ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 247/33

REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES

List of credit institutions authorised in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway provided for in Article 11 of Directive 2000/12/EC

(2005/C 247/07)

1. Pursuant to Articles 11 and 5(2)(c) of Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (1) require the European Commission to draw up and publish a list of all credit institutions authorised to do business in EU Member States. paragraph 6(b) of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement requires that ‘where according to an act, facts, procedures, reports and the like are to be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities the corresponding information regarding the EFTA States shall be published in a separate section thereof.’

2. This is the sixth occasion on which the Standing Committee of the EFTA States complies with the above requirement. The list published in the Annex to this communication comprises all the credit institutions that were engaged in business in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway on 31 December 2004 falling within the scope of the Credit Institutions Directive.

3. The present list was drawn up by the Standing Committee of the EFTA States on the basis of information supplied by the EFTA States concerned. The list has no legal significance and confers no right in law. If an unauthorised institution is inadvertently included in the list, its legal status is in no way altered; similarly, if an institution has inadvertently been omitted from the list, the validity of its authorisation will not be affected.

(1) Previously the first Council Directive 77/780/EEC, Articles 3(7) and 10(2).
Official Journal of the European Union

Dangerous substances – List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 in the second half of 2018

(2020/C 123/11)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 225/2013 of 13 December 2013, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 for the period 1 July–31 December 2018, at their meeting on 29 March 2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Medicinal products – List of marketing authorisations granted by the EEA EFTA States for the second half of 2021

(2022/C 306/05)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

(Text with EEA relevance)

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 74/1999 of 28 May 1999, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning marketing authorisations for medicinal products for the period 1 July – 31 December 2021 at their meeting on 18 March 2022:
DECISION of 15 February and 3 May 1994 on official holidays of the EFTA Court in 1994

THE EFTA COURT,

Having regard to Article 24 (3) of the Rules of Procedure, which requires the Court to observe the official holidays of the place where is has its seat,

Having regard to Article 76 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, which requires the Court to draw up a list of official holidays and to publish it in the EEA section of and the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities,

DECIDES:

The following days in 1994 will be observed as official holidays during which the Court will be closed:

>TABLE>
COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT (95/C 106/05)

1. Composition of the Court

In consequence of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the European Union on 1 January 1995, Iceland and Norway on 29 December 1994 entered into an Agreement adjusting certain Agreements between the EFTA States (the Adjustment Agreement) with effect from 1 January 1995. The number of judges was reduced to three. On 18 January 1995 Judge Bjørn Haug was elected President of the continuing EFTA Court.

Pursuant to the Agreement on transitional arrangements for a period after the Accession of certain EFTA States to the European Union (the 'Transitional Arrangements Agreement`) the function of the five-member EFTA Court has been extended, principally until 30 June 1995. The Transitional Arrangements Agreement entered into force on 1 March 1995. On that day Mr Gustav Bygglin was appointed Judge of the EFTA Court to succeed Mr Leif Sevón, who resigned as a Judge on 17 January 1995 to become a Judge in the Court of Justice of the European Communities, for the duration of the Transitional Arrangements Agreement and at a public sitting took the oath prescribed in Protocol 5, Article 2 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (the ESA/Court Agreement).

2. Election of the President of the Court pursuant to the Transitional Arrangements Agreement

On 1 March 1995, the Judges elected Judge Bjørn Haug as President of the EFTA Court under the Transitional Arrangements Agreement and pursuant to Article 30 of the ESA/Court Agreement.

3. Appointment of the Assistant Registrar

The EFTA Court appointed Mr. Sverre Faafeng as Assistant Registrar pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court, to succeed Mr Heikki Kanninen.
Removal from the Register of Case E-1/96



Official Journal C 090 , 20/03/1997 P. 0023 - 0023



Removal from the Register of Case E-1/96 (97/C 90/09) By order of 31 October 1996 the President of the EFTA Court ordered the removal from the Register of Case E-1/96 (an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT of 10 December 1998 in Case E-9/97 (Request for an advisory opinion from Reykjavík City Court): Erla María Sveinbjörnsdóttir v. the Government of Iceland (1) (Council Directive 80/987/EEC - Incorrect implementation of a directive - Liability of an EFTA State) (Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure only the English and Icelandic texts are authentic) (1999/C 62/12)

In Case E-9/97: 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 Héra ssdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík City Court), Iceland, for an advisory opinion in the case pending before it between Erla María Sveinbjörnsdóttir and the Government of Iceland, on the interpretation of Article 6 of the EEA Agreement and Council Directive 80/987/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 87/164/EEC, and referred to in Point 24 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug (Judge-Rapporteur), President, Thór Vilhjálmsson and Carl Baudenbacher, Judges; and Gunnar Selvik, Registrar, gave an advisory opinion on 10 December 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The Act referred to in Point 24 of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer) must be interpreted as precluding Iceland from maintaining a provision of national law, according to which, in the case of a sibling relationship between an employee and an owner of 40 % of the shares of the employer company, the employee is excluded from the guarantee provided for in Article 3 of the Act on the basis of the family relationship.

2. The Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement are obliged to provide for compensation for loss and damage caused to an individual by incorrect implementation of a directive incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

(1) OJ C 84, 19.3.1998, p. 13.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 May 1999

in Case E-6/98: Government of Norway v. EFTA Surveillance Authority

Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority - State aid - General measures - Effect on trade - Aid schemes

(1999/C 223/09)

In Case E-6/98: Government of Norway v. EFTA Surveillance Authority - Application for annulment of Decision No 165/98/COL of 2 July 1998 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority with regard to State aid in the form of regionally differentiated social security taxation (Norway) (aid No 95-010), the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President, Carl Baudenbacher and Thór Vilhjálmsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave a Judgment of 20 May 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Government of Norway to bear the costs of the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
Advisory Opinion of the Court

of 14 June 2001

in Case E-4/00 (Request for an Advisory Opinion from the Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein): Dr Johann Brändle

Right of establishment - Single practice rule - Justification by overriding reasons of general interest

(Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure only the English and German texts are authentic)

(2001/C 237/07)

In Case E-4/00: 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 Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), for an Advisory Opinion in the case pending before it concerning Dr Johann Brändle, on the interpretation of Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Thór Vilhjálmsson, President, Carl Baudenbacher and Per Tresselt (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges; and Gunnar Selvik, Registrar, gave an Advisory Opinion on 14 June 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:

A national provision of a contracting party to the EEA Agreement which provides that a phys may not operate more than one practice, regardless of location, is incompatible with Article 31 EEA.
Judgment of the Court

of 22 February 2002

in Case E-1/01: Hörður Einarsson v the Icelandic State

Differentiated value added tax on books - Article 14 EEA - Competing products - Indirect protection of domestic products

(2002/C 115/05)

In Case E-1/01: Hörður Einarsson v the Icelandic State - 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 Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) for an Advisory Opinion on the Interpretation of Articles 4, 10 and 14 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Thór Vilhjálmsson, President, Carl Baudenbacher and Per Tresselt (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave an Advisory Opinion on 22 February 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The power of an EEA State to levy value added tax does not exclude the application of EEA rules.

2. A national provision of an EEA State providing that books in the language of that EEA State are subject to a lower value added tax than books in foreign languages, is incompatible with Article 14 EEA.

3. Such a national provision cannot be justified on grounds relating to the public interest of enhancing the position of the national language.

4. When a provision of national law is incompatible with Article 14 EEA, and that Article has been implemented in national law, a situation arises which is governed by the undertaking assumed by the EFTA States under Protocol 35 to the EEA Agreement, the premise of which is that the implemented EEA rule shall prevail.
Judgment of the Court

of 12 December 2003

in Case E-2/03 between Ákæruvaldið (The Public Prosecutor) and Ásgeir Logi Ásgeirsson, Axel Pétur Ásgeirsson and Helgi Már Reynisson

(Jurisdiction - admissibility - fish products - Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement - rules of origin - Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement - Free Trade Agreement EEC-Iceland)

(2004/C 51/04)

In Case E-2/03, between Ákæruvaldið (The Public Prosecutor) and Ásgeir Logi Ásgeirsson, Axel Pétur Ásgeirsson and Helgi Már Reynisson - Request to the Court by the Héraðsdómur Reykjaness (Reykjanes District Court) on the interpretation of the rules of origin in trade in fish, as referred to in Protocols 4 and 9 to the EEA Agreement and Protocols 3 and 6 to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland of 22 July 1972, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher (Judge-Rapporteur), President, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment of 12 December 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The term "trade regime" in Article 7 of Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement and its Appendix 3 does not extend to the rules of origin contained in the Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland, signed on 22 July 1972. The rules of origin contained in Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement therefore apply.

2. Defrosting, heading, filleting, boning, trimming, salting and packing of fish frozen whole that was imported from outside the EEA does not constitute sufficient working and processing within the meaning of Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement in order for the products to obtain EEA originating status.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 297/52

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 29 June 2006

in Joined Cases E-5/05, E-6/05, E-7/05, E-8/05 and E-9/05

EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) — Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) — Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) — Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive))

(2006/C 297/19)

In Joined Cases E-5/05, E-6/05, E-7/05, E-8/05 and E-9/05, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATIONS for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the adoption of, the measures necessary to implement the Acts referred to at respectively point 13a of Annex XIV and points 5cj, 5ck, 5cl and 5cm of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 and Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex XIV and XI to that Agreement, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under those Acts and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 29 June 2006, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement the Acts referred to at respectively point 13a of Annex XIV (also listed, for information purposes, at point 5cg of Annex XI) and points 5cj, 5ck, 5cl and 5cm of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 and Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex XIV and XI to that Agreement, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under those Acts and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/16

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 March 2007

in Case E-1/06

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(National legislation transferring the operation of gaming machines to a State-owned monopoly — Restriction of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Justification — Legitimate aims — Consistency of national legislation — Necessity of national legislation)

(2007/C 301/08)

In Case E-1/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — Application for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has infringed Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement by adopting Act No 90 of 29 August 2003 relating to Amendments to the Gaming and Lottery Legislation (Lov av 29. august 2003 nr. 90 om endringer i pengespill- og lotterilovgivningen) which introduced a monopoly for the State-owned undertaking Norsk Tipping AS to operate gaming machines in Norway, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Henrik Bull and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment on 14 March 2007, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Dismisses the application.
1.

A provision of national law, according to which, in court proceedings in which a party is represented by a lawyer or a defending counsel must be engaged, a lawyer from another EEA State providing services must call in a national lawyer to act in conjunction with him or her, does not fall under Article 5 of Council Directive 77/249/EEC to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, referred to at point 2 of Annex VII EEA, and is incompatible with Article 36(1) EEA and the Directive if it requires the appointment of a national lawyer in cases where representation by a lawyer is not mandatory.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/17

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

of 30 March 2010

in Case E-6/09

Magasin- og Ukepresseforeningen v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for failure to act — State aid — Existing aid — Admissibility)

2010/C 305/10

In Case E-6/09, Magasin- og Ukepresseforeningen v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for a declaration that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to act on the complaint lodged with the Authority in August 2006 concerning State aid to newspapers, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 30 March 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 May 2011

in Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10

Principality of Liechtenstein, Reassur Aktiengesellschaft and Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Special tax rules applicable to captive insurance companies — Notion of undertaking — Selectivity — Existing aid and new aid — Distortion of competition and effect on trade — Recovery — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)

2011/C 294/07

In Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10, Principality of Liechtenstein, Reassur Aktiengesellschaft and Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of Decision 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 regarding the taxation of captive insurance companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Per Christiansen, Judges, gave judgment on 10 May 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the applications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/13

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2010

in Case E-1/10

Periscopus AS v Oslo Børs ASA and Erik Must AS

(Directive 2004/25/EC — Acquisition of control — Mandatory bid — Adjustment of the bid price — Clearly determined circumstances and criteria — Reference to market price)

2011/C 141/13

In Case E-1/10 between Periscopus AS and Oslo Børs AS and Erik Must AS — 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 Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), Norway, concerning the interpretation of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids precludes national legislation which provides that the price to be offered in a mandatory bid must be adjusted to be at least as high as the ‘market price’ in situations where it is clear that the ‘market price’ is higher than the price calculated according to the main rule prescribed in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 5(4), without further clarification of the term ‘market price’. In particular, further clarification is needed of the time interval relevant for determining the ‘market price’, whether or not the ‘market price’ must be calculated on the basis of a volume-weighted average, and whether actual trades are necessary or standing buy or sell orders suffice in order to establish a ‘market price’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/13

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 July 2012

in Case E-9/11

EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway

(Failure of an EEA State to fulfill obligations — Right of establishment — Free movement of capital — Ownership limitations and voting right restrictions in financial services infrastructure institutions — Proportionality — Legal certainty)

2012/C 369/11

In Case E-9/11, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by maintaining in force restrictions on the rights of persons and undertakings established in EEA States to own holdings and exercise voting rights in financial services infrastructure institutions in Norway, such as provided for in Sections 35(1), (2), and (3) and 36 of the Act of 29 June 2007 No 74 on Regulated Markets (the Stock Exchange Act) and Sections 5-3(1), (2) and (3) and 5-4 of the Act of 5 July 2002 on the Registration of Financial Instruments (the Securities Depositories Act), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 31 EEA and 40 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 16 July 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force restrictions on the rights of persons and undertakings established in EEA States to own holdings and exercise voting rights in financial services infrastructure institutions in Norway, such as provided for in Sections 35(1), (2) and (3), and 36 of the Act of 29 June 2007 No 74 on Regulated Markets (the Stock Exchange Act) and Sections 5-3(1), (2) and (3), and 5-4 of the Act of 5 July 2002 on the Registration of Financial Instruments (the Securities Depositories Act), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement.