# Journal officiel C 204/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0936
  doi:10.3000/19770936.C_2012.204.fra |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 204 |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 55e année12 juillet 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0936

doi:10.3000/19770936.C_2012.204.fra

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 204

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

55e année12 juillet 2012

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Communications |
| | COMMUNICATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE |
| | Commission européenne |
| 2012/C 204/01 | Retrait de la notification d’une opération de concentration (Affaire COMP/M.6564 — ARM/Giesecke & Devrient/Gemalto/JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

II   Communications

COMMUNICATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE

Commission européenne

2012/C 204/01

Retrait de la notification d’une opération de concentration (Affaire COMP/M.6564 — ARM/Giesecke & Devrient/Gemalto/JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

| | IV   Informations |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE |
| | Commission européenne |
| 2012/C 204/02 | Taux de change de l'euro | 2 |
| 2012/C 204/03 | Décision d'exécution de la Commission du 11 juillet 2012 sur le financement du programme de travail pour 2012 concernant des applications informatiques dans le domaine de la sûreté alimentaire, de la santé animale, du bien-être des animaux et de la santé des végétaux | 3 |
| | INFORMATIONS RELATIVES À L’ESPACE ÉCONOMIQUE EUROPÉEN |
| | Autorité de surveillance AELE |
| 2012/C 204/04 | Invitation à présenter des observations, en application de l'article 1er, paragraphe 2, de la partie I du protocole 3 de l'accord entre les États de l'AELE relatif à l'institution d'une Autorité de surveillance et d'une Cour de justice, concernant des questions relatives à des aides d'État afférentes à des versements potentiels en faveur des entreprises AS Oslo Sporveier et AS Sporveisbussene en Norvège | 15 |

IV   Informations

INFORMATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE

Commission européenne

2012/C 204/02

Taux de change de l'euro

2

2012/C 204/03

Décision d'exécution de la Commission du 11 juillet 2012 sur le financement du programme de travail pour 2012 concernant des applications informatiques dans le domaine de la sûreté alimentaire, de la santé animale, du bien-être des animaux et de la santé des végétaux

3

INFORMATIONS RELATIVES À L’ESPACE ÉCONOMIQUE EUROPÉEN

Autorité de surveillance AELE

2012/C 204/04

Invitation à présenter des observations, en application de l'article 1er, paragraphe 2, de la partie I du protocole 3 de l'accord entre les États de l'AELE relatif à l'institution d'une Autorité de surveillance et d'une Cour de justice, concernant des questions relatives à des aides d'État afférentes à des versements potentiels en faveur des entreprises AS Oslo Sporveier et AS Sporveisbussene en Norvège

er

15

| | V   Avis |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES |
| | Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO) |
| 2012/C 204/05 | Avis de concours généraux | 41 |
| | PROCÉDURES RELATIVES À LA MISE EN ŒUVRE DE LA POLITIQUE DE CONCURRENCE |
| | Commission européenne |
| 2012/C 204/06 | Notification préalable d'une concentration [Affaire COMP/M.6647 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/Mitsubishi Elevator (Singapore)] — Cas susceptible d'être traité selon la procédure simplifiée (
  1
  ) | 42 |
| 2012/C 204/07 | Notification préalable d'une concentration (Affaire COMP/M.6651 — Goldman Sachs/William C. Young/Plastipak Holdings) — Cas susceptible d'être traité selon la procédure simplifiée (
  1
  ) | 43 |
| 2012/C 204/08 | Communication de la Commission publiée conformément à l’article 27, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE) no 1/2003 du Conseil dans l’affaire COMP/39.654 — Codes d’instruments financiers de Reuters (RIC) [notifiée sous le numéro C(2012) 4873]
   (
  1
  ) | 44 |

V   Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

2012/C 204/05

Avis de concours généraux

41

PROCÉDURES RELATIVES À LA MISE EN ŒUVRE DE LA POLITIQUE DE CONCURRENCE

Commission européenne

2012/C 204/06

Notification préalable d'une concentration [Affaire COMP/M.6647 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/Mitsubishi Elevator (Singapore)] — Cas susceptible d'être traité selon la procédure simplifiée (
  1
  )

1

42

2012/C 204/07

Notification préalable d'une concentration (Affaire COMP/M.6651 — Goldman Sachs/William C. Young/Plastipak Holdings) — Cas susceptible d'être traité selon la procédure simplifiée (
  1
  )

1

43

2012/C 204/08

Communication de la Commission publiée conformément à l’article 27, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE) no 1/2003 du Conseil dans l’affaire COMP/39.654 — Codes d’instruments financiers de Reuters (RIC) [notifiée sous le numéro C(2012) 4873]
   (
  1
  )

o

[notifiée sous le numéro C(2012) 4873]

1

44

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE |

---

(1)   Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE

1

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

II Communications

COMMUNICATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE

Commission européenne

| 12.7.2012 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | C 204/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2012

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

C 204/1

---

Retrait de la notification d’une opération de concentration

(Affaire COMP/M.6564 — ARM/Giesecke & Devrient/Gemalto/JV)

(Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)

2012/C 204/01

[Règlement (CE) no 139/2004 du Conseil]

Le 15 juin 2012, la Commission européenne a reçu notification d’un projet de concentration entre ARM, Giesecke & Devrient, Gemalto et JV. Le 3 juillet 2012, la/les partie(s) notifiante(s) a/ont informé la Commission du retrait de sa/leur notification.

---

IV Informations

INFORMATIONS PROVENANT DES INSTITUTIONS, ORGANES ET ORGANISMES DE L'UNION EUROPÉENNE

Commission européenne

| 12.7.2012 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | C 204/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2012

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

C 204/2

---

Taux de change de l'euro (1)

11 juillet 2012

2012/C 204/02

1 euro =

| | Monnaie | Taux de change |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | dollar des États-Unis | 1,2260 |
| JPY | yen japonais | 97,14 |
| DKK | couronne danoise | 7,4363 |
| GBP | livre sterling | 0,78815 |
| SEK | couronne suédoise | 8,5384 |
| CHF | franc suisse | 1,2010 |
| ISK | couronne islandaise | |
| NOK | couronne norvégienne | 7,4745 |
| BGN | lev bulgare | 1,9558 |
| CZK | couronne tchèque | 25,395 |
| HUF | forint hongrois | 288,75 |
| LTL | litas lituanien | 3,4528 |
| LVL | lats letton | 0,6962 |
| PLN | zloty polonais | 4,1697 |
| RON | leu roumain | 4,5255 |
| TRY | lire turque | 2,2191 |
| AUD | dollar australien | 1,1953 |
| CAD | dollar canadien | 1,2493 |
| HKD | dollar de Hong Kong | 9,5070 |
| NZD | dollar néo-zélandais | 1,5369 |
| SGD | dollar de Singapour | 1,5499 |
| KRW | won sud-coréen | 1 398,56 |
| ZAR | rand sud-africain | 10,0655 |
| CNY | yuan ren-min-bi chinois | 7,7828 |
| HRK | kuna croate | 7,4858 |
| IDR | rupiah indonésien | 11 558,92 |
| MYR | ringgit malais | 3,8944 |
| PHP | peso philippin | 51,288 |
| RUB | rouble russe | 40,2341 |
| THB | baht thaïlandais | 38,864 |
| BRL | real brésilien | 2,4899 |
| MXN | peso mexicain | 16,3330 |
| INR | roupie indienne | 68,2000 |

Monnaie

Taux de change

USD

dollar des États-Unis

1,2260

JPY

yen japonais

97,14

DKK

couronne danoise

7,4363

GBP

livre sterling

0,78815

SEK

couronne suédoise

8,5384

CHF

franc suisse

1,2010

ISK

couronne islandaise

NOK

couronne norvégienne

7,4745

BGN

lev bulgare

1,9558

CZK

couronne tchèque

25,395

HUF

forint hongrois

288,75

LTL

litas lituanien

3,4528

LVL

lats letton

0,6962

PLN

zloty polonais

4,1697

RON

leu roumain

4,5255

TRY

lire turque

2,2191

AUD

dollar australien

1,1953

CAD

dollar canadien

1,2493

HKD

dollar de Hong Kong

9,5070

NZD

dollar néo-zélandais

1,5369

SGD

dollar de Singapour

1,5499

KRW

won sud-coréen

1 398,56

ZAR

rand sud-africain

10,0655

CNY

yuan ren-min-bi chinois

7,7828

HRK

kuna croate

7,4858

IDR

rupiah indonésien

11 558,92

MYR

ringgit malais

3,8944

PHP

peso philippin

51,288

RUB

rouble russe

40,2341

THB

baht thaïlandais

38,864

BRL

real brésilien

2,4899

MXN

peso mexicain

16,3330

INR

roupie indienne

68,2000

---

(1)  Source: taux de change de référence publié par la Banque centrale européenne.

---

| 12.7.2012 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | C 204/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2012

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

C 204/3

---

DÉCISION D'EXÉCUTION DE LA COMMISSION

du 11 juillet 2012

sur le financement du programme de travail pour 2012 concernant des applications informatiques dans le domaine de la sûreté alimentaire, de la santé animale, du bien-être des animaux et de la santé des végétaux

2012/C 204/03

LA COMMISSION EUROPÉENNE,

vu le traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne,

vu le règlement (CE, Euratom) no 1605/2002 du Conseil du 25 juin 2002 portant règlement financier applicable au budget général des Communautés européennes (1) (ci-après le «règlement financier»), et notamment son article 75,

vu le règlement (CE) no 882/2004 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 29 avril 2004 relatif aux contrôles officiels effectués pour s’assurer de la conformité avec la législation sur les aliments pour animaux et les denrées alimentaires et avec les dispositions relatives à la santé animale et au bien-être des animaux (2), et notamment son article 66, paragraphe 1, point c), et paragraphe 2,

vu la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil du 25 mai 2009 relative à certaines dépenses dans le domaine vétérinaire (3), et notamment son article 35, paragraphe 2, et son article 36, paragraphe 2,

considérant ce qui suit:

| (1) | Conformément à l’article 75 du règlement financier et à l’article 90, paragraphe 1, des modalités d’exécution, l’engagement de toute dépense à charge du budget de l’Union est précédé d’une décision de financement qui expose les éléments essentiels de l’action impliquant une dépense et qui est adoptée par l’institution ou les autorités déléguées par celle-ci. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Conformément à l’article 75 du règlement financier et à l’article 90, paragraphe 1, des modalités d’exécution, l’engagement de toute dépense à charge du budget de l’Union est précédé d’une décision de financement qui expose les éléments essentiels de l’action impliquant une dépense et qui est adoptée par l’institution ou les autorités déléguées par celle-ci.

| (2) | Le règlement (CE, Euratom) no 2342/2002 de la Commission du 23 décembre 2002 établissant les modalités d’exécution du règlement (CE, Euratom) no 1605/2002 portant règlement financier applicable au budget général des Communautés européennes (4) (ci-après les «modalités d’exécution») détermine le degré de détail jugé suffisant pour décrire le cadre d’une décision de financement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Le règlement (CE, Euratom) no 2342/2002 de la Commission du 23 décembre 2002 établissant les modalités d’exécution du règlement (CE, Euratom) no 1605/2002 portant règlement financier applicable au budget général des Communautés européennes (4) (ci-après les «modalités d’exécution») détermine le degré de détail jugé suffisant pour décrire le cadre d’une décision de financement.

| (3) | Conformément à l’article 53 quinquies du règlement financier, il a été démontré que les organisations internationales qui seront chargées, par la Commission, de la mise en œuvre des fonds de l’Union en gestion conjointe appliquent, en matière de comptabilité, d’audit, de contrôle interne et de passation de marchés, des normes qui offrent des garanties équivalentes aux normes internationalement reconnues. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Conformément à l’article 53 quinquies du règlement financier, il a été démontré que les organisations internationales qui seront chargées, par la Commission, de la mise en œuvre des fonds de l’Union en gestion conjointe appliquent, en matière de comptabilité, d’audit, de contrôle interne et de passation de marchés, des normes qui offrent des garanties équivalentes aux normes internationalement reconnues.

| (4) | L’article 50, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 178/2002 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 28 janvier 2002 établissant les principes généraux et les prescriptions générales de la législation alimentaire, instituant l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments et fixant des procédures relatives à la sécurité des denrées alimentaires (5) établit, sous la forme d’un réseau, un système d’alerte rapide pour la notification d’un risque direct ou indirect pour la santé humaine dérivant de denrées alimentaires ou d’aliments pour animaux et attribue à la Commission la gestion de ce réseau. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

L’article 50, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 178/2002 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 28 janvier 2002 établissant les principes généraux et les prescriptions générales de la législation alimentaire, instituant l’Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments et fixant des procédures relatives à la sécurité des denrées alimentaires (5) établit, sous la forme d’un réseau, un système d’alerte rapide pour la notification d’un risque direct ou indirect pour la santé humaine dérivant de denrées alimentaires ou d’aliments pour animaux et attribue à la Commission la gestion de ce réseau.

| (5) | L’article 20 du règlement (CE) no 1924/2006 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 20 décembre 2006 concernant les allégations nutritionnelles et de santé portant sur les denrées alimentaires (6) impose à la Commission d’établir et de tenir un registre des allégations nutritionnelles et de santé portant sur les denrées alimentaires. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

L’article 20 du règlement (CE) no 1924/2006 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 20 décembre 2006 concernant les allégations nutritionnelles et de santé portant sur les denrées alimentaires (6) impose à la Commission d’établir et de tenir un registre des allégations nutritionnelles et de santé portant sur les denrées alimentaires.

| (6) | L’article 28 du règlement (CE) no 1829/2003 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 septembre 2003 concernant les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux génétiquement modifiées aliments (7) impose à la Commission d’établir et de tenir à la disposition du public un registre des denrées alimentaires et aliments pour animaux génétiquement modifiés. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

L’article 28 du règlement (CE) no 1829/2003 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 septembre 2003 concernant les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux génétiquement modifiées aliments (7) impose à la Commission d’établir et de tenir à la disposition du public un registre des denrées alimentaires et aliments pour animaux génétiquement modifiés.

| (7) | L’article 25 du règlement (CE) no 1334/2008 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 16 décembre 2008 relatif aux arômes et à certains ingrédients alimentaires possédant des propriétés aromatisantes qui sont destinés à être utilisés dans et sur les denrées alimentaires et modifiant le règlement (CEE) no 1601/91 du Conseil, les règlements (CE) no 2232/96 et (CE) no 110/2008 et la directive 2000/13/CE (8) dispose que l’Union établit une liste des substances aromatisantes. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

L’article 25 du règlement (CE) no 1334/2008 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 16 décembre 2008 relatif aux arômes et à certains ingrédients alimentaires possédant des propriétés aromatisantes qui sont destinés à être utilisés dans et sur les denrées alimentaires et modifiant le règlement (CEE) no 1601/91 du Conseil, les règlements (CE) no 2232/96 et (CE) no 110/2008 et la directive 2000/13/CE (8) dispose que l’Union établit une liste des substances aromatisantes.

| (8) | L’article 31, paragraphe 2, de la directive 2001/18/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 mars 2001 relative à la dissémination volontaire d’organismes génétiquement modifiés dans l’environnement et abrogeant la directive 90/220/CEE du Conseil (9) impose à la Commission de créer un ou plusieurs registres aux fins d’enregistrer les informations sur les modifications génétiques d’OGM qui peuvent être utilisées pour détecter et identifier des produits OGM en particulier afin de faciliter les contrôles et inspections postérieures à la commercialisation. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

L’article 31, paragraphe 2, de la directive 2001/18/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 mars 2001 relative à la dissémination volontaire d’organismes génétiquement modifiés dans l’environnement et abrogeant la directive 90/220/CEE du Conseil (9) impose à la Commission de créer un ou plusieurs registres aux fins d’enregistrer les informations sur les modifications génétiques d’OGM qui peuvent être utilisées pour détecter et identifier des produits OGM en particulier afin de faciliter les contrôles et inspections postérieures à la commercialisation.

| (9) | Les articles 4 à 8 du règlement (CE) no 258/97 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 27 janvier 1997 relatif aux nouveaux aliments et aux nouveaux ingrédients alimentaires (10) exige la mise à disposition et la maintenance d’un réseau entre les États membres de l’Union européenne et la Commission européenne pour un échange rapide de données permettant le traitement sûr d’informations confidentielles. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Les articles 4 à 8 du règlement (CE) no 258/97 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 27 janvier 1997 relatif aux nouveaux aliments et aux nouveaux ingrédients alimentaires (10) exige la mise à disposition et la maintenance d’un réseau entre les États membres de l’Union européenne et la Commission européenne pour un échange rapide de données permettant le traitement sûr d’informations confidentielles.

| (10) | L’article 2, paragraphe 1, point i), et l’article 21, paragraphe 6, de la directive 2000/29/CE du Conseil du 8 mai 2000 concernant les mesures de protection contre l’introduction dans la Communauté d’organismes nuisibles aux végétaux ou aux produits végétaux et contre leur propagation à l’intérieur de la Communauté (11) prévoit la création d’un réseau pour la notification d’apparitions d’organismes nuisibles, pour les recommandations relatives à l’élaboration de lignes directrices à l’intention des inspecteurs nationaux lors des inspections phytosanitaires à l’importation et pour des programmes visant à améliorer les connaissances des inspecteurs nationaux. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

L’article 2, paragraphe 1, point i), et l’article 21, paragraphe 6, de la directive 2000/29/CE du Conseil du 8 mai 2000 concernant les mesures de protection contre l’introduction dans la Communauté d’organismes nuisibles aux végétaux ou aux produits végétaux et contre leur propagation à l’intérieur de la Communauté (11) prévoit la création d’un réseau pour la notification d’apparitions d’organismes nuisibles, pour les recommandations relatives à l’élaboration de lignes directrices à l’intention des inspecteurs nationaux lors des inspections phytosanitaires à l’importation et pour des programmes visant à améliorer les connaissances des inspecteurs nationaux.

| (11) | L’article 10 de la directive 69/464/CEE du Conseil du 8 décembre 1969 concernant la lutte contre la galle verruqueuse (12), l’article 1er, point a), et l’article 2, de la directive 93/85/CEE du Conseil du 4 octobre 1993, concernant la lutte contre le flétrissement bactérien de la pomme de terre (13), l’article 1er, point a), et l’article 2, de la directive 98/57/CE du Conseil du 20 juillet 1998 concernant la lutte contre Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. (14), et les articles 1er, 4 et 8 de la directive 2007/33/CE du Conseil du 11 juin 2007 concernant la lutte contre les nématodes à kystes de la pomme de terre et abrogeant la directive 69/465/CEE (15) définissent les exigences pour, respectivement, la lutte contre la galle verruqueuse, le flétrissement bactérien, la pourriture brune et les nématodes à kystes, qui sont tous des maladies très importantes de la pomme de terre. Ces dispositions imposent notamment la réalisation d’enquêtes régulières pour surveiller la présence de ces organismes nuisibles, ainsi que l’obligation d’en notifier les résultats à la Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

L’article 10 de la directive 69/464/CEE du Conseil du 8 décembre 1969 concernant la lutte contre la galle verruqueuse (12), l’article 1er, point a), et l’article 2, de la directive 93/85/CEE du Conseil du 4 octobre 1993, concernant la lutte contre le flétrissement bactérien de la pomme de terre (13), l’article 1er, point a), et l’article 2, de la directive 98/57/CE du Conseil du 20 juillet 1998 concernant la lutte contre Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi et al. (14), et les articles 1er, 4 et 8 de la directive 2007/33/CE du Conseil du 11 juin 2007 concernant la lutte contre les nématodes à kystes de la pomme de terre et abrogeant la directive 69/465/CEE (15) définissent les exigences pour, respectivement, la lutte contre la galle verruqueuse, le flétrissement bactérien, la pourriture brune et les nématodes à kystes, qui sont tous des maladies très importantes de la pomme de terre. Ces dispositions imposent notamment la réalisation d’enquêtes régulières pour surveiller la présence de ces organismes nuisibles, ainsi que l’obligation d’en notifier les résultats à la Commission.

| (12) | L’article 76, paragraphe 1, point a), du règlement (CE) no 1107/2009 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 21 octobre 2009 concernant la mise sur le marché des produits phytopharmaceutiques et abrogeant les directives 79/117/CEE et 91/414/CEE du Conseil (16) prévoit le financement de la constitution d’une base de données permettant de recueillir et de stocker toutes les informations relatives aux produits phytopharmaceutiques. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

L’article 76, paragraphe 1, point a), du règlement (CE) no 1107/2009 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 21 octobre 2009 concernant la mise sur le marché des produits phytopharmaceutiques et abrogeant les directives 79/117/CEE et 91/414/CEE du Conseil (16) prévoit le financement de la constitution d’une base de données permettant de recueillir et de stocker toutes les informations relatives aux produits phytopharmaceutiques.

| (13) | L’article 5 sixto de la directive 68/193/CEE du Conseil, du 9 avril 1968, concernant la commercialisation des matériels de multiplication végétative de la vigne (17) dispose que la Commission publie un catalogue commun des variétés entrant dans le champ d’application de la directive. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

L’article 5 sixto de la directive 68/193/CEE du Conseil, du 9 avril 1968, concernant la commercialisation des matériels de multiplication végétative de la vigne (17) dispose que la Commission publie un catalogue commun des variétés entrant dans le champ d’application de la directive.

| (14) | L’article 7, paragraphe 6, de la directive 2008/90/CE du Conseil du 29 septembre 2008 concernant la commercialisation des matériels de multiplication de plantes fruitières et des plantes fruitières destinées à la production de fruits (18) prévoit que l’établissement et la publication d’une liste commune des variétés peuvent être décidés. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

L’article 7, paragraphe 6, de la directive 2008/90/CE du Conseil du 29 septembre 2008 concernant la commercialisation des matériels de multiplication de plantes fruitières et des plantes fruitières destinées à la production de fruits (18) prévoit que l’établissement et la publication d’une liste commune des variétés peuvent être décidés.

| (15) | L’article 11, paragraphe 1, de la directive 1999/105/CE du Conseil, du 22 décembre 1999, concernant la commercialisation des matériels forestiers de reproduction prévoit que la Commission peut publier une «liste communautaire des matériels de base admis pour la production de matériels forestiers de reproduction». |
| --- | --- |

(15)

L’article 11, paragraphe 1, de la directive 1999/105/CE du Conseil, du 22 décembre 1999, concernant la commercialisation des matériels forestiers de reproduction prévoit que la Commission peut publier une «liste communautaire des matériels de base admis pour la production de matériels forestiers de reproduction».

| (16) | L’article 17, premier alinéa, de la directive 2002/53/CE du Conseil du 13 juin 2002 concernant le catalogue commun des variétés des espèces de plantes agricoles (19), et l’article 17, premier alinéa, de la directive 2002/55/CE concernant la commercialisation des semences de légumes (20) prévoient, respectivement, que la Commission publie un catalogue commun des variétés des espèces de plantes agricoles et un catalogue commun des variétés des espèces de légumes. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

L’article 17, premier alinéa, de la directive 2002/53/CE du Conseil du 13 juin 2002 concernant le catalogue commun des variétés des espèces de plantes agricoles (19), et l’article 17, premier alinéa, de la directive 2002/55/CE concernant la commercialisation des semences de légumes (20) prévoient, respectivement, que la Commission publie un catalogue commun des variétés des espèces de plantes agricoles et un catalogue commun des variétés des espèces de légumes.

| (17) | L’article 36, paragraphe 1, point a), du règlement (CE) no 396/2005 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 23 février 2005 concernant les limites maximales applicables aux résidus de pesticides dans ou sur les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux d’origine végétale et animale et modifiant la directive 91/414/CEE du Conseil (21) prévoit la constitution d’une base de données consolidée de la législation de l’Union en matière de limites maximales de résidus de pesticides et l’accessibilité de ces informations pour le public. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

L’article 36, paragraphe 1, point a), du règlement (CE) no 396/2005 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 23 février 2005 concernant les limites maximales applicables aux résidus de pesticides dans ou sur les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux d’origine végétale et animale et modifiant la directive 91/414/CEE du Conseil (21) prévoit la constitution d’une base de données consolidée de la législation de l’Union en matière de limites maximales de résidus de pesticides et l’accessibilité de ces informations pour le public.

| (18) | L’article 8 de la directive 96/23/CE du Conseil, du 29 avril 1996, relative aux mesures de contrôle à mettre en œuvre à l’égard de certaines substances et de leurs résidus dans les animaux vivants et leurs produits et abrogeant les directives 85/358/CEE et 86/469/CEE et les décisions 89/187/CEE et 91/664/CEE (22) prévoit la constitution d’une base de données pour l’élaboration de plans de surveillance. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

L’article 8 de la directive 96/23/CE du Conseil, du 29 avril 1996, relative aux mesures de contrôle à mettre en œuvre à l’égard de certaines substances et de leurs résidus dans les animaux vivants et leurs produits et abrogeant les directives 85/358/CEE et 86/469/CEE et les décisions 89/187/CEE et 91/664/CEE (22) prévoit la constitution d’une base de données pour l’élaboration de plans de surveillance.

| (19) | L’article 6, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE) no 999/2001 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 mai 2001 fixant les règles pour la prévention, le contrôle et l’éradication de certaines encéphalopathies spongiformes transmissibles (23) prévoit une base de données en rapport avec la surveillance épidémiologique d’encéphalopathies spongiformes bovines. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

L’article 6, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE) no 999/2001 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 22 mai 2001 fixant les règles pour la prévention, le contrôle et l’éradication de certaines encéphalopathies spongiformes transmissibles (23) prévoit une base de données en rapport avec la surveillance épidémiologique d’encéphalopathies spongiformes bovines.

| (20) | L’article 10 du règlement (CE) no 1333/2008 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 16 décembre 2008 sur les additifs alimentaires (24) prévoit l’exploitation et la maintenance de bases de données en rapport avec la procédure d’autorisation uniforme pour les additifs alimentaires. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

L’article 10 du règlement (CE) no 1333/2008 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 16 décembre 2008 sur les additifs alimentaires (24) prévoit l’exploitation et la maintenance de bases de données en rapport avec la procédure d’autorisation uniforme pour les additifs alimentaires.

| (21) | L’article 35, paragraphe 1, de la décision 2009/470/CE dispose que la mise en place des systèmes d’identification des animaux et de notification des maladies peut bénéficier d’une aide financière de l’Union. Il convient qu’une contribution financière de l’Union soit accordée pour la gestion et l’amélioration du système de notification des maladies des animaux (SNMA), sur la base de la décision 2005/176/CE de la Commission du 1er mars 2005 établissant la forme codifiée et les codes relatifs à la notification des maladies des animaux en application de la directive 82/894/CEE du Conseil (25). |
| --- | --- |

(21)

L’article 35, paragraphe 1, de la décision 2009/470/CE dispose que la mise en place des systèmes d’identification des animaux et de notification des maladies peut bénéficier d’une aide financière de l’Union. Il convient qu’une contribution financière de l’Union soit accordée pour la gestion et l’amélioration du système de notification des maladies des animaux (SNMA), sur la base de la décision 2005/176/CE de la Commission du 1er mars 2005 établissant la forme codifiée et les codes relatifs à la notification des maladies des animaux en application de la directive 82/894/CEE du Conseil (25).

| (22) | L’article 36 de la décision 2009/470/CE prévoit une contribution financière de l’Union pour certains systèmes informatisés utilisés dans les échanges au sein de l’Union et les importations. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

L’article 36 de la décision 2009/470/CE prévoit une contribution financière de l’Union pour certains systèmes informatisés utilisés dans les échanges au sein de l’Union et les importations.

| (23) | Il est nécessaire de continuer à contribuer financièrement à l’hébergement, à la gestion et à la maintenance du système informatique vétérinaire intégré TRACES (Système expert de contrôle des échanges) instauré par la décision 2003/24/CE de la Commission du 30 décembre 2002 concernant le développement d’un système informatique vétérinaire intégré (26). |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Il est nécessaire de continuer à contribuer financièrement à l’hébergement, à la gestion et à la maintenance du système informatique vétérinaire intégré TRACES (Système expert de contrôle des échanges) instauré par la décision 2003/24/CE de la Commission du 30 décembre 2002 concernant le développement d’un système informatique vétérinaire intégré (26).

| (24) | Conformément à l’article 27 de la décision 2009/470/CE, les États membres sont tenus d’introduire des demandes pour les programmes de surveillance et d’éradication, de soumettre des rapports et des demandes de paiement relatives aux programmes approuvés; l’élaboration d’un système en ligne de dépôt des demandes, des rapports et de demandes de paiements devrait faciliter le traitement des informations. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

Conformément à l’article 27 de la décision 2009/470/CE, les États membres sont tenus d’introduire des demandes pour les programmes de surveillance et d’éradication, de soumettre des rapports et des demandes de paiement relatives aux programmes approuvés; l’élaboration d’un système en ligne de dépôt des demandes, des rapports et de demandes de paiements devrait faciliter le traitement des informations.

| (25) | Il convient d’approuver par une décision unique le programme de travail pour 2012 concernant ces actions et le financement nécessaire, afin d’assurer leur coordination et la bonne application du plan informatique de la direction générale de la santé et des consommateurs pour 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

Il convient d’approuver par une décision unique le programme de travail pour 2012 concernant ces actions et le financement nécessaire, afin d’assurer leur coordination et la bonne application du plan informatique de la direction générale de la santé et des consommateurs pour 2012.

| (26) | La présente décision constitue aussi une décision de financement des dépenses dans le contexte de la gestion centralisée indirecte ou de la gestion conjointe à la charge du budget de l’Union européenne. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

La présente décision constitue aussi une décision de financement des dépenses dans le contexte de la gestion centralisée indirecte ou de la gestion conjointe à la charge du budget de l’Union européenne.

| (27) | La présente décision de financement peut également couvrir le paiement d’intérêts de retard conformément à l’article 83 du règlement financier et à l’article 106, paragraphe 5, des modalités d’exécution. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

La présente décision de financement peut également couvrir le paiement d’intérêts de retard conformément à l’article 83 du règlement financier et à l’article 106, paragraphe 5, des modalités d’exécution.

| (28) | Les mesures prévues par la présente décision sont conformes à l’avis du comité permanent de la chaîne alimentaire et de la santé animale, |
| --- | --- |

(28)

Les mesures prévues par la présente décision sont conformes à l’avis du comité permanent de la chaîne alimentaire et de la santé animale,

DÉCIDE:

Article premier

Le programme de travail pour 2012 concernant des actions liées à la création et à la maintenance d’applications informatiques dans le domaine de la sûreté alimentaire, de la santé animale, du bien-être des animaux et de la santé des végétaux (ci-après le «programme de travail») est adopté tel qu’il est établi en annexe. Son adoption vaut décision de financement au sens de l’article 75 du règlement financier.

Article 2

La contribution maximale autorisée par la présente décision pour l’exécution du programme de travail est fixée à 6 856 000 EUR, à financer à partir des lignes budgétaires suivantes du budget général de l’Union européenne pour 2012:

| a) | ligne budgétaire 17 04 02 01: 4 989 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

a)

ligne budgétaire 17 04 02 01: 4 989 000 EUR

| b) | ligne budgétaire 17 04 04 01: 1 180 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

b)

ligne budgétaire 17 04 04 01: 1 180 000 EUR

| c) | ligne budgétaire 17 04 07 01: 687 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

c)

ligne budgétaire 17 04 07 01: 687 000 EUR

Ces crédits peuvent également couvrir les intérêts de retard.

Article 3

L’exécution budgétaire des tâches liées à l’action visée au point 2 de l’annexe peut être confiée à l’OIE, qui applique des normes offrant des garanties équivalentes aux normes internationalement reconnues en matière de comptabilité, d’audit, de contrôle interne et de passation de marchés.

Article 4

Les modifications cumulées des crédits alloués aux actions spécifiques relevant du programme de travail qui ne dépassent pas 10 % de la contribution maximale autorisée à l’article 2 de la présente décision ne sont pas réputées substantielles au sens de l’article 90, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE, Euratom) no 2342/2002, pour autant qu’elles n’aient pas d’incidence significative sur la nature ou l’objectif du programme de travail.

L’ordonnateur peut décider de pareilles modifications dans le respect des principes de bonne gestion financière et de proportionnalité.

Fait à Bruxelles, le 11 juillet 2012.

Par la Commission

John DALLI

Membre de la Commission

---

(1)  JO L 248 du 16.9.2002, p. 1.

1

(2)  JO L 165 du 30.4.2004, p. 1.

2

(3)  JO L 155 du 18.6.2009, p. 30.

3

(4)  JO L 157 du 10.6.1992, p. 10.

4

(5)  JO L 31 du 1.2.2002, p. 1.

5

(6)  JO L 404 du 30.12.2006, p. 9.

6

(7)  JO L 268 du 18.10.2003, p. 1.

7

(8)  JO L 354 du 31.12.2008, p. 34.

8

(9)  JO L 106 du 17.4.2001, p. 1.

9

(10)  JO L 43 du 14.2.1997, p. 1.

10

(11)  JO L 169 du 10.7.2000, p. 1.

11

(12)  JO L 323 du 24.12.1969, p. 1.

12

(13)  JO L 259 du 18.10.1993, p. 1.

13

(14)  JO L 235 du 21.8.1998, p. 1.

14

(15)  JO L 156 du 16.6.2007, p. 12.

15

(16)  JO L 309 du 24.11.2009, p. 1.

16

(17)  JO L 93 du 17.4.1968, p. 15.

17

(18)  JO L 267 du 8.10.2008, p. 8.

18

(19)  JO L 193 du 20.7.2002, p. 1.

19

(20)  JO L 193 du 20.7.2002, p. 33.

20

(21)  JO L 70 du 16.3.2005, p. 1.

21

(22)  JO L 125 du 23.5.1996, p. 10.

22

(23)  JO L 147 du 31.5.2001, p. 1.

23

(24)  JO L 354 du 31.12.2008, p. 16.

24

(25)  JO L 59 du 5.3.2005, p. 40.

25

(26)  JO L 8 du 14.1.2003, p. 44.

26

---

ANNEXE

Programme de travail pour 2012 concernant des applications informatiques dans le domaine de la sûreté alimentaire, de la santé animale, du bien-être des animaux et de la santé des végétaux

1.   INTRODUCTION

Le présent programme de travail décrit les mesures d’exécution prévues pour l’année 2012. Sur la base des objectifs indiqués, la répartition du budget et les principales actions sont les suivantes:

| — | pour une subvention (455 000 EUR) et les marchés (exécutés suivant une gestion centralisée directe) 6 401 000 EUR. |
| --- | --- |

—

pour une subvention (455 000 EUR) et les marchés (exécutés suivant une gestion centralisée directe) 6 401 000 EUR.

2.   ACTION EXÉCUTÉE SUIVANT UNE GESTION CONJOINTE VIA UNE CONVENTION AVEC L’OIE

CONTRIBUTION À L’ÉLABORATION ET À LA MISE EN PLACE D’UN SYSTÈME D’INFORMATION SUR LES MALADIES DES ANIMAUX

Base juridique

Article 35, paragraphe 2, de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil

Ligne budgetaire

17 04 02 01

Montant estime

Entre 380 000 et 455 000 EUR

La contribution est couverte par une convention de contribution écrite avec l’OIE.

Entité chargée de l'exécution

L’Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) est une organisation intergouvernementale chargée d’améliorer la santé animale dans le monde. À cet effet et, par conséquent, pour réduire les risques de maladies des animaux dans l’Union européenne, il importe que sa stratégie relative à la santé animale et au bien-être des animaux soit communiquée à tous ses pays membres et qu’à cette occasion l’Union apporte un soutien actif aux conférences et aux séminaires de formation organisés par cette organisation, de manière à faire connaître la politique de l’UE en matière de santé animale et de bien-être des animaux.

La Commission et l’OIE ont signé le 7 juin 2010 un accord-cadre de longue durée fixant les modalités administratives et financières de leur coopération (voir ci-joint), en vertu de laquelle la convention de contribution entre l’Union européenne et une organisation internationale («le modèle de convention de contribution») s’applique aux programmes mondiaux, régionaux ou nationaux et aux actions gérés par l’OIE et financés ou cofinancés par l’Union européenne.

Auparavant, une évaluation complète de l’OIE a été effectuée sur la base d’une «évaluation sur les quatre piliers». Cette évaluation a établi que l’OIE appliquait, en matière de comptabilité, d’audit, de contrôle et de passation de marchés, des normes qui offraient des garanties équivalentes aux normes internationalement reconnues.

Objectif général et but de l’action

Après exécution et validation du SIMA en 2012, une première version sera mise au point en vue de son utilisation dans des conditions réelles.

3.   PASSATION DE MARCHÉS

3.1.   Projets informatiques au service du bon fonctionnement du système d’alerte rapide pour les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux (RASFF), registre des additifs alimentaires, matériaux en contact avec des denrées alimentaires, OGM, nouveaux aliments, arômes et allégations nutritionnelles et de santé

L’action à financer sur ce budget concerne la phase finale de la mise en place et de la maintenance du système générique d’alerte rapide (Generic Rapid Alert System — GRAS); cette application informatique a été introduite en 2011 pour être utilisée par la dernière version du système d’alerte rapide pour les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux (RASFF), elle aussi introduite en 2011. L’utilisation de la même plate-forme informatique par les différents systèmes d’alerte administrés par la Commission facilitera les échanges d’informations entre ces systèmes, tout en rendant plus aisée la gestion informatique.

Pour appréhender correctement les substances non autorisées et soutenir le RASFF, il y a lieu de tenir des registres des substances autorisées (additifs, matériaux en contact avec des animaux, nouveaux aliments, denrées alimentaires et aliments pour animaux génétiquement modifiés, OGM, arômes ...).

Actions envisagées:

| — | contribution à la mise au point et à la maintenance du RASFF: 200 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

contribution à la mise au point et à la maintenance du RASFF: 200 000 EUR;

| — | développement complémentaire destiné à améliorer l’efficacité de l’application sectorielle RASFF, y compris les spécifications applicables aux liens du système externe: 308 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

développement complémentaire destiné à améliorer l’efficacité de l’application sectorielle RASFF, y compris les spécifications applicables aux liens du système externe: 308 000 EUR;

| — | registre des matériaux autorisés en contact avec des denrées alimentaires (substances utilisées dans des matériaux et objets actifs et intelligents; procédés de recyclage), des nouveaux aliments, des denrées alimentaires et aliments pour animaux génétiquement modifiés, des OGM, des additifs alimentaires, des arômes: 200 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

registre des matériaux autorisés en contact avec des denrées alimentaires (substances utilisées dans des matériaux et objets actifs et intelligents; procédés de recyclage), des nouveaux aliments, des denrées alimentaires et aliments pour animaux génétiquement modifiés, des OGM, des additifs alimentaires, des arômes: 200 000 EUR;

| — | élaboration d’une nouvelle version du registre pour les nouveaux aliments (sur la base du logiciel existant): 100 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

élaboration d’une nouvelle version du registre pour les nouveaux aliments (sur la base du logiciel existant): 100 000 EUR;

| — | établissement d’un registre de l’Union pour les allégations nutritionnelles et de santé: 82 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

établissement d’un registre de l’Union pour les allégations nutritionnelles et de santé: 82 000 EUR;

| — | contribution à l’amélioration de la sécurité informatique, à l’équipe de soutien centrale, à l’hébergement central et à l’équipement informatique central requis pour l’exécution et la gestion des applications accessibles au public: 390 000 EUR. |
| --- | --- |

—

contribution à l’amélioration de la sécurité informatique, à l’équipe de soutien centrale, à l’hébergement central et à l’équipement informatique central requis pour l’exécution et la gestion des applications accessibles au public: 390 000 EUR.

Base juridique

Article 50, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 178/2002

Article 19, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 1829/2003

Article 28 du règlement (CE) no 1924/2006

Article 25 du règlement (CE) no 1334/2008

Article 31 de la directive 2001/18/CE

Articles 4 à 8 du règlement (CE) no 258/97

Ligne budgétaire

17 04 02 01 — Montant: 1 280 000 EUR

Nombre indicatif et type de marchés envisagés

Contrats spécifiques en régie, intra-muros, sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou SANCO/2010/A4/001

Nombre indicatif de contrats spécifiques: treize

Objet des marchés envisagés (si possible)

Mise au point et maintenance de systèmes informatiques, y compris gestion de projets, contrôle de la qualité, analyse d’entreprise, programmation et documentation

Calendrier indicatif pour le lancement de la procédure de passation de marché

Signature des contrats avant la fin du premier semestre 2012

Exécution

Gestion directe

Contrat spécifique

Contrats spécifiques sur la base des contrats-cadres actuels fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou du contrat-cadre SANCO/2010/A4/001

3.2.   Projets informatiques destinés à l’application de mesures de protection des végétaux, EUROPHYT

EUROPHYT est une application web qui permet aux États membres de notifier les interceptions de lots non conformes aux prescriptions phytosanitaires. Lors d’une réunion de tous les représentants des États membres chargés d’EUROPHYT, un projet de renouvellement de l’interface a été adopté. Le système EUROPHYT utilise des sources d’informations centrales et des données issues de l’application GRAS, qui doivent être fournies et tenues à jour. La base de données contenant les exigences phytosanitaires applicables à l’importation de végétaux est en cours d’élaboration et sera achevée avant la fin de l’année.

Les actions à financer sur ce budget sont les suivantes:

| — | établissement d’une liste de l’Union des matériels forestiers de reproduction: 100 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

établissement d’une liste de l’Union des matériels forestiers de reproduction: 100 000 EUR;

| — | constitution et hébergement d’une base de données contenant les exigences phytosanitaires applicables à l’importation de végétaux: 100 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

constitution et hébergement d’une base de données contenant les exigences phytosanitaires applicables à l’importation de végétaux: 100 000 EUR;

| — | enregistrement des applications concernant les produits phytosanitaires: 100 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

enregistrement des applications concernant les produits phytosanitaires: 100 000 EUR;

| — | mise en place de l’enregistrement de l’ensemble des expéditions de plantes; 200 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

mise en place de l’enregistrement de l’ensemble des expéditions de plantes; 200 000 EUR;

| — | collecte de données pour le suivi de la liste de l’Union des matériels de base admis: 25 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

collecte de données pour le suivi de la liste de l’Union des matériels de base admis: 25 000 EUR;

| — | maintenance évolutive de l’application EUROPHYT existante: 100 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

maintenance évolutive de l’application EUROPHYT existante: 100 000 EUR;

| — | amélioration de l’interface utilisateur de l’application EUROPHYT: 150 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

amélioration de l’interface utilisateur de l’application EUROPHYT: 150 000 EUR;

| — | hébergement d’EUROPHYT: 50 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

hébergement d’EUROPHYT: 50 000 EUR;

| — | collectes de données sur la surveillance et les notifications d’apparitions d’organismes nuisibles, sur la base de la directive 2000/29/CE du Conseil et des directives 93/85/CEE, 98/57/CE, 2007/33/CE: 60 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

collectes de données sur la surveillance et les notifications d’apparitions d’organismes nuisibles, sur la base de la directive 2000/29/CE du Conseil et des directives 93/85/CEE, 98/57/CE, 2007/33/CE: 60 000 EUR;

| — | contribution à l’équipe de soutien centrale, à l’hébergement central et à l’équipement informatique central: 60 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

contribution à l’équipe de soutien centrale, à l’hébergement central et à l’équipement informatique central: 60 000 EUR;

| — | contribution à l’équipe web centrale et à la sécurité: 65 000 EUR. |
| --- | --- |

—

contribution à l’équipe web centrale et à la sécurité: 65 000 EUR.

Base juridique

Article 2, paragraphe 1, point i), et article 21, paragraphe 6, de la directive 2000/29/CE

Article 10 de la directive 69/464/CEE

Article 1er, point a), et article 2 de la directive 93/85/CEE

Article 1er, point a), et article 2 de la directive 98/57/CE

Articles 1, 4 et 8 de la directive 2007/33/CE

Article 66, paragraphe 1, point c), et paragraphe 2, du règlement (CE) no 882/2004

Article 76, paragraphe 1, point a), du règlement (CE) no 1107/2009

Ligne budgétaire

17 04 04 01 — Montant: 1 010 000 EUR

Nombre indicatif et type de marchés envisagés

Contrats spécifiques en régie, intra-muros, sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre de l’appel d’offres ESP-DESIS II

Nombre indicatif de contrats spécifiques: dix

Objet des marchés envisagés (si possible)

Mise au point et maintenance de systèmes informatiques, y compris gestion de projets, contrôle de la qualité, analyse d’entreprise, programmation et documentation

Calendrier indicatif pour le lancement de la procédure de passation de marché

Signature des contrats avant la fin du premier semestre 2012

Exécution

Directement par la DG

Contrat spécifique

Contrats spécifiques sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou SANCO/2010/A4/001

3.3.   Projet informatique au service du bon fonctionnement des catalogues communs de variétés de plantes agricoles, de légumes, de vigne et de plantes fruitières, et de la liste communautaire des matériels de base admis pour la production de matériels forestiers de reproduction

L’application «Catalogues communs» permet de gérer les catalogues de variétés de plantes agricoles (directive 2002/53/CE) et de légumes (directive 2002/55/CE) dont les semences ne sont soumises à aucune restriction de commercialisation dans l’Union européenne ainsi qu’en Norvège et en Islande.

Elle devrait également être utilisée pour le catalogue des variétés de vigne (directive 68/193/CEE), pour la liste communautaire des matériels de base admis pour la production de matériels forestiers de reproduction (directive 1999/105/CE) et pour une liste commune des variétés de plantes fruitières (directive 2008/90/CE).

Une base de données permet la gestion de ces catalogues par la Commission, l’accès des États membres et les échanges électroniques de données entre les États membres, la Commission et l’Office des publications.

En 2012, la maintenance du système sera assurée et ses fonctionnalités technologiques seront mises à jour en vue de son adaptation aux dernières avancées en matière de publication électronique.

Base juridique

Article 5 sixto de la directive 68/193/CEE

Article 7, paragraphe 6 de la directive 2008/90/CE

Article 11, paragraphe 1, de la directive 1999/105/CE

Article 17, paragraphe 1, de la directive 2002/53/CE

Article 17, paragraphe 1, de la directive 2002/55/CE

Ligne budgétaire

17 04 04 01 — Montant: 50 000 EUR

Nombre indicatif et type de marchés envisagés

Contrats spécifiques en régie, intra-muros, sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou contrat-cadre SANCO/2010/A4/001

Nombre indicatif de contrats spécifiques: un

Objet des marchés envisagés (si possible)

Mise au point et maintenance de systèmes informatiques, y compris gestion de projets, contrôle de la qualité, analyse d’entreprise, programmation et documentation

Calendrier indicatif pour le lancement de la procédure de passation de marché

Signature du contrat avant la fin du premier semestre 2012

Exécution

Directement par la DG

Contrat spécifique

Contrats spécifiques en régie sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre de l’appel d’offres ESP-DESIS II

3.4.   Base de données sur les résidus de pesticides

Le règlement (CE) no 396/2005 prévoit la création et la maintenance d’une base de données consolidée de la législation communautaire en matière de limites maximales de résidus (LMR) pour les pesticides. L’action concernée ici vise à appliquer ces dispositions par la maintenance et l’amélioration d’une base de données qui permettra l’introduction des données des États membres et leur publication électronique automatique grâce à la mise en place d’un format d’exportation pour l’Office des publications.

Base juridique

Article 36, paragraphe 1, point a), du règlement (CE) no 396/2005

Ligne budgétaire

17 04 04 01 — Montant: 120 000 EUR

Nombre indicatif et type de marchés envisagés

Contrats spécifiques en régie, intra-muros, sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou contrat-cadre SANCO/2010/A4/001

Nombre indicatif de contrats spécifiques: un

Objet des marchés envisagés (si possible)

Mise au point et maintenance de systèmes informatiques, y compris gestion de projets, contrôle de la qualité, analyse d’entreprise, programmation et documentation

Calendrier indicatif pour le lancement de la procédure de passation de marché

Signature du contrat avant la fin du premier semestre 2012

Exécution

Directement par la DG

Contrat spécifique

Contrats spécifiques sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou SANCO/2010/A4/001

3.5.   Projets informatiques destinés à l’application du règlement (CE) no 882/2004, de la directive 96/23/CE du Conseil, du règlement (CE) no 999/2001 et du règlement (CE) no 1333/2008

Les actions à financer sur ce budget comprennent la mise au point et la maintenance d’outils informatiques destinés à assurer l’application d’une série de nouvelles prescriptions encadrant l’exécution par les États membres et par la Commission des contrôles officiels relevant de la législation sur les aliments pour animaux et les denrées alimentaires, d’une part, et à répondre à des besoins ou obligations spécifiques en matière de contrôle des denrées alimentaires et aliments pour animaux au titre de la nouvelle base juridique, d’autre part.

Les actions concernées portent sur l’amélioration des bases de données recueillant les données relatives aux plans de contrôle nationaux et aux résultats des contrôles officiels, de même que sur l’augmentation de la capacité de ces bases, de telle sorte que la Commission puisse en vérifier la conformité et en suivre les évolutions, d’une part, et sur la mise au point de systèmes de saisie en ligne de ces données, fournies par les États membres et par la Commission, d’autre part.

Les actions sont les suivantes:

| — | mise en place, exploitation et maintenance de bases de données liées à la surveillance épidémiologique de l’encéphalopathie spongiforme bovine, [règlement (CE) no 999/2001, article 6, paragraphe 4], à la procédure d’autorisation commune pour les additifs alimentaires [règlement (CE) no 1333/2008], aux plans de surveillance des résidus (directive 96/23/CE, article 8) et aux résultats quantitatifs de cette surveillance: 150 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

mise en place, exploitation et maintenance de bases de données liées à la surveillance épidémiologique de l’encéphalopathie spongiforme bovine, [règlement (CE) no 999/2001, article 6, paragraphe 4], à la procédure d’autorisation commune pour les additifs alimentaires [règlement (CE) no 1333/2008], aux plans de surveillance des résidus (directive 96/23/CE, article 8) et aux résultats quantitatifs de cette surveillance: 150 000 EUR;

| — | développement continu d’un système informatique ainsi que maintenance et adaptation d’une infrastructure spécifique qui permettra de partager, de valider et de suivre les données collectées par la Commission en rapport avec la mise en application de la législation sur les aliments pour animaux et les denrées alimentaires dans les États membres et les pays tiers, y compris les données recueillies par l’Office alimentaire et vétérinaire; l’application informatique devrait permettre d’établir des «profils par pays» qui faciliteraient l’évaluation des plans de contrôle soumis par les autorités compétentes: 122 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

développement continu d’un système informatique ainsi que maintenance et adaptation d’une infrastructure spécifique qui permettra de partager, de valider et de suivre les données collectées par la Commission en rapport avec la mise en application de la législation sur les aliments pour animaux et les denrées alimentaires dans les États membres et les pays tiers, y compris les données recueillies par l’Office alimentaire et vétérinaire; l’application informatique devrait permettre d’établir des «profils par pays» qui faciliteraient l’évaluation des plans de contrôle soumis par les autorités compétentes: 122 000 EUR;

| — | mise en place et maintenance d’un système complet et sécurisé pour la gestion et la planification des inspections de l’Union conformément au règlement (CE) no 882/2004, pour la gestion et le stockage des rapports d’audit et documents connexes et pour le suivi des recommandations qui y sont formulées: 220 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

mise en place et maintenance d’un système complet et sécurisé pour la gestion et la planification des inspections de l’Union conformément au règlement (CE) no 882/2004, pour la gestion et le stockage des rapports d’audit et documents connexes et pour le suivi des recommandations qui y sont formulées: 220 000 EUR;

| — | contribution à l’amélioration de la sécurité informatique, à l’équipe de soutien centrale et à l’équipement informatique central requis pour l’exécution de tous les systèmes liés aux actions susmentionnées: 195 000 EUR. |
| --- | --- |

—

contribution à l’amélioration de la sécurité informatique, à l’équipe de soutien centrale et à l’équipement informatique central requis pour l’exécution de tous les systèmes liés aux actions susmentionnées: 195 000 EUR.

Base juridique

Article 8 de la directive 96/23/CE

Article 6, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE) no 999/2001

Article 10 du règlement (CE) no 1333/2008

Article 66, paragraphe 1, point c), et paragraphe 2, du règlement (CE) no 882/2004

Ligne budgétaire

17 04 07 01 — Montant: 687 000 EUR

Nombre indicatif et type de marchés envisagés

Contrats spécifiques en régie, intra-muros, sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II, ITSS II et contrat-cadre SANCO/2010/A4/001

Nombre indicatif de contrats spécifiques: sept

Objet des marchés envisagés (si possible)

Mise au point et maintenance de systèmes informatiques, y compris gestion de projets, contrôle de la qualité, analyse d’entreprise, programmation et documentation

Calendrier indicatif pour le lancement de la procédure de passation de marché

Signature des contrats avant la fin du premier semestre 2012

Exécution

Directement par la DG

Contrat spécifique

Contrats spécifiques sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II, ITSS II et SANCO/2010/A4/001

3.6.   Système de notification des maladies des animaux (SNMA)

L’action à financer au titre de ce budget vise à la mise en place définitive et la maintenance du système de notification des maladies des animaux.

Actions envisagées:

| — | contribution à la maintenance et au développement du SNMA: 150 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

contribution à la maintenance et au développement du SNMA: 150 000 EUR;

| — | développement complémentaire pour améliorer l’efficacité et la qualité des données relatives aux cartes des épidémies, aux cartes explorables et aux cartes dessinées accessibles en ligne: 100 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

développement complémentaire pour améliorer l’efficacité et la qualité des données relatives aux cartes des épidémies, aux cartes explorables et aux cartes dessinées accessibles en ligne: 100 000 EUR;

| — | Services d’hébergement garantissant la disponibilité de l’application: 78 000 EUR; |
| --- | --- |

—

Services d’hébergement garantissant la disponibilité de l’application: 78 000 EUR;

| — | contribution à l’amélioration de la sécurité informatique, à l’équipe de soutien centrale, à l’hébergement central et à l’équipement informatique central requis pour l’exécution et la gestion des applications accessibles au public: 255 000 EUR. |
| --- | --- |

—

contribution à l’amélioration de la sécurité informatique, à l’équipe de soutien centrale, à l’hébergement central et à l’équipement informatique central requis pour l’exécution et la gestion des applications accessibles au public: 255 000 EUR.

Base juridique

Articles 35 et 36 de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil

Ligne budgétaire

17 04 02 01 — Montant: 583 000 EUR

Nombre indicatif et type de marchés envisagés

Contrats spécifiques en régie, intra-muros, sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou contrat-cadre SANCO/2010/A4/001

Nombre indicatif de contrats spécifiques: quatre

Objet des marchés envisagés (si possible)

Mise au point et maintenance de systèmes informatiques, y compris gestion de projets, contrôle de la qualité, analyse d’entreprise, programmation et documentation

Calendrier indicatif pour le lancement de la procédure de passation de marché

Signature des contrats avant la fin du premier semestre 2012

Exécution

Directement par la DG

Contrat spécifique

Contrats spécifiques sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou SANCO/2010/A4/001

3.7.   Système d’information sur les maladies des animaux (SIMA)

L’action à financer au titre de ce budget vise à l’élaboration et la mise en place du système d’information des maladies des animaux.

Action envisagée:

| — | contribution à la gestion de la sécurité informatique, à l’équipe de soutien centrale, à l’hébergement central et à l’équipement informatique central requis pour l’exécution et la gestion des applications accessibles au public: 75 000 EUR. |
| --- | --- |

—

contribution à la gestion de la sécurité informatique, à l’équipe de soutien centrale, à l’hébergement central et à l’équipement informatique central requis pour l’exécution et la gestion des applications accessibles au public: 75 000 EUR.

Base juridique

Articles 35 et 36 de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil

Ligne budgétaire

17 04 02 01 — Montant: 75 000 EUR

Nombre indicatif et type de marchés envisagés

Contrats spécifiques en régie, intra-muros, sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou du contrat-cadre SANCO/2010/A4/001

Nombre indicatif de contrats spécifiques: un

Objet des marchés envisagés (si possible)

Mise au point et maintenance de systèmes informatiques, y compris gestion de projets, contrôle de la qualité, analyse d’entreprise, programmation et documentation

Calendrier indicatif pour le lancement de la procédure de passation de marché

Signature des contrats avant la fin du premier semestre 2012

Exécution

Directement par la DG

Contrat spécifique

Contrat spécifique sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou SANCO/2010/A4/001

3.8.   Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES — Système expert de contrôle des échanges)

L’action à financer au titre de ce budget vise à améliorer, à maintenir, à soutenir et à rendre accessible le système TRACES.

Actions envisagées:

| — | 2 380 000 EUR pour l’hébergement, la gestion et la maintenance du système informatique vétérinaire intégré TRACES (Système expert de contrôle des échanges), pour le soutien logistique destiné aux utilisateurs de TRACES, une contribution aux services centraux, la communication, le site web, la sécurité et l’acquisition de licences de logiciels (y compris la maintenance et l’assistance), la signature électronique, l’hébergement de l’application; |
| --- | --- |

—

2 380 000 EUR pour l’hébergement, la gestion et la maintenance du système informatique vétérinaire intégré TRACES (Système expert de contrôle des échanges), pour le soutien logistique destiné aux utilisateurs de TRACES, une contribution aux services centraux, la communication, le site web, la sécurité et l’acquisition de licences de logiciels (y compris la maintenance et l’assistance), la signature électronique, l’hébergement de l’application;

| — | 80 000 EUR pour le financement du système d’échange pour l’identification des bovins. |
| --- | --- |

—

80 000 EUR pour le financement du système d’échange pour l’identification des bovins.

Base juridique

Article 36, paragraphe 2, de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil

Ligne budgétaire

17 04 02 01 — Montant: 2 460 000 EUR

Nombre indicatif et type de marchés envisagés

Contrats spécifiques en régie, intra-muros, sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou du contrat-cadre SANCO/2010/A4/001

Nombre indicatif de contrats spécifiques: quinze

Un protocole d’accord avec la DG DIGIT pour l’hébergement

Objet des marchés envisagés (si possible)

Mise au point et maintenance de systèmes informatiques, y compris gestion de projets, contrôle de la qualité, analyse d’entreprise, programmation et documentation

Calendrier indicatif pour le lancement de la procédure de passation de marché

Signature des contrats avant la fin du premier semestre 2012

Exécution

Directement par la DG

Contrat spécifique

Contrats spécifiques sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou SANCO/2010/A4/001.

3.9.   Collecte de données pour les programmes d’éradication et de contrôle

Actions envisagées:

| — | 136 000 EUR pour la collecte et le traitement des données liées aux applications des programmes d’éradication/de surveillance et pour les rapports et des demandes de paiement relatives aux programmes approuvés en vertu de l’article 27 de la décision 2009/470/CE. |
| --- | --- |

—

136 000 EUR pour la collecte et le traitement des données liées aux applications des programmes d’éradication/de surveillance et pour les rapports et des demandes de paiement relatives aux programmes approuvés en vertu de l’article 27 de la décision 2009/470/CE.

Base juridique

Article 27 de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil

Ligne budgétaire

17 04 02 01 — Montant: 136 000 EUR

Nombre indicatif et type de marchés envisagés

Contrats spécifiques en régie, intra-muros, sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou du contrat-cadre SANCO/2010/A4/001

Nombre indicatif de contrats spécifiques: deux

Objet des marchés envisagés (si possible)

Mise au point et maintenance de systèmes informatiques, y compris gestion de projets, contrôle de la qualité, analyse d’entreprise, programmation et documentation

Calendrier indicatif pour le lancement de la procédure de passation de marché

Signature du contrat avant la fin du premier semestre 2012

Exécution

Directement par la DG

Contrat spécifique

Contrats spécifiques sur la base des contrats-cadres existants fournis par la DG DIGIT au titre des appels d’offres ESP-DESIS II et/ou SANCO/2010/A4/001

4.   SYNTHÈSE

| no | Nom | Ligne budgétaire | Nombre estimé de contrats | Base juridique | Montant en EUR |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | Contribution à l'élaboration et à la mise en place d’un système d’information sur les maladies des animaux | 17 04 02 01 | 1 | Article 35, paragraphe 2, de la décision 2009/470/CE | 455 000 |
| 2. | Projets informatiques au service du bon fonctionnement du système d’alerte rapide pour les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux (RASFF), registre des additifs alimentaires, arômes, matériaux en contact avec des denrées alimentaires, ogm et nouveaux aliments | 17 04 02 01 | 13 | Règlements (CE) no 178/2002, (CE) no 1829/2003, (CE) no 1924/2006 et (CE) no 1334/2008, directive 2001/18/CE et règlement (CE) no 258/97 | 1 280 000 |
| 3. | Projets informatiques destinés à l’application de mesures de protection des végétaux, EUROPHYT | 17 04 04 01 | 10 | Directives 2000/29/CE, 69/464/CEE, 93/85/CEE, 98/57/CE et 2007/33/CE, règlements (CE) no 882/2004 et (CE) no 1107/2009 | 1 010 000 |
| 4. | Projet informatique au service du bon fonctionnement des catalogues communs de variétés de plantes agricoles, de légumes, de vigne et de plantes fruitières, et de la liste communautaire des matériels de base admis pour la production de matériels forestiers de reproduction | 17 04 04 01 | 1 | Directives 68/193/CEE, 2008/90/CE, 1999/105/CE, 2002/53/CE et 2002/55/CE | 50 000 |
| 5. | Base de données sur les résidus de pesticides | 17 04 04 01 | 1 | Règlement (CE) no 396/2005 | 120 000 |
| 6. | Projets informatiques destinés à l’application du règlement (CE) no 882/2004, de la directive 96/23/CE du conseil, du règlement (CE) no 999/2001 et du règlement (CE) no 1333/2008 | 17 04 07 01 | 7 | Règlement (CE) no 882/2004, directive 96/23/CE du Conseil, règlement (CE) no 999/2001, règlement (CE) no 1333/2008 | 687 000 |
| 7. | Système de notification des maladies des animaux (SNMA) | 17 04 02 01 | 4 | Article 35, paragraphe 2, de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil | 583 000 |
| 8. | SIMA | 17 04 02 01 | 1 | Article 35, paragraphe 2, de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil | 75 000 |
| 9. | Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES — Système expert de contrôle des échanges) | 17 04 02 01 | 15 | Article 36, paragraphe 2, de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil | 2 460 000 |
| 10. | Études sur la santé animale | 17 04 02 01 | 2 | Article 27 de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil | 136 000 |
| TOTAL | | 55 | | 6 856 000 |

no

Nom

Ligne budgétaire

Nombre estimé de contrats

Base juridique

Montant en EUR

1.

Contribution à l'élaboration et à la mise en place d’un système d’information sur les maladies des animaux

17 04 02 01

1

Article 35, paragraphe 2, de la décision 2009/470/CE

455 000

2.

Projets informatiques au service du bon fonctionnement du système d’alerte rapide pour les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux (RASFF), registre des additifs alimentaires, arômes, matériaux en contact avec des denrées alimentaires, ogm et nouveaux aliments

17 04 02 01

13

Règlements (CE) no 178/2002, (CE) no 1829/2003, (CE) no 1924/2006 et (CE) no 1334/2008, directive 2001/18/CE et règlement (CE) no 258/97

1 280 000

3.

Projets informatiques destinés à l’application de mesures de protection des végétaux, EUROPHYT

17 04 04 01

10

Directives 2000/29/CE, 69/464/CEE, 93/85/CEE, 98/57/CE et 2007/33/CE, règlements (CE) no 882/2004 et (CE) no 1107/2009

1 010 000

4.

Projet informatique au service du bon fonctionnement des catalogues communs de variétés de plantes agricoles, de légumes, de vigne et de plantes fruitières, et de la liste communautaire des matériels de base admis pour la production de matériels forestiers de reproduction

17 04 04 01

1

Directives 68/193/CEE, 2008/90/CE, 1999/105/CE, 2002/53/CE et 2002/55/CE

50 000

5.

Base de données sur les résidus de pesticides

17 04 04 01

1

Règlement (CE) no 396/2005

120 000

6.

Projets informatiques destinés à l’application du règlement (CE) no 882/2004, de la directive 96/23/CE du conseil, du règlement (CE) no 999/2001 et du règlement (CE) no 1333/2008

17 04 07 01

7

Règlement (CE) no 882/2004, directive 96/23/CE du Conseil, règlement (CE) no 999/2001, règlement (CE) no 1333/2008

687 000

7.

Système de notification des maladies des animaux (SNMA)

17 04 02 01

4

Article 35, paragraphe 2, de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil

583 000

8.

SIMA

17 04 02 01

1

Article 35, paragraphe 2, de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil

75 000

9.

Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES — Système expert de contrôle des échanges)

17 04 02 01

15

Article 36, paragraphe 2, de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil

2 460 000

10.

Études sur la santé animale

17 04 02 01

2

Article 27 de la décision 2009/470/CE du Conseil

136 000

TOTAL

55

6 856 000

---

INFORMATIONS RELATIVES À L’ESPACE ÉCONOMIQUE EUROPÉEN

Autorité de surveillance AELE

| 12.7.2012 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | C 204/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2012

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

C 204/15

---

Invitation à présenter des observations, en application de l'article 1er, paragraphe 2, de la partie I du protocole 3 de l'accord entre les États de l'AELE relatif à l'institution d'une Autorité de surveillance et d'une Cour de justice, concernant des questions relatives à des aides d'État afférentes à des versements potentiels en faveur des entreprises AS Oslo Sporveier et AS Sporveisbussene en Norvège

2012/C 204/04

Par décision no 123/12/COL du 28 mars 2012 reproduite dans la langue faisant foi dans les pages qui suivent le présent résumé, l'Autorité de surveillance AELE a ouvert la procédure prévue à l'article 1er, paragraphe 2, de la partie I du protocole 3 de l'accord entre les États de l'AELE relatif à l'institution d'une Autorité de surveillance et d'une Cour de justice. Les autorités norvégiennes ont reçu copie de la décision.

Par la présente, l'Autorité de surveillance AELE invite les États de l'AELE, les États membres de l'UE et les parties intéressées à soumettre leurs observations sur la mesure en cause dans un délai d'un mois à compter de la publication de la présente communication, à l'adresse suivante:

| Autorité de surveillance AELE |
| --- |
| Registre |
| Rue Belliard 35 |
| 1040 Bruxelles |
| BELGIQUE |

Autorité de surveillance AELE

Registre

Rue Belliard 35

1040 Bruxelles

BELGIQUE

Ces observations seront communiquées aux autorités norvégiennes. L'identité des parties intéressées qui présentent des observations peut faire l'objet d'un traitement confidentiel sur demande écrite et motivée.

SYNTHÈSE

Contexte

En Norvège, le transport local en bus est régi par la loi sur le transport commercial de 2002 et le règlement sur le transport commercial de 2003. Les textes précités abrogent les dispositions législatives préexistantes qui étaient substantiellement similaires. Ce cadre législatif prévoit notamment un système de concessions nécessaires aux entreprises désirant se voir confier des missions de transport public en bus. Il confère également aux comtés, tels que la municipalité d'Oslo, la responsabilité d'octroyer une compensation aux entreprises couvrant les itinéraires peu rentables. Cette compensation peut être versée afin de couvrir la différence entre les recettes provenant de la vente des tickets et le coût d'exploitation du service.

À Oslo, dès avant l'entrée en vigueur de l'accord EEE, une compensation annuelle pour les itinéraires peu rentables était versée aux concessionnaires, conformément à la procédure du budget de la ville. Cette compensation était forfaitaire, calculée sur la base des dépenses encourues au cours des années précédentes, en tenant compte d'un certain nombre de facteurs de correction. Depuis 2008, tous les marchés des bus de ligne ont été attribués à des entreprises à la suite d'un appel d'offres. Depuis, aucune compensation semblable à celle décrite plus haut n'a été versée à AS Oslo Sporveier pour des transports sur des bus de ligne.

AS Oslo Sporveier et, plus tard, sa filiale, AS Sporveisbussene ont été chargées de fournir des bus de ligne à Oslo, conformément aux dispositions brièvement décrites plus haut, bien avant l'entrée en vigueur de l'accord EEE et ce, jusqu'en 2008.

AS Oslo Sporveier a connu de nombreuses réorganisations depuis 1994. En 1997, par exemple, l'exploitation de tous les services de bus, y compris les bus de tourisme, outre les bus de ligne d'Oslo était sous-traitée par sa filiale AS Sporveisbussene. Par conséquent, AS Oslo Sporveier et AS Sporveisbussene ont signé un accord dit de transport afin qu'AS Sporveisbussene puisse devenir le destinataire effectif de la compensation annuelle. La compensation pour le service des bus de ligne a été versée, en vertu de l'accord de transport et conformément aux dispositions décrites ci-dessus. Les autorités norvégiennes soutiennent que tout au long de la période en cause — à savoir 1994-2008 — des comptes séparés étaient tenus pour les activités à caractère commercial et public au sein du groupe Oslo Sporveier et que les activités commerciales étaient toujours facturées au prix du marché pour les services réalisés dans le cadre des activités de service public.

En 2004, la municipalité d'Oslo, actionnaire, à 98,8 %, d'AS Oslo Sporveier, à l'époque, avait injecté 111 760 000 NOK pour couvrir le déficit du fonds de retraites d'AS Sporveisbussene. Ce déficit a augmenté au cours de la période précédant 1997 et a eu des répercussions sur le fonds de retraites des employés, à la fois dans le service public et dans la division des bus de tourisme d'AS Oslo Sporveier. Cette dernière a été obligée de combler le déficit. En qualité de propriétaire, la municipalité d'Oslo a choisi l'injection de capital, formule jugée la moins dispendieuse, pour y remédier.

Appréciation de la mesure

Existence d’une aide d’État

L'autorité considère que tant l'injection de capital que la compensation annuelle représentent des aides d'État.

En ce qui concerne l'injection de capital visant à couvrir le déficit sur le fonds de retraites pour les activités commerciales, l'autorité n'est actuellement pas en mesure d'exclure qu'elle confère un avantage économique à l'entreprise AS Oslo Sporveier, étant donné qu'aucune preuve n'a été apportée pour démontrer qu'elle a été versée en vertu du principe de l'investisseur en économie de marché.

De plus, l'autorité émet l'avis préliminaire que tant la compensation annuelle que l'injection de capital destinées à couvrir le déficit lié au fonds de retraites du service public (en rapport avec le coût pouvant également servir de base à la compensation annuelle) n'ont pas fait l'objet d'une procédure de marchés publics et ne correspondent pas au coût qu'une entreprise bien gérée et jouissant de l'équipement adéquat aurait engendré. Le quatrième critère de la jurisprudence Altmark n'est donc pas rempli et les deux mesures constituent, par conséquent, des aides d'État, au sens de l'article 61, paragraphe 1, de l'accord EEE.

Nature des aides

À ce stade, l'autorité n'est pas en mesure d'établir si les aides ont été versées en vertu d'un système d'aides existant qui se fonderait sur la loi sur le transport commercial et le règlement sur le transport commercial, tels qu'appliqués à Oslo avant l'entrée en vigueur de l'accord EEE. Il convient de souligner que, depuis 2008, aucune autre aide n'a été octroyée en vertu des textes précités. Étant donné qu'un système d'aides existe depuis 1994, l'autorité n'est actuellement pas en mesure de déterminer les délimitations exactes du système et si toutes les aides octroyées se fondent sur ce système. De plus, elle n'est pas en mesure d'exclure que les mesures représentent des aides d'État illégales et incompatibles, du moins dans une faible mesure et en particulier en ce qui concerne la couverture des fonds de retraites rattachés aux activités commerciales.

Compatibilité de l’aide

À ce stade, il apparaîtrait à l'autorité que les versements effectués jusqu'à la concession octroyée directement, ont pris fin en 2008, et que l'injection de capital de 2004 visant à combler le déficit du fonds de retraites pourrait, en grande partie au moins, être compatible avec la compensation de service public visée à l'article 49 de l'accord EEE. L'appréciation de la compatibilité lors de la décision finale, se concentrerait donc en particulier sur le fait de savoir s'il y a eu surcompensation. De plus, les aides pourraient, en partie au moins, être compatibles en vertu de l'article 61, paragraphe 3, point c.

Conclusion

Compte tenu de ce qui précède, l'Autorité a décidé d'ouvrir la procédure formelle d'examen conformément à l'article 1er, paragraphe 2, de l'accord EEE. Les parties intéressées sont invitées à présenter leurs observations dans un délai d'un mois à compter de la publication de la présente notification au Journal officiel de l'Union européenne.

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 123/12/COL

of 28 March 2012

opening the formal investigation into potential aid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene

(Norway)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (‘THE AUTHORITY’),

HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), in particular to Articles 49 and 61 to 63 and Protocol 26,

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

HAVING REGARD to Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (‘Protocol 3’), in particular to Article 1 of Part I and Article 4(2) and (4) and Articles 6 and 13 of Part II,

HAVING REGARD to the consolidated version of the Authority’s Decision No 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004 on the implementing provisions referred to under Article 27 of Part II of Protocol 3 (‘the Implementing Provisions Decision’) (1),

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

1.1.   
  Administrative procedure leading to the Authority’s Decision No 254/10/COL

| (1) | By letter dated 11 August 2006, the Authority received a complaint from Konkurrenten.no AS (‘the complainant’) alleging that the Norwegian authorities had granted State aid to AS Oslo Sporveisbussene (‘the complaint’). The letter was registered by the Authority on 16 August 2006 (Event No 384017). By letter dated 17 August 2006 to the complainant, the Authority acknowledged the receipt of the complaint (Event No 384134). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By letter dated 11 August 2006, the Authority received a complaint from Konkurrenten.no AS (‘the complainant’) alleging that the Norwegian authorities had granted State aid to AS Oslo Sporveisbussene (‘the complaint’). The letter was registered by the Authority on 16 August 2006 (Event No 384017). By letter dated 17 August 2006 to the complainant, the Authority acknowledged the receipt of the complaint (Event No 384134).

| (2) | By letter dated 7 September 2006, the Authority forwarded the complaint to the Norwegian authorities and invited them to comment (Event No 387163). By letter dated 11 October 2006, the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request. The letter was registered by the Authority on 19 October 2006 (Event No 392725). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By letter dated 7 September 2006, the Authority forwarded the complaint to the Norwegian authorities and invited them to comment (Event No 387163). By letter dated 11 October 2006, the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request. The letter was registered by the Authority on 19 October 2006 (Event No 392725).

| (3) | By letter dated 20 October 2006, the complainant submitted further comments. The letter was registered by the Authority on 23 October 2006 (Event No 394520). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

By letter dated 20 October 2006, the complainant submitted further comments. The letter was registered by the Authority on 23 October 2006 (Event No 394520).

| (4) | By letter dated 29 November 2006, the Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities (Event No 394397). The Norwegian authorities replied by letter dated 11 January 2007. The letter was registered by the Authority on 12 January 2007 (Event No 406541). |
| --- | --- |

(4)

By letter dated 29 November 2006, the Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities (Event No 394397). The Norwegian authorities replied by letter dated 11 January 2007. The letter was registered by the Authority on 12 January 2007 (Event No 406541).

| (5) | By letter dated 19 June 2007, the Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities (Event No 425271). The Norwegian authorities replied by letter submitted electronically on 16 August 2007 (Event No 434326).
  By e-mail dated 20 February 2008, the complainant submitted further information (Event No 466226). |
| --- | --- |

(5)

By letter dated 19 June 2007, the Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities (Event No 425271). The Norwegian authorities replied by letter submitted electronically on 16 August 2007 (Event No 434326).

By e-mail dated 20 February 2008, the complainant submitted further information (Event No 466226).

| (6) | By letter submitted electronically on 2 April 2008, the Authority requested yet further information from the Norwegian authorities (Event No 471926). The Norwegian authorities replied by letter submitted electronically on 29 April 2008 (Event No 475480). |
| --- | --- |

(6)

By letter submitted electronically on 2 April 2008, the Authority requested yet further information from the Norwegian authorities (Event No 471926). The Norwegian authorities replied by letter submitted electronically on 29 April 2008 (Event No 475480).

| (7) | The complainant submitted further information by e-mails dated 25 May 2008 (Event No 478132), 2 June 2008 (Event No 479743), 9 July 2008 (Events No 489623 and 489626), 14 August 2008 (Event No 489591), 15 August 2008 (Event No 488527), 1 September 2008 (Event No 489591), 20 January 2009 (Event No 505210) and 22 January 2009 (Event No 505503). |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The complainant submitted further information by e-mails dated 25 May 2008 (Event No 478132), 2 June 2008 (Event No 479743), 9 July 2008 (Events No 489623 and 489626), 14 August 2008 (Event No 489591), 15 August 2008 (Event No 488527), 1 September 2008 (Event No 489591), 20 January 2009 (Event No 505210) and 22 January 2009 (Event No 505503).

| (8) | During the beginning of 2010, the Authority and the Norwegian authorities had informal contact both via telephone and e-mail regarding the case. Information received by the Authority in this context was consolidated in a letter submitted to the Authority electronically on 21 April 2010 by the Norwegian authorities (Event No 554417). |
| --- | --- |

(8)

During the beginning of 2010, the Authority and the Norwegian authorities had informal contact both via telephone and e-mail regarding the case. Information received by the Authority in this context was consolidated in a letter submitted to the Authority electronically on 21 April 2010 by the Norwegian authorities (Event No 554417).

| (9) | On 21 June 2010, the Authority adopted Decision No 254/10/COL closing the case on the grounds that the aid involved existing aid that was incompatible with Article 49 of the EEA Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007. However, as the existing aid measures had been terminated on 30 March 2008, the Authority concluded that no further measures were required. By letters dated 21 June 2010, the Authority forwarded copies of Decision No 254/10/COL to the Norwegian authorities (Event No 558824) and the complainant (Event No 561949). |
| --- | --- |

(9)

On 21 June 2010, the Authority adopted Decision No 254/10/COL closing the case on the grounds that the aid involved existing aid that was incompatible with Article 49 of the EEA Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007. However, as the existing aid measures had been terminated on 30 March 2008, the Authority concluded that no further measures were required. By letters dated 21 June 2010, the Authority forwarded copies of Decision No 254/10/COL to the Norwegian authorities (Event No 558824) and the complainant (Event No 561949).

1.2.   
  Judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

| (10) | By application lodged at the Registry of the EFTA Court on 2 September 2010, the complainant brought an action for annulment of the Authority’s Decision No 254/10/COL. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

By application lodged at the Registry of the EFTA Court on 2 September 2010, the complainant brought an action for annulment of the Authority’s Decision No 254/10/COL.

| (11) | On 22 August 2011, the EFTA Court rendered its judgment in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no v EFTA Surveillance Authority, annulling Decision No 254/10/COL in its entirety, for the following reasons. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

On 22 August 2011, the EFTA Court rendered its judgment in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no v EFTA Surveillance Authority, annulling Decision No 254/10/COL in its entirety, for the following reasons.

| (12) | Firstly, the Court found that the Decision was inadequately reasoned, in that the Authority had failed to explain how the renewal of the concession, as of 1 January 2000, could be classified as part of an existing aid scheme, or why it could not be considered to be a relevant alteration of that aid scheme (2). |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Firstly, the Court found that the Decision was inadequately reasoned, in that the Authority had failed to explain how the renewal of the concession, as of 1 January 2000, could be classified as part of an existing aid scheme, or why it could not be considered to be a relevant alteration of that aid scheme (2).

| (13) | Secondly, the Court held that the Authority had infringed its obligation to open the formal investigation procedure in respect of aid granted during the period 1997-2000. It found that the Authority could not exclude the possibility that AS Oslo Sporveier had received aid over and above the losses associated with discharging the public service obligation, and that the Authority indeed considered that such overcompensation was likely. Given that the Authority was unable, after almost four years of investigation, to establish which parts of the aid were existing aid and which parts were unlawful aid, the Authority should have opened the formal investigation procedure in order to become, as far as possible, fully informed of the facts. The applicant’s plea addressing the same issues with regard to the period 2000-2008 was also declared well founded (3). |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Secondly, the Court held that the Authority had infringed its obligation to open the formal investigation procedure in respect of aid granted during the period 1997-2000. It found that the Authority could not exclude the possibility that AS Oslo Sporveier had received aid over and above the losses associated with discharging the public service obligation, and that the Authority indeed considered that such overcompensation was likely. Given that the Authority was unable, after almost four years of investigation, to establish which parts of the aid were existing aid and which parts were unlawful aid, the Authority should have opened the formal investigation procedure in order to become, as far as possible, fully informed of the facts. The applicant’s plea addressing the same issues with regard to the period 2000-2008 was also declared well founded (3).

| (14) | Thirdly, the Court held that the Authority had failed to identify whether the capital injection only concerned unfunded pension liabilities that arose in connection with the discharge of public service obligations, or if it also covered other activities. As the Court could not review the Decision in relation to the applicant’s claim that the capital injection did not correspond to a payment for transport services provided, this amounted to a lack of reasoning (4). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Thirdly, the Court held that the Authority had failed to identify whether the capital injection only concerned unfunded pension liabilities that arose in connection with the discharge of public service obligations, or if it also covered other activities. As the Court could not review the Decision in relation to the applicant’s claim that the capital injection did not correspond to a payment for transport services provided, this amounted to a lack of reasoning (4).

1.3.   
  Re-assessment of the complaint

| (15) | The Authority commenced a reassessment of the complaint, and by e-mail dated 25 October 2011 to the Norwegian authorities (Event No 613053) requested additional information. The Norwegian authorities responded in a telephone conference on 28 October 2011. Additionally, the Norwegian authorities provided further information in meetings in Oslo on 29 November 2011 and in Brussels on 9 December 2011 and 17 January 2012. By e-mails of 13 December 2011 (Event No 621639) and 20 January 2012 (Event No 622816), the Norwegian authorities submitted further information. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The Authority commenced a reassessment of the complaint, and by e-mail dated 25 October 2011 to the Norwegian authorities (Event No 613053) requested additional information. The Norwegian authorities responded in a telephone conference on 28 October 2011. Additionally, the Norwegian authorities provided further information in meetings in Oslo on 29 November 2011 and in Brussels on 9 December 2011 and 17 January 2012. By e-mails of 13 December 2011 (Event No 621639) and 20 January 2012 (Event No 622816), the Norwegian authorities submitted further information.

| (16) | By letter dated 27 January 2012 (Event No 622888), the Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian authorities responded by letter dated 22 February 2012 (Events No 625908, 625916, 625949, 626065 and 626066) and e-mails of 5 March 2012 (Events No 627096 and 627097). |
| --- | --- |

(16)

By letter dated 27 January 2012 (Event No 622888), the Authority requested further information from the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian authorities responded by letter dated 22 February 2012 (Events No 625908, 625916, 625949, 626065 and 626066) and e-mails of 5 March 2012 (Events No 627096 and 627097).

2.   The content of the complaint

| (17) | The complaint alleged that the following measures may involve unlawful State aid:






  1. | cross-subsidies between the four companies: AS Oslo Sporveier, AS Sporveisbussene, Arctic Express AS and Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS (5); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(17)

The complaint alleged that the following measures may involve unlawful State aid:

1.

cross-subsidies between the four companies: AS Oslo Sporveier, AS Sporveisbussene, Arctic Express AS and Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS (5);

| 2. | a capital injection of NOK 41 499 000 made in 2004 by AS Oslo Sporveier into AS Sporveisbussene; |
| --- | --- |

2.

a capital injection of NOK 41 499 000 made in 2004 by AS Oslo Sporveier into AS Sporveisbussene;

| 3. | a favourable tax position acquired in a non-competitive market, allowing AS Sporveisbussene to avoid paying tax on profits; and |
| --- | --- |

3.

a favourable tax position acquired in a non-competitive market, allowing AS Sporveisbussene to avoid paying tax on profits; and

| 4. | guarantees granted by AS Sporveisbussene to the benefit of its subsidiaries Arctic Express AS and Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS. |
| --- | --- |

4.

guarantees granted by AS Sporveisbussene to the benefit of its subsidiaries Arctic Express AS and Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS.

3.   Background: Norwegian legislative framework on local scheduled bus transport

3.1.   
  Commercial Transport Act 2002 and Commercial Transport Regulation 2003

| (18) | At present, the local bus transport sector is regulated by the Commercial Transport Act of 2002 (the ‘CTA’) (6) and the Commercial Transport Regulation of 2003 (the ‘CTR’) (7). The CTA repealed and replaced the Transport Act of 1976 (8). The CTR repealed and replaced two regulations (9). |
| --- | --- |

(18)

At present, the local bus transport sector is regulated by the Commercial Transport Act of 2002 (the ‘CTA’) (6) and the Commercial Transport Regulation of 2003 (the ‘CTR’) (7). The CTA repealed and replaced the Transport Act of 1976 (8). The CTR repealed and replaced two regulations (9).

| (19) | Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the relevant provisions regulating local bus transport, presented in the following, appear not to have been significantly altered since the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in 1994. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the relevant provisions regulating local bus transport, presented in the following, appear not to have been significantly altered since the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in 1994.

3.2.   
  Administrative responsibility of the counties

| (20) | In Norway, the responsibility of providing local public transport services is conferred on the counties. However, the counties are not under any obligation to offer such services. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

In Norway, the responsibility of providing local public transport services is conferred on the counties. However, the counties are not under any obligation to offer such services.

| (21) | The counties can either administer local bus transport services through their own organisation, or through an administrative company (10) set up by the county. The CTA provides that when the county sets up an administrative company, the funds intended for the financing of the local bus transport services will be allocated to that company (11). The administrative companies can obtain the bus transport services from a third party, or provide the services themselves. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

The counties can either administer local bus transport services through their own organisation, or through an administrative company (10) set up by the county. The CTA provides that when the county sets up an administrative company, the funds intended for the financing of the local bus transport services will be allocated to that company (11). The administrative companies can obtain the bus transport services from a third party, or provide the services themselves.

3.3.   
  Co-financing of local transport services by the State and counties

| (22) | The counties partly finance the local transport services with tax revenue. In addition, under the CTA the counties receive State funding by way of annual block grants (12). The amount of the grants are determined on the basis of the extent to which the counties need contributions from the State. Therefore, the counties have to provide the Ministry of Transport with budgets, accounts and other relevant information necessary to assess the need for contributions (13). |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The counties partly finance the local transport services with tax revenue. In addition, under the CTA the counties receive State funding by way of annual block grants (12). The amount of the grants are determined on the basis of the extent to which the counties need contributions from the State. Therefore, the counties have to provide the Ministry of Transport with budgets, accounts and other relevant information necessary to assess the need for contributions (13).

3.4.   
  Concessions

| (23) | Under the CTA, concessions are required to carry out remunerated bus transport services (14).
  Both a general and a special concession are needed for operators of scheduled passenger transport services. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Under the CTA, concessions are required to carry out remunerated bus transport services (14).

Both a general and a special concession are needed for operators of scheduled passenger transport services.

3.4.1.   General concession for remunerated passenger transport

| (24) | Undertakings providing passenger transport services for remuneration must have a general concession (15). In order to obtain a general concession, the applicant must (i) provide a certificate of good conduct, (ii) have satisfactory financial means and abilities, and (iii) have satisfactory professional qualifications (16). General concessions are not time-limited (17). |
| --- | --- |

(24)

Undertakings providing passenger transport services for remuneration must have a general concession (15). In order to obtain a general concession, the applicant must (i) provide a certificate of good conduct, (ii) have satisfactory financial means and abilities, and (iii) have satisfactory professional qualifications (16). General concessions are not time-limited (17).

3.4.2.   Special concessions for scheduled passenger transport

| (25) | In addition to the general concession, any undertaking wishing to carry out scheduled passenger transport for remuneration must have a special concession (18). There are two types of special concessions: (i) area concessions; and (ii) route-specific concessions. The area concession is of a residual nature, in that it permits its holder to operate scheduled bus transport services in the entire area covered in so far as other route-specific concessions have not been granted for routes in the area. The holder of a route-specific concession is the sole entity entitled to operate scheduled bus transport on that route. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

In addition to the general concession, any undertaking wishing to carry out scheduled passenger transport for remuneration must have a special concession (18). There are two types of special concessions: (i) area concessions; and (ii) route-specific concessions. The area concession is of a residual nature, in that it permits its holder to operate scheduled bus transport services in the entire area covered in so far as other route-specific concessions have not been granted for routes in the area. The holder of a route-specific concession is the sole entity entitled to operate scheduled bus transport on that route.

| (26) | The special concession confers upon the concessionaire both a right and a duty to carry out the transport service as set out in the concession (19). When applying for a special concession, a proposal for a transportation schedule and tariffs must be submitted (20). Schedules and tariffs are subject to the control of the counties. The counties can order changes in the schedules and tariffs (21). |
| --- | --- |

(26)

The special concession confers upon the concessionaire both a right and a duty to carry out the transport service as set out in the concession (19). When applying for a special concession, a proposal for a transportation schedule and tariffs must be submitted (20). Schedules and tariffs are subject to the control of the counties. The counties can order changes in the schedules and tariffs (21).

| (27) | The special concessions can either be awarded (i) through tender procedures (granted for the period determined in the tender procedure (22), which in any event will not be for a longer period than 10 years (23)), or (ii) directly, without the use of a tender (granted for a 10-year period) (24). |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The special concessions can either be awarded (i) through tender procedures (granted for the period determined in the tender procedure (22), which in any event will not be for a longer period than 10 years (23)), or (ii) directly, without the use of a tender (granted for a 10-year period) (24).

3.5.   
  Contracts

| (28) | To complement the concessions, the counties may enter into contracts with the concessionaires about the provision of the public service. The counties are free to determine the form of these contracts (25). |
| --- | --- |

(28)

To complement the concessions, the counties may enter into contracts with the concessionaires about the provision of the public service. The counties are free to determine the form of these contracts (25).

3.6.   
  Remuneration to the concessionaires

| (29) | The counties are responsible for remunerating the concessionaires (26). Compensation is granted to undertakings that operate unprofitable routes (i.e. where the revenue generated from the sale of tickets does not cover the cost of operating the service). |
| --- | --- |

(29)

The counties are responsible for remunerating the concessionaires (26). Compensation is granted to undertakings that operate unprofitable routes (i.e. where the revenue generated from the sale of tickets does not cover the cost of operating the service).

| (30) | According to the Norwegian authorities, under Article 22 of the CTA the county is under the obligation to compensate the operators for the provision of the transport service on unprofitable routes. The counties are free to determine the manner in which the concessionaires are to be remunerated; the CTA and the CTR do not have any particular provisions on how the compensation is to be provided. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

According to the Norwegian authorities, under Article 22 of the CTA the county is under the obligation to compensate the operators for the provision of the transport service on unprofitable routes. The counties are free to determine the manner in which the concessionaires are to be remunerated; the CTA and the CTR do not have any particular provisions on how the compensation is to be provided.

| (31) | The Authority understands that Article 22 of the CTA is read as allowing for compensation to cover the cost of the public service minus the ticket revenue, and that compensation beyond that could not be based on the CTA. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

The Authority understands that Article 22 of the CTA is read as allowing for compensation to cover the cost of the public service minus the ticket revenue, and that compensation beyond that could not be based on the CTA.

4.   Organisation of the local scheduled bus transport in Oslo

| (32) | As noted above, the responsibility of providing local scheduled public transport services is conferred on the counties. Oslo Municipality is a county as well as a municipality. In the following, it is referred to as Oslo Municipality.
  From before 1994, all public transport administration in Oslo was carried out by AS Oslo Sporveier (27), as Oslo Municipality has delegated to the company the task of planning and administering public transport in Oslo (28). At the same time, AS Oslo Sporveier operated an in-house department (29) carrying out most (30) of the scheduled bus transport in Oslo. This activity was carried out on the basis of an area concession awarded on 16 November 1992, permitting AS Oslo Sporveier to operate scheduled bus transport services in the entire Oslo grid in so far as other route-specific concessions had not been granted. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

As noted above, the responsibility of providing local scheduled public transport services is conferred on the counties. Oslo Municipality is a county as well as a municipality. In the following, it is referred to as Oslo Municipality.

