# Úradný vestník C 236/2016

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 236 |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Zväzok 5930. júna 2016 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 236

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Zväzok 5930. júna 2016

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Oznámenia |
| | OZNÁMENIA INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2016/C 236/01 | Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii (Vec M.8039 – Freudenberg/Vibracoustic) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2016/C 236/02 | Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii (Vec M.8049 – TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2016/C 236/03 | Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii (Vec M.8041 – M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investment) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2016/C 236/04 | Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii (Vec M.8054 – 3i Group/Deutsche Alternative Asset Management/TCR Capvest) (
  1
  ) | 2 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

II   Oznámenia

OZNÁMENIA INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

2016/C 236/01

Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii (Vec M.8039 – Freudenberg/Vibracoustic) (
  1
  )

1

1

2016/C 236/02

Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii (Vec M.8049 – TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio) (
  1
  )

1

1

2016/C 236/03

Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii (Vec M.8041 – M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investment) (
  1
  )

1

2

2016/C 236/04

Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii (Vec M.8054 – 3i Group/Deutsche Alternative Asset Management/TCR Capvest) (
  1
  )

1

2

---

| | IV   Informácie |
| --- | --- |
| | INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2016/C 236/05 | Výmenný kurz eura | 3 |
| 2016/C 236/06 | Nová národná strana obehových euromincí | 4 |
| | Dvor audítorov |
| 2016/C 236/07 | Osobitná správa č. 14/2016 – Politické iniciatívy a finančná podpora EÚ na integráciu Rómov: výrazný pokrok za posledné desaťročie, no ďalšie úsilie je potrebné v praxi | 5 |
| | INFORMÁCIE ČLENSKÝCH ŠTÁTOV |
| 2016/C 236/08 | Aktualizácia zoznamu hraničných priechodov podľa článku 2 ods. 8 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/399, ktorým sa ustanovuje kódex Únie o pravidlách upravujúcich pohyb osôb cez hranice (Kódex schengenských hraníc) | 6 |
| 2016/C 236/09 | Aktualizácia vzorov preukazov vydávaných ministerstvami zahraničných vecí členských štátov akreditovaným členom diplomatických misií a konzulárnych zastúpení a ich rodinným príslušníkom podľa článku 20 ods. 2 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/399, ktorým sa ustanovuje kódex Únie o pravidlách upravujúcich pohyb osôb cez hranice (Kódex schengenských hraníc) | 11 |
| | INFORMÁCIE TÝKAJÚCE SA EURÓPSKEHO HOSPODÁRSKEHO PRIESTORU |
| | Dozorný úrad EZVO |
| 2016/C 236/10 | Výzva na predloženie pripomienok k štátnej pomoci podľa časti I článku 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu | 21 |
| 2016/C 236/11 | Výzva na predloženie pripomienok v súlade s časťou I článkom 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu k štátnej pomoci týkajúcej sa potenciálnej pomoci pre spoločnosť Hurtigruten ASA podľa Pobrežnej dohody o poskytovaní služieb námornej dopravy spoločnosťou Hurtigruten na obdobie rokov 2012 – 2019 | 29 |
| 2016/C 236/12 | Oznámenie Nórska týkajúce sa smernice Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 94/22/ES z 30. mája 1994 o podmienkach udeľovania a používania povolení na vyhľadávanie, prieskum a ťažbu uhľovodíkov – Oznámenie výzvy na predloženie žiadostí o udelenie licencií na ťažbu ropy v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe – udelenie licencií vo vopred vymedzených oblastiach v roku 2016 | 45 |

IV   Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

2016/C 236/05

Výmenný kurz eura

3

2016/C 236/06

Nová národná strana obehových euromincí

4

Dvor audítorov

2016/C 236/07

Osobitná správa č. 14/2016 – Politické iniciatívy a finančná podpora EÚ na integráciu Rómov: výrazný pokrok za posledné desaťročie, no ďalšie úsilie je potrebné v praxi

5

INFORMÁCIE ČLENSKÝCH ŠTÁTOV

2016/C 236/08

Aktualizácia zoznamu hraničných priechodov podľa článku 2 ods. 8 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/399, ktorým sa ustanovuje kódex Únie o pravidlách upravujúcich pohyb osôb cez hranice (Kódex schengenských hraníc)

6

2016/C 236/09

Aktualizácia vzorov preukazov vydávaných ministerstvami zahraničných vecí členských štátov akreditovaným členom diplomatických misií a konzulárnych zastúpení a ich rodinným príslušníkom podľa článku 20 ods. 2 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/399, ktorým sa ustanovuje kódex Únie o pravidlách upravujúcich pohyb osôb cez hranice (Kódex schengenských hraníc)

11

INFORMÁCIE TÝKAJÚCE SA EURÓPSKEHO HOSPODÁRSKEHO PRIESTORU

Dozorný úrad EZVO

2016/C 236/10

Výzva na predloženie pripomienok k štátnej pomoci podľa časti I článku 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu

21

2016/C 236/11

Výzva na predloženie pripomienok v súlade s časťou I článkom 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu k štátnej pomoci týkajúcej sa potenciálnej pomoci pre spoločnosť Hurtigruten ASA podľa Pobrežnej dohody o poskytovaní služieb námornej dopravy spoločnosťou Hurtigruten na obdobie rokov 2012 – 2019

29

2016/C 236/12

Oznámenie Nórska týkajúce sa smernice Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 94/22/ES z 30. mája 1994 o podmienkach udeľovania a používania povolení na vyhľadávanie, prieskum a ťažbu uhľovodíkov – Oznámenie výzvy na predloženie žiadostí o udelenie licencií na ťažbu ropy v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe – udelenie licencií vo vopred vymedzených oblastiach v roku 2016

45

---

| | V   Oznamy |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATÍVNE POSTUPY |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2016/C 236/13 | Výzva na predkladanie návrhov v rámci viacročného pracovného programu na poskytovanie finančnej pomoci v oblasti transeurópskej energetickej infraštruktúry v rámci Nástroja na prepájanie Európy na obdobie rokov 2014 – 2020 [rozhodnutie Komisie C(2016) 1587] | 47 |
| | KONANIA TÝKAJÚCE SA VYKONÁVANIA POLITIKY HOSPODÁRSKEJ SÚŤAŽE |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2016/C 236/14 | Predbežné oznámenie o koncentrácii (Vec M.8094 – BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International) – Vec, ktorá môže byť posúdená v rámci zjednodušeného postupu (
  1
  ) | 48 |

V   Oznamy

ADMINISTRATÍVNE POSTUPY

Európska komisia

2016/C 236/13

Výzva na predkladanie návrhov v rámci viacročného pracovného programu na poskytovanie finančnej pomoci v oblasti transeurópskej energetickej infraštruktúry v rámci Nástroja na prepájanie Európy na obdobie rokov 2014 – 2020 [rozhodnutie Komisie C(2016) 1587]

47

KONANIA TÝKAJÚCE SA VYKONÁVANIA POLITIKY HOSPODÁRSKEJ SÚŤAŽE

Európska komisia

2016/C 236/14

Predbežné oznámenie o koncentrácii (Vec M.8094 – BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International) – Vec, ktorá môže byť posúdená v rámci zjednodušeného postupu (
  1
  )

1

48

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text s významom pre EHP |

---

(1)   Text s významom pre EHP

1

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

II Oznámenia

OZNÁMENIA INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/1

---

Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii

(Vec M.8039 – Freudenberg/Vibracoustic)

(Text s významom pre EHP)

(2016/C 236/01)

Dňa 22. júna 2016 sa Komisia rozhodla nevzniesť námietku voči uvedenej oznámenej koncentrácii a vyhlásiť ju za zlučiteľnú s vnútorným trhom. Toto rozhodnutie je založené na článku 6 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 139/2004 (1). Úplné znenie rozhodnutia je dostupné iba v anglickom jazyku a bude zverejnené po odstránení akýchkoľvek obchodných tajomstiev. Bude dostupné:

| — | v časti webovej stránky Komisie o hospodárskej súťaži venovanej fúziám (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Táto webová stránka poskytuje rôzne možnosti na vyhľadávanie individuálnych rozhodnutí o fúziách podľa názvu spoločnosti, čísla prípadu, dátumu a sektorových indexov, |
| --- | --- |

—

v časti webovej stránky Komisie o hospodárskej súťaži venovanej fúziám (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Táto webová stránka poskytuje rôzne možnosti na vyhľadávanie individuálnych rozhodnutí o fúziách podľa názvu spoločnosti, čísla prípadu, dátumu a sektorových indexov,

| — | v elektronickej podobe na webovej stránke EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=sk) pod číslom dokumentu 32016M8039. EUR-Lex predstavuje online prístup k európskemu právu. |
| --- | --- |

—

v elektronickej podobe na webovej stránke EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=sk) pod číslom dokumentu 32016M8039. EUR-Lex predstavuje online prístup k európskemu právu.

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

---

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/1

---

Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii

(Vec M.8049 – TPG Capital/Partners Group/TH Real Estate Portfolio)

(Text s významom pre EHP)

(2016/C 236/02)

Dňa 23. júna 2016 sa Komisia rozhodla nevzniesť námietku voči uvedenej oznámenej koncentrácii a vyhlásiť ju za zlučiteľnú s vnútorným trhom. Toto rozhodnutie je založené na článku 6 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 139/2004 (1). Úplné znenie rozhodnutia je dostupné iba v anglickom jazyku a bude zverejnené po odstránení akýchkoľvek obchodných tajomstiev. Bude dostupné:

| — | v časti webovej stránky Komisie o hospodárskej súťaži venovanej fúziám (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Táto webová stránka poskytuje rôzne možnosti na vyhľadávanie individuálnych rozhodnutí o fúziách podľa názvu spoločnosti, čísla prípadu, dátumu a sektorových indexov, |
| --- | --- |

—

v časti webovej stránky Komisie o hospodárskej súťaži venovanej fúziám (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Táto webová stránka poskytuje rôzne možnosti na vyhľadávanie individuálnych rozhodnutí o fúziách podľa názvu spoločnosti, čísla prípadu, dátumu a sektorových indexov,

| — | v elektronickej podobe na webovej stránke EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=sk) pod číslom dokumentu 32016M8049. EUR-Lex predstavuje online prístup k európskemu právu. |
| --- | --- |

—

v elektronickej podobe na webovej stránke EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=sk) pod číslom dokumentu 32016M8049. EUR-Lex predstavuje online prístup k európskemu právu.

