# Jornal Oficial C 184/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2482
  doi:10.3000/17252482.C_2010.184.por |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | C 184 |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Comunicações e Informações | 53.o ano8 de Julho de 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2482

doi:10.3000/17252482.C_2010.184.por

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

C 184

Edição em língua portuguesa

Comunicações e Informações

53.o ano8 de Julho de 2010

---

| Número de informação | Índice | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resoluções, recomendações e pareceres |
| | RECOMENDAÇÕES |
| | Banco Central Europeu |
| 2010/C 184/01 | Recomendação do Banco Central Europeu, de 1 de Julho de 2010, ao Conselho da União Europeia relativa à nomeação do auditor externo do Národná banka Slovenska (BCE/2010/6) | 1 |

Número de informação

Índice

Página

I   Resoluções, recomendações e pareceres

RECOMENDAÇÕES

Banco Central Europeu

2010/C 184/01

Recomendação do Banco Central Europeu, de 1 de Julho de 2010, ao Conselho da União Europeia relativa à nomeação do auditor externo do Národná banka Slovenska (BCE/2010/6)

1

| | IV   Informações |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMAÇÕES ORIUNDAS DAS INSTITUIÇÕES, ÓRGÃOS E ORGANISMOS DA UNIÃO EUROPEIA |
| | Comissão Europeia |
| 2010/C 184/02 | Taxas de câmbio do euro | 2 |
| | INFORMAÇÕES ORIUNDAS DOS ESTADOS-MEMBROS |
| 2010/C 184/03 | Comunicação da Comissão nos termos do n.o 4 do artigo 16.o, do Regulamento (CE) n.o 1008/2008 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo a regras comuns de exploração dos serviços aéreos na Comunidade — Obrigações de serviço público (alteradas) relativas aos serviços aéreos regulares (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2010/C 184/04 | Comunicação da Comissão nos termos do n.o 5 do artigo 17.o, do Regulamento (CE) n.o 1008/2008 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo a regras comuns de exploração dos serviços aéreos na Comunidade — Anúncio de concurso relativo à exploração de serviços aéreos regulares de acordo com as obrigações de serviço público (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| | INFORMAÇÕES RELATIVAS AO ESPAÇO ECONÓMICO EUROPEU |
| | Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA |
| 2010/C 184/05 | Convite para apresentação de observações, nos termos do n.o 2 do artigo 1.o, da Parte I do Protocolo n.o 3 do Acordo entre os Estados da EFTA relativo à criação de um Órgão de Fiscalização e de um Tribunal de Justiça, em matéria de auxílios estatais, sobre o financiamento do ginásio no Centro de Lazer de Kippermoen | 5 |
| 2010/C 184/06 | Convite para apresentação de observações, nos termos do n.o 2, do artigo 1.o, da Parte I do Protocolo n.o 3 do Acordo entre os Estados da EFTA relativo à criação de um Órgão de Fiscalização e de um Tribunal de Justiça, em matéria de auxílios estatais, sobre a venda de um terreno à Asker Brygge AS pelo município de Asker | 20 |

IV   Informações

INFORMAÇÕES ORIUNDAS DAS INSTITUIÇÕES, ÓRGÃOS E ORGANISMOS DA UNIÃO EUROPEIA

Comissão Europeia

2010/C 184/02

Taxas de câmbio do euro

2

INFORMAÇÕES ORIUNDAS DOS ESTADOS-MEMBROS

2010/C 184/03

Comunicação da Comissão nos termos do n.o 4 do artigo 16.o, do Regulamento (CE) n.o 1008/2008 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo a regras comuns de exploração dos serviços aéreos na Comunidade — Obrigações de serviço público (alteradas) relativas aos serviços aéreos regulares (
  1
  )

o

o

o

1

3

2010/C 184/04

Comunicação da Comissão nos termos do n.o 5 do artigo 17.o, do Regulamento (CE) n.o 1008/2008 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo a regras comuns de exploração dos serviços aéreos na Comunidade — Anúncio de concurso relativo à exploração de serviços aéreos regulares de acordo com as obrigações de serviço público (
  1
  )

o

o

o

1

4

INFORMAÇÕES RELATIVAS AO ESPAÇO ECONÓMICO EUROPEU

Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA

2010/C 184/05

Convite para apresentação de observações, nos termos do n.o 2 do artigo 1.o, da Parte I do Protocolo n.o 3 do Acordo entre os Estados da EFTA relativo à criação de um Órgão de Fiscalização e de um Tribunal de Justiça, em matéria de auxílios estatais, sobre o financiamento do ginásio no Centro de Lazer de Kippermoen

o

o

o

5

2010/C 184/06

Convite para apresentação de observações, nos termos do n.o 2, do artigo 1.o, da Parte I do Protocolo n.o 3 do Acordo entre os Estados da EFTA relativo à criação de um Órgão de Fiscalização e de um Tribunal de Justiça, em matéria de auxílios estatais, sobre a venda de um terreno à Asker Brygge AS pelo município de Asker

o

o

o

20

| | V   Avisos |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS |
| | Comissão Europeia |
| 2010/C 184/07 | Convite à apresentação de candidaturas — EAC/10/10 — Programa Aprendizagem ao Longo da Vida — Apoio à organização de dois concursos para a promoção da aprendizagem das línguas: produções audiovisuais de pequena duração | 29 |
| | PROCEDIMENTOS RELATIVOS À EXECUÇÃO DA POLÍTICA DE CONCORRÊNCIA |
| | Comissão Europeia |
| 2010/C 184/08 | Notificação prévia de uma concentração (Processo COMP/M.5908 — Honeywell/Sperian) (
  1
  ) | 31 |
| | OUTROS ACTOS |
| | Comissão Europeia |
| 2010/C 184/09 | Publicação de um pedido de registo em conformidade com o n.o 2 do artigo 6.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 510/2006 do Conselho relativo à protecção das indicações geográficas e denominações de origem dos produtos agrícolas e dos géneros alimentícios | 32 |

V   Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Comissão Europeia

2010/C 184/07

Convite à apresentação de candidaturas — EAC/10/10 — Programa Aprendizagem ao Longo da Vida — Apoio à organização de dois concursos para a promoção da aprendizagem das línguas: produções audiovisuais de pequena duração

29

PROCEDIMENTOS RELATIVOS À EXECUÇÃO DA POLÍTICA DE CONCORRÊNCIA

Comissão Europeia

2010/C 184/08

Notificação prévia de uma concentração (Processo COMP/M.5908 — Honeywell/Sperian) (
  1
  )

1

31

OUTROS ACTOS

Comissão Europeia

2010/C 184/09

Publicação de um pedido de registo em conformidade com o n.o 2 do artigo 6.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 510/2006 do Conselho relativo à protecção das indicações geográficas e denominações de origem dos produtos agrícolas e dos géneros alimentícios

o

o

o

32

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE |

---

(1)   Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE

1

| PT | |
| --- | --- |

PT

---

I Resoluções, recomendações e pareceres

RECOMENDAÇÕES

Banco Central Europeu

| 8.7.2010 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 184/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 184/1

---

RECOMENDAÇÃO DO BANCO CENTRAL EUROPEU

de 1 de Julho de 2010

ao Conselho da União Europeia relativa à nomeação do auditor externo do Národná banka Slovenska

(BCE/2010/6)

2010/C 184/01

O CONSELHO DO BANCO CENTRAL EUROPEU,

Tendo em conta os Estatutos do Sistema Europeu de Bancos Centrais e do Banco Central Europeu, nomeadamente o artigo 27.o-1,

Considerando o seguinte:

| (1) | As contas do Banco Central Europeu (BCE) e dos bancos centrais nacionais são fiscalizadas por auditores externos independentes, designados mediante recomendação do Conselho do BCE e aprovados pelo Conselho da União Europeia. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

As contas do Banco Central Europeu (BCE) e dos bancos centrais nacionais são fiscalizadas por auditores externos independentes, designados mediante recomendação do Conselho do BCE e aprovados pelo Conselho da União Europeia.

| (2) | O mandato do actual auditor externo do Národná banka Slovenska cessou com a revisão das contas do exercício de 2009. Torna-se necessário, por conseguinte, nomear novo auditor externo a partir do exercício de 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

O mandato do actual auditor externo do Národná banka Slovenska cessou com a revisão das contas do exercício de 2009. Torna-se necessário, por conseguinte, nomear novo auditor externo a partir do exercício de 2010.

| (3) | O Národná banka Slovenska seleccionou a Ernst & Young Slovakia, spol. s r.o. como seu auditor externo para os exercícios de 2010 a 2014, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

O Národná banka Slovenska seleccionou a Ernst & Young Slovakia, spol. s r.o. como seu auditor externo para os exercícios de 2010 a 2014,

ADOPTOU A PRESENTE RECOMENDAÇÃO:

Recomenda-se a nomeação da Ernst & Young Slovakia, spol. s r.o. como auditor externo do Národná banka Slovenska para os exercícios de 2010 a 2014.

Feito em Frankfurt am Main, em 1 de Julho de 2010.

O Presidente do BCE

Jean-Claude TRICHET

---

IV Informações

INFORMAÇÕES ORIUNDAS DAS INSTITUIÇÕES, ÓRGÃOS E ORGANISMOS DA UNIÃO EUROPEIA

Comissão Europeia

| 8.7.2010 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 184/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 184/2

---

Taxas de câmbio do euro (1)

7 de Julho de 2010

2010/C 184/02

1 euro =

| | Moeda | Taxas de câmbio |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | dólar americano | 1,2567 |
| JPY | iene | 109,56 |
| DKK | coroa dinamarquesa | 7,4532 |
| GBP | libra esterlina | 0,83190 |
| SEK | coroa sueca | 9,6160 |
| CHF | franco suíço | 1,3312 |
| ISK | coroa islandesa | |
| NOK | coroa norueguesa | 8,1010 |
| BGN | lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | coroa checa | 25,548 |
| EEK | coroa estoniana | 15,6466 |
| HUF | forint | 284,47 |
| LTL | litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | lats | 0,7095 |
| PLN | zloti | 4,1220 |
| RON | leu | 4,2318 |
| TRY | lira turca | 1,9632 |
| AUD | dólar australiano | 1,4821 |
| CAD | dólar canadiano | 1,3311 |
| HKD | dólar de Hong Kong | 9,7913 |
| NZD | dólar neozelandês | 1,8160 |
| SGD | dólar de Singapura | 1,7480 |
| KRW | won sul-coreano | 1 536,73 |
| ZAR | rand | 9,6505 |
| CNY | yuan-renminbi chinês | 8,5169 |
| HRK | kuna croata | 7,1913 |
| IDR | rupia indonésia | 11 408,78 |
| MYR | ringgit malaio | 4,0459 |
| PHP | peso filipino | 58,512 |
| RUB | rublo russo | 39,1503 |
| THB | baht tailandês | 40,818 |
| BRL | real brasileiro | 2,2422 |
| MXN | peso mexicano | 16,3773 |
| INR | rupia indiana | 59,1290 |

Moeda

Taxas de câmbio

USD

dólar americano

1,2567

JPY

iene

109,56

DKK

coroa dinamarquesa

7,4532

GBP

libra esterlina

0,83190

SEK

coroa sueca

9,6160

CHF

franco suíço

1,3312

ISK

coroa islandesa

NOK

coroa norueguesa

8,1010

BGN

lev

1,9558

CZK

coroa checa

25,548

EEK

coroa estoniana

15,6466

HUF

forint

284,47

LTL

litas

3,4528

LVL

lats

0,7095

PLN

zloti

4,1220

RON

leu

4,2318

TRY

lira turca

1,9632

AUD

dólar australiano

1,4821

CAD

dólar canadiano

1,3311

HKD

dólar de Hong Kong

9,7913

NZD

dólar neozelandês

1,8160

SGD

dólar de Singapura

1,7480

KRW

won sul-coreano

1 536,73

ZAR

rand

9,6505

CNY

yuan-renminbi chinês

8,5169

HRK

kuna croata

7,1913

IDR

rupia indonésia

11 408,78

MYR

ringgit malaio

4,0459

PHP

peso filipino

58,512

RUB

rublo russo

39,1503

THB

baht tailandês

40,818

BRL

real brasileiro

2,2422

MXN

peso mexicano

16,3773

INR

rupia indiana

59,1290

---

(1)  Fonte: Taxas de câmbio de referência publicadas pelo Banco Central Europeu.

