natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, the relevant cost for this investigation is the NOK [80-95] million increase from NOK 700 million to NOK [approximately 800] million.
Vendar ta trditev ni pomembna za sklop dejstev, ki jih mora Nadzorni organ upoštevati v zvezi z obravnavanim primerom.
This represents an increase of approximately […] %.
Nadzorni organ poudarja, da morajo norveški organi dokazati, da so pogoji za odstopanje od člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP izpolnjeni [49].
Based on the information provided, as described in recital 22 above, the cost increases stemmed from: adaptations of existing machinery, adaptations of three existing furnaces, adaptations of smoke ducts, installations in the turbine building and other buildings, longer production shortfalls than expected, and finalisation of the work and the installations.
Dejstva in utemeljitve, ki so jih predložili norveški organi (in podjetje Finnfjord), Nadzornega organa niso prepričali, da ima priglašena pomoč podjetja IN spodbujevalni učinek ali da je nujna.
These represent the types of cost increases that the company would be expected to take into account when planning for this type of project, and constitute the normal business risk of the economic activity at issue.
Nadzorni organ je na podlagi navedenega sklenil, da priglašena pomoč, ki jo je podjetju Finnfjord dodelilo podjetje IN, nima spodbujevalnega učinka in ni nujna.
They cannot be considered to be caused by external factors and do not appear unforeseeable in nature.
Ker pomoč že samo iz teh razlogov ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP, Nadzorni organ ne bo ocenil primernosti niti sorazmernosti pomoči.
The case at hand can therefore be distinguished from the Helguvík Aluminium Smelter case [48], referred to by Finnfjord.
Sklepna ugotovitev – pomoč ni združljiva
In that case the aid beneficiary had difficulties in obtaining financing during the exceptional 2008 financial crisis in Iceland, a circumstance that can rightly be classified as an unforeseeable external factor.
Nadzorni organ je na podlagi informacij, ki so jih predložili norveški organi, sklenil, da predlaganih 16 milijonov NOK gotovinske dotacije, ki jo je podjetje IN dodelilo podjetju Finnfjord, pomeni državno pomoč v smislu člena 61(1) Sporazuma EGP.
On the basis of the above, it is the view of the Authority that what the Norwegian authorities are proposing with the notified aid measure is to compensate Finnfjord for the normal business risk of the project that it undertook.
Sklenil je, da ta pomoč ni združljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
The Authority acknowledges that the outcome of its assessment may potentially have been different had the Norwegian authorities, instead of proposing two fixed amount aid disbursements (from Enova and then later from IN), granted aid to cover a certain percentage of the eligible costs of the project.
Zato norveški organi niso pooblaščeni, da jo dodelijo.
This would especially be the case when the scope of the unforeseeable additional costs is substantial and linked to the fact that the project is innovative and the fact that the costs thereby, by their very nature are difficult to estimate in advance.
Nadzorni organ poziva norveške organe, da kopijo te odločbe nemudoma posredujejo podjetju Finnfjord
However, this contention is not relevant for the set of facts that the Authority faces in the case at hand.
SPREJEL NASLEDNJO ODLOČBO:
The Authority stresses that it is up to the Norwegian authorities to demonstrate that the conditions for the derogation from Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement are satisfied [49].
Člen 1
The facts and arguments presented by the Norwegian authorities (and Finnfjord) have not convinced the Authority that the notified aid from IN has incentive effect or that it is necessary.
Neposredna nepovratna sredstva v višini 16 milijonov NOK, ki so bila dodeljena podjetju Finnfjord in ki so jih norveški organi priglasili 26. junija 2013, so nezdružljiva z delovanjem Sporazuma EGP.
On the basis of the above, the Authority has concluded that notified aid to Finnfjord from IN lacks incentive effect and that it is not necessary.
Zato se ne smejo dodeliti.
As the aid for those reasons alone is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement, the Authority will not assess the appropriateness of the aid nor its proportionality.
Formalni postopek preiskave se zaključi.
