natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As demonstrated above, state resources were involved because Våler Municipality sold the 29 buildings in the Inner Camp at a price substantially below the market price.
Kot je opisano zgoraj, so bila prisotna državna sredstva, ker je občina Våler prodala 29 zgradb v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča po ceni, znatno nižji od tržne cene.
The transaction provided Haslemoen AS with a selective advantage as it was received on the basis of a contract according to which it was the only beneficiary.
Transakcija je podjetju Haslemoen AS zagotovila selektivno prednost, ker je bila izvedena na podlagi pogodbe, po kateri je bilo to podjetje edini upravičenec.
It follows from settled case law [27] for the purpose of these provisions the mere fact that aid strengthens a firm’s position compared with that of other firms, which are competitors in intra-EEA trade, entails that intra-EEA trade is affected.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso [27] za namene teh določb že samo dejstvo, da pomoč krepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi s položajem drugih podjetij, ki mu konkurirajo v trgovini znotraj EGP, pomeni, da to vpliva na trgovino znotraj EGP.
The Authority recalls that the buildings in questions were valued and bought on the basis of the investor value, i.e. the value based on future rental income.
Nadzorni organ opozarja, da so se zadevne zgradbe ocenile in kupile na podlagi vrednosti vlagatelja, tj. vrednosti, ki temelji na prihodnjem dohodku od najemnine.
Investing in real property for the purposes of leasing out to businesses must as such be considered as an EEA wide economic activity, which in Norway takes place with market participants from many EEA States.
Vlaganje v nepremičnine za namene oddajanja v najem podjetjem je treba kot tako obravnavati kot gospodarsko dejavnost v EGP, ki na Norveškem poteka v sodelovanju z udeleženci na trgu iz številnih držav EGP.
As for the specific aid recipient, according to the national company register in Norway [28], Haslemoen AS is involved in activities concerning hotels, motels and restaurants [29].
Kar zadeva specifičnega prejemnika pomoči, se podjetje Haslemoen AS glede na nacionalni register gospodarskih družb na Norveškem [28] ukvarja z dejavnostmi v zvezi s hoteli, moteli in restavracijami [29].
It operates Haslemoen Hotell at the Inner Camp and rents out buildings for an asylum centre to the Norwegian state.
Upravlja hotel Haslemoen Hotell v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča in Norveški državi oddaja zgradbe, ki jih ta uporablja kot azilni dom.
For all these activities Haslemoen AS must be considered to be in competition with similar undertakings in Norway and also in other EEA States.
Ob upoštevanju vseh teh dejavnosti je treba podjetje Haslemoen AS obravnavati kot konkurenta podobnim podjetjem na Norveškem in tudi v drugih državah EGP.
The measure therefore has the effect of distorting competition and affecting trade between Contracting Parties.
Zato ukrep izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
In light of the findings above, the Authority concludes that state aid in the amount of NOK 4863713 was involved in the sale of the 29 buildings to Haslemoen AS.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenih ugotovitev je Nadzorni organ sklenil, da je prodaja 29 zgradb podjetju Haslemoen AS vključevala državno pomoč v višini 4863713 NOK.
Pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3, the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant aid.
V skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3 se Nadzorni organ Efte obvesti o vseh načrtih za dodelitev pomoči dovolj zgodaj, da lahko predloži pripombe.
The State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until the procedure has resulted in a final decision.
Zadevna država ne sme izvajati svojih predlaganih ukrepov, dokler v tem postopku ni sprejeta dokončna odločitev.
The Norwegian authorities did not notify to the Authority the sale of the 29 buildings by Våler Municipality to Haslemoen AS.
Norveški organi Nadzornega organa niso obvestili, da je občina Våler prodala 29 zgradb podjetju Haslemoen AS.
The Authority therefore concludes that the Norwegian authorities have not respected their obligations pursuant to Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3.
Zato je Nadzorni organ sklenil, da norveški organi niso izpolnili svojih obveznosti v skladu s členom 1(3) dela I Protokola 3.
The Norwegian authorities have not put forward any arguments that the state aid involved in the transaction could be considered as compatible state aid.
Norveški organi niso predložili nobenih utemeljitev, da bi se državna pomoč, ki jo je vključevala transakcija, lahko obravnavala kot združljiva državna pomoč.
Support measures caught by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are generally incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, unless they qualify for a derogation under Article 61(2) or (3) of the EEA Agreement.
Podporni ukrepi iz člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP so na splošno nezdružljivi z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, razen če izpolnjujejo pogoje za odstopanje iz člena 61(2) ali (3) Sporazuma EGP.
Further, the area where the property is located cannot benefit from any regional aid within the meaning of Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement.
Poleg tega območje, na katerem se nahaja nepremičnina, ne more koristiti nobene regionalne pomoči v smislu člena 61(3)(c) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority therefore finds that the transaction under assessment cannot be justified under the state aid provisions of the EEA Agreement.
Zato Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da transakcije, ki jo preverja, ni mogoče upravičiti v skladu z določbami o državni pomoči Sporazuma EGP.
As the aid at NOK 4863713 was granted to Haslemoen AS without being notified to the Authority, it constitutes unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Ker je bila podjetju Haslemoen AS dodeljena pomoč v višini 4863713 NOK in Nadzorni organ o tem ni bil obveščen, ta pomoč pomeni nezakonito pomoč v smislu člena 1(f) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču.
It follows from Article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement that the Authority shall decide that unlawful aid which is incompatible with the state aid rules under the EEA Agreement must be recovered from the beneficiaries.
Iz člena 14 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču izhaja, da Nadzorni organ odloči, da morajo upravičenci vrniti nezakonito pomoč, ki je nezdružljiva s pravili o državni pomoči iz Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority is of the opinion that no general principles preclude repayment in the present case.
Nadzorni organ meni, da ni splošnih načel, ki bi v obravnavanem primeru preprečevala povračilo.
According to settled case-law, abolishing unlawful aid by means of recovery is the logical consequence of a finding that the aid is not lawful.
V skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso je odprava nezakonite pomoči s povračilom logična posledica ugotovitve, da je pomoč nezakonita.
Consequently, the recovery of state aid unlawfully granted, for the purpose of restoring the previously existing situation, cannot in principle be regarded as disproportionate to the objectives of the EEA Agreement in regard to state aid.
Zato povračila nezakonito dodeljene državne pomoči zaradi vrnitve v prejšnje stanje načeloma ni mogoče obravnavati kot nesorazmernega s cilji Sporazuma EGP v zvezi z državno pomočjo.
By repaying the aid, the recipient forfeits the advantage which it had enjoyed over its competitors on the market, and the situation prior to payment of the aid is restored [30].
S povračilom pomoči se upravičenec odpove prednosti, ki jo je imel pred konkurenti na trgu, ter se ponovno vzpostavi stanje, ki je obstajalo pred dodelitvijo pomoči [30].
It also follows from that function of repayment of aid that, as a general rule, save in exceptional circumstances, the Authority will not exceed the bounds of its discretion if it requires the EFTA State concerned to recover the sums granted by way of unlawful aid since it is only restoring the previous situation [31].
Iz te funkcije povračila pomoči tudi izhaja, da Nadzorni organ, razen v izrednih okoliščinah, načeloma ne bo presegel meja svojih pooblastil, če bo od zadevne države Efte zahteval, naj izterja zneske, dodeljene z nezakonito pomočjo, ker s tem samo ponovno vzpostavlja prejšnje stanje [31].
Moreover, in view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of state aid by the Authority under Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, undertakings to which aid has been granted cannot, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in the provisions of that Protocol [32].
Poleg tega podjetja, ki jim je bila dodeljena pomoč, ob upoštevanju obveznosti nadzora nad državno pomočjo, ki ga Nadzorni organ izvaja na podlagi Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču, načeloma ne morejo upravičeno pričakovati, da je pomoč zakonita, razen če je bila dodeljena v skladu s postopkom iz določb navedenega protokola [32].
There are no exceptional circumstances visible in this case, which would have led to legitimate expectations on the side of the aid beneficiaries.
V tem primeru ni razvidnih nobenih izjemnih okoliščin, ki bi povzročile legitimna pričakovanja upravičencev do pomoči.
The recovery of the unduly granted state aid at NOK 4863713 should include compound interest, in line with Article 14 (2) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement and Article 9 and 11 of the Authority’s Decision 195/04/COL of 14 July 2004.
V skladu s členom 14(2) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o Nadzornem organu in Sodišču ter členoma 9 in 11 Odločbe Nadzornega organa št. 195/04/COL z dne 14. julija 2004 bi moralo povračilo neupravičeno dodeljene državne pomoči v višini 4863713 NOK vključevati obrestne obresti.
The Authority concludes that the Norwegian authorities have unlawfully implemented the aid in question in breach of Article 1(3) of Part I to Protocol 3.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da so norveški organi nezakonito dodelili zadevno pomoč in tako kršili člen 1(3) dela I Protokola 3.
The state aid involved in the sale of 29 buildings at the Inner Camp of Haslemoen Leir is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement for the reasons set out above and should be recovered with effect from the conclusion of sales contract 22 May 2006.
Državna pomoč, ki jo je vključevala prodaja 29 zgradb v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča Haslemoen Leir, iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP in bi morala biti izterjana z učinkom od sklenitve prodajne pogodbe 22. maja 2006 –
The sale of the 29 buildings at the Inner Camp of Haslemoen Leir to Haslemoen AS entails state aid at the amount of NOK 4863713 which is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Prodaja 29 zgradb v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča Haslemoen Leir podjetju Haslemoen AS pomeni državno pomoč v višini 4863713 NOK, ki je nezdružljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Norwegian authorities shall take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiary the aid referred to in Article 1.
Norveški organi sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe, da od upravičenca izterjajo pomoč iz člena 1.
Recovery shall be effected without delay, and in any event within four months from the date of this decision and in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision.
Izterjava se izvede nemudoma in v vsakem primeru v štirih mesecih od datuma te odločbe ter v skladu s postopki nacionalne zakonodaje, če omogočajo takojšnjo in učinkovito izvršitev te odločbe.
The aid to be recovered shall include interest and compound interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiary, until the date of its recovery.
Za zneske, ki jih je treba izterjati, se od datuma, ko so bili dani na razpolago upravičencu, do datuma dejanske izterjave zaračunajo obresti in obrestne obresti.
Interest shall be calculated on the basis of Article 9 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 195/04/COL.
Obresti se izračunajo na podlagi člena 9 Odločbe nadzornega organa Efte št. 195/04/COL.
By 15 May 2012, Norway shall inform the Authority of the total amount (principal and recovery interests) to be recovered from the beneficiary as well as of the measures planned or taken to recover the aid.
Norveška do 15. maja 2012 sporoči Nadzornemu organu skupni znesek (glavnica in obresti na terjatev), ki ga je treba izterjati od upravičenca, ter ukrepe, ki jih načrtuje ali jih je sprejela za izterjavo pomoči.
By 15 July 2012, Norway must have executed the Authority’s decision and fully recovered the aid.
Norveška mora do 15. julija 2012 izvršiti odločbo Nadzornega organa in v celoti izterjati pomoč.
Decision No 96/10/COL with regard to the sale of certain buildings at the Inner Camp at Haslemoen Leir, published in OJ C 325 of 2.12.2010, page 12 and in EEA Supplement No 66 of 2.12.2010, page 1.
Odločba 96/10/COL v zvezi s prodajo nekaterih zgradb na ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča Haslemoen Leir, objavljena v UL C 325 z dne 2.12.2010, str. 12, in Dopolnilu EGP št. 66 z dne 2.12.2010, str 1.
See also Royal resolution of 19.12.1997 (“Avhendigsinstruksen”).
Glej tudi kraljevi sklep z dne 19.12.1997 („Avhendigsinstruksen“).
Event Nos 428521 and 557187.
Dogodek. št. 428521 in 557187.
Event Nos 458897, 458902 and 458903 (the first Agdestein report).
Dogodek. št. 458897, 458902 in 458903 (prvo Agdesteinovo poročilo).
According to the report, the “investor value” is the expected market value for an investor intending to rent out the buildings for remuneration.
Glede na poročilo je „vrednost vlagatelja“ pričakovana tržna vrednost za vlagatelja, ki namerava oddajati zgradbe za plačilo.
The “investor value” is also lower than the “user value”, which represents the market value for a purchaser intending to use the buildings for its own use.
Prav tako je „vrednost vlagatelja“ nižja od „vrednosti uporabnika“, ki predstavlja tržno vrednost za kupca, ki namerava zgradbe uporabljati za lastne potrebe.
Both types of values are given in the report.
V poročilu sta navedeni obe vrednosti.
Event No 428521, Enclosure 16 (The Alhaug/Bakke report).
Dogodek št. 428521, Priloga 16 (Alhaug/Bakkovo poročilo).
The value for the Storskjæret area was assessed at NOK 12 million.
Vrednost območja Storskjæret je bila ocenjena na 12 milijonov NOK.
Event No 428521, Enclosure 3 (the second Agdestein report).
Dogodek št. 428521, Priloga 3 (drugo Agdesteinovo poročilo).
20 % discount.
dstotni popust.
NOK 29 million was the value of the Inner Camp according to the first Agdestein report and included a discount of NOK 10 million provided that the Inner Camp was sold as one unit.
Vrednost ograjenega notranjega dela oporišča glede na prvo Agdesteinovo poročilo je bila 29 milijonov NOK in je vključevala popust v višini 10 milijonov NOK, če bi se ograjeni notranji del oporišča prodal kot ena enota.
