ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 176/10

COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT

2011/C 176/07

Upon nomination by the Government of Norway, Mr Per Christiansen was appointed as Judge of the EFTA Court by common accord of the three Contracting Parties to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (the Surveillance and Court Agreement) for the period from 17 January 2011 to 16 January 2017, to succeed Mr Henrik Bull. At a public sitting of the EFTA Court on 13 January 2011, Mr Per Christiansen took the oath prescribed in Protocol 5, Article 2 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/10

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 15 May 2013

in Case E-13/12

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 laying down the conditions governing the preparation, placing on the market and use of medicated feedingstuffs in the Community)

2013/C 277/08

In Case E-13/12, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing, within the time limits prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 10 of part 7.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 laying down the conditions governing the preparation, placing on the market and use of medicated feedingstuffs in the Community), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Directive and under Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 May 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 10 of part 7.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, i.e. Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 laying down the conditions governing the preparation, placing on the market and use of medicated feedingstuffs in the Community, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, or to notify ESA thereof, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;
1.

A lawyer bringing proceedings in his own name in an EEA State other than the one in which he is established may rely on the freedom to provide services and Directive 77/249/EEC if he is acting in a professional capacity, and if the national legal order of the host State foresees that a lawyer may act on his own behalf in the capacity as a lawyer in legal proceedings.
2.

The obligation of transparency does not necessarily require the national authorities to terminate a contract or the national courts to set aside an award decision in every case of breach of that obligation in connection with the award of a service concession. However, the national court must consider, when assessing in the circumstances of the case at hand the available remedies to ensure that the effects contrary to Articles 31 and 36 EEA do not subsist, that the public interest objective of good administration is adequately reflected in the award of concessions, so that awards can be made in a way that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. In the absence of EEA rules on remedies it is for the domestic legal system to regulate the legal procedures for safeguarding the rights which individuals derive from that obligation in such a way that those procedures are no less favourable than similar domestic procedures and do not make the exercise of those rights practically impossible or excessively difficult.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 88/10

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 15 November 2013

in Case E-10/13

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle for equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation)

2014/C 88/07

In Case E-10/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt measures necessary to correctly implement into its national legislation the provisions of Article 2(1)(a)-(d) and Article 2(2)(a)-(b) of the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle for equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 November 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by failing within the time limit prescribed to adopt the measures necessary to correctly implement into its national legislation Article 2(1)(a)-(d) and Article 2(2)(a)-(b) of the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle for equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 31 March 2015

in Case E-21/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/30/EU on product information of energy consumption)

(2015/C 350/10)

In Case E-21/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — application for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2015, 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 4 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of 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.

Article 4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 requires an EEA State to appoint a qualified natural or legal person as airport coordinator after having consulted the parties indicated therein. Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 requires the coordinator to be independent, both legally and factually, from all interested parties from which he must also be functionally separated. As long as these conditions are fulfilled, EEA States have discretion in determining the status of the coordinator. On the basis of those findings, it is for the national court to draw the necessary conclusions in order to ensure the effectiveness of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 467/24

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 27 October 2015

in Case E-11/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights)

(2016/C 467/11)

In Case E-11/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — Application for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) 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, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 October 2015, 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 points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 120/22

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 2 August 2016

in Case E-33/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directive 2012/26/EU amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance)

(2017/C 120/10)

In Case E-33/15, 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 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 under 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 (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 August 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 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 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 66/31

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 2 June 2016

in Case E-24/15

Walter Waller v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung

(Coordination of social security systems — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Binding effect of medical findings)

(2017/C 66/10)

In Case E-24/15, Walter Waller v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung — 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 Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht) concerning the interpretation of Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 June 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 precludes the debtor institution from challenging the medical findings of the institution of the place of stay or residence in the administrative procedure.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 27 October 2017

in Case E-21/16

Pascal Nobile v DAS Rechtsschutz-Versicherungs AG

(Directive 87/344/EEC — Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC — Legal expenses insurance — Free choice of lawyer)

(2018/C 422/07)

In Case E-21/16, Pascal Nobile v DAS Rechtsschutz-Versicherungs AG – 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 Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht) concerning the interpretation of Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 27 October 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC precludes terms and conditions in a legal expenses insurance contract that release the insurance company from its obligations under the contract if the insured person mandates an attorney to represent his interests, without the consent of the company, at a point in time when the insured person would be entitled to make a claim under the contract.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/6

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT

of 24 April 2017

In Case E-20/16

Autonomy Capital (Jersey) LP and Eaton Vance Management v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(2017/C 303/07)

Application for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 207/16/COL of 23 November 2016 closing a complaint against Iceland in the field of free movement of capital (capital controls), the President of the Court made an Order of 24 April 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Case E-20/16 is removed from the Register.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 June 2018

in Case E-15/17

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 694/2014)

(2018/C 414/12)

In Case E-15/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 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 Agreement, part of its internal legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 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 to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2020

in Case E-13/19

Hraðbraut ehf. v The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Verzlunarskóli Íslands ses., Tækniskólinn ehf., and Menntaskóli Borgarfjarðar ehf.

(Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Public service contract – Article 37 EEA – Notion of ‘services’ – Upper secondary education)

(2021/C 113/06)

In Case E-13/19, Hraðbraut ehf. v The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Verzlunarskóli Íslands ses., Tækniskólinn ehf., and Menntaskóli Borgarfjarðar ehf. – 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 Public Procurement Complaints Committee (Kærunefnd útboðsmála) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, and in particular point (9) of Article 2(1) and Article 74 thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:

Contracts with characteristics such as those described in the request, which do not have as their object the provision of services within the meaning of Directive 2014/24/EU, do not constitute public service contracts within the meaning of point (9) of Article 2(1) of that directive.
EFTA COURT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 13 November 2019

in Case E-2/19

D and E

(Free movement of persons – Sectoral adaptations for Liechtenstein – Right of residence – Derived right of residence for family members – Directive 2004/38/EC)

(2020/C 40/04)

In Case E-2/19, D and E – 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 Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, as adapted to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Bernd Hammermann and Ola Mestad (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 13 November 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

The sectoral adaptations to Annexes V and VIII to the EEA Agreement, in particular Point III thereof, do not deprive the family member of an EEA national, who has a valid residence permit and is residing in Liechtenstein, of the right to accompany or join the EEA national in Liechtenstein on the basis of Article 7(1)(d) of Directive 2004/38/EC, even though the residence permit that the EEA national in Liechtenstein holds was not granted on the basis of the system provided for in the sectoral adaptations.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 30 June 2021

in Case E-15/20

criminal proceedings against P

(Social security – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Articles 7, 63 and 64 – Unemployment benefits – Requirement to stay in the competent EEA State – Unemployed person going to another EEA State)

(2021/C 417/06)

In Case E-15/20, criminal proceedings against P – 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 Borgarting Court of Appeal (Borgarting lagmannsrett) concerning the interpretation of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in particular Articles 3, 7, 28, 29 and 36 thereof, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 30 June 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. A requirement that the unemployed person must stay in the competent State to be entitled to a cash benefit in the event of unemployment in cases where the conditions of Articles 64, 65 or 65a are not fulfilled is compatible with Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems.

2. Outside the situations expressly mentioned in Articles 64, 65 and 65a of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, a condition to stay in the competent EEA State for entitlement to unemployment benefits does not fall to be assessed under Articles 28, 29 and 36 of the EEA Agreement and is not incompatible with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
Official Journal of the European Union

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 June 2022

in Case E-4/21

Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority – Article 61(3)(c) EEA – State aid – Admissibility – Obligation to initiate formal investigation procedure – Statement of reasons)

(2023/C 29/05)

In Case E-4/21, Sýn hf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION seeking the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 023/21/COL of 26 March 2021, Aid to Farice ehf. for investment in a third submarine cable, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 1 June 2022, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Annuls ESA Decision No 023/21/COL concerning aid to Farice ehf. for investment in a third submarine cable.

2. Orders ESA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.