natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Edison International Norway Branch (1) 
Edison International Norway Branch (1)
Eni Norge AS (3) 
Eni Norge AS (3)
GDF SUEZ E&P Norge AS (2) 
GDF SUEZ E&P Norge AS (2)
Lundin Norway AS (1) 
Lundin Norway AS (1)
OMV (Norge) AS (2) 
OMV (Norge) AS (2)
Repsol Exploration Norge AS (2) 
Repsol Exploration Norge AS (2)
RWE Dea Norge AS (1) 
RWE Dea Norge AS (1)
Statoil Petroleum AS (3) 
Statoil Petroleum AS (3)
Companies being offered participating interests (number of participating interests in brackets, including where the company is the operator): 
Selskaper som får tilbud om deltakerandel (antall andeler i parentes, inkludert der selskapene er operatør):
A/S Norske Shell (2) 
A/S Norske Shell (2)
BP Norge AS (2) 
BP Norge AS (2)
ConocoPhillips Skandinavia AS (4) 
ConocoPhillips Skandinavia AS (4)
Det norske oljeselskap ASA (4) 
Det norske oljeselskap ASA (4)
E.ON E&P Norge AS (4) 
E.ON E&P Norge AS (4)
Edison International Norway Branch (4) 
Edison International Norway Branch (4)
Eni Norge AS (4) 
Eni Norge AS (4)
Faroe Petroleum Norge AS (1) 
Faroe Petroleum Norge AS (1)
GDF SUEZ E&P Norge AS (5) 
GDF SUEZ E&P Norge AS (5)
Lukoil Overseas North Shelf AS (2) 
Lukoil Overseas North Shelf AS (2)
Maersk Oil Norway AS (1) 
Maersk Oil Norway AS (1)
OMV (Norge) AS (6) 
OMV (Norge) AS (6)
PGNIG Upstream International AS (4) 
PGNIG Upstream International AS (4)
Repsol Exploration Norge AS (4) 
Repsol Exploration Norge AS (4)
RN Nordic Oil AS (1) 
RN Nordic Oil AS (1)
Suncor Energy Norge AS (1) 
Suncor Energy Norge AS (1)
Tullow Oil Norge AS (3) 
Tullow Oil Norge AS (3)
Valiant Petroleum Norge AS (1) 
Valiant Petroleum Norge AS (1)
Read the whole press release on the web page of the Office of the Prime Minister. 
Les mer i pressemeldingen fra Statsministerens kontor.
Prime Minister congratulates President Santos on Peace Prize 
Statsministeren gratulerte president Santos med fredsprisen
Erik Solheim new chair of OECD’s Development Assistance Committee 
Solheim ny leiar for utviklingskomiteen i OECD
Mr Solheim takes over the chairmanship from Brian Atwood, from the US, who will step down at the end of the year. 
Solheim tek over stillinga etter amerikanaren Brian Atwood, som fråtrer ved årsskiftet.
DAC has 24 member countries and is based in Paris. 
Utviklingskomiteen held til i Paris og har 24 land som medlemmar.
It contributes to sustainable development by promoting close cooperation in the field. 
Den bidreg til bærekraftig utvikling gjennom godt samarbeid om utvikling.
You can read more about DAC on its website. 
Meir om utviklingskomiteen på heimesidene i verdsveven.
(Erik Solheim nouveau président du Comité d’aide au développement de l’OCDE) 
(Erik Solheim nouveau président du Comité d’aide au développement de l’OCDE)
Reasoned opinion concerning base-tax on non-refillable packaging 
Reasoned opinion concerning base-tax on non-refillable packaging
Reference is made to the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter “Authority”) reasoned opinion dated 16 April 2008 June concerning the Norwegian base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging. 
Reference is made to the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter “Authority”) reasoned opinion dated 16 April 2008 June concerning the Norwegian base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging.
The Authority states in its reasoned opinion that Norway by maintaining the base tax (as far as it applies to soft drinks and water) has failed to fulfil its obligation arising from Article 14 EEA. 
The Authority states in its reasoned opinion that Norway by maintaining the base tax (as far as it applies to soft drinks and water) has failed to fulfil its obligation arising from Article 14 EEA.
The Authority therefore requires Norway to take the measure necessary within two months following notification thereof. 
The Authority therefore requires Norway to take the measure necessary within two months following notification thereof.
The time-limit has been postponed to 23 June in accordance with e-mail 12 June from the Authority. 
The time-limit has been postponed to 23 June in accordance with e-mail 12 June from the Authority.
Observations: 
Observations:
The EEA and environmental taxes As held in our letters of 24 May 2006 and 13 September 2007 a national differentiated tax system will be compatible with the EEA if certain criteria are fulfilled. 
The EEA and environmental taxes As held in our letters of 24 May 2006 and 13 September 2007 a national differentiated tax system will be compatible with the EEA if certain criteria are fulfilled.
The legal basis is the case law of The Court of Justice of the European Communities (hereinafter “Court of Justice”) concerning the interpretation of Article 90 of the EC Treaty (“EC”), which is parallel to Article 14 EEA. 
The legal basis is the case law of The Court of Justice of the European Communities (hereinafter “Court of Justice”) concerning the interpretation of Article 90 of the EC Treaty (“EC”), which is parallel to Article 14 EEA.
It is the Norwegian Government’s view that the base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging is compatible with Article 14 EEA. 
It is the Norwegian Government’s view that the base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging is compatible with Article 14 EEA.
The base tax is, the Government submits, objectively justified by environmental considerations, and does therefore not imply discrimination in the meaning of Article 14(1) EEA or indirect protection of domestic products in the meaning of Article 14(2) EEA. 
The base tax is, the Government submits, objectively justified by environmental considerations, and does therefore not imply discrimination in the meaning of Article 14(1) EEA or indirect protection of domestic products in the meaning of Article 14(2) EEA.
Additionally – or alternatively – the base tax is legitimate as it is suitable and necessary in achieving environmental objectives. 
Additionally – or alternatively – the base tax is legitimate as it is suitable and necessary in achieving environmental objectives.
An important starting point is that the base tax clearly – and undisputedly – cannot be regarded as directly discriminatory. 
An important starting point is that the base tax clearly – and undisputedly – cannot be regarded as directly discriminatory.
The base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging does indeed apply to both Norwegian and foreign beverage packaging. 
The base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging does indeed apply to both Norwegian and foreign beverage packaging.
This fact is indisputable. 
This fact is indisputable.
The Government also makes reference to the fact that the total domestic production of non-carbonated water is on refillable PET bottles, which is applicable to the tax and thus equally taxed as the non-carbonated water imported. 
The Government also makes reference to the fact that the total domestic production of non-carbonated water is on refillable PET bottles, which is applicable to the tax and thus equally taxed as the non-carbonated water imported.
Moreover, it is clear from the case law of the Court of Justice that tax provisions that prima facie may seem to imply indirect discrimination may be compatible with Article 90 EC if they are objectively justified. 
Moreover, it is clear from the case law of the Court of Justice that tax provisions that prima facie may seem to imply indirect discrimination may be compatible with Article 90 EC if they are objectively justified.
In that regard, it seems more of theoretical than practical relevance whether this justification is regarded as part of the discrimination test or of the test of ‘mandatory requirements’. 
In that regard, it seems more of theoretical than practical relevance whether this justification is regarded as part of the discrimination test or of the test of ‘mandatory requirements’.
Both of these possibilities of justification apply, in the Government’s opinion, in the present situation. 
Both of these possibilities of justification apply, in the Government’s opinion, in the present situation.
The Government does not share the Authority’s view that this is “a very isolated ruling” (page 10 of the reasoned opinion). 
The Government does not share the Authority’s view that this is “a very isolated ruling” (page 10 of the reasoned opinion).
