Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice on state aid issues

(2019/C 177/04)

By means of the above referenced Decision, reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the EFTA Surveillance Authority notified Norway of its decision to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice concerning the abovementioned measure.

Interested parties may submit comments on the measure in question within one month of the date of publication to:

EFTA Surveillance Authority Registry Rue Belliard 35 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The comments will be communicated to the Norwegian authorities. The identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be withheld following a request in writing stating the reasons for the request.

SUMMARY

Procedure

1. The Authority received two complaints on 14 March 2017 and 27 July 2017. The complainants have requested confidentiality.

2. Following requests, the Authority received information from the Norwegian authorities by letters dated 2 June 2017, 20 September 2017, 1 December 2017, 8 December 2017, 1 February 2018, 5 February 2018, 21 February 2019, 14 March 2019 and 18 March 2019.

Description of the measure(s)

3. The alleged aid beneficiary is Trondheim Spektrum AS (‘TS’).

4. TS owns and operates Trondheim Spektrum, a multipurpose facility located in central Trondheim. The venue is used as training venues for local sports clubs, small and large sports events and other events such as concerts, trade fairs and congresses.

5. The Municipality of Trondheim (‘the Municipality’) has been, and is at present, the majority shareholder in TS. The remaining shares are held by membership-based volunteer sport clubs (‘sport clubs’).

6. The objective of the Municipality is to provide facilities for sports and leisure activities to the inhabitants of Trondheim. In 2004 the Municipality formalised a principle of cost free facilities for the benefit of the Municipality’s sport clubs. This measures of the Municipality facilitates participation of children and youth in sport activities irrespective of the income level of individual families.

7. The Municipality rents capacity from different facilities, such as TS, for the purposes of providing the capacity, free of charge, to the sport clubs. The task of distributing the capacity is entrusted to the local sports council.

8. Since summer 2017, TS has been undergoing a significant renovation and extension to be finalised in 2019. The plan is to host the European championship in handball for women and men in 2020.

9. The Decision concerns nine measures (1) municipal loan, (2) municipal guarantee, (3) leasehold agreements, (4) lease agreements concluded from 1999 and 2017, (5) lease agreement of 2019, concluded in 2017, (6) capital increase linked to new and unexpected costs, (7) financing of infrastructure costs, (8) funds from the Norwegian Gaming Fund and (9) implicit guarantee inherent in a loan Agreement between Nordea and TS.

10. According to the complainants, TS has received an advantage through different measures granted by the Municipality. The complainants have argued that the alleged aid measures have cross-subsidised other activities carried out by TS.

Assessment of the measures

11. In the Authority’s view, any potential state aid granted through measures 1, 2 and 3 would constitute existing aid within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA. The Authority does therefore not assess the aid character of these measure further in its decision.

12. In its decision, the Authority comes to the preliminary conclusion that measure 4, the lease agreements concluded between 1999 and 2017, do not form part of an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the SCA as had been argued by the Norwegian authorities.

13. The Authority will only assess in its decision the potential aid character of the lease agreements for which the limitation period has not expired. Based on the information in its possession, the Authority considers that the limitation period for the lease agreement referred to as dating from 2007 – 2008 by the Norwegian authorities has not expired.

14. The Authority considers that the funds granted to TS from Norsk Tipping AS, referred to as measure 8, are an application of an existing system of state aid. The Authority therefore does not assess the aid character of the measure further in its decision.

15. The Authority takes the preliminary view that the lease agreements from 2007 to 2017 as well as the new lease agreement of 2019 (measures 4 and 5) may have granted and advantage to TS. The complainants have argued that the rent is above market terms and that the rent is based on the needs of TS and not the capacity needed by the Municipality.

16. The Authority finds that the capital increase, measure 6, constitutes an advantage to TS corresponding to the full amount of the capital increase.

17. The Authority comes to the preliminary conclusion that the division and calculation of infrastructure costs with regard to the renovation and extension of TS (measure 7) may have granted an advantage to TS.

