natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this regard the authorities have referred to the Working Group Report which provides that: ‘The share of funding under the scheme vary according to the objective and character of the projects. The scheme may finance the entire project [costs] in case it is difficult to identify anyone who can benefit directly from the project, for example, in pure study projects or preparatory studies. The share of financing under the scheme may be correspondingly low in case of projects which are expected to be of important and direct use for the project participants. The EEA State aid rules must be applied. Within the limits set by such rules principles and administrative practices are to be developed for the scheme.’ [35]
V tem okviru organi navajajo Poročilo delovne skupine, ki določa, da se: „Delež financiranja po shemi lahko spreminja glede na cilj in naravo projektov. Iz sheme se lahko financira celoten projekt [stroški], če je težko določiti, kdo bi lahko imel neposredno korist od projekta, na primer pri čistih študijskih projektih ali pripravljalnih študijah. Delež financiranja po shemi je lahko ustrezno nizek v primeru projektov, za katere se pričakuje, da bodo udeleženci v projektu imeli od njih pomembno in neposredno korist. Uporabljati je treba pravila EGP o državni pomoči. V okviru teh pravil je treba oblikovati načela in upravno prakso za shemo [35].“
The authorities have further explained that the practice of awarding 100 % funding has been used in cases where it has been difficult to identify stakeholders that would benefit directly from the projects (or where individual undertakings are considered to receive a modest benefit only) such as in the case of preliminary studies and reports in special target areas.
Organi so razložili tudi, da se je praksa dodeljevanja 100 % sredstev uporabljala v primerih, ko je bilo težko opredeliti deležnike, ki bi imeli od projektov neposredno korist (ali ko se šteje, da so posamezna podjetja imela samo skromno korist), kot je to v primeru predhodnih študij in poročil na posebnih ciljnih področjih.
An example of this, which has been referred to by the authorities, is the grant of NOK 125000 to Norsk Treteknisk Institutt to a project for the product development of planed panels for internal use [36].
Tak primer, ki so ga navedli organi, je dodelitev 125000 NOK Norsk Treteknisk Instituttu za projekt razvoja oblanih plošč za notranjo uporabo [36].
The Norwegian authorities have submitted that grants awarded on the basis of specific provisions under the Wood Scheme fulfil the conditions for qualifying as de minimis aid.
Norveški organi so navedli, da subvencije, dodeljene na podlagi posebnih določb iz Lesne sheme, izpolnjujejo pogoje za opredelitev kot pomoč de minimis.
The authorities have explained that when de minimis aid has been granted, the ‘consent letter’ sent to the aid recipient contains a reference to the de minimis threshold and time frame as well as to the obligation of the aid recipient to inform the authorities of aid received from other sources within 3 years from the point in time at which the consent to be granted aid was given [37].In addition, the authorities have explained the existence of an administrative practice whereby aid granted for, for example, research and development, may be ‘topped up’ with de minimis aid.
Poleg tega so organi pojasnili, da pri pomoči, ki je dodeljena kot pomoč de minimis, dopis o odobritvi, poslan prejemniku, vsebuje sklicevanje na prag in časovni okvir de minimis ter na obveznost prejemnika pomoči, da organe obvesti o pomoči, ki jo je v treh letih od datuma, ko je bila dana odobritev za dodelitev pomoči, prejel iz drugih virov [37].Poleg tega so organi pojasnili obstoj administrativne prakse, po kateri se lahko pomoč, dodeljena na primer za raziskave in razvoj, lahko kombinira s pomočjo de minimis.
This practice is specifically provided for in the Internal EEA Guidelines in the versions dated September 2004 and July 2005 [38].
Ta praksa je izrecno predvidena v internih smernicah EGP v različicah iz septembra 2004 in julija 2005 [38].
The Norwegian authorities have stated that the Wood Scheme was operational as of 1 July 2000 (i.e. the date as of which applications for support could be made) and remained in force for 5 years, until the end of 2005 (the last consent was given on 30 December 2005) [39].
Norveški organi so izjavili, da se je Lesna shema začela izvajati 1. julija 2000 (tj. datum, ko se lahko vložijo zahtevki za podporo) in je veljala pet let do konca leta 2005 (zadnje soglasje je bilo izdano 30. decembra 2005) [39].
Trade in wood products
Trgovina z lesnimi proizvodi
It appears from the White Paper from the Government to the Parliament on the creation of value and opportunities within the forest sector that Norway exports its wood products to the EU.
Iz Bele knjige vlade za parlament o ustvarjanju vrednosti in priložnostih v gozdarskem sektorju izhaja, da Norveška svoje lesne proizvode izvaža v EU.
