STATE AID (95-010 Norway) (98/C 38/06)

EFTA Surveillance Authority notice pursuant to Article 1 (2) of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, to other EFTA States, EC Member States and interested parties concerning State aid in the form of regionally differentiated social security taxation (Norway) (Aid 95-010).

By means of Decision 246/97/COL of 19 November 1997, the gist of which is reproduced below, the EFTA Surveillance Authority initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 1 (2) of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement. The Norwegian Government has been informed by a copy of the decision.

I. INTRODUCTION

Investigation procedure

Article 1 (1) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement provides that, 'the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall, in cooperation with the EFTA States, keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States. It shall propose to the latter any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the EEA Agreement`.

Article 1 (2) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement provides that, 'If, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the EFTA Surveillance Authority finds that aid granted by an EFTA State or through EFTA State resources is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement having regard to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement, or that such aid is being misused, it shall decide that the EFTA State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Authority`.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1 (2) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement whenever it is in any doubt about the compatibility of the aid with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. The procedure is applicable in all types of cases, whether of notified, unnotified or existing aid, although in the latter case it must be preceded by the proposal of 'appropriate measures`.

The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision, which may still be to find that the aid is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. The purpose of proceedings pursuant to Article 1 (2) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement is to ensure a comprehensive examination of the case by giving all parties concerned the right to be heard.

Procedural background

The Authority requested the Norwegian authorities by letters of 16 June 1995 and 30 August 1995, to submit full details on the existing system of social security taxation. The request concerned in particular the system of regionally differentiated social security contributions paid by employers, in order to examine whether this system might constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 (1) of the EEA Agreement and if so, to what extent any of the derogations according to Article 61 (3) might be applicable.

The Norwegian authorities responded to the Authority's requests by letters dated 5 and 19 September 1995. The Authority had several informal and technical meetings with the Norwegian authorities between the spring of 1995 and March 1997 on the scheme under consideration. The Norwegian authorities submitted, inter alia, in relation to the above-mentioned meetings, further information relevant to the Authority's examination.

The Authority informed the Commission's services of its examination, in accordance with Protocol 27 (f) of the EEA Agreement and it received their comments (1) to the initial assessment of Authority's Competition and State Aid Directorate.

The Authority concluded in its Decision (2) of 14 May 1997, that the lower tax rates in tax zones 2 to 5 of the Norwegian system of regionally differentiated social security contributions from employers lead to disbursements of State aid within the meaning of Article 61 (1) and it proposed in the same decision, on the basis of Article 1 (1) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, a number of conditions as 'appropriate measures` for the system of regionally differentiated rates of employers' social security contributions (3) to be compatible with the EEA Agreement (see Section III.1 of this Decision).

The Authority requested the Norwegian Government to signify its agreement to the proposal for appropriate measures, or otherwise submit its observations within two months from the receipt of the Decision.

As referred to in Section III.(2) of this Decision, the Norwegian authorities responded that they could not comply with the proposed appropriate measures.

The Authority's assessment of the case at hand is presented in Section III of this Decision.

II. FACTS

1. Basic features of the Norwegian national insurance scheme and its financing

1.1. The Norwegian national insurance scheme (Folketrygden)

Compulsory insurance applies to all persons residing or working in Norway according to the National Insurance Act of 17 June 1996. Persons covered by the scheme are entitled to a wide range of benefits including, inter alia, old age pension, benefits for survivors, disability, rehabilitation, medical care and occupational injury, wage compensation in cases of illness and maternity leave, and daily cash payments during unemployment. Total expenditure for the national insurance scheme amounted to NOK 125 000 million in 1995.

When the Norwegian national insurance scheme was established, it was financed from four sources of revenue, namely;

- social security contributions from employees,

- social security contributions from employers,

- grants from central government and

- grants from local government (4)

The national insurance scheme's historical sources of financing have for a number of reasons become grossly insufficient. The estimated total revenue from the specific insurance levies amounted in 1995 to approximately NOK 86 000 million. The national insurance scheme has therefore been gradually developed from a more traditional 'insurance` scheme, to a fully integrated part of central government finances. There is no earmarking of revenues, and both revenues and expenditure items are fully integrated into the fiscal budget.

