# Euroopa Liidu C 334/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 334 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 57. köide25. september 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 334

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

57. köide25. september 2014

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Teatised |
| | EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDE, ORGANITE JA ASUTUSTE TEATISED |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2014/C 334/01 | Vastuväidete esitamisest loobumine teatatud koondumise kohta (Juhtum M.7361 – Kaindl / DB ML / CTE) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2014/C 334/02 | Vastuväidete esitamisest loobumine teatatud koondumise kohta (Juhtum M.7386 – KKR / Riverstone / Trinity) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

II   Teatised

EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDE, ORGANITE JA ASUTUSTE TEATISED

Euroopa Komisjon

2014/C 334/01

Vastuväidete esitamisest loobumine teatatud koondumise kohta (Juhtum M.7361 – Kaindl / DB ML / CTE) (
  1
  )

1

1

2014/C 334/02

Vastuväidete esitamisest loobumine teatatud koondumise kohta (Juhtum M.7386 – KKR / Riverstone / Trinity) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Teave |
| --- | --- |
| | TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2014/C 334/03 | Euro vahetuskurss | 2 |
| 2014/C 334/04 | Arvamus, mille konkurentsi piiravat tegevust ja turgu valitsevat seisundit käsitlev nõuandekomitee esitas 3. märtsi 2014. aasta koosolekul seoses otsuse eelnõuga, milles käsitletakse juhtumit AT.39952 – Elektribörsid – Raportöör: Madalmaad | 3 |
| 2014/C 334/05 | Ärakuulamise eest vastutava ametniku lõpparuanne – Elektribörsid (AT.39952) | 4 |
| 2014/C 334/06 | Kokkuvõte komisjoni otsusest, 5. märts 2014, Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artiklis 101 ja EMP lepingu artiklis 53 sätestatud menetluse kohta (Juhtum AT.39952 – Elektribörsid) (teatavaks tehtud numbri C(2014) 1204 (final) all) | 5 |
| | Euroopa Kontrollikoda |
| 2014/C 334/07 | Eriaruanne nr 13/2014 Haitile pärast maavärinat antud ELi rehabilitatsiooniabi | 7 |
| | EUROOPA MAJANDUSPIIRKONDA KÄSITLEV TEAVE |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2014/C 334/08 | Kutse märkuste esitamiseks vastavalt järelevalveameti ja kohtu asutamise kohta sõlmitud EFTA riikide lepingu protokolli nr 3 I osa artikli 1 lõikele 2 äriühingule Innovasjon Norgele antud väidetava abi kohta seoses tema tegevusega veebitaristu ja sellega seotud teenuste turul ning piirkondlikele turismiametitele ja sihtkohtade turismiasutustele antud võimaliku abi kohta | 8 |
| 2014/C 334/09 | EFTA riikide esindajate ja EFTA järelevalveameti seisukoht, mis esitati konkurentsi piiravat tegevust ja turgu valitsevat seisundit käsitleva nõuandekomitee koosolekul 3. märtsil 2014 komisjoni otsuse esialgse eelnõu kohta seoses juhtumiga AT.39952 – Elektribörsid – Raportöör: Madalmaad | 28 |

IV   Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

2014/C 334/03

Euro vahetuskurss

2

2014/C 334/04

Arvamus, mille konkurentsi piiravat tegevust ja turgu valitsevat seisundit käsitlev nõuandekomitee esitas 3. märtsi 2014. aasta koosolekul seoses otsuse eelnõuga, milles käsitletakse juhtumit AT.39952 – Elektribörsid – Raportöör: Madalmaad

3

2014/C 334/05

Ärakuulamise eest vastutava ametniku lõpparuanne – Elektribörsid (AT.39952)

4

2014/C 334/06

Kokkuvõte komisjoni otsusest, 5. märts 2014, Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artiklis 101 ja EMP lepingu artiklis 53 sätestatud menetluse kohta (Juhtum AT.39952 – Elektribörsid) (teatavaks tehtud numbri C(2014) 1204 (final) all)

(teatavaks tehtud numbri C(2014) 1204 (final) all)

5

Euroopa Kontrollikoda

2014/C 334/07

Eriaruanne nr 13/2014 Haitile pärast maavärinat antud ELi rehabilitatsiooniabi

7

EUROOPA MAJANDUSPIIRKONDA KÄSITLEV TEAVE

Euroopa Komisjon

2014/C 334/08

Kutse märkuste esitamiseks vastavalt järelevalveameti ja kohtu asutamise kohta sõlmitud EFTA riikide lepingu protokolli nr 3 I osa artikli 1 lõikele 2 äriühingule Innovasjon Norgele antud väidetava abi kohta seoses tema tegevusega veebitaristu ja sellega seotud teenuste turul ning piirkondlikele turismiametitele ja sihtkohtade turismiasutustele antud võimaliku abi kohta

8

2014/C 334/09

EFTA riikide esindajate ja EFTA järelevalveameti seisukoht, mis esitati konkurentsi piiravat tegevust ja turgu valitsevat seisundit käsitleva nõuandekomitee koosolekul 3. märtsil 2014 komisjoni otsuse esialgse eelnõu kohta seoses juhtumiga AT.39952 – Elektribörsid – Raportöör: Madalmaad

28

---

| | V   Teated |
| --- | --- |
| | HALDUSMENETLUSED |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2014/C 334/10 | Teade avaliku konkursi korraldamise kohta | 29 |
| | KOHTUMENETLUSED |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2014/C 334/11 | EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-12/14) | 30 |
| 2014/C 334/12 | EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-11/14) | 31 |
| 2014/C 334/13 | EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-13/14) | 32 |
| 2014/C 334/14 | EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-14/14) | 33 |
| 2014/C 334/15 | EFTA järelevalveameti 18. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-15/14) | 34 |
| 2014/C 334/16 | EFTA järelevalveameti 25. aprillil 2014. aastal Liechtensteini Vürstiriigi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-17/14) | 35 |
| | KONKURENTSIPOLIITIKA RAKENDAMISEGA SEOTUD MENETLUSED |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2014/C 334/17 | Eelteatis koondumise kohta (Juhtum M.7372 – AXA / Hammerson / The real estate portfolio) – Võimalik lihtsustatud korras menetlemine (
  1
  ) | 36 |

V   Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa Komisjon

2014/C 334/10

Teade avaliku konkursi korraldamise kohta

29

KOHTUMENETLUSED

Euroopa Komisjon

2014/C 334/11

EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-12/14)

30

2014/C 334/12

EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-11/14)

31

2014/C 334/13

EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-13/14)

32

2014/C 334/14

EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-14/14)

33

2014/C 334/15

EFTA järelevalveameti 18. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-15/14)

34

2014/C 334/16

EFTA järelevalveameti 25. aprillil 2014. aastal Liechtensteini Vürstiriigi vastu algatatud hagi (Kohtuasi E-17/14)

35

KONKURENTSIPOLIITIKA RAKENDAMISEGA SEOTUD MENETLUSED

Euroopa Komisjon

2014/C 334/17

Eelteatis koondumise kohta (Juhtum M.7372 – AXA / Hammerson / The real estate portfolio) – Võimalik lihtsustatud korras menetlemine (
  1
  )

1

36

---

| | Parandused |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 334/18 | Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 562/2006 (millega kehtestatakse isikute üle piiri liikumist reguleerivad ühenduse eeskirjad (Schengeni piirieeskirjad)) artikli 2 lõikes 8 nimetatud piiripunktide ajakohastatud loetelu ( ELT C 316, 28.12.2007, lk 1 ; ELT C 134, 31.5.2008, lk 16 ; ELT C 177, 12.7.2008, lk 9 ; ELT C 200, 6.8.2008, lk 10 ; ELT C 331, 31.12.2008, lk 13 ; ELT C 3, 8.1.2009, lk 10 ; ELT C 37, 14.2.2009, lk 10 ; ELT C 64, 19.3.2009, lk 20 ; ELT C 99, 30.4.2009, lk 7 ; ELT C 229, 23.9.2009, lk 28 ; ELT C 263, 5.11.2009, lk 22 ; ELT C 298, 8.12.2009, lk 17 ; ELT C 74, 24.3.2010, lk 13 ; ELT C 326, 3.12.2010, lk 17 ; ELT C 355, 29.12.2010, lk 34 ; ELT C 22, 22.1.2011, lk 22 ; ELT C 37, 5.2.2011, lk 12 ; ELT C 149, 20.5.2011, lk 8 ; ELT C 190, 30.6.2011, lk 17 ; ELT C 203, 9.7.2011, lk 14 ; ELT C 210, 16.7.2011, lk 30 ; ELT C 271, 14.9.2011, lk 18 ; ELT C 356, 6.12.2011, lk 12 ; ELT C 111, 18.4.2012, lk 3 ; ELT C 183, 23.6.2012, lk 7 ; ELT C 313, 17.10.2012, lk 11 ; ELT C 394, 20.12.2012, lk 22 ; ELT C 51, 22.2.2013, lk 9 ; ELT C 167, 13.6.2013, lk 9 ; ELT C 242, 23.8.2013, lk 2 ; ELT C 275, 24.9.2013, lk 7 ; ELT C 314, 29.10.2013, lk 5 ; ELT C 324, 9.11.2013, lk 6 ; ELT C 57, 28.2.2014, lk 4 ; ELT C 167, 4.6.2014, lk 9 ) parandus ( ELT C 244, 26.7.2014 ) | 37 |

Parandused

2014/C 334/18

Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 562/2006 (millega kehtestatakse isikute üle piiri liikumist reguleerivad ühenduse eeskirjad (Schengeni piirieeskirjad)) artikli 2 lõikes 8 nimetatud piiripunktide ajakohastatud loetelu ( ELT C 316, 28.12.2007, lk 1 ; ELT C 134, 31.5.2008, lk 16 ; ELT C 177, 12.7.2008, lk 9 ; ELT C 200, 6.8.2008, lk 10 ; ELT C 331, 31.12.2008, lk 13 ; ELT C 3, 8.1.2009, lk 10 ; ELT C 37, 14.2.2009, lk 10 ; ELT C 64, 19.3.2009, lk 20 ; ELT C 99, 30.4.2009, lk 7 ; ELT C 229, 23.9.2009, lk 28 ; ELT C 263, 5.11.2009, lk 22 ; ELT C 298, 8.12.2009, lk 17 ; ELT C 74, 24.3.2010, lk 13 ; ELT C 326, 3.12.2010, lk 17 ; ELT C 355, 29.12.2010, lk 34 ; ELT C 22, 22.1.2011, lk 22 ; ELT C 37, 5.2.2011, lk 12 ; ELT C 149, 20.5.2011, lk 8 ; ELT C 190, 30.6.2011, lk 17 ; ELT C 203, 9.7.2011, lk 14 ; ELT C 210, 16.7.2011, lk 30 ; ELT C 271, 14.9.2011, lk 18 ; ELT C 356, 6.12.2011, lk 12 ; ELT C 111, 18.4.2012, lk 3 ; ELT C 183, 23.6.2012, lk 7 ; ELT C 313, 17.10.2012, lk 11 ; ELT C 394, 20.12.2012, lk 22 ; ELT C 51, 22.2.2013, lk 9 ; ELT C 167, 13.6.2013, lk 9 ; ELT C 242, 23.8.2013, lk 2 ; ELT C 275, 24.9.2013, lk 7 ; ELT C 314, 29.10.2013, lk 5 ; ELT C 324, 9.11.2013, lk 6 ; ELT C 57, 28.2.2014, lk 4 ; ELT C 167, 4.6.2014, lk 9 ) parandus ( ELT C 244, 26.7.2014 )

37

---

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

---

(1)   EMPs kohaldatav tekst

1

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

ET

---

II Teatised

EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDE, ORGANITE JA ASUTUSTE TEATISED

Euroopa Komisjon

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/1

---

Vastuväidete esitamisest loobumine teatatud koondumise kohta

(Juhtum M.7361 – Kaindl / DB ML / CTE)

(EMPs kohaldatav tekst)

(2014/C 334/01)

11. septembril 2014 otsustas komisjon loobuda vastuväidete esitamisest eespool nimetatud teatatud koondumise kohta ning kuulutada koondumine siseturuga kokkusobivaks. Otsuse aluseks on nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (1) artikli 6 lõike 1 punkt b. Otsuse täielik tekst on kättesaadav ainult saksa keeles ning see avaldatakse pärast seda, kui sellest on kustutatud võimalikud ärisaladused. Otsus on kättesaadav:

| — | Euroopa konkurentsialasel veebisaidil (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Veebisaidil pakutakse mitut võimalust otsida konkreetset ühinemisotsust, sealhulgas ettevõtja nime, juhtumi numbri, kuupäeva ja tegevusalade registri kaudu, |
| --- | --- |

—

Euroopa konkurentsialasel veebisaidil (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Veebisaidil pakutakse mitut võimalust otsida konkreetset ühinemisotsust, sealhulgas ettevõtja nime, juhtumi numbri, kuupäeva ja tegevusalade registri kaudu,

| — | elektroonilises vormis EUR-Lexi veebisaidil (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=et) dokumendinumbri 32014M7361 all. EUR-Lex pakub on-line-juurdepääsu Euroopa õigusele. |
| --- | --- |

—

elektroonilises vormis EUR-Lexi veebisaidil (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=et) dokumendinumbri 32014M7361 all. EUR-Lex pakub on-line-juurdepääsu Euroopa õigusele.

---

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

---

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/1

---

Vastuväidete esitamisest loobumine teatatud koondumise kohta

(Juhtum M.7386 – KKR / Riverstone / Trinity)

(EMPs kohaldatav tekst)

(2014/C 334/02)

19. septembril 2014 otsustas komisjon loobuda vastuväidete esitamisest eespool nimetatud teatatud koondumise kohta ning kuulutada koondumine siseturuga kokkusobivaks. Otsuse aluseks on nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (1) artikli 6 lõike 1 punkt b. Otsuse täielik tekst on kättesaadav ainult inglise keeles ning see avaldatakse pärast seda, kui sellest on kustutatud võimalikud ärisaladused. Otsus on kättesaadav:

| — | Euroopa konkurentsialasel veebisaidil (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Veebisaidil pakutakse mitut võimalust otsida konkreetset ühinemisotsust, sealhulgas ettevõtja nime, juhtumi numbri, kuupäeva ja tegevusalade registri kaudu, |
| --- | --- |

—

Euroopa konkurentsialasel veebisaidil (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Veebisaidil pakutakse mitut võimalust otsida konkreetset ühinemisotsust, sealhulgas ettevõtja nime, juhtumi numbri, kuupäeva ja tegevusalade registri kaudu,

| — | elektroonilises vormis EUR-Lexi veebisaidil (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=et) dokumendinumbri 32014M7386 all. EUR-Lex pakub on-line-juurdepääsu Euroopa õigusele. |
| --- | --- |

—

elektroonilises vormis EUR-Lexi veebisaidil (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=et) dokumendinumbri 32014M7386 all. EUR-Lex pakub on-line-juurdepääsu Euroopa õigusele.

---

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

---

IV Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/2

---

Euro vahetuskurss (1)

24. september 2014

(2014/C 334/03)

1 euro =

| | Valuuta | Kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | USA dollar | 1,2826 |
| JPY | Jaapani jeen | 139,50 |
| DKK | Taani kroon | 7,4436 |
| GBP | Inglise nael | 0,78230 |
| SEK | Rootsi kroon | 9,1825 |
| CHF | Šveitsi frank | 1,2077 |
| ISK | Islandi kroon | |
| NOK | Norra kroon | 8,1790 |
| BGN | Bulgaaria leev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Tšehhi kroon | 27,497 |
| HUF | Ungari forint | 310,22 |
| LTL | Leedu litt | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Poola zlott | 4,1695 |
| RON | Rumeenia leu | 4,4022 |
| TRY | Türgi liir | 2,8672 |
| AUD | Austraalia dollar | 1,4460 |
| CAD | Kanada dollar | 1,4207 |
| HKD | Hongkongi dollar | 9,9425 |
| NZD | Uus-Meremaa dollar | 1,5908 |
| SGD | Singapuri dollar | 1,6239 |
| KRW | Korea vonn | 1 332,05 |
| ZAR | Lõuna-Aafrika rand | 14,2735 |
| CNY | Hiina jüaan | 7,8716 |
| HRK | Horvaatia kuna | 7,6248 |
| IDR | Indoneesia ruupia | 15 339,21 |
| MYR | Malaisia ringit | 4,1560 |
| PHP | Filipiini peeso | 56,995 |
| RUB | Vene rubla | 48,9600 |
| THB | Tai baat | 41,337 |
| BRL | Brasiilia reaal | 3,0850 |
| MXN | Mehhiko peeso | 17,0409 |
| INR | India ruupia | 78,2386 |

Valuuta

Kurss

USD

USA dollar

1,2826

JPY

Jaapani jeen

139,50

DKK

Taani kroon

7,4436

GBP

Inglise nael

0,78230

SEK

Rootsi kroon

9,1825

CHF

Šveitsi frank

1,2077

ISK

Islandi kroon

NOK

Norra kroon

8,1790

BGN

Bulgaaria leev

1,9558

CZK

Tšehhi kroon

27,497

HUF

Ungari forint

310,22

LTL

Leedu litt

3,4528

PLN

Poola zlott

4,1695

RON

Rumeenia leu

4,4022

TRY

Türgi liir

2,8672

AUD

Austraalia dollar

1,4460

CAD

Kanada dollar

1,4207

HKD

Hongkongi dollar

9,9425

NZD

Uus-Meremaa dollar

1,5908

SGD

Singapuri dollar

1,6239

KRW

Korea vonn

1 332,05

ZAR

Lõuna-Aafrika rand

14,2735

CNY

Hiina jüaan

7,8716

HRK

Horvaatia kuna

7,6248

IDR

Indoneesia ruupia

15 339,21

MYR

Malaisia ringit

4,1560

PHP

Filipiini peeso

56,995

RUB

Vene rubla

48,9600

THB

Tai baat

41,337

BRL

Brasiilia reaal

3,0850

MXN

Mehhiko peeso

17,0409

INR

India ruupia

78,2386

---

(1)  Allikas: EKP avaldatud viitekurss.

---

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/3

---

Arvamus, mille konkurentsi piiravat tegevust ja turgu valitsevat seisundit käsitlev nõuandekomitee esitas 3. märtsi 2014. aasta koosolekul seoses otsuse eelnõuga, milles käsitletakse juhtumit AT.39952 – Elektribörsid

Raportöör: Madalmaad

(2014/C 334/04)

| 1. | Nõuandekomitee jagab kahtlusi, mida komisjon avaldas oma otsuse eelnõus, mille ta saatis nõuandekomiteele. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Nõuandekomitee jagab kahtlusi, mida komisjon avaldas oma otsuse eelnõus, mille ta saatis nõuandekomiteele.

| 2. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõus käsitletav konkurentsivastane käitumine kujutab endast ettevõtjate vahelist kokkulepet ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevust Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 tähenduses. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõus käsitletav konkurentsivastane käitumine kujutab endast ettevõtjate vahelist kokkulepet ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevust Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 tähenduses.

| 3. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub otsuse eelnõus esitatud komisjoni hinnanguga tootele ning kokkuleppe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevuse ulatusele. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub otsuse eelnõus esitatud komisjoni hinnanguga tootele ning kokkuleppe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevuse ulatusele.

| 4. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõus käsitletavad ettevõtjad on osalenud ühes ja pidevas Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 rikkumises. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõus käsitletavad ettevõtjad on osalenud ühes ja pidevas Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 rikkumises.

| 5. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et ettevõtjatevahelise kokkuleppe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevuse eesmärk oli piirata konkurentsi Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 tähenduses. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et ettevõtjatevahelise kokkuleppe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevuse eesmärk oli piirata konkurentsi Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 tähenduses.

| 6. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et kokkulepe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevus võisid ELi liikmesriikide vahelist kaubandust oluliselt mõjutada. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et kokkulepe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevus võisid ELi liikmesriikide vahelist kaubandust oluliselt mõjutada.

| 7. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoni hinnanguga rikkumise kestuse kohta. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoni hinnanguga rikkumise kestuse kohta.

| 8. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõu adressaatide suhtes tuleks kohaldada trahvi. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõu adressaatide suhtes tuleks kohaldada trahvi.

| 9. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga müügi summade suhtes. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga müügi summade suhtes.

| 10. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga trahvide põhisummade suhtes. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga trahvide põhisummade suhtes.

| 11. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et kõnealuse juhtumi puhul puuduvad raskendavad või kergendavad asjaolud. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et kõnealuse juhtumi puhul puuduvad raskendavad või kergendavad asjaolud.

| 12. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et kõnealuse juhtumi puhul ei suurendata ühtegi trahvi hoiatava mõju eesmärgil. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga, et kõnealuse juhtumi puhul ei suurendata ühtegi trahvi hoiatava mõju eesmärgil.

| 13. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga trahvide vähendamise suhtes 2008. aasta kokkuleppemenetluse läbiviimist käsitleva teatise alusel. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga trahvide vähendamise suhtes 2008. aasta kokkuleppemenetluse läbiviimist käsitleva teatise alusel.

| 14. | Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga trahvide lõppsummade suhtes. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Nõuandekomitee nõustub komisjoniga trahvide lõppsummade suhtes.

| 15. | Nõuandekomitee soovitab avaldada oma arvamuse Euroopa Liidu Teatajas. |
| --- | --- |

15.

Nõuandekomitee soovitab avaldada oma arvamuse Euroopa Liidu Teatajas.

---

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/4

---

Ärakuulamise eest vastutava ametniku lõpparuanne (1)

Elektribörsid

(AT.39952)

(2014/C 334/05)

Komisjon algatas 22. märtsil 2013 määruse (EÜ) nr 1/2003 (2) artikli 11 lõike 6 kohase menetluse hetketehinguid sõlmivate elektribörside EPEX Spot („EPEX”) ja Nord Pool Spot AS („NPS”) (edaspidi koos „osalised”) vastu.

Pärast arutelusid kokkuleppe sõlmimiseks ja nõusolekut kokkuleppe sõlmimiseks vastavalt määruse (EÜ) nr 773/2004 (3) artikli 10a lõikele 2 võttis komisjon 11. detsembril 2013 vastu vastuväited, mis olid adresseeritud ettevõtjatele EPEX ja NPS ning kus märgiti, et pooled olid osalenud ühes ja pidevas Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 rikkumises. Vastuväidetes väideti, et pooled olid sõlminud konkurentsist hoidumise kokkuleppe, mis sisaldas ka territooriumide jaotamist, et piirata nendevahelist konkurentsi seoses nende elektrienergia hetkehinnaga kauplemise teenustega.

Vastustes vastuväidetele kinnitasid nii EPEX kui ka NPS, et vastuväited kajastasid nende kokkuleppe sõlmimiseks antud nõusolekut.

Otsuse 2011/695/EL artikli 16 kohaselt uurisin, kas EPEXile ja NPSile adresseeritud otsuse eelnõus käsitletakse ainult vastuväiteid, mille kohta pooltel oli võimalus esitada oma seisukohad, ning see leidis minu järelduses kinnitust.

Eespool toodut arvesse võttes leian, et kõnealuse juhtumi puhul on osaliste menetlusõiguste tõhus kasutamine tagatud.

Brüssel, 3. märts 2014

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Vastavalt Euroopa Komisjoni presidendi 13. oktoobri 2011. aasta otsuse 2011/695/EL (ärakuulamise eest vastutava ametniku ülesannete ja pädevuse kohta teatavates konkurentsimenetlustes; (ELT L 275, 20.10.2011, lk 29), edaspidi „otsus 2011/695/EL”) artiklitele 16 ja 17.