---

INFORMAÇÕES ORIUNDAS DOS ESTADOS-MEMBROS

| 8.7.2010 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 184/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 184/3

---

Comunicação da Comissão nos termos do n.o 4 do artigo 16.o, do Regulamento (CE) n.o 1008/2008 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo a regras comuns de exploração dos serviços aéreos na Comunidade

Obrigações de serviço público (alteradas) relativas aos serviços aéreos regulares

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

2010/C 184/03

| Estado-Membro | Reino Unido |
| --- | --- |
| Rotas em questão | Oban–Coll
  Oban–Colonsay
  Oban–Tiree
  Coll–Tiree |
| Data de entrada em vigor das obrigações de serviço público | 2 de Março de 2007 |
| Endereço para obtenção do texto e de quaisquer informações e/ou documentação pertinentes relacionadas com as obrigações de serviço público alteradas | Argyll and Bute Council |
| Council Offices |
| Kilmory |
| Lochgilphead |
| Argyll |
| PA31 8RT |
| Scotland |
| UNITED KINGDOM |
| Tel. +44 1546604141 |
| Fax +44 1546606443 |
| (Contacto: Sandy Mactaggart, Development and Infrastructure Services) |
| E-mail: sandy.mactaggart@argyll-bute.gov.uk |

Estado-Membro

Reino Unido

Rotas em questão

Oban–Coll

Oban–Colonsay

Oban–Tiree

Coll–Tiree

Data de entrada em vigor das obrigações de serviço público

2 de Março de 2007

Endereço para obtenção do texto e de quaisquer informações e/ou documentação pertinentes relacionadas com as obrigações de serviço público alteradas

Argyll and Bute Council

Council Offices

Kilmory

Lochgilphead

Argyll

PA31 8RT

Scotland

UNITED KINGDOM

Tel. +44 1546604141

Fax +44 1546606443

(Contacto: Sandy Mactaggart, Development and Infrastructure Services)

E-mail: sandy.mactaggart@argyll-bute.gov.uk

---

| 8.7.2010 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 184/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 184/4

---

Comunicação da Comissão nos termos do n.o 5 do artigo 17.o, do Regulamento (CE) n.o 1008/2008 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo a regras comuns de exploração dos serviços aéreos na Comunidade

Anúncio de concurso relativo à exploração de serviços aéreos regulares de acordo com as obrigações de serviço público

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

2010/C 184/04

| Estado-Membro | Reino Unido |
| --- | --- |
| Rotas em questão | Oban–Coll
  Oban–Colonsay
  Oban–Tiree
  Coll–Tiree |
| Prazo de validade do contrato | Entre 1 de Outubro de 2010 e 31 de Março de 2014 |
| Prazo de apresentação das propostas | Dois meses a partir da data de publicação do presente anúncio |
| Endereço para obtenção do texto do anúncio de concurso e de quaisquer informações e/ou documentação pertinentes relacionadas com o concurso e com as obrigações de serviço público alteradas | Argyll and Bute Council |
| Council Offices |
| Kilmory |
| Lochgilphead |
| Argyll |
| PA31 8RT |
| Scotland |
| UNITED KINGDOM |
| Tel. +44 1546604141 |
| Fax +44 1546606443 |
| (Contacto: Sandy Mactaggart, Development and Infrastructure Services) |
| E-mail: sandy.mactaggart@argyll-bute.gov.uk |

Estado-Membro

Reino Unido

Rotas em questão

Oban–Coll

Oban–Colonsay

Oban–Tiree

Coll–Tiree

Prazo de validade do contrato

Entre 1 de Outubro de 2010 e 31 de Março de 2014

Prazo de apresentação das propostas

Dois meses a partir da data de publicação do presente anúncio

Endereço para obtenção do texto do anúncio de concurso e de quaisquer informações e/ou documentação pertinentes relacionadas com o concurso e com as obrigações de serviço público alteradas

Argyll and Bute Council

Council Offices

Kilmory

Lochgilphead

Argyll

PA31 8RT

Scotland

UNITED KINGDOM

Tel. +44 1546604141

Fax +44 1546606443

(Contacto: Sandy Mactaggart, Development and Infrastructure Services)

E-mail: sandy.mactaggart@argyll-bute.gov.uk

---

INFORMAÇÕES RELATIVAS AO ESPAÇO ECONÓMICO EUROPEU

Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA

| 8.7.2010 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 184/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 184/5

---

Convite para apresentação de observações, nos termos do n.o 2 do artigo 1.o, da Parte I do Protocolo n.o 3 do Acordo entre os Estados da EFTA relativo à criação de um Órgão de Fiscalização e de um Tribunal de Justiça, em matéria de auxílios estatais, sobre o financiamento do ginásio no Centro de Lazer de Kippermoen

2010/C 184/05

Pela Decisão n.o 537/09/COL, de 16 de Dezembro de 2009, publicada na língua que faz fé a seguir ao presente resumo, o Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA deu início a um procedimento nos termos do n.o 2 do artigo 1.o, da Parte I do Protocolo n.o 3 do Acordo entre os Estados da EFTA relativo à criação de um Órgão de Fiscalização e de um Tribunal de Justiça. As autoridades norueguesas foram informadas mediante cópia da decisão.

O Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA convida os Estados da EFTA, os Estados-Membros da União Europeia e as partes interessadas a apresentarem as suas observações sobre a medida em causa no prazo de um mês a contar da data de publicação da presente comunicação, enviando-as para o seguinte endereço:

| Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA |
| --- |
| Registo |
| Rue Belliard 35 |
| 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA

Registo

Rue Belliard 35

1040 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

As observações serão comunicadas às autoridades norueguesas. Qualquer interessado que apresente observações pode solicitar por escrito o tratamento confidencial da sua identidade, devendo justificar o pedido.

RESUMO

Em 27 de Janeiro de 2009, por razões de segurança jurídica, as autoridades norueguesas notificaram o financiamento do ginásio no Centro de Lazer de Kippermoen (a seguir designado «KLC») enquanto medida que não constitui um auxílio. O Órgão de Fiscalização enviou dois pedidos de informações, aos quais as autoridades norueguesas responderam.

O KLC foi criado nos anos 70. Situa-se na cidade de Mosjøen, que faz parte do município de Vefsn, no condado de Nordland, o segundo mais setentrional da Noruega. O Centro pertence ao município de Vefsn, não constituindo uma entidade jurídica distinta.

Inicialmente, o Centro era constituído por uma piscina interior, um solário, um pavilhão polidesportivo e um ginásio. Em 1997, o KLC (incluindo o ginásio) foi modernizado e ampliado. Em 2006 e 2007, o ginásio foi novamente ampliado.

Auxílio novo ou existente

Na medida em que o financiamento do ginásio do KLC envolve a concessão de um auxílio estatal, a questão consiste em saber se esta medida representa um auxílio novo ou já existente.

O KLC foi directamente financiado pelo município de Vefsn desde a sua criação, no início dos anos setenta. Além disso, desde a sua criação, o KLC foi financiado pelas receitas geradas pelas tarifas pagas pelos utentes, fixadas pelo município. Este método de financiamento já vigorava antes da entrada em vigor do Acordo EEE, em 1 de Janeiro de 1994, e parece portanto constituir um auxílio existente na acepção do artigo 1.o, alínea b), subalínea i), da Parte II do Protocolo n.o 3.

Embora, segundo as informações facultadas, a ampliação de 2006/2007 devesse ter sido financiada com base no mesmo mecanismo de financiamento que o utilizado para os custos de funcionamento, o Órgão de Fiscalização não recebeu informações suficientemente pormenorizadas sobre a forma como foi financiada a ampliação de 1997.

Além disso, o sistema de bilhética sofreu alterações desde a entrada em vigor do Acordo EEE. As alterações parecem ter afectado o preço, os tipos de bilhetes propostos, bem como o sistema de afectação das receitas geradas com a venda de bilhetes. O Órgão de Fiscalização não recebeu informações pormenorizadas sobre estas evoluções, não tendo, por conseguinte, podido excluir que as mesmas implicam uma nova forma de auxílio.

Segundo as informações facultadas ao Órgão de Fiscalização em relação ao beneficiário e no que diz respeito às instalações, o ginásio dispunha inicialmente de um equipamento modesto. A questão que se coloca consiste em saber se as instalações desportivas existentes nos anos 70 foram apenas modernizadas para dar resposta às novas exigências ou se o ginásio actual deve ser considerado uma nova instalação. O Órgão de Fiscalização considera que o ginásio actual é não só significativamente maior, mas oferece também uma gama muito maior de actividades de fitness do que o antigo ginásio modestamente equipado. A este respeito, o Órgão de Fiscalização tem dúvidas quanto ao facto de as ampliações de 1997 e/ou 2006/2007, que ocorreram após a entrada em vigor do Acordo EEE, terem ou não alterado o carácter das actividades do ginásio. De acordo com a jurisprudência, o alargamento do âmbito das actividades não implica em geral que a medida constitua um novo auxílio. Não obstante, tendo em conta as alterações aparentemente significativas e a expansão das actividades do ginásio (1), o Órgão de Fiscalização não pôde excluir que a classificação do auxílio possa ter mudado.

Presença de auxílio estatal

Vantagens decorrentes de recursos estatais concedidos a uma empresa

O município de Vefsn cobre o défice anual do KLC no seu conjunto. Os recursos municipais são recursos estatais na acepção do artigo 61.o do Acordo EEE (2). O ginásio tem sido financiado com as tarifas pagas pelos utentes, fixadas e afectadas pelo município de modo a dispor de um excedente, enquanto o resto do KLC funciona em défice. Devido à prática que consiste em não ter uma separação clara das contas, o Órgão de Fiscalização não pode excluir a hipótese de o ginásio ter sido objecto de uma subvenção cruzada.

O ginásio também recebeu fundos da Norsk Tipping AS, uma empresa de jogos que pertence inteiramente ao Estado norueguês e que se encontra sob tutela do Ministério da Cultura e dos Assuntos Religiosos (3). Os fundos provenientes dos jogos são recolhidos, administrados e distribuídos sob controlo do Estado e, por conseguinte, representam recursos estatais na acepção do n.o 1 do artigo 61.o, do Acordo EEE.

Além disso, o ginásio poderá ter sido financiado por recursos provenientes do município de Nordland.

O ginásio, que faz parte do KLC, funciona em grande medida como um ginásio normal e, a este respeito, parece constituir uma empresa. Embora as autoridades norueguesas tenham argumentado que não foi concedido qualquer auxílio estatal ao ginásio na acepção da jurisprudência Altmark, na presente fase o Órgão de Fiscalização não pode excluir que o financiamento do ginásio do KLC confira uma vantagem ao ginásio.

Distorção da concorrência e efeitos sobre as trocas comerciais entre as Partes Contratantes

A vantagem conferida ao ginásio do KLC parece ameaçar distorcer a concorrência no mercado dos ginásios. Todavia, o Órgão de Fiscalização tem dúvidas quanto ao facto de a medida ameaçar afectar as trocas comerciais intra-EEE, na acepção do n.o 1 do artigo 61.o, do Acordo EEE. Em geral, os ginásios parecem prestar um serviço que, pela sua própria natureza, tem uma zona de atracção limitada. O ginásio do KLC não parece ser tão excepcional que atraia visitantes vindos de longe. Situa-se no segundo departamento mais setentrional da Noruega, a cerca de 60 km por estrada da fronteira sueca mais próxima. Contudo, algumas empresas que efectuam trocas comerciais intra-EEE operam no mercado norueguês dos ginásios. Por outro lado, afigura-se que estas empresas tendem a estabelecer-se em regiões da Noruega mais densamente povoadas.

Compatibilidade do auxílio

O Órgão de Fiscalização tem dúvidas quanto ao facto de o funcionamento do que, em grande medida, parece ser um ginásio normal poder representar um serviço de interesse económico geral na acepção do n.o 2 do artigo 59.o, do Acordo EEE.

Além disso, o Órgão de Fiscalização duvida que o financiamento do ginásio possa ser compatível com o Acordo EEE com base na derrogação no domínio cultural prevista no n.o 3, alínea c), do artigo 61.o, do Acordo EEE, tal como foi afirmado pelas autoridades norueguesas.

Por último, o Órgão de Fiscalização duvida que o financiamento das ampliações de 1997 e de 2006/2007 possa ser parcial ou totalmente compatível com o funcionamento do Acordo EEE com base no n.o 3, alínea c), do artigo 61.o e nos capítulos das Orientações relativas aos auxílios com finalidade regional do Órgão de Fiscalização.

Conclusão

À luz do que precede, o Órgão de Fiscalização decidiu dar início ao procedimento formal de investigação em conformidade com o n.o 2 do artigo 1.o, da Parte I do Protocolo n.o 3 ao Acordo entre os Estados da EFTA relativo à criação de um Órgão de Fiscalização e de um Tribunal de Justiça no que diz respeito aos fundos pagos pelo município de Vefsn ao ginásio do KLC. Convidam-se as partes interessadas a apresentarem as suas observações no prazo de um mês a contar da data de publicação da presente decisão no Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 537/09/COL

of 16 December 2009

to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to the financing of the fitness centre at the Kippermoen Leisure Centre

(Norway)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (4),

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (5), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (6), in particular to Article 24 thereof,

Having regard to Article 1(2) of Part I and Articles 4(4) and 6 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (7),

Having regard to the Authority’s Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement (8), and in particular the Chapters on Public service compensation (9) and National Regional Aid (10) thereof,

Having regard to the Authority’s Decision of 14 July 2004 on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 of Part II of Protocol 3 (11),

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

By letter dated 27 January 2009, the Norwegian authorities notified a measure financing the publicly owned fitness centre at the Kippermoen Leisure Centre (KLC) (Kippermoen Idrettssenter), pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3. The letter was registered by the Authority the 28 January 2009 (Event No 506341).

By email dated 3 March 2009 (Event No 511153), the Norwegian Association for Fitness Centres (NAFC) (Norsk Treningssenterforbund) submitted comments to the notification.

By letter dated 27 March 2009 (Event No 511172), the Authority forwarded the comments from NAFC to the Norwegian authorities and requested additional information. By letter dated 29 May 2009 (Event No 520013), the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request. By letter dated 29 July 2009 (Event No 525457), the Authority requested additional information from the Norwegian authorities. By letter dated 9 September 2009 (Event No 529846), the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request.

The Authority and the Norwegian authorities discussed the notification in a meeting in Oslo on 16 September 2009. By email dated 28 September 2009, the Authority requested further information and clarifications, to which the Norwegian authorities replied by email dated 29 September 2009 (the two emails are archived as Event No 531832).

2.   The KLC

2.1.   
  Overview of the development of the KLC

The KLC was established in the 1970s. It is located in the city of Mosjøen which is part of the municipality of Vefsn, in the county of Nordland. The centre is owned by the municipality and is not organised as a separate legal entity.

Initially, the centre consisted of two separate buildings, one hall encompassing an indoor swimming pool with a solarium and a sports hall. Furthermore, the KLC housed a modestly equipped fitness centre.

The two halls of the KLC were managed separately until 1992, when the department of culture at Vefsn municipality started coordinating the management of the two halls. In the same year, the municipality of Vefsn initiated a project in cooperation with the county municipality of Nordland aiming to increase the physical activity of the general population in the county.

In 1997, as a consequence of a broadening of the cooperation with the county municipality under the so-called FYSAK programme, Vefsn municipality arranged for an expansion and renovation of the entire KLC, including the fitness centre.

In 2006 and 2007, the fitness centre was expanded with an annexe (Mellombygningen) linking together the existing buildings of the KLC. Furthermore, squash courts were established at the KLC. Nowadays, the KLC comprises a combined football and multi-purpose hall (Mosjøhallen) and outdoors facilities such as a toboggan run and a shooting range, in addition to the sports hall and the hall with indoor swimming pool established in the early 1970s and the fitness centre. However, the notification submitted by the Norwegian authorities only concerns the fitness centre.