Conclusion — the aid is not compatible
Člen 2
Based on the information submitted by the Norwegian authorities, the Authority has concluded that the proposed NOK 16 million cash grant from IN to Finnfjord constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Ta odločba je naslovljena na Kraljevino Norveško.
The Authority has concluded that this aid is not compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Člen 3
Consequently, the Norwegian authorities are not authorised to implement it.
Besedilo te odločbe v angleškem jeziku je edino verodostojno.
The Authority requests the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this decision to Finnfjord immediately.
V Bruslju, 8. aprila 2015
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Za Nadzorni organ Efte
The NOK 16 million direct grant to Finnfjord notified by the Norwegian authorities on 26 June 2013 is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Članica kolegija
It may therefore not be implemented.
Ta nezaupna različica odločbe ne vključuje informacij, za katere velja obveznost varovanja poslovne skrivnosti.
The formal investigation procedure is hereby closed.
Izključene informacije so označene z […].
Article 2
Kjer so izključene številke, je naveden razpon zadevnih številk, če je to primerno.
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Norway.
UL C 278, 22.9.2011, str. 6, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 51, 22.9.2011, str. 1.
Article 3
Dogodki št. 676810, št. 676812, št. 676814–676816, št. 676819, št. 676822, št. 676823, št. 676825–676827, št. 676829 in št. 676832–676834.
Only the English language version of this decision is authentic.
Dogodek št. 677212.
Done at Brussels, 8 April 2015.
Dogodki št. 680603–680605 in št. 680866–680868.
For the EFTA Surveillance Authority
Dogodek št. 681073.
President
Dogodki št. 683806, št. 683807, št. 683809, št. 683810, št. 683813, št. 683814, št. 683817 in št. 683819.
College Member
Dogodek št. 686086.
In this non-confidential version of the decision, information covered by the obligation of professional secrecy has been taken out.
Dogodek št. 700230.
Where information has been taken out, this is marked with […].
UL C 108, 10.4.2014, str. 2, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 22, 10.4.2014, str. 19.
Where figures have been excluded, a range within which the figure exists, has, where appropriate, been indicated.
Dopis podjetja Finnfjord, brez datuma, ki ga je Nadzorni organ registriral 16. aprila 2014 (dogodek št. 705906).
OJ C 278, 22.9.2011, p. 6 and EEA Supplement No 51, 22.9.2011, p. 1.
Dogodek št. 708022.
Events Nos 676810, 676812, 676814-676816, 676819, 676822, 676823, 676825-676827, 676829 and 676832-676834.
Dogodek št. 710453.
Event No 677212.
Dogodki št. 723413–723421 in št. 723424.
Events Nos 680603-680605 and 680866-680868.
Dogodek št. 725001.
Event No 681073.
Dogodki št. 726975–726980 in št. 726985.
Events Nos 683806, 683807, 683809, 683810, 683813, 683814, 683817 and 683819.
Dogodek št. 726981.
Event No 686086.
Dogodek št. 729928.
Event No 700230.
V norveščini: Statsforetak.
OJ C 108, 10.4.2014, p. 2 and EEA Supplement No 22, 10.4.2014, p. 19.
Podjetje Enova je organizirano v skladu z Zakonom št. 71 o državnih podjetjih, ki je bil sprejet 30. avgusta 1991.
Letter from Finnfjord, undated, registered by the Authority on 16 April 2014 (Event No 705906).
Odločba nadzornega organa EFTA št. 125/06/COL z dne 3. maja 2006 v zvezi z norveškim energetskim skladom (Norveška) (UL L 189, 17.7.2008, str. 36), in Dopolnilo EGP št. 43, 17.7.2008, str. 1.
Event No 708022.
UL C 314, 27.10.2011, str. 4, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 58, 27.10.2011, str. 2.
Event No 710453.
Razpis za pomoč v okviru sheme energetskega sklada je opisan v odstavkih 27–36 Odločbe št. 248/11/COL Nadzornega organa (navedena zgoraj).
Events Nos 723413-723421 and 723424.
Glej odstavek 37 Odločbe št. 248/11/COL Nadzornega organa (navedena zgoraj).
Event No 725001.
