ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 November 2018

in Case E-8/17

Henrik Kristoffersen

v

The Norwegian Ski Federation (Norges Skiforbund), supported by the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (Norges idrettsforbund og olympiske og paralympiske komité)

(Freedom to provide services — Article 36 EEA — Directive 2006/123/EC — Professional athletes — Sports associations — Marketing rights — Restriction — Proportionality — Suitability — Necessity)

(2019/C 107/04)

In Case E-8/17, Henrik Kristoffersen v The Norwegian Ski Federation (Norges Skiforbund), supported by the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (Norges idrettsforbund og olympiske og paralympiske komité) — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) concerning the interpretation of Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area and Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 16 November 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The legal criterion for the assessment of whether a national sports federation’s system of prior control and consent for individual sponsorship contracts constitutes a restriction under Article 36 EEA is whether the system renders less attractive the exercise of an athlete’s freedom to provide a marketing service.

2. If such a system of prior control and consent for individual sponsorship contracts constitutes a restriction, the same will apply to a concrete refusal of an application to enter into an individual sponsorship contract under that system.

3. A system of prior control and consent for individual sponsorship contracts – and a concrete refusal under that system — will be lawful provided that the system and the refusal pursue a legitimate aim that is justified by an overriding reason in the general interest, are suitable to attain that aim and do not go beyond what is necessary to attain it. In that assessment, the system and the concrete refusal cannot be considered in isolation but must be seen in light of the overall possibilities for the athletes or athlete to engage in individual marketing activity.
1.

It is incompatible with Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC if electronic money has a value different from par value on the receipt of funds at any time, including during the period between issuance and redemption.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 May 2019

in Case E-4/18

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 524/2013)

(2019/C 315/06)

In Case E-4/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration 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 Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7j of Annex XIX to the Agreement (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 Agreement.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 July 2020

in Case E-8/19

Scanteam AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

(Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Definition of ‘contracting authority’ – Foreign mission of an EFTA State – Applicability of EEA law – Article 126 EEA – Geographic scope of the EEA Agreement)

(2020/C 374/09)

In Case E-8/19, Scanteam AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Complaints Board for Public Procurement (Klagenemnda for offentlige anskaffelser) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, as adapted to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 16 July 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement is applicable to a procurement procedure undertaken by a foreign mission of an EFTA State in a third country, if the procurement is sufficiently closely linked to the EEA.
1.

The determination of whether a product falls within the definition of a medicinal product in point 2 of Article 1 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use must be decided on a case-by-case basis taking into account the factors set out in that provision, such as the product’s presentation or pharmacological, immunological or metabolic properties. A product, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is intended to be administered intravenously, presented as being in accordance with the formula of a medical practitioner and as alleviating the symptoms of diseases in human beings, constitutes a medicinal product within the meaning of point 2 of Article 1.
3.

An individual assessment of the knowledge and skills of an applicant by the host State must entail a comparison of all diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications and experience of the applicant with its own requirements to pursue the profession in question. If the applicant’s knowledge and qualifications attested by the diploma and relevant working experience are not equivalent, or only partially correspond to those required by the host State, that State must specify which training is lacking in order for the applicant to complete or supplement the training.
1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Acts referred to at points 9b and 9c of Part 7.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, in particular: a) under Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, as amended and as adapted to the EEA Agreement by the specific and the sectoral adaptations referred to in Annex I to that Agreement, to maintain a system of official controls in order to verify that the requirements of that Regulation concerning the disposal of animal by-products are fulfilled by the relevant operators; b) under Article 4(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 to have an adequate system in place on its territory to ensure that animal by-products are disposed of in accordance with that Regulation; and c) under Article 32(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 of 25 February 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption and implementing Council Directive 97/78/EC as regards certain samples and items exempt from veterinary checks at the border under that Directive, as amended and as adapted to the EEA Agreement by the specific and the sectoral adaptations referred to in Annex I to that Agreement, to take the necessary measures to control compliance of relevant operators with their animal by-products disposal obligations by failing to prevent: — the direct disposal of fallen stock, Category 3 slaughterhouse waste and home slaughter waste in authorised landfills in Iceland without prior processing; and — the burial on-site of fallen stock and home slaughter waste (including Category 1 specified risk material) in the absence of the conditions of Article 19 or 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009 being met, both contrary to Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1069/2009.
Request for an advisory opinion by Stavanger byrett by decision of that court of 5 October 1995 in the case of Torgeir Langeland v. Norske Fabricom A/S (Case E-3/95) (96/C 149/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 5 October 1995 of Stavanger byrett (Stavanger City Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 4 December 1995, for an advisory opinion in the case of Torgeir Langeland v. Norske Fabricom A/S, on the following questions:

1. Does the exception clause contained in Article 3 (3) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC cover the rights of an employee to coverage of insurance premiums for non-statutory pension schemes or does the exception only apply to the right to pension insurance payments from such schemes?

