[:uk]
Summary of Recent Legislative Acts
Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2711
This regulation amends Annexes II and V of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, specifically concerning maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the pesticide thiacloprid. It deletes all existing MRLs for thiacloprid due to safety concerns raised by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), particularly regarding carcinogenic metabolites and endocrine disruptors. Furthermore, all authorisations for plant protection products containing thiacloprid are revoked to enhance consumer protection. The regulation introduces a transition period until 12 May 2025 for compliance, except for products identified with acute risks. It is binding and directly applicable in all EU Member States, ensuring uniform food safety standards across the Union.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2729
This regulation provides an exemption from the prohibition on fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-gases) in specific types of laboratory equipment, such as environmental simulation devices and laboratory centrifuges. The exemption is permitted for F-gases with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 150 or more, valid from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2028. Equipment must be labeled in accordance with existing regulations to ensure transparency. The exemption is justified due to the lack of available alternatives, allowing manufacturers time to develop compliant substitutes without disrupting the market. The regulation is binding in its entirety across Member States.
Judgment of the General Court (Case T-519/23)
This judgment concerns the annulment of restrictive measures imposed on Mr. Vladimir Gheorghe Plahotniuc by the Council of the European Union. The Court found that the Council’s justification for including him in sanctions lists was ambiguous and insufficiently detailed, particularly regarding allegations of financial misconduct. The Court emphasized the need for the Council to ensure that the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection were upheld. The annulment signifies the importance of rigorous justification standards when imposing sanctions, highlighting fundamental rights protections within the EU legal framework.
Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs
This regulation outlines the legal framework for Community designs, defining a design based on its visual appearance. It specifies grounds for invalidity, requiring designs to meet criteria of novelty and individual character. Procedural aspects regarding actions for invalidity, representation requirements, and presumptions of validity during infringement proceedings are detailed. The regulation ensures that applications are adequately supported by evidence and that compliance with design definitions is maintained, reinforcing the protection of intellectual property within the EU.
Decision No 1/2024 of the Trade Specialised Committee
This decision amends the standard forms for communication and statistical data regarding administrative cooperation in VAT and tax recovery between the EU and the UK, as part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The updates aim to improve communication protocols, including a new certification section for notifications. The decision enters into force immediately, facilitating better administrative cooperation post-Brexit and enhancing efforts to combat VAT fraud.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision on State Aid (Case 92375)
This decision allows the Green Industry Financing Fund in Norway to proceed with state aid measures aimed at supporting green investments. The funding, amounting to NOK 5 billion, offers loans with varying intensities to facilitate Norway’s green transition. The decision reflects the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s assessment of compliance with state aid rules and supports environmental objectives within the EFTA framework.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision on Restructuring of SAS (Case 92206)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority determined that Norway’s involvement in the restructuring of Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) does not qualify as state aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. This ruling indicates that Norway’s measures comply with state aid regulations, confirming that no aid is being granted under the restructuring initiative.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision on ENOVA Investment Aid (Case 92250)
This decision concerns the ENOVA investment aid scheme for floating offshore wind projects in Norway. With a budget of NOK 10 billion and a 100% aid intensity, the scheme aims to support environmental initiatives in the energy sector. This decision is aligned with the EFTA framework for state aid, promoting sustainable energy development.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision on NOx Tax Exemption (Case 92189)
This decision raises no objections to a temporary tax exemption in Norway aimed at reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. The exemption, covering the years 2026-2027, represents a significant step towards environmental protection by incentivizing reductions in emissions across all sectors. The legal basis for this measure is rooted in the annual parliamentary resolution on excise duties.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Overview of Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2711
The Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2711, adopted on 22 October 2024, amends Annexes II and V of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 concerning maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the pesticide thiacloprid in various products. This regulation is relevant to the European Economic Area (EEA) and reflects ongoing concerns regarding food safety and consumer protection related to pesticide residues.
Key Provisions
1. Deletion of MRLs for Thiacloprid
The regulation stipulates the deletion of all existing MRLs for thiacloprid from Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. This decision is based on a comprehensive review conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which identified significant safety concerns linked to the active substance, particularly regarding its potential carcinogenic metabolites and endocrine disrupting properties.