In addition to assessing the bridge value of the Inner Camp at 14,5 million, Storskjæret’s bridge value was assessed at NOK 13,5 million, the cultivated area at NOK 8,3 million and the forest area at NOK 25,2 million.
Poleg tega, da je bila premostitvena vrednost ograjenega notranjega dela oporišča ocenjena na 14,5 milijona NOK, je bila premostitvena vrednost območja Storskjæret ocenjena na 13,5 milijona NOK, obdelovalne površine na 8,3 milijona NOK in gozdnega območja na 25,2 milijona NOK.
Due to errors in previous assessments, the total sum for Haslemoen Leir at NOK 61,5 million was adjusted down to NOK 58 million including the rebate for acquiring the Inner Camp as one unit.
Ob upoštevanju napak iz prejšnjih ocen se je skupna vrednost oporišča Haslemoen Leir v višini 61,5 milijona NOK znižala na 58 milijonov NOK, pri čemer ta znesek vključuje znižanje za nakup ograjenega notranjega dela oporišča kot ene enote.
See paragraph 8 above.
Glej odstavek 8.
The shareholders in the company were International Training Centre (48 %), Haslemoen Kultur og Aktivitetssenter (48 %) and Norsk Trafikksenter (4 %).
Delničarji podjetja so bili Mednarodni center za usposabljanje (48 %), podjetje Haslemoen Kultur og Aktivitetssenter (48 %) in podjetje Norsk Trafikksenter (4 %).
It should in particular assess whether the risk was “moderate”.
Zlasti bi moral oceniti, ali je tveganje „zmerno“.
Buildings No 3, 32, 34, 44 and 45.
Zgradbe št. 3, 32, 34, 44 in 45.
In the first Agdestein report the NOK 1,9 million also included two garages, buildings No 6 and 8.
V prvem Agdesteinovem poročilu je znesek 1,9 milijona NOK vključeval tudi dve garaži ter zgradbi št. 6 in št. 8.
The Authority has not been provided with documentation for that offer.
Nadzornemu organu ni bila predložena dokumentacija v zvezi s to ponudbo.
However, the municipality has explained that it was a verbal offer of NOK 5 million for 11 of the buildings in the Inner Camp (No 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 46, 47, 50 and 93).
Vendar je občina pojasnila, da je bila ponudba v znesku 5 milijonov NOK za 11 zgradb v ograjenem notranjem delu oporišča (št. 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 46, 47, 50 in 93) ustna.
The same buildings would according to the bridge value assessment have a value of NOK 3,7 million.
Vrednost istih zgradb bi bila glede na oceno premostitvene vrednosti 3,7 milijona NOK.
No comments were received from third parties.
Prejete niso bile nobene pripombe tretjih oseb.
Event No 581797.
Dogodek št. 581797.
”Vi tror at markedet ved et samlet kjøp av fire forsåvidt ulike virksomhetsområder vil legge inn en prisreduksjon for bl.a risiko og høyere driftskostnader. Imidlertid vil kjøper fort kunne ”snu seg rundt” etter kjøpet og selge f.eks. jorda eller skogen videre enkeltvis, som taler motsatt vei. Det ligger allerede inne ca. 30 % ”kvantumsrabatt” i takstene for både bolig og leirområdet, pga samlet salg av hver av disse takstobjekt. Vi tror på en ytterligere verdireduksjon på 20 % (- kr12 mill) ved samlet salg av hele leiren under ett, dvs fra kr 58 mill til 46 mill . ”
„Vi tror at markedet ved et samlet kjøp av fire forsåvidt ulike virksomhetsområder vil legge inn en prisreduksjon for bl.a risiko og høyere driftskostnader. Imidlertid vil kjøper fort kunne ”snu seg rundt” etter kjøpet og selge f.eks. jorda eller skogen videre enkeltvis, som taler motsatt vei. Det ligger allerede inne ca. 30% ”kvantumsrabatt” i takstene for både bolig og leirområdet, pga samlet salg av hver av disse takstobjekt. Vi tror på en ytterligere verdireduksjon på 20% (- kr12 mill) ved samlet salg av hele leiren under ett, dvs fra kr 58 mill til 46 mill. “
The Authority remarks that the Norwegian authorities have not explained the fact that the number of buildings listed in the contract is 30 and not 29 as consistently referred to by the Norwegian authorities.
Nadzorni organ opominja, da norveški organi niso pojasnili, da je število zgradb, navedenih v pogodbi, 30 in ne 29, kot so norveški organi dosledno navajali.
However, only 29 of the buildings in the contract are covered in the assessment by Agdestein, while building No 31 (a store shed) is absent.