1

(2)  Nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 1/2003, 16. detsember 2002, asutamislepingu artiklites 81 ja 82 sätestatud konkurentsieeskirjade rakendamise kohta (EÜT L 1, 4.1.2003, lk 1).

2

(3)  Komisjoni määrus (EÜ) nr 773/2004, 7. aprill 2004, mis käsitleb EÜ asutamislepingu artiklite 81 ja 82 kohaste menetluste teostamist komisjonis (ELT L 123, 27.4.2004, lk 18).

3

---

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/5

---

KOKKUVÕTE KOMISJONI OTSUSEST,

5. märts 2014,

Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artiklis 101 ja EMP lepingu artiklis 53 sätestatud menetluse kohta

(Juhtum AT.39952 – Elektribörsid)

(teatavaks tehtud numbri C(2014) 1204 (final) all)

(Ainult ingliskeelne tekst on autentne)

(2014/C 334/06)

Komisjon võttis 5. märtsil 2014 vastu otsuse Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 kohase menetluse kohta. Kooskõlas nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 1/2003
   (1)
  artikliga 30 avaldab komisjon poolte nimed ja otsuse põhilise sisu, sealhulgas kehtestatud sanktsioonid, võttes arvesse ettevõtjate õigustatud huvi kaitsta oma ärisaladusi.

1.   SISSEJUHATUS

| (1) | Otsuses käsitletakse aluslepingu artikli 101 ning EMP lepingu artikli 53 üht ja järjepidevat rikkumist seoses elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenustega. Elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenuseid osutavad elektribörsid, et hõlbustada elektrienergia hetketuru toodetega kauplemist. Teenused hõlmavad tegeliku kauplemise enda hõlbustamise teenuseid (st elektribörsi töö korraldamist), piiriüleste ühendusvõimsuste kaudse jaotamise juhtimist turgude liitmise teel ning kolmandatele isikutele osutatavaid teenuseid elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenuste arendamiseks ja käitamiseks. Otsus on adresseeritud ettevõtjatele EPEX Spot („EPEX”) ja Nord Pool Spot AS („NPS”) |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Otsuses käsitletakse aluslepingu artikli 101 ning EMP lepingu artikli 53 üht ja järjepidevat rikkumist seoses elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenustega. Elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenuseid osutavad elektribörsid, et hõlbustada elektrienergia hetketuru toodetega kauplemist. Teenused hõlmavad tegeliku kauplemise enda hõlbustamise teenuseid (st elektribörsi töö korraldamist), piiriüleste ühendusvõimsuste kaudse jaotamise juhtimist turgude liitmise teel ning kolmandatele isikutele osutatavaid teenuseid elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenuste arendamiseks ja käitamiseks. Otsus on adresseeritud ettevõtjatele EPEX Spot („EPEX”) ja Nord Pool Spot AS („NPS”)

2.   JUHTUMI KIRJELDUS

2.1.   Menetlus

| (2) | 2012. aasta veebruaris teostas komisjon etteteatamata kontrollimised ettevõtjate EPEX (Prantsusmaa) ja NPS (Soome, Norra ja Rootsi) ruumides. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

2012. aasta veebruaris teostas komisjon etteteatamata kontrollimised ettevõtjate EPEX (Prantsusmaa) ja NPS (Soome, Norra ja Rootsi) ruumides.

| (3) | Komisjon algatas kõnealuses asjas menetluse 22. märtsil 2013. Arutelud kokkuleppe sõlmimiseks toimusid vahemikus 3. juunist 2013 kuni 14. novembrini 2013. Seejärel esitasid EPEX ja NPS (üheskoos „pooled”) komisjonile ametliku taotluse sõlmida kokkulepe vastavalt määruse (EÜ) nr 773/2004 artikli 10a lõikele 2. 11. detsembril 2013 võttis komisjon vastu oma vastuväited. Mõlemad pooled kinnitasid, et vastuväidete sisu vastas nende esitatud tõenditele, ja lubasid jätkata kokkuleppemenetluses osalemist. Konkurentsi piiravat tegevust ja turgu valitsevat seisundit käsitlev nõuandekomitee esitas heakskiitva arvamuse 20. veebruaril 2014. Komisjon võttis otsuse vastu 5. märtsil 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Komisjon algatas kõnealuses asjas menetluse 22. märtsil 2013. Arutelud kokkuleppe sõlmimiseks toimusid vahemikus 3. juunist 2013 kuni 14. novembrini 2013. Seejärel esitasid EPEX ja NPS (üheskoos „pooled”) komisjonile ametliku taotluse sõlmida kokkulepe vastavalt määruse (EÜ) nr 773/2004 artikli 10a lõikele 2. 11. detsembril 2013 võttis komisjon vastu oma vastuväited. Mõlemad pooled kinnitasid, et vastuväidete sisu vastas nende esitatud tõenditele, ja lubasid jätkata kokkuleppemenetluses osalemist. Konkurentsi piiravat tegevust ja turgu valitsevat seisundit käsitlev nõuandekomitee esitas heakskiitva arvamuse 20. veebruaril 2014. Komisjon võttis otsuse vastu 5. märtsil 2014.

2.2.   Adressaadid ja rikkumise kestus

| (4) | Järgmised ettevõtjad on rikkunud aluslepingu artiklit 101 ja EMP lepingu artiklit 53, osaledes osundatud ajavahemikel konkurentsivastases tegevuses, mis mõjutas elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenuseid EMPs:






  a) | EPEX: 21. juunist 2011 kuni 7. veebruarini 2012; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(4)

Järgmised ettevõtjad on rikkunud aluslepingu artiklit 101 ja EMP lepingu artiklit 53, osaledes osundatud ajavahemikel konkurentsivastases tegevuses, mis mõjutas elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenuseid EMPs:

a)

EPEX: 21. juunist 2011 kuni 7. veebruarini 2012;

| b) | NPS: 21. juunist 2011 kuni 7. veebruarini 2012. |
| --- | --- |

b)

NPS: 21. juunist 2011 kuni 7. veebruarini 2012.

2.3.   Rikkumise kokkuvõte

| (5) | EPEX ja NPS sõlmisid konkurentsist hoidumise kokkuleppe, mis hõlmas kõiki nende elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenuseid EMPs ja sellest väljaspool. Eesmärk oli piirata nendevahelist konkurentsi, kaitsta oma traditsioonilisi mõjupiirkondi ning leppida kokku laienemises uutesse riikidesse, säilitades samas nendevahelise võimutasakaalu. Pooled leppisid üldiselt kokku konkureerimisest hoidumises. Kokkulepe sisaldas eelkõige territooriumide jaotust. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

EPEX ja NPS sõlmisid konkurentsist hoidumise kokkuleppe, mis hõlmas kõiki nende elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenuseid EMPs ja sellest väljaspool. Eesmärk oli piirata nendevahelist konkurentsi, kaitsta oma traditsioonilisi mõjupiirkondi ning leppida kokku laienemises uutesse riikidesse, säilitades samas nendevahelise võimutasakaalu. Pooled leppisid üldiselt kokku konkureerimisest hoidumises. Kokkulepe sisaldas eelkõige territooriumide jaotust.

| (6) | Pooli hõlmavate konkurentsivastaste kontaktide pidev kogum oli alanud hiljemalt 21. juunil 2011 ja lõppes 7. veebruaril 2012. Pooltevahelised kontaktid leidsid aset kohtumiste, telefoni- ja videokõnede ning e-kirjade kujul. Need hõlmasid mõlema poole juhtkonda. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Pooli hõlmavate konkurentsivastaste kontaktide pidev kogum oli alanud hiljemalt 21. juunil 2011 ja lõppes 7. veebruaril 2012. Pooltevahelised kontaktid leidsid aset kohtumiste, telefoni- ja videokõnede ning e-kirjade kujul. Need hõlmasid mõlema poole juhtkonda.

2.4.   Parandusmeetmed

| (7) | Trahvisumma on arvutatud vastavalt 2006. aasta trahve käsitlevatele suunistele (2). Otsusega trahvitakse nii ettevõtjat EPEX kui ka ettevõtjat NPS. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Trahvisumma on arvutatud vastavalt 2006. aasta trahve käsitlevatele suunistele (2). Otsusega trahvitakse nii ettevõtjat EPEX kui ka ettevõtjat NPS.

2.4.1.   Trahvi põhisumma

| (8) | Trahvi põhisummaks on määratud 16 % kummagi ettevõtja müügimahust EMP elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenuste turul. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Trahvi põhisummaks on määratud 16 % kummagi ettevõtja müügimahust EMP elektrienergia hetketurul kauplemise teenuste turul.

| (9) | Põhisumma korrutatakse rikkumises osalemise aastate arvuga, et täielikult arvestada iga ettevõtja rikkumises osalemise kestust. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Põhisumma korrutatakse rikkumises osalemise aastate arvuga, et täielikult arvestada iga ettevõtja rikkumises osalemise kestust.

2.4.2.   Põhisumma kohandamine

2.4.2.1.   Raskendavad ja kergendavad asjaolud

| (10) | Juhtumi puhul ei tuvastatud ei raskendavaid ega kergendavaid asjaolusid. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Juhtumi puhul ei tuvastatud ei raskendavaid ega kergendavaid asjaolusid.

2.4.2.2.   Trahvi suurendamine hoiatava mõju saavutamiseks

| (11) | Kõnealuse juhtumi puhul puudub vajadus trahvi piisava hoiatava mõju saavutamiseks suurendada. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Kõnealuse juhtumi puhul puudub vajadus trahvi piisava hoiatava mõju saavutamiseks suurendada.

2.4.3.   10 % käibepiiri kohaldamine

| (12) | Käesoleval juhul (viimaste kättesaadavate andmete põhjal) ületab kummagi poole trahv 10 % tema 2012. aasta kogukäibest. Seega kujuneb kummagi poole trahvi ülemmääraks 10 % tema vastavast kogukäibest. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Käesoleval juhul (viimaste kättesaadavate andmete põhjal) ületab kummagi poole trahv 10 % tema 2012. aasta kogukäibest. Seega kujuneb kummagi poole trahvi ülemmääraks 10 % tema vastavast kogukäibest.

2.4.4.   Arveldamine

| (13) | Ettevõtjatele EPEX ja NPS määratud trahve vähendatakse kokkuleppemenetlust käsitleva teatise (3) kohaldamise tulemusena 10 % võrra. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Ettevõtjatele EPEX ja NPS määratud trahve vähendatakse kokkuleppemenetlust käsitleva teatise (3) kohaldamise tulemusena 10 % võrra.

3.   OTSUSEGA MÄÄRATUD TRAHVID

| (14) | Eespool kirjeldatud rikkumise eest on määratud järgmised trahvid:






  a) | EPEX Spot: 3 651 000 eurot, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(14)

Eespool kirjeldatud rikkumise eest on määratud järgmised trahvid:

a)

EPEX Spot: 3 651 000 eurot,

| b) | Nord Pool Spot AS: 2 328 000 eurot. |
| --- | --- |

b)

Nord Pool Spot AS: 2 328 000 eurot.

---

(1)  EÜT L 1, 4.1.2003, lk 1.

(2)  ELT C 210, 1.9.2006, lk 2.

(3)  ELT C 167, 2.7.2008, lk 1.

---

Euroopa Kontrollikoda

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/7

---

Eriaruanne nr 13/2014 „Haitile pärast maavärinat antud ELi rehabilitatsiooniabi”

(2014/C 334/07)

Euroopa Kontrollikoda annab teada, et äsja avaldati kontrollikoja eriaruanne nr 13/2014 „Haitile pärast maavärinat antud ELi rehabilitatsiooniabi”.

Aruanne on lugemiseks ja allalaadimiseks kättesaadav Euroopa Kontrollikoja veebilehel http://eca.europa.eu

Aruande tasuta eksemplari saamiseks pöörduge kontrollikoja poole aadressil:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel +352 4398-1 |
| E-post: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel +352 4398-1

E-post: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

või täitke elektrooniline tellimus EU Bookshopi veebilehel.

---

EUROOPA MAJANDUSPIIRKONDA KÄSITLEV TEAVE

Euroopa Komisjon

| 25.9.2014 | ET EN | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET EN

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/8

---

Kutse märkuste esitamiseks vastavalt järelevalveameti ja kohtu asutamise kohta sõlmitud EFTA riikide lepingu protokolli nr 3 I osa artikli 1 lõikele 2 äriühingule Innovasjon Norgele antud väidetava abi kohta seoses tema tegevusega veebitaristu ja sellega seotud teenuste turul ning piirkondlikele turismiametitele ja sihtkohtade turismiasutustele antud võimaliku abi kohta

(2014/C 334/08)

Vastavalt järelevalveameti ja kohtu asutamise kohta sõlmitud EFTA riikide lepingu protokolli nr 3 (edaspidi „protokoll nr 3”) I osa artikli 1 lõikele 2 algatas EFTA järelevalveamet menetluse 16. juuli 2014. aasta otsusega nr 300/14/COL, mis on esitatud käesolevale kokkuvõttele järgnevatel lehekülgedel autentses keeles. Norra ametiasutustele on sellest teatamiseks saadetud otsuse koopia.

Käesoleva teatisega palub EFTA järelevalveamet (edaspidi „järelevalveamet”) EFTA riikidel, ELi liikmesriikidel ja huvitatud isikutel saata märkused kõnealuse meetme kohta ühe kuu jooksul alates käesoleva teatise avaldamisest aadressil:

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

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Registry

Rue Belliard / Belliardstraat 35

1040 Bruxelles/Brussels

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Märkused edastatakse Norra ametiasutustele. Märkused esitanud huvitatud isiku andmete konfidentsiaalset käsitlemist võib nõuda kirjalikult, esitades nõude põhjendused.

KOKKUVÕTE

Menetlus

TellUs IT AS, kes on nüüdseks ühinenud ettevõttega New Mind („New Mind | tellUs”, edaspidi „kaebuse esitaja”), esitas 5. juuli 2013. aasta kirjas järelevalveametile kaebuse Innovasjon Norge AS (edaspidi „IN”) vastu, milles ta väitis, et IN saab riigiabi äritegevuseks veebitaristu ja sellega seotud teenuste turul turismivaldkonnas.

Järelevalveamet pidas Norra ametiasutuste ja kaebuse esitajaga kirjavahetust ja on kohtunud mõlema poolega.

Asjaolud

IN on riigi omandis olev piiratud vastutusega äriühing, mille lõi 2003. aastal Norra valitsus vastava seaduse („Lov om Innovasjon Norge” (1)) alusel. Äriühing loodi eesmärgiga toetada uuenduslikkust ettevõtluses ja arengut maapiirkondades ning suurendada Norra äriühingute konkurentsivõimet. Norra kui turismisihtkoha maine parandamine on samuti INi ülesannete hulgas.

IN eesmärk on edendada turismitööstuse eri segmentide kasumlikkust riiklikul tasandil. Nii piirkondlikud turismiametid kui ka sihtkohtade turismiasutused on piirkondliku ja kohaliku tasandi kesksed ettevõtjad. Nende aktsiad kuuluvad maakondlikele või kohalikele omavalitsustele ning asjaomases geograafilises piirkonnas turismivaldkonnas tegutsevatele eraettevõtetele.

Norra riigiasutused otsustasid hiljuti võtta vastu uue turismistrateegia, et tõhustada turismivaldkonnale antavat avaliku sektori toetust, vähendada selles valdkonnas tegutsejate arvu ja parandada nende vahel koordineerimist. Neid eesmärke silmas pidades esitasid riigiasutused uue turismivaldkonna struktuuri, millega muu hulgas püütakse vähendada piirkondlike turismiametite ja sihtkohtade turismiasutuste arvu ning koondada INi ja tema veebisaidi visitnorway.com abil Norra turismivaldkonna jõupingutused.

INile saadetud 2013. aasta eelarvet käsitlevas kirjas (2) on INi ülesanded turismivaldkonnas määratud järgmiselt: „Innovasjon Norge ülesanne on levitada Norra reisikogemusi veebisaidi visitnorway.com kaudu ja aidata turismitööstuses tegutsevatel ettevõtjatel lisada oma tooteid saidiga visitnorway.com ühendatud riiklikku broneerimissüsteemi.” 2013. aasta eelarvet käsitlevas kirjas on selgitatud: „Innovasjon Norge ei paku kasutajale tasulisi teenuseid, mis otseselt või kaudselt konkureeriksid eraettevõtjate teenustega. Sel määral, mil Innovasjon Norge pakub teenuseid, mida oleks saanud pakkuda eraettevõte, peab Innovasjon Norge küsitav hind kajastama tegelikke tekkinud kulusid, sealhulgas põhikulusid.”

Menetluse praeguses etapis saab järelevalveamet aru, et alates 2013. aastast on Norra riigiasutused teinud INile ülesandeks aktiivselt edendada turismi saidi visitnorway.com kaudu, muutes selle platvormi turismivaldkonna struktuuri põhielemendiks. Lisaks on INil esmakordselt lubatud turismivaldkonnas tegeleda majandustegevusega.

Turismi edendamisele eelnev turg on veebitaristu ja sellega seotud teenuste pakkumine. Need teenused võimaldavad kliendil esitada ja korrapäraselt ajakohastada teavet turismikohtade, hotellide, restoranide ja sündmuste kohta samal ajal nii oma veebilehel kui ka teistes väliskanalites, nagu näiteks visitnorway.com, Google Maps, turismiinfopunktid, mobiiliportaalid ning samuti trükimeedia.

visitnorway.com käitamiseks vaja minevate IT-teenuste jaoks oli INil leping ettevõttega New Mind | tellUs. IN on välja töötanud ka omaenda IT-teenused. IN pakub neid teenuseid (st veebitaristut ja sellega seotud teenuseid) piirkondlikele turismiametitele ja sihtkohtade turismiasutustele visitnorway.com raames pakutavate teenuste osana. INi veebitaristu ja sellega seotud teenuseid ei pakuta tavaturul, vaid üksnes visitnorway.com saiti kasutavatele piirkondlikele turismiametitele ja sihtkohtade turismiasutustele.

Piirkondlikud turismiametid ja sihtkohtade turismiasutused, kes sõlmivad saidi visitnorway.com kasutuslepingu, lõpetavad oma saidi kasutamise ja seetõttu lõpetavad teenustelepingud eraoperaatoritega (näiteks kaebuse esitajaga). Kaebuse esitaja sõnul on oma veebisaidi kasutamise ja teenustelepingute lõpetamine tingimus, mille Innovasjon Norge on piirkondlikele turismiametitele ja sihtkohtade turismiasutustele seadnud. Kaebuse esitaja peab seda väidetavat kohustust seotud tingimuseks, mis on vastuolus konkurentsieeskirjadega.

Väidetavad riigiabi meetmed

Käesolevas otsuses käsitletavad abimeetmed on järgmised: i) INi veebitaristu ja sellega seotud teenuste väidetav ristsubsideerimine vahenditest, mis on ette nähtud mitteäriliseks tegevuseks; ii) väidetav saamata jäänud tulu INi tegevuse, sealhulgas taristu ja sellega seotud teenused, mittetulundusliku suunitluse tõttu; iii) väidetav abi, mida IN andis piirkondlikele turismiametitele ja sihtkohtade turismiasutustele turuhindadest odavama hinna näol.

Meetme hindamine

Riigiabi olemasolu

EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 sõnastus on järgmine: „Kui käesolevas lepingus ei ole sätestatud teisiti, on igasugune EÜ liikmesriikide või EFTA riikide poolt või riigi ressurssidest ükskõik missugusel kujul antav abi, mis moonutab või ähvardab moonutada konkurentsi, soodustades teatud ettevõtjaid või teatud kaupade tootmist, käesoleva lepinguga kokkusobimatu niivõrd, kuivõrd see mõjutab lepinguosalistevahelist kaubandust.”

Järelevalveameti esialgne seisukoht, mis põhineb 2013. aasta eelarvet käsitleval kirjal, on, et teenuseid tasu eest pakkudes sisenes IN uuele turule, kus ta konkureerib eraettevõtetega. Nende teenuste pakkumine ei kuulu INi ülesannete hulka edendada Norras ettevõtlust. Samamoodi on järelevalveameti esialgne seisukoht, et veebitaristu ja sellega seotud teenuste pakkumine tähendab majandusteenuste pakkumist turul. Seetõttu näib, et selliste spetsiifiliste teenuste puhul tuleks INi pidada ettevõtjaks, kelle suhtes kohaldatakse riigiabi eeskirju.

Järelevalveametile praegu teada olevate andmete põhjal ei ole selge, kas kõnealused meetmed kujutavad endast riigiabi.

Menetluse praeguses etapis on järelevalveametil kahtlused, kas raamatupidamisarvestuste eristamine INis võimaldab tal eristada majandusliku ja mittemajandusliku tegevusega seotud kulusid ja tulusid iga projekti puhul, eelkõige seoses visitnorway.com’i projektiga. Järelevalveamet tuletab meelde, et kui üksus tegeleb nii ärilise kui ka mitteärilise tegevusega, peab olema kehtestatud kuluarvestussüsteem, millega tagatakse, et ärilist tegevust ei subsideerita mittetulundusliku tegevuse jaoks eraldatud riigi ressurssidest.

Lisaks märgib järelevalveamet, et iga ettevõtte omanik või investor soovib tavaliselt oma investeeringult tulu teenida. Olemasoleva teabe põhjal ei ole siiski selge, kas IN saab sellist tulu majandustegevusest, mis tal tekib seoses veebitaristu ja sellega seotud teenuste pakkumisega.

Kui INi hinnapoliitika ei taga piisavat kapitalitasuvust, võttes arvesse kõiki otseseid ja kaudseid kulusid, võivad piirkondlikud turismiametid ja sihtkohtade turismiasutused olla samuti riigiabi saajad, kuna nemad saavad teenuseid tegelikust väiksemate kuludega.

Uus abi

Norra riigiasutused väidavad, et kui kõnealuseid meetmeid pidada riigiabiks, siis kujutaks need endast olemasolevat abi vastavalt järelevalve- ja kohtulepingu protokolli nr 3 II osa artikli 1 punkti b alapunkti i või artikli 1 punkti b alapunktile v. Menetluse selles etapis on järelevalveameti esialgne seisukoht, et kui meetmeid käsitatakse riigiabina, tuleks need liigitada ebaseaduslikuks uueks abiks.

Seoses protokolli nr 3 II osa artikli 1 punkti b alapunktiga i on järelevalveameti seisukoht, et INi sisenemine uuele turule (st veebitaristu ja sellega seotud teenused), kus eraettevõtjad juba tegutsevad, ei kuulu ülesannete hulka, mis Norra valitsus INile andis. Samuti näib, et selle rahastamissüsteem on erinev. INi edendamistegevust rahastatakse riigi vahenditest, kuid 2013. aasta eelarvet käsitlevas kirjas selgitatakse, et majandusteenuste pakkumist tuleb rahastada teenuste saajate makstud raha eest. Sellest tulenevalt on järelevalveameti esialgne seisukoht, et igasugust abi, mida INile antakse, kui ta pakub selliseid teenuseid, tuleks liigitada uueks abiks.

Järelevalveamet ei leia, et praegu võiks meedet pidada olemasolevaks abiks vastavalt protokolli nr 3 II osa artikli 1 punkti b alapunktile v.

