ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 September 2011

in Case E-5/11

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency — Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002)

2011/C 374/10

In Case E-5/11, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make: (a) the Act referred to at point 56o of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and (b) the Act referred to at point 56oa of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Kingdom of Norway failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 20 September 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make: (a) the Act referred to at point 56o of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and (b) the Act referred to at point 56oa of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/18

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 7 October 2013

in Joined Cases E-4/12 and E-5/12

Risdal Touring AS and Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — No need to adjudicate)

(2013/C 372/07)

In Joined Cases E-4/12 and E-5/12, Risdal Touring AS and Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION seeking in Case E-4/12 Risdal Touring the annulment of the defendant’s decision, first notified on 5 April 2012 without stating reasons, and subsequently notified on 4 May 2012, denying public access to the full statement of content and specific documents in ESA Case No 70506, a State aid case, on the basis of the Rules on Access to Documents (‘RAD’) established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL on 27 June 2008; and in Case E-5/12 Konkurrenten the annulment of the defendant’s decision as notified on 5 April 2012 without stating reasons and denying public access to the full statement of content in ESA Case No 60510, a State aid case, on the basis of the RAD established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL on 27 June 2008, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order on 7 October 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby orders:

In Case E-4/12 Risdal Touring AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority: 1. The part of the application directed at specific documents is dismissed as inadmissible; 2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the remainder of the application; 3. ESA is to bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the applicant; 4. The applicant is to bear half of its costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/10

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 11 December 2012

in Case E-1/12

Den norske Forleggerforening v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Alleged aid granted to Nasjonal digital læringsarena (NDLA) — Decision not to open the formal investigation procedure — Notion of economic activity — Notion of doubts — Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 270/08

In Case E-1/12, Den norske Forleggerforening v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of Decision No 311/11/COL of 12 October 2011 on alleged aid granted to Nasjonal digital læringsarena, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 11 December 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Annuls ESA’s Decision No 311/11/COL of 12 October 2011 on alleged aid granted to Nasjonal digital læringsarena.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/32

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 20 March 2015

in Case E-19/13

Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Local bus transport services — Decision not to open the formal investigation procedure — Decision following the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility — Measures of organization of procedure)

(2016/C 357/13)

In Case E-19/13: Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — Application for annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 519/12/COL of 19 December 2012, closing a formal investigation concerning aid granted by Oslo Municipality to AS Oslo Sporveier, and of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 181/13/COL of 8 May 2013, refusing to open a formal investigation into aid measures not covered by Decision No 519/12/COL, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order of 20 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. Konkurrenten.no AS is to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/4

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 July 2014

in Case E-5/13

Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Measures of organisation of procedure — EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Rules on access to documents 2012)

(2015/C 68/04)

In Case E-5/13, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) Decisions of 25 January 2013 and 18 February 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 to deny access to documents, belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system), under the new rules on access to documents enacted by ESA on 5 September 2012 in ESA Decision No 300/12/COL (‘RAD 2012’) (not published in the Official Journal), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 7 July 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Annuls ESA’s decision of 25 January 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refuses full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) and refuses to grant access to the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL.

2. Dismisses the application as to the remainder.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 131/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 24 September 2014

in Case E-4/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2007/23/EC on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles)

(2015/C 131/07)

In Case E-4/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 24 September 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21 of that Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 201/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 January 2015

in Case E-13/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services)

(2015/C 201/07)

In Case E-13/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 21c of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 147/2009 of 4 December 2009, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 28 January 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 21c of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol l thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 147/2009 of 4 December 2009, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
1.

Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 27 of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 54/2010, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 457/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 2 October 2015

in Case E-3/15

Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz v Gemeinde Vaduz (Municipality of Vaduz)

(Directive 2011/92/EU on environmental impact assessment of public and private projects — Article 11 — Right of access to a judicial review procedure — Effect of EEA law in national legal orders — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

(2016/C 457/08)

In Case E-3/15, Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz and Gemeinde Vaduz (Municipality of Vaduz) – 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 State Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein) concerning the interpretation of Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 October 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Liechtenstein was under an obligation to implement Directive 2011/92/EU pursuant to Decision No 230/2012 of 7 December 2012 of the EEA Joint Committee and apply it to the environmental impact assessment procedure at issue in the main proceedings.

2. It is not compatible with Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU to adopt a general environmental impact assessment decision, while deferring the resolution of crucial issues relating to the project’s environmental effects such as those set out in Article 5(3) of Directive 2011/92/EU to subsequent authorisation procedures with no access for non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection to a review procedure before a judicial body. Whether crucial issues are at stake in this case is for the national court to decide.

3. EEA law does not require that non-implemented EEA rules can be relied on directly before national courts in the EFTA States. However, it follows from EEA law that when interpreting national rules the national court is bound to apply, as far as possible, the methods of interpretation recognised by national law in order to achieve the result sought by Directive 2011/92/EU. This obligation arises on the day the respective legal act is made part of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/13

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 29 July 2016

in Case E-30/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/62/EU amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use)

(2017/C 108/11)

In Case E-30/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
1.

Declares that, by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts referred to at point 15q, ninth and tenth indent, of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products and Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of each Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/4

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 13 September 2017

in Case E-15/16

Yara International ASA v The Norwegian Government

(Freedom of establishment — Articles 31 and 34 EEA — Necessity — National rules on intra-group contributions — Balanced allocation of taxation powers — Final loss exception — Risk of tax avoidance — Wholly artificial arrangement — Prohibition of abuse of rights)

(2018/C 16/04)

In Case E-15/16, Yara International ASA v The Norwegian Government — REQUEST to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Borgarting Court of Appeal (Borgarting lagmannsrett) concerning the interpretation of Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area in the context of national rules on intra-group contributions, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen, and Ása Ólafsdóttir (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 13 September 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

Articles 31 and 34 EEA do not preclude the application of national rules on intra-group contributions, such as the rules in the Norwegian Taxation Act, under which the contribution reduces the transferor’s taxable income and is included in the recipient’s taxable income regardless of whether the recipient makes a loss or a profit for tax purposes, that lay down the condition that both the transferor and the recipient are liable to taxation in the EEA State in question. It is a condition of EEA law that the national rules must serve a legitimate objective such as the need to safeguard the balanced allocation of taxation powers between EEA States or to prevent wholly artificial arrangements leading to tax avoidance. However, the requirements of national law go beyond what is necessary to pursue those objectives in cases where the loss sustained by the foreign subsidiary is final.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/6

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 March 2017

in Case E-10/16

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/68/EU on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment)

(2017/C 198/06)

In Case E-10/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 6a and at point 6e of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/68/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Article 13 of the Act within the time prescribed or, in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 March 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 6a and at point 6e of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/68/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Article 13 of the Act within the time prescribed.