natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Som de norske myndigheder har forklaret i brev af 12. november 2004, førte konstateringen af direkte handel inden for næsten alle fremstillingssektorer (NACE 15-NACE 37) til, at ECON måtte konkludere, at næsten alle disse sektorer vil kunne blive påvirket af konkurrence fra virksomheder i andre EØS-stater.
As the Norwegian authorities have explained in the letter dated 12 November 2004, the occurrence of direct trade in nearly all manufacturing sectors (NACE 15 to NACE 37) led ECON to conclude that practically all these sectors may be affected by competition from undertakings in other EEA States.
De norske myndigheder har også forklaret, at ganske enkelte sektorer (udgivelse og trykning af aviser, skibsbygning) ikke desto mindre blev betragtet som værende operative på lokale markeder udelukkende på grundlag af disse undersektorers beskaffenhed og karakteristika og ikke på grundlag af en import/eksport-analyse.
The Norwegian authorities have also explained that some very few sectors (publishing and printing of newspapers, building of ships) were nonetheless considered to operate in local markets only based on the nature and the characteristics of these sub-sectors and not on an import/export analysis.
Hvorvidt virksomheder i servicesektoren (NACE 50-NACE 99) var udsat for konkurrence blev hovedsagelig undersøgt på grundlag af kendskabet til markedssituationen i de forskellige erhvervssektorer og på basis af interview med et udvalg af virksomheder i zone 2, 3 og 4 i Norge.
As regards undertakings in the services sector (NACE 50 to NACE 99), the exposure to competition was mainly examined on the basis of the knowledge of the market situation in the different business sectors and on interviews with a selection of enterprises in Zones 2, 3 and 4 in Norway.
Der findes ingen eksplicit reference til den metode, der blev benyttet for at fastsætte, i hvilket omfang virksomheder inden for elektricitets-, gas- og vandforsyning (NACE 40) og bygge- og anlægsvirksomhed (NACE 45) er udsat for konkurrence, selv om en lang række undersektorer inden for bygge- og anlægsvirksomhed er blevet medtaget i anmeldelsen.
There is neither an explicit reference to the method followed to determine the exposure of competition in the electricity, gas and water supply (NACE 40) nor in the construction sector (NACE 45), although a great number of the construction sub-sectors have been included in the notification.
Ifølge ECON-rapporten blev rent lokale aktiviteter ikke påvirket af EØS-intern handel.
According to the ECON report, purely local activities were not affected by intra-EEA trade.
For at blive klassificeret som en rent lokal aktivitet i ECON-rapportens forstand var der to kumulative betingelser, der skulle opfyldes af den relevante økonomiske sektor inden for et givet område: virksomhederne i den pågældende sektor må ikke selv deltage i grænseoverskridende aktiviteter, og den særlige aktivitet, der foregår i den pågældende region, må ikke kunne tiltrække kunder fra andre områder.
To be classified as a purely local activity in terms of the ECON report, two cumulative conditions had to be fulfilled by the relevant economic sector in the given area: The undertakings in the given sector do not participate themselves in cross-border activities and the specific activity located in the actual region is not capable of attracting customers from another location.
ECON-rapporten indeholder dog intet forslag til bestemmelser, hvilket normalt er tilfældet, når det gælder en støtteordning, og der fremsættes heller ikke forslag herom i anmeldelsen.I indledningen til rapporten fremhævede ECON, at der ikke var tilstrækkelig tid eller ressourcer til at gennemføre en grundig analyse af konkurrenceforholdene inden for alle de økonomiske sektorer, som rapporten dækker, og at dette kunne føre til både undervurderinger og overvurderinger af konkurrencen med virksomheder i andre EØS-stater [29].
The ECON report nevertheless does neither contain any proposal for rules as would normally be the case for an aid scheme nor is such a proposal made in the notification.In the introduction to the report, ECON stated that there was not enough time or resources to conduct a thorough analysis of the competition relations within all the economic sectors covered by the report, and that this could lead to both underestimations and overestimations of the competition with undertakings in other EEA States [29].
ECON var ikke desto mindre af den opfattelse, at rapporten giver et rimeligt billede af konkurrencen mellem virksomheder inden for EØS.3.
ECON was nonetheless of the opinion that a reasonable picture of competition between undertakings within the EEA could be drawn from the outcome of the report.3.
