ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 291/13

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 6 February 2012 in the case of HOB-vín ehf. v the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR)

(Case E-2/12)

2012/C 291/04

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 6 February 2012 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 13 February 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of HOB-vín ehf. v the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR), on the following questions:

1. Is it incompatible with Article 11 EEA for a State enterprise, which has a monopoly on the retail sale of alcohol in the territory of an EEA State, to be permitted under legislation or administrative regulations to refuse to accept for sale alcoholic beverages that are lawfully produced and marketed in another EEA State, on the grounds that the packaging and labelling of the products contain loaded or unrelated information or suggest that alcohol enhances physical, mental, social or sexual function and do not merely relate to the product, its production method or its characteristics?

2. Is it incompatible with Article 11 EEA for an EEA State to include in its legislation or administrative regulations, rules which require that it be clearly stated on the packaging of alcohol beverages that their contents are alcoholic, and that a State-owned monopoly may refuse to accept such products for sale if the packaging does not meet this requirement?

3. In answering the first and second questions above, is it of significance whether the legislation or administrative regulations apply equally to domestic and foreign products?

4. If it is considered that an arrangement such as the one described in the first and/or second question above constitutes a quantitative restriction, or a measure having equivalent effects, within the meaning of Article 11 EEA, then it is requested that the EFTA Court state whether such an arrangement may nevertheless be considered justifiable with reference to Article 13 EEA.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/5

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 17 December 2013 in the case of LBI hf. v Merrill Lynch Int. Ltd

(Case E-28/13)

(2014/C 121/05)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 17 December 2013 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 17 December 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of LBI hf. v Merrill Lynch Int. Ltd, on the following questions:

1. Should Article 30(1) of Directive 2001/24/EC, on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, be interpreted as meaning that ‘the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts’ refers to the rules on the rescission of measures taken by a financial undertaking according to rules that are comparable to those that apply to the rescission of measures taken by a bankrupt individual under the Bankruptcy (Etc.) Act?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 30(1) of the Directive be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient for the party against whom a demand for rescission is directed to present proof that rescission of the measure would not be permitted under the laws of the Member State applicable to the measure, with reference to rules of any type, e.g. rules on time limits for taking legal action?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/6

Action brought on 10 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-17/13)

2013/C 294/06

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Clémence Perrin, 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 (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 16b, first indent, of Annex IX and point 4, first indent, of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 amending Directive 98/26/EC on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems and Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements as regards linked systems and credit claims), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement;

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

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

— The present application by the EFTA Surveillance Authority addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 November 2012, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 September 2012 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Article 2 of Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 amending Directive 98/26/EC on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems and Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements as regards linked systems and credit claims (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 16b, first indent, of Annex IX and point 4, first indent, of Annex XII 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 138/31

Action brought on 10 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-2/14)

(2014/C 138/08)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, 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, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under 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 12 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 June 2013, regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 334/35

Action brought on 25 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-17/14)

(2014/C 334/16)

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 25 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Janne Tysnes Kaasin, 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 maintaining in force national rules such as Article 63 of the Health Act and the transitional provision in the Act on the repeal of the Health Act, including the applicability of Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Health Act in those respects, which require that an authorised ‘Dentist’ has to pursue his profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 of the EEA Agreement.

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

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

— Article 63 of the Liechtenstein Health Act provides that a ‘Dentist’ can only work under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner (Zahnarzt).

— The right of establishment guaranteed under Article 31 EEA requires there to be no restrictions on the freedom of establishment, including the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 EEA. In its view, Article 63 of the Health Act and the transitional provisions in the Act on the repeal of the Health Act, including the applicability of Article 63 paragraph 2 of the Health Act in those respects, amounts to a restriction under Article 31 EEA.

— The Liechtenstein government argues that the objective of Article 63 of the Health Act is to secure the protection of public health.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 163/11

Action brought on 14 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-6/14)

(2014/C 163/10)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 14 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Gjermund Mathisen and Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir, 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 5 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2008/43/EC of 4 April 2008 setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

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 3 September 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 3 July 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Directive 2008/43/EC of 4 April 2008 setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 5 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/8

Action brought on 21 April 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-12/15)

(2015/C 209/07)

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 April 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted to the Agreement 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.

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 24 November 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 24 September 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).
1.

Is a municipality in a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement which carries out, in its jurisdiction, the management of waste in conformity with the provisions of Directives 75/442/EEC, 1999/31/EC and 2000/76/EC, an undertaking in the sense of Article 54 of the Agreement? In this connection, the Court asks whether, when this question is answered, the following are of significance: a) That the treatment of waste is among the legally-prescribed functions of municipalities according to the laws of the relevant Contracting Party. b) That competition may exist over the treatment of waste between private entities and public entities under the laws of the Contracting Party. c) That it is prescribed, in the laws of the Contracting Party, that in this field, a municipality may not charge a higher fee than covers the cost of the treatment of waste and related activities.
1.

