Poziv k predložitvi pripomb v skladu s členom 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča o vprašanjih državne pomoči

(2019/C 177/04)

Z zgoraj navedeno odločbo, objavljeno v verodostojnem jeziku na straneh, ki sledijo temu povzetku, je Nadzorni organ Efte Norveško obvestil o svoji odločitvi, da bo začel postopek v skladu s členom 1(2) dela I Protokola 3 k Sporazumu med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča v zvezi z zgoraj navedenim ukrepom.

Zainteresirane strani lahko predložijo svoje pripombe o zadevnem ukrepu v enem mesecu od datuma objave na naslednji naslov:

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

Pripombe se bodo posredovale norveškim organom. Zainteresirana stran, ki predloži pripombe, lahko pisno zaprosi za zaupno obravnavo svoje identitete in navede razloge za to.

POVZETEK

Postopek

1. Nadzorni organ je 14. marca 2017 in 27. julija 2017 prejel dve pritožbi. Pritožnika sta zahtevala zaupnost.

2. Po poizvedbi je nato od norveških organov prejel informacije, in sicer z dopisi z dne 2. junija 2017, 20. septembra 2017, 1. decembra 2017, 8. decembra 2017, 1. februarja 2018, 5. februarja 2018, 21. februarja 2019, 14. marca 2019 in 18. marca 2019.

Opis ukrepov

3. Domnevni upravičenec do pomoči je podjetje Trondheim Spektrum AS (v nadaljnjem besedilu: TS).

4. TS ima v lasti in upravlja Trondheim Spektrum, večnamenski objekt v centru Trondheima. Objekt se uporablja za treninge lokalnih športnih klubov, za male in velike športne prireditve ter druge prireditve, kot so koncerti, sejmi in kongresi.

5. Občina Trondheim (v nadaljnjem besedilu: občina) je bila in je trenutno večinski delničar v TS. Preostale delnice imajo v lasti amaterski športni klubi, ki se financirajo s članarinami (v nadaljnjem besedilu: športni klubi)

6. Cilj občine je prebivalcem Trondheima zagotoviti prostore za športne dejavnosti in rekreacijo. Leta 2004 je občina formalizirala načelo brezplačne uporabe objekta v korist športnih klubov občine. Ta ukrep spodbuja udeležbo otrok in mladih v športnih dejavnostih ne glede na raven dohodkov posameznih družin.

7. Občina najema različne objekte, kot je na primer TS, da bi športnim klubom omogočila brezplačno uporabo. Za porazdelitev prostih terminov v objektih je pristojen lokalni športni svet.

8. V TS se od poletja 2017 izvaja obsežna prenova in gradi prizidek, dela pa naj bi se zaključila leta 2019. Po načrtih naj bi leta 2020 gostil evropsko prvenstvo v rokometu za ženske in moške.

9. Odločba se nanaša na devet ukrepov: 1) občinsko posojilo, 2) občinsko jamstvo, 3) zakupne pogodbe, 4) najemne pogodbe, sklenjene med letoma 1999 in 2017, 5) najemno pogodbo za leto 2019, sklenjeno leta 2017, 6) dokapitalizacijo, povezano z novimi in nepričakovanimi stroški, 7) financiranje infrastrukturnih stroškov, 8) sredstva iz norveškega sklada za igre na srečo in 9) implicitno poroštvo iz posojilne pogodbe med Nordea in TS.

10. Po mnenju pritožnikov je TS pridobil prednost z različnimi ukrepi, ki jih je odobrila občina. Pritožnika trdita, da so domnevni ukrepi pomoči navzkrižno subvencionirali druge dejavnosti, ki jih izvaja TS.

Ocena ukrepov

11. Po mnenju nadzornega organa bi državna pomoč, dodeljena z ukrepi 1, 2 in 3, pomenila obstoječo pomoč v smislu člena 1(b) dela II Protokola 3 k sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču. Nadzorni organ zato v svoji odločbi ne ocenjuje značaja pomoči teh ukrepov.

12. Nadzorni organ v svoji odločbi predhodno ugotavlja, da ukrep 4, najemne pogodbe, sklenjene med letoma 1999 in 2017, ni del sheme pomoči v smislu člena 1(d) dela II Protokola 3 k sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču, kot so trdili norveški organi.

13. Nadzorni organ bo v svoji odločbi ocenil samo potencialno naravo pomoči najemnih pogodb, za katere zastaralni rok še ni potekel. Nadzorni organ na podlagi informacij, ki jih ima na voljo, meni, da zastaralni rok za najemno pogodbo, ki je bila po navedbah norveških organov sklenjena za obdobje 2007–2008, še ni potekel.

14. Nadzorni organ meni, da so sredstva, ki jih je TS dalo podjetje Norsk Tipping AS (ukrep 8), uporaba obstoječega sistema državnih pomoči. Nadzorni organ zato v svoji odločbi ne ocenjuje značaja pomoči tega ukrepa.

15. Predhodno stališče nadzornega organa je, da so najemne pogodbe iz obdobja 2007–2017 in nova najemna pogodba iz leta 2019 (ukrepa 4 in 5) morda zagotovile prednost TS. Pritožnika trdita, da je najemnina nad tržno in da temelji na potrebah TS in ne na razpoložljivosti objekta za potrebe občine.

16. Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da dokapitalizacija, ukrep 6, pomeni prednost za TS, ki ustreza celotnemu znesku dokapitalizacije.

17. Nadzorni organ predhodno ugotavlja, da sta delitev in izračun infrastrukturnih stroškov, kar zadeva prenovo in prizidek TS (ukrep 7), morda zagotovila prednost TS.

18. V zvezi z implicitnim jamstvom, ki izhaja iz posojilne pogodbe med TS in Nordea (ukrep 9), nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so učinki izjav v posojilnih pogodbah nejasni in da v tem trenutku ni mogoče izključiti, da dajejo prednost TS v obliki implicitnega jamstva občine.

19. Norveški organi so trdili, da uporaba objekta TS s strani športnih klubov ne more šteti za gospodarsko dejavnost, saj niti občina niti TS od svojih uporabnikov nista prejela nobenega nadomestila.

20. Tudi če se za občino lahko šteje, da opravlja negospodarsko dejavnost z omogočanjem brezplačne uporabe prostorov za športne klube občine, lahko načeloma subjekt, ki občini zagotavlja takšne prostore, pri tem prav mogoče izvaja gospodarske dejavnosti.

21. Zato nadzorni organ v tem trenutku ne more izključiti možnosti, da je TS podjetje, ne le kadar organizira koncerte, velike športne prireditve, sejme, kongrese in druge dogodke, temveč tudi kadar oddaja svoje prostore v najem občini, ki jih nato daje na voljo mestnim športnim klubom. Nadzorni organ v vsakem primeru ugotavlja, da TS opravlja tudi drugo gospodarsko dejavnost in da bi bilo treba dokazati, da so računi zadostno ločeni.

22. Norveški organi nadzorni organ niso obvestili o vseh zadevnih ukrepih. Nadzorni organ zato predhodno ugotavlja, da norveški organi niso spoštovali svojih obveznosti v skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču ter da je v obsegu, v katerem ukrepi 4, 7 in 9 pomenijo državno pomoč, ta pomoč nezakonita.

23. Norveški organi so 20. novembra 2018 nadzorni organ obvestili o novi najemni pogodbi za leto 2019 (ukrep 5). Norveški organi so trdili, da je morala biti nova najemna pogodba v skladu s tržnimi pogoji. Pogodba izrecno omogoča prilagoditve, da se lahko pogoji sporazuma uskladijo s tržnimi pogoji, če nadzorni organ to zahteva. Glede na to nadzorni organ predhodno ugotavlja, da če najemna pogodba pomeni državno pomoč, norveški organi spoštujejo zahteve iz člena 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 k sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.

24. V zvezi z ukrepom 6 nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so norveški organi TS to pomoč dodelili v skladu s členom 55 uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah. Vendar pa nadzorni organ ni popolnoma prepričan, da so v zvezi z ukrepom izpolnjene zahteve iz člena 6(2) uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah. Zdi se, da je potrebna nadaljnja ocena ukrepa. Če bi nadzorni organ ugotovil, da ukrep ne izpolnjuje zahtev uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah, je ta pomoč nezakonita.

25. Možni ukrepi pomoči v zadevnem primeru so različne narave. Norveški organi so v zvezi z nekaterimi ukrepi trdili, da so združljivi. Nadzorni organ na tej stopnji nima na voljo informacij, ki bi mu omogočile določitev možnega zneska domnevne pomoči TS iz naslova teh ukrepov. Nadzorni organ zato dvomi, da bi bili ukrepi v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti in da bi bili omejeni na tisto, kar je potrebno za dosego cilja države.

26. Poleg tega nadzorni organ ne more izključiti navzkrižnega subvencioniranja iz domnevnih ukrepov pomoči pri drugih dejavnostih, ki jih izvaja TS. Glede na navedeno nadzorni organ dvomi, da bi se lahko ukrepi šteli za združljive v skladu s členom 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.

(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.