Invitation à présenter des observations, en application de l’article 1er, paragraphe 2, de la partie I du protocole 3 de l’accord entre les États de l’AELE relatif à l’institution d’une Autorité de surveillance et d’une Cour de justice, concernant des questions relatives à des aides d’État

(2016/C 236/10)

Par la décision no 489/15/COL, reproduite dans la langue faisant foi dans les pages qui suivent le présent résumé, l’Autorité de surveillance AELE a informé les autorités norvégiennes de sa décision d’ouvrir la procédure prévue à l’article 1er, paragraphe 2, de la partie I du protocole 3 de l’accord entre les États de l’AELE relatif à l’institution d’une Autorité de surveillance et d’une Cour de justice à l’égard de la mesure susmentionnée.

Les parties intéressées sont invitées à formuler des observations sur la mesure en cause dans un délai d’un mois suivant la date de publication en les envoyant à:

Ces observations seront communiquées aux autorités norvégiennes. L’identité des parties intéressées qui présentent des observations peut faire l’objet d’un traitement confidentiel sur demande écrite et motivée.

RESUME

Procédure

Les autorités norvégiennes ont notifié le régime de cotisations de sécurité sociale différenciées 2014-2020 conformément à l’article 1er, paragraphe 3, de la partie I du protocole 3, par lettre du 13 mars 2014 (1). Sur la base de cette notification et des informations soumises par la suite (2), l’Autorité a autorisé le régime d’aides notifié par sa décision no 225/14/COL du 18 juin 2014.

Par son arrêt du 23 septembre 2015 dans l’affaire E-23/14, Kimek Offshore AS/ESA (3), la Cour AELE a annulé, en partie, la décision de l’Autorité.

Par lettre datée du 15 octobre 2015 (4), l’Autorité a demandé des informations aux autorités norvégiennes. Par lettre du 6 novembre 2015 (5), les autorités norvégiennes ont répondu à cette demande d’informations.

Description de la mesure

Le régime général de cotisations de sécurité sociale différenciées en tant que tel vise à réduire ou à prévenir la dépopulation dans les régions les moins peuplées de Norvège en stimulant l’emploi. Le régime d’aides au fonctionnement compense les coûts de l’emploi en réduisant le taux des cotisations de sécurité sociale dans certaines zones géographiques. En règle générale, les intensités d’aide varient selon la zone géographique dans laquelle l’unité d’activité est enregistrée. Le droit norvégien requiert que les entreprises enregistrent des sous-unités pour chaque activité exercée (6). Si une entreprise exerce divers types d’activités, des sous-unités distinctes doivent être enregistrées. En outre, des unités distinctes doivent être enregistrées si les activités sont exercées dans plusieurs lieux géographiques.

Par dérogation à la règle générale en matière d’enregistrement, le régime s’applique également aux entreprises enregistrées en dehors de la zone admissible qui recrutent des travailleurs dans la zone admissible pour y exercer des activités mobiles (aux fins de la présente décision, ces activités sont désignées par le terme «services ambulatoires»). C’est cette dérogation qui est à l’examen dans la décision en question. La base juridique nationale du régime en tant que tel est la section 23-2 de la loi nationale sur l’assurance (7). La base juridique nationale de la dérogation est la section 1(4) de la décision no 1482 du Parlement norvégien du 5 décembre 2013 concernant la détermination des taux d’imposition, etc. au titre de la loi nationale sur l’assurance.

La dérogation s’applique uniquement lorsque le salarié effectue au moins la moitié de ses jours de travail dans la zone admissible. En outre, le taux réduit n’est applicable qu’à la part du travail exercée dans cette zone.

Appréciation de la mesure

L’Autorité doit apprécier si la dérogation est compatible avec le fonctionnement de l’accord EEE sur la base de son article 61, paragraphe 3, point c), conformément aux lignes directrices de l’Autorité relatives aux aides d’État à finalité régionale pour 2014-2020 (8) (ci-après les «lignes directrices»).