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

---

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/2

---

Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii

(Vec M.8041 – M&G/Anchorage/PHS Group Investment)

(Text s významom pre EHP)

(2016/C 236/03)

Dňa 23. júna 2016 sa Komisia rozhodla nevzniesť námietku voči uvedenej oznámenej koncentrácii a vyhlásiť ju za zlučiteľnú s vnútorným trhom. Toto rozhodnutie je založené na článku 6 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 139/2004 (1). Úplné znenie rozhodnutia je dostupné iba v anglickom jazyku a bude zverejnené po odstránení akýchkoľvek obchodných tajomstiev. Bude dostupné:

| — | v časti webovej stránky Komisie o hospodárskej súťaži venovanej fúziám (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Táto webová stránka poskytuje rôzne možnosti na vyhľadávanie individuálnych rozhodnutí o fúziách podľa názvu spoločnosti, čísla prípadu, dátumu a sektorových indexov, |
| --- | --- |

—

v časti webovej stránky Komisie o hospodárskej súťaži venovanej fúziám (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Táto webová stránka poskytuje rôzne možnosti na vyhľadávanie individuálnych rozhodnutí o fúziách podľa názvu spoločnosti, čísla prípadu, dátumu a sektorových indexov,

| — | v elektronickej podobe na webovej stránke EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=sk) pod číslom dokumentu 32016M8041. EUR-Lex predstavuje online prístup k európskemu právu. |
| --- | --- |

—

v elektronickej podobe na webovej stránke EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=sk) pod číslom dokumentu 32016M8041. EUR-Lex predstavuje online prístup k európskemu právu.

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

---

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/2

---

Nevznesenie námietky voči oznámenej koncentrácii

(Vec M.8054 – 3i Group/Deutsche Alternative Asset Management/TCR Capvest)

(Text s významom pre EHP)

(2016/C 236/04)

Dňa 24. júna 2016 sa Komisia rozhodla nevzniesť námietku voči uvedenej oznámenej koncentrácii a vyhlásiť ju za zlučiteľnú s vnútorným trhom. Toto rozhodnutie je založené na článku 6 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 139/2004 (1). Úplné znenie rozhodnutia je dostupné iba v anglickom jazyku a bude zverejnené po odstránení akýchkoľvek obchodných tajomstiev. Bude dostupné:

| — | v časti webovej stránky Komisie o hospodárskej súťaži venovanej fúziám (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Táto webová stránka poskytuje rôzne možnosti na vyhľadávanie individuálnych rozhodnutí o fúziách podľa názvu spoločnosti, čísla prípadu, dátumu a sektorových indexov, |
| --- | --- |

—

v časti webovej stránky Komisie o hospodárskej súťaži venovanej fúziám (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). Táto webová stránka poskytuje rôzne možnosti na vyhľadávanie individuálnych rozhodnutí o fúziách podľa názvu spoločnosti, čísla prípadu, dátumu a sektorových indexov,

| — | v elektronickej podobe na webovej stránke EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=sk) pod číslom dokumentu 32016M8054. EUR-Lex predstavuje online prístup k európskemu právu. |
| --- | --- |

—

v elektronickej podobe na webovej stránke EUR-Lex (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=sk) pod číslom dokumentu 32016M8054. EUR-Lex predstavuje online prístup k európskemu právu.

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

---

IV Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/3

---

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

29. júna 2016

(2016/C 236/05)

1 euro =

| | Mena | Výmenný kurz |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | Americký dolár | 1,1090 |
| JPY | Japonský jen | 113,85 |
| DKK | Dánska koruna | 7,4376 |
| GBP | Britská libra | 0,82550 |
| SEK | Švédska koruna | 9,4311 |
| CHF | Švajčiarsky frank | 1,0854 |
| ISK | Islandská koruna | |
| NOK | Nórska koruna | 9,3065 |
| BGN | Bulharský lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Česká koruna | 27,114 |
| HUF | Maďarský forint | 316,95 |
| PLN | Poľský zlotý | 4,4261 |
| RON | Rumunský lei | 4,5253 |
| TRY | Turecká líra | 3,2157 |
| AUD | Austrálsky dolár | 1,4911 |
| CAD | Kanadský dolár | 1,4407 |
| HKD | Hongkongský dolár | 8,6041 |
| NZD | Novozélandský dolár | 1,5565 |
| SGD | Singapurský dolár | 1,4951 |
| KRW | Juhokórejský won | 1 283,15 |
| ZAR | Juhoafrický rand | 16,6016 |
| CNY | Čínsky juan | 7,3680 |
| HRK | Chorvátska kuna | 7,5273 |
| IDR | Indonézska rupia | 14 577,25 |
| MYR | Malajzijský ringgit | 4,4594 |
| PHP | Filipínske peso | 52,106 |
| RUB | Ruský rubeľ | 71,0452 |
| THB | Thajský baht | 39,028 |
| BRL | Brazílsky real | 3,6216 |
| MXN | Mexické peso | 20,7331 |
| INR | Indická rupia | 74,9693 |

Mena

Výmenný kurz

USD

Americký dolár

1,1090

JPY

Japonský jen

113,85

DKK

Dánska koruna

7,4376

GBP

Britská libra

0,82550

SEK

Švédska koruna

9,4311

CHF

Švajčiarsky frank

1,0854

ISK

Islandská koruna

NOK

Nórska koruna

9,3065

BGN

Bulharský lev

1,9558

CZK

Česká koruna

27,114

HUF

Maďarský forint

316,95

PLN

Poľský zlotý

4,4261

RON

Rumunský lei

4,5253

TRY

Turecká líra

3,2157

AUD

Austrálsky dolár

1,4911

CAD

Kanadský dolár

1,4407

HKD

Hongkongský dolár

8,6041

NZD

Novozélandský dolár

1,5565

SGD

Singapurský dolár

1,4951

KRW

Juhokórejský won

1 283,15

ZAR

Juhoafrický rand

16,6016

CNY

Čínsky juan

7,3680

HRK

Chorvátska kuna

7,5273

IDR

Indonézska rupia

14 577,25

MYR

Malajzijský ringgit

4,4594

PHP

Filipínske peso

52,106

RUB

Ruský rubeľ

71,0452

THB

Thajský baht

39,028

BRL

Brazílsky real

3,6216

MXN

Mexické peso

20,7331

INR

Indická rupia

74,9693

---

(1)  Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

---

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/4

---

Nová národná strana obehových euromincí

(2016/C 236/06)

Obehové euromince majú v celej eurozóne štatút zákonného platidla. Komisia zverejňuje opis vzorov všetkých nových euromincí s cieľom informovať každého, kto prichádza s mincami do kontaktu v rámci svojej pracovnej činnosti, ako aj širokú verejnosť (1). V súlade so závermi Rady z 10. februára 2009 (2) môžu členské štáty eurozóny a krajiny, ktoré s Európskou úniou uzavreli menovú dohodu ustanovujúcu vydávanie obehových euromincí, vydať do obehu pamätné euromince za určitých podmienok, predovšetkým musia mať len nominálnu hodnotu 2 EUR. Tieto mince majú rovnaké technické parametre ako ostatné mince v hodnote 2 EUR, na národnej strane je však vyobrazený pamätný motív, ktorý má veľkú symbolickú hodnotu z národného alebo európskeho hľadiska.

Vydávajúca krajina
  : Španielsko.

Motív
  : lokalita označená za súčasť svetového kultúrneho a prírodného dedičstva Unesco – kostoly Astúrskeho kráľovstva.

Vecný opis vzoru
  : Na obrázku je v popredí zobrazený kostol Santa Maria del Naranco. V hornej časti vnútorného kruhu je do oblúka napísaný názov vydávajúcej krajiny „ESPAÑA“ a pod ním je vpravo uvedený rok vydania „2017“. Na ľavej strane vnútorného kruhu sa nachádza značka mincovne.

Vo vonkajšom prstenci mince je vyobrazených 12 hviezd vlajky Európskej únie.

Náklad
  : 4 milióny mincí.

Dátum vydania
  : 1. február 2017.

---

(1)  Pozri Ú. v. ES C 373, 28.12.2001, s. 1 o národných stranách všetkých mincí, ktoré boli vydané v roku 2002.

(2)  Pozri závery Rady pre hospodárske a finančné záležitosti z 10. februára 2009 a odporúčanie Komisie z 19. decembra 2008 o spoločných usmerneniach pre národné strany a vydávanie euromincí určených do obehu (Ú. v. EÚ L 9, 14.1.2009, s. 52).

---

Dvor audítorov

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/5

---

Osobitná správa č. 14/2016

„Politické iniciatívy a finančná podpora EÚ na integráciu Rómov: výrazný pokrok za posledné desaťročie, no ďalšie úsilie je potrebné v praxi“

(2016/C 236/07)

Európsky dvor audítorov týmto informuje, že bola uverejnená osobitná správa č. 14/2016 „Politické iniciatívy a finančná podpora EÚ na integráciu Rómov: výrazný pokrok za posledné desaťročie, no ďalšie úsilie je potrebné v praxi“.

Táto správa je k dispozícii na nahliadnutie alebo stiahnutie na webovej stránke Európskeho dvora audítorov: http://eca.europa.eu alebo na stránke EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu

---

INFORMÁCIE ČLENSKÝCH ŠTÁTOV

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/6

---

Aktualizácia zoznamu hraničných priechodov podľa článku 2 ods. 8 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/399, ktorým sa ustanovuje kódex Únie o pravidlách upravujúcich pohyb osôb cez hranice (Kódex schengenských hraníc) (1)

(2016/C 236/08)

Zoznam hraničných priechodov podľa článku 2 ods. 8 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/399 z 9. marca 2016, ktorým sa ustanovuje kódex Únie o pravidlách upravujúcich pohyb osôb cez hranice (Kódex schengenských hraníc), sa uverejňujú na základe informácií, ktoré členské štáty poskytli Komisii v súlade s článkom 39 Kódexu schengenských hraníc (kodifikované znenie).

Mesačná aktualizácia je uverejnená v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie a zároveň je k dispozícii aj na webovom sídle Generálneho riaditeľstva pre migráciu a vnútorné záležitosti.

FRANCÚZSKO

Zmena a doplnenie informácií uverejnených v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie C 229, 14.7.2015

ZOZNAM HRANIČNÝCH PRIECHODOV

Vzdušné hranice

| (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, dočasne:






  — | od stredy 10. júna do nedele 14. júna 2015, od 10.00 hod. do 15.30 hod.
  Toto dočasné otvorenie sa zavádza počas medzinárodného leteckého a vesmírneho veľtrhu v Bourget, keď je nutné odkloniť lety z krajín mimo schengenského priestoru na letisko v Pontoise. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(73)

Pontoise-Cormeillcs-en-Vexin, dočasne:

—

od stredy 10. júna do nedele 14. júna 2015, od 10.00 hod. do 15.30 hod.

