# Official Journal C 29/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.029.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 29 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5631 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.029.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 29

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5631 January 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 029/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| | NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Secretariat |
| 2013/C 029/02 | Publication of Nord-Trøndelag County Council’s notification of direct award pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EEC) No 1107/70 | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2013/C 029/01

Euro exchange rates

1

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Secretariat

2013/C 029/02

Publication of Nord-Trøndelag County Council’s notification of direct award pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EEC) No 1107/70

2

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 029/03 | Call for proposals under the work programme of the joint European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP) | 3 |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2013/C 029/04 | Notice of open competition | 4 |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2013/C 029/05 | Judgment of the Court of 17 August 2012 in Case E-12/11 — Asker Brygge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — Option agreement — Relevant time of assessment for considering the market value) | 5 |
| 2013/C 029/06 | Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 14 September 2012 in the case of Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf. (Case E-10/12) | 5 |
| 2013/C 029/07 | Judgment of the Court of 28 September 2012 in Case E-18/11 — Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing Bank hf. (Article 34 SCA — Appeal against a decision making a request for an Advisory Opinion — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions — Directive 2001/24/EC — Conform interpretation) | 6 |
| 2013/C 029/08 | Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2012 in Case E-15/11 — Arcade Drilling AS v The Norwegian State, represented by Tax Region West (Freedom of establishment — Articles 31 and 34 EEA — Taxation — Anti-avoidance principles — Proportionality) | 7 |
| 2013/C 029/09 | Judgment of the Court of 8 October 2012 in Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 — Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Maritime transport — Article 61(1) of the EEA — Article 59(2) of the EEA — Services of general economic interest — Public service compensation — Overcompensation — Principle of good administration — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons) | 8 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2013/C 029/03

Call for proposals under the work programme of the joint European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP)

3

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2013/C 029/04

Notice of open competition

4

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2013/C 029/05

Judgment of the Court of 17 August 2012 in Case E-12/11 — Asker Brygge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — Option agreement — Relevant time of assessment for considering the market value)

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — Option agreement — Relevant time of assessment for considering the market value)

5

2013/C 029/06

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 14 September 2012 in the case of Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf. (Case E-10/12)

5

2013/C 029/07

Judgment of the Court of 28 September 2012 in Case E-18/11 — Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing Bank hf. (Article 34 SCA — Appeal against a decision making a request for an Advisory Opinion — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions — Directive 2001/24/EC — Conform interpretation)

(Article 34 SCA — Appeal against a decision making a request for an Advisory Opinion — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions — Directive 2001/24/EC — Conform interpretation)

6

2013/C 029/08

Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2012 in Case E-15/11 — Arcade Drilling AS v The Norwegian State, represented by Tax Region West (Freedom of establishment — Articles 31 and 34 EEA — Taxation — Anti-avoidance principles — Proportionality)

(Freedom of establishment — Articles 31 and 34 EEA — Taxation — Anti-avoidance principles — Proportionality)

7

2013/C 029/09

Judgment of the Court of 8 October 2012 in Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 — Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Maritime transport — Article 61(1) of the EEA — Article 59(2) of the EEA — Services of general economic interest — Public service compensation — Overcompensation — Principle of good administration — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Maritime transport — Article 61(1) of the EEA — Article 59(2) of the EEA — Services of general economic interest — Public service compensation — Overcompensation — Principle of good administration — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)

8

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 31.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

30 January 2013

2013/C 29/01

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3541 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,55 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4609 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85830 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,6117 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2392 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,4350 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,652 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 296,08 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6991 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1988 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3848 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3959 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2996 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3573 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5063 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6262 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6737 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 472,56 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,2576 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,4239 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5940 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 199,01 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1756 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,044 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,6344 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,284 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6929 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2154 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,1600 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3541

JPY

Japanese yen

123,55

DKK

Danish krone

7,4609

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85830

SEK

Swedish krona

8,6117

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2392

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,4350

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,652

HUF

Hungarian forint

296,08

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6991

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1988

RON

Romanian leu

4,3848

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3959

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2996

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3573

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5063

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6262

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6737

KRW

South Korean won

1 472,56

ZAR

South African rand

12,2576

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,4239

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5940

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 199,01

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1756

PHP

Philippine peso

55,044

RUB

Russian rouble

40,6344

THB

Thai baht

40,284

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6929

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2154

INR

Indian rupee

72,1600

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

NOTICES CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Secretariat

| 31.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/2

---

Publication of Nord-Trøndelag County Council’s notification of direct award pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EEC) No 1107/70

2013/C 29/02

| 1. | Name and address of the competent authority:





  Nord-Trøndelag County Council |
| --- | --- |
| Department of transport services |
| Postboks 2560 |
| 7735 Steinkjer |
| NORWAY |

1.

Name and address of the competent authority:

Nord-Trøndelag County Council

Department of transport services

Postboks 2560

7735 Steinkjer

NORWAY

| 2. | Type of award envisaged:
  Direct award |
| --- | --- |

2.

Type of award envisaged:

Direct award

| 3. | Services and areas potentially covered by the award:
  Local/regional passenger services by bus, performed by the following companies: Indre Namdal Trafikk AS, Namdalsbussen AS, Steinkjerbuss AS and NettBuss Trøndelag AS. Covering areas of Overhalla, Namskogan, Høylandet, Grong, Lierne, Røyrvik, Snåsa, Fosnes, Namsos, Namdalseid, Flatanger, Verran, Meråker, Stjørdal and Steinkjer municipalities in Nord-Trøndelag county. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Services and areas potentially covered by the award:

Local/regional passenger services by bus, performed by the following companies: Indre Namdal Trafikk AS, Namdalsbussen AS, Steinkjerbuss AS and NettBuss Trøndelag AS. Covering areas of Overhalla, Namskogan, Høylandet, Grong, Lierne, Røyrvik, Snåsa, Fosnes, Namsos, Namdalseid, Flatanger, Verran, Meråker, Stjørdal and Steinkjer municipalities in Nord-Trøndelag county.

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

| 31.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/3

---

Call for proposals under the work programme of the joint European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP)

2013/C 29/03

Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals for topic areas and subsequently for related projects and associated researcher grants under the work programme of the European Metrology Research Programme.

Proposals are invited for EMRP Call 2013 with the following topic areas:

| — | Metrology for energy |
| --- | --- |

—

Metrology for energy

| — | Metrology for environment |
| --- | --- |

—

Metrology for environment

This call encompasses a two-stage process for joint research projects and includes opportunities for researcher grants.

| | Date of publication | Closing date |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Stage 1 — | Call for potential research topics |

Date of publication

Closing date

Stage 1 —

Call for potential research topics

31 January 2013

17 March 2013

| Stage 2 — | Call for joint research project proposals and associated researcher excellence grant applications |
| --- | --- |

Stage 2 —

Call for joint research project proposals and associated researcher excellence grant applications

18 June 2013

1 October 2013

Call documentation including budget, description of topic areas and modalities is available through the following website:

http://www.emrponline.eu/call2013

---

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

| 31.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/4

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

2013/C 29/04

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AD/248/13 — Administrators (AD 6) in the building sector in the following fields:

| 1. | Security of buildings |
| --- | --- |

1.

Security of buildings

| 2. | Engineering in specialised building techniques |
| --- | --- |

2.

Engineering in specialised building techniques

The competition notice is published in 23 languages in Official Journal C 29 A of 31 January 2013.

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eu-careers.info/

---

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

| 31.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 17 August 2012

in Case E-12/11

Asker Brygge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — Option agreement — Relevant time of assessment for considering the market value)

2013/C 29/05

In Case E-12/11, Asker Brygge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 232/11/COL of 13 July 2011 concerning sale of land at Nesøyveien 8, gnr. 32 bnr. 17, in the Municipality of Asker, Norway, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 17 August 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---

| 31.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/5

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 14 September 2012 in the case of Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf.

(Case E-10/12)

2013/C 29/06

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 14 September 2012 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 September 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf., on the following question:

Should Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991, on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship, be interpreted as meaning, in circumstances including bankruptcy proceedings or a comparable division of a limited liability company, that compensation to an employee is to be assessed on the basis of a written contract of employment if no written document has been handed over to the employee concerning amendments, temporary or permanent, that may have been made to the main features of the contract of employment or employment relationship between the parties within the time-limits laid down in Article 5 of the Directive?

---

| 31.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 September 2012

in Case E-18/11

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing Bank hf.

(Article 34 SCA — Appeal against a decision making a request for an Advisory Opinion — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions — Directive 2001/24/EC — Conform interpretation)

2013/C 29/07

In Case E-18/11 Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing Bank hf. — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court) concerning the interpretation of Article 14 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 28 September 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | In the case of discrepancy between different language versions, the version which reflects the purpose and the general scheme of the rules provided for by the Directive, as well as the general principles of EEA law must be deemed to express the meaning of an EEA law provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the case of discrepancy between different language versions, the version which reflects the purpose and the general scheme of the rules provided for by the Directive, as well as the general principles of EEA law must be deemed to express the meaning of an EEA law provision.

| 2. | Article 14 of Directive 2001/24/EC of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions precludes a rule of national law which, following the publication of an invitation to lodge claims directed towards known creditors who have their domicile, permanent residence or head offices in other EEA States, allows for the cancellation of claims that have not been lodged even if these creditors have not been individually notified and the national legislation requires the lodgement of the claim with a view to its recognition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 14 of Directive 2001/24/EC of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions precludes a rule of national law which, following the publication of an invitation to lodge claims directed towards known creditors who have their domicile, permanent residence or head offices in other EEA States, allows for the cancellation of claims that have not been lodged even if these creditors have not been individually notified and the national legislation requires the lodgement of the claim with a view to its recognition.

| 3. | While the EEA Agreement does not require that a provision of a directive that has been made part of the EEA Agreement is directly applicable and takes precedence over a national rule that fails to transpose the relevant EEA rule correctly into national law, the national court is obliged, as far as possible, to ensure the result sought by the directive at issue through the conform interpretation of the national law with the EEA law provision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

While the EEA Agreement does not require that a provision of a directive that has been made part of the EEA Agreement is directly applicable and takes precedence over a national rule that fails to transpose the relevant EEA rule correctly into national law, the national court is obliged, as far as possible, to ensure the result sought by the directive at issue through the conform interpretation of the national law with the EEA law provision.

---

| 31.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 3 October 2012

in Case E-15/11

Arcade Drilling AS v The Norwegian State, represented by Tax Region West

(Freedom of establishment — Articles 31 and 34 EEA — Taxation — Anti-avoidance principles — Proportionality)

2013/C 29/08

In Case E-15/11 Arcade Drilling AS v The Norwegian State, represented by Tax Region West — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), concerning the interpretation of Articles 31 and 34 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 3 October 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | In the absence of clear and precise provisions of national law that a company moving its head office outside the State of incorporation must liquidate, and of any decision by the competent authorities and courts putting the liquidation into effect, the relocation of head office to another EEA State does not frustrate the company‘s right to rely on Article 31 EEA. In such circumstances, the company may rely on Article 31 EEA to challenge the lawfulness of a tax imposed on it by the home State on the occasion of the relocation of its head office to another EEA State.
  The definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company that relocates its head office outside the realm of Norway based on the assessment of the tax authorities that it is in avoidance of taxation consequent to an obligation to wind up and liquidate the company pursuant to national company law, constitutes a restriction under Articles 31 and 34 EEA if companies deemed to be in breach of such an obligation, but not seeking relocation, are not subject to liquidation taxation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the absence of clear and precise provisions of national law that a company moving its head office outside the State of incorporation must liquidate, and of any decision by the competent authorities and courts putting the liquidation into effect, the relocation of head office to another EEA State does not frustrate the company‘s right to rely on Article 31 EEA. In such circumstances, the company may rely on Article 31 EEA to challenge the lawfulness of a tax imposed on it by the home State on the occasion of the relocation of its head office to another EEA State.

The definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company that relocates its head office outside the realm of Norway based on the assessment of the tax authorities that it is in avoidance of taxation consequent to an obligation to wind up and liquidate the company pursuant to national company law, constitutes a restriction under Articles 31 and 34 EEA if companies deemed to be in breach of such an obligation, but not seeking relocation, are not subject to liquidation taxation.

| 2. | The definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company based on the assessment of the tax authorities that the company is in avoidance of taxation consequent to an obligation to wind up and liquidate the company pursuant to national company law may be justified on the grounds of maintaining the balanced allocation of powers of taxation between the EEA States and preventing tax avoidance. These grounds constitute overriding reasons in the public interests. Moreover, the definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company is appropriate in relation to ensuring the attainment of these objectives.
  The definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company based on the assessment of the tax authorities in the EEA State of origin that the company is in avoidance of taxation consequent to an obligation to wind up and liquidate the company pursuant to national company law must be regarded as not going beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives relating to the need to maintain the balanced allocation of powers of taxation between the EEA States and to prevent tax avoidance, insofar as it provides for the consideration of objective and verifiable elements in order to determine whether the relocation of a head office represents an arrangement incompatible with the rules of domestic company law.
  If the consideration of objective and verifiable elements leads to the conclusion that the company is not in compliance with the rules of national company law and should therefore be subject to liquidation, the definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable must be confined to the consequences of liquidation in order to remain compatible with the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court to verify whether the decision at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued by the legislation.
  A national measure that prescribes the immediate recovery of tax on unrealised assets and tax positions at the time of the assessment of the tax authorities that a company has lost its status as a separate legal entity under national law, but without any decision by the authorities or courts competent to determine that the company has lost that status, is precluded by Article 31 EEA. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company based on the assessment of the tax authorities that the company is in avoidance of taxation consequent to an obligation to wind up and liquidate the company pursuant to national company law may be justified on the grounds of maintaining the balanced allocation of powers of taxation between the EEA States and preventing tax avoidance. These grounds constitute overriding reasons in the public interests. Moreover, the definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company is appropriate in relation to ensuring the attainment of these objectives.

The definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company based on the assessment of the tax authorities in the EEA State of origin that the company is in avoidance of taxation consequent to an obligation to wind up and liquidate the company pursuant to national company law must be regarded as not going beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives relating to the need to maintain the balanced allocation of powers of taxation between the EEA States and to prevent tax avoidance, insofar as it provides for the consideration of objective and verifiable elements in order to determine whether the relocation of a head office represents an arrangement incompatible with the rules of domestic company law.

If the consideration of objective and verifiable elements leads to the conclusion that the company is not in compliance with the rules of national company law and should therefore be subject to liquidation, the definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable must be confined to the consequences of liquidation in order to remain compatible with the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court to verify whether the decision at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued by the legislation.

A national measure that prescribes the immediate recovery of tax on unrealised assets and tax positions at the time of the assessment of the tax authorities that a company has lost its status as a separate legal entity under national law, but without any decision by the authorities or courts competent to determine that the company has lost that status, is precluded by Article 31 EEA.

---

| 31.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 8 October 2012

in Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11

Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Maritime transport — Article 61(1) of the EEA — Article 59(2) of the EEA — Services of general economic interest — Public service compensation — Overcompensation — Principle of good administration — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 29/09

In Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11, Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011 on the Supplementary Agreement on the Hurtigruten service, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 8 October 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Dismisses the applications. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the applications.

| 2. | Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---