Les aides à finalité régionale ne peuvent promouvoir efficacement le développement économique des zones défavorisées que si elles sont accordées pour susciter des investissements supplémentaires ou l’activité économique dans ces zones (9). Les aides au fonctionnement à finalité régionale ne peuvent être couvertes par l’article 61, paragraphe 3, point c), de l’accord EEE que si elles sont accordées pour remédier à des handicaps spécifiques ou permanents rencontrés par les entreprises dans les régions défavorisées (10).

La question n’est pas de savoir si la portée géographique du régime en tant que tel est limitée aux régions défavorisées. La portée de la présente décision est limitée à la dérogation. La question est de savoir si cette dérogation, qui suppose que des entreprises enregistrées en dehors des régions défavorisées couvertes par le régime puissent bénéficier d’aides au titre du régime dans la mesure où elles exercent des activités économiques dans lesdites régions défavorisées, est compatible avec les règles en matière d’aides d’État. En d’autres termes, la dérogation permet-elle de remédier à des handicaps spécifiques ou permanents rencontrés par les entreprises dans les régions défavorisées?

Il incombe aux autorités norvégiennes de démontrer le risque de dépopulation en l’absence de la dérogation (11). Les autorités norvégiennes ont souligné les avantages de la dérogation pour les entreprises locales, qui peuvent accéder, à moindre coût, à une main-d’œuvre spécialisée qui ne serait, autrement, pas disponible. Par ailleurs, la dérogation entraîne une concurrence accrue entre services ambulatoires dans les zones admissibles, ce qui est également bénéfique pour les entreprises locales (autres que celles fournissant des services ambulatoires), étant donné que des services ambulatoires moins coûteux contribuent à rendre l’exercice d’une activité dans la zone admissible plus attractif et plus rentable. Le recours à une aide au titre du régime est un instrument indirect dans le sens où il est utilisé pour réduire le coût lié à l’emploi de travailleurs et, partant, pour réduire ou prévenir la dépopulation. L’idée est que le marché du travail est le facteur le plus influent dans le choix du lieu où les personnes s’établissent.

Les autorités norvégiennes affirment en outre que les entreprises enregistrées en dehors de la zone admissible engageront occasionnellement des travailleurs dans les zones admissibles. Les entreprises fourniront ainsi des emplois qui, même s’ils sont de nature plus temporaire, contribueront néanmoins à accroître les revenus salariaux dans les régions admissibles, ce qui stimulera également l’activité économique. Les autorités norvégiennes affirment en outre que les salariés qui résident temporairement dans la zone admissible achèteront des biens et services locaux et contribueront donc à l’économie locale. Cela s’applique en particulier aux salariés qui se rendent dans cette zone spécialement pour une courte ou une moyenne durée, étant donné qu’ils séjourneront vraisemblablement à l’hôtel, mangeront au restaurant, etc. Les autorités norvégiennes ont estimé le montant de l’aide résultant de la dérogation à deux pour cent de l’aide totale pour 2015, mais soulignent que cette estimation est incertaine. Deux pour cent représentent environ 19 000 000 EUR (12). L’Autorité invite les autorités norvégiennes à fournir des informations plus précises sur l’incidence financière de la dérogation.

En plus des observations générales susmentionnées, les autorités norvégiennes n’ont pas démontré le risque de dépopulation de la zone concernée en l’absence de dérogation. L’Autorité est d’avis qu’une mesure, pour satisfaire aux exigences des lignes directrices, doit avoir des effets qui excèdent une hausse marginale des possibilités d’emploi temporaire et des dépenses dans la zone admissible. Sur cette base, elle invite les autorités norvégiennes à fournir de plus amples informations pour démontrer le risque de dépopulation en l’absence de la dérogation.