Toto dočasné otvorenie sa zavádza počas medzinárodného leteckého a vesmírneho veľtrhu v Bourget, keď je nutné odkloniť lety z krajín mimo schengenského priestoru na letisko v Pontoise.

| — | od pondelka 15. júna do nedele 21. júna 2015, od 6.00 hod. do 16.30 hod.
  Toto dočasné otvorenie sa zavádza v čase, keď premáva sezónny spoj z krajín mimo schengenského priestoru (Quimper-Londýn). |
| --- | --- |

—

od pondelka 15. júna do nedele 21. júna 2015, od 6.00 hod. do 16.30 hod.

Toto dočasné otvorenie sa zavádza v čase, keď premáva sezónny spoj z krajín mimo schengenského priestoru (Quimper-Londýn).

| (74) | Quimper-Cornouailles, dočasne od 19. mája do 4. septembra 2016. |
| --- | --- |

(74)

Quimper-Cornouailles, dočasne od 19. mája do 4. septembra 2016.

| (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

Morské hranice

| (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

Pozemné hranice

So SPOJENÝM KRÁĽOVSTVOM

(pravidelné spojenie cez kanál La Manche)

| (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, 1. júla 2016. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Gare TGV Haute-Picardie, 1. júla 2016.

S ANDORROU

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

(1)

Pas de la Case-Porta

Zoznam predchádzajúcich uverejnení

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 316, 28.12.2007, s. 1 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 316, 28.12.2007, s. 1

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 134, 31.5.2008, s. 16 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 134, 31.5.2008, s. 16

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 177, 12.7.2008, s. 9 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 177, 12.7.2008, s. 9

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 200, 6.8.2008, s. 10 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 200, 6.8.2008, s. 10

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 331, 31.12.2008, s. 13 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 331, 31.12.2008, s. 13

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 3, 8.1.2009, s. 10 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 3, 8.1.2009, s. 10

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 37, 14.2.2009, s. 10 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 37, 14.2.2009, s. 10

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 64, 19.3.2009, s. 20 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 64, 19.3.2009, s. 20

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 99, 30.4.2009, s. 7 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 99, 30.4.2009, s. 7

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 229, 23.9.2009, s. 28 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 229, 23.9.2009, s. 28

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 263, 5.11.2009, s. 22 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 263, 5.11.2009, s. 22

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 298, 8.12.2009, s. 17 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 298, 8.12.2009, s. 17

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 74, 24.3.2010, s. 13 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 74, 24.3.2010, s. 13

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 326, 3.12.2010, s. 17 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 326, 3.12.2010, s. 17

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 355, 29.12.2010, s. 34 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 355, 29.12.2010, s. 34

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 22, 22.1.2011, s. 22 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 22, 22.1.2011, s. 22

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 37, 5.2.2011, s. 12 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 37, 5.2.2011, s. 12

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 149, 20.5.2011, s. 8 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 149, 20.5.2011, s. 8

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 190, 30.6.2011, s. 17 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 190, 30.6.2011, s. 17

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 203, 9.7.2011, s. 14 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 203, 9.7.2011, s. 14

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 210, 16.7.2011, s. 30 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 210, 16.7.2011, s. 30

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 271, 14.9.2011, s. 18 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 271, 14.9.2011, s. 18

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 356, 6.12.2011, s. 12 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 356, 6.12.2011, s. 12

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 111, 18.4.2012, s. 3 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 111, 18.4.2012, s. 3

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 183, 23.6.2012, s. 7 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 183, 23.6.2012, s. 7

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 313, 17.10.2012, s. 11 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 313, 17.10.2012, s. 11

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 394, 20.12.2012, s. 22 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 394, 20.12.2012, s. 22

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 51, 22.2.2013, s. 9 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 51, 22.2.2013, s. 9

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 167, 13.6.2013, s. 9 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 167, 13.6.2013, s. 9

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 242, 23.8.2013, s. 2 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 242, 23.8.2013, s. 2

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 275, 24.9.2013, s. 7 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 275, 24.9.2013, s. 7

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 314, 29.10.2013, s. 5 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 314, 29.10.2013, s. 5

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 324, 9.11.2013, s. 6 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 324, 9.11.2013, s. 6

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 57, 28.2.2014, s. 4 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 57, 28.2.2014, s. 4

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 167, 4.6.2014, s. 9 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 167, 4.6.2014, s. 9

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 244, 26.7.2014, s. 22 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 244, 26.7.2014, s. 22

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 332, 24.9.2014, s. 12 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 332, 24.9.2014, s. 12

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 420, 22.11.2014, s. 9 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 420, 22.11.2014, s. 9

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 72, 28.2.2015, s. 17 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 72, 28.2.2015, s. 17

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 126, 18.4.2015, s. 10 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 126, 18.4.2015, s. 10

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 229, 14.7.2015, s. 5 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 229, 14.7.2015, s. 5

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 341, 16.10.2015, s. 19 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 341, 16.10.2015, s. 19

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 84, 4.3.2016, s. 2. |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 84, 4.3.2016, s. 2.

---

(1)  Pozri zoznam predchádzajúcich uverejnení na konci tejto aktualizácie.

---

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/11

---

Aktualizácia vzorov preukazov vydávaných ministerstvami zahraničných vecí členských štátov akreditovaným členom diplomatických misií a konzulárnych zastúpení a ich rodinným príslušníkom podľa článku 20 ods. 2 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/399, ktorým sa ustanovuje kódex Únie o pravidlách upravujúcich pohyb osôb cez hranice (Kódex schengenských hraníc) (1)

(2016/C 236/09)

Vzory preukazov vydávaných ministerstvami zahraničných vecí členských štátov akreditovaným členom diplomatických misií a konzulárnych zastúpení a ich rodinným príslušníkom podľa článku 20 ods. 2 nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/399 z 9. marca 2016, ktorým sa ustanovuje kódex Únie o pravidlách upravujúcich pohyb osôb cez hranice (Kódex schengenských hraníc), sa uverejňujú na základe informácií, ktoré členské štáty poskytli Komisii v súlade s článkom 39 Kódexu schengenských hraníc (kodifikované znenie).

Mesačná aktualizácia je uverejnená v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie a zároveň je k dispozícii aj na webovom sídle Generálneho riaditeľstva pre migráciu a vnútorné záležitosti.

ŠVAJČIARSKO

Nahradenie informácií uverejnených v Ú. v. EÚ C 133, 1.5.2014

OSOBITNÉ POVOLENIA NA POBYT VYDÁVANÉ MINISTERSTVOM ZAHRANIČNÝCH VECÍ

Preukazy totožnosti (povolenia na pobyt) vydané Federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí:

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu B (s ružovým pásom): vedúci stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií, členovia najvyššieho vedenia medzinárodných organizácií a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu B (s ružovým pásom): vedúci stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií, členovia najvyššieho vedenia medzinárodných organizácií a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu C (s ružovým pásom): členovia diplomatického personálu stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií, vysokí úradníci medzinárodných organizácií a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu C (s ružovým pásom): členovia diplomatického personálu stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií, vysokí úradníci medzinárodných organizácií a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu D (s modrým pásom): členovia administratívneho a technického personálu stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu D (s modrým pásom): členovia administratívneho a technického personálu stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu D (s hnedým pásom): profesionálni úradníci medzinárodných organizácií a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu D (s hnedým pásom): profesionálni úradníci medzinárodných organizácií a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu E (s fialovým pásom): služobný personál stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií, úradníci všeobecných oddelení medzinárodných organizácií a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu E (s fialovým pásom): služobný personál stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií, úradníci všeobecných oddelení medzinárodných organizácií a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu F (so žltým pásom): súkromné služobné osoby v domácnosti členov stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií a kariérnych členov konzulárnych úradov a súkromný personál v domácnosti úradníkov medzinárodných organizácií / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu F (so žltým pásom): súkromné služobné osoby v domácnosti členov stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií a kariérnych členov konzulárnych úradov a súkromný personál v domácnosti úradníkov medzinárodných organizácií / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu G (s tyrkysovým pásom): úradníci medzinárodných organizácií (s pracovnou zmluvou na dobu určitú) a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu G (s tyrkysovým pásom): úradníci medzinárodných organizácií (s pracovnou zmluvou na dobu určitú) a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu H (s bielym pásom): spolupracovníci stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií, konzulátov a medzinárodných organizácií, ktorí nemajú štatút úradníkov, ako aj osoby bez výsad a imunít oprávnené sprevádzať členov stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií, konzulátov a medzinárodných organizácií. / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu H (s bielym pásom): spolupracovníci stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií, konzulátov a medzinárodných organizácií, ktorí nemajú štatút úradníkov, ako aj osoby bez výsad a imunít oprávnené sprevádzať členov stálych alebo osobitných diplomatických misií, konzulátov a medzinárodných organizácií. / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu I (s olivovozeleným pásom): pracovníci Medzinárodného výboru Červeného kríža, ktorí nie sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu I (s olivovozeleným pásom): pracovníci Medzinárodného výboru Červeného kríža, ktorí nie sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu K (s ružovým pásom): kariérni vedúci konzulárnych úradov, kariérni konzulárni úradníci a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu K (s ružovým pásom): kariérni vedúci konzulárnych úradov, kariérni konzulárni úradníci a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu K (s modrým pásom): kariérni konzulárni zamestnanci a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu K (s modrým pásom): kariérni konzulárni zamestnanci a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu K (s fialovým pásom): členovia služobného personálu kariérnych konzulárnych zastúpení a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu K (s fialovým pásom): členovia služobného personálu kariérnych konzulárnych zastúpení a rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu K (s bielym pásom): vedúci honorárneho konzulárneho úradu / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu K (s bielym pásom): vedúci honorárneho konzulárneho úradu / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu L (s pásom pieskovej farby): pracovníci Medzinárodnej federácie spoločností Červeného kríža a Červeného polmesiaca, ktorí nie sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a ich rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu L (s pásom pieskovej farby): pracovníci Medzinárodnej federácie spoločností Červeného kríža a Červeného polmesiaca, ktorí nie sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a ich rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu P (s modrým pásom): vedeckí pracovníci organizácie CERN, ktorí nie sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a ich rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu P (s modrým pásom): vedeckí pracovníci organizácie CERN, ktorí nie sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a ich rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým postavením / 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;

| — | Preukaz typu „R“ (so sivým pásom): pracovníci kvázi-vládnych medzinárodných organizácií alebo iných medzinárodných orgánov, ktorí nie sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a ich rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým štatútom / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz typu „R“ (so sivým pásom): pracovníci kvázi-vládnych medzinárodných organizácií alebo iných medzinárodných orgánov, ktorí nie sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a ich rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým štatútom / 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;

| — | Preukaz totožnosti typu S (so zeleným pásom): členovia personálu stálych a osobitných diplomatických misií, ktorí sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a úradníci medzinárodných organizácií, ktorí sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska / 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