2. Revocation of Authorisations
All authorisations for plant protection products containing thiacloprid have been revoked. The regulation emphasizes that this revocation aligns with the need to ensure high levels of consumer protection and addresses the risks identified in the EFSA’s peer review conclusions.
3. Risk Assessment for Specific Products
The EFSA identified specific risks for consumers concerning MRLs for peaches and sweet peppers, leading to a recommendation to lower these MRLs to the product-specific limits of determination (LODs). For other products, including papayas and tea, while no acute risk was identified, further evaluation by risk managers is deemed necessary.
4. Transition Period and Applicability
The regulation allows for a transition period before the new MRLs become applicable, specifically from 12 May 2025. This measure is aimed at facilitating compliance for member states, third countries, and food business operators. However, it excludes certain products (e.g., pears, peaches, raspberries, sweet peppers) where an acute risk has been identified, necessitating immediate action.
5. Binding Nature and Direct Applicability
The regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all EU Member States, ensuring uniform implementation across the Union. It underscores the EU’s commitment to maintaining stringent food safety standards and protecting public health from potential pesticide-related risks.
6. Consultation and Review Process
The regulation acknowledges consultations with EU reference laboratories and international trading partners, ensuring that the new MRLs are analytically achievable and take into account international trade considerations. The EFSA is tasked with conducting further assessments of thiacloprid based on recent criteria for endocrine disruptors, with a review of MRLs pending these findings.
Conclusion
Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2711 represents a decisive step towards enhancing food safety standards within the EU by addressing the risks associated with thiacloprid. The regulation reflects the EU’s proactive stance in ensuring that pesticide residues in food do not pose a threat to consumer health.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2729
This regulation addresses the use of fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-gases) in specific types of equipment, authorizing an exemption from the general prohibition set forth in Regulation (EU) 2024/573. This exemption is particularly relevant for environmental simulation devices, laboratory spray-drying or freeze-drying equipment, and laboratory centrifuges that utilize F-gases with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 150 or more.
Key Provisions
1. Scope of the Exemption
Article 1 of the regulation permits the placing on the market of the following equipment containing F-gases with a GWP of 150 or more from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2028:
- Environmental simulation devices: These are test chambers designed to replicate various environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity, specifically for applications below –50 °C.
- Laboratory drying equipment: This includes equipment used for drying liquid samples through spray-drying or freeze-drying techniques.
- Laboratory centrifuges: These devices are utilized for separating fluids of different densities or for separating liquids from solids through rapid rotation.
2. Labeling Requirement
All exempted equipment must be labeled in accordance with Article 12(2) of Regulation (EU) 2024/573, ensuring transparency regarding the presence of F-gases.
3. Justification for the Exemption
The exemption is justified based on a request from the German competent authority, which highlighted the absence of available alternatives with a GWP below 150 that meet safety requirements. The transition to alternative substances requires additional time due to the complexity of redesigning equipment and ensuring safety standards. The Commission acknowledges that a rapid shift to alternatives could disrupt the market, particularly for essential equipment.
4. Duration of the Exemption
The regulation grants a four-year period for the continued market availability of the specified equipment, allowing manufacturers sufficient time to develop and certify alternatives. This period is deemed necessary to prevent market disruption and to support manufacturers during the transition to lower-GWP refrigerants.
5. Entry into Force
The regulation enters into force the day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, ensuring immediate effect to facilitate compliance and implementation.
6. Binding Nature
This regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable across all Member States, reinforcing the EU’s commitment to regulating F-gases while balancing environmental objectives with market realities.
Overview of the Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) – 23 October 2024
Case Background
This case involves Mr. Vladimir Gheorghe Plahotniuc, a Moldovan politician and businessman, who sought the annulment of two legal acts issued by the Council of the European Union. These acts pertain to restrictive measures aimed at individuals and entities involved in destabilizing actions against the Republic of Moldova. The measures included freezing of funds and restrictions on entry into EU Member States.
Legal Framework
The contested acts are Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1047 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1045, both adopted on 30 May 2023. They amend previous decisions regarding sanctions against individuals implicated in undermining Moldova’s sovereignty and democratic processes.