En ce qui concerne les effets sur la concurrence et les échanges, les autorités norvégiennes affirment que la dérogation crée une égalité de traitement pour toutes les entreprises présentes dans les zones défavorisées étant donné qu’elle s’applique de manière égale à toutes les entreprises établies dans l’EEE. Ce faisant, elle permet d’éviter tout effet négatif indu sur la concurrence. L’Autorité est d’avis qu’il s’agit d’un élément positif à la lumière des points 3 et 53 des lignes directrices. Toutefois, les entreprises enregistrées dans la zone admissible peuvent, de manière générale, être confrontées à des difficultés plus permanentes que les entreprises qui envoient simplement leurs salariés travailler dans la zone sur une base non permanente. Les autorités norvégiennes affirment que les entreprises enregistrées en dehors de la zone admissible peuvent souffrir d’un désavantage concurrentiel par rapport aux entreprises locales, notamment en raison des coûts de transport et d’hébergement du personnel. Elles n’ont présenté aucune donnée ni aucun argument supplémentaire pour appuyer cette hypothèse. L’Autorité invite les autorités norvégiennes à préciser plus en détail en quoi la dérogation n’a aucun effet négatif indu sur la concurrence et à soumettre des informations complémentaires à cette fin.

Les autorités norvégiennes soulignent qu’il est évident que la dérogation a un effet incitatif. Or, l’effet incitatif d’une aide ne peut simplement être supposé. S’il n’est pas nécessaire de fournir des éléments démontrant qu’une aide accordée dans le cadre d’un régime incite chacun de ses bénéficiaires à exercer une activité qu’il n’aurait pas exercée en l’absence d’aide, l’effet incitatif doit, au minimum, être fondé sur une théorie économique solide. Il ne suffit pas d’alléguer simplement une prétendue évidence. S’il est vrai que la dérogation pour les entreprises enregistrées en dehors des zones admissibles réduit les coûts de main-d’œuvre liés aux services ambulatoires dans les zones admissibles, les autorités norvégiennes n’ont fourni ni preuves ni arguments soutenant l’hypothèse qu’en l’absence d’aide, le niveau d’activité économique dans la zone serait significativement réduit en raison des problèmes auxquels l’aide vise à remédier (13).

Les autorités norvégiennes expliquent que les entreprises qui fournissent des services ambulatoires peuvent enregistrer, dans une certaine mesure, des sous-unités dans la zone admissible. En outre, elles sont tenues de procéder à un tel enregistrement lorsqu’un salarié au moins travaille pour l’unité mère dans une zone distincte, et que l’entreprise peut y être visitée.

Les autorités norvégiennes affirment qu’en l’absence de la dérogation pour les services ambulatoires dans la zone admissible, il existerait une différence de traitement injustifiée selon que l’entreprise qui fournit le service a établi ou non une sous-unité dans la zone admissible.

Premièrement, l’Autorité ne comprend pas clairement ce que signifie exactement «lorsqu’un salarié au moins travaille pour l’unité mère dans une zone distincte, et que l’entreprise peut y être visitée». Elle invite dès lors les autorités norvégiennes à apporter des précisions.

Deuxièmement, le principe d’égalité de traitement est un principe général du droit de l’EEE. Toutefois, il ne peut à lui seul servir de base pour justifier la dérogation. Celle-ci doit elle-même être compatible avec le fonctionnement de l’accord EEE.

Pour conclure, l’absence des informations pertinentes telles que décrites plus haut amène l’Autorité à douter de la compatibilité de la dérogation avec le fonctionnement de l’accord EEE.

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 489/15/COL

of 9 December 2015

opening a formal investigation into the exemption rule for ambulant services under the scheme on differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020

(Norway)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’),

HAVING REGARD to:

the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), in particular to Article 61,

Protocol 26 to the EEA Agreement,

the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’), in particular to Article 24,

Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (‘Protocol 3’), in particular to Article 1(2) of Part I and Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Part II,

Whereas:

I. FACTS

1. Procedure

(1) The Norwegian authorities notified the regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme 2014-2020 pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 by letter of 13 March 2014 (14). On the basis of that notification and information submitted thereafter (15), the Authority approved the notified aid scheme by its Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014.

