# Official Journal C 319/23 D

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 319 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4723 December 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 319

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4723 December 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 319/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 319/2 | Notice pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 479/92 of 25 February 1992 on the application of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2004/C 319/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3671 — De Raekt/ING/VGG) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2004/C 319/4 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3598 — REPSOL/BOREALIS POLÍMEROS) (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2004/C 319/5 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3602 — JABIL/PHILIPS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS POLAND) (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| | EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA |
| | EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| 2004/C 319/6 | EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 25 February 2004 with regard to International Trading Companies (Iceland) | 7 |
| 2004/C 319/7 | Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to State aid in the form of exemptions from document duties and registration fees provided for in the establishment of the Norwegian company Entra Eiendom AS (hereinafter Entra) | 17 |
| 2004/C 319/8 | EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 148/04/COL of 30 June 2004 regarding environmental tax measures (Norway) | 30 |
| 2004/C 319/9 | EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 9 September 2004 concerning the status of Iceland with regard to the fish diseases viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN) | 62 |
| 2004/C 319/0 | EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 9 September 2004 approving the scheme submitted by Norway for the withdrawal of all fish in Norwegian farms infected with infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) | 65 |
| 2004/C 319/1 | EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 9 September 2004 recognising the entire coastline of Norway as an approved zone with regard to Bonamia ostreae and Marteilia refringens | 67 |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2004/C 319/2 | Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-5/04) | 70 |
| 2004/C 319/3 | Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Prosessindustriens Landsforening, Borregaard, Elkem ASA, Norsk Hydro ASA, Eramet Norway AS, Norske Skogindustrier ASA, Södra Cell Folla AS, Tinfos Titan & Iron KS, and Yara International ASA against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-6/04) | 71 |
| 2004/C 319/4 | Action brought on 1 September 2004 by the Kingdom of Norway against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-7/04) | 72 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 319/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 319/2

Notice pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 479/92 of 25 February 1992 on the application of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia) (
  1
  )

1

2

2004/C 319/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3671 — De Raekt/ING/VGG) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

2004/C 319/4

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3598 — REPSOL/BOREALIS POLÍMEROS) (
  1
  )

1

6

2004/C 319/5

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3602 — JABIL/PHILIPS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS POLAND) (
  1
  )

1

6

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

2004/C 319/6

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 25 February 2004 with regard to International Trading Companies (Iceland)

7

2004/C 319/7

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to State aid in the form of exemptions from document duties and registration fees provided for in the establishment of the Norwegian company Entra Eiendom AS (hereinafter Entra)

17

2004/C 319/8

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 148/04/COL of 30 June 2004 regarding environmental tax measures (Norway)

30

2004/C 319/9

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 9 September 2004 concerning the status of Iceland with regard to the fish diseases viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN)

62

2004/C 319/0

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 9 September 2004 approving the scheme submitted by Norway for the withdrawal of all fish in Norwegian farms infected with infectious salmon anaemia (ISA)

65

2004/C 319/1

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 9 September 2004 recognising the entire coastline of Norway as an approved zone with regard to Bonamia ostreae and Marteilia refringens

Bonamia ostreae

Marteilia refringens

67

EFTA Court

2004/C 319/2

Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-5/04)

70

2004/C 319/3

Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Prosessindustriens Landsforening, Borregaard, Elkem ASA, Norsk Hydro ASA, Eramet Norway AS, Norske Skogindustrier ASA, Södra Cell Folla AS, Tinfos Titan & Iron KS, and Yara International ASA against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-6/04)

71

2004/C 319/4

Action brought on 1 September 2004 by the Kingdom of Norway against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-7/04)

72

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 319/5 | Call for proposals — EAC65/04 — Tempus III: Guide for applicants 2004/2005 | 73 |
| 2004/C 319/6 | Call for expressions of interest in membership of the Scientific Panel on contaminants in the food chain (CONTAM Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority | 75 |

III   Notices

Commission

2004/C 319/5

Call for proposals — EAC65/04 — Tempus III: Guide for applicants 2004/2005

73

2004/C 319/6

Call for expressions of interest in membership of the Scientific Panel on contaminants in the food chain (CONTAM Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority

75

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN

---

I Information

Commission

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

22 December 2004

(2004/C 319/01)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3384 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,18 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4351 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69905 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0245 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5436 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 83,59 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2830 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5788 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,563 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,71 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6895 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4329 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0908 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 37 946 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,73 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,750 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 860 200 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7442 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6478 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4143 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8735 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1940 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 410,27 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,5985 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3384

JPY

Japanese yen

139,18

DKK

Danish krone

7,4351

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69905

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0245

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5436

ISK

Iceland króna

83,59

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2830

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5788

CZK

Czech koruna

30,563

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,71

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6895

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4329

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0908

ROL

Romanian leu

37 946

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,73

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,750

TRL

Turkish lira

1 860 200

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7442

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6478

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4143

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8735

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1940

KRW

South Korean won

1 410,27

ZAR

South African rand

7,5985

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/2

---

Notice pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 479/92 of 25 February 1992 on the application of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia) (1)

(2004/C 319/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

In accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 479/92, the Commission invites interested parties to send their comments concerning the attached draft Commission Regulation on the application of Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty to categories of agreements in the field of maritime transport. Comments should be sent within six weeks of the date of publication of this notice, to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Unit COMP/D2, Office J70 2/55 |
| B-1049 Brussels |
| Fax (32-2) 295 01 0 28 |
| E-mail: april.spallin@cec.eu.int |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Unit COMP/D2, Office J70 2/55

B-1049 Brussels

Fax (32-2) 295 01 0 28

E-mail: april.spallin@cec.eu.int

---

(1)  OJ L 55, 29.2.1992, p. 3. Editorial Note: the title of Regulation (EEC) No 479/92 has been adjusted to take account of the renumbering of the Articles of the Treaty establishing the European Community in accordance with Article 12 of the Treaty of Amsterdam; the original reference was to Article 85(3) of the Treaty.

---

Preliminary Draft

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No .../..

of [...]

amending Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 479/92 of 25 February 1992 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements, decisions and concerted practices between liner shipping companies (consortia) (1),

Having published a draft of this Regulation (2),

After consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions,

whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 (3) grants a general exemption to liner shipping consortia from the prohibition contained in Article 81(1) of the Treaty, subject to certain conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 (3) grants a general exemption to liner shipping consortia from the prohibition contained in Article 81(1) of the Treaty, subject to certain conditions.

| (2) | Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 will expire on 25 April 2005. On the basis of the Commission's experience in applying the block exemption, it appears that the justifications for a block exemption for consortia are still valid. The applicability of Regulation (EC) 823/2000 can therefore be extended by another five years. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 will expire on 25 April 2005. On the basis of the Commission's experience in applying the block exemption, it appears that the justifications for a block exemption for consortia are still valid. The applicability of Regulation (EC) 823/2000 can therefore be extended by another five years.

| (3) | The block exemption granted by Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 covers consortia operating both within and outside liner conferences. Therefore it is closely linked to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December 1986 laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport (4), which grants a block exemption to liner conferences. The Commission has recently launched a review of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The block exemption granted by Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 covers consortia operating both within and outside liner conferences. Therefore it is closely linked to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December 1986 laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport (4), which grants a block exemption to liner conferences. The Commission has recently launched a review of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86.

| (4) | In order not to jeopardise the on-going review process of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 it is neither necessary nor appropriate to introduce substantial modifications to the Regulation before the end of the that review. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

In order not to jeopardise the on-going review process of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 it is neither necessary nor appropriate to introduce substantial modifications to the Regulation before the end of the that review.

| (5) | However, in some respects the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 are not sufficiently attuned to current practice applied in the industry. It is therefore appropriate to introduce some minor amendments in order to make Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 more suitable for its purpose. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

However, in some respects the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 are not sufficiently attuned to current practice applied in the industry. It is therefore appropriate to introduce some minor amendments in order to make Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 more suitable for its purpose.

| (6) | In particular, Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 provides that consortium agreements must give member companies the right to withdraw from the consortium without financial or other penalty subject to certain conditions concerning the period of notice to be given. Practice has shown that it is unclear how this provision is to be interpreted in the event that the date of entry into force of the consortium agreement is earlier than the date the service actually starts, for example, when vessels are unavailable, or still under construction. Specific provision should therefore be made for that situation. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

In particular, Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 provides that consortium agreements must give member companies the right to withdraw from the consortium without financial or other penalty subject to certain conditions concerning the period of notice to be given. Practice has shown that it is unclear how this provision is to be interpreted in the event that the date of entry into force of the consortium agreement is earlier than the date the service actually starts, for example, when vessels are unavailable, or still under construction. Specific provision should therefore be made for that situation.

| (7) | It is justifiable for consortia to seek security for new investments committed to an existing service. Therefore, the possibility for the parties to a consortium agreement to enter into a ‘non-withdrawal’ clause should also apply where the parties to an existing consortium agreement have agreed to make substantial new investments and the costs of such new investments justify a new ‘non-withdrawal’ clause. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

It is justifiable for consortia to seek security for new investments committed to an existing service. Therefore, the possibility for the parties to a consortium agreement to enter into a ‘non-withdrawal’ clause should also apply where the parties to an existing consortium agreement have agreed to make substantial new investments and the costs of such new investments justify a new ‘non-withdrawal’ clause.

| (8) | Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 provides that the exemption is subject to compliance with certain conditions, including the existence of effective price competition between the members of the conference within which the consortium operates due to the fact that the members are expressly authorised by the conference agreement to apply independent rate action to any freight rate provided for in the conference tariff. It has been brought to the Commission's attention that independent rate action can no longer be considered as a common general market practice. Instead, individual confidential contracts are now more important on various trades. Such confidential contracts may also bring about effective competition between liner conference members. The existence of individual confidential contracts should therefore also be regarded as an indicator of effective price competition between the members of the conference. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 provides that the exemption is subject to compliance with certain conditions, including the existence of effective price competition between the members of the conference within which the consortium operates due to the fact that the members are expressly authorised by the conference agreement to apply independent rate action to any freight rate provided for in the conference tariff. It has been brought to the Commission's attention that independent rate action can no longer be considered as a common general market practice. Instead, individual confidential contracts are now more important on various trades. Such confidential contracts may also bring about effective competition between liner conference members. The existence of individual confidential contracts should therefore also be regarded as an indicator of effective price competition between the members of the conference.