Preukaz totožnosti typu S (so zeleným pásom): členovia personálu stálych a osobitných diplomatických misií, ktorí sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a úradníci medzinárodných organizácií, ktorí sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska / 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;

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu B

| — | Veľvyslanectvá a stále misie: vedúci misie |
| --- | --- |

—

Veľvyslanectvá a stále misie: vedúci misie

| — | Medzinárodné organizácie: člen najvyššieho vedenia



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu má diplomatický štatút


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

—

Medzinárodné organizácie: člen najvyššieho vedenia

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu má diplomatický štatút

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Diplomatenstatus

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu C

| — | Veľvyslanectvá a stále misie: člen diplomatického personálu |
| --- | --- |

—

Veľvyslanectvá a stále misie: člen diplomatického personálu

| — | Medzinárodné organizácie: vysoký úradník



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu má diplomatický štatút

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

—

Medzinárodné organizácie: vysoký úradník

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu má diplomatický štatút

Der Inhaber dieser Karte geniesst Diplomatenstatus

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu D

| — | Veľvyslanectvá a stále misie: člen administratívneho a technického personálu (AT)



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu má diplomatický štatút, s výnimkou imunity voči občianskej a správnej právomoci, ktorú požíva len pri výkone svojich povinností

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

—

Veľvyslanectvá a stále misie: člen administratívneho a technického personálu (AT)

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu má diplomatický štatút, s výnimkou imunity voči občianskej a správnej právomoci, ktorú požíva len pri výkone svojich povinností

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

| — | Medzinárodné organizácie: profesionálny úradník



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

—

Medzinárodné organizácie: profesionálny úradník

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu E

| — | Veľvyslanectvá a stále misie: člen služobného personálu a člen miestneho personálu |
| --- | --- |

—

Veľvyslanectvá a stále misie: člen služobného personálu a člen miestneho personálu

| — | Medzinárodné organizácie: úradník všeobecných oddelení



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

—

Medzinárodné organizácie: úradník všeobecných oddelení

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu F

| — | Veľvyslanectvá, stále misie a medzinárodné organizácie: súkromná služobná osoba v domácnosti člena personálu



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu nepožíva procesno-právnu imunitu


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

—

Veľvyslanectvá, stále misie a medzinárodné organizácie: súkromná služobná osoba v domácnosti člena personálu

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu nepožíva procesno-právnu imunitu

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

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu G

| — | Medzinárodné organizácie: dočasný úradník (úradník „na dobu určitú“) a člen vyslaného personálu



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

—

Medzinárodné organizácie: dočasný úradník (úradník „na dobu určitú“) a člen vyslaného personálu

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu H

| — | Veľvyslanectvá, konzuláty, stále misie a medzinárodné organizácie: osoby bez výsad a imunít



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu nepožíva procesno-právnu imunitu a nemá prístup na švajčiarsky trh práce

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

—

Veľvyslanectvá, konzuláty, stále misie a medzinárodné organizácie: osoby bez výsad a imunít

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu nepožíva procesno-právnu imunitu a nemá prístup na švajčiarsky trh práce

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

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu I

| — | Medzinárodný výbor Červeného kríža (MVČK): spolupracovník MVČK



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu Nepožíva colné výsady

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

—

Medzinárodný výbor Červeného kríža (MVČK): spolupracovník MVČK

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu Nepožíva colné výsady

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

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu K

| — | Konzuláty - preukaz K červený: kariérny vedúci úradu a kariérny konzulárny úradník



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

—

Konzuláty - preukaz K červený: kariérny vedúci úradu a kariérny konzulárny úradník

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

| — | Konzuláty - preukaz K modrý: kariérny konzulárny zamestnanec



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

—

Konzuláty - preukaz K modrý: kariérny konzulárny zamestnanec

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

| — | Konzuláty - preukaz K fialový: člen služobného personálu a člen miestneho personálu



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu nepožíva imunitu voči právomoci súdov

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

—

Konzuláty - preukaz K fialový: člen služobného personálu a člen miestneho personálu

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu nepožíva imunitu voči právomoci súdov

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

| — | Konzuláty - preukaz K biely: vedúci honorárneho úradu



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva procesno-právnu imunitu výlučne pri výkone konzulárnych povinností

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

—

Konzuláty - preukaz K biely: vedúci honorárneho úradu

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva procesno-právnu imunitu výlučne pri výkone konzulárnych povinností

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

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu L

| — | Medzinárodná federácia spoločností Červeného kríža a Červeného polmesiaca (MFS ČK/ČP): spolupracovník MFS ČK/ČP



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu. Nepožíva colné výsady

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

—

Medzinárodná federácia spoločností Červeného kríža a Červeného polmesiaca (MFS ČK/ČP): spolupracovník MFS ČK/ČP

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu. Nepožíva colné výsady

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

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu P

| — | Európska organizácia pre jadrový výskum (CERN): vedecký pracovník organizácie CERN



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

—

Európska organizácia pre jadrový výskum (CERN): vedecký pracovník organizácie CERN

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu R

| — | Pracovníci kvázi-vládnych medzinárodných organizácií alebo iných medzinárodných orgánov, ktorí nie sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a ich rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým štatútom



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu nepožíva imunitu voči právomoci súdov.
  Der Inhaber dieser Karte hat keinen Anspruch auf Immunität von der Gerichtsbarkeit |
| --- | --- |

—

Pracovníci kvázi-vládnych medzinárodných organizácií alebo iných medzinárodných orgánov, ktorí nie sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, a ich rodinní príslušníci s rovnakým štatútom

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu nepožíva imunitu voči právomoci súdov.

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

Preukaz totožnosti (vydaný federálnym ministerstvom zahraničných vecí) typu S

Člen personálu, ktorý je štátnym príslušníkom Švajčiarska, dostáva v zásade preukaz totožnosti typu S bez ohľadu na to, akú funkciu zastáva na zahraničnom zastupiteľstve alebo v medzinárodnej organizácii. Členovia personálu, ktorých na mieste prijali veľvyslanectvá a konzuláty a ktorí sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, preukaz nedostávajú. Dočasní úradníci (úradníci na dobu určitú) medzinárodných organizácií, ktorí sú štátnymi príslušníkmi Švajčiarska, preukaz nedostávajú.

| — | Veľvyslanectvá a konzuláty: kariérny člen personálu, ktorý je štátnym príslušníkom Švajčiarska |
| --- | --- |

—

Veľvyslanectvá a konzuláty: kariérny člen personálu, ktorý je štátnym príslušníkom Švajčiarska

| — | Stále misie: člen personálu, ktorý je štátnym príslušníkom Švajčiarska |
| --- | --- |

—

Stále misie: člen personálu, ktorý je štátnym príslušníkom Švajčiarska

| — | Medzinárodné organizácie: úradník/spolupracovník, ktorý je štátnym príslušníkom Švajčiarska



  Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

—

Medzinárodné organizácie: úradník/spolupracovník, ktorý je štátnym príslušníkom Švajčiarska

Image

Držiteľ tohto preukazu požíva pri výkone svojich povinností procesno-právnu imunitu

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

Zoznam predchádzajúcich uverejnení

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 247, 13. 10. 2006, s. 85 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 247, 13. 10. 2006, s. 85

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 153, 6.7.2007, s. 15 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 153, 6.7.2007, s. 15

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 64, 19.3.2009, s. 18 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 64, 19.3.2009, s. 18

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 239, 6.10.2009, s. 7 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 239, 6.10.2009, s. 7

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 304, 10.11.2010, s. 6 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 304, 10.11.2010, s. 6

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 273, 16.09.2011, s. 11 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 273, 16.09.2011, s. 11

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 357, 7.12.2011, s. 3 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 357, 7.12.2011, s. 3

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 88, 24.3.2012, s. 12 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 88, 24.3.2012, s. 12

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 120, 25.4.2012, s. 4 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 120, 25.4.2012, s. 4

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 182, 22.6.2012, s. 10 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 182, 22.6.2012, s. 10

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 214, 20.7.2012, s. 4 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 214, 20.7.2012, s. 4

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 238, 8.8.2012, s. 5 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 238, 8.8.2012, s. 5

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 255, 24.8.2012, s. 2 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 255, 24.8.2012, s. 2

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 242, 23.8.2013, s. 13 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 242, 23.8.2013, s. 13

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 38, 8.2.2014, s. 16 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 38, 8.2.2014, s. 16

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 133, 1.5.2014, s. 2 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 133, 1.5.2014, s. 2

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 360, 11.10.2014, s. 5 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 360, 11.10.2014, s. 5

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 397, 12.11.2014, s. 6 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 397, 12.11.2014, s. 6

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 77, 27.2.2016, s. 5 |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 77, 27.2.2016, s. 5

| | Ú. v. EÚ C 174, 14.5.2016, s. 12. |
| --- | --- |

Ú. v. EÚ C 174, 14.5.2016, s. 12.

---

(1)  Pozri zoznam predchádzajúcich uverejnení na konci tejto aktualizácie.

---

INFORMÁCIE TÝKAJÚCE SA EURÓPSKEHO HOSPODÁRSKEHO PRIESTORU

Dozorný úrad EZVO

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/21

---

Výzva na predloženie pripomienok k štátnej pomoci podľa časti I článku 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu

(2016/C 236/10)

Uvedeným rozhodnutím č. 489/15/COL, ktorého znenie v autentickom jazyku sa nachádza za týmto zhrnutím, Dozorný úrad EZVO oznámil nórskym orgánom svoje rozhodnutie začať konanie podľa časti I článku 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu týkajúce sa uvedeného opatrenia.

Zainteresované strany môžu predložiť pripomienky k predmetnému opatreniu v lehote do jedného mesiaca odo dňa uverejnenia tejto výzvy na adresu:

| 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

Tieto pripomienky sa oznámia nórskym orgánom. Zainteresované strany, ktoré predložia pripomienky, môžu písomne s uvedením dôvodov požiadať o nezverejnenie ich totožnosti.

