalsts ieguldījumiem augstas efektivitātes koģenerācijā
  (22. pants) | 45 % | 20 % maziem uzņēmumiem
  10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem |
| | Ieguldījumu atbalsts vides aizsardzībai, lai veicinātu atjaunojamu enerģijas avotu izmantošanu
  (23. pants) | 45 % | 20 % maziem uzņēmumiem
  10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem |
| | Atbalsts pētījumiem vides jomā
  (24. pants) | 50 % | 20 % maziem uzņēmumiem
  10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem |
| Atbalsts konsultācijām MVU un to dalībai tirdzniecības izstādēs
  (26.–27. pants) | Atbalsts konsultācijām MVU
  (26. pants) | 50 % | |
| | Atbalsts MVU dalībai tirdzniecības izstādēs
  (27. pants) | 50 % | |
| Atbalsts pētniecībai, izstrādei un inovācijai
  (30.–37. pants) | Atbalsts pētniecības un attīstības projektiem
  (31. pants) | Fundamentāli pētījumi
  (31. panta 2. punkta a) apakšpunkts) | 100 % | |
| | | Rūpnieciskie pētījumi
  (31. panta 2. punkta b) apakšpunkts) | 50 % | 10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem
  20 % maziem uzņēmumiem
  Ir iespēja saņemt papildu piemaksas 15 % līdz 80 % apmērā no atbalsta intensitātes, ja tiek izpildīti 31. panta 4. punkta b) apakšpunkta nosacījumi |
| | | Eksperimentālā izstrādne
  (31. panta 2. punkta c) apakšpunkts) | 25 % | 10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem
  20 % maziem uzņēmumiem
  Ir iespēja saņemt papildu piemaksas 15 % līdz 80 % apmērā no atbalsta intensitātes, ja tiek izpildīti 31. panta 4. punkta b) apakšpunkta nosacījumi |
| | Atbalsts tehniskai priekšizpētei
  (32. pants) | 75 % (rūpnieciskie pētījumi) un 50 % (eksperimentālā izstrāde) MVU
  65 % (rūpnieciskie pētījumi) un 40 % (eksperimentālā izstrāde) lieliem uzņēmumiem | |
| | Atbalsts MVU rūpnieciskā īpašuma tiesību izmaksām
  (33. pants) | Atbalsta intensitāte nedrīkst pārsniegt pētījumu un attīstības projektu atbalsta intensitāti
  (31. panta 3.–4. apakšpunkts) | |
| | Atbalsts jauniem inovatīviem uzņēmumiem
  (35. pants) | EUR 1 milj. | |
| | Atbalsts inovācijas konsultāciju pakalpojumiem un inovācijas atbalsta pakalpojumiem
  (36. pants) | EUR 200 000 vienam saņēmējam jebkurā trīs gadu laikposmā | |
| | Atbalsts augsti kvalificēta personāla nodarbināšanai uz laiku
  (37. pants) | | |
| Atbalsts mācībām
  (38.–39. pants) | Speciālās mācības
  (38. panta 1. punkts) | 25 % | 10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem
  20 % maziem uzņēmumiem |
| | Vispārējās mācības
  (38. panta 2. punkts) | 60 % | 10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem
  20 % maziem uzņēmumiem |

Vispārēji mērķi (saraksts)

Mērķi (saraksts)

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte % vai atbalsta maksimālā summa NOK

MVU atvieglojumi %

Reģionālais atbalsts ieguldījumiem un nodarbinātībai

(13. pants)

Shēma

Atbalsta intensitāte pēc pastāvošā bruto dotācijas ekvivalenta nedrīkst pārsniegt reģionālā atbalsta robežvērtību, kas ir spēkā atbalsta piešķiršanas laikā attiecīgajam atbalstāmajam reģionam Rumānijā

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

MVU ieguldījumu atbalsts un atbalsts nodarbinātībai

(15. pants)

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

Atbalsts vides aizsardzībai

(17.–25. pants)

Ieguldījumu atbalsts vides aizsardzībai, kas uzņēmumiem dod iespēju noteikt vides aizsardzībai augstākas prasības par Kopienas standartiem vai kas paaugstina vides aizsardzības līmeni, ja Kopienas standartu nav

(18. pants)

Lūdzam dot konkrētu norādi uz attiecīgo standartu

35 %

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

Atbalsts tādu jaunu transportlīdzekļu iegādei, kas atbilst augstākiem standartiem nekā Kopienas standarti vai paaugstina vides aizsardzības līmeni, ja nav noteikti Kopienas standarti

(19. pants)

35 %

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

Atbalsts MVU, lai uzsāktu savlaicīgu pielāgošanos turpmākajiem Kopienas standartiem

(20. pants)

15 % mazajiem uzņēmumiem un 10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem, ja īstenošana un pabeigšana notiek ilgāk nekā trīs gadus pirms standartu stāšanās spēkā (10 % mazajiem uzņēmumiem, ja mazāk nekā trīs gadi)

Ieguldījumu atbalsts vides aizsardzībā energotaupības pasākumiem

(21. pants)

60 %

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

Vides aizsardzības atbalsts ieguldījumiem augstas efektivitātes koģenerācijā

(22. pants)

45 %

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

Ieguldījumu atbalsts vides aizsardzībai, lai veicinātu atjaunojamu enerģijas avotu izmantošanu

(23. pants)

45 %

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

Atbalsts pētījumiem vides jomā

(24. pants)

