EFTA 监管机构决定No 788/08/COL,通过对现有的关于证明书和折现率以及关于以担保形式表现的国家援助的章节进行修订,并通过引入一个新的关于恢复非法和不相容的国家援助、关于电影和其他视听工作的国家援助和关于铁路事业国家援助的章节,第67次修订国家援助的程序性和实体

技术法规类型:欧盟Eurlex法规 来源:tbtmap

EURLEX ID:E2008C0788

OJ编号:OJ L 105, 21.4.2011, p. 32-78

中文标题:EFTA 监管机构决定No 788/08/COL,通过对现有的关于证明书和折现率以及关于以担保形式表现的国家援助的章节进行修订,并通过引入一个新的关于恢复非法和不相容的国家援助、关于电影和其他视听工作的国家援助和关于铁路事业国家援助的章节,第67次修订国家援助的程序性和实体性规则

原文标题:EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008 amending, for the sixty-seventh time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by amending the existing chapters on reference and discount rates and on State aid granted in the form of guarantees and by introducing a new chapter on recovery of unlawful and incompatible State aid, on State aid to cinematographic and other audiovisual works and State aid for railway undertakings

分类:11.40.10.10_欧洲自由贸易区(EFTA)国家

文件类型:E Declaration|声明

生效日期:2008-12-17

废止日期:2058-12-31

法规全文:查看欧盟官方文件

L_2011105EN.01003201.xml

21.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 105/32


EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION

No 788/08/COL

of 17 December 2008

amending, for the sixty-seventh time, the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid by amending the existing chapters on reference and discount rates and on State aid granted in the form of guarantees and by introducing a new chapter on recovery of unlawful and incompatible State aid, on State aid to cinematographic and other audiovisual works and State aid for railway undertakings

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY (1),

HAVING REGARD to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (2), in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,

HAVING REGARD to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (3), in particular to Article 24 and Article 5(2)(b) thereof,

WHEREAS under Article 24 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Authority shall give effect to the provisions of the EEA Agreement concerning state aid,

WHEREAS under Article 5(2)(b) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, the Authority shall issue notices or guidelines on matters dealt with in the EEA Agreement, if that Agreement or the Surveillance and Court Agreement expressly so provides or if the Authority considers it necessary,

WHEREAS under Article 1 of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (4), the Authority shall keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in the EFTA States and propose any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the EEA Agreement,

RECALLING the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid adopted on 19 January 1994 by the Authority (5),

WHEREAS, on 15 November 2007 the European Commission adopted a Notice under the heading Towards an effective implementation of Commission decisions ordering Member States to recover unlawful and incompatible State aid (6),

WHEREAS, on 19 January 2008, the European Commission issued a Communication concerning the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (7),

WHEREAS, on 16 June 2008, the European Commission issued a Communication concerning the prolongation of the application of the Communication on the follow-up to the Commission communication on certain legal aspects relating to cinematographic and other audiovisual works of 2001 (8),

WHEREAS, on 20 June 2008, the European Commission adopted a Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (9),

WHEREAS, on 22 July 2008, the European Commission issued a Communication concerning Community guidelines on State aid for railway undertakings (10),

WHEREAS these Communications and Notices are also of relevance for the European Economic Area,

WHEREAS uniform application of the EEA state aid rules is to be ensured throughout the European Economic Area,

WHEREAS, according to point II under the heading ‘楪ENERAL‘�at the end of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement, the Authority, after consultation with the Commission, is to adopt acts corresponding to those adopted by the European Commission,

HAVING consulted the European Commission,

RECALLING that the Authority has consulted the EFTA States by letters to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Chapter of the State Aid Guidelines on reference and discount rates shall be amended. The new chapter is contained in Annex I to this Decision.

Article 2

The Chapter of the State Aid Guidelines on state guarantees shall be amended. The new chapter is contained in Annex II to this Decision.

Article 3

The State Aid Guidelines shall be amended by introducing a new chapter on state aid for railway undertakings. This new chapter is contained in Annex III to this Decision.

Article 4

The State Aid Guidelines shall be amended by introducing a new chapter on recovery of unlawful and incompatible state aid. The new chapter is contained in Annex IV to this Decision.

Article 5

The State Aid Guidelines shall be amended by introducing a new chapter on support for cinema and other audiovisual works. This new chapter is contained in Annex V to this Decision.

