ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 338/12

Action brought on 2 March 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-4/16)

(2016/C 338/14)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 March 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Clémence Perrin and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion delivered to the Kingdom of Norway pursuant to Article 31(2) of that Agreement, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 2 December 2013 in Case E-13/13 (EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway).

2. Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses the Kingdom of Norway’s failure to comply, no later than 8 September 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 8 July 2015 regarding that State’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (‘SCA’) to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 2 December 2013 in Case E-13/13 (EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/17

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights dated 22 March 2016 in the case of an appeal from the municipality of Oslo

(Case E-5/16)

(2017/C 26/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 22 March 2016 from the Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights (Klagenemnda for industrielle rettigheter), which was received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of an appeal from the municipality of Oslo on the following questions:

1. May trademark registration of copyright works, for which the protection period has expired, under certain circumstances, conflict with the prohibition in Article 3(1)(f) of the Trade Marks Directive on registering trademarks that are contrary to ‘public policy or … accepted principles of morality’?

2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, will it have an impact on the assessment that the copyright work is well-known and of great cultural value?

3. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, may factors or criteria other than those mentioned in question 2 have a bearing on the assessment, and, if so, which ones?

4. Is Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC applicable to two-dimensional representations of sculptures?

5. Is Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC applicable as legal authority for refusing trademarks that are two or three-dimensional representations of the shape or appearance of the goods?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/34

Action brought on 23 February 2016 by Dr. Gerhard Spitzer against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-2/16)

(2016/C 347/06)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 February 2016 by Dr. Gerhard Spitzer, represented by Antonius Falkner, Attorney-at-law, Lettstrasse 18, FL-9490 Vaduz.

The applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:

1. Annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 425/15/COL of 25 November 2015, and

2. Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The applicant, Dr Gerhard Spitzer, is an Austrian citizen, domiciled in South Africa, which has been a customer of LLB AG, a company under majority ownership of the Principality of Liechtenstein, since the early 1990s.

— The case concerns an application for annulment of a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to close a case regarding a complaint against Liechtenstein concerning a failure to observe and correctly apply Directive 2002/47/EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 67/14

Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-15/17)

(2018/C 67/14)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbd of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 694/2014 of 17 December 2013 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards determining types of alternative investment fund managers), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.

2. Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 694/2014 of 17 December 2013 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards determining types of alternative investment fund managers, as referred to at point 31bbd of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 19 November 2018 in the case of Fosen-Linjen AS, supported by Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon (NHO) v AtB AS

(Case E-7/18)

(2019/C 107/05)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 19 November 2018 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 November 2018, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fosen-Linjen AS, supported by Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon (NHO) v AtB AS on the following question:

Does Article 2(1)(c) of the Remedies Directive require that any breach of the rules governing public procurement in itself is sufficient for there to be a basis of liability for positive contract interest?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur in the case of Zvonimir Cogelja v The Directorate of Health

(Case E-17/20)

(2021/C 141/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 8 December 2020 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 8 December 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Zvonimir Cogelja v The Directorate of Health on the following question:

Does Article 25 of Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications (see also point (c) of the first paragraph of Article 3, and Articles 21 and 26 of that directive), require that an EEA State that issues evidence of qualifications (called a ‘specialist licence’ (Icelandic: sérfræðileyfi)) for a doctor that enjoys automatic recognition in other EEA States must itself administer the training, recognition of which is sought through the issuance of such evidence, with the result that an EEA State is not to issue such evidence if the training did not take place in that State?
2.

Must ‘activity’ or ‘business activity’ of an authorised electronic money institution within the meaning of Directive 2009/110/EC be understood as meaning the issuance of electronic money, offering to issue electronic money or at least the activities of an electronic money institution that are subject to authorisation (strict interpretation) or does a sufficiently tangible business action also already suffice, for example, the conduct of other business activities, as is provided for in Article 6(1)(e) of Directive 2009/110/EC, to the extent that this action is directed, in accordance with objective criteria and genuinely, towards the issuance of electronic money and not completely trivial (broad interpretation)? Should a broad interpretation be required: What is the difference between a business action of that kind and purely preparatory actions?
Action brought on 9 July 2021 by SÝN hf. against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-4/21)

(2021/C 343/10)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 July 2021 by SÝN hf., represented by Dóra Sif Tynes, Attorney at Law, ADVEL, Kalkofnsvegur 2, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland.

SÝN hf. requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision, No 023/21/COL of 26 March 2021, aid to Farice ehf. for investment in a third submarine cable.

2. Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the full legal costs.

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

— Sýn (‘the applicant’) is an electronic communications and media company active in all telecommunications and broadcasting markets in Iceland, with its registered address for business at Suðurlandsbraut 8 in Reykjavik. The company traces its roots to the establishment of Íslandssími hf. and Tal hf. in the late ‘90s following the liberalisation of the provision of telecommunications services in Iceland. The applicant provides comprehensive electronic communications services, including the provisions of date centre services, under the brand name Vodafone subject to a partnership agreement with Vodafone Group plc.

— Farice hf. was established in 2002 by Icelandic and Faroese parties, with the purpose of preparing, constructing and operating a submarine electronic communication cable system providing international connectivity between Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the UK.

— This application is an action for an annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Decision No 023/21/COL (‘the contested decision’). The contested decision was adopted on 26 March 2021, following a notification from the Icelandic authorities submitted on 23 March 2021.
E1996X0613(02)

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licences pursuant to Article 13 (4) of Regulation No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers



Official Journal C 169 , 13/06/1996 P. 0014 - 0014
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 58/3

Publication of Aust-Agder County’s notification of tender procedure pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EEC) No 1107/70

2013/C 58/03

1. Name and address of the competent authority:

Aust-Agder County Plan- og samferdselsavdelingen Hilde Bergersen Box 788 Stoa 4809 Arendal NORWAY

As of mid-2013, the responsibility for the tender will be transferred to:

Agder kollektivtrafikk AS Kjell Sverre Drange Vestre Strandgt. 33 4611 Kristiansand NORWAY

2. Type of award envisaged:

Open tender procedure

3. Services and areas potentially covered by the award:

Bus services in Aust-Agder county (the municipalities of Risør, Gjerstad, Tvedestrand, Vegårshei, Arendal, Grimstad and Lillesand). The contract includes both scheduled routes and school transport.
EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 32/94/COL of 29 April 1994 establishing the status of EFTA States or regions with regard to Newcastle disease

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in particular Article 17 and Protocol 1 (4) (d) thereof,

Having regard to the Act referred to in point 4 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (Council Directive 90/539/EEC; hereinafter referred to as the Poultry Act), and in particular Article 12 (2) thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and in particular Article 5 (2) (d) and Protocol 1, Article 1 (e) thereof,

Whereas Finland, as stated in a letter dated 28 December 1993, and Sweden, as stated in a letter dated 14 December 1993, consider themselves to fulfil the requirements in Article 12 (2) of the Poultry Act;

Whereas in Finland and Sweden no outbreaks of Newcastle disease have been detected and vaccination against Newcastle disease has been prohibited for more than a year;

Whereas in Finland and Sweden breeding flocks have been monitored at least once a year for the presence of Newcastle disease;

Whereas in Finland and Sweden the holdings contain no poultry which have been vaccinated against Newcastle disease,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

1. EFTA States or regions thereof, listed in the Annex, fulfil the requirements laid down in Article 12 (2) of the Act referred to in point 4 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (Council Directive 90/539/EEC).

2. This Decision shall enter into force on 1 July 1994.

3. This Decision is addressed to the EFTA States.

4. This Decision shall be authentic in the English language.

Done at Brussels, 29 April 1994.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Pekka SÄILÄ

College Member

ANNEX

Regions which fulfil the requirements in Article 12 (2) of the Poultry Act

Finland: all regions

Sweden: all regions
Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 (3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 199 , 21/07/1994 P. 0007 - 0007



Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 (3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections (94/C 199/06) Date of adoption: 3. 6. 1994 EFTA State: Finland Aid No: 94-004 Title: Temporary grant scheme for industrial investment Objective: Incentive for investments made by SMEs Legal basis: Laki teollisten investointien väliaikaisesta investointituesta 1994 vp - HE 6 Budget: Fmk 170 million Aid intensity: 7 % Duration: 1994 Date of adoption: 11. 5. 1994 EFTA State: Austria Aid No: 94-005 Title: Map of assisted areas Objective: Regional aid Legal basis: Regional aid according to EU/EEA-competition rules - proposed list of eligible areas in Austria (1994, revised version) Budget: No budget directly allocated to the map Aid intensity: 15, 20 and 25 % NGE in Article 61 (3) (c) areas (population coverage: 2,99 %, 26,43 % and 2,27 %); 30 and 40 % NGE in Article 61 (3) (a) areas (Burgenland - population coverage: 3,47 %) Duration: 31 December 1998 Date of adoption: 8. 6. 1994 EFTA State: Sweden Aid No: 94-006 Title: Grant to small enterprises Objective: Reduce unemployment by promoting investment projects of small firms. Legal basis: State budget for the financial year 1994/95, 'Regeringens proposition 1993/94: 140` and 'Förordning om tillfälligt småföretagsstöd` Form of aid: Grants Beneficiaries: Small enterprises defined in conformity with the rules on aid to SMEs. Sectors subject to specific sectoral rules are excluded from the scheme Budget: Skr 800 million Aid intensity: Up to 15 % (gross) Duration: 1 July 1994 to 30 June 1995 Conditions: Simplified annual report
EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 191/94/COL of 30 November 1994 approving programmes concerning bonamiosis and marteiliosis for Norway

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 17 and Protocol 1 (4) (d) thereof,

Having regard to the Act referred to in point 5 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products (Council Directive 91/67/EEC, hereinafter referred to as 'the Aquaculture Act'), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and in particular Article 5 (2) (d) and Protocol 1, Article 1 (e) thereof,

Whereas Norway as stated in letters dated 7 July and 19 October 1994 has submitted two programmes concerning bonamiosis and marteiliosis for Norway;

Whereas these programmes specify the geographical zones concerned, the measures to be taken by the official services, the procedures to be followed by the official laboratories, the prevalence of the disease concerned and the measures to combat these diseases when detected;

Whereas these programmes have been found to be in conformity with the requirements laid down in Article 10 of the Aquaculture Act;

Whereas in accordance with Article 10 (2) of the Aquaculture Act, the introduction of aquaculture animals and products into the zones referred to in these programmes shall be subject to the rules set out in Articles 7 and 8 of the Aquaculture Act;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the EFTA Veterinary Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

1. The programmes concerning bonamiosis and marteiliosis for Norway are hereby approved.

2. This Decision shall enter into force on 1 December 1994.

3. Norway shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the programmes referred to in point 1 by 1 December 1994.

4. This Decision is addressed to the EFTA States.

5. This Decision shall be authentic in the English language.

Done at Brussels, 30 November 1994.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Pekka SÄILÄ

College Member
List of natural mineral waters recognized by Norway



Official Journal C 092 , 13/04/1995 P. 0005 - 0005



List of natural mineral waters recognized by Norway (95/C 92/04) In accordance with Article 1 of Council Directive 80/777/EEC of 15 July 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters (1), as included in the EEA Agreement, Annex II, Chapter XII, point 26, Norway has forwarded to the Standing Committee of the EFTA States the list of natural mineral waters recognized as such for publication in the EEA Section of, and the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities. This list is as follows: >TABLE> (1) OJ No L 229, 30. 8. 1980, p. 1.
E1995C0914(02)

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licences pursuant to Article 13 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers



Official Journal C 239 , 14/09/1995 P. 0005 - 0005
E1996C0523(03)

Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 (3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 149 , 23/05/1996 P. 0010 - 0010
E1997C1113(01)

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licences pursuant to Article 13 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers



Official Journal C 343 , 13/11/1997 P. 0008 - 0008
E1998C1105(01)

Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 337 , 05/11/1998 P. 0006 - 0006
E1998C0820(01)

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 263 , 20/08/1998 P. 0005 - 0005
Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement

EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections

(1999/C 117/05)

Date of adoption: 16.12.1998

EFTA State: Iceland

Aid No: 98-001

Title: New business venture fund

Objective: To promote development and growth in the Icelandic economy through participation in innovation-oriented investment projects and support for development and marketing projects

Legal basis: Act No 61/1997 on the new business venture fund ("Lög um Nýsköpunarsjóð atvinnulífsins") and implementing regulations

Budget: - Foundation fund (revolving fund) ISK 4 000 million (approximately ECU 48,8 million)

- Initiative fund (revolving equity fund) ISK 1 000 million (approximately ECU 12,2 million)

- Product development and marketing department ISK 700 million (projected) (approximately ECU 8,5 million)

Form and intensity of aid: - Equity investments and exceptionally loans and guarantees by foundation fund (not aid)

- Equity investments through initiative fund (not aid)

- Grants by foundation fund and product development and marketing department, as a main rule within the limits of de minimis aid. When aid is above de minimis limits it is to comply with the rules on aid for SMEs or R& D, as appropriate

Duration: Indefinite, except for product development and marketing department, which shall be operated only until the end of the year 2000, whereupon its net assets shall be transferred to the foundation fund. Initiative fund shall be dissolved within 10 years and its net assets transferred to the State Treasury

Condition: Grants to sectors not covered by the de minimis rule (shipbuilding, ECSC steel industry and transport sector) are subject to prior notification on a case-by-case basis, as well as any aid falling within the scope of the guidelines on rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty; annual report on the activities of the new business venture fund