I bhfianaise na mbreithnithe thuas, measann Údarás Faireacháin CSTE nach féidir a dhearbhú go bhfuil an róchúiteamh le haghaidh cothabhála agus oibrithe (beart (a)) agus costas caipitil (beart (c)) comhoiriúnach le feidhmiú Chomhaontú LEE.
On the basis of these considerations, ESA finds that the overcompensation for maintenance and operation (measure (a)) and capital cost (measure (c)) cannot be declared compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
I bhfianaise na gcúiseanna thuas, measann Údarás Faireacháin CSTE gur státchabhair neamhdhleathach atá neamh-chomhoiriúnach le feidhmiú Chomhaontú LEE atá sa róchúiteamh le haghaidh cothabhála agus oibrithe (beart (a)) agus costas caipitil (beart (c)), a íocadh le cuideachtaí i ngrúpa BKK i leith soilsí sráide feadh bóithre bardasacha laistigh den Bhardas.
For the reasons set out above, ESA concludes that the overcompensation for maintenance and operation (measure (a)) and capital cost (measure (c)), paid to companies in the BKK-group, in respect of streetlights along municipal roads within the Municipality, amounts to unlawful State aid that is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
Is státchabhair neamhdhleathach atá neamh-chomhoiriúnach le feidhmiú Chomhaontú LEE atá sa róchúiteamh le haghaidh cothabhála agus oibrithe (beart (a)) agus costas caipitil (beart (c)), a íocadh le cuideachtaí i ngrúpa BKK i leith soilsí sráide feadh bóithre bardasacha laistigh den Bhardas.
The overcompensation for maintenance and operation (measure (a)) and capital cost (measure (c)), paid to companies in the BKK-group in respect of streetlights along municipal roads within the Municipality, amounts to unlawful State aid that is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.
A mhéid a bhaineann le cúiteamh le haghaidh costas caipitil (beart (c)), cuimsítear leis an gcabhair a fuarthas a bheith neamhdhleathach agus neamh-chomhoiriúnach an róchúiteamh ar fad a tugadh laistigh den tréimhse teorann de 10 mbliana in Airteagal 15 de Chuid II de Phrótacal 3.
As regards the compensation for capital cost (measure (c)), the aid found unlawful and incompatible comprises all overcompensation awarded within the limitation period of 10 years in Article 15 of Part II of Protocol 3.
Sonraítear sa sásra sin, mar a leagtar amach i roinn 3.1.2, go bhfuil grúpa BKK i dteideal costas caipitil i leith an chaipitil gheallta cothrom leis an ráta toraidh arna shocrú ag NVE maidir le bonneagar na heangaí rialáilte.
This mechanism stipulates, as set forth in Section 3.1.2, that the BKK-group is entitled to capital cost for the committed capital equal to the rate-of-return fixed by the NVE for the regulated power grid infrastructure.
Maidir le cúiteamh i leith costais chaipitil (beart (c)), is éard atá i gcúiteamh a sháraíonn an leibhéal toraidh leordhóthanach a ceadaíodh faoin sásra i roinn 7(c) de chomhaontú díolacháin 1996 státchabhair atá neamhdhleathach agus neamh-chomhoiriúnach.
With respect to the compensation for capital cost (measure (c)), the unlawful and incompatible State aid is that compensation exceeding the adequate level of return allowed by the mechanism in Section 7(c) of the 1996 sales agreement.
Maidir le cé acu a fhéadfadh nó nach bhféadfadh coinne a bheith leis, tráth an chinnidh, go mbeadh toradh ar an infheistíocht a sháródh an costas caipitil, breithníonn Údarás Faireacháin CSTE nach raibh an measúnú comhaimseartha a rinne an Bardas, féach míreanna (123) – (125) agus míreanna (131) – (134), chomh maith le hargóintí a chuir údaráis na hIorua in iúl le linn an nós imeachta imscrúdaithe fhoirmiúil, féach mír (150), ina bhonn leordhóthanach don Bhardas chun brabúsacht ionchasach na hinfheistíochta a fhionnadh de réir an chaighdeáin a cheanglaítear faoi phrionsabal an infheisteora phríobháidigh i ngeilleagar an mhargaidh.
With regard to whether the investment, at the time of the decision, could be expected to yield a return exceeding the capital cost, ESA considers that the contemporaneous assessment carried out by the Municipality, see paragraphs (123) – (125) and paragraphs (131) – (134), as well as arguments raised by the Norwegian authorities during the formal investigation procedure, see paragraph (150), did not provide the Municipality with a sufficient basis for ascertaining the prospective profitability of the investment to the standard required under the MEIP.