Article 6

The existing chapter of the State Aid Guidelines on Complaints - Form For The Submission Of Complaints Concerning Alleged Unlawful State Aid shall be deleted.

Article 7

Only the English versions are authentic.

Done at Brussels, 17 December 2008.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Per SANDERUD

President

Kristj谩n A. STEF脕NSSON

College Member


(1) Hereinafter referred to as the Authority.

(2) Hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement.

(3) Hereinafter referred to as the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

(4) Hereinafter referred to as Protocol 3.

(5) Guidelines on the application and interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, adopted and issued by the Authority on 19 January 1994, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as OJ) L 231, 3.9.1994 p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 32, 3.9.1994 p. 1. The Guidelines were last amended on 8.10.2008. Hereinafter referred to as the State Aid Guidelines. The updated version of the State Aid Guidelines is published on the Authority‘檚 website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/legal-framework/state-aid-guidelines/.

(6) OJ C 272, 15.11.2007, p. 4.

(7) OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6.

(8) OJ C 134, 16.6.2007, p. 5.

(9) OJ C 155, 20.6.2008, p. 10.

(10) OJ C 184, 22.7.2008, p. 13.


ANNEX I

REFERENCE AND DISCOUNT RATES (1)

Within the framework of State aid control, the Authority makes use of reference and discount rates. The reference and discount rates are applied as a proxy for the market rate and to measure the grant equivalent of aid, in particular when it is disbursed in several instalments and to calculate the aid element resulting from interest subsidy schemes. They are also used to check compliance with the de minimis rule and block exemption regulations.

The Authority adopts the following methodology for setting the reference rates:

‘�/p>

Calculation basis: 1-year IBOR

The base rate is based on 1-year money market rates. The Authority is reserving the right to use shorter or longer maturities adapted to certain cases.

Where those rates are not available, the 3-month money market rate will be used.

In the absence of reliable or equivalent data or in exceptional circumstances the Authority may, in close cooperation with the EFTA State(s) concerned and in principle based on data from the relevant Central Bank, determine another calculation basis.

‘�/p>

Margins

The following margins are to be applied in principle depending on the rating of the undertaking concerned and the collateral (2) offered.

Loan margins in basis points

Rating category

Collateralisation

High

Normal

Low

Strong (AAA-A)

60

75

100

Good (BBB)

75

100

220

Satisfactory (BB)

100

220

400

Weak (B)

220

400

650

Bad/Financial difficulties (CCC and below)

400

650

1 000 (3)

Normally, 100 basis points are added to the base rate. This assumes (i) loans to undertakings with satisfactory rating and high collateral; or (ii) loans to undertakings with good rating and normal collateral.

For borrowers that do not have a credit history or a rating based on a balance sheet approach, such as certain special-purpose companies or start-up companies, the base rate should be increased by at least 400 basis points (depending on the available collaterals) and the margin can never be lower than the one which would be applicable to the parent company.

Ratings do not need to be obtained from specific rating agencies ‘�national rating systems or rating systems used by banks to reflect default rates are equally acceptable (4).

The above margins may be revised from time to time to take account of the market situation.

‘�/p>

Update

An update of the reference rate will be carried out every year. The base rate will thus be calculated on the basis of the 1-year IBOR recorded in September, October and November of the previous year. The then fixed base rate will be in force as from the first of January. In addition, to take account of significant and sudden variations, an update will be made each time the average rate, calculated over the previous three months, deviates by more than 15 % from the rate in force. This new rate will enter into force on the first day of the second month following the months used for the calculation.

‘�/p>

Discount rate: Calculation of net present value

The reference rate is also to be used as a discount rate, for calculating present values. To that end, in principle, the base rate increased by a fixed margin of 100 basis points will be used.

‘�/p>

The present methodology will enter into force as of 1 January 2009.


