# Официален вестник C 236/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0855 |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 236 |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 5930 юни 2016 г. |

ISSN 1977-0855

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 236

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 5930 юни 2016 г.

---

| Известие No | Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Съобщения |
| | СЪОБЩЕНИЯ НА ИНСТИТУЦИИТЕ, ОРГАНИТЕ, СЛУЖБИТЕ И АГЕНЦИИТЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ СЪЮЗ |
| | Европейска комисия |
| 2016/C 236/01 | Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление (Дело M.8039 — Freudenberg/Vibracoustic) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2016/C 236/02 | Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление (Дело M.8049 — TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2016/C 236/03 | Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление (Дело M.8041 — M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investment) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2016/C 236/04 | Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление (Дело M.8054 — 3i Group/Deutsche Alternative Asset Management/TCR Capvest) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Известие No

Съдържание

Страница

II   Съобщения

СЪОБЩЕНИЯ НА ИНСТИТУЦИИТЕ, ОРГАНИТЕ, СЛУЖБИТЕ И АГЕНЦИИТЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ СЪЮЗ

Европейска комисия

2016/C 236/01

Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление (Дело M.8039 — Freudenberg/Vibracoustic) (
  1
  )

1

1

2016/C 236/02

Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление (Дело M.8049 — TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio) (
  1
  )

1

1

2016/C 236/03

Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление (Дело M.8041 — M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investment) (
  1
  )

1

2

2016/C 236/04

Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление (Дело M.8054 — 3i Group/Deutsche Alternative Asset Management/TCR Capvest) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Информация |
| --- | --- |
| | ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОТ ИНСТИТУЦИИТЕ, ОРГАНИТЕ, СЛУЖБИТЕ И АГЕНЦИИТЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ СЪЮЗ |
| | Европейска комисия |
| 2016/C 236/05 | Обменен курс на еврото | 3 |
| 2016/C 236/06 | Нова национална страна на разменни евромонети | 4 |
| | Сметна палата |
| 2016/C 236/07 | Специален доклад No 14/2016 — Инициативи на политиката и финансова подкрепа от страна на ЕС за интегриране на ромите — постигнат е значителен напредък през последното десетилетие, но са необходими допълнителни усилия на местно равнище | 5 |
| | ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОТ ДЪРЖАВИТЕ ЧЛЕНКИ |
| 2016/C 236/08 | Актуализиране на списъка на гранично-пропускателните пунктове, посочени в член 2, параграф 8 от Регламент (ЕС) 2016/399 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно Кодекс на Съюза за режима на движение на лица през границите (Кодекс на шенгенските граници) | 6 |
| 2016/C 236/09 | Актуализиране на моделите карти, издавани от министерствата на външните работи на държавите членки за акредитиране на членовете на дипломатическите мисии и консулските представителства и членовете на техните семейства, както е посочено в член 20, параграф 2 от Регламент (ЕС) 2016/399 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно Кодекс на Съюза за режима на движение на лица през границите (Кодекс на шенгенските граници) | 11 |
| | ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ЗА ЕВРОПЕЙСКОТО ИКОНОМИЧЕСКО ПРОСТРАНСТВО |
| | Надзорен орган на ЕАСТ |
| 2016/C 236/10 | Покана за представяне на мнения съгласно член 1, параграф 2 от част I на Протокол 3 към Споразумението между държавите от ЕАСТ за създаване на надзорен орган и съд относно въпроси, свързани с държавна помощ | 21 |
| 2016/C 236/11 | Покана за представяне на мнения съгласно член 1, параграф 2 от част I на Протокол 3 към Споразумението между държавите от ЕАСТ за създаване на надзорен орган и съд по въпроси, свързани с държавна помощ, във връзка с потенциална помощ за Hurtigruten ASA по силата на споразумението с Hurtigruten за услуги за кайбрежен морски транспорт за периода 2012—2019 г. | 29 |
| 2016/C 236/12 | Обявление от Норвегия относно Директива 94/22/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 30 май 1994 г. относно условията за предоставяне и ползване на разрешения за проучване, изследване и производство на въглеводороди — Обявление относно покана за подаване на заявления за лицензи за добив на въглеводороди на норвежкия континентален шелф – предоставяне на лицензи в предварително определени области за 2016 г. | 45 |

IV   Информация

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОТ ИНСТИТУЦИИТЕ, ОРГАНИТЕ, СЛУЖБИТЕ И АГЕНЦИИТЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ СЪЮЗ

Европейска комисия

2016/C 236/05

Обменен курс на еврото

3

2016/C 236/06

Нова национална страна на разменни евромонети

4

Сметна палата

2016/C 236/07

Специален доклад No 14/2016 — Инициативи на политиката и финансова подкрепа от страна на ЕС за интегриране на ромите — постигнат е значителен напредък през последното десетилетие, но са необходими допълнителни усилия на местно равнище

5

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОТ ДЪРЖАВИТЕ ЧЛЕНКИ

2016/C 236/08

Актуализиране на списъка на гранично-пропускателните пунктове, посочени в член 2, параграф 8 от Регламент (ЕС) 2016/399 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно Кодекс на Съюза за режима на движение на лица през границите (Кодекс на шенгенските граници)

6

2016/C 236/09

Актуализиране на моделите карти, издавани от министерствата на външните работи на държавите членки за акредитиране на членовете на дипломатическите мисии и консулските представителства и членовете на техните семейства, както е посочено в член 20, параграф 2 от Регламент (ЕС) 2016/399 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно Кодекс на Съюза за режима на движение на лица през границите (Кодекс на шенгенските граници)

11

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ЗА ЕВРОПЕЙСКОТО ИКОНОМИЧЕСКО ПРОСТРАНСТВО

Надзорен орган на ЕАСТ

2016/C 236/10

Покана за представяне на мнения съгласно член 1, параграф 2 от част I на Протокол 3 към Споразумението между държавите от ЕАСТ за създаване на надзорен орган и съд относно въпроси, свързани с държавна помощ

21

2016/C 236/11

Покана за представяне на мнения съгласно член 1, параграф 2 от част I на Протокол 3 към Споразумението между държавите от ЕАСТ за създаване на надзорен орган и съд по въпроси, свързани с държавна помощ, във връзка с потенциална помощ за Hurtigruten ASA по силата на споразумението с Hurtigruten за услуги за кайбрежен морски транспорт за периода 2012—2019 г.

29

2016/C 236/12

Обявление от Норвегия относно Директива 94/22/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 30 май 1994 г. относно условията за предоставяне и ползване на разрешения за проучване, изследване и производство на въглеводороди — Обявление относно покана за подаване на заявления за лицензи за добив на въглеводороди на норвежкия континентален шелф – предоставяне на лицензи в предварително определени области за 2016 г.

45

---

| | V   Становища |
| --- | --- |
| | АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ |
| | Европейска комисия |
| 2016/C 236/13 | Покана за представяне на предложения в рамките на многогодишната работна програма за отпускане на финансова помощ в областта на трансевропейската енергийна инфраструктура по Механизма за свързване на Европа за периода 2014—2020 г. (Решение С(2016) 1587 на Комисията) | 47 |
| | ПРОЦЕДУРИ, СВЪРЗАНИ С ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕТО НА ПОЛИТИКАТА В ОБЛАСТТА НА КОНКУРЕНЦИЯТА |
| | Европейска комисия |
| 2016/C 236/14 | Предварително уведомление за концентрация (Дело M.8094 — BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International) — Дело кандидат за опростена процедура (
  1
  ) | 48 |

V   Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Европейска комисия

2016/C 236/13

Покана за представяне на предложения в рамките на многогодишната работна програма за отпускане на финансова помощ в областта на трансевропейската енергийна инфраструктура по Механизма за свързване на Европа за периода 2014—2020 г. (Решение С(2016) 1587 на Комисията)

47

ПРОЦЕДУРИ, СВЪРЗАНИ С ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕТО НА ПОЛИТИКАТА В ОБЛАСТТА НА КОНКУРЕНЦИЯТА

Европейска комисия

2016/C 236/14

Предварително уведомление за концентрация (Дело M.8094 — BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International) — Дело кандидат за опростена процедура (
  1
  )

1

48

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Текст от значение за ЕИП |

---

(1)   Текст от значение за ЕИП

1

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

II Съобщения

СЪОБЩЕНИЯ НА ИНСТИТУЦИИТЕ, ОРГАНИТЕ, СЛУЖБИТЕ И АГЕНЦИИТЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ СЪЮЗ

Европейска комисия

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/1

---

Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление

(Дело M.8039 — Freudenberg/Vibracoustic)

(текст от значение за ЕИП)

(2016/C 236/01)

На 22 юни 2016 г. Комисията реши да не се противопоставя на горепосочената концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление, и да я обяви за съвместима с вътрешния пазар. Решението се основава на член 6, параграф 1, буква б) от Регламент (ЕО) No 139/2004 на Съвета (1). Пълният текст на решението е достъпен единствено на английски език и ще се публикува, след като бъдат премахнати всички професионални тайни, които могат да се съдържат в него. Той ще бъде достъпен:

| — | в раздела за сливанията на уебсайта на Комисията, свързан с конкуренцията (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Този уебсайт предоставя различни средства за подпомагане на достъпа до решения за отделни сливания, включително показатели за търсене по дружество, по номер на делото, по дата и по отрасъл, |
| --- | --- |

—

в раздела за сливанията на уебсайта на Комисията, свързан с конкуренцията (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Този уебсайт предоставя различни средства за подпомагане на достъпа до решения за отделни сливания, включително показатели за търсене по дружество, по номер на делото, по дата и по отрасъл,

| — | в електронен формат на уебсайта EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=bg) под номер на документа 32016M8039. EUR-Lex предоставя онлайн достъп до европейското право. |
| --- | --- |

—

в електронен формат на уебсайта EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=bg) под номер на документа 32016M8039. EUR-Lex предоставя онлайн достъп до европейското право.

---

(1)  ОВ L 24, 29.1.2004 г., стр. 1.

---

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/1

---

Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление

(Дело M.8049 — TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio)

(текст от значение за ЕИП)

(2016/C 236/02)

На 23 юни 2016 г. Комисията реши да не се противопоставя на горепосочената концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление, и да я обяви за съвместима с вътрешния пазар. Решението се основава на член 6, параграф 1, буква б) от Регламент (ЕО) No 139/2004 на Съвета (1). Пълният текст на решението е достъпен единствено на английски език и ще се публикува, след като бъдат премахнати всички професионални тайни, които могат да се съдържат в него. Той ще бъде достъпен:

| — | в раздела за сливанията на уебсайта на Комисията, свързан с конкуренцията (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Този уебсайт предоставя различни средства за подпомагане на достъпа до решения за отделни сливания, включително показатели за търсене по дружество, по номер на делото, по дата и по отрасъл, |
| --- | --- |

—

в раздела за сливанията на уебсайта на Комисията, свързан с конкуренцията (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Този уебсайт предоставя различни средства за подпомагане на достъпа до решения за отделни сливания, включително показатели за търсене по дружество, по номер на делото, по дата и по отрасъл,

| — | в електронен формат на уебсайта EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=bg) под номер на документа 32016M8049. EUR-Lex предоставя онлайн достъп до европейското право. |
| --- | --- |

—

в електронен формат на уебсайта EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=bg) под номер на документа 32016M8049. EUR-Lex предоставя онлайн достъп до европейското право.

---

(1)  ОВ L 24, 29.1.2004 г., стр. 1.

---

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/2

---

Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление

(Дело M.8041 — M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investment)

(текст от значение за ЕИП)

(2016/C 236/03)

На 23 юни 2016 г. Комисията реши да не се противопоставя на горепосочената концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление, и да я обяви за съвместима с вътрешния пазар. Решението се основава на член 6, параграф 1, буква б) от Регламент (ЕО) No 139/2004 на Съвета (1). Пълният текст на решението е достъпен единствено на английски език и ще се публикува, след като бъдат премахнати всички професионални тайни, които могат да се съдържат в него. Той ще бъде достъпен:

| — | в раздела за сливанията на уебсайта на Комисията, свързан с конкуренцията (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Този уебсайт предоставя различни средства за подпомагане на достъпа до решения за отделни сливания, включително показатели за търсене по дружество, по номер на делото, по дата и по отрасъл, |
| --- | --- |

—

в раздела за сливанията на уебсайта на Комисията, свързан с конкуренцията (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Този уебсайт предоставя различни средства за подпомагане на достъпа до решения за отделни сливания, включително показатели за търсене по дружество, по номер на делото, по дата и по отрасъл,

| — | в електронен формат на уебсайта EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=bg) под номер на документа 32016M8041. EUR-Lex предоставя онлайн достъп до европейското право. |
| --- | --- |

—

в електронен формат на уебсайта EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=bg) под номер на документа 32016M8041. EUR-Lex предоставя онлайн достъп до европейското право.

---

(1)  ОВ L 24, 29.1.2004 г., стр. 1.

---

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/2

---

Непротивопоставяне на концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление

(Дело M.8054 — 3i Group/Deutsche Alternative Asset Management/TCR Capvest)

(текст от значение за ЕИП)

(2016/C 236/04)

На 24 юни 2016 г. Комисията реши да не се противопоставя на горепосочената концентрация, за която е постъпило уведомление, и да я обяви за съвместима с вътрешния пазар. Решението се основава на член 6, параграф 1, буква б) от Регламент (ЕО) No 139/2004 на Съвета (1). Пълният текст на решението е достъпен единствено на английски език и ще се публикува, след като бъдат премахнати всички професионални тайни, които могат да се съдържат в него. Той ще бъде достъпен:

| — | в раздела за сливанията на уебсайта на Комисията, свързан с конкуренцията (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Този уебсайт предоставя различни средства за подпомагане на достъпа до решения за отделни сливания, включително показатели за търсене по дружество, по номер на делото, по дата и по отрасъл, |
| --- | --- |

—

в раздела за сливанията на уебсайта на Комисията, свързан с конкуренцията (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Този уебсайт предоставя различни средства за подпомагане на достъпа до решения за отделни сливания, включително показатели за търсене по дружество, по номер на делото, по дата и по отрасъл,

| — | в електронен формат на уебсайта EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=bg) под номер на документа 32016M8054. EUR-Lex предоставя онлайн достъп до европейското право. |
| --- | --- |

—

в електронен формат на уебсайта EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=bg) под номер на документа 32016M8054. EUR-Lex предоставя онлайн достъп до европейското право.

---

(1)  ОВ L 24, 29.1.2004 г., стр. 1.

---

IV Информация

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОТ ИНСТИТУЦИИТЕ, ОРГАНИТЕ, СЛУЖБИТЕ И АГЕНЦИИТЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ СЪЮЗ

Европейска комисия

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/3

---

Обменен курс на еврото (1)

29 юни 2016 година

(2016/C 236/05)

1 евро =

| | Валута | Обменен курс |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | щатски долар | 1,1090 |
| JPY | японска йена | 113,85 |
| DKK | датска крона | 7,4376 |
| GBP | лира стерлинг | 0,82550 |
| SEK | шведска крона | 9,4311 |
| CHF | швейцарски франк | 1,0854 |
| ISK | исландска крона | |
| NOK | норвежка крона | 9,3065 |
| BGN | български лев | 1,9558 |
| CZK | чешка крона | 27,114 |
| HUF | унгарски форинт | 316,95 |
| PLN | полска злота | 4,4261 |
| RON | румънска лея | 4,5253 |
| TRY | турска лира | 3,2157 |
| AUD | австралийски долар | 1,4911 |
| CAD | канадски долар | 1,4407 |
| HKD | хонконгски долар | 8,6041 |
| NZD | новозеландски долар | 1,5565 |
| SGD | сингапурски долар | 1,4951 |
| KRW | южнокорейски вон | 1 283,15 |
| ZAR | южноафрикански ранд | 16,6016 |
| CNY | китайски юан рен-мин-би | 7,3680 |
| HRK | хърватска куна | 7,5273 |
| IDR | индонезийска рупия | 14 577,25 |
| MYR | малайзийски рингит | 4,4594 |
| PHP | филипинско песо | 52,106 |
| RUB | руска рубла | 71,0452 |
| THB | тайландски бат | 39,028 |
| BRL | бразилски реал | 3,6216 |
| MXN | мексиканско песо | 20,7331 |
| INR | индийска рупия | 74,9693 |

Валута

Обменен курс

USD

щатски долар

1,1090

JPY

японска йена

113,85

DKK

датска крона

7,4376

GBP

лира стерлинг

0,82550

SEK

шведска крона

9,4311

CHF

швейцарски франк

1,0854

ISK

исландска крона

NOK

норвежка крона

9,3065

BGN

български лев

1,9558

CZK

чешка крона

27,114

HUF

унгарски форинт

316,95

PLN

полска злота

4,4261

RON

румънска лея

4,5253

TRY

турска лира

3,2157

AUD

австралийски долар

1,4911

CAD

канадски долар

1,4407

HKD

хонконгски долар

8,6041

NZD

новозеландски долар

1,5565

SGD

сингапурски долар

1,4951

KRW

южнокорейски вон

1 283,15

ZAR

южноафрикански ранд

16,6016

CNY

китайски юан рен-мин-би

7,3680

HRK

хърватска куна

7,5273

IDR

индонезийска рупия

14 577,25

MYR

малайзийски рингит

4,4594

PHP

филипинско песо

52,106

RUB

руска рубла

71,0452

THB

тайландски бат

39,028

BRL

бразилски реал

3,6216

MXN

мексиканско песо

20,7331

INR

индийска рупия

74,9693

---

(1)  Източник: референтен обменен курс, публикуван от Европейската централна банка.

---

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/4

---

Нова национална страна на разменни евромонети

(2016/C 236/06)

Разменните евромонети са законно платежно средство в цялата еврозона. Комисията публикува описание на изображенията на всички нови монети, за да уведоми обществеността и всички работещи с монети лица (1). В съответствие със заключенията на Съвета от 10 февруари 2009 г. (2) държавите членки от еврозоната и държавите, сключили парично споразумение с Европейския съюз относно емитирането на евромонети, разполагат с правото да емитират възпоменателни разменни евромонети при определени условия, сред които e използването единствено на монети с номинал 2 евро. Тези монети притежават техническите характеристики на обикновените разменни монети от 2 евро, но на националната си страна имат възпоменателен мотив с ясно изразена символика за конкретната държава или за Европа като цяло.

Емитираща държава
  : Испания

Тема на възпоменанието
  : Паметници на световното културно и природно наследство на ЮНЕСКО — църквите на Кралство Астурия

Описание на изображението
  : На преден план върху монетата е изобразена църквата Santa Maria del Naranco. В горната част на вътрешния кръг на монетата е изписано в полукръг името на емитиращата държава „ESPAÑA“, а отдолу вдясно е годината на емисията — „2017“. В лявата страна на вътрешния кръг е знакът на монетния двор.

По външния пръстен на монетата са изобразени дванадесетте звезди на европейското знаме.

Тираж на емисията
  : 4 милиона монети

Дата на емисията
  :

---

(1)  Вж. ОВ C 373, 28.12.2001 г., стр. 1 за националните страни на всички монети, емитирани през 2002 г.

(2)  Вж. заключенията на Съвета по икономически и финансови въпроси от 10 февруари 2009 г. и Препоръката на Комисията от 19 декември 2008 г. относно общи насоки за националните страни и емитирането на разменни евромонети (ОВ L 9, 14.1.2009 г., стр. 52).

---

Сметна палата

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/5

---

Специален доклад No 14/2016

„Инициативи на политиката и финансова подкрепа от страна на ЕС за интегриране на ромите — постигнат е значителен напредък през последното десетилетие, но са необходими допълнителни усилия на местно равнище“

(2016/C 236/07)

Европейската сметна палата съобщава за публикуването на изготвения от нея специален доклад No 14/2016 „Инициативи на политиката и финансова подкрепа от страна на ЕС за интегриране на ромите — постигнат е значителен напредък през последното десетилетие, но са необходими допълнителни усилия на местно равнище“.

Докладът може да бъде разгледан или изтеглен на уебсайта на Европейската сметна палата: http://eca.europa.eu или на уебсайта на EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu.

---

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОТ ДЪРЖАВИТЕ ЧЛЕНКИ

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/6

---

Актуализиране на списъка на гранично-пропускателните пунктове, посочени в член 2, параграф 8 от Регламент (ЕС) 2016/399 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно Кодекс на Съюза за режима на движение на лица през границите (Кодекс на шенгенските граници) (1)

(2016/C 236/08)

Публикуването на списъка на гранично-пропускателните пунктове, посочени в член 2, параграф 8 от Регламент (ЕС) 2016/399 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 9 март 2016 г. относно Кодекс на Съюза за режима на движение на лица през границите (Кодекс на шенгенските граници), се основава на информацията, предоставена от държавите членки на Комисията в съответствие с член 39 от Кодекса на шенгенските граници.

Освен настоящата публикация в Официален вестник, актуализиран вариант на списъка се помества ежемесечно на интернет страницата на Генерална дирекция „Миграция и вътрешни работи“.

ФРАНЦИЯ

Заменяне на информацията, публикувана в ОВ C 229, 14.7.2015 г.

СПИСЪК НА ГРАНИЧНИ КОНТРОЛНО-ПРОПУСКАТЕЛНИ ПУНКТОВЕ

Въздушни граници

| (1) | Abbeville |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Abbeville

| (2) | Agen-la Garenne |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Agen-la Garenne

| (3) | Ajaccio-Campo dell’Oro |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Ajaccio-Campo dell’Oro

| (4) | Albert-Bray |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Albert-Bray

| (5) | Amiens-Glisy |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Amiens-Glisy

| (6) | Angers-Marcé |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Angers-Marcé

| (7) | Angoulême-Brie-Champniers |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Angoulême-Brie-Champniers

| (8) | Annecy-Methet |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Annecy-Methet

| (9) | Annemasse |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Annemasse

| (10) | Auxerre-Branches |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Auxerre-Branches

| (11) | Avignon-Caumont |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Avignon-Caumont

| (12) | Bâle-Mulhouse |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Bâle-Mulhouse

| (13) | Bastia-Poretta |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Bastia-Poretta

| (14) | Beauvais-Tillé |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Beauvais-Tillé

| (15) | Bergerac-Roumanière |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Bergerac-Roumanière

| (16) | Besançon-la Vèze |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Besançon-la Vèze

| (17) | Béziers-Vias |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Béziers-Vias

| (18) | Biarritz-Bayonne-Anglet |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Biarritz-Bayonne-Anglet

| (19) | Bordeaux-Mérignac |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Bordeaux-Mérignac

| (20) | Brest-Guipavas |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Brest-Guipavas

| (21) | Brive-Souillac |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Brive-Souillac

| (22) | Caen-Carpiquet |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Caen-Carpiquet

| (23) | Calais-Dunkerque |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Calais-Dunkerque

| (24) | Calvi-Sainte-Catherine |
| --- | --- |

(24)

Calvi-Sainte-Catherine

| (25) | Cannes-Mandelieu |
| --- | --- |

(25)

Cannes-Mandelieu

| (26) | Carcassonne-Salvaza |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Carcassonne-Salvaza

| (27) | Châlons-Vatry |
| --- | --- |

(27)

Châlons-Vatry

| (28) | Chambéry-Aix-les-Bains |
| --- | --- |

(28)

Chambéry-Aix-les-Bains

| (29) | Châteauroux-Déols |
| --- | --- |

(29)

Châteauroux-Déols

| (30) | Cherbourg-Mauperthus |
| --- | --- |

(30)

Cherbourg-Mauperthus

| (31) | Clermont-Ferrand-Aulnat |
| --- | --- |

(31)

Clermont-Ferrand-Aulnat

| (32) | Colmar-Houssen |
| --- | --- |

(32)

Colmar-Houssen

| (33) | Deauville-Saint-Gatien |
| --- | --- |

(33)

Deauville-Saint-Gatien

| (34) | Dijon-Longvic |
| --- | --- |

(34)

Dijon-Longvic

| (35) | Dinard-Pleurtuit |
| --- | --- |

(35)

Dinard-Pleurtuit

| (36) | Dôle-Tavaux |
| --- | --- |

(36)

Dôle-Tavaux

| (37) | Epinal-Mirecourt |
| --- | --- |

(37)

Epinal-Mirecourt

| (38) | Figari-Sud Corse |
| --- | --- |

(38)

Figari-Sud Corse

| (39) | Grenoble-Saint-Geoirs |
| --- | --- |

(39)

Grenoble-Saint-Geoirs

| (40) | Hyères-le Palivestre |
| --- | --- |

(40)

Hyères-le Palivestre

| (41) | Issy-les-Moulineaux |
| --- | --- |

(41)

Issy-les-Moulineaux

| (42) | La Môle |
| --- | --- |

(42)

La Môle

| (43) | Lannion |
| --- | --- |

(43)

Lannion

| (44) | La Rochelle-Laleu |
| --- | --- |

(44)

La Rochelle-Laleu

| (45) | Laval-Entrammes |
| --- | --- |

(45)

Laval-Entrammes

| (46) | Le Castelet |
| --- | --- |

(46)

Le Castelet

| (47) | Le Havre-Octeville |
| --- | --- |

(47)

Le Havre-Octeville

| (48) | Le Mans-Arnage |
| --- | --- |

(48)

Le Mans-Arnage

| (49) | Le Touquet-Paris-Plage |
| --- | --- |

(49)

Le Touquet-Paris-Plage

| (50) | Lille-Lesquin |
| --- | --- |

(50)

Lille-Lesquin

| (51) | Limoges-Bellegarde |
| --- | --- |

(51)

Limoges-Bellegarde

| (52) | Lognes-Emerainville |
| --- | --- |

(52)

Lognes-Emerainville

| (53) | Lorient-Lann-Bihoué |
| --- | --- |

(53)

Lorient-Lann-Bihoué

| (54) | Lyon-Bron |
| --- | --- |

(54)

Lyon-Bron

| (55) | Lyon-Saint-Exupéry |
| --- | --- |

(55)

Lyon-Saint-Exupéry

| (56) | Marseille-Provence |
| --- | --- |

(56)

Marseille-Provence

| (57) | Metz-Nancy-Lorraine |
| --- | --- |

(57)

Metz-Nancy-Lorraine

| (58) | Monaco-Héliport |
| --- | --- |

(58)

Monaco-Héliport

| (59) | Montbéliard-Courcelles |
| --- | --- |

(59)

Montbéliard-Courcelles

| (60) | Montpellier-Méditérranée |
| --- | --- |

(60)

Montpellier-Méditérranée

| (61) | Nantes-Atlantique |
| --- | --- |

(61)

Nantes-Atlantique

| (62) | Nevers-Fourchambault |
| --- | --- |

(62)

Nevers-Fourchambault

| (63) | Nice-Côte d’Azur |
| --- | --- |

(63)

Nice-Côte d’Azur

| (64) | Nîmes-Garons |
| --- | --- |

(64)

Nîmes-Garons

| (65) | Orléans-Bricy |
| --- | --- |

(65)

Orléans-Bricy

| (66) | Orléans-Saint-Denis-de-l’Hôtel |
| --- | --- |

(66)

Orléans-Saint-Denis-de-l’Hôtel

| (67) | Paris-Charles de Gaulle |
| --- | --- |

(67)

Paris-Charles de Gaulle

| (68) | Paris-le Bourget |
| --- | --- |

(68)

Paris-le Bourget

| (69) | Paris-Orly |
| --- | --- |

(69)

Paris-Orly

| (70) | Pau-Pyrénées |
| --- | --- |

(70)

Pau-Pyrénées

| (71) | Perpignan-Rivesaltes |
| --- | --- |

(71)

Perpignan-Rivesaltes

| (72) | Poitiers-Biard |
| --- | --- |

(72)

Poitiers-Biard

| (73) | Pontoise-Cormeillcs-en-Vexin, временно:






  — | От сряда, 10 юни, до неделя, 14 юни 2015 г. от 10:00 ч. до 15:30 ч.
  Това временно отваряне влиза в сила за времето на провеждане на международния салон на авиацията и космонавтиката в Бурже, което налага пренасочване на полетите извън Шенгенското пространство, към летището на Понтоаз (Pontoise). |
| --- | --- | --- |

(73)

Pontoise-Cormeillcs-en-Vexin, временно:

—

От сряда, 10 юни, до неделя, 14 юни 2015 г. от 10:00 ч. до 15:30 ч.