Finally, it appears from statistics produced by ‘Statistics Norway’ (Statistisk sentralbyrå) that Norway also imports substantial amounts of timber, processed wood and wood products (Tømmer, trelast og kork …) from the EU [42].2.8. Scope of EEA Agreement
Nazadnje iz statistike, ki jo je pripravila „Statistika Norveške“(Statistisk sentralbyrå), izhaja, da tudi Norveška uvaža precejšnje količine gradbenega lesa, predelanega lesa in lesnih izdelkov („Tømmer, trelast og kork …“) iz EU [42].2.8 Obseg uporabe Sporazuma EGP
Article 8(3) of the EEA Agreement provides that:
Člen 8(3) Sporazuma EGP določa:
‘Unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this Agreement shall apply only to:
„Če ni določeno drugače, se določbe tega sporazuma uporabljajo samo za:
products falling within Chapters 25 to 97 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, excluding the products listed in Protocol 2;
izdelke iz poglavij 25 do 97 Harmoniziranega sistema poimenovanja in šifrskih oznak blaga razen izdelkov, navedenih v Protokolu 2;
products specified in Protocol 3, subject to the specific arrangements set out in that Protocol.’
izdelke iz Protokola 3, ob upoštevanju posebne ureditve iz navedenega protokola.“
Wood and articles of wood are covered by Chapter 44.
Les in lesni izdelki so zajeti v poglavju 44.
The Authority opened the formal investigation procedure on the basis of the preliminary finding that the Wood Scheme involves State aid which would not qualify for any of the exemptions provided for in the EEA Agreement.
Nadzorni organ je začel formalni postopek preiskave na podlagi predhodne ugotovitve, da Lesna shema vključuje državno pomoč, ki ne bi bila upravičena do nobene od oprostitev, predvidenih v Sporazumu EGP.
Consequently the Authority had doubts that the Wood Scheme could be considered to be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Posledično je Nadzorni organ dvomil o tem, da bi Lesna shema lahko veljala za združljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
Reference was made to the fact that the documents submitted by the Norwegian authorities on the Wood Scheme did not contain specific definitions of the eligible projects, eligible costs or ceilings on the maximum amount of aid which could be granted.
Navedeno je bilo, da dokumenti, ki so jih predložili norveški organi o Lesni shemi, niso vsebovali posebnih opredelitev upravičenih projektov, upravičenih stroškov ali zgornje meje obsega pomoči, ki se lahko odobri.
The Norwegian authorities were invited to submit information on the existence of any internal instructions dictating that the scheme should be implemented in compliance with the State Aid Guidelines and/or the block exemption Regulations.
Norveški organi so bili pozvani k predložitvi podatkov o obstoju kakršnih koli notranjih navodil, ki bi narekovala, da je treba shemo izvajati v skladu s Smernicami o državni pomoči in/ali uredbami o skupinskih izjemah.
The Authority pointed out, however, that even if such an administrative practice could be demonstrated, the Authority might still consider the scheme not to be compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement in view of the existence of the practice under the Wood Scheme of granting 100 % support to projects where the grant is assumed by the administering authority not to qualify as aid because the activity cannot be attributed to individual undertakings and is considered to result in a modest benefit only.
Vendar je Nadzorni organ poudaril, da četudi bi bilo tako upravno prakso mogoče dokazati, lahko Nadzorni organ še vedno šteje Lesno shemo za nezdružljivo z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP glede na obstoj prakse v okviru Lesne sheme, da se dodeli 100-odstotna podpora projektom, pri katerih je upravni organ domneval, da subvencije ni mogoče šteti za pomoč, ker dejavnosti ni bilo mogoče pripisati posameznim podjetjem in ker naj bi prinesla samo skromno korist.
With respect to whether grants awarded on the basis of specific provisions on de minimis aid under the Wood Scheme fulfil the conditions for qualifying as de minimis aid under the State Aid Guidelines or the subsequent de minimis Regulation (which replaced the State Aid Guidelines in this respect as of 1 February 2003) [43] the Authority took the view that the relevant provisions did not appear to comply with the rules on the grant of de minimis aid.
Glede na to, ali subvencije, odobrene na podlagi posebnih določb o pomoči de minimis v okviru Lesne sheme izpolnjujejo pogoje, da lahko veljajo za pomoč de minimis na podlagi Smernic o državni pomoči ali naknadne uredbe de minimis (ki je v tem smislu s 1. februarjem 2003 nadomestila Smernice o državni pomoči) [43], je Nadzorni organ sprejel stališče, da je videti, da ustrezne določbe niso skladne s pravili o dodelitvi pomoči de minimis.
