Stedina biex jitressqu kummenti skont l-Artikolu 1(2) fil-Parti I tal-Protokoll 3 tal-Ftehim bejn l-Istati tal-EFTA dwar it-Twaqqif ta’ Awtorità ta’ Sorveljanza u Qorti tal-Ġustizzja dwar kwistjonijiet ta’ għajnuna mill-Istat

(2019/C 177/04)

Permezz tad-Deċiżjoni msemmija hawn fuq, riprodotta fil-lingwa awtentika fil-paġni ta’ wara dan is-sommarju, l-Awtorità ta’ Sorveljanza tal-EFTA notifikat lin-Norveġja bid-deċiżjoni tagħha biex tibda proċedimenti skont l-Artikolu 1(2) tal-Parti I tal-Protokoll 3 tal-Ftehim bejn l-Istati tal-EFTA dwar it-Twaqqif ta’ Awtorità ta’ Sorveljanza u Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fir-rigward tal-miżura msemmija hawn fuq.

Il-partijiet interessati jistgħu jissottomettu l-kummenti tagħhom dwar il-miżura inkwistjoni fi żmien xahar mid-data tal-pubblikazzjoni lil:

L-Awtorità ta’ Sorveljanza tal-EFTA Ir-Reġistru 35, Rue Belliard 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Il-kummenti se jkunu kkomunikati lill-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi. L-identità tal-parti interessata li tressaq il-kummenti tista’ tinżamm kunfidenzjali jekk issir rikjesta bil-miktub li tiddikjara r-raġunijiet għal tali rikjesta.

SOMMARJU

Proċedura

1. L-Awtorità rċeviet żewġ ilmenti fl-14 ta’ Marzu 2017 u fis-27 ta’ Lulju 2017. L-ilmentaturi talbu trattament kunfidenzjali.

2. Wara li għamlet talbiet, l-Awtorità rċeviet informazzjoni mill-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi permezz tal-ittri tat-2 ta’ Ġunju 2017, l-20 ta’ Settembru 2017, l-1 ta’ Diċembru 2017, it-8 ta’ Diċembru 2017, l-1 ta’ Frar 2018, il-5 ta’ Frar 2018, il-21 ta’ Frar 2019, l-14 ta’ Marzu 2019 u t-18 ta’ Marzu 2019.

Deskrizzjoni tal-miżura/i

3. L-allegat benefiċjarju tal-għajnuna hija Trondheim Spektrum AS (“TS”).

4. TS hija s-sid ta’ Trondheim Spektrum u toperaha, u hija faċilità bi skopijiet multipli li tinsab fiċ-ċentru ta’ Trondheim. Il-post jintuża bħala post ta’ taħriġ minn diversi klabbs sportivi lokali, għal avvenimenti sportivi żgħar u kbar u għal avvenimenti oħrajn bħal kunċerti, fieri kummerċjali u kungressi.

5. Il-Muniċipalità ta’ Trondheim (“il-Muniċipalità”) kienet u għadha azzjonist maġġoritarju f’TS. Il-bqija tal-ishma huma f’idejn il-klabbs sportivi volontarji fuq bażi ta’ sħubija (“klabbs sportivi”).

6. L-obbjettiv tal-muniċipalità huwa li jingħataw faċilitajiet għal attivitajiet sportivi u ta’ divertiment lill-abitanti ta’ Trondheim. Fl-2004 l-Muniċipalità fformalizzat il-prinċipju ta’ faċilitajiet mingħajr ħlas għall-benefiċċju tal-klabbs sportivi mingħajr ħlas għall-benefiċċju tal-klabbs sportivi tal-Muniċipalità. Din il-miżura tal-Muniċipalità tiffaċilita l-parteċipazzjoni tat-tfal u ż-żgħażagħ f’attivitajiet sportivi irrispettivament mil-livell ta’ introjtu ta’ familji individwali.

7. Il-Muniċipalità tikri l-kapaċità mingħand diversi faċilitajiet, bħal TS, bil-għan li tipprovdi l-kapaċità lil klabbs sportivi mingħajr ħlas. Il-kompitu tal-għoti ta’ din il-kapaċità huwa- fdat lill-kunsill lokali tal-isports.

8. Mis-sajf 2017 TS bdiet għaddejja b’rinnovazzjoni u estensjoni sinifikanti li għandhom jiġu ffinalizzati fl-2019. Il-pjan huwa li fl-2020 l-kampjonati Ewropej tal- handball tan-nisa u l-irġiel isiru hemmhekk.