1.2. Regionally differentiated social security contributions paid by employers

The social security contributions paid by employers are, after VAT, the single most important source of income for the central government. For 1995, the tax revenue stemming from the employers' social security contributions was estimated at approximately NOK 47 000 million, which represents 11 % of revenue in the fiscal budget. The respective social security contribution rates are, together with other taxes and duties, decided annually by the Norwegian parliament as part of the fiscal budget.

The taxes are calculated on the basis of the individual employee's gross salary income. The tax rates vary between 0,0 % and 14,1 %, depending on the tax zone where the employee has his registered permanent residence. The differences in tax rates between the respective tax zones do not, however, in any way impinge on the acquisition of individual rights within the national insurance scheme.

The system of regionally differentiated tax rates was introduced in 1975 (5) for reasons of regional policy. The country was then divided into three tax zones. Three tax rates of respectively 17, 16 and 14 % replaced the previous single rate of 16,7 %. Several adjustments to the system affecting both the geographical scope and the levels of taxation according to zone, have been introduced over time. Table 1 shows the tax rates applicable from 1 January 1995 and the share of population according to tax zones. An average tax rate can be calculated to 12,6 %.

>TABLE>

The tax zones were last revised in 1988. Only minor adjustments have been made to the scheme since then.

The main features in the system of differentiated employers' social security contributions are described by the Norwegian authorities as follows:

- the respective contribution rates are related to the registered permanent residence (municipality) (6) for each employee and not the location of the enterprise,

- the system is automatically applied on the basis of objective criteria and is not limited in time,

- The system is neutral with respect to industry, company size, occupation/economic activity, form of ownership, etc.,

- the system applies to all employees in both the private and the public sector except for central government which has to pay the maximum rate regardless of the residence of the employee,

- the system applies to foreign employees residing in Norway if they are covered by the national social security system,

- the employers' social security contributions are neutral with respect to the nationality of the employer.

2. Tax zones 2 to 5 - Demographic situation

Tax zones 2 to 5 account for 27 % of the total population. According to Section 28.2.3 of the Authority's Procedural and Substantive Rules in the field of State aid (7) (State aid guidelines), regions corresponding to NUTS level III regions with a population density below 12,5 inhabitants per km² may qualify for the exemption regarding regional aid laid down in Article 61 (3) (c) of the EEA.

Table 2 shows the population density of each county (NUTS level III regions), and of those parts of each county which are covered by tax zones 2 to 5. Each of the nine counties listed in the upper part of Table 2 has as a whole an average population density of less than 12,5 inhabitants per km², while those listed in the lower part have an average population density above that threshold. The nine counties listed in the upper part of table 2 cover a wider area in terms of population coverage than tax zones 2 to 5 and account for 31 % of the total Norwegian population.

>TABLE>

3. Economic effects of the scheme

3.1. Estimated benefits of lower tax rates in zones 2 to 5

The Authority has commissioned a study (8) from an independent consultant on the scheme's economic effects. The consultant's report describes the estimated benefits derived from the differentiated tax rates by industrial sector, size of firm, tax zone, and region. The estimated benefits are, in this context, defined as the difference between the estimated revenue that would have been obtained if the highest tax rate (of tax zone 1) had been generally applicable (9), and the actual revenue from the employers' social security contributions for enterprises in tax zones 2 to 5.

Table 3 shows the 1994 figures (10) for the estimated volume and distribution of benefits by tax zone and industrial classification. The total benefits calculated in accordance with the above definition are estimated at NOK 4 473 million. NOK 3 102 million or close to 70 % of the total amount, may be attributed to Northern Norway (tax zones 4 to 5).

>TABLE>

The consultant's report shows that in 1994 NOK 1 519 million, corresponding to about one third of the total benefits, could be attributed to the public sector (municipalities and counties), while manufacturing industries accounted for some 17 % of the total amount.

Approximately 23 % of the Norwegian manufacturing industry with a combined turnover of NOK 79 000 million in 1994 was located in tax zones 2 to 5 (11). The estimated benefits for manufacturing enterprises in the same area amounted to NOK 767,9 million, corresponding to approximately 1 % of their turnover. Of that amount 16 %, NOK 124,9 million, could be attributed to large firms with more than 250 employees according to the estimates presented by the Authority's consultant.

The Authority's consultant has estimated the benefits for the manufacturing industries, per employee, in 1994, at NOK 7 000 in zone 2, NOK 19 000 in zone 4, and NOK 29 000 in zone 5, respectively.

