ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE COURT of 25 November 1994 in Case E-6/94: Reinhard Helmers against the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Sweden (Procedure - Admissibility) (95/C 51/05)

In Case E-6/94: Reinhard Helmers against the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Sweden - application for an order requiring the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision concerning an alleged infringement by the Government of Sweden of the EEA Agreement - the Court, composed of: Leif Sevón, President (Rapporteur), Björn Haug and Kurt Herndl, Judges: Heikki Kanninen, Assistant Registrar, made an order on 25 November 1994, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. the case shall be removed from the Register of the Court.
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT of 25 September 1996 in Case E-3/95 (request for an advisory opinion from Stavanger byrett): Torgeir Langeland against Norske Fabricom A/S (1) (Council Directive 77/187/EEC - transfer of rights to pension benefits) (97/C 37/08)

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

In Case E-3/95: 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 Stavanger byrett (the Stavanger City Court), Norway, for an advisory opinion in the case pending before it between Torgeir Langeland and Norske Fabricom A/S - on the interpretation of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses - the Court composed of: Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson (Rapporteur) and Carl Baudenbacher, Judges; Per Christiansen, Registar, gave an advisory opinion on 25 September, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. According to Article 3 (3) of the Act referred to in point 23 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses) the employer's obligation to pay premiums to supplementary pension schemes for an employee is not transferred.

2. An employee cannot waive the rights conferred on him by the mandatory provisions of Directive 77/187/EEC, as integrated into the EEA Agreement, even if the disadvantages resulting from his waiver may have been offset by such benefits that, taking the matter as a whole, he is not placed in a worse position. Nevertheless, the Directive does not preclude an agreement with the new employer to alter the employment relationship, in so far as such an alteration is permitted by the applicable national law in cases other than the transfer of an undertaking.

(1) OJ No C 149, 23. 5. 1996, p. 11.
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT of 27 June 1997 in Case E-6/96 (request for an advisory opinion from Oslo byrett): Tore Wilhelmsen AS v. Oslo kommune (1) (Alcohol sales - State monopolies of a commercial character - Free movement of goods) (97/C 282/09)

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

In Case E-6/96: 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 Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, for an advisory opinion in the case pending before it between Tore Wilhelmsen AS and Oslo kommune (Oslo municipality), on the interpretation of Articles 11, 13 and 16 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson and Carl Baudenbacher (Rapporteur), Judges; and Per Christiansen, Registrar, gave an advisory opinion on 27 June 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. A State retail monopoly for the sale of beer containing more than 4,75 % alcohol by volume is compatible with Article 16 of the EEA Agreement if, in law and in fact, such an exclusive right does not give rise to discrimination between domestic products and products imported from other Member States.

2. A refusal to grant a licence to sell beer containing more than 4,75 % alcohol by volume, with reference to the established exclusive right of a State alcohol retail monopoly, can lead to discrimination in law or in fact between domestic products and products imported from other Member States and is, in so far as it actually does so, incompatible with the principles of free movement of goods enunciated in Article 11 of the EEA Agreement.

A definition of the scope of the exclusive right of a State alcohol retail monopoly including beer containing more than 4,75 % alcohol by volume is discriminatory and prohibited by Articles 11 and 16 EEA. However, the measure can be justified pursuant to Article 13 of the EEA Agreement on grounds of public health if the dividing line of 4,75 % alcohol by volume was not implemented to protect domestic products against foreign products.

A provision of national law which automatically grants a wholesale licence, a pre-condition for supplying beer containing more than 4,75 % alcohol by volume to a State alcohol retail monopoly in that State, to a domestically-established producer of beer and does not do so for a foreign producer of beer is a discriminatory measure prohibited by Articles 11 and 16 of the EEA Agreement which cannot be justified within the meaning of EEA as the measure is not proportionate to the aim of curtailing the availability of strong beer to consumers.

(1) OJ C 37, 6. 2. 1997, p. 15.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 3 March 1999

in Case E-4/97: Norwegian Bankers' Association v. EFTA Surveillance Authority

Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority - State aid - Exceptions under Article 59(2) EEA - Procedures

(1999/C 223/06)

In Case E-4/97: Norwegian Bankers' Association v. EFTA Surveillance Authority - Application for annulment of Decision No 177/97/COL of 9 July 1997 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority concerning alleged infringement of the competition and State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement owing to the framework conditions for the Norwegian State Housing Bank, the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President, Carl Baudenbacher and Thór Vilhjálmsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave a judgment of 3 March 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Annuls Decision No 177/97/COL of 9 July 1997 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

2. Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear the costs of the Applicant in both the admissibility proceedings and the substantive proceedings. The Government of Norway as intervener, the Government of Iceland and the Commission of the European Communities shall bear their own costs.
Judgment of the Court

of 15 March 2002

in Case E-9/00: EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

Failure of a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations - State retail alcohol monopoly - licensed serving of alcoholic beverages - discrimination

(2002/C 128/08)

In Case E-9/00: EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway - Application for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to comply with the following provisions of the EEA Agreement: Article 16, by applying two forms of sale at the retail level where beer with an alcohol content of between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, mainly produced domestically, may be sold outside the stores of the State retail alcohol monopoly (Vinmonopolet), while other beverages with the same alcohol content, mostly imported from other EEA States, may only be sold through the monopoly; and Article 11, by applying more restrictive measures regarding licences to serve beverages with an alcohol content of between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, mostly imported from other EEA States, compared to beer with the same alcohol content, mainly produced domestically, these measures not being necessary and proportionate in relation to the objective of safeguarding public health under Article 13, the Court, composed of: Thór Vilhjálmsson (Judge-Rapporteur), President, Carl Baudenbacher and Per Tresselt, Judges, gave a judgment on 15 March 2002, the operative part of which declares as follows:

The Kingdom of Norway has failed to comply with:

Article 16 of the EEA Agreement, by maintaining two forms of retail sale, whereby beer with an alcohol content of between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, mainly produced domestically, may be sold outside Vinmonopolet, while other pre-packaged beverages with the same alcohol content, mostly imported from other EEA States, may only be sold through the monopoly; and

Article 11 of the EEA Agreement, by applying more restrictive measures regarding licences to serve pre-packaged beverages with an alcohol content of between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, mostly imported from other EEA States, compared to beer with the same alcohol content, mainly produced domestically, which measures are not necessary and proportionate in relation to the objective of safeguarding public health under Article 13 of the EEA Agreement.
Judgment of the Court

of 18 October 2002

in Case E-7/01: Request for an Advisory Opinion from Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal): Hegelstad Eiendomsselskap Arvid B. Hegelstad and Others v Hydro Texaco AS

Competition - Exclusive purchasing agreement - Service station agreement - Article 53 EEA - Commission Regulation EEC No 1984/83 - Nullity

(2003/C 10/10)

In Case E-7/01: 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 Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal) for an Advisory Opinion in the case pending before it between Hegelstad Eiendomsselskap Arvid B. Hegelstad and Others and Hydro Texaco AS on the interpretation of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Thór Vilhjálmsson, President, Carl Baudenbacher (Judge-Rapporteur) and Per Tresselt, Judges, gave a judgment on 18 October 2002, the operative part of which declares as follows:

1. An agreement between a supplier of motor fuels and lubricants and an independent service station operator that provides for an exclusive purchasing obligation that may not be terminated by the service station operator for a period of 15 years, does not fall within the block exemption on exclusive purchasing agreements in Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83.

2. The prohibition laid down by Article 53(1) EEA does not apply to an exclusvie purchasing agreement entered into between a supplier of motor fuels and lubricants and an independent service station operator for a fixed period of 15 years, where that type of agreement makes only an insignificant contribution to the cumulative closing-off effect produced by the totality of agreements on the market.

3. The automatic nullity provided for in Article 53(2) EEA applies only to those parts of the agreement affected by the prohibition in Article 53(1) EEA. It is for the national court to determine, in accordance with the relevant national law, whether the nullity affects the validity of other parts of the agreement.
Judgment of the Court

of 24 January 2003

in Case E-1/02: EFTA Surveillance Authority v Kingdom of Norway

(Failure of a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations - Equal Rights Directive - Reservation of academic positions for women)

(2003/C 115/06)

In Case E-1/02: EFTA Surveillance Authority v Kingdom of Norway - APPLICATION for a declaration that, by maintaining in force a rule which reserves a number of academic posts exclusively for women, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7 and 70 of the EEA Agreement and Articles 2(1), 2(4) and 3(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, referred to in point 18 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher (Judge-Rapporteur), President, Per Tresselt and Dóra Guðmundsdóttir, Judges, gave judgment of 24 January 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that by maintaining in force a rule which permits the reservation of a number of academic posts exclusively for members of the under-represented gender, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7 and 70 of the EEA Agreement and Articles 2(1), 2(4) and 3(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions as referred to in point 18 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/13

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 25 February 2005

in Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS and Sosial- og helsedirektoratet (Directorate for Health and Social Affairs)

(Free movement of goods and services — prohibition against alcohol advertisement — trade in wine — Articles 8(3) and 18 EEA — ‘other technical barriers to trade’ — advertisement of wine — restriction — protection of public health — principle of proportionality — applicability of the precautionary principle)

(2006/C 45/09)

In Case E-4/04 between Pedicel AS and Sosial- og helsedirektoratet — REQUEST to the Court by Markedsrådet (the Market Council), on the interpretation of the rules of free movement of goods and services within the EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment on 25 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1a. Article 11 EEA is to be understood as not applying to trade in wine.

1b. Article 36 EEA is to be understood as not applying to advertising services related to wine in a case such as the one at hand.

2. A general prohibition against the advertising of alcoholic beverages such as the one laid down in Section 9-2 of the Norwegian Alcohol Act constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 11 EEA and a restriction within the meaning of Article 36 EEA, as regards alcoholic beverages falling within the scope of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/14

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 December 2007

in Case E-5/06

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Article 4(1) and (2a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security benefits and special non-contributory benefits — Legal effect of Annex IIa to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 listing special non-contributory benefits — Decision No 1/95 of the EEA Council on the entry into force of the EEA Agreement for Liechtenstein)

(2008/C 113/11)

In Case E-5/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — application for a declaration that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Articles 19(1) and (2), 25(1) and 28(1) of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VI to the EEA Agreement (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Henrik Bull, Judge-Rapporteur, and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judge, gave judgment on 14 December 2007, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein, by applying a requirement of residence for entitlement to the helplessness allowance, has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Articles 19(1) and (2), 25(1) and 28(1) of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VI to the EEA Agreement (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.
2.

a port charge such as the one at issue does not constitute discrimination contrary to Article 14 EEA of imported alcoholic beverages in relation to domestic alcoholic beverages as long as the reason why only imported alcoholic beverages become subject to the charge is the fact that domestic alcoholic beverages are not transported by sea and so do not need port services, and the body setting the tariff for the port services does not set the tariff for comparable services needed in relation to domestic alcoholic beverages. In order for such a charge to violate Article 14 EEA by discriminating imported alcoholic beverages in relation to domestic non-alcoholic beverages, the charge must have the effect, on the market in question, of reducing potential consumption of the imported products to the advantage of competing domestic products.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/20

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 May 2010

in Case E-8/09

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — 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 — Judgment by default)

2010/C 320/09

In Case E-8/09, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland — Application for a declaration that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5 of Chapter III of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, i.e. 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 way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time limit prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 7 May 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 307/23

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 30 March 2012

in Joined Cases E-17/10 and E-6/11

Principality of Liechtenstein and VTM Fundmanagement AG v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Special tax rules applicable to investment companies — Selectivity — Existing aid and new aid — Recovery — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)

2012/C 307/09

In Joined Cases E-17/10 and E-6/11 Principality of Liechtenstein and VTM Fundmanagement AG v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 on the taxation of investment undertakings under the Liechtenstein Tax Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 30 March 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the applications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2010

in Case E-10/10

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications)

(2011/C 148/05)

In Case E-10/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Acts referred to at point 1 and at point 1, indent 2, of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications, each as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive 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 10 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to 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 Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 29/8

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 8 October 2012

in Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11

Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Maritime transport — Article 61(1) of the EEA — Article 59(2) of the EEA — Services of general economic interest — Public service compensation — Overcompensation — Principle of good administration — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 29/09

In Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11, Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011 on the Supplementary Agreement on the Hurtigruten service, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 8 October 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the applications.