# C_2012369EN.01001401.xml

| 29.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/14

---

Action brought on 4 September 2012 by the Government of Iceland against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-9/12)

2012/C 369/12

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 4 September 2012 by the Government of Iceland, represented by Jóhanna Bryndís Bjarnadóttir, Counsellor at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, acting as agent, Haraldur Steinþórsson, Legal Officer at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, acting as co-agent, and Dóra Sif Tynes, Attorney at Law, acting as Counsel.

The Applicant seeks a declaration by the EFTA Court that:

| 1. | Article 5 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures; the sale of real estate; and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf. is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures; the sale of real estate; and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf. is annulled;

| 2. | Article 6 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures; the sale of real estate; and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf. is void as concerns the reference to Article 5; and |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures; the sale of real estate; and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf. is void as concerns the reference to Article 5; and

| 3. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority is ordered to pay the full legal costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority is ordered to pay the full legal 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 Applicant, the Government of Iceland, seeks a partial annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision No 261/12/COL, adopted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) on 4 July 2012 the contested decision. The contested decision was adopted following ESA's Decision No 418/10/COL of 3 November 2010 to open a formal investigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Applicant, the Government of Iceland, seeks a partial annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision No 261/12/COL, adopted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) on 4 July 2012 the contested decision. The contested decision was adopted following ESA's Decision No 418/10/COL of 3 November 2010 to open a formal investigation procedure.

| — | The case concerns the application of Article 61(1) EEA and the EFTA Surveillance Authority's State Aid Guidelines on State aid elements in the sales of land and buildings by public authorities, on the sale of real estate in the former US military area in the Reykjanes peninsula by the Icelandic State. |
| --- | --- |

—

The case concerns the application of Article 61(1) EEA and the EFTA Surveillance Authority's State Aid Guidelines on State aid elements in the sales of land and buildings by public authorities, on the sale of real estate in the former US military area in the Reykjanes peninsula by the Icelandic State.

| — | The Applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:






  — | failed to demonstrate on the basis of facts or evidence that the real estate was sold below its market value. Therefore, the sale did not result in an economic advantage to the buyer and State aid is not present, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

The Applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

—

failed to demonstrate on the basis of facts or evidence that the real estate was sold below its market value. Therefore, the sale did not result in an economic advantage to the buyer and State aid is not present,

| — | failed to investigate the sale adequately and manifestly erred in the assessment of the alleged state aid, and |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to investigate the sale adequately and manifestly erred in the assessment of the alleged state aid, and

| — | failed to state adequate reasons in the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

failed to state adequate reasons in the contested decision.

---