As explained above, the employer's social security contributions are calculated as a percentage of the gross salary income of each employee. That actual rate applied is dependent on the registered residence of the employee. As most employees have their place of work in the vicinity of where they reside, it is to be expected that the social security contributions from employers in a given tax zone usually relate to employees resident in the same zone. This is confirmed by Table 4. The intraregional observations presented diagonally and in bold in Table 4, show that most of the tax revenue may be associated with employees residing in the same tax zone as their place of work. (This may of course not be seen in the case of tax zone 5 where the tax rate is zero and no revenue is collected).

>TABLE>

3.2. Effects on wage formation

The immediate effect of a reduction in employer's social security contributions will be a reduction in the employers' total wage costs. If such a reduction, on the other hand induces an increase in wages, parts of the benefits will be passed over to the wage-earners (carryover effects). The possible existence of carryover effects). The possible existence of carryover effects implies that the net benefits to enterprises may be smaller than total benefits associated with the lower tax rates.

The Authority' consultant evaluated whether it may be relevant to take into account possible carryover effects. The Norwegian authorities have commissioned a separate study (12), on the same subject.

The conclusions of the above studies summarised that:

- no empirical studies provide precise answers to how the wage formation process is influenced by changes in the level of payroll taxation. Empirical studies based on national data contain estimates of carryover effects ranging between 20 % and 80 %,

- all empirical studies based on national data indicate that reductions in employers' social security contributions lead to reduced wage costs for the enterprises in the short term. A majority of studies indicate that the enterprises' wage-related costs are also influenced in the longer term, but to a lesser degree. In other words, a majority of the studies indicate that the economic benefits related to a reduction in payroll taxes, in the long term, are to a certain extent passed over to wage-earners in the form of higher wages,

- studies based on regional data indicate that the carryover effects related to a regional reduction in payroll taxes may be more limited compared to a general reduction, implying that a lesser part of the benefits are likely to be passed over to the employees when a reduction in payroll taxes is introduced only for certain regions.

4. Additional transport costs

In addition to the low population density as referred to above, there are regional handicaps specific to the Nordic countries, 'namely the extra costs to firms occasioned by very long distances and harsh weather conditions` (13). Against this background the State aid guidelines forsee that operating aid aimed at providing for 'partial compensation for the additional cost of transport` (14) may be justified in accordance with Article 61 (3) (c) if certain conditions laid down in Section 28.2.3.2 of the State aid guidelines are met.

The Authority's services examined, in cooperation with the Norwegian authorities, the potential for identifying additional costs of transport based on existing statistical data. The Norwegian authorities presented various estimates. Calculations were carried out at an aggregate level of industry and, to various degrees, using average values of inter alia prices and quantities. The different calculations based on existing statistics showed invariably that the sum of additional transport costs estimated for each tax zone exceeded by a good margin the benefits related to the lower tax rates.

Although aggregate figures derived existing statistics provided useful background information for establishing a general picture of the relative transport cost disadvantages facing enterprises located in tax zones 2 to 5, the Authority came to the conclusion that more detailed enterprise-specific information would be necessary for its assessment. Against this background the Norwegian authorities agreed to commission a special study on the relations between additional transport costs and the lower social security contributions in tax zones 2 to 5 for individual export and import competing enterprises in the manufacturing and mining industries.

The special study covered a representative sample of enterprises reflecting the existing pattern of industrial activities in the manufacturing industry in tax zones 2 to 5. Statistics Norway identified the total number of enterprises in mining and manufacturing, classified by Statistics Norway as export or import competing, located in tax zones 2 to 5 and having more than 50 employees. Some 180 such enterprises were identified. The selection of individual enterprises for further examination, out of the some 180 referred to, was carried out by Statistics Norway and the Institute on Transport Economics (TØI) to attain a representative sample which would reflect the actual pattern of industrial activities in the manufacturing industry in tax zones 2 to 5. 36 firms were finally selected for examination. For each selected enterprise a detailed examination of the additional transport costs was carried out based, among other things, on the accounts of the firm in question. The estimates of additional transport costs were referred to costs related to inward and outward transport of goods within national borders. Additional domestic travel costs for certain categories of personnel were included. Enterprises covered by specific sectoral rules on State aid, for example shipbuilding, were not included. Typical Norwegian export products such as metals (including aluminium and ferro-alloys), wood and wooden products, furniture, textiles, plastic products, fabricated metal products and equipment, processed-fish products, and mining and quarrying products were covered by the study.

The general findings of the study are illustrated in Table 5. In aggregate terms, additional transport costs by far exceeded the estimated benefits to the enterprises of lower social security contributions. For each individual firm that was covered by the study, the additional transport costs exceeded the estimated benefit. The estimated benefits of the lower tax rates were calculated according to the method applied by the Authority's consultant (see Section II.3.1). The impact of possible carryover effects was not taken into account in the calculations.

>TABLE>

III. APPROPRIATE MEASURES

1. The Authority's proposal

Having received the information as referred to above, the Authority assessed the Norwegian scheme of regionally differentiated social security contributions, and came to the conclusion that it represented a form of operating aid that implied allocation of State aid within the meaning of Article 61 (1) of the EEA. It furthermore concluded the the scheme in its entirety could not be subject to any of the exemptions provided for by the EEA Agreement.

However, the Authority took note of the fact that benefits of the lower rates applied in tax zones 2 to 5 accrue not only to employers engaged in activities exposed to international trade and competition. Benefits also accrue to employers in sectors where international trade is not in any discernible way affected, like in many private and public services of a local nature. Aid which does not affect trade between the Contracting Parties falls outside the scope of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. The Authority also noted that many service or non-manufacturing sectors are important from an employment point of view and that lower charges in tax zones 2 to 5 contribute to improving the employment situation in these areas by lowering the costs of labour.

Looking at typical export and import competing enterprises within mining and manufacturing, the Authority recognized that transport costs for such firms within tax zones 2 to 5 are high compared to enterprises located in tax zone 1. It was in particular, noted that in a representative sample of export and import competing firms within tax zones 2 to 5, the calculated additional transport costs for each individual firm exceeded the estimated benefits received from reduced social security contributions, see Section II.4.

According to the State aid guidelines, and as mentioned in Section II.4, operating aid to compensate for additional costs of transport may be justified on certain conditions. One of the conditions is that enterprises receiving such aid are located in thinly populated areas, i.e. areas with a population density below 12,5 inhabitants per km². Areas within tax zones 2 to 5 fulfil that criterion, see Table 2.

The Authority also considered that other criteria stipulated in Section 28.2.3.2 of the State aid guidelines were complied with. Therefore, the Authority considered that a general reduction was not called for in the current level of indirect compensation for additional transport costs for enterprises within mining and manufacturing. Hence, a general reduction in the current regional differentiation of social security contributions was not deemed necessary.

On the other hand, the Authority also pointed out that Section 28.2.3.2 of the State aid guidelines explicitly states:

'No aid may be given towards the transport or transmission of the products of enterprises without an alternative location (products of the extractive industries, hydroelectric power stations, etc.).`

'Transport aid given to firms in industries which the EFTA Surveillance Authority considers sensitive sectors (motor vehicles, textiles, synthetic fibres, ECSC products and non-ECSC steel) are subject to the sectoral rules for the industry concerned . . .`

According to the view of the Authority these provisions would call for amendments in the current scheme for employers' social security contributions, most notably that firms in certain sectors of the economy would have to be subject to the tax rate applied in zone 1, irrespective of the location of the enterprise or more precisely, the residence of their employees.

Finally, the Authority found that for some service sectors exposed to international competition, the benefits of lower social security charges in tax zones 2 to 5 could not be justified. This related to financial services, telecommunications and parts of the transport sector.

With reference to the facts and assessments presented above, the Authority proposed in its decision of 14 May 1997 the following appropriate measures to Norway (15):

(i) The Norwegian Government must submit a detailed proposal for a general map of assisted areas by 15 October 1997. The proposal must indicate the areas to be designated for regional transport aid and regional investment aid, respectively.

(ii) As concerns economic activities not referred to in point (iii), the Norwegian Government shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the application of the system of lower social security contribution rates, such as the one presently applied in tax zones 2 to 5, is confined to an area that is authorised for regional transport aid.

