Report 2011 - EFTA Court

V FORMS OF ORDER SOUGHT By THE PARTIES
25. The applicant, Konkurrenten.no AS, requests the Court:
(i) to annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No. 254/10/
COL of 21 June 2010 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS
Sporveisbussene)
(ii) to order the Defendant to pay the costs.
26. The defendant, the EFTA Surveillance Authority, claims that the
Court should:
(i) dismiss the Application as unfounded;
(ii) order the Applicant to pay the costs.
27. Kollektivtransportproduksjon AS has intervened in support of the
EFTA Surveillance Authority.
VI wRITTEN PROCEDURE
28. Pleadings have been received from:
– the applicant, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat;
– the defendant, represented by Xavier Lewis, Director, and
Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, Deputy Director, Department of
Legal & Executive Affairs, acting as agents.
29. Pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the EFTA Court, written
observations have been received from:
– the European Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”),
represented by Leo Flynn and Tim Maxian Rusche, members
of its Legal Service, acting as agents.
Admissibility
30. The applicant submits, undisputed by the defendant, that the
application is admissible. in particular, Konkurrenten asserts
that it has locus standi with regard to its pleas that the defendant
failed to open the formal investigation procedure in his capacity
as “party concerned” under Article 1(2) in Part i of Protocol 3
SCA, as the defendant closed the case without opening the formal
CASE E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Surveillance Authority
Summary Report
CAse Case
e-14/10
e-xx/x
307