natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Case T-171/02 Regione autonoma della Sardegna v Commission [2005] ECR II-2123, paragraph 102; Case 248/84 Germany v Commission [1987] ECR 4013, paragraph 18; Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I-3671, paragraph 48; and Case C-278/00 Greece v Commission [2004] ECR I-3997, paragraph 24.
Zadeva T-171/02 Regione autonoma della Sardegna proti Komisiji [2005] ZOdl. II-2123, odstavek 102; Zadeva 248/84 Nemčija proti Komisiji [1987] Recueil 4013, odstavek 18; zadeva C-75/97 Belgija proti Komisiji [1999] Recueil I-3671, odstavek 48, in zadeva C-278/00 Grčija proti Komisiji [2004] ZOdl. I-3997, odstavek 24.
Case E-6/98 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority, cited above, paragraph 57 and Case E-2/05 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland [2005] Report of the EFTA Court, p. 202, paragraph 24.
Zadeva E-6/98 Norveška proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, navedeno zgoraj, odstavek 57 in zadeva E-2/05 Nadzorni organ Efte proti Islandiji [2005] Poročilo Sodišča Efte, str. 202, odstavek 24.
Case C-71/04 Administración del Estado v Xunta de Galicia [2005] ECR I-7419, paragraph 41; Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans [2003] ECR I-7747, paragraph 81; Joined Cases C-34/01 to C-38/01 Enirisorse [2003] ECR I-14243, paragraph 28; Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission (‘Tubemeuse’) [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 43; Joined Cases C-278/92 to C-280/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR I-4103, paragraph 42.
Zadeva C-71/04 Administración del Estado proti Xunta de Galicia [2005] ZOdl. I-7419, odstavek 41; zadeva C-280/00 Altmark Trans [2003] Recueil I-7747, odstavek 81; združene zadeve C-34/01 do C-38/01 Enirisorse [2003] Recueil I-14243, odstavek 28; zadeva C-142/87 Belgija proti Komisiji („Tubemeuse“) [1990] Recueil I-959, odstavek 43; združene zadeve C-278/92 do C-280/92 Španija proti Komisiji [1994] Recueil I-4103, odstavek 42.
Case E-6/98 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority, cited above, paragraph 59; Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1433, paragraph 27; Joined Cases C-278/92 to C-280/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR I-4103, paragraph 40, Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans, cited above, paragraph 78.
Zadeva E-6/98 Norveška proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, navedeno zgoraj, odstavek 59; zadeva C-303/88 Italija proti Komisiji [1991] Recueil I-1433, odstavek 27; združene zadeve C-278/92 do C-280/92 Španija proti Komisiji [1994] Recueil I-4103, odstavek 40, zadeva C-280/00 Altmark Trans, navedeno zgoraj, odstavek 78.
Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans, cited above, paragraph 77; Case C-172/03 Wolfgang Heiser [2005] ECR I-1627, paragraph 33; Case C-71/04 Administración del Estado v Xunta de Galicia [2005] ECR I-7419, paragraph 40.
Zadeva C-280/00 Altmark Trans, navedeno zgoraj, odstavek 77; Zadeva C-172/03 Wolfgang Heiser [2005] ZOdl. I-1627, odstavek 33; zadeva C-71/04 Administración del Estado proti Xunta de Galicia [2005] ZOdl. I-7419, odstavek 40.
Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans [2003] ECR I-7747, paragraph 81, Case C-172/03 Wolfgang Heiser [2005] ECR I-1627, paragraph 32.
Zadeva C-280/00 Altmark Trans [2003] Recueil I-7747, odstavek 81, zadeva C-172/03 Wolfgang Heiser [2005] ZOdl. I-1627, odstavek 32.
Case E-6/98 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority, cited above, paragraph 59; Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] ECR 2671, paragraph 11.