18. As regards the implicit guarantee inherent in the loan agreement between TS and Nordea (measure 9), the Authority finds the effects of the statements in the loan agreements unclear and can, at this point, not exclude that they provide an advantage to TS in the form of an implicit guarantee from the Municipality.

19. The Norwegian authorities have argued that the use of TS facilities by the sport clubs cannot be considered as an economic activity, given that neither the Municipality nor TS receive any remuneration form its users.

20. Even if the Municipality can be considered to be carrying out a non-economic activity by offering cost-free facilities for the Municipality’s sport clubs, in principle, the entity supplying the Municipality with such facilities, might very well be carrying out economic activities when doing so.

21. On that background, the Authority cannot exclude, at this point, that TS is an undertaking, not only when hosting concerts, large sporting events, fairs, congresses and other events, but also when renting out its facilities to the Municipality which then provides the hall space for the city’s sport clubs. In any event, the Authority notes that TS carries out other economic activity and a sufficient separation of accounts would have to be demonstrated.

22. The Norwegian authorities have not notified all of the measures in question to the Authority. The Authority therefore reaches the preliminary conclusion that the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 SCA, and that to the extent measures 4, 7 and 9 entail state aid, that aid is unlawful.

23. The Norwegian authorities notified the new lease agreement of 2019, measure 5, on 20 November 2018. The Norwegian authorities have argued that the new lease agreement is conditional upon being in line with market terms. It explicitly enables adaptations in order to bring the conditions of the agreement in line with market terms should the Authority so require. In light of this, the Authority’s preliminary conclusion is that, should the lease agreement entail state aid, the Norwegian authorities have respected the requirements set out in Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 SCA.

24. As regards measure 6, the Authority notes that the Norwegian authorities have granted this aid to TS under Article 55 of the GBER. However, the Authority is not fully convinced that the requirements set out in Article 6(2) GBER are fulfilled in relation to the measure. Further assessment of the measure seems required. If the Authority would find that the measure does not fulfil the requirements of the GBER, this aid is unlawful.

25. The possible aid measures in the case at hand are of various nature. The Norwegian authorities have argued compatibility as regards some of the measures. At this stage, the Authority does not have the information to enable it to set out the possible amount of alleged aid granted to TS that would result from these measures. The Authority therefore has doubts whether the measures would respect the principle of proportionality and be limited to what is necessary to achieve the state objective.

26. Furthermore, the Authority cannot exclude cross-subsidization from the alleged aid measures to the other activities carried out by TS. In light of the above, the Authority has doubts whether the measures could be deemed compatible under Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.

(1) Reference is made to Articles 4(4) and 13(1) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice.

(2) Documents No 847105 and 848590 to 848601.

(3) Document No 849708.

(4) Documents No 859505, 859499, 859501 and 859503.

(5) Documents No 867151, 868181 and 868182.

(6) Document No 870428.

(7) Document No 870360.

(8) Documents No 874440 and 874442.

(9) Document No 876728.

(10) Document No 877379.

(11) Documents No 887522, 887524 and 887526.

(12) Document No 874067.

(13) Document No 881377.

(14) Document No 888352.

(15) Documents No 885827, 885829, 888351 and 888354.

(16) Document No 936140.

(17) Document No 888021.

(18) Documents No 896729, 896727, 896725 and 896723.

(19) Documents No 1059166, 1059170 and 1059171.

(20) Documents No 1059842 to 1059848.

(21) Documents No 1040641, 1040643, 1040645, 1040647 and 1040649.

(22) Documents No 1054292, 1054294, 1054296 and 1054298.

(23) Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (OJ L 187, 26.6.2014, p. 1), referred to at point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, see Joint Committee Decision No 152/2014, published in OJ L 342, 27.11.2014, p. 63 and EEA Supplement No 71, 27.11.2014, p. 61.

(24) Case No 82883, GBER 30/2018/Sports.

(25) Document No 874440, p. 6 and Document No 859501, p. 13 and 20.

(26) Document No 859501, p. 20.

(27) Document No 874440, p. 6.

(28) Document No 859501, p. 14.

(29) Document No 859501, p. 14.

(30) Document No 859501, p. 22.

(31) Document No 859501, p. 23.