Na voljo na spletišču podjetja Finnfjord: http://www.finnfjord.no/weve_got_the_power.
Events Nos 726975-726980 and 726985.
Dopis norveških organov z dne 18. septembra 2013 (dogodek št. 683806).
Event No 726981.
Prevod Nadzornega organa: „Eventuelle tilskudd/lån fra Enova og Innovasjon Norge, vil gå til direkte reduksjon av omsøkte likviditetslån.“
Event No 729928.
Po navedbah podjetja IN: „Ko je podjetje Finnfjord /…/ zaprosilo za financiranje v višini [80–95] milijonov NOK, je [banka SNN] že odobrila posojilo v enakem znesku, vendar pod zavarovalnimi pogoji, ki za [podjetje IN] niso bili sprejemljivi“; dopis podjetja IN Nadzornemu organu z dne 18. septembra 2013, str. 12.
In Norwegian: Statsforetak.
Norwegian Inter Bank Offered Rate (norveška ponujena medbančna obrestna mera).
Enova is organised in accordance with Act No 71 of 30.8.1991 on state enterprises.
To pomoč je Nadzorni organ odobril z Odločbo št. 304/13/COL (UL C 330, 14.11.2013, str. 7, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 63, 14.11.2013, str. 5).
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 125/06/COL of 3 May 2006 regarding the Norwegian Energy Fund (Norway) (OJ L 189, 17.7.2008, p. 36) and EEA Supplement No 43, 17.7.2008, p. 1.
UL L 144, 10.6.2010, str. 1, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 29, 10.6.2010, str. 1.
OJ C 314, 27.10.2011, p. 4 and EEA Supplement No 58, 27.10.2011, p. 2.
Odločba št. 344/09/COL Helguvík Aluminium Smelter (UL C 294, 3.12.2009, str. 17, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 64, 3.12.2009, str. 10).
The competition for aid under the Energy Fund Scheme is described in the Authority's Decision No 248/11/COL (cited above), paragraphs 27-36.
Med drugim Odločba Nadzornega organa št. 503/08/COL, Test Centre Mongstad (UL C 297, 20.11.2008, str. 11, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 69, 20.11.2008, str. 2), in Sklep Komisije v zadevi N 117/2007, Dekontaminacija obrata „Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH“ s strani podjetja „57 Profi-Start GmbH“ ( UL C 275, 16.11.2007, str. 2).
See the Authority's Decision No 248/11/COL (cited above), paragraph 37.
Kot je opisano v Odločbi Nadzornega organa št. 39/11/COL (navedena zgoraj).
Available on Finnfjord's website: http://www.finnfjord.no/weve_got_the_power
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 800/2008 z dne 6. avgusta 2008 o razglasitvi nekaterih vrst pomoči za združljive s skupnim trgom z uporabo členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe (UL L 214, 9.8.2008, str. 3), vključena v točko 1j Priloge XV k Sporazumu EGP.Glej člen 6(1)(b) skupaj s členom 7(1) takrat veljavne uredbe o splošnih skupinskih izjemah.Člen 6(1)(b) določa: „Ta uredba se ne uporablja za nobeno individualno pomoč, bodisi dodeljeno kot ad hoc pomoč bodisi na podlagi sheme, katere bruto ekvivalent dotacije presega naslednje pragove /…/ (b) pomoč za naložbe za varstvo okolja: 7,5 milijona EUR na podjetje in na naložbeni projekt;“.
Letter from the Norwegian authorities dated 18 September 2013 (Event No 683806).
Člen 7(1) določa: „Pri določanju, ali se spoštujejo pragovi za posamično priglasitev iz člena 6 in največja intenzivnost pomoči iz Poglavja II, se upošteva skupni znesek ukrepov javne podpore za dejavnost ali projekt, ki prejema pomoč, ne glede na to, ali se ta podpora financira iz lokalnih, regionalnih, nacionalnih virov ali virov Skupnosti.“
Translation by the Authority: ‘Eventuelle tilskudd/lån fra Enova og Innovasjon Norge, vil gå til direkte reduksjon av omsøkte likviditetslån.’