(1) This chapter corresponds to the Commission's Communication on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates, OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6; http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:014:0006:0009:EN:PDF

(2) Normal collateral should be understood as the level of collateral normally required by financial institutions as a guarantee for their loan. The level of collaterals can be measured as the Loss Given Default (LGD), which is the expected loss in percentage of the debtor's exposure taking into account recoverable amounts from collateral and the bankruptcy assets; as a consequence the LGD is inversely proportional to the validity of collaterals. For the present chapter it is assumed that ‘楬igh‘�collateralisation implies an LGD below or equal to 30 %, ‘Normal‘�collateralisation an LGD between 31 % and 59 %, and ‘楲ow‘�collateralisation an LGD above or equal to 60 %. For more details, on the notion LGD, see Basel II: International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework ‘�Comprehensive Version, available on: http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs128.pdf

(3) Subject to the application of the specific provisions for rescue and restructuring aid, as currently laid down in the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ L 97, 15.4.2005, p. 41) and in particular point 24(a), which refers to ‘榓n interest rate at least comparable to those observed for loans to healthy firms, and in particular the reference rates adopted by the Authority‘� Hence, for rescue aid cases, the 1-year IBOR increased with at least 100 basis points shall be applied.

(4) For a comparison between the most commonly used credit rating mechanisms, see e.g. Table 1 in Working Paper No 207 of the Bank for International Settlements: http://www.bis.org/publ/work207.pdf


ANNEX II

STATE GUARANTEES (1)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

This Chapter updates the EFTA Surveillance Authority‘檚 approach to state aid granted in the form of guarantees and aims to give EFTA States more detailed guidance about the principles on which the EFTA Surveillance Authority intends to base its interpretation of Articles 61 and 62 of the EEA Agreement, as well as Protocol 3 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, and their application to state guarantees. These principles are currently laid down in the existing Chapter of the EFTA Surveillance Authority‘檚 State Aid Guidelines on state guarantees (2). Experience gained in the application of the existing Chapter since 2000 suggests that the EFTA Surveillance Authority‘檚 policy in this area should be reviewed. In this connection, the EFTA Surveillance Authority wishes to recall for instance the recent practice of the European Commission in various specific decisions (3) with respect to the need to undertake an individual assessment of the risk of losses related to each guarantee in the case of schemes. The EFTA Surveillance Authority intends to further make its policy in this area as transparent as possible so that its decisions are predictable and that equal treatment is ensured. In particular, the EFTA Surveillance Authority wishes to provide small and medium-sized enterprises (hereafter ‘楽MEs‘� and EFTA States with safe harbours predetermining, for a given company and on the basis of its financial rating, the minimum margin that should be charged for a state guarantee in order to be deemed as not constituting aid within the scope of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Likewise, any shortfall in the premium charged in comparison with that level could be deemed as the aid element.

1.2. Types of guarantee

In their most common form, guarantees are associated with a loan or other financial obligation to be contracted by a borrower with a lender; they may be granted as individual guarantees or within guarantee schemes.

However, various forms of guarantee may exist, depending on their legal basis, the type of transaction covered, their duration, etc. Without the list being exhaustive, the following forms of guarantee can be identified:

‘�/p>

general guarantees, i.e. guarantees provided to undertakings as such as opposed to guarantees linked to a specific transaction, which may be a loan, an equity investment, etc;

‘�/p>

guarantees provided by a specific instrument as opposed to guarantees linked to the status of the undertaking itself;

‘�/p>

guarantees provided directly or counter guarantees provided to a first level guarantor;

‘�/p>

unlimited guarantees as opposed to guarantees limited in amount and/or time. The EFTA Surveillance Authority also regards as aid in the form of a guarantee the more favourable funding terms obtained by enterprises whose legal form rules out bankruptcy or other insolvency procedures or provides an explicit state guarantee or coverage of losses by the State. The same applies to the acquisition by a State of a holding in an enterprise if unlimited liability is accepted instead of the usual limited liability;

‘�/p>

guarantees clearly originating from a contractual source (such as formal contracts, letters of comfort) or another legal source as opposed to guarantees whose form is less visible (such as side letters, oral commitments), possibly with various levels of comfort that can be provided by this guarantee.

Especially in the latter case, the lack of appropriate legal or accounting records often leads to very poor traceability. This is true both for the beneficiary and for the State or public body providing it and, as a result, for the information available to third parties.

1.3. Structure and scope of the Chapter

For the purpose of this Chapter:

(a)

‘榞uarantee scheme‘�means any tool on the basis of which, without further implementing measures being required, guarantees can be provided to undertakings respecting certain conditions of duration, amount, underlying transaction, type or size of undertakings (such as SMEs);

(b)

‘榠ndividual guarantee‘�means any guarantee provided to an undertaking and not awarded on the basis of a guarantee scheme.