Това временно отваряне влиза в сила за времето на провеждане на международния салон на авиацията и космонавтиката в Бурже, което налага пренасочване на полетите извън Шенгенското пространство, към летището на Понтоаз (Pontoise).

| — | От понеделник, 15 юни, до неделя, 21 юни 2015 г. от 06:00 ч. до 16:30 ч.
  Това временно отваряне влиза в сила за периода, през който се въвежда сезонен маршрут извън Шенгенското пространство (Кемпер-Лондон). |
| --- | --- |

—

От понеделник, 15 юни, до неделя, 21 юни 2015 г. от 06:00 ч. до 16:30 ч.

Това временно отваряне влиза в сила за периода, през който се въвежда сезонен маршрут извън Шенгенското пространство (Кемпер-Лондон).

| (74) | Quimper-Cornouailles, временно от 19 май до 4 септември 2016 г. |
| --- | --- |

(74)

Quimper-Cornouailles, временно от 19 май до 4 септември 2016 г.

| (75) | Rennes Saint-Jacques |
| --- | --- |

(75)

Rennes Saint-Jacques

| (76) | Rodez-Marcillac |
| --- | --- |

(76)

Rodez-Marcillac

| (77) | Rouen-Vallée de Seine |
| --- | --- |

(77)

Rouen-Vallée de Seine

| (78) | Saint-Brieuc-Armor |
| --- | --- |

(78)

Saint-Brieuc-Armor

| (79) | Saint-Etienne-Bouthéon |
| --- | --- |

(79)

Saint-Etienne-Bouthéon

| (80) | Saint-Nazaire-Montoir |
| --- | --- |

(80)

Saint-Nazaire-Montoir

| (81) | Strasbourg-Entzheim |
| --- | --- |

(81)

Strasbourg-Entzheim

| (82) | Tarbes-Ossun-Lourdes |
| --- | --- |

(82)

Tarbes-Ossun-Lourdes

| (83) | Toulouse-Blagnac |
| --- | --- |

(83)

Toulouse-Blagnac

| (84) | Tours-Saint-Symphorien |
| --- | --- |

(84)

Tours-Saint-Symphorien

| (85) | Troyes-Barberey |
| --- | --- |

(85)

Troyes-Barberey

| (86) | Vichy-Charmeil |
| --- | --- |

(86)

Vichy-Charmeil

Морски граници

| (1) | Ajaccio |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Ajaccio

| (2) | Bastia |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Bastia

| (3) | Bayonne |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Bayonne

| (4) | Bonifacio |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Bonifacio

| (5) | Bordeaux |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Bordeaux

| (6) | Boulogne |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Boulogne

| (7) | Brest |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Brest

| (8) | Caen-Ouistreham |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Caen-Ouistreham

| (9) | Calais |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Calais

| (10) | Calvi |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Calvi

| (11) | Cannes-Vieux Port |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Cannes-Vieux Port

| (12) | Carteret |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Carteret

| (13) | Cherbourg |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Cherbourg

| (14) | Dieppe |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Dieppe

| (15) | Douvres |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Douvres

| (16) | Dunkerque |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Dunkerque

| (17) | Granville |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Granville

| (18) | Honfleur |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Honfleur

| (19) | La Rochelle-La Pallice |
| --- | --- |

(19)

La Rochelle-La Pallice

| (20) | Le Havre |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Le Havre

| (21) | Les Sables-d’Olonne-Port |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Les Sables-d’Olonne-Port

| (22) | L’Ile-Rousse |
| --- | --- |

(22)

L’Ile-Rousse

| (23) | Lorient |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Lorient

| (24) | Marseille |
| --- | --- |

(24)

Marseille

| (25) | Monaco-Port de la Condamine |
| --- | --- |

(25)

Monaco-Port de la Condamine

| (26) | Nantes-Saint-Nazaire |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Nantes-Saint-Nazaire

| (27) | Nice |
| --- | --- |

(27)

Nice

| (28) | Port-de-Bouc-Fos/Port-Saint-Louis |
| --- | --- |

(28)

Port-de-Bouc-Fos/Port-Saint-Louis

| (29) | Port-la-Nouvelle |
| --- | --- |

(29)

Port-la-Nouvelle

| (30) | Porto-Vecchio |
| --- | --- |

(30)

Porto-Vecchio

| (31) | Port-Vendres |
| --- | --- |

(31)

Port-Vendres

| (32) | Roscoff |
| --- | --- |

(32)

Roscoff

| (33) | Rouen |
| --- | --- |

(33)

Rouen

| (34) | Saint-Brieuc (maritime) |
| --- | --- |

(34)

Saint-Brieuc (maritime)

| (35) | Saint-Malo |
| --- | --- |

(35)

Saint-Malo

| (36) | Sète |
| --- | --- |

(36)

Sète

| (37) | Toulon |
| --- | --- |

(37)

Toulon

Сухопътни граници

С ОБЕДИНЕНОТО КРАЛСТВО

(Фиксирана транспортна връзка през Ламанша)

| (1) | Gare d’Ashford International |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Gare d’Ashford International

| (2) | Gare d’Avignon-Centre |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Gare d’Avignon-Centre

| (3) | Cheriton/Coquelles |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Cheriton/Coquelles

| (4) | Gare de Chessy-Marne-la-Vallée |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Gare de Chessy-Marne-la-Vallée

| (5) | Gare de Fréthun |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Gare de Fréthun

| (6) | Gare de Lille-Europe |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Gare de Lille-Europe

| (7) | Gare de Paris-Nord |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Gare de Paris-Nord

| (8) | Gare de St-Pancras International |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Gare de St-Pancras International

| (9) | Gare d’Ebbsfleet International |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Gare d’Ebbsfleet International

| (10) | Gare TGV Haute-Picardie — на 1 юли 2016 г. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Gare TGV Haute-Picardie — на 1 юли 2016 г.

С АНДОРА

| (1) | Pas de la Case-Porta |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pas de la Case-Porta

Списък на предишните публикации

| | ОВ C 316, 28.12.2007 г., стр. 1 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 316, 28.12.2007 г., стр. 1

| | ОВ C 134, 31.5.2008 г., стр. 16 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 134, 31.5.2008 г., стр. 16

| | ОВ C 177, 12.7.2008 г., стр. 9 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 177, 12.7.2008 г., стр. 9

| | ОВ C 200, 6.8.2008 г., стр. 10 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 200, 6.8.2008 г., стр. 10

| | ОВ C 331, 31.12.2008 г., стр. 13 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 331, 31.12.2008 г., стр. 13

| | ОВ C 3, 8.1.2009 г., стр. 10 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 3, 8.1.2009 г., стр. 10

| | ОВ C 37, 14.2.2009 г., стр. 10 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 37, 14.2.2009 г., стр. 10

| | ОВ C 64, 19.3.2009 г., стр. 20 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 64, 19.3.2009 г., стр. 20

| | ОВ C 99, 30.4.2009 г., стр. 7 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 99, 30.4.2009 г., стр. 7

| | ОВ C 229, 23.9.2009 г., стр. 28 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 229, 23.9.2009 г., стр. 28

| | ОВ C 263, 5.11.2009 г., стр. 22 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 263, 5.11.2009 г., стр. 22

| | ОВ C 298, 8.12.2009 г., стр. 17 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 298, 8.12.2009 г., стр. 17

| | ОВ C 74, 24.3.2010 г., стр. 13 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 74, 24.3.2010 г., стр. 13

| | ОВ C 326, 3.12.2010 г., стр. 17 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 326, 3.12.2010 г., стр. 17

| | ОВ C 355, 29.12.2010 г., стр. 34 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 355, 29.12.2010 г., стр. 34

| | ОВ C 22, 22.1.2011 г., стр. 22 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 22, 22.1.2011 г., стр. 22

| | ОВ C 37, 5.2.2011 г., стр. 12 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 37, 5.2.2011 г., стр. 12

| | ОВ C 149, 20.5.2011 г., стр. 8 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 149, 20.5.2011 г., стр. 8

| | ОВ C 190, 30.6.2011 г., стр. 17 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 190, 30.6.2011 г., стр. 17

| | ОВ C 203, 9.7.2011 г., стр. 14 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 203, 9.7.2011 г., стр. 14

| | ОВ C 210, 16.7.2011 г., стр. 30 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 210, 16.7.2011 г., стр. 30

| | ОВ C 271, 14.9.2011 г., стр. 18 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 271, 14.9.2011 г., стр. 18

| | ОВ C 356, 6.12.2011 г., стр. 12 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 356, 6.12.2011 г., стр. 12

| | ОВ C 111, 18.4.2012 г., стр. 3 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 111, 18.4.2012 г., стр. 3

| | ОВ C 183, 23.6.2012 г., стр. 7 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 183, 23.6.2012 г., стр. 7

| | ОВ C 313, 17.10.2012 г., стр. 11 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 313, 17.10.2012 г., стр. 11

| | ОВ C 394, 20.12.2012 г., стр. 22 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 394, 20.12.2012 г., стр. 22

| | ОВ C 51, 22.2.2013 г., стр. 9 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 51, 22.2.2013 г., стр. 9

| | ОВ C 167, 13.6.2013 г., стр. 9 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 167, 13.6.2013 г., стр. 9

| | ОВ C 242, 23.8.2013 г., стр. 2 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 242, 23.8.2013 г., стр. 2

| | ОВ C 275, 24.9.2013 г., стр. 7 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 275, 24.9.2013 г., стр. 7

| | ОВ C 314, 29.10.2013 г., стр. 5 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 314, 29.10.2013 г., стр. 5

| | ОВ C 324, 9.11.2013 г., стр. 6 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 324, 9.11.2013 г., стр. 6

| | ОВ C 57, 28.2.2014 г., стр. 4 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 57, 28.2.2014 г., стр. 4

| | ОВ C 167, 4.6.2014 г., стр. 9 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 167, 4.6.2014 г., стр. 9

| | ОВ C 244, 26.7.2014 г., стр. 22 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 244, 26.7.2014 г., стр. 22

| | ОВ C 332, 24.9.2014 г., стр. 12 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 332, 24.9.2014 г., стр. 12

| | ОВ C 420, 22.11.2014 г., стр. 9 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 420, 22.11.2014 г., стр. 9

| | ОВ C 72, 28.2.2015 г., стр. 17 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 72, 28.2.2015 г., стр. 17

| | ОВ C 126, 18.4.2015 г., стр. 10 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 126, 18.4.2015 г., стр. 10

| | ОВ C 229, 14.7.2015 г., стр. 5 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 229, 14.7.2015 г., стр. 5

| | ОВ C 341, 16.10.2015 г., стр. 19 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 341, 16.10.2015 г., стр. 19

| | ОВ C 84, 4.3.2016 г., стр. 2. |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 84, 4.3.2016 г., стр. 2.

---

(1)  Вж. списъка на предишните публикации в края на тази актуализация.

---

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/11

---

Актуализиране на моделите карти, издавани от министерствата на външните работи на държавите членки за акредитиране на членовете на дипломатическите мисии и консулските представителства и членовете на техните семейства, както е посочено в член 20, параграф 2 от Регламент (ЕС) 2016/399 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно Кодекс на Съюза за режима на движение на лица през границите (Кодекс на шенгенските граници) (1)

(2016/C 236/09)

Публикуването на моделите карти, издавани от министерствата на външните работи на държавите членки за акредитиране на членовете на дипломатическите мисии и консулските представителства и членовете на техните семейства, както е посочено в член 20, параграф 2 от Регламент (ЕС) 2016/399 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 9 март 2016 г. относно Кодекс на Съюза за режима на движение на лица през границите (Кодекс на шенгенските граници), се основава на информацията, предоставена от държавите членки на Комисията в съответствие с член 39 от Кодекса на шенгенските граници (кодифициран текст).

Освен настоящата публикация в Официален вестник, актуализиран вариант на списъка се помества ежемесечно на интернет страницата на Генерална дирекция „Миграция и вътрешни работи“.

ШВЕЙЦАРИЯ

Заменяне на информацията, публикувана в ОВ C 133, 1.5.2014 г.

СПЕЦИАЛНИ РАЗРЕШЕНИЯ ЗА ПРЕБИВАВАНЕ, ИЗДАВАНИ ОТ МИНИСТЕРСТВОТО НА ВЪНШНИТЕ РАБОТИ

Карти за удостоверяване на самоличност (разрешения за пребиваване), издавани от Федералното министерство на външните работи:

| — | Carte de légitimation « B » (à bande rose) : chefs de mission diplomatique, permanente ou spéciale, membres de la haute direction des organisations internationales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „B“ (mit rosafarbigem Streifen): Missionschefs der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen, leitende Beamte internationaler Organisationen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „B“ (a banda rosa): Chefs de mission diplomatique, permanente ou spéciale, membres de la haute direction des organisations internationales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „В“ (с розова лента): ръководители на постоянните и специалните дипломатически представителства, членове на висшето ръководство на международни организации и членове на семейства им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « B » (à bande rose) : chefs de mission diplomatique, permanente ou spéciale, membres de la haute direction des organisations internationales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „B“ (mit rosafarbigem Streifen): Missionschefs der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen, leitende Beamte internationaler Organisationen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „B“ (a banda rosa): Chefs de mission diplomatique, permanente ou spéciale, membres de la haute direction des organisations internationales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „В“ (с розова лента): ръководители на постоянните и специалните дипломатически представителства, членове на висшето ръководство на международни организации и членове на семейства им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « C » (à bande rose) : membres du personnel diplomatique des missions diplomatiques, permanentes ou spéciales, hauts fonctionnaires des organisations internationales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „C“ (mit rosafarbigem Streifen): Mitglieder des diplomatischen Personals der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen, Beamte internationaler Organisationen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „C“ (a banda rosa): membri del personale diplomatico di missioni diplomatiche permanenti o speciali, funzionari di organizzazioni internazionali e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „С“ (с розова лента): членове на дипломатическия персонал на постоянните и специалните дипломатически представителства, членове на висшето ръководство на международни организации и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « C » (à bande rose) : membres du personnel diplomatique des missions diplomatiques, permanentes ou spéciales, hauts fonctionnaires des organisations internationales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „C“ (mit rosafarbigem Streifen): Mitglieder des diplomatischen Personals der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen, Beamte internationaler Organisationen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „C“ (a banda rosa): membri del personale diplomatico di missioni diplomatiche permanenti o speciali, funzionari di organizzazioni internazionali e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „С“ (с розова лента): членове на дипломатическия персонал на постоянните и специалните дипломатически представителства, членове на висшето ръководство на международни организации и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « D » (à bande bleue) : membres du personnel administratif et technique des missions diplomatiques, permanentes ou spéciales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „D“ (mit blauem Streifen): Mitglieder des Verwaltungs- und technischen Personals der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „D“ (a banda blu): membri del personale amministrativo e tecnico di missioni diplomatiche permanenti o speciali e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „D“ (със синя лента): членове на административния и техническия персонал на постоянните и специалните дипломатически представителства и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « D » (à bande bleue) : membres du personnel administratif et technique des missions diplomatiques, permanentes ou spéciales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „D“ (mit blauem Streifen): Mitglieder des Verwaltungs- und technischen Personals der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „D“ (a banda blu): membri del personale amministrativo e tecnico di missioni diplomatiche permanenti o speciali e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „D“ (със синя лента): членове на административния и техническия персонал на постоянните и специалните дипломатически представителства и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « D » (à bande brune) : fonctionnaires de la catégorie professionnelle des organisations internationales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „D“ (mit braunem Streifen): Beamte der Kategorie Berufspersonal internationaler Organisationen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „D“ (a banda marrone): funzionari appartenenti alla categoria del personale di carriera di organizzazioni internazionali e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „D“ (с кафява лента): длъжностни лица от професионалната категория на международни организации и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « D » (à bande brune) : fonctionnaires de la catégorie professionnelle des organisations internationales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „D“ (mit braunem Streifen): Beamte der Kategorie Berufspersonal internationaler Organisationen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „D“ (a banda marrone): funzionari appartenenti alla categoria del personale di carriera di organizzazioni internazionali e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „D“ (с кафява лента): длъжностни лица от професионалната категория на международни организации и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « E » (à bande violette): membres du personnel de service des missions diplomatiques, permanentes et spéciales, fonctionnaires des services généraux des organisations internationales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „E“ (mit violettem Streifen): Mitglieder des Dienstpersonals der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen, Beamte der allgemeinen Dienste internationaler Organisationen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „E“ (a banda viola): membri del personale di servizio di missioni diplomatiche permanenti e speciali, funzionari dei servizi generali di organizzazioni internazionali e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „E“ (с виолетова лента): членове на обслужващия персонал на постоянните и специалните дипломатически представителства, длъжностни лица от общите служби на международни организации и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « E » (à bande violette): membres du personnel de service des missions diplomatiques, permanentes et spéciales, fonctionnaires des services généraux des organisations internationales et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „E“ (mit violettem Streifen): Mitglieder des Dienstpersonals der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen, Beamte der allgemeinen Dienste internationaler Organisationen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „E“ (a banda viola): membri del personale di servizio di missioni diplomatiche permanenti e speciali, funzionari dei servizi generali di organizzazioni internazionali e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „E“ (с виолетова лента): членове на обслужващия персонал на постоянните и специалните дипломатически представителства, длъжностни лица от общите служби на международни организации и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « F » (à bande jaune) : domestiques privés des membres des missions diplomatiques, permanentes ou spéciales et des postes consulaires de carrière et domestiques privés des fonctionnaires des organisations internationales / Legitimationskarte „F“ (mit gelbem Streifen): private Hausangestellte der Mitglieder der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen und der von Berufs-Konsularbeamten geleiteten konsularischen Vertretungen sowie private Hausangestellte der Beamten internationaler Organisationen / Carta di legittimazione „F“ (a banda gialla): personale domestico privato di membri di missioni diplomatiche permanenti o speciali e di rappresentanze consolari dirette da funzionari consolari di carriera nonché personale domestico privato di funzionari di organizzazioni internazionali / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „F“ (с жълта лента): частен персонал на членовете на постоянните или специалните дипломатически представителства и на щатни консулски служби и частен персонал на длъжностни лица на международни организации. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « F » (à bande jaune) : domestiques privés des membres des missions diplomatiques, permanentes ou spéciales et des postes consulaires de carrière et domestiques privés des fonctionnaires des organisations internationales / Legitimationskarte „F“ (mit gelbem Streifen): private Hausangestellte der Mitglieder der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen und der von Berufs-Konsularbeamten geleiteten konsularischen Vertretungen sowie private Hausangestellte der Beamten internationaler Organisationen / Carta di legittimazione „F“ (a banda gialla): personale domestico privato di membri di missioni diplomatiche permanenti o speciali e di rappresentanze consolari dirette da funzionari consolari di carriera nonché personale domestico privato di funzionari di organizzazioni internazionali / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „F“ (с жълта лента): частен персонал на членовете на постоянните или специалните дипломатически представителства и на щатни консулски служби и частен персонал на длъжностни лица на международни организации.

| — | Carte de légitimation « G » (à bande turquoise) : fonctionnaires des organisations internationales (contrat de travail « court terme ») et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „G“ (mit türkisem Streifen): Beamte internationaler Organisationen mit Arbeitsvertrag von begrenzter Dauer und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „G“ (a banda turchese): funzionari di organizzazioni internazionali con contratto di lavoro a durata determinata e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „G“ (с тюркоазно-синя лента): длъжностни лица на международни организации (на краткосрочен договор) и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « G » (à bande turquoise) : fonctionnaires des organisations internationales (contrat de travail « court terme ») et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „G“ (mit türkisem Streifen): Beamte internationaler Organisationen mit Arbeitsvertrag von begrenzter Dauer und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „G“ (a banda turchese): funzionari di organizzazioni internazionali con contratto di lavoro a durata determinata e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „G“ (с тюркоазно-синя лента): длъжностни лица на международни организации (на краткосрочен договор) и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « H » (à bande blanche) : collaborateurs non-fonctionnaires des missions diplomatiques permanentes ou spéciales, des consulats et des organisations internationales, ainsi que les personnes sans privilèges et immunités autorisées à accompagner les membres des missions diplomatiques, permanentes ou spéciales, des consulats et des organisations internationales. / Legitimationskarte “H” (mit weissem Streifen): Mitarbeiter ohne Beamtenstatus der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen, der konsularischen Vertretungen und der internationalen Organisationen, sowie Personen ohne Privilegien und Immunitäten, die ermächtigt sind, Mitglieder der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen, der konsularischen Vertretungen und der internationalen Organisationen zu begleiten. / Carta di legittimazione „H“ (a banda bianca): collaboratori senza statuto di funzionari di missioni diplomatiche permanenti o speciali, di consolati e di organizzazioni internazionali così come persone senza privilegi e immunità autorizzate a accompagnare membri di missioni diplomatiche permanenti o speciali, di consolati e di organizzazioni internazionali / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „H“ (с бяла лента): сътрудници на постоянни или специални дипломатически представителства, консулства и международни организации, които не са длъжностни лица в тези организации, и лица без привилегии и имунитети, на които е разрешено да придружават членове на постоянни или специални дипломатически мисии, консулства и международни организации. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « H » (à bande blanche) : collaborateurs non-fonctionnaires des missions diplomatiques permanentes ou spéciales, des consulats et des organisations internationales, ainsi que les personnes sans privilèges et immunités autorisées à accompagner les membres des missions diplomatiques, permanentes ou spéciales, des consulats et des organisations internationales. / Legitimationskarte “H” (mit weissem Streifen): Mitarbeiter ohne Beamtenstatus der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen, der konsularischen Vertretungen und der internationalen Organisationen, sowie Personen ohne Privilegien und Immunitäten, die ermächtigt sind, Mitglieder der diplomatischen, ständigen oder Spezialmissionen, der konsularischen Vertretungen und der internationalen Organisationen zu begleiten. / Carta di legittimazione „H“ (a banda bianca): collaboratori senza statuto di funzionari di missioni diplomatiche permanenti o speciali, di consolati e di organizzazioni internazionali così come persone senza privilegi e immunità autorizzate a accompagnare membri di missioni diplomatiche permanenti o speciali, di consolati e di organizzazioni internazionali / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „H“ (с бяла лента): сътрудници на постоянни или специални дипломатически представителства, консулства и международни организации, които не са длъжностни лица в тези организации, и лица без привилегии и имунитети, на които е разрешено да придружават членове на постоянни или специални дипломатически мисии, консулства и международни организации.

| — | Carte de légitimation « I » (à bande olive) : membres du personnel non suisse du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „I“ (mit olivem Streifen): Personal nicht schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit des Internationalen Komitees vom Roten Kreuz und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „I“ (a banda oliva): membri del personale non svizzero del Comitato internazionale della Croce Rossa e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „I“ (с маслинено-зелена лента): членове на персонала на Международния комитет на Червения кръст, които не са швейцарски граждани, и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « I » (à bande olive) : membres du personnel non suisse du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „I“ (mit olivem Streifen): Personal nicht schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit des Internationalen Komitees vom Roten Kreuz und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „I“ (a banda oliva): membri del personale non svizzero del Comitato internazionale della Croce Rossa e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „I“ (с маслинено-зелена лента): членове на персонала на Международния комитет на Червения кръст, които не са швейцарски граждани, и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « K » (à bande rose) : chefs de poste consulaire de carrière, fonctionnaires consulaires de carrière et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „K“ (mit rosafarbigem Streifen): Berufs-Postenchefs und Berufs-Konsularbeamte der konsularischen Vertretungen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „K“ (a banda rosa): capiposto consolari di carriera e funzionari consolari di carriera di rappresentanze consolari e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „K“ (с червена лента): ръководители на щатни консулски служби, щатни консулски длъжностни лица и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « K » (à bande rose) : chefs de poste consulaire de carrière, fonctionnaires consulaires de carrière et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „K“ (mit rosafarbigem Streifen): Berufs-Postenchefs und Berufs-Konsularbeamte der konsularischen Vertretungen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „K“ (a banda rosa): capiposto consolari di carriera e funzionari consolari di carriera di rappresentanze consolari e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „K“ (с червена лента): ръководители на щатни консулски служби, щатни консулски длъжностни лица и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « K » (à bande bleue) : employés consulaires de carrière et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „K“ (mit blauem Streifen): Berufs-Konsularangestellte und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „K“ (a banda blu): impiegati consolari di carriera e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „K“ (със синя лента): щатни консулски служители и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « K » (à bande bleue) : employés consulaires de carrière et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „K“ (mit blauem Streifen): Berufs-Konsularangestellte und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „K“ (a banda blu): impiegati consolari di carriera e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „K“ (със синя лента): щатни консулски служители и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « K » (à bande violette) : membres du personnel de service des représentations consulaires de carrière et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „K“ (mit violettem Streifen): Mitglieder des dienstlichen Hauspersonals von berufs-konsularischen Vertretungen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „K“ (a banda viola): membri del personale di servizio di rappresentanze consolari di carriera e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „K“ (с виолетова лента): членове на обслужващия персонал на щатни консулски представителства и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « K » (à bande violette) : membres du personnel de service des représentations consulaires de carrière et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „K“ (mit violettem Streifen): Mitglieder des dienstlichen Hauspersonals von berufs-konsularischen Vertretungen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „K“ (a banda viola): membri del personale di servizio di rappresentanze consolari di carriera e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „K“ (с виолетова лента): членове на обслужващия персонал на щатни консулски представителства и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « K » (à bande blanche) : chefs de poste consulaire honoraire / Legitimationskarte „K“ (mit weissem Streifen): Honorar-Postenchefs von konsularischen Vertretungen / Carta di legittimazione „K“ (a banda bianca): capiposto onorari di rappresentanze consolari / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „K“ (с бяла лента): почетни ръководители на консулства. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « K » (à bande blanche) : chefs de poste consulaire honoraire / Legitimationskarte „K“ (mit weissem Streifen): Honorar-Postenchefs von konsularischen Vertretungen / Carta di legittimazione „K“ (a banda bianca): capiposto onorari di rappresentanze consolari / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „K“ (с бяла лента): почетни ръководители на консулства.

