CELEX: E2012J0004
Language: en
Date: 2013-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of 7 October 2013 in Joined Cases E-4/12 and E-5/12 — Risdal Touring AS and Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — No need to adjudicate)

19.12.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 372/18
            
         ORDER OF THE COURT
   of 7 October 2013
   in Joined Cases E-4/12 and E-5/12
   Risdal Touring AS and Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — No need to adjudicate)
   (2013/C 372/07)
   In Joined Cases E-4/12 and E-5/12, Risdal Touring AS and Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION seeking in Case E-4/12 Risdal Touring the annulment of the defendant’s decision, first notified on 5 April 2012 without stating reasons, and subsequently notified on 4 May 2012, denying public access to the full statement of content and specific documents in ESA Case No 70506, a State aid case, on the basis of the Rules on Access to Documents (‘RAD’) established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL on 27 June 2008; and in Case E-5/12 Konkurrenten the annulment of the defendant’s decision as notified on 5 April 2012 without stating reasons and denying public access to the full statement of content in ESA Case No 60510, a State aid case, on the basis of the RAD established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL on 27 June 2008, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order on 7 October 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby orders:
   
                
            
            
               
                  In Case E-4/12 Risdal Touring AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority:
               
                           1.
                        
                        
                           The part of the application directed at specific documents is dismissed as inadmissible;
                        
                     
                           2.
                        
                        
                           There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the remainder of the application;
                        
                     
                           3.
                        
                        
                           ESA is to bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the applicant;
                        
                     
                           4.
                        
                        
                           The applicant is to bear half of its costs.
                        
                     
         
                
            
            
               
                  In Case E-5/12 Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority:
               
                           1.
                        
                        
                           The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                        
                     
                           2.
                        
                        
                           ESA is to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant.