12.1.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/38

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 6 January 2016 in the case of Synnøve Finden v Staten v/Landbruks- og matdepartmentet

(Case E-1/16)

(2017/C 9/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 6 January 2016 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 January 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Synnøve Finden v Staten v/Landbruks- og matdepartmentet (the Norwegian State represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food) on the following questions concerning Regulation of 29 June 2007 No 832 on a price equalisation system for milk (the ‘PE Regulation’):

1.1.	Is the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation an arrangement of a nature whereby the Court, on considering its lawfulness, must consider it in relation to the rules on the freedom of establishment in Article 31 of the EEA Agreement?

1.2.	If the court is required to consider Article 31 of the EEA Agreement in relation to the lawfulness of the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation, will Article 31 of the EEA Agreement only be relevant if there is a cross-border element in the case?

1.3.

If the court is required to consider Article 31 of the EEA Agreement in relation to the lawfulness of the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation, will Article 31 of the EEA Agreement only be relevant in relation to what are commonly referred to as ‘Protocol 3 products’, or will it be deemed to constitute transport aid of relevance to all product categories, even if transport is limited to the party’s own products?

2.1.	Is the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation an arrangement that requires prior notification to ESA pursuant to Article 60 of the EEA Agreement?

2.2.

If the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation requires prior notification to ESA pursuant to Article 60, does this only concern what are commonly referred to as ‘Protocol 3 products’, or will it be deemed to constitute transport aid of relevance to all product categories?