Poziv k predložitvi pripomb v skladu s členom 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 Sporazuma o nadzoru in sodišču glede državne pomoči v obliki oprostitve taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo, predvidenih v ustanovitvi norveškega podjetja Entra Eiendom AS (v nadaljnjem besedilu Entra)

(2004/C 319/07)

Z odločbo 132/04/COL z dne 16. junija 2004, objavljeno v izvornem jeziku na straneh, ki sledijo temu povzetku, je Nadzorni organ EFTA začel postopek v skladu s členom (2) dela I Protokola 3 Sporazuma med državami EFTA o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča (Sporazum o nadzoru in sodišču). Norveška vlada je bila obveščena s kopijo Odločbe.

Nadzorni organ EFTA poziva države EFTA, države članice EU in zainteresirane stranke, da v enem mesecu od objave tega obvestila predložijo svoje pripombe o zadevnem ukrepu na:

Te pripombe bodo sporočene norveški vladi. Zainteresirana stranka, ki odda pripombe, lahko v pisni obliki zahteva zaupno obravnavo svojih podatkov, pri čemer navede razloge za to zahtevo.

POVZETEK

Postopek

22. maja je Nadzorni organ EFTA (ESA) zahteval od norveške vlade, da predloži informacije glede domnevne državne pomoči v korist nepremičninske družbe Entra Eiendom A/S. Sledila je korespondenca med norveško vlado in Nadzornim organom.

Opis ukrepa pomoči

4. junija 1999 je norveška vlada Parlamentu predstavila reorganizacijo javnega organa, Direktorata za javno gradnjo in lastnino („Statsbygg“), in ustanovitev podjetja z omejeno odgovornostjo Entre.

Lastnina, kapital in osebje (sredstva in obveznosti) so bili preneseni z države na podjetje Entra v zameno za izdane delnice z veljavnostjo do 1. julija 2000. Lastništvo in zadevno premoženje so bili preneseni z države Norveške na podjetje Entra in so bili registrirani v imenu Entre. Država Norveška je 100-odstotni lastnik podjetja. Skupno premoženje je sestavljeno iz 120 posestev, kar znaša 880 000 m2.

Vse nepremičnine na Norveškem so vpisane v register nepremičnin, kot ga določa Zakon o registraciji št. 2 z dne 7. junija 1935. V skladu z Oddelkom 7(1) Zakona o trošarinah št. 59 z leta 1975 je za registracijo prenosa naziva lastništva na nepremičnino potrebno plačati takse za listine. Za registracijo prenosa naziva v registru nepremičnin je treba plačati pristojbino za registracijo v skladu z Zakonom o sodnih taksah št. 86 iz leta 1982.

Zakon, predstavljen Parlamentu dne 4. junija 1999, navaja, da se ponovna registracija v registru nepremičnin in drugih javnih registrih izvede kot sprememba imena. Zaradi tega podjetju Entra ni bilo treba plačati taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo. Vlada meni, da je ta postopek v skladu s predhodnimi reorganizacijami državnih ustanov.

Glede na predložene podatke bi Entra za dajatve/pristojbine za prenos naziva nepremičnine morala plačati približno 80,6 milijonov norveških kron (okrog 10, 4 milijona eurov).

Ocena

S sprejetjem posebnih zakonskih določb je Entra oproščena taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo. Nadzorni organ meni, da to tvori finančno korist. Nobena druga določba v norveški zakonodaji ne navaja, da je tak prenos izvzet iz splošnega predpisa, ki določa, da registracija spremembe lastnika zahteva plačilo taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo.

Norveška vlada zatrjuje, da ukrep ne postavlja Entre v ugodnejši položaj nasproti ostalim zasebnim podjetjem, ki so v podobnem položaju. V okviru posebne zakonodajne sheme je državni ukrep določen kot ukrep, ki postavlja v ugodnejši položaj nekatera podjetja nasproti drugim, ki so ob upoštevanju zasledovanega cilja v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju. Nadzorni organ še zmeraj ni prepričan, da člen 61(1) EGP po primerjavi z ostalimi zasebnimi podjetji nima pomena za izvzetje iz plačila taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo.

Poleg tega norveška vlada zatrjuje, da izvzetje iz taks oz. neplačilo taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo ne pomenita koristi, saj struktura kapitala, trdnost in skupna vrednost podjetja glede na otvoritveno bilanco stanja ostajajo nespremenjeni. Toda predhodno mnenje Nadzornega organa je, da je plačilo taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo dolžnost podjetja, oprostitev od take dolžnosti je ugodnost za podjetje v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP. Ta ugodnost se ne more šteti za neobstoječo zaradi načina, kako je oblikovana otvoritvena bilanca.

Nadzorni organ tudi meni, da je izguba prihodka enaka porabi državnih virov v obliki fiskalnih izdatkov.

Po mnenju norveških organov je zadevni ukrep splošni ukrep, ki ne spada v področje člena 61(1). V sklopu tega bi Nadzorni organ rad izpostavil, da so vsi davčni ukrepi, ki so odprti za vsa podjetja v okviru držav EFTA, načeloma splošni ukrepi. Drugačna narava nekaterih ukrepov ne pomeni nujno, da se morajo ti ukrepi šteti kot državna pomoč. To velja za ukrepe, ki so zaradi svoje gospodarske utemeljenosti potrebni za nemoteno delovanje in učinkovitost davčnega sistema. S stališča Nadzornega organa je iz sedanje zakonodaje in prakse glede trošarin nemogoče sklepati, da je Entra zaradi takse na listine in pristojbine za registracijo obravnava kot nadaljevanje (dele) družbe Statsbygg. Zato se morajo ukrepi šteti za selektivne v smislu člena 61(1).

