ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 143/9

Action brought on 28 January 2015 by the Icelandic Financial Services Association against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-4/15)

(2015/C 143/10)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 January 2015 by the Icelandic Financial Services Association, represented by Hans-Jörg Niemeyer, Attorney-at-law, and Christian Kovács, Attorney-at-law, Hengeler Mueller, Square de Meeûs 40, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.

The applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:

1. annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision 298/14/COL of 16 July 2014 (OJ C 400, 13.11.2014, p. 13) to close the case concerning existing aid to the Icelandic Housing Financing Fund (Íbúðalánasjóður); and

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

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

— The applicant, the Icelandic Financial Services Association (‘SFF’), is an association which represents all registered financial undertakings in Iceland, including universal, investment, and savings banks as well as insurance, leasing, securities and card companies. Its objective is to promote a competitive operating environment for financial companies in Iceland and promote their interests internationally.

— The case concerns an application for annulment of a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to close a case concerning existing aid to the Icelandic Housing Financing Fund (‘HFF’).

The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

— wrongly assumed that the support granted to HFF constitutes existing aid when in reality it amounts to new aid,

— not provided adequate reasons for the conclusions it drew in the Decision and thereby violated Article 16 SCA,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/31

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof, Liechtenstein, dated 9 July 2015, in the Case of Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG

(Case E-16/15)

(2016/C 357/11)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 9 July 2015 from Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof, Liechtenstein (The Supreme Court, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life (Liechtenstein) AG, on the following questions:

1. Is Article 36(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance to be interpreted as meaning that the duties to provide information referred to therein and in Annex III(A)(a)(11) and (a)(12) and (B)(b)(2) for unit-linked life assurance policies must also be fulfilled in the case where a person who, by a legal transaction, has acquired a unit-linked life assurance policy from another person with the consent of the assurer through the transfer of the contract (‘second-hand policies’)?

In the event that the Court answers the first question in the affirmative, the following additional question is asked:

2. Is Article 36(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC concerning life assurance to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the legal transfer of the contract for a unit-linked life assurance policy, only general information must be provided to the new policy holder or is the assurance company also required to provide the new policy holder with information specifically regarding the assurance product to be acquired by him, in particular regarding any differences between the risk profiles of the existing policy holder and of the transferee?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/7

Action brought on 17 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-22/15)

(2015/C 410/06)

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider, Clémence Perrin and Íris Ísberg, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement 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 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, within the time prescribed, Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Acts and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

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

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

— The application addresses the failure by the Principality of Liechtenstein to comply, no later than on 11 April 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 11 February 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order 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 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 referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).
3.

Does an established administrative practice whereby individuals or enterprises are not authorised to own more than 20 to 25 per cent of the shares in financial institutions, except in those cases where the law itself authorises the establishment of a financial group or where the financial institution will engage in what is referred to a niche activity only, constitute a restriction under Article 31 EEA, Article 36 EEA or Article 40 EEA, provided that the application for a licence is not just for a niche activity? a. Assuming that such an established administrative practice constitutes a restriction within the meaning of the EEA Agreement: Is the restriction in pursuance of a legitimate public objective? b. Assuming that the restriction pursues a legitimate public objective: Is such a restriction suitable within the meaning of EEA law? c. Assuming that the restriction pursues a legitimate public objective: Is such a restriction necessary within the meaning of EEA law?
1.

Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 17d of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, by: i. failing to ensure that a representative proportion of consignments of dangerous goods transported by road is subject to checks, as required by Article 3(1); ii. failing to use the checklist in Annex I of the Directive when carrying out those checks, as required by Article 4(1); iii. failing to ensure that the checks under the Directive are random and that they as far as possible cover an extensive portion of the road network, as required by Article 4(2); iv. failing to ensure that the places chosen for the checks permit infringing vehicles to be brought into compliance or, if the authority carrying out the check deems it appropriate to be immobilised on-the-spot or at a place designated for that purpose by the said authority without causing a safety hazard, as required by Article 4(3); v. failing to ensure where appropriate, and where it does not constitute a safety hazard, samples of the goods transported may be taken for examination by laboratories recognised by the competent authority, as required by Article 4(4); vi. failing to ensure that the checks do not exceed a reasonable time, as required by Article 4(5); vii. failing to ensure that vehicles in respect of which one or more infringements of the rules on the transport of dangerous goods are established may be immobilised either on-the-spot or at a place designated for this purpose by the authorities carrying out the check and required to be brought into conformity before continuing their journey or may be subject to other appropriate measures, depending on the circumstances or the requirements of safety, as required by Article 5; viii. failing to ensure that checks may also be carried out at the premises of undertakings, as required by Article 6(1); and ix. failing to send ESA a yearly report as required by Article 9(1).
1.

The Kingdom of Norway has breached provisions of the Act referred to at point 2 of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement, Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1), by incorrectly classifying a public contract and by carrying out a tender procedure for the construction and operation of an underground car park under Torvet in Kristiansand which is not in line with the requirements under the EEA rules on public procurement. Specifically, the Kingdom of Norway has: i. incorrectly described the subject matter of the public contract by failing to use the correct, or at any rate a complete and sufficiently precise, set of CPV codes, in breach of Article 58(2) of the Directive, in conjunction with Article 1(14) of the Directive and the Act referred to at point 6a of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EC) No 2195/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 on the CPV); ii. failed to publish a contract notice EEA-wide in the Official Journal of the European Union and the TED database in accordance with the legal requirements laid down in Article 58 of the Directive and; iii. not respected the minimum time limit for the submission of applications in an award procedure, as prescribed by Article 59 of the Directive.
Action brought on 13 July 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-1/18)

(2018/C 314/11)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 July 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Claire Simpson, Erlend M. Leonhardsen, Catherine Howdle and Carsten Zatschler, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that, by maintaining in force provisions such as Section 14-13 first, second and third paragraphs and Section 14-14 first paragraph of the National Insurance Act, which render the father’s entitlement to parental benefits dependent on the mother’s situation whereas the mother’s entitlement is not dependent on the father’s situation, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)).

2. Order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the cost of these proceedings.

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

— This case concerns how parental benefits are paid in Norway. Parental benefits are benefits payable to parents (mothers and fathers) during a period of leave in connection with the birth or adoption of a child.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that some of the rules on parental benefits in Norway directly discriminate against fathers. In short, under these rules, whether the father gets parental benefits in whole, in part – or at all – depends on whether the mother is or has been working (or takes part in similar activities). In contrast, the mother’s rights to such benefits are independent of the father’s activities.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that mothers and fathers are in comparable situations when it comes to bringing up children, and that the different treatment in the Norwegian parental benefit rules unlawfully discriminates against fathers on grounds of sex, breaching Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 28 June 2019 in the case of Melissa Colleen Campbell v The Norwegian Government

(Case E-4/19)

(2019/C 351/12)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 28 June 2019 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June 2019, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Melissa Colleen Campbell v The Norwegian Government on the following questions:

1. In the light of the EU Court of Justice’s recent case law in which the view of the Grand Chamber in its judgment of 12 March 2014 in Case C-456/12 O. and B. concerning the derived right of residence has been maintained, and on the basis of the homogeneity principle, is Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC, read in conjunction with its Article 7(2), applicable by analogy to a situation where an EEA citizen returns to the home State together with a family member?

2. What does the requirement of ‘continuous’ residence under the Directive as expressed in paragraph 80 of the EFTA Court’s judgment of 26 July 2016 in Case E-28/15 Jabbi entail? It would be especially useful if the EFTA Court could comment on: a) whether and, if so, to what extent there can be interruptions in residence, and b) whether the cause of a possible interruption — such as its being for work-related reasons — may be of import for the assessment of whether the residence is continuous within the meaning of the Directive.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht in the case of ADCADA Immobilien AG PCC v Finanzmarktaufsicht

(Case E-10/20)

(2020/C 436/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 29 July 2020 from Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht (Board of Appeal of the Financial Market Authority), which was received at the Court Registry on 5 August 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of ADCADA Immobilien AG PCC v Finanzmarktaufsicht on the following questions:

1. On the basis of what criteria is it to be assessed, whether in accordance with Article 2(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market, sufficient information on the terms of the offer and the securities to be offered has been issued, so as to enable an investor to decide to purchase or subscribe for those securities?

2. Is it significant for the assessment whether an offer to the public exists within the meaning of Article 2(d) of that regulation if the promotion includes the clearly visible direction ‘HIER INFORMIEREN’ (‘GET FURTHER INFORMATION HERE’) or ‘Unverbindlich informieren’(‘Get further information without obligation’) and the full bond terms are not accessible online or otherwise generally available?

3. Is it significant for the purposes of Article 1(4)(b) of that regulation if the offeror takes appropriate measures to ensure that the full terms of the bond are communicated to prospective buyers only upon request, whilst at the same time it is ensured that the communication is made only to a maximum of 149 natural or legal persons per Member State, which are not qualified investors?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 3 March 2020 in the case of Abdulkerim Kerim v The Norwegian Government

(Case E-1/20)

(2020/C 218/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 3 March 2020 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 3 March 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Abdulkerim Kerim v The Norwegian Government on the following questions:

Which criteria should be the basis for determining whether one is faced with a marriage of convenience covered by the abuse rule in Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC? It would be useful if the EFTA Court could especially comment on the following:

a) Does the EEA citizen’s subjective intention for entering into the marriage have any significance for the determination of whether one is faced with a marriage of convenience?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/5

Publication of Oppland County’s intention of entering into contracts concerning local public transport with vehicles up to 16 seats in accordance with Article 7(2) in Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EEC) No 1107/70

2013/C 270/04

1. Name and address of the competent authority: Oppland Fylkeskommune Opplandstrafikk Kirkegt. 76 Postboks 988 2626 Lillehammer NORWAY

2. Type of award envisaged: Open tender procedure.

3. Services and areas potentially covered by the award: Passenger transport with small, medium-size and large cars (up to and included 16 seats) in Oppland County concerning transport of pupils to school, pre-booked transport and transport accessible for disabled persons.

1. Name and address of the competent authority: Oppland Fylkeskommune Opplandstrafikk Kirkegt. 76 Postboks 988 2626 Lillehammer NORWAY

2. Type of award envisaged: Prolongation of directly awarded contract which can be excluded from competition according to Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

3. Services and areas potentially covered by the award: Local/regional passenger transport with bus, mainly in the municipalities of Ringebu, Sør-Fron and Nord-Fron, in addition to the journeys Vinstra–Lillehammer, Skåbu–Lillehammer and Vinstra–Otta.

1. Name and address of the competent authority: Oppland Fylkeskommune Opplandstrafikk Kirkegt. 76 Postboks 988 2626 Lillehammer NORWAY

2. Type of award envisaged: Prolongation of directly awarded contract which can be excluded from competition according to Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 194/94/COL of 30 November 1994 approving the national plans for approval of poultry establishments in certain EFTA States

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

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

Having regard to the Act referred to in point 4 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (Council Directive 90/539/EEC, hereinafter referred to as 'the Poultry Act'), and in particular Article 3 (2) thereof,

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

Whereas Finland by letter dated 18 February 1994, Sweden by letter dated 12 April 1994 and Norway by letter dated 14 July 1994 have submitted to the EFTA Surveillance Authority national plans for approval of poultry establishments;

Whereas the plans have been examined and found to meet the requirements of the Poultry Act, and in particular Annex II thereof;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

1. The plans submitted by the EFTA States referred to in the Annex for the approval of establishments are hereby approved in accordance with Article 3 (2) of the Act referred to in point 4 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (Council Directive 90/539/EEC).

2. The EFTA States referred to in the Annex shall bring into force by 1 December 1994 the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions for the implementation of the plans referred to in Article 1.

3. The EFTA States referred to in the Annex shall communicate to the EFTA Surveillance Authority the texts of the provisions of national law which they adopt to comply with this Decision.

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

5. This Decision is addressed to the EFTA States referred to in the Annex.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 November 1994.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Pekka SÄILÄ

College Member

ANNEX

EFTA States with approved national plans for the approval of poultry establishments according to Article 3 (2) of the Poultry Act

Finland

Norway

Sweden
Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 (3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections (94/C 250/04)

Date of adoption: 17. 6. 1994

EFTA-State: Austria

Aid No: 94-003

Title: Guidelines for grants and guarantees to the Economic Promotion Act (Burgenland)

Objective:

- innovation and technology

- research and development

- environment and ecology

- internationalization

- improvement of the economic structure of SMEs (investment aid, rescue and restructuring aid)

- infrastructure

Legal basis: Richtlinien betreffend die Gewährung von nicht rückzahlbaren Zuschüssen and Richtlinien betreffend die Übernahme von Bürgschaften für Kredite und Darlehen, based on Landes-Wirtschaftsförderungsgesetz 1994

Budget: Up to öS 100 million (1994)

Aid intensity: 10 to 20 % gross; for research and development: 20 to 25 % (applied research and development) and 20 to 50 % gross (basic industrial research)

Duration: Indefinite

Conditions: Simplified annual report

Date of adoption: 20. 7. 1994

EFTA-State: Austria

Aid No: 94-020

Title: 'Location of Enterprises Impulse Programme` (Oberösterreich)

Objective:

(a) Location (foundation) of enterprises of regional importance

(b) Enterprise zones

(c) Establishment and extension of 'departments for liaison` ('Ausseninstitute`) of universities

(d) Relocation of enterprises in cases of prevailing public interest

(e) Infrastructure costs (only in connection with projects under (a) or (d) above),

(f) Enlargement of plants in connection with innovative investment (only in assisted areas as defined in EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 38/94/COL of 11 May 1994 - 94-005)

Legal basis: Richtlinien für das Betriebsansiedlungs-Impuls-Programm (BIP)

Budget: öS 100 million (1994)

Aid intensity: 15 to 20 % net in assisted areas; 7,5 % gross for medium-sized, 15 % gross for small enterprises outside assisted areas

Duration: 31 December 1996

Conditions: Simplified annual report