# C_2013132EN.01001301.xml

| 9.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/13

---

Action brought on 13 February 2013 by the Míla ehf. against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-1/13)

2013/C 132/08

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 February 2013 by Míla ehf., represented by Espen I. Bakken, attorney at law and Thomas Nordby, attorney at law, Arntzen de Besche Advokatfirma AS, Bygdøy allé 2, 0204 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

| 1. | declare void Article 1 of ESA Decision No 410/12/COL; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare void Article 1 of ESA Decision No 410/12/COL;

| 2. | order the Authority to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Authority to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

| — | The Applicant seeks the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 410/12/COL of 21 November 2012, to close the case without opening the formal investigation procedure as to whether the subsidised lease of optical fibres, previously operated on behalf of NATO, to Vodafone, is to be regarded as State aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant seeks the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 410/12/COL of 21 November 2012, to close the case without opening the formal investigation procedure as to whether the subsidised lease of optical fibres, previously operated on behalf of NATO, to Vodafone, is to be regarded as State aid.

| — | The contested Decision was adopted as a result of a complaint from Míla ehf. concerning alleged unlawful State aid granted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Iceland through subsidised lease for the use of two optical fibres which were previously operated by NATO. In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that the lease by the Defence Agency of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Iceland with Og fjarskipti (also referred to as ‘Vodafone’) of 1 February 2010 for the use and operation of an optical fibre did not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and closed the case without further investigations. |
| --- | --- |

—

The contested Decision was adopted as a result of a complaint from Míla ehf. concerning alleged unlawful State aid granted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Iceland through subsidised lease for the use of two optical fibres which were previously operated by NATO. In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that the lease by the Defence Agency of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Iceland with Og fjarskipti (also referred to as ‘Vodafone’) of 1 February 2010 for the use and operation of an optical fibre did not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and closed the case without further investigations.

| — | The Applicant claims, inter alia, that:






  — | the contested Decision rests upon an inadequate assessment of the facts and a misapplication of the relevant case law, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The Applicant claims, inter alia, that:

inter alia

—

the contested Decision rests upon an inadequate assessment of the facts and a misapplication of the relevant case law,

| — | the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure for aid granted, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure for aid granted, and

| — | the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to provide sufficient reasoning for their findings. |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to provide sufficient reasoning for their findings.

---