2.2.   
  The financing of the KLC and its fitness centre

Since its foundation in 1970s, the municipality of Vefsn has financed the KLC over the municipal budget. Moreover, since its foundation, the KLC has been financed by the revenues generated from fees levied on users. The prices are set by decisions of the municipal council of Vefsn. At the present time, individual users are charged a fee for the use of the fitness centre, squash courts, swimming pool and the solarium, and can choose among different types of season tickets and single tickets granting access to the various facilities. The Norwegian authorities have explained that the current system of allocation of ticket revenue entails that all revenue generated from the sale of all-access season tickets is allocated to the fitness centre. The revenue stemming from the various single tickets, including those granting access to the fitness centre, is allocated to the other facilities at the KLC. Groups of users, like local schools, seem to be charged for the use of the facilities at the KLC on a cost basis, where the compensation paid seems to be allocated to the relevant facility. In the years 2006-08, the total annual revenue generated by user fees represented between NOK 3,6 and 3,7 million. The Norwegian authorities state that approximately NOK 2,6 million (approximately 70 %) of this revenue has been allocated to the fitness centre (12).

From 2000, the municipality of Vefsn intended that the fitness centre part of the KLC was to be self-financed in the sense that the revenue generated from the fees levied on users of the fitness centre should cover all its costs. In order to ensure that the fitness centre part of the KLC is self-financed, the municipality has attempted to keep separate accounts for the fitness centre and the other activities of the KLC, where the fitness centre carries a proportionate share of common costs. However, a complete separation of accounts does not yet seem to be fully implemented (13).

According to the annual accounts of 2006-08, the fitness centre at the KLC has operated with an annual profit of between NOK 700 000 and 900 000 on account of the revenue generated by the user fees. In contrast to the fitness centre, the KLC as a whole, operates with an annual deficit. This annual deficit is covered by the operating budget of the municipality of Vefsn.

According to the NAFC, the KLC has received grants from the county municipality of Nordland. Despite the request made by the Authority, the Norwegian authorities have not provided any information regarding whether, and in that case how, these funds have been allocated to KLC and whether they were spent for the fitness centre or for other premises within the KLC.

The two expansions of the whole KLC in 1997 and 2006/07 have been financed through various sources. Regarding the 1997 expansion, it was mainly financed by a NOK 10 million loan. The Authority received no information on the identity of the lender, the terms of the loan or how it was serviced (14). Additionally, the expansion seems to have been financed by gaming funds granted by Norsk Tipping AS
   (15).

The 2006/07 expansion was partly financed through a NOK 10 million bank loan with an interest based on three year government bonds plus 1 % (16), a proportionate part of which was intended to be serviced by the fitness centre. The expansion was further financed by NOK 4 million of gaming funds from Norsk Tipping AS, which were mainly, but apparently not exclusively, used to finance the expansion of other parts of the KLC (17).

2.3.   
  Legal basis for the financing of the KLC

The legal basis for the financing of the KLC including the fitness centre, seems to be decisions made by the municipal council of Vefsn. According to the budgetary decisions made by Vefsn municipality, ever since the KLC was established in 1970s the operating costs of the KLC have been partly covered by the municipality’s operating budget. The two expansions of 1997 and 2006/07 also seem to have been undertaken in accordance with decisions made by the municipality of Vefsn.

3.   Comments by the Norwegian authorities

The Norwegian authorities argue that the fitness centre is run as a part of the municipal healthcare service and provides a service of general economic interest. Since 1997, the municipality of Vefsn has operated the KLC under the FYSAK programme — a programme managed by the county municipality of Nordland in order to aid the municipalities of Nordland in fulfilling their obligations to promote health in accordance with the Municipal Health Service Act (18). According to its Article 2(1) the municipality has a legal obligation to provide ‘necessary healthcare’ to anyone residing or temporarily staying within the area of the municipality. According to Articles 1(2) and 1(4), the Norwegian municipalities shall prevent and treat diseases, injuries and other health problems, and when providing such services, the municipalities shall promote public health, public well-being and the quality of the general social environment.

The Norwegian authorities hold that the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC merely represents compensation for services rendered by the fitness centre which is provided in line with the Altmark criteria (19). Consequently, it does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

In any event, the Norwegian authorities argue that the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC, as far as it could be held to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, must be considered compatible either as a public service compensation on the basis of Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement, or alternatively as a cultural measure on the basis of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

4.   Comments from the NAFC

The NAFC has submitted comments to the notification. The association holds that the fitness centre at the KLC has received State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. As to the sources of such aid, the NAFC claims that the fitness centre has been allocated State resources from the municipality of Vefsn, Norsk Tipping AS and the county municipality of Nordland.

The NAFC argues that the aid can neither be held to be compatible with the functioning of the EEA on the basis of Article 61(3)(c), nor constitute a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 59(2). Finally, the NAFC holds that the aid exceeds the de minimis threshold.

II.   ASSESSMENT

1.   Scope of the State aid assessment in this Decision

As mentioned above under Section I.2.2, the fitness centre at the KLC has received financing from different sources. It has been financed by the municipality of Vefsn on a regular basis since its establishment. Furthermore, the KLC has received funds from Norsk Tipping AS whereby the Norwegian authorities have not excluded that some of these funds were allocated to the fitness centre. Finally, the fitness centre has allegedly received funds stemming from the county municipality of Nordland.

1.1.   
  Funds stemming from the county municipality of Nordland

The Authority received no information or documentation regarding the funds potentially received from the county municipality of Nordland. The Norwegian authorities are invited either to confirm that the fitness centre at the KLC did not receive any funds from the county municipality of Nordland or to provide the necessary information for the assessment of the State aid character of those funds and of the compatibility with the rules of the EEA Agreement.

1.2.   
  Funds stemming from Norsk Tipping AS

The funds stemming from Norsk Tipping AS are gaming funds collected, administered and distributed on the basis of the Gaming Act from 1992 that entered into force on 1 January 1993 (20), before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement. The Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs has the general responsibility for the operation of Norsk Tipping AS, the company entrusted with the administration of the gaming funds.

The profit generated by the activities of Norsk Tipping AS was originally distributed by thirds: a third for sporting purposes, a third for cultural purposes and a third for scientific purposes (21). By Act No 37 of 21 June 2002, the distribution formula was amended to the effect that the profits were to be distributed equally between sports and cultural objectives.

In 2003, a bill was passed that gave Norsk Tipping AS an exclusive right to operate slot machines. In that connection, a new distribution formula set at 18 % the allocation to non-sports related NGOs, 45,5 % for sports and 36,5 % for culture.

With reference to the case law cited in Section II,1.3 below, the Authority considers that the introduction of a new group of recipients does not affect the classification of aid granted to culture and sports (22).

Accordingly, the Authority considers the activities of Norsk Tipping AS to constitute an existing system of State aid within the meaning of the provisions of the EEA Agreement.

Although Norsk Tipping AS only granted financing to the fitness centre at the KLC in 1997 and 2006/07, the Authority considers that it benefited from the application of an existing system of State aid. Individual grants under an existing system do not qualify as new aid within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Part II of Protocol 3.

Thus, based on the above, the Authority considers that any gaming funds potentially allocated to the fitness centre at the KLC in connection with the 1997 or 2006/07 expansions are grants stemming from a system of existing aid within the meaning of Article 62 of the EEA Agreement. For that reason, the compatibility with the functioning of the EEA Agreement of the grant of gaming funds from Norsk Tipping AS to the fitness centre at the KLC is not assessed in this Decision.

1.3.   
  Funds stemming from the municipality of Vefsn

Insofar as the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC with resources from the municipality of Vefsn involves the grant of State aid, the question is whether this measure represents new or existing aid.

The KLC has been financed by the municipality of Vefsn since it was established in the early seventies. The annual deficit of the KLC has been covered by the municipal operating budget. In addition to this, the KLC has, ever since it was established, been financed by the revenue generated from various user fees, determined by the municipality. This method of financing was in place before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement on 1 January 1994, and would for these reasons as such seem to constitute existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3.

It follows from Article 1(c) to the same Protocol that alterations to existing aid constitute new aid. Moreover, it follows from the case law that where such alterations affect the actual substance of the original scheme the latter may be transformed into a new scheme. There can be no question of such a substantive alteration where the new element is clearly severable from the initial scheme (23). In this regard, it is worth noting that the emergence of new aid or the alteration of existing aid cannot be assessed according to the scale of the aid or, in particular, its amount in financial terms at any moment in the life of the undertaking if the aid is provided under earlier statutory provisions which remain unaltered. Whether aid may be classified as new aid or as alteration of existing aid must be determined by reference to the provisions providing for it (24).

Thus, the qualification of the financing mechanism as existing aid does not mean that the financing of an expansion or alteration of the KLC necessarily would be considered as existing aid. On the contrary, alterations that are not severable from the existing scheme and that affect its substance could entail that the scheme in its entirety is considered as new aid.

Regarding the financing of the fitness centre, the KLC was established in the 1970s, and has primarily been financed by the operating budget of the municipality of Vefsn and allocation of revenue generated by user fees. The method of financing the KLC seems to have been established by decisions of the municipal council of Vefsn in the early 1970s before it was constructed, and has essentially remained unchanged since then. The debts incurred by the 2006/07 expansion were supposed to be serviced in line with this established method of financing, and accordingly the method of financing as such does not seem to have changed within the meaning of the above referenced case law. However, the Authority has not received sufficiently specific information on how the expansion of 1997 was financed. The Authority notes that the specific circumstances relating to the legal basis for the expansion and how the expansion was financed could represent changes entailing that it should be considered as alterations of existing aid.

Furthermore, the ticketing system has been changed since the entry into force of the EEA Agreement. The changes seem to have affected the price, the types of tickets offered and the system of allocation of ticket revenue. The Authority has not been provided with specific information concerning these developments, and has accordingly not been able to exclude that these changes involve a form of new aid.

Regarding the beneficiary, as far as the premises are concerned, according to the information made available to the Authority, the fitness centre was initially modestly equipped. The question is whether the sports facilities existing in the 1970s have been merely upgraded in accordance with new demands or whether the current fitness centre must be considered as a new facility. It is the Authority’s understanding that the current fitness centre is not only significantly bigger but it also offers a much broader range of fitness activities than the old modestly equipped fitness centre. In this respect, the Authority has doubts as to whether the expansions of 1997 and/or 2006/07, which took place after the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, changed the character of the operations of the fitness centre. According to case law, the enlargement of the scope of activities does generally not imply that the measure involves new aid. Nevertheless, given the apparently significant changes and expansion in the activities of the fitness centre (25) the Authority has not been able to exclude that the classification of the aid could have changed.

1.4.   
  Conclusion — scope of the State aid assessment in this Decision

Based on the lack of information regarding the funds that have allegedly been granted by the county municipality of Nordland to the fitness centre at the KLC, and the existing aid nature of the grants from Norsk Tipping AS, the following State aid assessment is confined to the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC with resources stemming from the municipality of Vefsn.

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

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

‘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.’

It follows from this provision that, for State aid within the meaning of the EEA Agreement to be present, the following conditions must be met:

| — | the aid must be granted through State resources, |
| --- | --- |

—

the aid must be granted through State resources,

| — | the aid must favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, i.e. the measure must confer a selective economic advantage upon the recipient, |
| --- | --- |

—

the aid must favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, i.e. the measure must confer a selective economic advantage upon the recipient,

| — | the recipient must constitute an undertaking within the meaning of the EEA Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

—

the recipient must constitute an undertaking within the meaning of the EEA Agreement,

| — | the aid must threaten to distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties. |
| --- | --- |

—

the aid must threaten to distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties.

2.1.   
  Presence of State resources

Presence of State resources

The measure must involve the consumption of State resources and/or be granted by the State. The State for the purpose of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement covers all bodies of the state administration, from the central government to the municipality level or the lowest administrative level as well as public undertakings and bodies.

The municipality of Vefsn covers the annual deficit of the KLC as a whole. Municipal resources are State resources within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement (26).

26

From 2006 to 2008, the fitness centre at the KLC has operated with an annual surplus, which stems from the revenue generated by user fees (27). On the other hand, the KLC as a whole, has run with an annual deficit that has been covered by the operating budget of the municipality of Vefsn. The Authority notes that the municipality of Vefsn controls the ticketing system at the KLC; the prices, the types of tickets offered and the system of allocation of ticket revenue is determined by the municipal council. If the municipality allocates ticket revenues to the fitness centre beyond those collected from the actual users of the premises of the fitness centre, these ticket revenues will qualify as State resources within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. A system of allocation of ticket revenue, under the complete control of public authorities, can involve State aid where the principles of allocation do not correspond to the customers’ use of the different facilities.

27

The criteria applied for the allocation of revenue generated by the sale of tickets granting admission to the KLC do not appear to be particularly exact. Under the current system, all revenues generated by the sale of all-access season tickets are allocated to the fitness centre although these tickets enable the holder to access other facilities of the KLC. All revenues stemming from the various single tickets, including single tickets giving access to the fitness centre, are allocated to the other facilities at the KLC. As described in Section I.2.2 of this Decision, this entails that the fitness centre of the KLC receives about 70 % of the total ticket revenue. The Norwegian authorities state that this represents a correct allocation of revenue as an informal examination carried out in 2006 indicated that about 70 % of the adult visitors mainly use the fitness centre. However, in the absence of additional information and documentation, the Authority has doubts as to whether the current method of allocation corresponds to the customers’ use of the different facilities thereby ensuring that there is no cross-subsidisation involving State resources from other parts of the KLC to the fitness centre.

As described under Section I.2.2 of this Decision, the municipality has not maintained a clear and consistent separation of the accounts for the different activities of the KLC. On the basis of this, the Authority cannot exclude that a form of cross-subsidisation of the fitness centre occurs.

Furthermore, the 2006/07 expansion was partly financed through a NOK 10 million bank loan. The fitness centre was intended to share the financing by servicing a proportionate part of the loan. However, its annual accounts from 2008 show that the fitness centre has only partially serviced its part of the loan according to the cost-allocation plan (28). In 2008, the fitness centre contributed NOK 185 000 in interest of the budgeted NOK 684 000, and an instalment of NOK 200 000 of the budgeted NOK 405 000. Thus, the fitness centre at the KLC only covered NOK 385 000 of the total NOK 1 089 000. The remaining part of the 2008 cost of the loan seems to have been serviced by the municipality of Vefsn. In light of this the Authority cannot to exclude that the 2006/07 expansion of the fitness centre at the KLC has been financed with resources from the municipality.

28

2.2.   
  Favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods

Favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods

In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement the measure must confer a selective economic advantage upon an undertaking.