Neither is the criterion on which the base tax is based “biased toward imported products” as submitted on the same page. 
Neither is the criterion on which the base tax is based “biased toward imported products” as submitted on the same page.
On the contrary, the Government considers the criterion to be objective and non-discriminatory, based on the type of beverage packaging used. 
On the contrary, the Government considers the criterion to be objective and non-discriminatory, based on the type of beverage packaging used.
As regards both of these aspects, the Authority refers (pages 5 and 7), in particular, to Case C-375/95. 
As regards both of these aspects, the Authority refers (pages 5 and 7), in particular, to Case C-375/95.
However, that case, as well as other cases mentioned by the Authority, concerned direct discrimination of important product and is thus of limited significance to the present case. 
However, that case, as well as other cases mentioned by the Authority, concerned direct discrimination of important product and is thus of limited significance to the present case.
The lack of explicit derogations from Article 14 EEA can be of importance for the possibility to justify directly discriminatory tax provisions, but cannot in any way exclude justification of other national tax measures. 
The lack of explicit derogations from Article 14 EEA can be of importance for the possibility to justify directly discriminatory tax provisions, but cannot in any way exclude justification of other national tax measures.
In addition to the cases referred to above, the Government finds support for its view in Case C-213/96 Outokumpu Oy [1998] ECR I-1777. 
In addition to the cases referred to above, the Government finds support for its view in Case C-213/96 Outokumpu Oy [1998] ECR I-1777.
In this case the Court considered the Finnish excise duty charged on electricity of domestic origin at rates which varied according to its method of production, while being levied on imported electricity at a flat rate which was higher than the lowest rate, but lower than the highest rate applicable to electricity of domestic origin. 
In this case the Court considered the Finnish excise duty charged on electricity of domestic origin at rates which varied according to its method of production, while being levied on imported electricity at a flat rate which was higher than the lowest rate, but lower than the highest rate applicable to electricity of domestic origin.
The Court presupposes in that case that environmental considerations could justify different rates for domestically produces and imported electricity, respectively, see, in particular, paragraphs 31-33 of the judgment. 
The Court presupposes in that case that environmental considerations could justify different rates for domestically produces and imported electricity, respectively, see, in particular, paragraphs 31-33 of the judgment.
As regards environmental concerns as an objective justification, the Court of Justice has held that the differentiation must be in line with economic policy objectives which are themselves compatible with the requirements of the Treaty and its secondary legislation. 
As regards environmental concerns as an objective justification, the Court of Justice has held that the differentiation must be in line with economic policy objectives which are themselves compatible with the requirements of the Treaty and its secondary legislation.
The protection of the environment certainly complies with these criteria. 
The protection of the environment certainly complies with these criteria.
According to the EEA Agreement the protection of the environment is an aim not only compatible with the internal market, but one which also constitutes an integral part of all the common policies. 
According to the EEA Agreement the protection of the environment is an aim not only compatible with the internal market, but one which also constitutes an integral part of all the common policies.
The Government draws attention to Article 73(2) EEA, which reads: 
The Government draws attention to Article 73(2) EEA, which reads:
"Action by the Contracting Parties relating to the environment shall be based on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and that the polluter should pay. 
"Action by the Contracting Parties relating to the environment shall be based on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and that the polluter should pay.
Environment protection requirements shall be a component of the Contracting Parties' other policies." 
Environment protection requirements shall be a component of the Contracting Parties' other policies."
It is the Government’s view that environmental protection must be taken into consideration when interpreting Article 14 EEA with respect to the base tax. 
It is the Government’s view that environmental protection must be taken into consideration when interpreting Article 14 EEA with respect to the base tax.
Environmental protection must be regarded as an objective reason that may justify a differentiated tax system on packaging as long as the tax system is not based on nationality criteria. 
Environmental protection must be regarded as an objective reason that may justify a differentiated tax system on packaging as long as the tax system is not based on nationality criteria.