(iii) The Norwegian Government shall, in addition, take the necessary steps to effect adjustment of the relevant provisions of the tax legislation on the employers' social security contributions in such a manner as:

(a) to ensure that the following activities are subject to the tax rate applied in tax zone 1 for all employees:

- production and distribution of electricity (NACE 40.1),

- extraction of crude petroleum and gas (NACE 11.10),

- service activities incidental to oil and gas extraction excluding surveying (NACE 11.20),

- mining of metal ores (NACE 13),

- activities related to the extraction of the industrial minerals nefeline syenite (HS 2529.3000) and olivine (HS 2517.49100);

(b) to ensure that enterprises with more than 50 employees engaged in freight transport by road (NACE 60.24) are subject to the tax rate applied in tax zone 1 for all employees;

(c) to ensure that enterprises in the telecommunications (NACE 64.20) sector are subject to the tax rate applied in tax zone 1 for all employees;

(d) to ensure that enterprises having branch offices established abroad or otherwise being engaged in cross-border activities in the following sectors, with the exception of branch offices only providing local services, are subject to the tax rate applied in tax zone 1 for all employees:

- financial intermediation (NACE 65)

- insurance and pension funding (NACE 66)

- services auxiliary to financial intermediation (NACE 67);

(e) to ensure that the discipline on aid to industries covered by specific sectoral rules is respected by:

- applying the tax rate in zone 1 to all employees of producers of ECSC steel,

- applying the tax rate of zone 1 to all employees of enterprises covered by the act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 90/684/EEC on aid to shipbuilding),

- implementing, in the present context, the special notification requirements in the specific rules on State aid to the motor vehicle industry, the synthetic fibres industry and the non-ECSC steel industry by notifying the Authority of all existing and future recipients benefiting from lower social security contribution rates.

(iv) Detailed annual reports must be submitted on the system of regionally differentiated rates of employers' social security contributions in accordance with the format indicated in Annex III to the State aid guidelines. The annual reports must show the operation of an aid-per-kilometre ratio or of an aid-per-kilometre and an aid-per-unit-weight ratio. The reports must contain as separate items, the estimated amounts of indirect compensation for additional transport costs in the form of lower social security contributions foreseen and of any direct transport aid received by enterprises in the sectors covered by special notification requirements (motor vehicle industry, synthetic, fibres industry and non-ECSC steel industry). The annual reports must as foreseen in Chapter 32 of the State aid guidelines, cover two financial years and be submitted to the Authority not later than six months after the end of the financial year, starting with the annual report for 1997.

(v) The system of lower social security contributions must be reexamined periodically. The review periods should normally not exceed four years and be carried out in connection with the general reviews of the maps of areas eligible for regional investment aid and regional transport aid.

2. The response from the Norwegian Government

The Norwegian Government replied in response to the Authority's proposal for appropriate measures that it 'disagrees with the legal interpretation put forward by (the Authority) in its decision of 14 May 1997 and thus cannot accept and comply with the proposed appropriate measures` (16).

The Norwegian Government stated that the social security contribution scheme for employers is an integral part of the overall taxation system in Norway. In its response the government raised the question whether the differentiated social security contribution scheme is a general tax measure or State aid and help forth in this connection among other things:

'The differentiated employers' social security tax is an integral part of the Norwegian taxation system, safeguarding both fiscal considerations and considerations of income equalisation. In the present case, these considerations are not in conflict with the State aid provision in Article 61 (1) of the EEA Agreement.

The main features of the Norwegian differentiated employers' social security tax scheme are in keeping with those of a general tax system. The scheme is applied automatically on the basis of precise and objective eligibility criteria. No undertakings are excluded from the scheme. Thus, there is no discrimination which would bring it into conflict with the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement`.

The Norwegian Government moreover, stated that:

'The differentiating element in the scheme is that undertakings pay different rates of tax depending on where their employees live. This gives employees from low-rate zones an advantage in the labour market and, in combination with the income tax and transfers system in general, contributes to keeping up employment in the districts and to promote income equalisation among the population. The Norwegian Government holds the view that when a taxation measure has general features and effects of this kind, it cannot be regarded as State aid within the meaning of the EEA Agreement. The scheme promotes income equalisation among the population in the same way as other personal tax measures, by strengthening employment in parts of the country having a weak economic basis.

The advantages of a low social security tax rate may in principle be reaped by any undertaking in whatever part of the country it may be located and irrespective of the type of goods its produces. The criteria for the application of the differentiated rates are determined objectively, and are not a matter of discretion. There is no discrimination of employers. Thus a geographical differentiation of taxation rates of this kind cannot be seen as favouring "certain undertakings or the production of certain goods", Article 61 (1) of the EEA Agreement`.

The opinion of the Norwegian Government, as expressed in its concluding remarks, is 'that the regionally differentiated social security tax system does not fall within the scope of Article 61 (1) of the EEA Agreement`. The Norwegian Government did not address the question of possible exemptions in case the scheme should be considered as State aid within the meaning of Article 61 (1) of the EEA Agreement.

IV. ASSESSMENT

1. Applicability of Article 61 (1)

The Authority's assessment of the applicability of Article 61 (1) of the EEA of the Agreement is based on the considerations presented below.

Article 61 (1) of the EEA Agreement provides 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`.

The measure under consideration is the system of lower social security contributions paid by employers in tax zones 2 to 5 resulting from the differentiation of the rates applied in calculating the contributions. The employers' social security contributions are compulsory payments from employers to the State.

One effect of the system of the lower tax rates in tax zones 2 to 5 is that certain enterprises, capable of benefiting from the lower tax rates in tax zones 2 to 5, are relieved from a tax burden compared to enterprises not capable of doing so. The benefits resulting from a relief in tax burden will depend on the number of employees, their salaries and in particular their residence, as this latter factor determines an enterprise's capability of taking advantage of the lower tax rates in zones 2 to 5.

The provision that the lower tax rates depend on the registered residence of the employee and not technically on the location of the enterprise, must be examined according to its effects. The Authority has found, with reference to the size, topographical and geographical circumstances of the areas covered by tax zone 2 to 5, that there is a high level of correlation between the zone of location of an enterprise and the zone of permanent residence of its work force (see Table 4).

Therefore, the effect of the scheme is to favour specific enterprises, namely enterprises which are situated so that, as a rule, a significant part of their workforce has a permanent residence in municipalities covered by tax zones 2 to 5. The enterprises which are capable of benefiting from the lower tax rates are typically enterprises located in municipalities covered by tax zones 2 to 5, while enterprises located in tax zone 1 are, normally, not capable of doing so or only to a very limited extent (see Table 4).

The enterprises benefiting from the lower social security contribution rates, experience a competitive advantage by being relieved from part of their tax burden through State measures which directly contribute to a reduction in their wage and production costs. As the relief in the tax burden benefiting certain enterprises is established through State legislation, such aid is granted through State resources within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.

Article 61 (1) prohibits measures which favour certain enterprises or the production of certain goods. The main criterion for distinguishing a measure constituting State aid for the purpose of Article 61 (1) from a general economic measure not covered by the prohibition is, in other words, whether or not the measure is selective in nature. The Authority considers that the selectivity criterion is fulfilled, inter alia, when the effect of a measure is to favour enterprises located in certain regions as opposed to enterprises in other regions which are not capable of benefiting from the measure.

As referred to in Section III.2, the Norwegian Government put forward that the objectives of the scheme (inter alia, promotion of regional employment, income equalisation, fiscal considerations) imply that it should not be considered as State aid within the meaning of the EEA Agreement. In this context the Authority considers it to be of relevance to refer to the European Court of Justice's ruling in the family allowance case (17):

'The aim of Article 92 is to prevent trade between the Member States from being affected by benefits granted by public authorities which in various forms, distort or threaten to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.

Accordingly, Article 92 does not distinguish between the measures of State intervention concerned with reference to their cuases or aims but defines them in relation to their effects.

Consequently the alleged fiscal nature or social aim of the measure in issue cannot suffice to shield it from the application of Article 92`.

A measure, such as the one under consideration which favours enterprises located in certain regions, must be regarded as constituting State aid unless the lower rates are justified by the nature and general scheme of the system (18). That might have been considered to be the case if, for example, the lower tax rates were linked to the rights accrued. The Norwegian authorities have not supplied any evidence indicating that the lower tax rates under consideration are linked to other properties of the tax system or the social security system to which they belong. In fact, the Authority has observed that the lower rates do not impinge on the rights acquired under the national insurance system.

It could be argued that reduced social security contributions may have an effect on the wage formation process as referred to in point II.3.2 of this Decision and that the enterprises are not receiving the full benefits of the measures under consideration. On this point the Authority notes that the reduced rates obviously constitute a benefit. The studies referred to in point II.3.2. of this Decision confirm that this benefit results in reduced wage costs. This being so, the observation that, over time, the benefits may to some extent be shared with employees, does not alter the fact that the enterprises enjoying these benefits are in effect given a competitive advantage as compared to those being subject to paying social security contributions according to the highest rate.