Poleg tega Organ opaža, da podjetje po celi Norveški posluje na trgu, ki je odprt za gospodarske subjekte iz katere koli druge države EGP. Zaradi tega ukrepi že vplivajo ali predstavljajo potencialni vpliv na konkurenco in trgovino med pogodbenicami.

Sklep

Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega Organ dvomi o združljivosti izvzetja iz taks za listine in pristojbin za registracijo v zvezi z ustanovitvijo Entra Eiendom AS z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP. Zato mora Organ začeti postopek uradne preiskave, ki je predviden v členu 1(2) dela 1 Protokola 3 Sporazuma o nadzoru in sodišču.

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 132/04/COL

of 16 June 2004

to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 1 (2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to the exemptions from document duties and registration fees provided for in the establishment of Entra Eiendom as

(NORWAY)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (1), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (2), in particular to Article 24 and Article 1 in Part I of Protocol 3 thereof,

Having regard to the Authority's Guidelines (3) on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement,

Whereas:

I. FACTS

1. PROCEDURES AND CORRESPONDENCE

2. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ENTRA

3. THE NORWEGIAN LEGISLATION AND PRACTICE CONCERNING DOCUMENT DUTIES AND REGISTRATION FEES ON THE REGISTRATION OF TRANSFER OF REAL ESTATE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH REORGANISATION OF UNDERTAKINGS

3.1. Introduction

3.2. Exemptions based on the Registration Act construed in the light of the company legislation

3.3. Exemptions based on special legislation

3.4. Methods used to avoid excise duties

4. THE NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT'S ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER THE EXEMPTION OF DOCUMENT DUTIES AND REGISTRATION FEES IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE AID PROVISIONS OF THE EEA AGREEMENT

4.1. Assessment in connection with the establishment of Entra

4.2. Arguments in the correspondence with the Authority

By letter dated 4 June 2003, the Ministry of Trade and Industry submitted additional information and arguments concerning i.a. the so called continuity principle, clarification concerning the measures used by private undertakings, why the non-payment does not constitute an advantage, information on the current law with regard to mergers and de-mergers and on exemption from the duty to pay registration fees. The Ministry reiterates the arguments in the letter dated 7 November 2002 as to why the non-payment does not constitute an advantage for Entra. In addition, the Ministry argues that the exemption is a general measure, which does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Point 9, Conclusion, of the letter dated 4 June 2003, reads:

„The common system regarding registration fee and document duty is that the continuity principle determines if conversion processes, both public and private, may be done as a name change in relation to inter alia the rules on registration fee and document duty. The purpose of the continuity principle is to facilitate the implementation of mergers, de-mergers and restructurings, which is regarded as socio-economically desirable. The special legislation and the reimbursement of accrued document duty resulting from the reorganisation of hydropower/ electricity companies are a result of the same considerations. Thus, the practice is a general measure, which according to well-established case law does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.“

II. APPRECIATION

1. The existence of State aid

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:

„Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.“

To be considered as state aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a tax measure must fulfil the following four criteria:

1. The measure must confer the beneficiaries an advantage that reduces the costs they normally bear in the course of the business.

2. The advantage must be granted by the State or through State resources.

3. The measure must be specific or selective in that it favours „certain undertakings or the production of certain goods“.

4. The measure must affect competition and trade between the Contracting Parties.

Condition 1: The measure must confer on the beneficiaries an advantage that reduces the costs they normally bear in the course of the business.

Condition 2: The advantage must be granted by the State or through State resources.

Condition 3: The measure must be specific or selective in that it favours „certain undertakings or the production of certain goods“.

Firstly, the Authority makes reference to Chapter 17B.3.1 of the Authority's State Aid Guidelines on direct business taxation concerning the specificity or selectivity of tax measures, which reads:

„Tax measures, which are open to all economic agents operating within the EFTA State, are in principle general measures. They must be effectively open to all firms on an equal access basis, and they may not de facto be reduced in scope through, for example, the discretional power of the State to grant them or through other factors that restrict their practical effect.“

According to the case law of the Court of Justice, it is possible to draw a distinction between:

— differentiated treatment that results from the application, to specific situations, of the same principles as those underlying the ordinary rules (no aid)

— differentiated treatment, which, favouring certain undertakings, departs from the internal logic of the ordinary rules (aid) (19).

Condition 4: The measure must affect or threaten to affect competition and trade between the Contracting Parties.

2. Compatibility of the aid

3. The character of the aid

4. Conclusion

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

1. The Authority has decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to the exemptions from document duties and registration fees provided for in the establishment of Entra Eiendom AS.

2. The Norwegian Government is invited, pursuant to Article 6 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, to submit its comments on the opening of the formal investigation procedure within two months from notification of this decision.

3. The Norwegian Government shall be informed by means of a letter containing a copy of this decision.

4. The EC Commission shall be informed, in accordance with Protocol 27(d) of the EEA Agreement, by means of a copy of this decision.

5. Other EFTA States, EC Member States, and interested parties shall be informed by the publishing of this decision in its authentic language version, accompanied by a meaningful summary in languages other than the authentic language version, in the EEA Section of the Official Journal of the European Communities and the EEA Supplement thereto, inviting them to submit comments within one month from the date of the publication.

6. This decision is authentic in the English language.