natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
No 166/08/COL
št. 166/08/COL
on alleged State aid with regard to the Norwegian reindeer slaughter industry (Norway)
o domnevni državni pomoči v zvezi z norveško industrijo zakola severnih jelenov (Norveška)
THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY [1], HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area [2], in particular to Articles 8 and 61 to 63 and Protocol 3 and 26 thereof,
NADZORNI ORGAN EFTE [1] JE – OB UPOŠTEVANJU Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru [2] ter zlasti člena 8 in členov 61 do 63 Sporazuma ter Protokola 3 in Protokola 26 k Sporazumu,
HAVING REGARD to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice [3], in particular Articles 5 and 24 thereof,
OB UPOŠTEVANJU Sporazuma med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča [3] ter zlasti člena 5 in člena 24 Sporazuma,
HAVING REGARD to Article 1(3) of Part I and Article 4(2) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,
OB UPOŠTEVANJU člena 1(3) dela I ter člena 4(2) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču,
Facts
Dejstva
On 11 October 2007 (Event No 446496), the Authority received a complaint concerning possible State aid granted to the Norwegian reindeer slaughter industry.
Nadzorni organ je 11. oktobra 2007 (dogodek št. 446496) prejel pritožbo glede morebitne državne pomoči, dodeljene norveški industriji zakola severnih jelenov.
The complainant has not submitted information indicating that Boalvvir BA is involved in other activities than reindeer slaughtering.By letter dated 16 October 2007 (Event No 447285), the Authority acknowledged the receipt of the complaint.
Z dopisom z dne 16. oktobra 2007 (dogodek št. 447285) je Nadzorni organ potrdil prejem pritožbe.
By letter dated 6 December 2007 (Event No 456147), the Authority informed the complainant that the Authority’s Competition and State Aid Directorate [5] had reached the preliminary conclusion that the complaint concerned products which fall outside the scope of the EEA Agreement, and that the Authority therefore did not have competence to act on the matter.
Nadzorni organ je z dopisom z dne 6. decembra 2007 (dogodek št. 456147) pritožnika obvestil, da je Direktorat za konkurenco in državno pomoč Nadzornega organa [5] sprejel predhodno ugotovitev, da proizvodi, obravnavani v pritožbi, ne spadajo v področje uporabe Sporazuma EGP in Nadzorni organ torej ni pristojen za odločanje o zadevi.
The complainant was advised that unless he submitted further information which could convince the CSA that the measure complained about was within the scope of the EEA Agreement within two months from the receipt of the letter, the CSA would propose to the College of the Authority that the case be closed without further action.The complainant did not respond to the Authority’s letter of 6 December 2007.
Pritožniku je bilo pojasnjeno, da če v dveh mesecih od prejema dopisa ne predloži nadaljnjih podatkov, ki bi direktorat CSA prepričali, da ukrep, ki je predmet pritožbe, spada v področje uporabe Sporazuma EGP, potem bo direktorat CSA Kolegiju Nadzornega organa predlagal, da se zadeva brez nadaljnjih ukrepov zaključi.Pritožnik na dopis Nadzornega organa z dne 6. decembra 2007 ni odgovoril.
The Authority notes that for the State aid provisions in Articles 61 to 63 of the EEA Agreement to apply, the State aid must be granted to undertakings involved in the production of products which fall within the product coverage of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da določbe o državni pomoči iz členov 61 do 63 Sporazuma EGP za državno pomoč veljajo samo, če je ta dodeljena podjetjem, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo proizvodov, ki spadajo med proizvode Sporazuma EGP.
Article 8(3) of the EEA Agreement provides that:
Člen 8(3) Sporazuma EGP določa, da:
Article 8(3) of the EEA Agreement limits the material scope of the application of the EEA Agreement to the above products, unless otherwise specified in the Agreement.
Člen 8(3) Sporazuma EGP omejuje vsebinsko področje uporabe Sporazuma EGP na zgoraj navedene proizvode, razen če ni v Sporazumu določeno drugače.
Reindeers and products processed from reindeers, in so far as they do not fall under Chapters 25 to 97 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) or are specified in Protocol 3 to the EEA Agreement, fall outside the general scope of the application of the Agreement.
Severni jeleni in izdelki iz severnih jelenov ne spadajo v splošno področje uporabe Sporazuma, kolikor ne spadajo v poglavja 25 do 97 Harmoniziranega sistema poimenovanja in šifrskih oznak blaga ali niso navedeni v Protokolu 3 k Sporazumu EGP.
The alleged aid recipient in the present case is a company involved in the slaughtering of reindeers.
Domnevni prejemnik pomoči v tej zadevi je podjetje, ki se ukvarja z zakolom severnih jelenov.
The products produced by reindeer slaughtering companies fall under Chapters 02, 05, 15, 16 and 23 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) and are thus outside the product coverage of the EEA Agreement.
Proizvodi podjetij, ki se ukvarjajo z zakolom severnih jelenov, spadajo pod poglavja 02, 05, 15, 16 in 23 Harmoniziranega sistema poimenovanja in šifrskih oznak blaga in torej ne spadajo med proizvode Sporazuma EGP.
Nor are the products covered by Protocol 3 to the EEA Agreement.
Prav tako ne spadajo med izdelke iz Protokola 3 k Sporazumu EGP.
Hence, the complaint concerns alleged State aid to companies involved in the production of products which fall outside the product coverage of the EEA Agreement, as defined in Article 8(3) of the EEA Agreement.
Zato se pritožba nanaša na domnevno državno pomoč podjetjem, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo proizvodov, ki ne spadajo med proizvode Sporazuma EGP, kakor je opredeljeno v členu 8(3) Sporazuma EGP.
On the basis of the above, the Authority has reached the conclusion that the subject matter of the complaint falls outside the scope of the EEA Agreement, and that therefore, the Authority has no competence to assess any potential State aid involved [6].3.
Na podlagi navedenega je Nadzorni organ sklenil, da predmet pritožbe ne spada v področje uporabe Sporazuma EGP, in zato Nadzorni organ ni pristojen za presojo morebitnega obstoja državne pomoči [6].3.
The Authority has therefore concluded that there are evidently no grounds to pursue the case further.
Nadzorni organ je zato ugotovil, da očitno ni razlogov za nadaljnjo obravnavo zadeve.
Against this background, the Authority has decided to close the case,
Nadzorni organ je na podlagi tega sklenil, da zadevo zaključi –
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the grants to the Norwegian reindeer slaughter industry do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ Efte meni, da dotacije, dodeljene norveški industriji zakola severnih jelenov, ne pomenijo državne pomoči v smislu člena 61 Sporazuma EGP.
For the EFTA Surveillance Authority
Za Nadzorni organ EFTE
‘The development fund for reindeer husbandry’.
„Razvojni sklad za rejo severnih jelenov“.
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the CSA’.
V nadaljnjem besedilu „direktorat CSA“.
Cf. the Authority's Decision No 176/05/COL of 15 July 2005 concerning alleged State aid in the fisheries sector.
Prim. Odločbo Nadzornega organa št. 176/05/COL z dne 15. julija 2005 o domnevni državni pomoči v sektorju ribištva.
In the complaint, it was claimed that State aid amounting to approximately NOK 7,2 million (approximately EUR 910000) was granted to the reindeer slaughtering company Boalvvir BA from ‘Reindriftens Utviklingsfond’ [4] between July 2004 and November 2006.
V pritožbi so navedene trditve, da je bila podjetju Boalvvir BA, ki se ukvarja z zakolom severnih jelenov, med julijem 2004 in novembrom 2006 iz sklada „Reindriftens Utviklingsfond“ [4] dodeljena državna pomoč v višini približno 7,2 milijona NOK (približno 910000 EUR). Dotacije je odobrilo Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo in prehrano.
The grants were approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.
V pritožbi ni bilo podatkov, ki bi namigovali, da se podjetje Boalvvir BA poleg zakola severnih jelenov ukvarja še s kakšnimi drugimi dejavnostmi.
No 167/08/COL
št. 167/08/COL
concerning alleged unlawful State aid to the undertaking Troms Tre AS (Norway)
o domnevni nezakoniti državni pomoči podjetju Troms Tre AS (Norveška)
THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY [1], HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area [2], in particular to Articles 61 to 63, and to Protocols 3 and 26 thereof,
NADZORNI ORGAN EFTE [1] – OB UPOŠTEVANJU Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru [2] in zlasti členov 61 do 63 Sporazuma ter Protokolov 3 in 26 k Sporazumu,
HAVING REGARD to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice [3], in particular to Articles 5 and 24 thereof,
OB UPOŠTEVANJU Sporazuma med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča [3] ter zlasti členov 5 in 24 Sporazuma,
By letter dated 20 June 2005, the EFTA Surveillance Authority received a complaint from the Norwegian law firm Selmer [4] on behalf of an anonymous client concerning alleged illegal State aid to the undertaking Troms Tre AS [5], a producer of various construction products made of wood.
Nadzorni organ Efte je z dopisom z dne 20. junija 2005 prejel pritožbo norveške pravne družbe Selmer [4] v imenu anonimne stranke v zvezi z domnevno nezakonito državno pomočjo podjetju Troms Tre AS [5], ki je proizvajalec različnih lesenih gradbenih proizvodov.
The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 24 June 2005 (Event No 323812).
Ta dopis je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 24. junija 2005 (dogodek št. 323812).
By letter dated 1 July 2005, the Authority forwarded the complaint to the Norwegian authorities (Event No 324515).
Nadzorni organ je z dopisom z dne 1. julija 2005 posredoval pritožbo norveškim organom (dogodek št. 324515).
By letter dated 20 September 2005, the Norwegian authorities responded to the allegations in the complaint by claiming that the contested capital injections did not constitute State aid.
Norveški organi so z dopisom z dne 20. septembra 2005 odgovorili na obtožbe s trditvijo, da izpodbijana dokapitalizacija ni pomenila državne pomoči.
The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 21 September 2005 (Event No 334843).
Ta dopis je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 21. septembra 2005 (dogodek št. 334843).
The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 23 November 2005 (Event No 351088).
Ta dopis je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 23. novembra 2005 (dogodek št. 351088).
By letter dated 10 February 2006 (Event No 362331), the Authority sent a request for information to the Norwegian authorities for more information regarding the estate and the timing of the bankruptcy proceedings.
Nadzorni organ je z dopisom z dne 10. februarja 2006 (dogodek št. 362331) norveškim organom poslal zahtevo za dodatne informacije o stečajni masi in poteku stečajnega postopka.
By letter dated 18 July 2007 (Event No 424054), the Authority sent a new request for information to the Norwegian authorities to obtain information on the settlement of the bankruptcy proceedings.
Nadzorni organ je z dopisom z dne 18. julija 2007 (dogodek št. 424054) norveškim organom poslal novo zahtevo za informacije, da bi pridobil informacije o končanju stečajnega postopka.
In addition, the Authority requested information on the purchaser of the assets of Troms Tre and any possible refinancing of the undertaking.
Poleg tega je Nadzorni organ zahteval informacije o kupcu premoženja podjetja Troms Tre in morebitnem ponovnem financiranju podjetja.
By letter dated 20 August 2007, the Norwegian authorities informed the Authority of the result of the bankruptcy proceedings.
Norveški organi so z dopisom z dne 20. avgusta 2007 obvestili Nadzorni organ o izidu stečajnega postopka.
The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 20 August 2007 (Event No 434867).
Ta dopis je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 20. avgusta 2007 (dogodek št. 434867).
By letter dated 4 December 2007, the complainant withdrew the complaint, inter alia on the basis of the bankruptcy of the alleged aid recipient.
Pritožnik je z dopisom z dne 4. decembra 2007 umaknil pritožbo, predvsem na podlagi stečaja domnevnega prejemnika pomoči.
The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 6 December 2007 (Event No 456318).
Ta dopis je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 6. decembra 2007 (dogodek št. 456318).
The recipient of alleged aid
Prejemnik domnevne pomoči
Troms Tre was established in 1972 under the name Troms Treforedling.
Podjetje Troms Tre je bilo ustanovljeno leta 1972 pod imenom Troms Treforedling.
In the complaint, the undertaking is described as an undertaking active in the production and sale of building materials, in particular particle boards for construction purposes.
V pritožbi je podjetje opisano kot podjetje, dejavno v proizvodnji in prodaji gradbenih materialov, zlasti ivernih plošč za uporabo v gradbeništvu.
The annual turnover was NOK 55-65 million (approximately EUR 6,9-8,1 million).
Letni promet podjetja je bil med 55 in 65 milijoni NOK (približno 6,9 do 8,1 milijona EUR).
The majority of the shares in the undertaking were held by public authorities on different levels.
Večino delnic podjetja so imeli v lasti javni organi na različnih ravneh.
The largest shareholder was Troms County Municipality, with approximately 40 % of the shares in the company.
Največji delničar je bila občina Troms, ki je bila lastnica približno 40 % delnic podjetja.
Other shareholders included the municipality of Sørreisa, the State-owned company Statskog SF, Troms Kraft, an electricity company owned by Troms County Municipality, and two organisations for private forest owners in the area, skogeierforening Nord BA and Troms Skogselskap.
Med druge delničarje so spadali občina Sørreisa, podjetje v državni lasti Statskog SF, Troms Kraft, podjetje za distribucijo električne energije v lasti občine Troms, in dve lokalni organizaciji za zasebne lastnike gozdov, skogeierforening Nord BA in Troms Skogselskap.
On 10 November 2005, Troms Tre declared itself bankrupt.
Podjetje Troms Tre je 10. novembra 2005 razglasilo stečaj.
The activities of the undertaking did not generate any profits, and it declared that it was unable to pay its debts.
Dejavnosti podjetja niso ustvarjale dobička in podjetje je razglasilo, da ni sposobno odplačati svojih dolgov.
The estate was put into administration by the Court on 11 November 2005.
Sodišče je 11. novembra 2005 za stečajno maso imenovalo upravitelja.
Description of the alleged State aid
Opis domnevne državne pomoči
According to the complainant, State aid was granted to Troms Tre in the form of an increase in the share capital of the undertaking.
Po navedbah pritožnika je bila podjetju Troms Tre odobrena državna pomoč v obliki povečanja osnovnega kapitala podjetja.
According to the information supplied by the complainant, share deposits of approximately NOK 10 million had been completed at the time of the complaint.
V skladu z informacijami, ki jih je predložil pritožnik, je bilo v času pritožbe deponiranih za 10 milijonov NOK delnic podjetja.
The majority of the investment was made by public investors and they were according to the complaint not made on market terms.
Večino naložb so opravili javni investitorji in v skladu s pritožbo te niso bile opravljene po tržnih pogojih.
The complainant furthermore alleged that the company planned additional share increases in the period 2006-09.
Poleg tega je pritožnik trdil, da je podjetje načrtovalo še dodatno povečanje kapitala v obdobju 2006–2009.
The recipient of alleged aid, Troms Tre, has ceased to exist and that its assets have been sold in the context of the bankruptcy proceedings.
Prejemnik domnevne pomoči podjetje Troms Tre je prenehalo obstajati in njegovo premoženje je bilo prodano v okviru stečajnega postopka.