From before 1994, all public transport administration in Oslo was carried out by AS Oslo Sporveier (27), as Oslo Municipality has delegated to the company the task of planning and administering public transport in Oslo (28). At the same time, AS Oslo Sporveier operated an in-house department (29) carrying out most (30) of the scheduled bus transport in Oslo. This activity was carried out on the basis of an area concession awarded on 16 November 1992, permitting AS Oslo Sporveier to operate scheduled bus transport services in the entire Oslo grid in so far as other route-specific concessions had not been granted.

| (33) | The concession had been granted for a 10-year period, with retroactive effect from 1 January 1990. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

The concession had been granted for a 10-year period, with retroactive effect from 1 January 1990.

| (34) | Additionally, from 1994, AS Oslo Sporveier operated small-scale tour bus services outside its public service remit. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

Additionally, from 1994, AS Oslo Sporveier operated small-scale tour bus services outside its public service remit.

| (35) | On 23 April 1997, the bus department, including the small tour bus division, was separated from AS Oslo Sporveier and transferred to a newly established company, AS Sporveisbussene. From then on AS Sporveisbussene carried out the scheduled local bus transport in accordance with the concession awarded to AS Oslo Sporveier. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

On 23 April 1997, the bus department, including the small tour bus division, was separated from AS Oslo Sporveier and transferred to a newly established company, AS Sporveisbussene. From then on AS Sporveisbussene carried out the scheduled local bus transport in accordance with the concession awarded to AS Oslo Sporveier.

| (36) | The companies entered into a Transport Agreement, signed on 23 April 1997, and with retroactive force with effect from 1 January 1997 (‘the Transport Agreement’). The Transport Agreement was due to expire at the date of expiry of the existing concession (i.e. 31 December 1999), but it would be prolonged automatically for one year at a time as long as AS Oslo Sporveier’s area concession would be renewed. Under this Transport Agreement, AS Sporveierbussene assumed the public service activities of AS Oslo Sporveier and received remuneration directly from AS Oslo Sporveier for these services. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

The companies entered into a Transport Agreement, signed on 23 April 1997, and with retroactive force with effect from 1 January 1997 (‘the Transport Agreement’). The Transport Agreement was due to expire at the date of expiry of the existing concession (i.e. 31 December 1999), but it would be prolonged automatically for one year at a time as long as AS Oslo Sporveier’s area concession would be renewed. Under this Transport Agreement, AS Sporveierbussene assumed the public service activities of AS Oslo Sporveier and received remuneration directly from AS Oslo Sporveier for these services.

| (37) | The area concession was renewed for another 10 years on 20 September 2001, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2000. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

The area concession was renewed for another 10 years on 20 September 2001, with retroactive effect from 1 January 2000.

| (38) | In 2001, Oslo Municipality decided that all scheduled bus transport in Oslo should be tendered out. On this basis, scheduled bus transport was gradually put up for public tender in five lots during the period 2003-2008. The respective contracts entered into force the year following that in which they had been tendered out. The last lot was tendered in 2007, and the last contract entered into force on 30 March 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

In 2001, Oslo Municipality decided that all scheduled bus transport in Oslo should be tendered out. On this basis, scheduled bus transport was gradually put up for public tender in five lots during the period 2003-2008. The respective contracts entered into force the year following that in which they had been tendered out. The last lot was tendered in 2007, and the last contract entered into force on 30 March 2008.

| (39) | Due to its residual nature, the scope of the area concession would be reduced in accordance with the gradual tendering of the routes that once had been covered by the area concession. Thus, the area concession awarded to AS Oslo Sporveier expired on 30 March 2008 (when all scheduled bus transport in Oslo had been tendered out). As the concession lapsed, so did the Transport Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

Due to its residual nature, the scope of the area concession would be reduced in accordance with the gradual tendering of the routes that once had been covered by the area concession. Thus, the area concession awarded to AS Oslo Sporveier expired on 30 March 2008 (when all scheduled bus transport in Oslo had been tendered out). As the concession lapsed, so did the Transport Agreement.

| (40) | As set out above, in 1997 AS Sporveisbussene took over the small tour bus division from AS Oslo Sporveier. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

As set out above, in 1997 AS Sporveisbussene took over the small tour bus division from AS Oslo Sporveier.

| (41) | In 2003, AS Sporveisbussene established a subsidiary, Nexus Trafikk AS, in order to participate in tenders for operating scheduled bus transport routes in Oslo. In 2005, AS Sporveisbussene acquired the company Arctic Express AS and its subsidiary Lavprisexpressen.no, engaged in airport express services and regional bus transport. In 2006, the tour bus division was separated from AS Sporveisbussene into a newly established company, Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS, owned 100 % by AS Sporveisbussene. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

In 2003, AS Sporveisbussene established a subsidiary, Nexus Trafikk AS, in order to participate in tenders for operating scheduled bus transport routes in Oslo. In 2005, AS Sporveisbussene acquired the company Arctic Express AS and its subsidiary Lavprisexpressen.no, engaged in airport express services and regional bus transport. In 2006, the tour bus division was separated from AS Sporveisbussene into a newly established company, Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS, owned 100 % by AS Sporveisbussene.

| (42) | From 1 July 2006 to 1 January 2007, the administration of the public transport in Oslo was reorganised. A new company was established under the name AS Oslo Sporveier (the ‘new AS Oslo Sporveier’). The former AS Oslo Sporveier changed its name to Kollektivtransportproduksjon AS (‘KTP’). The administrative functions of the former AS Oslo Sporveier were transferred to the new AS Oslo Sporveier. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

From 1 July 2006 to 1 January 2007, the administration of the public transport in Oslo was reorganised. A new company was established under the name AS Oslo Sporveier (the ‘new AS Oslo Sporveier’). The former AS Oslo Sporveier changed its name to Kollektivtransportproduksjon AS (‘KTP’). The administrative functions of the former AS Oslo Sporveier were transferred to the new AS Oslo Sporveier.

| (43) | KTP retained the operative part of AS Oslo Sporveier and the ownership of AS Sporveisbussene. The latter turned into a parent company with three subsidiaries. The subsidiaries were renamed (from Nexus Trafikk to Unibuss AS; Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS to Unibuss Tur AS; and Arctic Express AS to Unibuss Ekspress AS). |
| --- | --- |

(43)

KTP retained the operative part of AS Oslo Sporveier and the ownership of AS Sporveisbussene. The latter turned into a parent company with three subsidiaries. The subsidiaries were renamed (from Nexus Trafikk to Unibuss AS; Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS to Unibuss Tur AS; and Arctic Express AS to Unibuss Ekspress AS).

5.   Compensation for the public service obligation in Oslo

5.1.   
  Administrative practice

| (44) | As noted above, Oslo Municipality is responsible for compensating operators of public services it wishes to establish or maintain within its region (31). |
| --- | --- |

(44)

As noted above, Oslo Municipality is responsible for compensating operators of public services it wishes to establish or maintain within its region (31).

| (45) | In Oslo, there is a common ticketing system that applies to all operators for bus, tram, underground and ferry. The public service operators are not responsible for the ticketing system. The ticketing system is the responsibility of KTP (formerly AS Oslo Sporveier), and the ticket prices are subject to the control of Oslo Municipality. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

In Oslo, there is a common ticketing system that applies to all operators for bus, tram, underground and ferry. The public service operators are not responsible for the ticketing system. The ticketing system is the responsibility of KTP (formerly AS Oslo Sporveier), and the ticket prices are subject to the control of Oslo Municipality.

| (46) | The concessionaire is allowed to keep the ticket income generated by the operation of the scheduled bus transport (32). When the ticket income is not sufficient to cover the cost of the operations, the concessionaire is eligible for public service compensation from Oslo Municipality. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

The concessionaire is allowed to keep the ticket income generated by the operation of the scheduled bus transport (32). When the ticket income is not sufficient to cover the cost of the operations, the concessionaire is eligible for public service compensation from Oslo Municipality.

| (47) | In the late 1980s, a system of compensation in the form of annual grants of lump sums was introduced. In essence, a lump sum that covered the difference between the estimated costs of operating the public service in question and the income from sale of tickets was determined by Oslo Municipality and the concessionaire. This was done as part of the general budget process in Oslo Municipality. According to the Norwegian authorities, the budget process can be outlined as follows:






  January/February | The City Government (Byrådet) decides the budget limits for the next year. |
| --- | --- | --- |
| March | The municipal departments and undertakings are informed of the budget limits and the time limit for submission of budget proposals. |
| March/April | The municipal undertakings deal with the budget of the following year. |
| May | The municipal departments and undertakings submit their budget proposals based on previous years income and costs, activity level, budget limits and assumptions on future cost developments and efficiency gains. |
| June-August | Discussions between the departments/undertakings and the responsible governmental unit are carried out in order to clarify the budget and the activities covered by it. |
| September | The budget proposal is announced by the City Government. |
| October | The different committees of the City Council (Bystyret) deal with the different parts of the budget. |
| October/November | The City Government proposes a revised budget. |
| December | The budget is approved by the City Council. |

(47)

In the late 1980s, a system of compensation in the form of annual grants of lump sums was introduced. In essence, a lump sum that covered the difference between the estimated costs of operating the public service in question and the income from sale of tickets was determined by Oslo Municipality and the concessionaire. This was done as part of the general budget process in Oslo Municipality. According to the Norwegian authorities, the budget process can be outlined as follows:

January/February

The City Government (Byrådet) decides the budget limits for the next year.

March

The municipal departments and undertakings are informed of the budget limits and the time limit for submission of budget proposals.

March/April

The municipal undertakings deal with the budget of the following year.

May

The municipal departments and undertakings submit their budget proposals based on previous years income and costs, activity level, budget limits and assumptions on future cost developments and efficiency gains.

June-August

Discussions between the departments/undertakings and the responsible governmental unit are carried out in order to clarify the budget and the activities covered by it.

September

The budget proposal is announced by the City Government.

October

The different committees of the City Council (Bystyret) deal with the different parts of the budget.

October/November

The City Government proposes a revised budget.

December

The budget is approved by the City Council.

| (48) | According to the Norwegian authorities, this has been the administrative practice in Oslo Municipality at least since 1994. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

According to the Norwegian authorities, this has been the administrative practice in Oslo Municipality at least since 1994.

| (49) | With regard to the compensation for the scheduled bus transport, the aim of the process was to determine the amount of compensation necessary to cover the difference between the estimated costs of operating the public service and the income from the sale of tickets. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

With regard to the compensation for the scheduled bus transport, the aim of the process was to determine the amount of compensation necessary to cover the difference between the estimated costs of operating the public service and the income from the sale of tickets.

| (50) | Based on the budget proposals (and possible amendments during the budget discussions in the City Council), the compensation was granted by budget decisions within certain presumptions that were specified in each decision, i.e. to achieve certain efficiency gains and maintain the preceding year’s transport services to the public. The decisions also contained certain goals with respect to, inter alia, the volume of produced transportation services and costs per travel. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

Based on the budget proposals (and possible amendments during the budget discussions in the City Council), the compensation was granted by budget decisions within certain presumptions that were specified in each decision, i.e. to achieve certain efficiency gains and maintain the preceding year’s transport services to the public. The decisions also contained certain goals with respect to, inter alia, the volume of produced transportation services and costs per travel.

| (51) | The assessment of the amount of compensation was based on the costs incurred in the preceding years, corrected for efficiency gains, the development of the Norwegian consumer price index, salaries, taxes, and laws and regulations that would affect the costs. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

The assessment of the amount of compensation was based on the costs incurred in the preceding years, corrected for efficiency gains, the development of the Norwegian consumer price index, salaries, taxes, and laws and regulations that would affect the costs.

| (52) | According to the Norwegian authorities, separate accounts were kept for the public service and commercial activities (i.e. the tour bus service) carried out by AS Oslo Sporveier. According to the Norwegian authorities, the cost of the commercial activities of AS Oslo Sporveier was not taken into account for the calculation of the annual compensation for public services. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

According to the Norwegian authorities, separate accounts were kept for the public service and commercial activities (i.e. the tour bus service) carried out by AS Oslo Sporveier. According to the Norwegian authorities, the cost of the commercial activities of AS Oslo Sporveier was not taken into account for the calculation of the annual compensation for public services.

| (53) | According to the Norwegian authorities, also under the Transport Agreement concluded in 1997, which lapsed on 30 March 2008 when all public service contracts had been tendered and the area concession itself lapsed, the calculation of the compensation was carried out on an annual basis in accordance with the principles described above. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

According to the Norwegian authorities, also under the Transport Agreement concluded in 1997, which lapsed on 30 March 2008 when all public service contracts had been tendered and the area concession itself lapsed, the calculation of the compensation was carried out on an annual basis in accordance with the principles described above.

| (54) | Thus, the public service compensation was determined in accordance with the same procedure. The amount of public service compensation was determined on the basis of the difference between cost and revenue on the public service and adjusted in accordance with the same correction factors throughout the entire period under assessment, and separate accounts were kept for the public service activities and the non-public service activities. |
| --- | --- |

(54)

Thus, the public service compensation was determined in accordance with the same procedure. The amount of public service compensation was determined on the basis of the difference between cost and revenue on the public service and adjusted in accordance with the same correction factors throughout the entire period under assessment, and separate accounts were kept for the public service activities and the non-public service activities.

5.2.   
  Introduction of a quality bonus/malus system

| (55) | According to the Norwegian authorities, a quality bonus/malus system was agreed on by AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene and introduced before 2004. According to that system, the performance of AS Sporveisbussene was assessed in accordance with the following criteria: (i) total customer satisfaction; (ii) punctuality; (iii) level of safety and comfort; and (iv) the driver being forthcoming. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

According to the Norwegian authorities, a quality bonus/malus system was agreed on by AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene and introduced before 2004. According to that system, the performance of AS Sporveisbussene was assessed in accordance with the following criteria: (i) total customer satisfaction; (ii) punctuality; (iii) level of safety and comfort; and (iv) the driver being forthcoming.

| (56) | AS Oslo Sporveier granted a quality bonus to AS Sporveisbussene of NOK 3,9 million in 2004. The Authority is not aware of any other quality bonuses being granted. |
| --- | --- |

(56)

AS Oslo Sporveier granted a quality bonus to AS Sporveisbussene of NOK 3,9 million in 2004. The Authority is not aware of any other quality bonuses being granted.

5.3.   
  Common cost and intra-group transactions

| (57) | According to the Norwegian authorities, AS Sporveisbussene paid market prices for all services that were provided by AS Oslo Sporveier. |
| --- | --- |

(57)

According to the Norwegian authorities, AS Sporveisbussene paid market prices for all services that were provided by AS Oslo Sporveier.

| (58) | Likewise, the Norwegian authorities maintain that the commercial activities of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene and its subsidiaries were always charged market prices for all services provided by AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene (for example, the tour bus division paid market prices for their use of office space, garage facilities and administration provided by the Oslo Sporveier Group). |
| --- | --- |

(58)

Likewise, the Norwegian authorities maintain that the commercial activities of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene and its subsidiaries were always charged market prices for all services provided by AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene (for example, the tour bus division paid market prices for their use of office space, garage facilities and administration provided by the Oslo Sporveier Group).

| (59) | The Norwegian authorities have indicated that from 2004 onwards, [...] (33) % of the overall costs were levied from all subsidiaries for general overheads. |
| --- | --- |

(59)

The Norwegian authorities have indicated that from 2004 onwards, [...] (33) % of the overall costs were levied from all subsidiaries for general overheads.

| (60) | However, the Norwegian authorities have not submitted further information on the allocation of the common costs, or whether such a particular allocation key was used for this purpose, or whether the payment for the services that the commercial subsidiaries of AS Sporveisbussene received was done on an arms-length basis and on market terms. |
| --- | --- |

(60)

However, the Norwegian authorities have not submitted further information on the allocation of the common costs, or whether such a particular allocation key was used for this purpose, or whether the payment for the services that the commercial subsidiaries of AS Sporveisbussene received was done on an arms-length basis and on market terms.

| (61) | Furthermore, no explanations have been provided as to the rationale of introducing a ‘general overhead fee’ in 2004, and if overheads were exclusively born by the public service activities before that date. |
| --- | --- |

(61)

Furthermore, no explanations have been provided as to the rationale of introducing a ‘general overhead fee’ in 2004, and if overheads were exclusively born by the public service activities before that date.

5.4.   
  Profitability of the public service

| (62) | According to an overview of the annual results of the bus activities of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the average annual profit of the companies was 0,49 % in the period from 1994 to 2008. This figure, however, includes commercial activities from 2005 onwards. The average annual return for the period between 1994 and 2005, for which the data submitted by the Norwegian authorities relates exclusively to the public service, was 1,98 % (34). |
| --- | --- |

(62)

According to an overview of the annual results of the bus activities of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the average annual profit of the companies was 0,49 % in the period from 1994 to 2008. This figure, however, includes commercial activities from 2005 onwards. The average annual return for the period between 1994 and 2005, for which the data submitted by the Norwegian authorities relates exclusively to the public service, was 1,98 % (34).

6.   Capital injection of 2 April 2004

6.1.   
  The complaint

| (63) | The complainant states that AS Oslo Sporveier transferred NOK 41 499 000 in new equity to AS Sporveisbussene in 2004, and alleges that this transaction may have involved State aid as no private market investor would inject capital in a loss-making company. The complainant furthermore questions whether capital has been injected in order to fund new activities taking place in a market exposed to competition. |
| --- | --- |

(63)

The complainant states that AS Oslo Sporveier transferred NOK 41 499 000 in new equity to AS Sporveisbussene in 2004, and alleges that this transaction may have involved State aid as no private market investor would inject capital in a loss-making company. The complainant furthermore questions whether capital has been injected in order to fund new activities taking place in a market exposed to competition.

| (64) | The Norwegian authorities have confirmed that Oslo Municipality injected new capital into Oslo Sporveier Group on 2 April 2004, and that this measure related to a one-time contribution to the pension fund of the Group (Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse) (35) to cover an accumulated shortage of funds in the existing pension fund accounts. The amount of this capital injection allocated to AS Sporveisbussene was NOK 111 760 000. The Norwegian authorities have furthermore explained that at the same time as the capital injection took place, AS Sporveisbussene changed accounting principles for estimating future pension obligations with the result that from 2004 onwards such obligations were recognised in their accounts (36). |
| --- | --- |

(64)

The Norwegian authorities have confirmed that Oslo Municipality injected new capital into Oslo Sporveier Group on 2 April 2004, and that this measure related to a one-time contribution to the pension fund of the Group (Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse) (35) to cover an accumulated shortage of funds in the existing pension fund accounts. The amount of this capital injection allocated to AS Sporveisbussene was NOK 111 760 000. The Norwegian authorities have furthermore explained that at the same time as the capital injection took place, AS Sporveisbussene changed accounting principles for estimating future pension obligations with the result that from 2004 onwards such obligations were recognised in their accounts (36).

| (65) | Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority assumes that the complainant, when referring to the transfer of NOK 41 499 000 in his correspondence with the Authority, has compared the 2003 and 2004 accounts of AS Sporveisbussene, and deducted NOK 39 501 000 (total equity in 2003) from NOK 81 000 000 (total equity in 2004) (37). In this Decision, the Authority will assess the actual capital injection of NOK 111 760 000, which is the amount allocated to cover the pension obligations of AS Sporveisbussene (as opposed to NOK 41 499 000 referred to by the complainant). |
| --- | --- |

(65)

Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority assumes that the complainant, when referring to the transfer of NOK 41 499 000 in his correspondence with the Authority, has compared the 2003 and 2004 accounts of AS Sporveisbussene, and deducted NOK 39 501 000 (total equity in 2003) from NOK 81 000 000 (total equity in 2004) (37). In this Decision, the Authority will assess the actual capital injection of NOK 111 760 000, which is the amount allocated to cover the pension obligations of AS Sporveisbussene (as opposed to NOK 41 499 000 referred to by the complainant).

| (66) | The Norwegian authorities have submitted explanations regarding the rationale for this capital injection, which relates to the pension liabilities of AS Sporveisbussene. These are summarised in the following. |
| --- | --- |

(66)

The Norwegian authorities have submitted explanations regarding the rationale for this capital injection, which relates to the pension liabilities of AS Sporveisbussene. These are summarised in the following.

6.2.   
  Mid-1990s shortfall in AS Oslo Sporveier Group’s pension fund and increased annual compensation

| (67) | The Norwegian authorities have explained that the Norwegian local authorities — and companies owned or controlled by them — were obliged to provide their employees with an indexed pension equal to 70 % or 66 % of their final salary upon retirement at the age of 67 (38). |
| --- | --- |

(67)

The Norwegian authorities have explained that the Norwegian local authorities — and companies owned or controlled by them — were obliged to provide their employees with an indexed pension equal to 70 % or 66 % of their final salary upon retirement at the age of 67 (38).

| (68) | By the mid-1990s, it had become clear that the pension fund of the Oslo Sporveier Group was underfunded. The underfunding had accumulated over several years as the payments of premiums to the pension fund did not take adequate account of increased pension obligations resulting from factors such as increases in the employees’ salaries, longer life expectancy, changes in expected rates of disability etc. According to the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (Kredittilsynet), the pension fund of AS Oslo Sporveier had a coverage of only 46,9 % per 31 December 1995. Municipal pension funds with a coverage below 95 % must be increased with a minimum of 1,5 % per year (39). Oslo Municipality, as its owner, was therefore legally obliged to cover the underfunding of Oslo Sporveier Group (40). Thus, as resolved by Decision of 23 December 1996, AS Oslo Sporveier had to submit a plan on how to make up for the shortfall. Consequently, a payment plan to eliminate the shortfall by 2020 was laid down. This plan was approved by the Financial Supervisory Authority on 9 July 1997. |
| --- | --- |

(68)

By the mid-1990s, it had become clear that the pension fund of the Oslo Sporveier Group was underfunded. The underfunding had accumulated over several years as the payments of premiums to the pension fund did not take adequate account of increased pension obligations resulting from factors such as increases in the employees’ salaries, longer life expectancy, changes in expected rates of disability etc. According to the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (Kredittilsynet), the pension fund of AS Oslo Sporveier had a coverage of only 46,9 % per 31 December 1995. Municipal pension funds with a coverage below 95 % must be increased with a minimum of 1,5 % per year (39). Oslo Municipality, as its owner, was therefore legally obliged to cover the underfunding of Oslo Sporveier Group (40). Thus, as resolved by Decision of 23 December 1996, AS Oslo Sporveier had to submit a plan on how to make up for the shortfall. Consequently, a payment plan to eliminate the shortfall by 2020 was laid down. This plan was approved by the Financial Supervisory Authority on 9 July 1997.

| (69) | In accordance with the payment plan, Oslo Municipality adjusted upwards the annual public service compensation so as to cover the increased pension premiums. |
| --- | --- |

(69)

In accordance with the payment plan, Oslo Municipality adjusted upwards the annual public service compensation so as to cover the increased pension premiums.

6.3.   
  Capital injection into Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse

| (70) | According to the Norwegian authorities, Oslo Municipality decided in 2003 to cover the pension fund shortfall at Oslo Sporveier Group with a one-time payment. As a result, on 2 April 2004, AS Oslo Sporveier injected NOK 802,5 million (41) in Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse to cover the current total shortfall (42). The capital injection covered the underfunding of the pension liabilities relating to the employees of Oslo Sporvognsdrift AS, Oslo T-banedrift AS, AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene. |
| --- | --- |

(70)

According to the Norwegian authorities, Oslo Municipality decided in 2003 to cover the pension fund shortfall at Oslo Sporveier Group with a one-time payment. As a result, on 2 April 2004, AS Oslo Sporveier injected NOK 802,5 million (41) in Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse to cover the current total shortfall (42). The capital injection covered the underfunding of the pension liabilities relating to the employees of Oslo Sporvognsdrift AS, Oslo T-banedrift AS, AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene.

| (71) | The Norwegian authorities have explained that although Oslo Municipality was legally obliged to cover the underfunding of Oslo Sporveier Group, it was not required to do so by a one-time payment: it chose to do so as this solution would be more cost-efficient than adhering to the existing amortisation plan. The annual amortised amount to service the underfunding was higher than the finance costs needed to service a bank loan of the same size. Moreover, a one-time payment was estimated to provide savings in the operating budget of approximately NOK 160 million, and reduce the Group’s annual pension costs by NOK 60 million. |
| --- | --- |

(71)

The Norwegian authorities have explained that although Oslo Municipality was legally obliged to cover the underfunding of Oslo Sporveier Group, it was not required to do so by a one-time payment: it chose to do so as this solution would be more cost-efficient than adhering to the existing amortisation plan. The annual amortised amount to service the underfunding was higher than the finance costs needed to service a bank loan of the same size. Moreover, a one-time payment was estimated to provide savings in the operating budget of approximately NOK 160 million, and reduce the Group’s annual pension costs by NOK 60 million.

| (72) | Of the NOK 802,5 million, NOK 111 760 000 went to cover the pension obligations of AS Sporveisbussene. According to the Norwegian authorities, the full amount was paid directly from AS Oslo Sporveier to the Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse and was not transferred as cash to AS Sporveisbussene. In the annual accounts of AS Sporveisbussene for 2004, the pension contribution of NOK 111 760 000 was recorded as an injection of new share capital. |
| --- | --- |

(72)

Of the NOK 802,5 million, NOK 111 760 000 went to cover the pension obligations of AS Sporveisbussene. According to the Norwegian authorities, the full amount was paid directly from AS Oslo Sporveier to the Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse and was not transferred as cash to AS Sporveisbussene. In the annual accounts of AS Sporveisbussene for 2004, the pension contribution of NOK 111 760 000 was recorded as an injection of new share capital.

6.4.   
  Underfunding of the pension liabilities for the tour bus employees

| (73) | According to the Norwegian authorities, a part of the capital injection transferred to AS Sporveisbussene covered pension liabilities for employees in the tour bus operation for the period 1994 (when the tour bus operations commenced) until 1 January 1997. |
| --- | --- |

(73)

According to the Norwegian authorities, a part of the capital injection transferred to AS Sporveisbussene covered pension liabilities for employees in the tour bus operation for the period 1994 (when the tour bus operations commenced) until 1 January 1997.

| (74) | The Norwegian authorities have submitted calculations according to which approximately NOK 430 300 of the total capital injection was related to pension liability underfunding in the tour bus division. |
| --- | --- |

(74)

The Norwegian authorities have submitted calculations according to which approximately NOK 430 300 of the total capital injection was related to pension liability underfunding in the tour bus division.

6.5.   
  Change of pension funds to Vital Forsikring ASA

| (75) | The payment of NOK 111 760 000 also enabled AS Sporveisbussene to transfer its pension fund from Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse to Vital Forsikring ASA, a life insurance company. The change took effect on 1 June 2004. Under the then applicable Norwegian law, all premiums intended to cover the shortfall had to be paid in full, before AS Sporveisbussene could transfer its pension obligations from one fund to another (43). |
| --- | --- |

(75)

The payment of NOK 111 760 000 also enabled AS Sporveisbussene to transfer its pension fund from Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse to Vital Forsikring ASA, a life insurance company. The change took effect on 1 June 2004. Under the then applicable Norwegian law, all premiums intended to cover the shortfall had to be paid in full, before AS Sporveisbussene could transfer its pension obligations from one fund to another (43).

7.   Taxation of the Oslo Sporveier Group

7.1.   
  Allegations of the complainant

| (76) | The complainant has argued that AS Oslo Sporveier’s negative tax position has been used to reduce the tax burden on AS Sporveisbussene. According to the complainant, favourable tax conditions in the Oslo Sporveier Group could possibly have been used to avoid payment of tax on profits made in a market wholly or partially exposed to competition. The basis for this complaint seems to be that AS Sporveisbussene in the period 2000-2004, while having a profit before tax of approximately NOK 54 796 000, only had a taxable income of NOK 2 027 000. |
| --- | --- |

(76)

The complainant has argued that AS Oslo Sporveier’s negative tax position has been used to reduce the tax burden on AS Sporveisbussene. According to the complainant, favourable tax conditions in the Oslo Sporveier Group could possibly have been used to avoid payment of tax on profits made in a market wholly or partially exposed to competition. The basis for this complaint seems to be that AS Sporveisbussene in the period 2000-2004, while having a profit before tax of approximately NOK 54 796 000, only had a taxable income of NOK 2 027 000.

| (77) | According to the Norwegian authorities, it seems that the complainant is referring to the taxation rules regarding contributions between companies belonging to the same group (group contributions). AS Sporveisbussene has apparently transferred parts of its profits thus avoiding the payment of income tax on the amount transferred. |
| --- | --- |

(77)

According to the Norwegian authorities, it seems that the complainant is referring to the taxation rules regarding contributions between companies belonging to the same group (group contributions). AS Sporveisbussene has apparently transferred parts of its profits thus avoiding the payment of income tax on the amount transferred.

7.2.   
  The relevant provision of the Norwegian Tax Act

| (78) | According to the Norwegian Tax Act (44), every undertaking within a group shall be taxed as a single taxable entity; there is no consolidation of groups of companies for tax purposes. However, under certain conditions, the taxation rules permit income earned by the companies in the group to be distributed within the group by way of so-called ‘group contributions’. |
| --- | --- |

(78)

According to the Norwegian Tax Act (44), every undertaking within a group shall be taxed as a single taxable entity; there is no consolidation of groups of companies for tax purposes. However, under certain conditions, the taxation rules permit income earned by the companies in the group to be distributed within the group by way of so-called ‘group contributions’.

| (79) | Group contributions are allowed (45) when the contributing company and the receiving company are limited liability companies (46) and belong to the same group (47). In addition, the parent company has to own more than 90 % of the subsidiary, and hold an equivalent share of the votes (48). A group contribution may consist of money, working capital or other financial contributions (49). |
| --- | --- |

(79)

Group contributions are allowed (45) when the contributing company and the receiving company are limited liability companies (46) and belong to the same group (47). In addition, the parent company has to own more than 90 % of the subsidiary, and hold an equivalent share of the votes (48). A group contribution may consist of money, working capital or other financial contributions (49).

| (80) | The group contributions are deductible for the granting company to the extent that the contribution is covered by the taxable income of the contributor (50). The receiving company, on the other hand, is liable for paying taxes on the group contribution (51). The contribution is considered as an income for the receiving company in the same year as the granting company deducts the contribution in its tax assessment. Provided that the recipient suffers a deficit, the contribution may be set off against any losses, also those incurred in previous years. |
| --- | --- |

(80)

The group contributions are deductible for the granting company to the extent that the contribution is covered by the taxable income of the contributor (50). The receiving company, on the other hand, is liable for paying taxes on the group contribution (51). The contribution is considered as an income for the receiving company in the same year as the granting company deducts the contribution in its tax assessment. Provided that the recipient suffers a deficit, the contribution may be set off against any losses, also those incurred in previous years.

II.   ASSESSMENT

1.   The presence of State aid

| (81) | 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.’ |
| --- | --- |

(81)

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.’

| (82) | The Authority will in the following assess whether the four alleged measures referred to in the complaint constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. The Authority will assess (i) whether there are State resources involved, (ii) whether the alleged measures confer an economic advantage on the relevant entities of the Oslo Sporveier Group, and (iii) whether the alleged measures distort competition and have an effect on trade between the contracting parties. |
| --- | --- |

(82)

The Authority will in the following assess whether the four alleged measures referred to in the complaint constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. The Authority will assess (i) whether there are State resources involved, (ii) whether the alleged measures confer an economic advantage on the relevant entities of the Oslo Sporveier Group, and (iii) whether the alleged measures distort competition and have an effect on trade between the contracting parties.

2.   Alleged cross-subsidies — compensation for the public service and the 2004 capital injection

2.1.   
  Introduction

| (83) | A preliminary assessment of the complaint concerning the alleged cross-subsidisation and the 2004 capital injection is set out below.
  Concerning the complaint that cross-subsidisation has occurred between the public service activities and the commercial activities of AS Oslo Sporveier, AS Sporveisbussene, Arctic Express AS and Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS, the Authority understands the allegation to be that compensation for the provision of the local scheduled transport service has subsidised the commercial activities carried out by the Oslo Sporveier Group. |
| --- | --- |

(83)

A preliminary assessment of the complaint concerning the alleged cross-subsidisation and the 2004 capital injection is set out below.

Concerning the complaint that cross-subsidisation has occurred between the public service activities and the commercial activities of AS Oslo Sporveier, AS Sporveisbussene, Arctic Express AS and Sporveisbussenes Turbiler AS, the Authority understands the allegation to be that compensation for the provision of the local scheduled transport service has subsidised the commercial activities carried out by the Oslo Sporveier Group.

| (84) | It is evident that cross-subsidisation (in the sense of entailing incompatible State aid) can only occur if the cross-subsidising undertaking receives State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Thus, in respect of this part of the complaint, the Authority must first assess if the financing measures, i.e. (i) the annual payments from Oslo Municipality granted to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene (via AS Oslo Sporveier) as compensation for the provision of scheduled bus services, and (ii) the 2004 capital injection, entail State aid. |
| --- | --- |

(84)

It is evident that cross-subsidisation (in the sense of entailing incompatible State aid) can only occur if the cross-subsidising undertaking receives State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Thus, in respect of this part of the complaint, the Authority must first assess if the financing measures, i.e. (i) the annual payments from Oslo Municipality granted to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene (via AS Oslo Sporveier) as compensation for the provision of scheduled bus services, and (ii) the 2004 capital injection, entail State aid.