Še neobjavljeno v UL ali Dopolnilu EGP, vendar je na voljo na spletni strani Nadzornega organa: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/.
That aid was approved by the Authority by Decision No 304/13/COL (OJ C 330, 14.11.2013, p. 7 and EEA Supplement No 63, 14.11.2013, p. 5).
Nadzorni organ navaja, da bo uporabljal smernice EAG za pomoč, dodeljeno na podlagi odobrenih shem pomoči, kadar bo pozvan, da se odloči po začetku veljavnosti smernic EEAG.
OJ L 144, 10.6.2010, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 29, 10.6.2010, p. 1.
Vendar po informacijah Nadzornega organa priglašena pomoč v obravnavanem primeru ni dodeljena na podlagi sheme pomoči, ki jo je odobril Nadzorni organ.
Decision No 344/09/COL Helguvík Aluminium Smelter (OJ C 294, 3.12.2009, p. 17 and EEA Supplement No 64, 3.12.2009, p. 10).
V točki 14(2) smernic EEAG je „energetska učinkovitost“ opredeljena kot količina prihranjene energije, določeno z meritvijo in/ali oceno porabe pred izvedbo ukrepa za izboljšanje energetske učinkovitosti in po njej, ob zagotovljenih normalnih zunanjih pogojih, ki vplivajo na porabo energije.
Inter alia, the Authority's Decision No 503/08/COL Test Centre Mongstad (OJ C 297, 20.11.2008, p. 11 and EEA Supplement No 69, 20.11.2008, p. 2) and the Commission Decision in Case N 117/2007 Decontamination of the site ‘Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH’ by ‘57 Profi-Start GmbH’ ( OJ C 275, 16.11.2007, p. 2).
Točki 139 in 44 smernic EEAG.
Case E-6/98 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [1999] Ct.
Glej tudi točke 171–173 in 27–29 smernic EAG.
Rep. 76, paragraph 59; Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission EU:C:1980:209, paragraph 11 where it is stated that ‘When State financial aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other undertakings competing in intra-Community trade the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid’.
Točka 44 smernic EEAG.
As described in the Authority's Decision No 39/11/COL (cited above).
Glej tudi točko 142 smernic EAG.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 3), incorporated into point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement.See Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(1) of the then applicable GBER.Article 6(1)(b) reads as follows ‘This Regulation shall not apply to any individual aid, whether granted ad hoc or on the basis of a scheme, the gross grant equivalent of which exceeds the following thresholds (…) (b) investment aid for environmental protection: EUR 7,5 million per undertaking per investment project;’.
Točka 45 smernic EEAG.
Article 7(1) reads as follows: ‘In determining whether the individual notification thresholds laid down in Article 6 and the maximum aid intensities laid down in Chapter II are respected, the total amount of public support measures for the aided activity or project shall be taken into account, regardless of whether that support is financed from local, regional, national or Community sources.’
Glej tudi točko 143 smernic EAG.
Not yet published in the OJ or the EEA Supplement, but available on the Authority's website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/
Zadeva T-162/06, Kronoply proti Komisiji, EU:T:2009:2, točka 85.
Point 237 of the EEAG.
Potrjeno v pritožbenem postopku v zadevi C-117/09 P, Kronoply proti Komisiji, EU:C:2010:370.
Point 238 of the EEAG.
Zadeva T-162/06, Kronoply proti Komisiji, EU:T:2009:2, točka 88.
The Authority notes that it will apply the EAG to aid awarded on the basis of approved aid schemes when it is called upon to take a decision after the EEAG became applicable.
Naveden zgoraj.
In the case at hand however, it is the Authority's understanding that the notified aid is not granted on the basis an aid scheme approved by the Authority.
Zadeva C-106/09 P, Komisija proti Government of Gibraltar in Združenemu kraljestvu, EU:C:2011:732, točka 147.
In Point 14(2) of the EEAG, ‘energy-efficiency’ is defined as an amount of saved energy determined by measuring and/or estimating consumption before and after implementation of an energy-efficiency improvement measure, whilst ensuring normalisation for external conditions that affect energy consumption.