Hence, the company has ceased all economic activity.
Podjetje je torej prenehalo poslovati.
Under these circumstances, a decision by the Authority on the classification as aid of the measures in question and on their compatibility with the EEA Agreement would have no practical effect [6].Furthermore, on the basis that Troms Tre’s assets have been sold in an open bidding procedure, the Authority concludes that if State aid was granted to Troms Tre, this aid no longer produces any distorting effect and has not benefited the buyer of the undertaking’s assets [7].
Pod temi pogoji odločba Nadzornega organa o naravi pomoči zadevnih ukrepov in njihovi združljivosti s Sporazumom EGP ne bi imela nobenega stvarnega učinka [6].Ker je bilo poleg tega premoženje podjetja Troms Tre prodano v odprtem postopku, Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da tudi če je bila podjetju Troms Tre dodeljena državna pomoč, ta pomoč nima več učinka izkrivljanja in ni koristila kupcu premoženja podjetja [7].
Hence, no recovery of any aid granted to Troms Tre would be possible [8].Finally, the Authority takes note of the letter from the complainant dated 4 December 2007 (Event No 456318), by which the complaint was withdrawn.
Zato ni mogoča nobena izterjava pomoči, dodeljene podjetju Troms Tre [8].Končno je Nadzorni organ seznanjen z dopisom pritožnika z dne 4. decembra 2007 (dogodek št. 456318), s katerim je bila pritožba umaknjena.
Against this background, the Authority concludes that a decision on the classification as State aid of the measures complained about and on their compatibility with the EEA Agreement would have no practical effect.
Glede na navedeno Nadzorni organ ugotavlja, da odločba o naravi pomoči zadevnih ukrepov in njihovi združljivosti s Sporazumom EGP ne bi imela nobenega stvarnega učinka.
As a result, continuing the procedure provided for in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement with regard to these measures serves no useful purpose.
Zato nadaljevanje postopka iz dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču glede teh ukrepov ne bi bilo smiselno.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Authority finds that the procedure against Troms Tre serves no useful purpose.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Nadzorni organ meni, da postopek zoper podjetje Troms Tre ne bi bil smiseln –
The procedure initiated pursuant to Article 10 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement concerning alleged illegal State aid granted to the undertaking Troms Tre AS is hereby closed.
Postopek, sprožen v skladu s členom 10 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču glede domnevne nezakonite državne pomoči, dodeljene podjetju Troms Tre AS, je zaključen.
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’.
V nadaljnjem besedilu „pritožnik“.
Hereinafter referred to as ‘Troms Tre’.
V nadaljnjem besedilu „Troms Tre“.
Commission Decision of 25 September 2007 on the aid measures implemented by Spain for IZAR, Case C-47/2003, not yet published, and Commission Decision of 9 November 2005 on the measure implemented by France for Mines de potasse d’Alsace, Case C 53/2000 (OJ L 86, 24.3.2006, p. 20).
Odločba Komisije z dne 25. septembra 2007 o ukrepih pomoči Španije za IZAR, zadeva C-47/2003, še ni objavljena, in Odločba Komisije z dne 9. novembra 2005 glede ukrepa Francije za Mines de potasse d’Alsace, zadeva C-53/2000, UL L 86, 24.3.2006, str. 20.
See, for example Case C-390/98 H.J.
Glej na primer zadevo C-390/98, H.J.
Banks & Co. Ltd v The Coal Authority and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2001] ECR I-6117, paragraph 77, and Case C-277/00 Germany v Commission (2004) ECR I-3925, paragraph 80.
Banks & Co. Ltd proti The Coal Authority in Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Recueil 2001, str. I-6117, odstavek 77, in zadevo C-277/00, Nemčija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2004, str. I-3925, odstavek 80.
