Akty Prawne
Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej - Seria C
Dz.U.UE.C.2016.236.29

Zaproszenie do zgłaszania uwag zgodnie z art. 1 ust. 2 w części I protokołu 3 do Porozumienia między państwami EFTA w sprawie ustanowienia Urzędu Nadzoru i Trybunału Sprawiedliwości dotyczących potencjalnej pomocy państwa dla Hurtigruten ASA na podstawie umowy świadczenia usług przewozu przybrzeżnego na lata 2012-2019.

Zaproszenie do zgłaszania uwag zgodnie z art. 1 ust. 2 w części I protokołu 3 do Porozumienia między państwami EFTA w sprawie ustanowienia Urzędu Nadzoru i Trybunału Sprawiedliwości dotyczących potencjalnej pomocy państwa dla Hurtigruten ASA na podstawie umowy

świadczenia usług przewozu przybrzeżnego na lata 2012-2019

(2016/C 236/11)

(Dz.U.UE C z dnia 30 czerwca 2016 r.)

Decyzją nr 490/15/COL z dnia 9 grudnia 2015 r., zamieszczoną w autentycznej wersji językowej na stronach następujących po niniejszym streszczeniu, Urząd Nadzoru EFTA wszczął postępowanie na mocy art. 1 ust. 2 w części I protokołu 3 do Porozumienia pomiędzy państwami EFTA w sprawie ustanowienia Urzędu Nadzoru i Trybunału Sprawiedliwości. Władze Norwegii otrzymały stosowną informację wraz z kopią wyżej wymienionej decyzji.

Urząd Nadzoru EFTA wzywa niniejszym państwa EFTA, państwa członkowskie UE oraz inne zainteresowane strony do zgłaszania uwag w sprawie omawianego środka w terminie jednego miesiąca od daty publikacji niniejszego zaproszenia na poniższy adres:

Urząd Nadzoru EFTA

Rejestr

Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35

1040 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Otrzymane uwagi zostaną przekazane władzom norweskim. Zainteresowane strony zgłaszające uwagi mogą wystąpić z odpowiednio uzasadnionym pisemnym wnioskiem o objęcie ich tożsamości klauzulą poufności.

STRESZCZENIE

Kontekst

Spółka Hurtigruten ASA (Hurtigruten) świadczy usługi przewozowe polegające na kombinowanym transporcie pasażer-sko-towarowym wzdłuż wybrzeża Norwegii na odcinku z Bergen do Kirkenes.

W dniu 13 kwietnia 2011 r. - po przeprowadzeniu procedury przetargowej - ze spółką Hurtigruten podpisano umowę o świadczenie przybrzeżnych usług przewozowych na odcinku z Bergen do Kirkenes na okres od dnia 1 stycznia 2012 r. do dnia 31 grudnia 2019 r. Na podstawie tej umowy spółka Hurtigruten odbywa przez cały rok codzienne rejsy, zawijając po drodze do 32 określonych portów pośrednich między Bergen a Kirkenes. Na trasie Tromsø-Kirkenes i Kirkenes-Tromsø spółka jest również zobowiązana do świadczenia usług przewozu towarowego. Usługi te są świadczone zgodnie z pewnymi wymogami dotyczącymi pojemności rejestrowej statku określonymi w umowie. Statki wykorzystywane do żeglugi przybrzeżnej muszą mieć pojemność do przewozu co najmniej 320 pasażerów, co najmniej 120 koi pasażerskich w kabinach i możliwość przewozu w ładowni co najmniej 150 europalet o standardowych wymiarach. Statki muszą także spełniać wymogi techniczne i prawne opisane w części 4.4 specyfikacji istotnych warunków zamówienia.

Za usługi świadczone przez tę spółkę władze norweskie wypłacają rekompensatę w łącznej wysokości 5 120 mln NOK za ośmioletni okres obowiązywania umowy.

Ocena pomocy państwa w odniesieniu do przyznanej rekompensaty

Kwestia, czy umowa zapewniała spółce Hurtigruten nienależną selektywną korzyść gospodarczą, jest jedynym kryterium dotyczącym pomocy państwa, które należy zbadać.

Selektywna korzyść gospodarcza spółki Hurtigruten

Urząd ocenił cztery kryteria określone w wyroku w sprawie Altmark 1 i stwierdził, że na obecnym etapie żadne z nich nie wydaje się być spełnione, a zatem spółce Hurtigruten została przyznana selektywna korzyść w rozumieniu art. 61 ust. 1 Porozumienia EOG.

Jeżeli chodzi o pierwsze kryterium dotyczące jasnej definicji obowiązku świadczenia usługi publicznej, Urząd ma wątpliwości, czy wymóg utrzymywania rezerwowej pojemności statku określony w części 4-2 umowy może być uznany przez Norwegię za usługę świadczoną w ogólnym interesie gospodarczym. Dlatego wzywa władze norweskie do przedstawienia obiektywnego uzasadnienia konieczności nałożenia obowiązku świadczenia usługi publicznej, przy jednoczesnym uwzględnieniu sezonowych wahań w komercyjnych przewozach pasażerskich.