(2) By its judgment of 23 September 2015 in case E-23/14 Kimek Offshore AS v ESA (16) the EFTA Court annulled, in part, the Authority's decision.

(3) By letter dated 15 October 2015 (17), the Authority requested information from the Norwegian authorities. By letter dated 6 November 2015 (18), the Norwegian authorities replied to the information request.

2. The scheme as such is not the subject of the formal investigation

(4) By its judgment the EFTA Court partly annulled the Authority's decision approving the aid scheme. The aid scheme as such is not subject to the renewed scrutiny carried out by the Authority in the present formal investigation. The subject of this formal investigation is merely the part of the scheme (an exemption rule for ambulant services) for which the Authority's approval was annulled.

3. The scheme

3.1 Objective

(5) The objective of the general scheme on differentiated social security contributions as such is to reduce or prevent depopulation in the least inhabited regions in Norway, by stimulating employment. The operating aid scheme offsets employment costs by reducing the social security contribution rates in certain geographical areas. As a main rule, the aid intensitites vary according to the geographical area in which the business unit is registered. The rules on registration are explained in greater detail below.

3.2 National legal basis

(6) The national legal basis for the scheme as such is Section 23-2 of the National Insurance Act (19). This provision sets out the employer's general obligation to pay social security contributions calculated on the basis of gross salary paid to the employee. According to paragraph 12 of that section, the Norwegian Parliament may adopt regionally differentiated rates, as well as specific provisions for undertakings within certain sectors. Thus, it is the National Insurance Act, in conjunction with the annual decisions of the Norwegian Parliament, that forms the national legal basis for the scheme.

(7) For further detail on the aid scheme as such, reference is made to the Authority's Decision No 225/14/COL.

3.3 Rules on registration

(8) As a main rule, aid eligibility depends on whether a business is registered in the eligible area. As noted above, the main rule of the scheme is that aid intensities vary according to the geographical area in which the business is registered.

(9) Norwegian law requires undertakings to register sub-units for each separate business activity performed (20). If an undertaking performs different kinds of business activities, separate sub-units must be registered. Moreover, separate units must be registered if the activities are performed in different geographical locations.

(10) According to the Norwegian authorities, the ‘separate business activitiy’ criterion is met when at least one employee carries out work for the parent unit in a separate area, and the undertaking may be visited there. Each sub-unit forms its own basis for the calculation of the differentiated social security contribution, depending on their registered location. Thus, an undertaking registered outside the area eligible for aid under the scheme will be eligible for aid if, and in so far as, its economic activities are performed within a sub-unit located within the eligible area.

3.4 Ambulant services – the measure under scrutiny

(11) By way of exemption from the main rule on registration, the scheme also applies to undertakings registered outside the eligible area where they hire out workers to the eligible area and where their employees are engaged in mobile activities within the eligible area (for the purposes of this decision, this is referred to as ‘ambulant services’). This is the exemption rule under scrutiny in the decision at hand. The national legal basis for that exemption is provided for by section 1(4) of the Norwegian Parliament's Decision No 1482 of 5 December 2013 on determination of the tax rates etc. under the National Insurance Act for 2014.

(12) The exemption applies only when the employee spends half or more of his working days in the eligible area. Further, the reduced rate is only applicable for the part of the work carried out there. As a principal rule, the tax registration period is one calendar month.

(13) This entails that if an employee of an Oslo-registered entity (Oslo is in Zone 1, an ineligible zone, where the rate therefore is the standard 14,1 %) completes 60 % of his work one calendar month in Vardø (which is in Zone 5 where the applicable rate is 0 %) and the rest in Oslo, the undertaking will be eligible for the zero-rate on the salary to be paid for the work carried out in Vardø, but not for the work carried out in Oslo.

4. The judgment of the EFTA Court

(14) The EFTA Court annuled the Authority's decision in so far as it closed the preliminary investigation as regards the aid measure in section 1(4) of the Norwegian Parliament's Decision No 1482 of 5 December 2013 on determination of the tax rates etc. under the National Insurance Act for 2014. Section 1(4) is drafted in such a way as to conflate, together with the exemption rule (which is the subject of the present decision), an anti-circumvention measure designed to prevent undertakings from claiming aid under the scheme by virtue of simply registering their business within an area with a lower rate of social security contributions, even if they then proceed to conduct ambulatory activities or hire out their employees to work in an area with a higher rate. The anti-circumvention measure is not subject to the present procedure (21).

5. Comments by the Norwegian authorities

(15) The Norwegian authorities argue that the exemption rule for ambulant services is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of its Article 61(3)(c) and that it is in line with the Authority's Guidelines on Regional State Aid for 2014-2020 (the RAG) (22).

(16) The Norwegian authorities have explained that the exemption rule accounts for about two percent of the total aid granted under the scheme for 2015. They stress that this calculation is based on uncertain estimates.

(17) The Norwegian authorities have explained that in Norway, access to employment is the most influential factor when it comes to peoples' choice of residence. The social security contribution is as a main rule calculated on the basis of the rate applicable in the zone in which the employer is considered to carry out business activity. This rule is based on the premise that only undertakings performing economic activity in the eligible area should receive aid, and only to the extent that they are performing business activities in that area. This is a fundamental premise for the aid scheme.

(18) Where a company is registered, is not, and should not be, decisive. There are many sectors that frequently provide ambulant services. As an example, it would be too burdensome to require all construction firms to register their activities locally wherever they were to carry out work in order to be eligible for reduced social security rates. Neither Article 61(3)(c) nor the RAG or the GBER (23) contain requirements on where regional aid beneficiaries need to be registered. A formalistic approach where the registered location of the beneficiary is decisive in all cases has no basis in Article 61(3)(c). To the contrary, it would be difficult to reconcile with the RAG which focusses on whether the aid promotes economic activity in disadvantaged areas and not whether beneficiaries are registered within the area covered by the scheme. The underlying realities, i.e. whether the undertaking carries out economic activity within the eligible area, should be decisive. Furthermore, undertakings performing ambulant services can to some extent register sub-units in the eligible area. In the absence of the exemption rule for ambulant serices in the eligible area, there would be an unjustified difference in treatment depending on whether the service providing undertaking had established a sub-unit in the eligible area.

(19) The Norwegian authorities contend that the exemption rule contributes to an objective of common interest in a number of ways. They firstly note that undertakings in the eligible area can access, at a lower cost, specialised labour that would otherwise not be available. Secondly, the rule leads to increased competition between ambulant services in eligible areas. This is beneficial for local undertakings, other than those providing ambulant services, as lower costs for ambulant services make it more attractive and more profitable to run a business in the eligible area. Thirdly, employees with a temporal stay in the eligible area will buy local goods and services and thereby contribute to the local economy. This applies in particular to employees commuting to the location especially in the short or medium term as they are likely to stay in hotels, eat in restaurants etc. Fourthly, undertakings located in central areas may also hire personnel residing in the area where the ambulant services are performed. Even if the jobs are temporary in nature, they will contribute to increased wage income in the eligible regions, which also stimulates economic activity. Finally, undertakings registered outside the eligible zone may have a competitive disadvantage compared to local firms due to i.a. costs of transporting and lodging of personnel.

(20) In the view of the Norwegian authorities, it is evident that the exemption rule has an incentive effect as it reduces labour costs for ambulant services.

(21) Finally, the Norwegian authorities stress that the exemption rule creates a level playing field for all undertakings active in the disadvantages areas. The rule applies equally to any EEA-based undertaking. This ensures that undue adverse effects on competition are avoided.