| — | Carte de légitimation « L » (à bande de couleur sable) : membres du personnel non suisse de la Fédération internationale des Sociétés de la Croix-Rouge et du Croissant-Rouge et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „L“ (mit sandfarbigem Streifen): Personal nicht schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit der Internationalen Gemeinschaft der Roten Kreuz- und Roten Halbmond-Gesellschaften und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „L“ (a banda color sabbia): membri del personale non svizzero della Federazione internazionale delle Società della Croce Rossa e della Mezzaluna Rossa e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „L“ (с пясъчно-жълта лента): членове на персонала на Международната федерация на Червения кръст и Червения полумесец, които не са швейцарски граждани, и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « L » (à bande de couleur sable) : membres du personnel non suisse de la Fédération internationale des Sociétés de la Croix-Rouge et du Croissant-Rouge et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte „L“ (mit sandfarbigem Streifen): Personal nicht schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit der Internationalen Gemeinschaft der Roten Kreuz- und Roten Halbmond-Gesellschaften und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di legittimazione „L“ (a banda color sabbia): membri del personale non svizzero della Federazione internazionale delle Società della Croce Rossa e della Mezzaluna Rossa e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „L“ (с пясъчно-жълта лента): членове на персонала на Международната федерация на Червения кръст и Червения полумесец, които не са швейцарски граждани, и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « P » (à bande bleue) : personnel scientifique non suisse du CERN et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte « P » (mit blauem Streifen) : wissenschaftliches Personal des CERN nicht schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di Legittimazione « P » (à banda blu) : personale scientifico non svizzero del CERN e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „Р“ (със синя лента): научни кадри в CERN, които не са швейцарски граждани, и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « P » (à bande bleue) : personnel scientifique non suisse du CERN et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte « P » (mit blauem Streifen) : wissenschaftliches Personal des CERN nicht schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di Legittimazione « P » (à banda blu) : personale scientifico non svizzero del CERN e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „Р“ (със синя лента): научни кадри в CERN, които не са швейцарски граждани, и членове на семействата им, които се ползват със същия статут.

| — | Carte de légitimation « R » (à bande grise) : membres du personnel non suisse des organisations internationales quasi gouvernementales ou des autres organismes internationaux et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte « R » (mit grauem Streifen) : Personal nicht schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit von quasizwischenstaatlichen Organisation oder anderen internationalen Organen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di Legittimazione « R » (a banda grigia) : membri del personale non svizzero di organizzazioni internazionali quasi intergovernative o di altri organismi internazionali e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за самоличност, вид „R“ (със сива ивица) (Carte de légitimation « R » (à bande grise)): членове на персонала, които не са швейцарски граждани, на полуправителствени международни организации или на други международни органи и членове на техните семейства, които се ползват от същия статут |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « R » (à bande grise) : membres du personnel non suisse des organisations internationales quasi gouvernementales ou des autres organismes internationaux et membres de famille qui jouissent du même statut / Legitimationskarte « R » (mit grauem Streifen) : Personal nicht schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit von quasizwischenstaatlichen Organisation oder anderen internationalen Organen und Familienmitglieder, die den gleichen Status besitzen / Carta di Legittimazione « R » (a banda grigia) : membri del personale non svizzero di organizzazioni internazionali quasi intergovernative o di altri organismi internazionali e familiari che beneficiano dello stesso statuto / Карта за самоличност, вид „R“ (със сива ивица) (Carte de légitimation « R » (à bande grise)): членове на персонала, които не са швейцарски граждани, на полуправителствени международни организации или на други международни органи и членове на техните семейства, които се ползват от същия статут

| — | Carte de légitimation « S » (à bande verte) : membres du personnel de nationalité suisse des missions diplomatiques, permanentes et spéciales, fonctionnaires de nationalité suisse des organisations internationales / Legitimationskarte „S“ (mit grünem Streifen): Mitglieder des Personals schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit der diplomatischen, ständigen und der Spezialmissionen, Beamte schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit internationaler Organisationen / Carta di legittimazione „S“ (a banda verde): membri del personale di nazionalità svizzera di missioni diplomatiche permanenti e speciali, funzionari di nazionalità svizzera di organizzazioni internazionali / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „S“ (със зелена лента): членове на персонала на постоянните и специалните дипломатически представителства, които са швейцарски граждани, длъжностни лица на международни организации, които са швейцарски граждани. |
| --- | --- |

—

Carte de légitimation « S » (à bande verte) : membres du personnel de nationalité suisse des missions diplomatiques, permanentes et spéciales, fonctionnaires de nationalité suisse des organisations internationales / Legitimationskarte „S“ (mit grünem Streifen): Mitglieder des Personals schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit der diplomatischen, ständigen und der Spezialmissionen, Beamte schweizerischer Staatsangehörigkeit internationaler Organisationen / Carta di legittimazione „S“ (a banda verde): membri del personale di nazionalità svizzera di missioni diplomatiche permanenti e speciali, funzionari di nazionalità svizzera di organizzazioni internazionali / Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „S“ (със зелена лента): членове на персонала на постоянните и специалните дипломатически представителства, които са швейцарски граждани, длъжностни лица на международни организации, които са швейцарски граждани.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „В“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Посолства и постоянни представителства: ръководители на мисията |
| --- | --- |

—

Посолства и постоянни представителства: ръководители на мисията

| — | Международни организации: членове на висшето ръководство



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва с дипломатически статут.
  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Diplomatenstatus. |
| --- | --- |

—

Международни организации: членове на висшето ръководство

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва с дипломатически статут.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Diplomatenstatus.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „C“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Посолства и постоянни представителства: членове на дипломатическия персонал |
| --- | --- |

—

Посолства и постоянни представителства: членове на дипломатическия персонал

| — | Международни организации: висши длъжностни лица



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва с дипломатически статут.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Diplomatenstatus. |
| --- | --- |

—

Международни организации: висши длъжностни лица

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва с дипломатически статут.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Diplomatenstatus.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „D“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Посолства и постоянни представителства: членове на административния и техническия персонал (AT)



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва с дипломатически статут, с изключение на имунитета срещу гражданско и административно съдебно преследване, който статут му се предоставя само във връзка с изпълнението на неговите функции.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Diplomatenstatus, Immunität von der Zivil- und Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit hat er jedoch nur für dienstliche Tätigkeiten. |
| --- | --- |

—

Посолства и постоянни представителства: членове на административния и техническия персонал (AT)

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва с дипломатически статут, с изключение на имунитета срещу гражданско и административно съдебно преследване, който статут му се предоставя само във връзка с изпълнението на неговите функции.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Diplomatenstatus, Immunität von der Zivil- und Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit hat er jedoch nur für dienstliche Tätigkeiten.

| — | Международни организации: длъжностни лица от професионалната категория



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten. |
| --- | --- |

—

Международни организации: длъжностни лица от професионалната категория

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „E“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Посолства и постоянни представителства: членове на обслужващия персонал и членове на местно наетия персонал |
| --- | --- |

—

Посолства и постоянни представителства: членове на обслужващия персонал и членове на местно наетия персонал

| — | Международни организации: длъжностни лица от общите служби



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten. |
| --- | --- |

—

Международни организации: длъжностни лица от общите служби

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „F“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Посолства, постоянни представителства и международни организации: частен персонал на членовете на персонала



  Титулярят на тази карта не се ползва със съдебен имунитет.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte hat keinen Anspruch auf Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit. |
| --- | --- |

—

Посолства, постоянни представителства и международни организации: частен персонал на членовете на персонала

Image

Титулярят на тази карта не се ползва със съдебен имунитет.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte hat keinen Anspruch auf Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „G“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Международни организации: временни длъжностни лица (длъжностни лица на краткосрочен договор) и командировани членове на персонала



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten. |
| --- | --- |

—

Международни организации: временни длъжностни лица (длъжностни лица на краткосрочен договор) и командировани членове на персонала

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „H“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Посолства, консулства, постоянни представителства и международни организации: лица без привилегии и имунитети



  Титулярят на тази карта не се ползва със съдебен имунитет и няма право на достъп до швейцарския пазар на труда.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte hat keinen Anspruch auf Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit und keinen Zugang zum schweizerischen Arbeitsmarkt. |
| --- | --- |

—

Посолства, консулства, постоянни представителства и международни организации: лица без привилегии и имунитети

Image

Титулярят на тази карта не се ползва със съдебен имунитет и няма право на достъп до швейцарския пазар на труда.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte hat keinen Anspruch auf Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit und keinen Zugang zum schweizerischen Arbeitsmarkt.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „I“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Международен комитет на Червения кръст (МКЧК): сътрудници на МКЧК



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции. Той не разполага с митнически привилегии.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten. Er hat keine Zollprivilegien. |
| --- | --- |

—

Международен комитет на Червения кръст (МКЧК): сътрудници на МКЧК

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции. Той не разполага с митнически привилегии.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten. Er hat keine Zollprivilegien.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „K“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Консулства – карта тип „K“ червена: щатни ръководители на консулски служби и щатни консулски длъжностни лица



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten. |
| --- | --- |

—

Консулства – карта тип „K“ червена: щатни ръководители на консулски служби и щатни консулски длъжностни лица

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten.

| — | Консулства – карта тип „K“ синя: щатни консулски служители



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten. |
| --- | --- |

—

Консулства – карта тип „K“ синя: щатни консулски служители

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten.

| — | Консулства – карта тип „K“ виолетова: членове на обслужващия персонал и членове на местно наетия персонал



  Титулярят на тази карта не се ползва със съдебен имунитет.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte hat keinen Anspruch auf Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit |
| --- | --- |

—

Консулства – карта тип „K“ виолетова: членове на обслужващия персонал и членове на местно наетия персонал

Image

Титулярят на тази карта не се ползва със съдебен имунитет.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte hat keinen Anspruch auf Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit

| — | Консулства – карта тип „K“ бяла: почетни ръководители



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет единствено при изпълнение на своите консулски функции.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte hat Anspruch auf Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit lediglich für konsularische Tätigkeiten. |
| --- | --- |

—

Консулства – карта тип „K“ бяла: почетни ръководители

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет единствено при изпълнение на своите консулски функции.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte hat Anspruch auf Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit lediglich für konsularische Tätigkeiten.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „L“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Международна федерация на националните дружества на Червения кръст и Червения полумесец: сътрудници на Международната федерация на червения кръст и червения полумесец



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции. Той не разполага с митнически привилегии.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten. Er hat keine Zollprivilegien. |
| --- | --- |

—

Международна федерация на националните дружества на Червения кръст и Червения полумесец: сътрудници на Международната федерация на червения кръст и червения полумесец

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции. Той не разполага с митнически привилегии.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten. Er hat keine Zollprivilegien.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „P“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Европейска организация за ядрени изследвания (CERN): членове на научния персонал на CERN



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten |
| --- | --- |

—

Европейска организация за ядрени изследвания (CERN): членове на научния персонал на CERN

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „R“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

| — | Членове на персонала, които не са швейцарски граждани, на полуправителствени международни организации или на други международни органи и членове на техните семейства, които се ползват от същия статут



  Титулярят на тази карта не се ползва със съдебен имунитет.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte hat keinen Anspruch auf Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit. |
| --- | --- |

—

Членове на персонала, които не са швейцарски граждани, на полуправителствени международни организации или на други международни органи и членове на техните семейства, които се ползват от същия статут

Image

Титулярят на тази карта не се ползва със съдебен имунитет.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte hat keinen Anspruch auf Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit.

Карта за удостоверяване на самоличност тип „S“, издадена от федералното министерство на външните работи

Членовете на персонала, които са швейцарски граждани, независимо от функцията, която изпълняват в чуждестранното представителство или международната организация, получават по принцип карта тип „S“. Членовете на местно наетия от посолствата и консулските служби персонал, които са швейцарски граждани, не получават карта за удостоверяване на самоличност. Временните длъжностни лица (длъжностни лица на краткосрочен договор) на международни организации, които са швейцарски граждани, не получават лична карта.

| — | Посолства и консулства: щатни членове на персонала, които са швейцарски граждани |
| --- | --- |

—

Посолства и консулства: щатни членове на персонала, които са швейцарски граждани

| — | Постоянни представителства: членове на персонала, които са швейцарски граждани |
| --- | --- |

—

Постоянни представителства: членове на персонала, които са швейцарски граждани

| — | Международни организации: длъжностни лица/сътрудници, които са швейцарски граждани



  Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

  Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten |
| --- | --- |

—

Международни организации: длъжностни лица/сътрудници, които са швейцарски граждани

Image

Титулярят на тази карта се ползва със съдебен имунитет при изпълнение на своите функции.

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit für dienstliche Tätigkeiten

Списък на предишните публикации

| | ОВ C 247, 13.10.2006 г., стр. 85 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 247, 13.10.2006 г., стр. 85

| | OВ C 153, 6.7.2007 г., стр.15 |
| --- | --- |

OВ C 153, 6.7.2007 г., стр.15

| | ОВ C 64, 19.3.2009 г., стр. 18 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 64, 19.3.2009 г., стр. 18

| | ОВ C 239, 6.10.2009 г., стр. 7 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 239, 6.10.2009 г., стр. 7

| | ОВ C 304, 10.11.2010 г., стр. 6 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 304, 10.11.2010 г., стр. 6

| | ОВ C 273, 16.09.2011 г., стр. 11 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 273, 16.09.2011 г., стр. 11

| | ОВ C 357, 7.12.2011 г., стр. 3 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 357, 7.12.2011 г., стр. 3

| | ОВ C 88, 24.3.2012 г., стр. 12 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 88, 24.3.2012 г., стр. 12

| | ОВ C 120, 25.4.2012 г., стр. 4 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 120, 25.4.2012 г., стр. 4

| | ОВ C 182, 22.6.2012 г., стр. 10 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 182, 22.6.2012 г., стр. 10

| | ОВ C 214, 20.7.2012 г., стр. 4 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 214, 20.7.2012 г., стр. 4

| | ОВ C 238, 8.8.2012 г., стр. 5 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 238, 8.8.2012 г., стр. 5

| | ОВ C 255, 24.8.2012 г., стр. 2 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 255, 24.8.2012 г., стр. 2

| | ОВ C 242, 23.8.2013 г., стр. 13 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 242, 23.8.2013 г., стр. 13

| | ОВ C 38, 8.2.2014 г., стр. 16 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 38, 8.2.2014 г., стр. 16

| | ОВ C 133, 1.5.2014 г., стр. 2 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 133, 1.5.2014 г., стр. 2

| | ОВ C 360, 11.10.2014 г., стр. 5 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 360, 11.10.2014 г., стр. 5

| | ОВ C 397, 12.11.2014 г., стр. 6 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 397, 12.11.2014 г., стр. 6

| | ОВ C 77, 27.2.2016 г., стр. 5 |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 77, 27.2.2016 г., стр. 5

| | ОВ C 174, 14.5.2016 г., стр. 12. |
| --- | --- |

ОВ C 174, 14.5.2016 г., стр. 12.

---

(1)  Вж. списъка на предишните публикации в края на тази актуализация.

---

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ЗА ЕВРОПЕЙСКОТО ИКОНОМИЧЕСКО ПРОСТРАНСТВО

Надзорен орган на ЕАСТ

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/21

---

Покана за представяне на мнения съгласно член 1, параграф 2 от част I на Протокол 3 към Споразумението между държавите от ЕАСТ за създаване на надзорен орган и съд относно въпроси, свързани с държавна помощ

(2016/C 236/10)

С Решение No 489/15/COL, възпроизведено на автентичния език на страниците след това резюме, Надзорният орган на ЕАСТ уведоми норвежките органи за решението си да открие процедура съгласно член 1, параграф 2 от част I на Протокол 3 към Споразумението между държавите от ЕАСТ за създаване на надзорен орган и съд относно посочената по-горе мярка.

Заинтересованите страни могат да представят мненията си относно въпросната мярка в рамките на един месец от датата на публикуването на следния адрес:

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

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Registry

Rue Belliard 35/Belliardstraat 35

1040 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Мненията ще бъдат предадени на норвежките органи. Самоличността на заинтересованата страна, изпратила мнение, може да не бъде разкрита, ако това бъде поискано писмено, като се посочат причините за искането.

ОБОБЩЕНИЕ

Процедура

В съответствие с член 1, параграф 3 от част I на Протокол 3 с писмо от 13 март 2014 г. (1) норвежките органи изпратиха уведомление за регионално диференцираните вноски за социално осигуряване за периода 2014—2020 г. Въз основа на това уведомление и информацията, предоставена по-късно (2), Органът одобри схемата за помощ, предмет на уведомление, с Решение No 225/14/COL от 18 юни 2014 г.

С решението си от 23 септември 2015 г. по дело E-23/14 Kimek Offshore AS срещу Надзорния орган на ЕАСТ
   (3) Съдът на ЕАСТ отмени частично решението на Органа.

С писмо от 15 октомври 2015 г. (4) Надзорният орган поиска информация от норвежките органи. С писмо от 6 ноември 2015 г. (5) норвежките органи отговориха на искането за информация.

Описание на мярката

Целта на общата схема на диференцираните вноски за социално осигуряване като такава е да се намали или предотврати обезлюдяването в най-слабо населените региони на Норвегия чрез стимулиране на заетостта. Схемата за оперативна помощ компенсира разходите за труд чрез намаляване на ставките на социалноосигурителните вноски в определени географски области. Като основно правило интензитетите на помощта варират в зависимост от географската зона, в която е регистрирана стопанската единица. Норвежкият закон изисква от предприятията да регистрират подразделения за всяка отделна стопанска дейност, която осъществяват (6). Ако едно предприятие извършва различни видове стопански дейности, то трябва да регистрира отделни подразделения. Освен това трябва да се регистрират отделни подразделения, ако дейностите се извършват в различни географски местоположения.

Чрез дерогация от основното правило за регистриране схемата се прилага също така за предприятия, регистрирани извън допустимата област, когато те наемат работници за допустимата област и когато техните служители осъществяват мобилни дейности в допустимата област (за целите на настоящото решение това се нарича „амбулаторни услуги“). Това е правилото за освобождаване, което се разглежда в настоящото решение. Националното правно основание за схемата като такава е раздел 23-2 от Националния закон за застраховането (7). Националното правно основание за освобождаването е предвидено в раздел 1(4) от Решение No 1482 на Норвежкия парламент от 5 декември 2013 г. относно определянето на данъчните ставки и пр. съгласно Националния закон за застраховането.

Освобождаването се прилага само когато работникът или служителят прекарва половината или повече от своите работни дни в допустимата област. Освен това намалената ставка се прилага само за частта от работата, извършена в тази област.

Оценка на мярката

Органът трябва да оцени дали правилото за освобождаване е съвместимо с функционирането на Споразумението за ЕИП въз основа на член 61, параграф 3, буква в) от него в съответствие с насоките на Органа относно регионалните държавни помощи за периода 2014—2020 г. (НРП) (8).

Регионалната помощ може да бъде полезна за насърчаване на икономическото развитие в необлагодетелстваните области само ако е предоставена, за да стимулира допълнителни инвестиции или икономическа дейност в тези области (9). Регионалната оперативна помощ може да попадне в обхвата на член 61, параграф 3, буква в) от Споразумението за ЕИП само ако е предоставена с цел преодоляване на специфични или постоянни трудности, с които предприятията се сблъскват в необлагодетелстваните региони (10).

Няма съмнение, че географският обхват на схемата като такава не е ограничен до необлагодетелстваните региони. Обхватът на настоящото решение се ограничава до правилото за освобождаване. Въпросът е дали това правило, според което предприятията, регистрирани извън необлагодетелстваните региони и обхванати от схемата, могат да се възползват от помощ по схемата, доколкото извършват икономическа дейност в необлагодетелстваните региони, е съвместимо с правилата за държавната помощ. С други думи, правилото за освобождаване насочено ли е към специфични или постоянни трудности, с които предприятията се сблъскват в необлагодетелстваните региони?

Норвежките органи следва да докажат риска от обезлюдяване при липсата на правилото за освобождаване (11). Норвежките органи подчертаха ползите от правилото за освобождаване за местните предприятия. Те могат да имат достъп при по-ниски разходи до специализирана работна ръка, която иначе не би била налична. Освен това правилото за освобождаване води до засилена конкуренция между амбулаторните услуги в допустимите области, което на свой ред е от полза за местните предприятия (различни от тези, които предоставят амбулаторни услуги), тъй като по-ниските разходи за амбулаторни услуги правят упражняването на стопанска дейност по-привлекателно и по-рентабилно в допустимите области. Използването на помощта по схемата е непряк инструмент в смисъл, че се използва за намаляване на разходите за наемане на работници като мярка за намаляване или предотвратяване на обезлюдяването. Идеята е, че пазарът на труда е най-важният фактор, който влияе върху това къде живеят хората.

Норвежките органи твърдят още, че предприятията, които са регистрирани извън допустимата област, понякога ще наемат работници в допустимата област. По този начин предприятията ще осигурят работни места, които, въпреки че са с по-скоро временен характер, все пак ще допринесат за увеличаване на доходите от заплати в допустимите региони. Това също така стимулира икономическата дейност. Освен това норвежките органи твърдят, че служителите, които отсядат временно в допустимия регион, ще купуват местни стоки и услуги и по този начин ще допринася за местната икономика. По-конкретно това се отнася за работниците, които пътуват до мястото, особено в краткосрочен или средносрочен план, тъй като е вероятно те да отсядат в хотели, да се хранят в ресторанти и т.н. Норвежките органи са изчислили, че размерът на помощта, произтичаща от правилото за освобождаване, е два процента от общата помощ за 2015 г., като подчертават, че тази оценка е непотвърдена. Два процента се равнява на приблизително 19 млн. евро (12). Органът приканва норвежките органи да предоставят по-точна информация за финансовото отражение на правилото.

Освен изложените по-горе забележки от общ характер, норвежките органи не са доказали риска от обезлюдяване на съответната област при липсата на правилото за освобождаване. Мнението на Надзорния орган е, че за да може една мярка да отговори на изискванията на НРП, тя трябва да има отражение, което да е по-голямо от пределното увеличение на временните възможности за заетост и на потреблението в допустимата област. На тази основа Органът приканва норвежките органи да предоставят повече информация, доказваща риска от обезлюдяване при липсата на правилото за освобождаване.

Що се отнася до въздействието на правилото за освобождаване върху конкуренцията и търговията, норвежките органи твърдят, че правилото за освобождаване създава равни условия за всички предприятия, извършващи дейност в необлагодетелстваните области, тъй като то се прилага по еднакъв начин спрямо всички предприятия, установени в ЕИП. В резултат на това то гарантира, че са избегнати нежеланите отрицателни ефекти върху конкуренцията. Мнението на Надзорния орган е, че това е положителен елемент в контекста на точки 3 и 53 от НРП. Въпреки това предприятията, регистрирани в допустимата област, като цяло срещат повече постоянни трудности от предприятията, които просто изпращат свои служители да работят временно в областта. Норвежките органи твърдят, че предприятията, регистрирани извън допустимата зона, могат да бъдат в неизгодно конкурентно положение в сравнение с местните дружества, наред с другото, поради разходите за транспорт и настаняване на персонала. Норвежките органи не са представили данни или допълнителни аргументи в подкрепа на това допускане. Органът приканва норвежките органи допълнително да изяснят защо правилото за освобождаване не води до нежелани отрицателни ефекти върху конкуренцията и да предоставят още информация в подкрепа на това твърдение.

Норвежките органи подчертават, че е очевидно, че правилото за освобождаване има стимулиращ ефект. Стимулиращият ефект на помощта не може просто да се приеме. Въпреки че не са необходими индивидуални доказателства, че помощта по дадена схема стимулира отделно всеки получател да извършва дейности, които иначе не би извършил, стимулиращият ефект трябва най-малкото да се основава на надеждна икономическа теория. Не е достатъчно само да се позовават на предполагаема очевидност. Макар да е вярно, че правилото за освобождаване за предприятия, регистрирани извън допустимите области, намалява трудовите разходи за амбулаторни услуги в допустимите области, норвежките органи не са предоставили доказателства или аргументи за това, че има вероятност, при липсата на помощ, икономическата активност в областта да бъде значително по-ниска поради проблемите, за чието разрешаване е предназначена помощта (13).

Норвежките органи обясниха, че предприятията, които извършват амбулаторни услуги до известна степен, могат да регистрират подразделения в допустимата област. Освен това те са длъжни да го направят, когато поне един служител работи за отдела майка в отделна област и предприятието може да бъде посетено там.

Норвежките органи твърдят, че при липсата на правилото за освобождаване за амбулаторните услуги в допустимата област ще има необоснована разлика в третирането според това дали предприятието, предоставящо услугите, е създало подразделение в допустимата област.

Първо, за Надзорния орган не е ясно какво включва изискването „поне един служител да работи за отдела майка в отделна област и предприятието може да бъде посетено там“. Поради това Надзорният орган приканва норвежките органи да изяснят този въпрос.

Второ, принципът на равно третиране е общ принцип на законодателството на ЕИП. Това обаче не може само по себе си да послужи като основание за прилагане на правилото за освобождаване. Правилото за освобождаване трябва да бъде съвместимо с функционирането на Споразумението за ЕИП.

В заключение, поради липсата на подходяща информация, както е описано по-горе, Органът има съмнения относно съвместимостта на правилото за освобождаване с функционирането на Споразумението за ЕИП.

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 489/15/COL

of 9 December 2015

opening a formal investigation into the exemption rule for ambulant services under the scheme on differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020

(Norway)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’),

HAVING REGARD to:

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

Protocol 26 to the EEA Agreement,

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

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

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

| (1) | The Norwegian authorities notified the regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme 2014-2020 pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 by letter of 13 March 2014 (14). On the basis of that notification and information submitted thereafter (15), the Authority approved the notified aid scheme by its Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Norwegian authorities notified the regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme 2014-2020 pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 by letter of 13 March 2014 (14). On the basis of that notification and information submitted thereafter (15), the Authority approved the notified aid scheme by its Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014.

| (2) | By its judgment of 23 September 2015 in case E-23/14 Kimek Offshore AS v ESA
   (16) the EFTA Court annulled, in part, the Authority's decision. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By its judgment of 23 September 2015 in case E-23/14 Kimek Offshore AS v ESA
   (16) the EFTA Court annulled, in part, the Authority's decision.

| (3) | By letter dated 15 October 2015 (17), the Authority requested information from the Norwegian authorities. By letter dated 6 November 2015 (18), the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

By letter dated 15 October 2015 (17), the Authority requested information from the Norwegian authorities. By letter dated 6 November 2015 (18), the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request.

2.   The scheme as such is not the subject of the formal investigation

| (4) | By its judgment the EFTA Court partly annulled the Authority's decision approving the aid scheme. The aid scheme as such is not subject to the renewed scrutiny carried out by the Authority in the present formal investigation. The subject of this formal investigation is merely the part of the scheme (an exemption rule for ambulant services) for which the Authority's approval was annulled. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

By its judgment the EFTA Court partly annulled the Authority's decision approving the aid scheme. The aid scheme as such is not subject to the renewed scrutiny carried out by the Authority in the present formal investigation. The subject of this formal investigation is merely the part of the scheme (an exemption rule for ambulant services) for which the Authority's approval was annulled.