Key Provisions
Restrictive Measures
Article 1(1) of Decision 2023/891 mandates Member States to prevent the entry and transit of individuals who threaten the sovereignty, democracy, and stability of Moldova. This includes actions such as:
- Undermining the democratic political process.
- Engaging in or supporting violent demonstrations.
- Serious financial misconduct related to public funds.
Freezing of Assets
Article 2(1)(a) of Decision 2023/891, along with Article 2(1) of Regulation 2023/888, stipulates that all funds and economic resources owned or controlled by listed individuals must be frozen. Additionally, Article 2(2) prohibits making funds available to these individuals.
Listing Criteria
The annexes to both the Decision and Regulation detail the lists of individuals subject to these restrictive measures. The inclusion of Mr. Plahotniuc on these lists was justified by allegations of serious financial misconduct and his role in various criminal proceedings in Moldova.
Judgment Analysis
The General Court found that the Council’s justification for Mr. Plahotniuc’s inclusion on the lists was ambiguous and imprecise. The Council referenced multiple criminal proceedings without providing specific details, which raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the reasoning provided for the restrictive measures.
Right to Defence and Judicial Protection
Importantly, the Court emphasized the obligation of the Council to verify that the criminal investigations in Moldova against Mr. Plahotniuc observed his rights to a fair trial and effective judicial protection. The Council’s failure to demonstrate that it had conducted such verifications resulted in a breach of fundamental rights as outlined in the EU legal framework.
Conclusion
The Court annulled the contested acts concerning Mr. Plahotniuc, citing the Council’s failure to adequately justify the restrictive measures and uphold the applicant’s rights. Consequently, the Council was ordered to pay the costs incurred by Mr. Plahotniuc in the proceedings.
Implications
This ruling underscores the necessity for EU institutions to maintain rigorous standards of justification when imposing restrictive measures, particularly concerning fundamental rights and legal protections for individuals affected by such actions.
Detailed Description of Provisions in the General Court Judgment (Case T‑519/23)
1. Legal Basis for the Action
The applicant, Keserű Művek Fegyvergyár Kft., initiated the action under Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. The claim sought compensation for damages allegedly caused by the adoption of Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2019/69, which pertains to technical specifications for alarm and signal weapons under Council Directive 91/477/EEC.
2. Definitions under Directive 2021/555
2.1. Definition of ‘Firearm’
According to Article 1(1)(1) of Directive 2021/555, a ‘firearm’ is defined as “any portable barreled weapon that expels, is designed to expel or may be converted to expel a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of a combustible propellant.” This definition explicitly excludes firearms for reasons listed in point III of Annex I to the directive.
2.2. Criteria for Conversion
An object is regarded as capable of being converted to expel a projectile by a combustible propellant if:
- It has the appearance of a firearm;
- As a result of its construction or the material from which it is made, it can be converted.
2.3. Definition of ‘Alarm and Signal Weapons’
Article 1(1)(4) of Directive 2021/555 defines ‘alarm and signal weapons’ as devices equipped with a cartridge holder designed to fire only blanks, irritants, other active substances, or pyrotechnic signalling rounds. Additionally, these devices must not be convertible to expel a shot, bullet, or projectile using a combustible propellant.
3. Application of Directive 2021/555 to Implementing Directive 2019/69
Under Article 26 of Directive 2021/555, any reference to the repealed Council Directive 91/477/EEC is to be interpreted as a reference to Directive 2021/555. Therefore, Implementing Directive 2019/69 is assessed in the context of the updated legal framework established by Directive 2021/555.
4. Classification of the Keserű Weapon
4.1. Assessment as a Firearm
The Court determined that the Keserű weapon is a portable barreled weapon capable of expelling rubber bullets using a combustible propellant. This categorizes it as a ‘firearm’ under Article 1(1)(1) of Directive 2021/555.
4.2. Exclusion from ‘Alarm and Signal Weapons’
The Keserű weapon does not meet the criteria for ‘alarm and signal weapons’ as defined in Article 1(1)(4) of Directive 2021/555 because:
- It is designed to fire rubber bullets, not solely blanks, irritants, or pyrotechnic rounds.