W odniesieniu do drugiego kryterium oraz do tego, że parametry, w oparciu o które obliczana jest rekompensata, muszą być określone z góry w sposób obiektywny i przejrzysty, Urząd ma na tym etapie wątpliwości, czy wymóg utrzymywania rezerwowej pojemności statku jest powiązany z rzeczywistą liczbą pasażerów w kontekście świadczenia usługi publicznej. Nie opracowano, na przykład, żadnej obiektywnej i przejrzystej metody na potrzeby obliczenia z góry kosztu na pasażera/kilometr. Spółka Hurtigruten utworzyła odrębny budżet obejmujący całość kosztów i przychodów z tytułu wykonywania rejsów wynikających z obowiązku świadczenia usługi publicznej. Ta odrębna księgowość nie ma jednak na celu określania z góry parametrów rekompensaty, która powinna być bezpośrednio powiązana z rzeczywistymi stratami i kosztami (koszty pojemności rejestrowej i koszty w przeliczeniu na pasażera) poniesionymi przez spółkę Hurtigruten.

W odniesieniu do trzeciego warunku Urząd ma wątpliwości, czy władze norweskie zapewniły, by przyznana rekompensata nie przekraczała kwoty niezbędnej dla pokrycia całości lub części kosztów związanych z wykonywaniem obowiązku świadczenia usługi publicznej, przy jednoczesnym uwzględnieniu stosownych przychodów i rozsądnego zysku w związku z wykonywanymi zobowiązaniami.

Na tym etapie Urząd nie może wykluczyć, że spółce Hurtigruten przyznano nadmierną rekompensatę z tytułu świadczenia usługi publicznej. W związku z powyższym Urząd doszedł do poniższych wniosków:

W odniesieniu do czwartego kryterium, zgodnie z którym musi zostać wszczęte postępowanie przetargowe bądź postępowanie obejmujące test umożliwiający wyłonienie efektywnego operatora, Urząd - w odniesieniu do procedury przetargowej, w której wpłynęła jedynie jedna oferta, tzn. oferta spółki Hurtigruten - ma na tym etapie wątpliwości, czy procedura przetargowa w tej sprawie może być uznana za wystarczającą do zapewnienia usług "po najniższym koszcie dla danej społeczności". Jest to szczególnie istotne, ponieważ spółka Hurtigruten miała znaczną przewagę konkurencyjną, co wzmocniło jej pozycję w procedurze przetargowej, zważywszy na to, że była już w posiadaniu jednostek pływających dostosowanych do wymagań specyfikacji istotnych warunków zamówienia.

Ponadto według specyfikacji, o której mowa, świadczenie usługi publicznej obejmowało trzy warianty. Mogłoby to wskazywać na istnienie innych danych bądź kryteriów o różnej wadze dla poszczególnych rozwiązań. Ze względu na fakt, że takie dane nie zostały uwzględnione w dokumentacji przetargowej, Urząd ma wątpliwości, czy tak sporządzona oferta stanowiła zachętę dla potencjalnych oferentów (poza spółką Hurtigruten), którzy byliby skłonni wziąć udział w przetargu, zgodnie z wymogami dla trzech różnych wariantów i w celu realizacji innego wariantu niż ten, który został rzeczywiście wybrany.

Władze norweskie nie przedstawiły żadnych informacji na temat postępowania obejmującego test umożliwiający wyłonienie efektywnego operatora.

Ocena zgodności

Zgodność rekompensaty z tytułu świadczenia usług publicznych w transporcie morskim jest oceniana na podstawie art. 59 ust. 2 Porozumienia EOG w związku z zasadami ramowymi Urzędu dotyczącymi pomocy państwa w formie rekompensaty z tytułu świadczenia usług publicznych (zasady ramowe) 2 .

Zasady określone w niniejszych zasadach ramowych mają zastosowanie do rekompensaty z tytułu świadczenia usług publicznych wyłącznie w zakresie, w jakim stanowi ona pomoc państwa nieobjętą decyzją Komisji 2012/21/UE w sprawie stosowania art. 106 ust. 2 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej do pomocy państwa w formie rekompensaty z tytułu świadczenia usług publicznych, przyznawanej przedsiębiorstwom zobowiązanym do wykonywania usług świadczonych w ogólnym interesie gospodarczym 3 .

Urząd nie otrzymał od władz norweskich żadnych informacji dotyczących zgodności z kryteriami i ma na obecnym etapie wątpliwości, czy umowa, o której mowa, jest zgodna z funkcjonowaniem Porozumienia EOG.

Podsumowanie

W świetle powyższych zastrzeżeń Urząd podjął decyzję o wszczęciu formalnego postępowania wyjaśniającego zgodnie z art. 1 ust. 2 w części I protokołu 3 do Porozumienia między państwami EFTA w sprawie ustanowienia Urzędu Nadzoru i Trybunału Sprawiedliwości. Zainteresowane strony wzywa się do nadsyłania uwag w terminie jednego miesiąca od publikacji niniejszego zawiadomienia w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.

EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 490/15/COL

of 9 December 2015

opening the formal investigation procedure on the Coastal Agreement for Hurtigruten Maritime

Services 2012-2019

(Norway)

[NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSION]

The EFTA Surveillance Authority ('the Authority'),

HAVING REGARD to:

the Agreement on the European Economic Area ('the EEA Agreement'), in particular to Articles 59(2) and 61,

Protocol 26 to the EEA Agreement,

the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice ('the Surveillance and Court Agreement'), in particular to Article 24,

Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement ('Protocol 3'), in particular to Article 1 of Part I and Articles 4(4), 6 and 13 of Part II,

Whereas:

I. FACTS

1. Procedure

(7)

Following this tender procedure, and on the basis of a bid submitted on 8 November 2010, a contract for the procurement of services for the Bergen - Kirkenes coastal route for the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019 was signed with Hurtigruten on 13 April 2011. Under this contract, Hurtigruten shall perform daily sailings throughout the year with calls at 32 intermediate defined ports between Bergen and Kirkenes. For the Tromsø - Kirkenes and Kirkenes - Tromsø routes, freight transport shall also be provided. The services shall be operated in line with certain capacity and vessel requirements, as stipulated in the contract. Vessels used on the coastal route shall as a minimum have a passenger capacity for 320 passengers, berth capacity in cabins for 120 passengers and freight capacity for 150 euro pallets in a cargo hold with a normal load height. They shall also meet legal and technical requirements as indicated in section 4.4 of the tender specifications.