Vendar Agdesteinova ocena zajema le 29 zgradb iz pogodbe, medtem ko zgradba št. 31 (lopa) ni vključena.
This building is disregarded in the following.
Ta zgradba se v nadaljevanju ne upošteva.
See e.g. Case 730/79 Phillip Morris Holland BV v EC Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paragraph 11.
Glej npr. zadevo 730/79, Philip Morris Holland BV proti Komisiji, Recueil 1980, str. 2671, točka 11.
“Drift av hoteller, pensjonater og moteller med restaurant” (Org nr. 989636073).
„Drift av hoteller, pensjonater og moteller med restaurant“ (št. org. 989636073).
Case C-350/93 Commission v Italy [1995] ECR I-699, paragraph 22.
Zadeva C-350/93, Komisija proti Italiji, Recueil 1995, str. I-699, točka 22.
Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I 3671, paragraph 66, and Case C-310/99 Italy v Commission [2002] ECR I-2289, paragraph 99.
Zadeva C-75/97, Belgija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1999, str. I-3671, točka 66, in zadeva C-310/99, Italija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2002, str. I-2289, točka 99.
Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135, paragraph 51.
Zadeva C-169/95, Španija proti Komisiji, Recueil 1997, str. I-135, točka 51.
One of the properties for sale was the military camp Haslemoen Leir located in the municipality of Våler in the county of Hedmark, in which military activities ceased on 30 June 2003.
Ena od nepremičnin, ki so bile naprodaj, je bilo vojaško oporišče Haslemoen Leir v občini Våler v okrožju Hedmark, v katerem so se vojaške dejavnosti prenehale izvajati 30. junija 2003.
The Norwegian State initiated a sales process in October 2004, which led to the subsequent acquisition of the entire military camp by Våler Municipality for the price of NOK 46 million by a contract dated 16 April 2005.
Norveška je oktobra 2004 začela prodajni postopek, v okviru katerega je občina Våler pozneje pridobila celotno vojaško oporišče po ceni 46 milijonov NOK s pogodbo z dne 16. aprila 2005.
However, the municipality has explained that the property valuer Mr Bakke, who carried out a value assessment on behalf of the municipality when the property was purchased from the Norwegian State in 2005, also assisted the municipality in the sales process with Haslemoen AS in 2006.
Bakke, ki je v imenu občine izvedel oceno vrednosti, ko je bila nepremičnina leta 2005 kupljena od Norveške države, občini pomagal tudi pri prodajnem postopku s podjetjem Haslemoen AS leta 2006.
Although no specific valuation was carried out of the 29 buildings, the municipality has put forward two sales price assessments by Mr. Bakke, both dated 2 May 2006.
Čeprav ni bila v zvezi z 29 zgradbami izvedena nobena posebna ocena, je občina predložila dve oceni prodajne cene cenilca Bakka, obe z dne 2. maja 2006.
However, when the buyer, as in this case, never intended to keep the properties, but rather foresaw a resale to private entities soon thereafter, the question of market value becomes more imminent.
Vendar ker kupec v tem primeru nikoli ni nameraval obdržati nepremičnin, temveč je predvideval, da jih bo kmalu zatem ponovno prodal zasebnim subjektom, postane vprašanje tržne vrednosti bolj neizbežno.
In particular when the buyer would not carry out a new value assessment but rather sell the property on for the same or even a lower price to a preselected buyer.
Zlasti ker kupec ni izvedel nove ocene vrednosti, ampak je nepremičnino prodal naprej po isti ali celo nižji ceni vnaprej izbranemu kupcu.
Nor does Article 61(3)(a) or Article 61(3)(b) of the EEA Agreement apply to the case at hand.
Prav tako se za obravnavani primer ne uporablja člen 61(3)(a) ali člen 61(3)(b) Sporazuma EGP.
No 92/12/COL
št. 92/12/COL
amending the list contained in point 39 of Part 1.2 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area listing border inspection posts in Iceland and Norway agreed for veterinary checks on live animals and animal products from third countries and repealing EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 367/11/COL
o spremembi seznama iz točke 39 dela 1.2 poglavja I Priloge I k Sporazumu o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, ki navaja mejne kontrolne točke na Islandiji in na Norveškem, odobrene za veterinarske preglede živih živali ter živalskih proizvodov iz tretjih držav, ter o razveljavitvi Odločbe Nadzornega organa Efte št. 367/11/COL
HAVING REGARD to points 4(B)(1) and (3) and point 5(b) of the Introductory Part of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement,
OB UPOŠTEVANJU točk 4(B)(1) in (3) ter točke 5(b) uvodnega dela poglavja I Priloge I k Sporazumu EGP,