DA Den Europæiske Unions Tidende C 319/17

Opfordring til at fremsætte bemærkninger efter artikel 1, stk. 2, i første del af protokol nr. 3 til aftalen om Tilsynsmyndigheden og Domstolen for så vidt angår statsstøtte i form af fritagelse for dokument- og tinglysningsafgifter ved oprettelsen af den norske virksomhed Entra Eiendom A/S (i det følgende benævnt »Entra«).

(2004/C 319/07)

Ved beslutning 132/04/COL af 16. juni 2004, som gengives på originalsproget efter resuméet nedenfor, indledte EFTA-Tilsynsmyndigheden proceduren efter artikel 1, stk. 2, i første del af protokol nr. 3 til aftalen mellem EFTA-staterne om oprettelse af en tilsynsmyndighed og en domstol (i det følgende benævnt tilsyns- og domstolsaftalen). Den norske regering er underrettet herom, idet den har fået tilsendt en kopi af beslutningen.

EFTA-Tilsynsmyndigheden opfordrer hermed EFTA-staterne, EU-medlemsstaterne og interesserede parter til at fremsætte deres bemærkninger til ovennævnte foranstaltning inden en måned efter offentliggørelsen af denne meddelelse til:

EFTA-Tilsynsmyndigheden 74, Rue de Trèves/Trierstraat 74 B-1040 Bruxelles Belgien

Bemærkningerne vil blive videregivet til den norske regering. Interesserede parter, der fremsætter bemærkninger til sagen, kan skriftligt anmode om at få deres navne hemmeligholdt. Anmodningen skal være begrundet.

RESUMÉ

Sagsforløb

Den 22. maj 2002 bad EFTA-Tilsynsmyndigheden den norske regering om at fremlægge oplysninger vedrørende den påståede statsstøtte til ejendomsselskabet Entra Eiendom A/S. Der fulgte herefter en yderligere brevudveksling mellem den norske regering og Tilsynsmyndigheden.

Beskrivelse af støtteforanstaltningen

Den 4. juni 1999 foreslog den norske regering i det norske parlament at omstrukturere det statslige organ »Statsbygg« og oprette aktieselskabet Entra.

Ejendom, kapital og personale (aktiver og passiver) blev med virkning fra 1. juli 2000 overført fra Statsbygg til Entra mod udstedelse af aktier. Ejendomsretten til de pågældende ejendomme blev overført fra den norske stat til Entra og tinglyst i Entras navn. Selskabet ejes 100 % af den norske stat. Hele ejendomsporteføljen består af ca. 120 ejendomme, i alt 880 000 m2.

Al fast ejendom i Norge tinglyses i tinglysningsregistret, der er oprettet i henhold til tinglysningslov nr. 2 af 7. juni 1935. I henhold til § 7, stk. 1, i lov nr. 59 af 1975 om punktafgifter medfører tinglysning af ejerskifte i forbindelse med fast ejendom, at der skal betales en dokumentafgift. For tinglysningen af ejerskiftet skal der i henhold til lov om domstolsafgifter nr. 86 af 1982 betales en tinglysningsafgift.

I medfør af det lovforslag, det norske parlament fik forelagt den 4. juni 1999, skal tinglysningen og registreringen i andre offentlige registre ske ved en ændring af navnet. Som følge heraf var Entra ikke forpligtet til at betale dokument- og tinglysningsafgift. Den norske regering finder, at denne procedure er i overensstemmelse med tidligere omstruktureringer af statslige organer.

I henhold til de fremlagte oplysninger ville de afgifter, der skulle betales for ejerskiftet i forbindelse med den faste ejendom, Entra overtog, beløbe sig til ca. 80,6 mio. NOK (ca. 10,4 mio. EUR).

Vurdering

Ved vedtagelsen af særlige retlige bestemmelser blev Entra fritaget for at betale dokument- og tinglysningsafgift. Tilsynsmyndigheden mener, at dette udgør en økonomisk fordel. Det fastsættes ikke i andre bestemmelser i norsk lov, at en sådan transaktion er fritaget fra den generelle bestemmelse om, at tinglysning af ejerskifte medfører, at der skal betales dokument- og tinglysningsafgift.

Den norske regering gør gældende, at foranstaltningen ikke giver Entra en fordel i forhold til private virksomheder i en lignende situation. I henhold til en særlig retlig ordning defineres en statslig foranstaltning som en måde at begunstige visse virksomheder i forhold til andre på, som i lyset af det tilstræbte mål er i en lignende retlig og faktuel situation. Tilsynsmyndigheden er stadig ikke overbevidst om, at artikel 61, stk. 1, i EØS-aftalen ikke er relevant i forbindelse med fritagelse for dokument- og tinglysningsafgifter efter sammenligning med private virksomheder.

Den norske regering anfører desuden, at fritagelse for eller ingen betaling af dokument- og tinglysningsafgifter ikke giver nogen fordele, da virksomhedens kapitalstruktur, soliditet og samlede værdi i henhold til primobalancen, vil være uændret. Tilsynsmyndigheden mener imidlertid, at pligten til at betale dokument- og tinglysningsafgifter er virksomhedens ansvar, og at fritagelse herfor i medfør af artikel 61, stk. 1, i EØS-aftalen udgør en fordel for virksomheden. Denne fordel kan ikke betragtes som ikke-eksisterende på grund af den måde, hvorpå primobalancen er opstillet.

Tilsynsmyndigheden mener desuden, at tab af skatteindtægter svarer til forbrug af statslige indtægter i form af skatteudgifter.

I henhold til de norske myndigheder er den pågældende foranstaltning en generel foranstaltning, der falder uden for anvendelsesområdet for artikel 61, stk. 1. På den baggrund påpeger Tilsynsmyndigheden, at skattemæssige foranstaltninger, som alle virksomheder, der opererer inden for en EFTA-stat, kan få gavn af, principielt er generelle foranstaltninger. Den differentiering, der er forbundet med visse foranstaltninger, betyder ikke nødvendigvis, at de må betragtes som statsstøtte. Dette er bl.a. tilfældet ved foranstaltninger, hvis økonomiske begrundelse gør dem nødvendige for at sikre, at skattesystemet fungerer effektivt. Ifølge Tilsynsmyndigheden kan det ikke ud fra den generelle logik i den nuværende lovgivning og praksis vedrørende punktafgifter udledes, at Entra med henblik på dokument- og tinglysningsafgifterne fortsat betragtes som (en del af) Statsbygg. Foranstaltningen skal derfor betragtes som selektiv i den betydning, der er anvendt i artikel 61, stk. 1.

Tilsynsmyndigheden bemærker desuden, at virksomheden opererer i hele Norge på et marked, der er åbent for andre virksomheder fra et hvilket som helst EØS-land. Som følge heraf påvirker eller truer foranstaltningen med at påvirke konkurrencen og samhandelen mellem de kontraherende parter.

Konklusion

I lyset af det foregående nærer Tilsynsmyndigheden tvivl om, hvorvidt den fritagelse for dokument- og tingslysningsafgifterne, der blev vedtaget ved oprettelsen af Entra Eiendom AS, er forenelig med EØS-traktaten. Tilsynsmyndigheden er derfor nødt til at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure efter artikel 1, stk. 2, i første del af protokol 3 til aftalen om Tilsynsmyndigheden og Domstolen.

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

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

(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.

(4) In particular in »Dagens Næringsliv« on 9 April 2002.

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

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

(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.

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

(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

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

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

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«).

(12) Chapter 7.6.1.

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

(14) Value per 2000.

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

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

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

(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.

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

(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.

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