CELEX: E2016P0007
Language: en
Date: 2016-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 21 June 2016 by Míla ehf. against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-7/16)

22.9.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 347/35
            
         Action brought on 21 June 2016 by Míla ehf. against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-7/16)
   (2016/C 347/07)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 June 2016 by Míla ehf., represented by Espen Bakken, attorney at law and Atle Erling Lunder, attorney at law, Arntzen de Besche Advokatfirma AS, Bygdøy allé 2, 0204 Oslo, Norway.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:
   
               1.
            
            
               Declare void Articles 1 and 2 of ESA Decision 061/16/COL;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Order the Authority to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
            
         
      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Applicant seeks the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 061/16/COL of 16 March 2016.
            
         
               —
            
            
               As a consequence of the EFTA Court's judgment in Case E-1/13, the EFTA Surveillance Authority initiated a formal investigation procedure to look into the lease by the Defence Agency of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland with Og fjarskipti of 1 February 2010, for the use and operation of an optical fibre. The investigation was concluded with Decision No 061/16/COL where the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that the lease did not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Applicant claims that the contested Decision rests upon a misapplication of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.