Zadeva E 6/98 Norveška proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, navedeno zgoraj, odstavek 59; zadeva 730/79 Philip Morris proti Komisiji [1980] Recueil 2671, odstavek 11.
Article 4 of the VAT Compensation Act introduces some limitation of the possibility to be compensated.
Člen 4 Zakona o nadomestilu DDV nekoliko omejuje možnost do prejemanja nadomestila.
Published on the OJ L 312, 29.11.2005, p. 67.
Objavljeno v UL L 312, 29.11.2005, str. 67.
Point 15.
Točka 15.
Case C-475/99, Firma Ambulanz Glöckner v Landkreis Südwestpfalz [2001] ECR I-8089.
Zadeva C-475/99, Firma Ambulanz Glöckner proti Landkreis Südwestpfalz [2001] Recueil I-8089.
Case C-350/93 Commission v Italy [1995] ECR I-699, paragraph 22.
Zadeva C-350/93 Komisija proti Italiji [1995] Recueil I-699, odstavek 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 [1999] Recueil I-3671, odstavek 66, in zadeva C-310/99 Italija proti Komisiji [2002] Recueil I-2289, odstavek 99.
Case C-169/95 Spain v Commission [1997] ECR I-135, paragraph 51.
Zadeva C-169/95 Španija proti Komisiji [1997] Recueil I-135, odstavek 51.
Published on the OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and the EEA Supplement No 26 of 25.5.2006, p. 1.
Objavljeno v UL L 139, 25.5.2006, str. 37 in Dodatku EGP št. 26, 25.5.2006, str. 1.
THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY [1],
NADZORNI ORGAN EFTE [1] JE –
HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area [2], in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,
OB UPOŠTEVANJU Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru [2] ter zlasti členov 61 do 63 Sporazuma in Protokola 26 k Sporazumu,
Joined Cases T-298/97-T-312/97 e.a.
Združene zadeve T-298/97–T-312/97 e.a.
Alzetta a.o. v Commission [2000] ECR II-2319, paragraphs 76-78.
Alzetta a.o. proti Komisiji [2000] Recueil II-2319, odstavki 76–78.
Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, was incorporated into Annex XV to the EEA Agreement as point 1h by Decision No 91/2006 (OJ L 289, 19.10.2006, p. 31 and EEA Supplement No 52, 19.10.2006, p. 24), e.i.f.
Odločba Komisije 2005/842/ES z dne 28. novembra 2005 o uporabi člena 86(2) Pogodbe ES za državne pomoči v obliki nadomestila za javne storitve, dodeljene nekaterim podjetjem, pooblaščenim za opravljanje storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, je bila vključena v Prilogo XV k Sporazumu EGP kot točka 1h z Odločbo št. 91/2006 (UL L 289, 19.10.2006, str. 31 in Dodatek EGP št. 52, 19.10.2006, str. 24), e.i.f.
