natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De norske myndigheder anmeldte i juli 2000 »Hurtigruten-aftalen«, som efterfølgende blev godkendt af Tilsynsmyndigheden den 19. december 2001 [10].Ifølge Hurtigruten-aftalen var Hurtigruten-rederierne forpligtet til at opretholde daglige ruter med kombineret transport af passagerer og gods mellem Bergen og Kirkenes efter en fastlagt ruteplan.
The Hurtigruten Agreement was notified by the Norwegian authorities to the Authority in July 2000 and approved by the Authority on 19 December 2001 [10].According to the Hurtigruten Agreement, the Hurtigruten companies were under an obligation to maintain daily transport services consisting of the combined transport of persons and goods between Bergen and Kirkenes according to a fixed route plan.
Denne forpligtelses betød, at Hurtigruten-rederierne opererede med 11 skibe, der dagligt lagde til i 34 havne langs kysten.
This obligation implied that the Hurtigruten companies operated with 11 ships and stopped daily at 34 ports along the coast.
I 2004 tegnede godstransport sig for ca. 8 % af omsætningen, mens passagertransporten udgjorde 92 %.
In 2004, approximately 8 % of the turnover related to transport of goods, whereas 92 % related to transport of passengers.
Hurtigruten-rederierne udøvede også kommercielle aktiviteter, som ikke er en del af Hurtigrutens færgerute, såsom drift af hurtigbåde.
The Hurtigruten companies were also engaged in commercial business activities which were not part of the Hurtigruten service, such as operating high-speed ferries.
De ruter, som omfatter Hurtigrutens færgerute, er delvis økonomisk rentable, navnlig i sommerhalvåret.
The routes which comprise the Hurtigruten service are themselves partly commercially viable, notably during the summer season.
Det er dog almindelig kendt, at disse ruter ikke er økonomisk rentable i vinterhalvåret, hvis de skal betjenes med den hyppighed, der kræves i henhold til Hurtigruten-aftalen.
However, it is accepted that these routes, served at the frequency required by the Hurtigruten Agreement, are not commercially viable during the winter season.
Tilsynsmyndigheden fremførte i 2001-beslutningen, at den kompensation, der blev givet i henhold til Hurtigruten-aftalen, var forenelig med EØS-aftalen, idet de tjenesteydelser, aftalen omhandlede, kunne betragtes som tjenesteydelser af almindelig økonomisk interesse, og betingelserne i artikel 59, stk. 2, i EØS-aftalen var opfyldt.
In its 2001 Decision, the Authority considered that the compensation granted under the Hurtigruten Agreement could be regarded as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement as the services covered by it were considered to be services of general economic interest and the conditions laid down in Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement had been respected.
Den 25. september 2002 besluttede Tilsynsmyndigheden at foreslå Norge passende foranstaltninger vedrørende statsstøtte i form af regionalt differentierede socialsikringsafgifter [11].
On 25 September 2002, the Authority decided to propose appropriate measures to Norway with regard to the Norwegian system concerning regionally differentiated social security contributions [11].
Norge accepterede forslaget om passende foranstaltninger den 31. oktober 2002.
The proposal to adopt appropriate measures was accepted by Norway on 31 October 2002.
Nogle, men ikke alle, stigninger i omkostninger var omfattet af Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning af 12. november 2003.
Part, but not all, of the increase in costs was covered by the Authority’s Decision of 12 November 2003.
Paragraf 10 i Hurtigruten-aftalen indeholdt en klausul om, at begge aftaleparter kunne anmode om en genforhandling af aftalen, såfremt der skete betydelige ændringer i det grundlag, hvorpå aftalen var indgået.
Section 10 of the Hurtigruten Agreement contained a clause whereby both parties to the Agreement could set in motion a re-negotiation procedure in the event of substantial changes in the premises upon which the Hurtigruten Agreement was based.
Hurtigruten-aftalen udløb som planlagt den 31. december 2004.
The Hurtigruten Agreement ended as foreseen on 31 December 2004.
Denne sag drejer sig om et tilskud til Hurtigruten-rederierne opført under post 70, kapitel 1330 (»Særskilte transporttiltak«) på det norske statsbudget for 2004 med et beløb på op til 8,5 mio. NOK (ca. 1,1 mio. EUR) som kompensation for ændringer i den differentierede socialsikringsordning [13].Tilskuddet skulle give Hurtigruten-rederierne kompensation for den del af de øgede socialsikringsbidrag, der ikke allerede var givet kompensation for som følge af planen om en treårig overgangsperiode, som Tilsynsmyndigheden godkendte ved sin beslutning af 12. november 2003.
The present case concerns a payment to the Hurtigruten companies contained in Post 70, Chapter 1330 (Særskilte transporttiltak) of the Norwegian 2004 State Budget, whereby the Hurtigruten companies would be granted up to NOK 8,5 million (approximately EUR 1,1 million) as compensation due to the changes in the differentiated social security system [13].The payment would compensate the Hurtigruten companies for that part of the increased social security contributions which was not already compensated for as a result of the scheme concerning a 3-year transitional period, approved by the Authority in its Decision of 12 November 2003.
Tilsynsmyndigheden kom i sin beslutning nr. 215/06/KOL om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure til den foreløbige konklusion, at kompensation for øgede socialsikringsbidrag udgjorde statsstøtte i henhold til artikel 61, stk. 1, i EØS-aftalen.
In its Decision 215/06/COL to open the formal investigation procedure, the Authority came to the preliminary conclusion that compensation for increased social security contributions constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Tilsynsmyndigheden udtrykte tvivl om, hvorvidt den norske stats støtteforanstaltning kunne erklæres forenelig med EØS-aftalen og mere specifikt, om støtteforanstaltningen var forenelig med artikel 59, stk. 2, i EØS-aftalen.
The Authority expressed its doubts as to whether the Norwegian State’s support measure could be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, and more specifically, whether the aid measure was compatible with Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement.
Der herskede især tvivl om, hvorvidt statsstøtten var nødvendig for, at Hurtigruten-rederierne kunne opfylde sin forpligtelse til at yde offentlige tjenesteydelser.
These doubts concerned, in particular, the question of whether the aid granted was necessary for the Hurtigruten companies to be able to fulfil their public service obligations.
De norske myndigheders bemærkninger
Comments by the Norwegian authorities
De norske myndigheder er af den opfattelse, at kompensationen lå inden for de grænser, som Tilsynsmyndigheden satte for kompensation i sin 2001-beslutning, og derfor bør betegnes som »eksisterende støtte« i overensstemmelse med definitionen i artikel 1, litra b), nr. ii), i del II i protokol 3 til tilsyns- og domstolsaftalen.
The Norwegian authorities are of the opinion that the compensation was within the limits of the compensation authorised by the Authority in its 2001 Decision, and should therefore be classified as ‘existing aid’ in line with the definition of Article 1(b)(ii) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
De norske myndigheder mener, at tilskuddet er omfattet af den Hurtigrute-aftale, der var gældende på det tidspunkt, hvor tilskuddet blev ydet.
The Norwegian authorities consider the payment to be covered by the Hurtigruten Agreement in force at the time when the payment was granted.
De henviser til en klausul i paragraf 10 i Hurtigruten-aftalen om, at begge aftaleparter kan anmode om en genforhandling af aftalen, såfremt der sker betydelige ændringer i det grundlag, hvorpå aftalen blev indgået.
They rely, in this respect, on Section 10 of the Hurtigruten Agreement, a clause whereby both parties to the Hurtigruten Agreement may demand a re-negotiation in the event of substantial changes in the premises upon which the Hurtigruten Agreement was based.
De norske myndigheder anfører, at efter deres overbevisning opfylder ændringerne i den differentierede socialsikringsordning dette kriterium.
The Norwegian authorities state that they regard the changes in the differentiated social security system to fulfil this criterion.
De kunne ikke have været forudset af Hurtigruten-rederierne.
They could not have been foreseen by the Hurtigruten companies.
Som resultat af forhandlingerne med rederierne blev kompensationen for disse udgifter beregnet til 7,352 mio. NOK for 2004, dvs. til den faktiske stigning i udgifterne som følge af ændringerne i socialsikringsordningen.
As a result of the negotiations with the companies, the compensation for these costs was set at NOK 7,352 million for 2004, i.e. the actual increase in costs as a result of the changes to the social security system.
Formålet med at kompensere for ændringerne i socialsikringsordningen var ifølge de norske myndigheder at sikre, at transportniveauet langs den norske kyst opretholdes ved at sætte Hurtigruten-rederierne i stand til fortsat at kunne opfylde den forpligtelse til offentlige tjeneste, som de var pålagt i henhold til aftalen.
The purpose of compensating for the amendments to the social security scheme was, according to the Norwegian authorities, to ensure the status quo with regard to the agreed level of transport along the Norwegian coastline, by enabling the Hurtigruten companies to continue to carry out the public service obligation entrusted to them in the Agreement.