ZHRNUTIE

Postup

V súlade s časťou I článkom 1 ods. 2 protokolu nórske úrady notifikovali listom z 13. marca 2014 (1) schému regionálne diferencovaných príspevkov na sociálne zabezpečenie na obdobie 2014 – 2020. Na základe uvedenej notifikácie a následne predložených informácií (2) úrad schválil notifikovanú schému štátnej pomoci svojím rozhodnutím č. 225/14/COL z 18. júna 2014.

Svojím rozsudkom z 23. septembra 2015 vo veci E-23/14 Kimek Offshore AS/Dozorný úrad EZVO
   (3) súd čiastočne zrušil rozhodnutie dozorného úradu.

Listom z 15. októbra 2015 (4) požiadal dozorný úrad nórske orgány o informácie. Nórske orgány odpovedali na žiadosť o informácie listom zo 6. novembra 2015 (5).

Opis opatrenia

Cieľom všeobecnej schémy diferencovaných príspevkov na sociálne zabezpečenie ako takej je znižovať vyľudňovanie najmenej osídlených regiónov Nórska alebo mu predchádzať stimulovaním zamestnanosti. Schéma pomoci na prevádzku kompenzuje náklady na zamestnávanie, a to znížením sadzieb príspevkov na sociálne zabezpečenie v určitých geografických oblastiach. Hlavným pravidlom je, že intenzita pomoci sa líši podľa zemepisnej oblasti, v ktorej je organizačný útvar podniku zaregistrovaný. Nórske právne predpisy vyžadujú, aby podniky zaregistrovali pre každú vykonávanú samostatnú obchodnú činnosť nižší organizačný útvar (6). Ak podnik vykonáva rôzne druhy obchodných činností, je potrebné zaregistrovať samostatné nižšie organizačné útvary. Okrem toho je potrebné zaregistrovať samostatné organizačné útvary, ak sa tieto činnosti vykonávajú v rôznych zemepisných lokalitách.

Na základe výnimky z hlavného pravidla o registrácii sa schéma uplatňuje aj na podniky zaregistrované mimo oprávnenej oblasti, ak najímajú pracovníkov do oprávnenej oblasti a ak ich zamestnanci vykonávajú v oprávnenej oblasti mobilné činnosti (na účely tohto rozhodnutia ďalej len „ambulantné služby“). Práve táto výnimka je predmetom skúmania v tomto rozhodnutí. Vnútroštátnym právnym základom schémy ako takej je oddiel 23-2 národného zákona o poistení (7). Vnútroštátnym právnym základom pre výnimku je oddiel 1 ods. 4 rozhodnutia nórskeho parlamentu č. 1482 z 5. decembra 2013 o určení daňových sadzieb atď. podľa národného zákona o poistení.

Výnimka sa uplatňuje iba vtedy, ak zamestnanec strávi polovicu alebo viac svojich pracovných dní v oprávnenej oblasti. Ďalej sa znížená sadzba uplatňuje iba na tú časť práce, ktorá tam bola vykonaná.

Posúdenie opatrenia

V súlade s usmerneniami dozorného úradu o regionálnej štátnej pomoci na roky 2014 – 2020 (usmernenia o RŠP) dozorný úrad musí posúdiť, či uvedená výnimka je zlučiteľná s fungovaním Dohody o EHP podľa jej článku 61 ods. 3 písm. c) (8).

Regionálna pomoc môže byť účinná pri podpore hospodárskeho rozvoja znevýhodnených oblastí iba vtedy, ak sa udeľuje s cieľom prilákať do uvedených oblastí ďalšie investície alebo ekonomickú činnosť (9). Článok 61 ods. 3 písm. c) Dohody o EHP sa vzťahuje na regionálnu pomoc určenú na prevádzku iba vtedy, ak sa táto pomoc udeľuje s cieľom zmierniť špecifické alebo trvalé znevýhodnenia, ktorým čelia podniky v znevýhodnených regiónoch (10).

Niet pochýb o tom, že geografický rozsah pôsobnosti schémy ako takej je obmedzený na znevýhodnené regióny. Pôsobnosť tohto rozhodnutia je obmedzená na uvedenú výnimku. Otázkou je, či je uvedená výnimka zlučiteľná s pravidlami štátnej pomoci, ak podľa nej platí, že podniky zaregistrované mimo znevýhodnených regiónov pokrytých schémou môžu využívať pomoc v rámci schémy v rozsahu, v ktorom vykonávajú ekonomické činnosti v znevýhodnených regiónoch. Inými slovami, zmierňuje výnimka špecifické alebo trvalé znevýhodnenia, ktorým sú vystavené podniky v znevýhodnených regiónoch?

Je úlohou nórskych orgánov, aby preukázali, že by v prípade neexistencie výnimky hrozilo riziko vyľudňovania (11). Nórske orgány zdôraznili prínosy výnimky pre miestne podniky. Pri nižších nákladoch môžu získať prístup k špecializovanej pracovnej sile, ktorá by inak nebola k dispozícii. Okrem toho daná výnimka zvyšuje hospodársku súťaž medzi ambulantnými službami v oprávnených oblastiach, čo je opäť výhodné pre miestne podniky (ktoré neposkytujú ambulantné služby). Vďaka nižším nákladom na ambulantné služby je totiž atraktívnejšie a ziskovejšie vykonávať podnikateľskú činnosť v oprávnenej oblasti. Využívanie pomoci v rámci schémy predstavuje nepriamy nástroj v tom zmysle, že slúži na znižovanie nákladov na zamestnávanie pracovníkov, čo je opatrenie, ktoré má znižovať vyľudňovanie alebo mu predchádzať. Táto úvaha stojí na myšlienke, že trh práce je najdôležitejším faktorom, ktorý ovplyvňuje výber miesta bydliska.

Nórske orgány ďalej tvrdia, že firmy zaregistrované mimo oprávnenej oblasti budú príležitostne najímať pracovníkov v oprávnených oblastiach. Ponúknu tak pracovné miesta, ktoré majú síce skôr dočasnú povahu, ale napriek tomu prispejú k zvýšeniu mzdových príjmov v oprávnených regiónoch. Tým sa stimuluje aj ekonomická činnosť. Nórske orgány ďalej tvrdia, že zamestnanci, ktorí sa dočasne zdržiavajú v oprávnenej oblasti, budú nakupovať miestne výrobky a služby, čím budú prispievať k miestnemu hospodárstvu. To platí najmä pre zamestnancov, ktorí dochádzajú do práce v danej lokalite na krátky alebo stredne dlhý čas, pretože budú pravdepodobne ubytovaní v hoteloch, budú sa stravovať v reštauráciách atď. Nórske orgány odhadli výšku pomoci vyplývajúcej z výnimky na dve percentá celkovej pomoci na rok 2015, pričom zdôrazňujú, že ide o orientačný odhad. Dve percentá predstavujú približne 19 miliónov EUR (12). Dozorný úrad vyzýva nórske orgány, aby o finančnom účinku výnimky poskytli presnejšie informácie.

Okrem uvedených poznámok všeobecného charakteru nórske úrady nepreukázali, že by v prípade neposkytnutia výnimky hrozilo v príslušnej oblasti riziko vyľudňovania. Dozorný úrad zastáva názor, že na to, aby opatrenie spĺňalo požiadavky usmernení o regionálnej štátnej pomoci, musia jeho účinky presahovať marginálny nárast dočasných pracovných príležitostí a výdavkov v oprávnenej oblasti. Na základe toho dozorný úrad vyzýva nórske orgány, aby predložili viac informácií na preukázanie rizika vyľudňovania v prípade neposkytnutia výnimky.

Pokiaľ ide o vplyv výnimky na hospodársku súťaž a obchod, nórske orgány tvrdia, že táto výnimka nastoľuje rovnaké podmienky pre všetky podniky pôsobiace v znevýhodnených oblastiach, lebo sa uplatňuje rovnako na všetky podniky so sídlom v EHP. V dôsledku toho zabezpečuje, že sa zabráni nepatričnému negatívnemu vplyvu na hospodársku súťaž. Dozorný úrad zastáva názor, že je to pozitívny rys výnimky vzhľadom na body 3 a 53 usmernení o RŠP. Avšak podniky zaregistrované v oprávnenej oblasti môžu vo všeobecnosti čeliť trvalejším ťažkostiam než podniky, ktoré do oblasti vysielajú svojich zamestnancov na dočasný výkon práce. Nórske orgány tvrdia, že podniky zaregistrované mimo oprávnenej oblasti môžu mať konkurenčnú nevýhodu oproti miestnym firmám, a to okrem iného v dôsledku nákladov na dopravu a ubytovanie pracovníkov. Nórske orgány nepodložili tento predpoklad žiadnymi údajmi alebo doplňujúcimi argumentmi. Dozorný úrad vyzýva nórske orgány, aby bližšie objasnili, prečo výnimka nemá nepatričný negatívny vplyv na hospodársku súťaž, a podložili toto tvrdenie doplňujúcimi informáciami.

Nórske orgány zdôraznili, že je zrejmý stimulačný účinok tejto výnimky. Stimulačný účinok pomoci nemožno len predpokladať. Hoci nie je potrebné poskytovať jednotlivé dôkazy o tom, že pomoc v rámci určitej schémy poskytuje každému príjemcovi individuálny stimul na vykonávanie činnosti, ktorú by inak nevykonával, stimulačný účinok musí byť prinajmenšom podložený racionálnou ekonomickou teóriou. Nestačí len odkázať na údajnú zrejmosť. Hoci je pravda, že výnimka pre spoločnosti zaregistrované mimo oprávnených oblastí znižuje náklady práce ambulantných služieb v oprávnených oblastiach, nórske orgány nepredložili dôkazy ani argumenty o tom, že v prípade neposkytnutia pomoci by sa úroveň ekonomickej činnosti v dotknutej oblasti pravdepodobne podstatne znížila v dôsledku problémov, ktoré sa majú prostredníctvom pomoci riešiť (13).

Nórske orgány vysvetlili, že podniky poskytujúce v určitej miere ambulantné služby môžu v oprávnenej oblasti registrovať nižšie organizačné útvary. Navyše sú povinné tak urobiť, ak aspoň jeden zamestnanec vykonáva prácu pre materský organizačný útvar v samostatnej oblasti a ak tam podnik možno navštíviť.

Nórske orgány tvrdia, že v prípade neexistencie výnimky pre ambulantné služby v oprávnenej oblasti by vznikol neodôvodnený rozdiel v zaobchádzaní podľa toho, či podnik poskytujúci službu zriadil v oprávnenej oblasti nižší organizačný útvar.

