# C_2010320EN.01002201.xml

| 25.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/22

---

Action brought on 2 September 2010 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-14/10)

2010/C 320/11

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 September 2010 by Konkurrenten.no AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, NORWAY.

The applicant requests the EFTA Court:

| 1. | to annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 254/10/COL of 21 June 2010 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene); |
| --- | --- |

1.

to annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 254/10/COL of 21 June 2010 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene);

| 2. | to order the Defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

to order the Defendant to pay the costs.

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

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

| — | The Applicant, Konkurrenten.no AS, is a privately owned operator in the Norwegian express bus market. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant, Konkurrenten.no AS, is a privately owned operator in the Norwegian express bus market.

| — | On 11 August 2006, the Applicant lodged a complaint with the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that the City of Oslo has granted aid to AS Oslo Sporveier (now: Ruter AS) and its subsidiary, AS Sporveisbussene (now: Unibuss AS), in violation of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

On 11 August 2006, the Applicant lodged a complaint with the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that the City of Oslo has granted aid to AS Oslo Sporveier (now: Ruter AS) and its subsidiary, AS Sporveisbussene (now: Unibuss AS), in violation of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.

| — | With the contested decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the case. It considered that State aid contrary to Articles 61(1) and 49 of the EEA Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 had been granted. It further considered that the aid was existing aid pursuant to Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, and that it was terminated in 2008. It concluded that no further action was required. |
| --- | --- |

—

With the contested decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the case. It considered that State aid contrary to Articles 61(1) and 49 of the EEA Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 had been granted. It further considered that the aid was existing aid pursuant to Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, and that it was terminated in 2008. It concluded that no further action was required.

| — | The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:






  — | erred by assessing the aid between 2000 and 2008 as existing aid, given that a new licence to run local bus transport in the City of Oslo was issued at the end of 1999, and infringed its duty to open the formal investigation procedure, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

—

erred by assessing the aid between 2000 and 2008 as existing aid, given that a new licence to run local bus transport in the City of Oslo was issued at the end of 1999, and infringed its duty to open the formal investigation procedure,

| — | erred by assessing the aid between 1997 and 2000 as existing aid, given the liberalisation of the market for bus transport, and infringed its duty to open the formal investigation procedure, and |
| --- | --- |

—

erred by assessing the aid between 1997 and 2000 as existing aid, given the liberalisation of the market for bus transport, and infringed its duty to open the formal investigation procedure, and

| — | failed to sufficiently state the reasons for its decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to sufficiently state the reasons for its decision.

---