3.   The scheme

3.1   
  Objective

| (5) | The objective of the general scheme on differentiated social security contributions as such is to reduce or prevent depopulation in the least inhabited regions in Norway, by stimulating employment. The operating aid scheme offsets employment costs by reducing the social security contribution rates in certain geographical areas. As a main rule, the aid intensitites vary according to the geographical area in which the business unit is registered. The rules on registration are explained in greater detail below. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The objective of the general scheme on differentiated social security contributions as such is to reduce or prevent depopulation in the least inhabited regions in Norway, by stimulating employment. The operating aid scheme offsets employment costs by reducing the social security contribution rates in certain geographical areas. As a main rule, the aid intensitites vary according to the geographical area in which the business unit is registered. The rules on registration are explained in greater detail below.

3.2   
  National legal basis

| (6) | The national legal basis for the scheme as such is Section 23-2 of the National Insurance Act (19). This provision sets out the employer's general obligation to pay social security contributions calculated on the basis of gross salary paid to the employee. According to paragraph 12 of that section, the Norwegian Parliament may adopt regionally differentiated rates, as well as specific provisions for undertakings within certain sectors. Thus, it is the National Insurance Act, in conjunction with the annual decisions of the Norwegian Parliament, that forms the national legal basis for the scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The national legal basis for the scheme as such is Section 23-2 of the National Insurance Act (19). This provision sets out the employer's general obligation to pay social security contributions calculated on the basis of gross salary paid to the employee. According to paragraph 12 of that section, the Norwegian Parliament may adopt regionally differentiated rates, as well as specific provisions for undertakings within certain sectors. Thus, it is the National Insurance Act, in conjunction with the annual decisions of the Norwegian Parliament, that forms the national legal basis for the scheme.

| (7) | For further detail on the aid scheme as such, reference is made to the Authority's Decision No 225/14/COL. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

For further detail on the aid scheme as such, reference is made to the Authority's Decision No 225/14/COL.

3.3   
  Rules on registration

| (8) | As a main rule, aid eligibility depends on whether a business is registered in the eligible area. As noted above, the main rule of the scheme is that aid intensities vary according to the geographical area in which the business is registered. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

As a main rule, aid eligibility depends on whether a business is registered in the eligible area. As noted above, the main rule of the scheme is that aid intensities vary according to the geographical area in which the business is registered.

| (9) | Norwegian law requires undertakings to register sub-units for each separate business activity performed (20). If an undertaking performs different kinds of business activities, separate sub-units must be registered. Moreover, separate units must be registered if the activities are performed in different geographical locations. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Norwegian law requires undertakings to register sub-units for each separate business activity performed (20). If an undertaking performs different kinds of business activities, separate sub-units must be registered. Moreover, separate units must be registered if the activities are performed in different geographical locations.

| (10) | According to the Norwegian authorities, the ‘separate business activitiy’ criterion is met when at least one employee carries out work for the parent unit in a separate area, and the undertaking may be visited there. Each sub-unit forms its own basis for the calculation of the differentiated social security contribution, depending on their registered location. Thus, an undertaking registered outside the area eligible for aid under the scheme will be eligible for aid if, and in so far as, its economic activities are performed within a sub-unit located within the eligible area. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

According to the Norwegian authorities, the ‘separate business activitiy’ criterion is met when at least one employee carries out work for the parent unit in a separate area, and the undertaking may be visited there. Each sub-unit forms its own basis for the calculation of the differentiated social security contribution, depending on their registered location. Thus, an undertaking registered outside the area eligible for aid under the scheme will be eligible for aid if, and in so far as, its economic activities are performed within a sub-unit located within the eligible area.

3.4   
  Ambulant services – the measure under scrutiny

| (11) | By way of exemption from the main rule on registration, the scheme also applies to undertakings registered outside the eligible area where they hire out workers to the eligible area and where their employees are engaged in mobile activities within the eligible area (for the purposes of this decision, this is referred to as ‘ambulant services’). This is the exemption rule under scrutiny in the decision at hand. The national legal basis for that exemption is provided for by section 1(4) of the Norwegian Parliament's Decision No 1482 of 5 December 2013 on determination of the tax rates etc. under the National Insurance Act for 2014. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

By way of exemption from the main rule on registration, the scheme also applies to undertakings registered outside the eligible area where they hire out workers to the eligible area and where their employees are engaged in mobile activities within the eligible area (for the purposes of this decision, this is referred to as ‘ambulant services’). This is the exemption rule under scrutiny in the decision at hand. The national legal basis for that exemption is provided for by section 1(4) of the Norwegian Parliament's Decision No 1482 of 5 December 2013 on determination of the tax rates etc. under the National Insurance Act for 2014.

| (12) | The exemption applies only when the employee spends half or more of his working days in the eligible area. Further, the reduced rate is only applicable for the part of the work carried out there. As a principal rule, the tax registration period is one calendar month. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

The exemption applies only when the employee spends half or more of his working days in the eligible area. Further, the reduced rate is only applicable for the part of the work carried out there. As a principal rule, the tax registration period is one calendar month.

| (13) | This entails that if an employee of an Oslo-registered entity (Oslo is in Zone 1, an ineligible zone, where the rate therefore is the standard 14,1 %) completes 60 % of his work one calendar month in Vardø (which is in Zone 5 where the applicable rate is 0 %) and the rest in Oslo, the undertaking will be eligible for the zero-rate on the salary to be paid for the work carried out in Vardø, but not for the work carried out in Oslo. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

This entails that if an employee of an Oslo-registered entity (Oslo is in Zone 1, an ineligible zone, where the rate therefore is the standard 14,1 %) completes 60 % of his work one calendar month in Vardø (which is in Zone 5 where the applicable rate is 0 %) and the rest in Oslo, the undertaking will be eligible for the zero-rate on the salary to be paid for the work carried out in Vardø, but not for the work carried out in Oslo.

4.   The judgment of the EFTA Court

| (14) | The EFTA Court annuled the Authority's decision in so far as it closed the preliminary investigation as regards the aid measure in section 1(4) of the Norwegian Parliament's Decision No 1482 of 5 December 2013 on determination of the tax rates etc. under the National Insurance Act for 2014. Section 1(4) is drafted in such a way as to conflate, together with the exemption rule (which is the subject of the present decision), an anti-circumvention measure designed to prevent undertakings from claiming aid under the scheme by virtue of simply registering their business within an area with a lower rate of social security contributions, even if they then proceed to conduct ambulatory activities or hire out their employees to work in an area with a higher rate. The anti-circumvention measure is not subject to the present procedure (21). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The EFTA Court annuled the Authority's decision in so far as it closed the preliminary investigation as regards the aid measure in section 1(4) of the Norwegian Parliament's Decision No 1482 of 5 December 2013 on determination of the tax rates etc. under the National Insurance Act for 2014. Section 1(4) is drafted in such a way as to conflate, together with the exemption rule (which is the subject of the present decision), an anti-circumvention measure designed to prevent undertakings from claiming aid under the scheme by virtue of simply registering their business within an area with a lower rate of social security contributions, even if they then proceed to conduct ambulatory activities or hire out their employees to work in an area with a higher rate. The anti-circumvention measure is not subject to the present procedure (21).

5.   Comments by the Norwegian authorities

| (15) | The Norwegian authorities argue that the exemption rule for ambulant services is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of its Article 61(3)(c) and that it is in line with the Authority's Guidelines on Regional State Aid for 2014-2020 (the RAG) (22). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The Norwegian authorities argue that the exemption rule for ambulant services is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of its Article 61(3)(c) and that it is in line with the Authority's Guidelines on Regional State Aid for 2014-2020 (the RAG) (22).

| (16) | The Norwegian authorities have explained that the exemption rule accounts for about two percent of the total aid granted under the scheme for 2015. They stress that this calculation is based on uncertain estimates. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The Norwegian authorities have explained that the exemption rule accounts for about two percent of the total aid granted under the scheme for 2015. They stress that this calculation is based on uncertain estimates.

| (17) | The Norwegian authorities have explained that in Norway, access to employment is the most influential factor when it comes to peoples' choice of residence. The social security contribution is as a main rule calculated on the basis of the rate applicable in the zone in which the employer is considered to carry out business activity. This rule is based on the premise that only undertakings performing economic activity in the eligible area should receive aid, and only to the extent that they are performing business activities in that area. This is a fundamental premise for the aid scheme. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

The Norwegian authorities have explained that in Norway, access to employment is the most influential factor when it comes to peoples' choice of residence. The social security contribution is as a main rule calculated on the basis of the rate applicable in the zone in which the employer is considered to carry out business activity. This rule is based on the premise that only undertakings performing economic activity in the eligible area should receive aid, and only to the extent that they are performing business activities in that area. This is a fundamental premise for the aid scheme.

| (18) | Where a company is registered, is not, and should not be, decisive. There are many sectors that frequently provide ambulant services. As an example, it would be too burdensome to require all construction firms to register their activities locally wherever they were to carry out work in order to be eligible for reduced social security rates. Neither Article 61(3)(c) nor the RAG or the GBER (23) contain requirements on where regional aid beneficiaries need to be registered. A formalistic approach where the registered location of the beneficiary is decisive in all cases has no basis in Article 61(3)(c). To the contrary, it would be difficult to reconcile with the RAG which focusses on whether the aid promotes economic activity in disadvantaged areas and not whether beneficiaries are registered within the area covered by the scheme. The underlying realities, i.e. whether the undertaking carries out economic activity within the eligible area, should be decisive. Furthermore, undertakings performing ambulant services can to some extent register sub-units in the eligible area. In the absence of the exemption rule for ambulant serices in the eligible area, there would be an unjustified difference in treatment depending on whether the service providing undertaking had established a sub-unit in the eligible area. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Where a company is registered, is not, and should not be, decisive. There are many sectors that frequently provide ambulant services. As an example, it would be too burdensome to require all construction firms to register their activities locally wherever they were to carry out work in order to be eligible for reduced social security rates. Neither Article 61(3)(c) nor the RAG or the GBER (23) contain requirements on where regional aid beneficiaries need to be registered. A formalistic approach where the registered location of the beneficiary is decisive in all cases has no basis in Article 61(3)(c). To the contrary, it would be difficult to reconcile with the RAG which focusses on whether the aid promotes economic activity in disadvantaged areas and not whether beneficiaries are registered within the area covered by the scheme. The underlying realities, i.e. whether the undertaking carries out economic activity within the eligible area, should be decisive. Furthermore, undertakings performing ambulant services can to some extent register sub-units in the eligible area. In the absence of the exemption rule for ambulant serices in the eligible area, there would be an unjustified difference in treatment depending on whether the service providing undertaking had established a sub-unit in the eligible area.

| (19) | The Norwegian authorities contend that the exemption rule contributes to an objective of common interest in a number of ways. They firstly note that undertakings in the eligible area can access, at a lower cost, specialised labour that would otherwise not be available. Secondly, the rule leads to increased competition between ambulant services in eligible areas. This is beneficial for local undertakings, other than those providing ambulant services, as lower costs for ambulant services make it more attractive and more profitable to run a business in the eligible area. Thirdly, employees with a temporal stay in the eligible area will buy local goods and services and thereby contribute to the local economy. This applies in particular to employees commuting to the location especially in the short or medium term as they are likely to stay in hotels, eat in restaurants etc. Fourthly, undertakings located in central areas may also hire personnel residing in the area where the ambulant services are performed. Even if the jobs are temporary in nature, they will contribute to increased wage income in the eligible regions, which also stimulates economic activity. Finally, undertakings registered outside the eligible zone may have a competitive disadvantage compared to local firms due to i.a. costs of transporting and lodging of personnel. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The Norwegian authorities contend that the exemption rule contributes to an objective of common interest in a number of ways. They firstly note that undertakings in the eligible area can access, at a lower cost, specialised labour that would otherwise not be available. Secondly, the rule leads to increased competition between ambulant services in eligible areas. This is beneficial for local undertakings, other than those providing ambulant services, as lower costs for ambulant services make it more attractive and more profitable to run a business in the eligible area. Thirdly, employees with a temporal stay in the eligible area will buy local goods and services and thereby contribute to the local economy. This applies in particular to employees commuting to the location especially in the short or medium term as they are likely to stay in hotels, eat in restaurants etc. Fourthly, undertakings located in central areas may also hire personnel residing in the area where the ambulant services are performed. Even if the jobs are temporary in nature, they will contribute to increased wage income in the eligible regions, which also stimulates economic activity. Finally, undertakings registered outside the eligible zone may have a competitive disadvantage compared to local firms due to i.a. costs of transporting and lodging of personnel.

| (20) | In the view of the Norwegian authorities, it is evident that the exemption rule has an incentive effect as it reduces labour costs for ambulant services. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

In the view of the Norwegian authorities, it is evident that the exemption rule has an incentive effect as it reduces labour costs for ambulant services.

| (21) | Finally, the Norwegian authorities stress that the exemption rule creates a level playing field for all undertakings active in the disadvantages areas. The rule applies equally to any EEA-based undertaking. This ensures that undue adverse effects on competition are avoided. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Finally, the Norwegian authorities stress that the exemption rule creates a level playing field for all undertakings active in the disadvantages areas. The rule applies equally to any EEA-based undertaking. This ensures that undue adverse effects on competition are avoided.

II.   ASSESSMENT

1.   The presence of state aid

| (22) | 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.’ |
| --- | --- |

(22)

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.’

| (23) | This implies that a measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled: (i) there must be an intervention by the state or through state resources, (ii) that intervention must confer a selective economic advantage on the recipients, (iii) it must be liable to affect trade between EEA States and (iv) it must distort or threathen to distort competition. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

This implies that a measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled: (i) there must be an intervention by the state or through state resources, (ii) that intervention must confer a selective economic advantage on the recipients, (iii) it must be liable to affect trade between EEA States and (iv) it must distort or threathen to distort competition.

| (24) | In Decision No 225/14/COL, the Authority concluded that the scheme on differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020 constitutes an aid scheme. The Authority refers to its reasoning in paragraphs 68-74 of that decision. The exemption rule for ambulant services is part of the provisions providing for that aid scheme. It increases the scope of the scheme in the sense that it widens the circle of potential beneficiaries to undertakings that are not registered in the eligible areas. As with the other aid granted under the scheme, extending the scheme to the undertakings registered outside of the eligible areas results in state resources conferring selective advantages on undertakings. These advantages are liable to affect trade and distort competition. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

In Decision No 225/14/COL, the Authority concluded that the scheme on differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020 constitutes an aid scheme. The Authority refers to its reasoning in paragraphs 68-74 of that decision. The exemption rule for ambulant services is part of the provisions providing for that aid scheme. It increases the scope of the scheme in the sense that it widens the circle of potential beneficiaries to undertakings that are not registered in the eligible areas. As with the other aid granted under the scheme, extending the scheme to the undertakings registered outside of the eligible areas results in state resources conferring selective advantages on undertakings. These advantages are liable to affect trade and distort competition.

2.   Procedural requirements

| (25) | Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3: ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. ... The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

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

| (26) | The Norwegian authorities implemented the exemption rule after the Authority approved it by Decision No 225/14/COL. With the annulment of the Authority's approval of the rule by the EFTA Court, the aid has become unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

The Norwegian authorities implemented the exemption rule after the Authority approved it by Decision No 225/14/COL. With the annulment of the Authority's approval of the rule by the EFTA Court, the aid has become unlawful.

3.   Compatibility of the aid

| (27) | The Authority must assess whether the exemption rule is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of its Article 61(3)(c) in line with the RAG. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The Authority must assess whether the exemption rule is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of its Article 61(3)(c) in line with the RAG.

| (28) | The exemption rule for ambulant services entitles undertakings that are not registered in the eligible area to benefit from reduced social security charges when and to the extent that they carry out economic activities in the registered area. Neither Article 61(3)(c) EEA nor the RAG (nor the regional aid rules in the GBER) formally require that regional aid beneficiaries are registered in the assisted areas. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

The exemption rule for ambulant services entitles undertakings that are not registered in the eligible area to benefit from reduced social security charges when and to the extent that they carry out economic activities in the registered area. Neither Article 61(3)(c) EEA nor the RAG (nor the regional aid rules in the GBER) formally require that regional aid beneficiaries are registered in the assisted areas.

| (29) | Regional aid can be effective in promoting the economic development of disadvantaged areas only if it is awarded to induce additional investment or economic activity in those areas (24). Regional operating aid can only fall under Article 61(3)(c) EEA if it is awarded to tackle specific or permanent handicaps faced by undertakings in disadvantaged regions (25). |
| --- | --- |

(29)

Regional aid can be effective in promoting the economic development of disadvantaged areas only if it is awarded to induce additional investment or economic activity in those areas (24). Regional operating aid can only fall under Article 61(3)(c) EEA if it is awarded to tackle specific or permanent handicaps faced by undertakings in disadvantaged regions (25).

| (30) | There is no question that the geographical scope of the scheme as such is restricted to disadvantaged regions. The scope of this decision is limited to the exemption rule. The question is whether that rule, which entails that undertakings registered outside the disadvantaged regions covered by the scheme can benefit from aid under the scheme to the extent that they carry out economic activities in the disadvantaged regions is compatible with the state aid rules. In other words, does the exemption rule tackle specific or permanenet handicaps faced by undertakings in the disadvantaged regions? |
| --- | --- |

(30)

There is no question that the geographical scope of the scheme as such is restricted to disadvantaged regions. The scope of this decision is limited to the exemption rule. The question is whether that rule, which entails that undertakings registered outside the disadvantaged regions covered by the scheme can benefit from aid under the scheme to the extent that they carry out economic activities in the disadvantaged regions is compatible with the state aid rules. In other words, does the exemption rule tackle specific or permanenet handicaps faced by undertakings in the disadvantaged regions?

| (31) | It is for the Norwegian authorities to demonstrate the risk of depopulation in the absence of the exemption rule (26). The Norwegian authorities have underlined the benefits of the exemption rule for local undertakings. They can access, at a lower cost, specialised labour that would otherwise not be available. Moreover, the exemption rule leads to increased competition between ambulant services in the eligible areas, which again is beneficial for local undertakings (other than those providing ambulant services) since lower costs for ambulant services make it more attractive and more profitable to run a business in the eligible area. The use of aid under the scheme is an indirect tool in the sense that it is used to reduce the cost of employing workers as a measure to reduce or prevent depopulation. The idea is that the labour market is the most important factor influencing where people live. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

It is for the Norwegian authorities to demonstrate the risk of depopulation in the absence of the exemption rule (26). The Norwegian authorities have underlined the benefits of the exemption rule for local undertakings. They can access, at a lower cost, specialised labour that would otherwise not be available. Moreover, the exemption rule leads to increased competition between ambulant services in the eligible areas, which again is beneficial for local undertakings (other than those providing ambulant services) since lower costs for ambulant services make it more attractive and more profitable to run a business in the eligible area. The use of aid under the scheme is an indirect tool in the sense that it is used to reduce the cost of employing workers as a measure to reduce or prevent depopulation. The idea is that the labour market is the most important factor influencing where people live.

| (32) | The Norwegian authorities have further argued that the firms registered outside the eligible area occasionally will hire workers in the eligible areas. Thereby the firms will provide jobs that, although of a more temporary nature, will nevertheless contribute to increased wage income in the eligible regions. This also stimulates economic activity. The Norwegian authorities furthermore argue that employees who temporarily stay in the eligible area will buy local goods and services and thereby contribute to the local economy. This applies in particular to employees commuting to the location especially on short or medium term as they are likely to stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, etc. The Norwegian authorities have estimated the amount of aid resulting from the exemption rule to be two percent of the total aid for 2015 which they stress is an uncertain estimate. Two percent amounts to approximately EUR 19 million (27). The Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to provide more precise information about the financial effect of the rule. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

The Norwegian authorities have further argued that the firms registered outside the eligible area occasionally will hire workers in the eligible areas. Thereby the firms will provide jobs that, although of a more temporary nature, will nevertheless contribute to increased wage income in the eligible regions. This also stimulates economic activity. The Norwegian authorities furthermore argue that employees who temporarily stay in the eligible area will buy local goods and services and thereby contribute to the local economy. This applies in particular to employees commuting to the location especially on short or medium term as they are likely to stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, etc. The Norwegian authorities have estimated the amount of aid resulting from the exemption rule to be two percent of the total aid for 2015 which they stress is an uncertain estimate. Two percent amounts to approximately EUR 19 million (27). The Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to provide more precise information about the financial effect of the rule.

| (33) | Apart from the above remarks of a general nature, the Norwegian authorities have not demonstrated the risk of depopulation of the relevant area in the absence of the exemtion rule. It is the view of the Authority that a measure, in order to meet the requirements of the RAG, must have effects exceeding a marginal increase of temporary employment possibilities and spending in the eligible area. On this basis, the Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to provide more information to demonstrate the risk of depopulation in the absence of the exemption rule. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

Apart from the above remarks of a general nature, the Norwegian authorities have not demonstrated the risk of depopulation of the relevant area in the absence of the exemtion rule. It is the view of the Authority that a measure, in order to meet the requirements of the RAG, must have effects exceeding a marginal increase of temporary employment possibilities and spending in the eligible area. On this basis, the Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to provide more information to demonstrate the risk of depopulation in the absence of the exemption rule.

| (34) | In terms of effect on competition and trade of the exemption rule, the Norwegian authorities argue that the exemption rule creates a level playing field for all undertakings active in the disadvantaged areas as it applies equally to any EEA-based undertaking. The consequence is that it ensures that undue adverse effects on competition are avoided. It is the view of the Authority that this is a positive feature in light of paras. 3 and 53 of the RAG. However, the undertakings registered within the eligible area may, in general, face more permanent difficulties than the undertakings that merely send their employees to work in the area on a non-permanent basis. The Norwegian authorities argue that undertakings registered outside the eligible zone may have a competitive disadvantage compared to local firms due to i.a. costs of transporting and lodging of personnel. The Norwegian authotities have not presented any data or further reasoning to back up this assumption. The Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to further clarify why it is that the exemption rule does not have undue adverse effects on competition and to submit further information to back this up. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

In terms of effect on competition and trade of the exemption rule, the Norwegian authorities argue that the exemption rule creates a level playing field for all undertakings active in the disadvantaged areas as it applies equally to any EEA-based undertaking. The consequence is that it ensures that undue adverse effects on competition are avoided. It is the view of the Authority that this is a positive feature in light of paras. 3 and 53 of the RAG. However, the undertakings registered within the eligible area may, in general, face more permanent difficulties than the undertakings that merely send their employees to work in the area on a non-permanent basis. The Norwegian authorities argue that undertakings registered outside the eligible zone may have a competitive disadvantage compared to local firms due to i.a. costs of transporting and lodging of personnel. The Norwegian authotities have not presented any data or further reasoning to back up this assumption. The Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to further clarify why it is that the exemption rule does not have undue adverse effects on competition and to submit further information to back this up.

| (35) | The Norwegian authorities have stressed that it is evident that the exemption rule has an incentive effect. Incentive effect of an aid cannot merely be assumed. While it is not necessary to provide individual evidence that aid under a scheme provides each beneficiary with an incentive, on an individual basis, to carry out an activity it would not otherwise have carried out, the incentive effect must, at the least, be based on sound economic theory. It is not sufficient merely to refer to an alleged obviousness. While it is true that the exemption rule for companies registered outside the eligible areas reduces labour costs for ambulant services in the eligible areas, the Norwegian authorities have not provided evidence or arguments to the effect that it is likely that, in the absence of aid, the level of economic activity in the area would be significantly reduced due to the problems that the aid is intended to address (28). |
| --- | --- |

(35)

The Norwegian authorities have stressed that it is evident that the exemption rule has an incentive effect. Incentive effect of an aid cannot merely be assumed. While it is not necessary to provide individual evidence that aid under a scheme provides each beneficiary with an incentive, on an individual basis, to carry out an activity it would not otherwise have carried out, the incentive effect must, at the least, be based on sound economic theory. It is not sufficient merely to refer to an alleged obviousness. While it is true that the exemption rule for companies registered outside the eligible areas reduces labour costs for ambulant services in the eligible areas, the Norwegian authorities have not provided evidence or arguments to the effect that it is likely that, in the absence of aid, the level of economic activity in the area would be significantly reduced due to the problems that the aid is intended to address (28).

| (36) | The Norwegian authorities have explained that undertakings performing ambulant services to some extent can register sub-units in the eligible area. Moreover, they are required to do so when at least one employee carries out work for the parent unit in a separate area, and the undertaking may be visited there. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

The Norwegian authorities have explained that undertakings performing ambulant services to some extent can register sub-units in the eligible area. Moreover, they are required to do so when at least one employee carries out work for the parent unit in a separate area, and the undertaking may be visited there.

| (37) | The Norwegian authorities argue that in the absence of the exemption rule for ambulant services in the eligible area, there would be an unjustified difference in treatment depending on whether the service providing undertaking had established a sub-unit in the eligible area. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

The Norwegian authorities argue that in the absence of the exemption rule for ambulant services in the eligible area, there would be an unjustified difference in treatment depending on whether the service providing undertaking had established a sub-unit in the eligible area.

| (38) | Firstly, it is not clear to the Authority what the requirement that ‘at least one employee carries out work for the parent unit in a separate area, and the undertaking may be visited there’ entails. The Authority therefore invites the Norwegian authorities to clarify this. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

Firstly, it is not clear to the Authority what the requirement that ‘at least one employee carries out work for the parent unit in a separate area, and the undertaking may be visited there’ entails. The Authority therefore invites the Norwegian authorities to clarify this.

| (39) | Secondly, the the principle of equal treatment is a general principle of EEA law. However, this cannot in and of itself serve as a basis to justify the exemption rule. The exemption rule must itself be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

Secondly, the the principle of equal treatment is a general principle of EEA law. However, this cannot in and of itself serve as a basis to justify the exemption rule. The exemption rule must itself be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| (40) | In conclusion, the absence of the relevant information, as described above, leads the Authority to have doubts about the compatibility of the exemption rule with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

In conclusion, the absence of the relevant information, as described above, leads the Authority to have doubts about the compatibility of the exemption rule with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

4.   Conclusion

| (41) | As set out above, the Authority has doubts as to whether the exemption rule for ambulant services under the scheme on differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020 is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

As set out above, the Authority has doubts as to whether the exemption rule for ambulant services under the scheme on differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020 is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| (42) | Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measure is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measure is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| (43) | The Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Norwegian authorities to submit, by 10 January 2016 their comments and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the compatibility of the measure in light of the state aid rules. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

The Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Norwegian authorities to submit, by 10 January 2016 their comments and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the compatibility of the measure in light of the state aid rules.

| (44) | 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 this recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EEA law, such as the protection of legitimate expectations. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

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 this recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EEA law, such as the protection of legitimate expectations.

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 exemption rule for ambulant services under the scheme on differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020.

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 10 January 2016.

Article 3

The Norwegian authorities are requested to provide by 10 January 2016, all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the aid measure.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 5

Only the English language version of this decision is authentic.

Done in Brussels, on 9 December 2015

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Sven Erik SVEDMAN

President

Helga JÓNSDÓTTIR

College Member

---

(1)  Документи No 702438-702440, 702442 и 702443.

1

(2)  Вж. параграф 2 от Решение No 225/14/COL, на разположение онлайн на адрес: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid/Consolidated_version_-_Decision_225_14_COL__NOR_Social_Security_contributions_2014-2020.pdf

2

(3)  Още не е докладвано.

3

(4)  Документ No 776348.

4

(5)  Документи No 779603 и 779604.

5

(6)  Закон за координационния регистър на юридическите лица (LOV-1994-06-03-15).

6

(7)  LOV-1997-02-28-19.

7

(8)  ОВ L 166, 5.6.2014 г., стр. 44 и Притурка за ЕИП No 33, 5.6.2014 г., стр. 1.

8

(9)  Точка 6 от НРП.

9

(10)  Точка 16 от НРП.

10

(11)  Точка 43 от НРП.

11

(12)  Въз основа на съобщения бюджет за 2013 г., вж. точка 49 от Решение No 225/14/COL на Органа.

12

(13)  Точка 71 от НРП.

13

(14)  Documents No 702438-702440, 702442 and 702443.

14

(15)  See paragraph 2 of Decision No 225/14/COL, available online: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid/Consolidated_version_-_Decision_225_14_COL__NOR_Social_Security_contributions_2014-2020.pdf

15

(16)  Not yet reported.

16

(17)  Document No 776348.

17

(18)  Documents No 779603 and 779604.

18

(19)  LOV-1997-02-28-19.

19

(20)  The Act on the Coordinating Register for Legal Entities (LOV-1994-06-03-15).

20

(21)  See Order of the EFTA Court of 23.11.2015 in Case E-23/14 INT Kimek Offshore AS v ESA (not yet reported).

21

Kimek Offshore AS

ESA

(22)  OJ L 166, 5.6.2014, p. 44 and EEA Supplement No 33, 5.6.2014, p. 1.

22

(23)  The General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER). Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 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 into the EEA Agreement by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 152/2014 (OJ L 342, 27.11.2014, p. 63 and EEA Supplement No 71, 27.11.2014, p. 61) at point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement.

23

(24)  Para. 6 of the RAG.

24

(25)  Para. 16 of the RAG.

25

(26)  Para. 43 of the RAG.

26

(27)  Based on the notified 2013 budget, see para. 49 of the Authority's Decision No 225/14/COL.

27

(28)  Para. 71 of the RAG.

28

---

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/29

---

Покана за представяне на мнения съгласно член 1, параграф 2 от част I на Протокол 3 към Споразумението между държавите от ЕАСТ за създаване на надзорен орган и съд по въпроси, свързани с държавна помощ, във връзка с потенциална помощ за Hurtigruten ASA по силата на споразумението с Hurtigruten за услуги за кайбрежен морски транспорт за периода 2012—2019 г.

(2016/C 236/11)

С Решение No 490/15/COL от 9 декември 2015 г., възпроизведено на автентичния език на страниците след настоящото резюме, Надзорният орган на ЕАСТ започна производство съгласно член 1, параграф 2 от част I на Протокол 3 към Споразумението между държавите от ЕАСТ за създаване на надзорен орган и съд. Норвежките органи бяха информирани посредством копие от решението.

С настоящото известие Надзорният орган на ЕАСТ приканва държавите от ЕАСТ, държавите — членки на ЕС, и заинтересованите страни да изпратят своите мнения относно въпросната мярка в срок от един месец от датата на публикуване на известието на следния адрес:

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

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Registry

Rue Belliard 35/Belliardstraat 35

1040 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Мненията ще бъдат предадени на норвежките органи. Самоличността на заинтересованата страна, изпратила мнение, може да не бъде разкрита, ако това бъде поискано писмено, като се посочат причините за искането.

РЕЗЮМЕ

Контекст

Hurtigruten ASA (Hurtigruten) извършва услуги за комбиниран транспорт на хора и товари по протежение на норвежкото крайбрежие от Берген до Киркенес.

След провеждане на процедура за възлагане на обществена поръчка на 13 април 2011 г. с Hurtigruten е подписано споразумение за обществена поръчка за услуги по крайбрежния маршрут Берген—Киркенес за периода от 1 януари 2012 г. до 31 декември 2019 г. По силата на това споразумение Hurtigruten извършва целогодишно ежедневни курсове с 32 акостирания в определени междинни пристанища между Берген и Киркенес. По маршрутите Тромсьо—Киркенес и Киркенес—Тромсьо се извършват и товарни превози. Услугите се осъществяват в съответствие с определени изисквания за капацитета и плавателните съдове, както е предвидено в договора. Плавателните съдове, използвани по крайбрежния маршрут, трябва да имат най-малко пътнически капацитет 320 пътници, спални каюти с капацитет 120 пътници и багажно отделение с товарен капацитет 150 европалета при нормална височина на товара. Те трябва също така да отговарят на правните и техническите изисквания, както е посочено в раздел 4.4 от спецификациите на обществената поръчка.

За услугите, предмет на споразумението с Hurtigruten, норвежките органи изплащат компенсация в размер на общо 5 120 милиона норвежки крони за осемгодишния срок на споразумението.

Оценка на отпуснатата компенсация от гледна точка на държавната помощ

Единственият критерий за наличието на въпросната държавна помощ е дали договорът е предоставил избирателно неправомерно икономическо предимство на Hurtigruten.

Избирателно икономическо предимство на Hurtigruten

Надзорният орган направи оценка на изпълнението на четирите условия от решението „Altmark“ (1) и установи, че на този етап никое от тях не изглежда изпълнено и следователно на Hurtigruten е предоставено избирателно предимство по смисъла на член 61, параграф 1 от Споразумението за ЕИП.

Що се отнася до първото условие за ясно определение на понятието „задължение за извършване на обществена услуга“, Надзорният орган има съмнения дали изискването за резервен капацитет в раздел 4-2 на споразумението с Hurtigruten може да бъде класифицирано от Норвегия като услуга от общ икономически интерес и приканва норвежките органи да предоставят обективна обосновка относно необходимостта от задължение за извършване на обществена услуга, като се вземат предвид сезонните колебания на търговския пътнически транспорт.

Що се отнася до второто условие и факта, че параметрите, въз основа на които се изчислява компенсацията, трябва да бъдат установени предварително по обективен и прозрачен начин, на този етап Надзорният орган изразява съмнения дали изискването за резервен капацитет е свързано с действителния брой на пътниците, налагащ задължение за извършване на обществена услуга. Така например, няма обективна и прозрачна методология за предварително изчисляване на разходите на пътник/километър. Hurtigruten е създало отделен бюджет, включващ всички разходи и приходи, свързани с маршрутите, до които се отнася задължението за извършване на обществена услуга. Целта на това отделно счетоводство обаче не е да се установят предварително параметрите на компенсацията, която е пряко свързана с действителните загуби и разходи (капацитет и пътнически разходи), понесени от Hurtigruten.

Що се отнася до третото условие, Надзорният орган има съмнения дали норвежките органи са взели мерки предоставената компенсация да не превишава необходимото за пълното или частичното покриване на разходите по изпълнението на задължението за обществена услуга, като се отчитат съответните приходи и разумната печалба при изпълнението на тези задължения.

На настоящия етап Надзорният орган не може да изключи, че Hurtigruten е получило свръхкомпенсация за предоставянето на обществената услуга. За да достигне до този предварителен извод, Надзорният орган направи оценка на следното:

| i) | Hurtigruten не запазва капацитет за пътнически обществени услуги, а по-скоро продава капацитет на круизни пътници, като същевременно поддържа компенсацията за обществена услуга на същото равнище; |
| --- | --- |

i)

Hurtigruten не запазва капацитет за пътнически обществени услуги, а по-скоро продава капацитет на круизни пътници, като същевременно поддържа компенсацията за обществена услуга на същото равнище;

| ii) | компенсацията за предоставяне на обществена услуга се е увеличила значително в сравнение с предходния договорен период; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

компенсацията за предоставяне на обществена услуга се е увеличила значително в сравнение с предходния договорен период;

| iii) | Hurtigruten продължава да получава компенсация за услуги, които не извършва; и |
| --- | --- |

iii)

Hurtigruten продължава да получава компенсация за услуги, които не извършва; и

| iv) | Hurtigruten прави по-нататъшни опити да получи по-ниски цени за пристанищните такси при поддържане на компенсацията за обществена услуга на същото равнище. |
| --- | --- |

iv)

Hurtigruten прави по-нататъшни опити да получи по-ниски цени за пристанищните такси при поддържане на компенсацията за обществена услуга на същото равнище.

Накрая, що се отнася до четвъртото условие, което изисква започването на процедура за възлагане на обществена поръчка или съпоставителен анализ спрямо ефективен оператор, понастоящем Надзорният орган има съмнения дали процедура за възлагане на обществена поръчка като въпросната може да се счита за достатъчна за осигуряване на „най-ниската за териториалната общност цена“, като се има предвид, че вследствие на процедурата е получена само една оферта, а именно тази на Hurtigruten. Това по-специално е така, защото Hurtigruten е имало значително конкурентно предимство, което е укрепило позицията му при процедурата за възлагане на обществена поръчка, тъй като дружеството вече е притежавало плавателни съдове, адаптирани към изискванията на спецификациите.

Освен това, в съответствие със спецификациите, задачата за изпълнение на задължение за обществена услуга е била рекламирана под формата на три алтернативи. Това би могло да свидетелства за наличието на допълнителна информация и/или критерии за тежест на тези алтернативи. С оглед на факта, че тази информация не е била включена в документацията за възлагане на обществената поръчка, Надзорният орган има съмнения дали обществената поръчка така, както е замислена, е създала стимули за потенциални оференти, различни от Hurtigruten, които биха били склонни да представят оферти в съответствие с изискванията на трите различни алтернативи и за различна алтернативна от избраната в действителност.

Норвежките органи не са представили никаква информация относно съпоставителния анализ спрямо ефективен оператор.

Оценка на съвместимостта

Съвместимостта на компенсациите за обществени услуги за морски транспорт се оценява въз основа на член 59, параграф 2 от Споразумението за ЕИП във връзка с Рамката на Надзорния орган за държавна помощ под формата на компенсации за обществени услуги („Рамката“) (2).

Принципите, посочени в Рамката, се прилагат за компенсация за обществена услуга само доколкото тази компенсация представлява държавна помощ, която не попада в приложното поле на Решение 2012/21/ЕС на Комисията относно прилагането на член 106, параграф 2 от Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз за държавната помощ под формата на компенсация за обществена услуга, предоставена на определени предприятия, натоварени с извършването на услуги от общ икономически интерес (3).

Надзорният орган не е получил никаква информация от норвежките органи по отношение на съображения за съвместимост и на този етап се съмнява дали споразумението с Hurtigruten е съвместимо с функционирането на Споразумението за ЕИП.

Заключение

С оглед на горепосочените съображения Надзорният орган взе решение да открие официална процедура по разследване съгласно член 1, параграф 2 от част I на Протокол 3 към Споразумението между държавите от ЕАСТ за създаване на надзорен орган и съд. Заинтересованите страни се приканват да предоставят своите мнения в срок от един месец от публикуването на настоящото известие в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 490/15/COL

of 9 December 2015

opening the formal investigation procedure on the Coastal Agreement for Hurtigruten Maritime Services 2012-2019

(Norway)

[NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSION]

The EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’),

HAVING REGARD to:

the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), in particular to Articles 59(2) and 61,

Protocol 26 to the EEA Agreement,

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

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

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

| (1) | On 28 April 2014 the Authority received by e-mail a complaint about alleged incompatible aid to Hurtigruten ASA (‘Hurtigruten’) under the Coastal Agreement for the Bergen – Kirkenes route (‘Hurtigruten Agreement’ or ‘HA’) for the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 28 April 2014 the Authority received by e-mail a complaint about alleged incompatible aid to Hurtigruten ASA (‘Hurtigruten’) under the Coastal Agreement for the Bergen – Kirkenes route (‘Hurtigruten Agreement’ or ‘HA’) for the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019.

| (2) | A second complaint referring to the same Coastal Agreement was received on 9 July 2014. The two complaints are independent, but there are certain overlapping issues. Given that both complaints refer to the same HA, the present decision will treat them jointly and refer to them as ‘the complaints’ (reference will also be made to ‘the complainants’) throughout the text. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A second complaint referring to the same Coastal Agreement was received on 9 July 2014. The two complaints are independent, but there are certain overlapping issues. Given that both complaints refer to the same HA, the present decision will treat them jointly and refer to them as ‘the complaints’ (reference will also be made to ‘the complainants’) throughout the text.

| (3) | By letter dated 13 June 2014 (supplemented by a subsequent letter of 10 July 2014), the Authority requested information from the Norwegian authorities. By letter dated 22 September 2014, the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request. An additional request for information was sent to the Norwegian authorities on 21 November 2014, to which the Norwegian authorities replied by letter dated 16 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

By letter dated 13 June 2014 (supplemented by a subsequent letter of 10 July 2014), the Authority requested information from the Norwegian authorities. By letter dated 22 September 2014, the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request. An additional request for information was sent to the Norwegian authorities on 21 November 2014, to which the Norwegian authorities replied by letter dated 16 January 2015.

2.   Background – the Hurtigruten Agreement

| (4) | Hurtigruten operates transport services consisting of the combined transport of persons and goods along the Norwegian coast from Bergen to Kirkenes, as illustrated in the diagram below:

  Diagram 1 – The Bergen – Kirkenes coastal route |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Hurtigruten operates transport services consisting of the combined transport of persons and goods along the Norwegian coast from Bergen to Kirkenes, as illustrated in the diagram below:

Diagram 1 – The Bergen – Kirkenes coastal route

| (5) | The operation of the service for parts of the period 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2012 was the subject of the Authority's Decision No 205/11/COL. (4) In that Decision the Authority concluded that the measures involved entailed state aid that was incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement in so far as they constituted a form of overcompensation for a public service obligation, and ordered the recovery of the aid. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The operation of the service for parts of the period 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2012 was the subject of the Authority's Decision No 205/11/COL. (4) In that Decision the Authority concluded that the measures involved entailed state aid that was incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement in so far as they constituted a form of overcompensation for a public service obligation, and ordered the recovery of the aid.

| (6) | The operation of the service for the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019 was the subject of a tender procedure initiated on 30 June 2010, when the tender specifications were published on Doffin (online database for public procurement). (5) |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The operation of the service for the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019 was the subject of a tender procedure initiated on 30 June 2010, when the tender specifications were published on Doffin (online database for public procurement). (5)

| (7) | Following this tender procedure, and on the basis of a bid submitted on 8 November 2010, a contract for the procurement of services for the Bergen – Kirkenes coastal route for the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019 was signed with Hurtigruten on 13 April 2011. Under this contract, Hurtigruten shall perform daily sailings throughout the year with calls at 32 intermediate defined ports between Bergen and Kirkenes. For the Tromsø – Kirkenes and Kirkenes – Tromsø routes, freight transport shall also be provided. The services shall be operated in line with certain capacity and vessel requirements, as stipulated in the contract. Vessels used on the coastal route shall as a minimum have a passenger capacity for 320 passengers, berth capacity in cabins for 120 passengers and freight capacity for 150 euro pallets in a cargo hold with a normal load height. They shall also meet legal and technical requirements as indicated in section 4.4 of the tender specifications. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Following this tender procedure, and on the basis of a bid submitted on 8 November 2010, a contract for the procurement of services for the Bergen – Kirkenes coastal route for the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019 was signed with Hurtigruten on 13 April 2011. Under this contract, Hurtigruten shall perform daily sailings throughout the year with calls at 32 intermediate defined ports between Bergen and Kirkenes. For the Tromsø – Kirkenes and Kirkenes – Tromsø routes, freight transport shall also be provided. The services shall be operated in line with certain capacity and vessel requirements, as stipulated in the contract. Vessels used on the coastal route shall as a minimum have a passenger capacity for 320 passengers, berth capacity in cabins for 120 passengers and freight capacity for 150 euro pallets in a cargo hold with a normal load height. They shall also meet legal and technical requirements as indicated in section 4.4 of the tender specifications.

| (8) | The maritime services for the Bergen – Kirkenes route are based on maximum fares as regards port-to-port passengers (i.e. public service passengers), which must be approved by the Norwegian authorities. According to the HA, ‘“[p]ort-to-port passengers” are passengers who purchase tickets for travelling on a chosen route in accordance with the normal tariff, with any supplement for cabins and/or meals at their option. Prices for supplementary services must correspond to published prices for the selected standard of cabin and meal. The overall price must in such cases equal the sum of the ticket price and individual prices of the selected supplementary services.’ An approved fare is taken to mean the normal fares tariff that applied on this route on 1 October 2004, adjusted in line with the Consumer Price Index. Any subsequent changes to the normal tariff must be approved by the Norwegian authorities. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The maritime services for the Bergen – Kirkenes route are based on maximum fares as regards port-to-port passengers (i.e. public service passengers), which must be approved by the Norwegian authorities. According to the HA, ‘“[p]ort-to-port passengers” are passengers who purchase tickets for travelling on a chosen route in accordance with the normal tariff, with any supplement for cabins and/or meals at their option. Prices for supplementary services must correspond to published prices for the selected standard of cabin and meal. The overall price must in such cases equal the sum of the ticket price and individual prices of the selected supplementary services.’ An approved fare is taken to mean the normal fares tariff that applied on this route on 1 October 2004, adjusted in line with the Consumer Price Index. Any subsequent changes to the normal tariff must be approved by the Norwegian authorities.

| (9) | For other passengers, Hurtigruten is free to set its prices. According to the HA, ‘“[o]ther passenger” are those who are not “port-to-port passengers”. In other words, they are passengers who purchase travel products for specific routes, defined by the supplier, and which include at least one overnight cabin stay and at least one meal on board, where the supplier has published a combined price for the items included and which cannot be broken down into the individual published prices for the same items, including that the passengers will not be entitled to defined discounts on the travel component of the product. Other passengers also include those purchasing a travel product, defined by the supplier, with at least the above-mentioned supplementary services at a combined price, specified per day, but where the passengers themselves select the route where these conditions apply.’ The same applies to cabin and meal prices, as well as to freight transport. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

For other passengers, Hurtigruten is free to set its prices. According to the HA, ‘“[o]ther passenger” are those who are not “port-to-port passengers”. In other words, they are passengers who purchase travel products for specific routes, defined by the supplier, and which include at least one overnight cabin stay and at least one meal on board, where the supplier has published a combined price for the items included and which cannot be broken down into the individual published prices for the same items, including that the passengers will not be entitled to defined discounts on the travel component of the product. Other passengers also include those purchasing a travel product, defined by the supplier, with at least the above-mentioned supplementary services at a combined price, specified per day, but where the passengers themselves select the route where these conditions apply.’ The same applies to cabin and meal prices, as well as to freight transport.

| (10) | For the services covered by the HA, the Norwegian authorities pay a total compensation of NOK 5120 million for the eight years' duration of the agreement, expressed in 2011 prices, in accordance with Statistics Norway's cost index for domestic sea transport. (6) The compensation allocation for each individual year is as follows:

  Table 1 – Annual Compensation under the HA







  2012 | NOK 700 million |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2013 | NOK 683 million |
| 2014 | NOK 666 million |
| 2015 | NOK 649 million |
| 2016 | NOK 631 million |
| 2017 | NOK 614 million |
| 2018 | NOK 597 million |
| 2019 | NOK 580 million |

(10)

For the services covered by the HA, the Norwegian authorities pay a total compensation of NOK 5120 million for the eight years' duration of the agreement, expressed in 2011 prices, in accordance with Statistics Norway's cost index for domestic sea transport. (6) The compensation allocation for each individual year is as follows:

Table 1 – Annual Compensation under the HA

2012

NOK 700 million

2013

NOK 683 million

2014

NOK 666 million

2015

NOK 649 million

2016

NOK 631 million

2017

NOK 614 million

2018

NOK 597 million

2019

NOK 580 million

| (11) | According to the HA, Hurtigruten is obliged to keep separate accounts for the activities on the Bergen – Kirkenes route and other activities and routes outside the scope of the HA. (7) In addition, Hurtigruten is obliged to keep separate accounts for the public service obligation routes (‘PSO routes’) of the Bergen – Kirkenes main coastal route and the commercial part of the same route. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

According to the HA, Hurtigruten is obliged to keep separate accounts for the activities on the Bergen – Kirkenes route and other activities and routes outside the scope of the HA. (7) In addition, Hurtigruten is obliged to keep separate accounts for the public service obligation routes (‘PSO routes’) of the Bergen – Kirkenes main coastal route and the commercial part of the same route.

3.   The complaints
   (8)

| (12) | Both complainants have requested confidential treatment. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Both complainants have requested confidential treatment.

| (13) | The complainants' argument that Hurtigruten receives state aid in the form of overcompensation, violating thus Articles 61 and 59 of the EEA Agreement, is centred around the following allegations:






  1. | The compensation for providing the PSO routes has increased substantially as compared to the previous contract period. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(13)

The complainants' argument that Hurtigruten receives state aid in the form of overcompensation, violating thus Articles 61 and 59 of the EEA Agreement, is centred around the following allegations:

1.

The compensation for providing the PSO routes has increased substantially as compared to the previous contract period.

| 2. | Hurtigruten continues to receive compensation for services that are not rendered:






  a. | Hurtigruten has cancelled all sailings to and from the port of Mehamn from 6 January 2014 onwards without any objective justification or professional verification, after having itself partially demolished the terminal quay in April 2012, which Hurtigruten was actually using to dock for over 20 months. At the same time, the corresponding compensation granted by the Norwegian authorities has not been reduced, enabling Hurtigruten to receive monthly cost savings amounting to NOK 314 500. As a result, both the second and third Altmark conditions would not be fulfilled. The second condition is not fulfilled because the Norwegian authorities have not established a framework or policy for objectively and professionally evaluating loss of service after technical or operational claims by the company, and have not engaged any agency to verify the contested claims. The third condition would not be fulfilled, according to the complainants, because Hurtigruten is paid full compensation for PSO routes where it enjoys a substantial cost reduction as a result of the interruption of the services. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Hurtigruten continues to receive compensation for services that are not rendered:

a.

Hurtigruten has cancelled all sailings to and from the port of Mehamn from 6 January 2014 onwards without any objective justification or professional verification, after having itself partially demolished the terminal quay in April 2012, which Hurtigruten was actually using to dock for over 20 months. At the same time, the corresponding compensation granted by the Norwegian authorities has not been reduced, enabling Hurtigruten to receive monthly cost savings amounting to NOK 314 500. As a result, both the second and third Altmark conditions would not be fulfilled. The second condition is not fulfilled because the Norwegian authorities have not established a framework or policy for objectively and professionally evaluating loss of service after technical or operational claims by the company, and have not engaged any agency to verify the contested claims. The third condition would not be fulfilled, according to the complainants, because Hurtigruten is paid full compensation for PSO routes where it enjoys a substantial cost reduction as a result of the interruption of the services.

| b. | Numerous complaints from several ports and regional authorities regarding frequent and arbitrary Hurtigruten cancellations have been dismissed by the Norwegian authorities and have not resulted in any reduction of the compensation. According to the complainants, certain ports are especially plagued by cancellations due to low passenger numbers and low profitability, especially during the winter season.
  The complainants particularly question the force majeure definition of section 8 of the HA referring to ‘extreme weather conditions’ without the use of objective criteria. (9) They also refer to such conditions as not constituting force majeure in line with section 8 of the HA, which particularly states that ‘[o]bstacles that the contracting party should have considered upon entering into the agreement, or could reasonably be expected to avoid or circumvent, shall not be considered to constitute force majeure’. At the same time, the complainants question Hurtigruten's discretion to abuse the absolute sovereignty of the master of the ship, when justifying cancellations that are not due to scheduled maintenance or technical reasons pursuant to section 4-1(3) of the HA.
  In conclusion, the complainants submit that the cancellations that do not result in any reduction of the compensation have an adverse effect on the performance of the PSO routes and do not fulfil the second and third Altmark conditions. |
| --- | --- |

b.

Numerous complaints from several ports and regional authorities regarding frequent and arbitrary Hurtigruten cancellations have been dismissed by the Norwegian authorities and have not resulted in any reduction of the compensation. According to the complainants, certain ports are especially plagued by cancellations due to low passenger numbers and low profitability, especially during the winter season.

The complainants particularly question the force majeure definition of section 8 of the HA referring to ‘extreme weather conditions’ without the use of objective criteria. (9) They also refer to such conditions as not constituting force majeure in line with section 8 of the HA, which particularly states that ‘[o]bstacles that the contracting party should have considered upon entering into the agreement, or could reasonably be expected to avoid or circumvent, shall not be considered to constitute force majeure’. At the same time, the complainants question Hurtigruten's discretion to abuse the absolute sovereignty of the master of the ship, when justifying cancellations that are not due to scheduled maintenance or technical reasons pursuant to section 4-1(3) of the HA.

In conclusion, the complainants submit that the cancellations that do not result in any reduction of the compensation have an adverse effect on the performance of the PSO routes and do not fulfil the second and third Altmark conditions.

| 3. | Hurtigruten has shown reluctance to pay port fees, rent and service charges. It stopped paying from January 2014 until May 2014. Furthermore, it attempts to secure special price agreements and seeks repayments of such costs from all relevant ports going back to 2011, while maintaining the public service compensation at the same level. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Hurtigruten has shown reluctance to pay port fees, rent and service charges. It stopped paying from January 2014 until May 2014. Furthermore, it attempts to secure special price agreements and seeks repayments of such costs from all relevant ports going back to 2011, while maintaining the public service compensation at the same level.

| 4. | Hurtigruten does not reserve capacity for public service passengers, but rather sells the berth capacity to cruise passengers. Hence, Hurtigruten is paid twice for the same capacity, which provides it with an advantage of NOK 50 to 100 million per year. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Hurtigruten does not reserve capacity for public service passengers, but rather sells the berth capacity to cruise passengers. Hence, Hurtigruten is paid twice for the same capacity, which provides it with an advantage of NOK 50 to 100 million per year.

4.   Comments by the Norwegian authorities
   (10)

| (14) | On the allegation that the compensation for the PSO routes under the HA is much higher than under the former agreement of 2005-2012, the Norwegian authorities submit that this reflects the actual costs of running the service with the conditions set in the tender specifications. In this regard, it is also submitted that Hurtigruten suffered considerable losses in the period 2005-2010 while running its PSO routes. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

On the allegation that the compensation for the PSO routes under the HA is much higher than under the former agreement of 2005-2012, the Norwegian authorities submit that this reflects the actual costs of running the service with the conditions set in the tender specifications. In this regard, it is also submitted that Hurtigruten suffered considerable losses in the period 2005-2010 while running its PSO routes.

| (15) | Nevertheless, as there was only one bid after the call for tenders, the Norwegian authorities made use of their right to initiate subsequent negotiations, resulting in the reduction of the compensation by NOK [400 - 1200] million in relation to the initial offer, i.e. from NOK [6320 – 5520] million to NOK 5120 million. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Nevertheless, as there was only one bid after the call for tenders, the Norwegian authorities made use of their right to initiate subsequent negotiations, resulting in the reduction of the compensation by NOK [400 - 1200] million in relation to the initial offer, i.e. from NOK [6320 – 5520] million to NOK 5120 million.

| (16) | Concerning the allegations regarding Hurtigruten cancellations not resulting in any reduction of the compensation, the Norwegian authorities submit that the HA indeed foresees, in section 3, cancellations within the agreed quotas for technical reasons or cultural events, or due to extraordinary weather conditions in line with the force majeure clause of section 8, which do not lead to reductions in the compensation nor to liquidated damages. (11) It is submitted that the benefit gained by Hurtigruten in 2012 and 2013 by not having the compensation reduced in case of extreme weather conditions is significantly lower than a proportional part of the reduction in compensation of NOK [400 – 1200] million so far (i.e. the benefit was NOK [14 – 19] million in 2012 and around NOK [16 – 22] million in 2013). |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Concerning the allegations regarding Hurtigruten cancellations not resulting in any reduction of the compensation, the Norwegian authorities submit that the HA indeed foresees, in section 3, cancellations within the agreed quotas for technical reasons or cultural events, or due to extraordinary weather conditions in line with the force majeure clause of section 8, which do not lead to reductions in the compensation nor to liquidated damages. (11) It is submitted that the benefit gained by Hurtigruten in 2012 and 2013 by not having the compensation reduced in case of extreme weather conditions is significantly lower than a proportional part of the reduction in compensation of NOK [400 – 1200] million so far (i.e. the benefit was NOK [14 – 19] million in 2012 and around NOK [16 – 22] million in 2013).

| (17) | As regards in particular the cancellations due to extreme weather conditions, the Norwegian authorities note that the guiding principle is the safety of the passengers, the crew and the ship, irrespective of whether such conditions are expected. Moreover, also in accordance with section 135 of the Norwegian Maritime Act of 24 June 1994 no. 39, the master of the vessel has the sole responsibility and absolute sovereignty when deciding to avoid servicing ports of call due to extreme weather conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

As regards in particular the cancellations due to extreme weather conditions, the Norwegian authorities note that the guiding principle is the safety of the passengers, the crew and the ship, irrespective of whether such conditions are expected. Moreover, also in accordance with section 135 of the Norwegian Maritime Act of 24 June 1994 no. 39, the master of the vessel has the sole responsibility and absolute sovereignty when deciding to avoid servicing ports of call due to extreme weather conditions.

| (18) | Nevertheless, the HA also provides in section 9.2 that cancellations for other reasons, including cancelled calls at ports, will result in reduced compensation and possible liquidated damages (or claim for compensation in cases of negligence or intent) (12). |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Nevertheless, the HA also provides in section 9.2 that cancellations for other reasons, including cancelled calls at ports, will result in reduced compensation and possible liquidated damages (or claim for compensation in cases of negligence or intent) (12).

| (19) | In any case, according to the Norwegian authorities, the cancellations do not represent savings for the company as such cancellations involve several additional costs in changing the passengers' bookings, and finding alternative transportation of passengers and cargo. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

In any case, according to the Norwegian authorities, the cancellations do not represent savings for the company as such cancellations involve several additional costs in changing the passengers' bookings, and finding alternative transportation of passengers and cargo.

| (20) | In reference to the cancellation of services to the port of Mehamn, the Norwegian authorities consider that the decision to leave out the port of Mehamn as from January 2014 and until the port was repaired, was a result of a risk assessment made by Hurtigruten, taking into account the challenging port and weather conditions in line with the force majeure provision of section 8 of the HA. The passengers were informed in advance and a land-based transport of cargo was also established between Mehamn and Kjøllefjord. The question of reduction of compensation must be assessed in line with the force majeure provision of section 8 of the HA, pursuant to the accounting and other reporting requirements of section 4-4 of the HA. The repairs of the port of Mehamn were completed on 9 September 2014, and Hurtigruten has resumed its sailing. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

In reference to the cancellation of services to the port of Mehamn, the Norwegian authorities consider that the decision to leave out the port of Mehamn as from January 2014 and until the port was repaired, was a result of a risk assessment made by Hurtigruten, taking into account the challenging port and weather conditions in line with the force majeure provision of section 8 of the HA. The passengers were informed in advance and a land-based transport of cargo was also established between Mehamn and Kjøllefjord. The question of reduction of compensation must be assessed in line with the force majeure provision of section 8 of the HA, pursuant to the accounting and other reporting requirements of section 4-4 of the HA. The repairs of the port of Mehamn were completed on 9 September 2014, and Hurtigruten has resumed its sailing.

| (21) | As far as the allegations regarding the port fees, rent and service charges are concerned, the Norwegian authorities state that their level is based on the new Norwegian Ports Act (NPA) in force as from 1 January 2012 for most ports, replacing the previous NPA of 1984 (13). As from that date onwards, the ports can sell services at fair and non-discriminatory prices on a normal contractual basis. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

As far as the allegations regarding the port fees, rent and service charges are concerned, the Norwegian authorities state that their level is based on the new Norwegian Ports Act (NPA) in force as from 1 January 2012 for most ports, replacing the previous NPA of 1984 (13). As from that date onwards, the ports can sell services at fair and non-discriminatory prices on a normal contractual basis.

| (22) | The Norwegian authorities acknowledge that Hurtigruten has indeed approached some of the ports arguing that it is overcharged. This is because, as explained, some ports have conceived the new NPA as giving them the legal basis to increase radically their prices. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

The Norwegian authorities acknowledge that Hurtigruten has indeed approached some of the ports arguing that it is overcharged. This is because, as explained, some ports have conceived the new NPA as giving them the legal basis to increase radically their prices.

| (23) | It is further stressed that the HA is a net contract, which means that Hurtigruten has the risk for costs and revenues during the period of the agreement and is therefore free to influence its costs, including the port fees, in such a way as to operate the service in the most cost efficient manner. The price adjustment clause of section 5-2 of the HA covers only the compensation under the HA. Any amendments of the port fees and charges to Hurtigruten do not thus lead to compensation reduction. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

It is further stressed that the HA is a net contract, which means that Hurtigruten has the risk for costs and revenues during the period of the agreement and is therefore free to influence its costs, including the port fees, in such a way as to operate the service in the most cost efficient manner. The price adjustment clause of section 5-2 of the HA covers only the compensation under the HA. Any amendments of the port fees and charges to Hurtigruten do not thus lead to compensation reduction.

| (24) | In this context, the Norwegian authorities point to the mechanism provided in section 7 of the HA for avoiding overcompensation under particular circumstances. This mechanism ensures that each of the parties may demand renegotiations concerning extraordinary adjustment of the compensation, a change in production or other measures, in the event of amendments to acts, regulations or statutory orders, which the parties could not have reasonably foreseen when signing the contract and which entail material extra costs or savings for the contract procuring the service. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

In this context, the Norwegian authorities point to the mechanism provided in section 7 of the HA for avoiding overcompensation under particular circumstances. This mechanism ensures that each of the parties may demand renegotiations concerning extraordinary adjustment of the compensation, a change in production or other measures, in the event of amendments to acts, regulations or statutory orders, which the parties could not have reasonably foreseen when signing the contract and which entail material extra costs or savings for the contract procuring the service.

| (25) | The Norwegian authorities submit that the requirement of section 4-2, paragraph 1 of the HA for a minimum capacity is understood to mean that Hurtigruten is obliged to have sufficient capacity available for the public service passengers up to the set capacity requirements. On the other hand, Hurtigruten is allowed to sell tickets to other passengers e.g. cruise passengers, in order to avoid sailing with empty berths and to the extent that this does not prejudge the rights of the public service passengers. In any case, as submitted, it has seldom occurred that there is not enough capacity for the public service passengers as the vessels' capacity for other passengers is higher than the actual demand. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The Norwegian authorities submit that the requirement of section 4-2, paragraph 1 of the HA for a minimum capacity is understood to mean that Hurtigruten is obliged to have sufficient capacity available for the public service passengers up to the set capacity requirements. On the other hand, Hurtigruten is allowed to sell tickets to other passengers e.g. cruise passengers, in order to avoid sailing with empty berths and to the extent that this does not prejudge the rights of the public service passengers. In any case, as submitted, it has seldom occurred that there is not enough capacity for the public service passengers as the vessels' capacity for other passengers is higher than the actual demand.

| (26) | For the contingency, when access is denied to public service passengers, Hurtigruten has introduced a travel guarantee to ensure that these passengers may require either a free travel without berth on the planned journey or a travel with berth on the next scheduled ship, or alternative transport free of charge. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

For the contingency, when access is denied to public service passengers, Hurtigruten has introduced a travel guarantee to ensure that these passengers may require either a free travel without berth on the planned journey or a travel with berth on the next scheduled ship, or alternative transport free of charge.

4.1   
  The BDO report

   (14)

| (27) | The Norwegian authorities commissioned a report from the consultancy BDO, which looked at Hurtigruten's budgeted and actual financial performance in 2012 and 2013, for, separately: a) the services purchased by the government on the Bergen-Kirkenes route and, b) the totality of services provided by Hurtigruten on the same route (i.e. including both commercial and government-procured services). |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The Norwegian authorities commissioned a report from the consultancy BDO, which looked at Hurtigruten's budgeted and actual financial performance in 2012 and 2013, for, separately: a) the services purchased by the government on the Bergen-Kirkenes route and, b) the totality of services provided by Hurtigruten on the same route (i.e. including both commercial and government-procured services).

| (28) | In this exercise, BDO distinguished between capacity costs, passenger costs, and costs relating to marketing and sales activities. Capacity costs were then allocated to the government-procured services on the basis of the share of capacity reserved by the government compared to the total capacity of the fleet, whereas passenger costs were allocated on the basis of actual passenger kilometres sailed by distance travellers over the total number of passenger kilometres for all travellers on the fleet. The marketing and sales costs were allocated to the government-procured services on the basis of the share of actual net passenger revenue relating to the PSO passengers compared to the total number of travellers. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

In this exercise, BDO distinguished between capacity costs, passenger costs, and costs relating to marketing and sales activities. Capacity costs were then allocated to the government-procured services on the basis of the share of capacity reserved by the government compared to the total capacity of the fleet, whereas passenger costs were allocated on the basis of actual passenger kilometres sailed by distance travellers over the total number of passenger kilometres for all travellers on the fleet. The marketing and sales costs were allocated to the government-procured services on the basis of the share of actual net passenger revenue relating to the PSO passengers compared to the total number of travellers.

| (29) | [...] |
| --- | --- |

(29)

[...]

II.   ASSESSMENT

1.   The presence of state aid

1.1   
  The concept of state aid

| (30) | 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.’ |
| --- | --- |

(30)

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.’

| (31) | This implies that a measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled. The measure: (i) is granted by the State or through state resources; (ii) confers a selective economic advantage on the beneficiary; (iii) is liable to have an impact on trade between Contracting Parties and to distort competition. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

This implies that a measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled. The measure: (i) is granted by the State or through state resources; (ii) confers a selective economic advantage on the beneficiary; (iii) is liable to have an impact on trade between Contracting Parties and to distort competition.

1.2   
  State resources

| (32) | The Norwegian authorities, following a tender procedure, concluded a contract with Hurtigruten for the performance of maritime services over the period 2012-2019 against remuneration, as stipulated in detail in the HA. It is thus not disputed that the aid measure has been granted by the State or through state resources. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

The Norwegian authorities, following a tender procedure, concluded a contract with Hurtigruten for the performance of maritime services over the period 2012-2019 against remuneration, as stipulated in detail in the HA. It is thus not disputed that the aid measure has been granted by the State or through state resources.

1.3   
  Impact on trade and distortion of competition

| (33) | The measure in question must be liable to have an impact on trade between the Contracting Parties and to distort competition. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

The measure in question must be liable to have an impact on trade between the Contracting Parties and to distort competition.

| (34) | According to established case law, when the financial support granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared to other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade, then there is at least a potential effect on trade between Contracting Parties and on competition (15). In this regard, the Authority is of the view that any potential economic advantage granted to Hurtigruten through state resources would fulfil this condition. As the Authority stated in its Decision No 205/11/COL the market for domestic maritime services (maritime cabotage) (16), within which Hurtigruten operates, was opened to EEA-wide competition in 1998 (17). Moreover, Hurtigruten is also engaged in the tourism sector, in particular through the offer of cruises/round trips along the Norwegian coast. Other operators offer cruises along the same parts of the Norwegian coast (18). Moreover, Hurtigruten also operates a number of cruises in various European States. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

According to established case law, when the financial support granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared to other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade, then there is at least a potential effect on trade between Contracting Parties and on competition (15). In this regard, the Authority is of the view that any potential economic advantage granted to Hurtigruten through state resources would fulfil this condition. As the Authority stated in its Decision No 205/11/COL the market for domestic maritime services (maritime cabotage) (16), within which Hurtigruten operates, was opened to EEA-wide competition in 1998 (17). Moreover, Hurtigruten is also engaged in the tourism sector, in particular through the offer of cruises/round trips along the Norwegian coast. Other operators offer cruises along the same parts of the Norwegian coast (18). Moreover, Hurtigruten also operates a number of cruises in various European States.

| (35) | The only criterion of the notion of state aid that is thus in question is whether the HA has conferred a selective undue economic advantage on Hurtigruten. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

The only criterion of the notion of state aid that is thus in question is whether the HA has conferred a selective undue economic advantage on Hurtigruten.

1.4   
  Selective economic advantage on Hurtigruten

| (36) | The aid measure must confer on Hurtigruten an advantage that relieves it of charges that are normally borne from its budget. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

The aid measure must confer on Hurtigruten an advantage that relieves it of charges that are normally borne from its budget.

| (37) | It follows from the Altmark judgment that where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, such a measure is not caught by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. In the Altmark judgment, the Court of Justice held that compensation for public service obligations does not constitute state aid when four cumulative criteria are met:






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

(37)

It follows from the Altmark judgment that where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, such a measure is not caught by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. In the Altmark judgment, the Court of Justice held that compensation for public service obligations does not constitute state aid when four cumulative criteria are met:

i.

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

| ii. | Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner [...]; |
| --- | --- |

ii.

Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner [...];

| iii. | Third, the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations; |
| --- | --- |

iii.

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

| iv. | Fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.’
   (19) |
| --- | --- |

iv.

Fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.’
   (19)

1.4.1   The first Altmark condition

| (38) | The fulfilment of the first Altmark condition must be assessed with regard to Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation, which sets out the specifications that should be part of the definition of a public service obligation, namely: ports to be served, regularity, continuity, frequency, capacity to provide the service, rates to be charged and manning of the vessel. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

The fulfilment of the first Altmark condition must be assessed with regard to Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation, which sets out the specifications that should be part of the definition of a public service obligation, namely: ports to be served, regularity, continuity, frequency, capacity to provide the service, rates to be charged and manning of the vessel.

| (39) | Further, in accordance with section 9 of the Authority's Maritime Guidelines, ‘[p]ublic service obligations may be imposed or public service contracts may be concluded for the services indicated in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92’ (20). |
| --- | --- |

(39)

Further, in accordance with section 9 of the Authority's Maritime Guidelines, ‘[p]ublic service obligations may be imposed or public service contracts may be concluded for the services indicated in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92’ (20).

| (40) | In the absence of specific EEA rules defining the scope of the existence of a service of general economic interest (SGEI), the Norwegian authorities have a wide margin of discretion in defining a given service as an SGEI and in granting compensation to the service provider. The Authority's competence in this respect is limited to checking whether Norway has made a manifest error when defining the service as an SGEI (21). |
| --- | --- |

(40)

In the absence of specific EEA rules defining the scope of the existence of a service of general economic interest (SGEI), the Norwegian authorities have a wide margin of discretion in defining a given service as an SGEI and in granting compensation to the service provider. The Authority's competence in this respect is limited to checking whether Norway has made a manifest error when defining the service as an SGEI (21).

| (41) | However, according to the case law, PSOs may only be imposed if justified by the need to ensure adequate regular maritime transport services, which cannot be ensured by market forces alone. It is important for the national authorities therefore to demonstrate that there is a real public service need (22). The Communication on the interpretation of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation confirms that ‘[i]t is for the Member States [...] to determine which routes require public service obligations. In particular, public service obligations may be envisaged for regular (scheduled) island cabotage services in the event of market failure to provide adequate services’ (23). |
| --- | --- |

(41)

However, according to the case law, PSOs may only be imposed if justified by the need to ensure adequate regular maritime transport services, which cannot be ensured by market forces alone. It is important for the national authorities therefore to demonstrate that there is a real public service need (22). The Communication on the interpretation of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation confirms that ‘[i]t is for the Member States [...] to determine which routes require public service obligations. In particular, public service obligations may be envisaged for regular (scheduled) island cabotage services in the event of market failure to provide adequate services’ (23).

| (42) | The Norwegian authorities submit that the public service pursuant to the HA relates to the capacity reserve requirement as defined in section 4-2, and that the public service should not be assessed at the level of the actual use of the service. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

The Norwegian authorities submit that the public service pursuant to the HA relates to the capacity reserve requirement as defined in section 4-2, and that the public service should not be assessed at the level of the actual use of the service.

| (43) | Based on the information provided to the Authority (24), it appears however that in both 2012 and 2013, less than [10 – 30] per cent of the passenger capacity reserved for public service passengers was utilised. This would indicate that the compensation received by Hurtigruten for reserving capacity for PSO passengers in those two years vastly exceeded actual demand for PSO passenger services. Moreover, the BDO report shows that the capacity utilisation for commercial passengers amounted to [35 – 65] per cent and [35 – 65] per cent in 2012 and 2013 respectively. Given this level of spare capacity for commercial passengers (and the low level of capacity utilisation for PSO passengers), the Authority cannot exclude that a capacity reservation provision for PSO passengers may be unnecessary, especially during the winter season, where the utilisation by commercial passengers would naturally be much lower. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

Based on the information provided to the Authority (24), it appears however that in both 2012 and 2013, less than [10 – 30] per cent of the passenger capacity reserved for public service passengers was utilised. This would indicate that the compensation received by Hurtigruten for reserving capacity for PSO passengers in those two years vastly exceeded actual demand for PSO passenger services. Moreover, the BDO report shows that the capacity utilisation for commercial passengers amounted to [35 – 65] per cent and [35 – 65] per cent in 2012 and 2013 respectively. Given this level of spare capacity for commercial passengers (and the low level of capacity utilisation for PSO passengers), the Authority cannot exclude that a capacity reservation provision for PSO passengers may be unnecessary, especially during the winter season, where the utilisation by commercial passengers would naturally be much lower.

| (44) | For these reasons, the Authority doubts whether the reserve capacity requirement of section 4-2 of the HA can be classified by Norway as an SGEI and invites the Norwegian authorities to provide objective justification regarding the need for such a PSO, taking into account the seasonal fluctuations of commercial passengers transportation. |
| --- | --- |

(44)

For these reasons, the Authority doubts whether the reserve capacity requirement of section 4-2 of the HA can be classified by Norway as an SGEI and invites the Norwegian authorities to provide objective justification regarding the need for such a PSO, taking into account the seasonal fluctuations of commercial passengers transportation.

| (45) | The Authority has not received any information on berth utilisation. As regards the cargo transportation for the Tromsø – Kirkenes – Tromsø route, this is not price regulated and according to section 4-3 of the HA, Hurtigruten has full freedom to set the fares. It is doubtful therefore whether the cargo transportation is in compliance with Article 4(2) of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation, which explicitly mentions the elements needed for an adequate definition of a PSO, i.e. among others the rates to be charged. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

The Authority has not received any information on berth utilisation. As regards the cargo transportation for the Tromsø – Kirkenes – Tromsø route, this is not price regulated and according to section 4-3 of the HA, Hurtigruten has full freedom to set the fares. It is doubtful therefore whether the cargo transportation is in compliance with Article 4(2) of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation, which explicitly mentions the elements needed for an adequate definition of a PSO, i.e. among others the rates to be charged.

| (46) | In light of the above, the Authority doubts whether the PSO for cargo transportation has been clearly defined under the HA. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

In light of the above, the Authority doubts whether the PSO for cargo transportation has been clearly defined under the HA.

| (47) | The Authority however, does not doubt that other obligations are clearly defined in section 4-1 of the HA, as regards the supplier obligations in terms of route production requirements, in section 4-2 of the HA, as regards the vessel requirements and in section 4-3 of the HA, as regards fare and discount requirements, with the exception of cargo transportation. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

The Authority however, does not doubt that other obligations are clearly defined in section 4-1 of the HA, as regards the supplier obligations in terms of route production requirements, in section 4-2 of the HA, as regards the vessel requirements and in section 4-3 of the HA, as regards fare and discount requirements, with the exception of cargo transportation.

| (48) | In view of the above, the Authority doubts that the first Altmark condition is met. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

In view of the above, the Authority doubts that the first Altmark condition is met.

1.4.2   The second Altmark condition

| (49) | The Norwegian authorities must define ex ante the methodology to calculate the compensation for discharging the PSO obligations. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

The Norwegian authorities must define ex ante the methodology to calculate the compensation for discharging the PSO obligations.

| (50) | Pursuant to section 4-2 of the HA ‘[v]essels used on the coastal route shall as a minimum have a passenger capacity for 320 passengers, berth capacity in cabins for 120 passengers and freight capacity for 150 euro pallets (in cargo hold with a normal load height)’. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

Pursuant to section 4-2 of the HA ‘[v]essels used on the coastal route shall as a minimum have a passenger capacity for 320 passengers, berth capacity in cabins for 120 passengers and freight capacity for 150 euro pallets (in cargo hold with a normal load height)’.

| (51) | It is the view of the Norwegian authorities that this condition has been satisfied given that the compensation is calculated on the basis of the elements specified in Annex D to the tender specification, which provides the following:

  Table 2 – The elements in the budget scheme for the public service







  A: | Total revenues distance passengers |
| --- | --- | --- |
| B: | Passengers cost distance passengers |
| C: | Net passenger revenues (A+B) |
| D: | Revenues from on board sales |
| E: | Net revenues from goods and cars |
| F: | Other revenues |
| G: | Total own revenues (C+D+E+F) |
| H: | Government procurement of service |
| I: | Total revenue (G+H) |
| J: | Safety crew |
| K: | Oil and fuel |
| L: | Repairs and maintenance |
| M: | Port costs |
| N: | Insurance costs |
| O: | Depreciation own vessels/bareboat |
| P: | Net financial costs |
| Q: | Total capacity costs (J+K+L+M+N+P) |
| R: | Cost of goods sold |
| S: | Crew not included in the safety crew |
| T: | Marketing costs and sales provision |
| U: | Administration costs |
| V: | Other costs |
| W: | Total passenger costs (R+S+T+U+V) |
| X: | Total costs public service (Q+W) |
| Y: | Net result before taxes (I-X) |

(51)

It is the view of the Norwegian authorities that this condition has been satisfied given that the compensation is calculated on the basis of the elements specified in Annex D to the tender specification, which provides the following:

Table 2 – The elements in the budget scheme for the public service

A:

Total revenues distance passengers

B:

Passengers cost distance passengers

C:

Net passenger revenues (A+B)

D:

Revenues from on board sales

E:

Net revenues from goods and cars

F:

Other revenues

G:

Total own revenues (C+D+E+F)

H:

Government procurement of service

I:

Total revenue (G+H)

J:

Safety crew

K:

Oil and fuel

L:

Repairs and maintenance

M:

Port costs

N:

Insurance costs

O:

Depreciation own vessels/bareboat

P:

Net financial costs

Q:

Total capacity costs (J+K+L+M+N+P)

R:

Cost of goods sold

S:

Crew not included in the safety crew

T:

Marketing costs and sales provision

U:

Administration costs

V:

Other costs

W:

Total passenger costs (R+S+T+U+V)

X:

Total costs public service (Q+W)

Y:

Net result before taxes (I-X)

| (52) | In concluding that the parameters were established in advance in an objective and transparent manner, the Norwegian authorities asked the independent consultant BDO to study Hurtigruten's financial accounts for 2012-2013 and compare the accounts for the public service and the total accounts. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

In concluding that the parameters were established in advance in an objective and transparent manner, the Norwegian authorities asked the independent consultant BDO to study Hurtigruten's financial accounts for 2012-2013 and compare the accounts for the public service and the total accounts.

| (53) | According to the Norwegian authorities, it is thus ensured that the PSO passengers do indeed receive their transport within the capacities set by the HA and that that capacity should be available to the extent that there is actual demand from PSO passengers. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

According to the Norwegian authorities, it is thus ensured that the PSO passengers do indeed receive their transport within the capacities set by the HA and that that capacity should be available to the extent that there is actual demand from PSO passengers.

| (54) | At this stage, it is not clear to the Authority whether the capacity reserve requirement is linked to actual PSO passenger numbers. For example, there seems to be no objective and transparent methodology to calculate in advance the cost per passenger/kilometre. |
| --- | --- |

(54)

At this stage, it is not clear to the Authority whether the capacity reserve requirement is linked to actual PSO passenger numbers. For example, there seems to be no objective and transparent methodology to calculate in advance the cost per passenger/kilometre.

| (55) | Hurtigruten, in compliance with the tender specifications, has established a separate budget incorporating all costs and revenues attributed to the PSO routes. According to section 4.9.2 of the tender specifications, this separate accounting aims at ensuring predictability of which cost additions/savings/extra revenues/shortfalls form the basis of any renegotiation, as provided for in sections 6 and 7 of the HA. A further aim is to document that the public procurement process does not entail any unlawful cross-subsidisation. The separate accounting however does not aim at establishing in advance the parameters of the compensation, which shall be directly linked to the actual losses and costs (capacity and passenger costs) incurred by Hurtigruten. (25) Instead, the HA has only fixed the annual compensation to be paid for the maritime services for each individual year from 2012 to 2019 based on a minimum commitment for passengers/kilometres per year, without this having any link to the fixed costs (i.e. the capacity costs). |
| --- | --- |

(55)

Hurtigruten, in compliance with the tender specifications, has established a separate budget incorporating all costs and revenues attributed to the PSO routes. According to section 4.9.2 of the tender specifications, this separate accounting aims at ensuring predictability of which cost additions/savings/extra revenues/shortfalls form the basis of any renegotiation, as provided for in sections 6 and 7 of the HA. A further aim is to document that the public procurement process does not entail any unlawful cross-subsidisation. The separate accounting however does not aim at establishing in advance the parameters of the compensation, which shall be directly linked to the actual losses and costs (capacity and passenger costs) incurred by Hurtigruten. (25) Instead, the HA has only fixed the annual compensation to be paid for the maritime services for each individual year from 2012 to 2019 based on a minimum commitment for passengers/kilometres per year, without this having any link to the fixed costs (i.e. the capacity costs).

| (56) | In addition, although the compensation is based on the elements stipulated in table 2, as mentioned above, the Authority has not received any information as to how these costs have been calculated. For instance, sections 6 and 7 of the HA contain certain provisions on the adjustment of compensation in case of changes in production or in case of unforeseen events. Even though certain indications are provided, i.e. a calculation based on the costs and revenues ensuing from the changes in production or an aggregated calculation in the case of unforeseen events, the exact parameters of these adjustments are not known in advance and there are no limitations on how much extra compensation can be granted (26). |
| --- | --- |

(56)

In addition, although the compensation is based on the elements stipulated in table 2, as mentioned above, the Authority has not received any information as to how these costs have been calculated. For instance, sections 6 and 7 of the HA contain certain provisions on the adjustment of compensation in case of changes in production or in case of unforeseen events. Even though certain indications are provided, i.e. a calculation based on the costs and revenues ensuing from the changes in production or an aggregated calculation in the case of unforeseen events, the exact parameters of these adjustments are not known in advance and there are no limitations on how much extra compensation can be granted (26).

| (57) | In this context, as the EFTA Court pointed out in the Hurtigruten case, the principle of transparency could have been observed: ‘[...] Norway could, if necessary, have made provision, in the notice of invitation to tender, for the possibility of amending the conditions for payment of the successful tenderers in certain circumstances by laying down in particular the precise arrangements for any supplementary compensation intended to cover unforeseen losses and costs’ (27). |
| --- | --- |

(57)

In this context, as the EFTA Court pointed out in the Hurtigruten case, the principle of transparency could have been observed: ‘[...] Norway could, if necessary, have made provision, in the notice of invitation to tender, for the possibility of amending the conditions for payment of the successful tenderers in certain circumstances by laying down in particular the precise arrangements for any supplementary compensation intended to cover unforeseen losses and costs’ (27).

| (58) | In addition, section 4-1, item 3 of the HA, provides that ‘[o]mission of up to 10 days of operation in agreed production per ship per annum due to planned maintenance and unforeseen operational disruption linked to agreed production (off-hire) is considered to be proper fulfilment and shall not entail a deduction in the agreed remuneration in accordance with section 9-2’. The Authority fails to see how this loss in production is calculated and certified in advance in a transparent and objective manner. The 10 days ceiling appears arbitrary and as such does not appear to qualify as an objective estimate of provable loss (e.g. cancellations of service to the port of Mehamn). |
| --- | --- |

(58)

In addition, section 4-1, item 3 of the HA, provides that ‘[o]mission of up to 10 days of operation in agreed production per ship per annum due to planned maintenance and unforeseen operational disruption linked to agreed production (off-hire) is considered to be proper fulfilment and shall not entail a deduction in the agreed remuneration in accordance with section 9-2’. The Authority fails to see how this loss in production is calculated and certified in advance in a transparent and objective manner. The 10 days ceiling appears arbitrary and as such does not appear to qualify as an objective estimate of provable loss (e.g. cancellations of service to the port of Mehamn).

| (59) | The Authority notes that neither HA nor the tender specifications specify whether the compensation awarded includes any profit margin for Hurtigruten, and if so, what the methodology used to calculate this profit margin is, taking into account the risks incurred by the operator in the provision of the service. |
| --- | --- |

(59)

The Authority notes that neither HA nor the tender specifications specify whether the compensation awarded includes any profit margin for Hurtigruten, and if so, what the methodology used to calculate this profit margin is, taking into account the risks incurred by the operator in the provision of the service.

| (60) | Lastly, concerning Hurtigruten's attempts to negotiate lower port fees whilst the Norwegian authorities maintain the compensation at the same level, the Authority underlines that the amount of compensation awarded should be fully reflected in the parameters established in advance including a reasonable profit. As mentioned above, the Authority is of the preliminary view that no parameters have been established to calculate a reasonable profit margin. Therefore, any attempts by Hurtigruten to get lower prices on the port fees while maintaining the compensation at the same level would seem not to satisfy the second Altmark condition. |
| --- | --- |

(60)

Lastly, concerning Hurtigruten's attempts to negotiate lower port fees whilst the Norwegian authorities maintain the compensation at the same level, the Authority underlines that the amount of compensation awarded should be fully reflected in the parameters established in advance including a reasonable profit. As mentioned above, the Authority is of the preliminary view that no parameters have been established to calculate a reasonable profit margin. Therefore, any attempts by Hurtigruten to get lower prices on the port fees while maintaining the compensation at the same level would seem not to satisfy the second Altmark condition.

| (61) | As a result, in view of the above, it is the Authority's preliminary opinion that the second Altmark condition is not fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

(61)

As a result, in view of the above, it is the Authority's preliminary opinion that the second Altmark condition is not fulfilled.