Det er de norske myndigheders opfattelse, at paragraf 10 i Hurtigruten-aftalen giver hjemmel til genforhandlingen af aftalen, og at Tilsynsmyndigheden anerkendte denne klausul i 2001-beslutningen.
The Norwegian authorities take the position that Section 10 of the Hurtigruten Agreement constitutes a legal basis for the re-negotiation of the Agreement and that the clause was recognised by the Authority in its 2001 Decision.
På dette grundlag udgør kompensationen for højere socialsikringsbidrag ifølge de norske myndigheder ikke ny støtte, forudsat at kompensationen er forenelig med EØS-aftalens bestemmelser om statsstøtte.
On this basis, the compensation for increased social security contributions would, according to the Norwegian authorities, not constitute new aid provided that the compensation was compatible with the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement.
Med hensyn til støttens overensstemmelse hævdede de norske myndigheder, at kompensationen for ændringerne i socialsikringsordningen blev givet til Hurtigruten-rederierne for at opretholde de transportkrav, det norske parlament havde fastsat.
Concerning the compatibility of the aid, the Norwegian authorities claim that the compensation for the changes in the social security scheme was granted to the Hurtigruten companies in order to maintain the transport standard fixed by the Norwegian Parliament.
Uden kompensationen ville standarden af de offentlige tjenesteydelser, som rederierne skulle varetage, være faldet, enten i form af højere billetpriser eller færre afgange.
Without the compensation, the standard of the public service obligations entrusted to the companies would have declined; either by the application of higher fares or by reduced frequency of the services.
Af den grund finder de norske myndigheder, at kompensationen er nødvendig.
Against this background, the Norwegian authorities consider the compensation to be necessary.
De norske myndigheder henviser til paragraf 1 i Hurtigruten-aftalen om, at en væsentlig del af det overskud, som Hurtigruten-rederierne genererer i sommerhalvåret, skal bruges til at dække de urentable aktiviteter i vinterhalvåret.
The Norwegian authorities refer to Section 1 of the Hurtigruten Agreement whereby a substantial part of the profits generated by the Hurtigruten companies in the summer season should be used to finance the unprofitable activity in the winter season.
Kompensationen for den offentlige tjeneste bør således beregnes på grundlag af rentabiliteten set over hele året.
The public service compensation should then be calculated on the basis of the profitability throughout the year.
De norske myndigheder er af den opfattelse, at Tilsynsmyndigheden ved at acceptere princippet i paragraf 1 i Hurtigruten-aftalen har accepteret, at der ikke skelnes tydeligt mellem de kommercielle ruter og de ikke-kommercielle ruter, som Hurtigruten-rederierne betjener.
The Norwegian authorities are of the opinion that the Authority, by accepting the principle laid down in Section 1 of the Hurtigruten Agreement, has accepted the fact that no clear separation of the commercial and non-commercial services of the Hurtigruten companies is made.
Ifølge de norske myndigheder blev Hurtigruten-rederierne stillet dårligere end andre rederier ved at skulle overføre overskuddet fra højsæsonen til lavsæsonen end andre rederier, fordi den øger de andre firmaers mulighed for at »skumme fløden« i den gode sæson.
According to the Norwegian authorities, the system of transferring profits from the profitable to the non-profitable season gave the Hurtigruten Companies a disadvantage compared to other undertakings providing maritime services, as it increased the risk of ‘cream-skimming’ by other companies in the profitable season.
Denne risiko steg yderligere som følge af ændringerne af socialsikringsordningen, og de norske myndigheder fandt det berettiget at modvirke dette ved at øge kompensationen.
This risk was increased further as a result of the changes to the social security scheme, and the Norwegian authorities consider it legitimate to counteract this by increasing the compensation.
De norske myndigheder er endvidere af den opfattelse, at det ikke er afgørende at skelne mellem overskudsgivende og ikke-overskudsgivende ruter, når krydssubsidieringen tydeligvis som i denne sag sker til gavn for de ruter, der ikke giver overskud.
The Norwegian authorities furthermore take the view that separation between profitable and non-profitable services is not decisive when the cross-subsidisation is so clearly in support of the non-profitable services, as in this case.
De norske myndigheder henviser i den forbindelse til Hurtigruten-rederiernes årsrapport for 2004 og de månedlige resultater, hvor vintermånederne efter indregning af kompensationen for de offentlige tjenesteydelser viste et underskud på ca. 211 mio. NOK.