2. Is Article 3 (1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC mandatory in the sense that an employee may not legally accept a disadvantageous amendment to his employment contract when the reason for the amendment is to be found in a transfer of an entreprise?
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 12 May 1998 in the case of Tradeparts AG (Case E-3/98) (98/C 331/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 12 May 1998 of Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 1998, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Tradeparts AG, on the following questions.

1. Is the business law provision in Liechtenstein's national law, to the effect that a managing director of a Liechtenstein legal person must have his residence in the country (the Principality of Liechtenstein), in conformity with the EEA Agreement and in particular in conformity with Article 31 et seq. dated 2 May 1992?

2. If the answer to the first question is that the Liechtenstein business law provision of a requirement of residence for a managing director of a Liechtenstein company is not in conformity with the EEA Agreement, whether in view of the specific case of Liechtenstein, Protocol 15, safeguard measures in accordance with Article 112 of the EEA Agreement, and the declaration of the EEA Council on the freedom of choice of residence, could the requirement of residence nevertheless be justified with the consequence that the provisions of the Business Law (Article 17, Article 6(1)(a) are in conformity with the EEA Agreement?

3. Do the grounds of public policy, public security or public health justify the business law provisions concerning the requirement of residence, either instead of or in addition to the special situation in Liechtenstein or on account of the exceptional provision of Article 33 of the EEA
Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-9/00)

(2001/C 49/15)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Peter Dyrberg, acting as Agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74 Rue de Trèves, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should declare that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the following provisions of the EEA Agreement:

- Article 16, by applying two forms of sale at the retail level where beer with an alcohol content between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, mainly produced domestically, may be sold outside the outlets of the State controlled Wine and Spirits Monopoly ("Vinmonopolet"), while other alcoholic beverages with the same alcohol content, mostly imported from other EEA States, may only be sold through the Monopoly, and

- Article 11, by applying more restrictive measures regarding licences to serve alcoholic beverages with an alcoholic content between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, mostly imported from other EEA States, compared to beer with the same alcohol content, mainly produced domestically, these measures not being necessary and proportionate in relation to the objective of safeguarding public health under Article 13 of the EEA Agreement.

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

- Article 16 provides that any State monopoly of a commercial character must be adjusted so that no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States,

- by requiring that retail sales of other alcoholic beverages than beer, with an alcohol content between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, only take place through Vinmonopolet, while allowing beer to be sold in grocery stores pursuant to municipal licence, Norway has, according to the applicant, failed to comply with Article 16 of the EEA Agreement,

- beer is overwhelmingly domestically produced, while other alcoholic drinks with the same alcoholic content are mostly imported. Furthermore, according to the applicant, there is a competitive relationship between these products,

- Article 11 of the EEA Agreement prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports, and all measures having an equivalent effect thereto. Such a measure may only be allowed if it is justified under Article 13 of the EEA Agreement,

- by not allowing licences held by restaurants and other establishments to serve beer to cover other alcoholic beverages having the same alcoholic content, including beverages based on spirits, Norway has, according to the applicant, failed to comply with Article 11 of the EEA Agreement,

- the applicant submits that justification for this prohibition cannot be found in Article 13 of the EEA Agreement on grounds of public health, since the measure chosen is unnecessary and disproportionate.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/29

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstlicher Landrichter by decision of that court of 13 December 2004 in the case of Paolo Piazza v Paul Schurte AG

(Case E-10/04)

(2005/C 159/11)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 13 December 2004 of Fürstlicher Landrichter (Princely Court of Justice), Vaduz, Liechtenstein, which was received at the Court Registry on 31 December 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Paolo Piazza v Paul Schurte AG, on the following question:

Is a provision such as that contained in Section 56(2) of the Liechtenstein Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure) compatible with EEA law, in particular with the freedom to provide services under Article 36 of the EEA Agreement and the freedom of movement of capital under Article 40 thereof? If such a provision is justifiable, is it also proportionate?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 117/14

Action brought on 13 March 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-1/06)

(2006/C 117/05)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 March 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Per Andreas Bjørgan, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that the Kingdom of Norway, by amending the Norwegian gaming and lottery legislation in ‘Lov av 29. august 2003 om endringer i pengespill- og lotterilovgivningen’ , which introduces a monopoly with regard to the operation of gaming machines, has infringed Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement. and

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

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

— The case concerns a monopoly on the operation of gaming machines in Norway.

— Norwegian Penal Code Sections 298 and 299 prohibit gambling unless permitted by specific legislation.

— The Act of 28 August 1992 No 103 (the Gaming Act) coordinated several previously permitted gambling activities (Lotto, horserace and football betting) under the sole operation of Norsk Tipping AS, a company solely owned by the Norwegian government.

— The Act of 24 February 1995 No 11 (the Lottery Act) defined gaming machines as a lottery which may only be operated in order to provide revenue for charitable causes. The Act specified who may operate gaming machines, including private operators.

— In order to combat the growing problem of gambling addiction, the Storting (the Norwegian Parliament), through the Act of 29 August 2003 No 90 transferred the administration of lottery operations using gaming machines from the Lottery Act (which allows for private operators) to the Gaming Act (which grants Norsk Tipping AS exclusive rights of operation).

— The amendments to the Norwegian legislation entail that existing operators be removed from the market and that gaming machine services can, from that point on, only be carried out within the framework of a state monopoly (Norsk Tipping AS).

— Article 31 EEA prohibits all restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of an EC Member State or an EFTA State in the territory of any other of these States. This also applies to the setting up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any EC Member State or EFTA State established in the territory of any of these States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 143/13

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht by decision of that court of 31 January 2007 in the criminal proceedings against Sedin Poric

(Case E-1/07)

(2007/C 143/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 31 January 2007 of Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 7 February 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the criminal proceedings against Sedin Poric on the following questions:

1. Is a provision such as that of Article 57a of the Liechtenstein Lawyers Act [Rechtsanwaltsgesetz], according to which, in proceedings in which a party is represented by a lawyer or a defending counsel must be engaged, the European lawyer providing services must call in a local lawyer to act in conjunction with [Einvernehmensrechtsanwalt] pursuant to Article 49 of the Liechtenstein Lawyers Act, compatible with the provisions of the EEA Agreement relating to the freedom to provide services (Article 36(1) of the EEA Agreement), and in particular with Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, and specifically with the second indent of Article 5 thereof?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 150/13

Action brought on 14 May 2009 by Magasin- og Ukepresseforeningen against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-6/09)

2009/C 150/14

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 14 May 2009 by Magasin- og Ukepresseforeningen, represented by Jan Magne Juuhl-Langseth and Peter Dyrberg, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, Dronning Mauds gt 11, Oslo, NORWAY.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to act by not acting on the complaint lodged with the EFTA Surveillance Authority in August 2006 concerning State aid to newspapers; and

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

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

— The applicant is the Norwegian Magazine Association.

— The applicant contends that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has failed to take a stand on the complaint within reasonable time, in violation of the duties incumbent upon it.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/23

Action brought on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-15/10)

2010/C 320/12

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 14 September 2010 by Posten Norge AS, represented by Siri Teigum, advokat, and Frode Elgesem, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS, Haakon VIIs gate 10, 0116 Oslo, NORWAY.

The Applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:

— annul the contested decision,

— annul or substantially reduce the fine,

— order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs.

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

— The Applicant, Posten Norge AS, operates the national postal service in Norway which covers mail, parcels and financial services. Its sole owner continues to be the Norwegian State. The majority of Posten Norge AS’ services (90 %) are exposed to competition.

— By its decision of 14 July 2010 in case No 34250 ‘Norway Post/Privpak’, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that Posten Norge AS committed a single and continuous infringement of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement from 20 September 2000 until 31 March 2006 in the market for business-to-consumer parcel services with over-the-counter delivery in Norway by pursuing an exclusivity strategy with preferential treatment when establishing and maintaining its Post-in-Shop network. Consequently, a fine of EUR 12,89 million was imposed.

— The Applicant claims that the decision must be annulled as: — the EFTA Surveillance Authority erred in the interpretation and application of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, by holding that any detrimental effect for the rivals’ ability to compete is sufficient to establish abuse, — the EFTA Surveillance Authority has not proven that Posten Norge AS has infringed the competition rules in this case, in particular, it has not substantiated that the exclusivity strategy prevented new entrants from competing effectively, limited their access to the leading grocery store, kiosk and petrol station chains in a manner that constituted abuse, or did result in actual anticompetitive effects, — in any event, the behaviour of Posten Norge AS was objectively justified.
—

The applicant contends that since captive (re)insurance companies cover risks, for which insurance coverage is not normally offered by commercial insurance companies, and as their activities are confined to intra-group risk coverage, they are not active in a market where they are in competition with other market players. They are therefore not engaged in an economic activity and do not qualify as undertakings. Consequently, taxation pursuant to the provisions of the Liechtenstein Tax Act concerning taxation of captive (re)insurance companies cannot have distorted competition or intra-EEA trade. The contested tax provisions are not selective and do therefore not constitute State aid.