- It does not fulfill the condition of being non-convertible to expel projectiles using a combustible propellant.
Additionally, it is not exclusively designed for alarm or signal purposes, further excluding it from this category.
5. Criteria for EU Non-Contractual Liability
Under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, the European Union may be held liable for non-contractual damage caused by its institutions or servants if the following conditions are met:
- Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals.
- Proof of damage suffered by the claimant.
- Existence of a direct causal link between the breach and the damage.
All three conditions must be satisfied for liability to be established.
6. Court’s Analysis and Conclusion
6.1. Lack of Causal Link
The Court found that Implementing Directive 2019/69 does not apply to the Keserű weapon as it does not qualify as an ‘alarm and signal weapon.’ Therefore, the directive could not have caused the alleged damage, failing the causal link requirement.
6.2. Classification Overrides National Jurisdiction
The Court emphasized that the definitive interpretation of EU law rests with the Court itself, not national courts. Hence, prior national judgments classifying the Keserű weapon differently do not influence the Court’s classification under EU directives.
6.3. Conclusion on Liability
Given the absence of a causal link between the directive and the alleged damage, the Court concluded that the European Union cannot be held liable under the claims presented by the applicant.
7. Final Judgment
The General Court dismissed the action in its entirety and ordered the applicant, Keserű Művek Fegyvergyár Kft., to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union, as represented by the European Commission. The French Republic, as an intervenor, was ordered to bear its own costs.
Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs
Article 3(a) – Definition of Design
Content: This article defines a “design” as “the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation.”
Key Points:
- Focuses on the visual aspects of a product.
- Encompasses both the product and its ornamentation.
- Includes various features such as lines, contours, colors, shape, texture, and materials.
Article 25(1)(a) – Grounds for Invalidity
Content: A Community design may be declared invalid if it does not comply with the definition provided in Article 3(a).
Key Points:
- Invalidity can be based on non-conformity with the fundamental definition of a design.
- Focuses on the design’s appearance, ensuring it meets the criteria set out in Article 3(a).
Article 25(1)(b) – Additional Grounds for Invalidity
Content: A Community design may also be declared invalid if it lacks individual character or novelty, as outlined in Articles 4 to 6.
Key Points:
- Beyond Article 3(a), designs must possess individual character and novelty.
- These additional criteria are detailed in Articles 4 (author), 5 (not explicitly referenced in the judgment), and 6 (third-party rights).
Article 25(2) – Conditions for Invoking Grounds for Invalidity
Content: Outlines the procedural and evidentiary requirements for declaring a design invalid under the grounds specified in Article 25(1).
Key Points:
- Specifies the need for sufficient evidence to support claims of invalidity.
- Details the burden of proof resting on the party seeking invalidation.
- Ensures that invalidity declarations are based on objective and verifiable criteria.
Article 25(3) – Procedural Aspects
Content: Describes the procedural framework within which invalidity proceedings must be conducted.
Key Points:
- Establishes the jurisdiction and authority responsible for invalidity declarations.
- Sets timelines and procedural steps for initiating and conducting invalidity actions.
Article 25(4) – Remedies and Consequences
Content: Details the remedies available upon declaration of invalidity, including the removal of the design from the register.
Key Points:
- Specifies the consequences of a design being declared invalid.
- Includes the revocation of protection and potential restitution to third parties.
Article 36(1)(c) – Representation of the Design
Content: Requires that the application for a Community design include a representation of the design that is suitable for reproduction.
Key Points:
- Mandates clear and accurate visual representations.
- Options for representation include photographs, technical drawings, or computer-generated images.
- Ensures that the design can be understood and evaluated based on its representations.
Article 36(1)(c) – Interpretation and Unicity of Design
Content: Emphasizes that the representation must allow the design to be clearly identified, ensuring unicity across all submitted views.
Key Points:
- All views submitted must be consistent and not contradictory.
- A design must appear as a single, unified product across all representations.
- Inconsistencies in views can lead to invalidity due to lack of unicity.
Article 4 – Number of Views and Representation
Content: Limits the number of views submitted in a design application and outlines acceptable forms of representation.