No 660/07/COL
št. 660/07/COL
on compensation to the ‘Hurtigruten companies’ for increased social security contributions (Norway)
o nadomestilih „podjetjema Hurtigruten“ za višje prispevke za socialno varnost (Norveška)
THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY [1], HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area [2], in particular to Articles 59(2) and 61 to 63, and to Protocol 26 thereof,
NADZORNI ORGAN EFTE [1] JE – ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru [2] in zlasti člena 59(2), členov 61 do 63 Sporazuma ter 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 to Article 24 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Sporazuma med državami Efte o ustanovitvi nadzornega organa in sodišča [3] ter zlasti člena 24 Sporazuma,
HAVING REGARD to Article 1(2) in Part I and Article 14 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,
ob upoštevanju člena 1(2) dela I in člena 14 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču,
HAVING REGARD to the Authority’s Guidelines [4] on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement, and in particular the chapter on aid to maritime transport,
ob upoštevanju Smernic Nadzornega organa [4] o uporabi in razlagi členov 61 in 62 Sporazuma EGP ter zlasti poglavja o pomoči za pomorski promet,
HAVING REGARD to the Authority’s Decision 417/01/COL of 19 December 2001 on compensation for maritime transport services under the ‘Hurtigruten Agreement’ [5],
ob upoštevanju Odločbe Nadzornega organa 417/01/COL z dne 19. decembra 2001 o nadomestilu za storitve pomorskega prometa po „Sporazumu Hurtigruten“ [5],
HAVING REGARD to the Authority’s Decision 172/02/COL of 25 September 2002 to propose appropriate measures to Norway with regard to State aid in the form of regionally differentiated social security taxation on employers,
ob upoštevanju Odločbe Nadzornega organa 172/02/COL z dne 25. septembra 2002 o predlogu za ustrezne ukrepe za Norveško v zvezi z državno pomočjo v obliki regionalno diferenciranih prispevkov za socialno varnost za delodajalce,
HAVING REGARD to the Authority’s Decision 218/03/COL of 12 November 2003 on a 3-year transition period in Zones 3 and 4 for the regionally differentiated social security contributions,
ob upoštevanju Odločbe Nadzornega organa 218/03/COL z dne 12. novembra 2003 o triletnem prehodnem obdobju v conah 3 in 4 za regionalno diferencirane prispevke za socialno varnost,
HAVING REGARD to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 2/2003/SC of 1 July 2003 whereby it was decided that the regionally differentiated social security contributions in Zone 5 were compatible with the EEA Agreement due to exceptional circumstances in that zone,
ob upoštevanju Sklepa Stalnega odbora držav Efte št. 2/2003/SC z dne 1. julija 2003, v katerem je Stalni odbor sklenil, da so regionalno diferencirani prispevki za socialno varnost v coni 5 združljivi s Sporazumom EGP zaradi izjemnih okoliščin v tej coni,
HAVING REGARD to the Authority’s Decision 215/05/COL of 5 July 2006 to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 6 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,
ob upoštevanju Odločbe Nadzornega organa 215/05/COL z dne 5. julija 2006 o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave, predvidenega v členu 6 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču,
HAVING CALLED on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to those provisions [6],
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim strankam, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenimi določbami [6],
On 2 August 2004, the Authority sent an information request to the Norwegian authorities regarding a payment to Ofotens og Vesteraalens Dampskibsselskab ASA and Troms Fylkes Dampskibsselskap ASA [7] as compensation due to the changes in the Norwegian differentiated social security system (Event No 289240).The Norwegian authorities replied by letter from the Ministry of Trade and Industry dated 1 September 2004, forwarding a letter from the Ministry of Transport and Communications of the same date, received and registered by the Authority on 1 September 2004 (Event No 291435).
Nadzorni organ je 2. avgusta 2004 norveškim organom poslal zahtevo po informacijah v zvezi s plačilom podjetjema Ofotens og Vesteraalens Dampskibsselskab ASA in Troms Fylkes Dampskibsselskap ASA [7] kot nadomestilom zaradi sprememb norveškega sistema diferenciranih prispevkov za socialno varnost (dogodek št. 289240).Norveški organi so odgovorili z dopisom Ministrstva za trgovino in industrijo z dne 1. septembra 2004, v katerem je bil posredovan dopis Ministrstva za promet in zveze z istega dne, ki ga je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 1. septembra 2004 (dogodek št. 291435).
By letter dated 12 October 2004, the Authority asked for further information (Event No 294990).
Nadzorni organ je z dopisom z dne 12. oktobra 2004 zaprosil za dodatne informacije (dogodek št. 294990).
In this letter, the Authority’s Competition and State Aid Directorate stated its view that as the measure had not been notified to the Authority but had apparently already been put into effect, the payment would have to be considered as unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 1(f) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
V tem dopisu je Direktorat za konkurenco in državno pomoč Nadzornega organa navedel svoje stališče, da je treba plačilo, ker ukrep ni bil priglašen Nadzornemu organu, bil pa je očitno že izveden, šteti kot nezakonito pomoč v smislu člena 1(f) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
The Norwegian authorities replied by letter from the Norwegian Mission to the EU dated 18 November 2004, forwarding letters from the Ministry of Modernisation, dated 17 November 2004, and the Ministry of Transport and Communications, dated 16 November 2004.