Kokkusobivus siseturuga

Norra riigiasutused väitsid, et kui kõnealuseid meetmeid peetakse olemasolevaks abiks, saaks neid EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 3 punkti c kohaselt pidada turismivaldkonnale antavaks abiks. Norra riigiasutused ei ole siiski esitanud oma seisukoha toetuseks piisavalt teavet.

Järelevalveamet kahtleb, kas abimeetmed vastavad tegelikule turutõrkele ja kas need on proportsionaalsed.

Seoses eespool mainitud väidetava seotud tingimusega on järelevalveameti esialgne seisukoht, et kui see eksisteerib ja selle on kehtestanud IN, võib see olla vastuolus EMP lepingu artikliga 53 või 54, ning seetõttu ei saaks Matra kohtuasjale (3) tuginedes pidada meetmeid siseturuga kokkusobivaks.

Kokkuvõte

Eeltoodud kaalutluste põhjal on järelevalveametil kahtlused, kas on võimalik välistada, et eespool mainitud meetmed on riigiabi EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõike 1 tähenduses. Järelevalveameti seisukoht menetluse praeguses etapis on, et kui meetmeid peetakse riigiabiks, kujutaks see endast uut abi. Järelevalveametil on kahtlused, kas meetmed on kooskõlas EMP lepingu artikli 61 lõikega 3.

Eeltoodut silmas pidades on järelevalveamet otsustanud alustada kooskõlas protokolli nr 3 I osa artikli 1 lõikega 2 ametlikku uurimismenetlust INile antud väidetava abi kohta seoses tema tegevusega veebitaristu ja sellega seotud teenuste turul ning samuti seoses võimaliku abiga piirkondlikele turismiametitele ja sihtkohtade turismiasutustele.

Huvitatud isikuid kutsutakse üles esitama oma märkused ühe kuu jooksul alates käesoleva teatise avaldamisest Euroopa Liidu Teatajas.

---

(1)  LOV-2003-12–19-130 leiate aadressil http://www.innovasjonnorge.no/no/om-oss/lov-om-innovasjon-norge/

(2)  Dokumendi leiate veebilehel

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/NHD/Vedlegg/Brev/2013_oppdragsbrev_innovasjonnorge.pdf#search=OPPDRAGSBREV®j_oss=1

(3)  Kohtuasi C-225/91: Matra vs. komisjon (EKL 1993, lk I-3203, punkt 41). Selle kohtuasja põhjal ei saa EMP lepingu teiste sätetega vastuolus olevaid tingimusi sisaldavat riigiabi heaks kiita kui siseturuga kokkusobivat abi.

---

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 300/14/COL

of 16 July 2014

to initiate the formal investigation into the alleged aid granted to Innovation Norway for its activities within the market of web infrastructure and related services, as well as possible aid in favour of the Regional Tourist Boards and the Destination Management Organisations

(Norway)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (‘THE AUTHORITY’),

HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), in particular to Articles 61 thereof,

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(3) of Part I and Articles 4(4) and 6 of Part II,

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

| (1) | By letter dated 5 July 2013 (Event No 678002 and Annexes at Events No 678003-678007, 678010-678013 and 678017), TellUs IT AS (now merged with New Mind (1), and henceforth referred to as ‘New Mind | tellUs’ or ‘the Complainant’), made a complaint to the Authority in which it alleged that Innovasjon Norge AS (‘Innovation Norway’ or ‘IN’) receives state aid for its commercial activities in the web infrastructure and related services market, within the tourism sector. The complaint was received and registered by the Authority on 8 July 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By letter dated 5 July 2013 (Event No 678002 and Annexes at Events No 678003-678007, 678010-678013 and 678017), TellUs IT AS (now merged with New Mind (1), and henceforth referred to as ‘New Mind | tellUs’ or ‘the Complainant’), made a complaint to the Authority in which it alleged that Innovasjon Norge AS (‘Innovation Norway’ or ‘IN’) receives state aid for its commercial activities in the web infrastructure and related services market, within the tourism sector. The complaint was received and registered by the Authority on 8 July 2013.

| (2) | By a letter dated 27 August 2013 (Event No 679974), the Authority requested the Norwegian authorities to provide their comments on the alleged state aid. On 24 and 25 September 2013, the Authority attended two meetings in Oslo. On 24 September 2013, the Authority received a presentation from New Mind | tellUs (Event No 684995). On 25 September 2013, the Authority discussed the complaint with the Norwegian authorities. At this meeting, IN (on behalf of the Norwegian authorities) provided the Authority with a presentation on the case (Event No 684996). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By a letter dated 27 August 2013 (Event No 679974), the Authority requested the Norwegian authorities to provide their comments on the alleged state aid. On 24 and 25 September 2013, the Authority attended two meetings in Oslo. On 24 September 2013, the Authority received a presentation from New Mind | tellUs (Event No 684995). On 25 September 2013, the Authority discussed the complaint with the Norwegian authorities. At this meeting, IN (on behalf of the Norwegian authorities) provided the Authority with a presentation on the case (Event No 684996).

| (3) | By a letter dated 4 October 2013 (Event No 685187), the Authority sent an information request to the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian authorities replied to this request by forwarding two letters from IN, dated 28 October 2013 (Events No 688213 and 688215, together with Annexes at Events No 688214 and 688216-25). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

By a letter dated 4 October 2013 (Event No 685187), the Authority sent an information request to the Norwegian authorities. The Norwegian authorities replied to this request by forwarding two letters from IN, dated 28 October 2013 (Events No 688213 and 688215, together with Annexes at Events No 688214 and 688216-25).

| (4) | By an e-mail dated 15 November 2013 (Event No 690346), the Complainant commented on the Norwegian authorities' replies. IN submitted its observations on the Complainant's comments by way of a letter dated 20 December 2012, which was forwarded by the Norwegian authorities (Event No 694258). |
| --- | --- |

(4)

By an e-mail dated 15 November 2013 (Event No 690346), the Complainant commented on the Norwegian authorities' replies. IN submitted its observations on the Complainant's comments by way of a letter dated 20 December 2012, which was forwarded by the Norwegian authorities (Event No 694258).

| (5) | By an e-mail dated 10 January 2014 (Event No 695364), the Norwegian authorities provided the Authority with additional information. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

By an e-mail dated 10 January 2014 (Event No 695364), the Norwegian authorities provided the Authority with additional information.

| (6) | By emails dated 17 January 2013 and 3 March 2013 (Events No 696111 and 702175), New Mind | tellUs provided the Authority with additional information. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

By emails dated 17 January 2013 and 3 March 2013 (Events No 696111 and 702175), New Mind | tellUs provided the Authority with additional information.

2.   Background

2.1.   The Complainant

| (7) | The Complainant is an IT company which delivers online distribution solutions for the tourism industry. The company is active in several EEA countries and has a large portfolio of clients including several destination organisations (2) and travel agencies. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The Complainant is an IT company which delivers online distribution solutions for the tourism industry. The company is active in several EEA countries and has a large portfolio of clients including several destination organisations (2) and travel agencies.

2.2.   Innovation Norway (IN)

| (8) | IN is a limited liability state-owned company, which was established in 2003 by the Norwegian Government through the Act on Innovation Norway (‘Lov om Innovasjon Norge’ (3), hereafter ‘Act on IN’). The Norwegian Ministry of Industry and Trade owns 51 % of IN's shares, and the Norwegian counties own the remaining 49 % (4). IN enjoys a general exemption from Norwegian corporate income tax, pursuant to Section 2-30(1)(e)(5) of the Norwegian Tax Act of 1999 (5). |
| --- | --- |

(8)

IN is a limited liability state-owned company, which was established in 2003 by the Norwegian Government through the Act on Innovation Norway (‘Lov om Innovasjon Norge’ (3), hereafter ‘Act on IN’). The Norwegian Ministry of Industry and Trade owns 51 % of IN's shares, and the Norwegian counties own the remaining 49 % (4). IN enjoys a general exemption from Norwegian corporate income tax, pursuant to Section 2-30(1)(e)(5) of the Norwegian Tax Act of 1999 (5).

| (9) | The company was established with the purpose of contributing to business innovation, the development of rural areas and increasing the competitiveness of Norwegian companies. Section 1 of the Act on IN explicitly entrusts IN with the task ‘to promote corporate and social-economic development throughout the country, and trigger different regions industrial opportunities to contribute to innovation, internationalisation and promotion’ (6). IN manages and implements several Norwegian state aid schemes. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The company was established with the purpose of contributing to business innovation, the development of rural areas and increasing the competitiveness of Norwegian companies. Section 1 of the Act on IN explicitly entrusts IN with the task ‘to promote corporate and social-economic development throughout the country, and trigger different regions industrial opportunities to contribute to innovation, internationalisation and promotion’ (6). IN manages and implements several Norwegian state aid schemes.

| (10) | The tasks currently carried out by IN were previously accomplished by its four predecessor organisations: the Norwegian Industrial and Regional Development Fund (‘SND’), the Government Consultative Office for Inventors (‘SVO’), the Norwegian Tourist Council (‘NTC’) and the Norwegian Export Council (‘NEC’) (7). In 2004, those four entities were discontinued and merged into IN. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The tasks currently carried out by IN were previously accomplished by its four predecessor organisations: the Norwegian Industrial and Regional Development Fund (‘SND’), the Government Consultative Office for Inventors (‘SVO’), the Norwegian Tourist Council (‘NTC’) and the Norwegian Export Council (‘NEC’) (7). In 2004, those four entities were discontinued and merged into IN.

2.3.   The Norwegian tourism structure and the new tourism strategy

| (11) | Several different entities are involved in the promotion of Norway as a tourism destination at national, regional and local level (8). |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Several different entities are involved in the promotion of Norway as a tourism destination at national, regional and local level (8).

| (12) | IN is intended to promote increased profitability within various segments of the tourism industry at a national level, continuing the tasks of its predecessors (9). The Norwegian Government has been an active stakeholder within the tourism sector since 1903 (10). |
| --- | --- |

(12)

IN is intended to promote increased profitability within various segments of the tourism industry at a national level, continuing the tasks of its predecessors (9). The Norwegian Government has been an active stakeholder within the tourism sector since 1903 (10).

| (13) | At the regional and local levels, the tourism promotion is ensured by the Regional Tourist Boards (in Norwegian ‘Regionalt selskap’, here referred to as ‘RTBs’) and the Destination Management Organisations (in Norwegian ‘Destinasjonsselskap’, here referred to as ‘DMOs’) (11). |
| --- | --- |

(13)

At the regional and local levels, the tourism promotion is ensured by the Regional Tourist Boards (in Norwegian ‘Regionalt selskap’, here referred to as ‘RTBs’) and the Destination Management Organisations (in Norwegian ‘Destinasjonsselskap’, here referred to as ‘DMOs’) (11).

| (14) | The RTBs are companies that serve the tourist industry in a regionally-defined geographical area (12). Those entities normally have public and private shareholders. According to information provided by the Norwegian authorities, the RTBs' tasks are international marketing; tourist information; regional marketing activities and knowledge; regional coordination of activities, and regional public relations activities. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The RTBs are companies that serve the tourist industry in a regionally-defined geographical area (12). Those entities normally have public and private shareholders. According to information provided by the Norwegian authorities, the RTBs' tasks are international marketing; tourist information; regional marketing activities and knowledge; regional coordination of activities, and regional public relations activities.

| (15) | The DMOs are companies that serve a defined number of destinations, products, attractions and tourist industry within a geographic region served by an RTB (13). DMOs are normally local and their structure varies. Their shareholders are normally public bodies and private companies. Their tasks under the national tourism strategy are product development; booking and sales; tourist information; destination development; competence development; destination market knowledge, and destination public relations activities. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The DMOs are companies that serve a defined number of destinations, products, attractions and tourist industry within a geographic region served by an RTB (13). DMOs are normally local and their structure varies. Their shareholders are normally public bodies and private companies. Their tasks under the national tourism strategy are product development; booking and sales; tourist information; destination development; competence development; destination market knowledge, and destination public relations activities.

| (16) | However, at the beginning of the 2010s, the Norwegian Government decided to adopt a new tourism strategy aimed at improving its national tourism structure. The objectives of the new strategy are to render the public support to the sector more efficient, reduce the number of actors and ensure more coordination among them (14). Moreover, the Norwegian authorities have stated that they aim to avoid a diversification of websites dealing with tourism in Norway, with different layouts, booking engines, languages and so on, which are funded by various Government bodies, counties or municipalities. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

However, at the beginning of the 2010s, the Norwegian Government decided to adopt a new tourism strategy aimed at improving its national tourism structure. The objectives of the new strategy are to render the public support to the sector more efficient, reduce the number of actors and ensure more coordination among them (14). Moreover, the Norwegian authorities have stated that they aim to avoid a diversification of websites dealing with tourism in Norway, with different layouts, booking engines, languages and so on, which are funded by various Government bodies, counties or municipalities.

| (17) | With these objectives in mind, the Norwegian authorities proposed a new tourism structure aiming, inter alia, to reduce the number of RTBs and DMOs and to consolidate Norway's tourism promotion efforts around IN and its webpage visitnorway.com. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

With these objectives in mind, the Norwegian authorities proposed a new tourism structure aiming, inter alia, to reduce the number of RTBs and DMOs and to consolidate Norway's tourism promotion efforts around IN and its webpage visitnorway.com.

| (18) | The Authority understands that the Norwegian authorities intend to change the existing structure of the tourism industry, by proposing a new one based, inter alia, on the promotion and development of the platform visitnorway.com, which is currently managed by IN. This implies changes in the way IN acts in the market and changes in the structure of visitnorway.com
   (15). |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The Authority understands that the Norwegian authorities intend to change the existing structure of the tourism industry, by proposing a new one based, inter alia, on the promotion and development of the platform visitnorway.com, which is currently managed by IN. This implies changes in the way IN acts in the market and changes in the structure of visitnorway.com
   (15).

| (19) | As part of the Norwegian authorities' new tourism strategy, on 1 February 2013, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries issued its 2013 State Budget for IN (hereafter ‘the 2013 Budget letter’) (16). The 2013 Budget letter entrusted IN with the mandate of ‘ensuring a good distribution of Norwegian travel experiences through visitnorway.com, and help to make the players in the tourist industry competent to enter their products into the national booking solution –linked to visitnorway.com
  ’ (17). |
| --- | --- |

(19)

As part of the Norwegian authorities' new tourism strategy, on 1 February 2013, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries issued its 2013 State Budget for IN (hereafter ‘the 2013 Budget letter’) (16). The 2013 Budget letter entrusted IN with the mandate of ‘ensuring a good distribution of Norwegian travel experiences through visitnorway.com, and help to make the players in the tourist industry competent to enter their products into the national booking solution –linked to visitnorway.com
  ’ (17).

| (20) | The 2013 Budget letter also stated that: ‘Innovation Norway shall not offer user-paid services that are in direct or indirect competition with private actors. To the extent that Innovation Norway offers services that could have been carried out by a private provider, the price that Innovation Norway asks must reflect the real accrued cost, including what is covered by the basic costs’
   (18). |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The 2013 Budget letter also stated that: ‘Innovation Norway shall not offer user-paid services that are in direct or indirect competition with private actors. To the extent that Innovation Norway offers services that could have been carried out by a private provider, the price that Innovation Norway asks must reflect the real accrued cost, including what is covered by the basic costs’
   (18).

2.4.   The market for web infrastructure and related services

| (21) | The present case relates to IN's activities in the market for web infrastructure and related services. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

The present case relates to IN's activities in the market for web infrastructure and related services.

| (22) | Web infrastructure and related services in the tourism sector are provided through ‘Destination Management Systems’ (‘DMS’), which are defined as ‘[s]ystems that consolidate and distribute a comprehensive range of tourism products through a variety of channels and platforms, generally catering for a specific region, and supporting the activities of a destination management organisation within that region. DMS attempt to utilise a customer centric approach in order to manage and market the destination as a holistic entity, typically providing strong destination related information, real-time reservations, destination management tools and paying particular attention to supporting small and independent tourism suppliers’
   (19). |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Web infrastructure and related services in the tourism sector are provided through ‘Destination Management Systems’ (‘DMS’), which are defined as ‘[s]ystems that consolidate and distribute a comprehensive range of tourism products through a variety of channels and platforms, generally catering for a specific region, and supporting the activities of a destination management organisation within that region. DMS attempt to utilise a customer centric approach in order to manage and market the destination as a holistic entity, typically providing strong destination related information, real-time reservations, destination management tools and paying particular attention to supporting small and independent tourism suppliers’
   (19).

| (23) | Through its DMS, an IT company such as the Complainant will offer a database service where its clients (destination companies) can submit and regularly update information about tourist sites, hotels, restaurants, events and similar simultaneously on their own webpage and on other external channels such as visitnorway.com, Google Maps, tourist information kiosks, mobile portals, and in printed newspapers. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Through its DMS, an IT company such as the Complainant will offer a database service where its clients (destination companies) can submit and regularly update information about tourist sites, hotels, restaurants, events and similar simultaneously on their own webpage and on other external channels such as visitnorway.com, Google Maps, tourist information kiosks, mobile portals, and in printed newspapers.

| (24) | These services allow clients to insert input data into the database and this information is then automatically disseminated on a number of different websites (including visitnorway.com). The information is then used by visitors for booking or informational purposes. These services are defined as web infrastructure and related services. They include different functionalities: (i) the ‘destinator’ functionality (the creation of points of interest or information flash to be published on the website); (ii) the ‘distribution’ functionality (the information stored in a database is distributed to many different channels and platforms) or (iii) the ‘search’ functionality (used on every website to search and present tourism products). |
| --- | --- |

(24)

These services allow clients to insert input data into the database and this information is then automatically disseminated on a number of different websites (including visitnorway.com). The information is then used by visitors for booking or informational purposes. These services are defined as web infrastructure and related services. They include different functionalities: (i) the ‘destinator’ functionality (the creation of points of interest or information flash to be published on the website); (ii) the ‘distribution’ functionality (the information stored in a database is distributed to many different channels and platforms) or (iii) the ‘search’ functionality (used on every website to search and present tourism products).

| (25) | According to the Norwegian authorities (20), the Complainant was alone on the Norwegian market offering those services for the last 17 years. However, in 2012-2013, a new international competitor, Citybreak, entered the Norwegian market offering the ‘destinator’ functionality, i.e. allowing tourism providers to create their points of interest. A graphic illustration of the functioning of these services is included in paragraph (31) below. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

According to the Norwegian authorities (20), the Complainant was alone on the Norwegian market offering those services for the last 17 years. However, in 2012-2013, a new international competitor, Citybreak, entered the Norwegian market offering the ‘destinator’ functionality, i.e. allowing tourism providers to create their points of interest. A graphic illustration of the functioning of these services is included in paragraph (31) below.

2.5.   IN's entrance into the market for web infrastructure services and related services

| (26) | The promotion of Norway as a tourism destination is one of IN's tasks. IN has developed and managed the platform visitnorway.com in order to fulfil its promotion task. Before 2013, IN only offered online marketing and promotion services on its visitnorway.com website. These services included web-advertising to the RTBs and the DMOs for an annual subscription fee, which represented a certain percentage of their turnover. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

The promotion of Norway as a tourism destination is one of IN's tasks. IN has developed and managed the platform visitnorway.com in order to fulfil its promotion task. Before 2013, IN only offered online marketing and promotion services on its visitnorway.com website. These services included web-advertising to the RTBs and the DMOs for an annual subscription fee, which represented a certain percentage of their turnover.

| (27) | However, IN has developed its own system and functionalities (21) and it is offering them to the RTBs and the DMOs which have migrated their websites to visitnorway.com. These RTBs and DMOs were previously clients of the Complainant. The Authority understands, at this stage of the procedure, that the strategy of offering these services to the RTBs and DMOs is closely linked to the decision of the Norwegian authorities to promote visitnorway.com by making it the main internet platform for tourism promotion in the country (see paragraphs (16) to (18), above). |
| --- | --- |

(27)

However, IN has developed its own system and functionalities (21) and it is offering them to the RTBs and the DMOs which have migrated their websites to visitnorway.com. These RTBs and DMOs were previously clients of the Complainant. The Authority understands, at this stage of the procedure, that the strategy of offering these services to the RTBs and DMOs is closely linked to the decision of the Norwegian authorities to promote visitnorway.com by making it the main internet platform for tourism promotion in the country (see paragraphs (16) to (18), above).

| (28) | In order to enter this new market, IN launched ‘Pilot ALFA’ between 2012-2013 – running two pilot projects called VisitSørlandet and VisitTrondheim. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

In order to enter this new market, IN launched ‘Pilot ALFA’ between 2012-2013 – running two pilot projects called VisitSørlandet and VisitTrondheim.

| (29) | Once Visit Sørlandet AS (an RTB), and Visit Trondheim AS (a DMO) were selected to participate in Pilot ALFA, they signed a partnership agreement with IN, in order to use visitnorway.com templates, functionalities and content. As a consequence of the agreement, both companies redirected their URL (22) to visitnorway.com and discontinued their own homepages. The information available on those pages was migrated to visitnorway.com. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

Once Visit Sørlandet AS (an RTB), and Visit Trondheim AS (a DMO) were selected to participate in Pilot ALFA, they signed a partnership agreement with IN, in order to use visitnorway.com templates, functionalities and content. As a consequence of the agreement, both companies redirected their URL (22) to visitnorway.com and discontinued their own homepages. The information available on those pages was migrated to visitnorway.com.

| (30) | When these two companies had their own website, they were clients of the Complainant. Accordingly, they used ‘tellUs destinator’ and ‘tellUs search’ functionalities, and paid a licence fee to the Complainant for this use. However, upon redirecting their URL to visitnorway.com and terminating their own website, these companies put to an end the contract for the search functionality, since within visitnorway.com only IN's search functionality can be used. They still have to contract with the Complainant or CityBreak for the ‘destinator’ functionality. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

When these two companies had their own website, they were clients of the Complainant. Accordingly, they used ‘tellUs destinator’ and ‘tellUs search’ functionalities, and paid a licence fee to the Complainant for this use. However, upon redirecting their URL to visitnorway.com and terminating their own website, these companies put to an end the contract for the search functionality, since within visitnorway.com only IN's search functionality can be used. They still have to contract with the Complainant or CityBreak for the ‘destinator’ functionality.

| (31) | The uses of the different functionalities, before and after Pilot ALFA, are represented in the following graphic: |
| --- | --- |

(31)

The uses of the different functionalities, before and after Pilot ALFA, are represented in the following graphic:

Image

| (32) | The services that IN was previously offering to these two types of companies (online marketing and promotion services on the visitnorway.com website), were offered for a fee calculated on the basis of their annual turnover. This pricing system was also applied during Pilot ALFA, with no additional charge made for the additional services provided by IN (i.e. web infrastructure and related services). |
| --- | --- |

(32)

The services that IN was previously offering to these two types of companies (online marketing and promotion services on the visitnorway.com website), were offered for a fee calculated on the basis of their annual turnover. This pricing system was also applied during Pilot ALFA, with no additional charge made for the additional services provided by IN (i.e. web infrastructure and related services).

| (33) | The Norwegian authorities have explained that the reason behind not charging extra for these additional services relates to the fact that the new services were under development, and the two companies involved in the pilot project invested time and effort in giving feedback to finalise the development of IN's functionalities; thereby ‘reimbursing’ the (unfinished) new services with their inputs. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

The Norwegian authorities have explained that the reason behind not charging extra for these additional services relates to the fact that the new services were under development, and the two companies involved in the pilot project invested time and effort in giving feedback to finalise the development of IN's functionalities; thereby ‘reimbursing’ the (unfinished) new services with their inputs.

| (34) | From July 2013 to November 2013, IN undertook a project called ‘Pilot Beta’. During this pilot project, IN studied new alternatives, new business models, and the possibility of promoting new partnership agreements with the RTBs and the DMOs. The Authority understands that during the Pilot Beta phase no new partnership agreements were signed. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

From July 2013 to November 2013, IN undertook a project called ‘Pilot Beta’. During this pilot project, IN studied new alternatives, new business models, and the possibility of promoting new partnership agreements with the RTBs and the DMOs. The Authority understands that during the Pilot Beta phase no new partnership agreements were signed.

| (35) | As from 1 January 2014, IN has offered partnership agreements (see paragraph (5)) to all interested DMOs and RTBs on a non-discriminatory basis. IN offers its services exclusively to the RTBs and the DMOs as part of the Norwegian tourism structure, but not to other interested private companies (e.g. individual hotels, shops, or museums). |
| --- | --- |

(35)

As from 1 January 2014, IN has offered partnership agreements (see paragraph (5)) to all interested DMOs and RTBs on a non-discriminatory basis. IN offers its services exclusively to the RTBs and the DMOs as part of the Norwegian tourism structure, but not to other interested private companies (e.g. individual hotels, shops, or museums).

| (36) | The Authority understands that as from 1 January 2014, IN introduced a new pricing model for the new services it is providing, where the price charged is intended to reflect the costs of the services provided by IN, plus a reasonable profit margin of between 5 to 10 % per year. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

The Authority understands that as from 1 January 2014, IN introduced a new pricing model for the new services it is providing, where the price charged is intended to reflect the costs of the services provided by IN, plus a reasonable profit margin of between 5 to 10 % per year.

3.   The complaint

| (37) | The complaint submitted by New Mind | tellUs separates IN's business promotion activities (including tourism promotion) from its activity related to the provision of web infrastructure and related services. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

The complaint submitted by New Mind | tellUs separates IN's business promotion activities (including tourism promotion) from its activity related to the provision of web infrastructure and related services.

| (38) | The Complainant considers that IN's promotion activities and its tasks in relation to visitnorway.com, as a national tourism portal, can be considered to be a service of general economic interest (‘SGEI’) in line with the EEA state aid rules. However, since 2013, IN is entering a new market (23), offering economic services. Those new services are not part of the mandate received by IN and are not provided in line with the Altmark
   (24) case-law. As a consequence, IN's behaviour in the market should be in line with the state aid rules. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

The Complainant considers that IN's promotion activities and its tasks in relation to visitnorway.com, as a national tourism portal, can be considered to be a service of general economic interest (‘SGEI’) in line with the EEA state aid rules. However, since 2013, IN is entering a new market (23), offering economic services. Those new services are not part of the mandate received by IN and are not provided in line with the Altmark
   (24) case-law. As a consequence, IN's behaviour in the market should be in line with the state aid rules.

| (39) | The Complainant refers to three different forms of alleged state aid:






  a. | the non-implementation of a separation of accounts for commercial activities within IN; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(39)

The Complainant refers to three different forms of alleged state aid:

a.

the non-implementation of a separation of accounts for commercial activities within IN;

| b. | the profits foregone through the non-profit orientation of economic activity referred to above, and |
| --- | --- |

b.

the profits foregone through the non-profit orientation of economic activity referred to above, and

| c. | the general exemption from the income tax granted to IN, also applicable to IN's economic activities. |
| --- | --- |

c.

the general exemption from the income tax granted to IN, also applicable to IN's economic activities.

| (40) | According to the Complainant, IN is not required to generate any profit and the company does not maintain separate accounts for its economic and non-economic activities. This implies spill-over effects, allowing IN to finance its economic activities with the funds that should be devoted to non-economic activities. Therefore, the measures entail state aid pursuant to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

According to the Complainant, IN is not required to generate any profit and the company does not maintain separate accounts for its economic and non-economic activities. This implies spill-over effects, allowing IN to finance its economic activities with the funds that should be devoted to non-economic activities. Therefore, the measures entail state aid pursuant to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

| (41) | New Mind | tellUs also alleges that IN requests its clients to terminate their previous contracts with New Mind | tellUs. The Complainant takes the view that this is a tie-in condition in breach of antitrust law (25). |
| --- | --- |

(41)

New Mind | tellUs also alleges that IN requests its clients to terminate their previous contracts with New Mind | tellUs. The Complainant takes the view that this is a tie-in condition in breach of antitrust law (25).

| (42) | In New Mind | tellUs' view, the aid measures have to be considered as new state aid since the entrance into a new market (i.e. offering web infrastructure and related services to the RTBs and the DMOs) falls outside the mandate received by IN and its predecessors. The Complainant considers that IN's mandate was limited to a general promotion of the country. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

In New Mind | tellUs' view, the aid measures have to be considered as new state aid since the entrance into a new market (i.e. offering web infrastructure and related services to the RTBs and the DMOs) falls outside the mandate received by IN and its predecessors. The Complainant considers that IN's mandate was limited to a general promotion of the country.

| (43) | New Mind | tellUs also states that the general tax exemption granted to IN should be considered to be state aid when it relates to income obtained by the performance of economic activities. This exemption would also be considered to be new state aid because it is related to the recent entrance of IN into economic activities. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

New Mind | tellUs also states that the general tax exemption granted to IN should be considered to be state aid when it relates to income obtained by the performance of economic activities. This exemption would also be considered to be new state aid because it is related to the recent entrance of IN into economic activities.

| (44) | Finally, the Complainant considers that as IN is not charging market prices for the services that it is providing to the RTBs and the DMOs, those companies are also beneficiaries of unlawful state aid (26). |
| --- | --- |

(44)

Finally, the Complainant considers that as IN is not charging market prices for the services that it is providing to the RTBs and the DMOs, those companies are also beneficiaries of unlawful state aid (26).

4.   Comments by the Norwegian authorities

| (45) | The Norwegian authorities disagree with New Mind | tellUs' legal assessment (27). |
| --- | --- |

(45)

The Norwegian authorities disagree with New Mind | tellUs' legal assessment (27).

| (46) | Firstly, the Norwegian authorities state that IN's purpose is to help to create profitable business in all parts of Norway, inter alia, by promoting the country as a holiday destination. IN's core activity is to promote business in Norway and not to operate any business itself. In functional terms, IN is merely a tool for the Norwegian authorities to grant aid, but it does not offer goods or services in the market. As a consequence, IN cannot be regarded as an undertaking being a recipient of state aid. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

Firstly, the Norwegian authorities state that IN's purpose is to help to create profitable business in all parts of Norway, inter alia, by promoting the country as a holiday destination. IN's core activity is to promote business in Norway and not to operate any business itself. In functional terms, IN is merely a tool for the Norwegian authorities to grant aid, but it does not offer goods or services in the market. As a consequence, IN cannot be regarded as an undertaking being a recipient of state aid.

| (47) | In its view, since the core activities of IN are of a non-economic nature, the potential classification of secondary activities undertaken by IN as economic activities would not alter the fact that IN cannot be considered to constitute an undertaking (28). |
| --- | --- |

(47)

In its view, since the core activities of IN are of a non-economic nature, the potential classification of secondary activities undertaken by IN as economic activities would not alter the fact that IN cannot be considered to constitute an undertaking (28).

| (48) | The Norwegian authorities accept that IN carries out some activities of a particular nature. In particular, IN is involved in market loans, seed capital and investment funds. However, in these areas, certain ‘mechanisms’ have already been established to avoid any possible distortion of competition. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

The Norwegian authorities accept that IN carries out some activities of a particular nature. In particular, IN is involved in market loans, seed capital and investment funds. However, in these areas, certain ‘mechanisms’ have already been established to avoid any possible distortion of competition.

| (49) | Regarding the web infrastructure and related services, the Norwegian authorities emphasise that IN does not provide services to the general tourism market as such, but only to the RTBs and the DMOs (see also paragraph (35)). |
| --- | --- |

(49)

Regarding the web infrastructure and related services, the Norwegian authorities emphasise that IN does not provide services to the general tourism market as such, but only to the RTBs and the DMOs (see also paragraph (35)).

| (50) | The Norwegian authorities point out that the 2013 Budget letter states that: ‘Innovation Norway is to ensure a good distribution of Norwegian travel experiences through visitnorway.com, and help to make the players in the tourist industry competent to enter their products into the national booking solution – linked to visitnorway.com.’ Therefore, the web infrastructure and related services are part of this mandate to promote Norway as a tourism destination and support the tourism industry. In the opinion of the Norwegian authorities, visitnorway.com is a modern marketing and information tool and in order to make it operative, an IT platform infrastructure service is required. In other words, IN offers to the RTBs and the DMOs full web editorial services, through visitnorway.com, and not a stand-alone service, as offered by the Complainant. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

The Norwegian authorities point out that the 2013 Budget letter states that: ‘Innovation Norway is to ensure a good distribution of Norwegian travel experiences through visitnorway.com, and help to make the players in the tourist industry competent to enter their products into the national booking solution – linked to visitnorway.com.’ Therefore, the web infrastructure and related services are part of this mandate to promote Norway as a tourism destination and support the tourism industry. In the opinion of the Norwegian authorities, visitnorway.com is a modern marketing and information tool and in order to make it operative, an IT platform infrastructure service is required. In other words, IN offers to the RTBs and the DMOs full web editorial services, through visitnorway.com, and not a stand-alone service, as offered by the Complainant.

| (51) | The Norwegian authorities have also argued that those services are being offered to the RTBs and the DMOs as part of Norway's destination management tourism structure. All the entities involved in the tourism structure work closely together; they are all dependent on public funding, and they are closely integrated in the public sector. As a consequence, the Norwegian authorities take the view that IN is not acting on the market as such when providing internal services and coordinating the different levels of organisation within the national tourism structure. It is, rather, fulfilling its task as part of the body responsible for organising regional and local bodies within the management of Norwegian tourism. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

The Norwegian authorities have also argued that those services are being offered to the RTBs and the DMOs as part of Norway's destination management tourism structure. All the entities involved in the tourism structure work closely together; they are all dependent on public funding, and they are closely integrated in the public sector. As a consequence, the Norwegian authorities take the view that IN is not acting on the market as such when providing internal services and coordinating the different levels of organisation within the national tourism structure. It is, rather, fulfilling its task as part of the body responsible for organising regional and local bodies within the management of Norwegian tourism.

| (52) | The Norwegian authorities have, moreover, stated that IN does not impose a condition on the RTBs and DMOs to terminate its previous contract with the Complainant as alleged by the latter (see paragraph (41), above). |
| --- | --- |

(52)

The Norwegian authorities have, moreover, stated that IN does not impose a condition on the RTBs and DMOs to terminate its previous contract with the Complainant as alleged by the latter (see paragraph (41), above).

| (53) | Moreover, if the web infrastructure and related services could be considered to be economic activities, the Norwegian authorities consider that the alleged measures would be granted on the basis of an existing aid scheme (29), because the IN's financial system existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in Norway. In the alternative, the Norwegian authorities have suggested that at the time the measure was put into effect, it did not constitute aid, and subsequently became aid as a consequence of the evolution of the European Economic Area without having been altered by the EFTA State (30). |
| --- | --- |

(53)

Moreover, if the web infrastructure and related services could be considered to be economic activities, the Norwegian authorities consider that the alleged measures would be granted on the basis of an existing aid scheme (29), because the IN's financial system existed prior to the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in Norway. In the alternative, the Norwegian authorities have suggested that at the time the measure was put into effect, it did not constitute aid, and subsequently became aid as a consequence of the evolution of the European Economic Area without having been altered by the EFTA State (30).

| (54) | Concerning the alleged aid in favour of the RTBs and the DMOs, the Norwegian authorities recall that as of 2014, IN intends to promote partnership agreements with the RTBs and the DMOs. They nevertheless underline that, in the framework of these partnership agreements, the services provided by IN (i.e. the web infrastructure and related services) will be provided for an annual fee. The Norwegian authorities state that their intention is to adopt a fully transparent pricing policy and apply a price close to the market price. |
| --- | --- |

(54)

Concerning the alleged aid in favour of the RTBs and the DMOs, the Norwegian authorities recall that as of 2014, IN intends to promote partnership agreements with the RTBs and the DMOs. They nevertheless underline that, in the framework of these partnership agreements, the services provided by IN (i.e. the web infrastructure and related services) will be provided for an annual fee. The Norwegian authorities state that their intention is to adopt a fully transparent pricing policy and apply a price close to the market price.

| (55) | Finally, the Norwegian authorities have stated that, in the event that the Authority finds any of the measures to constitute state aid, those should be considered compatible aid pursuant to Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

Finally, the Norwegian authorities have stated that, in the event that the Authority finds any of the measures to constitute state aid, those should be considered compatible aid pursuant to Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

5.   Material scope of the investigation

| (56) | Based on the facts described above, the Authority considers it necessary to clarify the material scope of the investigation, as defined in the present opening Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(56)

Based on the facts described above, the Authority considers it necessary to clarify the material scope of the investigation, as defined in the present opening Decision.

| (57) | First, the present Decision refers to the activities of IN within the market of web infrastructure and related services. The Decision neither concerns the activities of IN regarding the general promotion of Norway as a tourist destination, nor the development of visitnorway.com. Nor does it refer to the role of IN as a vehicle of the Norwegian State to support business in Norway. |
| --- | --- |

(57)

First, the present Decision refers to the activities of IN within the market of web infrastructure and related services. The Decision neither concerns the activities of IN regarding the general promotion of Norway as a tourist destination, nor the development of visitnorway.com. Nor does it refer to the role of IN as a vehicle of the Norwegian State to support business in Norway.

| (58) | The present Decision only refers to the alleged state aid in favour of IN and/or the RTBs and the DMOs in the market of web infrastructure and related services. |
| --- | --- |

(58)

The present Decision only refers to the alleged state aid in favour of IN and/or the RTBs and the DMOs in the market of web infrastructure and related services.

| (59) | Second, the potential aid measures are the following:






  (i) | the alleged cross-subsidisation of IN's web infrastructure and related services with funds meant for non-commercial activities; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(59)

Second, the potential aid measures are the following:

(i)

the alleged cross-subsidisation of IN's web infrastructure and related services with funds meant for non-commercial activities;

| (ii) | the alleged foregoing of profits through the non-profit orientation of IN's economic activities, including the web infrastructure and related services; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the alleged foregoing of profits through the non-profit orientation of IN's economic activities, including the web infrastructure and related services;

| (iii) | the alleged aid granted by IN to the RTBs and the DMOs in the form of prices not sufficient to obtain a reasonable return on the investments; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

the alleged aid granted by IN to the RTBs and the DMOs in the form of prices not sufficient to obtain a reasonable return on the investments;

| (iv) | the general exemption from income tax granted to IN. |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

the general exemption from income tax granted to IN.

| (60) | The first three measures are linked to IN's entrance in the market of web infrastructure and related services. The legal assessment of those measures as possible state aid depends on the nature of such services, including whether they can be considered to be economic services. |
| --- | --- |

(60)

The first three measures are linked to IN's entrance in the market of web infrastructure and related services. The legal assessment of those measures as possible state aid depends on the nature of such services, including whether they can be considered to be economic services.

| (61) | Furthermore, the qualification of IN's activities as constituting possible new aid depends on the terms of the mandate received by IN and on the new activities allowed by the 2013 Budget letter. Taking into account that the legal assessment of those three measures depends on the result of a common analysis, the Authority considers that they can be assessed together within the scope of the present Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(61)

Furthermore, the qualification of IN's activities as constituting possible new aid depends on the terms of the mandate received by IN and on the new activities allowed by the 2013 Budget letter. Taking into account that the legal assessment of those three measures depends on the result of a common analysis, the Authority considers that they can be assessed together within the scope of the present Decision.

| (62) | On the contrary, the last measure (iv) relates to a general income tax exemption and is not tied to IN's activities within the market of web infrastructure and related services (31). A legal assessment of this measure does not necessarily involve an analysis of IN's activities with regard to the tourism sector, or its tasks as manager of visitnorway.com. |
| --- | --- |

(62)

On the contrary, the last measure (iv) relates to a general income tax exemption and is not tied to IN's activities within the market of web infrastructure and related services (31). A legal assessment of this measure does not necessarily involve an analysis of IN's activities with regard to the tourism sector, or its tasks as manager of visitnorway.com.

| (63) | Because of these differences, the Authority will not assess whether the income tax provisions related to IN constitute state aid in the present decision. |
| --- | --- |

(63)

Because of these differences, the Authority will not assess whether the income tax provisions related to IN constitute state aid in the present decision.

II.   ASSESSMENT

1.   The presence of state aid

| (64) | 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’. |
| --- | --- |

(64)

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’.

| (65) | A measure constitutes state aid pursuant to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if it fulfils four conditions. First, the measure must be funded by the State or through state resources and imputable to the State. Second, the measure must confer an advantage. Third, the measure must favour selected undertakings or economic activities. Fourth, the measure must be liable to affect trade between Contracting Parties and liable to distort competition in the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(65)

A measure constitutes state aid pursuant to Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if it fulfils four conditions. First, the measure must be funded by the State or through state resources and imputable to the State. Second, the measure must confer an advantage. Third, the measure must favour selected undertakings or economic activities. Fourth, the measure must be liable to affect trade between Contracting Parties and liable to distort competition in the EEA.

| (66) | The alleged foregoing of profits and the cross-subsidisation measures in favour of IN (measures (ii) and (i)) are assessed separately from the possible aid to the RTBs and the DMOs (measure (iii)), see paragraph (59) above. |
| --- | --- |

(66)

The alleged foregoing of profits and the cross-subsidisation measures in favour of IN (measures (ii) and (i)) are assessed separately from the possible aid to the RTBs and the DMOs (measure (iii)), see paragraph (59) above.

1.1.   Possible aid measures in favour of IN

| (67) | It follows from Article 61(1) EEA that state aid rules only apply to advantages granted to undertakings. Prior to examining whether the conditions for state aid are met in this case, it is necessary first to examine whether IN qualifies as an undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

(67)

It follows from Article 61(1) EEA that state aid rules only apply to advantages granted to undertakings. Prior to examining whether the conditions for state aid are met in this case, it is necessary first to examine whether IN qualifies as an undertaking.

1.1.1.   Whether IN can be considered to be an ‘undertaking’

| (68) | It is settled case-law that undertakings are entities engaged in an economic activity, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed (32). Economic activities are those consisting of offering goods or services on a market (33). Offering goods and services on a market without making a profit can also constitute an economic activity (34). All entities that are legally distinct from the State and which engage in economic activities are considered to be ‘undertakings’, irrespective of whether these are public or private undertakings (35). |
| --- | --- |

(68)

It is settled case-law that undertakings are entities engaged in an economic activity, regardless of their legal status and the way in which they are financed (32). Economic activities are those consisting of offering goods or services on a market (33). Offering goods and services on a market without making a profit can also constitute an economic activity (34). All entities that are legally distinct from the State and which engage in economic activities are considered to be ‘undertakings’, irrespective of whether these are public or private undertakings (35).

| (69) | If an entity is providing economic activities, it is to be considered as an undertaking in relation to those specific services alone, without reference to the way in which its other activities should be classified (36). |
| --- | --- |

(69)

If an entity is providing economic activities, it is to be considered as an undertaking in relation to those specific services alone, without reference to the way in which its other activities should be classified (36).

| (70) | As a consequence, the first step of the Authority's legal assessment requires an analysis of whether IN can be defined as an undertaking for the purposes of state aid rules. |
| --- | --- |

(70)

As a consequence, the first step of the Authority's legal assessment requires an analysis of whether IN can be defined as an undertaking for the purposes of state aid rules.

| (71) | The Norwegian authorities have argued that IN is not an undertaking, but a mere vehicle used by the State to grant aid (see paragraph (46), above). They contend that IN is acting as an instrument of the State, and that it does not offer goods or services on a market. |
| --- | --- |

(71)

The Norwegian authorities have argued that IN is not an undertaking, but a mere vehicle used by the State to grant aid (see paragraph (46), above). They contend that IN is acting as an instrument of the State, and that it does not offer goods or services on a market.

| (72) | Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities have argued that, within the scope of its task to promote businesses in Norway, IN is also entrusted with the mandate of promoting Norway as a tourist destination, which is the final goal of the platform visitnorway.com. As a consequence, since tourism promotion is a non-economic activity, IN is not offering web infrastructure and related services on the market. |
| --- | --- |

(72)

Furthermore, the Norwegian authorities have argued that, within the scope of its task to promote businesses in Norway, IN is also entrusted with the mandate of promoting Norway as a tourist destination, which is the final goal of the platform visitnorway.com. As a consequence, since tourism promotion is a non-economic activity, IN is not offering web infrastructure and related services on the market.

| (73) | The Complainant, on the contrary, defines IN's task of promoting businesses in Norway as an SGEI, but an SGEI which is limited mere promotion activities, including tourism activities (37) (see paragraph (38), above). |
| --- | --- |

(73)

The Complainant, on the contrary, defines IN's task of promoting businesses in Norway as an SGEI, but an SGEI which is limited mere promotion activities, including tourism activities (37) (see paragraph (38), above).

| (74) | The Authority's preliminary view, at this stage, is that IN's main purpose appears to be to provide support to Norwegian businesses on behalf of the State. The Authority agrees that when IN is acting as a mere instrument of the State, IN does not provide services or goods on the market and its activities fall outside the scope of the state aid rules. |
| --- | --- |

(74)

The Authority's preliminary view, at this stage, is that IN's main purpose appears to be to provide support to Norwegian businesses on behalf of the State. The Authority agrees that when IN is acting as a mere instrument of the State, IN does not provide services or goods on the market and its activities fall outside the scope of the state aid rules.

| (75) | The 2013 Budget letter establishes that IN should promote Norway as a tourism destination. In order to do so, the letter clarifies that IN should not provide services in competition with private operator and if it does, IN must apply market prices. The Authority understands that by the 2013 Budget letter the Norwegian authorities have allowed IN to provide economic services in competition with private operators, on condition that for those services IN must require an adequate remuneration. Thus, it is the Authority's preliminary understanding that such activities fall outside the scope of the mandate for IN regarding the use of public funds for the promotion of businesses in Norway. They are services which are economic in nature: neither an SGEI nor a non-economic activity (38). |
| --- | --- |

(75)

The 2013 Budget letter establishes that IN should promote Norway as a tourism destination. In order to do so, the letter clarifies that IN should not provide services in competition with private operator and if it does, IN must apply market prices. The Authority understands that by the 2013 Budget letter the Norwegian authorities have allowed IN to provide economic services in competition with private operators, on condition that for those services IN must require an adequate remuneration. Thus, it is the Authority's preliminary understanding that such activities fall outside the scope of the mandate for IN regarding the use of public funds for the promotion of businesses in Norway. They are services which are economic in nature: neither an SGEI nor a non-economic activity (38).

| (76) | Furthermore, the Authority takes the preliminary view that since those services (outside IN's mandate) seem to qualify as economic services, IN might also be defined as an undertaking regarding the provision of those services. |
| --- | --- |

(76)

Furthermore, the Authority takes the preliminary view that since those services (outside IN's mandate) seem to qualify as economic services, IN might also be defined as an undertaking regarding the provision of those services.

| (77) | The Authority notes that IN enjoys, pursuant to the text of the 2013 Budget letter, a certain discretion in determining its course of action when providing economic services and it therefore is not acting under a specific mandate. IN is not forced to provide economic services on the market: the 2013 Budget letter only allows it to do so. These discretionarily elements have been seen by the General Court as relevant in differentiating between economic and non-economic activities provided by a single entity (39). |
| --- | --- |

(77)

The Authority notes that IN enjoys, pursuant to the text of the 2013 Budget letter, a certain discretion in determining its course of action when providing economic services and it therefore is not acting under a specific mandate. IN is not forced to provide economic services on the market: the 2013 Budget letter only allows it to do so. These discretionarily elements have been seen by the General Court as relevant in differentiating between economic and non-economic activities provided by a single entity (39).

| (78) | The Authority also underlines that IN's promotional activities are financed by the State (see paragraph (83), below) and that IN as such is not required to generate a return on capital (40). However, the 2013 Budget letter underlines that for the provision of those services, IN must cover the actual costs it has incurred, so that those services are not financed by public funds. The different methods of financing IN's activities illustrates the different natures of those activities: non economic activities or SGEIs, versus economic services. |
| --- | --- |

(78)

The Authority also underlines that IN's promotional activities are financed by the State (see paragraph (83), below) and that IN as such is not required to generate a return on capital (40). However, the 2013 Budget letter underlines that for the provision of those services, IN must cover the actual costs it has incurred, so that those services are not financed by public funds. The different methods of financing IN's activities illustrates the different natures of those activities: non economic activities or SGEIs, versus economic services.

| (79) | The Authority notes that the conclusion as to whether IN carries out an economic activity when providing web infrastructure and related services cannot be based on IN's objectives or on its general non-profitmaking orientation, but must be exclusively founded on an analysis of the services themselves (41). The Authority further notes that whatever IN's objectives are while providing these services, IN requests a remuneration for those services. Accordingly, it seems to the Authority that the objective of promoting tourism coexists with an economic objective (42). The Authority recalls in this respect that the definition of an entity as an undertaking depends on the nature of the specific activity under scrutiny. |
| --- | --- |

(79)

The Authority notes that the conclusion as to whether IN carries out an economic activity when providing web infrastructure and related services cannot be based on IN's objectives or on its general non-profitmaking orientation, but must be exclusively founded on an analysis of the services themselves (41). The Authority further notes that whatever IN's objectives are while providing these services, IN requests a remuneration for those services. Accordingly, it seems to the Authority that the objective of promoting tourism coexists with an economic objective (42). The Authority recalls in this respect that the definition of an entity as an undertaking depends on the nature of the specific activity under scrutiny.

| (80) | It is established case-law that in defining a service as economic, a significant factor is whether some kind of competition exists (i.e. if there are other entities offering the same or substitutable goods and services) (43). The Authority takes the preliminary view that this condition is met in the present case, since the services at hand are also provided by private operators, such as the Complainant. |
| --- | --- |

(80)

It is established case-law that in defining a service as economic, a significant factor is whether some kind of competition exists (i.e. if there are other entities offering the same or substitutable goods and services) (43). The Authority takes the preliminary view that this condition is met in the present case, since the services at hand are also provided by private operators, such as the Complainant.

| (81) | Furthermore, the Court of Justice has also underlined that the economic activities are normally offered against remuneration (44). The Authority notes that both the Complaint and IN provide for remuneration the services at issue in this Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(81)

Furthermore, the Court of Justice has also underlined that the economic activities are normally offered against remuneration (44). The Authority notes that both the Complaint and IN provide for remuneration the services at issue in this Decision.

| (82) | Consequently, insofar as web infrastructure and related services are concerned, the Authority draws the preliminary conclusion that it cannot be excluded that IN is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement with regard to those services in question. |
| --- | --- |

(82)

Consequently, insofar as web infrastructure and related services are concerned, the Authority draws the preliminary conclusion that it cannot be excluded that IN is an undertaking within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement with regard to those services in question.

1.1.2.   Presence of state resources and imputability

| (83) | It is well-established case-law that public resources at the disposal of public undertakings owned or controlled by the State are considered to be state resources (45). IN is mainly financed by public funds (46). |
| --- | --- |

(83)

It is well-established case-law that public resources at the disposal of public undertakings owned or controlled by the State are considered to be state resources (45). IN is mainly financed by public funds (46).

| (84) | Foregoing profits is equivalent to granting a financial advantage. This kind of measure is mentioned in the Authority's Guidelines on State aid provisions to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector, which require transparency where the State foregoes profits (47). By foregoing profits, state resources are consumed. |
| --- | --- |

(84)

Foregoing profits is equivalent to granting a financial advantage. This kind of measure is mentioned in the Authority's Guidelines on State aid provisions to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector, which require transparency where the State foregoes profits (47). By foregoing profits, state resources are consumed.

| (85) | Cross-subsidisation also consumes public resources, since the State is not only compensating for the cost of the non-economic activities with which an entity has been entrusted but also for some of the costs linked to the commercial activities of the same entity. |
| --- | --- |

(85)

Cross-subsidisation also consumes public resources, since the State is not only compensating for the cost of the non-economic activities with which an entity has been entrusted but also for some of the costs linked to the commercial activities of the same entity.

| (86) | The measures are imputable to the State, since IN is mainly financed through the public budget (see paragraph (83)). |
| --- | --- |

(86)

The measures are imputable to the State, since IN is mainly financed through the public budget (see paragraph (83)).

1.1.3.   The measure contains a potential advantage

1.1.3.1.   Cross-subsidisation of the web infrastructure and related services

| (87) | When an entity carries out both commercial and non-commercial activities, a cost-accounting system should be put in place to ensure that the commercial activities are not subsidised through state resources allocated to the non-commercial activities of that entity (48). Objective and transparent cost allocation mechanisms should be in place to ensure that the economic activities cover all the costs related to these operations (including all the costs related to that activity plus an appropriate share of the common costs). Without such mechanisms in place the commercial activities may gain advantages from the public funds granted to the non-commercial activities. |
| --- | --- |

(87)

When an entity carries out both commercial and non-commercial activities, a cost-accounting system should be put in place to ensure that the commercial activities are not subsidised through state resources allocated to the non-commercial activities of that entity (48). Objective and transparent cost allocation mechanisms should be in place to ensure that the economic activities cover all the costs related to these operations (including all the costs related to that activity plus an appropriate share of the common costs). Without such mechanisms in place the commercial activities may gain advantages from the public funds granted to the non-commercial activities.

| (88) | This rule is in line with the principles set out in the Transparency Directive (49) which requires financial transparency for public undertakings and separate accounts for companies enjoying special or exclusive rights granted by the State or entrusted with a service of general economic interest. The objective of those provisions is precisely to avoid advantages for public companies which are liable to distort free competition by means of state aid (50). |
| --- | --- |

(88)

This rule is in line with the principles set out in the Transparency Directive (49) which requires financial transparency for public undertakings and separate accounts for companies enjoying special or exclusive rights granted by the State or entrusted with a service of general economic interest. The objective of those provisions is precisely to avoid advantages for public companies which are liable to distort free competition by means of state aid (50).

| (89) | The Norwegian authorities have informed the Authority about the separation of accounts within IN. IN's annual accounts contain a total account for the company. This consolidated account is further separated into eight accounts, one for each type of activities/schemes (for example loans and funding projects). As a consequence, there is also a separate account for visitnorway.com. However, following a preliminary analysis, it seems to the Authority that neither the visitnorway.com account nor other account of IN differentiate the figures related to the provision of web infrastructure and related services. |
| --- | --- |

(89)

The Norwegian authorities have informed the Authority about the separation of accounts within IN. IN's annual accounts contain a total account for the company. This consolidated account is further separated into eight accounts, one for each type of activities/schemes (for example loans and funding projects). As a consequence, there is also a separate account for visitnorway.com. However, following a preliminary analysis, it seems to the Authority that neither the visitnorway.com account nor other account of IN differentiate the figures related to the provision of web infrastructure and related services.

| (90) | On the basis of the above, the Authority notes that the Norwegian authorities have not, at this stage of the procedure, provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that IN implements separate accounts for its economic activities, thereby avoiding possible cross-subsidisation. |
| --- | --- |

(90)

On the basis of the above, the Authority notes that the Norwegian authorities have not, at this stage of the procedure, provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that IN implements separate accounts for its economic activities, thereby avoiding possible cross-subsidisation.

1.1.3.2.   Profits foregone through the non-profit orientation of IN

| (91) | Any business owner or investor will normally require a return on its investment in a commercial undertaking. Such a requirement represents a normal and expected business cost for the undertaking. The Authority has already stated in its Manufacturing Guidelines that: ‘[i]f a public enterprise has an inadequate rate of return, the EFTA Surveillance Authority could consider that this situation contains elements of aid, which should be analysed with respect to Article 61. In these circumstances, the public enterprise is effectively getting its capital cheaper than the market rate, i.e. equivalent to a subsidy’
   (51). No state resources are involved only where a full-cost prices policy is adopted, so as to cover the total costs (variable and fixed costs) plus a mark-up to remunerate equity capital (52). |
| --- | --- |

(91)

Any business owner or investor will normally require a return on its investment in a commercial undertaking. Such a requirement represents a normal and expected business cost for the undertaking. The Authority has already stated in its Manufacturing Guidelines that: ‘[i]f a public enterprise has an inadequate rate of return, the EFTA Surveillance Authority could consider that this situation contains elements of aid, which should be analysed with respect to Article 61. In these circumstances, the public enterprise is effectively getting its capital cheaper than the market rate, i.e. equivalent to a subsidy’
   (51). No state resources are involved only where a full-cost prices policy is adopted, so as to cover the total costs (variable and fixed costs) plus a mark-up to remunerate equity capital (52).

| (92) | In the case at hand, the Authority currently has doubts as to whether IN obtains profits — sufficient to generate a reasonable return on the investment — from its services to the RTBs and the DMOs. |
| --- | --- |

(92)

In the case at hand, the Authority currently has doubts as to whether IN obtains profits — sufficient to generate a reasonable return on the investment — from its services to the RTBs and the DMOs.

| (93) | The 2013 Budget letter states that if IN provides commercial services, it should act in line with the market conditions. This would imply, inter alia, requiring a reasonable profit margin. In the same line, according to the information provided to the Authority, in the framework of the partnership agreements with the RTBs and the DMOs, IN foresees obtaining a profit of between 5 and 7 %. However, at the time being it is not clear to the Authority if IN is taking into account all relevant costs (including all the investment costs — not only operating costs — plus an appropriate share of the common costs) in calculating these margins. The Authority also has been given no information as to what is the average profit margin that a private operator would request for this type of investments. This is necessary for the purposes of determining whether a profit between 5 and 7 % is enough. |
| --- | --- |

(93)

The 2013 Budget letter states that if IN provides commercial services, it should act in line with the market conditions. This would imply, inter alia, requiring a reasonable profit margin. In the same line, according to the information provided to the Authority, in the framework of the partnership agreements with the RTBs and the DMOs, IN foresees obtaining a profit of between 5 and 7 %. However, at the time being it is not clear to the Authority if IN is taking into account all relevant costs (including all the investment costs — not only operating costs — plus an appropriate share of the common costs) in calculating these margins. The Authority also has been given no information as to what is the average profit margin that a private operator would request for this type of investments. This is necessary for the purposes of determining whether a profit between 5 and 7 % is enough.

| (94) | The Authority therefore has doubts, at this stage of the investigation, as to whether it can be excluded that IN is benefiting from an advantage in the form of the general non-profit orientation of its commercial activities. |
| --- | --- |

(94)

The Authority therefore has doubts, at this stage of the investigation, as to whether it can be excluded that IN is benefiting from an advantage in the form of the general non-profit orientation of its commercial activities.

1.1.4.   Selectivity

| (95) | Only IN could benefit from the alleged advantages described above. Private operators competing with IN do not receive comparable possible advantages. Accordingly, the alleged advantages under assessment in this section of the Decision represent selective measures, as they only concern one particular undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

(95)

Only IN could benefit from the alleged advantages described above. Private operators competing with IN do not receive comparable possible advantages. Accordingly, the alleged advantages under assessment in this section of the Decision represent selective measures, as they only concern one particular undertaking.

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

| (96) | According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in order to assess whether a measure is liable to distort competition and liable to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement, a party in the position of the Authority ‘[i]s required, not to establish that such aid has a real effect on trade between Member States and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition’
   (53). The mere fact that aid strengthens an undertaking's position compared to that of other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade is enough to conclude that the measure is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement (54). |
| --- | --- |

(96)

According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in order to assess whether a measure is liable to distort competition and liable to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement, a party in the position of the Authority ‘[i]s required, not to establish that such aid has a real effect on trade between Member States and that competition is actually being distorted, but only to examine whether that aid is liable to affect such trade and distort competition’
   (53). The mere fact that aid strengthens an undertaking's position compared to that of other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade is enough to conclude that the measure is liable to distort competition and to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement (54).

| (97) | The Authority considers that IN's shareholders should require it to generate a profit from its economic activities. Therefore, if the web infrastructure and related services were to be defined as economic activities, by not requiring a reasonable profit, IN would be obtaining certain advantages as compared to private operators active in the same market (such as the Complainant). The same can be said regarding the risk of cross-subsidisation, since IN could be funding its commercial activities with the funds intended for its non-economic activities. |
| --- | --- |

(97)

The Authority considers that IN's shareholders should require it to generate a profit from its economic activities. Therefore, if the web infrastructure and related services were to be defined as economic activities, by not requiring a reasonable profit, IN would be obtaining certain advantages as compared to private operators active in the same market (such as the Complainant). The same can be said regarding the risk of cross-subsidisation, since IN could be funding its commercial activities with the funds intended for its non-economic activities.

| (98) | The Authority also notes that the measures concerned, and the consequent advantage for IN, could create an obstacle for companies from the EEA wishing to offer their services in Norway and therefore trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement is liable to be affected (55). |
| --- | --- |

(98)

The Authority also notes that the measures concerned, and the consequent advantage for IN, could create an obstacle for companies from the EEA wishing to offer their services in Norway and therefore trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement is liable to be affected (55).

| (99) | Finally, the Authority underlines that the clients of the private operators competing with IN are private tourism entities as well as the RTBs and the DMOs. If the measures at issue in the present Decision allow IN to provide cheaper services to the RTBs and the DMOs and, as a consequence, they move to visitnorway.com, it seems to the Authority that an important part of the market could be excluded from fair competition. Accordingly the measures are liable to distort competition and affect trade. |
| --- | --- |

(99)

Finally, the Authority underlines that the clients of the private operators competing with IN are private tourism entities as well as the RTBs and the DMOs. If the measures at issue in the present Decision allow IN to provide cheaper services to the RTBs and the DMOs and, as a consequence, they move to visitnorway.com, it seems to the Authority that an important part of the market could be excluded from fair competition. Accordingly the measures are liable to distort competition and affect trade.

| (100) | The Authority therefore concludes at the current stage of the procedure that the measures at issue are liable to affect trade and distort competition between undertakings within the EEA. |
| --- | --- |

(100)

The Authority therefore concludes at the current stage of the procedure that the measures at issue are liable to affect trade and distort competition between undertakings within the EEA.

1.2.   Preliminary conclusion

| (101) | For the reasons set out above, and on the basis of the information available, the Authority has doubts as to whether it can be excluded that the measures at issue in the present section constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(101)

For the reasons set out above, and on the basis of the information available, the Authority has doubts as to whether it can be excluded that the measures at issue in the present section constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

1.3.   Possible state aid in favour of the RTBs and the DMOs

| (102) | The existence of possible state aid in favour of the RTBs and the DMOs will depend on the conclusions reached by the Authority regarding the alleged state aid measures in favour of IN. |
| --- | --- |

(102)

The existence of possible state aid in favour of the RTBs and the DMOs will depend on the conclusions reached by the Authority regarding the alleged state aid measures in favour of IN.

| (103) | The Authority's assessment in this respect will depend on the conclusion which it reaches on the alleged foregoing of profits by IN (see paragraphs (91) to (94), above). If IN were to charge, for the services provided to its clients (exclusively the RTBs and the DMOs), a price sufficient to generate adequate profits, the existence of aid in favour of the RTBs and the DMOs would be excluded. On the contrary, if the prices are not sufficient to cover the costs, the Authority considers that, in this specific case, those companies might in turn be beneficiaries of state aid. |
| --- | --- |

(103)

The Authority's assessment in this respect will depend on the conclusion which it reaches on the alleged foregoing of profits by IN (see paragraphs (91) to (94), above). If IN were to charge, for the services provided to its clients (exclusively the RTBs and the DMOs), a price sufficient to generate adequate profits, the existence of aid in favour of the RTBs and the DMOs would be excluded. On the contrary, if the prices are not sufficient to cover the costs, the Authority considers that, in this specific case, those companies might in turn be beneficiaries of state aid.

| (104) | Taking into account that, at this stage of the procedure, the Authority has doubts as to whether the existence of a state aid measure by means of profit foregoing can be excluded, the Authority will therefore also assess, on a preliminary basis, the question of possible aid in favour of the RTBs and the DMOs. |
| --- | --- |

(104)

Taking into account that, at this stage of the procedure, the Authority has doubts as to whether the existence of a state aid measure by means of profit foregoing can be excluded, the Authority will therefore also assess, on a preliminary basis, the question of possible aid in favour of the RTBs and the DMOs.

1.3.1.   Presence of state resources and imputability

| (105) | It is established case-law that a measure is financed through state resources if it results in a burden on the budget of a public undertaking, provided that the measure is imputable to the state (56). The concept of state aid covers all the financial means by which the public authorities may actually support undertakings (57). |
| --- | --- |

(105)

It is established case-law that a measure is financed through state resources if it results in a burden on the budget of a public undertaking, provided that the measure is imputable to the state (56). The concept of state aid covers all the financial means by which the public authorities may actually support undertakings (57).

| (106) | On this basis, the Authority considers that offering services at prices lower than the price prevailing on the market, without recovering their total costs, implies a loss of revenue equivalent to a consumption of state resources. The Authority has doubts whether all costs (operating and investments costs) are taken into account while setting the final price for RTBs and DMOs. |
| --- | --- |

(106)

On this basis, the Authority considers that offering services at prices lower than the price prevailing on the market, without recovering their total costs, implies a loss of revenue equivalent to a consumption of state resources. The Authority has doubts whether all costs (operating and investments costs) are taken into account while setting the final price for RTBs and DMOs.

| (107) | Furthermore, the Authority takes the preliminary view that the measure is imputable to the Norwegian authorities (58). The Authority notes that there is a close relationship between the State and IN. IN is normally used as an instrument to grant aid measures. Furthermore, IN is fully owned by public bodies, controlled by them and instructed by the Norwegian authorities. |
| --- | --- |

(107)

Furthermore, the Authority takes the preliminary view that the measure is imputable to the Norwegian authorities (58). The Authority notes that there is a close relationship between the State and IN. IN is normally used as an instrument to grant aid measures. Furthermore, IN is fully owned by public bodies, controlled by them and instructed by the Norwegian authorities.

1.3.2.   The measure contains an ‘advantage’

| (108) | It is established case-law that a state intervention favours an undertaking if it provides the undertaking with an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions (59). This will be the case if the RTBs and the DMOs are being offered services below their real cost, without IN obtaining a sufficient return on its investment costs. |
| --- | --- |

(108)

It is established case-law that a state intervention favours an undertaking if it provides the undertaking with an economic advantage which it would not have obtained under normal market conditions (59). This will be the case if the RTBs and the DMOs are being offered services below their real cost, without IN obtaining a sufficient return on its investment costs.

| (109) | The fact that the RTBs and the DMOs are part of the national tourism structure (see paragraph (11), above) does not alter this conclusion. The Authority notes in particular that the shareholders of the RTBs and DMOs are not only public entities, but also private companies. Accordingly, it does not seem possible to qualify the measure as a mere cooperation amongst public entities. |
| --- | --- |

(109)

The fact that the RTBs and the DMOs are part of the national tourism structure (see paragraph (11), above) does not alter this conclusion. The Authority notes in particular that the shareholders of the RTBs and DMOs are not only public entities, but also private companies. Accordingly, it does not seem possible to qualify the measure as a mere cooperation amongst public entities.

1.3.3.   Selectivity

| (110) | According to the available information, IN only provides web infrastructure and related services to the RTBs and the DMOs (see paragraph (49), above). The Authority therefore takes the view that the measure is at least selective de facto. |
| --- | --- |

(110)

According to the available information, IN only provides web infrastructure and related services to the RTBs and the DMOs (see paragraph (49), above). The Authority therefore takes the view that the measure is at least selective de facto.

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

| (111) | It is established case-law that a measure distorts or threatens to distort competition in a way that affects trade between Contracting Parties if it strengthens the position of the recipient compared to other companies (60) and if the recipient is active in a sector in which trade between Contracting Parties takes place (61). |
| --- | --- |

(111)

It is established case-law that a measure distorts or threatens to distort competition in a way that affects trade between Contracting Parties if it strengthens the position of the recipient compared to other companies (60) and if the recipient is active in a sector in which trade between Contracting Parties takes place (61).

| (112) | According to the available information, the Authority considers, on a preliminary basis, that the RTBs and the DMOs are carrying out some economic activities, since they are marketing, booking and selling tourism products in competition with private companies from other parts of the EEA, inter alia, tour-operators (see also paragraphs (14) and (15), above). As a consequence, if they are obtaining services at prices below the real value of the services, this will strengthen their position in the market to the detriment of their competitors (i.e. other destination and travel agencies). |
| --- | --- |

(112)

According to the available information, the Authority considers, on a preliminary basis, that the RTBs and the DMOs are carrying out some economic activities, since they are marketing, booking and selling tourism products in competition with private companies from other parts of the EEA, inter alia, tour-operators (see also paragraphs (14) and (15), above). As a consequence, if they are obtaining services at prices below the real value of the services, this will strengthen their position in the market to the detriment of their competitors (i.e. other destination and travel agencies).

| (113) | The Authority takes the view that the fact that the RTBs and the DMOs are mainly regional or local operators is not decisive, and does not exclude the conclusion that the measure would be liable to affect trade between the contracting parties. According to settled case-law, intra-state trade is liable to be affected when undertakings established in a Contracting Party have less chance of providing their services in another Contracting Party (in the case at hand, in Norway) (62). |
| --- | --- |

(113)

The Authority takes the view that the fact that the RTBs and the DMOs are mainly regional or local operators is not decisive, and does not exclude the conclusion that the measure would be liable to affect trade between the contracting parties. According to settled case-law, intra-state trade is liable to be affected when undertakings established in a Contracting Party have less chance of providing their services in another Contracting Party (in the case at hand, in Norway) (62).