Problemstillinger i beslutningen om at indlede proceduren
Concerns in the opening decision
Den 6. oktober 2004 besluttede Tilsynsmyndigheden at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure med hensyn til forslaget om regionalt differentierede satser for socialsikringsbidrag inden for visse økonomiske sektorer.
On 6 October 2004, the Authority decided to open the formal investigation procedure on the proposal for regionally differentiated rates of social security contributions for certain economic sectors.
Tilsynsmyndigheden var af den opfattelse, at forslaget om at anvende reducerede socialsikringssatser i zone 2, 3 og 4 dækkede et meget stort antal økonomiske sektorer og virksomheder.
The Authority considered that the proposed application of reduced social security rates in Zones 2, 3 and 4 covered a very broad range of economic sectors and undertakings.
Den anmeldte foranstaltning var i stort omfang en gentagelse af den tidligere ordning for regionalt differentierede og reducerede satser for socialsikringsbidrag, som Tilsynsmyndigheden havde erklæret for uforenelig støtte [30].
The notified measure replicated to a very large extent the former scheme of regionally differentiated and reduced rates of social security contributions, which was declared incompatible aid by the Authority [30].
Den væsentligste forskel mellem den tidligere undersøgte ordning og den foranstaltning, der nu er blevet anmeldt, består i en reduktion af antallet af økonomiske sektorer, som kan nyde godt af reducerede satser.
The main difference between the formerly assessed scheme and the measure currently notified is a reduction in the number of economic sectors that could benefit from reduced rates.
I ECON-rapporten fandtes en liste over sektorer, der angiveligt ikke blev påvirket af EØS-intern handel på grundlag af vurderingen af konkurrencefladerne.
The ECON report had prepared a list of sectors which were allegedly not affected by intra-EEA trade on the basis of the assessment of the competition interfaces.
I beslutningen om at indlede proceduren gav Tilsynsmyndigheden udtryk for tvivl med hensyn til den metode, som ECON havde benyttet til at indsamle data, da den ikke forekom at være systematisk.
The Authority expressed doubts in the opening decision with regard to the method followed in the ECON report for collecting data, which did not seem systematic.
Tilsynsmyndigheden var bekymret over, at ECON-rapporten kun gav et ufuldstændigt billede af status quo, og at der ikke fandtes nogen grundig analyse af den fremtidige situation.
The Authority was concerned that the ECON report produced only an incomplete picture of the status quo and that there was no thorough analysis of the future situation.
Tilsynsmyndigheden understregede, at den nærede tvivl om, hvorvidt den tilgang, der var blevet anvendt for at fastslå, om der forelå en påvirkning af samhandelen i en given sektor inden for EØS, var i overensstemmelse med de bestemmelser, som findes i fast retspraksis vedrørende fortolkningen af kriteriet »påvirkning af samhandelen« jf. artikel 61, stk. 1, i EØS-aftalen.
The Authority stressed its doubts as to whether the approach followed to determine whether there was intra-EEA trade effect in a given sector would comply with the requirements laid down in established case law regarding the understanding of the criterion ‘effect on trade’ within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Under henvisning til retspraksis gjorde Tilsynsmyndigheden således især opmærksom på, at i modsætning til den tilgang, som blev benyttet i ECON-rapporten, udelukker den omstændighed, at der ydes støtte til rent lokale aktiviteter eller til virksomheder, der opererer rent lokalt, ikke i sig selv, at der vil finde en påvirkning af samhandelen sted.
Referring to case law, the Authority recalled in particular that, contrary to the approach followed by the ECON report, the fact that aid is granted in respect of purely local activities or to undertakings operating at solely local level does not by itself preclude the possibility of an effect on trade.
Endvidere var Tilsynsmyndigheden i tvivl om, hvorvidt den anmeldte foranstaltning omfattede de nødvendige mekanismer til sikring af, at der ikke forekom nogen påvirkning af samhandelen i nogen tilfælde, eftersom den ikke indeholdt nogen generel beskyttelsesklausul, der ydede den nødvendige retlige og økonomiske sikkerhed for så vidt angår påvirkning af samhandelen.
Moreover, the Authority had doubts whether the notified measure provided the necessary mechanisms to guarantee the absence of effect on trade in all instances since it did not contain any general safeguard to ensure the necessary legal and economic certainty in its application concerning the effect on trade.