2.2.   
  Presence of State resources

| (85) | In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid must be granted by the State or through State resources. |
| --- | --- |

(85)

In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid must be granted by the State or through State resources.

| (86) | As a preliminary point, both local and regional authorities are considered to be equivalent to the State (52). Hence, Oslo Municipality is equivalent to the State for the purposes of the EEA State aid rules. |
| --- | --- |

(86)

As a preliminary point, both local and regional authorities are considered to be equivalent to the State (52). Hence, Oslo Municipality is equivalent to the State for the purposes of the EEA State aid rules.

| (87) | In the present case it is clear that the State, in the capacity of Oslo Municipality, provided funding to AS Oslo Sporveier for carrying out scheduled bus transport until 1997. For the period 1997-2008 it is undisputed that AS Oslo Sporveier passed on the annual compensation to AS Sporveisbussene, according to the terms of the Transport Agreement, which appears in essence to have formalised the previous unwritten administrative practice of calculating the annual compensation (53). |
| --- | --- |

(87)

In the present case it is clear that the State, in the capacity of Oslo Municipality, provided funding to AS Oslo Sporveier for carrying out scheduled bus transport until 1997. For the period 1997-2008 it is undisputed that AS Oslo Sporveier passed on the annual compensation to AS Sporveisbussene, according to the terms of the Transport Agreement, which appears in essence to have formalised the previous unwritten administrative practice of calculating the annual compensation (53).

| (88) | As regards the 2004 capital injection into AS Sporveisbussene to cover the underfunding of the pension fund it is undisputed that the State, in the capacity of Oslo Municipality, contributed NOK 111 760 000 as capital for AS Sporveisbussene. |
| --- | --- |

(88)

As regards the 2004 capital injection into AS Sporveisbussene to cover the underfunding of the pension fund it is undisputed that the State, in the capacity of Oslo Municipality, contributed NOK 111 760 000 as capital for AS Sporveisbussene.

| (89) | The Authority therefore comes to the preliminary conclusion that the 2004 capital injection and the compensation to AS Oslo Sporveier, and then to AS Sporveisbussene (via AS Oslo Sporveier) for carrying out bus transport services in Oslo were granted by the State and financed by State resources. |
| --- | --- |

(89)

The Authority therefore comes to the preliminary conclusion that the 2004 capital injection and the compensation to AS Oslo Sporveier, and then to AS Sporveisbussene (via AS Oslo Sporveier) for carrying out bus transport services in Oslo were granted by the State and financed by State resources.

2.3.   
  Economic advantage

2.3.1.   Introduction

| (90) | In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the measure must confer an economic advantage on an undertaking, for example by relieving it of charges that are normally borne from its budget. |
| --- | --- |

(90)

In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the measure must confer an economic advantage on an undertaking, for example by relieving it of charges that are normally borne from its budget.

| (91) | The beneficiaries of any potential aid will be AS Oslo Sporveier and/or AS Sporveisbussene. That an undertaking, or undertakings, will benefit from any economic advantage does not therefore raise any doubts. |
| --- | --- |

(91)

The beneficiaries of any potential aid will be AS Oslo Sporveier and/or AS Sporveisbussene. That an undertaking, or undertakings, will benefit from any economic advantage does not therefore raise any doubts.

2.3.2.   Compensation for scheduled bus transport in Oslo

| (92) | As mentioned above, the compensation to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene for carrying out bus transport services in Oslo constitutes — at least in part — compensation for costs incurred by providing a public service. Such compensation does not entail an economic advantage if the criteria established in the Altmark case-law of the European Court of Justice are met (54). |
| --- | --- |

(92)

As mentioned above, the compensation to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene for carrying out bus transport services in Oslo constitutes — at least in part — compensation for costs incurred by providing a public service. Such compensation does not entail an economic advantage if the criteria established in the Altmark case-law of the European Court of Justice are met (54).

| (93) | Furthermore, as regards the 2004 capital injection, the Authority considers that AS Sporveisbussene received the capital injection to cover the underfunding of pension obligations that had accrued before 1997, and is at this stage of the view that the entire capital injection was used for this purpose. It is also worth noting that whilst certain changes to the capital position of AS Sporveisbussene were recorded in the accounts, the full amount was paid directly from AS Oslo Sporveier to the pension fund and was not transferred as cash to AS Sporveisbussene. |
| --- | --- |

(93)

Furthermore, as regards the 2004 capital injection, the Authority considers that AS Sporveisbussene received the capital injection to cover the underfunding of pension obligations that had accrued before 1997, and is at this stage of the view that the entire capital injection was used for this purpose. It is also worth noting that whilst certain changes to the capital position of AS Sporveisbussene were recorded in the accounts, the full amount was paid directly from AS Oslo Sporveier to the pension fund and was not transferred as cash to AS Sporveisbussene.

| (94) | However, in order to determine whether the capital injection described above entailed an economic advantage for AS Sporveisbussene, a distinction needs to be drawn between the capital that was injected to remedy the underfunding of the pension accounts of the public service employees (‘public service capital injection’), and the capital that covered the underfunding of the pension accounts of the employees in the commercial arm of AS Sporveisbussene (‘commercial activities capital injection’). As set out above, according to the Norwegian authorities, approximately NOK 430 300 of the 2004 capital injection appears to have been related to underfunding of pension accounts in the commercial tour bus division. |
| --- | --- |

(94)

However, in order to determine whether the capital injection described above entailed an economic advantage for AS Sporveisbussene, a distinction needs to be drawn between the capital that was injected to remedy the underfunding of the pension accounts of the public service employees (‘public service capital injection’), and the capital that covered the underfunding of the pension accounts of the employees in the commercial arm of AS Sporveisbussene (‘commercial activities capital injection’). As set out above, according to the Norwegian authorities, approximately NOK 430 300 of the 2004 capital injection appears to have been related to underfunding of pension accounts in the commercial tour bus division.

| (95) | As for the public service capital injection, it does not relate to new costs but to costs accrued in the past which had technically not been reflected in the general accounts of the company. However, these liabilities were already present at the time of the capital injection, which seems to have been necessary to make up for the shortfall in the pensions funds. |
| --- | --- |

(95)

As for the public service capital injection, it does not relate to new costs but to costs accrued in the past which had technically not been reflected in the general accounts of the company. However, these liabilities were already present at the time of the capital injection, which seems to have been necessary to make up for the shortfall in the pensions funds.

| (96) | Therefore, the public service capital injection can be considered to form part of the cost that Oslo Municipality had to bear in exchange for AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene (via AS Oslo Sporveier) providing the public service. Instead of injecting this capital, Oslo Municipality could have paid out a higher annual public service compensation. |
| --- | --- |

(96)

Therefore, the public service capital injection can be considered to form part of the cost that Oslo Municipality had to bear in exchange for AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene (via AS Oslo Sporveier) providing the public service. Instead of injecting this capital, Oslo Municipality could have paid out a higher annual public service compensation.

| (97) | Thus public service capital injection constituted an integral part of the public service compensation granted to AS Sporveisbussene, as it had been from the mid-1990s until the capital injection was made (and as it would have been if carried out in accordance with the amortisation plan until 2020). |
| --- | --- |

(97)

Thus public service capital injection constituted an integral part of the public service compensation granted to AS Sporveisbussene, as it had been from the mid-1990s until the capital injection was made (and as it would have been if carried out in accordance with the amortisation plan until 2020).

| (98) | In the Altmark judgment the European Court of Justice (the ‘Court of Justice’) held that compensation for a public service does not constitute State aid when four cumulative criteria are met.






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

(98)

In the Altmark judgment the European Court of Justice (the ‘Court of Justice’) held that compensation for a public service does not constitute State aid when four cumulative criteria are met.

—

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.

| — | Fourth, and 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 (55). |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth, and 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 (55).

| (99) | The Authority will firstly examine the fourth criterion, namely whether the compensation was based on a tender or on the basis of the costs of an efficient and well-run company. |
| --- | --- |

(99)

The Authority will firstly examine the fourth criterion, namely whether the compensation was based on a tender or on the basis of the costs of an efficient and well-run company.

| (100) | Oslo Municipality paid an annual compensation to AS Oslo Sporveier for scheduled bus transport services, which from 1997 was passed on to AS Sporveisbussene. However, with regards to the routes operated under the area concession, neither AS Oslo Sporveier nor AS Sporveisbussene were selected in a public procurement procedure. Hence, neither the compensation from Oslo Municipality to AS Oslo Sporveier nor the compensation subsequently passed on from AS Oslo Sporveier to AS Sporveisbussene were based on prices resulting from public tenders. |
| --- | --- |

(100)

Oslo Municipality paid an annual compensation to AS Oslo Sporveier for scheduled bus transport services, which from 1997 was passed on to AS Sporveisbussene. However, with regards to the routes operated under the area concession, neither AS Oslo Sporveier nor AS Sporveisbussene were selected in a public procurement procedure. Hence, neither the compensation from Oslo Municipality to AS Oslo Sporveier nor the compensation subsequently passed on from AS Oslo Sporveier to AS Sporveisbussene were based on prices resulting from public tenders.

| (101) | Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities have neither argued that (nor provided the Authority with information enabling a verification of whether) the costs incurred by AS Oslo Sporveier or AS Sporveisbussene correspond to the costs of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped. Therefore, the preliminary opinion of the Authority is that the fourth Altmark criterion is not met. |
| --- | --- |

(101)

Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities have neither argued that (nor provided the Authority with information enabling a verification of whether) the costs incurred by AS Oslo Sporveier or AS Sporveisbussene correspond to the costs of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped. Therefore, the preliminary opinion of the Authority is that the fourth Altmark criterion is not met.

| (102) | On the basis of the above, the Authority considers at this stage that the scheduled bus transport services carried out under the area concession in Oslo have, both in the case of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene, therefore not been discharged in accordance with the fourth criterion of the Altmark judgment. Consequently, as the Altmark criteria must be satisfied cumulatively for public service compensation not to constitute State aid (56), the Authority’s preliminary conclusion is that the annual compensation, including the public service capital injection, confers an economic advantage to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene. |
| --- | --- |

(102)

On the basis of the above, the Authority considers at this stage that the scheduled bus transport services carried out under the area concession in Oslo have, both in the case of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene, therefore not been discharged in accordance with the fourth criterion of the Altmark judgment. Consequently, as the Altmark criteria must be satisfied cumulatively for public service compensation not to constitute State aid (56), the Authority’s preliminary conclusion is that the annual compensation, including the public service capital injection, confers an economic advantage to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene.

2.3.3.   The commercial activities capital injection

| (103) | As set out above, approximately NOK 430 300 of the 2004 capital injection appears to have been related to underfunding of pension accounts in the tour bus division. As this part of the injected capital does not relate to public service cost, it cannot be assessed on the basis of Altmark. Thus, according to settled case-law, it is necessary for the Authority to establish whether the recipient undertaking, AS Sporveisbussene, received an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal conditions (57). In doing so, the Authority has to apply the market economy investor test (58) which in essence provides that State aid is granted whenever a State makes funds available to an undertaking which in the normal course of events would not be provided by a private investor applying ordinary commercial criteria and disregarding other considerations of a social, political or philanthropic nature (59). |
| --- | --- |

(103)

As set out above, approximately NOK 430 300 of the 2004 capital injection appears to have been related to underfunding of pension accounts in the tour bus division. As this part of the injected capital does not relate to public service cost, it cannot be assessed on the basis of Altmark. Thus, according to settled case-law, it is necessary for the Authority to establish whether the recipient undertaking, AS Sporveisbussene, received an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal conditions (57). In doing so, the Authority has to apply the market economy investor test (58) which in essence provides that State aid is granted whenever a State makes funds available to an undertaking which in the normal course of events would not be provided by a private investor applying ordinary commercial criteria and disregarding other considerations of a social, political or philanthropic nature (59).

| (104) | It should be recalled that the initial amortisation plan was triggered by a decision of Norway’s Financial Supervisory Authority requesting AS Oslo Sporveier to make up for the shortfall in its pension fund. This meant that the owners of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene needed to either remedy the underfunding in their business, or run the risk of their company becoming insolvent. |
| --- | --- |

(104)

It should be recalled that the initial amortisation plan was triggered by a decision of Norway’s Financial Supervisory Authority requesting AS Oslo Sporveier to make up for the shortfall in its pension fund. This meant that the owners of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene needed to either remedy the underfunding in their business, or run the risk of their company becoming insolvent.

| (105) | In assessing whether the capital injection was done on conditions that would be acceptable to a private investor, the Authority points out that a private owner/investor in a similar situation — i.e. with the options to either (a) inject fresh capital into the company, or (b) liquidate the company and invest the same amount elsewhere, would choose strategy (a) only if it was globally more profitable than strategy (b). The fact that the owner had made a previous investment is otherwise irrelevant in this context (60). This means that it is not sufficient to choose the ‘cheapest’ solution, which the Norwegian authorities have submitted the capital injection was, in order to meet the market economy investor benchmark, but that it is necessary to demonstrate an acceptable rate of future return for the ‘price of this cheapest solution’. |
| --- | --- |

(105)

In assessing whether the capital injection was done on conditions that would be acceptable to a private investor, the Authority points out that a private owner/investor in a similar situation — i.e. with the options to either (a) inject fresh capital into the company, or (b) liquidate the company and invest the same amount elsewhere, would choose strategy (a) only if it was globally more profitable than strategy (b). The fact that the owner had made a previous investment is otherwise irrelevant in this context (60). This means that it is not sufficient to choose the ‘cheapest’ solution, which the Norwegian authorities have submitted the capital injection was, in order to meet the market economy investor benchmark, but that it is necessary to demonstrate an acceptable rate of future return for the ‘price of this cheapest solution’.

| (106) | The Norwegian authorities have not, however, further substantiated their argument in this respect, and have in particular not submitted any profitability forecasts that a market economy investor would presumably have made. |
| --- | --- |

(106)

The Norwegian authorities have not, however, further substantiated their argument in this respect, and have in particular not submitted any profitability forecasts that a market economy investor would presumably have made.

| (107) | Furthermore, none of the information submitted indicates that the Municipality of Oslo injected further capital in this part of the business based on expectations of acceptable long-term profit. Moreover, the Authority is not aware of then minority shareholder(s) of AS Oslo Sporveier having contributed to remedy the underfunding — and a private shareholder surely would have requested the other shareholders to either do so pro rata, or would have increased its stake. |
| --- | --- |

(107)

Furthermore, none of the information submitted indicates that the Municipality of Oslo injected further capital in this part of the business based on expectations of acceptable long-term profit. Moreover, the Authority is not aware of then minority shareholder(s) of AS Oslo Sporveier having contributed to remedy the underfunding — and a private shareholder surely would have requested the other shareholders to either do so pro rata, or would have increased its stake.

| (108) | For the above reasons, the Authority is at this stage uncertain whether the market economy investor test is met with regard to the commercial activities capital injection. |
| --- | --- |

(108)

For the above reasons, the Authority is at this stage uncertain whether the market economy investor test is met with regard to the commercial activities capital injection.

3.   Favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods

| (109) | In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid measure must be selective by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods. |
| --- | --- |

(109)

In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid measure must be selective by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.

| (110) | The Court of Justice has held that in order to determine whether a measure is selective, the question is whether the undertaking(s) in question are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable to other undertakings in the light of the objective pursued by the measure (61). |
| --- | --- |

(110)

The Court of Justice has held that in order to determine whether a measure is selective, the question is whether the undertaking(s) in question are in a legal and factual situation that is comparable to other undertakings in the light of the objective pursued by the measure (61).

| (111) | In the present case, the annual compensation and the capital injection favoured AS Oslo Sporveier and/or AS Sporveisbussene to the exclusion of other bus transport operators. Such other bus operators operate scheduled bus transport services in Norway or elsewhere in the EEA and were therefore in a similar legal and factual situation compared to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene. For these reasons, the Authority is of the preliminary view that these two measures are selective. |
| --- | --- |

(111)

In the present case, the annual compensation and the capital injection favoured AS Oslo Sporveier and/or AS Sporveisbussene to the exclusion of other bus transport operators. Such other bus operators operate scheduled bus transport services in Norway or elsewhere in the EEA and were therefore in a similar legal and factual situation compared to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene. For these reasons, the Authority is of the preliminary view that these two measures are selective.

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

| (112) | In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid measure must distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between contracting parties. According to the EFTA Court case law, this requires the Authority to examine whether such aid is liable to affect trade and to distort competition (62). |
| --- | --- |

(112)

In order to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, the aid measure must distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between contracting parties. According to the EFTA Court case law, this requires the Authority to examine whether such aid is liable to affect trade and to distort competition (62).

| (113) | Since before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in Norway several undertakings have provided scheduled bus services in Oslo, the Authority preliminarily concludes that the annual compensation and the capital injection were liable to distort competition since then (63). |
| --- | --- |

(113)

Since before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in Norway several undertakings have provided scheduled bus services in Oslo, the Authority preliminarily concludes that the annual compensation and the capital injection were liable to distort competition since then (63).

| (114) | With respect to the effect on trade and the fact that the present case concerns a local market for bus transport in Oslo, the Authority recalls that in the Altmark judgment, which also concerned regional bus transport services, the Court of Justice held that
  ‘a public subsidy granted to an undertaking which provides only local or regional transport services and does not provide any transport services outside its State of origin may none the less have an effect on trade between Member States ... The second condition for the application of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, namely that the aid must be capable of affecting trade between Member States, does not therefore depend on the local or regional character of the transport services supplied or on the scale of the field of activity concerned (64).’. |
| --- | --- |

(114)

With respect to the effect on trade and the fact that the present case concerns a local market for bus transport in Oslo, the Authority recalls that in the Altmark judgment, which also concerned regional bus transport services, the Court of Justice held that

‘a public subsidy granted to an undertaking which provides only local or regional transport services and does not provide any transport services outside its State of origin may none the less have an effect on trade between Member States ... The second condition for the application of Article 92(1) of the Treaty, namely that the aid must be capable of affecting trade between Member States, does not therefore depend on the local or regional character of the transport services supplied or on the scale of the field of activity concerned (64).’.

| (115) | This means that even if — as in the present case — only the local bus transport market (Oslo) is concerned, public funding made available to one operator in such a local market is liable to affect trade between contracting parties (65). Consequently, the Authority considers that the annual compensation and the capital injection were liable to affect trade between contracting parties. |
| --- | --- |

(115)

This means that even if — as in the present case — only the local bus transport market (Oslo) is concerned, public funding made available to one operator in such a local market is liable to affect trade between contracting parties (65). Consequently, the Authority considers that the annual compensation and the capital injection were liable to affect trade between contracting parties.

5.   Taxation of the Oslo Sporveier Group

| (116) | The complainant has argued that AS Oslo Sporveier’s negative tax position has been used to reduce the tax burden on AS Sporveisbussene. |
| --- | --- |

(116)

The complainant has argued that AS Oslo Sporveier’s negative tax position has been used to reduce the tax burden on AS Sporveisbussene.

| (117) | Based on the submissions of the Norwegian authorities, it appears to the Authority that the complainant is referring to the taxation rules regarding contributions between companies belonging to the same corporate group (‘group contributions’). |
| --- | --- |

(117)

Based on the submissions of the Norwegian authorities, it appears to the Authority that the complainant is referring to the taxation rules regarding contributions between companies belonging to the same corporate group (‘group contributions’).

| (118) | The Authority observes that these rules are applicable to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene, as the latter is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the former. Thus, AS Oslo Sporveier or any of its subsidiaries could in principle offset taxable profits by distributing contributions within the group. |
| --- | --- |

(118)

The Authority observes that these rules are applicable to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene, as the latter is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the former. Thus, AS Oslo Sporveier or any of its subsidiaries could in principle offset taxable profits by distributing contributions within the group.

| (119) | The Authority points out that the complainant seems to have taken issue with what appears to be an application of the general Norwegian rules on corporate taxation. The Authority notes that the complainant has neither alleged, nor submitted any information sustaining that the relevant tax rules are drafted in a manner which could lead to State aid being granted to specific companies. |
| --- | --- |

(119)

The Authority points out that the complainant seems to have taken issue with what appears to be an application of the general Norwegian rules on corporate taxation. The Authority notes that the complainant has neither alleged, nor submitted any information sustaining that the relevant tax rules are drafted in a manner which could lead to State aid being granted to specific companies.

| (120) | Moreover, and with more particular regard to the case at hand, it appears to the Authority that the offsetting of taxable income by making a group contribution would not confer an economic advantage on AS Sporveisbussene when it, as a condition of benefitting from the tax deductions, was obliged to make a contribution to the group of the same amount as the tax base reduction obtained in this manner. By transferring income, AS Sporveisbussene may avoid paying taxes on the transferred amount, but the amount will not be at its disposal. Arguably, the benefit of not paying taxes on an income which is no longer disposable does not produce any obvious effects resulting in an economic advantage for that entity (although the situation may be different for the corporate group as a whole). |
| --- | --- |

(120)

Moreover, and with more particular regard to the case at hand, it appears to the Authority that the offsetting of taxable income by making a group contribution would not confer an economic advantage on AS Sporveisbussene when it, as a condition of benefitting from the tax deductions, was obliged to make a contribution to the group of the same amount as the tax base reduction obtained in this manner. By transferring income, AS Sporveisbussene may avoid paying taxes on the transferred amount, but the amount will not be at its disposal. Arguably, the benefit of not paying taxes on an income which is no longer disposable does not produce any obvious effects resulting in an economic advantage for that entity (although the situation may be different for the corporate group as a whole).

| (121) | However, the Authority considers that it is in possession of insufficient facts and information allowing it to assess the application of the Norwegian Tax Act to and by the Oslo Sporveier Group, and to exclude without any doubt that in this case a potential economic advantage may have indirectly been derived by AS Sporveisbussene, or the Oslo Sporveier Group, in a manner incompatible with the State aid rules. |
| --- | --- |

(121)

However, the Authority considers that it is in possession of insufficient facts and information allowing it to assess the application of the Norwegian Tax Act to and by the Oslo Sporveier Group, and to exclude without any doubt that in this case a potential economic advantage may have indirectly been derived by AS Sporveisbussene, or the Oslo Sporveier Group, in a manner incompatible with the State aid rules.

6.   Alleged guarantees from AS Sporveisbussene to its subsidiaries

| (122) | The Authority has asked the Norwegian authorities to clarify whether the subsidiaries of AS Sporveisbussene have benefitted from any guarantees granted by their owner, as alleged by the complainant. |
| --- | --- |

(122)

The Authority has asked the Norwegian authorities to clarify whether the subsidiaries of AS Sporveisbussene have benefitted from any guarantees granted by their owner, as alleged by the complainant.

| (123) | The Norwegian authorities have stated that no guarantees have been granted by AS Sporveisbussene, and that its subsidiaries consequently have not benefitted from any guarantees from AS Sporveisbussene. The Authority is in possession of no information suggesting that this is incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

(123)

The Norwegian authorities have stated that no guarantees have been granted by AS Sporveisbussene, and that its subsidiaries consequently have not benefitted from any guarantees from AS Sporveisbussene. The Authority is in possession of no information suggesting that this is incorrect.

| (124) | In light of this, the Authority sees no reason to investigate further this part of the complaint. |
| --- | --- |

(124)

In light of this, the Authority sees no reason to investigate further this part of the complaint.

7.   Conclusion

| (125) | The Authority preliminarily concludes that the annual compensation disbursed until 2008 and the 2004 capital injection of NOK 111 760 000 in Oslo constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(125)

The Authority preliminarily concludes that the annual compensation disbursed until 2008 and the 2004 capital injection of NOK 111 760 000 in Oslo constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

| (126) | As regards the allegations concerning the taxation of AS Sporveisbussene, the Authority is, as indicated above, unable to exclude without any doubt that a potential economic advantage may have indirectly been derived by AS Sporveisbussene, or the Oslo Sporveier Group, in a manner incompatible with Article 61(1).
  The Authority sees no reason to investigate further the alleged guarantees from AS Sporveisbussene to its subsidiaries. |
| --- | --- |

(126)

As regards the allegations concerning the taxation of AS Sporveisbussene, the Authority is, as indicated above, unable to exclude without any doubt that a potential economic advantage may have indirectly been derived by AS Sporveisbussene, or the Oslo Sporveier Group, in a manner incompatible with Article 61(1).

The Authority sees no reason to investigate further the alleged guarantees from AS Sporveisbussene to its subsidiaries.

8.   Classification of the aid as existing or new

| (127) | Regarding the allegation of potential cross-subsidisation, it is necessary in this context to firstly determine if the aid in question is to be qualified as existing or new aid. Were the public service compensation existing aid (i.e. granted under an existing aid scheme), the Authority could at most request the Norwegian State to bring it in line with the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement (if the aid was deemed incompatible and the existing aid scheme in question still applicable). If, on the other hand, the aid was considered as new aid, the consequence of its incompatibility would normally be the recovery of the aid. |
| --- | --- |

(127)

Regarding the allegation of potential cross-subsidisation, it is necessary in this context to firstly determine if the aid in question is to be qualified as existing or new aid. Were the public service compensation existing aid (i.e. granted under an existing aid scheme), the Authority could at most request the Norwegian State to bring it in line with the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement (if the aid was deemed incompatible and the existing aid scheme in question still applicable). If, on the other hand, the aid was considered as new aid, the consequence of its incompatibility would normally be the recovery of the aid.

8.1.   
  Introduction — the Court’s judgment

| (128) | Article 1(b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that ‘existing aid’ shall mean:
  ‘all aid which existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in the respective EFTA States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the EEA Agreement.’. |
| --- | --- |

(128)

Article 1(b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that ‘existing aid’ shall mean:

‘all aid which existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in the respective EFTA States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the EEA Agreement.’.

| (129) | The Authority notes that AS Oslo Sporveier, at the time of the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in Norway (1 January 1994), was compensated for carrying out scheduled bus transport in Oslo in accordance with the provisions of the transport legislation and established administrative practice (pre-dating the EEA Agreement), as described in detail above. |
| --- | --- |

(129)

The Authority notes that AS Oslo Sporveier, at the time of the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in Norway (1 January 1994), was compensated for carrying out scheduled bus transport in Oslo in accordance with the provisions of the transport legislation and established administrative practice (pre-dating the EEA Agreement), as described in detail above.

| (130) | In the judgment in Case E-14/10 annulling the Authority’s Decision No 254/10/COL, the EFTA Court stated the following on the question of the existing or new nature of the aid:
  ‘Whether the aid granted [...] constitutes “existing aid” [...] depends upon the interpretation of the provisions of Protocol 3 SCA [...]
  [...] to qualify as an “existing aid measure” under the EEA State aid rules, it must be part of an aid scheme that was put into effect before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement (66).’. |
| --- | --- |

(130)

In the judgment in Case E-14/10 annulling the Authority’s Decision No 254/10/COL, the EFTA Court stated the following on the question of the existing or new nature of the aid:

‘Whether the aid granted [...] constitutes “existing aid” [...] depends upon the interpretation of the provisions of Protocol 3 SCA [...]

[...] to qualify as an “existing aid measure” under the EEA State aid rules, it must be part of an aid scheme that was put into effect before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement (66).’.

8.2.   
  Aid scheme

| (131) | Article 1(d) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that an aid scheme:
  ‘shall mean any act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made to undertakings defined within the act in a general and abstract manner and any act on the basis of which aid which is not linked to a specific project may be awarded to one or several undertakings for an indefinite period of time and/or for an indefinite amount;’. |
| --- | --- |

(131)

Article 1(d) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that an aid scheme:

‘shall mean any act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made to undertakings defined within the act in a general and abstract manner and any act on the basis of which aid which is not linked to a specific project may be awarded to one or several undertakings for an indefinite period of time and/or for an indefinite amount;’.

| (132) | Article 1(e) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that individual aid:
  ‘shall mean aid that is not awarded on the basis of an aid scheme and notifiable awards of aid on the basis of an aid scheme;’. |
| --- | --- |

(132)

Article 1(e) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that individual aid:

‘shall mean aid that is not awarded on the basis of an aid scheme and notifiable awards of aid on the basis of an aid scheme;’.

| (133) | This distinction is of particular importance in the context of existing aid, as Protocol 3 only provides the Authority with a competence to keep under constant review existing systems of aid (cf. Article 1.1 of Part I of Protocol 3). Likewise, Section V of Part II of Protocol 3 only applies to existing aid schemes (the terms ‘aid schemes’ and ‘systems of aid’ are to be treated as synonyms in the Authority’s view (67)).
  The Authority recalls that the Norwegian transport legislation in essence sets out the following key parameters that are relevant for the aid measures at hand: (i) a system of co-financing of scheduled bus transport services (from State and county); (ii) that the counties are responsible for administering the scheduled bus transport services, control concessions, routes, schedules and ticket prices; and (iii) a detailed concession system. |
| --- | --- |

(133)

This distinction is of particular importance in the context of existing aid, as Protocol 3 only provides the Authority with a competence to keep under constant review existing systems of aid (cf. Article 1.1 of Part I of Protocol 3). Likewise, Section V of Part II of Protocol 3 only applies to existing aid schemes (the terms ‘aid schemes’ and ‘systems of aid’ are to be treated as synonyms in the Authority’s view (67)).

