ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 5 May 2022

in Case E-12/20

Telenor ASA and Telenor Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority – Competition – Article 54 EEA – Market definition – Abuse of dominant position – Margin squeeze)

(2023/C 29/03)

In Case E-12/20, Telenor ASA and Telenor Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 070/20/COL of 29 June 2020 relating to proceedings under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement; or, in the alternative, the annulment of the Decision in part; or, in the alternative, to annul or reduce the fines imposed on the applicants in that decision, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Nicole Kaiser (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 5 May 2022, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the application in its entirety.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 June 1995 in Joined Cases E-8/94 and E-9/94 (reference for an advisory opinion from the Markedsrådet): Forbrukerombudet against 1. Mattel Scandinavia A/S and 2. Lego Norge A/S (1) (Admissibility - Free movement of services - Council Directive 89/552/EEC - Transmitting State principle - Televised advertising targeting children - Broadcasters/advertisers - Circumvention - Directed advertising - Council Directive 84/450/EEC) (95/C 239/07)

(Pursuant to Article 27 (5) of the Rules of Procedure authentic in English and Norwegian)

In Cases E-8/94 and E-9/94: reference 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 Markedsrådet (the Market Council), Oslo (Norway) for an advisory opinion in the two proceedings pending before in between Forbrukerombudet and 1. Mattel Scandinavia A/S, 2. Lego Norge A/S - on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as well as Articles 11, 13 and 36 of the EEA Agreement - the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President; Thór Vilhjálmsson, Kurt Herndl, Sven Norberg (Rapporteur) and Gustav Bygglin, Judges; Karin Hökborg, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 June 1995, the operative part of which is as follows:

Articles 2 (2) and 16 of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative actions in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as integrated into the EEA Agreement, must be interpreted as precluding a prohibition imposed on an advertiser, whereby he is prevented from showing an advertisement contained in a television programme of a broadcaster established in another EEA State, if this arises as a consequence of a general prohibition, laid down in national law, of advertisements which specifically target children.

(1) OJ No C 398, 31. 12. 1994, p. 19.
Request for an advisory opinion by Inderøy herredsrett by decision of that court of 11 March 1996 in the case of Jørn Ulstein and Per Otto Røiseng v. Asbjørn Møller (Case E-2/96) (96/C 169/10)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 11 March 1996 of Inderøy herredsrett (Inderøy County Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 March 1996, for an advisory opinion in the case of Jørn Ulstein and Per Otto Røiseng v. Asbjørn Møller, on the following questions:

1. Is Council Directive 77/187/EEC to be interpreted in such a way that the expression 'transfer of an undertaking, business or part of a business` only covers situations where there is some form of contract between the transferor and the transferee?

2. Is the abovementioned Council Directive to be interpreted in such a way that the expression quoted under point 1 above implies that the transferee must take over property or moveables from the transferor?

3. Will it make any difference and, if so, how, for the interpretation of the abovementioned Council Directive if some, but not all employees of the transferor are employed by the transferee?

4. Will it make any difference and, if so, how, for the interpretation of the abovementioned Council Directive if an assignment is awarded according to the rules governing tender and the provision of the service is limited in time?
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 22 April 1997 in the case of Fridtjof Frank Gundersen v. Oslo kommune (Case E-1/97) (97/C 282/10)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 22 April 1997 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 1997, for an advisory opinion in the case of Fridtjof Frank Gundersen v. Oslo kommune, on the following questions:

1. Is there '. . . discrimination . . . between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States` contrary to Article 16 EEA if a national is refused the right to market red wine, white wine and rosé wine at the retail level, on the grounds that wine may only be sold at the retail level through a State commercial monopoly, in a situation where beer with an alcohol content of lower than 4,75 % alcohol by volume (medium-strength beer) may be sold outside the commercial monopoly by parties who obtain a municipal licence?

2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, can alcohol policy and/or health considerations, first and foremost the wish to reduce the availability and consumption of alcohol, be grounds for the differential treatment in marketing for wine and medium-strength beer as referred to in question 1 falling outside the scope of Article 16 of the EEA Agreement?

3. (a) Does Article 4 and/or Article 11 apply to the retail sale of wine?

(b) If question 3 (a) is answered wholly or in part in the affirmative, is the differential treatment in marketing referred to in question 1 in violation of Article 4 and/or Article 11?

(c) If question 3 (b) is answered wholly or in part in the affirmative, can alcohol policy and/or health considerations as referred to in question 2 be grounds for applying the exception rule as set out in Article 13 of the EEA Agreement?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court) of 22 February 2000 in the case of Allied Colloids, and others v. The Government of Norway, represented by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development

(Case E-2/00)

(2000/C 130/12)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 25 February 2000, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Allied Colloids, and others v. The Government of Norway, represented by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, on the following question:

Does the Joint Statement adopted at the meeting of EEA Joint Committee of 22 June 1995 concerning Annex II Chapter XV, Annex II with subsequent amendments, to the EEA Agreement give Norway the power to introduce a labelling requirement for polyacrylamide that contains a concentration of the residual substance acrylamide which is lower than 0,1 %, see Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 with subsequent amendments and Council Directive 88/379/EEC of 7 June 1988, with subsequent amendments?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 22 August 2001 in the case of CIBA Specialty Chemicals and others v The Government of Norway, represented by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development

(Case E-6/01)

(2001/C 335/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 22 August 2001 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 31 August 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of CIBA Specialty Chemicals and others v The Government of Norway, represented by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, on the following question:

Is the EEA Joint Committee after the adoption of the Joint Statement of 22 June 1995, empowered to decide that Norway may adopt derogations from the existing Community acquis, such as the derogations contained in the Joint Statement of 26 March 1999 of the EEA Committee as interpreted by the EFTA Court in its Case E-2/00?
Action brought on 18 September 2003 by Transportbedriftenes Landsforening and Nor-Way Bussekspress AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority - Case E-3/03

(2003/C 294/07)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 18 September 2003 by Transportbedriftenes Landsforening and Nor-Way Bussekspress AS, represented by Advokat Jan Magne Langseth and Advokat fullmektig Gro Bergeius Andersen, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, Dronning Mauds gt. 11, N-0201 Oslo, Norway.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's decision dated 16 July 2003 in Case 140/03/COL; and

2. order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the Applicants' costs.

The Applicants plead that the EFTA Surveillance Authority's decision in Case 140/03/COL is characterised by inadequate statement of reasons, errors in assessment of fact, manifest errors of assessment and errors in applying the concept of State aid under the EEA Agreement, including, inter alia:

- failure to follow the consultation procedure of Article 2 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement,

- application of Article 5(1) of Directive 92/82/EEC, which is not part of the EEA Agreement,

- erroneously applying Article 61(1) EEA, and having determined that the Norwegian concession system for scheduled services amounts to State aid, applying Council Regulation 1191/69 as amended by Council Regulation 1893/91, and

- failure to address Article 59 EEA.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/72

Action brought on 1 September 2004 by the Kingdom of Norway against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-7/04)

(2004/C 319/14)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 1 September 2004 by the Kingdom of Norway, represented by Ketil Bøe Moen, assistant advocate, Office of the Attorney General (Civil Affairs), and Ingeborg Djupvik, Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as agents, c/o The Attorney General (Civil Affairs), Oslo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; and

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

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

— EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 148/04/COL of 30 June 2004 (the ‘Decision’) concerns environmental tax measures in Norway.

— In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found, inter alia, that four Norwegian tax measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.

— In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority ordered recovery of the aid constituted by two of these tax measures, based on the premise that the alleged aid schemes became new aid as from 1 January 2002.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61(1) EEA.

— The relevant tax measures are not new aid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33/5

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo Tingrett by decision of that court of 30 January 2006 in the case of Ladbrokes Ltd. v Staten v/Kultur- og kirkedepartementet and Staten v/Landsbruks- og matdepartementet

(Case E-3/06)

(2007/C 33/03)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 30 January 2006 of Oslo Tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 25 August 2006, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Ladbrokes Ltd. v Staten v/ Kultur- og kirkedepartementet and Staten v/ Landsbruks- og matdepartementet on the following questions:

1. Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that certain forms of gambling can only be provided by a State-owned gambling company which channels its profits to cultural and sports purposes?

2. Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that licenses to provide horserace betting can only be granted to non-profit organizations or companies whose aim is to support horse breeding?

3. Do EEA Articles 31 and/or 36 preclude national legislation which establishes that licenses to certain forms of gambling can only be granted to non-profit organizations and associations with a humanitarian or social purpose?

4. Under EEA law, is it legitimate for national legislation to emphasise that the profit from gambling should go to humanitarian and social purposes (including sports and culture), and not to be a source of private profit?
2.

Whether or not the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, the District Court asks whether the provisions of the EEA Agreement on the free movement of workers, and in particular Articles 28 and 29, can be interpreted as meaning that a rule in the Articles of Association of Icelandic pension funds which makes a specific benefit right (the right to projection of entitlements) subject to the condition that the individual involved has paid premiums to an Icelandic pension fund that is a party to the Agreement on Relations between the Pension Funds, for at least 6 of the 12 months preceding the date of an accident, is compatible with the EEA Agreement when the reason why the individual is unable to meet this condition is that he has moved to another State within the EEA in order to pursue employment comparable to that which he pursued previously, and he has paid into a pension fund in that State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/26

Action brought on 2 December 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-8/09)

2010/C 8/09

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 December 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Florence Simonetti, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

1. by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5 of Chapter III of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 EEA; and

2. the Republic of Iceland bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— the present case concerns the non-implementation of a directive on machinery,

— the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received any information from Iceland indicating that the directive on machinery has been implemented into Icelandic law, nor is it in possession of any information on Iceland having taken necessary measures to ensure compliance with the directive,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 50/5

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 12 October 2010 in the case of Philip Morris Norway AS and Staten/Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet

(Case E-16/10)

2011/C 50/05

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 12 October 2010 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 October 2010, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Philip Morris Norway AS v Staten v/Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, on the following questions:

1. Shall Article 11 of the EEA Agreement be understood to mean that a general prohibition against the visible display of tobacco products constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on the free movement of goods?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 271/25

Action brought on 26 July 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-8/10)

2010/C 271/05

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 July 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

1. By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, all the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63(1) of the Directive and under Article 7 EEA;

2. The Republic of Iceland bears the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses the failure by Iceland to comply with a reasoned opinion issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the failure to adopt, or to notify the Authority of all the measures necessary to fully implement the EEA Act corresponding to European Union Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications as amended.

— The outstanding Icelandic measures concern the adoption of national regulations to provide for sector specific rules on the recognition of professional qualifications obtained in other EEA States.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received information from Iceland indicating that the Act has been fully implemented into national law, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude accordingly.
1.

Can funds which bank A delivers to bank B, and which B must repay A on a predetermined date, together with interest which has been specially negotiated, be regarded as a deposit in the sense of Article 1(1) of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, even though the funds, when they reach B, are not placed in a special account in A’s name, B has not issued any special documents to A recording the receipt of the funds and has not paid premiums in respect of the funds to the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund and the funds have not been entered as a deposit in B’s books? It is assumed in this question that banks A and B each hold operating licences as commercial banks in different States in the European Economic Area.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 208/6

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 8 February 2011 in the case of Pálmi Sigmarsson v Seðlabanki Íslands (Central Bank of Iceland)

(Case E-3/11)

2011/C 208/05

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 8 February 2011 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 February 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Pálmi Sigmarsson v Seðlabanki Íslands (Central Bank of Iceland), on the following question:

Is it compatible with paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 43 of the EEA Agreement that the Icelandic State should prevent an Icelandic national, resident in Britain, from transferring Icelandic krónur, which he has purchased on the offshore market in Britain, to Iceland?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 66/29

Action brought on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-12/12)

2013/C 66/09

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Clémence Perrin, acting as Agents, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7h of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time limit prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement; and

2. order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland is required, under Article 27 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 (‘the Directive’), and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, to take, and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures it has taken in order to implement the Directive.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that it has received no such information from the Icelandic Government, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude that the measures necessary to implement the Directive have been taken.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 76/13

Action brought on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-1/12)

2012/C 76/10

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening, represented by Jan Magne Juuhl-Langseth, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, Munkedamsveien 45, N-0201 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority void; and

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

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

— The Applicant is the Norwegian Publishers Association. Its members are publishing houses in Norway.

— The Applicant seeks the annulment of Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, adopted on 12 October 2011.
4.

If the answer to the third question is that Directive 93/13/EEC does not restrict the latitude of the Member State referred to in that question, then the fourth question is: Is a contractual term regarded as having been individually negotiated within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive when (a) it is stated in the bond which the consumer signs when taking the loan that his obligation is index-linked and the base index to be used when calculating price-changes is specified in the bond, (b) the bond is accompanied by a repayment schedule showing estimated and itemised repayments to be made on the due dates of the loan, and it is stated in the schedule that these estimates may change in accordance with the indexation provision of the bond, and (c) both the consumer and the grantor of credit sign the repayment schedule at the same time and in conjunction with the signature of the bond by the consumer?