EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document E2004P0009

Action brought on 23 November 2004 by the Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-9/04)

OJ C 40, 17.2.2005, p. 18–18 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

17.2.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/18


Action brought on 23 November 2004 by the Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-9/04)

(2005/C 40/11)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 November 2004 by the Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland, represented by Dr. Hans-Jörg Niemeyer of Hengeler Mueller, avenue Cortenbergh 1118, B-1000 Brussels and Dr. Ralf Sauer of Hengeler Mueller, Charlottenstraße 35/36, 10117 Berlin, Germany.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

Annul the decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 11 August 2004, Decision 213/04/COL (Icelandic Housing Financing Fund); and

2.

Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

The applicant is the business association of all Icelandic commercial banks and acts as their service and clearing bank.

The Icelandic Housing Financing Fund (‘HFF’) provides general loans to individuals for the purpose of constructing or purchasing residential housing, and additional loans to individuals with low income.

The applicant claims that the general loans are normal banking services, and that HFF's de facto state monopoly contravenes the freedom to provide services, the right of establishment, and the free movement of capital.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 213/04/COL of 11 August 2004 declared the HFF system to be compatible with the State aid rules according to Article 59(2) EEA.

The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

violated its obligation to initiate formal proceedings;

infringed essential procedural requirements by not providing adequate reasons as required by Article 16 SCA; and,

wrongfully interpreted and applied Article 59(2) EEA.


Top