Norveški organi so odgovorili z dopisom norveške misije pri EU z dne 18. novembra 2004, v katerem sta bila posredovana dopisa Ministrstva za modernizacijo z dne 17. novembra 2004 ter Ministrstva za promet in zveze z dne 16. novembra 2004.
By letter dated 26 October 2005, the Authority’s Competition and State Aid Directorate informed the Norwegian authorities that it had doubts concerning the compatibility of the payment to the Hurtigruten companies with the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Event No 329347).
Direktorat za konkurenco in državno pomoč Nadzornega organa je z dopisom z dne 26. oktobra 2005 obvestil norveške organe, da dvomi o združljivosti plačila podjetjema Hurtigruten z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP (dogodek št. 329347).
The Norwegian authorities replied by letter from the Norwegian Mission to the EU dated 22 December 2005, forwarding letters from the Ministry of Modernisation and the Ministry of Transport and Communications, both dated 15 December 2005, received and registered by the Authority on 3 January 2006 (Event No 355950).
Norveški organi so odgovorili z dopisom norveške misije pri EU z dne 22. decembra 2005, v katerem sta bila posredovana dopisa Ministrstva za modernizacijo ter Ministrstva za promet in zveze, oba z dne 15. decembra 2005, ki ga je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral 3. januarja 2006 (dogodek št. 355950).
By letter dated 9 March 2006, the Authority commented on the Norwegian reply (Event No 364024).
Nadzorni organ je z dopisom z dne 9. marca 2006 podal pripombe k norveškemu odgovoru (dogodek št. 364024).
The Norwegian authorities responded by letter from the Norwegian Mission to the EU dated 29 March 2006, forwarding letters from the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform, dated 27 March 2006, and the Ministry of Transport and Communications, dated 24 March 2006.
Norveški organi so odgovorili z dopisom norveške misije pri EU z dne 29. marca 2006, v katerem sta bila posredovana dopisa Ministrstva za vladno upravo in reforme z dne 27. marca 2006 ter Ministrstva za promet in zveze z dne 24. marca 2006.
By Decision 215/06/COL of 5 July 2006, the Authority decided to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 6 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Z Odločbo 215/06/COL z dne 5. julija 2006 se je Nadzorni organ odločil začeti formalni postopek preiskave, predviden v členu 6 dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
The Government of Norway was invited to comment on the decision.
Vlado Norveške je pozval, naj predloži pripombe k odločitvi.
By letter dated 12 October 2006, the Norwegian authorities submitted their comments.
Norveški organi so z dopisom z dne 12. oktobra 2006 predložili svoje pripombe.
The letter was received and registered by the Authority on 13 October 2006 (Event No 393258).
Nadzorni organ je dopis prejel in evidentiral 13. oktobra 2006 (dogodek št. 393258).
The Authority’s decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and the EEA Supplement thereto [8].
Odločba Nadzornega organa o začetku postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije in Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije [8].
The Authority called on interested parties to submit their comments.
Nadzorni organ je pozval zainteresirane stranke, naj predložijo svoje pripombe.
The Authority did not receive any comments from interested parties.
Nadzorni organ ni od zainteresiranih strank prejel nobenih pripomb.
By letter dated 3 December 2007, received and registered by the Authority on the same date (Event No 455223) the Norwegian authorities submitted additional information.
Norveški organi so z dopisom z dne 3. decembra 2007, ki ga je Nadzorni organ prejel in evidentiral istega dne (dogodek št. 455223), predložili dodatne informacije.
The Hurtigruten companies operated maritime transport services along the Norwegian coastal line from Bergen to Kirkenes.