50 %

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

Atbalsts konsultācijām MVU un to dalībai tirdzniecības izstādēs

(26.–27. pants)

Atbalsts konsultācijām MVU

(26. pants)

50 %

Atbalsts MVU dalībai tirdzniecības izstādēs

(27. pants)

50 %

Atbalsts pētniecībai, izstrādei un inovācijai

(30.–37. pants)

Atbalsts pētniecības un attīstības projektiem

(31. pants)

Fundamentāli pētījumi

(31. panta 2. punkta a) apakšpunkts)

100 %

Rūpnieciskie pētījumi

(31. panta 2. punkta b) apakšpunkts)

50 %

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

Ir iespēja saņemt papildu piemaksas 15 % līdz 80 % apmērā no atbalsta intensitātes, ja tiek izpildīti 31. panta 4. punkta b) apakšpunkta nosacījumi

Eksperimentālā izstrādne

(31. panta 2. punkta c) apakšpunkts)

25 %

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

Ir iespēja saņemt papildu piemaksas 15 % līdz 80 % apmērā no atbalsta intensitātes, ja tiek izpildīti 31. panta 4. punkta b) apakšpunkta nosacījumi

Atbalsts tehniskai priekšizpētei

(32. pants)

75 % (rūpnieciskie pētījumi) un 50 % (eksperimentālā izstrāde) MVU

65 % (rūpnieciskie pētījumi) un 40 % (eksperimentālā izstrāde) lieliem uzņēmumiem

Atbalsts MVU rūpnieciskā īpašuma tiesību izmaksām

(33. pants)

Atbalsta intensitāte nedrīkst pārsniegt pētījumu un attīstības projektu atbalsta intensitāti

(31. panta 3.–4. apakšpunkts)

Atbalsts jauniem inovatīviem uzņēmumiem

(35. pants)

EUR 1 milj.

Atbalsts inovācijas konsultāciju pakalpojumiem un inovācijas atbalsta pakalpojumiem

(36. pants)

EUR 200 000 vienam saņēmējam jebkurā trīs gadu laikposmā

Atbalsts augsti kvalificēta personāla nodarbināšanai uz laiku

(37. pants)

Atbalsts mācībām

(38.–39. pants)

Speciālās mācības

(38. panta 1. punkts)

25 %

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

Vispārējās mācības

(38. panta 2. punkts)

60 %

10 % vidējiem uzņēmumiem

20 % maziem uzņēmumiem

---

| 8.8.2013 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229/16

---

Pasākums nav valsts atbalsts EEZ līguma 61. panta 1. punkta nozīmē

2013/C 229/07

EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde uzskata, ka turpmāk norādītais pasākums nav valsts atbalsts EEZ līguma 61. panta 1. punkta nozīmē.

| Lēmuma pieņemšanas datums | : | 2013. gada 10. aprīlis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Lieta Nr. | : | 69933 |
| Lēmuma Nr. | : | 144/13/COL |
| EBTA valsts | : | Norvēģija |
| Nosaukums (un/vai atbalsta saņēmēja nosaukums) | : | Bergen Kirkelige Fellesråd |
| Pasākuma veids | : | nav atbalsta |
| Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese | : | Bergen Kirkelige Fellesråd |
| Bjørns gate 1 |
| 5008 Bergen |
| NORWAY |

Lēmuma pieņemšanas datums

:

2013. gada 10. aprīlis

Lieta Nr.

:

69933

Lēmuma Nr.

:

144/13/COL

EBTA valsts

:

Norvēģija

Nosaukums (un/vai atbalsta saņēmēja nosaukums)

:

Bergen Kirkelige Fellesråd

Pasākuma veids

:

nav atbalsta

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese

:

Bergen Kirkelige Fellesråd

Bjørns gate 1

5008 Bergen

NORWAY

Lēmuma autentiskais teksts bez konfidenciālas informācijas ir pieejams EBTA Uzraudzības iestādes tīmekļa vietnē:

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

---

| 8.8.2013 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229/17

---

Pasākums nav valsts atbalsts EEZ līguma 61. panta 1. punkta nozīmē

2013/C 229/08

EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde uzskata, ka turpmāk norādītais pasākums nav valsts atbalsts EEZ līguma 61. panta 1. punkta nozīmē.

| Lēmuma pieņemšanas datums | : | 2013. gada 10. aprīlis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Lieta Nr. | : | 70521 |
| Lēmuma Nr. | : | 145/13/COL |
| EBTA valsts | : | Islande |
| Nosaukums (un/vai atbalsta saņēmēja nosaukums) | : | iespējams valsts atbalsts Landsbankinn, atsakoties no paredzamās peļņas saistībā ar valsts līdzekļu izmantošanu (Alleged State aid to Landsbankinn through the forgoing of an expected return on public funds) |
| Juridiskais pamats | : | EEZ līguma 61. panta 1. punkts |
| Pasākuma veids | : | nav atbalsta |
| Tautsaimniecības nozares | : | finanšu pakalpojumi |

Lēmuma pieņemšanas datums

:

2013. gada 10. aprīlis

Lieta Nr.

:

70521

Lēmuma Nr.

:

145/13/COL

EBTA valsts

:

Islande

Nosaukums (un/vai atbalsta saņēmēja nosaukums)

:

iespējams valsts atbalsts Landsbankinn, atsakoties no paredzamās peļņas saistībā ar valsts līdzekļu izmantošanu (Alleged State aid to Landsbankinn through the forgoing of an expected return on public funds)

Juridiskais pamats

:

EEZ līguma 61. panta 1. punkts

Pasākuma veids

:

nav atbalsta

Tautsaimniecības nozares

:

finanšu pakalpojumi

Lēmuma autentiskais teksts bez konfidenciālas informācijas ir pieejams EBTA Uzraudzības iestādes tīmekļa vietnē:

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

---

| 8.8.2013 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229/18

---

Uzaicinājums iesniegt piezīmes par valsts atbalstu saistībā ar Harpa koncertzāles un konferenču centra finansēšanu saskaņā ar Nolīguma starp EBTA valstīm par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu

2013/C 229/09

Ar 2013. gada 20. marta Lēmumu Nr. 128/13/COL, kas autentiskajā valodā ir pievienots šim kopsavilkumam, EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde uzsāka procedūru saskaņā ar Nolīguma starp EBTA valstīm par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu. Islandes iestādes tika informētas, nosūtot tām lēmuma kopiju.

Ar šo EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde aicina EBTA valstis, ES dalībvalstis un ieinteresētās personas viena mēneša laikā no šā paziņojuma publicēšanas dienas iesniegt savus apsvērumus par minēto pasākumu, nosūtot tos uz adresi:

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

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Registry

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35

1040 Bruxelles/Brussels

BELGIË/BELGIQUE

Apsvērumi tiks paziņoti Islandes iestādēm. Ieinteresētās personas, kura iesniedz apsvērumus, identitāti var neizpaust, ja tiek iesniegts rakstisks lūgums, kurā izklāstīti šā lūguma iemesli.

KOPSAVILKUMS

Procedūra

2011. gada septembrī EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde saņēma sūdzību par iespējamu subsīdiju piešķiršanu no Islandes valsts un Reikjavīkas pilsētas Harpa koncertzāles un konferenču centra konferenču pakalpojumiem un restorāna / ēdienu piegādes pakalpojumiem. EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde nosūtīja Islandes iestādēm divus pieprasījumus sniegt informāciju, uz kuriem Islandes iestādes ir atbildējušas.

Pasākuma apraksts

2004. gadā Islandes valsts un Reikjavīkas pilsēta izsludināja publiskās un privātās partnerības izsoli saistībā ar 28 000 kvadrātmetru lielas koncertzāles un konferenču centra būvniecību, projektēšanu un ekspluatāciju. 2007. gada 12. janvārī, pēc visizdevīgākā piedāvājuma noteikšanas, tika uzsākta Harpa koncertzāles un konferenču centra būvniecība. Pēc Islandes finanšu sistēmas sabrukuma Harpa būvniecība 2008. gadā tika pārtraukta. Īsi pēc tam Reikjavīkas mērs un izglītības ministrs noslēdza vienošanos, kas deva tiesības valstij un pilsētai turpināt projekta būvniecību bez privāta partnera. Ēka oficiāli tika atklāta 2011. gada 20. augustā.

Ir paredzēts, ka Harpa nodrošinās dažāda veida pakalpojumus un darbības. Gan Islandes Simfoniskais orķestris, gan Islandes Opera ir noslēguši ilgtermiņa līgumus par konkrētu Harpa aprīkojuma izmantošanu. Turklāt Harpa ir iespējams rīkot konferences un tajā ir četras dažāda izmēra konferenču zāles. Harpa tiek organizēti arī dažādi mākslas pasākumi, piemēram, popmūzikas un rokmūzikas koncerti ar māksliniekiem gan no Islandes, gan citām valstīm. Citas darbības un pakalpojumus Harpa, piemēram, ēdienu piegādi, restorānus, mūzikas veikalu un mēbeļu veikalu, pārvalda privāti uzņēmumi, kuri īrē Harpa telpas. Šīs telpas privātajiem uzņēmējiem tiek izīrētas par tirgus nosacījumiem, un par to tika rīkots publisks iepirkuma konkurss, kur tika pieņemts visizdevīgākais piedāvājums.

Harpa pilnībā pieder Islandes valstij (54 %) un Reikjavīkas pilsētai (46 %), kas sniedz būtisku ikgadēju ieguldījumu saistībā ar piedalīšanos projektā. Kopš atvēršanas Harpa darbojas ar ikgadēju budžeta deficītu, kas tiek segts no Islandes valsts un Reikjavīkas pilsētas budžeta.

Islandes iestāžu apsvērumi

Saskaņā ar Islandes iestāžu sniegto informāciju, tā kā tās ir nodrošinājušas atsevišķus kontus dažādām koncertzāles un konferenču centra darbībām, Harpa finansēšana nav uzskatāma par valsts atbalstu. Lai atbalstītu šo apgalvojumu, Islandes iestādes ir iesniegušas ziņojumus no divām grāmatvedības firmām attiecībā uz dalītiem kontiem uzņēmumiem, kas ir iesaistīti Harpa darbībā. Islandes iestādes ir iesniegušas arī cenu analīzi, kurā ir salīdzinātas cenas ar izmēra un ietilpības ziņā līdzīgām konferenču telpām Reikjavīkā. Turklāt Islandes iestādes apgalvo, ka konferenču bizness pozitīvi ietekmē citas Harpa darbības un bez tā citu aktivitāšu izmaksas būtu ievērojami lielākas.

Valsts atbalsta esība

Priekšrocības, ko uzņēmumiem sniedz valsts līdzekļu piešķiršana

Tā kā Islandes valsts un Reikjavīkas pilsēta Harpa darbības ikgadējo deficītu sedz ar ikgadējo ieguldījumu no sava budžeta, saskaņā ar EEZ līguma 61. pantu ir iesaistīti valsts līdzekļi.

EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde uzskata, ka gan šādas infrastruktūras būvniecība, gan darbība pašas par sevi ir uzskatāmas par saimniecisku darbību, ja šī infrastruktūra tiek vai tiks lietota, lai nodrošinātu produktus vai pakalpojumus tirgum. (1) Dažas aktivitātes, kas notiek Harpa, īpaši konferences, teātra uzvedumi, popmūzikas koncerti utt., var piesaistīt iespaidīgu klientu skaitu, tai pašā laikā tā konkurē ar privātiem konferenču centriem, teātriem vai mūzikas pasākumu norises vietām. Tāpēc EBTA Uzraudzības iestādes sākotnējais uzskats ir, ka uzņēmumi, kas ir iesaistīti Harpa darbībā, ciktāl tie nodarbojas ar komerciālām darbībām, veic uzņēmējdarbību.

Turklāt EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde uzskata, ka Harpa būvniecības finansēšana no valsts budžeta ir ekonomiska priekšrocība un uzskatāma par atbalstu, jo projekts netiktu realizēts, ja nebūtu šāda finansējuma. Turklāt, uzņēmumi, kas ir iesaistīti Harpa darbībā, ciktāl šie uzņēmumi nodarbojas ar tādām komerciālām darbībām kā konferenču vai citu mākslas pasākumu organizēšanu, gūst priekšrocības iespējamās peļņas veidā, jo valsts un pilsēta nepieprasa atgriezt līdzekļus, ko tā investējusi koncertzālē un konferenču centrā. EBTA Uzraudzības iestādes sākotnējais novērtējums liecina, ka nav iespējams izslēgt selektīvu ekonomisko priekšrocību nevienā līmenī (būvniecība, pārvaldība un lietošana).

Konkurences kropļošana un ietekme uz tirdzniecību starp līgumslēdzējām pusēm

Tā kā starptautisku pasākumu, piemēram, konferenču un pasākumu, organizēšanas tirgus ir atvērts konkurencei starp pasākumu norises vietas nodrošinātājiem un pasākumu organizatoriem, kuri parasti veic darbības saistībā ar tirdzniecību starp EEZ valstīm, var pieņemt, ka atbalsts ietekmē tirdzniecību. Šajā gadījumā ietekme uz tirdzniecību starp konkrētām EEZ kaimiņvalstīm ir vēl jo vairāk iespējama, ņemot vērā konferenču organizēšanas nozares specifiku. (2) Tāpēc sākotnējais EBTA Uzraudzības iestādes uzskats ir, ka pasākums var kropļot konkurenci un ietekmē EEZ tirgu.

Atbalsta saderība

Saskaņā ar EEZ līguma 61. panta 3. punkta c) apakšpunktu, kā ir interpretējusi EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde un izstrādājusi Eiropas Komisija kādreizējā EKL 87. panta 3. punkta d) apakšpunktā, tagad LESD 107. panta 3. punkta d) apakšpunktā, atbalstu, kas veicina kultūru un kultūras mantojuma saglabāšanu, var uzskatīt par saderīgu ar EEZ līguma darbību, ja tāds atbalsts neiespaido tirdzniecības apstākļus un konkurenci EEZ tiktāl, ka tas ir pretrunā kopīgām interesēm. Islandes iestādes ir paziņojušas, ka attiecīgā pasākuma galvenais mērķis ir sekmēt kultūru, uzbūvējot koncertzāli, kurā varētu darboties gan Islandes Simfoniskais orķestris, gan Islandes Opera. Tā kā tam ir kulturāls mērķis, EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde ir pieņēmusi, ka simfoniskā orķestra un operas telpu būvniecību varētu uzskatīt par atbalstu, lai sekmētu kultūru.

EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde pieņem, ka tādu infrastruktūru kā Harpa ir iespējams izmantot dažādiem komerciāliem mērķiem, piemēram, restorāniem, kafejnīcām, veikaliem, konferenču un popmūzikas koncertu organizēšanai. Tomēr, lai nekropļotu konkurenci, ir jāpieņem aizsardzības pasākumi, lai nodrošinātu, ka nepastāv šķērssubsidēšana starp komerciālām aktivitātēm un subsidētām kultūras aktivitātēm. EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde neuzskata, ka Islandes iestādes ir veikušas nepieciešamos aizsardzības pasākumus, lai nodrošinātu, ka nepastāv šķērssubsidēšana. Tādējādi, ņemot vērā sākotnējo novērtējumu, EBTA Uzraudzības iestādei ir šaubas par to, vai Harpa būvniecību un darbību var uzskatīt par saderīgu atbilstoši EEZ līguma 61. panta 3. punkta c) apakšpunktam.

Secinājums

Ņemot vērā minētos apsvērumus, EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde nolēma sākt oficiālu izmeklēšanas procedūru attiecībā uz Harpa koncertzāles un konferenču centra finansēšanu saskaņā ar Nolīguma starp EBTA valstīm par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu. Ieinteresētās personas tiek aicinātas iesniegt apsvērumus viena mēneša laikā no šā paziņojuma publicēšanas dienas Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī.

Saskaņā ar 3. protokola 14. pantu no saņēmēja var atgūt atbalstu, ja tas tiek atzīts par nelikumīgu.

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)  Skatīt Komisijas Lēmuma lietā SA.33618 (Zviedrija) Upsalas arēnas finansēšana (OV C 152, 30.5.2012., 18. lpp.) 19. pantu.