(32) Document 1054294. See section 4.10.

(33) Lov om tomtefeste (tomtefesteloven) LOV-1996-12-20-106. The Norwegian authorities have explained that the conclusion of leasehold agreements and the contractual relationship between the landowner/lessor and the lessee was regulated for the first time in a statute from 1975, which entered into force on 1 January 1976. A new Ground Lease Act was enacted in 1996 and entered into force on 1 January 2002.

(34) Lov om tinglysing (tinglysingsloven) LOV-1935-06-07-2.

(35) Document No 887522, p. 4.

(36) Document 874440, p. 5.

(37) Document 874440, p. 10.

(38) Document 859501, p. 14.

(39) Document No 859501, p. 14–15. However, it can be observed that there was a reduction in the capacity in 2016. This indicates that amendments were made at least that year. The Norwegian authorities have explained that this is due to the renovation of TS (Document 874440, p. 9).

(40) Document 859501, p. 15.

(41) The Norwegian authorities were not able to provide data from before 2010.

(42) Document 896727, p. 6.

(43) Article 12 of the 2019 lease agreement. Norwegian: ‘Denne avtalen forutsettes å være inngått på markedsmessige vilkår. Det tas forbehold om at avtalen vil – forut for og i avtaleperioden – justeres for å tilfredsstille eventuelle føringer/krav fra EFTAs overvåkningsorgan (ESA), og/eller andre offentlige myndigheter. Dette for at avtalen til enhver tid skal tilfredsstille markedsinvestorprinsippet.’ Document No 887522, p. 7.

(44) Case No 82883, GBER 30/2018/Sports.

(45) Document No 874440, p. 20-25. The detailed zoning plan for part of Nidarø was adopted by the City Council on 14 March 2017 in case 25/17.

(46) The Norwegian authorities refer to Section 11 of lov om planlegging og byggesaksbehandling (plan- og bygningsloven) LOV-2008-06-27-71.

(47) ‘Procedural orders’ are requirements relating to the order in which work shall be carried out to ensure the establishment of public services, technical infrastructure and green structures before use is made of areas and the point in time when areas may be used for building and construction purposes, including requirements relating to the order in which development works shall be carried out. See Section 11-9 of the Planning and Building Act, referred to in footnote 46.

(48) The Norwegian authorities refer to section 18 of the Planning and Building Act.

(49) Document No 1059846, p. 2.

(50) Document No 1059846, p. 2.

(51) Document No 874440, p. 20 – 25 and Documents No 1059842 to 1059848. The detailed zoning plan for part of Nidarø was adopted by the City Council on 14 March 2017 in case 25/17.

(52) The Norwegian authorities refer to paragraph 203 of the Authority’s Guidelines on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement (‘NoA’), in this regard and Commission Decision of 8.1.2016. State aid No SA.36019 – Belgium – Financing of road infrastructure in the vicinity of a real estate project – Uplace, paragraph 38.

(53) Lov om pengespill (pengespilloven) LOV-1992-08-28-103.

(54) Document No 859501, p. 16.

(55) The Authority’s Decision No 225/15/COL of 10 June 2015 raising no objections to aid in the form of a transfer of land to Vålerenga Fotball.

(56) Document No 887522, p. 6.

(57) Document No 1054294.

(58) Document No 1054298, p. 6.

(59) Document No 1054294, Loan Agreement between Nordea and TS, dated 11 December 2017, page 1, paragraphs 5 and 6. Unofficial translation. Norwegian: ‘Nordea har lagt betydelig vekt på at Trondheim Spektrum AS har til hensikt å gjøre selskapsendringer eller andre tiltak som åpner muligheten for at Trondheim kommune, uten å komme i strid med lovverket, om nødvendig kan stille en garanti overfor Nordea som reduserer risikoen ifm kostnadsoverskridelser.’/‘Nordea har for øvrig lagt sterk vekt på eierskapet fra Trondheim kommune og vedtaket i formannskapet datert 25. juni 2014 i sak 144/14, hvor det blant annet fremgår av punkt 2 at Trondheim kommune, som største eier av Trondheim Spektrum AS, er innstilt på å ta det nødvendige økonomiske ansvaret som følger av rehabilitering og utvikling av Trondheim Spektrum.’

(60) Document No 1054294, Loan Agreement between Nordea and TS, dated 11 December 2017, p. 5, ‘Other terms’ – bullet point 3. Unofficial translation. Norwegian: ‘Risikoen som følge av at det oppstår kostnadsoverskridelser i byggeperioden og kredittkunden selv ikke kan betale disse: Trondheim Spektrum AS vil gjøre selskapsendringer eller andre tiltak som åpner muligheten for at Trondheim kommune, uten å komme i strid med lovverket, om nødvending kan stille garanti overfor Nordea.’

(61) Document No 1054294, Loan Agreement between Nordea and TS, dated 11 December 2017, p. 5, ‘Other terms’ – bullet point 4. Unofficial translation. Norwegian: ‘Leieavtalen med Trondheim kommunea av 26.10.2017 kan ikke endres/reduseres uten Nordea forutgående skriftlige samtykke.’

(62) Norwegian: ‘eierskifte – obligatorisk førtidig tilbakebetaling’.

(63) Document No 1054294, Loan Agreement between Nordea and TS, dated 11 December 2017, p. 4. Unofficial translation. Norwegian: ‘Det er et vilkår for inngåelse og opprettholdelse av Byggekredittavtalen, at Trondheim Kommune eier minst 77,93 % av Kredittkunden, og opprettholder sin eierandel uendret. For det tilfellet at eiersammensetningen endres, uten Nordeas forutgående skriftlige samtykke, skal Byggekreditten og ethvert utestående tilbakebetales som angitt i klausul 11 (Førtidig forfall av byggekreditten).’

(64) Document No 1054298, p. 5.

(65) Within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA.

(66) Documents No 859501, p. 13, and 859503, p. 76.

(67) According to Article 1(e) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA, ‘“individual aid” shall mean aid that is not awarded on the basis of an aid scheme and notifiable awards of aid on the basis of an aid scheme’.

(68) See also Article 1(b)(iv) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA, according to which ‘existing aid’ is ‘aid which is deemed to be existing aid pursuant to Article 15 of this Chapter’.

(69) Article 15(2) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA.

(70) This would be the case even if the limitation period would be calculated form the date of when the guarantee was last used in 2001.

(71) Document No 887522, p. 5.

(72) Available at http://www.eftasurv.int/media/decisions/537-09-COL.pdf. Further, see the Authority’s Decision No 225/15/COL of 10 June 2015 raising no objections to aid in the form of a transfer of land to Vålerenga Fotball, paragraph 57.

(73) Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no AS v ESA [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 266, paragraph 53.

(74) Document No 859501, p. 23.

(75) Document No 868182, p. 4.

(76) Document No 859501, p. 24.

(77) The Norwegian authorities refer to the Authority’s Decision No 519/12/COL of 19 December 2012 closing the formal investigation procedure into potential aid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene, paragraph 180.

(78) See the Authority’s Decision No 405/08/COL of 27 June 2008 closing the formal investigation procedure with regard to the Icelandic Housing Financing Fund, section II.2.3.1.

(79) See Commission Decision No E-45/2000 Fiscal exemption in favour of Schiphol Group (OJ C 37, 11.2.2004, p. 13).

(80) The Authority’s Decision No 491/09/COL of 2 December 2009 Norsk Film group, Chapter II.2 p. 8. See also the Authority’s Decision No 075/16/COL of 20 April 2016 to propose appropriate measures regarding the use of publicly owned land and natural resources by electricity producers in Iceland, paragraph 114, and Decision No 519/12/COL of 19 December 2012 closing the formal investigation into potential aid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene.

(81) See Commission Decision No E-10/2000 State guarantees for public banks in Germany (OJ C 150 22.6.2002, p. 7).

(82) Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2015/1589 corresponds to Article 1(d) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA.

(83) Judgment in Belgium v Commission, T-131/16 and T-263/16, EU:T:2019:91, paragraphs 85–88.

(84) Document No 874440, p. 8.

(85) Article 15(2) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA.

(86) See judgment in Scott v Commission, T-366/00, EU:T:2003:113, paragraph 60: ‘It follows that the mere fact that the applicant was not aware of the existence of the Commission’s request for information from the French authorities beginning on 17 January 1997 […] does not have the effect of depriving them of legal effect vis-á-vis the applicant. Consequently, the letter of 17 January 1997, sent by the Commission before the initiation of the administrative procedure and requesting further information from the French authorities, constitutes, under Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, a measure interrupting the 10-year limitation period’. Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (no longer in force) corresponds to Article 15 of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA.

(87) Judgment in Département du Loiret v Commission, T-369/00, EU:T:2003:114, paragraphs 81 and 82.

(88) Document No 849708.

(89) Exhibit Q to Document No 859501.

(90) Judgment in Germany v Commission, C-248/84, EU:C:1987:437, and NoA, paragraph 48.

(91) Judgment in France v Ladbroke Racing Ltd and Commission, C-83/98 P, EU:C:2000:248, paragraphs 48 – 51.

(92) NoA, p. 73 and 74.

(93) Document 859501, p. 17.

(94) Document No 859501, p. 17–18. The Norwegian authorities have further referred to a management interview with Trondheim Messeselskap AS, a company that organizes fairs all over Norway in which the Municipality was informed that Trondheim Spektrum is not perceived as a particularly cheap location. The Norwegian authorities have referred to this interview for further details on price comparison.

(95) Presumably by dividing the total price paid by number of hours, 14 679 522/12 500 = 1174.36.

(96) Document No 859501, p. 18.

(97) As explained by the Norwegian authorities, not all daytimes are equally valuable.

(98) NoA, paragraph 98.

(99) NoA, paragraph 99.

(100) Document No 874440, p. 8. In 1994, the rent was reduced by NOK 2 million unilaterally by the City Council. The reason behind this was threefold; (i) overall economic downturn demanding overall cuts in the city budget, (ii) the City Council was focusing on elderly care, and (iii) after refinancing in 1992, TS had reduced their cost of loan-capital and was deemed able to withstand such a cut.

(101) Document No 896727, p. 6.

(102) Numbers from 2017.

(103) See section 5.4.2 of this decision.

(104) Document No 1040641, p. 9.

(105) Document Nos 1040641, p. 10, and 1054298, p. 5.

(106) NoA, paragraph 68.

(107) NoA, paragraph 68.

(108) Lov om planlegging og byggesaksbehandling (plan- og bygningsloven) LOV-2008-06-27-71, available at https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2008-06-27-71.

(109) Document No 1059170.

(110) The Authority understands that ‘BRA’ stands for ‘area of use’.

(111) Document No 1054294.

(112) Document No 1054298, p. 6.

(113) Document No 1054294, Loan Agreement between Nordea and TS, dated 11 December 2017, page 5, ‘Other terms’ – bullet point 3.

(114) Document No 1054294, Loan Agreement between Nordea and TS, dated 11 December 2017, page 5, ‘Other terms’ – bullet point 4.

(115) Document No 1054294, Loan Agreement between Nordea and TS, dated 11 December 2017, page 4, ‘Change of ownership – mandatory mandatory early repayment’ – first paragraph.

(116) Document No 1054298, p. 7.

(117) Judgment in Höfner and Elser v Macrotron, Case C-41/90, EU:C:1991:161, paragraphs 21 – 23 and

(118) Judgment in Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania v Ayuntamiento de Getafe, Case C-74/16, EU:C:2017:496, paragraph 42.

(119) Judgment in Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze and Others, Case C-222/04, EU:C:2006:8, paragraph 108.

(120) Judgment in Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle v Commission, Case C-288/11 P, EU:C:2012:821, paragraphs 40 – 43.

(121) The Authority’s Decision No 496/13/COL of 11 December 2013 concerning the financing of Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre, paragraph 50.

(122) Judgment in Congregación de Escuelas Pías Provincia Betania v Ayuntamiento de Getafe, Case C-74/16, EU:C:2017:496, paragraph 51.

(123) Document No 859501, p. 20.

(124) Document No 859501, p. 19.

(125) Case E-6/98 The Government of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 76, paragraph 59; and judgment in Philip Morris v Commission, C-730/79, EU:C:1980:209, paragraph 11.

(126) Judgment in Eventech v The Parking Adjudicator, C-518/13, EU:C:2015:9, paragraph 66.

(127) Document No 859501, p. 22.

(128) Document No 859501, p. 22.

(129) See, for instance, judgment in AITEC and others v Commission, T-447/93, T-448/93 and T-449/93, EU:T:1995:130, paragraph 141.

(130) See, for instance, Commission Decisions in cases N 258/2000 Leisure Pool Dorsten (OJ C 172, 16.6.2001, p. 16); Commission Decision 2004/114/EC of 29 October 2003 on measures in favour of non-profit harbours for recreational crafts, the Netherlands (OJ L 34, 6.2.2004, p. 63); SA.37963 – United Kingdom – Alleged State aid to Glenmore Lodge (OJ C 277, 21.8.2015, p. 3); SA.38208 – United Kingdom – Alleged State aid to UK member-owned golf clubs (OJ C 277, 21.8.2015, p. 4); the Authority’s Decision No 459/12/COL of 5 December 2012 on aid to Bømlabadet Bygg AS for the construction of the Bømlabadet aqua park in the Municipality of Bømlo; and Decision No 20/19/COL of 2 April 2019 Leangbukten Båtforenings Andelslag.

(131) See to that effect the Authority’s Decision No 496/13/COL of 11 December 2013 concerning the financing of Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre, paragraph 75.

(132) See further section 2.6. The Authority requested additional information from the Norwegian authorities on 28 January 2019, which the Norwegian authorities provided on 21 February 2019.

(133) Article 12 of the new lease agreement of 2019 states (in Norwegian): ‘Denne avtalen forutsettes å være inngått på markedsmessige vilkår. Det tas forbehold om at avtalen vil – forut for og i avtaleperioden – justeres for å tilfredsstille eventuelle føringer/krav fra EFTAs overvåkningsorgan (ESA), og/eller andre offentlige myndigheter. Dette for at avtalen til enhver tid skal tilfredsstille markedsinvestorprinsippet.’

(134) See section 4.7 above.

(135) Judgment in Italy v Commission, C-364/90 EU:C:1993:157, paragraph 20.

(136) The Norwegian authorities refer to the Authority’s Decision No 357/15/COL of 23 September 2015 to close the formal investigation into State aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS, Decision No 225/15/COL of 10 June 2015 raising no objections to aid in the form of a transfer of land to Vålerenga Fotball, and Decision No 13/18/COL of 29 January 2018 – Templarheimen II – Aid for the construction and operation of the sports facility Templarheimen.

(137) The Norwegian authorities refer to Commission Decision in case SA.33728 on the financing of a new multiarena in Copenhagen.

(138) The Norwegian authorities refer to Article 53 of the GBER, in particular paragraph 2 thereof, and the Authority’s Decision No 496/13/COL of 11 December 2013 concerning the financing of Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre.

(139) Document No 1046041, p. 13.

(140) Document No 1040641, p. 14.

(141) Document No 1040641, p. 15.

(142) Document No 859501, p. 25.

(143) See e.g. Commission Decision in case SA.33728 Financing of a new multiarena in Copenhagen, Commission Decision in case SA.33618 Sweden – Uppsala arena, Commission Decision in case SA.47683 Finland – Tampere Arena.

(144) The Authority’s Decision No 357/15/COL of 23 September 2015 to close the formal investigation into State aid in favour of Sandefjord Fotball AS, Decision No 225/15/COL of 10 June 2015 raising no objections to aid in the form of a transfer of land to Vålerenga Fotball, and Decision No 13/18/COL of 29 January 2018 – Templarheimen II – Aid for the construction and operation of the sports facility Templarheimen.

(145) See section 4.7 above.

(146) Document No 930813. Letter from the Norwegian authorities dated 21 September 2018.

(147) OJ L 154, 8.6.2006, p. 27 and EEA Supplement No 29, 8.6.2006, p. 1.