1.4.3   The third Altmark condition

| (62) | When granting compensation, the Norwegian authorities should ensure that it does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the PSO, taking into account relevant receipts and a reasonable profit. |
| --- | --- |

(62)

When granting compensation, the Norwegian authorities should ensure that it does not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in discharging the PSO, taking into account relevant receipts and a reasonable profit.

| (63) | In this regard, the EFTA Court already held in the Hurtigruten case:

  ‘If it is shown that the compensation paid to the undertakings operating the public service does not reflect the costs actually incurred by that undertaking for the purposes of that service, such a system does not satisfy the requirement that compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public services obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations’
   (28). |
| --- | --- |

(63)

In this regard, the EFTA Court already held in the Hurtigruten case:

‘If it is shown that the compensation paid to the undertakings operating the public service does not reflect the costs actually incurred by that undertaking for the purposes of that service, such a system does not satisfy the requirement that compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public services obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations’
   (28).

| (64) | Briefly, according to the complainants' arguments, presented in further detail in paragraph (13) above:






  i) | Hurtigruten does not reserve capacity for public service passengers, but rather sells the capacity to cruise passengers, while maintaining the public service compensation at the same level; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(64)

Briefly, according to the complainants' arguments, presented in further detail in paragraph (13) above:

i)

Hurtigruten does not reserve capacity for public service passengers, but rather sells the capacity to cruise passengers, while maintaining the public service compensation at the same level;

| ii) | The compensation for providing the public service has increased substantially as compared to the previous contract period; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

The compensation for providing the public service has increased substantially as compared to the previous contract period;

| iii) | Hurtigruten continues to receive compensation for services that are not rendered; and, lastly |
| --- | --- |

iii)

Hurtigruten continues to receive compensation for services that are not rendered; and, lastly

| iv) | Hurtigruten further attempts to get lower prices for the harbour fees, while maintaining the public service compensation at the same level; |
| --- | --- |

iv)

Hurtigruten further attempts to get lower prices for the harbour fees, while maintaining the public service compensation at the same level;

| (65) | As regards the first point, the Authority reminds the Norwegian authorities that under the third Altmark condition, only the costs incurred in discharging the PSO shall be covered. Any compensation granted to cover costs outside the public service remit cannot be held to constitute compensation for PSO. Therefore, when the capacity (passengers and berth) for PSO passengers is sold to commercial cruise passengers, and given that the BDO report does not provide any information on the capacity utilisation to justify the opposite, it appears that Hurtigruten is paid twice for the same service, which would in principle constitute a form of overcompensation. |
| --- | --- |

(65)

As regards the first point, the Authority reminds the Norwegian authorities that under the third Altmark condition, only the costs incurred in discharging the PSO shall be covered. Any compensation granted to cover costs outside the public service remit cannot be held to constitute compensation for PSO. Therefore, when the capacity (passengers and berth) for PSO passengers is sold to commercial cruise passengers, and given that the BDO report does not provide any information on the capacity utilisation to justify the opposite, it appears that Hurtigruten is paid twice for the same service, which would in principle constitute a form of overcompensation.

| (66) | The Authority is conscious that the figures presented in the BDO report are annual figures and therefore correspond to average capacity utilisation throughout the year. Accordingly, there may be periods of the year where capacity utilisation for public service passengers is higher, and where it is indeed also necessary to have in place a capacity reservation mechanism. The Authority, however, cannot rule out that the mechanism used in the HA overcompensates Hurtigruten in that it does not take into account different (e.g. seasonal) levels of capacity utilisation during the year. |
| --- | --- |

(66)

The Authority is conscious that the figures presented in the BDO report are annual figures and therefore correspond to average capacity utilisation throughout the year. Accordingly, there may be periods of the year where capacity utilisation for public service passengers is higher, and where it is indeed also necessary to have in place a capacity reservation mechanism. The Authority, however, cannot rule out that the mechanism used in the HA overcompensates Hurtigruten in that it does not take into account different (e.g. seasonal) levels of capacity utilisation during the year.

| (67) | The Authority takes note of the travel guarantee subsequently introduced, as mentioned above in paragraph (26), to ‘compensate’ the public service passengers for their lost travel and correct any alleged overcompensation. However, until the introduction of that travel guarantee, public service passengers appear at times to have been unable to benefit from the public service, although the costs were evidently covered by the compensation already granted to Hurtigruten. Also, at this stage it is not clear to the Authority whether the cost of providing a free travel without berth on the planned journey or a travel with berth on the next scheduled ship or alternative transport free of charge equals the compensation that Hurtigruten has received to cover the cost of public service berth capacity, which is sold to commercial cruise passengers. It appears therefore that such a mechanism, due to the limited (on average) capacity utilisation in both the PSO and cruise segment, is an ineffective and relatively costless service for Hurtigruten that does not offset the advantage gained through the excess capacity reservation, which is freely sold to cruise passengers. |
| --- | --- |

(67)

The Authority takes note of the travel guarantee subsequently introduced, as mentioned above in paragraph (26), to ‘compensate’ the public service passengers for their lost travel and correct any alleged overcompensation. However, until the introduction of that travel guarantee, public service passengers appear at times to have been unable to benefit from the public service, although the costs were evidently covered by the compensation already granted to Hurtigruten. Also, at this stage it is not clear to the Authority whether the cost of providing a free travel without berth on the planned journey or a travel with berth on the next scheduled ship or alternative transport free of charge equals the compensation that Hurtigruten has received to cover the cost of public service berth capacity, which is sold to commercial cruise passengers. It appears therefore that such a mechanism, due to the limited (on average) capacity utilisation in both the PSO and cruise segment, is an ineffective and relatively costless service for Hurtigruten that does not offset the advantage gained through the excess capacity reservation, which is freely sold to cruise passengers.

| (68) | Concerning the second point, as noted above in paragraph (13), and as evident from the Authority's Decision No 205/11/COL, the Norwegian authorities paid Hurtigruten a total compensation of NOK 1 899.7 million to carry out the same PSO routes during the period 2005-2012. More specifically, the annual compensation for the year 2011 amounted to NOK 236.8 million (29). Taking into account that the compensation for 2012 under the current HA amounted to NOK 700 million, the Authority expresses its doubts as to whether the increase in compensation is justified under the HA. The Norwegian authorities claim that there have been considerable losses for Hurtigruten in the period 2005-2012 to justify the increase of the compensation. However, the Authority is of the preliminary view that due to the fact that the previous HA had not envisaged separation of accounts, it is not possible to determine whether these losses were caused by commercial or PSO activities. In any case, it is questionable how such a higher compensation can be justified, when the scope of the PSO remains the same as in the previous contract period (in terms of sailing frequency and number of ports served) and the capacity reservation has decreased from 400 passengers to 320 and from 150 berths to 120. |
| --- | --- |

(68)

Concerning the second point, as noted above in paragraph (13), and as evident from the Authority's Decision No 205/11/COL, the Norwegian authorities paid Hurtigruten a total compensation of NOK 1 899.7 million to carry out the same PSO routes during the period 2005-2012. More specifically, the annual compensation for the year 2011 amounted to NOK 236.8 million (29). Taking into account that the compensation for 2012 under the current HA amounted to NOK 700 million, the Authority expresses its doubts as to whether the increase in compensation is justified under the HA. The Norwegian authorities claim that there have been considerable losses for Hurtigruten in the period 2005-2012 to justify the increase of the compensation. However, the Authority is of the preliminary view that due to the fact that the previous HA had not envisaged separation of accounts, it is not possible to determine whether these losses were caused by commercial or PSO activities. In any case, it is questionable how such a higher compensation can be justified, when the scope of the PSO remains the same as in the previous contract period (in terms of sailing frequency and number of ports served) and the capacity reservation has decreased from 400 passengers to 320 and from 150 berths to 120.

| (69) | In relation to the third point, the Authority notes that when Hurtigruten keeps on its books compensation that has been granted to cover the costs of transporting PSO passengers, without however rendering the service to them (or when the service is not required), overcompensation cannot be excluded. |
| --- | --- |

(69)

In relation to the third point, the Authority notes that when Hurtigruten keeps on its books compensation that has been granted to cover the costs of transporting PSO passengers, without however rendering the service to them (or when the service is not required), overcompensation cannot be excluded.

| (70) | Particularly, section 8 of the HA provides for the operator to keep the compensation granted in case of interruptions of sailings due to events that constitute force majeure. It is generally accepted that the decision to avoid servicing ports of call due to extreme weather conditions lies with the master of the vessel. However, the Authority questions at this stage the fact that, as provided for in section 8 of the HA, ‘[...] any cancelled production ensuing from force majeure shall not be considered as a non-conformity in the production under section 4-1, item 3’ and thus not lead to any reduction in the compensation. |
| --- | --- |

(70)

Particularly, section 8 of the HA provides for the operator to keep the compensation granted in case of interruptions of sailings due to events that constitute force majeure. It is generally accepted that the decision to avoid servicing ports of call due to extreme weather conditions lies with the master of the vessel. However, the Authority questions at this stage the fact that, as provided for in section 8 of the HA, ‘[...] any cancelled production ensuing from force majeure shall not be considered as a non-conformity in the production under section 4-1, item 3’ and thus not lead to any reduction in the compensation.

| (71) | On the basis of the information provided (30), it appears to the Authority that the phenomenon of extreme weather condition constitutes a normality in the maritime business along the Norwegian coast. It might thus be considered as a foreseen event. However, it is not reflected as such in the compensation calculations. The compensation has been calculated as a lump sum ex ante for the whole contract period, without taking into account an objective estimate of a provable loss due to foreseen extreme weather conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(71)

On the basis of the information provided (30), it appears to the Authority that the phenomenon of extreme weather condition constitutes a normality in the maritime business along the Norwegian coast. It might thus be considered as a foreseen event. However, it is not reflected as such in the compensation calculations. The compensation has been calculated as a lump sum ex ante for the whole contract period, without taking into account an objective estimate of a provable loss due to foreseen extreme weather conditions.

| (72) | In reference to the cancellation of services to the port of Mehamn, which, according to the complainant, resulted in Hurtigruten receiving monthly cost savings at the amount of NOK 314 500 over a period of around 8 months, the Authority is not at this stage convinced by the Norwegian authorities' suggestion that this situation should be assessed in the context of the force majeure provision of the HA. According to the information provided by the complainants, the port was damaged in 2012 by Hurtigruten itself, which nevertheless continued serving the port until January 2014. Therefore, the Authority cannot see at this stage how this cancellation could be held to have taken place due to unforeseen events, which would entitle the operator to keep the compensation granted. |
| --- | --- |

(72)

In reference to the cancellation of services to the port of Mehamn, which, according to the complainant, resulted in Hurtigruten receiving monthly cost savings at the amount of NOK 314 500 over a period of around 8 months, the Authority is not at this stage convinced by the Norwegian authorities' suggestion that this situation should be assessed in the context of the force majeure provision of the HA. According to the information provided by the complainants, the port was damaged in 2012 by Hurtigruten itself, which nevertheless continued serving the port until January 2014. Therefore, the Authority cannot see at this stage how this cancellation could be held to have taken place due to unforeseen events, which would entitle the operator to keep the compensation granted.

| (73) | Finally, concerning the last point and Hurtigruten's attempts to negotiate lower port fees whilst the Norwegian authorities maintain the compensation at the same level, it should be noted that there should not be any overcompensation above the level of a reasonable profit. Therefore, a reduction in port fees should result in lower compensation, whereas higher port fees would respectively mean a higher compensation. In light of this, at this stage the Authority is of the opinion that any attempts by Hurtigruten to get better prices of the port fees while maintaining the compensation at the same level, would not ensure that overcompensation is excluded. |
| --- | --- |

(73)

Finally, concerning the last point and Hurtigruten's attempts to negotiate lower port fees whilst the Norwegian authorities maintain the compensation at the same level, it should be noted that there should not be any overcompensation above the level of a reasonable profit. Therefore, a reduction in port fees should result in lower compensation, whereas higher port fees would respectively mean a higher compensation. In light of this, at this stage the Authority is of the opinion that any attempts by Hurtigruten to get better prices of the port fees while maintaining the compensation at the same level, would not ensure that overcompensation is excluded.

| (74) | The Norwegian authorities point to section 7 of the HA as establishing a mechanism to avoid overcompensation. Section 7, however, refers to unforeseen costs resulting from events that are independent of Hurtigruten's management decisions, such as amendments to acts, regulations or statutory orders. To claim compensation for such costs, it must be proved by the operator that those costs are genuinely incurred in the discharge of the PSO, and the costs must be well documented, so as to ensure that the ultimate compensation received by Hurtigruten does not exceed its actual costs. The Authority at this stage cannot see how section 7 of the HA can ensure that overcompensation is avoided. |
| --- | --- |

(74)

The Norwegian authorities point to section 7 of the HA as establishing a mechanism to avoid overcompensation. Section 7, however, refers to unforeseen costs resulting from events that are independent of Hurtigruten's management decisions, such as amendments to acts, regulations or statutory orders. To claim compensation for such costs, it must be proved by the operator that those costs are genuinely incurred in the discharge of the PSO, and the costs must be well documented, so as to ensure that the ultimate compensation received by Hurtigruten does not exceed its actual costs. The Authority at this stage cannot see how section 7 of the HA can ensure that overcompensation is avoided.

| (75) | Lastly, the contract does not contain any claw back clause such that if any agreed profit margin is exceeded, the surplus must be returned to the State or deducted from the compensation paid in the next year or perhaps over the contract period. |
| --- | --- |

(75)

Lastly, the contract does not contain any claw back clause such that if any agreed profit margin is exceeded, the surplus must be returned to the State or deducted from the compensation paid in the next year or perhaps over the contract period.

| (76) | In view of the above, the Authority cannot exclude that Hurtigruten has been overcompensated for the provision of the public service. As a result, the Authority doubts whether the third Altmark condition has been fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

(76)

In view of the above, the Authority cannot exclude that Hurtigruten has been overcompensated for the provision of the public service. As a result, the Authority doubts whether the third Altmark condition has been fulfilled.

1.4.4   The fourth Altmark condition

| (77) | Referring to the tender procedure carried out which resulted in only one bid, Hurtigruten's, the Norwegian authorities argue that the tender was designed in such a way as to attract more bidders. In this respect, it is argued that the tender was widened to include maritime services that would not run on a daily basis throughout the year and that the required minimum capacity was reduced from 400 to 320 passengers and from 150 to 120 berth bunks. Additionally, the deadline for submitting the bids was extended from 30 September until 8 November 2010 on request from an interested operator, whereas overall there was sufficient time allowed from the deadline for submitting bids (8 November 2010) until the date of commencement of the services (1 January 2013). |
| --- | --- |

(77)

Referring to the tender procedure carried out which resulted in only one bid, Hurtigruten's, the Norwegian authorities argue that the tender was designed in such a way as to attract more bidders. In this respect, it is argued that the tender was widened to include maritime services that would not run on a daily basis throughout the year and that the required minimum capacity was reduced from 400 to 320 passengers and from 150 to 120 berth bunks. Additionally, the deadline for submitting the bids was extended from 30 September until 8 November 2010 on request from an interested operator, whereas overall there was sufficient time allowed from the deadline for submitting bids (8 November 2010) until the date of commencement of the services (1 January 2013).

| (78) | Despite the above arguments as well as the fact that subsequent negotiations took place between the Norwegian authorities and Hurtigruten, which resulted in a reduction of the compensation for the whole contract period in relation to the initial offer, see paragraph (15), the Authority at this stage doubts whether a tender procedure such as the one at issue, where only one bid is submitted, can be deemed sufficient to ensure ‘the least cost to the community’ (31), for the reasons listed below. |
| --- | --- |

(78)

Despite the above arguments as well as the fact that subsequent negotiations took place between the Norwegian authorities and Hurtigruten, which resulted in a reduction of the compensation for the whole contract period in relation to the initial offer, see paragraph (15), the Authority at this stage doubts whether a tender procedure such as the one at issue, where only one bid is submitted, can be deemed sufficient to ensure ‘the least cost to the community’ (31), for the reasons listed below.

| (79) | Hurtigruten had already run this particular maritime service consisting of the combined transport of persons and goods along the Norwegian coast from Bergen to Kirkenes for years (32). As the incumbent operator, Hurtigruten thus had a significant competitive advantage that reinforced its position in the tender procedure, given that it had already in its possession vessels adapted to the requirements of the tender specifications. |
| --- | --- |

(79)

Hurtigruten had already run this particular maritime service consisting of the combined transport of persons and goods along the Norwegian coast from Bergen to Kirkenes for years (32). As the incumbent operator, Hurtigruten thus had a significant competitive advantage that reinforced its position in the tender procedure, given that it had already in its possession vessels adapted to the requirements of the tender specifications.

| (80) | Furthermore, according to the tender specifications, the assignment for carrying out the PSO was advertised as three alternatives:








  i. | : | Alternative 1 | : | Daily sailing throughout the year to 34 ports; |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ii. | : | Alternative 2 | : | Sailings 7 days a week in summer (8 months), 5 days a week in winter (4 months), to 34 ports; and |
| iii. | : | Alternative 3 | : | Sailings 5 days a week throughout the year to 34 ports. |

(80)

Furthermore, according to the tender specifications, the assignment for carrying out the PSO was advertised as three alternatives:

i.

:

Alternative 1

:

Daily sailing throughout the year to 34 ports;

ii.

:

Alternative 2

:

Sailings 7 days a week in summer (8 months), 5 days a week in winter (4 months), to 34 ports; and

iii.

:

Alternative 3

:

Sailings 5 days a week throughout the year to 34 ports.

| (81) | However, the tender specifications do not provide any clarifications as to the criteria used to award the service. The Procurement Notice refers to the lowest price as the sole award criterion used for the service in question. Although, in itself the ‘lowest price’ criterion could satisfy the fourth Altmark condition, nevertheless in the case at hand, this reference is very abstract and cannot be assessed in isolation. The fact that there were three alternatives would indicate the existence of further information and/or weighting criteria among those alternatives. In view of the fact that such information was not included in the tender documents, the Authority doubts whether the tender as designed has provided incentives to potential bidders, apart from Hurtigruten, that would have been willing to bid in accordance with the requirements of the three different alternatives and for a different alternative than the one actually chosen (i.e. alternative 1). |
| --- | --- |

(81)

However, the tender specifications do not provide any clarifications as to the criteria used to award the service. The Procurement Notice refers to the lowest price as the sole award criterion used for the service in question. Although, in itself the ‘lowest price’ criterion could satisfy the fourth Altmark condition, nevertheless in the case at hand, this reference is very abstract and cannot be assessed in isolation. The fact that there were three alternatives would indicate the existence of further information and/or weighting criteria among those alternatives. In view of the fact that such information was not included in the tender documents, the Authority doubts whether the tender as designed has provided incentives to potential bidders, apart from Hurtigruten, that would have been willing to bid in accordance with the requirements of the three different alternatives and for a different alternative than the one actually chosen (i.e. alternative 1).

| (82) | The Norwegian authorities have not submitted any information on the second leg of the fourth Altmark condition, concerning whether the level of compensation needed is determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped. |
| --- | --- |

(82)

The Norwegian authorities have not submitted any information on the second leg of the fourth Altmark condition, concerning whether the level of compensation needed is determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately equipped.

| (83) | In view of the above, the Authority doubts that the fourth Altmark condition is met. |
| --- | --- |

(83)

In view of the above, the Authority doubts that the fourth Altmark condition is met.

1.4.5   Conclusion on the Altmark conditions

| (84) | Based on the information submitted, the Authority cannot, at this stage, conclude that the compensation awarded under the Coastal Agreement for Hurtigruten Maritime Services for the period 2012-2019 complies with all the four conditions in the Altmark judgement. The Authority thus cannot exclude the presence of an advantage within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA, granted to an undertaking for performing public service obligations. |
| --- | --- |

(84)

Based on the information submitted, the Authority cannot, at this stage, conclude that the compensation awarded under the Coastal Agreement for Hurtigruten Maritime Services for the period 2012-2019 complies with all the four conditions in the Altmark judgement. The Authority thus cannot exclude the presence of an advantage within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA, granted to an undertaking for performing public service obligations.

2.   Conclusion on the presence of aid

| (85) | The Authority takes the preliminary view that the compensation awarded under the Coastal Agreement for Hurtigruten Maritime Services for the period 2012-2019 may entail state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(85)

The Authority takes the preliminary view that the compensation awarded under the Coastal Agreement for Hurtigruten Maritime Services for the period 2012-2019 may entail state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

3.   Procedural requirements

| (86) | Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3: ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. [...] The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’. |
| --- | --- |

(86)

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

| (87) | The Norwegian authorities did not notify the HA to the Authority. Should the Authority therefore conclude that the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, there would be a breach of the standstill obligation, without prejudice to the application of the SGEI Decision as below mentioned. |
| --- | --- |

(87)

The Norwegian authorities did not notify the HA to the Authority. Should the Authority therefore conclude that the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, there would be a breach of the standstill obligation, without prejudice to the application of the SGEI Decision as below mentioned.

4.   Compatibility of the aid

4.1   
  The legal framework

| (88) | The compatibility of public service compensation for maritime transport is assessed on the basis of Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement in conjunction with the Authority's Framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation (‘the Framework’) (33). |
| --- | --- |

(88)

The compatibility of public service compensation for maritime transport is assessed on the basis of Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement in conjunction with the Authority's Framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation (‘the Framework’) (33).

| (89) | The principles set out in the Framework apply to public service compensation only in so far as it constitutes state aid not covered by Commission Decision 2012/21/EU on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union to state aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (‘SGEI Decision’) (34). |
| --- | --- |

(89)

The principles set out in the Framework apply to public service compensation only in so far as it constitutes state aid not covered by Commission Decision 2012/21/EU on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union to state aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (‘SGEI Decision’) (34).

| (90) | According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it is up to the Member State to invoke possible grounds for compatibility and to demonstrate that the conditions of compatibility are met (35). The Norwegian authorities consider that the measure at hand does not constitute state aid pursuant to the Altmark jurisprudence, and therefore has not provided any grounds for compatibility. |
| --- | --- |

(90)

According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it is up to the Member State to invoke possible grounds for compatibility and to demonstrate that the conditions of compatibility are met (35). The Norwegian authorities consider that the measure at hand does not constitute state aid pursuant to the Altmark jurisprudence, and therefore has not provided any grounds for compatibility.

4.2   
  Applicability of Decision 2012/21/EU

| (91) | The SGEI Decision lays down the conditions under which certain types of public service compensation are to be regarded as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to its Article 59(2) and exempt from the requirement of prior notification under Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(91)

The SGEI Decision lays down the conditions under which certain types of public service compensation are to be regarded as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to its Article 59(2) and exempt from the requirement of prior notification under Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

| (92) | There is one exception from the notification requirement of Article 2 of the SGEI Decision, which might be relevant in the present case:







  ‘(d) | compensation for the provision of services of general economic interest as regards air or maritime links to islands on which the average annual traffic during the 2 financial years preceding that in which the service of general economic interest was assigned does not exceed 300 000 passengers’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(92)

There is one exception from the notification requirement of Article 2 of the SGEI Decision, which might be relevant in the present case:

‘(d)

compensation for the provision of services of general economic interest as regards air or maritime links to islands on which the average annual traffic during the 2 financial years preceding that in which the service of general economic interest was assigned does not exceed 300 000 passengers’;

| (93) | The Authority has not received any information from the Norwegian authorities as regards the applicability of the said exception. The Authority therefore doubts whether the Bergen – Kirkenes public service route concern an annual traffic not exceeding the threshold of 300 000 passengers. |
| --- | --- |

(93)

The Authority has not received any information from the Norwegian authorities as regards the applicability of the said exception. The Authority therefore doubts whether the Bergen – Kirkenes public service route concern an annual traffic not exceeding the threshold of 300 000 passengers.

| (94) | In light of the doubts expressed above under paragraphs (49) to (85) on alleged overcompensation, the Authority further doubts whether the Norwegian authorities have ensured, pursuant to Article 5 of the SGEI decision, that Hurtigruten does not receive compensation in excess of the amount needed to cover the net cost incurred in discharging the public service obligations, including a reasonable profit. |
| --- | --- |

(94)

In light of the doubts expressed above under paragraphs (49) to (85) on alleged overcompensation, the Authority further doubts whether the Norwegian authorities have ensured, pursuant to Article 5 of the SGEI decision, that Hurtigruten does not receive compensation in excess of the amount needed to cover the net cost incurred in discharging the public service obligations, including a reasonable profit.

| (95) | The Authority additionally invites the Norwegian authorities, in the event of the measure falling under the above exception, to justify whether the provisions of Article 4 (entrustment), Article 6 (control of overcompensation) and Article 7 (transparency) of the SGEI Decision are complied with. |
| --- | --- |

(95)

The Authority additionally invites the Norwegian authorities, in the event of the measure falling under the above exception, to justify whether the provisions of Article 4 (entrustment), Article 6 (control of overcompensation) and Article 7 (transparency) of the SGEI Decision are complied with.