In this regard, the Norwegian authorities refer to the annual report of the Hurtigruten companies for 2004 and the monthly results, where the winter months, after the public service compensation had been included, had a deficit of approximately NOK 211 million.
Det samlede underskud var på ca. 45 mio. NOK.
The total deficit was of approximately NOK 45 million.
De norske myndigheder understregede endvidere, at den kompensation, der blev givet for 2004, ikke ændrer ved det forhold, at de kommercielle ruter, som er omfattet af Hurtigruten-aftalen, støtter de aktiviteter, der er knyttet til Hurtigruten-rederiernes forpligtelse til offentlige tjeneste.
Moreover, the Norwegian authorities stress that the compensation granted for 2004 does not alter the fact that the commercial services covered by the Hurtigruten Agreement support the activities linked to the public service obligation of the Hurtigruten companies.
Som et yderligere argument hævder de norske myndigheder, at 4,29 mio. NOK af den kompensation, der blev givet, vedrører øgede socialsikringsbidrag for vinterhalvåret, mens de resterende 3,06 mio. NOK udgør yderligere kompensation for offentlig tjeneste i samme sæson, da forpligtelsen til offentlige tjeneste viste sig at medføre højere omkostninger for Hurtigruten-rederierne end begge aftaleparter i Hurtigruten-aftalen havde forventet.
As an additional argument, the Norwegian authorities claim that NOK 4,29 million of the compensation granted relates to increased social security contributions for the winter season whereas the remaining NOK 3,06 million constitutes additional public service compensation for the same season as the public service obligation turned out to entail higher costs for the Hurtigruten companies than expected by both parties to the Hurtigruten Agreement.
Ministeriet for Transport og Kommunikation fastholder dette synspunkt, selv om der på statsbudgettet for 2004 henvises til kompensationen som »eventuel kompensation som følge af ændringer af systemet for differentierede socialsikringsbidrag« [14].
The Ministry of Transport and Communications maintains this view, despite the fact that the State Budget for 2004 referred to the compensation as ‘possible compensation as a consequence of amendments to the system concerning differentiated social security contributions’ [14].
Ifølge de norske myndigheder bør den betegnelse, kompensationen har på statsbudgettet, ikke være afgørende for vurderingen af, om den er lovlig.
According to the Norwegian authorities, the name given to the contributions in the State Budget should not be decisive when assessing the legality of the compensation.
Statsstøtte efter artikel 61, stk. 1, i EØS-aftalen
The presence of State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Artikel 61, stk. 1, i EØS-aftalen lyder som følger:
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:
Den kompensation, der gives til Hurtigruten-rederierne for de øgede socialsikringsbidrag, finansieres direkte ved hjælp af en budgetbevilling og ydes derfor af staten.
The compensation granted to the Hurtigruten companies for the increase in social security contributions is financed directly through a budgetary allocation and is thus granted by the State.
Kompensationen fritager virksomhederne for socialsikringsudgifter, som de under normale omstændigheder ville skulle afholde, og styrker således disse virksomheders position sammenlignet med andre virksomheder, som driver virksomhed inden for EØS-området.
Furthermore, the compensation relieves the companies of social security charges which they would normally have to bear in the ordinary course of business, and thus strengthens the position of these undertakings compared with other undertakings engaged in intra-EEA trade.
Hurtigruten-rederierne er endvidere aktive på markedet for passager- og godstransport og på turistmarkedet, navnlig ved at tilbyde krydstogter/rundture langs den norske kyst.
Moreover, the Hurtigruten companies are active on the markets for passenger and cargo transport and on the tourism market, in particular by offering cruises/round trips along the Norwegian coast.
Hurtigrutens færgerute tiltrækker i vid udstrækning udenlandske turister, og ved at tiltrække disse kunder konkurrerer Hurtigruten-rederierne således med andre rederier, der udbyder lignende tjenesteydelser.
The Hurtigruten service, to a large extent, attracts foreign tourists, and the Hurtigruten companies thus compete with other undertakings offering similar services in attracting these customers.
Den kompensation, som Hurtigruten-rederierne får, kan have indflydelse på konkurrencen på disse markeder og risikerer at påvirke handelen mellem EØS-aftalens kontraherende parter.
The compensation granted to the Hurtigruten companies may therefore have an effect on competition on these markets and is liable to affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Tilsynsmyndigheden anser derfor betalingen af 7,352 mio. NOK (ca. 900000 EUR) til Hurtigruten-rederierne for at udgøre statsstøtte i henhold til artikel 61, stk. 1, i EØS-aftalen.