Declare that by failing to take within the prescribed time all the necessary measures to recover from the recipients the State aid declared incompatible with the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 404/14/COL of 8 October 2014 on the Investment Incentive Scheme in Iceland; by failing to cancel, within the prescribed time any outstanding payment referred to in Article 7 third sentence of that decision; and by failing to provide the EFTA Surveillance Authority, within the prescribed time, with all the information outlined in Article 8 of that Decision, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice and Articles 6, 7 and 8 of Decision No 404/14/COL.
5.

What requirements does the EEA law principle of equal treatment place on the contracting authority’s effective verification of the information provided in the tenders linked to the award criteria? Will the requirement for effective verification be met if the contracting authority is able to verify that the properties offered in the tender appear to have been reliably determined on the basis of the documentation provided in the tender? How accurately must the contracting authority be able to verify the properties of the contract object offered in the tender? If the tenderer commits himself to a certain consumption figure for the tendered object, and this figure is incorporated in the tender evaluation, is the contracting authority’s verification obligation met if he is able to verify that this figure is reliable with a certain uncertainty margin, for example in the order of plus/minus 20 per cent? When the contracting authority is to verify the information provided by a tenderer in connection with an award criterion, can the requirement for effective verification of the tenders under the principle of equal treatment be met by the contracting authority having regard to documentation provided elsewhere in the tender?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/38

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 6 January 2016 in the case of Synnøve Finden v Staten v/Landbruks- og matdepartmentet

(Case E-1/16)

(2017/C 9/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 6 January 2016 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 January 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Synnøve Finden v Staten v/Landbruks- og matdepartmentet (the Norwegian State represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food) on the following questions concerning Regulation of 29 June 2007 No 832 on a price equalisation system for milk (the ‘PE Regulation’):

1.1. Is the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation an arrangement of a nature whereby the Court, on considering its lawfulness, must consider it in relation to the rules on the freedom of establishment in Article 31 of the EEA Agreement?

1.2. If the court is required to consider Article 31 of the EEA Agreement in relation to the lawfulness of the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation, will Article 31 of the EEA Agreement only be relevant if there is a cross-border element in the case?

1.3. If the court is required to consider Article 31 of the EEA Agreement in relation to the lawfulness of the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation, will Article 31 of the EEA Agreement only be relevant in relation to what are commonly referred to as ‘Protocol 3 products’, or will it be deemed to constitute transport aid of relevance to all product categories, even if transport is limited to the party’s own products?

2.1. Is the aid arrangement mentioned in the third paragraph of Section 8 of the PE Regulation an arrangement that requires prior notification to ESA pursuant to Article 60 of the EEA Agreement?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 119/11

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 23 November 2017 in the case of Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS

(Case E-10/17)

(2018/C 119/12)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 23 November 2017 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 24 November 2017, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS on the following questions:

1. Does it follow from the EEA law principle of equivalence that a national limitation rule that lays down a separate limitation period of one year for bringing an action for damages arising from a criminal offence that has been established by a final criminal conviction must be applied correspondingly in connection with an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA that has been established by a final decision by ESA imposing a fine?

2. Does the EEA law principle of effectiveness restrict the EEA States' right to apply a limitation period of three years for bringing an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA, when this limitation period is combined with a duty of investigation on the part of the injured party that could lead to the limitation period expiring before ESA has reached a decision in a case concerning infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA based on a complaint from the injured party?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 429/29

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 30 June 2017 in the case of Fjarskipti hf. v Síminn hf.

(Case E-6/17)

(2017/C 429/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 30 June 2017 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2017, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fjarskipti hf. v Síminn hf. on the following questions:

1. Does it constitute part of the effective implementation of the EEA Agreement that a natural or a legal person in an EFTA State should be able to invoke Article 54 of the Agreement before a domestic court in order to claim compensation for a violation of the prohibitions of that provision?

2. When assessing whether the conditions are fulfilled for a compensation claim in view of a violation of competition rules, is it of significance whether the competent authorities have delivered a final ruling on a violation of Article 54 EEA?

3. Is it regarded as an unlawful margin squeeze, violating Article 54 EEA, when an undertaking in a dominant position on a wholesale market sets termination rates applying to its competitors in such a way that the dominant undertaking’s own retail division would be unable to profit from the sale of telephone calls within its system if it had to bear the cost of selling them under the same circumstances, when the dominant undertaking itself is also obliged to purchase termination from these same competitors at a higher price than that at which it sells termination to its competitors?
Action brought on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-3/18)

(2019/C 9/07)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle, and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 7ja of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the functions of the online dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the modalities of the cooperation between contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by 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 23 April 2018, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 21 February 2018 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the functions of the online dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the modalities of the cooperation between contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes, as referred to at point 7ja of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).