Against this background, the Government cannot agree with the Authority when it concludes that the Court of Justice has held that “a pursuit of an environmental objective does not relieve a State from its duty to observe the rule of non-discrimination laid down in Article 14” (page 10 of the reasoned opinion). 
Against this background, the Government cannot agree with the Authority when it concludes that the Court of Justice has held that “a pursuit of an environmental objective does not relieve a State from its duty to observe the rule of non-discrimination laid down in Article 14” (page 10 of the reasoned opinion).
This may be true as regards directly discriminatory tax measures. 
This may be true as regards directly discriminatory tax measures.
It cannot, in the Government’s opinion, apply with regard to tax measures based on other criteria than nationality. 
It cannot, in the Government’s opinion, apply with regard to tax measures based on other criteria than nationality.
This holds true irrespective of whether the base tax is assessed under Articles 14(1) or 14(2) EEA. 
This holds true irrespective of whether the base tax is assessed under Articles 14(1) or 14(2) EEA.
Even if the base tax can, in principle, be justified on environmental grounds, the Authority argues that Norway has failed to demonstrate that the contested tax is necessary in order to protect the environment. 
Even if the base tax can, in principle, be justified on environmental grounds, the Authority argues that Norway has failed to demonstrate that the contested tax is necessary in order to protect the environment.
The Government disagrees, and would like to make the following comments. 
The Government disagrees, and would like to make the following comments.
The base tax was introduced as an environmental tax and is still regarded as such The Norwegian Parliament introduced base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging 1 January 1994. 
The base tax was introduced as an environmental tax and is still regarded as such The Norwegian Parliament introduced base tax on non-refillable beverage packaging 1 January 1994.
Environmental concerns – and such concerns alone – undisputedly motivated the introduction of the tax, its legislative intention being the establishment of an incentive to use refillable rather than non-refillable packaging. 
Environmental concerns – and such concerns alone – undisputedly motivated the introduction of the tax, its legislative intention being the establishment of an incentive to use refillable rather than non-refillable packaging.
The Government draws the Authority’s attention to the assessment made by the public commission appointed to consider solutions to questions related to waste, reuse and recovery (NOU 1990:28 Avfallsminimering og gjenvinning) (hereinafter “NOU 1990: 28”). 
The Government draws the Authority’s attention to the assessment made by the public commission appointed to consider solutions to questions related to waste, reuse and recovery (NOU 1990:28 Avfallsminimering og gjenvinning) (hereinafter “NOU 1990: 28”).
The commission, which was set up 29 September 1989 by the Ministry of Environment, consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Industry, the Norwegian Society for Conservation of Nature, the Norwegian Labour Organisation, the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry, the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities and the Consumer Council. 
The commission, which was set up 29 September 1989 by the Ministry of Environment, consisted of representatives from the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Industry, the Norwegian Society for Conservation of Nature, the Norwegian Labour Organisation, the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry, the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities and the Consumer Council.
The commission presented its report to the Ministry of the Environment 3 December 1990. 
The commission presented its report to the Ministry of the Environment 3 December 1990.
It represents a comprehensive analysis of waste-related issues based on what was regarded as environmental concerns and with reference to state-of-the-art technology at the time. 
It represents a comprehensive analysis of waste-related issues based on what was regarded as environmental concerns and with reference to state-of-the-art technology at the time.
The Commission regarded the prevention of waste generation to be a main goal. 
The Commission regarded the prevention of waste generation to be a main goal.
Generated waste should be recovered at the highest level possible, i.e. reuse should be preferred to material-recycling, which again should be preferred to incineration with energy-recovery (cf. inter alia NOU 1990: 28 chapters 0, 5.2.2, 5.4.3 and 6.3.2). 
Generated waste should be recovered at the highest level possible, i.e. reuse should be preferred to material-recycling, which again should be preferred to incineration with energy-recovery (cf. inter alia NOU 1990: 28 chapters 0, 5.2.2, 5.4.3 and 6.3.2).
The Norwegian Government and Parliament have ever since viewed the base tax as an environmental tax. 
The Norwegian Government and Parliament have ever since viewed the base tax as an environmental tax.
Clearly, the base tax may – as do all other governmental measures – have various and different effects. 
Clearly, the base tax may – as do all other governmental measures – have various and different effects.
This cannot, in the view of the Government, disqualify the base tax’s legitimacy as environmental tax in intention and effect. 
This cannot, in the view of the Government, disqualify the base tax’s legitimacy as environmental tax in intention and effect.
The Government remains convinced that the base tax is justifiable for reasons of its beneficial environmental protection effects. 
The Government remains convinced that the base tax is justifiable for reasons of its beneficial environmental protection effects.
The Government draws the Authority’s attention to the fact that statistics shows a higher return rate in Norway for refillable beverages than for non-refillable beverages. 
The Government draws the Authority’s attention to the fact that statistics shows a higher return rate in Norway for refillable beverages than for non-refillable beverages.
The situation is the same in Sweden and Finland. 
The situation is the same in Sweden and Finland.
Return rates in Norway for 2007 are 95 percent for refillable bottles, and 92 and 82 percent for cans and PET bottles respectively (according to the Norwegian Pollution Control Activity). 
Return rates in Norway for 2007 are 95 percent for refillable bottles, and 92 and 82 percent for cans and PET bottles respectively (according to the Norwegian Pollution Control Activity).
This confirms the environmental protection effects of the base tax. 
This confirms the environmental protection effects of the base tax.
Such facts cannot be irrelevant for the purpose of interpreting and applying Article 14 EEA in the present case. 
Such facts cannot be irrelevant for the purpose of interpreting and applying Article 14 EEA in the present case.
The project concluded that refillable PET bottles are more preferable than disposable PET bottles in terms of environmental protection. 
The project concluded that refillable PET bottles are more preferable than disposable PET bottles in terms of environmental protection.
See the summary page 18 concerning 50 cl soft-drink packagings: “The energy demand, potential global warming, acidification, nutrification and photochemical ozone formation, are significantly lower for the refillable PET bottles than for the disposable PET bottles of the same size (see Table S.2 and section 14.4). 
See the summary page 18 concerning 50 cl soft-drink packagings: “The energy demand, potential global warming, acidification, nutrification and photochemical ozone formation, are significantly lower for the refillable PET bottles than for the disposable PET bottles of the same size (see Table S.2 and section 14.4).
The conclusion is valid for 150 cl bottles as well as for 50 cl bottles. 
The conclusion is valid for 150 cl bottles as well as for 50 cl bottles.
The reason is that recycling of PET demands more fuel and electricity than washing and filling of refillable bottles.” 
The reason is that recycling of PET demands more fuel and electricity than washing and filling of refillable bottles.”
The Government also respectfully submits that shifting trends in the development of new technologies to address environmental concerns are of relevance in the present matter. 
The Government also respectfully submits that shifting trends in the development of new technologies to address environmental concerns are of relevance in the present matter.
Experience shows that views on such things vary over time in accordance with fluctuating political, ideological and academic views. 
Experience shows that views on such things vary over time in accordance with fluctuating political, ideological and academic views.
The base tax was considered as a vital means in environmental protection policies in the 1990s. 
The base tax was considered as a vital means in environmental protection policies in the 1990s.
The fact that other means have been developed since then does not change the importance of retaining it as one of several means to protect the environment. 
The fact that other means have been developed since then does not change the importance of retaining it as one of several means to protect the environment.
It may very well be that the base tax will regain its prominence as an environmental protection means. 
It may very well be that the base tax will regain its prominence as an environmental protection means.
The Government believes the existence of flexibility from the point of view of Article 14 EEA to be wholly consistent with the dynamics inherent in the law of the EEA and the European Union. 
The Government believes the existence of flexibility from the point of view of Article 14 EEA to be wholly consistent with the dynamics inherent in the law of the EEA and the European Union.