The lower tax rates in zones 2-5 apply to all undertakings employing persons residing in these zones. Therefore they apply to all undertakings engaged in export and import competing activities which make use of such labour, consequently affecting trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement. This observation may be illustrated by the fact that undertakings which are clearly in competition with undertakings in other EEA States for example producers of aluminium, ferro-alloys, steel and shipyards, to mention some, located in or close to tax zones 2 to 5, currently benefit from lower labour costs due to the lower tax rates in zones 2 to 5. The relevant test concerning effects on trade is therefore satisfied (19). The fact that the lower rates also apply to economic activities sheltered from international competition does not eliminate this effect. Furthermore, the Authority has not raised any objections to the fact that the lower rates also apply to such activities.

Against the points discussed above, the Authority must conclude that the lower tax rates in tax zones 2 to 5 of the Norwegian system of regionally differentiated social security contributions from employers constitute State aid in the meaning of Article 61 (1) of the EEA Agreement.

2. Articles 61 (2) and 61 (3)

Concerning possibilities for exemptions according to Articles 61 (2) or 61 (3) of the EEA of Agreement, the Authority has not found reason to alter the view it took when it proposed appropriate measures to Norway by its Decision of 14 May 1997 (see Section III.1).

Accordingly, benefits to compensate for additional transport costs in sparsely populated areas could be justified under Article 61 (3) (c), for a wide number of economic activities. However, for certain sectors of the economy, as specified in the Authority's decision on appropriate measures, it is the Authority's view that there is no room for granting exemptions pursuant to Articles 61 (2) or 61 (3). Consequently, enterprises in these sectors would have to be subject to the tax rate in zone 1 irrespective of the residence of their employees.

Conclusion

Without prejudice to its final view, the Authority maintains that the system of regional differentiation of employers' social security contributions in Norway should be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 61 (1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Authority does not consider that the system as such, without any modifications, merits exemptions according to Articles 61 (2) or 61 (3) of the EEA Agreement.

The Authority must therefore conclude that the procedure provided for in Article 1 (2) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement should be opened.

The decision to open proceedings is without prejudice to the final decision, which may still be to find that aid was not involved, or that possible aid may be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. The purpose of proceedings pursuant to Article 1 (2) of Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement is to ensure a comprehensive examination of the case giving all parties concerned the right to be heard.

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

EFTA Surveillance Authority,

74, rue de Trèves,

B-1040 Brussels.

The comments will be communicated to the Norwegian Government.

(1) Letter from European Commission, Directorate General IV - Competition State aids of 28 March 1997 (see Doc. No 97-1924 A).

(2) Decision No 145/97/COL.

(3) Hereinafter also referred to as 'tax rates`.

(4) Abolished from 1992 onwards.

(5) Bill to the Norwegian Parliament, No 12 1974-75.

(6) As defined in Act No 1 of 16 January 19970 'Lov om folkeregistrering`.

(7) Adopted and issued by the Authority on 19 January 1994 (OJ L 231, 3.9.1994). Chapter 28 of the State aid guidelines was amended on 20 July 1994 (OJ L 240, 15.9.1994).

(8) 'Benefits from reduced payroll taxes in Norway` Arild Hervik, Norwegian School of Management, BI (1996).

(9) It is implicitly assumed that neither the wage and activity levels nor the distribution of economic activities according to sector and region are affected by the level of taxation. The assumption implies that the amount of benefits to enterprises in zones 2 to 5 will tend to be overestimated.

(10) The general tax level was adjusted marginally downwards, by 0,2 percentage points, in tax zones 1 to 4 with effect from 1 January 1995. The adjustment implied therefore that, inter alia, the rate in tax zone 1 was lowered from 14,3 % to 14,1 %.

(11) Measured in terms of turnover.

(12) 'Effects on wages from changes in payroll taxes in Norway`. Nils Martin Stølen, Statistics Norway.

(13) Paragraph 28.2.3.2 (1) of the State aid guidelines.

(14) Paragraph 28.2.3.2 (2) of the State aid guidelines.

(15) The following text in italics is only authentic in the English language.

(16) Letter from the Ministry of Finance dated 11 July 1997 received by the Authority on 24 July 1997 (97-5170 A).

(17) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 July 1974, Italy v Commission Case 173/73 [1974-5] ECR 631-892 at pages 718-719.

(18) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 July 1974, Italy v. Commission Case 173/73 [1974-5] ECR 631-892 at page 719.

(19) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 July 1974 Italy v. Commission Case 173/73 [1974-5].