Sections 3 and 4 of this Chapter are designed to be directly applicable to guarantees linked to a specific financial transaction such as a loan. The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that, owing to their frequency and the fact that they can usually be quantified, these are the cases where guarantees most need to be classed as constituting state aid or otherwise.

As in most cases the transaction covered by a guarantee would be a loan, the Chapter will further refer to the principal beneficiary of the guarantee as the ‘榖orrower‘�and to the body whose risk is diminished by the state guarantee as the ‘榣ender‘� The use of these two specific terms also aims to facilitate understanding of the rationale underpinning the text, since the basic principle of a loan is broadly understood. However, it does not ensue that sections 3 and 4 are only applicable to a loan guarantee. They apply to all guarantees where a similar transfer of risk takes place such as an investment in the form of equity, provided the relevant risk profile (including the possible lack of collateralisation) is taken into account.

The Chapter applies to all economic sectors, including the transport sector, without prejudice to specific rules relating to guarantees in the sector concerned.

This Chapter does not apply to export credit guarantees.

1.4. Other types of guarantee

Where certain forms of guarantee (see point 1.2) involve a transfer of risk to the guarantor and where they do not display one or more of the specific features referred to in point 1.3, for instance insurance guarantees, a case-by-case analysis will have to be made for which, as far as is necessary, the applicable sections or methodologies described in this Chapter will be applied.

1.5. Neutrality

This Chapter applies without prejudice to Article 125 of the EEA Agreement and thus does not prejudice the rules in the EFTA States governing the system of property ownership. The EEA Agreement is neutral as regards public and private ownership.

In particular, the mere fact that the ownership of an undertaking is largely in public hands is not sufficient in itself to constitute a state guarantee provided there are no explicit or implicit guarantee elements.

2. APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 61(1)

2.1. General remarks

Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement states that 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 the EEA Agreement.

These general criteria equally apply to guarantees. As for other forms of potential aid, guarantees given directly by the State, namely by central, regional or local authorities, as well as guarantees given through state resources by other state-controlled bodies such as undertakings and imputable to public authorities (4), may constitute state aid.

In order to avoid any doubts, the notion of state resources should thus be clarified as regards state guarantees. The benefit of a state guarantee is that the risk associated with the guarantee is carried by the State. Such risk-carrying by the State should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium. Where the State forgoes all or part of such a premium, there is both a benefit for the undertaking and a drain on the resources of the State. Thus, even if it turns out that no payments are ever made by the State under a guarantee, there may nevertheless be state aid under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The aid is granted at the moment when the guarantee is given, not when the guarantee is invoked nor when payments are made under the terms of the guarantee. Whether or not a guarantee constitutes state aid, and, if so, what the amount of that state aid may be, must be assessed at the moment when the guarantee is given.

In this context the EFTA Surveillance Authority points out that the analysis under state aid rules does not prejudge the compatibility of a given measure with other provisions of the EEA Agreement.

2.2. Aid to the borrower

Usually, the aid beneficiary is the borrower. As indicated under point 2.1, risk-carrying should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium. When the borrower does not need to pay the premium, or pays a low premium, it obtains an advantage. Compared to a situation without guarantee, the state guarantee enables the borrower to obtain better financial terms for a loan than those normally available on the financial markets. Typically, with the benefit of the state guarantee, the borrower can obtain lower rates and/or offer less security. In some cases, the borrower would not, without a state guarantee, find a financial institution prepared to lend on any terms. State guarantees may thus facilitate the creation of new business and enable certain undertakings to raise money in order to pursue new activities. Likewise, a state guarantee may help a failing firm remain active instead of being eliminated or restructured, thereby possibly creating distortions of competition.

2.3. Aid to the lender

2.3.1.

Even if usually the aid beneficiary is the borrower, it cannot be ruled out that under certain circumstances the lender, too, will directly benefit from the aid. In particular, for example, if a state guarantee is given ex post in respect of a loan or other financial obligation already entered into without the terms of this loan or financial obligation being adjusted, or if one guaranteed loan is used to pay back another, non-guaranteed loan to the same credit institution, then there may also be aid to the lender, in so far as the security of the loans is increased. Where the guarantee contains aid to the lender, attention should be drawn to the fact that such aid might, in principle, constitute operating aid.

2.3.2.

Guarantees differ from other state aid measures, such as grants or tax exemptions, in that, in the case of a guarantee, the State also enters into a legal relationship with the lender. Therefore, consideration has to be given to the possible consequences for third parties of state aid that has been illegally granted. In the case of state guarantees for loans, this concerns mainly the lending financial institutions. In the case of guarantees for bonds issued to obtain financing for undertakings, this concerns the financial institutions involved in the issuance of the bonds. The question whether the illegality of the aid affects the legal relations between the State and third parties is a matter which has to be examined under national law. National courts may have to examine whether national law prevents the guarantee contracts from being honoured, and in that assessment the EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that they should take account of the breach of EEA law. Accordingly, lenders may have an interest in verifying, as a standard precaution, that the EEA rules on state aid have been observed whenever guarantees are granted. An EFTA State should be able to provide a case number issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority for an individual case or a scheme and possibly a non-confidential copy of the EFTA Surveillance Authority‘檚 decision together with the relevant reference to the Official Journal of the European Union. The EFTA Surveillance Authority for its part will do its utmost to make available in a transparent manner information on cases and schemes approved by it.

3. CONDITIONS RULING OUT THE EXISTENCE OF AID

3.1. General considerations

If an individual guarantee or a guarantee scheme entered into by the State does not bring any advantage to an undertaking, it will not constitute state aid.

In this context, in order to determine whether an advantage is being granted through a guarantee or a guarantee scheme, the European Court of Justice has confirmed in its recent judgments (5) that the European Commission should base its assessment on the principle of an investor operating in a market economy (hereafter referred to as the ‘榤arket economy investor principle‘�. Account should therefore be taken of the effective possibilities for a beneficiary undertaking to obtain equivalent financial resources by having recourse to the capital market. State aid is not involved where a new funding source is made available on conditions which would be acceptable for a private operator under the normal conditions of a market economy (6).

In order to facilitate the assessment of whether the market economy investor principle is fulfilled for a given guarantee measure, the EFTA Surveillance Authority sets out in this section a number of sufficient conditions for the absence of aid. Individual guarantees are covered in point 3.2 with a simpler option for SMEs in point 3.3. Guarantee schemes are covered in point 3.4 with a simpler option for SMEs in point 3.5.

3.2. Individual guarantees

Regarding an individual state guarantee, the EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the fulfilment of all the following conditions will be sufficient to rule out the presence of state aid.

(a)

The borrower is not in financial difficulty.

In order to decide whether the borrower is to be seen as being in financial difficulty, reference should be made to the definition set out in the Chapter of these Guidelines on aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (7). SMEs which have been incorporated for less than three years shall not be considered as being in difficulty for that period for the purposes of this Chapter.

(b)

The extent of the guarantee can be properly measured when it is granted.

This means that the guarantee must be linked to a specific financial transaction, for a fixed maximum amount and limited in time.

(c)

The guarantee does not cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan or other financial obligation; this limitation does not apply to guarantees covering debt securities (8).

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that if a financial obligation is wholly covered by a state guarantee, the lender has less incentive to properly assess, secure and minimise the risk arising from the lending operation, and in particular to properly assess the borrower‘檚 creditworthiness. Such risk assessment might, due to lack of means, not always be taken over by the state guarantor. This lack of incentive to minimise the risk of non-repayment of the loan might encourage lenders to contract loans with a greater than normal commercial risk and could thus increase the amount of higher-risk guarantees in the State‘檚 portfolio.

This limitation of 80 % does not apply to a public guarantee granted to finance a company whose activity is solely constituted by a properly entrusted Service of General Economic Interest (SGEI) (9) and when this guarantee has been provided by the public authority having put in place this entrustment. The limitation of 80 % applies if the company concerned provides other SGEIs or other economic activities.

In order to ensure that the lender effectively bears part of the risk, due attention must be given to the following two aspects:

‘�/p>

when the size of the loan or of the financial obligation decreases over time, for instance because the loan starts to be reimbursed, the guaranteed amount has to decrease proportionally, in such a way that at each moment in time the guarantee does not cover more than 80 % of the outstanding loan or financial obligation;

‘�/p>

losses have to be sustained proportionally and in the same way by the lender and the guarantor. In the same manner, net recoveries (i.e. revenues excluding costs for claim handling) generated from the recuperation of the debt from the securities given by the borrower have to reduce proportionally the losses borne by the lender and the guarantor. First-loss guarantees, where losses are first attributed to the guarantor and only then to the lender, will be regarded as possibly involving aid.

If an EFTA State wishes to provide a guarantee above the 80 % threshold and claims that it does not constitute aid, it should duly substantiate the claim, for instance on the basis of the arrangement of the whole transaction, and notify it to the EFTA Surveillance Authority so that the guarantee can be properly assessed with regards to its possible state aid character.

(d)

A market-oriented price is paid for the guarantee.

As indicated under point 2.1, risk-carrying should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium on the guaranteed or counter-guaranteed amount. When the price paid for the guarantee is at least as high as the corresponding guarantee premium benchmark that can be found on the financial markets, the guarantee does not contain aid.

If no corresponding guarantee premium benchmark can be found on the financial markets, the total financial cost of the guaranteed loan, including the interest rate of the loan and the guarantee premium, has to be compared to the market price of a similar non-guaranteed loan.

In both cases, in order to determine the corresponding market price, the characteristics of the guarantee and of the underlying loan should be taken into consideration. This includes: the amount and duration of the transaction; the security given by the borrower and other experience affecting the recovery rate evaluation; the probability of default of the borrower due to its financial position, its sector of activity and prospects; as well as other economic conditions. This analysis should notably allow the borrower to be classified by means of a risk rating. This classification may be provided by an internationally recognised rating agency or, where available, by the internal rating used by the bank providing the underlying loan. The EFTA Surveillance Authority points to the link between rating and default rate made by international financial institutions, whose work is also publicly available (10). To assess whether the premium is in line with the market prices an EFTA State can carry out a comparison of prices paid by similarly rated undertakings on the market.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority will therefore not accept that the guarantee premium is set at a single rate deemed to correspond to an overall industry standard.

3.3. Valuation of individual guarantees for SMEs

As an exception, if the borrower is an SME (11), the EFTA Surveillance Authority can by way of derogation from point 3.2(d) accept a simpler evaluation of whether or not a loan guarantee involves aid. In that case, and provided all the other conditions laid down in points 3.2(a), (b) and (c) are met, a state guarantee would be deemed as not constituting aid if the minimum annual premium (‘safe harbour premium‘�a href="#ntr12-L_2011105EN.01003601-E0012" id="ntc12-L_2011105EN.01003601-E0012" shape="rect"> (12)

托管标准,您可以接收以下服务:

1 标准定期系统查新,若有最新版本,会以站内短信或邮件的形式通知用户;

2 随时在标准托管页面中查看到该条标准的最新状态;

3 若用户有在学习和科研中的需要,可以在标准托管页面中试阅标准;

4 企业如果需要上新产品,我院及时提供标准查询、采购等方面的支持;

5 为企业在标准制修订、企业良好行为创建以及标准化试点过程中遇到的困难,可联系我院指定相关专家负责进行指导帮助、提供政策咨询;

6 为企业提供标准化政策的解读、标准化知识的推广培训、标准自我公开声明、标准文献的免费查询、企业标准化体系建设等方面的标准化服务;

进入企业标准托管

您可以通过编辑查新模板,批量查询指定标准集的最新情况。我们会通过查询,向您展示您所查询标准的:

1. 准确的标准号及标准名称(我们通过人工智能技术对您提交的标准号进行自动纠正)

2. 标准的最新状态(现行、废止或未发布)

3. 若标准已废止并被新标准替代,会反馈被替代的标准

4. 若您已托管此标准,便可以实时跟踪这个标准的最新状态

标准查新 模板下载

您可以在这里检索全球超过140万条标准,支持上百个国内国际标准组织的标准查询。您也可以在这里检索国内各类国家、部委和地方的法律法规。

更多标准子库在持续建设中。

标准检索

标准资讯点击排行榜 全部

资讯标题点击

[[ n.title ]] [[ n.read ]]

大连标准化公共服务平台

版权:大连标准化研究院有限公司

地址:大连市中山区高原街56号

电话:0411-82740851

大连标准