CELEX: E1994P0002
Language: en
Date: 1994-04-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 28 April 1994 by the Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited (SSGA) against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-2/94)

Avis juridique important

|

E1994P0002

Action brought on 28 April 1994 by the Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited (SSGA) against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-2/94)  

Official Journal C 199 , 21/07/1994 P. 0009 - 0009

Action brought on 28 April 1994 by the Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited (SSGA) against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-2/94) (94/C 199/09)An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 April 1994 by the Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited (SSGA), whose registered office is in Perth, Scotland, represented by Alastair Sutton, Barrister, and Alsadair R. M. Bell, Solicitor, with an address for service at the offices of Edmond Tavernier, Rue Töpffer 11, CH-1206 Geneva.The applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:- annul the decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority dated 24 March 1994,- order the defendant to pay the costs.Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:The applicant, a company formed to promote the interests of Scottish salmon growers, contests the EFTA Surveillance Authority's decision of 24 March 1994 to close its file on the complaint which the applicant had lodged concerning alleged infringements of the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement by the Kingdom of Norway in granting State aid to its salmon industry. The contested decision was taken on the grounds of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's lack of competence under the relevant provisions of the EEA Agreement.The applicant asserts, first, that the contested decision is not in accordance with Article 62 (1) (b) of the EEA Agreement and Article 5 (1) of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice on the grounds that the EFTA Surveillance Authority is the only competent authority to deal with the complaint, and its refusal to do so is tantamount to a denial of justice for the applicant.Secondly, the applicant submits that Article 16 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice and, thus, an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 36 of that Agreement has been infringed by the Authority's failure to state any or any adequate reasons for its decision.