CELEX: E2012P0005
Language: en
Date: 2012-06-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-5/12)

25.10.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 324/13
            
         Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-5/12)
   2012/C 324/11
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 June 2012 by Konkurrenten.no AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:
   
               1.
            
            
               Annul the contested decision; and
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Order the defendant and any intervener to bear the costs.
            
         
      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:
   
               —
            
            
               The Applicant is a privately owned company, incorporated in Norway. The company is active in the regional express bus market between the Southern and Central region in Norway.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Applicant seeks the annulment of ESA’s decision, as notified on 5 April 2012, which denies public access to the complete statement of content in ESA Case No 60510.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           has infringed Article 2(1) RAD and Article 4(2) RAD by refusing to disclose a complete statement of content of file; and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           has infringed Article 16 SCA insofar as the contested decision failed to state reasons.