# C_2011374EN.01001601.xml

| 22.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/16

---

Action brought on 19 October 2011 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-14/11)

2011/C 374/11

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 19 October 2011 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively ‘DB Schenker’), represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.

The applicants request the EFTA Court to:

| 1. | Annul the contested decision in so far as it denies access to inspection documents in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annul the contested decision in so far as it denies access to inspection documents in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak).

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

2.

Order the defendant and any interveners to bear 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 applicants, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS are part of DB Schenker, an international freight forwarding and logistic group, owned by Deutsche Bahn AG. Schenker North AB runs the group’s business operations by land, sea and rail in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, including the subsidiaries Schenker Privpak AS and Schenker Privpak AB (collectively referred to as ‘DB Schenker’). |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicants, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS are part of DB Schenker, an international freight forwarding and logistic group, owned by Deutsche Bahn AG. Schenker North AB runs the group’s business operations by land, sea and rail in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, including the subsidiaries Schenker Privpak AS and Schenker Privpak AB (collectively referred to as ‘DB Schenker’).

| — | On 14 July 2010, the EFTA Surveillance Authority adopted a decision in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak), finding that Norway Post had abused its dominant position in the Norwegian business-to-consumer parcel delivery market in 2000-2006. The applicants are pursuing a damages claim against Norway Post for losses caused by the infringement. On 3 August 2010, the applicants submitted a request for access to documents under the Rules of Access to Documents (RAD) established by a Decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 27 June 2008. |
| --- | --- |

—

On 14 July 2010, the EFTA Surveillance Authority adopted a decision in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak), finding that Norway Post had abused its dominant position in the Norwegian business-to-consumer parcel delivery market in 2000-2006. The applicants are pursuing a damages claim against Norway Post for losses caused by the infringement. On 3 August 2010, the applicants submitted a request for access to documents under the Rules of Access to Documents (RAD) established by a Decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 27 June 2008.

| — | By a letter dated 16 August 2011, the EFTA Surveillance Authority refused the applicants’ request for access to documents collected during an inspection at the premises of Norway Post between 21 and 24 June 2004. The applicants seek to challenge that refusal under Article 36 SCA. |
| --- | --- |

—

By a letter dated 16 August 2011, the EFTA Surveillance Authority refused the applicants’ request for access to documents collected during an inspection at the premises of Norway Post between 21 and 24 June 2004. The applicants seek to challenge that refusal under Article 36 SCA.

The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated DB Schenker’s right of access to documents pursuant to Article 2(1) RAD:

| — | by wrongfully applying the exception in Article 4(1)(b) RAD concerning privacy and personal integrity, |
| --- | --- |

—

by wrongfully applying the exception in Article 4(1)(b) RAD concerning privacy and personal integrity,

| — | by wrongfully applying the exceptions in Article 4(2) RAD concerning commercial interests, inspections and investigations and overriding public interest in disclosure, and |
| --- | --- |

—

by wrongfully applying the exceptions in Article 4(2) RAD concerning commercial interests, inspections and investigations and overriding public interest in disclosure, and

| — | infringed the right in Article 4(6) RAD to partial access to documents. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringed the right in Article 4(6) RAD to partial access to documents.

---