4.3   
  Applicability of the Framework

| (96) | On the basis of the provisions of the Framework, one of the compatibility conditions that must be fulfilled is that the entrustment act which specifies the public service obligation, in this case the HA, shall include ‘[a] description of the compensation mechanism and the parameters for calculating, monitoring and reviewing the compensation’. |
| --- | --- |

(96)

On the basis of the provisions of the Framework, one of the compatibility conditions that must be fulfilled is that the entrustment act which specifies the public service obligation, in this case the HA, shall include ‘[a] description of the compensation mechanism and the parameters for calculating, monitoring and reviewing the compensation’.

| (97) | Further, according to the Framework, ‘[t]he amount of compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover the net cost of discharging the public service obligations, including a reasonable profit’. The Framework also clarifies that ‘[t]he net cost necessary, or expected to be necessary, to discharge the public service obligations should be calculated using the net avoided cost methodology [...]’.
   (36) |
| --- | --- |

(97)

Further, according to the Framework, ‘[t]he amount of compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover the net cost of discharging the public service obligations, including a reasonable profit’. The Framework also clarifies that ‘[t]he net cost necessary, or expected to be necessary, to discharge the public service obligations should be calculated using the net avoided cost methodology [...]’.
   (36)

| (98) | On the basis of the considerations in paragraphs (49) to (85), at this stage the Authority considers that Hurtigruten may have been overcompensated for the provision of the public service. |
| --- | --- |

(98)

On the basis of the considerations in paragraphs (49) to (85), at this stage the Authority considers that Hurtigruten may have been overcompensated for the provision of the public service.

| (99) | The compatibility of the HA shall also be assessed against the following conditions as provided for by the Framework:
  a.   Paragraph 14: proper consideration to the public service needs;
  b.   Paragraph 19: compliance with EEA public procurement rules;
  c.   Paragraph 20: absence of discrimination;
  d.   Paragraph 24 to 38: calculation of the net cost necessary to discharge the PSO;
  e.   Paragraphs 39 to 50: efficiency incentives;
  f.   Paragraphs 51 to 59: no affectation of trade development to an extent contrary to the interests of the EEA;
  g.   Paragraph 60: transparency. |
| --- | --- |

(99)

The compatibility of the HA shall also be assessed against the following conditions as provided for by the Framework:

a.   Paragraph 14: proper consideration to the public service needs;

b.   Paragraph 19: compliance with EEA public procurement rules;

c.   Paragraph 20: absence of discrimination;

d.   Paragraph 24 to 38: calculation of the net cost necessary to discharge the PSO;

e.   Paragraphs 39 to 50: efficiency incentives;

f.   Paragraphs 51 to 59: no affectation of trade development to an extent contrary to the interests of the EEA;

g.   Paragraph 60: transparency.

| (100) | The Norwegian authorities have not put forward any compatibility considerations. Therefore at this stage, the Authority raises doubts as to whether the compensation awarded under the Coastal Agreement for Hurtigruten Maritime Services for the period 2012-2019 is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(100)

The Norwegian authorities have not put forward any compatibility considerations. Therefore at this stage, the Authority raises doubts as to whether the compensation awarded under the Coastal Agreement for Hurtigruten Maritime Services for the period 2012-2019 is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

5.   Conclusion

| (101) | As set out above, the Authority has doubts as to whether the HA entails state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(101)

As set out above, the Authority has doubts as to whether the HA entails state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

| (102) | The Authority also has doubts as to whether the HA is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(102)

The Authority also has doubts as to whether the HA is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| (103) | Consequently, and in accordance with Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the HA does not constitute aid or that it is aid compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(103)

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

| (104) | The Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Norwegian authorities to submit, within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision, their comments and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the HA in light of the state aid rules. |
| --- | --- |

(104)

The Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Norwegian authorities to submit, within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision, their comments and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the HA in light of the state aid rules.

| (105) | The Authority requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this decision to Hurtigruten. |
| --- | --- |

(105)

The Authority requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this decision to Hurtigruten.

| (106) | The Authority must remind the Norwegian authorities that, according to Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully granted will in principle have to be recovered, unless this recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EEA law. |
| --- | --- |

(106)

The Authority must remind the Norwegian authorities that, according to Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully granted will in principle have to be recovered, unless this recovery would be contrary to a general principle 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 Coastal Agreement for Hurtigruten Maritime Services 2012-2019.

Article 2

The Norwegian authorities are invited, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Part II of Protocol 3, to submit their comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision. They are further requested to provide, also within one month of the date of receipt of this Decision, all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the aid measure.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 4

Only the English language version of this decision is authentic.

Done at Brussels, on 9 December 2015.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Sven Svedman

President

Helga Jónsdóttir

College Member

---

(1)  Решение по дело C-280/00, Altmark Trans GmbH и Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg срещу Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Altmark), EU:C:2003:415, точки 87—93.

1

Altmark Trans GmbH и Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg

Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Altmark),

(2)  За справка: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid-guidelines/Part-VI---Framework-for-state-aid-in-the-form-of-public-service-compensation.pdf.

2

(3)  ОВ L 7, 11.1.2012 г., стр. 3, включено в точка 1з от приложение XV към Споразумението за ЕИП.

3

(4)  OJ L 175, 5.7.2012, p. 19 and EEA Supplement No 37, 5.7.2012, p. 1. See also Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 Hurtigruten [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 758, upholding the Authority's Decision.

4

Hurtigruten

(5)  See www.doffin.no.

5

(6)  If Statistics Norway's cost index is unavailable, Statistics Norway's Consumer Price Index would be used.

6

(7)  As mentioned in the Authority's Decision No 205/11/COL ‘[i]n addition to the service covered by the Hurtigruten Agreement, Hurtigruten is a commercial operator and offers round trips, excursions, and catering on the route Bergen – Kirkenes. Moreover, in connection with this route, Hurtigruten also provides transport services in the Geiranger fjord, outside the scope of the Hurtigruten Agreement. Furthermore, Hurtigruten operates a number of different cruises in different European states, Russia, Antarctica, Spitsbergen and Greenland’, section 1.2.

7

‘[i]n addition to the service covered by the Hurtigruten Agreement, Hurtigruten is a commercial operator and offers round trips, excursions, and catering on the route Bergen – Kirkenes. Moreover, in connection with this route, Hurtigruten also provides transport services in the Geiranger fjord, outside the scope of the Hurtigruten Agreement. Furthermore, Hurtigruten operates a number of different cruises in different European states, Russia, Antarctica, Spitsbergen and Greenland’,

(8)  Doc Nos 748323 and 715314.

8

(9)  The complainants point to the fact that in the call for tender for the 2005-2012 contract period force majeure as a result of extreme weather conditions was defined as wind speeds over 25 m/s (full storm). However, in the current HA, ‘extreme weather conditions’ are defined as ‘conditions where ocean and/or wind conditions are such that the ship's captain judges it to be unsafe to continue the sailing and/or arrive at a specific port’. This, according to the complainants, has resulted in the majority of the cancellations during the period 2012-2013 in select ports to have occurred at wind conditions below 15 m/s.

9

force majeure

(10)  Doc Nos 723002 and 742652.

10

(11)  The Norwegian authorities submit that according to Hurtigruten's reports, ships were out of production for 171 operating days in 2012 and 186.7 operating days in 2013 due to maintenance and unforeseen operational disturbances, for 5 operating days in 2012 and 12.8 operating days in 2013 due to the ships being used for cultural or similar activities, and finally for 87 operating days in 2012 and 99.8 operating days in 2013 due to extraordinary weather conditions.

11

(12)  On 12 December 2014, Hurtigruten paid back to the Norwegian authorities the amount of NOK [24 – 32] million due to cancellations in 2012 and 2013.

12

(13)  The previous NPA of 1984 distinguished between port fees and service charges. There were several different port fees, e.g. quay fees covering quay costs, approach fees covering costs of keeping the fairway and port approach open and safe, passenger fees covering costs of special passenger facilities etc. Ports could additionally levy service charges for services they sold, which were not covered by the port fees.

13

(14)  BDO Memo, ‘An assessment of Hurtigruten's reported income statements’, Oslo 14 January 2015, p. 7.

14

‘An assessment of Hurtigruten's reported income statements’

(15)  Judgment in Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission, 730/79, EU:C:1980:209, paragraph 11; judgment in Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia v Commission, T-288/97, EU:T:2001:115, paragraph 41; and judgment in Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Altmark), C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415, paragraph 75.

15

Philip Morris Holland BV

Commission

Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

Commission

Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg

Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Altmark)

(16)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7).

16

(17)  The maritime cabotage regulation was incorporated at point 53a in Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (OJ L 30, 5.2.1998, p. 42).

17

(18)  Norwegian Cruise Line, MSC Cruises, Royal Caribbean, Holland America Line, etc.

18

(19)  Paragraphs 87-93.

19

(20)  Available at http://www.eftasurv.int/?1=1&showLinkID=15132&1=1.

20

(21)  Available at http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid-guidelines/Part-VI---Compensation-granted-for-the-provision-of-services-of-general-economic-interest.pdf.

21

(22)  Judgment in Alanir and others, C-205/1999, EU:C:2001:107, paragraph 34.

22

Alanir and others

(23)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions updating and rectifying the Communication on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), COM(2003) 595 final, 22.12.2003, section 5.2.

23

(24)  BDO Memo, page 7.

24

(25)  Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 Hurtigruten [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 758, paragraph 117.

25

Hurtigruten

(26)  Ibid, paragraphs 128-129.

26

(27)  Ibid, paragraph 127.

27

(28)  Paragraph 170. See for comparison, judgment in Enirisorse, C-34/01 to C-38/01, EU:C:2003:640, paragraphs 37-40.

28

Enirisorse

(29)  Section 2.

29

(30)  See footnote 11.

30

(31)  Paragraph 68, http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid-guidelines/Part-VI---Compensation-granted-for-the-provision-of-services-of-general-economic-interest.pdf.

31

(32)  For background information on the Hurtigruten Agreement, see Decision No 205/11/COL on the Supplementary Agreement on the Hurtigruten service, section 2, OJ L 175, 5.7.2012, p. 19 and EEA Supplement No 37, 5.7.2012, p. 1.

32

(33)  Available at http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid-guidelines/Part-VI---Framework-for-state-aid-in-the-form-of-public-service-compensation.pdf.

33

(34)  OJ L 7, 11.1.2012, p. 3, incorporated at point 1h of Annex XV of the EEA Agreement.

34

(35)  Judgment in Italy v Commission, C-364/90, EU:C:1993:157, paragraph 20.

35

Italy

Commission

(36)  See also paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Framework for alternative calculation methods.

36

---

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/45

---

Обявление от Норвегия относно Директива 94/22/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 30 май 1994 г. относно условията за предоставяне и ползване на разрешения за проучване, изследване и производство на въглеводороди

Обявление относно покана за подаване на заявления за лицензи за добив на въглеводороди на норвежкия континентален шелф – предоставяне на лицензи в предварително определени области за 2016 г.

(2016/C 236/12)

С настоящото норвежкото Министерство на въглеводородите и енергетиката обявява покана за подаване на заявления за лицензи за добив на въглеводороди в съответствие с член 3, параграф 2, буква а) от Директива 94/22/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 30 май 1994 г. относно условията за предоставяне и ползване на разрешения за проучване, изследване и производство на въглеводороди (1).

Лицензите за добив ще бъдат предоставени само на акционерни дружества, регистрирани в Норвегия или в друга държава, която е страна по Споразумението за Европейското икономическо пространство („Споразумението за ЕИП“), или на физически лица с местожителство в държава, която е страна по Споразумението за ЕИП.

Дружества, които не притежават лиценз за норвежкия континентален шелф, могат да получат лицензи за добив, ако са преминали успешно предварителния подбор за получаване на лиценз за норвежкия континентален шелф.

Дружества, подаващи индивидуални заявления, и дружества, подаващи заявления като част от група, ще бъдат разглеждани на равно основание от министерството. Независимо дали кандидатите са подали индивидуални заявления, или са част от група, подала общо заявление, те ще бъдат разглеждани като отделни кандидати за лиценз за добив. Въз основа на заявленията, подадени от групи или от индивидуални кандидати, министерството може да състави групи от лицензополучатели, на които да бъде предоставен нов лиценз за добив, включително да отстрани кандидати от заявленията, подадени от групи, и да добави индивидуални кандидати, както и да назначи оператор за тези групи.

Присъждането на участие в лиценз за добив подлежи на сключване от страна на лицензополучателя на Споразумение за свързани с въглеводороди дейности, включващо Споразумение за съвместни операции и Счетоводно споразумение. Ако лицензът за добив е разделен на стратиграфски принцип, от лицензополучателите на двата разделени на стратиграфски принцип лиценза ще се изисква също така да сключат специално Споразумение за съвместни операции, което да урежда отношенията помежду им по този въпрос.

След подписването на посочените споразумения лицензополучателите ще учредят съвместно дружество, в което размерът на тяхното дялово участие винаги ще бъде равен на дяловото им участие в лиценза за добив.

Лицензионните документи основно ще се базират на съответните документи от процедурата за присъждането на лицензи в предварително определени области за 2015 г. Целта е промишленият отрасъл да разполага с основните елементи на всички промени в рамката, преди заявленията да бъдат подадени.

Критерии за предоставяне на лиценз за добив

За да се насърчи доброто управление на ресурсите и бързото и ефикасно проучване и добив на въглеводороди на норвежкия континентален шелф, включително съставянето на лицензионни групи за постигането на тази цел, при присъждането на участия в лицензи за добив и назначаването на оператор се прилагат следните критерии:

| а) | геологическите познания на кандидата за посочения географски район и как лицензополучателите предлагат да извършат ефикасни проучвания за въглеводороди; |
| --- | --- |

а)

геологическите познания на кандидата за посочения географски район и как лицензополучателите предлагат да извършат ефикасни проучвания за въглеводороди;

| б) | техническите експертни познания на кандидата и как тези познания могат активно да допринесат за икономически ефективното проучване за въглеводороди и, когато е приложимо, за добива на въглеводороди в посочения географски район; |
| --- | --- |

б)

техническите експертни познания на кандидата и как тези познания могат активно да допринесат за икономически ефективното проучване за въглеводороди и, когато е приложимо, за добива на въглеводороди в посочения географски район;

| в) | опитът на кандидата на норвежкия континентален шелф или подходящ равностоен опит, придобит в други географски области; |
| --- | --- |

в)

опитът на кандидата на норвежкия континентален шелф или подходящ равностоен опит, придобит в други географски области;

| г) | достатъчната финансова способност на кандидата да извърши проучването за въглеводороди и, когато е приложимо, да добива въглеводороди в посочения географски район; |
| --- | --- |

г)

достатъчната финансова способност на кандидата да извърши проучването за въглеводороди и, когато е приложимо, да добива въглеводороди в посочения географски район;

| д) | ако кандидатът е или вече е бил лицензополучател по лиценз за добив, министерството може да вземе предвид всяка форма на неефективност или липса на отчетност от негова страна в качеството му на лицензополучател; |
| --- | --- |

д)

ако кандидатът е или вече е бил лицензополучател по лиценз за добив, министерството може да вземе предвид всяка форма на неефективност или липса на отчетност от негова страна в качеството му на лицензополучател;

| е) | лицензите за добив ще се предоставят главно на съвместно дружество, в което най-малко един от лицензополучателите е осъществил поне един сондаж като оператор в норвежкия континентален шелф или има равностоен подходящ оперативен опит извън норвежкия континентален шелф; |
| --- | --- |

е)

лицензите за добив ще се предоставят главно на съвместно дружество, в което най-малко един от лицензополучателите е осъществил поне един сондаж като оператор в норвежкия континентален шелф или има равностоен подходящ оперативен опит извън норвежкия континентален шелф;

| ж) | лицензите за добив ще се предоставят главно на двама или повече лицензополучатели, като най-малко един от тях трябва да има опит съгласно описаното в буква е); |
| --- | --- |

ж)

лицензите за добив ще се предоставят главно на двама или повече лицензополучатели, като най-малко един от тях трябва да има опит съгласно описаното в буква е);

| з) | определеният за оператор по лицензи за добив в Баренцово море трябва да е осъществил поне един сондаж на норвежкия континентален шелф като оператор или да има равностоен подходящ оперативен опит извън норвежкия континентален шелф; |
| --- | --- |

з)

определеният за оператор по лицензи за добив в Баренцово море трябва да е осъществил поне един сондаж на норвежкия континентален шелф като оператор или да има равностоен подходящ оперативен опит извън норвежкия континентален шелф;

| и) | за лицензите за добив в дълбоки води както определеният за оператор, така и най-малко още един лицензополучател трябва да са осъществили поне по един сондаж на норвежкия континентален шелф като оператор или да имат равностоен подходящ оперативен опит извън норвежкия континентален шелф. За лиценза за добив един от лицензополучателите трябва да е сондирал в дълбоки води в качеството на оператор; |
| --- | --- |

и)

за лицензите за добив в дълбоки води както определеният за оператор, така и най-малко още един лицензополучател трябва да са осъществили поне по един сондаж на норвежкия континентален шелф като оператор или да имат равностоен подходящ оперативен опит извън норвежкия континентален шелф. За лиценза за добив един от лицензополучателите трябва да е сондирал в дълбоки води в качеството на оператор;

| й) | за лицензите за добив, при които се очаква извършването на проучвателни сондажи при високо налягане и/или високи температури (HPHT), определеният за оператор и поне още един лицензополучател трябва вече да са осъществили поне по един сондаж на норвежкия континентален шелф в качеството на оператор или да имат равностоен подходящ оперативен опит извън норвежкия континентален шелф. За лиценза за добив един от лицензополучателите трябва да е осъществил сондаж при високо налягане и/или високи температури в качеството на оператор. |
| --- | --- |

й)

за лицензите за добив, при които се очаква извършването на проучвателни сондажи при високо налягане и/или високи температури (HPHT), определеният за оператор и поне още един лицензополучател трябва вече да са осъществили поне по един сондаж на норвежкия континентален шелф в качеството на оператор или да имат равностоен подходящ оперативен опит извън норвежкия континентален шелф. За лиценза за добив един от лицензополучателите трябва да е осъществил сондаж при високо налягане и/или високи температури в качеството на оператор.

Блокове, за които могат да се подават заявления

Заявления за участия в лицензите за добив могат да се подават за блоковете, които не са лицензирани в предварително определената зона, както е показано на картите, публикувани от Норвежката дирекция по въглеводородите (NPD). Възможно е също така да се подават заявления за площи в предварително определената зона, които са били изоставени след обявлението, в съответствие с актуализираните карти, включени в интерактивните карти Factmaps, които са на разположение на уебстраницата на NPD.

Всеки лиценз за добив може да включва един или повече блокове или част от блок(ове). Кандидатите се приканват да ограничат заявлението до области, за които са извършили търсене за залежи.

Пълният текст на обявлението и подробни карти на наличните области са публикувани на уебстраницата на Норвежката дирекция по въглеводородите www.npd.no/apa2016.

Заявленията за лицензи за добив на въглеводороди се подават до:

| Ministry of Petroleum and Energy |
| --- |
| P.O. Box 8148 Dep. |
| N-0033 OSLO |
| НОРВЕГИЯ |

Ministry of Petroleum and Energy

P.O. Box 8148 Dep.

N-0033 OSLO

НОРВЕГИЯ

Две копия се изпращат на:

| The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate |
| --- |
| P.O. Box 600 |
| N-4003 STAVANGER |
| НОРВЕГИЯ |

The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate

P.O. Box 600

N-4003 STAVANGER

НОРВЕГИЯ

Краен срок: 6 септември 2016 г. в 12:00 часа на обяд.

Възлагането на лицензи за добив на въглеводороди в рамките на процедурата за предоставяне на лицензи в предварително определени области на норвежкия континентален шелф за 2016 г. е планирано да се състои през първото тримесечие на 2017 г.

---

(1)  ОВ L 164, 30.6.1994 г., стр. 3.

---

V Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Европейска комисия

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/47

---

Покана за представяне на предложения в рамките на многогодишната работна програма за отпускане на финансова помощ в областта на трансевропейската енергийна инфраструктура по Механизма за свързване на Европа за периода 2014—2020 г.

(Решение С(2016) 1587 на Комисията)

(2016/C 236/13)

С настоящата покана генерална дирекция „Енергетика“ на Европейската комисия обявява конкурс за получаване на безвъзмездни средства в съответствие с приоритетите и целите, определени в многогодишната работна програма в областта на трансевропейската енергийна инфраструктура по Механизма за свързване на Европа за периода 2014—2020 г.

Очакват се предложения по следната покана:

CEF-Energy-2016-2

Ориентировъчната сума, която е на разположение за избраните предложения в рамките на настоящата покана за представяне на предложения, е 600 милиона евро.

Крайният срок за представяне на предложения е 8 ноември 2016 г.

Пълният текст на поканата за представяне на предложения е публикуван на следния адрес в интернет:

https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/https%3A//ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-energy/calls/second-2016-cef-energy-call-proposals-2016-2

---

ПРОЦЕДУРИ, СВЪРЗАНИ С ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕТО НА ПОЛИТИКАТА В ОБЛАСТТА НА КОНКУРЕНЦИЯТА

Европейска комисия

| 30.6.2016 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | C 236/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

C 236/48

---

Предварително уведомление за концентрация

(Дело M.8094 — BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International)

Дело кандидат за опростена процедура

(текст от значение за ЕИП)

(2016/C 236/14)

| 1. | На 21 юни 2016 г. Комисията получи уведомление за планирана концентрация в съответствие с член 4 от Регламент (ЕО) No 139/2004 на Съвета (1), чрез която предприятия BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium NV („BNPPF PE“, Белгия), Sofindev IV NV („Sofindev“, Белгия) и DHAM NV („Korys/Colruyt Group“, Белгия) придобиват по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1, буква б) от Регламента за сливанията съвместен контрол над предприятие в Novy International NV („Novy“, Белгия) посредством покупка на дялове/акции. |
| --- | --- |

1.

На 21 юни 2016 г. Комисията получи уведомление за планирана концентрация в съответствие с член 4 от Регламент (ЕО) No 139/2004 на Съвета (1), чрез която предприятия BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium NV („BNPPF PE“, Белгия), Sofindev IV NV („Sofindev“, Белгия) и DHAM NV („Korys/Colruyt Group“, Белгия) придобиват по смисъла на член 3, параграф 1, буква б) от Регламента за сливанията съвместен контрол над предприятие в Novy International NV („Novy“, Белгия) посредством покупка на дялове/акции.

| 2. | Търговските дейности на въпросните предприятия са:
  —   за предприятие BNPPF PE: частни капиталови инвестиции и финансиране тип „мецанин“. Неговите портфейлни дружества извършват дейност в отрасли, като доставка и производство на метални и пластмасови изделия, университетски фондове за първоначален капитал, хлебни изделия, промишлени услуги и недвижими имоти,
  —   за предприятие Sofindev: частни капиталови инвестиции в Белгия за малките и средните предприятия. Неговите портфейлни дружества са активни в дистрибуцията на покривни и фасадни материали и развитието на локални софтуерни решения,
  —   за предприятие Korys/Colruyt Group: дейности на пазарите на услуги, свързани с храненето, търговията на едро и на дребно. С дейности също така в областта на програмните решения, устойчиви проекти за възобновяема енергия и на пазара на медицинските и биологичните науки,
  —   за предприятие Novy: разработка, производство и маркетинг на високотехнологични домакински уреди, предимно аспиратори. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Търговските дейности на въпросните предприятия са:

—   за предприятие BNPPF PE: частни капиталови инвестиции и финансиране тип „мецанин“. Неговите портфейлни дружества извършват дейност в отрасли, като доставка и производство на метални и пластмасови изделия, университетски фондове за първоначален капитал, хлебни изделия, промишлени услуги и недвижими имоти,

—   за предприятие Sofindev: частни капиталови инвестиции в Белгия за малките и средните предприятия. Неговите портфейлни дружества са активни в дистрибуцията на покривни и фасадни материали и развитието на локални софтуерни решения,

—   за предприятие Korys/Colruyt Group: дейности на пазарите на услуги, свързани с храненето, търговията на едро и на дребно. С дейности също така в областта на програмните решения, устойчиви проекти за възобновяема енергия и на пазара на медицинските и биологичните науки,

—   за предприятие Novy: разработка, производство и маркетинг на високотехнологични домакински уреди, предимно аспиратори.

| 3. | След предварително проучване Комисията констатира, че операцията, за която е уведомена, би могла да попадне в приложното поле на Регламента за сливанията. Въпреки това Комисията си запазва правото на окончателно решение по тази точка. В съответствие с Известието на Комисията относно опростена процедура за разглеждане на някои концентрации съгласно Регламент (ЕО) No 139/2004 на Съвета (2) следва да се отбележи, че това дело би могло да бъде разгледано по процедурата, посочена в известието. |
| --- | --- |

3.

След предварително проучване Комисията констатира, че операцията, за която е уведомена, би могла да попадне в приложното поле на Регламента за сливанията. Въпреки това Комисията си запазва правото на окончателно решение по тази точка. В съответствие с Известието на Комисията относно опростена процедура за разглеждане на някои концентрации съгласно Регламент (ЕО) No 139/2004 на Съвета (2) следва да се отбележи, че това дело би могло да бъде разгледано по процедурата, посочена в известието.

| 4. | Комисията приканва заинтересованите трети страни да представят евентуалните си забележки по планираната операция.
  Забележките трябва да бъдат получени от Комисията не по-късно от 10 дни след датата на настоящата публикация. Забележки могат да се изпращат до Комисия по факс (+32 22964301), по електронна поща на адрес: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu, или по пощата, с позоваване на M.8094 — BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International, на следния адрес:





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

4.

Комисията приканва заинтересованите трети страни да представят евентуалните си забележки по планираната операция.

Забележките трябва да бъдат получени от Комисията не по-късно от 10 дни след датата на настоящата публикация. Забележки могат да се изпращат до Комисия по факс (+32 22964301), по електронна поща на адрес: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu, или по пощата, с позоваване на M.8094 — BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International, на следния адрес:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  ОВ L 24, 29.1.2004 г., стр. 1 („Регламентът за сливанията“).

(2)  ОВ C 366, 14.12.2013 г., стр. 5.

---