The Norwegian authorities acknowledge that the scheme should have been formally notified to the Authority but argue that the mere fact that the Wood Scheme has not been notified does not mean that the Authority can conclude, on that basis alone, that it is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Norveški organi priznavajo, da bi shema morala biti formalno priglašena Nadzornemu organu, vendar samo dejstvo, da Lesna shema ni bila priglašena, ne pomeni, da Nadzorni organ lahko samo na tej podlagi sklepa, da je nezdružljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
Substance
Vsebina
Existence of internal instructions or authoritative orders
Obstoj notranjih navodil ali veljavne odredbe
The Norwegian authorities argue that the material State aid rules of the EEA Agreement have been complied with in practice.
Norveški organi trdijo, da so bila v praksi upoštevana vsebinska pravila o državni pomoči Sporazuma EGP.
First, the Superior Policy of Innovasjon Norge dictates that all financing should be granted within the limits set by international agreements to which Norway is a party.
Prvič, višja politika Innovasjon Norge zahteva, da je treba vsakršno financiranje odobriti v okviru omejitev, določenih z mednarodnimi sporazumi, h katerim je Norveška pristopila.
Secondly, case handlers of Innovasjon Norge have (via the Working Group Report) been instructed to implement the Wood Scheme in compliance with the EEA Agreement.
Drugič, skrbniki primerov Innovasjon Norge so (prek Poročila delovne skupine) dobili navodila, da morajo Lesno shemo izvajati v skladu s Sporazumom EGP.
The Internal EEA Guidelines were developed with a view to facilitating compliance with the EEA Agreement.
Interne smernice EGP so bile napisane zato, da izboljšajo skladnost s Sporazumom EGP.
Thirdly, the case handlers are experienced with the State Aid Guidelines and participate in courses on the subject.
Tretjič, skrbniki primerov imajo izkušnje s Smernicami o državni pomoči in se udeležujejo tečajev o tej temi.
If in doubt they can seek advice from the legal department of Innovasjon Norge.
Če so v dvomih, lahko prosijo za nasvet pravno službo Innovasjon Norge.
Cases of no aid
Primeri brez pomoči
As regards the practice of financing 100 % of project costs, the Norwegian authorities have argued that this practice involves projects not falling within the scope of the EEA Agreement either because there is no State aid involved within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement or because aid has been granted as de minimis aid.
Kar zadeva prakso financiranja 100 % stroškov projekta, so norveški organi trdili, da ta praksa vključuje projekte, ki niso predmet Sporazuma EGP bodisi zato, ker ne gre za državno pomoč v smislu v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, ali ker je bila pomoč dodeljena kot pomoč de minimis.
The authorities have provided a table setting out how all funding awarded under the Wood Scheme has been allocated.
Organi so predstavili tabelo, ki kaže, kako se je dodeljevala pomoč v okviru Lesne sheme.
The authorities argue that in eight cases (represented by two examples) aid has been granted to projects involving products (such as ‘standing timber’) which are not listed in Chapters 25-97 Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System and hence do not come within the scope of the EEA Agreement.
Organi trdijo, da je bila v osmih zadevah (ki jih predstavljata dva primera) pomoč dodeljena za projekte, ki vključujejo izdelke (kot so na primer „neposekana drevesa“), ki niso na seznamu poglavij 25–97 Harmoniziranega sistema poimenovanja in šifrskih oznak blaga in torej ne spadajo v okvir Sporazuma EGP.
The authorities further state that 114 beneficiaries under the Wood Scheme do not qualify as ‘undertakings’ within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement because the beneficiaries are not pursuing an economic activity.
Organi nadalje navajajo, da se 114 upravičencev v okviru Lesne sheme ne uvršča med „podjetja“ v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, ker ne opravljajo gospodarske dejavnosti.
15 cases are considered to be ‘Education and Research Establishments’; 25 cases of ‘Public entities’ involve support to municipalities; and 74 cases concern support to ‘Branch organisations’.
15 zadev se uvršča med „ustanove za izobraževanje in raziskave“, 25 zadev v zvezi z „osebami javnega prava“ vključuje pomoč občinam, 74 zadev pa je povezanih s podporo „podružnicam“.
As regards the ‘Education and Research Establishment’ cases (represented by two examples, one of which involves a not-for-profit organisation) the authorities consider that they fall outside the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement on the basis of section 2.2 in the previous Chapter 14 of the State Aid Guidelines on research and development according to which ‘non-profit-making higher education research establishment is normally not covered by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement’ and which states that ‘where the results of publicly financed R&D projects carried out by such establishments are made available to European industry on a non-discriminatory basis, the EFTA Surveillance Authority will assume that State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement is not normally involved’.
Kar zadeva „ustanove za izobraževanje in raziskave“ (ki jih predstavljata dva primera, od katerih eden vključuje neprofitno organizacijo), organi menijo, da ne spadajo v okvir člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP na podlagi oddelka 2.2 v prejšnjem poglavju 14 Smernic o državni pomoči o raziskavah in razvoju, po katerih „neprofitna visokošolska ustanova za izobraževanje in raziskovanje običajno ni zajeta v členu 61(1) Sporazuma EGP“ ter ki določa: „če so rezultati javno financiranih projektov raziskav in razvoja, ki so jih te ustanove izvajale, brez razlikovanja na voljo evropski industriji, Nadzorni organ Efte domneva, da po navadi ne gre za državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP“.
The Norwegian authorities argue that aid to ‘Branch organisations’ (consisting of not-for-profit interest organisations involved in information dissemination) does not involve State aid because the funding is not directed (directly) to undertakings but is channelled via the branch organisations which are not considered to be undertakings.
Norveški organi trdijo, da pomoč „podružnicam“ (ki jih sestavljajo neprofitne interesne organizacije, ki se ukvarjajo z objavljanjem informacij) ne pomeni državne pomoči, ker financiranje ni (neposredno) namenjeno podjetjem, ampak se usmerja prek podružnic, ki ne veljajo za podjetja.
Reference is made to the Commission’s decision regarding Asetra which, according to the Norwegian authorities, was cleared because Asetra was not an undertaking within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty [44].
Navajajo odločbo Komisije v zvezi z Asetro, ki je bila po mnenju norveških organov oproščena, ker Asetra ni podjetje v smislu člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES [44].
It is also argued that the Court of Justice has interpreted ‘the concept of “economic advantage”’ in several cases and that in Case C-143/99 Adria Wien the reasoning of the Court indicates that a line must be drawn between abstract advantages (i.e. costs that would normally not be ‘included in the budget’ of the undertaking) and those that would [45].The authorities also argue that in a further 31 cases (of which several examples are given) the beneficiaries did not receive an economic advantage as they provided a service in return and hence the cases are not within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Trdijo tudi, da je Sodišče v več primerih razlagalo „koncept gospodarske ugodnosti“ in da v zadevi C-143/99 Adria Wien utemeljitev Sodišča kaže, da je treba ločevati med abstraktnimi ugodnostmi (tj. stroški, ki običajno ne bi bili „vključeni v proračun“ podjetja) in tistimi, ki bi bili vključeni vanj [45].Organi tudi trdijo, da v nadaljnjih 31 zadevah (od katerih je predstavljenih nekaj primerov) upravičenci niso pridobili gospodarske ugodnosti, ker so v zameno opravili storitev, torej zadeve ne spadajo v okvir člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
The Norwegian authorities refer to the consent letter which states that the recipient must provide information ‘on aid received on the basis of potentially new applications for public aid … This obligation has a duration of three years from the time of the letter of consent. The receiver of aid cannot receive de minimis aid exceeding a total of EUR 100000 (approximately NOK 815000) over any period of three years’.
Norveški organi se sklicujejo na dopis o odobritvi, po katerem mora prejemnik predložiti informacije „o pomoči, prejeti na podlagi potencialnih novih zahtevkov za javno pomoč … Ta obveznost velja tri leta od datuma dopisa o odobritvi. Prejemnik pomoči ne more prejeti pomoči de minimis, ki v katerem koli obdobju treh let znaša skupno več kot 100000 EUR (okoli 815000 NOK)“.
The authorities argue that the reference to ‘any period of three years’ makes it clear that the receiver of aid is not in a position to receive de minimis aid during any period of 3 years whether prior to or after the letter of consent.
Organi trdijo, da sklicevanje na „katero koli obdobje treh let“ jasno pomeni, da prejemnik pomoči ni upravičen do prejema pomoči de minimis v katerem koli obdobju treh let, ne glede na to, ali je to pred prejetjem dopisa o odobritvi ali po njem.
The authorities state, moreover, that in any event, most aid awards are below the de minimis limit.
Organi poleg tega trdijo, da je v vsakem primeru večina dodeljenih pomoči pod mejo de minimis.
The authorities have, however, also explained that ‘the [procedural] framework of de minimis aid has, however, in [certain] cases not been complied with as the aid [was] deemed to comply with the substantial rules and block exemptions on aid to SMEs, R&D and training aid’.
