# C_2017033EN.01000701.xml

| 2.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 33/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 19 April 2016

in Case E-14/15

Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund

(Articles 31, 53 and 54 EEA — Competition law — Collective agreements — Collective action — Freedom of establishment)

(2017/C 33/06)

In Case E-14/15, Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett) concerning the interpretation of the EEA Agreement, and in particular Articles 31, 53 and 54, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 19 April 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

Norges Høyesterett

| 1. | The exemption from the EEA competition rules that applies to collective agreements does not cover the assessment of a priority of engagement rule, such as the one at issue, or the use of a boycott against a port user in order to procure acceptance of a collective agreement, when such acceptance entails that the port user must give preference to buying unloading and loading services from a separate company, such as the administrative office at issue, in place of using its own employees for the same work. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The exemption from the EEA competition rules that applies to collective agreements does not cover the assessment of a priority of engagement rule, such as the one at issue, or the use of a boycott against a port user in order to procure acceptance of a collective agreement, when such acceptance entails that the port user must give preference to buying unloading and loading services from a separate company, such as the administrative office at issue, in place of using its own employees for the same work.

| 2. | Articles 53 and 54 EEA may apply separately or jointly to a system such as the one at issue. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 53 and 54 EEA may apply separately or jointly to a system such as the one at issue.

| 3. | Should a port, such as the one at issue, not be regarded as a substantial part of the EEA territory, identical or corresponding administrative office systems, which may exist in other ports, must be taken into account in order to determine whether a dominant position covers the territory of the EEA Agreement or a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should a port, such as the one at issue, not be regarded as a substantial part of the EEA territory, identical or corresponding administrative office systems, which may exist in other ports, must be taken into account in order to determine whether a dominant position covers the territory of the EEA Agreement or a substantial part of it.

| 4. | A boycott such as the one at issue, aimed at procuring acceptance of a collective agreement providing for a system which includes a priority clause, is likely to discourage or even prevent the establishment of companies from other EEA States and thereby constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment under Article 31 EEA. |
| --- | --- |

4.

A boycott such as the one at issue, aimed at procuring acceptance of a collective agreement providing for a system which includes a priority clause, is likely to discourage or even prevent the establishment of companies from other EEA States and thereby constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment under Article 31 EEA.

| 5. | It is of no significance for the assessment whether a restriction exists if the company’s need for unloading and loading services proved to be very limited and/or sporadic. |
| --- | --- |

5.

It is of no significance for the assessment whether a restriction exists if the company’s need for unloading and loading services proved to be very limited and/or sporadic.

| 6. | In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, it is of no significance for the assessment of the lawfulness of the restriction that the company, upon which the boycott is imposed, applies another collective agreement in relation to its own dockworkers. |
| --- | --- |

6.

In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, it is of no significance for the assessment of the lawfulness of the restriction that the company, upon which the boycott is imposed, applies another collective agreement in relation to its own dockworkers.

---