Tilsynsmyndigheden var foruroliget over foranstaltningens tidsubegrænsede karakter og over, at den ikke indeholdt nogen revisionsklausul for de kriterier og vilkår, der anvendes.
The Authority was concerned about the indefinite character of the measure which is unlimited in time and does not provide for a review clause of the criteria and conditions of application.
Tilsynsmyndigheden besluttede at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, bl.a. for at gøre det lettere for Norge at afklare situationen og fremlægge bedre dokumentation for, om anvendelsen af den anmeldte foranstaltning ikke ville påvirke samhandelen.
The Authority decided to open the formal investigation procedure, amongst others, to facilitate the task for Norway of clarifying and better substantiating whether the application of the notified measure would not have any effect on trade.
Der henvises til nedenstående sektion for så vidt angår de kommentarer, som de norske myndigheder har fremsat.
Reference is made to the following section for the comments submitted by the Norwegian authorities.
De norske myndigheders kommentarer
Comments by the Norwegian authorities
Ved brev af 12. november 2004 fremsendte de norske myndigheder deres kommentarer til Tilsynsmyndighedens beslutning om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure.
By letter dated 12 November 2004, the Norwegian authorities submitted their comments to the Authority’s decision to open the formal investigation procedure.
Med hensyn til anmeldelsens indhold gjorde de norske myndigheder det klart, at for så vidt angår standardklassifikationen af erhvervsmæssig virksomhed 52.120 (Anden detailhandel fra ikke-specialiserede forretninger), 52.420 (Detailhandel med beklædningsartikler) og 52.443 (Detailhandel med møbler), dækkede anmeldelsen virksomheder, som er beliggende i alle tre zoner, der er omfattet af foranstaltningen.
As far as the content of the notification is concerned, the Norwegian authorities clarified that regarding the standard industrial classifications 52.120 (other retail in non-specialised stores), 52.420 (retail sale of clothing) and 52.443 (retail sale of furniture), the notification covered undertakings located in all three zones included in the measure.
På grund af en fejl var dette kun angivet for virksomheder i zone 4.
Due to an inaccuracy, this was only indicated for undertakings in Zone 4.
For det andet forklarede de norske myndigheder, at »visse økonomiske sektorer i en zone blev anmeldt som ikke værende udsat for konkurrence, hvorimod de samme sektorer i andre zoner ikke var opført på listen.
Secondly, the Norwegian authorities explained that ‘some economic sectors in one zone were notified as not exposed to competition whereas the same sectors in other zones were not included in the list.
[…] Grunden hertil var, at ECON-rapporten angav, at der for visse økonomiske sektorers vedkommende ikke var nogen virksomheder, der ville overskride de minimis-tærsklen inden for den relevante zone.
[…] The reason for this was that the ECON report found that for some economic sectors there were no undertakings that would exceed the de minimis threshold within the relevant zone.
[…] Fremtidigt vil disse virksomheder, såfremt deres lønomkostninger fører til en overskridelse af de minimis-tærsklen, blive betragtet på samme måde som virksomheder, der falder ind under den relevante sektor, der er anmeldt i andre zoner«.
[…] However, for future purposes, if the wage costs of such undertakings should lead to an exceeding of the de minimis threshold, these undertakings will be considered in the same way as undertakings falling under the relevant sector notified in other zones.’
For det tredje fandt de norske myndigheder, at den argumentation, som Tilsynsmyndigheden havde fulgt i beslutningen om at indlede den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, afspejlede en noget forenklet forståelse af ECONs dataindsamlingsmetode og evaluering.
Thirdly, the Norwegian authorities found that the line of arguments followed by the Authority in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure reflected a somewhat simplified understanding of the method of data collection used and the assessment done by ECON.
I denne forbindelse oplyste de norske myndigheder, at de undersøgte på grundlag af regionale data for eksport og import, hvorvidt virksomheder i fremstillingssektoren havde været udsat for konkurrence.
In this respect, the Norwegian authorities stated that for undertakings in the manufacturing sector, the exposure to competition was examined on the basis of regional data on exports and imports.
De norske myndigheder gjorde det endvidere klart, at ECON-rapporten ikke forudsatte, at analysen af disse tal er tilstrækkelig til at identificere økonomiske sektorer, som ikke påvirkes af konkurrence fra virksomheder i andre EØS-stater, men at den er tilstrækkelig til at bekræfte, at støtte til en given sektor rent faktisk kan påvirke samhandelen.