The Authority thus considers the payment of NOK 7,352 million (approximately EUR 900000) to the Hurtigruten companies to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Ny eller eksisterende støtte
New or existing aid
Ifølge artikel 1, litra c), i del II i protokol 3 i tilsyns- og domstolsaftalen skal »enhver støtte, dvs. støtteordninger og individuel støtte, som ikke er eksisterende støtte, herunder ændringer i eksisterende støtte« betragtes som »ny støtte«.
According to Article 1(c) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, ‘new aid’ shall mean ‘all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid’.
Tilsynsmyndigheden fremførte i 2001-beslutningen, at den kompensation, Hurtigruten-rederierne fik i henhold til Hurtigruten-aftalen, var forenelig med EØS-aftalen, idet de tjenesteydelser, aftalen omhandlede, kunne betragtes som tjenesteydelser af almindelig økonomisk interesse, og betingelserne i artikel 59, stk. 2, i EØS-aftalen var opfyldt.
In its 2001 Decision, the Authority considered that the compensation granted to the Hurtigruten companies under the Hurtigruten Agreement could be regarded as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement as the services covered by it were considered to be services of general economic interest and the conditions laid down in Article 59(2) EEA had been respected.
Støtte, som er godkendt af Tilsynsmyndigheden, er eksisterende støtte.
Aid which has been approved by the Authority is existing aid.
Men i 2004 gav de norske myndigheder Hurtigruten-rederierne yderligere 7,352 mio. NOK.
However, in 2004, the Norwegian authorities granted an additional NOK 7,352 million to the Hurtigruten companies.
Støtten blev givet for at kompensere rederierne for øgede socialsikringsbidrag i 2004 og var ikke en del af den støtte til Hurtigruten-rederierne, som blev godkendt ved Tilsynsmyndighedens 2001-beslutning.
The aid was granted in order to compensate the companies for increased social security contributions in 2004, and was not part of the aid to the Hurtigruten companies authorised by the Authority’s 2001 Decision.
De norske myndigheder hævder, at kompensationen var i overensstemmelse med Tilsynsmyndighedens 2001-beslutning, eftersom paragraf 10 i Hurtigruten-aftalen indeholdt en klausul om, at begge aftaleparter kan anmode om en genforhandling af aftalen, såfremt der sker betydelige ændringer i det grundlag, hvorpå aftalen blev indgået.
The Norwegian authorities argue that the compensation was in line with the Authority’s 2001 Decision, since Section 10 of the Hurtigruten Agreement contained a clause whereby both parties to the Hurtigruten Agreement may initiate a re-negotiation procedure in the event of substantial changes in the premises upon which the Hurtigruten Agreement was based.
De norske myndigheder har anført, at de betragter ændringerne i den differentierede socialsikringsordning som en væsentlig ændring.
The Norwegian authorities have stated that they regard the changes in the differentiated social security system to constitute a substantial change.
Ifølge de norske myndigheder bør kompensationen derfor betragtes som eksisterende støtte.
According to the Norwegian authorities, the compensation should thus be regarded as existing aid.
Tilsynsmyndigheden vil gerne påpege, at den årlige kompensation på 170 mio. NOK, udtrykt i 1999-priser, i henhold til Hurtigruten-aftalen er blevet godkendt af Tilsynsmyndigheden.
The Authority would like to point out that annual compensation of NOK 170 million, expressed in 1999-prices, under the Hurtigruten Agreement had been approved by the Authority.
Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning tog imidlertid ikke stilling til paragraf 10 i Hurtigruten-aftalen som sådan, og der er intet i Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning, der lægger op til, at enhver fremtidig ændring af Hurtigruten-aftalen, som baseres på denne klausul, automatisk kan anses for at være forenelig med EØS-aftalens bestemmelser om statsstøtte, således som det fremstilles af de norske myndigheder.
In contrast, the Authority’s decision did not deal with Section 10 of the Hurtigruten Agreement as such, and nothing in the Authority’s decision suggested that any future amendments of the Hurtigruten Agreement based on this clause would, as argued by the Norwegian authorities, automatically be considered to be in compliance with the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement.
Paragraf 10 i aftalen giver kun mulighed for at ændre kontrakten som følge af uforudsigelige og betydelige ændringer af omstændighederne.
Section 10 of the Agreement merely allows for the possibility of amending the contract due to unforeseen substantial changes of circumstances.