1.4.   Preliminary conclusion

| (114) | Based on the foregoing, the Authority has doubts as to whether it can be excluded that the measure at stake constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(114)

Based on the foregoing, the Authority has doubts as to whether it can be excluded that the measure at stake constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

2.   Existing aid or new aid

| (115) | The Norwegian authorities have submitted that in the event that the measures at issue in the present Decision were to be classified as state aid, they should be defined as existing aid. Following a preliminary analysis, and for the reasons set out below, the Authority considers at this stage of the procedure that if the measures at issue were to be classified as state aid, they would also be defined as new aid. |
| --- | --- |

(115)

The Norwegian authorities have submitted that in the event that the measures at issue in the present Decision were to be classified as state aid, they should be defined as existing aid. Following a preliminary analysis, and for the reasons set out below, the Authority considers at this stage of the procedure that if the measures at issue were to be classified as state aid, they would also be defined as new aid.

| (116) | Article 1(b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that ‘existing aid’ is to 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’. |
| --- | --- |

(116)

Article 1(b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3 provides that ‘existing aid’ is to 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’.

| (117) | In its judgment in Case E-14/10 (63), the EFTA Court stated that:

  ‘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' |
| --- | --- |

(117)

In its judgment in Case E-14/10 (63), the EFTA Court stated that:

‘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'

| (118) | It follows that the definition of public measures as existing aid requires the existence of a previous aid scheme covering the activities of the public body under evaluation. |
| --- | --- |

(118)

It follows that the definition of public measures as existing aid requires the existence of a previous aid scheme covering the activities of the public body under evaluation.

| (119) | The Authority considers, at this point in time, that the measure at hand is not related to any of the schemes in force used by IN to grant state aid (see paragraph (9), above). The present Decision does not assess whether one of the schemes used by IN has been modified in substance, as required by the case-law to identify a new aid (64). Rather, the Authority takes the view that the case at hand relates to the entrance of IN on the market of web infrastructure and related services – which the Authority considers, at this stage of the procedure, to fall outside the mandate received by IN to promote business or to promote Norway as a tourism destination. The objective of this Decision is to assess IN's behaviour when it acts as an undertaking in the relevant market, if this qualification is confirmed during the formal procedure (see paragraphs (74) to (82), above). |
| --- | --- |

(119)

The Authority considers, at this point in time, that the measure at hand is not related to any of the schemes in force used by IN to grant state aid (see paragraph (9), above). The present Decision does not assess whether one of the schemes used by IN has been modified in substance, as required by the case-law to identify a new aid (64). Rather, the Authority takes the view that the case at hand relates to the entrance of IN on the market of web infrastructure and related services – which the Authority considers, at this stage of the procedure, to fall outside the mandate received by IN to promote business or to promote Norway as a tourism destination. The objective of this Decision is to assess IN's behaviour when it acts as an undertaking in the relevant market, if this qualification is confirmed during the formal procedure (see paragraphs (74) to (82), above).

| (120) | The Authority understanding at this point in time is that the legal basis for IN's entrance into a new market, offering economic services, is the 2013 Budget letter. The 2013 Budget letter allows IN, for the first time (65), to provide services in the tourism market in competition with private operators. Moreover, it allows IN to enter into economic activities, outside its general mandate to promote businesses in Norway, irrespective of whether this qualifies as a non-economic activity or a SGEI. |
| --- | --- |

(120)

The Authority understanding at this point in time is that the legal basis for IN's entrance into a new market, offering economic services, is the 2013 Budget letter. The 2013 Budget letter allows IN, for the first time (65), to provide services in the tourism market in competition with private operators. Moreover, it allows IN to enter into economic activities, outside its general mandate to promote businesses in Norway, irrespective of whether this qualifies as a non-economic activity or a SGEI.

| (121) | The Norwegian authorities have argued that IN's system of financing has not been substantially modified after the entrance into force of the EEA Agreement in the country. They take the view that if IN is obtaining state aid, the measure qualifies as existing aid (66). |
| --- | --- |

(121)

The Norwegian authorities have argued that IN's system of financing has not been substantially modified after the entrance into force of the EEA Agreement in the country. They take the view that if IN is obtaining state aid, the measure qualifies as existing aid (66).

| (122) | However, the Authority recalls that the financing system in force before 1994 relates to IN's core activities, and not to the provision of economic activities. In particular, the Act on IN establishes that: ‘The company's resources may be used for: 1. Financing, hereunder subsidies, loans, guarantees and equity capital arrangements, 2. Advising and competence enhancing measures, 3. Network and infrastructure, and 4. Marketing of Norwegian industry abroad’. No reference is made to the possible financing of economic activities. The 2013 Budget letter departs from this system in stating that if IN provides services in competition with private operators it must apply market prices. |
| --- | --- |

(122)

However, the Authority recalls that the financing system in force before 1994 relates to IN's core activities, and not to the provision of economic activities. In particular, the Act on IN establishes that: ‘The company's resources may be used for: 1. Financing, hereunder subsidies, loans, guarantees and equity capital arrangements, 2. Advising and competence enhancing measures, 3. Network and infrastructure, and 4. Marketing of Norwegian industry abroad’. No reference is made to the possible financing of economic activities. The 2013 Budget letter departs from this system in stating that if IN provides services in competition with private operators it must apply market prices.

| (123) | As a consequence, the Authority takes the preliminary view that if the alleged state aid measures (i.e. the absence of separate accounts between economic and non-economic activities and the forgoing of profit) are demonstrated, the measures should be defined as new state aid measures. |
| --- | --- |

(123)

As a consequence, the Authority takes the preliminary view that if the alleged state aid measures (i.e. the absence of separate accounts between economic and non-economic activities and the forgoing of profit) are demonstrated, the measures should be defined as new state aid measures.

| (124) | Concerning the alleged aid in favour of the RTBs and the DMOs, the Authority takes the preliminary view that if it is demonstrated during the formal state aid procedure that they are receiving services at a price below their real cost, the measure should likewise be considered to be new aid. The provision of these new services also finds its origin in the 2013 Budget letter – which, as described above, allows IN, for the first time, to provide services in competition with private operators, and to depart from the scope of its general task of businesses promotion. |
| --- | --- |

(124)

Concerning the alleged aid in favour of the RTBs and the DMOs, the Authority takes the preliminary view that if it is demonstrated during the formal state aid procedure that they are receiving services at a price below their real cost, the measure should likewise be considered to be new aid. The provision of these new services also finds its origin in the 2013 Budget letter – which, as described above, allows IN, for the first time, to provide services in competition with private operators, and to depart from the scope of its general task of businesses promotion.

| (125) | Finally, at the time the measures at issue in the present Decision were put into effect, the market for web infrastructure and related services was open to competition. As a consequence, Article 1(b)(v) of Part II of Protocol 3 is not applicable (67). |
| --- | --- |

(125)

Finally, at the time the measures at issue in the present Decision were put into effect, the market for web infrastructure and related services was open to competition. As a consequence, Article 1(b)(v) of Part II of Protocol 3 is not applicable (67).

| (126) | In conclusion, the Authority considers, on a preliminary basis, that in the event that the measures under the scope of this Decision are finally classified as aid, they should be classified as new aid. |
| --- | --- |

(126)

In conclusion, the Authority considers, on a preliminary basis, that in the event that the measures under the scope of this Decision are finally classified as aid, they should be classified as new aid.

3.   Procedural requirements

| (127) | Insofar as the measures at issue in the present Decision may constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, and that these measures constitute ‘new aid’ within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Norwegian authorities should have notified the aid before putting it into effect, pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3. |
| --- | --- |

(127)

Insofar as the measures at issue in the present Decision may constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, and that these measures constitute ‘new aid’ within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Norwegian authorities should have notified the aid before putting it into effect, pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.

| (128) | It should be recalled that any new aid which is unlawfully implemented and which is finally not declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement is subject to recovery in accordance with Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3. |
| --- | --- |

(128)

It should be recalled that any new aid which is unlawfully implemented and which is finally not declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement is subject to recovery in accordance with Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3.

4.   Compatibility of the aid

| (129) | In principle, state aid as defined by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is prohibited. However, Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement provides that certain types of aid can be declared compatible. |
| --- | --- |

(129)

In principle, state aid as defined by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is prohibited. However, Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement provides that certain types of aid can be declared compatible.

| (130) | The Norwegian authorities have submitted that if the measures at issue in the present Decision were to be considered to be state aid, they would be compatible with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, as aid to promote tourism activities. However, at this point in time the Norwegian authorities have not provided sufficient evidence to support this statement. |
| --- | --- |

(130)

The Norwegian authorities have submitted that if the measures at issue in the present Decision were to be considered to be state aid, they would be compatible with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, as aid to promote tourism activities. However, at this point in time the Norwegian authorities have not provided sufficient evidence to support this statement.

| (131) | Since at the present time there are no Guidelines on state aid to promote the tourism sector, the compatibility assessment will be carried out by way of direct reference to Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(131)

Since at the present time there are no Guidelines on state aid to promote the tourism sector, the compatibility assessment will be carried out by way of direct reference to Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

| (132) | In assessing whether an aid measure can be said to be compatible with the EEA Agreement, the Authority balances the positive impact of the aid measure in reaching an objective of common interest against its potentially negative side effects by distortion of trade and competition. The assessment is based on the following steps:






  — | Is the aid measure aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest (e.g. growth, employment, cohesion, environment, etc.)? |
| --- | --- | --- |

(132)

In assessing whether an aid measure can be said to be compatible with the EEA Agreement, the Authority balances the positive impact of the aid measure in reaching an objective of common interest against its potentially negative side effects by distortion of trade and competition. The assessment is based on the following steps:

—

Is the aid measure aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest (e.g. growth, employment, cohesion, environment, etc.)?

| — | Is the aid well designed to deliver the objectives of common interest, i.e. does the proposed aid address the market failure or another objective? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the aid well designed to deliver the objectives of common interest, i.e. does the proposed aid address the market failure or another objective?

| — | Is state aid an appropriate instrument? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is state aid an appropriate instrument?

| — | Is there an incentive effect, i.e. does the aid change the behaviour of the firms? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is there an incentive effect, i.e. does the aid change the behaviour of the firms?

| — | Is the aid measure proportional, i.e. could the same change in behaviour be obtained with less aid? |
| --- | --- |

—

Is the aid measure proportional, i.e. could the same change in behaviour be obtained with less aid?

| — | Are the distortions of competition and effect on trade limited, so that the overall balance is positive? |
| --- | --- |

—

Are the distortions of competition and effect on trade limited, so that the overall balance is positive?

| (133) | The information provided by the Norwegian authorities to the Authority during its preliminary examination of the measures at issue does not enable the Authority to make a definitive assessment of this question. The Norwegian authorities are accordingly invited to provide additional information on this matter. The Authority recalls that according to established case-law the burden of proof of the compatibility of state aid measures rests on the State concerned, which must show that the conditions for the derogation from Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are satisfied (68). |
| --- | --- |

(133)

The information provided by the Norwegian authorities to the Authority during its preliminary examination of the measures at issue does not enable the Authority to make a definitive assessment of this question. The Norwegian authorities are accordingly invited to provide additional information on this matter. The Authority recalls that according to established case-law the burden of proof of the compatibility of state aid measures rests on the State concerned, which must show that the conditions for the derogation from Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are satisfied (68).

| (134) | However, on a preliminary basis, the Authority notes that in order for the measure to be declared compatible a market failure regarding the web infrastructure and related services must be demonstrated. The mere fact that there are private operators providing these services suggests that there is no market failure and therefore no need for aid. |
| --- | --- |

(134)

However, on a preliminary basis, the Authority notes that in order for the measure to be declared compatible a market failure regarding the web infrastructure and related services must be demonstrated. The mere fact that there are private operators providing these services suggests that there is no market failure and therefore no need for aid.

| (135) | Furthermore, the balancing test for a measure of state aid, as described above, also requires the aid to be proportional and limited to the smallest possible amount. However, taking into account the nature of the measures, which cannot be described as transparent aid (69), it will be difficult to calculate the intensity of aid granted. |
| --- | --- |

(135)

Furthermore, the balancing test for a measure of state aid, as described above, also requires the aid to be proportional and limited to the smallest possible amount. However, taking into account the nature of the measures, which cannot be described as transparent aid (69), it will be difficult to calculate the intensity of aid granted.

| (136) | The Authority finally recalls that, by analogy with settled case-law (70), state aid incorporating conditions which contravene other provisions of the EEA Agreement cannot be approved as compatible. On this issue the Authority notes that if the tie-in clauses referred to in paragraph (41), above, exist and are imposed by IN, they might be contrary to Articles 53 or 54 of the EEA Agreement. In this event, the measures could not be declared compatible aid. |
| --- | --- |

(136)

The Authority finally recalls that, by analogy with settled case-law (70), state aid incorporating conditions which contravene other provisions of the EEA Agreement cannot be approved as compatible. On this issue the Authority notes that if the tie-in clauses referred to in paragraph (41), above, exist and are imposed by IN, they might be contrary to Articles 53 or 54 of the EEA Agreement. In this event, the measures could not be declared compatible aid.

| (137) | In conclusion, the Authority considers, at this stage of the procedure, that it cannot be excluded that the measure at issue in the present Decision may not comply with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, and may have to be considered to be incompatible aid. |
| --- | --- |

(137)

In conclusion, the Authority considers, at this stage of the procedure, that it cannot be excluded that the measure at issue in the present Decision may not comply with Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement, and may have to be considered to be incompatible aid.

5.   Conclusion

| (138) | Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, at this stage of the procedure the Authority cannot exclude the possibility that the measures at hand in this Decision constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(138)

Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, at this stage of the procedure the Authority cannot exclude the possibility that the measures at hand in this Decision constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

| (139) | The Authority currently takes the view that if those measures entail state aid, they would constitute ‘new aid’, which pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 should have been notified to the Authority prior to its implementation. |
| --- | --- |

(139)

The Authority currently takes the view that if those measures entail state aid, they would constitute ‘new aid’, which pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 should have been notified to the Authority prior to its implementation.

| (140) | The Authority has also doubts as to whether these measures comply with Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement. The Authority, therefore, has doubts as to whether that the above measures are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(140)

The Authority has also doubts as to whether these measures comply with Article 61(3) of the EEA Agreement. The Authority, therefore, has doubts as to whether that the above measures are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| (141) | 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 proceedings is without prejudice to the final Decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question do not constitute state aid, are to be classified as existing aid or are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(141)

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 proceedings is without prejudice to the final Decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measures in question do not constitute state aid, are to be classified as existing aid or are compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| (142) | In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Norwegian authorities to submit their comments within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(142)

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

| (143) | In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority requests the Norwegian authorities to provide within one month of receipt of this Decision all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the nature and compatibility of the measure covered by this decision. |
| --- | --- |

(143)

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority requests the Norwegian authorities to provide within one month of receipt of this Decision all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the nature and compatibility of the measure covered by this decision.

| (144) | The Authority requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this Decision to the potential aid recipients of the aid immediately. |
| --- | --- |

(144)

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

| (145) | The Authority reminds 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) this recovery would be contrary to a general principal of EEA law, |
| --- | --- |

(145)

The Authority reminds 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) this recovery would be contrary to a general principal of EEA law,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 is opened into the possible aid measures implemented by the Norwegian authorities.

The possible aid measures are:

| (i) | the alleged foregoing of profit in favour of IN, |
| --- | --- |

(i)

the alleged foregoing of profit in favour of IN,

| (ii) | the alleged lack of accounting separation among and a clear cost allocation methodology regarding IN's economic and non economic activities and |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the alleged lack of accounting separation among and a clear cost allocation methodology regarding IN's economic and non economic activities and

| (iii) | the alleged aid granted through IN to the RTBs and the DMOs in form of prices not sufficient to obtain a reasonable return on the investments. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

the alleged aid granted through IN to the RTBs and the DMOs in form of prices not sufficient to obtain a reasonable return on the investments.

The measures falling within the scope of this Decision relate to IN's activities in the market of web infrastructure and related services within the tourism sector.

Article 2

The Norwegian authorities are invited, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Part II of Protocol 3, to submit their comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure by 18 August 2014.

Article 3

The Norwegian authorities are requested to provide by 18 August 2014, all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the compatibility of the aid measure.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 5

Only the English language version of this decision is authentic.

Done in Brussels, 16 July 2014.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Oda Helen SLETNES

President

Helga JÓNSDÓTTIR

College Member

---

(1)  In October 2013, the original complainant tellUs IT AS merged with the company New Mind forming New Mind | tellUs. See www.newmind.co.uk

1

(2)  In the tourism sector, the term ‘destination organisation’ or ‘destination company’ generally means a local company that handles arrangements for tours, meetings, transportation, etc. for groups originating elsewhere. See http://wsdmo.org/index.php/Educate/TourismAcronyms/

2

(3)  LOV-2003-12-19-130 (in Norwegian ‘Lov om Innovasjon Norge’), available at:

3

http://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2003-12-19-130?q=lov+om+innovasjon+norge

(4)  Section 2 of the Act on IN.

4

(5)  LOV-1999-03-26-14, (in Norwegian ‘Skatteloven’).

5

Skatteloven

(6)  Translation by the Authority.

6

(7)  In Norwegian: ‘Statens nærings- og distriktsutviklingsfond’, ‘Statens Veiledningskontor for Oppfinnere’, ‘Norges Turistråd’ and ‘Norges Eksportråd’.

7

Statens nærings- og distriktsutviklingsfond

Statens Veiledningskontor for Oppfinnere

Norges Turistråd

Norges Eksportråd

(8)  Report entitled ‘The Government's tourism strategy. Destination Norway. National strategy for the tourism industry’, dated April 2012 and sent to the Authority as Annex 4 to IN's letter dated 28 October 2013 (Event No 688213). Available at:

8

‘The Government's tourism strategy. Destination Norway. National strategy for the tourism industry’,

http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/37646196/Lenke_til_strategien-engelsk.pdf

(9)  A description of IN's task in the tourism sector can be found in the report quoted in footnote 8.

9

(10)  IN's letter dated 20 December 2013 (Event No 694258). The National Association of Tourism, which was the joint body for the State, municipal and private stakeholders in the tourism industry, was established in 1903 and continued until 1984. From that point, marketing efforts of the National Association of Tourism were continued by the foundation NORTRA, which in 1999 changed its name to the NTC. Since 2004, the NTC's tasks have been carried out by IN, following the merger of these two entities.

10

Further information on the entities that have traditionally been entrusted with the mandate to promote Norway as a holiday destination was also provided in IN's letter dated 20 December 2013 (Event No 694258).

(11)  For further information, see the project plan for a new national tourism structure by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries (Version 1.2 dated 20.06.2013):

11

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/NHD/Temasider/Reiseliv/Riktigprosjektplan.pdf

(12)  In Norwegian: ‘Regionalt selskap: Selskap som betjener reiselivsnæringen i et definert geografisk område’.

12

Regionalt selskap: Selskap som betjener reiselivsnæringen i et definert geografisk område

(13)  In Norwegian: ‘Destinasjonsselskap: Selskap som skal betjene et definert antall reisemål, produkter, attraksjoner og reiselivs-næring innen et geografisk område innenfor det regionale selskapet’.

13

Destinasjonsselskap: Selskap som skal betjene et definert antall reisemål, produkter, attraksjoner og reiselivs-næring innen et geografisk område innenfor det regionale selskapet

(14)  See report quoted in footnote 8.

14

(15)  According to p. 8 of IN's letter dated 28 October 2013 (Event No 688213), the ‘[o]bjective of IN's New Structure project is to streamline visitnorway.com so that the tourist has one place to search and find information about all the destinations in Norway, in order for the tourist to choose Norway as a holiday destination’.

15

‘[o]bjective of IN's New Structure project is to streamline visitnorway.com so that the tourist has one place to search and find information about all the destinations in Norway, in order for the tourist to choose Norway as a holiday destination’

(16)  In Norwegian: ‘Statsbudsjett 2013 – oppdragsbrev Innovasjon Norge’ of 1 February 2013 (Event No 688224). Available at:

16

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/NHD/Vedlegg/Brev/2013_oppdragsbrev_innovasjonnorge.pdf#search=OPPDRAGSBREV®j_oss=1

(17)  Translation by the Authority.

17

(18)  Translation by the Authority.

18

(19)  Definition of ‘DMS’ available at http://www.newmind.co.uk/technology-platform/destination-management-system

19

(20)  IN's letter dated 28 October 2013 (Event No 688213).

20

(21)  Until that moment, New Mind | tellUs provided the web infrastructure and related services for IN's tourism website: visitnorway.com. See Event No 678005. Annex 3 to the complaint.

21

visitnorway.com

(22)  URL stands for Uniform Resource Locator. A URL is a formatted text string used by web-browsers, e-mail clients and other software to identify a network resource on the internet.

22

(23)  According to the Complainant: ‘to date, the offering of IT platform infrastructure services to the tourism industry has not been part of IN's activities’. Complaint (Event No 678002), p. 8.

23

‘to date, the offering of IT platform infrastructure services to the tourism industry has not been part of IN's activities’.

(24)  According to Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I-7747, the compensation of services fulfilling the four criteria established in paras. 89-93 of the judgment does not entail state aid.

24

Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg

(25)  E-mail dated 15 November 2013 (Event No 690346).

25

(26)  E-mail dated 3 March 2014 (Event No 702175).

26

(27)  IN's letters dated 28 October 2013 (Events No 688213 and 688215).

27

(28)  IN's letter dated 28 October 2013 (Event No 688213), p. 25.

28

(29)  According to Article 1 (b)(i) of Part II of Protocol 3.

29

(30)  See the definition of existing aid provided in Article 1(b)(v) of Part II of Protocol 3.

30

(31)  Corporate entities in Norway are subject to corporate income tax according to Section 2-2 of the Tax Act. Taxable income is subject to corporate income tax at the general rate of 27 %. Accordingly, limited liability companies (‘AS’ or ‘ASA’), savings banks and financial institutions, mutual insurance companies, cooperatives, state-owned enterprises, inter-municipal companies, foundations etc. are subject to corporate tax under the general regime, i.e. Section 2-2. However, State institutions, public authorities such as counties and municipalities, and a number of other entities listed exhaustively in Section 2-30(1) of the Tax Act, including IN, benefit from a corporate tax exemption.

31

(32)  Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser v Macroton [1991] ECR I-1979, paras. 21-23; Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 Pavlov and Others [2000] ECR I-6451 and Case E-5/07 Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. p. 61, para.78.

32

Höfner and Elser

Macroton

Pavlov and Others

Private Barnehagers Landsforbund

EFTA Surveillance Authority

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

33

Ministero dell'Economica e delle Finanze

Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA

(34)  Joined Cases 209/78 to 215/78 and 218/78 Van Landewyck [1978] ECR 2111, paras. 18-21 and Case C-244/94 FFSA and others [1995] ECR I-4013, para. 21.

34

Van Landewyck

FFSA and others

(35)  Joined Cases T-443/08 Freissart Sachen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt and T-455/08, Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzing-Halle [2011] ECR II-1311, para. 128 et seq.

35

Freissart Sachen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt

Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzing-Halle

(36)  Economic and non-economic activities can co-exist within the same sector and sometimes be provided by the same organisation. In this scenario, the entity is to be regarded as an undertaking only with regard to its economic activities. See, for example, European Commission Decision in State Aid C-22/2003 (Italy) Reform of the training institutions (OJ L 81, 18.3.2006, p. 25), para. 43.

36

Reform of the training institutions

(37)  Para. 45 of the complaint.

37

(38)  See Case T-347/09, Germany v Commission, not yet published, p. 34 et seq., on how to differentiate between the nature of different activities provided by one single entity.

38

Germany

Commission

(39)  Case T-347/09, Germany v Commission, not yet published.

39

Germany

Commission

(40)  IN's letter dated 28 October 2013 (Event No 688213), p. 34.

40

(41)  Commission Decision: State aid NN 8/2009. Germany. Nature conservation areas. OJ C 230, 24.9.2009, p. 1, para. 36.

41

Nature conservation areas

(42)  The Commission reached a similar conclusion in its decision in footnote 41, above (para. 40).

