Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document E2012J0004

    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)

    OJ C 372, 19.12.2013, p. 18–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    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.


    Top