Report 2011 - EFTA Court

could not, in a discretionary manner, increase, reduce or abolish
the yearly payments.
76. Based on that understanding, the Commission considers
the present case to be comparable with its decisions in
Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr and Reform of the pension system
of RATP and French airport charges. 61 it is argued that as in
Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr and Reform of the pension system of
RATP, the precise amount of the payments was established on
an annual basis by the public authority, but in establishing the
amount, the authority had no discretion; rather, it was applying
mechanically the mechanism established by the statutory
provisions. Accordingly, the Commission submits that the third
part of the first plea must be rejected.
77. With regard to the fourth part of the first plea, concerning
the 2004 capital injections, the Commission submits that any
public support to an undertaking in order to finance pension
obligations in principle constitutes State aid. 62 The Commission
considers that there is no intrinsic link between aid granted to
fund the pension deficit and the compensation payments for
public service obligations awarded by the City of Oslo by granting
licences. Moreover, the Commission notes that Oslo Sporveier
and Sporveisbussene provide commercially viable bus services
beyond their public service obligations, whereas the capital
injection concerned unfunded pension liabilities for all staff of the
companies rather than for only those members of staff engaged
in the public service activities. Consequently, the Commission
61 Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 in Case C-58/2006 – Verkehrsverbund Rhein-
Ruhr; Commission Decision of 10 October 2007 in Case C-42/2007 – Reform of the pension
system of RATP; Commission Decision of 28 January 2009 in Case E 4/2007 – French
airport charges.
62 Reference is made to Joined Cases E-5/04 to E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord v EFTA Surveillance
Authority [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 117, paragraph 76; Case C-387/92 Banco Exterior de España
[1994] ECR i-877, paragraph 12; Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR i-4551,
paragraph 34; Case C-256/97 Déménagements-Manutention Transport [1999] ECR i-3913,
paragraph 19; Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, paragraph 15; Case
C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR i-307, paragraph 41; Commission Decision
2008/722/EC of 10 May 2007 on State aid for OTE, points 90-102; Commission Decision
2008/204/EC of 10 October 2007 on the State aid for La Poste, points 118-148; and
Commission Decision 2009/945/EC of 13 July 2009 on State aid for RATP, points 84-105.
CASE E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no AS v xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx EFTA Surveillance Authority
326