# C_2012324EN.01001101.xml

| 25.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/11 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Risdal Touring AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-4/12)

2012/C 324/09

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 June 2012 by Risdal Touring AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

| 1. | Annul the contested decision; and |
| -- | --------------------------------- |

| 2. | Order the defendant and any intervener to bear the costs. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------- |

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

| — | The Applicant is a privately owned company, incorporated in Norway. The company is an operator in the tour bus market, active in Norway and several EU Member States. |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | The Applicant seeks the annulment of ESA’s decision, as notified on 5 April 2012, and subsequently notified on 4 May 2012, denying public access to the complete statement of content in ESA Case No 70506. |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:
—
has infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 4(2) RAD by refusing to grant access to the full statement of content in ESA Case No 70506, —
has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual questions ESA asked the Norwegian government, the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011, —
has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual answers ESA received from the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011, and —
has infringed Article 16 SCA in so far as the contested decision failed to state reasons. | — | has infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 4(2) RAD by refusing to grant access to the full statement of content in ESA Case No 70506, | — | has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual questions ESA asked the Norwegian government, the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011, | — | has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual answers ESA received from the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011, and | — | has infringed Article 16 SCA in so far as the contested decision failed to state reasons. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | has infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 4(2) RAD by refusing to grant access to the full statement of content in ESA Case No 70506, | | | | | | | | |
| — | has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual questions ESA asked the Norwegian government, the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011, | | | | | | | | |
| — | has infringed Articles 2(1) and 4(2) RAD in so far as the contested decision refused to disclose the factual answers ESA received from the City of Oslo and the recipient of the potentially unlawful aid in order to establish whether a formal investigation procedure needed to be opened following the State aid complaint that the defendant received on 8 September 2011, and | | | | | | | | |
| — | has infringed Article 16 SCA in so far as the contested decision failed to state reasons. | | | | | | | | |

---