(8)

The maritime services for the Bergen - Kirkenes route are based on maximum fares as regards port-to-port passengers (i.e. public service passengers), which must be approved by the Norwegian authorities. According to the HA, '"[p]ort-to-port passengers" are passengers who purchase tickets for travelling on a chosen route in accordance with the normal tariff, with any supplement for cabins and/or meals at their option. Prices for supplementary services must correspond to published prices for the selected standard of cabin and meal. The overall price must in such cases equal the sum of the ticket price and individual prices of the selected supplementary services.' An approved fare is taken to mean the normal fares tariff that applied on this route on 1 October 2004, adjusted in line with the Consumer Price Index. Any subsequent changes to the normal tariff must be approved by the Norwegian authorities.

(9)

For other passengers, Hurtigruten is free to set its prices. According to the HA, '"[o]ther passenger" are those who are not "port-to-port passengers". In other words, they are passengers who purchase travel products for specific routes, defined by the supplier, and which include at least one overnight cabin stay and at least one meal on board, where the supplier has published a combined price for the items included and which cannot be broken down into the individual published prices for the same items, including that the passengers will not be entitled to defined discounts on the travel component of the product. Other passengers also include those purchasing a travel product, defined by the supplier, with at least the above-mentioned supplementary services at a combined price, specified per day, but where the passengers themselves select the route where these conditions apply.' The same applies to cabin and meal prices, as well as to freight transport.

(10)

For the services covered by the HA, the Norwegian authorities pay a total compensation of NOK 5120 million for the eight years' duration of the agreement, expressed in 2011 prices, in accordance with Statistics Norway's cost index for domestic sea transport. 6 The compensation allocation for each individual year is as follows:

Table 1 - Annual Compensation under the HA

2012	NOK 700 million
2013	NOK 683 million
2014	NOK 666 million
2015	NOK 649 million
2016	NOK 631 million
2017	NOK 614 million
2018	NOK 597 million
2019	NOK 580 million

(13)

The complainants' argument that Hurtigruten receives state aid in the form of overcompensation, violating thus Articles 61 and 59 of the EEA Agreement, is centred around the following allegations:

Hurtigruten continues to receive compensation for services that are not rendered:

Hurtigruten has cancelled all sailings to and from the port of Mehamn from 6 January 2014 onwards without any objective justification or professional verification, after having itself partially demolished the terminal quay in April 2012, which Hurtigruten was actually using to dock for over 20 months. At the same time, the corresponding compensation granted by the Norwegian authorities has not been reduced, enabling Hurtigruten to receive monthly cost savings amounting to NOK 314 500. As a result, both the second and third Altmark conditions would not be fulfilled. The second condition is not fulfilled because the Norwegian authorities have not established a framework or policy for objectively and professionally evaluating loss of service after technical or operational claims by the company, and have not engaged any agency to verify the contested claims. The third condition would not be fulfilled, according to the complainants, because Hurtigruten is paid full compensation for PSO routes where it enjoys a substantial cost reduction as a result of the interruption of the services.

Numerous complaints from several ports and regional authorities regarding frequent and arbitrary Hurtigruten cancellations have been dismissed by the Norwegian authorities and have not resulted in any reduction of the compensation. According to the complainants, certain ports are especially plagued by cancellations due to low passenger numbers and low profitability, especially during the winter season.

The complainants particularly question the force majeure definition of section 8 of the HA referring to 'extreme weather conditions' without the use of objective criteria. 9 They also refer to such conditions as not constituting force majeure in line with section 8 of the HA, which particularly states that '[o]bstacles that the contracting party should have considered upon entering into the agreement, or could reasonably be expected to avoid or circumvent, shall not be considered to constitute force majeure'. At the same time, the complainants question Hurtigruten's discretion to abuse the absolute sovereignty of the master of the ship, when justifying cancellations that are not due to scheduled maintenance or technical reasons pursuant to section 4-1(3) of the HA.

In conclusion, the complainants submit that the cancellations that do not result in any reduction of the compensation have an adverse effect on the performance of the PSO routes and do not fulfil the second and third Altmark conditions.

(16)

Concerning the allegations regarding Hurtigruten cancellations not resulting in any reduction of the compensation, the Norwegian authorities submit that the HA indeed foresees, in section 3, cancellations within the agreed quotas for technical reasons or cultural events, or due to extraordinary weather conditions in line with the force majeure clause of section 8, which do not lead to reductions in the compensation nor to liquidated damages. 11 It is submitted that the benefit gained by Hurtigruten in 2012 and 2013 by not having the compensation reduced in case of extreme weather conditions is significantly lower than a proportional part of the reduction in compensation of NOK [400 - 1200] million so far (i.e. the benefit was NOK [14 - 19] million in 2012 and around NOK [16 - 22] million in 2013).

(17)

As regards in particular the cancellations due to extreme weather conditions, the Norwegian authorities note that the guiding principle is the safety of the passengers, the crew and the ship, irrespective of whether such conditions are expected. Moreover, also in accordance with section 135 of the Norwegian Maritime Act of 24 June 1994 no. 39, the master of the vessel has the sole responsibility and absolute sovereignty when deciding to avoid servicing ports of call due to extreme weather conditions.

(20)

In reference to the cancellation of services to the port of Mehamn, the Norwegian authorities consider that the decision to leave out the port of Mehamn as from January 2014 and until the port was repaired, was a result of a risk assessment made by Hurtigruten, taking into account the challenging port and weather conditions in line with the force majeure provision of section 8 of the HA. The passengers were informed in advance and a land-based transport of cargo was also established between Mehamn and Kjøllefjord. The question of reduction of compensation must be assessed in line with the force majeure provision of section 8 of the HA, pursuant to the accounting and other reporting requirements of section 4-4 of the HA. The repairs of the port of Mehamn were completed on 9 September 2014, and Hurtigruten has resumed its sailing.

(23)

It is further stressed that the HA is a net contract, which means that Hurtigruten has the risk for costs and revenues during the period of the agreement and is therefore free to influence its costs, including the port fees, in such a way as to operate the service in the most cost efficient manner. The price adjustment clause of section 5-2 of the HA covers only the compensation under the HA. Any amendments of the port fees and charges to Hurtigruten do not thus lead to compensation reduction.

(24)

In this context, the Norwegian authorities point to the mechanism provided in section 7 of the HA for avoiding overcompensation under particular circumstances. This mechanism ensures that each of the parties may demand renegotiations concerning extraordinary adjustment of the compensation, a change in production or other measures, in the event of amendments to acts, regulations or statutory orders, which the parties could not have reasonably foreseen when signing the contract and which entail material extra costs or savings for the contract procuring the service.

(25)

The Norwegian authorities submit that the requirement of section 4-2, paragraph 1 of the HA for a minimum capacity is understood to mean that Hurtigruten is obliged to have sufficient capacity available for the public service passengers up to the set capacity requirements. On the other hand, Hurtigruten is allowed to sell tickets to other passengers e.g. cruise passengers, in order to avoid sailing with empty berths and to the extent that this does not prejudge the rights of the public service passengers. In any case, as submitted, it has seldom occurred that there is not enough capacity for the public service passengers as the vessels' capacity for other passengers is higher than the actual demand.

(28)

In this exercise, BDO distinguished between capacity costs, passenger costs, and costs relating to marketing and sales activities. Capacity costs were then allocated to the government-procured services on the basis of the share of capacity reserved by the government compared to the total capacity of the fleet, whereas passenger costs were allocated on the basis of actual passenger kilometres sailed by distance travellers over the total number of passenger kilometres for all travellers on the fleet. The marketing and sales costs were allocated to the government-procured services on the basis of the share of actual net passenger revenue relating to the PSO passengers compared to the total number of travellers.

(29)

[...]

II. ASSESSMENT

1. The presence of state aid

1.1 The concept of state aid

(30) Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement reads as follows:

'Save as otherwise provided in this Agreement, any aid granted by EC Member States, EFTA States or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Contracting Parties, be incompatible with the functioning of this Agreement.'

(34)

According to established case law, when the financial support granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared to other undertakings competing in intra-EEA trade, then there is at least a potential effect on trade between Contracting Parties and on competition 15 . In this regard, the Authority is of the view that any potential economic advantage granted to Hurtigruten through state resources would fulfil this condition. As the Authority stated in its Decision No 205/11/COL the market for domestic maritime services (maritime cabotage) 16 , within which Hurtigruten operates, was opened to EEA-wide competition in 1998 17 . Moreover, Hurtigruten is also engaged in the tourism sector, in particular through the offer of cruises/ round trips along the Norwegian coast. Other operators offer cruises along the same parts of the Norwegian coast 18 . Moreover, Hurtigruten also operates a number of cruises in various European States.

(37)

It follows from the Altmark judgment that where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, such a measure is not caught by Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. In the Altmark judgment, the Court of Justice held that compensation for public service obligations does not constitute state aid when four cumulative criteria are met:

iv.

Fourth, where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations.' 19

1.4.1 The first Altmark condition

(41)

However, according to the case law, PSOs may only be imposed if justified by the need to ensure adequate regular maritime transport services, which cannot be ensured by market forces alone. It is important for the national authorities therefore to demonstrate that there is a real public service need 22 . The Communication on the interpretation of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation confirms that '[i]t is for the Member States [...] to determine which routes require public service obligations. In particular, public service obligations may be envisaged for regular (scheduled) island cabotage services in the event of market failure to provide adequate services' 23 .

(43)

Based on the information provided to the Authority 24 , it appears however that in both 2012 and 2013, less than [10 - 30] per cent of the passenger capacity reserved for public service passengers was utilised. This would indicate that the compensation received by Hurtigruten for reserving capacity for PSO passengers in those two years vastly exceeded actual demand for PSO passenger services. Moreover, the BDO report shows that the capacity utilisation for commercial passengers amounted to [35 - 65] per cent and [35 - 65] per cent in 2012 and 2013 respectively. Given this level of spare capacity for commercial passengers (and the low level of capacity utilisation for PSO passengers), the Authority cannot exclude that a capacity reservation provision for PSO passengers may be unnecessary, especially during the winter season, where the utilisation by commercial passengers would naturally be much lower.

(45)

The Authority has not received any information on berth utilisation. As regards the cargo transportation for the Tromsø - Kirkenes - Tromsø route, this is not price regulated and according to section 4-3 of the HA, Hurtigruten has full freedom to set the fares. It is doubtful therefore whether the cargo transportation is in compliance with Article 4(2) of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation, which explicitly mentions the elements needed for an adequate definition of a PSO, i.e. among others the rates to be charged.

(51)

It is the view of the Norwegian authorities that this condition has been satisfied given that the compensation is calculated on the basis of the elements specified in Annex D to the tender specification, which provides the following:

Table 2 - The elements in the budget scheme for the public service

A: Total revenues distance passengers

B: Passengers cost distance passengers

C: Net passenger revenues (A+B)

D: Revenues from on board sales

E: Net revenues from goods and cars

F: Other revenues

G: Total own revenues (C+D+E+F)

H: Government procurement of service

I: Total revenue (G+H)

J: Safety crew

K: Oil and fuel

L: Repairs and maintenance

M: Port costs

N: Insurance costs

O: Depreciation own vessels/bareboat

P: Net financial costs

Q: Total capacity costs (J+K+L+M+N+P)

R: Cost of goods sold

S: Crew not included in the safety crew

T: Marketing costs and sales provision

U: Administration costs

V: Other costs

W: Total passenger costs (R+S+T+U+V)

X: Total costs public service (Q+W)

Y: Net result before taxes (I-X)

(55)

Hurtigruten, in compliance with the tender specifications, has established a separate budget incorporating all costs and revenues attributed to the PSO routes. According to section 4.9.2 of the tender specifications, this separate accounting aims at ensuring predictability of which cost additions/savings/extra revenues/shortfalls form the basis of any renegotiation, as provided for in sections 6 and 7 of the HA. A further aim is to document that the public procurement process does not entail any unlawful cross-subsidisation. The separate accounting however does not aim at establishing in advance the parameters of the compensation, which shall be directly linked to the actual losses and costs (capacity and passenger costs) incurred by Hurtigruten. 25 Instead, the HA has only fixed the annual compensation to be paid for the maritime services for each individual year from 2012 to 2019 based on a minimum commitment for passengers/kilometres per year, without this having any link to the fixed costs (i.e. the capacity costs).

(56)

In addition, although the compensation is based on the elements stipulated in table 2, as mentioned above, the Authority has not received any information as to how these costs have been calculated. For instance, sections 6 and 7 of the HA contain certain provisions on the adjustment of compensation in case of changes in production or in case of unforeseen events. Even though certain indications are provided, i.e. a calculation based on the costs and revenues ensuing from the changes in production or an aggregated calculation in the case of unforeseen events, the exact parameters of these adjustments are not known in advance and there are no limitations on how much extra compensation can be granted 26 .

(58)

In addition, section 4-1, item 3 of the HA, provides that '[o]mission of up to 10 days of operation in agreed production per ship per annum due to planned maintenance and unforeseen operational disruption linked to agreed production (off-hire) is considered to be proper fulfilment and shall not entail a deduction in the agreed remuneration in accordance with section 9-2'. The Authority fails to see how this loss in production is calculated and certified in advance in a transparent and objective manner. The 10 days ceiling appears arbitrary and as such does not appear to qualify as an objective estimate of provable loss (e.g. cancellations of service to the port of Mehamn).

(60)

Lastly, concerning Hurtigruten's attempts to negotiate lower port fees whilst the Norwegian authorities maintain the compensation at the same level, the Authority underlines that the amount of compensation awarded should be fully reflected in the parameters established in advance including a reasonable profit. As mentioned above, the Authority is of the preliminary view that no parameters have been established to calculate a reasonable profit margin. Therefore, any attempts by Hurtigruten to get lower prices on the port fees while maintaining the compensation at the same level would seem not to satisfy the second Altmark condition.

(63)

In this regard, the EFTA Court already held in the Hurtigruten case:

'If it is shown that the compensation paid to the undertakings operating the public service does not reflect the costs actually incurred by that undertaking for the purposes of that service, such a system does not satisfy the requirement that compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public services obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations' 28 .

(64)

Briefly, according to the complainants' arguments, presented in further detail in paragraph (13) above:

(65)

As regards the first point, the Authority reminds the Norwegian authorities that under the third Altmark condition, only the costs incurred in discharging the PSO shall be covered. Any compensation granted to cover costs outside the public service remit cannot be held to constitute compensation for PSO. Therefore, when the capacity (passengers and berth) for PSO passengers is sold to commercial cruise passengers, and given that the BDO report does not provide any information on the capacity utilisation to justify the opposite, it appears that Hurtigruten is paid twice for the same service, which would in principle constitute a form of overcompensation.

(66)

The Authority is conscious that the figures presented in the BDO report are annual figures and therefore correspond to average capacity utilisation throughout the year. Accordingly, there may be periods of the year where capacity utilisation for public service passengers is higher, and where it is indeed also necessary to have in place a capacity reservation mechanism. The Authority, however, cannot rule out that the mechanism used in the HA overcompensates Hurtigruten in that it does not take into account different (e.g. seasonal) levels of capacity utilisation during the year.

(67)

The Authority takes note of the travel guarantee subsequently introduced, as mentioned above in paragraph (26), to 'compensate' the public service passengers for their lost travel and correct any alleged overcompensa-tion. However, until the introduction of that travel guarantee, public service passengers appear at times to have been unable to benefit from the public service, although the costs were evidently covered by the compensation already granted to Hurtigruten. Also, at this stage it is not clear to the Authority whether the cost of providing a free travel without berth on the planned journey or a travel with berth on the next scheduled ship or alternative transport free of charge equals the compensation that Hurtigruten has received to cover the cost of public service berth capacity, which is sold to commercial cruise passengers. It appears therefore that such a mechanism, due to the limited (on average) capacity utilisation in both the PSO and cruise segment, is an ineffective and relatively costless service for Hurtigruten that does not offset the advantage gained through the excess capacity reservation, which is freely sold to cruise passengers.

(68)

Concerning the second point, as noted above in paragraph (13), and as evident from the Authority's Decision No 205/11/COL, the Norwegian authorities paid Hurtigruten a total compensation of NOK 1 899.7 million to carry out the same PSO routes during the period 2005-2012. More specifically, the annual compensation for the year 2011 amounted to NOK 236.8 million 29 . Taking into account that the compensation for 2012 under the current HA amounted to NOK 700 million, the Authority expresses its doubts as to whether the increase in compensation is justified under the HA. The Norwegian authorities claim that there have been considerable losses for Hurtigruten in the period 2005-2012 to justify the increase of the compensation. However, the Authority is of the preliminary view that due to the fact that the previous HA had not envisaged separation of accounts, it is not possible to determine whether these losses were caused by commercial or PSO activities. In any case, it is questionable how such a higher compensation can be justified, when the scope of the PSO remains the same as in the previous contract period (in terms of sailing frequency and number of ports served) and the capacity reservation has decreased from 400 passengers to 320 and from 150 berths to 120.

(70)

Particularly, section 8 of the HA provides for the operator to keep the compensation granted in case of interruptions of sailings due to events that constitute force majeure. It is generally accepted that the decision to avoid servicing ports of call due to extreme weather conditions lies with the master of the vessel. However, the Authority questions at this stage the fact that, as provided for in section 8 of the HA, '[...] any cancelled production ensuing from force majeure shall not be considered as a non-conformity in the production under section 4-1, item 3' and thus not lead to any reduction in the compensation.

(71)

On the basis of the information provided 30 , it appears to the Authority that the phenomenon of extreme weather condition constitutes a normality in the maritime business along the Norwegian coast. It might thus be considered as a foreseen event. However, it is not reflected as such in the compensation calculations. The compensation has been calculated as a lump sum ex ante for the whole contract period, without taking into account an objective estimate of a provable loss due to foreseen extreme weather conditions.

(72)

In reference to the cancellation of services to the port of Mehamn, which, according to the complainant, resulted in Hurtigruten receiving monthly cost savings at the amount of NOK 314 500 over a period of around 8 months, the Authority is not at this stage convinced by the Norwegian authorities' suggestion that this situation should be assessed in the context of the force majeure provision of the HA. According to the information provided by the complainants, the port was damaged in 2012 by Hurtigruten itself, which nevertheless continued serving the port until January 2014. Therefore, the Authority cannot see at this stage how this cancellation could be held to have taken place due to unforeseen events, which would entitle the operator to keep the compensation granted.

(73)

Finally, concerning the last point and Hurtigruten's attempts to negotiate lower port fees whilst the Norwegian authorities maintain the compensation at the same level, it should be noted that there should not be any over-compensation above the level of a reasonable profit. Therefore, a reduction in port fees should result in lower compensation, whereas higher port fees would respectively mean a higher compensation. In light of this, at this stage the Authority is of the opinion that any attempts by Hurtigruten to get better prices of the port fees while maintaining the compensation at the same level, would not ensure that overcompensation is excluded.

(74)

The Norwegian authorities point to section 7 of the HA as establishing a mechanism to avoid overcompensa-tion. Section 7, however, refers to unforeseen costs resulting from events that are independent of Hurtigruten's management decisions, such as amendments to acts, regulations or statutory orders. To claim compensation for such costs, it must be proved by the operator that those costs are genuinely incurred in the discharge of the PSO, and the costs must be well documented, so as to ensure that the ultimate compensation received by Hurtigruten does not exceed its actual costs. The Authority at this stage cannot see how section 7 of the HA can ensure that overcompensation is avoided.

(77)

Referring to the tender procedure carried out which resulted in only one bid, Hurtigruten's, the Norwegian authorities argue that the tender was designed in such a way as to attract more bidders. In this respect, it is argued that the tender was widened to include maritime services that would not run on a daily basis throughout the year and that the required minimum capacity was reduced from 400 to 320 passengers and from 150 to 120 berth bunks. Additionally, the deadline for submitting the bids was extended from 30 September until 8 November 2010 on request from an interested operator, whereas overall there was sufficient time allowed from the deadline for submitting bids (8 November 2010) until the date of commencement of the services (1 January 2013).

(78)

Despite the above arguments as well as the fact that subsequent negotiations took place between the Norwegian authorities and Hurtigruten, which resulted in a reduction of the compensation for the whole contract period in relation to the initial offer, see paragraph (15), the Authority at this stage doubts whether a tender procedure such as the one at issue, where only one bid is submitted, can be deemed sufficient to ensure 'the least cost to the community' 31 , for the reasons listed below.

(81)

However, the tender specifications do not provide any clarifications as to the criteria used to award the service. The Procurement Notice refers to the lowest price as the sole award criterion used for the service in question. Although, in itself the 'lowest price' criterion could satisfy the fourth Altmark condition, nevertheless in the case at hand, this reference is very abstract and cannot be assessed in isolation. The fact that there were three alternatives would indicate the existence of further information and/or weighting criteria among those alternatives. In view of the fact that such information was not included in the tender documents, the Authority doubts whether the tender as designed has provided incentives to potential bidders, apart from Hurtigruten, that would have been willing to bid in accordance with the requirements of the three different alternatives and for a different alternative than the one actually chosen (i.e. alternative 1).

(99)

The compatibility of the HA shall also be assessed against the following conditions as provided for by the Framework:

1 Sprawa C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH i Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg przeciwko Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Altmark), EU:C:2003:415, pkt 87-93.

2 Dostępne na stronie internetowej http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid-guidelines/Part-VI---Framework-for-state-aid-in-the-form-of-public-service-compensation.pdf.

3 Dz.U. L 7 z 11.1.2012, s. 3, wprowadzone do pkt 1h załącznika XV do Porozumienia EOG.

4 OJ L 175, 5.7.2012, p. 19 and EEA Supplement No 37, 5.7.2012, p. 1. See also Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 Hurtigruten [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 758, upholding the Authority's Decision.

5 See www.doffin.no.

6 If Statistics Norway's cost index is unavailable, Statistics Norway's Consumer Price Index would be used.

7 As mentioned in the Authority's Decision No 205/11/COL '[i]n addition to the service covered by the Hurtigruten Agreement, Hurtigruten is a commercial operator and offers round trips, excursions, and catering on the route Bergen - Kirkenes. Moreover, in connection with this route, Hurtigruten also provides transport services in the Geiranger fjord, outside the scope of the Hurtigruten Agreement. Furthermore, Hurtigruten operates a number of different cruises in different European states, Russia, Antarctica, Spitsbergen and Greenland', section 1.2.

8 Doc Nos 748323 and 715314.

9 The complainants point to the fact that in the call for tender for the 2005-2012 contract period force majeure as a result of extreme weather conditions was defined as wind speeds over 25 m/s (full storm). However, in the current HA, 'extreme weather conditions' are defined as 'conditions where ocean and/or wind conditions are such that the ship's captain judges it to be unsafe to continue the sailing and/or arrive at a specific port'. This, according to the complainants, has resulted in the majority of the cancellations during the period 2012-2013 in select ports to have occurred at wind conditions below 15 m/s.

10 Doc Nos 723002 and 742652.

11 The Norwegian authorities submit that according to Hurtigruten's reports, ships were out of production for 171 operating days in 2012 and 186.7 operating days in 2013 due to maintenance and unforeseen operational disturbances, for 5 operating days in 2012 and 12.8 operating days in 2013 due to the ships being used for cultural or similar activities, and finally for 87 operating days in 2012 and 99.8 operating days in 2013 due to extraordinary weather conditions.

12 On 12 December 2014, Hurtigruten paid back to the Norwegian authorities the amount of NOK [24 - 32] million due to cancellations in 2012 and 2013.

13 The previous NPA of 1984 distinguished between port fees and service charges. There were several different port fees, e.g. quay fees covering quay costs, approach fees covering costs of keeping the fairway and port approach open and safe, passenger fees covering costs of special passenger facilities etc. Ports could additionally levy service charges for services they sold, which were not covered by the port fees.

14 BDO Memo, 'An assessment of Hurtigruten's reported income statements', Oslo 14 January 2015, p. 7.

15 Judgment in Philip Morris Holland BV v Commission, 730/79, EU:C:1980:209, paragraph 11; judgment in Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia v Commission, T-288/97, EU:T:2001:115, paragraph 41; and judgment in Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH (Altmark), C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415, paragraph 75.

16 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7).

17 The maritime cabotage regulation was incorporated at point 53a in Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (OJ L 30, 5.2.1998, p. 42).

18 Norwegian Cruise Line, MSC Cruises, Royal Caribbean, Holland America Line, etc.

19 Paragraphs 87-93.

20 Available at http://www.eftasurv.int/?1=1&showLinkID=15132&1=1.

21 Available at http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid-guidelines/Part-VI---Compensation-granted-for-the-provision-of-services-of-general-economic-interest.pdf.

22 Judgment in Alanir and others, C-205/1999, EU:C:2001:107, paragraph 34.

23 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions updating and rectifying the Communication on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), COM(2003) 595 final, 22.12.2003, section 5.2.

24 BDO Memo, page 7.

25 Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 Hurtigruten [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 758, paragraph 117.

26 Ibid, paragraphs 128-129.

27 Ibid, paragraph 127.

28 Paragraph 170. See for comparison, judgment in Enirisorse, C-34/01 to C-38/01, EU:C:2003:640, paragraphs 37-40.

29 Section 2.

30 See footnote 11.

31 Paragraph 68, http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid-guidelines/Part-VI---Compensation-granted-for-the-provision-of-services-of-general-economic-interest.pdf.

32 For background information on the Hurtigruten Agreement, see Decision No 205/11/COL on the Supplementary Agreement on the Hurtigruten service, section 2, OJ L 175, 5.7.2012, p. 19 and EEA Supplement No 37, 5.7.2012, p. 1.

33 Available at http://www.eftasurv.int/media/state-aid-guidelines/Part-VI---Framework-for-state-aid-in-the-form-of-public-service-compensation.pdf.

34 OJ L 7, 11.1.2012, p. 3, incorporated at point 1h of Annex XV of the EEA Agreement.

35 Judgment in Italy v Commission, C-364/90, EU:C:1993:157, paragraph 20.

36 See also paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Framework for alternative calculation methods.

Zmiany w prawie

ZUS: Renta wdowia - wnioski od stycznia 2025 r.

Od Nowego Roku będzie można składać wnioski o tzw. rentę wdowią, która dotyczy ustalenia zbiegu świadczeń z rentą rodzinną. Renta wdowia jest przeznaczona dla wdów i wdowców, którzy mają prawo do co najmniej dwóch świadczeń emerytalno-rentowych, z których jedno stanowi renta rodzinna po zmarłym małżonku. Aby móc ją pobierać, należy jednak spełnić określone warunki.

Grażyna J. Leśniak 20.11.2024

Zmiany w składce zdrowotnej od 1 stycznia 2026 r. Rząd przedstawił założenia

Przedsiębiorcy rozliczający się według zasad ogólnych i skali podatkowej oraz liniowcy będą od 1 stycznia 2026 r. płacić składkę zdrowotną w wysokości 9 proc. od 75 proc. minimalnego wynagrodzenia, jeśli będą osiągali w danym miesiącu dochód do wysokości 1,5-krotności przeciętnego wynagrodzenia w sektorze przedsiębiorstw w czwartym kwartale roku poprzedniego, włącznie z wypłatami z zysku, ogłaszanego przez prezesa GUS. Będzie też dodatkowa składka w wysokości 4,9 proc. od nadwyżki ponad 1,5-krotność przeciętnego wynagrodzenia, a liniowcy stracą możliwość rozliczenia zapłaconych składek w podatku dochodowym.

Grażyna J. Leśniak 18.11.2024

Prezydent podpisał nowelę ustawy o rozwoju lokalnym z udziałem lokalnej społeczności

Usprawnienie i zwiększenie efektywności systemu wdrażania Rozwoju Lokalnego Kierowanego przez Społeczność (RLKS) przewiduje ustawa z dnia 11 października 2024 r. o zmianie ustawy o rozwoju lokalnym z udziałem lokalnej społeczności. Jak poinformowała w czwartek Kancelaria Prezydenta, Andrzej Duda podpisał ją w środę, 13 listopada. Ustawa wejdzie w życie z dniem następującym po dniu ogłoszenia.

Grażyna J. Leśniak 14.11.2024

Do poprawki nie tylko emerytury czerwcowe, ale i wcześniejsze

Problem osób, które w latach 2009-2019 przeszły na emeryturę w czerwcu, przez co - na skutek niekorzystnych zasad waloryzacji - ich świadczenia były nawet o kilkaset złotych niższe od tych, jakie otrzymywały te, które przeszły na emeryturę w kwietniu lub w maju, w końcu zostanie rozwiązany. Emerytura lub renta rodzinna ma - na ich wniosek złożony do ZUS - podlegać ponownemu ustaleniu wysokości. Zdaniem prawników to dobra regulacja, ale równie ważna i paląca jest sprawa wcześniejszych emerytur. Obie powinny zostać załatwione.

Grażyna J. Leśniak 06.11.2024

Bez konsultacji społecznych nie będzie nowego prawa

Już od jutra rządowi trudniej będzie, przy tworzeniu nowego prawa, omijać proces konsultacji publicznych, wykorzystując w tym celu projekty poselskie. W czwartek, 31 października, wchodzą w życie zmienione przepisy regulaminu Sejmu, które nakazują marszałkowi Sejmu kierowanie projektów poselskich do konsultacji publicznych i wymagają sporządzenia do nich oceny skutków regulacji. Każdy obywatel będzie mógł odtąd zgłosić własne uwagi do projektów poselskich, korzystając z Systemu Informacyjnego Sejmu.

Grażyna J. Leśniak 30.10.2024

Nowy urlop dla rodziców wcześniaków coraz bliżej - rząd przyjął projekt ustawy

Rada Ministrów przyjęła we wtorek przygotowany w Ministerstwie Rodziny, Pracy i Polityki Społecznej projekt ustawy wprowadzający nowe uprawnienie – uzupełniający urlop macierzyński dla rodziców wcześniaków i rodziców dzieci urodzonych w terminie, ale wymagających dłuższej hospitalizacji po urodzeniu. Wymiar uzupełniającego urlopu macierzyńskiego będzie wynosił odpowiednio do 8 albo do 15 tygodni.

Grażyna J. Leśniak 29.10.2024

Sven Svedman	Helga Jónsdóttir
President	College Member

Identyfikator:	Dz.U.UE.C.2016.236.29
Rodzaj:	Informacja
Tytuł:	Zaproszenie do zgłaszania uwag zgodnie z art. 1 ust. 2 w części I protokołu 3 do Porozumienia między państwami EFTA w sprawie ustanowienia Urzędu Nadzoru i Trybunału Sprawiedliwości dotyczących potencjalnej pomocy państwa dla Hurtigruten ASA na podstawie umowy świadczenia usług przewozu przybrzeżnego na lata 2012-2019.
Data aktu:	30/06/2016
Data ogłoszenia:	30/06/2016

Zmiany w prawie

Dz.U.UE.C.2016.236.29