Podjetji Hurtigruten sta opravljali storitve pomorskega prometa ob norveški obali med krajema Bergen in Kirkenes.
From 1 January 2002 until 31 December 2004, the ‘Hurtigruten service’ was covered by the agreement between the Norwegian authorities and the Hurtigruten companies concerning operation of maritime services along the Norwegian coast [9].
Od 1. januarja 2002 do 31. decembra 2004 je „storitve Hurtigruten“ urejal sporazum med norveškimi organi in podjetjema Hurtigruten o opravljanju storitev pomorskega prometa ob norveški obali [9].
The Hurtigruten Agreement was notified by the Norwegian authorities to the Authority in July 2000 and approved by the Authority on 19 December 2001 [10].According to the Hurtigruten Agreement, the Hurtigruten companies were under an obligation to maintain daily transport services consisting of the combined transport of persons and goods between Bergen and Kirkenes according to a fixed route plan.
Sporazum Hurtigruten so norveški organi priglasili Nadzornemu organu julija 2000, Nadzorni organ pa ga je odobril 19. decembra 2001 [10].V skladu s Sporazumom Hurtigruten sta bili podjetji Hurtigruten zavezani, da vzdržujeta dnevne storitve kombiniranega prevoza oseb in blaga med krajema Bergen in Kirkenes skladno z določenim načrtom prog.
This obligation implied that the Hurtigruten companies operated with 11 ships and stopped daily at 34 ports along the coast.
Ta obveznost je pomenila, da sta podjetji Hurtigruten opravljali svojo dejavnost z 11 ladjami, ki so se vsak dan ustavile v 34 pristaniščih ob obali.
In 2004, approximately 8 % of the turnover related to transport of goods, whereas 92 % related to transport of passengers.
Leta 2004 je bilo približno 8 % prometa podjetij Hurtigruten povezanega s prevozom blaga in 92 % s prevozom potnikov.
The Hurtigruten companies were also engaged in commercial business activities which were not part of the Hurtigruten service, such as operating high-speed ferries.
Podjetji Hurtigruten sta opravljali tudi gospodarske poslovne dejavnosti, ki niso bile del storitev Hurtigruten, na primer izvajanje prevozov z visokohitrostnimi trajekti.
The routes which comprise the Hurtigruten service are themselves partly commercially viable, notably during the summer season.
Proge, ki so vključene v storitve Hurtigruten, so deloma tržno donosne, zlasti med poletno sezono.
However, it is accepted that these routes, served at the frequency required by the Hurtigruten Agreement, are not commercially viable during the winter season.
Vendar velja, da opravljanje prevoza na teh progah s pogostostjo, ki jo zahteva Sporazum Hurtigruten, ni tržno donosno med zimsko sezono.
In its 2001 Decision, the Authority considered that the compensation granted under the Hurtigruten Agreement could be regarded as compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement as the services covered by it were considered to be services of general economic interest and the conditions laid down in Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement had been respected.
Nadzorni organ je v Odločbi iz leta 2001 menil, da se lahko nadomestilo, odobreno po Sporazumu Hurtigruten, šteje kot združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, ker so storitve, ki jih je Sporazum zajemal, veljale za storitve splošnega gospodarskega pomena in ker so bili upoštevani pogoji iz člena 59(2) Sporazuma EGP.
On 25 September 2002, the Authority decided to propose appropriate measures to Norway with regard to the Norwegian system concerning regionally differentiated social security contributions [11].
Nadzorni organ se je 25. septembra 2002 odločil Norveški predlagati ustrezne ukrepe glede norveškega sistema regionalno diferenciranih prispevkov za socialno varnost.
The proposal to adopt appropriate measures was accepted by Norway on 31 October 2002.
Norveška je predlog, naj sprejme ustrezne ukrepe, sprejela 31. oktobra 2002.
Part, but not all, of the increase in costs was covered by the Authority’s Decision of 12 November 2003.
Del povišanja stroškov, ampak ne ves, je bil zajet v odločbi Nadzornega organa z dne 12. novembra 2003.
Section 10 of the Hurtigruten Agreement contained a clause whereby both parties to the Agreement could set in motion a re-negotiation procedure in the event of substantial changes in the premises upon which the Hurtigruten Agreement was based.
Oddelek 10 Sporazuma Hurtigruten je vključeval klavzulo, po kateri lahko obe stranki Sporazuma začneta postopek ponovnih pogajanj v primeru bistveno spremenjenih predpostavk, na katerih temelji Sporazum Hurtigruten.
The Hurtigruten Agreement ended as foreseen on 31 December 2004.
Sporazum Hurtigruten je, kot je bilo predvideno, nehal veljati 31. decembra 2004.
The present case concerns a payment to the Hurtigruten companies contained in Post 70, Chapter 1330 (Særskilte transporttiltak) of the Norwegian 2004 State Budget, whereby the Hurtigruten companies would be granted up to NOK 8,5 million (approximately EUR 1,1 million) as compensation due to the changes in the differentiated social security system [13].The payment would compensate the Hurtigruten companies for that part of the increased social security contributions which was not already compensated for as a result of the scheme concerning a 3-year transitional period, approved by the Authority in its Decision of 12 November 2003.
Ta primer obravnava plačilo podjetjema Hurtigruten, vključeno v postavki 70 poglavja 1330 (Særskilte transporttiltak) norveškega državnega proračuna za leto 2004, po kateri bi podjetji Hurtigruten prejeli znesek v višini do 8,5 milijona NOK (približno 1,1 milijona EUR) kot nadomestilo zaradi sprememb v diferenciranem sistemu socialne varnosti [13].Plačilo bi pomenilo nadomestilo podjetjema Hurtigruten za tisti del povišanih prispevkov za socialno varnost, za katerega še nista prejeli nadomestila zaradi sheme triletnega prehodnega obdobja, ki jo je odobril Nadzorni organ z odločbo z dne 12. novembra 2003.
The decision to open the formal investigation procedure
Odločitev o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave
In its Decision 215/06/COL to open the formal investigation procedure, the Authority came to the preliminary conclusion that compensation for increased social security contributions constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ je v Odločbi 215/06/COL o začetku formalnega postopka preiskave predhodno sklenil, da nadomestilo za povišane prispevke za socialno varnost pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority expressed its doubts as to whether the Norwegian State’s support measure could be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, and more specifically, whether the aid measure was compatible with Article 59(2) of the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ je izrazil dvome, ali je mogoče ukrep podpore norveške države razglasiti za združljivega z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP oziroma natančneje, ali je ukrep pomoči združljiv s členom 59(2) Sporazuma EGP.
These doubts concerned, in particular, the question of whether the aid granted was necessary for the Hurtigruten companies to be able to fulfil their public service obligations.
Ti dvomi so se nanašali zlasti na vprašanje, ali sta podjetji Hurtigruten potrebovali odobreno pomoč, da sta lahko izpolnjevali svojo obveznost javnih storitev.
The Norwegian authorities are of the opinion that the compensation was within the limits of the compensation authorised by the Authority in its 2001 Decision, and should therefore be classified as ‘existing aid’ in line with the definition of Article 1(b)(ii) in Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Norveški organi menijo, da je bilo nadomestilo v mejah nadomestila, ki ga je Nadzorni organ odobril v Odločbi iz leta 2001, in da ga je treba zato opredeliti kot „veljavno pomoč“ v skladu z opredelitvijo iz člena 1(b)(ii) dela II Protokola 3 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
The Norwegian authorities consider the payment to be covered by the Hurtigruten Agreement in force at the time when the payment was granted.
Norveški organi menijo, da je bilo plačilo zajeto v Sporazumu Hurtigruten, ki je veljal, ko je bilo plačilo odobreno.