ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Reference for an advisory opinion by Markedsrådet by decisions of that court of 28 October and 28 December 1994 in the case of Forbrukerombudet against Lego Norge A/S (Case E-9/94) (94/C 398/07)

Reference has been made to the EFTA Court by decisions of 28 October and 28 December 1994 of Markedsrådet (the Market Council), Norway, received at the Court Registry on 28 December 1994, for an advisory opinion in the case of Forbrukerombudet (the Consumer Ombudsman) against Lego Norge A/S, on the following questions:

1. Is Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, to be interpreted as preventing the receiving State from applying national provisions according to which an advertiser may be prohibited from making use of a commercial which specifically targets children, in a transmission which is specifically directed at Norway from another EEA State?

2. Is Article 36 of the EEA Agreement on the freedom to provide services to be interpreted as preventing the receiving State from applying national provisions according to which an advertiser may be prohibited from making use of a commercial which specifically targets children, in a transmission which is specifically directed at Norway from another EEA State?

3. Is the application of Section 1 of the Marketing Control Act, in conjunction with Section 3-1 of the Broadcasting Act, compatible with Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement concerning quantitative restrictions on imports?
Request for an advisory opinion by Borgarting lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 21 June 1996 in the case of Ullensaker Kommune and Others v. Nille AS (Case E-5/96) (96/C 350/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 21 June 1996 of Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 26 June 1996, for an advisory opinion in the case of Ullensaker Kommune (the Municipality of Ullensaker) and Others v. Nille AS, on the following question:

Is Article 11 of the EEA Agreement, in conjunction with Article 13, to be understood to mean that it prohibits a municipality from refusing a permission for the retail sale of recorded videocassettes (videograms) on the grounds that such permission should only be granted to shops which can be characterized as specialized dealers (speciality shops) for videograms and/or that expert knowledge should be build up by established dealers?
Action brought on 18 December 1997 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-10/97) (98/C 84/06)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 18 December 1997 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Håkan Berglin, Director of the Legal and Executive Affairs Directorate, acting as Agent, EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74, Rue de Trèves, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, the national provisions necessary to comply with the Act referred to in point 2 of Annex XVIII of the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 78/610/EEC of 29 June 1978 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on the protection of the health of workers exposed to vinyl chloride monomer), as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations within the meaning of Article 11 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

2. Order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

- Council Directive 78/610/EEC of 29 June 1978 sets out certain requirements on the protection of the health of workers exposed to vinyl chloride monomer,

- According to Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, acts referred to or contained in the Annexes to the Agreement or in decisions of the EEA Joint Committee shall be binding on the Contracting Parties and be, or be made, part of the internal legal order,

- Council Directive 78/610/EEC of 29 June 1978 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on the protection of the health of workers exposed to vinyl chloride monomer is referred to point 2 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement,

- It follows from Article 11 of the Act, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, that Norway was to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Act by 1 January 1994 and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of the measures taken to this end,

- At the expiry of the abovementioned time limit, Norway had not taken the legislative measures necessary to comply with the Act. Nor had such measures been taken at the end of the time limit set by the EFTA Surveillance Authority in its reasoned opinion, in which it requested Norway to take the measures necessary to comply with the Act. Norway has, therefore, failed to comply with its obligations within the meaning of Article 11 of the Act and Article 7 of the EEA
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) in the case of Halla Helgadóttir v. Daníel Hjaltason and Iceland Insurance Company Ltd

(Case E-7/00)

(2000/C 368/17)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court on 10 July 2000, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Halla Helgadóttir v. Daníel Hjaltason and Iceland Insurance Company Ltd on the following questions:

1. Is it compatible with the provisions of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in particular European Economic Community Council Directives on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, 72/1667/EEC of 24 April 1972, 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983, and 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990, as amended, to determine the compensation payable to victims under the third-party liability insurance of a motor vehicle in accordance with national tort statutes providing for standardised compensation based on a tier of non-pecuniary loss (medical disability tier), regardless of a tier of permanent disability (occupational disability tier), in cases of victims who, on the date of an accident, make use of their earning capacity in a manner providing them with little or no earnings from employment?

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, do the Directives provide for minimum compensation for a victim in that situation?

3. If the second question is answered in the affirmative, by what reference is the minimum compensation payable to a victim in that situation to be determined and, in particular, what significance is to be given in this context to actuarial calculations, based on different premises as regards discounting and income?

