ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/10

Action brought on 19 May 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-3/10)

2010/C 191/08

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 19 May 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Bjørnar Alterskjær, 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 the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 31ea of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and the Council), 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 Article 32 of the Act and under Article 7 EEA and

2. The Republic of Iceland bears 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 the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received information from Iceland indicating that the directive has been fully implemented into Icelandic law, nor is it in possession of any other information enabling it to conclude that the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the directive have been taken.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/6

Action brought on 29 August 2011 by Hurtigruten ASA against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-10/11)

2011/C 325/03

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 29 August 2011 by Hurtigruten ASA, represented by Siri Teigum, advokat, and Odd Stemsrud, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS, Haakon VII’s gate 10, 0116 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011 on the Supplementary Agreement on the Hurtigruten Service;

2. In the alternative, declare void Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011, to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of the Decision; and

3. Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hurtigruten ASA.

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

— The Applicant, Hurtigruten ASA, is a public limited company, pursuing travel and transport activities in Norway and abroad.

— On 28 November 2008, the Norwegian authorities informed the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the renegotiation of the agreement between the Norwegian authorities and Hurtigruten ASA on acquisition of transport services between Bergen and Kirkenes in Norway. On 14 July 2010 the EFTA Surveillance Authority informed the Norwegian authorities that it would initiate the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement in respect of the additional payments to Hurtigruten in 2008.

— With Decision No 205/11/COL, the EFTA Surveillance Authority decided that the Supplementary Agreement constituted State aid which is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA in so far as they constitute a form of overcompensation for public service.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 125/13

Action brought on 24 February 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway

(Case E-5/11)

2011/C 125/11

An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 24 February 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

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

1. By failing to adopt the measures necessary to make: (a) the Act referred to at point 56oa of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and (b) the Act referred to at point 56oa of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 2038/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 EEA.

2. The Kingdom of Norway be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to make Regulation (EC) No 2038/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 part of its internal legal order, within the time prescribed by EEA Joint Committee Decisions No 52/2007 and No 81/2003, respectively.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 263/10

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht dated 9 April 2013 in the case of Metacom AG v Rechtsanwälte Zipper & Collegen

(Case E-6/13)

2013/C 263/11

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 9 April 2013 from Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court of Justice, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 15 April 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Metacom AG v Rechtsanwälte Zipper & Collegen, on the following questions:

1. Can a European lawyer bringing proceedings in another EEA State in his own name and not pursuant to the mandate of a third party rely on Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (1)?

2. Is an obligation on European lawyers to notify the authorities of the host State (as provided for here in Article 59 of the Liechtenstein Lawyers Act (Rechtsanwaltsgesetz)) compatible with Directive 77/249/EEC and, in particular, with Article 7 of that Directive?

3. If question 2 is answered in the affirmative: having regard to Directive 77/249/EEC, may a failure to provide notification in the host State on the part of a European lawyer engaged in the provision of services result in the consequence that the lawyer concerned may not claim lawyers’ fees in accordance with the scale of fees provided for in the host State (in Liechtenstein the fees provided for in the Lawyers’ Fees Act (Gesetz über den Tarif für Rechtsanwälte und Rechtsagenten) and the Lawyers’ Fees Regulation (Verordnung über die Tarifansätze der Entlohnung für Rechtsanwälte und Rechtsagenten))?

4. Where a European lawyer engaged in the provision of services has only notified the authorities in the host State at a later date, may this subsequent notification result in the consequence that the lawyer may only claim fees in accordance with the scale of fees provided for in the host State in relation to the period following that notification but not in relation to procedural steps taken prior to that date?

5. Having regard to Directive 77/249/EEC, does the answer to questions 3 and 4 depend on whether at the start of the proceedings the court of the host State referred the European lawyer engaged in the provision of services to the obligation under the law of that State to notify the authorities?

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1977, p. 17.
3.

If the answer to the second question is that Directive 93/13/EEC does not restrict the discretion of the Member State referred to in that question, then the third 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 out 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 payment schedule showing estimated and itemised payments 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 lender sign the payment schedule at the same time as the consumer signs the bond?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/10

Action brought on 3 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-13/13)

2013/C 294/10

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 3 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Catherine Howdle, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

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

1. the Kingdom of Norway, by failing to implement correctly into its national legislation Article 37(1) of the Act referred to at point 23b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (i.e. Directive 2005/60/EC on the prevention of the use of financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

2. the Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses the failure by the Kingdom of Norway to implement correctly the Act referred to at point 23b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Norwegian law has not ensured the effective monitoring of the activities of certain persons who fall within the ratione personae scope of the Directive. It also submits that Norway has taken no action to remedy the shortcomings in its national law.
2.

Is it assumed, in the instructions on the handling of complaints concerning the allocation of slots in Article 8(7) and (8) of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, that all complaints, including complaints based on competition considerations, will be subject to the procedure prescribed therein, or is recital 15 of the preamble to the Regulation to be understood as meaning that the Regulation is to be applied without prejudice to the competition rules of the Treaty, in particular Articles 85 and 86, in such a way that complaints based on competition considerations shall be subject exclusively to the jurisdiction of the competition authorities in the relevant Member State and are therefore to be submitted directly to them?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 334/32

Action brought on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-13/14)

(2014/C 334/13)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 21c of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 and by Joint Committee Decision No 147/2009 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

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

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services) (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 21c of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/10

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 13 April 2015 in the case of Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited v the Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund (TIF)

(Case E-8/15)

(2015/C 366/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 13 April 2015 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court, Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 17 April 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited v the Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund (TIF) on the following questions:

1. Is it compatible with the provisions of the EEA Agreement, and in particular with Article 7(1) of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, in the event of a systemic crisis, that the obligations of a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme should be restricted to its assets at the time when deposits become unavailable in the sense defined in Article 1(3) of the Directive and the assets are not sufficient to meet the claims of each depositor for up to EUR 20 000?

2. Is it compatible with the provisions of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes that following a systemic crisis, a Member State enacts legislation or issues regulatory acts authorising a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme to establish a new department or account for the collection of premiums and to decide that those premiums are to be channelled into the new department or account for the purpose of building up a fund intended exclusively to meet possible future shocks and not to be available for the payment of earlier obligations?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 143/11

Action brought on 16 February 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-7/15)

(2015/C 143/12)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 February 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Xavier Lewis, Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir and Øyvind Bø, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that by: (i) surpassing the limit values for sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the ambient air during the years 2008 to 2012 variously in the zones NO1, NO3, NO4, NO5 and NO6 referred to in Articles 3 to 5 of Directive 1999/30/EC, now Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC; and (ii) failing to comply with the air quality plan obligation as set out in Article 8(3) of Directive 96/62/EC, now Article 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC variously as regards zones NO1, NO2, NO3, NO4 and NO5; Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under the Act referred to at point 14c of Annex XX of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe).

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

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

— Council Directive 1999/30/EC relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air, now Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, imposes limit values for certain pollutants in ambient air in order to avoid, prevent and reduce harmful effects on human health and the environment as whole. It also establishes provisions for the assessment of pollutants as well as measures to maintain good air quality.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Norway has failed to comply with its obligation to ensure that the levels of certain pollutants in ambient air do not exceed the limit values set out in EEA law.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority also submits that Norway has failed to comply with the obligation to draw up suitable air quality plans where limit values plus the relevant margin of tolerance have been exceeded.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority states that Norway has not challenged any of the shortcomings identified by the Authority in its responses to the letter of formal notice and reasoned opinion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 216/11

Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-33/15)

(2016/C 216/08)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, 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 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 by way of 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.

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

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 14 March 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 14 January 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order (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’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/6

Action brought on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-21/15)

(2015/C 410/05)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Øyvind Bø and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, 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 necessary measures to implement the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act and Article 7 of the Agreement.

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

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 28 March 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 28 January 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme, as referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV 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’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/22

Action brought on 20 December 2016 by Autonomy Capital (Jersey) LP and Eaton Vance Management against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-20/16)

(2017/C 73/12)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 December 2016 by Autonomy Capital (Jersey) LP and Eaton Vance Management, represented by Pétur Örn Sverrisson hrl. and Halldór Backman hrl., Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, Citypoint, One Ropemaker Street, London EC2Y 9AW.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare void the Defendant’s decision of 23 November 2016 closing the Applicants’ complaint against Iceland; and

2. Order the Defendant to pay the Applicants’ costs of the present proceedings.

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

— The Applicants argue that Act No 37/2016, passed by the Icelandic Parliament, discriminates on the grounds of nationality by imposing extensive requirements, with penalties for failure to comply, on the holders of offshore króna who are predominantly non-residents of Iceland, and does not place any equivalent requirements on domestic holders of króna.

— According to the Applicants, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has relied on Article 43 of the EEA Agreement to support the assertion that Iceland was, and continues to be, allowed to derogate from its obligation to comply with the fundamental freedoms set out in the EEA Agreement.

— The Applicants claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has misjudged the level of discretion awarded to EEA/EFTA States by Article 43 and, therefore, Iceland has not met the test set out in Article 43(4).