2.2.1.   The concept of undertaking

The concept of undertaking

Firstly, it is necessary to establish whether the fitness centre constitutes an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. According to settled case law, an undertaking encompasses every entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way it is financed (29). Activities consisting in offering services on a given market qualify as economic activities (30), and entities carrying out such activities must be classified as undertakings. The fitness centre at the KLC offers its services to the general population in competition with other undertakings operating on the same market. In light of this, the fitness centre at the KLC seems to constitute an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.

29

30

2.2.2.   Compensation for providing services of general economic interest

Compensation for providing services of general economic interest

As the fitness centre seems to constitute an undertaking, the Authority must assess whether it has received an economic advantage within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.

The Norwegian authorities argue that the fitness centre is run as a part of the municipal healthcare service and provides a service of general economic interest within this context, and that the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC merely represents compensation for services rendered provided in accordance with the Altmark criteria (31), and consequently does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

Altmark

31

Indeed, a measure is not caught by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement where it ‘must be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, so that those undertakings do not enjoy a real financial advantage and the measure thus does not have the effect of putting them in a more favourable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them’ (32).

32

In the Altmark judgment the Court of Justice held that compensation for public service obligations does not constitute State aid when four cumulative criteria are met:

Altmark

| — | first, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and such obligations must be clearly defined, |
| --- | --- |

—

first, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and such obligations must be clearly defined,

| — | second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner, |
| --- | --- |

—

second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner,

| — | third, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit, |
| --- | --- |

—

third, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit,

| — | finally, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped, would have incurred (33). |
| --- | --- |

—

finally, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped, would have incurred (33).

33

When these four criteria are met cumulatively, the State compensation does not confer an advantage upon the undertaking. As to the present case, the Authority is in doubt as to whether the fitness centre at the KLC is entrusted with a clearly defined public service obligation as required under the first Altmark criterion (34). Furthermore, the Authority has doubts as to whether the method of calculating the compensation has been established in advance in an objective and transparent manner (the 2nd Altmark criterion). Moreover it cannot be determined at this stage on the basis of the information provided that it does not exceed what is necessary (the 3rd Altmark criterion) (35). Finally, the Authority notes that the fitness centre at the KLC has not been selected in a public procurement procedure and that the Norwegian authorities have not provided the Authority with information enabling a verification of whether the costs incurred by the fitness centre at the KLC correspond to the costs of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped as required by the fourth Altmark criterion. Thus, the Authority cannot exclude that the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC gives it an advantage.

Altmark

34

Altmark

Altmark

35

Altmark

Should an advantage have been granted to the fitness centre at the KLC, it would be selective as it only concerns this particular undertaking.

2.3.   
  Distorting competition and affecting trade between Contracting Parties

Distorting competition and affecting trade between Contracting Parties

The aid measure must distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties. Under 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 enough to conclude that the measure is likely to affect trade between Contracting Parties and distort competition between undertakings established in other EEA States (36).

36

The State resources allocated to the fitness centre at the KLC seem to constitute an advantage that strengthens the fitness centre’s position compared to that of other undertakings competing in the same market. Therefore, the measure seems to threaten to distort competition between undertakings.

The question is whether the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC threatens to affect intra-EEA trade.

A privately owned fitness centre, Friskhuset Mosjøen
   (37), a franchisee under the Friskhuset franchisor, is established in Mosjøen, the same city as the KLC. Based only on the available information, the Authority has not been able to determine whether the franchisor or the franchisee are involved in intra-EEA trade.

Friskhuset Mosjøen

37

Friskhuset

Regardless of this, the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC might threaten to affect intra-EEA trade in other ways. In the practice of the European Commission, the geographical attraction zone of a service has been held to be an important benchmark when establishing a measure’s effect on intra-EEA trade (38). In the Authority’s view, fitness centres, in general, seem to provide a service which by its very nature has a limited attraction zone. Based on the information made available to the Authority, the fitness centre at KLC does not seem to be so unique as to attract visitors from afar. Furthermore, the KLC is situated approximately 60 km (by road) from the nearest Swedish border. A distance of about 50 km from the closest EEA State was held to be sufficient to exclude impact on intra-EEA trade from the operation of a swimming pool in Dorsten, Germany (39).

38

39

Further indications of lack of effect on intra-EEA trade, held to be relevant in Commission practice, seem to be present. The fitness centre at the KLC does not belong to a wider group of undertakings (40). The information provided to the Authority does not indicate that the fitness centre at the KLC attracts investments to the region where it is established (41).

40

41

Moreover, the Authority has not been provided with sufficient information relating to the market share of the fitness centre at the KLC to make a thorough assessment of the impact, or lack thereof, on intra-EEA trade (42).

42

It is worth noting that several of the undertakings active on the Norwegian fitness centre market are involved in intra-EEA trade. However, it seems that these undertakings tend to establish fitness centres in more densely populated areas than that of Vefsn municipality (43).

43

In light of the above, the Authority is in doubt as to whether the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC threatens to affect intra-EEA trade.

2.4.   
  Conclusion on the presence of State aid

Conclusion on the presence of State aid

The Authority consequently has doubts as to whether the measures under scrutiny involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.

3.   Notification requirement and standstill obligation

Notification requirement and standstill obligation

The Norwegian authorities submitted a notification of the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC on 27 January 2009 (Event No 506341). Insofar as the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC may constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, and that this aid constitutes ‘new aid’ within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Norwegian authorities should have notified the aid before putting it into effect pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.

It should be recalled that any new aid which is unlawfully implemented and which is finally not declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement is subject to recovery in accordance with Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3. However, the Authority notes that any State aid granted more than 10 years before any action is taken by the Authority is deemed to be existing aid not subject to recovery pursuant to Article 15 of Part II of Protocol 3.

4.   Compatibility of the aid

Compatibility of the aid

The Norwegian authorities have argued that the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC, as far as it is held to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, must be considered to be compatible either as compensation for providing a service of general economic interest on the basis of Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement, or alternatively as a cultural measure on the basis of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

4.1.   
  Service of general economic interest — Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement

Service of general economic interest — Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement

Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:

‘Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in this Agreement, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules do not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Contracting Parties.’

The Norwegian authorities consider that operating the fitness centre at the KLC, as such, constitutes a service of general economic interest (44). The Norwegian authorities argue that the purpose of operating the fitness centre at the KLC is to stimulate all the residents of the municipality of Vefsn to be more physically active and consequently improve the general health of the local population. However, there seems to be no specific mechanisms in place ensuring that the fitness centre at the KLC is available to as many users as possible. The so-called FYSAK pass seems to be available to everyone above the age of 15 at the same price, there seems to be no specific means-tested discount available to those of lesser means, although some discounts seem to be granted for young people below the age of 20 and senior citizens (45). The Norwegian authorities seem to acknowledge this by stating that ‘(a) very small number of groups are excluded due to price’ (46). In that sense, the fitness centre seems to function, at least partly, as a normal fitness centre. Furthermore, the Authority questions whether there is a need to subsidise a fitness centre in the specific area of Mosjøen since a privately owned fitness centre has been operating in the same city for more than a decade.

44

45

46

The Authority acknowledges that the Norwegian authorities have a wide margin of discretion regarding the nature of services that could be classified as constituting services of general economic interest (47). However, in light of the above, the Authority has doubts as to whether the operation the fitness centre at the KLC can constitute a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement.

47

In this respect, reference is made to the Authority’s guidelines on State aid in the form of public service compensation (48). The following cumulative criteria must be fulfilled in order for a State aid measure to be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of Article 59(2) in conjunction with the public service guidelines:

48

| — | the service must constitute a genuine service of general economic interest, |
| --- | --- |

—

the service must constitute a genuine service of general economic interest,

| — | the undertaking must be entrusted with the operation of the service by way of one or more official acts, |
| --- | --- |

—

the undertaking must be entrusted with the operation of the service by way of one or more official acts,

| — | the amount of compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in discharging the service. |
| --- | --- |

—

the amount of compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in discharging the service.

According to the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, the fitness centre seems to provide certain special preventive and convalescent services to individuals with specific needs in accordance with the municipality’s obligations under Article 1-2 of the MHS Act. Such services seem to be provided to individuals with a so-called FYSAK prescription (FYSAK Resept) which can be obtained from a doctor, physical therapist or certain public bodies (49). However, the Authority has not received specific information pertaining to how the fitness centre at the KLC is compensated for providing such services, and cannot exclude that the compensation does not exceed what is necessary within the meaning of the public service guidelines.

FYSAK Resept

49

At this stage, the Authority has not been able to assess whether the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC in part or in full can constitute compensation for a service of general economic interest that could be compatible with the functioning of the EEA within the meaning of Article 59(2).

4.2.   
  Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement

Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:

‘The following may be considered to be compatible with the functioning of this Agreement: [...] (c) aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest.’

The Norwegian authorities hold that the aid granted to the fitness centre at the KLC should be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of the exemption in Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, and more specifically that the operation of the fitness centre must be regarded as a measure to promote culture within the meaning of the provision in Article 107(3)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The EEA Agreement does not include a corresponding provision. 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 (50).

50

In this respect, reference must be made to the European Commission’s White Paper on Sports (51), which acknowledges that sport is crucial to the well-being of European society. The vast majority of sporting activities take place in non-profit making structures, many of which depend on public support to provide access to sporting activities to all citizens.

51

However, based on the information available, the Authority has doubts as to whether the operation of the fitness centre at the KLC constitutes a cultural activity.

The Authority notes that the KLC is located in a region eligible for regional aid (52) and points to the fact that financing connected to the expansion of 2006/07 could under certain circumstances be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement (53). However, the information made available to the Authority during its preliminary examination of the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC does not enable it to make a definite assessment of this question.

52

53

5.   Conclusion

Conclusion

Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority cannot exclude the possibility that the funds received by the fitness centre at the KLC constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

As explained under Section II.1.2 above, the Authority considers that the funds stemming from Norsk Tipping AS have been granted in accordance with an existing aid scheme, they are not covered by this Decision to open the formal investigation procedure.

Norsk Tipping AS

The Authority has doubts as to whether the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC with funds stemming from the municipality of Vefsn, in particular concerning those funds allocated on the basis of the two expansions in 1997 and 2006/07, constitute ‘new aid’, which pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 should have been notified to the Authority prior to its implementation.

The Authority has doubts as to whether the aid granted is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, in accordance with Article 59(2) or Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

In accordance with Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question do not constitute State aid, are to be classified as existing aid or are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Norwegian authorities to submit their comments within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision.

In light of the foregoing considerations, within one month of receipt of this Decision, the Authority request the Norwegian authorities to provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the financing of the fitness centre at the KLC. In particular, the Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to provide detailed information regarding any funding from the county municipality of Nordland to the fitness centre at the KLC, as mentioned under Section II.1.1 of this Decision.

It invites the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this Decision to the potential aid recipient of the aid immediately.

The Authority would like to remind the Norwegian authorities that, according to the provisions 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 the general principle of law,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 against Norway regarding the financing of the fitness centre at the Kippermoen Leisure Centre.

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 from 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 compatibility of the aid measure.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 5

Only the English version is authentic.

Done at Brussels, 16 December 2009.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Per SANDERUD

President

Kristján Andri STEFÁNSSON

College Member

---

(1)  Ver Comunicação da Comissão relativa à aplicação das regras em matéria de auxílios estatais ao serviço público de radiodifusão, JO C 257 de 27.10.2009, p. 1, pontos 25-31 e 80.

1

(2)  Ver Decisão n.o 55/05/COL do Órgão de Fiscalização, secção II.3, p. 19, com outras referências, publicada no JO L 324 de 23.11.2006, p. 11 e no Suplemento EEE n.o 56 de 23.11.2006, p. 1.

2

o

o

(3)  Ver o relatório anual e social de 2008 da Norsk Tipping AS, p. 3. Disponível em: https://www.norsk-tipping.no/page?id=207

3

Norsk Tipping AS

(4)  Hereinafter referred to as the Authority.

4

(5)  Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.

5

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

6

(7)  Hereinafter referred to as Protocol 3.

7

(8)  Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the Authority on 19.1.1994, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as OJ) L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994, p. 1 as amended. Hereinafter referred to as the State Aid Guidelines. The updated version of the State Aid Guidelines is published on the Authority’s website (http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines).

8

Official Journal of the European Union

(9)  Adopted by the Authority by Decision No 328/05/COL of 20.12.2005, published in OJ L 109, 26.4.2007, p. 44 and EEA Supplement No 20, 26.4.2007, p. 1.

9

(10)  The Chapter on National Regional Aid 2007–13 was adopted by the Authority by Decision No 85/06/COL of 6.4.2006, published in OJ L 54, 28.2.2008, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 11, 28.2.2008, p. 1 and is applicable from 1 January 2007 onwards. Prior to that date, reference must be made to the provisions of the Chapter on National regional aid adopted by Decision No 316/98/COL of 4.11.1998, published in OJ L 111, 29.4.1999, p. 46 and EEA Supplement No 18, 29.4.1999, p. 1.

10

(11)  Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (published in OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement No 26, 25.5.2006, p. 1), as amended. A consolidated version of the Decision can be found online (http://www.eftasurv.int).

11

(12)  See letter from Norwegian authorities dated 29.5.2009 (Event No 520013) p. 11.

12

(13)  Ibid p. 12.

13

(14)  See letter from the municipality of Vefsn to the Norwegian competition authorities dated 3.11.1998, p. 3 (added as sub-Appendix 2 to Appendix 2 of the letter from the Norwegian authorities dated 27.1.2009 (Event No 506341)). The expansion was apparently also financed through other sources, but these funds were seemingly earmarked for areas of the KLC that were not connected to the fitness centre.

14

(15)  L.c.

15

(16)  For 2007 the interest rate on three year government bonds was 3,74 %, consequently the interest rate for 2007 was (3,74 % + 1 %) 4,74 %.

16

(17)  See letter from the Norwegian authorities dated 29.5.2009 (Event No 520013) p. 12.

17

(18)  Lov om helsetjenesten i kommunene of 19 November 1982 No 66. Hereinafter referred to as the MHS Act.

18

Lov om helsetjenesten i kommunene

(19)  Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg (2003) ECR I-7747. See also case T-289/03 BUPA (2008) ECR II-81.

19

Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg

BUPA

(20)  The Gaming Act replaced Law No 92 of 20.12.1985 on Lotto.

