ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 467/25

Action brought on 20 September 2016 by Marine Harvest ASA against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-12/16)

(2016/C 467/12)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 September 2016 by Marine Harvest ASA, represented by Torben Foss, advocate and Kjetil Raknerud, advocate, Advokatfirmaet PricewaterhouseCoopers AS, Sandviksbodene 2A, P.O. Box 3984 Sandviken, NO-5835 Bergen.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

1. The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s decision in Case No 79116 from 27 July 2016 is based on a wrongful interpretation of the relevant sources of law, and is consequently void.

2. The EFTA Surveillance Authority does have the competence and obligation to perform surveillance of State aid to the fisheries sector, pursuant to Article 4(1) of Protocol 9 EEA, and is therefore obliged to assess the claims made by the Applicant through the formal complaint filed on 2 May 2016.

3. The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The Applicant seeks the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision in Case No 79116 from 27 July 2016.

— Marine Harvest submits that ESA has the necessary competence to review whether aid to the production and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products is compatible with the EEA Agreement, and to carry out surveillance, pursuant to Article 62 EEA, cf. Protocol 26 of the EEA Agreement, and further that ESA is obliged to carry out such surveillance pursuant to the same article.

— An essential element is the interpretation of Protocol 26 of the Agreement, which sets out the competences of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, but does not specifically refer to the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. According to ESAs decision, the aforementioned list should be regarded as exhaustive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 67/15

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

(Case E-16/17)

(2018/C 67/15)

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 31bba of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), 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 Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision, as referred to at point 31bba 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 341/5

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands dated 12 June 2017 in the case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v the Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan)

(Case E-5/17)

(2017/C 341/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 12 June 2017 from Hæstiréttur Íslands (the Supreme Court of Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 15 June 2017, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v the Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan) on the following question:

In the light of the fact that Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 have not been incorporated into the Agreement on the European Economic Area, can a supplementary protection certificate under Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 be issued for a medicinal product if the period which has elapsed between the date on which the application for a basic patent was lodged and the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the European Economic Area is less than five years?
3.

If policyholders are obliged, in accordance with Question 2, to submit invoices first to the institution in their State of residence: (a) Does this also apply to an insured person who has already been provided benefits under the contractual relationship for several years or is reliance by the social insurance scheme on Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems contrary to the principle of good faith? (b) Is a social insurance scheme entitled, relying on Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, to make claims for recovery to an insured person because in the past it has provided insurance cover in excess of the level specified in the regulation, that is to say, it has provided benefits which do not have to be paid under the rules of that regulation, or it is contrary to the principle of good faith to make claims for recovery? (c) Does, in the light of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, the provision of benefits by the social insurance scheme, without invoices having been submitted through the social insurance institution in the place of residence, also entitle the policyholder to the future provision of benefits, without the need to submit invoices through the social insurance institution in the place of residence?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur in the case of Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State

(Case E-11/20)

(2021/C 5/15)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 19 June and 26 August 2020 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 27 August 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State on the following questions:

1. Should Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC be interpreted as meaning that time spent travelling by an employee in the service of, and at the behest of, his employer, to a workplace which is not the employee’s regular workplace, is working time when it falls outside traditional daytime working hours?

2. For the purpose of answering Question 1, is it of significance whether the journey made by the employee for the employer is made domestically or between countries?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting Lagmannsrett dated 3 April 2020 in the case of The Norwegian Government v L

(Case E-2/20)

(2020/C 234/03)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 3 April 2020 from Borgarting Lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 3 April 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of The Norwegian Government v L on the following questions:

1. Is recital 27 of the preamble to Directive 2004/38/EC to be interpreted as meaning that expulsion of an EU/EEA national together with a permanent exclusion order is contrary to Directive 2004/38/EC, even if the person in question has the possibility under Article 32(1) of applying to have the exclusion order lifted?

2. How are the words ‘material change’ in Article 32(1) to be understood when the expulsion is based on personal characteristics of the EU/EEA national?

3. If it is assumed that the personal characteristics of the EU/EEA national justifying the expulsion will not change, will expulsion together with a permanent entry prohibition in such cases be contrary to Directive 2004/38/EC?

4. How is the requirement in Article 27(2), under which expulsion must be a proportionate measure, to be understood in relation to the expulsion of an EU/EEA national together with a permanent entry prohibition when the person in question has a family and children in the country from which s/he is being expelled? Does the Directive preclude expulsion together with a permanent entry prohibition in such cases?
1.