1

(2)  Skatīt lietas T-90/09 Mojo Concerts BV un Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie BV pret Eiropas Komisiju, Vispārējās tiesas 2012. gada 26. janvāra nolēmuma 45. paragrāfu, kas publicēts OV C 89, 24.3.2012., 22. lpp.

2

Mojo Concerts BV

Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie BV

(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 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229/31

---

Uzaicinājums iesniegt piezīmes saskaņā ar Nolīguma starp EBTA valstīm par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu par valsts atbalstu saistībā ar potenciālo atbalstu Nasjonal digital læringsarena (NDLA)

2013/C 229/10

Ar 2013. gada 27. marta Lēmumu Nr. 136/13/COL, kas autentiskajā valodā pievienots šim kopsavilkumam, EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde uzsāka procedūru saskaņā ar Nolīguma starp EBTA valstīm par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu. Norvēģijas iestādes tika informētas, nosūtot tām lēmuma kopiju.

Ar šo EBTA Uzraudzības iestāde aicina EBTA valstis, ES dalībvalstis un ieinteresētās personas viena mēneša laikā no šā paziņojuma publicēšanas dienas iesniegt savas piezīmes par minēto pasākumu, nosūtot tās uz adresi:

| 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

Piezīmes paziņos Norvēģijas iestādēm. Ieinteresētās personas, kura iesniedz apsvērumus, identitāti var neizpaust, ja tiek iesniegts rakstisks lūgums, kurā izklāstīti šā lūguma iemesli.

KOPSAVILKUMS

Vispārīga informācija

Norvēģijā izglītība ir obligāta visiem bērniem vecumā no 6 līdz 16 gadiem, un to nodrošina publiskās skolās bez maksas. 2006. gadā Norvēģijas iestādes “Zināšanu veicināšanas iniciatīvas” (Kunnskapsløftet) ietvaros nolēma, ka visām Norvēģijas skolām ir jāuzsver spējas mācīties konkrēto priekšmetu, izmantojot informācijas un sakaru tehnoloģijas. Pamatojoties uz minēto, Norvēģijas iestādes veica grozījumus Izglītības likumā un noteica, ka apgabalu pašvaldībām jānodrošina skolēni ar nepieciešamajiem drukātajiem un digitālajiem mācību līdzekļiem bez maksas.

2006. gada maijā Norvēģijas valdība darīja pieejamus NOK 50 miljonus šādu digitālo mācību līdzekļu izstrādei un izmantošanai. 2006. gada jūnijā Izglītības ministrija nosūtīja uzaicinājumu apgabalu pašvaldībām kopīgi pieteikties pieejamajiem līdzekļiem. 2006. gada augustā 18 no 19 apgabalu pašvaldību izglītības iestāžu vadītājiem nolēma sadarboties pašvaldību mērogā un izveidot apgabalu sadarbības iestādi (NDLA) saskaņā ar 27. pantu Vietējās pārvaldes iestāžu aktā.

Pēc tam apgabalu pašvaldības, kuras piedalās projektā, pieteikumu par līdzekļu saņemšanu iesniedza Izglītības ministrijai, kas projektam piešķīra NOK 30,5 miljonus piemērojot noteikumu, ka atbildīgais tiesību subjekts saskaņā ar iniciatīvu uzņemsies apgabalu saistības, nodrošinot to, ka izglītības iestāde neiesaistās saimnieciskā darbībā un ka digitālo mācību līdzekļu un izstrādes pakalpojumu iegāde tiek veikta saskaņā ar publiskā iepirkuma noteikumiem.

Pēc tam apgabala pašvaldības projektam piešķīra NOK 21,1 miljonu (2008), NOK 34,7 miljonus (2009), NOK 58,8 miljonus (2010) un NOK 57,7 miljonus (2011). Šos līdzekļus daļēji finansē no izglītības pasākumiem paredzētā parastā pašvaldību finansējuma un daļēji no iepriekš minētajiem papildu līdzekļiem, kurus Izglītības ministrija darīja pieejamus apgabalu pašvaldībām šim konkrētajam projektam.

Lēmums un Tiesas spriedums

2011. gada 12. oktobrī Iestāde pieņēma Lēmumu Nr. 311/11/COL, nolemjot, ka attiecīgais pasākums neveido valsts atbalstu EEZ 61. panta 1. punkta nozīmē (turpmāk “lēmums”). 2012. gada 9. janvārī prasības iesniedzējs apstrīdēja lēmumu un EBTA Tiesa ar 2012. gada 11. decembra spriedumu attiecīgo lēmumu anulēja (1).

Pasākuma novērtējums

Valsts atbalsta esība

Ņemot vērā spriedumu, Iestāde šaubās par to, vai NDLA iesaistās saimnieciskā darbībā. Jo īpaši, Iestāde pieprasa sīkāku informāciju par iniciatīvas pārtapšanu no projekta par formālu apgabalu sadarbības iestādi (NDLA) saskaņā ar 27. punktu Vietējās pārvaldes iestāžu aktā.

Turklāt Iestāde pieprasa vairāk informācijas par to, kādā apmērā izmaiņas juridiskajā statusā ietekmēja lēmumu pieņemšanas procesu. Īpaši, Iestādei ir jānosaka, kādā apmērā NDLA var paplašināt savu darbību jomu bez iesaistīto pašvaldību atļaujas vai pret to gribu, un vai pašreizējā situācija atšķiras no situācijas, kāda bija pirms iestādes formālas izveides.

Turklāt Iestāde sīki izpētīs NDLA finansējumu gan tās projekta posmā, gan pēc tās formālas izveides.

Iestādei ir arī jāprecizē, kā ir noteikti publiskā iepirkuma procedūru parametri, kurus NDLA izmanto preču iegādei un personāla pieņemšanai darbā.

Visbeidzot, Iestāde pieprasa vairāk informācijas par attiecīgā pasākuma ietekmi uz konkurenci un tirdzniecību.

Atbalsta saderība

Pamatojoties uz tās rīcībā esošo informāciju, Iestāde šajā posmā nevar izdarīt secinājumu par pasākuma atbilstību. Līdz ar to Iestāde šajā ziņā pieprasa papildu informāciju.

Secinājums

Ņemot vērā iepriekšminētos apsvērumus, Iestāde nolēma sākt oficiālu izmeklēšanas procedūru saskaņā ar 3. protokola I daļas 1. panta 2. punktu Nolīgumā starp EBTA valstīm par Uzraudzības iestādes un Tiesas izveidi. Ieinteresētās personas tiek aicinātas iesniegt apsvērumus viena mēneša laikā no šā paziņojuma publicēšanas dienas Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī.

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)  Lieta E-1/12 Den norske Forleggerforening (vēl nav publicēta).

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 Atzinumi

CITI TIESĪBU AKTI

Eiropas Komisija

| 8.8.2013 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 229/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2013

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 229/43

---

Pieteikuma publikācija saskaņā ar 50. panta 2. punkta a) apakšpunktu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulā (ES) Nr. 1151/2012 par lauksaimniecības produktu un pārtikas produktu kvalitātes shēmām

2013/C 229/11

Šī publikācija dod tiesības izteikt iebildumus pret pieteikumu atbilstīgi Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulas (ES) Nr. 1151/2012 (1) 51. pantam.

VIENOTS DOKUMENTS

PADOMES REGULA (EK) Nr. 510/2006

par lauksaimniecības produktu un pārtikas produktu ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes norāžu un cilmes vietu nosaukumu aizsardzību
   (2)

“ANTEP BAKLAVASI”/“GAZİANTEP BAKLAVASI”

EK Nr.: TR-PGI-0005-0781-10.07.2009

AĢIN ( X ) ACVN ( )

1.   Nosaukums

“Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası”

2.   Dalībvalsts vai trešā valsts

Turcija

3.   Lauksaimniecības produkta vai pārtikas produkta apraksts

3.1.   Produkta veids

| 2.4. grupa. | Maize, mīklas izstrādājumi, kūkas, konditorejas izstrādājumi, cepumi un citi maizes un konditorejas izstrādājumi |
| --- | --- |

2.4. grupa.

Maize, mīklas izstrādājumi, kūkas, konditorejas izstrādājumi, cepumi un citi maizes un konditorejas izstrādājumi

3.2.   Produkta apraksts, uz kuru attiecas nosaukums (1)

“Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” ir smalkmaizīte, kas veidota no strūdeles mīklas, starp kuras kārtām iepildīts mannas krēms un Antepas pistācijas un kura saldināta ar sīrupu.

Atkarībā no veida, kādā to piedāvā tirdzniecībā (sausa vai svaiga), vidējam pamata izejvielu procentuālajam daudzumam jābūt šādam (ar ± 3 % pielaidi):

| | Normāls (svaigs) produkts | Sauss produkts |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Mīkla | 25 % | 30 % |
| Antepas pistācijas (Antep fıstığı) | 10–11 % | 10–11 % |
| Mannas krēms | 12–13 % | — |
| Tīrs sviests | 15–20 % | 20–25 % |
| Sīrups | 35–36 % | 35–36 % |

Normāls (svaigs) produkts

Sauss produkts

Mīkla

25 %

30 %

Antepas pistācijas (Antep fıstığı)

10–11 %

10–11 %

Mannas krēms

12–13 %

—

Tīrs sviests

15–20 %

20–25 %

Sīrups

35–36 %

35–36 %

Atšķirībā no svaigas baklavas sausā baklavā nav mannas krēma.

“Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” raksturīgās īpašības

| | Smarža: to rada Antepas pistācijas (Antep fıstığı) un tīrs sviests. |
| --- | --- |

Smarža: to rada Antepas pistācijas (Antep fıstığı) un tīrs sviests.

| | Krāsa: “Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” virsa ir zeltaini dzeltena, un apakšdaļa ir tumši zaļā krāsā Antepas pistāciju (Antep fıstığı) dēļ. |
| --- | --- |

Krāsa: “Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” virsa ir zeltaini dzeltena, un apakšdaļa ir tumši zaļā krāsā Antepas pistāciju (Antep fıstığı) dēļ.

| | Konsistence: augšējā daļa ir vidēji kraukšķīga smalkmaizītes kārtu dēļ. Apakšdaļai ir slapja, sīrupaina konsistence. |
| --- | --- |

Konsistence: augšējā daļa ir vidēji kraukšķīga smalkmaizītes kārtu dēļ. Apakšdaļai ir slapja, sīrupaina konsistence.

| | Forma: pirms cepšanas produkts ir jāsagriež. Gabaliem var būt dažāda forma, bet lielākoties tos veido nelielu taisnstūru, rombu, trīsstūru, kvadrātiņu vai burkānu (veidojot garenas trīsstūrveida šķēles, griežot no apaļas formas vidus uz malām) formā. |
| --- | --- |

Forma: pirms cepšanas produkts ir jāsagriež. Gabaliem var būt dažāda forma, bet lielākoties tos veido nelielu taisnstūru, rombu, trīsstūru, kvadrātiņu vai burkānu (veidojot garenas trīsstūrveida šķēles, griežot no apaļas formas vidus uz malām) formā.