Commission Decision of 25 September 2007 on the aid measures implemented by Spain for IZAR, Case C 47/2003, not yet published in the OJ and Commission Decision of 9 November 2005 on the measure implemented by France for Mines de potasse d’Alsace, Case C 53/2000 (OJ L 86, 24.3.2006, p. 20).
Odločba Komisije z dne 25. septembra 2007 o ukrepih pomoči Španije za IZAR, zadeva C-47/2003, še ni objavljena v UL, in Odločba Komisije z dne 9. novembra 2005 glede ukrepa Francije za Mines de Potasse d’Alsace, zadeva C-53/2000, UL L 86, 24.3.2006, str. 20.
By letter dated 21 November 2005, the complainant informed the Authority that Troms Tre had declared itself bankrupt on 10 November 2005, and that the estate had been put into administration by the Court on 11 November 2005.
Pritožnik je z dopisom z dne 21. novembra 2005 obvestil Nadzorni organ, da je podjetje Troms Tre 10. novembra 2005 razglasilo stečaj in da je sodišče 11. novembra 2005 imenovalo upravitelja stečajne mase.
The complainant claimed that the bankruptcy did not affect the assessment of the subject matter of the complaint, and upheld its complaint.
Pritožnik je trdil, da stečaj ni vplival na presojo vsebine pritožbe in je potrdil svojo pritožbo.
The Norwegian authorities replied by letter dated 17 March 2006, informing the Authority that the bankruptcy proceedings would not be finalised before the end of 2006.
Norveški organi so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 17. marca 2006, v katerem so Nadzorni organ obvestili, da stečajni postopek ne bo zaključen pred koncem leta 2006.
The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 20 March 2006 (Event No 367142).
Ta dopis je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 20. marca 2006 (dogodek št. 367142).
The bankruptcy proceedings were terminated and the company was wound up on 28 March 2007.
Stečajni postopek se je zaključil in podjetje je prenehalo delovati 28. marca 2007.
According to the final report on the bankruptcy, the undertaking’s property, machinery and plant was sold in December 2006 to one of three parties bidding in the procedure.
Glede na končno poročilo o stečaju so bili premoženje, stroji in obrat podjetja decembra 2006 prodani eni od treh strank, ki so sodelovale v postopku javnega razpisa za odkup.
The bankruptcy proceedings were finalised in 2007.
Postopek stečaja se je zaključil leta 2007.
Furthermore, according to the information available to the Authority, the assets of the company were sold in an open bidding procedure carried through by the Court in accordance with the Norwegian legislation on bankruptcy proceedings.
Poleg tega je bilo na podlagi informacij, ki jih ima na voljo Nadzorni organ, premoženje podjetja prodano v odprtem postopku, ki ga je v skladu z norveško zakonodajo o stečajnem postopku vodilo sodišče.
No 191/08/COL
št. 191/08/COL
on unpaid labour in relation to research and development activities (Norway)
o neplačanem delu v zvezi z dejavnostmi raziskav in razvoja (Norveška)
THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY [1], Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area [2], in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,
NADZORNI ORGAN EFTE JE [1] – ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru [2] ter zlasti členov 61 do 63 Sporazuma in Protokola 26 k Sporazumu,
Having regard to Article 1(2) and (3) of Part I and Articles 4(4), 6 and 7(4) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,
ob upoštevanju člena 1(2) in (3) dela I in členov 4(4), 6 in 7(4) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču,
Having regard to the Authority’s State Aid Guidelines [4] on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement, in particular the section on research and development and innovation aid,
ob upoštevanju Smernic Nadzornega organa o državni pomoči [4] glede uporabe in razlage členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP, zlasti oddelkov o pomoči za raziskave in razvoj ter pomoči za inovacije,
Having regard to Decision No 59/06/COL of the Authority of 8 March 2006 to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I and Article 6 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,
ob upoštevanju Odločbe št. 59/06/COL Nadzornega organa z dne 8. marca 2006 o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave, predvidenega v členu 1(2) dela I in členu 6 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču,