EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document E2010P0015
Action brought on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-15/10)
Action brought on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-15/10)
Action brought on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-15/10)
SL C 320, 25.11.2010, p. 23–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
25.11.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 320/23 |
Action brought on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Case E-15/10)
2010/C 320/12
An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS, represented by Siri Teigum, advokat, and Frode Elgesem, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS, Haakon VIIs gate 10, 0116 Oslo, NORWAY.
The Applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:
— |
annul the contested decision, |
— |
annul or substantially reduce the fine, |
— |
order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs. |
Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:
— |
The Applicant, Posten Norge AS, operates the national postal service in Norway which covers mail, parcels and financial services. Its sole owner continues to be the Norwegian State. The majority of Posten Norge AS’ services (90 %) are exposed to competition. |
— |
By its decision of 14 July 2010 in case No 34250 ‘Norway Post/Privpak’, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that Posten Norge AS committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement from 20 September 2000 until 31 March 2006 in the market for business-to-consumer parcel services with over-the-counter delivery in Norway by pursuing an exclusivity strategy with preferential treatment when establishing and maintaining its Post-in-Shop network. Consequently, a fine of EUR 12,89 million was imposed. |
— |
The Applicant claims that the decision must be annulled as:
|
— |
In the alternative the Applicant contends that the fine must be substantially reduced as the EFTA Surveillance Authority:
|