3.3.   Izejvielas (tikai pārstrādātiem produktiem)

“Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” sastāvdaļas

| — | Antepas pistācijas (Antep fıstığı): smalkmaizītēm “Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” ir obligāti jāizmanto Antepas pistācijas. Antepas pistācijas, kas izsenis augušas Gaziantepas provincē, Turcijā ir reģistrēts lauksaimniecības produkts. Tās ir tumši zaļas, un tām ir raksturīga spēcīga smarža. Saskaņā ar produkta specifikāciju ir pieci šādu pistāciju veidi, pēc formas tās ir garenas, ovālas vai apaļas, un tām ir tumši zaļa krāsa. Proteīnu saturs tajās ir no 21,77 % līdz 23,77 %, bet tauku saturs – no 56,27 % līdz 59,89 %. Antepas pistācijas var būt rupji vai smalki sakapātas. |
| --- | --- |

—

Antepas pistācijas (Antep fıstığı): smalkmaizītēm “Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” ir obligāti jāizmanto Antepas pistācijas. Antepas pistācijas, kas izsenis augušas Gaziantepas provincē, Turcijā ir reģistrēts lauksaimniecības produkts. Tās ir tumši zaļas, un tām ir raksturīga spēcīga smarža. Saskaņā ar produkta specifikāciju ir pieci šādu pistāciju veidi, pēc formas tās ir garenas, ovālas vai apaļas, un tām ir tumši zaļa krāsa. Proteīnu saturs tajās ir no 21,77 % līdz 23,77 %, bet tauku saturs – no 56,27 % līdz 59,89 %. Antepas pistācijas var būt rupji vai smalki sakapātas.

| — | Tīrs sviests: 99,9 % tīrs sviests, kurš gatavots no piena un kurā nav ne sāls, ne arī kādu citu piedevu. |
| --- | --- |

—

Tīrs sviests: 99,9 % tīrs sviests, kurš gatavots no piena un kurā nav ne sāls, ne arī kādu citu piedevu.

| — | Mannas krēms (kas tiek izmantots tikai “normālam” (svaigam) produktam): pienu uzkarsē līdz 105–108 °C temperatūrai un pievieno mannu (100 g mannas uz 1 kg piena). Maisījumu karsē līdz 100 °C, līdz tas sabiezē, un tad atstāj dzesēties. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mannas krēms (kas tiek izmantots tikai “normālam” (svaigam) produktam): pienu uzkarsē līdz 105–108 °C temperatūrai un pievieno mannu (100 g mannas uz 1 kg piena). Maisījumu karsē līdz 100 °C, līdz tas sabiezē, un tad atstāj dzesēties.

| — | Milti: no cietajiem kviešiem. |
| --- | --- |

—

Milti: no cietajiem kviešiem.

| — | Ciete: kviešu ciete. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ciete: kviešu ciete.

| — | Sīrups: gatavots ar cukuru vai saldinātāju (diabēta slimniekiem). Pievieno aptuveni 350–360 g sīrupa uz 1 kg baklavas maisījuma. Medu izmantot nedrīkst. |
| --- | --- |

—

Sīrups: gatavots ar cukuru vai saldinātāju (diabēta slimniekiem). Pievieno aptuveni 350–360 g sīrupa uz 1 kg baklavas maisījuma. Medu izmantot nedrīkst.

| — | Olas: trīs olas uz 1 kg miltu (mīklas gatavošanai). |
| --- | --- |

—

Olas: trīs olas uz 1 kg miltu (mīklas gatavošanai).

| — | Sāls: 10 g akmeņsāls uz 1 kg miltu (mīklas gatavošanai). |
| --- | --- |

—

Sāls: 10 g akmeņsāls uz 1 kg miltu (mīklas gatavošanai).

3.4.   Dzīvnieku barība (tikai dzīvnieku izcelsmes produktiem)

—

3.5.   Īpaši ražošanas posmi, kas jāveic noteiktajā ģeogrāfiskajā apgabalā

Mīklas gatavošana, baklavas taisīšana un cepšana.

3.6.   Īpaši noteikumi griešanai, rīvēšanai, iepakošanai u. c.

“Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” var pārdot pēc svara vai porcijās uz paplātēm vai iepakojumos. Ja baklavas tiek iepakotas, var izmantot kartona kastītes, bet tām jābūt pārklātām ar alvas foliju vai līdzīgu ūdensnecaurlaidīgu materiālu. Kastītē var ielikt zīmīti ar padomu par servēšanu – “Isıtarak servis yapınız” (“Pirms pasniegšanas uzsildīt”).

3.7.   Īpaši noteikumi marķēšanai

Ja “Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” tiek pārdotas sausā veidā, uz iepakojuma jābūt norādītam apzīmējumam “kuru” (“sauss”).

Uz iepakojuma redzamās puses jābūt marķējumam ar apzīmējumu “AĢIN” un nosaukumu “Antep Baklavası” vai “Gaziantep Baklavası”, kā arī šim logotipam:

Image

4.   Precīza ģeogrāfiskā apgabala definīcija

Ražošanas apgabals ietver visu Gaziantepas provinci Anatolijas pussalas dienvidaustrumos. Province dienvidu pusē robežojas ar Sīriju, austrumos – ar Birecik pilsētu un Halfeti rajonu, ziemeļaustrumos – ar Adijamanu, ziemeļos – ar Kahramanmaras pilsētu, rietumos – ar Osmaniye, bet dienvidrietumos – ar Hataju.

5.   Saikne ar ģeogrāfisko apgabalu

5.1.   Ģeogrāfiskā apgabala specifika

Gaziantepas province ir Turcijas pistāciju audzēšanas centrs. Pistācijas Turcijā tiek sauktas par “antep fıstığı” (“Antepas pistācijas”) – pistāciju nosaukums turku valodā ir cēlies no Gaziantepas nosaukuma.

Produkti no Antepas pistācijām Gaziantepā ir gatavoti un baudīti daudzus gadsimtus.

Meistaru pieredze

Visām baklavas pagatavošanai nepieciešamajām darbībām – baklavas mīklas gatavošanai, tās izveltnēšanai un plānuma panākšanai, cietes iekaisīšanai starp kārtām, kārtu novietošanai uz paplātes, krēma un Antepas pistāciju iepildīšanai, baklavas sagriešanai vienādos gabaliņos, tās ieziešanai ar tīru sviestu, cepšanai un sīrupa pievienošanai – ir nepieciešama liela prasme. “Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” jāgatavo meistariem, kas ir ieguvuši šīs prasmes Gaziantepas apgabalā.

5.2.   Produkta specifika

“Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” atšķiras no citām baklavām ar spilgto zeltaini dzelteno krāsu, konsistenci, struktūru un tumši zaļo apakšējo daļu. Tomēr galvenā atšķirība ir Antepas pistāciju un tīrā sviesta garša un smarža.

“Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” pagatavošanai nepieciešama liela prasme.

“Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” reputācijas pamatā ir bagātīgā sastāvdaļu daudzuma salikums un pieredzējušo cepēju roku darbs. Pirms ēšanas dominējošā ir sviesta smarža. Labi pagatavota baklava kūst mutē. Šīs ir svarīgākās “Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” specifiskās iezīmes.

5.3.   Saikne starp ģeogrāfisko apgabalu un produkta kvalitāti vai īpašībām (ACVN) vai produkta īpašo kvalitāti, reputāciju vai citām īpašībām (AĢIN)

“Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” no Gaziantepas kopš 19. gadsimta ir bijušas lielā cieņā to īpašā gatavošanas veida, sastāvdaļu specifiskuma un pieredzējušo cepēju roku darba dēļ. Vairākas slavenas ģimenes kopš 19. gadsimta septiņdesmitajiem gadiem vairākās paaudzēs ir tradicionāli gatavojušas “Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası”.

Svarīgākā sastāvdaļa ir Antepas pistācijas (Antep fıstığı) – Turcijā reģistrēts lauksaimniecības produkts. To izteiktā garša un smarža tiek saglabāta gatavajā produktā, un tās iekrāso “Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” apakšējo daļu tumši zaļu.

“Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” ir pieminētas grāmatās par Gaziantepu un Turcijas virtuvi, kā arī Kultūras un tūrisma ministrijas bukletos par Gaziantepu.

Grāmatā Gaziantep Folklorundan Notlar (“Piezīmes no Gaziantepas folkloras”), kuru 1959. gadā sarakstījis pētnieks no Gaziantepas Cemil Cahit Güzelbey, minēts, ka “baklavas ražotāji izmanto pistācijas” (86. lpp.). Grāmatā iekļauts arī stāsts par Turcijas veselības ministra braucienu uz Gaziantepu (87. lpp.). Pusdienās, kurās viņam tika pasniegta zupa ar pistācijām, rīsi ar pistācijām, baklava ar pistācijām un, visbeidzot, pistāciju saldējums, ministrs jokoja: “Vai es varētu lūgt glāzi ūdens bez pistācijām?”

Ceļveža Frommer’s Turkey (Lynn A. Levine, 2001; John Wiley & Sons) 2001. gada izdevumā apgalvots: “Brīnišķīgā baklava ir Gaziantepas slavas pamatā. Pilsētā ir vairāk nekā 500 baklavas ceptuvju, tāpēc gājiens pa baklavas ceptuvēm ir obligāts pasākums, īpaši septembrī, kad tiek novākta pistāciju raža.”

Arī grāmatā Cooking the Turkish Way (Kari Cornell, 2004) minēts, ka “austrumu Anatolijas pilsēta Gaziantepa ir pazīstama pistāciju un sīrupsaldo baklavu dēļ” (14. lpp.).

Atsauce uz specifikācijas publikāciju

(Regulas (EK) Nr. 510/2006 5. panta 7. punkts (3))

Turcijas valdība ir uzsākusi valsts iebildumu procedūru, ar AĢIN apzīmētā produkta “Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” atzīšanas pieteikumu 2007. gada 27. aprīlī publicējot Turcijas Republikas Oficiālā Vēstneša 26505. numurā.

Produkta specifikācijas pilns teksts ir pieejams Turcijas Patentu institūta tīmekļa vietnē:

http://www.turkpatent.gov.tr/portal/default_en.jsp?sayfa=172 (klikšķiniet uz “Antep Baklavası”/“Gaziantep Baklavası” nosaukuma).

---

(1)  OV L 343, 14.12.2012., 1. lpp.

(2)  Aizstāta ar Regulu (ES) Nr. 1151/2012.

(3)  Skat. 2. atsauci.

---