The Norwegian authorities clarified that the ECON report did not presuppose that the analysis of these figures may be sufficient to identify economic sectors not affected by competition from undertakings in other EEA States but sufficient to confirm that aid to a certain sector may actually affect trade.
Hvad virksomheder i servicesektoren angår, gjorde de norske myndigheder gældende, at det hovedsagelig var på grundlag af viden om markedssituationen i de forskellige erhvervssektorer og på grundlag af interview med et udvalg af virksomheder, at man undersøgte, om virksomhederne var udsat for konkurrence.
As regards the undertakings in the service sectors, the Norwegian authorities argued that the exposure to competition was examined mainly on the basis of the knowledge of the market situation in the different business sectors and on interviews with a sample of enterprises.
For at blive klassificeret som en rent lokal aktivitet, kræves det, at virksomheder inden for den pågældende servicesektor ikke selv deltager i grænseoverskridende aktiviteter.
To be classified as a purely local activity, one condition was that undertakings in the relevant service sector itself did not participate in cross-border activities.
Denne bestemmelse blev imidlertid ikke anvendt som værende en tilstrækkelig betingelse.
However, this was not applied as a sufficient condition.
I ECON-rapporten undersøgte man også, om en specifik serviceaktivitet i en given region kunne tiltrække kunder fra et andet sted eller en anden EØS-stat.
The ECON report also evaluated whether the specific service activity located in a given region was capable of attracting customers from another location or EEA State.
De firmaer, der blev interviewet, blev spurgt om, hvordan de mente det ville påvirke deres kunders handelsmønster, hvis prisen på den lokale tjenesteydelse blev forhøjet med en bestemt procentdel, eller hvis prisen for den samme tjenesteydelse, der blev ydet af virksomheder i de nordiske nabolande, blev forhøjet.
As regards a possible future situation, the interviewed firms were asked what they considered would be the effect on their customers’ trade patterns if the price of the service rendered locally were to be increased by a specified percentage or if the price for the same service offered by firms located in the neighbouring Nordic countries were to be increased.
For det fjerde var de norske myndigheder af den opfattelse, at det var Tilsynsmyndighedens opgave at vurdere, om nogle af de sektorer eller støttemodtagere, som var omfattet af den anmeldte foranstaltning, må modtage støtte, der ikke påvirker handelen mellem de kontraherende parter i EØS-aftalen.
Fourthly, the Norwegian authorities considered that it was for the Authority to assess whether any of the sectors or beneficiaries covered by the notified measure may be granted aid that does not affect trade between the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement.
Den anmeldte foranstaltning er ikke blevet gennemført.
The notified measure has not been put into effect.
De norske myndigheder har således overholdt deres forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 1, stk. 3, i del I i protokol 3 til aftalen om Tilsynsmyndigheden og Domstolen.
Hence, the Norwegian authorities have respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
De norske myndigheder har meddelt, at de »fra 1. januar 2005 agter at videreføre den ordning for differentierede socialsikringsbidrag, som var gældende før 1. januar 2004inden for sektorer, som ikke er udsat for konkurrence fra virksomheder i andre EØS-stater.« Der er ikke blevet anmeldt noget konkret udkast til forslag om regler eller love for anvendelse af foranstaltningen.
The Norwegian authorities have notified their ‘intention to continue as from 1 January 2005 the scheme of differentiated social security contributions applicable before 1 January 2004for sectors not exposed to competition from undertakings in other EEA States.’ No concrete draft proposal for regulations or laws governing the application of the measure has been notified.
De norske myndigheder har anmeldt en rapport, på grundlag af hvilken de agter at genindføre den gamle ordning for regionalt differentierede og reducerede satser for socialsikringsbidrag i visse sektorer.
The Norwegian authorities have notified a report on the basis of which they intend to reintroduce the old scheme of regionally differentiated and reduced rates of social security contributions in favour of certain sectors.
Skønt det fremgår af rapporten, at fastlæggelse af konkurrenceflader kan anvendes til at udarbejde et forslag til regler, indeholder ECON-rapporten hverken noget forslag til regler, hvilket normalt ville være tilfældet for en støtteordning, og der fremsættes heller ikke et sådant forslag i anmeldelsen.
Although it states that the identification of competition interfaces could be used to draft a proposal for rules, the ECON report does neither contain any proposal for rules as would normally be the case for an aid scheme nor is such a proposal made in the notification.
På grundlag af de sparsomme oplysninger, de norske myndigheder har givet i selve anmeldelsen og under den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure, ser det ud til, at de norske myndigheder ønsker at videreføre (eller genindføre) den gamle ordning for regionalt differentierede og reducerede satser for socialsikringsbidrag og at begrænse dens anvendelse til at omfatte de sektorer, der er opført i ECON-rapporten.
Based on the complementory information submitted by the Norwegian authorities in the notification and during the formal investigation procedure, it seems that the Norwegian authorities want to continue (or reintroduce) the old system of regionally differentiated and reduced rates of social security contributions, but to limit its application to the sectors listed in the ECON report.
Tilsynsmyndigheden ser ingen grund til, at den anmeldte foranstaltning ikke skulle klassificeres som en ordning, skønt dens anvendelsesområde er blevet indsnævret.
The Authority sees no reason why the notified measure should not be classified as a scheme, although its scope of application has been narrowed down.
Den anmeldte foranstaltning henviser til anvendelsen af regionalt differentierede satser for socialsikringsbidrag i en virksomhed, der er aktiv inden for en række sektorer (mere end 200 sektorer dækkes af forslaget) for så vidt angår de af dens arbejdstagere, som bor i zone 2, 3 og 4 i Norge.
The notified measure refers to the application of regionally differentiated rates of social security contributions to any undertaking active in a number of sectors (more than 200 sectors are covered by the proposal) with respect to its employees residing in Zones 2, 3 and 4 in Norway.
Anvendelsen af reducerede satser for socialsikringsbidrag er ikke en individuel tildeling af støtte til en enkelt virksomhed, men en regelmæssigt tilbagevendende begivenhed, der foregår i en uafgrænset tidsperiode til fordel for et ikke nærmere defineret antal modtagere.
The application of reduced rates of social security contributions is not an individual award of aid to a single undertaking but a reoccurring event on a regular basis during an indefinite period of time in favour of an undefined number of beneficiaries.
Den anmeldte foranstaltning må derfor betegnes som en ordning.
Hence, the notified measure has to be qualified as a scheme.
Nærværende beslutnings omfang
The scope of the present Decision
Følgende vurdering gælder kun for aktiviteter, der dækkes af EØS-aftalen.
The following assessment only applies to the activities which are covered by the EEA Agreement.
Tilsynsmyndigheden kan ikke vurdere aktiviteter, der falder uden for aftalens område som f.eks. NACE-kode 75.220 (forsvar).
The Authority cannot assess any activities which fall outside the scope of the Agreement such as, for instance, NACE Code 75.220 defence activities.
Endvidere har Tilsynsmyndigheden ingen kompetence til at undersøge støtte, som ydes til virksomheder, der udelukkende udfører aktiviteter, som vedrører produkter, der ikke er dækket af EØS-aftalen, såsom landbrugs- og fiskerivarer [32].
Furthermore, the Authority has no competence to scrutinise aid to undertakings exclusively carrying out activities related to products not covered by the EEA Agreement such as agricultural or fisheries products [32].
Dette gælder bl.a. NACE-kode 01.300, planteavl kombineret med husdyravl (blandet drift).
Amongst other examples, this is the case of NACE Code 01.300, growing of crops combined with farming of animals (mixed farming).
Aktiviteter inden for sektorer, der falder uden for Tilsynsmyndighedens kompetence til at vurdere, om der foreligger statsstøtte, er ikke omfattet af denne beslutning [33].
Activities in sectors which fall outside the competence of the Authority to assess the existence of state aid are not subject to this decision [33].
Forekomsten af statsstøtte i henhold til 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 har følgende ordlyd:
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:
»Bortset fra de i denne aftale hjemlede undtagelser er støtte, som ydes af EF-medlemsstater, EFTA-stater eller ved hjælp af statsmidler under enhver tænkelig form, og som fordrejer eller truer med at fordreje konkurrencevilkårene ved at begunstige visse virksomheder eller visse produktioner, uforenelige med denne aftale i det omfang, den påvirker samhandelen mellem de kontraherende parter.«
‘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, insofar as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.’