Zadeva C-372/97, Italija proti Komisiji, EU:C:2004:234, točka 81.
Points 139 and 44 of the EEAG.
Zadeva C-364/90, Italija proti Komisiji, EU:C:1993:157, točka 20.
See also Points 171-173 of the EAG as well as its points 27-29.
Zadeva T-68/03, Olympiaki Aeroporia Ypiresies AE proti Komisiji, EU:T:2007:253, točka 34.
Point 44 of the EEAG.
Glede na sporočilo za medije podjetja Finnfjord [25] je sistem za energijsko predelavo začel delovati 30. oktobra 2012.
See also Point 142 of the EAG.
Podjetje Enova je končno poročilo podjetja Finnfjord odobrilo 22. novembra 2012.
Point 45 of the EEAG.
Turbina je bila naročena 7. januarja 2011.
See also Point 143 of the EAG.
Pravno zavezujoča pogodba za turbino je bila sklenjena 23. februarja 2011.
Case T-162/06 Kronoply v Commission EU:T:2009:2, para.
To zvišanje stroškov je upravni odbor podjetja Finnfjord obravnaval na seji dne 19. junija 2012.
85.
Norveški organi niso pojasnili, zakaj skupni ocenjeni stroški v višini 700 milijonov NOK, sporočeni v poročilu o napredku z dne 29. junija 2012, niso bili prilagojeni glede na skupno zvišanje stroškov za [10–15] milijonov NOK ([…]).
Upheld on appeal Case C-117/09 P Kronoply v Commission EU:C:2010:370.
Podjetje Finnfjord je paket financiranja v višini [80–95] milijonov NOK formaliziralo in sprejelo na podlagi dopolnilnega usklajevalnega sporazuma, ki so ga 12. decembra 2012 podpisali banka SNN ter podjetji IN in Finnfjord.
Case T-162/06 Kronoply v Commission EU:T:2009:2, para.
Ta sporazum, katerega namen je bil ureditev odnosa med zadevnimi tremi strankami, je vključeval posojilno pogodbo med podjetjem Finnfjord in banko SNN, sklenjeno 12. decembra 2012, ter posojilno pogodbo med podjetjema Finnfjord in IN, sklenjeno 10. decembra 2012.
88.
Nadzorni organ na podlagi predloženih informacij in dokazov meni, da podjetje Finnfjord po februarju 2011 in do dokončanja projekta oktobra 2012 ni resnično razmišljalo o zaustavitvi, zmanjšanju obsega ali prekinitvi projekta.
Cited above.
Ob upoštevanju sklepov seje upravnega odbora z dne 25. septembra 2012 se zdi, da podjetje zaradi previsokih stroškov ni resno razmišljalo o možnosti zaustavitve ali odložitve projekta v celoti ali delno ali možnosti zmanjšanja njegovega obsega.
Case C-106/09 P Commission v Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom EU:C:2011:732, para.
Sodba sodišča Efte z dne 20. maja 1999 v zadevi E-6/98, Norveška proti Nadzornemu organu Efte, Recueil, št. 76, točka 59; Zadeva 730/79, Philip Morris proti Komisiji, EU:C:1980:209, točka 11, kjer je navedeno: „Če državna finančna pomoč okrepi položaj podjetja v primerjavi z drugimi podjetji, ki konkurirajo v trgovini v Skupnosti, je treba slednja obravnavati, kot da je navedena pomoč vplivala nanje“.
