# C_2017009EN.01003801.xml

| 12.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/38

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 6 January 2016 in the case of Synnøve Finden v Staten v/Landbruks- og matdepartmentet

(Case E-1/16)

(2017/C 9/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 6 January 2016 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 January 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Synnøve Finden v Staten v/Landbruks- og matdepartmentet (the Norwegian State represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food) on the following questions concerning Regulation of 29 June 2007 No 832 on a price equalisation system for milk (the ‘PE Regulation’):

| 1.1. | Is the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation an arrangement of a nature whereby the Court, on considering its lawfulness, must consider it in relation to the rules on the freedom of establishment in Article 31 of the EEA Agreement? |
| --- | --- |

1.1.

Is the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation an arrangement of a nature whereby the Court, on considering its lawfulness, must consider it in relation to the rules on the freedom of establishment in Article 31 of the EEA Agreement?

| 1.2. | If the court is required to consider Article 31 of the EEA Agreement in relation to the lawfulness of the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation, will Article 31 of the EEA Agreement only be relevant if there is a cross-border element in the case? |
| --- | --- |

1.2.

If the court is required to consider Article 31 of the EEA Agreement in relation to the lawfulness of the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation, will Article 31 of the EEA Agreement only be relevant if there is a cross-border element in the case?

| 1.3. | If the court is required to consider Article 31 of the EEA Agreement in relation to the lawfulness of the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation, will Article 31 of the EEA Agreement only be relevant in relation to what are commonly referred to as ‘Protocol 3 products’, or will it be deemed to constitute transport aid of relevance to all product categories, even if transport is limited to the party’s own products? |
| --- | --- |

1.3.

If the court is required to consider Article 31 of the EEA Agreement in relation to the lawfulness of the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation, will Article 31 of the EEA Agreement only be relevant in relation to what are commonly referred to as ‘Protocol 3 products’, or will it be deemed to constitute transport aid of relevance to all product categories, even if transport is limited to the party’s own products?

| 2.1. | Is the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation an arrangement that requires prior notification to ESA pursuant to Article 60 of the EEA Agreement? |
| --- | --- |

2.1.

Is the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation an arrangement that requires prior notification to ESA pursuant to Article 60 of the EEA Agreement?

| 2.2. | If the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation requires prior notification to ESA pursuant to Article 60, does this only concern what are commonly referred to as ‘Protocol 3 products’, or will it be deemed to constitute transport aid of relevance to all product categories? |
| --- | --- |

2.2.

If the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation requires prior notification to ESA pursuant to Article 60, does this only concern what are commonly referred to as ‘Protocol 3 products’, or will it be deemed to constitute transport aid of relevance to all product categories?

---