Report 2011 - EFTA Court

III PRE-LITIGATION PROCEDURE
12 By letter of 11 August 2006, Konkurrenten lodged a complaint
with ESA, claiming that the Norwegian authorities had granted
State aid to Oslo Sporveier and its subsidiary Sporveisbussene.
13 in the subsequent investigation, ESA invited the Norwegian
authorities to comment and requested further information from
them in letters of 7 September 2006, 29 November 2006, 19
June 2007 and 2 April 2008. The Norwegian authorities replied to
these requests by letters of 11 October 2006, 11 January 2007,
16 August 2007 and 29 April 2008. Konkurrenten submitted
comments by letter on 20 October 2006 and further information
by emails of 25 February 2008, 25 May 2008, 4 June 2008, 15
August 2008, 1 September 2008 and 20 January 2009.
14 At the beginning of 2010, ESA and the Norwegian authorities
had informal telephone and email contact regarding the case.
The information received in this context was, according to the
decision, consolidated in a letter submitted electronically to ESA
by the Norwegian authorities on 21 April 2010.
IV THE CONTESTED DECISION
15 On 21 June 2010, ESA adopted the decision to close the case.
16 The decision describes the recipients of the aid as follows:
AS Oslo Sporveier has since its establishment been active in bus
transport, metro (“T-banen”), tram (“Trikk”) and ferry transport [in
Oslo]. … As of 1934, Oslo Municipality became practically the sole
owner (with 98.8% ownership) until a reorganization in July 2006.
Following this reorganization, a new company, Kollektivtransportproduksjon,
which is wholly owned by Oslo Municipality, became
the 100% owner of AS Oslo Sporveier. According to the Norwegian
authorities Oslo Municipality was involved in all issues of commercial
importance relating to the carrying out of collective bus transport
by AS Oslo Sporveier, including financial aspects of agreements/
contracts with subsidiaries (such as AS Sporveisbussene) or other
third parties.
CASE E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Surveillance Authority
Summary Judgment
CAse Case
e-14/10
e-xx/x
e-8/11
273