Po prvé, dozornému úradu nie je jasné, čo znamená požiadavka, aby „aspoň jeden zamestnanec vykonával prácu pre materský organizačný útvar v samostatnej oblasti a podnik tam bolo možné navštíviť“. Dozorný úrad preto vyzýva nórske orgány, aby uvedenú požiadavku objasnili.

Po druhé, zásada rovnosti zaobchádzania je všeobecnou zásadou práva EHP. Nemôže však sama osebe slúžiť ako základ na zdôvodnenie predmetnej výnimky. Táto výnimka ako taká musí byť zlučiteľná s fungovaním Dohody o EHP.

Na záver, pochybnosti o zlučiteľnosti výnimky s fungovaním Dohody o EHP vyvoláva u dozorného úradu v neposlednom rade aj už popísaný nedostatok relevantných informácií.

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)  Dokumenty č. 702438-702440, 702442 a 702443.

1

(2)  Pozri bod 2 rozhodnutia č. 225/14/COL, ktorý je k dispozícii na internetovej stránke: http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid/Consolidated_version_-_Decision_225_14_COL__NOR_Social_Security_contributions_2014-2020.pdf.

2

(3)  Zatiaľ neoznámené.

3

(4)  Dokument č. 776348.

4

(5)  Dokument č. 779603 a 779604.

5

(6)  Zákon o koordinačnom registri právnických osôb (LOV- 1994-06-03-15).

6

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

7

(8)  Ú. v. EÚ L 166, 5.6.2014, s. 44 a dodatok EHP č. 33, 5.6.2014, s. 1.

8

(9)  Bod 6 usmernení o RŠP.

9

(10)  Bod 16 usmernení o RŠP.

10

(11)  Bod 43 usmernení o RŠP.

11

(12)  Na základe oznámeného rozpočtu na rok 2013, pozri bod 49 rozhodnutia dozorného úradu č. 225/14/COL.

12

(13)  Bod 71 usmernení o RŠP.

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 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/29

---

Výzva na predloženie pripomienok v súlade s časťou I článkom 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu k štátnej pomoci týkajúcej sa potenciálnej pomoci pre spoločnosť Hurtigruten ASA podľa Pobrežnej dohody o poskytovaní služieb námornej dopravy spoločnosťou Hurtigruten na obdobie rokov 2012 – 2019

(2016/C 236/11)

Rozhodnutím č. 490/15/COL z 9. decembra 2015, ktoré je uvedené v autentickom jazyku za týmto zhrnutím, začal Dozorný úrad EZVO konanie podľa časti I článku 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu. Nórske orgány boli informované prostredníctvom kópie uvedeného rozhodnutia.

Dozorný úrad EZVO týmto žiada štáty EZVO, členské štáty EÚ a zainteresované strany, aby predložili svoje pripomienky k predmetnému opatreniu v lehote jedného mesiaca odo dňa uverejnenia tohto oznámenia na adresu:

| 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

Tieto pripomienky sa oznámia nórskym orgánom. Zainteresované strany môžu písomne s uvedením dôvodov požiadať o dôverné zaobchádzanie s údajmi o ich totožnosti.

ZHRNUTIE

Súvislosti

Spoločnosť Hurtigruten ASA (spoločnosť Hurtigruten) prevádzkuje dopravné služby, ktoré pozostávajú z kombinovanej prepravy osôb a tovaru pozdĺž nórskeho pobrežia z Bergenu do Kirkenesu.

Na základe postupu verejného obstarávania bola 13. apríla 2011 so spoločnosťou Hurtigruten podpísaná dohoda o obstaraní služieb na pobrežnej trase Bergen – Kirkenes na obdobie od 1. januára 2012 do 31. decembra 2019 (dohoda so spoločnosťou Hurtigruten – DH). Podľa tejto dohody spoločnosť Hurtigruten vykonáva denné plavby počas celého roka s pristátiami v 32 vymedzených prístavoch medzi mestami Bergen a Kirkenes. Na trase Tromsø – Kirkenes a Kirkenes – Tromsø spoločnosť poskytuje takisto nákladnú dopravu. Služby sa musia prevádzkovať v súlade s určitými požiadavkami týkajúcimi sa kapacity a plavidiel, ako sa stanovuje v dohode. Plavidlá, ktoré sa používajú na pobrežnej trase, musia mať kapacitu na prepravu minimálne 320 cestujúcich, lôžkovú kapacitu v kajutách pre 120 cestujúcich a kapacitu nákladnej dopravy pre 150 europaliet v nákladnom priestore s normálnou výškou nákladu. Okrem toho musia spĺňať právne a technické požiadavky uvedené v oddiele 4.4 špecifikácií výzvy na predkladanie ponúk.

Za služby, na ktoré sa vzťahuje DH, nórske orgány vyplatia celkovú náhradu vo výške 5 120 miliónov NOK za osem rokov trvania dohody.

Posúdenie poskytnutej náhrady z hľadiska štátnej pomoci

Jediným kritériom dôležitým z hľadiska pojmu štátna pomoc v tomto prípade je, či spoločnosť Hurtigruten získala na základe dohody nenáležitú selektívnu hospodársku výhodu.

Selektívna hospodárska výhoda pre spoločnosť Hurtigruten

Dozorný úrad posúdil štyri podmienky uvedené v rozsudku vo veci Altmark
   (1) a zistil, že v tejto fáze sa žiadna z nich nezdá byť splnená, a spoločnosť Hurtigruten teda získala selektívnu výhodu v zmysle článku 61 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP.

Pokiaľ ide o prvú podmienku jasnej definície záväzku vyplývajúceho zo služieb vo verejnom záujme, dozorný úrad má pochybnosti, či Nórsko môže požiadavku na rezervnú kapacitu stanovenú v oddiele 4-2 DH klasifikovať ako služby všeobecného hospodárskeho záujmu, a vyzýva nórske orgány, aby poskytli objektívne odôvodnenie, pokiaľ ide o potrebu záväzku vyplývajúceho zo služieb vo verejnom záujme, so zreteľom na sezónne výkyvy komerčnej prepravy cestujúcich.

Pokiaľ ide o druhú podmienku a skutočnosť, že parametre, na základe ktorých sa náhrada vypočítava, musia byť vopred stanovené objektívnym a transparentným spôsobom, dozorný úrad má v tejto fáze pochybnosti, či sa požiadavka rezervnej kapacity vzťahuje na skutočný počet cestujúcich v rámci záväzku vyplývajúceho zo služieb vo verejnom záujme. Napríklad na to, aby sa vopred vypočítali náklady na cestujúceho/kilometer, sa nepoužila žiadna objektívna a transparentná metodika. Spoločnosť Hurtigruten zostavila samostatný rozpočet, ktorý zahŕňal všetky náklady a príjmy pripísané prevádzkovaniu trás v rámci záväzku vyplývajúceho zo služieb vo verejnom záujme. Cieľom tohto oddeleného účtovníctva však nie je vopred stanoviť parametre náhrady, ktoré musia priamo súvisieť so skutočnými stratami a nákladmi (náklady na kapacitu a cestujúcich), ktoré spoločnosti Hurtigruten vznikli.

Pokiaľ ide o tretiu podmienku, dozorný úrad vyjadruje pochybnosti o tom, či nórske orgány zaistili, že poskytnutá náhrada nebude presahovať úroveň nevyhnutnú na pokrytie všetkých nákladov alebo časti nákladov, ktoré vznikli v rámci plnenia záväzku vyplývajúceho zo služieb vo verejnom záujme, berúc do úvahy príslušné tržby a primeraný zisk v rámci plnenia tohto záväzku.

Dozorný úrad v tejto fáze nemôže vylúčiť, že spoločnosť Hurtigruten získava nadmernú náhradu za poskytovanie služby vo verejnom záujme. Pri formulovaní uvedeného predbežného záveru dozorný úrad posudzoval tieto skutočnosti:

| i) | spoločnosť Hurtigruten nemá rezervnú kapacitu pre cestujúcich, ktorých prepravuje v rámci poskytovania služieb vo verejnom záujme, ale skôr predáva uvedenú kapacitu cestujúcim výletných plavieb, pričom si uplatňuje náhradu za službu vo verejnom záujme na rovnakej úrovni; |
| --- | --- |

i)

spoločnosť Hurtigruten nemá rezervnú kapacitu pre cestujúcich, ktorých prepravuje v rámci poskytovania služieb vo verejnom záujme, ale skôr predáva uvedenú kapacitu cestujúcim výletných plavieb, pričom si uplatňuje náhradu za službu vo verejnom záujme na rovnakej úrovni;

| ii) | náhrada za poskytovanie služieb vo verejnom záujme sa v porovnaní s predchádzajúcim zmluvným obdobím výrazne zvýšila; |
| --- | --- |

ii)

náhrada za poskytovanie služieb vo verejnom záujme sa v porovnaní s predchádzajúcim zmluvným obdobím výrazne zvýšila;

| iii) | spoločnosti Hurtigruten sa naďalej poskytuje náhrada za služby, ktoré neposkytuje a |
| --- | --- |

iii)

spoločnosti Hurtigruten sa naďalej poskytuje náhrada za služby, ktoré neposkytuje a

| iv) | spoločnosť Hurtigruten sa naďalej snaží o zníženie cien prístavných poplatkov, zatiaľ čo náhrada za služby vo verejnom záujme je zachovaná na rovnakej úrovni. |
| --- | --- |

iv)

spoločnosť Hurtigruten sa naďalej snaží o zníženie cien prístavných poplatkov, zatiaľ čo náhrada za služby vo verejnom záujme je zachovaná na rovnakej úrovni.

Napokon, pokiaľ ide o štvrtú podmienku, ktorá sa vyžaduje na začatie postupu verejného obstarávania alebo referenčného porovnávania s efektívnym operátorom, dozorný úrad má v tejto fáze v súvislosti s postupom verejného obstarávania, ktorého výsledkom bola jediná ponuka – ktorú predložila spoločnosťou Hurtigruten, pochybnosti, či tento postup verejného obstarávania možno považovať za dostatočný na zabezpečenie „najnižších nákladov pre komunitu“. Dôvodom je najmä skutočnosť, že spoločnosť Hurtigruten mala značnú konkurenčnú výhodu, ktorá posilnila jej pozíciu v rámci postupu verejného obstarávania, keďže už vlastnila plavidlá prispôsobené požiadavkám stanoveným v špecifikáciách výzvy na predkladanie ponúk.

Okrem toho podľa uvedených špecifikácií bolo poverenie na vykonávanie služby vo verejnom záujme uverejnené tromi alternatívnymi spôsobmi. To by znamenalo existenciu ďalších informácií a/alebo kritérií váženia v rámci týchto alternatív. Vzhľadom na to, že takéto informácie neboli súčasťou súťažných podkladov, dozorný úrad má pochybnosti o tom, či súťaž, ako bola navrhnutá, motivovala potenciálnych uchádzačov, odhliadnuc od spoločnosti Hurtigruten, ktorí by boli ochotní predložiť ponuku v súlade s požiadavkami troch rôznych alternatív a v súlade s inou alternatívou než s tou, ktorá bola napokon skutočne vybraná.

Nórske orgány nepredložili žiadne informácie o referenčnom porovnávaní s efektívnym operátorom.

Posúdenie zlučiteľnosti

Zlučiteľnosť náhrady za služby vo verejnom záujme pre námornú dopravu sa posudzuje na základe článku 59 ods. 2 Dohody o EHP v spojení s rámcom dozorného úradu pre štátnu pomoc vo forme náhrady za služby vo verejnom záujme (rámec) (2).

Zásady stanovené v tomto rámci sa uplatňujú na náhradu za služby vo verejnom záujme len vtedy, ak predstavuje štátnu pomoc, na ktorú sa nevzťahuje rozhodnutie Komisie 2012/21/EÚ o uplatňovaní článku 106 ods. 2 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie na štátnu pomoc vo forme náhrady za službu vo verejnom záujme udeľovanej niektorým podnikom povereným poskytovaním služieb všeobecného hospodárskeho záujmu (rozhodnutie o službách všeobecného hospodárskeho záujmu) (3).

Dozorný úrad nedostal od nórskych orgánov žiadne informácie, pokiaľ ide o aspekty týkajúce sa zlučiteľnosti, a má v tejto fáze pochybnosti, či je DH zlučiteľná s fungovaním Dohody o EHP.

Záver

Vzhľadom na uvedené skutočnosti sa dozorný úrad rozhodol začať formálne vyšetrovacie konanie v súlade s časťou I článkom 1 ods. 2 protokolu 3 k Dohode medzi štátmi EZVO o zriadení dozorného úradu a súdu. Zainteresované strany sa vyzývajú, aby predložili svoje pripomienky v lehote jedného mesiaca odo dňa uverejnenia tohto oznámenia v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.

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)  Rozsudok vo veci Altmark Trans GmbH a Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg/Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Altmark), C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415, body 87 –93.

1

Altmark Trans GmbH a Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg/Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Altmark),

(2)  Dostupný na http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid-guidelines/Part-VI---Framework-for-state-aid-in-the-form-of-public-service-compensation.pdf.

2

(3)  Ú. v. EÚ L 7, 11.1.2012, s. 3, začlenené do bodu 1 h prílohy XV k Dohode o EHP.

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 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/45

---

Oznámenie Nórska týkajúce sa smernice Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 94/22/ES z 30. mája 1994 o podmienkach udeľovania a používania povolení na vyhľadávanie, prieskum a ťažbu uhľovodíkov

Oznámenie výzvy na predloženie žiadostí o udelenie licencií na ťažbu ropy v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe – udelenie licencií vo vopred vymedzených oblastiach v roku 2016

(2016/C 236/12)

Nórske ministerstvo pre ropu a energetiku týmto v súlade s článkom 3 ods. 2 písm. a) smernice Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 94/22/ES z 30. mája 1994 o podmienkach udeľovania a používania povolení na vyhľadávanie, prieskum a ťažbu uhľovodíkov (1) oznamuje výzvu na predkladanie žiadostí o udelenie licencií na ťažbu ropy.

Licencie na ťažbu budú udelené len akciovým spoločnostiam so sídlom v Nórsku alebo v inom štáte, ktorý je zmluvnou stranou Dohody o Európskom hospodárskom priestore (ďalej len „Dohoda o EHP“), alebo fyzickým osobám, ktoré majú bydlisko v štáte, ktorý je zmluvnou stranou Dohody o EHP.

Spoločnostiam, ktoré nemajú licenciu v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe, môžu byť udelené licencie na ťažbu, ak predbežne spĺňajú požiadavky nadobúdateľa licencie v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe.

Ministerstvo bude zaobchádzať s individuálnymi spoločnosťami rovnako ako so spoločnosťami, ktoré predkladajú žiadosti ako súčasť skupiny. Za žiadateľa o licenciu na ťažbu sa budú považovať žiadatelia predkladajúci individuálnu žiadosť alebo žiadatelia, ktorí sú súčasťou skupiny, predkladajúci spoločnú žiadosť. Ministerstvo môže na základe žiadostí predložených skupinami alebo individuálnymi žiadateľmi zostaviť licenčné skupiny, ktorým sa majú udeliť nové licencie na ťažbu (vrátane toho, že žiadateľov môže vyradiť zo skupinovej žiadosti alebo do nej jednotlivých žiadateľov doplniť), ako aj vymenovať pre tieto skupiny prevádzkovateľa.

Udelenie podielovej účasti na licencii na ťažbu bude podmienené tým, že nadobúdatelia licencií uzatvoria dohodu o ropných činnostiach vrátane spoločnej prevádzkovej dohody a účtovnej dohody. Ak je licencia na ťažbu stratigraficky rozdelená, musia nadobúdatelia dvoch stratigraficky rozdelených licencií takisto uzatvoriť osobitnú spoločnú prevádzkovú dohodu, ktorá v tomto ohľade upravuje vzťah medzi nimi.

Po podpísaní uvedených dohôd vytvoria nadobúdatelia licencií spoločný podnik, v ktorom sa bude veľkosť ich podielovej účasti vždy rovnať ich podielovej účasti na licencii na ťažbu.

Licenčné dokumenty budú vychádzať najmä z príslušných dokumentov týkajúcich sa udelenia licencií vo vopred vymedzených oblastiach v roku 2015. Cieľom je sprístupniť pre priemysel hlavné prvky všetkých úprav rámca ešte pred predložením žiadostí.

Kritériá na udelenie licencie na ťažbu

S cieľom podporiť dobré hospodárenie so zdrojmi a rýchly a efektívny prieskum a ťažbu ropy v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe vrátane zloženia licenčných skupín, ktoré tieto ciele zabezpečia, sa na udeľovanie podielových účastí na licenciách na ťažbu a na vymenovanie prevádzkovateľa budú vzťahovať tieto kritériá:

| a) | žiadateľova geologická znalosť danej geografickej oblasti a spôsob, akým nadobúdatelia licencií navrhujú vykonávať efektívny prieskum ropy; |
| --- | --- |

a)

žiadateľova geologická znalosť danej geografickej oblasti a spôsob, akým nadobúdatelia licencií navrhujú vykonávať efektívny prieskum ropy;

| b) | príslušné technické odborné znalosti žiadateľa a spôsob, akým môžu aktívne prispieť k nákladovo efektívnemu prieskumu a prípadne aj k ťažbe ropy v danej geografickej oblasti; |
| --- | --- |

b)

príslušné technické odborné znalosti žiadateľa a spôsob, akým môžu aktívne prispieť k nákladovo efektívnemu prieskumu a prípadne aj k ťažbe ropy v danej geografickej oblasti;

| c) | predchádzajúce skúsenosti žiadateľa v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe alebo zodpovedajúce skúsenosti z iných oblastí; |
| --- | --- |

c)

predchádzajúce skúsenosti žiadateľa v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe alebo zodpovedajúce skúsenosti z iných oblastí;

| d) | dostatočné finančné kapacity žiadateľa na vykonávanie prieskumu a prípadne aj na ťažbu ropy v danej geografickej oblasti; |
| --- | --- |

d)

dostatočné finančné kapacity žiadateľa na vykonávanie prieskumu a prípadne aj na ťažbu ropy v danej geografickej oblasti;

| e) | ak žiadateľ je alebo bol nadobúdateľom licencie na ťažbu, ministerstvo môže zohľadniť akúkoľvek formu neefektívnosti alebo nedostatok zodpovednosti, ktoré tento žiadateľ preukázal ako nadobúdateľ licencie; |
| --- | --- |

e)

ak žiadateľ je alebo bol nadobúdateľom licencie na ťažbu, ministerstvo môže zohľadniť akúkoľvek formu neefektívnosti alebo nedostatok zodpovednosti, ktoré tento žiadateľ preukázal ako nadobúdateľ licencie;

| f) | licencie na ťažbu budú udelené predovšetkým spoločným podnikom, kde aspoň jeden účastník už vykonal najmenej jeden prieskumný vrt v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe ako prevádzkovateľ alebo má zodpovedajúce prevádzkové skúsenosti mimo nórskeho kontinentálneho šelfu; |
| --- | --- |

f)

licencie na ťažbu budú udelené predovšetkým spoločným podnikom, kde aspoň jeden účastník už vykonal najmenej jeden prieskumný vrt v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe ako prevádzkovateľ alebo má zodpovedajúce prevádzkové skúsenosti mimo nórskeho kontinentálneho šelfu;

| g) | licencie na ťažbu budú udelené predovšetkým tým dvom alebo viacerým nadobúdateľom licencie, z ktorých aspoň jeden má skúsenosť uvedenú v písmene f); |
| --- | --- |

g)

licencie na ťažbu budú udelené predovšetkým tým dvom alebo viacerým nadobúdateľom licencie, z ktorých aspoň jeden má skúsenosť uvedenú v písmene f);

| h) | na získanie licencií na ťažbu v Barentsovom mori musel vymenovaný prevádzkovateľ vykonať najmenej jeden prieskumný vrt v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe ako prevádzkovateľ alebo musí mať zodpovedajúce prevádzkové skúsenosti mimo nórskeho kontinentálneho šelfu; |
| --- | --- |

h)

na získanie licencií na ťažbu v Barentsovom mori musel vymenovaný prevádzkovateľ vykonať najmenej jeden prieskumný vrt v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe ako prevádzkovateľ alebo musí mať zodpovedajúce prevádzkové skúsenosti mimo nórskeho kontinentálneho šelfu;

| i) | na získanie licencií na ťažbu v hlbokých vodách museli vymenovaný prevádzkovateľ a najmenej jeden ďalší účastník vykonať najmenej jeden prieskumný vrt v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe ako prevádzkovatelia alebo musia mať zodpovedajúce prevádzkové skúsenosti mimo nórskeho kontinentálneho šelfu. Na získanie licencie na ťažbu musel aspoň jeden nadobúdateľ licencie vykonať vrt v hlbokých vodách ako prevádzkovateľ; |
| --- | --- |

i)