4. Does it matter in this context whether a victim is entitled to compensation form other sources?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 27 September 2001 in the case of Hegelstad Eiendomsselskap A. B. Hegelstad and Others v Hydro Texaco AS

(Case E-7/01)

(2002/C 81/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 27 September 2001 of Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 3 October 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Hegelstad Eiendomsselskap A. B. Hegelstad and Others v Hydro Texaco AS, on the following questions:

1. Does a contract of cooperation between an independent petrol station operator who owns the station and a supplier of motor fuels and lubricants which contains clauses providing

- for an exclusive right for the supplier to deliver motor fuels and lubricants to the distributor for the duration of the contract,

- for a right for the supplier to assume ownership of the petrol station for a price of NOK 4 million, as registered in the "cadasre", or alternatively, a lease option at a set rental price corresponding to the contract period, in the event of debt settlement proceedings or bankruptcy on the part of the distributor,

- that, for the owner of the station/distributor the contract period is not capable of termination and the terms of the contract may not be changed for a period of 15 years, and that the supplier is able to terminate the contract three months prior to the initial period,

come within the block exemption in Article 53(3), see regulation of 4 December 1992, No 964, chapter II, section 10?

2. If the block exemption in Article 53(3) does not apply, is the cooperation agreement incompatible with Article 53(1)?

3. What are the legal effects of a possible conflict, and what limitation on time period must be applied, if any?
Action brought on 19 December 2003 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-4/03)

(2004/C 51/05)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 19 December 2003 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger, Director and Arne Torsten Andersen, Officer, Legal and Executive Affairs Directorate, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74, Rue de Trèves, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by adopting Regulation of 28 August 1998 No 853 regarding type approval of gaming machines (Forskrift av 28. august 1998 nr. 853 om typegodkjenning av gevinstautomater) without notifying the EFTA Surveillance Authority at the drafting stage, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 8 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter XIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended and adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and

2. Order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

- Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, as amended (the "Act"), obliges Norway to immediately communicate to the EFTA Surveillance Authority any draft technical regulation.

- Except in special cases referred to in Article 8 of the Act, Article 9 of the Act requires the EFTA States to postpone adoption of technical regulations for a period of three months subsequent to its notification to the Authority.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 40/17

Action brought on 8 November 2004 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-8/04)

(2005/C 40/10)

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 8 November 2004 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Elisabethann Wright, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that by maintaining in force the provisions of Article 25 of the Banking Act, whereby a residence requirement is imposed on at least one member of the management board and of the executive management in a bank established on its territory, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to respect the freedom of establishment for which Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area provides; and

2. Order the Principality of Liechtenstein to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

— Article 31(1) EEA requires equal treatment between EEA nationals invoking their right to freedom of establishment and those nationals of the country where the establishment is effected.

— Article 33 EEA provides a derogation from the right to freedom of establishment.

— The EFTA Court has stated in Case E-3/98 Rainford-Towning [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 205, and Case E-2/01 Pucher [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 44, that ‘it is settled case law of the ECJ that the rules of equal treatment prohibit not only overt discrimination based on nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by applying other distinguishing criteria, achieve, in practice, the same result’.

— Both the EFTA Court and the Court of Justice of the European Communities have concluded that ‘national rules under which a distinction is drawn on the basis of residence are liable to operate mainly to the detriment of nationals of other Contracting Parties, as non-residents are in the majority of cases foreigners’. Rainford-Towning, paragraph 29.

— The EFTA Court has further concluded that ‘[a]s regards justification on grounds of public policy, as envisaged in Article 33 EEA, it must be held that, in so far as it may justify special treatment of foreign nationals who are subject to the EEA Agreement, recourse to the concept of public policy presupposes, in any event, the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society’. Rainford-Towning, paragraph 42.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/48

Action brought on 15 November 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-5/06)

(2007/C 72/23)

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 15 November 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Arne Torsten Andersen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

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

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

— The present case concerns the Liechtenstein Hilflosenentschädigung, (helplessness allowance) for persons who permanently require a considerable degree of help from a third person or personal surveillance to carry out daily tasks. The allowance is not supplementing any other social security benefit, and is granted without regard to income. The allowance is not linked to past contributions to the State, and the recipient is not required to suffer from a sickness.

— Liechtenstein law requires that the recipient of the allowance reside in Liechtenstein.

