# C_2010320EN.01002301.xml

| 25.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/23 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-15/10)

2010/C 320/12

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS, represented by Siri Teigum, advokat, and Frode Elgesem, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS, Haakon VIIs gate 10, 0116 Oslo, NORWAY.

The Applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, |
| - | ----------------------------- |

| — | annul or substantially reduce the fine, |
| - | --------------------------------------- |

| — | order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------- |

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

| — | The Applicant, Posten Norge AS, operates the national postal service in Norway which covers mail, parcels and financial services. Its sole owner continues to be the Norwegian State. The majority of Posten Norge AS’ services (90 %) are exposed to competition. |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | By its decision of 14 July 2010 in case No 34250 ‘Norway Post/Privpak’, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that Posten Norge AS committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement from 20 September 2000 until 31 March 2006 in the market for business-to-consumer parcel services with over-the-counter delivery in Norway by pursuing an exclusivity strategy with preferential treatment when establishing and maintaining its Post-in-Shop network. Consequently, a fine of EUR 12,89 million was imposed. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | The Applicant claims that the decision must be annulled as:
—
the EFTA Surveillance Authority erred in the interpretation and application of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, by holding that any detrimental effect for the rivals’ ability to compete is sufficient to establish abuse, —
the EFTA Surveillance Authority has not proven that Posten Norge AS has infringed the competition rules in this case, in particular, it has not substantiated that the exclusivity strategy prevented new entrants from competing effectively, limited their access to the leading grocery store, kiosk and petrol station chains in a manner that constituted abuse, or did result in actual anticompetitive effects, —
in any event, the behaviour of Posten Norge AS was objectively justified. | — | the EFTA Surveillance Authority erred in the interpretation and application of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, by holding that any detrimental effect for the rivals’ ability to compete is sufficient to establish abuse, | — | the EFTA Surveillance Authority has not proven that Posten Norge AS has infringed the competition rules in this case, in particular, it has not substantiated that the exclusivity strategy prevented new entrants from competing effectively, limited their access to the leading grocery store, kiosk and petrol station chains in a manner that constituted abuse, or did result in actual anticompetitive effects, | — | in any event, the behaviour of Posten Norge AS was objectively justified. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the EFTA Surveillance Authority erred in the interpretation and application of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, by holding that any detrimental effect for the rivals’ ability to compete is sufficient to establish abuse, | | | | | | |
| — | the EFTA Surveillance Authority has not proven that Posten Norge AS has infringed the competition rules in this case, in particular, it has not substantiated that the exclusivity strategy prevented new entrants from competing effectively, limited their access to the leading grocery store, kiosk and petrol station chains in a manner that constituted abuse, or did result in actual anticompetitive effects, | | | | | | |
| — | in any event, the behaviour of Posten Norge AS was objectively justified. | | | | | | |

| — | In the alternative the Applicant contends that the fine must be substantially reduced as the EFTA Surveillance Authority:
—
erred in assessing the duration of the alleged infringement, —
failed to correctly assess the gravity of the infringement, —
failed to conclude the administrative proceedings within reasonable time, which alone must lead to a reduction of the fine by at least 50 %. | — | erred in assessing the duration of the alleged infringement, | — | failed to correctly assess the gravity of the infringement, | — | failed to conclude the administrative proceedings within reasonable time, which alone must lead to a reduction of the fine by at least 50 %. |
| - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | erred in assessing the duration of the alleged infringement, | | | | | | |
| — | failed to correctly assess the gravity of the infringement, | | | | | | |
| — | failed to conclude the administrative proceedings within reasonable time, which alone must lead to a reduction of the fine by at least 50 %. | | | | | | |

---