No 111/15/COL
št. 111/15/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 311/13/COL [2016/1419]
o spremembi seznama iz točke 39 dela 1.2 poglavja I Priloge I k Sporazumu o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, ki navaja mejne kontrolne točke v Islandiji in na Norveškem, odobrene za veterinarske preglede živih živali in živalskih proizvodov iz tretjih držav, ter o razveljavitvi Odločbe Nadzornega organa Efte št. 311/13/COL [2016/1419]
Having regard to point (5)(b) of the Introductory Part of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement,
ob upoštevanju točke 5(b) uvodnega dela poglavja I Priloge I k Sporazumu EGP,
Having regard to the Act referred to at point 4 of Part 1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries [1]), as amended and adapted to the EEA Agreement by the sectoral adaptations referred to in Annex I to that Agreement, and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju akta iz točke 4 dela 1.1 poglavja I Priloge I k Sporazumu EGP (Direktiva Sveta 97/78/ES z dne 18. decembra 1997 o določitvi načel, ki urejajo organizacijo veterinarskih pregledov proizvodov, ki vstopajo v Skupnost iz tretjih držav [1]), kakor je bil spremenjen in prilagojen Sporazumu EGP s sektorskimi prilagoditvami iz Priloge I k navedenemu sporazumu, zlasti člena 6(2) akta,
Having regard to the Act referred to at point 111 of Part 1.2 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement (Commission Decision 2001/812/EC of 21 November 2001 laying down the requirements for the approval of border inspection posts responsible for veterinary checks on products introduced into the Community from third countries [2]), as amended, and in particular Article 3(5) thereof,
ob upoštevanju akta iz točke 111 dela 1.2 poglavja I Priloge I k Sporazumu EGP (Odločba Komisije 2001/812/ES z dne 21. novembra 2001 o zahtevah za odobritev mejnih kontrolnih točk, odgovornih za veterinarske preglede proizvodov, ki so vneseni v Skupnost iz tretjih držav [2]), kakor je bil spremenjen, in zlasti člena 3(5) akta,
as adapted to the EEA Agreement by point 4(d) of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement and Articles 1(2) and 3 of Protocol 1 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,
kakor je bil Sporazumu EGP prilagojen s točko 4(d) Protokola 1 k Sporazumu EGP ter členoma 1(2) in 3 Protokola 1 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču,
By letter of 19 January 2015 (Doc No 742451, IS ref.
Z dopisom z dne 19. januarja 2015 (dok. št. 742451, IS ref.
Mast14090047/0.2.7.0), the Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority (MAST) informed the Authority that the border inspection post Húsavik (IS HUS 1) had been closed.
Mast14090047/0.2.7.0) je islandski organ za nadzor hrane in veterinarski nadzor (v nadaljnjem besedilu: MAST) obvestil Nadzorni organ, da je bila mejna kontrolna točka Húsavik (IS HUS 1) zaprta.
MAST therefore requested that the border inspection post be removed from the lists of border inspection posts in Iceland and Norway agreed for veterinary checks on live animals and animal products from third countries.
MAST je zato zahteval, da se mejna kontrolna točka črta s seznama mejnih kontrolnih točk v Islandiji in na Norveškem, odobrenih za veterinarske preglede živih živali in živalskih proizvodov iz tretjih držav.
According to Directive 97/78/EC, the Authority shall draw up and publish a list of approved border inspection posts which may subsequently be amended or supplemented to reflect changes in the national lists.
Nadzorni organ v skladu z Direktivo 97/78/ES sestavi in objavi seznam odobrenih mejnih kontrolnih točk, ki se lahko naknadno spremeni ali dopolni, da se upoštevajo spremembe nacionalnih seznamov.
The current list of approved border inspection posts was adopted by the Authority on 17 July 2013 by Decision No 311/13/COL.
Nadzorni organ je veljavni seznam odobrenih mejnih kontrolnih točk sprejel 17. julija 2013 z Odločbo št. 311/13/COL.
It is therefore the Authority's obligation to amend the list of border inspection posts in Iceland and Norway and to publish a new list, reflecting the change concerning Húsavik border inspection post.
Zato mora Nadzorni organ spremeniti seznam mejnih kontrolnih točk v Islandiji in na Norveškem ter objaviti nov seznam, iz katerega bo razvidna sprememba v zvezi z mejno kontrolno točko Húsavik.
The Authority, by its Decision No 65/15/COL, referred the matter to the EFTA Veterinary and Phytosanitary Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
Nadzorni organ je s svojo Odločbo št. 65/15/COL predložil zadevo veterinarskemu in fitosanitarnemu odboru Efte, ki pomaga Nadzornemu organu Efte.
Accordingly, the draft measures are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee.
Zato je osnutek ukrepov v skladu z mnenjem odbora.