The Authority recalls that the Norwegian transport legislation in essence sets out the following key parameters that are relevant for the aid measures at hand: (i) a system of co-financing of scheduled bus transport services (from State and county); (ii) that the counties are responsible for administering the scheduled bus transport services, control concessions, routes, schedules and ticket prices; and (iii) a detailed concession system.

| (134) | Moreover, according to the Norwegian authorities, Article 22 of the CTA entails that Oslo Municipality is under the obligation to compensate the operators for the provision of the transport service on unprofitable routes (where the revenue generated from the sale of tickets does not cover the cost of operating the service). The Authority understands that the compensation aims to cover the gap between the costs and the revenues (in the form of ticket sales). |
| --- | --- |

(134)

Moreover, according to the Norwegian authorities, Article 22 of the CTA entails that Oslo Municipality is under the obligation to compensate the operators for the provision of the transport service on unprofitable routes (where the revenue generated from the sale of tickets does not cover the cost of operating the service). The Authority understands that the compensation aims to cover the gap between the costs and the revenues (in the form of ticket sales).

| (135) | Before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, Oslo Municipality had chosen to provide scheduled bus transport services under the relevant provisions of the CTA and CTR, compensating unprofitable routes in accordance with the administrative practice described above. This continued without interruption until the last directly awarded concession had run its course (on 30 March 2008). |
| --- | --- |

(135)

Before the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, Oslo Municipality had chosen to provide scheduled bus transport services under the relevant provisions of the CTA and CTR, compensating unprofitable routes in accordance with the administrative practice described above. This continued without interruption until the last directly awarded concession had run its course (on 30 March 2008).

| (136) | Whether the system in Oslo as outlined above constitutes an aid scheme in accordance with the definition of Article 1(d) of Part II of Protocol 3 depends on whether the legal framework for the financing of scheduled bus transport in Oslo can be considered to be ‘an act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made to undertakings defined within the act in a general and abstract manner’. |
| --- | --- |

(136)

Whether the system in Oslo as outlined above constitutes an aid scheme in accordance with the definition of Article 1(d) of Part II of Protocol 3 depends on whether the legal framework for the financing of scheduled bus transport in Oslo can be considered to be ‘an act on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, individual aid awards may be made to undertakings defined within the act in a general and abstract manner’.

| (137) | The Authority notes that this definition was incorporated into the EEA Agreement in 2001 with the insertion of Part II of Protocol 3. Prior to 2001, when Protocol 3 was brought in line with the Procedural Regulation, there was no similarly precise definition in EEA law determining what an aid scheme was. Moreover, the rationale for the concept of existing aid — in principle that of providing EEA States and beneficiaries of State with some legal certainty regarding arrangements that predate the entry into force of State aid control in their legal systems whilst providing the Authority with the possibility of bringing such systems in line with EEA law — must in the Authority’s view be borne in mind. |
| --- | --- |

(137)

The Authority notes that this definition was incorporated into the EEA Agreement in 2001 with the insertion of Part II of Protocol 3. Prior to 2001, when Protocol 3 was brought in line with the Procedural Regulation, there was no similarly precise definition in EEA law determining what an aid scheme was. Moreover, the rationale for the concept of existing aid — in principle that of providing EEA States and beneficiaries of State with some legal certainty regarding arrangements that predate the entry into force of State aid control in their legal systems whilst providing the Authority with the possibility of bringing such systems in line with EEA law — must in the Authority’s view be borne in mind.

| (138) | Furthermore, the Authority notes that the case-law of the European Courts does not provide detailed guidance as regards the interpretation of this definition. The Authority has thus reviewed its own case practice and that of the European Commission and found that existing ‘aid schemes’ were held to encompass non-statutory customary law (68) and administrative practice related to the application of statutory (69) and non-statutory law (70). In one case, the European Commission found that an aid scheme relating to Anstaltslast and Gewährträgerhaftung was based on the combination of an unwritten old legal principle combined with widespread practice across Germany (71). |
| --- | --- |

(138)

Furthermore, the Authority notes that the case-law of the European Courts does not provide detailed guidance as regards the interpretation of this definition. The Authority has thus reviewed its own case practice and that of the European Commission and found that existing ‘aid schemes’ were held to encompass non-statutory customary law (68) and administrative practice related to the application of statutory (69) and non-statutory law (70). In one case, the European Commission found that an aid scheme relating to Anstaltslast and Gewährträgerhaftung was based on the combination of an unwritten old legal principle combined with widespread practice across Germany (71).

| (139) | Nevertheless, the Authority is at this stage in doubt as to whether the three criteria defining an ‘aid scheme’ as provided for in Protocol 3 — (i) an act on the basis of which aid can be awarded; (ii) requiring no further implementing measures; and (iii) defining the potential aid beneficiaries in a general and abstract manner — are met.
  As for the first criterion, the Authority notes that the CTA and the CTR are acts on the basis of which Oslo Municipality could award aid. |
| --- | --- |

(139)

Nevertheless, the Authority is at this stage in doubt as to whether the three criteria defining an ‘aid scheme’ as provided for in Protocol 3 — (i) an act on the basis of which aid can be awarded; (ii) requiring no further implementing measures; and (iii) defining the potential aid beneficiaries in a general and abstract manner — are met.

As for the first criterion, the Authority notes that the CTA and the CTR are acts on the basis of which Oslo Municipality could award aid.

| (140) | As for the second criterion, the Authority notes that the administration of any aid scheme requires a certain decision-making process which can (but does not have to) lead to individual awards of aid being made. However, an arrangement that would for example require, for individual aid to be awarded, the adoption of further legislative measures, cannot be considered as an aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(140)

As for the second criterion, the Authority notes that the administration of any aid scheme requires a certain decision-making process which can (but does not have to) lead to individual awards of aid being made. However, an arrangement that would for example require, for individual aid to be awarded, the adoption of further legislative measures, cannot be considered as an aid scheme.

| (141) | A mere ‘technical application’, as indicated above, of the provisions providing for the scheme would thus not be an implementing measure (72). Moreover, the mere fact that a decision awarding aid under an aid scheme has implications for the budget of the authority administering that scheme, cannot, in the Authority’s view, mean that such decisions are to be regarded as implementing measures. |
| --- | --- |

(141)

A mere ‘technical application’, as indicated above, of the provisions providing for the scheme would thus not be an implementing measure (72). Moreover, the mere fact that a decision awarding aid under an aid scheme has implications for the budget of the authority administering that scheme, cannot, in the Authority’s view, mean that such decisions are to be regarded as implementing measures.

| (142) | In a similar vein, considering acts of entrustment such as the award of a concession, for which the CTA foresees a duration of 10 years, in the case at hand as an implementing measure would make it ex ante impossible to set up an aid scheme for public service compensation under which aid to several undertakings could be awarded, as any entrustment would then entail individual aid. A concession — as any other act of entrustment — specifies one particular undertaking, and could thus not relate to a group of undertakings, ‘defined in a general and abstract manner’. |
| --- | --- |

(142)

In a similar vein, considering acts of entrustment such as the award of a concession, for which the CTA foresees a duration of 10 years, in the case at hand as an implementing measure would make it ex ante impossible to set up an aid scheme for public service compensation under which aid to several undertakings could be awarded, as any entrustment would then entail individual aid. A concession — as any other act of entrustment — specifies one particular undertaking, and could thus not relate to a group of undertakings, ‘defined in a general and abstract manner’.

| (143) | On the other hand, the Authority is of the view that ‘implementing measures’ should be understood as entailing a certain degree of discretion, that could influence the amount, characteristics or conditions under which the aid is granted to a significant degree. In particular, it would seem that every scheme determines for which clearly defined purpose aid can be awarded. Thus, where a public body for example has general powers allowing it to use different instruments to promote the local economy, and grants several capital injections based on those general powers, this granting of capital injections implies the use of considerable discretion as to the amount, characteristics or conditions and purpose for which the aid is granted, and is hence not to be regarded as an aid scheme (73). |
| --- | --- |

(143)

On the other hand, the Authority is of the view that ‘implementing measures’ should be understood as entailing a certain degree of discretion, that could influence the amount, characteristics or conditions under which the aid is granted to a significant degree. In particular, it would seem that every scheme determines for which clearly defined purpose aid can be awarded. Thus, where a public body for example has general powers allowing it to use different instruments to promote the local economy, and grants several capital injections based on those general powers, this granting of capital injections implies the use of considerable discretion as to the amount, characteristics or conditions and purpose for which the aid is granted, and is hence not to be regarded as an aid scheme (73).

| (144) | In the case at hand, it is clear that no further legislative measures needed to be adopted for compensation payments to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene to be made. The preliminary opinion of the Authority is that the CTA and CTR arguably ringfenced the discretion of Oslo Municipality, to the extent that they appear to have been applied by the Municipality, in line with its administrative practice, in a way that did not allow for compensation in excess of cost for the public service minus revenue. Moreover, the compensation was not based on discretionary budget allocations. Oslo Municipality, after choosing to maintain the public service, was not free to decide whether to cover the loss of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene or not. Oslo Municipality was obliged to do so, and did so, every year until 2008, in line with a routine procedure. It is also evident that the compensation was and could only be granted for the purpose of financing local scheduled bus transport in Oslo. The municipality could not have awarded aid for different purposes on the basis of the provisions described above. |
| --- | --- |

(144)

In the case at hand, it is clear that no further legislative measures needed to be adopted for compensation payments to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene to be made. The preliminary opinion of the Authority is that the CTA and CTR arguably ringfenced the discretion of Oslo Municipality, to the extent that they appear to have been applied by the Municipality, in line with its administrative practice, in a way that did not allow for compensation in excess of cost for the public service minus revenue. Moreover, the compensation was not based on discretionary budget allocations. Oslo Municipality, after choosing to maintain the public service, was not free to decide whether to cover the loss of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene or not. Oslo Municipality was obliged to do so, and did so, every year until 2008, in line with a routine procedure. It is also evident that the compensation was and could only be granted for the purpose of financing local scheduled bus transport in Oslo. The municipality could not have awarded aid for different purposes on the basis of the provisions described above.

| (145) | However, the Authority cannot, on the basis of the information provided, conclude that the provisions and practice that set out how providers of scheduled bus services were to be remunerated in Oslo is sufficiently precise and detailed. The Authority has doubts as to the exact extent of the discretion enjoyed by Oslo Municipality, taking into account the administrative practice, in determining the amount of compensation for scheduled bus services. |
| --- | --- |

(145)

However, the Authority cannot, on the basis of the information provided, conclude that the provisions and practice that set out how providers of scheduled bus services were to be remunerated in Oslo is sufficiently precise and detailed. The Authority has doubts as to the exact extent of the discretion enjoyed by Oslo Municipality, taking into account the administrative practice, in determining the amount of compensation for scheduled bus services.

| (146) | As for the last criterion, the compensation system in Oslo applies to all concessionaires that have been entrusted with providing bus services on unprofitable routes. |
| --- | --- |

(146)

As for the last criterion, the compensation system in Oslo applies to all concessionaires that have been entrusted with providing bus services on unprofitable routes.

| (147) | Consequently, in particular given the Authority’s doubts as regards the second criterion mentioned above, the Authority cannot at this stage conclude that the financing of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene, as described above, constitutes an aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(147)

Consequently, in particular given the Authority’s doubts as regards the second criterion mentioned above, the Authority cannot at this stage conclude that the financing of AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene, as described above, constitutes an aid scheme.

| (148) | However, so as to address issues of law relevant for the final assessment of this case, the Authority sets out its preliminary views below based on the assumption that public service compensation for AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene has been awarded on the basis of an aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(148)

However, so as to address issues of law relevant for the final assessment of this case, the Authority sets out its preliminary views below based on the assumption that public service compensation for AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene has been awarded on the basis of an aid scheme.

8.3.   
  Existing aid due to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement

| (149) | Article 1(b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that existing aid encompasses all aid which existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in the respective EFTA States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(149)

Article 1(b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that existing aid encompasses all aid which existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in the respective EFTA States, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid which were put into effect before, and are still applicable after, the entry into force of the EEA Agreement.

| (150) | As described above, the provisions providing for the scheme have been in place since before the EEA Agreement entered into force in Norway on 1 January 1994. As it appears that the market for local bus transport was already exposed to some competition on that date, the Authority is of the preliminary view that the scheme became an existing aid scheme on 1 January 1994. |
| --- | --- |

(150)

As described above, the provisions providing for the scheme have been in place since before the EEA Agreement entered into force in Norway on 1 January 1994. As it appears that the market for local bus transport was already exposed to some competition on that date, the Authority is of the preliminary view that the scheme became an existing aid scheme on 1 January 1994.

8.4.   
  Aid not granted on the basis of the provisions providing for the scheme

8.4.1.   Judgment in Case E-14/10

| (151) | In the judgment in Case E-14/10, the EFTA Court stated the following on the question of the existing or new nature of the aid:
  ‘(...) what is relevant is whether the aid was granted in accordance with the provisions providing for it.
  (...) in so far as the compensation payments were indeed used to finance the operation of non-profitable scheduled bus services, the defendant (the Authority) may correctly have classified those payments as existing aid.
  However, (...) any aid granted to Oslo Sporveier in excess of the losses actually incurred in connection with the services in question cannot be regarded to constitute, on the basis of that aid scheme, existing aid (...)’ (74). |
| --- | --- |

(151)

In the judgment in Case E-14/10, the EFTA Court stated the following on the question of the existing or new nature of the aid:

‘(...) what is relevant is whether the aid was granted in accordance with the provisions providing for it.

(...) in so far as the compensation payments were indeed used to finance the operation of non-profitable scheduled bus services, the defendant (the Authority) may correctly have classified those payments as existing aid.

However, (...) any aid granted to Oslo Sporveier in excess of the losses actually incurred in connection with the services in question cannot be regarded to constitute, on the basis of that aid scheme, existing aid (...)’ (74).

| (152) | The Authority understands the judgment of the EFTA Court to mean that only payments made on the basis of the existing aid scheme can be considered as existing aid disbursed under that scheme. Payments not made on the basis of the provisions providing for the scheme cannot be protected by the existing aid nature of that scheme (75).
  Therefore, to determine whether the aid granted is existing or new, the Authority must assess whether it was granted in accordance with the scheme providing for it. |
| --- | --- |

(152)

The Authority understands the judgment of the EFTA Court to mean that only payments made on the basis of the existing aid scheme can be considered as existing aid disbursed under that scheme. Payments not made on the basis of the provisions providing for the scheme cannot be protected by the existing aid nature of that scheme (75).

Therefore, to determine whether the aid granted is existing or new, the Authority must assess whether it was granted in accordance with the scheme providing for it.

| (153) | The Authority’s preliminary view is that the scheme was based on the CTA, the CTR as applied in Oslo in accordance with the established administrative practice. |
| --- | --- |

(153)

The Authority’s preliminary view is that the scheme was based on the CTA, the CTR as applied in Oslo in accordance with the established administrative practice.

| (154) | The scheme only provided for cost coverage (the difference between cost and revenue) of the unprofitable scheduled bus services that the concessionaires provided. This therefore is the benchmark against which the Authority must assess the extent to which the measures covered by the complaint have been made on the basis of the aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(154)

The scheme only provided for cost coverage (the difference between cost and revenue) of the unprofitable scheduled bus services that the concessionaires provided. This therefore is the benchmark against which the Authority must assess the extent to which the measures covered by the complaint have been made on the basis of the aid scheme.

| (155) | In the following, the Authority assesses whether (i) the annual compensation and (ii) the 2004 capital injection were granted on the basis of the provisions providing for the system of compensation. |
| --- | --- |

(155)

In the following, the Authority assesses whether (i) the annual compensation and (ii) the 2004 capital injection were granted on the basis of the provisions providing for the system of compensation.

8.4.2.   Annual compensation

| (156) | As set out above, the Authority is at this stage of the view that at least a large part of the compensation that AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene have received has been awarded in line with the existing aid scheme, which provides in essence for loss coverage for the public service. Such a scheme would appear to presuppose the separation of accounts, an appropriate allocation of common costs and arms-length intra-group transactions for undertakings that in addition to providing public services also engage in commercial activities. Complying with these principles seems necessary to avoid that aid is granted outside the scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(156)

As set out above, the Authority is at this stage of the view that at least a large part of the compensation that AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene have received has been awarded in line with the existing aid scheme, which provides in essence for loss coverage for the public service. Such a scheme would appear to presuppose the separation of accounts, an appropriate allocation of common costs and arms-length intra-group transactions for undertakings that in addition to providing public services also engage in commercial activities. Complying with these principles seems necessary to avoid that aid is granted outside the scheme.

| (157) | According to the Norwegian authorities, market prices were paid for services that were provided between the companies in the Oslo Sporveier Group. |
| --- | --- |

(157)

According to the Norwegian authorities, market prices were paid for services that were provided between the companies in the Oslo Sporveier Group.

| (158) | However, aside from indicating that from 2004 onwards, [...] (76) % of the overall costs were levied from all subsidiaries for general overheads, the Norwegian authorities have not submitted information that would allow the Authority to conclude that the allocation of the common costs was done in accordance with a particular allocation key, or that the payment for the services that the commercial subsidiaries of AS Sporveisbussene received was done on an arms-length basis and on market terms. Furthermore, no explanations have been provided as to the rationale of introducing a general overhead fee in 2004, and if overheads were exclusively born by the public service activities before that. |
| --- | --- |

(158)

However, aside from indicating that from 2004 onwards, [...] (76) % of the overall costs were levied from all subsidiaries for general overheads, the Norwegian authorities have not submitted information that would allow the Authority to conclude that the allocation of the common costs was done in accordance with a particular allocation key, or that the payment for the services that the commercial subsidiaries of AS Sporveisbussene received was done on an arms-length basis and on market terms. Furthermore, no explanations have been provided as to the rationale of introducing a general overhead fee in 2004, and if overheads were exclusively born by the public service activities before that.

| (159) | Thus, the Authority cannot, on the basis of the information provided, conclude that all payments to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene were made on the basis of the provisions providing for the aid.
  In particular, the Authority has doubts as to whether the commercial activities carried out by the Oslo Sporveier Group (the tour bus activities in particular), were financed by the annual public service compensation in contravention of the provisions providing for the aid. The information provided has not enabled the Authority to conclude that the annual payments were restricted to cover only costs that could be covered in accordance with the legal framework of the scheme — in other words, whether the annual compensation exceeded the difference between the costs and the revenues of the public service. |
| --- | --- |

(159)

Thus, the Authority cannot, on the basis of the information provided, conclude that all payments to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene were made on the basis of the provisions providing for the aid.

In particular, the Authority has doubts as to whether the commercial activities carried out by the Oslo Sporveier Group (the tour bus activities in particular), were financed by the annual public service compensation in contravention of the provisions providing for the aid. The information provided has not enabled the Authority to conclude that the annual payments were restricted to cover only costs that could be covered in accordance with the legal framework of the scheme — in other words, whether the annual compensation exceeded the difference between the costs and the revenues of the public service.

8.4.3.   2004 capital injection

| (160) | Turning to the 2004 capital injection, already since the mid-1990s, it was clear that the pension fund of AS Oslo Sporveier was underfunded. Thus, a payment plan to remedy the fund’s shortfall by 2020 was implemented. In accordance with that plan, Oslo Municipality increased the public service compensation to AS Oslo Sporveier in order for the compensation to cover all the costs incurred by the provision of the public service. |
| --- | --- |

(160)

Turning to the 2004 capital injection, already since the mid-1990s, it was clear that the pension fund of AS Oslo Sporveier was underfunded. Thus, a payment plan to remedy the fund’s shortfall by 2020 was implemented. In accordance with that plan, Oslo Municipality increased the public service compensation to AS Oslo Sporveier in order for the compensation to cover all the costs incurred by the provision of the public service.

| (161) | In 2004, the remaining shortfall was covered by a capital injection of NOK 111 760 000. Although it was not granted as part of the annual lump sum to AS Sporveisbussene, the payment appears to mainly (77) have been made on the basis of the existing aid scheme, in that it went to cover a cost incurred whilst providing the public service. |
| --- | --- |

(161)

In 2004, the remaining shortfall was covered by a capital injection of NOK 111 760 000. Although it was not granted as part of the annual lump sum to AS Sporveisbussene, the payment appears to mainly (77) have been made on the basis of the existing aid scheme, in that it went to cover a cost incurred whilst providing the public service.

| (162) | As noted above, the CTA and the CTR do not have any particular provisions on how the concessionaire is to be compensated for the public service, in practice, the compensation has simply been awarded annually in the form of lump sums in accordance with the established administrative practice. The EFTA Court has held (78) that when an existing aid scheme does not have any particular provisions on how the aid is to be provided, a divergence from the usual procedure cannot in and of itself, lead to the finding that the aid was not granted on the basis of that scheme. The fact that the 2004 capital injection was not made in accordance with the normal annual block grant procedure cannot in and of itself entail that it was not made on the basis of the scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(162)

As noted above, the CTA and the CTR do not have any particular provisions on how the concessionaire is to be compensated for the public service, in practice, the compensation has simply been awarded annually in the form of lump sums in accordance with the established administrative practice. The EFTA Court has held (78) that when an existing aid scheme does not have any particular provisions on how the aid is to be provided, a divergence from the usual procedure cannot in and of itself, lead to the finding that the aid was not granted on the basis of that scheme. The fact that the 2004 capital injection was not made in accordance with the normal annual block grant procedure cannot in and of itself entail that it was not made on the basis of the scheme.

| (163) | As described above, Oslo Muncipality had since the mid-1990s increased the annual public service compensation payments to cover a historic shortfall in the pension fund of the Oslo Sporveier Group by 2020. These pension costs were predominantly (79) linked to the public service which Oslo Municipality was obliged to cover in accordance with their obligation to cover the cost of the public service. Instead of continuing with the annual payments until 2020, it was decided that the 2004 capital injection should cover the remaining share of the underfunding, thus eliminating the need for further annual payments to cover the historic underfunding. |
| --- | --- |

(163)

As described above, Oslo Muncipality had since the mid-1990s increased the annual public service compensation payments to cover a historic shortfall in the pension fund of the Oslo Sporveier Group by 2020. These pension costs were predominantly (79) linked to the public service which Oslo Municipality was obliged to cover in accordance with their obligation to cover the cost of the public service. Instead of continuing with the annual payments until 2020, it was decided that the 2004 capital injection should cover the remaining share of the underfunding, thus eliminating the need for further annual payments to cover the historic underfunding.

| (164) | On this basis, the Authority is of the preliminary opinion that the 2004 capital injection was largely carried out in accordance with the provisions providing for the aid. |
| --- | --- |

(164)

On this basis, the Authority is of the preliminary opinion that the 2004 capital injection was largely carried out in accordance with the provisions providing for the aid.

| (165) | However, the Norwegian authorities have informed the Authority that the capital injection was not restricted to cover the cost of the pensions related to the public service. The Norwegian authorities have explained that the capital injection also covered pension obligations related to employees engaged in commercial tour bus services and have calculated the amount of this compensation to be approximately NOK 430 300. |
| --- | --- |

(165)

However, the Norwegian authorities have informed the Authority that the capital injection was not restricted to cover the cost of the pensions related to the public service. The Norwegian authorities have explained that the capital injection also covered pension obligations related to employees engaged in commercial tour bus services and have calculated the amount of this compensation to be approximately NOK 430 300.

| (166) | As this portion of the compensation does not appear to have been disbursed on the basis of the provisions providing for the aid, it appears that it cannot be held to be covered by the existing aid scheme. Thus, the preliminary opinion of the Authority is that it represents new aid. |
| --- | --- |

(166)

As this portion of the compensation does not appear to have been disbursed on the basis of the provisions providing for the aid, it appears that it cannot be held to be covered by the existing aid scheme. Thus, the preliminary opinion of the Authority is that it represents new aid.

8.5.   
  Alterations to existing aid

| (167) | According to Article 1(b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3, a measure that existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement and was still in force afterwards is existing aid. |
| --- | --- |

(167)

According to Article 1(b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3, a measure that existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement and was still in force afterwards is existing aid.

| (168) | Further, Article 1(c) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that ‘new aid’ is:
  ‘all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid;’. |
| --- | --- |

(168)

Further, Article 1(c) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that ‘new aid’ is:

‘all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid;’.

| (169) | In Namur, the Court of Justice stated the following:
  ‘[...] 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 amounts 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 (80).’ |
| --- | --- |

(169)

In Namur, the Court of Justice stated the following:

‘[...] 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 amounts 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 (80).’

| (170) | As set out in the factual description of the case above, there are a number of events that could potentially be considered as altering the scheme and turning it into new aid. |
| --- | --- |

(170)

As set out in the factual description of the case above, there are a number of events that could potentially be considered as altering the scheme and turning it into new aid.

8.5.1.   1997 internal reorganisation

| (171) | In 1997, an internal reorganisation led the newly established entity AS Sporveisbussene to take over the responsibility of carrying out the scheduled bus transport services previously provided by AS Oslo Sporveier. |
| --- | --- |

(171)

In 1997, an internal reorganisation led the newly established entity AS Sporveisbussene to take over the responsibility of carrying out the scheduled bus transport services previously provided by AS Oslo Sporveier.

| (172) | Purely formal or administrative changes to an aid scheme do not lead to the reclassification of existing aid as new (81). The question is whether this reorganisation brought with it a change to the existing aid scheme involving new aid. |
| --- | --- |

(172)

Purely formal or administrative changes to an aid scheme do not lead to the reclassification of existing aid as new (81). The question is whether this reorganisation brought with it a change to the existing aid scheme involving new aid.

| (173) | The Norwegian authorities have explained that, in essence, the change from AS Oslo Sporveier to AS Sporveisbussene as the provider of the service was a change of a formal nature. By establishing AS Sporveisbussene, AS Oslo Sporveier created a subsidiary for operating public bus services that it formerly ran itself. AS Oslo Sporveier — in its position as the mother company — remained, however, the primary recipient of the compensation and holder of the concession, and simply underwent an internal reorganisation that led to AS Sporveisbussene being in charge of providing the services in accordance with the concession. For this it received compensation from its mother company. The reorganisation did necessitate the conclusion of the Transport Agreement, which however, as the Norwegian authorities have explained, did not substantially change the established administrative practice relating to the financing of the public service. Additionally, the reorganisation did not involve any changes to the CTA or CTR. |
| --- | --- |

(173)

The Norwegian authorities have explained that, in essence, the change from AS Oslo Sporveier to AS Sporveisbussene as the provider of the service was a change of a formal nature. By establishing AS Sporveisbussene, AS Oslo Sporveier created a subsidiary for operating public bus services that it formerly ran itself. AS Oslo Sporveier — in its position as the mother company — remained, however, the primary recipient of the compensation and holder of the concession, and simply underwent an internal reorganisation that led to AS Sporveisbussene being in charge of providing the services in accordance with the concession. For this it received compensation from its mother company. The reorganisation did necessitate the conclusion of the Transport Agreement, which however, as the Norwegian authorities have explained, did not substantially change the established administrative practice relating to the financing of the public service. Additionally, the reorganisation did not involve any changes to the CTA or CTR.

| (174) | On this basis, the reorganisation of 1997 cannot be held to have involved a substantive change to the aid scheme (82). Consequently, the scheme remained in the Authority’s preliminary view an existing aid scheme after the reorganisation. |
| --- | --- |

(174)

On this basis, the reorganisation of 1997 cannot be held to have involved a substantive change to the aid scheme (82). Consequently, the scheme remained in the Authority’s preliminary view an existing aid scheme after the reorganisation.

8.5.2.   Renewal of concession

| (175) | With reference to the description of the scheme above, the Authority notes that it does not consider the concession to form part of the provisions providing for the existing aid scheme. The concession, granted for a duration of 10 years pursuant to the CTA, appears to be an act of entrustment. The entrustment in essence determines the route(s) for which the concessionaire has a right and obligation to provide a scheduled service. The Authority considers that an existing aid scheme will not be altered by the grant or renewal of an act of entrustment under that scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(175)

With reference to the description of the scheme above, the Authority notes that it does not consider the concession to form part of the provisions providing for the existing aid scheme. The concession, granted for a duration of 10 years pursuant to the CTA, appears to be an act of entrustment. The entrustment in essence determines the route(s) for which the concessionaire has a right and obligation to provide a scheduled service. The Authority considers that an existing aid scheme will not be altered by the grant or renewal of an act of entrustment under that scheme.

| (176) | In any event, other than the temporal prolongation, no changes were made to the renewed concession. AS Sporveisbussene simply continued, on the same terms, to carry out the public service on behalf of AS Oslo Sporveier on the basis of the concession. |
| --- | --- |

(176)

In any event, other than the temporal prolongation, no changes were made to the renewed concession. AS Sporveisbussene simply continued, on the same terms, to carry out the public service on behalf of AS Oslo Sporveier on the basis of the concession.

| (177) | Therefore, the Authority does not consider the renewal of the concession as an alteration to the existing aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(177)

Therefore, the Authority does not consider the renewal of the concession as an alteration to the existing aid scheme.

8.5.3.   Introduction of a quality bonus/malus system

| (178) | AS Oslo Sporveier introduced a new bonus/malus system some time before 2004. The Authority has not received exact information on when this system was introduced. Nor has the Authority received information on how the system was implemented in the contractual relationship between AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene. Thus, further information is necessary for the Authority to fully assess the nature of the quality bonus and its relationship to the existing aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(178)

AS Oslo Sporveier introduced a new bonus/malus system some time before 2004. The Authority has not received exact information on when this system was introduced. Nor has the Authority received information on how the system was implemented in the contractual relationship between AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene. Thus, further information is necessary for the Authority to fully assess the nature of the quality bonus and its relationship to the existing aid scheme.

| (179) | The Authority is at this stage of the opinion that the quality bonus that AS Sporveisbussene received in 2004 pursuant to the bonus/malus system could either form part of the compensation for the public service, possibly constituting part of the reasonable profit that the company appears to have been entitled to, or a change to the existing aid scheme. If so, this measure could constitute new aid (83). |
| --- | --- |

(179)

The Authority is at this stage of the opinion that the quality bonus that AS Sporveisbussene received in 2004 pursuant to the bonus/malus system could either form part of the compensation for the public service, possibly constituting part of the reasonable profit that the company appears to have been entitled to, or a change to the existing aid scheme. If so, this measure could constitute new aid (83).

8.6.   
  Period subsequent to 30 March 2008

| (180) | In the early 2000s, Oslo Municipality decided to tender all public service contracts for scheduled bus transport in the Oslo region. By 30 March 2008, this process was brought to an end, thus AS Oslo Sporveier’s concession was without object, and all services were provided on the basis of tendered contracts. |
| --- | --- |

(180)

In the early 2000s, Oslo Municipality decided to tender all public service contracts for scheduled bus transport in the Oslo region. By 30 March 2008, this process was brought to an end, thus AS Oslo Sporveier’s concession was without object, and all services were provided on the basis of tendered contracts.

| (181) | Therefore, from 30 March 2008 onwards, the new concessionaires have been remunerated on the basis of the tendered contracts, and not in accordance with the system described above under which aid had been granted to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene before. |
| --- | --- |

(181)

Therefore, from 30 March 2008 onwards, the new concessionaires have been remunerated on the basis of the tendered contracts, and not in accordance with the system described above under which aid had been granted to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene before.

9.   Compatibility of the aid

| (182) | As set out above, the Authority is of the preliminary view that a substantial part of the aid to AS Oslo Sporveier (in the form of annual compensation and the 2004 capital injection) was granted under an existing aid scheme. The Authority has furthermore come to the preliminary conclusion that the bonus/malus system introduced some time before 2004 may represent new aid. Moreover, the Authority has preliminarily concluded that some of the aid was potentially granted outside the aforementioned scheme and thus constitutes new aid. |
| --- | --- |

(182)

As set out above, the Authority is of the preliminary view that a substantial part of the aid to AS Oslo Sporveier (in the form of annual compensation and the 2004 capital injection) was granted under an existing aid scheme. The Authority has furthermore come to the preliminary conclusion that the bonus/malus system introduced some time before 2004 may represent new aid. Moreover, the Authority has preliminarily concluded that some of the aid was potentially granted outside the aforementioned scheme and thus constitutes new aid.

| (183) | The Authority notes that the Norwegian authorities have not submitted any arguments relating to the compatibility of either the new or existing aid described above. In the absence of such information and, in particular, without a detailed account of which costs formed the basis for the annual payment negotiations and the methodology and justification for the allocation of common cost, the Authority cannot take a final view on this matter. |
| --- | --- |

(183)

The Authority notes that the Norwegian authorities have not submitted any arguments relating to the compatibility of either the new or existing aid described above. In the absence of such information and, in particular, without a detailed account of which costs formed the basis for the annual payment negotiations and the methodology and justification for the allocation of common cost, the Authority cannot take a final view on this matter.

| (184) | However, it would appear to the Authority that the compensation payments for the public service, or at least parts thereof, and the capital injection to offset the underfunding of the pension fund, or at least parts thereof, could be compatible public service compensation under Article of the 49 EEA. This provision cannot be applied directly (84) but only by virtue of Council Regulations, i.e. Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (85) or Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (86). An essential element in the assessment under both regulations is to verify that aid in the form of public service compensation only covers the cost of the public service (including a reasonable profit) and does not lead to overcompensation. |
| --- | --- |

(184)

However, it would appear to the Authority that the compensation payments for the public service, or at least parts thereof, and the capital injection to offset the underfunding of the pension fund, or at least parts thereof, could be compatible public service compensation under Article of the 49 EEA. This provision cannot be applied directly (84) but only by virtue of Council Regulations, i.e. Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (85) or Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (86). An essential element in the assessment under both regulations is to verify that aid in the form of public service compensation only covers the cost of the public service (including a reasonable profit) and does not lead to overcompensation.

| (185) | Moreover, it also cannot be excluded at this stage that the aid measures under assessment, in particular the capital injection to remedy the underfunded pension fund, could be compatible under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(185)

Moreover, it also cannot be excluded at this stage that the aid measures under assessment, in particular the capital injection to remedy the underfunded pension fund, could be compatible under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

| (186) | Should any new aid have been granted that benefitted the commercial activities of the Oslo Sporveier Group, the Authority does not at this stage envisage any provision in EEA State aid law that could form the basis for deeming such aid compatible. As the Authority expresses solely a preliminary view however, the Norwegian authorities are invited to submit arguments and information regarding the compatibility of all State aid that was granted to the Oslo Sporveier Group, including (potential) aid to the commercial activities. |
| --- | --- |

(186)

Should any new aid have been granted that benefitted the commercial activities of the Oslo Sporveier Group, the Authority does not at this stage envisage any provision in EEA State aid law that could form the basis for deeming such aid compatible. As the Authority expresses solely a preliminary view however, the Norwegian authorities are invited to submit arguments and information regarding the compatibility of all State aid that was granted to the Oslo Sporveier Group, including (potential) aid to the commercial activities.