| (9) | Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 823/2000 is amended as follows:

| 1. | In Article 2 the following points 6 and 7 are added:
  ‘6.   “commencement of service” means the date on which the first vessel sails on service or, when there has been substantial new investment, the date on which the first vessel sails under the conditions directly arising from that substantial new investment;
  7.   “substantial new investment” means investment which results in the building, purchase or long-term charter of vessels, which are specifically designed, required and substantial for the operation of the service and which constitutes at least half of the total investment made by the consortium members in relation to the maritime transport service offered by the consortium.’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

In Article 2 the following points 6 and 7 are added:

‘6.   “commencement of service” means the date on which the first vessel sails on service or, when there has been substantial new investment, the date on which the first vessel sails under the conditions directly arising from that substantial new investment;

7.   “substantial new investment” means investment which results in the building, purchase or long-term charter of vessels, which are specifically designed, required and substantial for the operation of the service and which constitutes at least half of the total investment made by the consortium members in relation to the maritime transport service offered by the consortium.’

| 2. | Article 5(a) is replaced by the following:






  ‘(a) | there is effective price competition between the members of the conference within which the consortium operates, due to the fact that the members are expressly authorised by the conference agreement, whether by virtue of a statutory obligation or otherwise, to apply independent rate action to any freight rate provided for in the conference tariff and/or to enter into individual confidential contracts; or’ . |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(a) is replaced by the following:

‘(a)

there is effective price competition between the members of the conference within which the consortium operates, due to the fact that the members are expressly authorised by the conference agreement, whether by virtue of a statutory obligation or otherwise, to apply independent rate action to any freight rate provided for in the conference tariff and/or to enter into individual confidential contracts; or’ .

| 3. | Article 8(b) is replaced by the following:






  ‘(b) | the consortium agreement must give member companies the right to withdraw from the consortium without financial or other penalty such as, in particular, an obligation to cease all transport activity in the trade or trades in question, whether or not coupled with the condition that such activity may be resumed only after a certain period has elapsed. This right shall be subject to a maximum notice period of six months which may be given after an initial period of 18 months starting from the date of entry into force of the consortium agreement or the agreement to make a substantial new investment to the joint maritime service. If the date of entry into force of the agreement is earlier than the date of commencement of the service, the initial period shall not be more than 24 months starting from the date of entry into force of the consortium agreement or the date of entry into force of the agreement to make a substantial new investment to the joint maritime service.
  However, in the case of a highly integrated consortium which has a net revenue pool and/or high level of investment due to the purchase or charter by its members of vessels specifically for the purpose of setting up the consortium, the maximum notice period shall be six months, which may be given after an initial period of 30 months starting from the date of entry into force of the consortium agreement or the agreement to make a substantial new investment to the joint maritime service. If the date of entry into force of the agreement is earlier than the date of commencement of the service, the initial period shall not be more than 36 months starting from the date of entry into force of the consortium agreement or the date of entry into force of the agreement to make a substantial new investment to the joint maritime service.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Article 8(b) is replaced by the following:

‘(b)

the consortium agreement must give member companies the right to withdraw from the consortium without financial or other penalty such as, in particular, an obligation to cease all transport activity in the trade or trades in question, whether or not coupled with the condition that such activity may be resumed only after a certain period has elapsed. This right shall be subject to a maximum notice period of six months which may be given after an initial period of 18 months starting from the date of entry into force of the consortium agreement or the agreement to make a substantial new investment to the joint maritime service. If the date of entry into force of the agreement is earlier than the date of commencement of the service, the initial period shall not be more than 24 months starting from the date of entry into force of the consortium agreement or the date of entry into force of the agreement to make a substantial new investment to the joint maritime service.

However, in the case of a highly integrated consortium which has a net revenue pool and/or high level of investment due to the purchase or charter by its members of vessels specifically for the purpose of setting up the consortium, the maximum notice period shall be six months, which may be given after an initial period of 30 months starting from the date of entry into force of the consortium agreement or the agreement to make a substantial new investment to the joint maritime service. If the date of entry into force of the agreement is earlier than the date of commencement of the service, the initial period shall not be more than 36 months starting from the date of entry into force of the consortium agreement or the date of entry into force of the agreement to make a substantial new investment to the joint maritime service.’

| 4. | In Article 14, the date ‘25 April 2005’ is replaced by ‘25 April 2010’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In Article 14, the date ‘25 April 2005’ is replaced by ‘25 April 2010’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 26 April 2005.

It shall apply until 25 April 2010.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, [...]

For the Commission

[...]

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  OJ L 55, 29.2.1992, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C....

2

(3)  OJ L 100, 20.4.2000, p. 24. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 463/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 23).

3

(4)  OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 24.

4

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/5

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3671 — De Raekt/ING/VGG)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 319/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 16 December 2004 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings De Raekt B.V. (‘De Raekt’, The Netherlands) and ING Corporate Investments Participaties B.V. (‘ING CIP’, The Netherlands) belonging to ING Groep N.V. (‘ING Group’, The Netherlands) acquire joint control within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of the whole of the undertaking Van Gansewinkel Groep B.V. (‘VGG’, The Netherlands) by purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 16 December 2004 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings De Raekt B.V. (‘De Raekt’, The Netherlands) and ING Corporate Investments Participaties B.V. (‘ING CIP’, The Netherlands) belonging to ING Groep N.V. (‘ING Group’, The Netherlands) acquire joint control within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of the whole of the undertaking Van Gansewinkel Groep B.V. (‘VGG’, The Netherlands) by purchase of shares.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for De Raekt: private holding company, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for De Raekt: private holding company,

| — | for ING CIP: venture capitalist, |
| --- | --- |

—

for ING CIP: venture capitalist,

| — | for VGG: services in the waste management sector. |
| --- | --- |

—

for VGG: services in the waste management sector.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M. 3671 — De Raekt/ING/VGG, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition, |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M. 3671 — De Raekt/ING/VGG, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)  Available on DG COMP website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3598 — REPSOL/BOREALIS POLÍMEROS)

(2004/C 319/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 19 November 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3598. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3598. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3602 — JABIL/PHILIPS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS POLAND)

(2004/C 319/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 17 November 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3602. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3602. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA Surveillance Authority

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/7

---

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

of 25 February 2004

with regard to International Trading Companies

(ICELAND)

(2004/C 319/06)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and to Protocol 26 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (2), in particular to Article 24 and Article 1 in Part I of Protocol 3 (3) thereof,

Having regard to the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the field of State aid (4), in particular Chapter 17B (5) thereof,

Having regard to the Authority's decision to open the formal investigation procedure (6),

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   Procedure

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   Description of the measures: The fiscal legislation applicable to ITCs in Iceland

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

Act No 31/1999 limits the scope of activities in which an ITC can engage to the following:

| — | trade in its own name with foreign entities outside Iceland, or as an intermediary in such trading, in goods which are not covered by the EEA Agreement and which do not originate in Iceland; |
| --- | --- |

—

trade in its own name with foreign entities outside Iceland, or as an intermediary in such trading, in goods which are not covered by the EEA Agreement and which do not originate in Iceland;

| — | act as an intermediary in the trading of services between foreign entities outside Icelandic jurisdiction; |
| --- | --- |

—

act as an intermediary in the trading of services between foreign entities outside Icelandic jurisdiction;

| — | operate as a holding company that owns and invests in foreign enterprises, or intangible assets, officially registered outside of Iceland, such as trademarks, patents, design rights and publishing rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

operate as a holding company that owns and invests in foreign enterprises, or intangible assets, officially registered outside of Iceland, such as trademarks, patents, design rights and publishing rights;

| — | own or control and register aircraft and vessels other than fishing vessels in Iceland, provided that such aircraft and vessels are only used for activities in which ITCs can engage; |
| --- | --- |

—

own or control and register aircraft and vessels other than fishing vessels in Iceland, provided that such aircraft and vessels are only used for activities in which ITCs can engage;

| — | own or control and register aircraft or vessels other than fishing vessels in Iceland, and lease or sub-lease to foreign entities for transport outside Icelandic jurisdiction; |
| --- | --- |

—

own or control and register aircraft or vessels other than fishing vessels in Iceland, and lease or sub-lease to foreign entities for transport outside Icelandic jurisdiction;

| — | it may not trade in its own name neither in goods with parties in Iceland nor with parties outside Iceland, nor may it serve as an intermediary in such trading and it may not process goods in Iceland partly or fully. |
| --- | --- |

—

it may not trade in its own name neither in goods with parties in Iceland nor with parties outside Iceland, nor may it serve as an intermediary in such trading and it may not process goods in Iceland partly or fully.

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.   Comments submitted by the Government of Iceland

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

II.   ASSESSMENT

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement states that:

‘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.’

| | |
| --- | --- |

1.   Selective advantage in favour of certain undertakings

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   State resources

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.   Distortion of competition and effect on trade

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

4.   New aid

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

5.   Compatibility with the functioning of the EEA Agreement

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

6.   Recovery of aid already paid

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

7.   Conclusion

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

| | |
| --- | --- |

| 1. | The tax measures in favour of ITCs enacted in Iceland with Act No 31/1999 and Act No 29/1999 and related legislation constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. The tax regime applicable to ITCs in Iceland is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The tax measures in favour of ITCs enacted in Iceland with Act No 31/1999 and Act No 29/1999 and related legislation constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. The tax regime applicable to ITCs in Iceland is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| 2. | Iceland shall terminate the tax measures referred to in point 1. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Iceland shall terminate the tax measures referred to in point 1.

| 3. | Iceland shall take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in point 1 and unlawfully made available to the beneficiary, deducting any repayment already made to the respective authorities.
  Recovery shall be accomplished without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate set by the Authority and shall be net of interest that has already been charged by the respective authorities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Iceland shall take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in point 1 and unlawfully made available to the beneficiary, deducting any repayment already made to the respective authorities.

Recovery shall be accomplished without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiary until the date of its recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate set by the Authority and shall be net of interest that has already been charged by the respective authorities.

| 4. | Iceland shall inform the Authority, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Iceland shall inform the Authority, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.

| 5. | This decision is addressed to Iceland. The Icelandic Government shall be informed by means of a letter containing a copy of the decision. |
| --- | --- |

5.

This decision is addressed to Iceland. The Icelandic Government shall be informed by means of a letter containing a copy of the decision.

| 6. | This decision is authentic in the English language. |
| --- | --- |

6.

This decision is authentic in the English language.

Done at Brussels, 25 February 2004.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Hannes HAFSTEIN

President

Einar BULL

College Member

---

(1)  Hereinafter referred to as the ‘EEA Agreement’.

1

(2)  Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Surveillance and Court Agreement’.

2

(3)  It has to be noted that the amendments to Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, following an agreement between EFTA States of 10 December 2001, amending Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, entered into force on 28 August 2003. These amendments incorporated ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules for the application of [ex] Article 93 of the EC Treaty’ into Protocol 3.

3

(4)  Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, OJ L 231 of 3 September 1994, EEA Supplement No 32, last amended by the Authority's Decision No 198/03/COL of 5 November 2003, not yet published.

4

(5)  Chapter 17B on the Application of State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation, as adopted by the Authority's Decision No 149/99/COL of 30 June 1999, OJ L 137 of 8 June 2000, page 11, EEA Supplement No 26.

5

(6)  EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 392/01/COL of 6 December 2001, OJ C 87 of 11 April 2002, page 10.

6

(7)  Chapter 17.B.3.1 of the State Aid Guidelines.

7

(8)  Similarly, see, for example, Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities, OJ L 180 of 18.7.2003, page 52, para 82.

8

(9)  Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709.

9

Italy

Commission

(10)  See in this context the opinion of Advocate-General Ruíz-Jarabo in Case C-6/97 Italian Republic v Commission [1999] ECR I-2981, para. 27.

10

Italian Republic

Commission

(11)  Chapter 17B.3.2 of the State Aid Guidelines.

11

(12)  Case T-55/99 Confederación Española de Transporte de Mercancías (CETM) v Commission [2000] ECR II-3207, para. 53.

12

Confederación Española de Transporte de Mercancías (CETM)

Commission

(13)  Chapter 17B.3 of the State Aid Guidelines.

13

(14)  See in this context Commission Decision of 20 December 2001 on the State aid implemented by Spain in 1993 for certain newly established firms in Vizcaya (Spain), OJ L 40 of 14.2.2003, page 11, para 64.

14

(15)  Chapter 12 of the State Aid Guidelines which concerned the de minimis rule. This Chapter was deleted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 198/03/COL of 5 November 2003. By EEA Joint Committee Decision No 88/2002 of 25 June 2002 (OJ L 266, 3.10.2002, p. 56) Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30) was incorporated into Annex XV of the EEA.

15

de minimis

de minimis

(16)  See, i.e., Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission (‘Tubemeuse’) [1990] ECR I-959, para. 43 and Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR I-4103, paras. 40 to 42.

16

Belgium

Commission

Spain

Commission

(17)  Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671.

17

Philip Morris

Commission

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/17

---

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to State aid in the form of exemptions from document duties and registration fees provided for in the establishment of the Norwegian company Entra Eiendom AS (hereinafter Entra)

(2004/C 319/07)

By means of Decision 132/04/COL of 16 June 2004, reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the EFTA Surveillance Authority initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (Surveillance and Court Agreement). The Norwegian Government has been informed by means of a copy of the decision.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority hereby gives the EFTA States, EU Member States and interested parties notice to submit their comments on the measure in question within one month from the publication of this notice to:

| EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| --- |
| 74, Rue de Trèves/Trierstraat 74 |
| B-1040 Brussels |

EFTA Surveillance Authority

74, Rue de Trèves/Trierstraat 74

B-1040 Brussels

The comments will be communicated to the Government of Norway. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

Procedure

On 22 May 2002, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) requested the Norwegian Government to submit information concerning alleged State aid in favour of the real estate company Entra Eiendom A/S. Further correspondence followed between the Norwegian Government and the Authority.

Description of the aid measure

On 4 June 1999, the Norwegian Government presented to Parliament the reorganisation of the public body, the Directorate of Public Construction and Property (‘Statsbygg’), and the establishment of the limited liability company Entra.

Property, capital and personnel (assets and liabilities) were transferred from the State to Entra in exchange for the issue of shares, with effect from 1 July 2000. Ownership and title of the properties in question were transferred from the Norwegian State to Entra and registered in Entra's name. The company is 100 per cent owned by the Norwegian State. The total property portfolio consists of some 120 properties, amounting to 880 000 m2.

All real estate in Norway is identified in the real estate registry, established pursuant to the Registration Act of 7 June 1935 No 2. Pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Excise Tax Act 1975 No 59, the registration of transfer of ownership title to real property triggers an obligation to pay document duties. The registration of transfer of title in the real estate registry is subject to a registration fee pursuant to the Court fee Act 1982 No 86.

The Act presented to Parliament on 4 June 1999 states that re-registration in the real estate registry and other public registries is to be done as a change of name. As a consequence of this, Entra was not obliged to pay document duties and registration fees. The Government considers this procedure to be in accordance with previous reorganizations of state entities.

According to the submitted information, payable duties/fees for the transfer of title of the real estate received by Entra would amount to approximately NOK 80,6 million (some EUR 10,4 million).

Assessment

By the adoption of special statutory provisions, Entra is relieved of the cost of document duties and registration fees. The Authority is of the opinion that this constitutes a financial advantage. No other provision in Norwegian law prescribes that such a transaction is exempted from the general rule that registration of change of ownership triggers document duty and registration fees.

The Norwegian Government argues that the measure does not confer an advantage on Entra compared to private undertakings in a similar situation. Under a particular statutory scheme, a state measure is defined as favoring certain undertakings in comparison to others, which, in light of the objective pursued, are in a comparable legal and factual situation. The Authority remains unconvinced that Article 61(1) EEA has no relevance for the exemption from document duty and registration fees following comparison with private undertakings.

Furthermore, the Norwegian Government argues that the exemption from or the non-payment of, document duty and registration fees do not confer an advantage, as the capital structure, the solidity and the total value of the company, according to the opening balance sheet, would remain unchanged. It is however, the Authority's preliminary view that the obligation to pay document duty and registration fees is a liability for the undertaking, and that a relief of such a liability is an advantage granted to the undertaking in the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. This advantage cannot be considered to be non-existent because of the way the opening balance is established.

The Authority is further of the opinion that loss of tax revenue is equivalent to consumption of State resources in the form of fiscal expenditure.

According to the Norwegian authorities, the measure in question is a general measure that falls outside the scope of Article 61(1). In this context the Authority would like to point out that tax measures open to all undertakings operating within an EFTA State, are, in principle, general measures. The differential nature of some measures does not necessarily mean that they must be considered to be State aid. This is the case with measures whose economic rationale makes them necessary to the smooth functioning and effectiveness of the tax system. In the view of the Authority it cannot be derived from the general logic of the current legislation and practice on excise duties that Entra for document duty and registration fee purposes should be considered as continuing (parts of) Statsbygg. Therefore, the measure must be considered to be selective in the sense of Article 61(1).

Furthermore, the Authority notes that the company operates all over Norway in a market open to economic agents from any other EEA State. Consequently, the measure affects or threatens to affect, competition and trade between the Contracting Parties.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Authority doubts the compatibility of the exemption from document duty and registration fees adopted in connection with the establishment of Entra Eiendom AS, with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. Consequently, the Authority is obliged to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 132/04/COL

of 16 June 2004

to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to the exemptions from document duties and registration fees provided for in the establishment of Entra Eiendom AS

(NORWAY)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (2), in particular to Article 24 and Article 1 in Part I of Protocol 3 thereof,

Having regard to the Authority's Guidelines (3) on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement,

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

1.   PROCEDURES AND CORRESPONDENCE

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ENTRA

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.   THE NORWEGIAN LEGISLATION AND PRACTICE CONCERNING DOCUMENT DUTIES AND REGISTRATION FEES ON THE REGISTRATION OF TRANSFER OF REAL ESTATE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH REORGANISATION OF UNDERTAKINGS

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.1.   Introduction

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.2.   Exemptions based on the Registration Act construed in the light of the company legislation

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.3.   Exemptions based on special legislation

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.4.   Methods used to avoid excise duties

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

4.   THE NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT'S ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER THE EXEMPTION OF DOCUMENT DUTIES AND REGISTRATION FEES IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE AID PROVISIONS OF THE EEA AGREEMENT

| | |
| --- | --- |

4.1.   Assessment in connection with the establishment of Entra

| | |
| --- | --- |

4.2.   Arguments in the correspondence with the Authority

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

By letter dated 4 June 2003, the Ministry of Trade and Industry submitted additional information and arguments concerning i.a. the so called continuity principle, clarification concerning the measures used by private undertakings, why the non-payment does not constitute an advantage, information on the current law with regard to mergers and de-mergers and on exemption from the duty to pay registration fees. The Ministry reiterates the arguments in the letter dated 7 November 2002 as to why the non-payment does not constitute an advantage for Entra. In addition, the Ministry argues that the exemption is a general measure, which does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Point 9, Conclusion, of the letter dated 4 June 2003, reads:

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

‘The common system regarding registration fee and document duty is that the continuity principle determines if conversion processes, both public and private, may be done as a name change in relation to inter alia the rules on registration fee and document duty. The purpose of the continuity principle is to facilitate the implementation of mergers, de-mergers and restructurings, which is regarded as socio-economically desirable. The special legislation and the reimbursement of accrued document duty resulting from the reorganisation of hydropower/electricity companies are a result of the same considerations. Thus, the practice is a general measure, which according to well-established case law does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.’

| | |
| --- | --- |

II.   APPRECIATION

1.   The existence of State aid

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.’