Is it necessary for the scope ratione personae of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1), incorporated in the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee of 1 July 2011 (LGBl. 2012 No 202), that the Member State national who is subject to the legislation of one or more Member States within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that Regulation is resident in one of the Member States? If the answer to that question is in the negative: Can an agreement concluded by the EU or an EEA Member State with a third country by which the scope of application of the Regulation mentioned was extended to the third country change the answer to this question?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/7

Publication of Aust-Agder County’s notification of tender procedure pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and (EEC) No 1107/70

(Previous notification of tender published in OJ C 58, 28.2.2013, p. 3 and EEA Supplement No 12, 28.2.2013, p. 1)

2013/C 277/05

1. Name and address of the competent authority:

Aust-Agder County Plan- og samferdselsavdelingen Hilde Bergersen Box 788 Stoa 4809 Arendal NORWAY

As of mid-2013, the responsibility for the tender will be transferred to:

Agder kollektivtrafikk AS Kjell Sverre Drange Vestre Strandgt. 33 4611 Kristiansand NORWAY

2. Type of award envisaged:

Open tender procedure

3. Services and areas potentially covered by the award:

Bus services in Aust-Agder county as of 1 January 2015. The contract includes both scheduled routes and school transport. Two areas will be tendered out:

(a) route area east consisting of the municipalities of Risør, Tvedestrand, Gjerstad, Vegårshei and Åmli, including routes to/from Arendal. The routes in the municipality of Åmli will be operated as of 1 January 2017;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/5

Notice of the opening of bankruptcy proceedings regarding the assets of Gable Insurance AG, registration number FL-0002.161.375-6

(2017/C 42/05)

At the request of PricewaterhouseCoopers AG, Zürich, the special representative of Gable Insurance AG, Vaduz, bankruptcy proceedings are now open regarding the assets of

Gable Insurance AG Bergstrasse 10 9490 Vaduz LIECHTENSTEIN FL-0002.161.375-6

by decision of the Princely Court of Justice (Fürstliche Landgericht) of 17 November 2016.

The court with jurisdiction in these bankruptcy proceedings is the Princely Court of Justice (Fürstliche Landgericht, Abteilung 05, Spaniagasse 1, 9490 Vaduz/Liechtenstein). The reference number for these bankruptcy proceedings is 05 K0.2016.672.

The bankruptcy administrator under Article 4 KO (Konkursordnung, Insolvency Code) is Batliner Wanger Batliner Rechtsanwälte AG (Am Schrägen Weg 2, 9490 Vaduz). All communication with the bankruptcy administrator shall be through the email address gable@bwb.li

Any person whose rights are affected by the opening of bankruptcy proceedings may contest these proceedings, but an appeal against the decision to open bankruptcy proceedings shall not have any suspensory effect (Article 10 KO (Konkursordnung, Insolvency Code)). The applicable law is Liechtenstein law.
DECISION OF THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY No 37/94/COL of 11 May 1994 on the amendment of paragraph 3 (f) of Chapter 27 of the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY

has amended paragraph 3 (f) of Chapter 27 of the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid (1), adopted on 19 January 1994, by replacing it by the following:

'A reference rate of interest is used to adjust aid to current values and to calculate aid elements of loans. The reference rate shall reflect the average rate of interest in the market concerned. The reference rate of interest is fixed by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on proposal from the EFTA State at the beginning of each year on the basis of the average of the relevant indicative rate of the preceding quarter (for technical reasons September, October and November). However, the reference rate will be adjusted again in the course of the year if the difference between the current reference rate and the average of the indicative rate recorded over the last three months should exceed 15 % of the prevailing reference rate.

The reference/discount rates for each EFTA State is for the present fixed as follows:

>TABLE>

Done at Brussels, 11 May 1994.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Heinz ZOUREK

College Member

(1) OJ No L 231, 3. 9. 1994, p. 1.
EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 68/94/COL of 27 June 1994 amending Annex I to Decision No 48/94/COL concerning additional guarantees relating to transmissible gastroenteritis for pigs destined to EFTA States or regions free of the disease

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

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

Having regard to the Act referred to in point 1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine (Council Directive 64/432/EEC; hereinafter referred to as 'the Cattle and Swine Act`), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

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

Whereas Norway considers, as stated in a letter dated 3 January 1994, its territory to be free from transmissible gastroenteritis (TGE) and has submitted supporting documentation to the EFTA Surveillance Authority as provided for in Article 10 (1) of the Cattle and Swine Act;

Whereas it is appropriate to define certain additional guarantees to protect the disease status in Norway;

Whereas the authorities of Norway apply for national movement of pigs for breeding and production rules at least equivalent to those foreseen by the present Decision;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

1. Annex I to EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 48/94/COL of 8 June 1994 concerning additional guarantees relating to transmissible gastroenteritis for pigs destined to EFTA States or regions free of the disease is hereby replaced by the Annex to this Decision.

2. This Decision shall enter into force on 1 July 1994.

3. This Decision is addressed to the EFTA States.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 June 1994.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Pekka SÄILÄ

College Member

ANNEX

'ANNEX I

Regions free of transmissible gastroenteritis which do not permit vaccination

Finland: All regions

Norway: All regions.`
Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 (3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 292 , 20/10/1994 P. 0013 - 0013



Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 (3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections (94/C 292/07) Date of adoption: 7. 9. 1994 Member State: Finland Aid No: 94-023 Title: Employment subsidy for unemployed young with vocational or university degrees Objective: Improve possibilities of young graduates to be employed in jobs corresponding to their education Legal basis: Employment Act (Työllisyyslaki (275/87)) Employment Decree (Työllisyysasetus (130/93)) Budget: Subsidies for the private sector only: - 1994: Fmk 100 million - 1995: Fmk 300 million - 1996: Fmk 300 million Aid intensity: Fmk 3 500 per month per person Duration: 1994 to 1996 Conditions: Annual report Date of adoption: 7. 9. 1994 Member State: Finland Aid No: 94-024 Title: Employment subsidy for apprenticeship training Objective: Increase training opportunities of young unemployed by granting the aid to an employer that makes a apprenticeship contract (i) for vocational training with under 25-year old, unskilled, unemployed young or (ii) for further training with under 30-year old unemployed young with basic training Legal basis: Employment Act (Työllisyyslaki (275/87)) Employment Decree (Työllisyysasetus (130/93)) Budget: Subsidies for the private sector only: - 1994: Fmk 48 million - 1995: Fmk 180 million - 1996: Fmk 202 million Aid intensity: Fmk 1 500 to 2 500 per month per person Duration: 1994 to 1996 Conditions: Annual report
Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority (95/C 274/13)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority announces that pursuant to Article 4 (2) and 4 (3) of the Act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 90/684/EEC on aid to shipbuilding) it has decided to set the common maximum ceiling for operating aid to shipbuilding, referred to in Articles 4 (1) and 5 (1) of the Directive, at 9 % for the period 1 May 1995 to 31 December 1995.

Observing the provisions of Article 4 (2), second sub-paragraph, of the Directive, the maximum level of aid permissible for the construction of small ships of a contract value of less than ECU 10 million as well as for all ship conversions covered by the Directive has at the same time been fixed at 4,5 % for the same
E1995C0504(02)

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licences pursuant to Article 13 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers



Official Journal C 112 , 04/05/1995 P. 0015 - 0015
Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority (96/C 169/07)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority announces that pursuant to Article 4 (2) and (3) of the Act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the Council Directive on aid to shipbuilding) it has decided to set the common maximum ceiling for operating aid to shipbuilding, referred to in Articles 4 (1) and 5 (1) of the Directive, at 9 % for the period as from 1 January 1996 until Articles 1 to 9 of Council Regulation 3094/95 become applicable in the European Community, but no longer than until 1 October 1996.

Observing the provisions of Article 4 (2), second sub-paragraph, of the Directive, the maximum level of aid permissible for the construction of small ships of a contract value of less than ECU 10 million as well as for all ship conversions covered by the Directive has at the same time been fixed at 4,5 % for the same period, except for the construction of such ships destined for national utilization in Greece.
E1998C0820(04)

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 11 of the Act referred to in point 1(b) of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 263 , 20/08/1998 P. 0006 - 0006
E1999C0422(02)

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 11 of the Act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement - EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 111 , 22/04/1999 P. 0010 - 0010
E1999C0311(01)

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) of Protocol to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 068 , 11/03/1999 P. 0015 - 0015
Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement

EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections

(2000/C 130/13)

Date of adoption: 15 March 2000

EFTA State: Norway

Aid No: 99-008

Title: Individual award of aid to Miljøbil Grenland AS (a company for leasing electrically powered cars)

Objective: Aid for environmental protection

Legal basis: Grants from "Vekst i Grenland" (ViG), a local government and enterprise fund for restructuring of the region of Grenland and "Grenlandskommunenes Nærings- og Infrastrukturfond" (GreKoNi), a local government fund for development of enterprises of the Grenland region

Amount of aid: NOK 1850000

Duration: Individual award of aid

Date of adoption: 1 March 2000

EFTA State: Norway

Aid No: 00-001

Title: New training aid scheme

Objective: Aid for training

Legal basis: Law No 9 of 27 June 1947 concerning measures for promoting employment, sections 15, 16 and 17

Aid intensity: 25 to 75 %, depending on location of firm, size of firm and on whether the training is firm-specific or of a general nature

Amount of aid: Esimated budget for 2000 is NOK 130 million

Duration: Not defined
Corrigendum to the Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority under Article 7 of the Act referred to in point 18 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services)

(Official Journal of the European Communities C 344 of 6 December 2001)

(2002/C 47/06)

On pages 11, in the second paragraph, the second sentence:

for: "These diplomas are to be recognised by the contracting parties to the EEA Agreement in respect of those students who began their studies in architecture in the academic year 2001/2002",

read: "These diplomas are to be recognised by the contracting parties to the EEA Agreement in respect of those students who began their studies in architecture in the academic year 1997/1998".
E2001C1206(03)

Decisions by Norway to grant or revoke operating licences pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers



Official Journal C 344 , 06/12/2001 P. 0010 - 0010
Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the 32nd amendment of the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid (extension of the validity of the rules on aid to the synthetic fibres industry)

(2002/C 34/14)

By decision of 28 November 2001, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided that paragraphs 22(5)(1) of Chapter 22 of its State aid guidelines, concerning aid to the synthetic fibres industry, adopted on 6 March 1996(1) and amended on 1 March 2000(2), shall read as follows: "These guidelines will apply until 31 December 2002."

The EFTA Member States have been informed.

(1) OJ L 140, 13.6.1996, and in the EEA Supplement thereto No 25 on the same date.

(2) OJ C 307, 26.10.2000, and in the EEA Supplement thereto No 48 on the same date.