42

(43)  AG Opinion in Case C-205/03 Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN) v Commission, [2006] ECR I-6295, para. 31.

43

Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sanitaria (FENIN)

Commission

(44)  Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98, Pavel Pavlov and Others, [2000] ECR I-6451, para. 76; C-475/99, Ambulanz Glockner, [2001] ECR 9089, para. 20.

44

Pavel Pavlov and Others

Ambulanz Glockner

(45)  See, for instance, Article 2 of the Transparency Directive. (Referred to at point 1a of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, OJ L 266 11.10.2007 p. 15 and EEA Supplement No 48 11.10.2007 p. 12, as Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings. Consolidated version: OJ L 318, 17.11.2006, p. 17–25). Implemented in Norwegian law by Regulation FOR-2006-09-07-1062, Section 9-1-1.

45

(46)  According to Chapter 2, Articles 7-9 of the IN Act, IN is financed by capital provided by its owners (i.e. the Norwegian Government and the Counties (ref. Article 7, ref. Article 2) and grants and loans from the Government and the Counties. IN can also obtain funding from other sources (Article 8), and Government and Counties guarantee for all obligations (Article 9).

46

(47)  See the Authority's Guidelines on application of State aid provisions to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector, paragraph 2 (OJ L 231, 3.9.1994, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994, p. 1) (the ‘Manufacturing Guidelines’). Section 1(3) of the Manufacturing Guidelines provides that ‘[t]his Chapter does not deal with the question of compatibility under one of the derogations provided for in the EEA Agreement and it is limited to the manufacturing sector. This does not, however, preclude the EFTA Surveillance Authority from using the approach in these rules in individual cases or sectors outside manufacturing to the extent these principles apply in these excluded sectors and where it feels that it is essential to determine if state aid is involved.’ The Manufacturing Guidelines can be found at: http://www.eftasurv.int/?1=1&showLinkID=16995&1=1

47

Guidelines on application of State aid provisions to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector

t]his Chapter does not deal with the question of compatibility under one of the derogations provided for in the EEA Agreement and it is limited to the manufacturing sector. This does not, however, preclude the EFTA Surveillance Authority from using the approach in these rules in individual cases or sectors outside manufacturing to the extent these principles apply in these excluded sectors and where it feels that it is essential to determine if state aid is involved

(48)  See, for example, the Authority's Decision No 142/03/COL Regarding Reorganisation and Transfer of Public Funds to the Work Research Institute (OJ C 248, 16.10.2003, p. 6); Decision No 343/09/COL on the property transactions engaged in by the Municipality of Time concerning property numbers 1/152, 1/301, 1/630, 4/165, 2/70, 2/32 (OJ L 123, 12.5.2011, p. 72), and Decision No 174/13/COL Concerning the financing of municipal waste collectors (OJ C 263, 12.9.2013, p. 5).

48

Regarding Reorganisation and Transfer of Public Funds to the Work Research Institute

on the property transactions engaged in by the Municipality of Time concerning property numbers 1/152, 1/301, 1/630, 4/165, 2/70, 2/32

Concerning the financing of municipal waste collectors

(49)  See footnote 45.

49

(50)  AG Opinion, Case C-295/05, Asemfo [2007] ECR I-2999, para. 116.

50

Asemfo

(51)  Section 7.4(2) of the Manufacturing Guidelines. Also see Section 1(2) of the Manufacturing Guidelines, which provides that ‘[t]his Chapter firstly focuses on, the one hand, on the act referred to in point 1 of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the Transparency Directive and, on the other hand, it develops the principle that where the State provides finances to a company in circumstances that would not be applicable to an investor operating under normal market economy conditions, it does this in contradiction to the market economy investor principle, and state aid is involved’. See the reference to the Manufacturing Guidelines in footnote 47.

51

his Chapter firstly focuses on, the one hand, on the act referred to in point 1 of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the Transparency Directive and, on the other hand, it develops the principle that where the State provides finances to a company in circumstances that would not be applicable to an investor operating under normal market economy conditions, it does this in contradiction to the market economy investor principle, and state aid is involved’

(52)  Joined Cases C-83/01 P and C-94/01P Chronopost SA v Commission [2003] ECR I-6993.

52

Chronopost SA

Commission

(53)  Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-3679, para. 44.

53

Italy

Commission

(54)  Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paras. 11-12 and Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04, E-7/04 Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 117, para. 94.

54

Philip Morris Holland BV

Commission

Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS

EFTA Surveillance Authority

(55)  Case T-301/02 AEM v Commission [2009] ECR II-01757, paras. 104 and 105.

55

AEM

Commission

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

56

France

Commission (Stardust)

(57)  Case C-677/11 Doux Elevage, not yet published, para. 34, Case T-139/09 France v Commission, not yet published, para. 36.

57

Doux Elevage,

France

Commission

(58)  For listing of the relevant indicators of imputability, the Authority refers to Case C-482/99 France v Commission (Stardust Marine) [2002] ECR I-4397, paras. 55-56.

58

France

Commission (Stardust Marine)

(59)  Case E- 17/10 and E-6/11 Liechtenstein and VTM Fundmanagement v EFTA Surveillance Authority, para. 50, and the case-law cited therein; Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307, para. 41; Case 30/59 De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community [1961] ECR 50, para. 19; Case C-241/94 France v Commission (Kimberly Clark) [1996] ECR I-4551, para. 34; and Case T-109/01 Fleuren Compost [2004] ECR II-132, para. 53.

59

Liechtenstein and VTM Fundmanagement

EFTA Surveillance Authority,

France

Commission

De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen

High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community

France

Commission (Kimberly Clark)

Fleuren Compost

(60)  Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission [1980] ECR, 2671, para. 11.

60

Philip Morris Holland BV

Commission

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

61

France

Commission

Italian Republic

Commission

Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg

Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Altmark)

Confederación Española de Transporte de Mercancías (CETM)

Commission

(62)  Case T-301/02 AEM v Commission, [2009] ECR II-01757, para. 103.

62

AEM

Commission

(63)  E-14/10 – Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority, EFTA Ct. Rep [2011] p. 266.

63

Konkurrenten.no AS

EFTA Surveillance Authority

(64)  It follows from Article 1(c) to the same Protocol that alterations to existing aid schemes constitute new aid. The case-law has also confirmed that measures to alter aid must be regarded as new aid. See Case 91/83 and 127/83 Heineken Brouwerijen [1984] ECR 3435, paras. 17 and 18, and Case C-44/93 Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit SA v Office Nationale du Ducroire [1994] ECR I-3829, para. 13.

64

Heineken Brouwerijen

Namur-Les Assurances du Crédit SA

Office Nationale du Ducroire

(65)  The Authority notes that in White Paper no. 14 of 2003-2004 on the IN Act it is clearly stated that IN should ‘not offer products in competition with the private market’ (In Norwegian: ‘Ot.prp. nr. 14 (2003-2004) om Lov om Innovasjon Norge’). Therefore, the Authority's current understanding is that, before 2013 and the adoption of the 2013 Budget letter, IN was not authorised to provide economic services in the tourism sector. In that regard, reference is made to Proposition No 51 to the Norwegian Parliament, entitled ‘measures for an innovative and business development’ (St.prp.no. 51 (2002-2003, in Norwegian: ‘Virkemidler for et innovativt og nyskapende næringsliv’), which states (in relation to the former entity NTC) that ‘services paid by the user should, however, not be offered in areas where there is a well-developed offer from private consultants or where these services come into conflict with the priority areas of this new unit (i.e. IN)’. The original text reads: ‘Brukerbetalte tjenester ikke bør tilbys på områder hvor det eksisterer et godt utviklet tilbud fra private aktører’. St.prp. no. 51 (2002-2003), p. 37, first column.

65

not offer products in competition with the private market

Ot.prp. nr. 14 (2003-2004) om Lov om Innovasjon Norge

measures for an innovative and business development

Virkemidler for et innovativt og nyskapende næringsliv

services paid by the user should, however, not be offered in areas where there is a well-developed offer from private consultants or where these services come into conflict with the priority areas of this new unit

Brukerbetalte tjenester ikke bør tilbys på områder hvor det eksisterer et godt utviklet tilbud fra private aktører

(66)  The Norwegian authorities underline that ‘[t]he system of financing IN and its predecessors has been more or less the same since the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in 1994. The changes made are not of a nature turning the existing financing system into new aid’. IN's letter dated 28 October 2013 (Event No 688213), p. 39.

66

‘[t]he system of financing IN and its predecessors has been more or less the same since the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in 1994. The changes made are not of a nature turning the existing financing system into new aid’

(67)  Article 1(b)(v) of Part II of Protocol 3 reads as follows: Existing aid shall mean: ‘[a]id which is deemed to be an existing aid because it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid, and subsequently became an aid due to the evolution of the European Economic Area and without having been altered by the EFTA State. Where certain measures become aid following the liberalisation of an activity by EEA law, such measures shall not be considered as existing aid after the date fixed for liberalisation’.

67

‘[a]id which is deemed to be an existing aid because it can be established that at the time it was put into effect it did not constitute an aid, and subsequently became an aid due to the evolution of the European Economic Area and without having been altered by the EFTA State. Where certain measures become aid following the liberalisation of an activity by EEA law, such measures shall not be considered as existing aid after the date fixed for liberalisation’

(68)  Case T-68/03 Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE v Commission [2007] ECR II-2911, para. 34.

68

Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE

Commission

(69)  Transparent aid is defined in Article 5.1 of Regulation (EC) No 651/2014, General Block Exemption Regulation, of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (OJ L 187, 26.6.2014, p. 1, incorporated as point 1j into Annex XV of the EEA Agreement by Decision No 152/2014 of 27 June 2014) as ‘aid in respect of which it is possible to calculate precisely the gross grant equivalent of the aid ex ante without any need to undertake a risk assessment’.

69

aid in respect of which it is possible to calculate precisely the gross grant equivalent of the aid ex ante without any need to undertake a risk assessment

(70)  Case C-225/91 Matra v Commission [1993] ECR I-3203, para. 41, and Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] I-6857, para. 78 and case-law cited.

70

Matra

Commission

Germany

Commission

---

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/28

---

EFTA riikide esindajate ja EFTA järelevalveameti seisukoht, mis esitati konkurentsi piiravat tegevust ja turgu valitsevat seisundit käsitleva nõuandekomitee koosolekul 3. märtsil 2014 komisjoni otsuse esialgse eelnõu kohta seoses juhtumiga AT.39952 – Elektribörsid

Raportöör: Madalmaad

(2014/C 334/09)

| 1. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet jagavad muret, mida komisjon väljendas oma otsuse eelnõus, mis edastati nõuandekomiteele. |
| --- | --- |

1.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet jagavad muret, mida komisjon väljendas oma otsuse eelnõus, mis edastati nõuandekomiteele.

| 2. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõus käsitletav konkurentsivastane käitumine kujutab endast ettevõtjate vahelist kokkulepet ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevust Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 tähenduses. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõus käsitletav konkurentsivastane käitumine kujutab endast ettevõtjate vahelist kokkulepet ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevust Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 tähenduses.

| 3. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad otsuse eelnõus esitatud komisjoni hinnanguga kokkuleppe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevuse geograafilisele ulatusele ja asjaomasele tootele. |
| --- | --- |

3.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad otsuse eelnõus esitatud komisjoni hinnanguga kokkuleppe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevuse geograafilisele ulatusele ja asjaomasele tootele.

| 4. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõus käsitletavad ettevõtjad on osalenud ühes ja pidevas Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 rikkumises. |
| --- | --- |

4.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõus käsitletavad ettevõtjad on osalenud ühes ja pidevas Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 rikkumises.

| 5. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et ettevõtjatevahelise kokkuleppe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevuse eesmärk oli piirata konkurentsi Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 tähenduses. |
| --- | --- |

5.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et ettevõtjatevahelise kokkuleppe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevuse eesmärk oli piirata konkurentsi Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 101 ja EMP lepingu artikli 53 tähenduses.

| 6. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et kokkulepe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevus võisid ELi liikmesriikide vahelist kaubandust oluliselt mõjutada. |
| --- | --- |

6.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et kokkulepe ja/või kooskõlastatud tegevus võisid ELi liikmesriikide vahelist kaubandust oluliselt mõjutada.

| 7. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoni hinnanguga rikkumise kestuse kohta. |
| --- | --- |

7.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoni hinnanguga rikkumise kestuse kohta.

| 8. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõu adressaatidele on vaja määrata trahv. |
| --- | --- |

8.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et otsuse eelnõu adressaatidele on vaja määrata trahv.

| 9. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga müügi väärtuse suhtes. |
| --- | --- |

9.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga müügi väärtuse suhtes.

| 10. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga trahvide põhisummade suhtes. |
| --- | --- |

10.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga trahvide põhisummade suhtes.

| 11. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et kõnealuse juhtumi puhul ei ole raskendavaid ega kergendavaid asjaolusid. |
| --- | --- |

11.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et kõnealuse juhtumi puhul ei ole raskendavaid ega kergendavaid asjaolusid.

| 12. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et kõnealuse juhtumi puhul ei suurenda komisjon ühtegi trahvi hoiatava mõju eesmärgil. |
| --- | --- |

12.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga, et kõnealuse juhtumi puhul ei suurenda komisjon ühtegi trahvi hoiatava mõju eesmärgil.

| 13. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga trahvide vähendamise suhtes 2008. aasta teatise alusel, milles käsitletakse kokkuleppemenetluse läbiviimist. |
| --- | --- |

13.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga trahvide vähendamise suhtes 2008. aasta teatise alusel, milles käsitletakse kokkuleppemenetluse läbiviimist.

| 14. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga trahvide lõplike summade suhtes. |
| --- | --- |

14.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet nõustuvad komisjoniga trahvide lõplike summade suhtes.

| 15. | EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet soovitavad avaldada oma arvamuse Euroopa Liidu Teatajas. |
| --- | --- |

15.

EFTA riikide esindajad ja EFTA järelevalveamet soovitavad avaldada oma arvamuse Euroopa Liidu Teatajas.

---

V Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa Komisjon

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/29

---

TEADE AVALIKU KONKURSI KORRALDAMISE KOHTA

(2014/C 334/10)

Euroopa Personalivaliku Amet (EPSO) korraldab järgmise avaliku konkursi:

EPSO/AST-SC/02/14 – siseturvalisuse eest vastutavad töötajad (SC 1)

Konkursiteade avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja25. septembri 2014. aasta väljaandes C 334 A 24 keeles.

Lisateave on esitatud EPSO veebisaidil http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---

KOHTUMENETLUSED

Euroopa Komisjon

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/30

---

EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi

(Kohtuasi E-12/14)

(2014/C 334/11)

EFTA järelevalveamet, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brüssel, Belgia, keda esindavad Markus Schneider ja Catherine Howdle, on algatanud 17. juulil 2014 EFTA kohtus hagi Islandi vastu.

EFTA järelevalveamet taotleb, et EFTA kohus:

| 1. | otsustaks, et jättes selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata EMP lepingu II lisa IV peatüki punktis 6 viidatud õigusakti (Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 21. oktoobri 2009. aasta direktiiv 2009/125/EÜ, mis käsitleb raamistiku kehtestamist energiamõjuga toodete ökodisaini nõuete sätestamiseks, mida on kohandatud EMP lepingu protokolliga nr 1) rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata, ei ole Islandi Vabariik täitnud kõnealusest õigusaktist ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi; |
| --- | --- |

1.

otsustaks, et jättes selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata EMP lepingu II lisa IV peatüki punktis 6 viidatud õigusakti (Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 21. oktoobri 2009. aasta direktiiv 2009/125/EÜ, mis käsitleb raamistiku kehtestamist energiamõjuga toodete ökodisaini nõuete sätestamiseks, mida on kohandatud EMP lepingu protokolliga nr 1) rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata, ei ole Islandi Vabariik täitnud kõnealusest õigusaktist ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi;

| 2. | kohustaks Islandi Vabariiki kandma menetluskulud. |
| --- | --- |

2.

kohustaks Islandi Vabariiki kandma menetluskulud.

Õiguslik ja faktiline taust ning hagi toetuseks esitatud asjaolud

| — | Hagi käsitleb asjaolu, et Islandi Vabariik ei ole 3. septembriks 2013 täitnud EFTA järelevalveameti 3. juuli 2013. aasta põhjendatud arvamust, mis käsitleb Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 21. oktoobri 2009. aasta direktiivi 2009/125/EÜ (mis käsitleb raamistiku kehtestamist energiamõjuga toodete ökodisaini nõuete sätestamiseks, edaspidi „direktiiv”, millele viidatakse EMP lepingu II lisa IV peatüki punktis 6 ja mida on lepinguga kohandatud selle protokolli nr 1 alusel) Islandi Vabariigi siseriiklikus õiguses rakendamata jätmist. |
| --- | --- |

—

Hagi käsitleb asjaolu, et Islandi Vabariik ei ole 3. septembriks 2013 täitnud EFTA järelevalveameti 3. juuli 2013. aasta põhjendatud arvamust, mis käsitleb Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 21. oktoobri 2009. aasta direktiivi 2009/125/EÜ (mis käsitleb raamistiku kehtestamist energiamõjuga toodete ökodisaini nõuete sätestamiseks, edaspidi „direktiiv”, millele viidatakse EMP lepingu II lisa IV peatüki punktis 6 ja mida on lepinguga kohandatud selle protokolli nr 1 alusel) Islandi Vabariigi siseriiklikus õiguses rakendamata jätmist.

| — | EFTA järelevalveamet väidab, et Island ei ole täitnud direktiivi artiklist 23 ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi, jättes selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata direktiivi rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes EFTA järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata. |
| --- | --- |

—

EFTA järelevalveamet väidab, et Island ei ole täitnud direktiivi artiklist 23 ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi, jättes selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata direktiivi rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes EFTA järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata.

---

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/31

---

EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi

(Kohtuasi E-11/14)

(2014/C 334/12)

EFTA järelevalveamet, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brüssel, Belgia, keda esindavad Markus Schneider ja Janne Tysnes Kaasin, on algatanud 17. juulil 2014 EFTA kohtus hagi Islandi vastu.

EFTA järelevalveamet taotleb, et EFTA kohus:

| 1. | otsustaks, et jättes selleks ette nähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata EMP lepingu XII lisa punktis 2 osutatud õigusakti (Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv 2011/7/EL, 16. veebruar 2011, hilinenud maksmisega võitlemise kohta äritehingute puhul, mida on kohandatud EMP lepingu protokolliga nr 1) rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata, on Islandi Vabariik jätnud täitmata oma kohustused, mis tulenevad kõnealuse õigusakti artiklist 12 ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7; |
| --- | --- |

1.

otsustaks, et jättes selleks ette nähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata EMP lepingu XII lisa punktis 2 osutatud õigusakti (Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv 2011/7/EL, 16. veebruar 2011, hilinenud maksmisega võitlemise kohta äritehingute puhul, mida on kohandatud EMP lepingu protokolliga nr 1) rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata, on Islandi Vabariik jätnud täitmata oma kohustused, mis tulenevad kõnealuse õigusakti artiklist 12 ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7;

| 2. | kohustaks Islandi Vabariiki kandma menetluskulud. |
| --- | --- |

2.

kohustaks Islandi Vabariiki kandma menetluskulud.

Õiguslik ja faktiline taust ning hagi toetuseks esitatud asjaolud

| — | Hagi käsitleb asjaolu, et Islandi Vabariik ei ole 18. veebruariks 2014 täitnud EFTA järelevalveameti 18. detsembri 2013. aasta põhjendatud arvamust, mis käsitleb Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 16. veebruari 2011. aasta direktiivi 2011/7/EL (hilinenud maksmisega võitlemise kohta äritehingute puhul, edaspidi „direktiiv”, millele viidatakse EMP lepingu XII lisa punktis 2 ja mida on lepinguga kohandatud selle protokolli nr 1 alusel) Islandi Vabariigi siseriiklikus õiguses rakendamata jätmist. |
| --- | --- |

—

Hagi käsitleb asjaolu, et Islandi Vabariik ei ole 18. veebruariks 2014 täitnud EFTA järelevalveameti 18. detsembri 2013. aasta põhjendatud arvamust, mis käsitleb Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 16. veebruari 2011. aasta direktiivi 2011/7/EL (hilinenud maksmisega võitlemise kohta äritehingute puhul, edaspidi „direktiiv”, millele viidatakse EMP lepingu XII lisa punktis 2 ja mida on lepinguga kohandatud selle protokolli nr 1 alusel) Islandi Vabariigi siseriiklikus õiguses rakendamata jätmist.

| — | EFTA järelevalveamet väidab, et Island ei ole täitnud direktiivi artiklist 12 ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi, jättes selleks ette nähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata direktiivi rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes EFTA järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata. |
| --- | --- |

—

EFTA järelevalveamet väidab, et Island ei ole täitnud direktiivi artiklist 12 ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi, jättes selleks ette nähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata direktiivi rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes EFTA järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata.

---

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/32

---

EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi

(Kohtuasi E-13/14)

(2014/C 334/13)

EFTA järelevalveamet, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brüssel, keda esindavad Markus Schneider ja Maria Moustakali, on algatanud 17. juulil 2014 EFTA kohtus hagi Islandi vastu.

EFTA järelevalveamet taotleb, et EFTA kohus:

| 1. | otsustaks, et jättes selleks ette nähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata EMP lepingu XVIII lisa punktis 21c viidatud õigusakti (nõukogu direktiiv 2004/113/EÜ, 13. detsember 2004, meeste ja naiste võrdse kohtlemise põhimõtte rakendamise kohta seoses kaupade ja teenuste kättesaadavuse ja pakkumisega, mida on kohandatud EMP lepingu protokolliga nr 1 ja ühiskomitee otsusega nr 147/2009) rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata, on Islandi Vabariik jätnud täitmata oma kohustused, mis tulenevad kõnealusest õigusaktist ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7; |
| --- | --- |

1.

otsustaks, et jättes selleks ette nähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata EMP lepingu XVIII lisa punktis 21c viidatud õigusakti (nõukogu direktiiv 2004/113/EÜ, 13. detsember 2004, meeste ja naiste võrdse kohtlemise põhimõtte rakendamise kohta seoses kaupade ja teenuste kättesaadavuse ja pakkumisega, mida on kohandatud EMP lepingu protokolliga nr 1 ja ühiskomitee otsusega nr 147/2009) rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata, on Islandi Vabariik jätnud täitmata oma kohustused, mis tulenevad kõnealusest õigusaktist ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7;

| 2. | kohustaks Islandi Vabariiki kandma menetluskulud. |
| --- | --- |

2.

kohustaks Islandi Vabariiki kandma menetluskulud.

