CELEX: E2012P0001
Language: en
Date: 2012-01-09 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-1/12)

15.3.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 76/13
            
         Action brought on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-1/12)
   2012/C 76/10
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening, represented by Jan Magne Juuhl-Langseth, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, Munkedamsveien 45, N-0201 Oslo, Norway.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:
   
               1.
            
            
               Declare Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority void; and
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:
   
               —
            
            
               The Applicant is the Norwegian Publishers Association. Its members are publishing houses in Norway.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Applicant seeks the annulment of Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, adopted on 12 October 2011.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure, according to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (SCA); and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           has not provided sufficient reasoning for its Decision, as stated in Article 16 SCA.