— The Liechtenstein helplessness allowance is listed in Annex IIa to Regulation 1408/71 (cf. Articles 4(2a)(c) and 10a of the Regulation) as a special non-contributory cash benefit, which would as such not be an exportable benefit under the Regulation.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads, however, that the correct classification of the helplessness allowance would be as a sickness benefit in cash (cf. Article 4(1) of the Regulation), exportable in accordance with Articles 19 (1) and (2), 25 (1) and 28 (1) of the Regulation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/19

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands dated 8 May 2007 in the case of HOB vín ehf v Faxaflóahafnir sf.

(Case E-6/07)

(2007/C 301/11)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 8 May 2007 from Hæstiréttur Íslands (the Supreme Court of Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 May 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of HOB vín ehf v Faxaflóahafnir sf., on the following questions:

1. Does the levying of charges by a partnership owned by several municipalities, in connection with the import of alcoholic beverages from other EEA States through a port owned by the partnership, fall under the provisions of Articles 10, 11 or 14 of the EEA Agreement? The question is based on the premise that the operation of the port is not regarded in law as a public operation; the levying of the charges is based on an authorisation in law and the charges are to meet the cost of the services provided, together with a share of the joint operation of the port.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/16

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett in the Case of Therese Slinning v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad

(Case E-1/08)

(2008/C 113/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 16 January 2008 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 January 2008, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Therese Slinning v the State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad, on the following questions:

1. Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement and Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to refuse coverage of expenses for treatment abroad which according to international medicine must be considered experimental or test treatment, when there is no entitlement to such treatment in the home State?

2. Is it of significance for the answer to Question No 1 that the method of treatment in question must be considered to be implemented in the home State or the home State is considering its implementation in the future?

3. Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement to refuse coverage of expenses for hospital treatment abroad if the patient in the home State can receive an offer of adequate medical treatment assessed according to accepted international methods within a medically justifiable time limit? Is it of significance for the answer to this question that: (a) coverage of such expenses may be refused even if the treatment abroad is considered as possibly more advanced than the treatment in the home State? (b) the patient, having decided to receive treatment abroad rather than an adequate treatment in the home State, does not get coverage for the costs of treatment abroad to the same extent as the treatment offered in the home State would have cost?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 58/12

Action brought on 22 December 2010 by the Principality of Liechtenstein against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-17/10)

2011/C 58/06

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 December 2010 by the Principality of Liechtenstein, represented by Dr Andrea Entner-Koch, acting as Agent for the Principality of Liechtenstein, EEA Coordination Unit, Austrasse 79/Europark, 9490 Vaduz, Fürstentum Liechtenstein.

The Principality of Liechtenstein requests the EFTA Court to:

1. annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 regarding the taxation of investment undertakings under the Liechtenstein Tax Act;

2. in the alternative, declare void Articles 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010, to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of that Decision; and

3. order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 declared that the tax exemptions applicable to investment companies, and which were repealed with effect from 30 June 2006, were not compatible with Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority further decided that the alleged aid constituted unlawful aid subject to recovery from investment companies receiving it from 15 March 1997 until the date in which beneficiaries last benefitted from the exemptions following their repeal in 2006.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority held that recovery should be affected without delay, and in any event by 3 March 2011, in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided they allow the immediate and effective execution of the decision.

— The applicant contends that the tax provisions at stake do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 271/27

Action brought on 26 July 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway

(Case E-10/10)

2010/C 271/07

An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 July 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.

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

1. By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Acts referred to at point 1 and at point 1, indent 2, of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications) each as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63(1) of the Directive and under Article 7 EEA;

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 Norway to comply with a reasoned opinion issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the failure to adopt, or to notify the Authority of the measures necessary to fully implement the EEA Act corresponding to European Union Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications as amended.

— The outstanding Norwegian measures concern amendments of a number of national regulations on the recognition of professional qualifications obtained in other EEA States.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received information from the Norwegian government indicating that the Act has been fully implemented into national law, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude accordingly.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/8

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett, dated 11 November 2011, in the case of Arcade Drilling AS v Staten v/Skatt Vest

(Case E-15/11)

2012/C 128/04

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 11 November 2011 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 28 November 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Arcade Drilling v Staten v/Skatt Vest, on the following questions:

1. Is it a restriction pursuant to Article 31 of the EEA, cf. Article 34 of the EEA to impose liquidation tax on a company if national company law entails an obligation to liquidate the company because the company has transferred its de facto head office from Norway to another EEA State? Is it of any significance that deferral of tax payment is not given until a realisation, if any, is effected?