ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 88/18

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 29 October 2013 in the case of the Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger

(Case E-24/13)

2014/C 88/15

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 6 November 2013 from Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (State Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 8 November 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of the Casino Admiral AG v Wolfgang Egger, on the following questions:

1. What are the general requirements of EEA law and European law (in particular Articles 43 and 49 EC and the obligation of transparency derived therefrom) regarding the procedure for awarding casino concessions?

2. Does EEA law or European law require that an authority seeking to award a concession states at the time at which it publishes its tender notice how it intends to supplement and specify in greater detail the requirements set out in the act and the regulation?

3. In particular, in the context of the relevant tendering procedure, is there a general obligation to give prior notice of the relative weighting that will be given to the award criteria when awarding the concession? If that question is answered in the affirmative, what requirements do EEA law and European law impose as regards the substance of the information that must be provided in that prior notice?

4. In the case at hand, were the requirements of EEA law and European law satisfied?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/7

Action brought on 9 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-16/13)

2013/C 294/07

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider 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:

1. declare that by failing (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7b of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts), 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 the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than 11 September 2012, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 11 July 2012 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 7b of Annex XIX 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 138/30

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

(Case E-1/14)

(2014/C 138/07)

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, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 18a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures), 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 20 April 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 20 February 2013, regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 18a of Annex XIII 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 334/30

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

(Case E-12/14)

(2014/C 334/11)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Catherine Howdle, 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 6 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products), 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 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 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 Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 6 of Chapter IV of Annex II 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 163/10

Action brought on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-5/14)

(2014/C 163/09)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir and Catherine Howdle, 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 (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 32ff of Chapter V of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that Act and 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 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 32ff of Chapter V of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/6

Action brought on 21 April 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-10/15)

(2015/C 209/05)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 April 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir 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 Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 21au of Chapter III of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Directive 2009/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during refuelling of motor vehicles at service stations), 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 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 10 February 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 10 December 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2009/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during refuelling of motor vehicles at service stations, as referred to at point 21au of Chapter III of Annex XX 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 457/12

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Obergericht, Liechtenstein, dated 25 September 2015, in the Case of Walter Waller v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung

(Case E-24/15)

(2016/C 457/10)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 25 September 2015 from Fürstliches Obergericht, Liechtenstein (Princely Court of Appeal, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 1 October 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Walter Waller v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung, on the following questions:

1. Does the fact that under the second sentence of Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 the debtor institution shall be bound by the findings of the institution of the place of stay or residence preclude the debtor institution from challenging those findings – and thus the information stated in the detailed medical report provided in form E 213 – in its procedure?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 199/12

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 22 May 2015 in the case of Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v the Icelandic State

(Case E-17/15)

(2016/C 199/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 22 May 2015 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v the Icelandic State on the following questions:

1. Does the field of application of the EEA Agreement, as defined in Article 8 thereof, entail that a Member State of the Agreement has discretion regarding the setting of rules on the importation of raw meat products and is, in this respect, not bound by the provisions of the Agreement and the acts based thereon?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, then the question arises whether it is compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 89/662/EEC that a Member State of the EEA Agreement should set rules demanding that an importer of raw meat products applies for a special permit before the products are imported, and require the submission, for this purpose, of an import declaration, information on the country of origin and production, the type of product and the producer, and the required certificates, including a certificate confirming that the products have been stored frozen for a certain period prior to customs clearance.

3. The national court requests the opinion of the Court whether the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council are relevant in answering the second question.

4. Following on from the second and third questions, an answer is requested to the question of whether it constitutes a technical barrier to trade in the sense of Article 18 EEA if an EEA State sets rules under which the importation to that State of raw meat products is not permitted.

5. An opinion is requested on whether it affects the answer to the fourth question, if it is permitted, under the rules of the EEA State of destination, to grant exceptions from the general prohibition referred to in that question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/8

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 27 September 2016 in the case of Yara International ASA v the Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Finance

(Case E-15/16)

(2017/C 123/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 27 September 2016 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 4 October 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Yara International ASA v the Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Finance on the following question:

Is it compatible with Articles 31 and 34 EEA that national rules on intra-group contributions, such as the rules in the Norwegian Taxation Act, under which the contribution reduces the transferor’s taxable income and is included in the recipient’s taxable income regardless of whether the recipient makes a loss or a profit for tax purposes, lay down the condition that both the transferor and the recipient are liable to taxation in the EEA State in question, or must the EEA rules be interpreted to mean that, on certain conditions, an exception must be granted from the requirement for tax liability in the realm?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 467/26

Action brought on 26 September 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-13/16)

(2016/C 467/13)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 September 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Audur Ýr Steinarsdóttir and Øyvind Bø, 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 fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at point 17h of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community) by not introducing the technical roadside inspections required by Article 3(1) of the Act.

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

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 67/13

Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-14/17)

(2018/C 67/13)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 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, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the act referred to at point 31bbb of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.

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 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at point 31bbb of Annex IX 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 386/10

Action brought on 21 September 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-7/17)

(2017/C 386/08)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 September 2017 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, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

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 6f of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2014/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of simple pressure vessels), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order, and in any event has failed to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement the Act, 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 8 February 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 8 December 2016 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2014/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of simple pressure vessels, as referred to at point 6f of Chapter VIII 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’).
Action brought on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-4/18)

(2019/C 9/08)

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 points 7d, 7f and 7j of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ADR)), 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 Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ADR), as referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7j 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’).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 November 2019 by Abelia and WTW AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-9/19)

(2020/C 23/07)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 November 2019 by Abelia and WTW AS, represented by Espen Bakken, advocate, Arntzen de Besche Advokatfirma AS, P.O. Box 2734, Solli, 0204 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicants request the EFTA Court to:

1. Annul Decision No 57/19/COL, of 10 July 2019, of the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

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

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

— Abelia is a trade and employers association within Norway’s largest employers’ organisation; the NHO (Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry).

— WTW AS is a software developer, and a member company of the trade organisation Abelia, offering innovative technical solutions to customers within a range of business segments. WTW is also present within the e-health sector and operates in direct competition with the public e-health solutions considered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter ‘the Authority’) in the Contested Decision.

— The Contested Decision concerns the notified financing of a public corporation tasked with the provision of a national eHealth solution.

— The Norwegian Government did not view the publicly financed interconnected eHealth activities as State aid because it did not amount to ‘economic activities’ within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, but provided a Notification for Legal Certainty dated 3 May 2019.

— The Authority adopted the Contested Decision on 10 July 2019 based on Article 4(2) of the Surveillance and Court Agreement, concluding that Norsk Helsenett SF and the Norwegian Directorate of eHealth do not constitute ‘undertakings’ in the provision of the eHealth solutions in accordance with the current organisation of the Norwegian health sector.

— In the Contested Decision, the Authority also found that the notified measures did not confer an economic advantage to Norsk Helsenett SF within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

— The Applicants challenge the fact that the Authority adopted the Contested Decision in relation to the aid without initiating the formal investigation procedure, thereby infringing the Applicants’ procedural rights.