CELEX: E2011P0012
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 13 September 2011 by Asker Brygge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-12/11)

10.11.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 325/9
            
         Action brought on 13 September 2011 by Asker Brygge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-12/11)
   2011/C 325/05
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 September 2011 by Asker Brygge AS, represented by Thomas Nordby, attorney-at-law and Espen Bakken, 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 the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 232/11/COL;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:
   
   
               —
            
            
               In its Decision No 232/11/COL of 13 July 2011 on the notification of the sale of land at Nesøyveien 8, gnr. 32 bnr. 17, in the municipality of Asker, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that the sale constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and that it shall be subject to recovery.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested Decision.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           has misapplied Article 61(1) of the in its assessment of whether Asker Brygge received economic advantage within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA,
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           has erred in its assessment of the relevant time for the basis for calculation of whether State aid was granted within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA, and
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           has not taken duly into account the fact that the sale is based on an option agreement.