EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 167/08/COL of 12 March 2008 concerning alleged unlawful State aid to the undertaking Troms Tre AS (Norway)
Date: 2008-03-12
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, State aid, architectural heritage, building industry, control of State aid, disclosure of information, exchange of information, wood product

L 41/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.2.2009

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 167/08/COL

of 12 March 2008

concerning alleged unlawful State aid to the undertaking Troms Tre AS (Norway)

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (1),

HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic
Area (2), in particular to Articles 61 to 63, and to Protocols 3
and 26 thereof,

HAVING REGARD to the Agreement between the EFTA States on
the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of
Justice (3), in particular to Articles 5 and 24 thereof,

Whereas:

1. Procedure

By letter dated 20 June 2005, the EFTA Surveillance Authority
received a complaint from the Norwegian law firm Selmer (4) on
behalf of an anonymous client concerning alleged illegal State
aid to the undertaking Troms Tre AS (5), a producer of various
construction products made of wood. The letter was received
and registered by the Authority on 24 June 2005 (Event No
323812).

the
By letter dated 10 February 2006 (Event No 362331),
for information to the Norwegian
Authority sent a request
authorities for more information regarding the estate and the
timing of the bankruptcy proceedings.

The Norwegian authorities replied by letter dated 17 March
2006, informing the Authority that the bankruptcy proceedings
would not be finalised before the end of 2006. The letter was
received and registered by the Authority on 20 March 2006
(Event No 367142).

By letter dated 18 July 2007 (Event No 424054), the Authority
sent a new request for information to the Norwegian authorities
to obtain information on the settlement of
the bankruptcy
proceedings. In addition, the Authority requested information
on the purchaser of the assets of Troms Tre and any possible
refinancing of the undertaking.

By letter dated 20 August 2007, the Norwegian authorities
informed the Authority of
the bankruptcy
proceedings. The letter was received and registered by the
Authority on 20 August 2007 (Event No 434867).

the result of

By letter dated 1 July 2005,
complaint to the Norwegian authorities (Event No 324515).

the Authority forwarded the

By letter dated 4 December 2007, the complainant withdrew
the complaint, inter alia on the basis of the bankruptcy of the
alleged aid recipient. The letter was received and registered by
the Authority on 6 December 2007 (Event No 456318).

By letter dated 20 September 2005, the Norwegian authorities
responded to the allegations in the complaint by claiming that
the contested capital injections did not constitute State aid. The
letter was
received and registered by the Authority on
21 September 2005 (Event No 334843).

By letter dated 21 November 2005, the complainant informed
the Authority that Troms Tre had declared itself bankrupt on
10 November 2005, and that the estate had been put into
administration by the Court on 11 November 2005. The
complainant claimed that the bankruptcy did not affect the
assessment of the subject matter of the complaint, and upheld
its complaint. The letter was received and registered by the
Authority on 23 November 2005 (Event No 351088).

(1) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’.
(2) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the EEA Agreement’.
(3) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Surveillance and Court Agreement’.
(4) Hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’.
(5) Hereinafter referred to as ‘Troms Tre’.

2. The recipient of alleged aid

Troms Tre was established in 1972 under the name Troms
Treforedling. In the complaint, the undertaking is described as
an undertaking active in the production and sale of building
construction
materials,
purposes. The
turnover was NOK 55-65 million
(approximately EUR 6,9-8,1 million).

in particular particle boards

annual

for

The majority of the shares in the undertaking were held by
public authorities on different levels. The largest shareholder
was Troms County Municipality, with approximately 40 % of
the shares in the company. Other shareholders included the
municipality of Sørreisa,
the State-owned company Statskog
SF, Troms Kraft, an electricity company owned by Troms
County Municipality, and two organisations for private forest
owners in the area, skogeierforening Nord BA and Troms Skog­
selskap.

12.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/27

On 10 November 2005, Troms Tre declared itself bankrupt.
The activities of the undertaking did not generate any profits,
and it declared that it was unable to pay its debts. The estate
was put into administration by the Court on 11 November
2005.

The bankruptcy proceedings were terminated and the company
was wound up on 28 March 2007. According to the final
report
property,
machinery and plant was sold in December 2006 to one of
three parties bidding in the procedure.

undertaking’s

bankruptcy,

on the

the

3. Description of the alleged State aid

to the

information supplied by

According to the complainant, State aid was granted to Troms
Tre in the form of an increase in the share capital of the under­
taking. According
the
complainant, share deposits of approximately NOK 10 million
had been completed at the time of the complaint. The majority
of the investment was made by public investors and they were
according to the complaint not made on market terms. The
complainant
the company planned
additional share increases in the period 2006-09.

furthermore alleged that

4. Assessment

The recipient of alleged aid, Troms Tre, has ceased to exist and
that its assets have been sold in the context of the bankruptcy
proceedings. The bankruptcy proceedings were finalised in
2007. Furthermore, according to the information available to
the Authority, the assets of the company were sold in an open
bidding procedure carried through by the Court in accordance
with the Norwegian legislation on bankruptcy proceedings.

Hence, the company has ceased all economic activity. Under
these circumstances, a decision by the Authority on the classi­
fication as aid of the measures in question and on their com­
patibility with the EEA Agreement would have no practical
effect (1).

Furthermore, on the basis that Troms Tre’s assets have been
sold in an open bidding procedure, the Authority concludes
that if State aid was granted to Troms Tre, this aid no longer

(1) Commission Decision of 25 September 2007 on the aid measures
implemented by Spain for IZAR, Case C-47/2003, not yet published,
and Commission Decision of 9 November 2005 on the measure
d’Alsace, Case
implemented by
for Mines
C 53/2000 (OJ L 86, 24.3.2006, p. 20).

France

potasse

de

produces any distorting effect and has not benefited the buyer
of the undertaking’s assets (2). Hence, no recovery of any aid
granted to Troms Tre would be possible (3).

the Authority takes note of

Finally,
from the
complainant dated 4 December 2007 (Event No 456318), by
which the complaint was withdrawn.

the letter

this background,

the Authority concludes

that a
Against
decision on the classification as State aid of
the measures
complained about and on their compatibility with the EEA
Agreement would have no practical
effect. As a result,
continuing the procedure provided for in Part II of Protocol 3
to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to these
measures serves no useful purpose.

5. Conclusion

On the basis of the above considerations, the Authority finds
that the procedure against Troms Tre serves no useful purpose.

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The procedure initiated pursuant to Article 10 in Part II of
Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement concerning
alleged illegal State aid granted to the undertaking Troms Tre
AS is hereby closed.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.

Article 3

Only the English version is authentic.

Done at Brussels, 12 March 2008.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Per SANDERUD
President

Kurt JAEGER
College Member

(2) See, for example Case C-390/98 H.J. Banks & Co. Ltd v The Coal
[2001]
v

Authority and Secretary of State
ECR I-6117, paragraph 77,
Commission (2004) ECR I-3925, paragraph 80.

and Case C-277/00 Germany

for Trade and Industry

(3) Commission Decision of 25 September 2007 on the aid measures
implemented by Spain for IZAR, Case C 47/2003, not yet published
in the OJ and Commission Decision of 9 November 2005 on the
measure implemented by France for Mines de potasse d’Alsace, Case
C 53/2000 (OJ L 86, 24.3.2006, p. 20).