na získanie licencií na ťažbu v hlbokých vodách museli vymenovaný prevádzkovateľ a najmenej jeden ďalší účastník vykonať najmenej jeden prieskumný vrt v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe ako prevádzkovatelia alebo musia mať zodpovedajúce prevádzkové skúsenosti mimo nórskeho kontinentálneho šelfu. Na získanie licencie na ťažbu musel aspoň jeden nadobúdateľ licencie vykonať vrt v hlbokých vodách ako prevádzkovateľ;

| j) | na získanie licencie na ťažbu, pri ktorej sa očakáva vŕtanie prieskumných vrtov spojených s vysokým tlakom a/alebo vysokou teplotou (HTHP), museli vymenovaný prevádzkovateľ a najmenej jeden ďalší účastník vykonať najmenej jeden prieskumný vrt v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe ako prevádzkovatelia, alebo musia mať zodpovedajúce prevádzkové skúsenosti mimo nórskeho kontinentálneho šelfu. Na získanie licencie na ťažbu musel aspoň jeden účastník vykonať vrt HTHP ako prevádzkovateľ. |
| --- | --- |

j)

na získanie licencie na ťažbu, pri ktorej sa očakáva vŕtanie prieskumných vrtov spojených s vysokým tlakom a/alebo vysokou teplotou (HTHP), museli vymenovaný prevádzkovateľ a najmenej jeden ďalší účastník vykonať najmenej jeden prieskumný vrt v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe ako prevádzkovatelia, alebo musia mať zodpovedajúce prevádzkové skúsenosti mimo nórskeho kontinentálneho šelfu. Na získanie licencie na ťažbu musel aspoň jeden účastník vykonať vrt HTHP ako prevádzkovateľ.

Bloky, na ktoré je možné predložiť žiadosť

Žiadosti o podielovú účasť na licenciách na ťažbu môžu byť predložené pre nelicencované bloky v rámci vopred vymedzenej oblasti zobrazenej na mapách zverejnených Nórskym riaditeľstvom pre ropu (ďalej len „NPD“). Takisto je možné požiadať o plošnú výmeru, ktorá bola v rámci vopred vymedzenej oblasti uvoľnená po oznámení v súlade s aktualizovanými mapami na interaktívnych mapách nórskeho riaditeľstva pre ropu uvedenými na webovej stránke NPD).

Každá licencia na ťažbu môže obsahovať jeden alebo viac blokov alebo časť bloku, resp. blokov). Žiadatelia sú povinní svoju žiadosť obmedziť na oblasti, v ktorých zmapovali perspektívnosť ťažby.

Úplné znenie oznámenia vrátane podrobných máp oblastí, ktoré sú k dispozícii, je uvedené na webovej stránke Nórskeho riaditeľstva pre ropu www.npd.no/apa2016.

Žiadosti o udelenie licencií na ťažbu ropy treba zaslať na adresu:

| Ministry of Petroleum and Energy |
| --- |
| P.O. Box 8148 Dep. |
| N-0033 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Ministry of Petroleum and Energy

P.O. Box 8148 Dep.

N-0033 Oslo

NORWAY

Dve kópie treba zaslať na adresu:

| The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate |
| --- |
| P.O. Box 600 |
| N-4003 Stavanger |
| NORWAY |

The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate

P.O. Box 600

N-4003 Stavanger

NORWAY

Lehota: 6. september 2016, 12.00 hod. (poludnie)

Udelenie licencií na ťažbu ropy vo vopred vymedzených oblastiach v roku 2016 v nórskom kontinentálnom šelfe sa má podľa plánu uskutočniť v prvom štvrťroku 2017.

---

(1)  Ú. v. ES L 164, 30.6.1994, s. 3.

---

V Oznamy

ADMINISTRATÍVNE POSTUPY

Európska komisia

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/47

---

Výzva na predkladanie návrhov v rámci viacročného pracovného programu na poskytovanie finančnej pomoci v oblasti transeurópskej energetickej infraštruktúry v rámci Nástroja na prepájanie Európy na obdobie rokov 2014 – 2020

[rozhodnutie Komisie C(2016) 1587]

(2016/C 236/13)

Európska Komisia, Generálne riaditeľstvo pre energetiku, týmto zverejňuje výzvu na predkladanie návrhov s cieľom udeliť granty v súlade s prioritami a cieľmi vymedzenými vo viacročnom pracovnom programe v oblasti transeurópskej energetickej infraštruktúry v rámci Nástroja na prepájanie Európy na obdobie rokov 2014 – 2020.

Očakávajú sa návrhy týkajúce sa tejto výzvy:

CEF-Energy-2016-2

Orientačná suma, ktorá je k dispozícii pre vybrané návrhy v rámci tejto výzvy na predkladanie návrhov, je 600 miliónov EUR.

Návrhy musia byť predložené do 8. novembra 2016.

Úplné znenie výzvy na predkladanie návrhov je dostupné na:

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

---

KONANIA TÝKAJÚCE SA VYKONÁVANIA POLITIKY HOSPODÁRSKEJ SÚŤAŽE

Európska komisia

| 30.6.2016 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 236/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2016

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 236/48

---

Predbežné oznámenie o koncentrácii

(Vec M.8094 – BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International)

Vec, ktorá môže byť posúdená v rámci zjednodušeného postupu

(Text s významom pre EHP)

(2016/C 236/14)

| 1. | Komisii bolo 21. júna 2016 podľa článku 4 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 139/2004 (1) doručené oznámenie o zamýšľanej koncentrácii, ktorou podniky BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium NV (ďalej len „BNPPF PE“, Belgicko), Sofindev IV NV (ďalej len „Sofindev“, Belgicko) a DHAM NV (ďalej len „Korys/Colruyt Group“, Belgicko) získavajú v zmysle článku 3 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia o fúziách spoločnú kontrolu nad podnikom Novy International NV (ďalej len „Novy“, Belgicko) prostredníctvom kúpy akcií. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Komisii bolo 21. júna 2016 podľa článku 4 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 139/2004 (1) doručené oznámenie o zamýšľanej koncentrácii, ktorou podniky BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium NV (ďalej len „BNPPF PE“, Belgicko), Sofindev IV NV (ďalej len „Sofindev“, Belgicko) a DHAM NV (ďalej len „Korys/Colruyt Group“, Belgicko) získavajú v zmysle článku 3 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia o fúziách spoločnú kontrolu nad podnikom Novy International NV (ďalej len „Novy“, Belgicko) prostredníctvom kúpy akcií.

| 2. | Predmet činnosti dotknutých podnikov:
  —   BNPPF PE: súkromný kapitál a mezanínové financovanie. Spoločnosti z portfólia tohto podniku pôsobia v odvetviach, ako sú dodávka a výroba kovov a plastov, univerzitné fondy zárodkového kapitálu, pekárenské výrobky, poskytovateľ priemyselných služieb a odvetvie nehnuteľností;
  —   Sofindev: súkromné kapitálové investície do belgických malých a stredných podnikov. Spoločnosti z portfólia tohto podniku pôsobia v oblasti distribúcie materiálov pre strechy a fasády a rozvoja lokalizačných softvérových riešení;
  —   Korys/Colruyt Group: maloobchodné, veľkoobchodné a potravinárske trhy. Takisto majú aktivity v oblasti softvérových riešení, projektov udržateľných a obnoviteľných zdrojov energie a na zdravotníckom trhu/trhu vied o živej prírode;
  —   Novy: vývoj, výroba a marketing špičkových kuchynských spotrebičov, najmä digestorov. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Predmet činnosti dotknutých podnikov:

—   BNPPF PE: súkromný kapitál a mezanínové financovanie. Spoločnosti z portfólia tohto podniku pôsobia v odvetviach, ako sú dodávka a výroba kovov a plastov, univerzitné fondy zárodkového kapitálu, pekárenské výrobky, poskytovateľ priemyselných služieb a odvetvie nehnuteľností;

—   Sofindev: súkromné kapitálové investície do belgických malých a stredných podnikov. Spoločnosti z portfólia tohto podniku pôsobia v oblasti distribúcie materiálov pre strechy a fasády a rozvoja lokalizačných softvérových riešení;

—   Korys/Colruyt Group: maloobchodné, veľkoobchodné a potravinárske trhy. Takisto majú aktivity v oblasti softvérových riešení, projektov udržateľných a obnoviteľných zdrojov energie a na zdravotníckom trhu/trhu vied o živej prírode;

—   Novy: vývoj, výroba a marketing špičkových kuchynských spotrebičov, najmä digestorov.

| 3. | Na základe predbežného posúdenia a bez toho, aby bolo dotknuté konečné rozhodnutie v tejto veci, sa Komisia domnieva, že oznámená transakcia by mohla patriť do rozsahu pôsobnosti nariadenia o fúziách. V súlade s oznámením Európskej komisie o zjednodušenom postupe pri riešení niektorých koncentrácií podľa nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 139/2004 (2) je potrebné uviesť, že túto vec je možné posudzovať v súlade s postupom stanoveným v oznámení. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Na základe predbežného posúdenia a bez toho, aby bolo dotknuté konečné rozhodnutie v tejto veci, sa Komisia domnieva, že oznámená transakcia by mohla patriť do rozsahu pôsobnosti nariadenia o fúziách. V súlade s oznámením Európskej komisie o zjednodušenom postupe pri riešení niektorých koncentrácií podľa nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 139/2004 (2) je potrebné uviesť, že túto vec je možné posudzovať v súlade s postupom stanoveným v oznámení.

| 4. | Komisia vyzýva zainteresované tretie strany, aby jej predložili prípadné pripomienky k zamýšľanej koncentrácii.
  Pripomienky musia byť Komisii doručené najneskôr do 10 dní od dátumu uverejnenia tohto oznámenia. Pripomienky je možné zaslať faxom (+32 22964301), e-mailom na adresu: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu alebo poštou s uvedením referenčného čísla M.8094 – BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International na túto adresu:





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

4.

Komisia vyzýva zainteresované tretie strany, aby jej predložili prípadné pripomienky k zamýšľanej koncentrácii.

Pripomienky musia byť Komisii doručené najneskôr do 10 dní od dátumu uverejnenia tohto oznámenia. Pripomienky je možné zaslať faxom (+32 22964301), e-mailom na adresu: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu alebo poštou s uvedením referenčného čísla M.8094 – BNP Paribas Fortis Private Equity Belgium/Sofindev IV/DHAM/Novy International na túto adresu:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1 („nariadenie o fúziách“).

(2)  Ú. v. EÚ C 366, 14.12.2013, s. 5.

---