10.   Conclusion

| (187) | Based on the information submitted by the complainant and the Norwegian authorities, the Authority has come to the conclusion that the complainant’s allegations that guarantees provided by AS Sporveisbussene may involve unlawful State aid are unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

(187)

Based on the information submitted by the complainant and the Norwegian authorities, the Authority has come to the conclusion that the complainant’s allegations that guarantees provided by AS Sporveisbussene may involve unlawful State aid are unfounded.

| (188) | However, the Authority preliminarily considers that the three additional measures referred to by the complainant — namely: (i) the annual compensation payments for scheduled bus services; (ii) the 2004 capital injection; and (iii) an alleged favourable tax position benefiting AS Sporveisbussene — may entail State aid in the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. As regards the second measure, the Authority has doubts whether (parts of) it might indeed have been granted in line with the market economy investor principle. |
| --- | --- |

(188)

However, the Authority preliminarily considers that the three additional measures referred to by the complainant — namely: (i) the annual compensation payments for scheduled bus services; (ii) the 2004 capital injection; and (iii) an alleged favourable tax position benefiting AS Sporveisbussene — may entail State aid in the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. As regards the second measure, the Authority has doubts whether (parts of) it might indeed have been granted in line with the market economy investor principle.

| (189) | As established above, the Authority moreover is at this stage of the view that most of the State aid appears to have been granted on the basis of an existing aid scheme which entitled concessionaires that provided public scheduled bus services in Oslo to a compensation which would cover the difference between ticket revenue and cost for discharging the public service. However, the Authority has doubts as to the precise delineation of that scheme, i.e. how exactly the costs, that formed the basis for the annual negotiations on the compensation payment, were calculated, and which costs were exactly taken into account. Given that the beneficiary is also engaged in commercial activities, the Authority doubts at this stage if indeed costs that should have been borne by those commercial activities were taken into account in the process of calculating the annual compensation. |
| --- | --- |

(189)

As established above, the Authority moreover is at this stage of the view that most of the State aid appears to have been granted on the basis of an existing aid scheme which entitled concessionaires that provided public scheduled bus services in Oslo to a compensation which would cover the difference between ticket revenue and cost for discharging the public service. However, the Authority has doubts as to the precise delineation of that scheme, i.e. how exactly the costs, that formed the basis for the annual negotiations on the compensation payment, were calculated, and which costs were exactly taken into account. Given that the beneficiary is also engaged in commercial activities, the Authority doubts at this stage if indeed costs that should have been borne by those commercial activities were taken into account in the process of calculating the annual compensation.

| (190) | Furthermore, and in line with the judgment of the EFTA Court, the Authority is of the view that any aid not granted in line with the scheme would have to be qualified as new aid. It preliminarily considers that the 2004 capital injection also covered underfunded pension funds of employees of the commercial activities of the beneficiary. Moreover, it doubts whether the quality bonus described above has been granted on the basis of the scheme, or whether it is a severable amendment to the scheme involving new aid. |
| --- | --- |

(190)

Furthermore, and in line with the judgment of the EFTA Court, the Authority is of the view that any aid not granted in line with the scheme would have to be qualified as new aid. It preliminarily considers that the 2004 capital injection also covered underfunded pension funds of employees of the commercial activities of the beneficiary. Moreover, it doubts whether the quality bonus described above has been granted on the basis of the scheme, or whether it is a severable amendment to the scheme involving new aid.

| (191) | Finally, if any new aid not in line with the scheme has been granted, the Authority has doubts as to whether such aid would be compatible with the EEA Agreement, in particular Articles 49 and 61(3)(c) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

(191)

Finally, if any new aid not in line with the scheme has been granted, the Authority has doubts as to whether such aid would be compatible with the EEA Agreement, in particular Articles 49 and 61(3)(c) thereof.

| (192) | Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question do not constitute aid, are existing aid or new aid compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(192)

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

| (193) | 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, as well as all documents, information and data needed to address the doubts of the Authority outlined above, as well as all relevant information that will enable the Authority in consolidating its preliminary views expressed in this Decision. In particular, it invites the Norwegian authorities to comment, within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision, on:






  (a) | the compliance of the commercial activities capital injection with the market economy investor principle; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(193)

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, as well as all documents, information and data needed to address the doubts of the Authority outlined above, as well as all relevant information that will enable the Authority in consolidating its preliminary views expressed in this Decision. In particular, it invites the Norwegian authorities to comment, within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision, on:

(a)

the compliance of the commercial activities capital injection with the market economy investor principle;

| (b) | the description of the potential existing aid scheme in this Decision; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the description of the potential existing aid scheme in this Decision;

| (c) | the costs that were taken into account for the calculation of the annual compensation, and whether it can be excluded that costs of the commercial activities were taken into account for this purpose; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the costs that were taken into account for the calculation of the annual compensation, and whether it can be excluded that costs of the commercial activities were taken into account for this purpose;

| (d) | the distribution of common costs between the various activities and subsidiaries, and the methodology for the pricing of services provided by the public service activities to the commercial activities; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

the distribution of common costs between the various activities and subsidiaries, and the methodology for the pricing of services provided by the public service activities to the commercial activities;

| (e) | a detailed description of the rules on group taxation, and their application to and by the Oslo Sporveier Group; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

a detailed description of the rules on group taxation, and their application to and by the Oslo Sporveier Group;

| (f) | the nature and potential compatibility of the amounts paid under the bonus/malus system; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

the nature and potential compatibility of the amounts paid under the bonus/malus system;

| (g) | how, should any of the above measures entail new aid, they could be considered compatible with the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(g)

how, should any of the above measures entail new aid, they could be considered compatible with the EEA Agreement.

| (194) | The Authority requests the Norwegian authorities to immediately forward a copy of this Decision to the potential recipients of the aid. |
| --- | --- |

(194)

The Authority requests the Norwegian authorities to immediately forward a copy of this Decision to the potential recipients of the aid.

| (195) | The Authority must remind the Norwegian authorities that, according to Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully granted to the beneficiaries will have to be recovered, unless, exceptionally, such recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EEA law, |
| --- | --- |

(195)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers the allegation that guarantees provided by AS Sporveisbussene to its subsidiaries may involve unlawful State aid are without object.

Article 2

The formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 is opened into the compensation for scheduled bus services in Oslo paid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene during the period 1 January 1994-30 March 2008, the capital injection paid by Oslo Municipality on 1 June 2004, and the application of the group taxation rules to and by the Oslo Sporveier Group.

Article 3

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 4

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

Article 5

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 6

Only the English language version of this Decision is authentic.

Decision made at Brussels, 28 March 2012.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Oda Helen SLETNES

President

Sabine MONAUNI-TÖMÖRDY

College Member

---

(1)  Available at: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/195-04-COL.pdf

1

(2)  Judgment, paras. 55-63.

2

(3)  Ibid., paragraphs 76-80.

3

(4)  Ibid., paragraphs 84-91.

4

(5)  References to the ‘Oslo Sporveier Group’ in this Decision will be used to refer to AS Oslo Sporveier and its subsidiaries.

5

(6)  Act of 21.6.2002 No 45 (e.i.f. 1.1.2003).

6

(7)  Regulation of 26.3.2003 No 401 (e.i.f. 1.4.2003).

7

(8)  Act of 4.6.1976 No 63 (e.i.f. 1.7.1977). Repealed and replaced by the CTA on 1.1.2003.

8

(9)  Regulation of 12.8.1986 No 2170 (e.i.f. 1.1.1987) and Regulation of 4.12.1992 No 1013 (e.i.f. 1.1.1994). Both repealed and replaced by the CTR on 1.4.2003.

9

(10)  In Norwegian: Administrasjonsselskap.

10

Administrasjonsselskap

(11)  Article 23 CTA.

11

(12)  Article 22(3) CTA.

12

(13)  Article 22(4) CTA.

13

(14)  Articles 4 and 6 CTA.

14

(15)  Article 4(1) CTA.

15

(16)  Article 4(2) CTA and Chapter I of the CTR.

16

(17)  Article 27(1) CTA.

17

(18)  Article 6(1) CTA.

18

(19)  Article 25 CTR.

19

(20)  Articles 28 and 29 CTR. These are the requirements the Authority considers to be the most relevant for the purposes of describing the national scheme, however, a number of other detailed requirements for a special concession are set out in the CTR.

20

(21)  Articles 28(2) and 29(2) CTR.

21

(22)  Article 27(2) CTR.

22

(23)  As stated in the preparatory works, Chapter 10.1 of Prop. 113 L (2009-2010).

23

(24)  Article 8 CTA. The possibility to tender the concessions was introduced by an amendment of the Transport Act of 1976 by Act of 11.6.1993 No 85 (e.i.f. 1.1.1994).

24

(25)  Article 22(5) CTA. The 1997 Transport Agreement between AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene, discussed in Section I.4 below, is an example of such a contract.

25

(26)  Article 22(1) CTA.

26

(27)  Since 1934, Oslo Municipality has practically been the sole owner of AS Oslo Sporveier (with 98,8 % ownership) until a reorganisation in July 2006. Following this reorganisation, a new company, Kollektivtransportproduksjon, which is wholly owned by Oslo Municipality, became the 100 % owner of AS Oslo Sporveier.

27

(28)  According to the Norwegian authorities, Oslo Municipality was involved in all issues of commercial importance relating to the carrying out of collective bus transport by AS Oslo Sporveier, including financial aspects of agreements/contracts with subsidiaries (such as AS Sporveisbussene) or other third parties. Oslo Municipality was involved via the management board of AS Oslo Sporveier.

28

(29)  Additionally, AS Oslo Sporveier had other departments operating i.a. underground, tram and ferry services.

29

(30)  Three other operators, ING. M.O. Schøyens Bilcentraler A/S, Norgesbuss AS/Oslo and Follo Busstrafikk A/S also held concessions for carrying scheduled bus transport on a few specified routes in Oslo. Norgesbuss AS/Oslo acquired Follo Busstrafikk A/S in 1996 and with that took over its concessions.

30

(31)  Article 22 CTA.

31

(32)  All ticket revenue generated by direct sale on their own buses, plus a share of the ticket revenue stemming from AS Oslo Sporveier, Stor-Oslo Lokaltrafikk and Norges Statsbaner.

32

(33)  The exact figure is covered by the obligation of professional secrecy. It is in the range of 2 %-7 %.

33

(34)  Own calculation by the Authority.

34

(35)  Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse was the pension fund for the employees of the Oslo Sporveier Group. The 2004 capital injection covered the underfunding related to the pension obligations of Oslo Sporvognsdrift AS, Oslo T-banedrift AS, AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene.

35

(36)  The Norwegian authorities have explained that prior to the 2004 capital injection, AS Sporveisbussene recorded its pension obligations using the so-called ‘corridor solution’. Using this accounting method, the company amortised adjustments in calculated pension obligations over a period of 10 years. The ‘corridor solution’ was based on the assumption that there will be deviations every year between the long-term assumptions and realities and that, over time, such differences will even out. In 2004, the Norwegian authorities decided to change the accounting method used for recording pension obligations. Annual adjustments that included, in the accounts, all costs over the period of assumed average employment were made. As a consequence, AS Sporveisbussene recorded in 2004 a reduction in equity of NOK 80 934 000 (under the item ‘estimatavvik’), which reflects this change in accounting methods. These changes resulted in an increase in the obligations recognised in the balance sheet and a corresponding reduction of the equity capital of the company. This change in accounting principles did not have an impact on the amount of capital needed to offset the underfunding of the pension fund, but rather explains some of the changes in the accounts of AS Sporveisbussene from 2003 to 2004 to which the complaint referred.

36

(37)  Alternatively, the complainant might have deducted the share capital reduction of NOK 70 261 000 (as reported in the accounts of 2004) from the actual capital injection, which amounted to NOK 111 760 000.

37

(38)  Given that Norwegian national insurance would provide a basic pension between 40 % and 50 %, the employer provided the remaining part through either pension funds or life insurance companies. Oslo Sporveier Group organised their pension fund as a municipal pension fund (Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse), in accordance with Chapter 7 of the Insurance Act of 10.6.2005 No 44.

38

(39)  Regulation of 19.2.1993 No 117, Section 28 A.

39

(40)  Not complying with this obligation could have had several legal consequences for Oslo Sporveier Group, for instance it may have been declared bankrupt.

40

(41)  Of which NOK 800 million was transferred from Oslo Municipality.

41

(42)  The amount paid to Oslo Sporveiers Pensjonskasse was NOK 711 980 000 (NOK 90 519 282 (14,1 % of the total amount NOK 802,5 million) was employment tax).

42

(43)  Act of 10.6.1988 No 39 (repealed), Article 8c-11 in conjunction with Article 8c-10 at paragraphs 1 and 3.

43

(44)  The Tax Act of 26.3.1999 No 14, Article 2-2.

44

(45)  Articles 10-2 to 10-4 of the Tax Act.

45

(46)  According to Article 10-1 of the Tax Act, the rules governing group contributions are applicable for ‘aksjeselskap, allmennaksjeselskap samt likestilt selskap og sammenslutning’.

46

(47)  As provided by Act of 13.6.1997 No 44, Articles 1-3 and 1-4.

47

(48)  Article 10-4(1) of the Tax Act.

48

(49)  The actual payment does not necessarily need to take place in the same year as the income is made, provided that it will be effected by a real transfer of wealth at a later date. Accordingly, it is sufficient that the granting company undertakes an unconditional obligation to make the contribution.

49

(50)  Article 10-2(1) of the Tax Act.

50

(51)  Article 10-3(1) of the Tax Act.

51

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

52

(53)  As regards, in particular, the quality bonus from AS Oslo Sporveier to AS Sporveisbussene of NOK 3,9 million, the Authority has not received information allowing it to exclude that the funds stem from State resources, or that the payment is not imputable to the State. As Oslo Municipality is involved in all issues of commercial importance relating to the provision of scheduled bus transport in the Oslo region, and AS Oslo Sporveier is a publicly-owned company, it is likely that the transaction could be held to be imputable to the State and thus represent State resources within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

53

(54)  Case C-280/00 Altmark [2003] ECR I-7747. See also Case T-289/03 BUPA [2008] ECR II-81.

54

Altmark

BUPA

(55)  Case C-280/00 Altmark [2003] ECR I-7747, paragraphs 89-93.

55

Altmark

(56)  Case C-280/00 Altmark [2003] ECR I-7747, paragraphs 94-95.

56

Altmark

(57)  Case C-39/94 SFEI v La Poste [2006] ECR I-3547, at paragraph 60.

57

SFEI

La Poste

(58)  This principle is explained in the Authority’s guidelines Part IV Rules on public service compensation, State ownership of enterprises and aid to public enterprises, Application of State aid provisions to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector.

58

(59)  Cf. for example Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Kingdom of Spain v Commission [1994] ECR I-4103, at paragraph 28. See also Case 40/857 Belgium v Commission (Boch) [1986] ECR-2321, at paragraph 13; Case C-301/87 France v Commission (Boussac) [1990] ECR I-307, at paragraphs 39-40; Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission (Lanerossi) [1991] ECR I-1433, at paragraph 24.

59

Kingdom of Spain

Commission

Belgium

Commission (Boch)

France

Commission (Boussac)

Italy

Commission (Lanerossi)

(60)  Joined Cases T-228/99 and T-233/99 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission [2003] ECR II-435, at paragraph 222.

60

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Commission

(61)  Case C-143/99 Adria-Wien Pipeline and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke ECR [2001] I-8365, paragraph 41.

61

Adria-Wien Pipeline and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke

(62)  Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04, Fesil and Finnfjord and Others v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2005] EFTA Court Report, 117 at paragraph 93.

62

Fesil and Finnfjord and Others

EFTA Surveillance Authority

(63)  Moreover, the Court of Justice observed in the Altmark judgment that since 1995 several EU Member States had voluntarily opened-up certain urban, suburban or regional transport markets to competition from undertakings established in other EU Member States, the risk to inter-Member State trade was not hypothetical, but real as the market was open to competition (paragraphs 69 and 79).

63

Altmark

(64)  Paragraphs 77 and 82 of the Altmark judgment.

64

Altmark

(65)  See also Case 102/87 France v Commission [1988] ECR 4067, paragraph 19; Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraph 26.

65

France

Commission

Italy

Commission

(66)  Paragraphs 50-53.

66

(67)  Cf. Sinnaeve/Slot, The new Regulation on State aid Procedures, Common Market Law Review 36/1999, p. 1153, footnote 28.

67

(68)  See the Authority’s Decision No 405/08/COL HFF (OJ L 79, 25.3.2010, p. 40 and the EEA Supplement No 14, 25.3.2010, p. 20), Chapter II.2.3.1, p. 23: ‘The State guarantee on all State institutions for all their obligations follows from general unwritten rules of Icelandic public law predating the entry into force of the EEA Agreement. The guarantee is applicable to all State institutions, regardless of when they are established, or of their activities, or changes in those activities. This possible aid measure must be regarded as a scheme falling within the definition in Article 1(d) in part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.’

68

(69)  See Commission Decision in Case E-45/2000 (Netherlands) Fiscal exemption in favour of Schiphol Group (OJ C 37, 11.2.2004, p. 13).

69

Fiscal exemption in favour of Schiphol Group

(70)  From the Authority’s Decision No 491/09/COL Norsk Film group (OJ C 174, 1.7.2010, p. 3 and the EEA Supplement No 34, 1.7.2010, p. 1), Chapter II.2 p. 8: ‘the yearly payments made by the Norwegian State since the 1970s to Norsk FilmStudio AS/Filmparken AS for the production of feature films and to maintain an infrastructure necessary for the production of films were based on an existing system of aid. The Authority considers that in this case, where regular payments were consistently made over a very long period of time, the practice shows that State support was an essential element in the financing of the company. The Authority considers on that basis that the annual grants were made under an existing system of state aid within the meaning of Article 62 EEA.’ In that case, the Authority opened the formal investigation into a payment of NOK 36 million that had been made in addition to the regular payments and an alleged preferential tax measure. With Decision No 204/11/COL (not yet published in the OJ, available online: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/) the Authority closed the procedure on the basis that the NOK 36 million payment was made on the basis of the existing aid scheme and that the tax measure did not constitute State aid.

70

(71)  See Commission Decision in Case E-10/2000 (Germany) State guarantees for public banks in Germany (OJ C 150, 22.6.2002, p. 6).

71

State guarantees for public banks in Germany

(72)  See Commission Decision in Case E-4/07 (France) Charges aéroportuaires, paragraph 56 (OJ C 83, 7.4.2009, p. 16).

72

Charges aéroportuaires

(73)  Cf. Commission Decision in Case C-6/08 (Finland) Public Commercial Property Åland Industrihus, (not yet published), paragraphs 107-109 in particular.

73

Public Commercial Property Åland Industrihus

(74)  Paragraphs 73-76.

74

(75)  The same logic applies for schemes that have been approved by the Authority or the European Commission. See for example Case C-47/91, Italy v Commission [1994] ECR-4635, paragraphs 25-26.

75

Italy

Commission

(76)  The exact figure is covered by the obligation of professional secrecy. It is in the range of 2 %-7 %.

76

(77)  See below on the approximate amount of NOK 430 300 that went to cover non-PSO pension costs.

77

(78)  Paragraph 87 of the judgment of the EFTA Court.

78

(79)  See below on the approximate amount of NOK 430 300 that went to cover non-PSO pension costs.

79

(80)  Case C-44/93 Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit [1994] ECR I-3829, paragraph 28.

80

Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit

(81)  See Article 4(1) of the Implementing Provisions Decision. See also the opinion of Advocate General Lenz in Namur (cited above).

81

Namur

(82)  This is supported by the conclusions drawn by the European Commission in similar cases, see the Commission Decisions in Case NN 73/08 (Hungary) Sharing of loans between MÁV Zrt. and MÁV-TRAKCIÓ Zrt. (OJ C 109, 13.5.2009, p. 5), at paragraphs 59-60 and Case E-14/05 (Portugal) Compensation payments to public service broadcaster RTP (not published in the OJ) at paragraphs 78-80.

82

Sharing of loans between MÁV Zrt. and MÁV-TRAKCIÓ Zrt.

Compensation payments to public service broadcaster RTP

(83)  Only changes affecting the substance of an existing scheme can transform that existing aid to new aid. Changes severable from the existing aid will not affect the substance of that existing aid (Joined Cases T-195/01 and T-207/01 Government of Gibraltar v Commission [2002] ECR II-2309, paragraph 111).

83

Government of Gibraltar

Commission

(84)  See Altmark (cited above), at paragraph 107.

84

Altmark

(85)  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 on public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ L 156, 8.6.1969, p. 8), incorporated in the EEA Agreement by means of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement.

85

(86)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1), incorporated in the EEA Agreement by means of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement. Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 entered into force in Norway on 1 January 2011, see Regulation of 17.12.2010 No 1673.

86

---

V Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

| 12.7.2012 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | C 204/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2012

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

C 204/41

---

AVIS DE CONCOURS GÉNÉRAUX

2012/C 204/05

L’Office européen de sélection de personnel (EPSO) organise les concours généraux

| | EPSO/AD/240/12 — Traducteurs de langue estonienne (ET) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/240/12 — Traducteurs de langue estonienne (ET)

| | EPSO/AD/241/12 — Traducteurs de langue irlandaise (GA) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/241/12 — Traducteurs de langue irlandaise (GA)

| | EPSO/AD/242/12 — Traducteurs de langue lettone (LV) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/242/12 — Traducteurs de langue lettone (LV)

| | EPSO/AD/243/12 — Traducteurs de langue portugaise (PT) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AD/243/12 — Traducteurs de langue portugaise (PT)

Les avis de concours sont publiés exclusivement en estonien, en irlandais, en letton et en portugais au Journal officiel C 204 A du 12 juillet 2012.

Des informations complémentaires se trouvent sur le site de l'EPSO http://www.eu-careers.info

---

PROCÉDURES RELATIVES À LA MISE EN ŒUVRE DE LA POLITIQUE DE CONCURRENCE

Commission européenne

| 12.7.2012 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | C 204/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2012

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

C 204/42

---

Notification préalable d'une concentration

[Affaire COMP/M.6647 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/Mitsubishi Elevator (Singapore)]

Cas susceptible d'être traité selon la procédure simplifiée

(Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)

2012/C 204/06

| 1. | Le 5 juillet 2012, la Commission a reçu notification, conformément à l’article 4 du règlement (CE) no 139/2004 du Conseil (1), d’un projet de concentration par lequel les entreprises Mitsubishi Corporation («MC», Japon) et Mitsubishi Electric Corporation («MELCO», Japon) acquièrent, au sens de l'article 3, paragraphe 1, point b), du règlement CE sur les concentrations, le contrôle en commun de l’ensemble de l’entreprise Mitsubishi Elevator Singapore Co. Ltd («MESP», Singapour) par achat d'actions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Le 5 juillet 2012, la Commission a reçu notification, conformément à l’article 4 du règlement (CE) no 139/2004 du Conseil (1), d’un projet de concentration par lequel les entreprises Mitsubishi Corporation («MC», Japon) et Mitsubishi Electric Corporation («MELCO», Japon) acquièrent, au sens de l'article 3, paragraphe 1, point b), du règlement CE sur les concentrations, le contrôle en commun de l’ensemble de l’entreprise Mitsubishi Elevator Singapore Co. Ltd («MESP», Singapour) par achat d'actions.

| 2. | Les activités des entreprises considérées sont les suivantes:






  — | MC: société commerciale générale présente dans divers secteurs, notamment ceux de l’énergie, des métaux, des machines, des produits chimiques et des produits alimentaires et non alimentaires, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Les activités des entreprises considérées sont les suivantes:

—

MC: société commerciale générale présente dans divers secteurs, notamment ceux de l’énergie, des métaux, des machines, des produits chimiques et des produits alimentaires et non alimentaires,

| — | MELCO: fabrication et vente d'équipements électriques et électroniques utilisés dans le secteur des systèmes énergétiques et électriques, l'automatisation industrielle, les systèmes d'information et de communication, les appareils électroniques et les appareils électroménagers, |
| --- | --- |

—

MELCO: fabrication et vente d'équipements électriques et électroniques utilisés dans le secteur des systèmes énergétiques et électriques, l'automatisation industrielle, les systèmes d'information et de communication, les appareils électroniques et les appareils électroménagers,

| — | MESP: entreprise enregistrée à Singapour qui exerce des activités de fourniture, de distribution, d'installation et d'entretien d'ascenseurs et d'escalators MELCO dans le pays. Ses activités sont limitées au territoire singapourien. |
| --- | --- |

—

MESP: entreprise enregistrée à Singapour qui exerce des activités de fourniture, de distribution, d'installation et d'entretien d'ascenseurs et d'escalators MELCO dans le pays. Ses activités sont limitées au territoire singapourien.

| 3. | Après examen préliminaire et sans préjudice de sa décision définitive sur ce point, la Commission estime que l'opération notifiée pourrait entrer dans le champ d'application du règlement CE sur les concentrations. Conformément à la communication de la Commission relative à une procédure simplifiée de traitement de certaines opérations de concentration en application du règlement CE sur les concentrations (2), il convient de noter que ce cas est susceptible d'être traité selon la procédure définie par ladite communication. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Après examen préliminaire et sans préjudice de sa décision définitive sur ce point, la Commission estime que l'opération notifiée pourrait entrer dans le champ d'application du règlement CE sur les concentrations. Conformément à la communication de la Commission relative à une procédure simplifiée de traitement de certaines opérations de concentration en application du règlement CE sur les concentrations (2), il convient de noter que ce cas est susceptible d'être traité selon la procédure définie par ladite communication.

| 4. | La Commission invite les tiers intéressés à lui présenter leurs observations éventuelles sur le projet de concentration.
  Ces observations devront lui parvenir au plus tard dans un délai de dix jours à compter de la date de la présente publication. Elles peuvent être envoyées par télécopie (+32 22964301), par courrier électronique à l’adresse COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu ou par courrier postal, sous la référence COMP/M.6647 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/Mitsubishi Elevator (Singapore), à l'adresse suivante:





  Commission européenne |
| --- | --- |
| Direction générale de la concurrence |
| Greffe des concentrations |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles |
| BELGIQUE |

4.

La Commission invite les tiers intéressés à lui présenter leurs observations éventuelles sur le projet de concentration.

Ces observations devront lui parvenir au plus tard dans un délai de dix jours à compter de la date de la présente publication. Elles peuvent être envoyées par télécopie (+32 22964301), par courrier électronique à l’adresse COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu ou par courrier postal, sous la référence COMP/M.6647 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Mitsubishi Electric Corporation/Mitsubishi Elevator (Singapore), à l'adresse suivante:

Commission européenne

Direction générale de la concurrence

Greffe des concentrations

J-70

1049 Bruxelles

BELGIQUE

---

(1)  JO L 24 du 29.1.2004, p. 1 (le «règlement CE sur les concentrations»).

(2)  JO C 56 du 5.3.2005, p. 32 (la «communication sur une procédure simplifiée»).

---

| 12.7.2012 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | C 204/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2012

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

C 204/43

---

Notification préalable d'une concentration

(Affaire COMP/M.6651 — Goldman Sachs/William C. Young/Plastipak Holdings)

Cas susceptible d'être traité selon la procédure simplifiée

(Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)

2012/C 204/07

| 1. | Le 5 juillet 2012, la Commission a reçu notification, conformément à l’article 4 du règlement (CE) no 139/2004 du Conseil (1), d’un projet de concentration par lequel des fonds conseillés et gérés par The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. («Goldman Sachs», États-Unis) et M. William C. Young acquièrent, au sens de l’article 3, paragraphe 1, point b), du règlement CE sur les concentrations, le contrôle en commun de l’entreprise Plastipak Holdings, Inc. («Plastipak», États-Unis) par achat d’actions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Le 5 juillet 2012, la Commission a reçu notification, conformément à l’article 4 du règlement (CE) no 139/2004 du Conseil (1), d’un projet de concentration par lequel des fonds conseillés et gérés par The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. («Goldman Sachs», États-Unis) et M. William C. Young acquièrent, au sens de l’article 3, paragraphe 1, point b), du règlement CE sur les concentrations, le contrôle en commun de l’entreprise Plastipak Holdings, Inc. («Plastipak», États-Unis) par achat d’actions.

| 2. | Les activités des entreprises considérées sont les suivantes:






  — | Goldman Sachs: banque d’affaires, société de placement et de gestion de portefeuilles de dimension mondiale, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Les activités des entreprises considérées sont les suivantes:

—

Goldman Sachs: banque d’affaires, société de placement et de gestion de portefeuilles de dimension mondiale,

| — | M. William C. Young: personne physique contrôlant plusieurs entreprises, |
| --- | --- |

—

M. William C. Young: personne physique contrôlant plusieurs entreprises,

| — | Plastipak: fabricant de résines plastiques, de récipients d’emballage et de préformes en matières plastiques, également actif dans le domaine du recyclage et plus particulièrement de la production de matières premières plastiques recyclées après consommation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Plastipak: fabricant de résines plastiques, de récipients d’emballage et de préformes en matières plastiques, également actif dans le domaine du recyclage et plus particulièrement de la production de matières premières plastiques recyclées après consommation.

| 3. | Après examen préliminaire et sans préjudice de sa décision définitive sur ce point, la Commission estime que l'opération notifiée pourrait entrer dans le champ d'application du règlement CE sur les concentrations. Conformément à la communication de la Commission relative à une procédure simplifiée de traitement de certaines opérations de concentration en application du règlement CE sur les concentrations (2), il convient de noter que ce cas est susceptible d'être traité selon la procédure définie par ladite communication. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Après examen préliminaire et sans préjudice de sa décision définitive sur ce point, la Commission estime que l'opération notifiée pourrait entrer dans le champ d'application du règlement CE sur les concentrations. Conformément à la communication de la Commission relative à une procédure simplifiée de traitement de certaines opérations de concentration en application du règlement CE sur les concentrations (2), il convient de noter que ce cas est susceptible d'être traité selon la procédure définie par ladite communication.

| 4. | La Commission invite les tiers intéressés à lui présenter leurs observations éventuelles sur le projet de concentration.
  Ces observations devront lui parvenir au plus tard dans un délai de dix jours à compter de la date de la présente publication. Elles peuvent être envoyées par télécopie (+32 22964301), par courrier électronique à l’adresse COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu ou par courrier postal, sous la référence COMP/M.6651 — Goldman Sachs/William C. Young/Plastipak Holdings, à l'adresse suivante:





  Commission européenne |
| --- | --- |
| Direction générale de la concurrence |
| Greffe des concentrations |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles |
| BELGIQUE |

4.

La Commission invite les tiers intéressés à lui présenter leurs observations éventuelles sur le projet de concentration.

Ces observations devront lui parvenir au plus tard dans un délai de dix jours à compter de la date de la présente publication. Elles peuvent être envoyées par télécopie (+32 22964301), par courrier électronique à l’adresse COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu ou par courrier postal, sous la référence COMP/M.6651 — Goldman Sachs/William C. Young/Plastipak Holdings, à l'adresse suivante:

Commission européenne

Direction générale de la concurrence

Greffe des concentrations

J-70

1049 Bruxelles

BELGIQUE

---

(1)  JO L 24 du 29.1.2004, p. 1 (le «règlement CE sur les concentrations»).

(2)  JO C 56 du 5.3.2005, p. 32 (la «communication sur une procédure simplifiée»).

---

| 12.7.2012 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | C 204/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2012

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

C 204/44

---

Communication de la Commission publiée conformément à l’article 27, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE) no 1/2003 du Conseil dans l’affaire COMP/39.654 — Codes d’instruments financiers de Reuters (RIC)

[notifiée sous le numéro C(2012) 4873]

(Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)

2012/C 204/08

1.   INTRODUCTION

| 1. | En vertu de l’article 9 du règlement (CE) no 1/2003 du Conseil du 16 décembre 2002 (1), la Commission peut, lorsqu’elle envisage d'adopter une décision exigeant qu’il soit mis fin à une infraction et que les entreprises concernées offrent des engagements de nature à répondre aux préoccupations dont elle les a informées dans son évaluation préliminaire, décider de rendre ces engagements obligatoires pour les entreprises. La décision peut être adoptée pour une durée déterminée et conclut qu'il n'y a plus lieu que la Commission agisse. En vertu de l’article 27, paragraphe 4, du même règlement, la Commission publie un résumé succinct de l'affaire et l’essentiel du contenu des engagements. Les tiers intéressés peuvent présenter leurs observations dans un délai qui est fixé par la Commission. |
| --- | --- |

1.

En vertu de l’article 9 du règlement (CE) no 1/2003 du Conseil du 16 décembre 2002 (1), la Commission peut, lorsqu’elle envisage d'adopter une décision exigeant qu’il soit mis fin à une infraction et que les entreprises concernées offrent des engagements de nature à répondre aux préoccupations dont elle les a informées dans son évaluation préliminaire, décider de rendre ces engagements obligatoires pour les entreprises. La décision peut être adoptée pour une durée déterminée et conclut qu'il n'y a plus lieu que la Commission agisse. En vertu de l’article 27, paragraphe 4, du même règlement, la Commission publie un résumé succinct de l'affaire et l’essentiel du contenu des engagements. Les tiers intéressés peuvent présenter leurs observations dans un délai qui est fixé par la Commission.

2.   RÉSUMÉ DE L'AFFAIRE

| 2. | Le 19 septembre 2011, la Commission a adopté une évaluation préliminaire au sens de l'article 9, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 1/2003. Cette évaluation portait sur le secteur des services d'information financière, et plus particulièrement sur le marché des flux de données en temps réel consolidés (2). Elle avait pour destinataire Thomson Reuters Corporation, ainsi que les entreprises placées sous le contrôle direct ou indirect de celle-ci, parmi lesquelles Reuters Limited (Thomson Reuters). La Commission craint que certaines pratiques restrictives de Thomson Reuters en matière d'octroi de licences relatives aux codes d'instruments financiers de Reuters («RIC») ne soient contraires à l'article 102 du TFUE (3). Elle a ouvert une procédure à l'encontre de Thomson Reuters le 30 octobre 2009. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Le 19 septembre 2011, la Commission a adopté une évaluation préliminaire au sens de l'article 9, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 1/2003. Cette évaluation portait sur le secteur des services d'information financière, et plus particulièrement sur le marché des flux de données en temps réel consolidés (2). Elle avait pour destinataire Thomson Reuters Corporation, ainsi que les entreprises placées sous le contrôle direct ou indirect de celle-ci, parmi lesquelles Reuters Limited (Thomson Reuters). La Commission craint que certaines pratiques restrictives de Thomson Reuters en matière d'octroi de licences relatives aux codes d'instruments financiers de Reuters («RIC») ne soient contraires à l'article 102 du TFUE (3). Elle a ouvert une procédure à l'encontre de Thomson Reuters le 30 octobre 2009.

| 3. | L’évaluation préliminaire a permis de constater ce qui suit.






  a) | Thomson Reuters occupe une position dominante sur le marché mondial des flux de données en temps réel consolidés (4). |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

L’évaluation préliminaire a permis de constater ce qui suit.

a)

Thomson Reuters occupe une position dominante sur le marché mondial des flux de données en temps réel consolidés (4).

| b) | Thomson Reuters pourrait avoir abusé de sa position dominante en imposant à ses clients des restrictions concernant l'utilisation des RIC. En effet, a) elle interdit à ses clients d'utiliser les RIC pour retrouver des données dans des flux de données en temps réel consolidés proposés par d'autres fournisseurs; et b) elle empêche les tiers d'élaborer et de tenir à jour des tableaux de correspondance incorporant des RIC afin de permettre une interaction entre les systèmes des clients de Thomson Reuters et les flux de données en temps réel consolidés d'autres fournisseurs (5). |
| --- | --- |

b)

Thomson Reuters pourrait avoir abusé de sa position dominante en imposant à ses clients des restrictions concernant l'utilisation des RIC. En effet, a) elle interdit à ses clients d'utiliser les RIC pour retrouver des données dans des flux de données en temps réel consolidés proposés par d'autres fournisseurs; et b) elle empêche les tiers d'élaborer et de tenir à jour des tableaux de correspondance incorporant des RIC afin de permettre une interaction entre les systèmes des clients de Thomson Reuters et les flux de données en temps réel consolidés d'autres fournisseurs (5).

| c) | De toute évidence, ces restrictions créent d'importants obstacles au changement de fournisseur. Les clients de Thomson Reuters utilisent largement les RIC dans leurs applications, et le personnel qui gère ces applications s'est familiarisé avec le système de codage des RIC. En raison des restrictions mises en place par Thomson Reuters, consistant en l'intégration des RIC dans des applications, le fait de changer de fournisseur implique de supprimer les RIC et de recoder ces applications pour remplacer les RIC par un autre système de codage. Il s'agit là d'une tâche ardue et souvent excessivement onéreuse. La Commission estime à titre préliminaire que Thomson Reuters a effectivement contraint des clients ayant intégré les RIC dans leurs applications à utiliser ses flux de données en temps réel consolidés, empêchant par conséquent d'autres fournisseurs de flux de données en temps réel consolidés de lui opposer une concurrence réelle sur le marché des flux de données en temps réel consolidés. |
| --- | --- |

c)

De toute évidence, ces restrictions créent d'importants obstacles au changement de fournisseur. Les clients de Thomson Reuters utilisent largement les RIC dans leurs applications, et le personnel qui gère ces applications s'est familiarisé avec le système de codage des RIC. En raison des restrictions mises en place par Thomson Reuters, consistant en l'intégration des RIC dans des applications, le fait de changer de fournisseur implique de supprimer les RIC et de recoder ces applications pour remplacer les RIC par un autre système de codage. Il s'agit là d'une tâche ardue et souvent excessivement onéreuse. La Commission estime à titre préliminaire que Thomson Reuters a effectivement contraint des clients ayant intégré les RIC dans leurs applications à utiliser ses flux de données en temps réel consolidés, empêchant par conséquent d'autres fournisseurs de flux de données en temps réel consolidés de lui opposer une concurrence réelle sur le marché des flux de données en temps réel consolidés.

| 4. | Une première enquête de marché concernant la proposition d’engagement initiale soumise par Thomson Reuters a été lancée le 14 décembre 2011 (6). Les acteurs du marché ont été invités à présenter des observations pour le 25 janvier 2012 au plus tard. À la suite des observations formulées dans le cadre de cette première enquête, Thomson Reuters a largement remanié sa proposition d’engagement en vue de remédier aux lacunes recensées par les acteurs du marché en ce qui concerne les problèmes de concurrence relevés par la Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Une première enquête de marché concernant la proposition d’engagement initiale soumise par Thomson Reuters a été lancée le 14 décembre 2011 (6). Les acteurs du marché ont été invités à présenter des observations pour le 25 janvier 2012 au plus tard. À la suite des observations formulées dans le cadre de cette première enquête, Thomson Reuters a largement remanié sa proposition d’engagement en vue de remédier aux lacunes recensées par les acteurs du marché en ce qui concerne les problèmes de concurrence relevés par la Commission.

| 5. | Les engagements révisés diffèrent des engagements antérieurs à plusieurs égards. Les principales modifications apportées sont les suivantes:






  a) | le niveau de la redevance relative à la licence RIC étendue («ERL») est revu à la baisse; |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Les engagements révisés diffèrent des engagements antérieurs à plusieurs égards. Les principales modifications apportées sont les suivantes:

a)

le niveau de la redevance relative à la licence RIC étendue («ERL») est revu à la baisse;

| b) | la structure de la redevance relative à l'ERL n’est plus liée à d’éventuels rabais existants accordés pour les flux de données en temps réel consolidés de Thomson Reuters. Elle est également moins complexe et plus transparente; |
| --- | --- |

b)

la structure de la redevance relative à l'ERL n’est plus liée à d’éventuels rabais existants accordés pour les flux de données en temps réel consolidés de Thomson Reuters. Elle est également moins complexe et plus transparente;

| c) | l’ERL peut être utilisée dans le monde entier par des clients qui exercent des activités commerciales effectives dans l'EEE (7); |
| --- | --- |

c)

l’ERL peut être utilisée dans le monde entier par des clients qui exercent des activités commerciales effectives dans l'EEE (7);

| d) | l’ERL couvre les RIC liés à des instruments négociés de gré à gré provenant d’une source unique sous réserve du consentement du contributeur concerné (à moins que Thomson Reuters ne soit l’unique fournisseur de données relatives à des instruments négociés de gré à gré au moment du changement de fournisseur); |
| --- | --- |

d)

l’ERL couvre les RIC liés à des instruments négociés de gré à gré provenant d’une source unique sous réserve du consentement du contributeur concerné (à moins que Thomson Reuters ne soit l’unique fournisseur de données relatives à des instruments négociés de gré à gré au moment du changement de fournisseur);

| e) | l’ERL couvre des interfaces humaines vers des applications basées sur un serveur (sans coût supplémentaire); |
| --- | --- |

e)

l’ERL couvre des interfaces humaines vers des applications basées sur un serveur (sans coût supplémentaire);

| f) | au-delà de la période de cinq ans initiale durant laquelle il est possible de s’abonner à l'ERL, le client a la possibilité de prolonger son abonnement de deux ans moyennant le versement d’une redevance symbolique; et |
| --- | --- |

f)

au-delà de la période de cinq ans initiale durant laquelle il est possible de s’abonner à l'ERL, le client a la possibilité de prolonger son abonnement de deux ans moyennant le versement d’une redevance symbolique; et

| g) | une licence distincte sera disponible pour les développeurs tiers afin de leur permettre d’élaborer et de tenir à jour des instruments facilitant les changements de fournisseur, qu’ils proposeront aux clients. |
| --- | --- |

g)

une licence distincte sera disponible pour les développeurs tiers afin de leur permettre d’élaborer et de tenir à jour des instruments facilitant les changements de fournisseur, qu’ils proposeront aux clients.

3.   ESSENTIEL DU CONTENU DES ENGAGEMENTS RÉVISÉS

| 6. | Thomson Reuters conteste l'évaluation préliminaire de la Commission. Elle a néanmoins proposé des engagements, en application de l'article 9 du règlement (CE) no 1/2003, de nature à répondre aux préoccupations de la Commission en matière de concurrence. Les engagements offerts par Thomson Reuters (les «engagements») sont présentés succinctement ci-après. Une version non confidentielle de ces engagements est publiée dans son intégralité en anglais sur le site internet de la direction générale de la concurrence de la Commission, à l'adresse suivante:
  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/index_en.html |
| --- | --- |

6.

Thomson Reuters conteste l'évaluation préliminaire de la Commission. Elle a néanmoins proposé des engagements, en application de l'article 9 du règlement (CE) no 1/2003, de nature à répondre aux préoccupations de la Commission en matière de concurrence. Les engagements offerts par Thomson Reuters (les «engagements») sont présentés succinctement ci-après. Une version non confidentielle de ces engagements est publiée dans son intégralité en anglais sur le site internet de la direction générale de la concurrence de la Commission, à l'adresse suivante:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/index_en.html

| 7. | Les engagements offerts par Thomson Reuters consistent à proposer aux clients actuels et futurs de son service en temps réel (8) (ERL) une licence leur accordant une option quant à une licence conférant des droits supplémentaires en matière d'utilisation du système de codage RIC en vue d’un changement de fournisseurs de flux de données en temps réel consolidés. Les clients pourront, moyennant le versement d'une redevance mensuelle, utiliser les RIC pour rechercher des données financières en temps réel dans les flux de données en temps réel consolidés fournis par les concurrents de Thomson Reuters et, de la sorte, passer d'une ou de plusieurs applications basées sur un serveur que propose cette dernière aux flux de données en temps réel consolidés d'autres fournisseurs. Thomson Reuters entend en outre fournir aux détenteurs de licences ERL des mises à jour, effectuées régulièrement et en temps utile, des RIC pertinents, y compris, le cas échéant, les informations nécessaires liées aux RIC (à savoir, la plate-forme de négociation concernée, la source, le code officiel, la devise et/ou la description). L’ERL n’affecte pas d’éventuels droits d’utilisation en ce qui concerne les RIC dont les clients bénéficient déjà du fait des liens contractuels qu'ils entretiennent avec Thomson Reuters. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Les engagements offerts par Thomson Reuters consistent à proposer aux clients actuels et futurs de son service en temps réel (8) (ERL) une licence leur accordant une option quant à une licence conférant des droits supplémentaires en matière d'utilisation du système de codage RIC en vue d’un changement de fournisseurs de flux de données en temps réel consolidés. Les clients pourront, moyennant le versement d'une redevance mensuelle, utiliser les RIC pour rechercher des données financières en temps réel dans les flux de données en temps réel consolidés fournis par les concurrents de Thomson Reuters et, de la sorte, passer d'une ou de plusieurs applications basées sur un serveur que propose cette dernière aux flux de données en temps réel consolidés d'autres fournisseurs. Thomson Reuters entend en outre fournir aux détenteurs de licences ERL des mises à jour, effectuées régulièrement et en temps utile, des RIC pertinents, y compris, le cas échéant, les informations nécessaires liées aux RIC (à savoir, la plate-forme de négociation concernée, la source, le code officiel, la devise et/ou la description). L’ERL n’affecte pas d’éventuels droits d’utilisation en ce qui concerne les RIC dont les clients bénéficient déjà du fait des liens contractuels qu'ils entretiennent avec Thomson Reuters.

| 8. | Les engagements concernent i) les clients qui passeront partiellement et/ou entièrement des flux de données en temps réel consolidés de Thomson Reuters à un autre flux de données en temps réel consolidé, et ii) les clients qui s'abonneront au flux de données en temps réel consolidé d'un tiers en plus du service RT proposé par Thomson Reuters sans renoncer aux services de cette dernière (par exemple, comme solution de rechange en cas d'interruption d’urgence ou pour pouvoir tester les fonctionnalités et la fiabilité de nouveaux flux de données en temps réel consolidés). |
| --- | --- |

8.

Les engagements concernent i) les clients qui passeront partiellement et/ou entièrement des flux de données en temps réel consolidés de Thomson Reuters à un autre flux de données en temps réel consolidé, et ii) les clients qui s'abonneront au flux de données en temps réel consolidé d'un tiers en plus du service RT proposé par Thomson Reuters sans renoncer aux services de cette dernière (par exemple, comme solution de rechange en cas d'interruption d’urgence ou pour pouvoir tester les fonctionnalités et la fiabilité de nouveaux flux de données en temps réel consolidés).

| 9. | En cas de changement partiel, Thomson Reuters s'engage à ne pas exercer de discrimination à l'égard des clients qui se tourneraient vers d’autres fournisseurs de flux de données en temps réel consolidés en ce qui concerne les modalités de fourniture de son service RT. Les clients qui utilisent l’ERL pour renoncer totalement aux services de Thomson Reuters ne sont pas tenus de souscrire à d’autres licences ou services proposés par cette dernière. |
| --- | --- |

9.

En cas de changement partiel, Thomson Reuters s'engage à ne pas exercer de discrimination à l'égard des clients qui se tourneraient vers d’autres fournisseurs de flux de données en temps réel consolidés en ce qui concerne les modalités de fourniture de son service RT. Les clients qui utilisent l’ERL pour renoncer totalement aux services de Thomson Reuters ne sont pas tenus de souscrire à d’autres licences ou services proposés par cette dernière.

| 10. | Les clients pourront s’abonner à l’ERL pour une durée de cinq ans. Ceux qui ne se seront pas abonnés à l’ERL au cours de cette période initiale de cinq ans pourront par ailleurs prendre une option sur un abonnement à l’ERL moyennant le paiement d’une redevance administrative de 150 USD par mois. Cette option devra être exercée dans les deux ans suivant la période initiale de cinq ans (soit un laps de temps de sept ans). À la souscription de l'abonnement, l’ERL sera accordée aux clients pour une durée indéterminée moyennant le paiement de la redevance en question. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Les clients pourront s’abonner à l’ERL pour une durée de cinq ans. Ceux qui ne se seront pas abonnés à l’ERL au cours de cette période initiale de cinq ans pourront par ailleurs prendre une option sur un abonnement à l’ERL moyennant le paiement d’une redevance administrative de 150 USD par mois. Cette option devra être exercée dans les deux ans suivant la période initiale de cinq ans (soit un laps de temps de sept ans). À la souscription de l'abonnement, l’ERL sera accordée aux clients pour une durée indéterminée moyennant le paiement de la redevance en question.

| 11. | La mesure corrective doit s'appliquer à tous les codes RIC directement liés au prix d'un instrument financier individuel ou à une valeur pour un indice inclus dans le service RT de Thomson Reuters, et donc, notamment, pour i) les données de bourses et de systèmes multilatéraux de négociation (MTF); et ii) les instruments négociés de gré à gré (OTC) qui ne sont pas inscrits sur des places boursières ou dans des MTF. Les RIC liés à des instruments négociés de gré à gré pour lesquels Thomson Reuters obtient les données auprès d'un contributeur unique identifiable au moyen du RIC («RIC provenant d'une source unique») sont inclus à la demande des clients, pour autant que le contributeur concerné y consente. Les RIC pour lesquels le contenu ne peut être obtenu qu’auprès de Thomson Reuters sont exclus tant que le contributeur ne met pas ledit contenu à la disposition du fournisseur concurrent de flux de données en temps réel consolidés vers lequel se tourne le client. |
| --- | --- |

11.

La mesure corrective doit s'appliquer à tous les codes RIC directement liés au prix d'un instrument financier individuel ou à une valeur pour un indice inclus dans le service RT de Thomson Reuters, et donc, notamment, pour i) les données de bourses et de systèmes multilatéraux de négociation (MTF); et ii) les instruments négociés de gré à gré (OTC) qui ne sont pas inscrits sur des places boursières ou dans des MTF. Les RIC liés à des instruments négociés de gré à gré pour lesquels Thomson Reuters obtient les données auprès d'un contributeur unique identifiable au moyen du RIC («RIC provenant d'une source unique») sont inclus à la demande des clients, pour autant que le contributeur concerné y consente. Les RIC pour lesquels le contenu ne peut être obtenu qu’auprès de Thomson Reuters sont exclus tant que le contributeur ne met pas ledit contenu à la disposition du fournisseur concurrent de flux de données en temps réel consolidés vers lequel se tourne le client.

| 12. | Thomson Reuters fournira en outre les informations nécessaires pour permettre aux clients d'établir plus aisément des correspondances entre les RIC et le système de codage d'autres fournisseurs en temps utile. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Thomson Reuters fournira en outre les informations nécessaires pour permettre aux clients d'établir plus aisément des correspondances entre les RIC et le système de codage d'autres fournisseurs en temps utile.

| 13. | La licence proposée peut être utilisée dans le monde entier dans des applications basées sur un serveur, pour autant que le client exerce des activités commerciales effectives dans l’EEE. |
| --- | --- |

13.

La licence proposée peut être utilisée dans le monde entier dans des applications basées sur un serveur, pour autant que le client exerce des activités commerciales effectives dans l’EEE.

| 14. | Les redevances mensuelles que Thomson Reuters envisage de facturer pour les ERL sont progressives et seront calculées en fonction du nombre de symboles RIC concernés par la licence qu’un client souhaite obtenir pour pouvoir rechercher des données mises à disposition par un concurrent. Pour les 50 000 premiers RIC, le client devra payer la somme de 0,01 USD par RIC par mois. Plus le nombre de RIC concernés par la licence demandée par le client augmentera, plus la redevance à acquitter par RIC diminuera (9). Le barème des redevances prévoit également une redevance mensuelle minimale de 750 USD. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Les redevances mensuelles que Thomson Reuters envisage de facturer pour les ERL sont progressives et seront calculées en fonction du nombre de symboles RIC concernés par la licence qu’un client souhaite obtenir pour pouvoir rechercher des données mises à disposition par un concurrent. Pour les 50 000 premiers RIC, le client devra payer la somme de 0,01 USD par RIC par mois. Plus le nombre de RIC concernés par la licence demandée par le client augmentera, plus la redevance à acquitter par RIC diminuera (9). Le barème des redevances prévoit également une redevance mensuelle minimale de 750 USD.

| 15. | Les redevances couvrent les droits d'utilisation supplémentaires du système de codage RIC, ainsi que les coûts du service que doit fournir Thomson Reuters à ses clients conformément à ses engagements. Selon Thomson Reuters, le niveau de redevance compte pour une part très restreinte du prix qu'elle facture pour ses flux de données en temps réel consolidés en vue d'une portée et d'une utilisation identiques des RIC visés par la licence. Pour de plus amples informations sur le barème des redevances ERL, il est renvoyé à la version non confidentielle des engagements publiés sur le site internet de la direction générale de la concurrence (annexe III). |
| --- | --- |

15.

Les redevances couvrent les droits d'utilisation supplémentaires du système de codage RIC, ainsi que les coûts du service que doit fournir Thomson Reuters à ses clients conformément à ses engagements. Selon Thomson Reuters, le niveau de redevance compte pour une part très restreinte du prix qu'elle facture pour ses flux de données en temps réel consolidés en vue d'une portée et d'une utilisation identiques des RIC visés par la licence. Pour de plus amples informations sur le barème des redevances ERL, il est renvoyé à la version non confidentielle des engagements publiés sur le site internet de la direction générale de la concurrence (annexe III).

| 16. | Thomson Reuters s’engage également à permettre aux développeurs tiers de d’élaborer et de tenir à jour un outil permettant de changer de fournisseur (tableaux de correspondance) pour le compte des clients. Les développeurs tiers admissibles (à l’exclusion des vendeurs de données relatives au marché) peuvent utiliser et conserver les RIC dans les outils qu’ils mettent au point à cet effet pour divers clients moyennant le versement d’une redevance mensuelle. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Thomson Reuters s’engage également à permettre aux développeurs tiers de d’élaborer et de tenir à jour un outil permettant de changer de fournisseur (tableaux de correspondance) pour le compte des clients. Les développeurs tiers admissibles (à l’exclusion des vendeurs de données relatives au marché) peuvent utiliser et conserver les RIC dans les outils qu’ils mettent au point à cet effet pour divers clients moyennant le versement d’une redevance mensuelle.

| 17. | Les droits des développeurs tiers décrits plus haut sont inclus dans une licence distincte qui leur est réservée et qui est jointe en annexe II aux engagements proposés. Les concepteurs tiers doivent verser les mêmes redevances que les clients, mais leurs redevances mensuelles sont plafonnées à 3 750 USD, la redevance mensuelle minimale étant fixée à 250 USD seulement. Les développeurs tiers peuvent recevoir l’aide d’autres vendeurs de flux de données en temps réel consolidés en vue de l’établissement des correspondances avec le système de codage du vendeur et mener conjointement des actions publicitaires en vue de trouver d’éventuels clients. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Les droits des développeurs tiers décrits plus haut sont inclus dans une licence distincte qui leur est réservée et qui est jointe en annexe II aux engagements proposés. Les concepteurs tiers doivent verser les mêmes redevances que les clients, mais leurs redevances mensuelles sont plafonnées à 3 750 USD, la redevance mensuelle minimale étant fixée à 250 USD seulement. Les développeurs tiers peuvent recevoir l’aide d’autres vendeurs de flux de données en temps réel consolidés en vue de l’établissement des correspondances avec le système de codage du vendeur et mener conjointement des actions publicitaires en vue de trouver d’éventuels clients.

4.   INVITATION À PRÉSENTER DES OBSERVATIONS

| 18. | Sous réserve de la consultation des acteurs du marché, la Commission envisage d'adopter une décision en vertu de l'article 9, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 1/2003 rendant obligatoires les engagements révisés tels qu’ils ont été récapitulés ci-dessus et publiés sur le site internet de la direction générale de la concurrence. Si des modifications substantielles sont apportées aux engagements, une nouvelle consultation des acteurs du marché aura lieu. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Sous réserve de la consultation des acteurs du marché, la Commission envisage d'adopter une décision en vertu de l'article 9, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 1/2003 rendant obligatoires les engagements révisés tels qu’ils ont été récapitulés ci-dessus et publiés sur le site internet de la direction générale de la concurrence. Si des modifications substantielles sont apportées aux engagements, une nouvelle consultation des acteurs du marché aura lieu.

| 19. | Conformément à l’article 27, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE) no 1/2003, la Commission invite les tiers intéressés à présenter leurs observations sur les engagements proposés. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Conformément à l’article 27, paragraphe 4, du règlement (CE) no 1/2003, la Commission invite les tiers intéressés à présenter leurs observations sur les engagements proposés.

| 20. | Les observations formulées devront de préférence être motivées et exposer les faits pertinents. Si vous constatez un problème en ce qui concerne l'une ou l'autre partie des engagements proposés, la Commission vous invite également à proposer une solution éventuelle. |
| --- | --- |

20.

Les observations formulées devront de préférence être motivées et exposer les faits pertinents. Si vous constatez un problème en ce qui concerne l'une ou l'autre partie des engagements proposés, la Commission vous invite également à proposer une solution éventuelle.

| 21. | Un délai de quatre semaines à compter de la date de publication de la présente communication est imparti aux fins de la présentation de ces observations. Les parties intéressées sont invitées à fournir une version non confidentielle de leurs observations expurgée des secrets d'affaires et autres passages confidentiels, qui seront, le cas échéant, supprimés et remplacés par un résumé non confidentiel ou par les mentions «secrets d'affaires» ou «confidentiel». |
| --- | --- |

21.

Un délai de quatre semaines à compter de la date de publication de la présente communication est imparti aux fins de la présentation de ces observations. Les parties intéressées sont invitées à fournir une version non confidentielle de leurs observations expurgée des secrets d'affaires et autres passages confidentiels, qui seront, le cas échéant, supprimés et remplacés par un résumé non confidentiel ou par les mentions «secrets d'affaires» ou «confidentiel».

| 22. | Ces observations peuvent être adressées à la Commission, sous le numéro de référence «Affaire COMP/39.654 — RIC», par courrier électronique (COMP-GREFFE-ANTITRUST@ec.europa.eu), par télécopieur (+32 22950128) ou par courrier postal à l'adresse suivante:





  Commission européenne |
| --- | --- |
| Direction générale de la concurrence |
| Greffe Antitrust |
| 1049 Bruxelles |
| BELGIQUE |

22.

Ces observations peuvent être adressées à la Commission, sous le numéro de référence «Affaire COMP/39.654 — RIC», par courrier électronique (COMP-GREFFE-ANTITRUST@ec.europa.eu), par télécopieur (+32 22950128) ou par courrier postal à l'adresse suivante:

Commission européenne

Direction générale de la concurrence

Greffe Antitrust

1049 Bruxelles

BELGIQUE

---

(1)  JO L 1 du 4.1.2003, p. 1. Le 1er décembre 2009, les articles 81 et 82 du traité CE sont devenus respectivement les articles 101 et 102 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne («TFUE»). Dans les deux cas, les dispositions sont, en substance, identiques. Aux fins de la présente communication, les références faites aux articles 101 et 102 du TFUE s'entendent, s'il y a lieu, comme faites respectivement aux articles 81 et 82 du traité CE.

(2)  La présente affaire porte plus particulièrement sur les flux de données en temps réel consolidés et ne concerne pas les données en temps réel communiquées au moyen de terminaux ou par flux directs. En outre, les problèmes de concurrence ont trait aux seules données de marché en temps réel, à l’exclusion des données de référence et des services de données de fin de journée.

(3)  Selon Thomson Reuters, les RIC sont des codes alphanumériques constituant l'outil de recherche qu'elle met au point et fournit à ses clients en tant que partie intégrante de ses services d'information financière. Les RIC permettent d'identifier une série structurée de données liées, de naviguer parmi ces différentes données et de retrouver des données liées à partir du réseau de collecte et de diffusion de données en temps réel de Thomson Reuters (Integrated Data Network — «IDN»).

(4)  L’enquête de marché a révélé que les flux directs fournis aux clients directement au moyen d'échanges ou de systèmes multilatéraux de négociation (MTF) font partie d'un marché de produits distinct.

(5)  Thomson Reuters a déclaré qu'elle n'empêchait pas les clients recourant à ses flux de données en temps réel consolidés de chercher des correspondances entre les RIC et le système de codage d'autres fournisseurs dès lors qu'ils n'utilisent pas la base de données ou le tableau de correspondance en résultant pour retrouver des données mises à disposition par un autre fournisseur. En d'autres termes, elle n'interdit pas la création de tableaux de correspondance en tant que tels, mais elle s'oppose à une utilisation directe et indirecte des RIC afin de rechercher des données en temps réel d'autres fournisseurs.

(6)  JO C 364 du 14.12.2011, p. 21.

(7)  Aux fins des présents engagements, l'EEE inclut également la Suisse.

(8)  Thomson Reuters commercialise son offre de flux de données de marché en temps réel consolidés, utilisables dans l'ensemble de l'entreprise, sous le nom de «Thomson Reuters Real-time Service» [«RT Service», appelé précédemment Reuters Datascope Real-Time Service («RDRT»)] en vue d'une utilisation dans des applications basées sur un serveur. Aux fins de la portée des engagements, la définition du service RT a été étendue à l’ensemble des autres licences de Thomson Reuters relatives à des données en temps réel, qui permettent une utilisation dans des applications basées sur un serveur et ce, dans l’ensemble de l’entreprise. Les opérateurs humains seront également à même de continuer à utiliser les RIC dans des interfaces utilisateurs logicielles combinées avec des applications basées sur un serveur pour accéder à des données provenant de flux de données en temps réel consolidés d'autres fournisseurs, les visionner et les valider afin de faciliter un changement de fournisseur sans coût supplémentaire. Les applications qui sont actuellement fournies en vertu de licences de Thomson Reuters relatives à un poste de travail en vue d’un usage individuel (et non pour être utilisées dans l’ensemble d’une entreprise) ne sont pas visées par les engagements proposés.

(9)  Entre 50 001 et 500 000 RIC, la redevance par RIC sera de 0,005 USD; entre 500 001 et 3 000 000 RIC, elle sera de 0,002 USD. Au-delà de 3 000 001 RIC, elle sera de 0,001 USD. Les redevances augmenteront suivant l’inflation générale.

---