To be considered as State aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a tax measure must fulfil the following four criteria:

| 1. | The measure must confer the beneficiaries an advantage that reduces the costs they normally bear in the course of the business. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The measure must confer the beneficiaries an advantage that reduces the costs they normally bear in the course of the business.

| 2. | The advantage must be granted by the State or through State resources. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The advantage must be granted by the State or through State resources.

| 3. | The measure must be specific or selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The measure must be specific or selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.

| 4. | The measure must affect competition and trade between the Contracting Parties. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The measure must affect competition and trade between the Contracting Parties.

Condition 1:   The measure must confer on the beneficiaries an advantage that reduces the costs they normally bear in the course of the business.

| | |
| --- | --- |

Condition 2:   The advantage must be granted by the State or through State resources.

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

Condition 3:   The measure must be specific or selective in that it favours ‘certain undertakings or the production of certain goods’.

| | |
| --- | --- |

Firstly, the Authority makes reference to Chapter 17B.3.1 of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines on direct business taxation concerning the specificity or selectivity of tax measures, which reads:

‘Tax measures, which are open to all economic agents operating within the EFTA State, are in principle general measures. They must be effectively open to all firms on an equal access basis, and they may not de facto be reduced in scope through, for example, the discretional power of the State to grant them or through other factors that restrict their practical effect.’

| | |
| --- | --- |

According to the case law of the Court of Justice, it is possible to draw a distinction between:

| — | differentiated treatment that results from the application, to specific situations, of the same principles as those underlying the ordinary rules (no aid) |
| --- | --- |

—

differentiated treatment that results from the application, to specific situations, of the same principles as those underlying the ordinary rules (no aid)

| — | differentiated treatment, which, favouring certain undertakings, departs from the internal logic of the ordinary rules (aid) (20). |
| --- | --- |

—

differentiated treatment, which, favouring certain undertakings, departs from the internal logic of the ordinary rules (aid) (20).

20

| | |
| --- | --- |

Condition 4:   The measure must affect or threaten to affect competition and trade between the Contracting Parties.

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   Compatibility of the aid

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.   The character of the aid

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

4.   Conclusion

| | |
| --- | --- |

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

| 1. | The Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to the exemptions from document duties and registration fees provided for in the establishment of Entra Eiendom AS. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to the exemptions from document duties and registration fees provided for in the establishment of Entra Eiendom AS.

| 2. | The Norwegian Government is invited, pursuant to Article 6 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, to submit its comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within two months from notification of this decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Norwegian Government is invited, pursuant to Article 6 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, to submit its comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within two months from notification of this decision.

| 3. | The Norwegian Government shall be informed by means of a letter containing a copy of this decision. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Norwegian Government shall be informed by means of a letter containing a copy of this decision.

| 4. | The EC Commission shall be informed, in accordance with Protocol 27(d) of the EEA Agreement, by means of a copy of this decision. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EC Commission shall be informed, in accordance with Protocol 27(d) of the EEA Agreement, by means of a copy of this decision.

| 5. | Other EFTA States, EC Member States, and interested parties shall be informed by the publishing of this decision in its authentic language version, accompanied by a meaningful summary in languages other than the authentic language version, in the EEA Section of the Official Journal of the European Communities and the EEA Supplement thereto, inviting them to submit comments within one month from the date of the publication. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Other EFTA States, EC Member States, and interested parties shall be informed by the publishing of this decision in its authentic language version, accompanied by a meaningful summary in languages other than the authentic language version, in the EEA Section of the Official Journal of the European Communities and the EEA Supplement thereto, inviting them to submit comments within one month from the date of the publication.

Official Journal of the European Communities

| 6. | This decision is authentic in the English language. |
| --- | --- |

6.

This decision is authentic in the English language.

Done at Brussels, 16 June 2004.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Hannes HAFSTEIN

President

Einar M. BULL

College Member

---

(1)  Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.

1

(2)  Hereinafter referred to as the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

2

(3)  Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid (State Aid Guidelines), adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in Official Journal L 231, 3.9.1994, as amended by Decision No: 90/04/COL, 23 April 2004 (not yet published). The State aid guidelines are available on the Authority's website: www.eftasurv.int.

3

(4)  In particular in ‘Dagens Næringsliv’ on 9 April 2002.

4

(5)  ‘St prp nr 84 (1998-99) Om ny strategi for Statsbygg og etablering av Statens utleiebygg AS’.

5

(6)  The original name of the company was ‘Statens utleiebygg AS’. Hereinafter Entra is used for Entra and Statens utleiebygg AS.

6

(7)  ‘Ot prp nr 83 (1998-99) Om lov om omdanning av deler av Statsbyggs eiendomsvirksomhet til aksjeselskap’. Law of 18 February 2000, No 11.

7

(8)  ‘St.prp. nr. 1 Tillegg nr. 10 (1999-2000) Om etablering av Statens utleiebygg AS’.

8

(9)  The group consists, in addition to Entra Eiendom AS, of Entra Eiendom Drift AS, Universitetsgaten 2 AS, Biskop Gunnerus gate 14 AS, Instituttveien 24 AS and Tollpakkhuset AS. Source: Annual report 2002. See

9

http://www.entraeiendom.no/files/pdf/aarsrapport_2002.pdf

(10)  Preliminary accounts for 2003 presented on 19 February 2004. See

10

http://www.entraeiendom.no/files/Entra_Eiendom_AS_Preliminary_results_2003.pdf

(11)  The registration fee (‘tinglysingsgebyret’) is two times the basic court fee (‘rettsgebyret’), see § 21 of the Court fee Act 1982 No 86 (‘Rettsgebyrloven’).

11

(12)  Chapter 7.6.1.

12

(13)  Chapter 19: Public authorities' holdings. Chapter 20: Application of State aid provisions to public enterprises in the manufacturing sector.

13

(14)  Value per 2000.

14

(15)  Cf. Case 173/73 Italy v. Commission [1974] ECR 709.

15

Italy

Commission

(16)  Cf. Case T-157/01 Danske Busvognmænd v Commission, judgment of 16 March 2004, para. 57.

16

Danske Busvognmænd

Commission

(17)  Cf. Case C-308/01 GIL Insurance Ltd, judgment of 29 April 2004.

17

(18)  Indeed, in some aspects, the methods described may in fact be less favourable for private undertakings compared to public ones since the registration of declaration on the restriction of the right to ownership does not exclude the risk of execution proceedings/creditor's or bankruptcy estate's extinction of the rights of a legal successor to the debtor's property.

18

(19)  Cf., inter alia, Case C-157/01 Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Commission, judgment of 29 April 2004.

19

inter alia

Kingdom of the Netherlands

Commission

(20)  Cf., inter alia, Case 173/73 Italy v. Commission, cited above, Case C-75/97 Kingdom of Belgium v. Commission [1999] ECR I-3671, Case C-157/01 Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Commission, cited above, and Case C-308/01 GIL Insurance Ltd, cited above.

20

inter alia

Italy

Commission

Belgium

Commission

Kingdom of the Netherlands

Commission

(21)  Cf. inter alia, Case C-126/01 Gemo, judgement of 20 November 2003.

21

inter alia

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/30

---

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 148/04/COL

of 30 June 2004

regarding environmental tax measures

(NORWAY)

(2004/C 319/08)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (2), in particular to Article 24 and Protocol 3 (3) thereof,

Having regard to the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid (4), in particular Chapter 15 thereof (5),

Having regard to the Authority's decision to open the formal investigation procedure (6),

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments (7), pursuant to the provisions laid down in Chapter 5 of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines (8), and having regard to their comments,

Whereas:

I.   FACTS

A.   PROCEDURE

| | |
| --- | --- |

B.   DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT AID MEASURES

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

1.   Exemptions from tax on electricity consumption

a)   The exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for the manufacturing, the mining and the greenhouse growing industries

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for users in certain regions (municipalities)

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   Derogations under the CO2 tax regime

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.   Partial abolishment of the SO2 tax

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

C.   AUTHORITY'S DOUBTS EXPRESSED IN THE OPENING DECISION

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

1.   Exemptions from the tax on electricity consumption

a)   The exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for certain industries

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for users in certain regions (municipalities)

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   Derogations under the CO2 tax regime

a)   The exemption of coal and coke used as raw materials or as reducing agents in industrial processes

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The exemption of coal and coke used for energy purposes in the production of cement and leca

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

c)   The reduced rate of the CO2 tax on mineral oils for the paper and pulp industry

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.   Partial abolishment of the SO2 tax

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

4.   Qualification as ‘new aid’

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

D.   COMMENTS FROM THE NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT ON THE OPENING DECISION

| | |
| --- | --- |

1.   Exemptions from the tax on electricity consumption

a)   The exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for certain industries

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for users in certain regions

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   Derogations under the CO2 tax regime

| | |
| --- | --- |

a)   The exemption of coal and coke used as raw materials or as reducing agents in industrial processes

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The exemption of coal and coke used for energy purposes in production of cement and leca

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

c)   The reduced rate of the CO2 tax on mineral oils for the paper and pulp industry

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.   Partial abolishment of the SO2 tax

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

4.   Qualification as ‘new aid’

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

E.   COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES ON THE OPENING DECISION

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

1.   Exemptions from the tax on electricity consumption

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   Derogations under the CO2 tax regime

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

a)   The exemption of coal and coke used as raw materials or as reducing agents in industrial processes

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The exemption of coal and coke used for energy purposes in production of cement and leca

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

c)   The reduced rate of the CO2 tax on mineral oils for the paper and pulp industry

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.   Partial abolishment of the SO2 tax

| | |
| --- | --- |

4.   Qualification as ‘new aid’

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

II.   APPRECIATION

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

A.   SCOPE OF THE DECISION

| | |
| --- | --- |

B.   STATE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 61(1) OF THE EEA AGREEMENT

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

1.   Exemptions from tax on electricity consumption

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

a)   The exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for the manufacturing and the mining industries

| | |
| --- | --- |

In this regard it should be recalled that in the Adria Wien-judgment, the Court of Justice held that:

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

‘...any justification for the grant of advantages to undertakings whose activity consists primarily in the production of goods is not to be found in the nature or general scheme of the taxation system...’ (44)

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for users in certain regions (municipalities)

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   Derogations under CO2 tax regime

| | |
| --- | --- |

2

a)   The exemption of coal and coke used as raw materials or as reducing agents in industrial processes

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The exemption of coal and coke used for energy purposes in production of cement and leca

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

c)   The reduced rate of the CO2 tax on mineral oils for the paper and pulp industry

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

2

| | |
| --- | --- |

3.   The abolishment of the SO2 tax on the use of coal and coke and on emissions from oil refineries

| | |
| --- | --- |

2

a)   The abolishment of the SO2 tax on the use of coal and coke

2

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The abolishment of the SO2 tax on emissions from oil refineries

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

2

| | |
| --- | --- |

C.   COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

Point 46.1 of the Environmental Guidelines sets out that when an EFTA State, for environmental reasons, introduces a new tax in a sector of activity or on products in respect of which no corresponding European Community tax harmonisation exists or the tax exceeds that provided for in Community legislation, exemption decisions covering a ten year period may be justified:

| | |
| --- | --- |

| (a) | when these exemptions are either conditional on the conclusion of agreements between the EFTA State concerned and the recipient firms whereby the firms undertake to achieve environmental protection objectives, or |
| --- | --- |

(a)

when these exemptions are either conditional on the conclusion of agreements between the EFTA State concerned and the recipient firms whereby the firms undertake to achieve environmental protection objectives, or

| (b) | when the amount paid by the firms after the tax reduction remains higher than the Community minimum (where a Community tax exists – first indent) or constitutes a significant proportion of the national tax (where the tax does not correspond to a harmonised Community tax – second indent). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

when the amount paid by the firms after the tax reduction remains higher than the Community minimum (where a Community tax exists – first indent) or constitutes a significant proportion of the national tax (where the tax does not correspond to a harmonised Community tax – second indent).

| | |
| --- | --- |

1.   Exemptions from tax on electricity consumption

a)   The exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for the manufacturing and the mining industries

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for users in certain regions

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

2.   Derogations under the CO2 tax regime

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

2

a)   The exemption of coal and coke used for energy purposes in production of cement and leca

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The reduced rate of the CO2 tax on mineral oils for the paper and pulp industry

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

2

| | |
| --- | --- |

The CO2 tax on mineral oils leads to reduced use of fossil fuels and must be considered to have an appreciable positive impact in terms of environmental protection. The Authority notes that according to information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the paper and pulp industry had reduced CO2 emissions by 60 000 tons by 1999. In addition, according to the Norwegian Government's report, ‘Norway's third national communication under the Framework Convention on Climate Change’ (June 2002 (61)):

2

2

61

‘... CO2 emissions from energy use in industry have been reduced considerably as a result of improved energy efficiency and changes in the energy mix.... In the industrial sector, electricity and bio energy have to a large extent replaced mineral oils as an energy source. This has been especially pronounced in the pulp and paper industry, which is increasingly using bark and other biological waste products as fuel.’

| | |
| --- | --- |

D.   QUALIFICATION AS ‘NEW AID’ AS FROM 1 JANUARY 2002

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

a)   The binding effect of the acceptance of appropriate measures

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   Consequences of the binding effect

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

E.   RECOVERY

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

a)   Legitimate expectations

| | |
| --- | --- |

b)   The amount to be recovered

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

F.   FINAL CONCLUSIONS

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| 1. | The following Norwegian measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:






  a) | the exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for the manufacturing and the mining industries; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

The following Norwegian measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:

a)

the exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for the manufacturing and the mining industries;

| b) | the exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for undertakings located in Finnmark and seven municipalities in North Troms (Karlsøy, Kvænangen, Kåfjord, Lyngen, Nordreisa, Skjervøy og Storfjord); |
| --- | --- |

b)

the exemption from the tax on electricity consumption for undertakings located in Finnmark and seven municipalities in North Troms (Karlsøy, Kvænangen, Kåfjord, Lyngen, Nordreisa, Skjervøy og Storfjord);

| c) | the exemption from the CO2 tax on coal and coke used for energy purposes in the cement and leca industry; |
| --- | --- |

c)

the exemption from the CO2 tax on coal and coke used for energy purposes in the cement and leca industry;

2

| d) | the reduced CO2 tax rate on mineral oils for the paper and pulp industry. |
| --- | --- |

d)

the reduced CO2 tax rate on mineral oils for the paper and pulp industry.

2

| 2. | The exemption from the CO2 tax for coal and coke used as raw materials and reducing agents does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The exemption from the CO2 tax for coal and coke used as raw materials and reducing agents does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

2

| 3. | The abolishment of the SO2 tax on the use of coal and coke and the abolishment of the SO2 tax on emissions from oil refineries as from 1 January 2004 do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The abolishment of the SO2 tax on the use of coal and coke and the abolishment of the SO2 tax on emissions from oil refineries as from 1 January 2004 do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

2

2

| 4. | The measures referred to under point 1 of the present decision constitute new aid as from 1 January 2002. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The measures referred to under point 1 of the present decision constitute new aid as from 1 January 2002.

| 5. | The measure referred to under point 1 d) of the present decision is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement until 31 December 2004. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The measure referred to under point 1 d) of the present decision is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement until 31 December 2004.

| 6. | The measures referred to under point 1 a), b) and c) of the present decision are incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The measures referred to under point 1 a), b) and c) of the present decision are incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

| 7. | As regards the incompatible aid referred to in point 1 c) of the present decision, recovery shall not be required. |
| --- | --- |

7.

As regards the incompatible aid referred to in point 1 c) of the present decision, recovery shall not be required.

| 8. | The incompatible aid referred to under point 1 a) and b) of the present decision must be recovered from the aid recipients from 6 February 2003 onwards. Recovery shall be affected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision. The amount of recovery should equal a significant proportion of the national tax, and at least the minimum rate of EUR 0,5 per MWh laid down in the Energy Tax Directive (Council Directive 2003/96/EC). The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiaries until the date of its recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant-equivalent of regional aid and shall be annually compounded. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The incompatible aid referred to under point 1 a) and b) of the present decision must be recovered from the aid recipients from 6 February 2003 onwards. Recovery shall be affected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision. The amount of recovery should equal a significant proportion of the national tax, and at least the minimum rate of EUR 0,5 per MWh laid down in the Energy Tax Directive (Council Directive 2003/96/EC). The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiaries until the date of its recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant-equivalent of regional aid and shall be annually compounded.

| 9. | The Norwegian Government is requested to inform the Authority within two months from receipt of this decision of the measures taken to comply with the present decision. |
| --- | --- |

9.

The Norwegian Government is requested to inform the Authority within two months from receipt of this decision of the measures taken to comply with the present decision.

| 10. | This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway. |
| --- | --- |

10.

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

| 11. | This Decision is authentic in the English language. |
| --- | --- |

11.

This Decision is authentic in the English language.

Done at Brussels, 30 June 2004.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Hannes HAFSTEIN

President

Einar M. BULL

College Member

---

(1)  Hereinafter referred to as the ‘EEA Agreement’.

1

(2)  Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Surveillance and Court Agreement’.

2

(3)  It has to be noted that amendments to Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, following an agreement between EFTA States of 10 December 2001, amending Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, entered into force on 28 August 2003. These amendments incorporated ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of [ex] Article 93 of the EC Treaty’ into Protocol 3.

3

(4)  Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994, published in OJ L 231, 3.9.1994 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No 32, 3.9.1994, last amended by the Authority's Decision No 62/04/COL of 31 March 2004, not yet published; hereinafter referred to as the ‘Authority's State Aid Guidelines’.

4

(5)  Chapter 15 of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines on Aid for Environmental Protection, as adopted by the Authority's Decision No 152/01/COL of 23 May 2001 and published in the OJ L 237, 6.9.2001, p. 16 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No 6, 24.1.2002, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Environmental Guidelines’.

5

(6)  EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 149/02/COL of 26 July 2002 regarding environmental tax measures (Norway), published in OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 36 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No 8, 6.2.2003, p. 2.

6

(7)  Notice informing EFTA States, EU Member States and interested parties of the opening decisions and inviting them to submit their comments thereto within two weeks from the publication of the notice, published in OJ C 105, 1.5.2003, p. 38 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No 22, 1.5.2003.

7

(8)  In particular, point 5.3.2. of the Guidelines.

8

(9)  See footnote 6.

9

(10)  See footnote 7.

10

(11)  The relevant provision makes reference to the statistical classification D, which corresponds to NACE D Chapters 15 to 37.

11

(12)  The relevant provision makes reference to the statistical classification C, which corresponds to NACE C Chapter 10 to 14.

12

(13)  There is no reference to any statistical classification; however, the sector would seem to fall within NACE A.

13

(14)  Regulation of 23 December 1992 no. 1203, ‘Forskrift om avgiftsmessig avgrensning og praktisering av fritak og lettelser i avgift på elektrisk kraft for industrien m.v.’.

14

(15)  Cf. Regulation of 23 December 1992 no 1203, ‘Forskrift om avgiftsmessig avgrensning og praktisering av fritak og lettelser i avgift på elektrisk kraft for industrien m.v.’, as amended by Regulation of 21 December 2000 no. 1344.

15

(16)  Regulation of 11 December 2001 no. 1451, ‘Forskrift om særavgifter’.

16

(17)  The applicable conversion rate for Norway was, as from 3 January 2002, NOK 8,0105 = EUR 1 and, as from 3 January 2003, NOK 7,2360 = EUR 1 (http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/dbaFile791.html).

17

(18)  Light Expanded Clay Aggregate.

18

(19)  Associated with implementation of Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, the IPPC Directive, (OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26, as amended by Directive 2003/87/EC OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32), as incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Joint Committee Decision No 27/97 (OJ No L 242, 4.9.1997, p. 76 and EEA Supplement No 37, 4.9.1997, p. 100), The Act has to be operated in accordance with the Directive's requirements by 30 October 2007.

19

(20)  According to the agreement, PIL declared, on behalf of the companies listed in an appendix (the sectors covered are: oil refineries, chemical/ceramic materials, cement, ferro alloys and aluminium), that they would develop technology and build cleansing plants that would reduce Norway's emission of SO2 by a minimum of 5 000 tonnes per year. Furthermore, PIL would make concrete proposals on how such an emission reduction could be carried out and propose how a total reduction of 7 000 tonnes could be achieved. PIL established a so-called ‘Process Industries' Environment Fund’ (‘the Fund’) with the purpose of contributing to the reduction of the companies' SO2 emissions. An ‘Implementation Agreement’ was concluded between the participating companies and the Fund on 18 December 2001 according to which the individual companies were obliged to make consecutive payments to the Fund calculated on the basis of the individual companies' SO2 emissions and rates fixed by the Fund. All initiatives entitled to support from the Fund should be completed prior to the end of 2009. The Implementation Agreement came into force on 1 January 2002 and will expire on 31 December 2009.

20

2

2

2

(21)  On regional tax exemptions as State aid, see: Case E-6/98 The Government of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [1999] Report of the EFTA Court, p. 74.

21

(22)  Commission's Decision of 3 April 2002 regarding the dual-use exemption from the Climate Change Levy in the UK (State aid No C 18/2001 and C 19/2001), OJ L 229, 27.8.2002, p. 15.

22

(23)  COM (1997) 30 final, OJ C 139, 6.5.1997, p. 14.

23

(24)  In the meantime Council Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (‘the Energy Tax Directive’) was adopted on 27 October 2003 (OJ L 283, 31.10.2003, p. 51), not incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

24

(25)  This was, according to the Norwegian authorities, the case for the production of silicon metal and ferrosilicon.

25

(26)  Council Directive No. 92/82 EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 19).

26

(27)  The basic heating oil tax was introduced in 2000 with the purpose of discouraging a changeover from electricity to oil for heating purposes. This tax was levied on the same tax base as the CO2 tax on mineral oils. The paper and pulp industry has been fully exempted from the basic tax on heating oil since its introduction.

27

2

(28)  Case C-143/99 Adria Wien Pipeline [2001] ECR I-8365, para. 49.

28

(29)  See footnote 19 above.

29

(30)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L275 25.10.2003, p. 32), not incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

30

(31)  The Directive was later adopted as Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ L 283, 31.10.2003, p. 51).

31

(32)  Reference is made to St.prp.nr. 1 (2002-2003).

32

(33)  See footnote 31 above.

33

(34)  Agreement between the Member States of the European Coal and Steel Community, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the other part (OJ L 348, 27.12.1974, p. 17). This bilateral Free Trade Agreement remains in force after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty. The rights and obligations of this Agreement were transferred from the ECSC to the European Community as a result of the decision of the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the EC Member States from 19 July 2002. With the expiry of the ECSC Treaty in July 2002, the treatment in the Community of State aid to the ECSC steel sector was integrated into the general legal framework of the EC Treaty.

34

(35)  With regard to the steel sector, see Protocol 26 to the EEA Agreement in conjunction with Article 5 of Protocol 14 to the EEA Agreement. With regard to the other products, see Articles 1 and 2(1) of Protocol 14 to the EEA Agreement, as well as Article 1 and its Annex, which lists the products referred to in Article 1, of the bilateral Free Trade Agreement.

35

(36)  See point 17B.3.1. (1) of Chapter 17 B of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines on the application of State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation.

36

(37)  See point 17B.3.1. (4) of Chapter 17B of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines and Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, para. 15.

37

(38)  See point 17B.3.1. (4) of Chapter 17B of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines.

38

(39)  See Opinion of Advocate General Darmon in Joined Cases C-72 and 73/91 Firma Sloman Neptun Schiffahrts [1993] ECR I-887, para. 50.

39

(40)  Case 173/73, cited above, para. 15.

40

(41)  Case C-143/99, cited above, para. 55. See also Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I-3671, para. 31, where the Court of Justice held that ‘the limitation of the increased reductions to certain sectors rendered those reduction measures selective, so that they fulfilled the condition of specificity.’

41

(42)  Case C-143/99, cited above, para. 48; and Case C-75/97, cited above, para. 32.

42

(43)  See State aid No N 449/2001 – Germany, Continuation of ecological tax reform after 31 March 2002; State aid No C 42/03 (ex NN 3/B/2001 and NN 4/B/2001) – Sweden, Energy Tax Scheme; State aid No NN 75/2002 – Finland, Differentiated energy tax rates on electricity.

43

(44)  Case C-143/99, cited above, para. 49.

44

(45)  State aid No C 33/2003 (ex NN 34/2003) – Austria, refund from Energy Taxes on Gas and Electricity in 2002 and 2003; State aid No N 449/2001 – Germany, Continuation of ecological tax reform after 31 March 2002; State aid No NN 3/A/2001 and NN 4/A/2001) – Sweden, Prolongation of CO2 tax scheme; State aid No. C 18/2001 (N 123/2000) – United Kingdom, the Climate Change Levy.

45

2

(46)  The electricity tax applied e.g. in full to the construction industry (‘Bygge- og anleggsvirksomhet’) which falls under the statistical classification F, corresponding to NACE F.

46

(47)  The Norwegian electricity tax could have led to situations where, for example, 75 % of the office space was used for administrative purposes with the result that all electricity consumption for the entire building was exempted from the electricity tax.

47

(48)  State aid No N 416/1999 – Denmark, Electricity reform. See point 16 of the Commission's notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures related to direct business taxation (OJ C 384, 10.12.1998, p. 3) and the corresponding point 17B.3.1(4) of Chapter 17B of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines (OJ L 137, 08.06.2000, p. 22 and EEA Supplement No. 26, 08.06.2000, p. 12).

48

(49)  See in particular Section 11 of the Danish Act, ‘Lov om afgift af electricitet’, available at http://147.29.40.90/DELFIN/HTML/A1998/0068929.htm.

49

(50)  See footnote 22 above.

50

(51)  State aid No NN 3A/2001 and NN 4A/2001 – Sweden, prolongation of CO2 tax scheme. See points 3.5 and 4.3 of the decision.

51

2

(52)  Article 2(4)(b) of the Directive.

52

(53)  Recital 22 of the Directive.

53

(54)  Chapter 15 of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines, Introduction, paragraph 5.

54

(55)  Under the Energy Tax Directive it is considered to be in the nature and the logic of an environmental tax system to exclude mineralogical processes from the framework (Article 2(4)(b) and recital 22). However, it cannot be in the nature and logic of the system to exclude some, but not all, mineralogical processes from an energy tax such as under the Norwegian tax system.

55

(56)  By contrast cf. Case C-53/00 Ferring SA v Agence centrale des organismes de sécurité sociale (ACOSS) [2001] ECR I-9067, in which the Court of Justice found that a tax levied on direct sales of medicines to pharmacies, but not on wholesale distributors, equated to granting the wholesale distributors a selective tax exemption. In that case the two groups of distributors were in direct competition with each other, the tax in question had direct effects on the competitive relationship between them and a particular objective of the French authorities had been to create such effects.

56

(57)  Cf. the opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in Case C-53/00, Ferring, cited above, para. 38.

57

(58)  See footnote 22 and 51 above.

58

(59)  That is to say 0,5 Euro per MWh, see Article 10 in conjunction with Annex I Table C of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (cited above).

59

(60)  Chapter 25 of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines.

60

(61)  http://odin.dep.no/archive/mdvedlegg/01/17/T1386032.pdf.

61

(62)  OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 19.

62

(63)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring of the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, cited above.

63

(64)  See in this context: Case C-242/00 Germany v Commission [2002] ECR I-5603, para. 28.

64

(65)  Case C-242/00 Germany v Commission, cited above, para. 28. The binding effect of the acceptance of appropriate measures is now explicitly laid down in Article 19(1), second sentence, in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

65

(66)  See in this context, Case C-313/90 CIRFS [1993] ECR I-1125, para. 36.

66

(67)  Cf. e.g. State Aid No C 42/2003 - Sweden; State Aid No E 10/2000 – Germany; and State Aid No C 37/2000 - Portugal.

67

(68)  Case 313/90, CIRFS, cited above, para. 35.

68

(69)  Cf., Para. 14 of the Report for the Hearing [1993] ECR-1151.

69

(70)  Similarly, in the above mentioned opening-decision with regard to environmental taxes in Sweden, the Commission has taken the view that Sweden's acceptance of the appropriate measures in itself has had the effect of turning hitherto existing aid into new aid to the extent that the aid schemes do not comply with the new guidelines. Like in the present case, the Commission had not, prior to the adoption of the opening decision, carried out any individual assessment of the different Swedish' schemes, cf. State aid No C 42/2003.

70

(71)  Case C-242/00, cited above, para. 28.

71

(72)  Case C-36/00 Spain v Commission [2002] ECR I-3243, paras. 24, 25 and 32.

72

(73)  See Article 14 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement and prior to the entry into force of the amendment to Protocol 3, on 28 August 2003, point 6.2.3 of Chapter 6 of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines.

73

(74)  Cf. Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135, para. 51; Case C-24/95 Alcan Deutschland [1997] ECR I-1591, para. 25; and Case T-55/99 Confederación Española de Transporte de Mercancías (CETM) [2000] ECR II-3207, para. 121 to 131.

74

(75)  Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of [ex] Article 93 of the EC Treaty.

75

(76)  See footnote 6.

76

(77)  In fact, it seems likely that most aid recipients obtained knowledge about Norway's acceptance of the appropriate measures and the doubts pertaining to the compatibility of the aid schemes either in May 2002, when the public was informed hereof in the Norwegian Government's Revised Budget for 2002, in October 2002 when the Government published its comments to the Authority's opening decision on the internet and, moreover, informed the public about the main content of the opening decision in the State Budget for 2003, or, at the latest, in December 2002 when the Government published a report about the consequences of the new Environmental Guidelines for the electricity tax.

77

(78)  This is in line with the practice of the Commission (cf. State aid No C33/2003 – Austria) although the Commission prior to the adoption of the Energy Tax Directive only had considered a rate down to 20-25 per cent of the general tax rate as amounting to a significant proportion of the national tax (State aid No N 449/2001 – Germany; State aid No NN 3A/2001 and NN 4A/2001 – Sweden.

78

(79)  See Article 14(2) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement and Chapter 34 of the State Aid Guidelines).

79

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/62

---

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

of 9 September 2004

concerning the status of Iceland with regard to the fish diseases viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN)

(2004/C 319/09)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement), in particular Article 109 and Protocol 1 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court Agreement, in particular Article 5(2)(d) and Protocol 1 thereof,

Having regard to the Act referred to at Point 4.1.5 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement and in particular Article 5 of the Act,

Having regard to the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 196/04/COL of 14 July 2004 empowering the Member with special responsibility for the free movement of goods to take certain decisions and measures, and in particular Point 1 thereof,

| | |
| --- | --- |

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| 1. | The parts of Iceland referred to in the Annex are recognised as approved continental zone and as approved coastal zone for fish with regard to the fish diseases viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The parts of Iceland referred to in the Annex are recognised as approved continental zone and as approved coastal zone for fish with regard to the fish diseases viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) and infectious haematopoietic necrosis (IHN).

| 2. | This Decision shall enter into force on 15 September 2004. |
| --- | --- |

2.

This Decision shall enter into force on 15 September 2004.

| 3. | This Decision is addressed to Iceland. |
| --- | --- |

3.

This Decision is addressed to Iceland.

| 4. | This Decision shall be authentic in the English language. |
| --- | --- |

4.

This Decision shall be authentic in the English language.

Done at Brussels, 9 September 2004.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Bernd HAMMERMANN

College Member

Niels FENGER

Director

---

ANNEX

Zones approved with regard to one or both of the fish diseases IHN and VHS

IHN

The whole continental and coastal area of Iceland

VHS

The whole continental and coastal area of Iceland

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/65

---

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

of 9 September 2004

approving the scheme submitted by Norway for the withdrawal of all fish in Norwegian farms infected with infectious salmon anaemia (ISA)

(2004/C 319/10)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement), in particular Article 109 and Protocol 1 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, in particular Article 5(2)(d) and Protocol 1 thereof,

Having regard to the Act referred to at Point 3.1.7 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993 introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain fish diseases, as amended, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, in particular the first indent of Article 6(a) of that Act,

Having regard to the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 196/04/COL of 14 July 2004 empowering the Member with special responsibility for the free movement of goods to take certain decisions and measures, and in particular Point 1 thereof,

| | |
| --- | --- |

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| 1. | The scheme submitted by Norway for the withdrawal of all fish in Norwegian farms infected with infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) is hereby approved. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The scheme submitted by Norway for the withdrawal of all fish in Norwegian farms infected with infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) is hereby approved.

| 2. | This Decision shall enter into force on 15 September 2004. |
| --- | --- |

2.

This Decision shall enter into force on 15 September 2004.

| 3. | This Decision is addressed to Norway. |
| --- | --- |

3.

This Decision is addressed to Norway.

| 4. | This Decision shall be authentic in the English language. |
| --- | --- |

4.

This Decision shall be authentic in the English language.

Done at Brussels, 9 September 2004.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Bernd HAMMERMANN

College Member

Niels FENGER

Director

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/67

---

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

of 9 September 2004

recognising the entire coastline of Norway as an approved zone with regard to
  Bonamia ostreae
  and
  Marteilia refringens

(2004/C 319/11)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement), in particular Article 109 and Protocol 1 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, in particular Article 5(2)(d) and Protocol 1 thereof,

Having regard to the Act referred to at Point 4.1.5 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991 concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, in particular Article 5 of that Act,

Having regard to the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 196/04/COL of 14 July 2004 empowering the Member with special responsibility for the free movement of goods to take certain decisions and measures, and in particular Point 1 thereof,

| | |
| --- | --- |

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| | |
| --- | --- |

| 1. | The approved zones with regard to B. ostreae and M. refringens for Norway are listed in the Annex. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The approved zones with regard to B. ostreae and M. refringens for Norway are listed in the Annex.

| 2. | This Decision shall enter into force on 15 September 2004. |
| --- | --- |

2.

This Decision shall enter into force on 15 September 2004.

| 3. | This Decision is addressed to Norway. |
| --- | --- |

3.

This Decision is addressed to Norway.

| 4. | This Decision shall be authentic in the English language. |
| --- | --- |

4.

This Decision shall be authentic in the English language.

Done at Brussels, 9 September 2004

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Bernd HAMMERMANN

College Member

Niels FENGER

Director

---

ANNEX

Zones approved for the mollusc diseases Bonamia ostreae and Marteilia refringens

| 1. | The entire coastline of Norway |
| --- | --- |

1.

The entire coastline of Norway

---

EFTA Court

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/70

---

Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-5/04)

(2004/C 319/12)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 31 August 2004 by Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS, represented by Jan Magne Langseth, Advokat, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt AS, Dronning Mauds gt. 11, P.b. 2444 Solli, N-0201 Oslo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; and |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; and

| 2. | Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL (the ‘Decision’) concludes that the Norwegian measure exempting the manufacturing and the mining industries from the tax on electricity consumption constitutes State aid and that it constitutes new aid as from 1 January 2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL (the ‘Decision’) concludes that the Norwegian measure exempting the manufacturing and the mining industries from the tax on electricity consumption constitutes State aid and that it constitutes new aid as from 1 January 2002.

| — | The Decision concludes that the relevant measures are incompatible with the EEA Agreement and the incompatible aid must be recovered from the aid recipients. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Decision concludes that the relevant measures are incompatible with the EEA Agreement and the incompatible aid must be recovered from the aid recipients.

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority has not made a correct assessment of Article 61(1) EEA. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has not made a correct assessment of Article 61(1) EEA.

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority misuses its powers under the EEA Agreement by its incorrect application of Article 61(3) EEA and the Environmental Guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority misuses its powers under the EEA Agreement by its incorrect application of Article 61(3) EEA and the Environmental Guidelines.

| — | There is no legal basis for recovery of the alleged aid from the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

There is no legal basis for recovery of the alleged aid from the applicants.

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/71

---

Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Prosessindustriens Landsforening, Borregaard, Elkem ASA, Norsk Hydro ASA, Eramet Norway AS, Norske Skogindustrier ASA, Södra Cell Folla AS, Tinfos Titan & Iron KS, and Yara International ASA against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-6/04)

(2004/C 319/13)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 31 August 2004 by Prosessindustriens Landsforening, Borregaard, Elkem ASA, Norsk Hydro ASA, Eramet Norway AS, Norske Skogindustrier ASA, Södra Cell Folla AS, Tinfos Titan & Iron KS, and Yara International ASA, represented by Onno W. Brouwer, advocaat, and Michael Schuette, Rechtsanwalt, Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer, Bastion Tower, Place du Champ de Mars 5, 1050 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; and |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; and

| 2. | Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 148/04/COL of 30 June 2004 (the ‘Decision’) concerns electricity tax and considers the failure to apply that tax to the manufacturing industry to constitute State aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 148/04/COL of 30 June 2004 (the ‘Decision’) concerns electricity tax and considers the failure to apply that tax to the manufacturing industry to constitute State aid.

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61(1) EEA. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61(1) EEA.

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61 EEA and Part II of Protocol 3 on State aid regarding the qualification of existing aid as new aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61 EEA and Part II of Protocol 3 on State aid regarding the qualification of existing aid as new aid.

| — | The Decision infringes the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Decision infringes the principle of legal certainty.

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority failed to follow proper procedure, violating Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the ESA/Court Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority failed to follow proper procedure, violating Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the ESA/Court Agreement.

| — | The Decision violates Articles 61 and 62 EEA as regards recovery of aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Decision violates Articles 61 and 62 EEA as regards recovery of aid.

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/72

---

Action brought on 1 September 2004 by the Kingdom of Norway against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-7/04)

(2004/C 319/14)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 1 September 2004 by the Kingdom of Norway, represented by Ketil Bøe Moen, assistant advocate, Office of the Attorney General (Civil Affairs), and Ingeborg Djupvik, Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as agents, c/o The Attorney General (Civil Affairs), Oslo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; and |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; and

| 2. | Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 148/04/COL of 30 June 2004 (the ‘Decision’) concerns environmental tax measures in Norway. |
| --- | --- |

—

EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 148/04/COL of 30 June 2004 (the ‘Decision’) concerns environmental tax measures in Norway.

| — | In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found, inter alia, that four Norwegian tax measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found, inter alia, that four Norwegian tax measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.

| — | In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority ordered recovery of the aid constituted by two of these tax measures, based on the premise that the alleged aid schemes became new aid as from 1 January 2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority ordered recovery of the aid constituted by two of these tax measures, based on the premise that the alleged aid schemes became new aid as from 1 January 2002.

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61(1) EEA. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61(1) EEA.

| — | The relevant tax measures are not new aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

The relevant tax measures are not new aid.

| — | There is no legal basis for recovery of the alleged aid from the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

There is no legal basis for recovery of the alleged aid from the applicants.

---

III Notices

Commission

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/73

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — EAC65/04

Tempus III: Guide for applicants 2004/2005

(2004/C 319/15)

1.   OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION

Tempus, the European Commission's trans-European cooperation scheme in higher education provides grants to the development and restructuring of higher education in the partner countries. Tempus supports multilateral cooperation projects involving higher education establishments from EU Member States and the partner countries which form project consortia. National coordination is safeguarded by ensuring the submission of projects, which adhere to national priorities for the implementation of Tempus that are defined on an annual basis by the Commission and the relevant authorities of each partner country.

The three principal instruments for cooperation through the Tempus programme:

| — | individual mobility grants (IMG): they are intended to provide academic and administrative staff of the higher education sector with the opportunity to benefit from limited mobility periods abroad, |
| --- | --- |

—

individual mobility grants (IMG): they are intended to provide academic and administrative staff of the higher education sector with the opportunity to benefit from limited mobility periods abroad,

| — | structural and complementary measures (SCM): short-term projects with a ‘top-down’ approach mainly aiming at reform at national level, |
| --- | --- |

—

structural and complementary measures (SCM): short-term projects with a ‘top-down’ approach mainly aiming at reform at national level,

| — | joint European projects (JEP): medium-term projects with a ‘bottom-up’ approach aiming at reform at the institutional level. |
| --- | --- |

—

joint European projects (JEP): medium-term projects with a ‘bottom-up’ approach aiming at reform at the institutional level.

2.   ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES

Institutions and organisations which may participate in the Tempus Programme range from higher education institutions through to non-academic institutions such as non-governmental organisations, business companies, industries and public authorities.

Those institutions have to be based in one of the following countries participating in the programme:

| — | the 25 Member States of the European Community, |
| --- | --- |

—

the 25 Member States of the European Community,

| — | the partner countries — currently including the western Balkan countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro (1); the eastern European and central Asian countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan; and the Mediterranean partners, consisting of Algeria, Egypt, Israel (2), Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Syria and Tunisia. |
| --- | --- |

—

the partner countries — currently including the western Balkan countries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro (1); the eastern European and central Asian countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan; and the Mediterranean partners, consisting of Algeria, Egypt, Israel (2), Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Syria and Tunisia.

Institutions and organisations from the following groups of countries may participate in Tempus projects, but on a self-financing basis:

| — | the remaining Candidate Countries Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey; Bulgaria and Romania also participated in Tempus from 1990 to 2000 as partner countries and have a wealth of experience and positive results which could prove useful to project consortia, |
| --- | --- |

—

the remaining Candidate Countries Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey; Bulgaria and Romania also participated in Tempus from 1990 to 2000 as partner countries and have a wealth of experience and positive results which could prove useful to project consortia,

| — | members of the Group of 24 other than the Member States of the European Community (currently Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Liechtenstein, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United States of America). |
| --- | --- |

—

members of the Group of 24 other than the Member States of the European Community (currently Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Liechtenstein, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United States of America).

3.   BUDGET AND LENGTH OF PROJECTS

The Tempus programme is financed through the regional cooperation programmes CARDS (western Balkans), MEDA (Mediterranean countries) and TACIS (eastern Europe, Caucasus and central Asia). Under CARDS around EUR 15 million will be made available for Tempus, under MEDA around EUR 20 million, and under Tacis also around EUR 20 million.

Grants requested for mobilities cover 100 % of the mobility costs. Individual mobility grants can last one week up to eight weeks, but may not exceed EUR 5 000.

Grants requested for structural and complementary measures and joint European projects will cover 95 % of the total eligible project cost; the other 5 % of the total eligible project costs must be co-financed by the applicant respectively the consortium.

Structural and Complementary Measures can last up to 1 year and the maximum grant amounts are EUR 150 000 for structural measures respectively EUR 100 000 for Complementary Measures.

The maximum grant amount for 2-years joint European projects is EUR 300 000 and for 3-year JEPs EUR 500 000.

4.   DEADLINES FOR SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS

Annual deadlines for applications for individual mobility grants: 15 February, 15 June, 15 October.

Annual deadlines for applications for structural and complementary measures: 15 February, 15 October.

Annual deadline for applications for joint European projects: 15 December.

5.   ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The call for proposals of the Tempus programme (the ‘Guide for applicants’ for implementation in 2004/2005) has been published in five languages (English, French, German, Arabic, Russian) on the following website under the link ‘Apply for Tempus’. Please note also the publications on selected proposals and the eligibility of grant applications from certain partner countries on this website:

http://www.etf.eu.int/tempus.nsf

Applications for funding must respect the conditions set out in the call for proposals and must be submitted on the forms provided with the call for proposals.

---

(1)  Kosovo is under interim international civil administration in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999.

(2)  Since it does not benefit from MEDA bilateral funds the participation of Israel is on a self-funding basis.

---

| 23.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/75

---

Call for expressions of interest in membership of the Scientific Panel on contaminants in the food chain (CONTAM Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority

(2004/C 319/16)

This call is addressed to scientists wishing to be considered for membership of a Scientific Panel of the European Food Safety Authority, established by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1642/2003 of 22 July 2003 (OJ L 245 of 29.9.2003). The Authority has its permanent seat in Parma, Italy.

The Authority's Scientific Committee and scientific panels have been operational since May 2003. This call is particularly aimed to scientific experts with specific expertise in the areas mentioned below and to fill the vacancies of the Panel on contaminants in the food chain. The current list of experts can be found on http://www.efsa.eu.int/science_en.html.

The European Food Safety Authority

One of the main roles of the Authority is to provide scientific opinions in support of Community legislation and policies in all fields likely to have a direct or indirect impact on the safety of foodstuffs and animal feed, as well as closely related issues in the fields of health and welfare of animals and of plant health. It will provide independent information on these issues and give warning of emerging risks. Its tasks also include providing scientific opinions on nutrition, with particular reference to Community legislation, GMOs and new food technologies. By ensuring a high degree of independence, transparency and scientific quality, the Authority should rapidly establish itself as the accepted point of reference in the field. In addition to having its own specialised staff, the Authority will also manage networks of competent organisations within the EU to support its activities.

The role of the Authority's scientific panels

The scientific panels are responsible for providing the scientific opinions of the Authority, each within their own spheres of competence.

The competence of the Scientific Panel and the respective expertise sought through this Call will be as follows:

Panel on contaminants in the food chain (CONTAM Panel) deals with questions on contaminants in food and feed, associated areas and undesirable substances such as natural toxicants, mycotoxins and residues on non authorised substances not covered by another Panel.

Expertise required: general toxicology, veterinary toxicology, toxicokinetics (modelling and metabolism)

Composition of the scientific panels

The scientific panels are composed of a maximum of 21 independent scientific experts. The number and names of the scientific panels may be adapted in the light of technical and scientific development by the Commission, at the Authority's request, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 58(2) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 as amended.

Eligibility:

Applicants must have

| — | a university degree in a relevant scientific area, preferably at postgraduate level, |
| --- | --- |

—

a university degree in a relevant scientific area, preferably at postgraduate level,

| — | at least 10 years' professional experience at a level to which these qualifications give admission. |
| --- | --- |

—

at least 10 years' professional experience at a level to which these qualifications give admission.

Selection criteria

Preference will be given to applicants who possess:

| — | experience in carrying out scientific risk assessment and/or providing scientific advice in fields related to food and feed safety in general and, in particular, in the areas of competence and expertise of the Scientific Panel on contaminants in the food chain, |
| --- | --- |

—

experience in carrying out scientific risk assessment and/or providing scientific advice in fields related to food and feed safety in general and, in particular, in the areas of competence and expertise of the Scientific Panel on contaminants in the food chain,

| — | experience in peer reviewing scientific work and publications, preferably in fields related to the area covered by the Scientific Panel on contaminants in the food chain, |
| --- | --- |

—

experience in peer reviewing scientific work and publications, preferably in fields related to the area covered by the Scientific Panel on contaminants in the food chain,

| — | the ability to analyse complex information and dossiers, often from a wide range of scientific disciplines and sources and to prepare draft scientific opinions and reports, |
| --- | --- |

—

the ability to analyse complex information and dossiers, often from a wide range of scientific disciplines and sources and to prepare draft scientific opinions and reports,

| — | proven scientific excellence in one, or preferably several fields linked to the area covered by the Scientific Panel on contaminants in the food chain, |
| --- | --- |

—

proven scientific excellence in one, or preferably several fields linked to the area covered by the Scientific Panel on contaminants in the food chain,

| — | professional experience in a multidisciplinary environment, preferably in an international context, |
| --- | --- |

—

professional experience in a multidisciplinary environment, preferably in an international context,

| — | managerial and communication skills. |
| --- | --- |

—

managerial and communication skills.

An ability to use modern, electronic means of document exchange and communications would be an advantage, given the Authority's intention to make best use of these techniques.

Independence and declarations of commitment and interest

The members of the scientific panels are appointed on a personal basis. Applicants are required to include a declaration that they will undertake to act independently of any outside influence and a declaration of interests which may be deemed to be prejudicial to their independence.

Selection process, appointment and term

Applications meeting the eligibility requirements will be submitted to a comparative evaluation carried out by the Authority on the basis of the selection criteria given above.

The Authority reserves the right to consult third parties on the professional experience of applicants in the context of their application for a Scientific Panel.

Members of the scientific panels will be appointed by the Management Board acting upon a proposal from the Executive Director. The current Scientific Committee and scientific panels have been in place since May 2003 and are to be renewed every three years.

Applicants can only be appointed to one of the scientific panels. Applicants may, with their prior consent, be assigned to a Scientific Panel even if it was not specifically applied for. Applicants meeting the requirement for membership but who are not appointed may be invited to be placed on a reserve list in case vacancies occur.

Equal opportunity

The Authority applies the European Union policy of equality between men and women.

Attending meetings

Members should be prepared to attend meetings of the Scientific Panel on a regular basis. It is estimated that the scientific panels meet on average four to six times per year. Panel members participating in working groups of the scientific panels may need to attend more meetings.

The members of the scientific panels are not remunerated but will be entitled to an indemnity of EUR 300 for each full day meeting. Members will also receive travel and subsistence allowances in accordance with the scales laid down by the Authority's rules of procedure.

Application procedure

The Authority encourages the use of its online web-based facility to submit application forms, however applications by post are acceptable.

Online application forms are available from the Authority's website www.efsa.eu.int and should be submitted through that site. Forms for paper application are equally available from the Authority's website www.efsa.eu.int, or by post from the following address.

| European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) |
| --- |
| Anja Van Impe (office 7/17) |
| Call for expression of interest — CONTAM Panel |
| Rue de Genève 10 |
| B-1140 Brussels, Belgium |

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Anja Van Impe (office 7/17)

Call for expression of interest — CONTAM Panel

Rue de Genève 10

B-1140 Brussels, Belgium

The application forms should be submitted by registered post to that same address.

Supporting documents may be requested at a later stage.

While applicants may apply in any of the official languages of the European Community, it is highly desirable to submit an application in either English, French or German in order to facilitate the selection procedure.

All applications will be treated as confidential.

Closing date

Applications should be sent electronically online on www.efsa.eu.int, or by registered letter to the above address not later than 28 February 2005 (date of postmark).

The Authority reserves the right to disregard any expressions of interest received after that date.

---

(1)  OJ L 31 of 1.2.2002, p. 1.

---