# C_2006258EN.01002701.xml

| 26.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/27

---

Action brought on 31 July 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-2/06)

(2006/C 258/11)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 31 July 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger, acting as Agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Declare that the Kingdom of Norway, by maintaining in force measures, as laid down in Act 16 of 14 December 1917, which grant a time limited concession on the acquisition of waterfalls for energy production to private and all undertakings from other Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement and require them to give all installations to the Norwegian State without compensation, at the expiry of the concession, to the exclusion of Norwegian public undertakings which benefit from concessions for an unlimited period of time, Norway has infringed Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement.
  and |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declare that the Kingdom of Norway, by maintaining in force measures, as laid down in Act 16 of 14 December 1917, which grant a time limited concession on the acquisition of waterfalls for energy production to private and all undertakings from other Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement and require them to give all installations to the Norwegian State without compensation, at the expiry of the concession, to the exclusion of Norwegian public undertakings which benefit from concessions for an unlimited period of time, Norway has infringed Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement.

Act 16 of 14 December 1917

and

| 2. | Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

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

| — | The case concerns transfer of property rights to hydroelectric power plants to the Norwegian State without compensation at the expiry of the concession period. This transfer is referred to in Norwegian law as ‘reversion’ (‘hjemfall’ in Norwegian), even if the State never held any property rights to the waterfall or hydroelectric installation in the past. |
| --- | --- |

—

The case concerns transfer of property rights to hydroelectric power plants to the Norwegian State without compensation at the expiry of the concession period. This transfer is referred to in Norwegian law as ‘reversion’ (‘hjemfall’ in Norwegian), even if the State never held any property rights to the waterfall or hydroelectric installation in the past.

| — | Under Act No 16 of 14 December 1917 (the ‘Industrial Licensing Act’), the duration of a concession to use waterfalls and hydroelectric installations is unlimited to companies owned at least 2/3 by the Norwegian State, county municipalities or municipalities, but is limited to all others, including all companies in which owners from other EEA States, alone or together with Norwegian private owners, hold more than 1/3 of the share capital. |
| --- | --- |

—

Under Act No 16 of 14 December 1917 (the ‘Industrial Licensing Act’), the duration of a concession to use waterfalls and hydroelectric installations is unlimited to companies owned at least 2/3 by the Norwegian State, county municipalities or municipalities, but is limited to all others, including all companies in which owners from other EEA States, alone or together with Norwegian private owners, hold more than 1/3 of the share capital.

Act No 16 of 14 December 1917

| — | The consequence is that reversion only applies to the latter category. |
| --- | --- |

—

The consequence is that reversion only applies to the latter category.

| — | This, according to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, means that reversion as it now operates discriminates against owners from other EEA States, which is an infringement of Articles 31 and 41 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

This, according to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, means that reversion as it now operates discriminates against owners from other EEA States, which is an infringement of Articles 31 and 41 of the EEA Agreement.

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that this difference in treatment is not objectively justified, nor falling within the ambit of Article 125 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that this difference in treatment is not objectively justified, nor falling within the ambit of Article 125 of the EEA Agreement.

---