20

(21)  The funds for sporting purposes are distributed by the King (i.e. the Government), whereas the funds for other purposes are partly distributed by the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget), in accordance with Article 10 of the Gaming Act and Regulation No 1056 adopted on 11.12.1992, which entered into force on 1.1.1993, i.e. before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in Norway.

21

Stortinget

(22)  The system is explained in the Preparatory Works to the amendment, Ot.prp. No 44 (2002-2003) Chapter 4.6.2.

22

(23)  See Case T-195/01 Government of Gibraltar v Commission (2002) ECR II-2309 paragraph 111.

23

Government of Gibraltar

Commission

(24)  See Case C-44/93 Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit SA v Office Nationale du Ducroire (1994) ECR I-3829 paragraph 28.

24

Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit SA

Office Nationale du Ducroire

(25)  See Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting, OJ C 257 of 27.10.2009, p. 1, paragraphs 25-31 and 80 ff.

25

(26)  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.

26

(27)  The Authority has not been provided with figures for earlier years.

27

(28)  This has been confirmed by Norwegian authorities in the letter dated 9.9.2009 (Event No 529846) p. 2-3.

28

(29)  Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elsner v Macrotron Gmbh (1991) ECR I-1979 paragraph 21.

29

Höfner and Elsner

Macrotron Gmbh

(30)  Case C-35/96 Commission v Italy (1998) ECR I-3851 paragraph 36.

30

Commission

Italy

(31)  Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, cited above.

31

Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg

(32)  Case C-280/00, Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, cited above, paragraph 87.

32

Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg

(33)  Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, cited above, paragraphs 89-93.

33

Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg

(34)  With regard to the question of whether the fitness centre at the KLC is entrusted with a clearly defined service obligation, see Section II.4.1.

34

(35)  See Section II.4.1.

35

(36)  Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland (1980) ECR 2671 paragraphs 11-12.

36

Philip Morris Holland

(37)  The ownership of the privately owned fitness centre has changed over the years. It has been owned by Centrum Fysikalske Institutt AS which in the year 2000 merged with another undertaking and changed name to Helsehuset Fysioterapi og Manuell Terapi Mosjøen AS. From 2007 the fitness centre operated as a franchisee under the Friskhuset franchisor. The Authority has doubts as to whether any of the previous owners have been involved in intra-EEA trade.

37

Centrum Fysikalske Institutt AS

Helsehuset Fysioterapi og Manuell Terapi Mosjøen AS

Friskhuset

(38)  See notice from the Commission on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain types of State aid, published in OJ C 136, 16.6.2009, p. 3 paragraph 5(b) viii, footnote 6 which references the following Commission Decisions in Cases N 258/2000 (Germany, leisure pool Dorsten), N 486/02 (Sweden, Aid in favour of a congress hall in Visby), N 610/01 (Germany, Tourism infrastructure program Baden-Württemberg) and N 377/07 (the Netherlands, support to Bataviawerf).

38

(39)  See Commission Decision in Case N 258/2000. See also Commission Decision in Case N 610/01 Section 4.3.

39

(40)  See the criteria listed in the notice from the Commission on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain types of State aid, published in OJ C 136, 16.6.2009, p. 3 paragraph 5(b) viii, footnote 6.L.c.

40

(41)  L.c.

41

(42)  L.c.

42

(43)  Vefsn municipality is located in the second northernmost county of Norway. The KLC is located in a region eligible for regional aid, see the Authority’s Decision No 226/06/COL of 19.7.2006, published in OJ L 54, 28.2.2008, p. 21 and EEA Supplement No 11, 28.2.2008, p. 19.

43

(44)  See letter accompanying the notification of the measure dated 27.1.2009 (Event No 506341), p. 14-19, and letter from Norwegian authorities dated 29.5.2009 (Event No 520013) p. 3-7.

44

(45)  See http://www.kippermoen.com/index.asp?side=priser

45

(46)  See letter from Norwegian authorities dated 29.5.2009 (Event No 520013) p. 13.

46

(47)  See the public service guidelines paragraph 8.

47

(48)  Hereinafter referred to as the public service guidelines.

48

(49)  See http://www.kippermoen.com/index.asp?side=akt_res

49

(50)  See for example paragraph 7 (with further references) of the Chapter of the Authority’s guidelines on State aid to cinematographic and other audiovisual work, adopted by the Authority by Decision No 774/08/COL of 17 December 2008, not yet published in the OJ or the EEA Supplement, available at the Authority’s web page (http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/).

50

(51)  White Paper on Sport, COM(2007) 391 final.

51

(52)  See the regional aid maps of assisted areas for Norway registered in the Authority’s Decision No 327/99/COL of 16.12.1999 and Decision No 226/06/COL of 19.7.2006.

52

(53)  For any aid granted after 1 January 2007, Chapter of the Authority’s guidelines on National Regional Aid 2007-13. For aid granted before that date, reference must be made to the provisions of the Chapter on National Regional Aid adopted by Decision No 319/98/COL of 4.11.1998.

53

---

| 8.7.2010 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 184/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 184/20

---

Convite para apresentação de observações, nos termos do n.o 2, do artigo 1.o, da Parte I do Protocolo n.o 3 do Acordo entre os Estados da EFTA relativo à criação de um Órgão de Fiscalização e de um Tribunal de Justiça, em matéria de auxílios estatais, sobre a venda de um terreno à Asker Brygge AS pelo município de Asker

2010/C 184/06

Pela Decisão n.o 538/09/COL, de 16 de Dezembro de 2009, publicada na língua que faz fé a seguir ao presente resumo, o Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA deu início a um procedimento nos termos do artigo 1.o, n.o 2, da Parte I do Protocolo n.o 3 do Acordo entre os Estados da EFTA relativo à criação de um Órgão de Fiscalização e de um Tribunal de Justiça. As autoridades norueguesas foram informadas mediante cópia da decisão.

O Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA convida os Estados da EFTA, os Estados-Membros da União Europeia e as partes interessadas a apresentarem as suas observações sobre a medida em causa no prazo de um mês a contar da data de publicação da presente comunicação, enviando-as para o seguinte endereço:

| Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA |
| --- |
| Registo |
| Rue Belliard 35 |
| 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Órgão de Fiscalização da EFTA

Registo

Rue Belliard 35

1040 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

As observações serão comunicadas às autoridades norueguesas. Qualquer interessado que apresente observações pode solicitar por escrito o tratamento confidencial da sua identidade, devendo justificar o pedido.

RESUMO

Por carta recebida pelo Órgão de Fiscalização em 13 de Fevereiro de 2009, as autoridades norueguesas notificaram a venda de um terreno pelo município de Asker à empresa Asker Brygge AS.

Em 2001, o município de Asker e a Asker Brygge celebraram um acordo nos termos do qual foi concedida à Asker Brygge a opção de compra de um terreno até 31 de Dezembro de 2009 por um montante fixo de 8 milhões de NOK, actualizado segundo o índice dos preços no consumidor. Em 2005, a Asker Brygge decidiu invocar a opção de compra do terreno. Após negociações, as partes acordaram um preço de venda de 8 727 462 NOK, tendo celebrado um contrato de venda em 21 de Março de 2007. O terreno foi transferido para a Asker Brygge na mesma data, não obstante o facto de o preço de venda ser pago em duas parcelas, tal como já previsto no contrato de opção de 2001. A segunda parcela corresponde a 70 % do preço de venda (6 109 223 NOK) e deve ser paga o mais tardar em 31 de Dezembro de 2011. O município de Asker não aplicará qualquer taxa de juro a esta segunda parcela.

O Órgão de Fiscalização duvida que a operação de venda do terreno tenha sido efectuada em conformidade com o princípio do investidor numa economia de mercado. As condições desta venda foram estabelecidas no contrato de opção assinado em 2001. Por conseguinte, o Órgão de Fiscalização examinou o contrato de opção de 2001 para determinar se o mesmo foi celebrado em conformidade com as condições de mercado. O Órgão de Fiscalização duvida que a Asker Brygge tenha pago a opção enquanto tal e que as condições favoráveis concedidas ao comprador tenham sido compensadas por obrigações correspondentes impostas a este último ou por direitos para o vendedor. O contrato de opção não só conferiu à Asker Brygge o direito de adquirir o terreno em qualquer momento nos anos seguintes, mas também fixou o preço dessa transferência posterior. Por conseguinte, a opção permitiu à Asker Brygge observar a evolução dos preços do sector imobiliário durante alguns anos, para posteriormente invocar a opção e comprar o terreno pelo preço acordado em 2001. Em contrapartida, o município perdeu a possibilidade de vender o terreno a outro interessado durante o mesmo período. Além disso, a opção permitiu à Asker Brygge negociar activamente com o município no sentido de este rever as regras aplicáveis ao terreno por forma a aumentar o seu valor de mercado. Ademais, o município não receberia qualquer pagamento no caso de a venda não se realizar posteriormente.

O contrato de opção incluía também outros elementos susceptíveis de aumentar o valor da opção, a saber, a Asker Brygge tinha o direito de solicitar a renegociação do preço no caso de os preços do sector imobiliário diminuírem consideravelmente, ao passo que o município não dispunha de um direito de renegociação semelhante; o preço era actualizado em função do índice dos preços no consumidor, apesar de os preços do sector imobiliário não estarem incluídos neste índice; o município de Asker concordou em adiar o pagamento de 70 % do preço de venda acordado sem cobrar qualquer taxa de juro por esse adiamento, apesar de a propriedade plena do terreno ter sido imediatamente transferida.

Por estas razões, o Órgão de Fiscalização duvida que um operador privado tivesse celebrado um contrato de opção tão prolongado e em condições similares às do município de Asker sem exigir uma contrapartida pela opção e pelas condições favoráveis.

Uma vez que nesta fase não é possível determinar se o contrato de opção estava em conformidade com os critérios do princípio do investidor numa economia de mercado, o Órgão de Fiscalização deve analisar mais pormenorizadamente se o terreno foi transferido por um preço inferior ao valor de mercado em 2007, momento em que a venda foi efectivamente realizada, e se a Asker Brygge beneficiou assim de um auxílio estatal na acepção do artigo 61.o do Acordo EEE. O Órgão de Fiscalização comparou o preço de 8 727 462 NOK pago pela Asker Brygge com as informações disponíveis sobre o valor de mercado do terreno na altura da venda. As autoridades norueguesas apresentaram três avaliações do valor do terreno. O primeiro relatório, datado de 30 de Junho de 2006, estimava o valor do terreno em 2001, no momento da celebração do contrato de opção, em 9,6 milhões de NOK, com uma variação possível de + /– 15 %. Um segundo relatório, de 18 de Janeiro de 2008, considerava que o valor de mercado do terreno em 2007 ascendia a 26 milhões de NOK, o que correspondia a 17 milhões de NOK em 2001. O terceiro relatório, de 16 de Junho de 2008, redigido pelos mesmos avaliadores, corrigiu este valor para 14 milhões de NOK em 2007 e 8 milhões de NOK em 2001, após ter em conta uma diminuição do valor decorrente de uma obrigação adicional imposta à Asker Brygge no que se refere à utilização de uma parte do terreno pela Slependen Båtforening AS.

O Órgão de Fiscalização tem dúvidas quanto ao facto de saber qual destes relatórios determina correctamente o valor do terreno gbnr 32/17, se é que algum deles o faz, duvida que tenha sido pago o preço de mercado pelo terreno e que um investidor privado numa economia de mercado tivesse aceitado um atraso do pagamento do preço de venda sem cobrar juros.

As medidas de auxílio abrangidas pelo artigo 61.o, n.o 1, do Acordo EEE são em geral incompatíveis com o funcionamento do Acordo EEE, salvo se puderem beneficiar de uma das derrogações previstas no n.o 2 ou no n.o 3 do mesmo artigo. Não obstante, o Órgão de Fiscalização duvida que a transacção objecto de exame possa justificar-se a título das disposições em matéria de auxílios estatais do Acordo EEE.

Conclusão

À luz do que precede, o Órgão de Fiscalização decidiu dar início ao procedimento formal de investigação previsto no artigo 1.o, n.o 2, do Acordo EEE. Convidam-se as partes interessadas a apresentarem as suas observações no prazo de um mês a contar da data de publicação da presente decisão no Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 538/09/COL

of 16 December 2009

to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to the notification of sale of land in the municipality of Asker

(Norway)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (1),

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (3), in particular to Article 24 thereof,

Having regard to Article 1(2) of Part I and Articles 4(4) and 6 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (4),

Having regard to the Authority’s Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement (5), and in particular the chapter on State aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities (6),

Having regard to the Authority’s Decision of 14 July 2004 on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 of Part II of Protocol 3 (7),

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

By letter of 15 December 2008 (Event No 508884), received by the Authority on 13 February 2009, the Norwegian authorities notified a sale of land by the municipality of Asker, pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.

By letter dated 8 April 2009 (Event No 512188), the Authority requested additional information. The Norwegian authorities replied by letter dated 11 May 2009 (Event No 518079).

By letter of 7 July 2009 (Event No 521778), the Authority sent a second request for information. The Norwegian authorities responded by letter dated 14 August 2009 (Event No 527555).

2.   Description of the notification

The Norwegian authorities have notified a sale of a plot of land by the municipality of Asker to the company Asker Brygge AS (hereinafter referred to as Asker Brygge).

The municipality of Asker and Asker Brygge entered into an agreement in 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the option agreement), according to which Asker Brygge was granted an option, lasting until 31 December 2009, to buy land for a fixed sum of NOK 8 million, adjusted according to the consumer price index. According to the option agreement the municipality intended to give Asker Brygge the option to buy the property at market price provided that Asker Brygge undertook extensive planning and research with the aim of obtaining a reregulation of the property and then developing the property.

In 2004 the option agreement was renewed, and the validity of the option was extended until 31 December 2014 under similar conditions regarding the progress of the reregulation work. In 2005, Asker Brygge called upon the option to buy the land. The property is registered in the Norwegian property register as Nesøyveien 8, gnr. 32 bnr. 17 in the municipality of Asker and is approximately 9 700 m2. After negotiations the parties agreed to a sales price of NOK 8 727 462 and entered into a sales agreement on 21 March 2007. The land was transferred to Asker Brygge on the same date although the sales sum was to be paid in two instalments. The first instalment of 30 % of the sales sum was paid in 2007 on the date of the transfer of the property. The second and largest instalment, 70 % of the sales sum (NOK 6 109 223), is due at the latest 31 December 2011. The municipality of Asker will not charge any interest rate on the second instalment.

The municipality of Asker and Asker Brygge are of the opinion that the sales contract does not entail any State aid because the sales price reflects the market value. The Norwegian authorities have nonetheless decided to notify the transaction for reasons of legal certainty.

II.   ASSESSMENT

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

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

‘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’.

1.1.   
  Market investor principle

Market investor principle

1.1.1.   Introduction

Introduction

If the transaction was carried out in accordance with the market economy investor principle, i.e. if the municipality sold the land for its market value and the conditions of the transaction would have been acceptable for a private seller, the transaction would not involve the grant of State aid.

In the following the Authority will assess whether the municipality of Asker has granted illegal State aid to Asker Brygge in connection with the sale of the plot of land gbnr 32/17. The sale of land could qualify as State aid if the sale was not carried out at market price. As a point of departure, the assessment of whether a property has been sold at market value should be assessed at the time of the conclusion of the contract. The circumstances of this sale of land are somewhat particular in the sense that there exists several agreements concerning the sale: An option agreement from 2001, an extended option agreement from 2004 and a sales agreement from 2007.

The option agreement not only gave Asker Brygge a right to acquire the property at any given time over the years to come but also fixed the price for a later transfer. The option thereby entailed a possibility for Asker Brygge to observe the development of property prices over a number of years, thereafter to take up the option to buy the property for the price agreed in 2001. While the Authority fully recognises the right for public authorities also to operate in a market on commercial terms, it nevertheless finds reason to consider carefully whether a similar agreement would have been concluded by a private market operator. The Authority will in that regard consider whether Asker Brygge paid for the option as such, and whether the favourable conditions for the buyer appear to be balanced by corresponding obligations for the buyer or rights for the seller.

If the option agreement as such cannot be said to comply with the private market investor principle, the Authority will assess whether the property was transferred at market value when the sales agreement was concluded in 2007. Thus, the Authority will in the following firstly assess the option agreement of 2001 (and the extension signed in 2004) and, secondly, whether the actual sale of land in 2007 was accomplished at market price.

1.1.2.   The market price of the option agreement signed in 2001

The market price of the option agreement signed in 2001

As regards the option agreement, it has to be examined whether a private investor operating in a market economy would have chosen to enter into a similar agreement regarding the price and terms as the one signed between the municipality of Asker and Asker Brygge in 2001. In making that assessment, the Authority cannot replace the municipality’s commercial judgement with its own, which implies that the municipality, as the seller of the plot of land, must enjoy a margin of judgement. There can be a number of commercially sound reasons to enter into an agreement under given conditions. When there is no plausible explanation for the municipality’s choice the measure could qualify as State aid.

On the basis of the information available to the Authority, the conditions for the later sale were laid down in the option agreement signed in 2001. This agreement gave Asker Brygge a right, but not an obligation, to buy the property on predetermined conditions at any given time until 31 December 2009. On the other hand, the municipality was barred from selling the property to someone else in the same period. The main features of the option agreement which are relevant for the State aid assessment are (i) the agreed price of NOK 8 million, adjusted in accordance with the consumer price index, (ii) the right of renegotiation agreed for Asker Brygge in case property prices should decrease considerably before the option was invoked (there was no corresponding right of renegotiation for the municipality should the property prices increase considerably), (iii) the payment in two instalments, whereby 70 % of the sales price would be paid before 31 December 2011 at the latest, but no interest would be charged for this delay. In 2004 the municipality and Asker Brygge prolonged the option agreement until 2014, but did not modify any of the other conditions for the transaction.

According to the information available to the Authority, the municipality carried out no value assessment of the property before it entered into the agreement with Asker Brygge in 2001. Thus, it is not clear to the Authority on which basis the municipality arrived at the agreed price of NOK 8 million for the sale of land gbnr 32/17. In the information presented to the Authority, Asker municipality nevertheless appears to argue that this amount was indeed the market value of the property in 2001.

Even if it is assumed that NOK 8 million represented the market price for the property as such in 2001, the Authority questions whether the market value of the option agreement only corresponds to the value of the property or whether the market value of the other elements agreed upon should be taken into account. In the Authority’s view, if only the market value for the property had to be considered, that would entail that Asker Brygge got the option as such for free. As mentioned above, this option enabled the company to observe the development of property prices for a number of years. Statistically, property prices tend to increase over time. Furthermore, Asker is located close to Oslo and has experienced a continuous growth in population, something that would usually influence property prices positively.

The option agreement barred the municipality from selling the property to another buyer, and thus tied up capital for which the municipality could have found alternative uses or received interest. Indeed, the extension in 2004 prolonged the option with an additional five years without remuneration. It enabled Asker Brygge to actively approach the municipality in order to reregulate the property for purposes that would increase the market value. Moreover, the municipality would not receive any payment in case of no subsequent sale.

Under the option agreement, some aspects of a possible future sales contract were also agreed upon. In particular, regarding the reregulation of the area, Asker Brygge had an obligation to finish the preparatory works that would lead to the reregulation process. If this condition was not met, the municipality of Asker could terminate the contract. The Norwegian authorities argue that there is an uncertainty or risk connected to the reregulation process. Nevertheless, the option agreement gave Asker Brygge the opportunity to work on it for several years before deciding to buy the property, which in the opinion of the Authority reduced the risk considerably. In addition, if the property was reregulated, this would increase the value of the property. Hence, the option agreement did not entail any real risk for Asker Brygge.

In the Authority’s preliminary view, that option itself, independent of whether it was exercised or not, had a value in 2001 when the agreement was concluded. From the documentation and explanations the Authority has received so far, there is no information that the buyer paid for the option as such.

The option agreement also included other elements that appear to be capable of increasing the value of the option. The first element concerns the mechanism to regulate the price. Asker Brygge had the right to request renegotiations of the price if property prices in Asker should decrease considerably before the option was invoked. As mentioned above, the agreement did not provide a corresponding right of renegotiation for the municipality should the property prices increase considerably. According to the Norwegian authorities, the background for including a right for Asker Brygge to renegotiate the agreement was that the municipality of Asker considered the property to be difficult to develop, inter alia due to the short distance to the highway (E-18), and the transaction would therefore involve substantial economic risk. The Authority however, has doubts as to whether a private market investor would have entered into such an agreement without a mutual right to adjustment if property prices should increase or decrease considerably. In this regard, the right for the municipality to adjust the price in accordance with the consumer price index appears not to be sufficient to compensate for the lack of a corresponding right of renegotiation.

In addition, the Authority doubts that the consumer price index would be the correct index to use when adjusting for changes in property prices. The consumer price index is a measure estimating the change in the average price of consumer goods and services purchased by households, and does not reflect the price movements of the property market. Property prices develop at a different pattern than other prices, and real estate prices are therefore normally not taken into account when determining the consumer price index.

In addition, the municipality of Asker agreed to postpone the payment of 70 % of the agreed sales price until 31 December 2011 at the latest (8) without charging any interest for this deferral. According to the Norwegian authorities, the postponement of full payment without any interest was accepted because the property was considered difficult to develop. The Authority doubts that a private operator would have agreed to postpone the payment over such a long period of time without requiring any interest payments. Moreover, it doubts whether a private operator would have transferred full ownership of the property before full payment had been received.

8

For these reasons, the Authority doubts that a private operator would have entered into such a long option agreement, on similar conditions as the municipality of Asker without requiring remuneration for the option and the favourable conditions as such. By simply requiring a remuneration corresponding to the value of the property in 2001, the municipality of Asker ran the risk of granting State aid later if property prices should increase. It is therefore necessary to examine whether the property was transferred at a price below market value in 2007 and whether Asker Brygge thereby received State aid within the meaning of Article 61 EEA. The Authority will therefore in the following assess the available information regarding the market value in 2007.

1.1.3.   The market value of the property at the time of the sales agreement

The market value of the property at the time of the sales agreement

In 2005, Asker Brygge called upon the option and negotiations started with the municipality. Although the conditions for the sale were laid down in the 2001 option agreement, the sales contract was concluded in 2007.

In the following, the Authority will therefore compare the price of NOK 8 727 462 paid by Asker Brygge with the market value of the property at the time of the sale.

1.1.3.1.   The value of the plot of land gbnr 32/17

The value of the plot of land gbnr 32/17

According to the Authority's State Aid Guidelines on sale of land, a sale of land and buildings following a sufficiently well-publicised and unconditional bidding procedure, comparable to an auction, accepting the best or only bid, is by definition at market value and consequently does not contain State aid. Alternatively, to exclude the existence of aid when a sale of land is conducted without an unconditional bidding procedure, an independent valuation should be carried out by one or more independent asset valuers prior to sales negotiations in order to establish the market value on the basis of generally accepted market indicators and valuation standards. The valuer should be independent in the execution of his tasks, i.e. public authorities should not be entitled to issue orders as regards the result of the valuation. In the case at hand, the municipality of Asker did not arrange for an unconditional bidding procedure nor collect an independent expert evaluation before entering into the agreement. Thus, the existence of State aid cannot automatically be excluded.

In the notification, the Norwegian authorities have submitted three value assessments of the property in question. None of the value assessments were conducted before the option agreement was entered into in 2001.

The first report dated 30 June 2006 was conducted by licensed property surveyors of Verditaskt AS, Takst Senteret and Agdestein (9). According to this report the estimated value of the land in 2001, the time the option contract was entered into, was NOK 9,6 million, with a possible variation of +/– 15 %. However, this appears to be a very approximate estimation.

9

The Norwegian authorities enclosed with the notification two additional value assessments which TJB Eiendomstaksering — Ek & Mosveen AS — Bjørn Aarvik had carried out on behalf of the municipality. In the first report dated 18 January 2008 (10), the market value of the land in 2007 was estimated at NOK 26 million. As the contract between the municipality and Asker Brygge was entered into in 2001, this price was discounted to 2001 values. The discounted value of NOK 26 million of 2007 using a rate of 5,5 % over 7,5 years was NOK 17 million in 2001.

10

In the second report dated 16 June 2008 (11), TJB Eiendomstaksering — Ek & Mosveen AS — Bjørn Aarvik estimated the market value of the land in 2007 at NOK 12 million. The discounted value of NOK 12 million of 2007 using the same discount rate as before (i.e. 5,5 % over 7,5 years) corresponded to NOK 8 million in 2001. Thus, the discrepancy between the two reports is NOK 9 million for the value of the property in 2001 and NOK 14 million for the value of the property in 2007.

11

The Norwegian authorities have explained that this difference is based on the estimated value reduction of an additional obligation put upon Asker Brygge with regard to the use of part of the property by Slependen Båtforening AS (12). The option agreement of 2001 includes a clause saying that a part of the property is let to Slependen Båtforening as a marina for small boats and that Asker Brygge would have to compensate for their right to a small-boat marina/compensation vis-à-vis the municipality of Asker if development of the property started before the rental contract expires. The rental contract expired in June 2009. Furthermore, in clause 3 of the option agreement it is stated that Asker Brygge will, together with the municipality of Asker, reach a satisfying solution regarding the needs of Slependen Båtforening within the scope of the activity at the time of the agreement.

12

When the option agreement was entered into in 2001, Slependen Båtforening paid an annual lease of NOK 19 500 to the municipality of Asker (13). Although it was difficult to state the exact economic consequence of the obligation for Asker Brygge at the time the option agreement was entered into, Asker Brygge and Slependen Båtforening signed an agreement on 1 June 2006 according to which the latter was to pay NOK 850 000 (cf. clause 2.4 in the agreement). According to the explanations provided by the Norwegian authorities, the value assessment from January 2008 was based on an incorrect interpretation of an agreement between Asker Brygge and Slependen Båtforening since it did not reflect the obligation to pay NOK 850 000. The asset valuers interpreted the clause in the option agreement in such a way that Slependen Båtforening would have had the right to rent or buy the boat places at market price after the expiry of the rental contract. However, the Norwegian authorities are of the opinion that the sum of NOK 850 000, which represents the fulfilment of the obligation towards Slependen Båtforening, had to be taken into consideration when the market value of the property was assessed for 2001 and 2007. Thus, the municipality of Asker instructed TJB Eiendomstaksering — Ek & Mosveen AS — Bjørn Aarvik to use NOK 850 000 as the basis for the value estimation of Slependen Båtforenings's 65 boat places in their assessment dated 16 June 2008. The Authority considers that this sum is relevant for the assessment of the 2007 property value, as this was known information at the time.

13

The Authority has doubts as to which of the reports correctly determine the value of the property gbnr 32/17. Furthermore, the Authority notes that the estimations of the different value assessments are not only very different but are also more uncertain due to the fact that they were carried out several years after the option agreement was entered into, and two of them, the year after the sales agreement was entered into. The latest value assessment, the second report, dated 16 June 2008 (14), carried out by TJB Eiendomstaksering — Ek & Mosveen AS — Bjørn Aarvik, estimated the market value of the land in 2007 at NOK 12 million, which is NOK 3 272 538 more than the price paid. This is an indication that the sale was not carried out at market price and also that the consumer price index was not the correct adjustment index. Thus, the Authority questions whether market price was paid for the property.

14

1.1.3.2.   The value of the interest advantage of the soft loan

The value of the interest advantage of the soft loan

According to the Norwegian authorities the interest rate advantage is taken into consideration by the property surveyors in the report of 2006. However, as far as the Authority can see, the interest rate advantage is not mentioned or discussed in the report referred to, nor is it mentioned in any of the other reports.

In the opinion of the Authority, the municipality might have therefore forgone interest payments that a private market player would normally have required. Thus, the Authority has doubts as to whether a private market investor would have accepted the long deferral of payment without interest.

1.1.4.   Conclusion on the market investor principle

Conclusion on the market investor principle

For the above mentioned reasons, the Authority has doubts regarding the price agreed upon in the option agreement and whether it corresponded to the market price for such an agreement, which should reflect the property value at the time of the agreement combined with the value of the option and the special arrangements granted to the buyer. Moreover, the Authority has doubts regarding the actual price agreed upon in the sales agreement and whether it corresponded to the market price of the property at the time the sales agreement was concluded. Therefore, on the basis of the information provided by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority cannot conclude that the sale of the concerned plot of land gbnr 32/17 to Asker Brygge AS for the sales price of NOK 8 727 462 was carried out in accordance with the market investor principle.

1.2.   
  State resources

State resources

In order to qualify as State aid, the measure must be granted by the State or through State resources. The concept of State does not only refer to the central government but embraces all levels of the state administration (including municipalities) as well as public undertakings.

If the municipality sold the land below its market price, it would have foregone income. In such circumstances, Asker Brygge should have paid more for the land and therefore there is a transfer of resources from the municipality.

For these reasons, the Authority considers that if the sale did not take place in accordance with market conditions, State resources within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement would be involved.

1.3.   
  Favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods

Favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods

First, the measure must confer on Asker Brygge advantages that relieve the undertaking of charges that are normally borne from its budget. If the transaction was carried out under favourable terms, in the sense that Asker Brygge would most likely have had to pay a higher price for the property if the sale of land had been conducted according to the market investor principle, and to have paid market interest rates for the loan if it was to borrow the same amount from a bank, the company would have received an advantage within the meaning of the State aid rules.

Second, the measure must be selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’. There is only one possible beneficiary of the measure under assessment, i.e. Asker Brygge. The measure is thus selective.

1.4.   
  Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties

Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Contracting Parties

The aid must distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties of the EEA Agreement.

A support measure granted by the State would strengthen the position of Asker Brygge vis-à-vis other undertakings that are competitors active in the same business areas of real estate and property development. Any grant of aid strengthens the position of the beneficiary vis-à-vis its competitors and accordingly distorts competition within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. To the extent that the company is active in areas subject to intra-EEA trade, the requirements of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement for a measure to constitute State aid are fulfilled.

1.5.   
  Conclusion

Conclusion

For the above mentioned reasons, the Authority has doubts as to whether or not the transaction concerning the sale of the plot of land gbnr 32/17 to Asker Brygge as laid down in the option agreement signed in 2001 and later agreements entail the grant of State aid.

2.   Procedural requirements

Procedural requirements

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

The Norwegian authorities submitted a notification of the sale of land on 13 February 2009 (Event No 508884). However, the municipality had, in 2001, already entered into an option agreement which determined the future conditions for the sale in March 2007. Moreover, the property was transferred and a soft loan granted to Asker Brygge in March 2007, when the sales agreement was signed, the transaction accomplished and the payment in instalments was agreed. Therefore, the Authority concludes that if the measure constitutes State aid, the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.

3.   Compatibility of the aid

Compatibility of the aid

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 in Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement.

The derogation of 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. Nor does Article 61(3)(a) or Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement apply to the case at hand. Further, the area where the property is located cannot benefit from any regional aid within the meaning of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

The Authority therefore doubts that the transaction under assessment can be justified under the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement.

4.   Conclusion

Conclusion

Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority has doubts as to whether or not Asker Brygge has received unlawful State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement in the context of the transaction regarding the sale of a plot of land.

The Authority has moreover doubts that this State aid can be regarded as complying with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open proceedings 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.

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Norwegian authorities to submit their comments within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision.

In light of the foregoing considerations, within one month of receipt of this decision, the Authority request the Norwegian authorities to provide all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the said transaction.

It invites the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this decision to Asker Brygge immediately.

The Authority would like to remind the Norwegian authorities that, according to the provisions 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 the general principal of law.

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 against Norway regarding the transaction concerning the sale of the plot of land gbnr 32/17 to the company Asker Brygge AS by the municipality of Asker.

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 from 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 compatibility of the aid measure.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 5

Only the English version is authentic.

Done at Brussels, 16 December 2009.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Per SANDERUD

President

Kristján Andri STEFÁNSSON

College Member

---

(1)  Hereinafter referred to as the Authority.

1

(2)  Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.

2

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

3

(4)  Hereinafter referred to as Protocol 3.

4

(5)  Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the Authority on 19.1.1994, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as OJ) L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994, p. 1. Hereinafter referred to as the State Aid Guidelines. The updated version of the State Aid Guidelines is published on the Authority’s website (http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/).

5

Official Journal of the European Union

(6)  Hereinafter referred to the Guidelines on sale of land.

6

(7)  Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 (published in OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement No 26, 25.5.2006, p. 1), as amended. A consolidated version of the Decision can be found online (http://www.eftasurv.int).

7

(8)  According to the sales contract clause 3, the payment shall take place prior to any building activity starts and in any case before 31.12.2011.

8

(9)  Enclosure 9 to the notification.

9

(10)  Enclosure 5 to the notification.

10

(11)  Enclosure 3 to the notification.

11

(12)  Hereinafter referred to as Slependen Båtforening.

12

(13)  This sum was determined on the basis of an agreement signed in 1999 between the Municipality of Asker and Slependen Båtforening. Enclosure 8 to the letter dated 11.5.2009.

13

(14)  Enclosure 3 to the notification.

14

---

V Avisos

PROCEDIMENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Comissão Europeia

| 8.7.2010 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 184/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 184/29

---

CONVITE À APRESENTAÇÃO DE CANDIDATURAS — EAC/10/10

Programa «Aprendizagem ao Longo da Vida» — Apoio à organização de dois concursos para a promoção da aprendizagem das línguas: produções audiovisuais de pequena duração

2010/C 184/07

1.   Objectivos e descrição

O presente convite à apresentação de candidaturas tem por base a Decisão n.o 1720/2006/CE (1), que estabelece o programa «Aprendizagem ao Longo da Vida», adoptada pelo Parlamento Europeu e o Conselho em 15 de Novembro de 2006 e alterada pela Decisão n.o 1357/2008/CE, por sua vez adoptada pelo Parlamento Europeu e o Conselho em 16 de Dezembro de 2008.

Este convite visa a atribuição de uma subvenção para a organização de dois concursos, tendo em vista a criação de duas produções audiovisuais de pequena duração, em dois anos sucessivos (um concurso em 2011 e outro em 2012). Os concursos e as produções audiovisuais resultantes têm como objectivo promover a aprendizagem das línguas, realçando em particular os benefícios da diversidade linguística e cultural na Europa.

A participação das produções audiovisuais seleccionadas no conhecido Festival PRIX EUROPA proporcionará uma forte divulgação e exploração dos resultados dos projectos.

2.   Candidatos elegíveis

Os concursos podem ser desenvolvidos, geridos e coordenados por organismos cuja actividade esteja ligada à produção audiovisual, à publicidade e aos novos meios de comunicação social, nomeadamente escolas de artes audiovisuais e de publicidade.

Os candidatos devem estar estabelecidos:

| — | Num dos 27 Estados-Membros da União Europeia; |
| --- | --- |

—

Num dos 27 Estados-Membros da União Europeia;

| — | Num país EFTA ou EEE: Islândia, Listenstaine e Noruega; |
| --- | --- |

—

Num país EFTA ou EEE: Islândia, Listenstaine e Noruega;

| — | No país candidato: Turquia. |
| --- | --- |

—

No país candidato: Turquia.

A futura participação da Croácia, da antiga República jugoslava da Macedónia e da Suíça no programa «Aprendizagem ao Longo da Vida» encontra-se actualmente em fase de negociação e dependerá dos resultados alcançados neste âmbito. A lista actualizada dos países participantes no programa pode ser consultada no sítio web da Direcção-Geral da Educação e da Cultura.

3.   Orçamento e duração dos projectos

Será atribuída uma subvenção máxima de 500 000,00 EUR, cobrindo os dois concursos de 2011 e 2012.

A contribuição financeira da União Europeia não pode exceder 75 % do total dos custos elegíveis.

A Comissão Europeia reserva-se o direito de não conceder a totalidade dos fundos disponíveis.

As actividades devem obrigatoriamente começar no período de 1 de Janeiro de 2011 a 31 de Janeiro de 2011 e

terminar até 31 de Janeiro de 2013.

A duração máxima dos projectos é de 24 meses.

4.   Prazo

As candidaturas devem ser enviadas à Comissão até 30 de Setembro de 2010.

5.   Informações complementares

O texto integral do convite à apresentação de candidaturas e os formulários de candidatura estão disponíveis no seguinte sítio na web: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/calls/grants_en.html

Os pedidos devem obrigatoriamente respeitar as disposições do texto integral e ser apresentados por meio do formulário previsto.

---

(1)  Decisão 2006/1720/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 15 de Novembro de 2006 , que estabelece um programa de acção no domínio da aprendizagem ao longo da vida: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:327:0045:0068:PT:PDF e Decisão n.o 1357/2008/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 16 de Dezembro de 2008, que altera a Decisão n.o 1720/2006/CE que estabelece um programa de acção no domínio da aprendizagem ao longo da vida http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:350:0056:0057:PT:PDF

---

PROCEDIMENTOS RELATIVOS À EXECUÇÃO DA POLÍTICA DE CONCORRÊNCIA

Comissão Europeia

| 8.7.2010 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 184/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 184/31

---

Notificação prévia de uma concentração

(Processo COMP/M.5908 — Honeywell/Sperian)

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

2010/C 184/08

| 1. | A Comissão recebeu, em 30 de Junho de 2010, uma notificação de um projecto de concentração, nos termos do artigo 4.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 139/2004 do Conselho (1), através da qual a empresa Honeywell International Inc. («Honeywell», EUA) adquire, na acepção do artigo 3.o, n.o 1, alínea b), do Regulamento das concentrações comunitárias, o controlo exclusivo da empresa Sperian Protection SA («Sperian», França), mediante aquisição de acções. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A Comissão recebeu, em 30 de Junho de 2010, uma notificação de um projecto de concentração, nos termos do artigo 4.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 139/2004 do Conselho (1), através da qual a empresa Honeywell International Inc. («Honeywell», EUA) adquire, na acepção do artigo 3.o, n.o 1, alínea b), do Regulamento das concentrações comunitárias, o controlo exclusivo da empresa Sperian Protection SA («Sperian», França), mediante aquisição de acções.

| 2. | As actividades das empresas em causa são:






  — | Honeywell: fabricante à escala mundial, presente em vários sectores (energia, segurança e protecção), incluindo equipamento de protecção pessoal, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

As actividades das empresas em causa são:

—

Honeywell: fabricante à escala mundial, presente em vários sectores (energia, segurança e protecção), incluindo equipamento de protecção pessoal,

| — | Sperian: fabricante à escala mundial de equipamento de protecção pessoal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Sperian: fabricante à escala mundial de equipamento de protecção pessoal.

| 3. | Após uma análise preliminar, a Comissão considera que a operação de concentração notificada pode encontrar-se abrangida pelo âmbito de aplicação do Regulamento das concentrações comunitárias. Contudo, a Comissão reserva-se a faculdade de tomar uma decisão final sobre este ponto. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Após uma análise preliminar, a Comissão considera que a operação de concentração notificada pode encontrar-se abrangida pelo âmbito de aplicação do Regulamento das concentrações comunitárias. Contudo, a Comissão reserva-se a faculdade de tomar uma decisão final sobre este ponto.

| 4. | A Comissão solicita aos terceiros interessados que lhe apresentem as suas eventuais observações sobre o projecto de concentração em causa.
  As observações devem ser recebidas pela Comissão no prazo de 10 dias após a data de publicação da presente comunicação. Podem ser enviadas por fax (+32 22964301), por correio electrónico para COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu ou pelo correio, com a referência COMP/M.5908 — Honeywell/Sperian, para o seguinte endereço:





  Comissão Europeia |
| --- | --- |
| Direcção-Geral da Concorrência |
| Registo das Concentrações |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

A Comissão solicita aos terceiros interessados que lhe apresentem as suas eventuais observações sobre o projecto de concentração em causa.

As observações devem ser recebidas pela Comissão no prazo de 10 dias após a data de publicação da presente comunicação. Podem ser enviadas por fax (+32 22964301), por correio electrónico para COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu ou pelo correio, com a referência COMP/M.5908 — Honeywell/Sperian, para o seguinte endereço:

Comissão Europeia

Direcção-Geral da Concorrência

Registo das Concentrações

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  JO L 24 de 29.1.2004, p. 1 («Regulamento das concentrações comunitárias»).

---

OUTROS ACTOS

Comissão Europeia

| 8.7.2010 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | C 184/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2010

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

C 184/32

---

Publicação de um pedido de registo em conformidade com o n.o 2 do artigo 6.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 510/2006 do Conselho relativo à protecção das indicações geográficas e denominações de origem dos produtos agrícolas e dos géneros alimentícios

2010/C 184/09

A presente publicação confere um direito de oposição nos termos do artigo 7.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 510/2006 do Conselho (1). As declarações de oposição devem dar entrada na Comissão no prazo de seis meses a contar da data da presente publicação.

DOCUMENTO ÚNICO

REGULAMENTO (CE) N.o 510/2006 DO CONSELHO

«MIELE DELLE DOLOMITI BELLUNESI»

N.o CE: IT-PDO-0005-0776-09.06.2009

IGP ( ) DOP ( X )

1.   Nome:

«Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi»

2.   Estado-Membro ou país terceiro:

Itália

3.   Descrição do produto agrícola ou género alimentício:

3.1.   Tipo de produto:

| Classe 1.4 — | Outros produtos de origem animal (ovos, mel, produtos lácteos diversos excepto manteiga, etc.) |
| --- | --- |

Classe 1.4 —

Outros produtos de origem animal (ovos, mel, produtos lácteos diversos excepto manteiga, etc.)

3.2.   Descrição do produto correspondente à denominação indicada no ponto 1:

O «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi» é produzido a partir do néctar das flores do território montanhoso da província de Bellune, pelo ecótipo local «Apis mellifera», proveniente de cruzamentos naturais de espécies apícolas, principalmente entre a Ligustica e a Carnica; ao longo dos tempos, o ecótipo adaptou-se perfeitamente às características do ambiente montanhoso de Bellune, permitindo obter bons rendimentos de mel.

Consoante florescem as diversas espécies botânicas, em momentos diferentes ao longo do período de produção e dependendo da origem floral produzida, distinguem-se os seguintes tipos de «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi»: multifloral, acácia, tília, castanheiro, rododendro e dente-de-leão.

A.   Características físico-químicas

Todo o mel dos Dolomites de Bellune tem de apresentar as seguintes características físico-químicas:

HMF (quando colocado no mercado): < 10 mg/kg.

Os diversos tipos de «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi» têm de apresentar as seguintes características físico-químicas:

| Tipo de mel: | Água (%) | pH | Frutose/glicose (%) | Sacarose (%) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| mín. | máx. | mín. | máx. | mín. | máx. | mín. | máx. |
| Multifloral | 15 | 18 | 3,4 | 4,4 | 69 | 78 | 0 | 3,8 |
| Acácia | 15 | 18 | 3,7 | 4,1 | 61 | 77 | 0 | 10 |
| Tília | 16,5 | 17,8 | 4 | 4,1 | 67 | 70 | 0,8 | 4,6 |
| Castanheiro | 16,5 | 18 | 4,4 | 5,8 | 61 | 74 | 0 | 2,4 |
| Rododendro | 16 | 17,7 | 3,7 | 4,2 | 65 | 72 | 0,1 | 0,7 |
| Dente-de-leão | 17 | 18 | 4,3 | 4,7 | 37,8 | 38,5 | 0,1 | 0,4 |

Tipo de mel:

Água (%)

pH

Frutose/glicose (%)

Sacarose (%)

mín.

máx.

mín.

máx.

mín.

máx.

mín.

máx.

Multifloral

15

18

3,4

4,4

69

78

0

3,8

Acácia

15

18

3,7

4,1

61

77

0

10

Tília

16,5

17,8

4

4,1

67

70

0,8

4,6

Castanheiro

16,5

18

4,4

5,8

61

74

0

2,4

Rododendro

16

17,7

3,7

4,2

65

72

0,1

0,7

Dente-de-leão

17

18

4,3

4,7

37,8

38,5

0,1

0,4

B.   Características melisso-palinológicas

O espectro polínico geral é característico da flora montanhosa. Todavia, consoante a origem floral, o espectro polínico dos diversos tipos de «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi» deve respeitar as seguintes condições:

| Tipo de mel: | Pólen |
| --- | --- |
| Multifloral | Maioritariamente: dente-de-leão, tília, castanheiro, rododendro, diversas Labiadas |
| Acácia | > 30 % de «Robinia pseudoacacia L.» |
| Tília | > 10 % de «Tilia spp.» |
| Castanheiro | > 70 % de «Castanea sativa M.» |
| Rododendro | > 20 % de «Rododendrum spp.» |
| Dente-de-leão | > 5 % < 30 % de «Taraxacum spp.» |

Tipo de mel:

Pólen

Multifloral

Maioritariamente: dente-de-leão, tília, castanheiro, rododendro, diversas Labiadas

Acácia

> 30 % de «Robinia pseudoacacia L.»

Tília

> 10 % de «Tilia spp.»

Castanheiro

> 70 % de «Castanea sativa M.»

Rododendro

> 20 % de «Rododendrum spp.»

Dente-de-leão

> 5 % < 30 % de «Taraxacum spp.»

C.   Características organolépticas

Dependem da origem floral e variam consoante o tipo de mel.

Multifloral: cor variável entre amarelo claro e ambarino, sabor adocicado, consistência macia com grande tendência para cristalização.

Acácia (ou acácia-bastarda): cor clara, ambarina, transparente, sabor delicado e muito doce, com aroma evocativo de flor de acácia-bastarda e consistência tipicamente líquida.

Tília: cor variável entre amarelo e verde-pálido, fim de boca ligeiramente amargo, aroma fresco, balsâmico, aspecto pastoso com cristalização tardia.

Castanheiro: cor castanho-escura, sabor moderadamente doce, ligeiramente amargo, tânico, aroma forte e perfumado, consistência com tendência líquida.

Rododendro: entre praticamente incolor e branco ou creme após cristalização, sabor delicado, aroma vegetal e frutado, aspecto líquido evoluindo para pastoso, de granulado fino.

Dente-de-leão: mel de reflexos amarelados, pouco ou normalmente doce, habitualmente ácido, ligeiramente amargo, adstringente.

3.3.   Matérias-primas (unicamente para os produtos de origem animal):

Não se aplica.

3.4.   Alimentos para animais (unicamente para os produtos de origem animal):

No que respeita à alimentação proteica à base de pólen fornecido às colónias de abelhas, é proibida a utilização de produtos que contenham pólen cuja origem não seja local.

Segundo a prática habitual, colhem-se favos de pólen ou unicamente pólen (neste caso, colocando caça-pólen), secos e armazenados em congelador durante o período de grande produção, sendo reutilizados em períodos de disponibilidade reduzida de recursos poliníferos.

3.5.   Fases específicas da produção que devem ter lugar na área geográfica identificada:

O «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi» é produzido, transformado e elaborado na área geográfica identificada no ponto 4.

O mel é produzido em colmeias sedentárias ou periodicamente deslocadas apenas no interior do território montanhoso de produção; este mel é extraído directamente dos favos dos quadros por centrifugação.

A colheita do mel ocorre sempre por fases sucessivas, acompanhando as diferentes florações, de modo a obter um produto monofloral diferenciado.

3.6.   Regras específicas relativas à fatiagem, ralagem, acondicionamento, etc.:

O «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi» é embalado em recipientes de vidro, de 250, 500 ou 1 000 gramas, fechados por tampa metálica e selados com um rótulo. É igualmente possível acondicionar em pequenos recipientes de vidro, sacos, barquetes ou outros, fabricados em material adequado, o mel que se apresenta em doses individuais.

3.7.   Regras específicas relativas à rotulagem:

O logótipo do «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi DOP» é constituído por um círculo irregular compostos dos seguintes elementos: faixa de cor verde, ao alto da imagem, com a denominação «MIELE DELLE DOLOMITI BELLUNESI» inscrita a branco; dentro do círculo, três faixas irregulares (amarela, azul e verde) sobre as quais figura o desenho de três cumes de Lavaredo, desenhados pelas gotas de mel que escorrem de uma colher tradicional para mel (em espiral); na base da imagem figura a menção «D.O.P», inscrita a amarelo, tal como ilustrado abaixo. É possível acrescentar ao rótulo a menção suplementar «prodotto della montagna», nos termos da regulamentação nacional.

Image

4.   Delimitação concisa da área geográfica:

A área geográfica de produção do «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi DOP» engloba a totalidade do território da província de Bellune situada em zona montanhosa, cujos limites são marcados pelas cadeias montanhosas que separam naturalmente a área geográfica das províncias e regiões limítrofes e da Áustria, na fronteira setentrional.

5.   Relação com a área geográfica:

5.1.   Especificidade da área geográfica:

Factores ambientais

A área de produção situa-se em território montanhoso, composto por vales e terrenos de altitude, os quais apresentam as características edafoclimáticas e ecológicas da região dos Alpes, ricos em bosques e pastagens.

Na área de produção não há grandes instalações industriais, actividade agrícola intensiva nem grandes vias de comunicações, fontes potenciais de poluição, nomeadamente para os produtos da apicultura. Estas condições permitem obter mel limpo e são, isento de metais pesados e de poluentes ambientais.

As condições climáticas e ambientais da província de Bellune, de que se referem as temperaturas e a pluviosidade média mencionadas nos arquivos, são muito diferentes das das zonas limítrofes de planície e das médias regionais do Veneto, influenciando positivamente a secreção nectarífera, a qualidade do produto e a sua capacidade de conservação.

As baixas temperaturas e a pluviosidade elevada conferem à província de Bellune o primeiro lugar a nível regional no que respeita à superfície de prados e pastagens, dando origem a uma flora alpina muito rica que se desenvolveu, em parte, sobre substratos calcários dolomíticos. Esta flora conta mais de 2 200 espécies (1/3 da flora do território nacional) e permite às abelhas escolher as melhores fontes vegetais de néctar e pólen.

Os Dolomites de Bellune são há muito famosos pelo valor florífero dos seus prados e pastagens alpinos; a riqueza e a particularidade desta flora figuram entre os principais fundamentos científicos do reconhecimento comunitário, nacional e regional dos parques de Bellune.

Entre as árvores de grande porte, ocupam lugar de destaque as florestas de lariços, carvalhos, pinheiros bravos e abetos. Junto às encostas rochosas estendem-se densas florestas de folhosas e coníferas, bem como planaltos, ricos em flora, caracterizados por numerosas espécies endémicas, entre as quais se contam o rododendro, o cardo, o edelweiss e outras plantas de montanha. Nos vales, a flora vascular da província de Bellune é notória: representa mais de 1 400 entidades, a maioria das quais assinaláveis pelo seu carácter endémico, raridade e elevado valor fitogeográfico.

A flora herbácea polífita e arbórea é rica em espécies consideradas entre as melhores do ponto de vista apícola e polínico, tais como a acácia-bastarda, o rododendro, o dente-de-leão, a tília, a urze, o trevo, bem como uma longa lista de espécies subjacentes aos méis multiflorais.

Igualmente importante é a presença de flora nectarífera típica das zonas montanhosas, como o castanheiro (Castanea Sativa) e o cardo (Cardus sp.), pois o seu néctar constitui o alimento necessário ao desenvolvimento do ciclo biológico das abelhas. De acordo com registos académicos e resultados de investigação, a produção de néctar é mais elevada nas plantas cultivadas em montanha do que nas que crescem em planície.

Factores humanos

A actividade apícola sempre foi generalizada nas montanhas da província de Bellune, mesmo em tempos imemoriais, quando a cresta do mel, efectuada em colmeias naturais, exigia o saber dos produtores, para evitar a destruição de colónias inteiras.

Mesmo nas épocas mais difíceis, a apicultura foi sempre uma actividade muito praticada nestes territórios, utilizando sobretudo simples colmeias rústicas. Muito embora a introdução da colmeia inovadora «Dadant Blatt» tenha sido propícia à cultura do mel, a actividade continua ainda hoje a ser praticada de forma artesanal nas montanhas de Bellune, exigindo dos produtores a demonstração de aptidões específicas na determinação da implantação das colmeias e respectiva exploração, na salvaguarda e desenvolvimento das colónias, no método de cresta e na determinação do período que permite distinguir o mel das diversas espécies florais e adoptar disposições tendo em vista a sua preservação.

Actualmente, a maioria dos apicultores opera no vale de Bellune e de Feltrina, a que se juntam muitos produtores de grande altitude, que produzem mel particularmente apreciado, como o mel de rododendro.

5.2.   Especificidade do produto:

Os méis monoflorais são o reflexo das espécies presentes no território, consideradas entre as melhores do ponto de vista apícola, polínico e nectarífero, como a acácia-bastarda, o rododendro, o dente-de-leão, a tília e o castanheiro; a maioria destas espécies está presente apenas no território de montanha, conferindo assim valor ao «Miele delle Dolomiti bellunesi». O tipo multifloral é produzido com uma grande variedade de espécies alpinas, seleccionadas pelas abelhas entre mais de 2 200 espécies características das montanhas da província de Bellune.

Para além do seu «valor floral», a qualidade do «Miele delle Dolomiti bellunesi» apresenta outros aspectos fundamentais, como pureza, salubridade e elevada capacidade de conservação, atestadas igualmente pelo baixo valor de HMF, resultado das características da área geográfica e do saber dos produtores.

5.3.   Relação causal entre a área geográfica e a qualidade ou características do produto (para as DOP) ou uma determinada qualidade, a reputação ou outras características do produto (para as IGP):

O ambiente montanhoso dos Alpes, caracterizado por temperaturas baixas, elevada pluviosidade e terrenos de origem dolomítica, contribuem para o desenvolvimento de uma flora alpina rica em plantas herbáceas e arbóreas e tornam a província de Bellune adaptada à produção de mel de qualidade, proveniente de espécies vegetais presentes única ou maioritariamente nas zonas alpinas.

As baixas temperaturas registadas durante todo o ano, nitidamente inferiores à média regional ou nacional, influenciam também positivamente a qualidade do mel e a sua capacidade de conservação, pois impedem a fermentação anormal e permitem uma maior conservação das suas características organolépticas e da sua composição.

A baixa pressão antrópica (habitantes, indústrias, vias de comunicação), o isolamento típico das zonas de montanha e sobretudo a capacidade dos produtores para exercerem com profissionalismo uma actividade que se mantém ao nível artesanal permitem fabricar um produto mais puro e mais salutar relativamente ao mel produzido nas zonas de planície.

A apicultura, presente desde sempre na província de Bellune, além de arredondar o rendimento dos habitantes sempre representou, ao longo dos séculos, uma reserva de energia a utilizar como alimento durante os meses de isolamento do Inverno, na cozinha, como adoçante, ou na preparação de diversas receitas tradicionais locais. O «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi» é comercializado com este nome há mais de 35 anos e encontra-se, desde os anos 80, em muitas feiras e manifestações agrícolas locais de montanha, tal como atestado pela grande quantidade de diplomas, fotografias de produtores em eventos apícolas e artigos datados daquela época. As fotografias deste período testemunham o renome da denominação «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi» em muitas marcas e rótulos. Desde sempre, o «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi» é igualmente utilizado em muitos pratos típicos, em bolos e pão característicos de Cadore e de Ampezzo, bem como no típico licor de mel, para além de associado aos queijos locais. Este produto é hoje muito procurado pelo consumidor, particularmente pelos turistas que, apreciadores das suas características típicas, o adquirem em períodos de férias para o consumirem durante todo o ano, participando assim na sua divulgação em todas as regiões italianas.

Referência à publicação do caderno de especificações

(N.o 7 do artigo 5.o do regulamento (CE) n.o 510/2006)

A actual administração iniciou o procedimento nacional de oposição com a publicação da proposta de reconhecimento da denominação de origem protegida «Miele delle Dolomiti Bellunesi» no Diário da República Italiana n.o 285 de 5 de Dezembro de 2008.

O texto consolidado do caderno de especificações pode ser consultado no seguinte sítio web:

www.politicheagricole.it/DocumentiPubblicazioni/Search_Documenti_Elenco.htm?txtTipoDocumento=Disciplinare%20in%20esame%20UE&txtDocArgomento=Prodotti%20di%20Qualit%E0>Prodotti%20Dop,%20Igp%20e%20Stg

ou directamente na página principal do sítio web do Ministerio delle politiche agricole alimentari e forestali (www.politicheagricole.it), clicando em «Prodotti di Qualità» (à esquerda do ecrã) e, a seguir, em «Disciplinari di Produzione all’esame dell’UE (Reg CE 510/2006)».

---

(1)  JO L 93 de 31.3.2006, p. 12.

---