Organi pa so tudi razložili, da „se [postopkovni] okvir pomoči de minimis v [nekaterih] primerih kljub vsemu ni upošteval, saj je veljalo, da je pomoč združljiva z vsebinskimi pravili in skupinskimi izjemami o pomoči za MSP, raziskave in razvoj ter pomoči za usposabljanje“.
The Norwegian authorities argue that the Authority has not paid sufficient attention to the practices and procedures followed by Innovasjon Norge in assessing the compatibility of the aid.
Norveški organi trdijo, da Nadzorni organ pri ocenjevanju združljivosti pomoči ni bil dovolj pozoren na prakso in postopke, ki jih je izvajal Innovasjon Norge.
The authorities basically state that no aid has been granted as regional aid under the Wood Scheme and that the overview (attached to Internal EEA Guidelines), setting out maximum aid intensities (including on regional aid) may have lead to this misunderstanding.
Organi v osnovi trdijo, da ni bila dana nikakršna pomoč v smislu regionalne pomoči iz naslova Lesne sheme in da je ta nesporazum morda povzročil pregled (priložen internim smernicam EGP), ki določa največjo intenzivnost pomoči (tudi regionalne).
Immediately afterwards the authorities state that there are, however, examples in which aid has been granted up to the maximum aid intensities permitted for research and development aid but topped up with a 5 % regional aid bonus.
Organi takoj zatem navajajo, da obstajajo primeri, pri katerih je bila pomoč dodeljena do zgornje meje intenzivnosti pomoči, ki je dovoljena kot pomoč za raziskave in razvoj, vendar ji je bila dodana pomoč s 5-odstotnim bonusom regionalne pomoči.
Aid to Trysil Skog AS is referred to as an example.
Kot primer je navedena pomoč podjetju Trysil Skog AS.
As regards 78 cases of research and development (of which three examples are mentioned) the authorities argue that aid has been granted in compliance with the material principles in the State Aid Guidelines.
Kar zadeva 78 zadev raziskav in razvoja (od katerih so omenjeni trije primeri), organi trdijo, da je bila pomoč dodeljena v skladu z vsebinskimi načeli v Smernicah o državni pomoči.
Account has been taken of the extent to which a project foresees the development of new technology, knowledge or methods and priority has been given to the most innovative projects.
Upoštevan je bil obseg, do katerega projekt predvideva razvoj nove tehnologije, znanja ali metod; prednost pa je bila dana najbolj inovativnim projektom.
Account has also been taken of whether the project is eligible for funding from other sources, such as under the ‘Skattefunn’ scheme.
Upoštevalo se je tudi, ali je projekt upravičen do financiranja iz drugih virov, kot na primer v okviru sheme „Skattefunn“.
The authorities argue that although the title and publication reference to the block exemption Regulations on SMEs and training aid are not cited in the Internal EEA Guidelines, the regulations are, ‘to a large extent, incorporated’.
Organi trdijo, da čeprav v internih smernicah EGP ni navedeno sklicevanje na naslov in objavo uredb o skupinskih izjemah za MSP in pomoč za usposabljanje, so uredbe „v precejšnjem obsegu vključene“.
ASSESSMENT
OCENA TVEGANJA
Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement provides that:
Člen 61(1) Sporazuma EGP določa:
To constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, a measure must meet the following four cumulative criteria: the measure must (i) confer on recipients an economic advantage which is not received in the normal course of business; (ii) the advantage must be granted by the State or through State resources; (iii) the measure must be selective by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods; and (iv) it must distort competition and affect trade between the Contracting Parties.
Da bi ukrep označili za državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP, mora ta izpolnjevati naslednja štiri merila: ukrep mora (i) prejemnikom prinesti gospodarsko ugodnost, ki je ne bi bili deležni pri običajnem poteku poslovanja; (ii) ugodnost mora dodeliti država ali mora biti dodeljena iz državnih sredstev; (iii) ukrep mora dajati prednost posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga; ter (iv) ukrepi morajo izkrivljati konkurenco in vplivati na trgovino med pogodbenicami.
The measure must confer on recipients an economic advantage which is not received in the normal course of business.
Ukrep mora prejemnikom prinesti gospodarsko ugodnost, ki je ne bi bili deležni pri običajnem poteku poslovanja.
Under the Wood Scheme the Norwegian authorities award financial grants to companies, authorities, business associations, unions, etc. which can contribute to the objectives of the scheme.
Norveški organi v okviru Lesne sheme dodeljujejo finančne subvencije podjetjem, organom, podjetniškim združenjem, združenjem itd., ki lahko prispevajo k ciljem iz sheme.