# C_2014400EN.01001601.xml

| 13.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 400/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 400/16

---

Action brought on 23 September 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-19/14)

2014/C 400/07

An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 September 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Markus Schneider and Gjermund Mathisen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

| 1. | The Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion sent to the Kingdom of Norway by the EFTA Surveillance Authority pursuant to Article 31(2) of that Agreement, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion sent to the Kingdom of Norway by the EFTA Surveillance Authority pursuant to Article 31(2) of that Agreement, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442.

EFTA Surveillance Authority

the Kingdom of Norway

| 2. | The Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of these proceedings.

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

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

| — | The application addresses the failure of Norway to comply, no later than 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion, delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that state’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (SCA), to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442. |
| --- | --- |

—

The application addresses the failure of Norway to comply, no later than 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion, delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that state’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (SCA), to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442.

EFTA Surveillance Authority

the Kingdom of Norway

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority states that, by failing to adopt, by the date of the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Case E-9/11, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 SCA as interpreted by the Court in its judgment in Case E-18/10 [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 202, paragraphs 29-30. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority states that, by failing to adopt, by the date of the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion, the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Case E-9/11, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 SCA as interpreted by the Court in its judgment in Case E-18/10 [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 202, paragraphs 29-30.

---