Key Points:
- May not contain more than seven views.
- Allows for various perspectives, including different angles and scales.
- Ensures that all necessary views are included to fully represent the design.
Article 61(5) – Time Limits for Actions
Content: Sets the time frame within which an action against a decision of the Board of Appeal must be filed.
Key Points:
- Actions must be brought within two months of notification of the decision.
- Includes provisions for extending time limits due to distance or other specified factors.
Article 60 – Procedural Time Limits
Content: Governs the calculation and extension of procedural time limits for actions brought before the General Court.
Key Points:
- Extends time limits by 10 days to account for distance.
- Ensures fairness in accommodating parties located in different jurisdictions.
Article 85(1) – Presumption of Validity
Content: Establishes a presumption of validity for registered Community designs in infringement proceedings.
Key Points:
- Shifts the burden of proving invalidity onto the party challenging the design.
- Ensures that designs are protected unless proven otherwise.
Article 47(1) – Rejection of Application
Content: Outlines the grounds and procedures for rejecting a design application that does not meet the required criteria.
Key Points:
- Designs failing to meet Article 3(a)’s definition can be rejected.
- Requires applicants to remedy any shortcomings within a prescribed period to avoid rejection.
Article 11(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002
Content: Defines the implementation measures for rejection of design applications based on non-compliance with Article 3(a).
Key Points:
- Provides specific procedural steps following a failure to comply with design definitions.
- Ensures consistency in the application of rejection grounds across cases.
Article 85(1) and Article 24(1)
Content: Discusses the interaction between presumption of validity and the grounds for invalidity in Community design law.
Key Points:
- Presumption of validity applies primarily in infringement cases.
- Strict and specific criteria must be met to declare a design invalid.
Article 4(2) of Regulation No 2245/2002
Content: Limits the number of views in a design application and stipulates that defects related to this requirement result in rejection if not remedied.
Key Points:
- Applications may not contain more than seven views.
- Non-compliance without timely correction leads to rejection under Articles 45(2)(b) and 46(3).
Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation No 2245/2002
Content: Specifies that an application for a registered Community design must include a suitable representation of the design.
Key Points:
- Emphasizes the necessity for clear reproductive representations.
- Supports the detailed requirements outlined in Article 36(1)(c).
Article 134(1) – Allocation of Costs
Content: Dictates that the unsuccessful party in a legal action must bear the costs incurred by the successful party.
Key Points:
- Encourages parties to carefully consider the merits of their actions.
- Ensures that winning parties are compensated for legal expenses.
Overview of Decision No 1/2024 of the Trade Specialised Committee
Decision No 1/2024, adopted on 30 September 2024, amends Decision No 4/2023 concerning standard forms for communication and statistical data related to administrative cooperation in VAT and the recovery of taxes and duties. This decision is rooted in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom, specifically addressing the need for improved communication protocols under the Protocol on administrative cooperation and combating VAT fraud.
Key Provisions
Article 1: Modification of Standard Forms
The decision introduces amendments to the standard form used for requests for information, spontaneous exchanges of information, and feedback between EU Member States and the UK. A specific addition is made to the section regarding the ‘Outcome of the notification’ under Article PVAT.12 of the Protocol. The new section titled ‘CERTIFICATE’ will include a reference code format (N_SS_RR_20YYMMDD-000000-000000) to enhance the detail provided about the follow-up of notifications.
Article 2: Entry into Force
The decision will enter into force immediately upon its adoption, thereby ensuring that the modifications to the communication framework take effect without delay.
Context and Background
The necessity for these amendments arises from the need to align the standard forms with the Exchange of Forms (EoF) system established in a previous Commission Implementing Decision (C(2019) 2866). The adjustments aim to facilitate better administrative cooperation and the recovery of claims between the EU and the UK, in light of the ongoing complexities in post-Brexit regulatory frameworks.
Annex: Standard Forms
The annex to the decision outlines the updated standard forms that will be utilized for the communication of outcomes related to notifications. These forms will require authorities to certify the manner and success of notifications, providing options for detailing the notification process or reasons for failure to notify.
This decision reflects a significant step in enhancing the operational efficiency of tax-related communications between the EU and the UK, ensuring that both jurisdictions can effectively combat fraud and manage administrative cooperation in the VAT domain.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
Overview of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision on State Aid
The EFTA Surveillance Authority has officially raised no objections to a state aid measure concerning Norway, specifically the Green Industry Financing Fund. The decision, adopted on July 10, 2024, falls under case number 92375 and is recorded as decision number 111/24/COL.
Key Details of the Decision
- Beneficiary: Green Industry Financing Fund
- Legal Basis:
- Prop. 104 S (2023-2024)
- Assignment letter from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries to Innovation Norway
- Rules of the scheme
- IN general financing policy of February 10, 2023
- Type of Measure: Scheme
- Objective: Green transition
- Form of Aid: Loans
- Budget: NOK 5 billion
- Intensity: 20% – 45% of eligible costs
- Duration: Until December 31, 2025
- Economic Sectors: Green investments
Granting Authority
The authority responsible for granting this aid is Innovation Norway, located at:
PO Box 448 SentrumN-0104 Oslo
NORWAY
Further Information
The authentic text of the decision, with all confidential information removed, is available on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: EFTA Surveillance Authority.
For additional legal references, visit: ELI Document.
No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
Analysis of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision C/2024/6364
The EFTA Surveillance Authority has issued a decision indicating that Norway’s involvement in the restructuring of Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) does not qualify as state aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. This decision was formally adopted on June 27, 2024, and is identified as Case No. 92206, Decision No. 094/24/COL.
Key Details:
- EFTA State: Norway
- Beneficiary: SAS (Scandinavian Airlines System)
- Type of Measure: Ad hoc measure
- Objective: Participation in restructuring
- Form of Aid: No aid
- Economic Sector: Air transport
Granting Authority:
The authority responsible for the measure is Export Finance Norway, located at Støperigata 1, 0250 Oslo, Norway.
Additional Information:
The decision emphasizes that the measure does not constitute state aid, suggesting that Norway’s involvement is compliant with the regulations governing state aid within the EEA framework. For further details, the full text of the decision, with confidential information redacted, is accessible on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website.
For reference, the decision can also be found at the following links:
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
Overview of the State Aid Decision C/2024/6370
The EFTA Surveillance Authority has announced a decision regarding state aid measures in Norway, specifically the ENOVA investment aid scheme aimed at supporting floating offshore wind projects. Below are the key details of the decision:
Decision Details
- Date of Adoption: 10 July 2024
- Case Number: 92250
- Decision Number: 112/24/COL
- EFTA State: Norway
Measure Description
- Title: ENOVA investment aid scheme for floating offshore wind
- Legal Basis: Enova Programmes
- Type of Measure: Scheme
- Objective: Environmental
- Form of Aid: Grants
- Budget: NOK 10 billion
- Intensity of Aid: Up to 100% of the total investment cost
- Duration: Until 31 December 2025
- Economic Sectors: Production of electricity
Granting Authority
Name: Enova SF
Address: Brattørkaia 17A, 7010 Trondheim, Norway
The full text of the decision, which excludes confidential information, can be accessed on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website.
EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision Register
Official ELI Document
State aid – Decision to raise no objections
Overview of State Aid Decision C/2024/6371
The EFTA Surveillance Authority has issued a decision regarding state aid measures, specifically raising no objections to a temporary tax exemption aimed at reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in Norway.
Key Details of the Decision
- Date of Adoption: 11 June 2024
- Case Number: 92189
- Decision Number: 084/24/COL
- EFTA State: Norway
Measure Overview
Title: Temporary NOx tax exemption
Legal Basis: Annual Parliamentary Resolution on excise duties
Type of Measure: Scheme
Objective: Environmental protection through emission reduction
Form of Aid: Tax exemption
Budget: NOK 3,640 million
Intensity: 100% exemption
Duration: 2026-2027
Economic Sectors Affected: All sectors emitting NOx
Granting Authority
Name: Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment
Additional Information
The full decision, with confidential information removed, can be accessed on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s official website at EFTA Surveillance Authority.
For legal reference, please visit ELI: C/2024/6371.[:]