II. ASSESSMENT

1. The presence of state aid

(22) 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.’

(23) This implies that a measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement if the following conditions are cumulatively fulfilled: (i) there must be an intervention by the state or through state resources, (ii) that intervention must confer a selective economic advantage on the recipients, (iii) it must be liable to affect trade between EEA States and (iv) it must distort or threathen to distort competition.

(24) In Decision No 225/14/COL, the Authority concluded that the scheme on differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020 constitutes an aid scheme. The Authority refers to its reasoning in paragraphs 68-74 of that decision. The exemption rule for ambulant services is part of the provisions providing for that aid scheme. It increases the scope of the scheme in the sense that it widens the circle of potential beneficiaries to undertakings that are not registered in the eligible areas. As with the other aid granted under the scheme, extending the scheme to the undertakings registered outside of the eligible areas results in state resources conferring selective advantages on undertakings. These advantages are liable to affect trade and distort competition.

2. Procedural requirements

(25) Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3: ‘the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. … The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision’.

(26) The Norwegian authorities implemented the exemption rule after the Authority approved it by Decision No 225/14/COL. With the annulment of the Authority's approval of the rule by the EFTA Court, the aid has become unlawful.

3. Compatibility of the aid

(27) The Authority must assess whether the exemption rule is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement on the basis of its Article 61(3)(c) in line with the RAG.

(28) The exemption rule for ambulant services entitles undertakings that are not registered in the eligible area to benefit from reduced social security charges when and to the extent that they carry out economic activities in the registered area. Neither Article 61(3)(c) EEA nor the RAG (nor the regional aid rules in the GBER) formally require that regional aid beneficiaries are registered in the assisted areas.

(29) Regional aid can be effective in promoting the economic development of disadvantaged areas only if it is awarded to induce additional investment or economic activity in those areas (24). Regional operating aid can only fall under Article 61(3)(c) EEA if it is awarded to tackle specific or permanent handicaps faced by undertakings in disadvantaged regions (25).

(30) There is no question that the geographical scope of the scheme as such is restricted to disadvantaged regions. The scope of this decision is limited to the exemption rule. The question is whether that rule, which entails that undertakings registered outside the disadvantaged regions covered by the scheme can benefit from aid under the scheme to the extent that they carry out economic activities in the disadvantaged regions is compatible with the state aid rules. In other words, does the exemption rule tackle specific or permanenet handicaps faced by undertakings in the disadvantaged regions?

(31) It is for the Norwegian authorities to demonstrate the risk of depopulation in the absence of the exemption rule (26). The Norwegian authorities have underlined the benefits of the exemption rule for local undertakings. They can access, at a lower cost, specialised labour that would otherwise not be available. Moreover, the exemption rule leads to increased competition between ambulant services in the eligible areas, which again is beneficial for local undertakings (other than those providing ambulant services) since lower costs for ambulant services make it more attractive and more profitable to run a business in the eligible area. The use of aid under the scheme is an indirect tool in the sense that it is used to reduce the cost of employing workers as a measure to reduce or prevent depopulation. The idea is that the labour market is the most important factor influencing where people live.

(32) The Norwegian authorities have further argued that the firms registered outside the eligible area occasionally will hire workers in the eligible areas. Thereby the firms will provide jobs that, although of a more temporary nature, will nevertheless contribute to increased wage income in the eligible regions. This also stimulates economic activity. The Norwegian authorities furthermore argue that employees who temporarily stay in the eligible area will buy local goods and services and thereby contribute to the local economy. This applies in particular to employees commuting to the location especially on short or medium term as they are likely to stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, etc. The Norwegian authorities have estimated the amount of aid resulting from the exemption rule to be two percent of the total aid for 2015 which they stress is an uncertain estimate. Two percent amounts to approximately EUR 19 million (27). The Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to provide more precise information about the financial effect of the rule.

(33) Apart from the above remarks of a general nature, the Norwegian authorities have not demonstrated the risk of depopulation of the relevant area in the absence of the exemtion rule. It is the view of the Authority that a measure, in order to meet the requirements of the RAG, must have effects exceeding a marginal increase of temporary employment possibilities and spending in the eligible area. On this basis, the Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to provide more information to demonstrate the risk of depopulation in the absence of the exemption rule.

(34) In terms of effect on competition and trade of the exemption rule, the Norwegian authorities argue that the exemption rule creates a level playing field for all undertakings active in the disadvantaged areas as it applies equally to any EEA-based undertaking. The consequence is that it ensures that undue adverse effects on competition are avoided. It is the view of the Authority that this is a positive feature in light of paras. 3 and 53 of the RAG. However, the undertakings registered within the eligible area may, in general, face more permanent difficulties than the undertakings that merely send their employees to work in the area on a non-permanent basis. The Norwegian authorities argue that undertakings registered outside the eligible zone may have a competitive disadvantage compared to local firms due to i.a. costs of transporting and lodging of personnel. The Norwegian authotities have not presented any data or further reasoning to back up this assumption. The Authority invites the Norwegian authorities to further clarify why it is that the exemption rule does not have undue adverse effects on competition and to submit further information to back this up.

(35) The Norwegian authorities have stressed that it is evident that the exemption rule has an incentive effect. Incentive effect of an aid cannot merely be assumed. While it is not necessary to provide individual evidence that aid under a scheme provides each beneficiary with an incentive, on an individual basis, to carry out an activity it would not otherwise have carried out, the incentive effect must, at the least, be based on sound economic theory. It is not sufficient merely to refer to an alleged obviousness. While it is true that the exemption rule for companies registered outside the eligible areas reduces labour costs for ambulant services in the eligible areas, the Norwegian authorities have not provided evidence or arguments to the effect that it is likely that, in the absence of aid, the level of economic activity in the area would be significantly reduced due to the problems that the aid is intended to address (28).

(36) The Norwegian authorities have explained that undertakings performing ambulant services to some extent can register sub-units in the eligible area. Moreover, they are required to do so when at least one employee carries out work for the parent unit in a separate area, and the undertaking may be visited there.

(37) The Norwegian authorities argue that in the absence of the exemption rule for ambulant services in the eligible area, there would be an unjustified difference in treatment depending on whether the service providing undertaking had established a sub-unit in the eligible area.

(38) Firstly, it is not clear to the Authority what the requirement that ‘at least one employee carries out work for the parent unit in a separate area, and the undertaking may be visited there’ entails. The Authority therefore invites the Norwegian authorities to clarify this.

(39) Secondly, the the principle of equal treatment is a general principle of EEA law. However, this cannot in and of itself serve as a basis to justify the exemption rule. The exemption rule must itself be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(40) In conclusion, the absence of the relevant information, as described above, leads the Authority to have doubts about the compatibility of the exemption rule with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

4. Conclusion

(41) As set out above, the Authority has doubts as to whether the exemption rule for ambulant services under the scheme on differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020 is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(42) Consequently, and in accordance Article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the Authority is obliged to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3. The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of the Authority, which may conclude that the measure is compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(43) The Authority, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, invites the Norwegian authorities to submit, by 10 January 2016 their comments and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the compatibility of the measure in light of the state aid rules.

(44) The Authority reminds the Norwegian authorities that, according to Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully granted to the beneficiaries will have to be recovered, unless this recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EEA law, such as the protection of legitimate expectations.

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 is opened into the exemption rule for ambulant services under the scheme on differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020.

Article 2

The Norwegian authorities are invited, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Part II of Protocol 3, to submit their comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure by 10 January 2016.

Article 3

The Norwegian authorities are requested to provide by 10 January 2016, all documents, information and data needed for assessment of the compatibility of the aid measure.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 5

Only the English language version of this decision is authentic.