# Official Journal C 275/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 275 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6320 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 275

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6320 August 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 275/01 | Euro exchange rates — 19 August 2020 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 275/01

Euro exchange rates — 19 August 2020

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | COURT PROCEEDINGS |
| | EFTA Court |
| 2020/C 275/02 | Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 27 March 2020 in the case of The Norwegian Government v Anniken Jenny Lindberg (Case E-3/20) | 2 |
| 2020/C 275/03 | Action brought on 10 July 2020 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-9/20) | 4 |

V   Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

2020/C 275/02

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 27 March 2020 in the case of The Norwegian Government v Anniken Jenny Lindberg (Case E-3/20)

2

2020/C 275/03

Action brought on 10 July 2020 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-9/20)

4

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 20.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

19 August 2020

(2020/C 275/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1933 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 125,74 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4453 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90345 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3140 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0811 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 162,00 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,5455 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,118 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 349,79 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3942 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8403 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 8,7785 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6428 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5688 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2483 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7969 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6278 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 405,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 20,5183 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2472 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5328 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 626,23 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9790 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,911 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 87,5706 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,279 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,5115 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 26,3830 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 89,3160 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1933

JPY

Japanese yen

125,74

DKK

Danish krone

7,4453

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90345

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3140

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0811

ISK

Iceland króna

162,00

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,5455

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,118

HUF

Hungarian forint

349,79

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3942

RON

Romanian leu

4,8403

TRY

Turkish lira

8,7785

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6428

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5688

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2483

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7969

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6278

KRW

South Korean won

1 405,97

ZAR

South African rand

20,5183

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2472

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5328

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 626,23

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9790

PHP

Philippine peso

57,911

RUB

Russian rouble

87,5706

THB

Thai baht

37,279

BRL

Brazilian real

6,5115

MXN

Mexican peso

26,3830

INR

Indian rupee

89,3160

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

V Announcements

COURT PROCEEDINGS

EFTA Court

| 20.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/2

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 27 March 2020 in the case of The Norwegian Government v Anniken Jenny Lindberg

(Case E-3/20)

(2020/C 275/02)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 27 March 2020 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of The Norwegian Government v Anniken Jenny Lindberg on the following questions:

Article 21 of the Professional Qualifications Directive

1.

If the term ‘appropriate’ is to be understood as requiring the host State to determine whether it is appropriate to require the specified certificates in a given case:

2.

What is the legal assessment and which factors will be legally relevant in the determination of whether it is ‘appropriate’ to require listed certificates?

3.

Is it of any consequence if the evidence of formal qualifications alone provides documentary evidence of training that is deemed to fulfil the minimum criteria laid down in Article 34(2) of the Directive and if the certificate that cannot be produced relates to post-graduate practice?

Rights under the Main Part of the EEA Agreement

1.

If so:

2.

What is the legal assessment and what are the legally relevant factors in the determination of whether such an applicant may derive additional rights under Article 28 or Article 31 of the EEA Agreement?

3.

What importance does it have that an applicant does not have a certificate for post-graduate practice which the home State has listed in column 4 of point 5.3.2 of Annex V to the Professional Qualifications Directive, if the host State does not require post-graduate practice of applicants trained in the host State and the training completed by the applicant is deemed to be equivalent to the training offered in the host State?

4.

May it be required to give an applicant full rights in the host State if the evidence of formal qualifications the applicant is able to produce does not give the applicant corresponding professional rights in the home State?

---

| 20.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/4

---

Action brought on 10 July 2020 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-9/20)

(2020/C 275/03)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 July 2020 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Stewart Watson, Claire Simpson, Erlend M. Leonhardsen, Catherine Howdle and Carsten Zatschler, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

| 1. | Declare that, by maintaining in force provisions such as Sections 6-11(1) and 6-36(2) of the Public Limited Companies Act, Section 6-11(1) of the Private Limited Companies Act and Sections 7-5 and 8-4(5) of the Financial Undertakings Act the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 31 and 28 of the EEA Agreement, Article 1(1) of the Act referred to at point 2 of Annex V to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union) and Article 2 of the Act referred at point 8 of Annex XXII to the EEA Agreement (Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declare that, by maintaining in force provisions such as Sections 6-11(1) and 6-36(2) of the Public Limited Companies Act, Section 6-11(1) of the Private Limited Companies Act and Sections 7-5 and 8-4(5) of the Financial Undertakings Act the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 31 and 28 of the EEA Agreement, Article 1(1) of the Act referred to at point 2 of Annex V to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union) and Article 2 of the Act referred at point 8 of Annex XXII to the EEA Agreement (Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State).

| 2. | Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

| — | This application concerns various (nationality and/or) residence requirements laid down in Norwegian company law in respect of persons who occupy certain management roles in companies registered and incorporated in Norway. The legislative provisions concerned variably require a proportion of the founders of companies, managers, board members and members of the corporate assembly (corporate officers) to be resident in Norway. At the same time these provisions determine that the said residence requirements do not apply to nationals of EEA States, but only provided they are resident in such a State. |
| --- | --- |

—

This application concerns various (nationality and/or) residence requirements laid down in Norwegian company law in respect of persons who occupy certain management roles in companies registered and incorporated in Norway. The legislative provisions concerned variably require a proportion of the founders of companies, managers, board members and members of the corporate assembly (corporate officers) to be resident in Norway. At the same time these provisions determine that the said residence requirements do not apply to nationals of EEA States, but only provided they are resident in such a State.

| — | The provisions thus restrict the ability of companies lawfully established in another EEA State to set up and conduct business in Norway to the extent that they have corporate officers who are either not EEA nationals or EEA nationals not resident in the EEA. They also limit the ability of EEA nationals not resident in the EEA to act as corporate officers of Norwegian companies. |
| --- | --- |

—

The provisions thus restrict the ability of companies lawfully established in another EEA State to set up and conduct business in Norway to the extent that they have corporate officers who are either not EEA nationals or EEA nationals not resident in the EEA. They also limit the ability of EEA nationals not resident in the EEA to act as corporate officers of Norwegian companies.

| — | The EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’) submits that the provisions referred to amount, primarily, to an unjustified restriction of the freedom of establishment in Norway of companies which have been formed in accordance with the law of an EEA State and which have their seat in the EEA and, consequently, infringe Article 31 EEA. In addition, these requirements are incompatible with Directive 89/666. Finally, from the perspective of the individuals targeted by these provisions, they also infringe Article 28 EEA and Regulation 492/2011. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’) submits that the provisions referred to amount, primarily, to an unjustified restriction of the freedom of establishment in Norway of companies which have been formed in accordance with the law of an EEA State and which have their seat in the EEA and, consequently, infringe Article 31 EEA. In addition, these requirements are incompatible with Directive 89/666. Finally, from the perspective of the individuals targeted by these provisions, they also infringe Article 28 EEA and Regulation 492/2011.

| — | The case was opened in 2014 at the Authority’s initiative. In the course of its contacts with the Norwegian Government in the intervening years, on the basis, inter alia, of a letter of formal notice of 4 November 2015 and a reasoned opinion of 12 October 2016, the Norwegian Government explained that the residence requirements were designed to ensure accessibility to company management and to enable the national authorities to exercise jurisdiction over these companies. |
| --- | --- |

—

The case was opened in 2014 at the Authority’s initiative. In the course of its contacts with the Norwegian Government in the intervening years, on the basis, inter alia, of a letter of formal notice of 4 November 2015 and a reasoned opinion of 12 October 2016, the Norwegian Government explained that the residence requirements were designed to ensure accessibility to company management and to enable the national authorities to exercise jurisdiction over these companies.

| — | The Norwegian Government considered the requirements to be necessary, suitable and appropriate for this purpose. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Norwegian Government considered the requirements to be necessary, suitable and appropriate for this purpose.

| — | The Authority does not agree with this position, particularly in the light of a number of decisions of both the EFTA Court and the EU Court of Justice, in which similar requirements were found to be contrary to Article 31 EEA and Article 49 TFEU respectively. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Authority does not agree with this position, particularly in the light of a number of decisions of both the EFTA Court and the EU Court of Justice, in which similar requirements were found to be contrary to Article 31 EEA and Article 49 TFEU respectively.

| — | It should be noted that the Norwegian Government has drawn up proposals aimed at relaxing these requirements. The public consultation phase of the legislative process was concluded on 16 January 2020. These proposals had not yet been adopted at the time of lodging the present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

It should be noted that the Norwegian Government has drawn up proposals aimed at relaxing these requirements. The public consultation phase of the legislative process was concluded on 16 January 2020. These proposals had not yet been adopted at the time of lodging the present application.

---