9. Id-Deċiżjoni tikkonċerna disa’ miżuri 1) self muniċipali, 2) garanzija muniċipali, 3) ftehimiet ta’ fond lokatizju, 4) il-ftehimiet ta’ lokazzjoni li ġew konklużi bejn l-1999 u l-2017, 5) il-ftehim ta’ lokazzjoni għall-2019, li ntlaħaq fl-2017, 6) iż-żieda kapitali marbuta ma’ kostijiet ġodda u mhux mistennija, 7) il-finanzjament tal-kostijiet tal-infrastruttura, 8) fondi min-Norwegian Gaming Fund u 9) il-garanzija impliċita inerenti fi Ftehim ta’ self bejn Nordea u TS.

10. Skont l-ilmentatur, TS ingħatat vantaġġ permezz ta’ miżuri differenti mingħand il-Muniċipalità. L-ilmentaturi għamlu l-argument li l-miżuri tal-allegata għajnuna ssussidjaw attivitajiet oħrajn ta’ TS.

Valutazzjoni tal-miżuri

11. Fil-fehma tal-Awtorità, kwalunkwe għajnuna potenzjali mill-Istat mogħtija permezz tal-miżuri 1, 2 u 3 tikkostitwixxi għajnuna eżistenti skont it-tifsira tal-Artikolu 1(b) tal-Parti II tal-Protokoll 3 tal-SCA. Għaldaqstant l-Awtorità ma tivvalutax aktar il-karattru tal-għajnuna ta’ dawn il-miżuri fid-deċiżjoni tagħha.

12. F’din id-deċiżjoni, l-Awtorità tasal għall-konklużjoni preliminari li l-miżura 4, il-ftehimiet ta’ lokazzjoni li ġew konklużi bejn l-1999 u l-2017, mhijiex parti minn skema ta’ għajnuna skont it-tifsira tal-Artikolu 1(d) tal-Parti II tal-Protokoll 3 tal-SCA skont l-argument tal-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi.

13. Fid-deċiżjoni tagħha l-Awtorità se tivvaluta biss il-karattru tal-għajnuna potenzjali tal-ftehimiet ta’ lokazzjoni li l-perjodu ta’ preskrizzjoni tiegħu jkun skada. Abbażi tal-informazzjoni fil-pussess tagħha, l-Awtorità tqis li l-perjodu ta’ preskrizzjoni tal-ftehimiet ta’ lokazzjoni, li skont l-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi kien bejn l-2007 u l-2008, għadu ma skadiex.

14. L-Awtorità tqis li l-fondi mogħtija lil TS mingħand Norsk Tipping AS, magħrufa bħala l-miżura 8, huma l-applikazzjoni ta’ sistema eżistenti ta’ għajnuna mill-Istat. Għaldaqstant l-Awtorità ma tivvalutax aktar il-karattru tal-għajnuna tal-miżura fid-deċiżjoni tagħha.

15. L-Awtorità hija tal-fehma preliminari li l-ftehimiet ta’ lokazzjoni bejn l-2007 u l-2017 kif ukoll il-ftehim ta’ lokazzjoni l-ġdid għall-2019 (il-miżuri 4 u 5) seta’ ta vantaġġ lil TS. L-ilmentaturi argumentaw li l-kera hija ogħla mit-termini tas-suq u li l-kera hija bbażata fuq il-ħtiġijiet ta’ TS u mhux fuq il-kapaċità meħtieġa mill-Muniċipalità.

16. L-Awtorità ssib li ż-żieda kapitali, il-miżura 6, tikkostitwixxi vantaġġ lil TS li jikkorrispondi għall-ammont sħiħ taż-żieda kapitali.

17. L-Awtorità tasal għall-konklużjoni preliminari li d-diviżjoni u l-kalkolu tal-kostjiet infrastrutturali fir-rigward tar-rinnovazzjoni u l-estensjoni ta’ TS (il-miżura 7) setgħu taw vantaġġ lil TS.

18. Fir-rigward tal-garanzija impliċita inerenti fil-ftehim ta’ self bejn TS u Nordea (il-miżura 9), l-Awtorità ssib li l-effetti tad-dikjarazzjonijiet fil-ftehim ta’ self mhumiex ċari u, f’dan l-istadju, ma tistax teskludi li dawn jipprovdu vantaġġ lil TS fis-sura ta’ garanzija impliċita mill-Muniċipalità.

19. L-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi argumentaw li l-użu ta’ faċilitajiet ta’ TS mill-klabbs sportivi ma jistax jitqies bħala attività ekonomika, peress li la l-Muniċipalità u lanqas TS ma jirċievu xi forma ta’ remunerazzjoni mingħand l-utenti tagħhom.

20. Anki jekk il-Muniċipalità tista’ titqies li qed twettaq attività mhux ekonomika billi toffri faċilitajiet mingħajr ħlas għall-klabbs sportivi tal-Muniċipalità, fil-prinċipju, l-entità li tforni lill-Muniċipalità tali faċilitajiet, tista’ tkun qed twettaq attivitajiet ekonomiċi meta tagħmel dan.

21. F’dan l-isfond, f’dan l-istadju l-Awtorità ma tistax teskludi li TS hija impriża, mhux biss meta tospita kunċerti, avvenimenti sportivi kbar, fieri, kungressi u avvenimenti oħra, iżda wkoll meta tikri l-faċilitajiet tagħha lill-Muniċipalità li mbagħad tipprovdi l-ispazju għall-klabbs sportivi tal-belt. Fi kwalunkwe każ, l-Awtorità tinnota li TS twettaq attività ekonomika oħra u għandha tintwera biżżejjed separazzjoni tal-kontijiet.

22. L-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi ma nnotifikawx il-miżuri kollha inkwistjoni lill-Awtorità. Għaldaqstant l-Awtorità tasal għall-konklużjoni preliminari li l-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi ma rrispettawx l-obbligi tagħhom skont l-Artikolu 1(3) tal-Parti I tal-Protokoll 3 tal-SCA, u li sa fejn il-miżuri 4, 7 u 9 jinvolvu għajnuna mill-Istat, dik l-għajnuna hija illegali.

23. L-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi nnotifikaw il-ftehim ta’ lokazzjoni l-ġdid tal-2019, il-miżura 5, fl-20 ta’ Novembru 2018. L-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi argumentaw li l-ftehim ta’ lokazzjoni l-ġdid jiddependi fuq il-konformità mat-termini tas-suq. B’mod espliċitu, huwa jippermetti adattamenti sabiex il-kundizzjonijiet tal-ftehim jinġiebu konformi mat-termini tas-suq jekk l-Awtorità tkun tirrikjedi dan. F’dan il-kuntest, il-konklużjoni preliminari tal-Awtorità hija li, jekk il-ftehim ta’ lokazzjoni jinvolvi għajnuna mill-Istat, l-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi rrispettaw ir-rekwiżiti stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 1(3) tal-Parti I tal-Protokoll 3 tal-SCA.

24. Fir-rigward tal-miżura 6, l-Awtorità tinnota li l-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi taw din l-għajnuna lil TS skont l-Artikolu 55 tal-GBER. Madankollu, l-Awtorità mhijiex konvinta bis-sħiħ li r-rekwiżiti stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 6(2) tal-GBER ġew issodisfati fir-rigward tal-miżura. Jidher li hemm bżonn issir valutazzjoni ulterjuri. Jekk l-Awtorità ssib li l-miżura ma tissodisfax ir-rekwiżiti tal-GBER, din l-għajnuna tkun illegali.

25. Il-miżuri ta’ għajnuna possibbli fil-każ inkwistjoni huma ta’ natura varja. L-awtoritajiet Norveġiżi argumentaw il-kompatibbiltà ta’ xi wħud mill-miżuri. F’dan l-istadju, l-Awtorità ma għandhiex l-informazzjoni biex tkun tista’ tistabbilixxi l-ammont possibbli tal-allegata għajnuna mogħtija lil TS li tirriżulta minn dawn il-miżuri. Għaldaqstant l-awtorità għandha dubji dwar jekk il-miżuri humiex se jirrispettaw il-prinċipju ta’ proporzjonalità u jkunux limitati għal dak li huwa meħtieġ biex jinkiseb l-għan tal-istat.

26. Barra minn hekk, l-Awtorità ma tistax teskludi s-sussidju inkroċjat mill-allegati miżuri tal-għajnuna għall-attivitajiet l-oħra li twettqu minn TS. Fid-dawl ta’ dan ta’ hawn fuq, l-Awtorità għandha dubji dwar jekk dawn il-miżuri jistgħux jitqiesu kompatibbli mal-Artikolu 61(3)(c) ta-Ftehim ŻEE.

(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.