Õiguslik ja faktiline taust ning hagi toetuseks esitatud asjaolud

| — | Hagi käsitleb asjaolu, et Islandi Vabariik ei ole 26. augustiks 2013 täitnud EFTA järelevalveameti 26. juuni 2013. aasta põhjendatud arvamust, mis käsitleb nõukogu 13. detsembri 2004. aasta direktiivi 2004/113/EÜ (meeste ja naiste võrdse kohtlemise põhimõtte rakendamise kohta seoses kaupade ja teenuste kättesaadavuse ja pakkumisega, edaspidi „direktiiv”, millele viidatakse EMP lepingu XVIII lisa punktis 21c ja mida on lepinguga kohandatud selle protokolli nr 1 alusel) Islandi Vabariigi siseriiklikus õiguses rakendamata jätmist. |
| --- | --- |

—

Hagi käsitleb asjaolu, et Islandi Vabariik ei ole 26. augustiks 2013 täitnud EFTA järelevalveameti 26. juuni 2013. aasta põhjendatud arvamust, mis käsitleb nõukogu 13. detsembri 2004. aasta direktiivi 2004/113/EÜ (meeste ja naiste võrdse kohtlemise põhimõtte rakendamise kohta seoses kaupade ja teenuste kättesaadavuse ja pakkumisega, edaspidi „direktiiv”, millele viidatakse EMP lepingu XVIII lisa punktis 21c ja mida on lepinguga kohandatud selle protokolli nr 1 alusel) Islandi Vabariigi siseriiklikus õiguses rakendamata jätmist.

| — | EFTA järelevalveamet väidab, et Island ei ole täitnud direktiivi artiklist 17 ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi, jättes selleks ette nähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata kõik direktiivi rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes EFTA järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata. |
| --- | --- |

—

EFTA järelevalveamet väidab, et Island ei ole täitnud direktiivi artiklist 17 ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi, jättes selleks ette nähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata kõik direktiivi rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes EFTA järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata.

---

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/33

---

EFTA järelevalveameti 17. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi

(Kohtuasi E-14/14)

(2014/C 334/14)

EFTA järelevalveamet, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brüssel, Belgia, keda esindavad Markus Schneider ja Janne Tysnes Kaasin, on algatanud 17. juulil 2014 EFTA kohtus hagi Islandi vastu.

EFTA järelevalveamet taotleb, et EFTA kohus:

| 1. | otsustaks, et jättes selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata kõik EMP lepingu II lisa XXIII peatüki punktis 1a viidatud õigusakti (Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv 2009/48/EÜ, 18. juuni 2009, mänguasjade ohutuse kohta), mida on kohandatud EMP lepingu protokolliga nr 1 ja ühiskomitee otsusega nr 127/2012 rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata, on Islandi Vabariik jätnud täitmata oma kohustused, mis tulenevad kõnealusest õigusaktist ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7; |
| --- | --- |

1.

otsustaks, et jättes selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata kõik EMP lepingu II lisa XXIII peatüki punktis 1a viidatud õigusakti (Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv 2009/48/EÜ, 18. juuni 2009, mänguasjade ohutuse kohta), mida on kohandatud EMP lepingu protokolliga nr 1 ja ühiskomitee otsusega nr 127/2012 rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata, on Islandi Vabariik jätnud täitmata oma kohustused, mis tulenevad kõnealusest õigusaktist ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7;

| 2. | kohustaks Islandi Vabariiki kandma menetluskulud. |
| --- | --- |

2.

kohustaks Islandi Vabariiki kandma menetluskulud.

Õiguslik ja faktiline taust ning hagi toetuseks esitatud asjaolud

| — | Hagi käsitleb asjaolu, et Islandi Vabariik ei ole 5. maiks 2014 täitnud EFTA järelevalveameti 5. märtsi 2014. aasta põhjendatud arvamust, mis käsitleb Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 18. juuni 2009. aasta direktiivi 2009/48/EL (mänguasjade ohutuse kohta, edaspidi „direktiiv”, millele viidatakse EMP lepingu II lisa XXIII peatüki punktis 1a ja mida on lepinguga kohandatud selle protokolli nr 1 alusel) Islandi Vabariigi siseriiklikus õiguses rakendamata jätmist. |
| --- | --- |

—

Hagi käsitleb asjaolu, et Islandi Vabariik ei ole 5. maiks 2014 täitnud EFTA järelevalveameti 5. märtsi 2014. aasta põhjendatud arvamust, mis käsitleb Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 18. juuni 2009. aasta direktiivi 2009/48/EL (mänguasjade ohutuse kohta, edaspidi „direktiiv”, millele viidatakse EMP lepingu II lisa XXIII peatüki punktis 1a ja mida on lepinguga kohandatud selle protokolli nr 1 alusel) Islandi Vabariigi siseriiklikus õiguses rakendamata jätmist.

| — | EFTA järelevalveamet väidab, et Island ei ole täitnud direktiivi artiklist 54 ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi, jättes selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata kõik direktiivi rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes EFTA järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata. |
| --- | --- |

—

EFTA järelevalveamet väidab, et Island ei ole täitnud direktiivi artiklist 54 ja EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi, jättes selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata kõik direktiivi rakendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ja/või jättes EFTA järelevalveametile kõnealustest meetmetest teatamata.

---

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/34

---

EFTA järelevalveameti 18. juulil 2014 Islandi vastu algatatud hagi

(Kohtuasi E-15/14)

(2014/C 334/15)

EFTA järelevalveamet, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brüssel, Belgia, keda esindavad Markus Schneider ja Janne Tysnes Kaasin, on algatanud 18. juulil 2014 EFTA kohtus hagi Islandi vastu.

EFTA järelevalveamet taotleb, et EFTA kohus:

| 1. | otsustaks, et Islandi Vabariik on jätnud täitmata EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevad kohustused, jättes selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata meetmed EMP lepingu II lisa XI peatüki punktis 4d osutatud õigusakti
  (Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EL) nr 1007/2011, 27. september 2011, tekstiilikiudude nimetuste ja tekstiiltoodete kiukoostise märgistamise ja tähistamise kohta, millega muudetakse kehtetuks nõukogu direktiiv 73/44/EMÜ, direktiiv 96/73/EÜ ja direktiiv 2008/121/EÜ,
  mida on muudetud
  komisjoni 27. jaanuari 2012. aasta delegeeritud määrusega (EL) nr 286/2012, millega muudetakse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) nr 1007/2011 (tekstiilkiudude nimetuste ja tekstiiltoodete kiukoostise märgistamise ja tähistamise kohta) I lisa, et lisada uue tekstiilkiu nimetus, ning VIII ja IX lisa, et kohandada need tehnika arenguga,
  ja kohandatud EMP lepinguga selle protokolli nr 1 alusel) ülevõtmiseks siseriiklikku õigusesse; |
| --- | --- |

1.

otsustaks, et Islandi Vabariik on jätnud täitmata EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevad kohustused, jättes selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata meetmed EMP lepingu II lisa XI peatüki punktis 4d osutatud õigusakti

(Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EL) nr 1007/2011, 27. september 2011, tekstiilikiudude nimetuste ja tekstiiltoodete kiukoostise märgistamise ja tähistamise kohta, millega muudetakse kehtetuks nõukogu direktiiv 73/44/EMÜ, direktiiv 96/73/EÜ ja direktiiv 2008/121/EÜ,

mida on muudetud

komisjoni 27. jaanuari 2012. aasta delegeeritud määrusega (EL) nr 286/2012, millega muudetakse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) nr 1007/2011 (tekstiilkiudude nimetuste ja tekstiiltoodete kiukoostise märgistamise ja tähistamise kohta) I lisa, et lisada uue tekstiilkiu nimetus, ning VIII ja IX lisa, et kohandada need tehnika arenguga,

ja kohandatud EMP lepinguga selle protokolli nr 1 alusel) ülevõtmiseks siseriiklikku õigusesse;

| 2. | kohustaks Islandi Vabariiki kandma menetluskulud. |
| --- | --- |

2.

kohustaks Islandi Vabariiki kandma menetluskulud.

Õiguslik ja faktiline taust ning hagi toetuseks esitatud asjaolud

| — | Hagi käsitleb asjaolu, et Islandi Vabariik ei ole ettenähtud aja jooksul täitnud EFTA järelevalveameti kaht põhjendatud arvamust, mis käsitlevad Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 27. septembri 2011. aasta määruse (EL) nr 1007/2011 (tekstiilikiudude nimetuste ja tekstiiltoodete kiukoostise märgistamise ja tähistamise kohta, millega muudetakse kehtetuks nõukogu direktiiv 73/44/EMÜ, direktiiv 96/73/EÜ ja direktiiv 2008/121/EÜ) siseriiklikus õiguses rakendamata jätmist ning komisjoni 27. jaanuari 2012. aasta delegeeritud määruse (EL) nr 286/2012 (millega muudetakse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) nr 1007/2011 (tekstiilkiudude nimetuste ja tekstiiltoodete kiukoostise märgistamise ja tähistamise kohta) I lisa, et lisada uue tekstiilkiu nimetus, ning VIII ja IX lisa, et kohandada need tehnika arenguga) siseriiklikku õiguskorda ülevõtmist. Mõlemale määrusele on viidatud EMP lepingu II lisa XI peatüki punktis 4d ja neid on lepinguga kohandatud selle protokolli nr 1 alusel. |
| --- | --- |

—

Hagi käsitleb asjaolu, et Islandi Vabariik ei ole ettenähtud aja jooksul täitnud EFTA järelevalveameti kaht põhjendatud arvamust, mis käsitlevad Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 27. septembri 2011. aasta määruse (EL) nr 1007/2011 (tekstiilikiudude nimetuste ja tekstiiltoodete kiukoostise märgistamise ja tähistamise kohta, millega muudetakse kehtetuks nõukogu direktiiv 73/44/EMÜ, direktiiv 96/73/EÜ ja direktiiv 2008/121/EÜ) siseriiklikus õiguses rakendamata jätmist ning komisjoni 27. jaanuari 2012. aasta delegeeritud määruse (EL) nr 286/2012 (millega muudetakse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EL) nr 1007/2011 (tekstiilkiudude nimetuste ja tekstiiltoodete kiukoostise märgistamise ja tähistamise kohta) I lisa, et lisada uue tekstiilkiu nimetus, ning VIII ja IX lisa, et kohandada need tehnika arenguga) siseriiklikku õiguskorda ülevõtmist. Mõlemale määrusele on viidatud EMP lepingu II lisa XI peatüki punktis 4d ja neid on lepinguga kohandatud selle protokolli nr 1 alusel.

| — | EFTA järelevalveamet on seisukohal, et olles jätnud selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata nimetatud määruste siseriiklikku õiguskorda ülevõtmiseks vajalikud meetmed, ei ole Island täitnud EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi. |
| --- | --- |

—

EFTA järelevalveamet on seisukohal, et olles jätnud selleks ettenähtud aja jooksul vastu võtmata nimetatud määruste siseriiklikku õiguskorda ülevõtmiseks vajalikud meetmed, ei ole Island täitnud EMP lepingu artiklist 7 tulenevaid kohustusi.

---

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/35

---

EFTA järelevalveameti 25. aprillil 2014. aastal Liechtensteini Vürstiriigi vastu algatatud hagi

(Kohtuasi E-17/14)

(2014/C 334/16)

EFTA järelevalveamet, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brüssel, Belgia, keda esindavad Xavier Lewis ja Janne Tysnes Kaasin, on 25. juulil 2014. aastal algatanud EFTA kohtus hagi Liechtensteini Vürstiriigi vastu.

EFTA järelevalveamet taotleb, et EFTA kohus:

| 1. | sedastaks, et jättes jõusse siseriiklikud õigusnormid, nagu tervishoiuseaduse artikli 63 ja tervishoiuseaduse kehtetuks tunnistamise seaduses sisalduva üleminekusätte, sealhulgas säilitades tervishoiuseaduse artikli 63 lõike 2 kohaldatavuse selles osas, milles nõutakse, et tegevusloaga hambaravispetsialist („Dentist”) peab oma kutsealal tegutsema palgatöötajana kvalifitseeritud hambaarsti otsese järelevalve ja juhendamise all ning vastutusel, on Liechtensteini Vürstiriik jätnud täitmata oma kohustused, mis tulenevad EMP lepingu artiklist 31, |
| --- | --- |

1.

sedastaks, et jättes jõusse siseriiklikud õigusnormid, nagu tervishoiuseaduse artikli 63 ja tervishoiuseaduse kehtetuks tunnistamise seaduses sisalduva üleminekusätte, sealhulgas säilitades tervishoiuseaduse artikli 63 lõike 2 kohaldatavuse selles osas, milles nõutakse, et tegevusloaga hambaravispetsialist („Dentist”) peab oma kutsealal tegutsema palgatöötajana kvalifitseeritud hambaarsti otsese järelevalve ja juhendamise all ning vastutusel, on Liechtensteini Vürstiriik jätnud täitmata oma kohustused, mis tulenevad EMP lepingu artiklist 31,

| 2. | kohustaks Liechtensteini Vürstiriiki kandma menetluskulud. |
| --- | --- |

2.

kohustaks Liechtensteini Vürstiriiki kandma menetluskulud.

Õiguslik ja faktiline taust ning hagi toetuseks esitatud asjaolud

| — | Liechtensteini tervishoiuseaduse artiklis 63 on sätestatud, et hambaravispetsialist („Dentist”) võib tegutseda üksnes kvalifitseeritud hambaarsti („Zahnarzt”) otsese järelevalve ja juhendamise all ning vastutusel. |
| --- | --- |

—

Liechtensteini tervishoiuseaduse artiklis 63 on sätestatud, et hambaravispetsialist („Dentist”) võib tegutseda üksnes kvalifitseeritud hambaarsti („Zahnarzt”) otsese järelevalve ja juhendamise all ning vastutusel.

| — | EMP lepingu artikli 31 alusel tagatud asutamisõigus nõuab, et asutamisvabadusel ei tohi olla piiranguid, sealhulgas ei tohi piirata õigust alustada ja jätkata tegutsemist füüsilisest isikust ettevõtjana. |
| --- | --- |

—

EMP lepingu artikli 31 alusel tagatud asutamisõigus nõuab, et asutamisvabadusel ei tohi olla piiranguid, sealhulgas ei tohi piirata õigust alustada ja jätkata tegutsemist füüsilisest isikust ettevõtjana.

| — | EFTA järelevalveamet on seisukohal, et Liechtenstein ei ole täitnud EMP lepingu artiklist 31 tulenevaid kohustusi. Ta leiab, et tervishoiuseaduse artikkel 63 ja tervishoiuseaduse kehtetuks tunnistamise seaduse üleminekusätted, sealhulgas artikli 63 lõike 2 kohaldatavus selles küsimuses, kujutab endast piirangut EMP lepingu artikli 31 tähenduses. |
| --- | --- |

—

EFTA järelevalveamet on seisukohal, et Liechtenstein ei ole täitnud EMP lepingu artiklist 31 tulenevaid kohustusi. Ta leiab, et tervishoiuseaduse artikkel 63 ja tervishoiuseaduse kehtetuks tunnistamise seaduse üleminekusätted, sealhulgas artikli 63 lõike 2 kohaldatavus selles küsimuses, kujutab endast piirangut EMP lepingu artikli 31 tähenduses.

| — | Liechtensteini valitsus väidab, et tervishoiuseaduse artikli 63 eesmärk on tagada rahvatervise kaitse. |
| --- | --- |

—

Liechtensteini valitsus väidab, et tervishoiuseaduse artikli 63 eesmärk on tagada rahvatervise kaitse.

| — | EFTA järelevalveamet on seisukohal, et asjaolu, et täieliku väljaõppe saanud ja kvalifitseeritud hambaravispetsialist („Dentist”), kes tahab tegelda oma kutsetööga vastavalt omandatud diplomile, peab Liechtensteinis tegutsema töötajana hambaarsti juures, läheb kaugemale sellest, mis on vajalik rahvatervise kaitseks. |
| --- | --- |

—

EFTA järelevalveamet on seisukohal, et asjaolu, et täieliku väljaõppe saanud ja kvalifitseeritud hambaravispetsialist („Dentist”), kes tahab tegelda oma kutsetööga vastavalt omandatud diplomile, peab Liechtensteinis tegutsema töötajana hambaarsti juures, läheb kaugemale sellest, mis on vajalik rahvatervise kaitseks.

---

KONKURENTSIPOLIITIKA RAKENDAMISEGA SEOTUD MENETLUSED

Euroopa Komisjon

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/36

---

Eelteatis koondumise kohta

(Juhtum M.7372 – AXA / Hammerson / The real estate portfolio)

Võimalik lihtsustatud korras menetlemine

(EMPs kohaldatav tekst)

(2014/C 334/17)

| 1. | 18. septembril 2014 sai komisjon nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (1) artiklile 4 vastava teatise kavandatava koondumise kohta, mille raames ettevõtjad SCI Vendome Commerces (Prantsusmaa) ja Hammerson plc („Hammerson”, Ühendkuningriik) omandavad ühiskontrolli ühinemismääruse artikli 3 lõike 1 punkti b tähenduses kinnisvaraportfelli üle aktsiate või osade ostu teel. |
| --- | --- |

1.

18. septembril 2014 sai komisjon nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (1) artiklile 4 vastava teatise kavandatava koondumise kohta, mille raames ettevõtjad SCI Vendome Commerces (Prantsusmaa) ja Hammerson plc („Hammerson”, Ühendkuningriik) omandavad ühiskontrolli ühinemismääruse artikli 3 lõike 1 punkti b tähenduses kinnisvaraportfelli üle aktsiate või osade ostu teel.

| 2. | Asjaomaste ettevõtjate majandustegevus hõlmab järgmist:






  — | SCI Vendome Commerces on täielikult ettevõtja AXA France Insurance companies omanduses olev tütarettevõtja. AXA on ülemaailmne kindlustusandjate konsolideerimisgrupp, mille tegevusala on elu-, tervise- ja muud liiki kindlustus, samuti investeeringute haldamine; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Asjaomaste ettevõtjate majandustegevus hõlmab järgmist:

—

SCI Vendome Commerces on täielikult ettevõtja AXA France Insurance companies omanduses olev tütarettevõtja. AXA on ülemaailmne kindlustusandjate konsolideerimisgrupp, mille tegevusala on elu-, tervise- ja muud liiki kindlustus, samuti investeeringute haldamine;

| — | Hammerson tegeleb ärikinnisvara arendamise ja üürileandmisega ning käitab tema omanduses olevat ärikinnisvara. Hammerson on peamiselt Ühendkuningriigis ja Prantsusmaal asuvate kaubanduskeskuste ja parklate arendaja, omanik ja käitaja; |
| --- | --- |

—

Hammerson tegeleb ärikinnisvara arendamise ja üürileandmisega ning käitab tema omanduses olevat ärikinnisvara. Hammerson on peamiselt Ühendkuningriigis ja Prantsusmaal asuvate kaubanduskeskuste ja parklate arendaja, omanik ja käitaja;

| — | kinnisvaraportfell hõlmab kaubanduskeskust ja elamut ning ümbruses asuvaid kinnistuid Bristolis (Ühendkuningriik) ning kaubanduskeskust ja seda ümbritsevaid kinnistuid Bristoli kesklinnas. |
| --- | --- |

—

kinnisvaraportfell hõlmab kaubanduskeskust ja elamut ning ümbruses asuvaid kinnistuid Bristolis (Ühendkuningriik) ning kaubanduskeskust ja seda ümbritsevaid kinnistuid Bristoli kesklinnas.

| 3. | Komisjon leiab pärast teatise esialgset läbivaatamist, et tehing, millest teatatakse, võib kuuluda ühinemismääruse reguleerimisalasse, kuid lõplikku otsust selle kohta ei ole veel tehtud. Vastavalt komisjoni teatisele lihtsustatud korra kohta teatavate koondumiste menetlemiseks vastavalt nõukogu määrusele (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (2) tuleks märkida, et käesolevat juhtumit on võimalik käsitleda teatises ettenähtud korra kohaselt. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Komisjon leiab pärast teatise esialgset läbivaatamist, et tehing, millest teatatakse, võib kuuluda ühinemismääruse reguleerimisalasse, kuid lõplikku otsust selle kohta ei ole veel tehtud. Vastavalt komisjoni teatisele lihtsustatud korra kohta teatavate koondumiste menetlemiseks vastavalt nõukogu määrusele (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (2) tuleks märkida, et käesolevat juhtumit on võimalik käsitleda teatises ettenähtud korra kohaselt.

| 4. | Komisjon kutsub asjast huvitatud kolmandaid isikuid esitama oma võimalikke märkusi kavandatava toimingu kohta.
  Komisjon peab märkused kätte saama kümne päeva jooksul pärast käesoleva dokumendi avaldamist. Märkusi võib saata komisjonile faksi (+32 22964301) või elektronposti (COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu) teel või postiga järgmisel aadressil (lisada viitenumber M.7372 –AXA / Hammerson / The real estate portfolio):





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

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

Komisjon peab märkused kätte saama kümne päeva jooksul pärast käesoleva dokumendi avaldamist. Märkusi võib saata komisjonile faksi (+32 22964301) või elektronposti (COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu) teel või postiga järgmisel aadressil (lisada viitenumber M.7372 –AXA / Hammerson / The real estate portfolio):

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  ELT L 24, 29.1.2004, lk 1 („Ühinemismäärus”).

(2)  ELT C 366, 14.12.2013, lk 5.

---

Parandused

| 25.9.2014 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 334/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 334/37

---

Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 562/2006 (millega kehtestatakse isikute üle piiri liikumist reguleerivad ühenduse eeskirjad (Schengeni piirieeskirjad)) artikli 2 lõikes 8 nimetatud piiripunktide ajakohastatud loetelu (
  ELT C 316, 28.12.2007, lk 1
  ;
  ELT C 134, 31.5.2008, lk 16
  ;
  ELT C 177, 12.7.2008, lk 9
  ;
  ELT C 200, 6.8.2008, lk 10
  ;
  ELT C 331, 31.12.2008, lk 13
  ;
  ELT C 3, 8.1.2009, lk 10
  ;
  ELT C 37, 14.2.2009, lk 10
  ;
  ELT C 64, 19.3.2009, lk 20
  ;
  ELT C 99, 30.4.2009, lk 7
  ;
  ELT C 229, 23.9.2009, lk 28
  ;
  ELT C 263, 5.11.2009, lk 22
  ;
  ELT C 298, 8.12.2009, lk 17
  ;
  ELT C 74, 24.3.2010, lk 13
  ;
  ELT C 326, 3.12.2010, lk 17
  ;
  ELT C 355, 29.12.2010, lk 34
  ;
  ELT C 22, 22.1.2011, lk 22
  ;
  ELT C 37, 5.2.2011, lk 12
  ;
  ELT C 149, 20.5.2011, lk 8
  ;
  ELT C 190, 30.6.2011, lk 17
  ;
  ELT C 203, 9.7.2011, lk 14
  ;
  ELT C 210, 16.7.2011, lk 30
  ;
  ELT C 271, 14.9.2011, lk 18
  ;
  ELT C 356, 6.12.2011, lk 12
  ;
  ELT C 111, 18.4.2012, lk 3
  ;
  ELT C 183, 23.6.2012, lk 7
  ;
  ELT C 313, 17.10.2012, lk 11
  ;
  ELT C 394, 20.12.2012, lk 22
  ;
  ELT C 51, 22.2.2013, lk 9
  ;
  ELT C 167, 13.6.2013, lk 9
  ;
  ELT C 242, 23.8.2013, lk 2
  ;
  ELT C 275, 24.9.2013, lk 7
  ;
  ELT C 314, 29.10.2013, lk 5
  ;
  ELT C 324, 9.11.2013, lk 6
  ;
  ELT C 57, 28.2.2014, lk 4
  ;
  ELT C 167, 4.6.2014, lk 9
  ) parandus

(
  Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 244, 26. juuli 2014
  )

(2014/C 334/18)

Leheküljel 22 nr 2 all

asendatakse

„Bulgaaria–Makedoonia piir”,

järgmisega:

järgmisega:

„Bulgaaria – endise Jugoslaavia Makedoonia vabariigi piir”.

---