ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/18

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 May 2009

in Case E-2/09

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Commission Regulation (EC) No 593/2007 on the fees and charges levied by the European Aviation Safety Agency — Judgement by default)

2010/C 305/11

In Case E-2/09, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 66s of Chapter VI of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 593/2007 of 31 May 2007 on the fees and charges levied by the European Aviation Safety Agency), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 20 May 2009, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time limit, the national measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 66s of Chapter VI of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Commission Regulation (EC) No 593/2007 of 31 May 2007 on the fees and charges levied by the European Aviation Safety Agency, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 EEA;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/20

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 June 2011

in Case E-12/10

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum rates of pay — Leave with pay in the event of illness or accident — Insurance against accidents)

2011/C 336/14

In Case E-12/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by maintaining in force Articles 5 and 7 of Act No 45/2007 on the rights and obligations of foreign undertakings that post workers temporarily in Iceland and on their workers’ terms and conditions of employment, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 36 of the EEA Agreement and Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 30 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 28 June 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by maintaining in force Articles 5 and 7 of Act No 45/2007 on the rights and obligations of foreign undertakings that post workers temporarily in Iceland and on their workers’ terms and conditions of employment, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/10

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 18 October 2010

in Case E-3/10

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/87/EC on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate)

2011/C 141/10

In Case E-3/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 31ea of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time-limit prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 18 October 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 31ea of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 29/6

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 September 2012

in Case E-18/11

Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing Bank hf.

(Article 34 SCA — Appeal against a decision making a request for an Advisory Opinion — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions — Directive 2001/24/EC — Conform interpretation)

2013/C 29/07

In Case E-18/11 Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing Bank hf. — 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 Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court) concerning the interpretation of Article 14 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 28 September 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. In the case of discrepancy between different language versions, the version which reflects the purpose and the general scheme of the rules provided for by the Directive, as well as the general principles of EEA law must be deemed to express the meaning of an EEA law provision.

2. Article 14 of Directive 2001/24/EC of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions precludes a rule of national law which, following the publication of an invitation to lodge claims directed towards known creditors who have their domicile, permanent residence or head offices in other EEA States, allows for the cancellation of claims that have not been lodged even if these creditors have not been individually notified and the national legislation requires the lodgement of the claim with a view to its recognition.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/9

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 26 July 2011

in Case E-4/11

Arnulf Clauder

(Directive 2004/38/EC — Family reunification — Right of residence for family members of EEA nationals holding a right of permanent residence — Condition to have sufficient resources)

2011/C 344/06

In Case E-4/11 Arnulf Clauder — 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 Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), concerning the interpretation of Article 16(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 26 July 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC is to be interpreted such that an EEA national with a right of permanent residence, who is a pensioner and in receipt of social welfare benefits in the host EEA State, may claim the right to family reunification even if the family member will also be claiming social welfare benefits.
2.

It is sufficient for an EEA State to base a decision under Article 27 of the Directive not to grant an individual who is a national of another EEA State leave to enter its territory on grounds of public policy and/or public security only upon a danger assessment, which assesses the role of the individual in the accession of a new charter to an organisation of which the individual is a member and which concludes that the organisation is associated with organised crime and that where such an organisation has managed to establish itself, organised crime has increased. It is further required that the assessment is based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Moreover, this personal conduct must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society, and the restriction on the right to entry must be proportionate. In the light of the relevant matters of fact and law, it is for the national court to determine whether those requirements are met.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 88/14

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 6 December 2013

in Case E-15/13

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests)

2014/C 88/11

In Case E-15/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7d of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests), as adapted by 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, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 6 December 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7d of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests), as adapted by 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;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 150/9

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 3 October 2014

in Case E-21/13

The Fédération Internationale de Football Association v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment — Television broadcasting — Article 14 of Directive 2010/13/EU — Measures concerning events of major importance for an EEA State — FIFA World Cup — Freedom to provide services — Right to property — Statement of reasons)

(2015/C 150/09)

In Case E-21/13, The Fédération Internationale de Football Association v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION for the partial annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 309/13/COL of 16 July 2013 on the compatibility with EEA law of measures to be taken by Norway pursuant to Article 14 of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1), the Court, composed of Per Christiansen (acting President), Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc judge), gave judgment on 3 October 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the application.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/6

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 27 January 2014

in Case E-1/13

Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment — State aid — Lease contract — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility — Legal interest — Status as interested party — Doubts or serious difficulties — Market investor principle — Tender procedure)

(2014/C 121/06)

In Case E-1/13, Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 410/12/COL of 21 November 2012 on alleged State aid through the subsidised lease of optical fibres previously operated on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (‘NATO’) the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 January 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Annuls ESA Decision No 410/12/COL of 21 November 2012 on alleged State aid through the subsidised lease of optical fibres previously operated on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (‘NATO’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/32

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT

of 28 August 2015

in Case E-22/14

Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB, Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(2016/C 357/12)

With respect to the application from Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS of 10 November 2014 seeking annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 9 September 2014, the President of the Court made an Order of 28 August 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Case E-22/14 is removed from the Register.

2. The applicants and the EFTA Surveillance Authority are to bear their own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 201/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 January 2015

in Case E-11/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payments in commercial transactions)

(2015/C 201/05)

In Case E-11/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 2 of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payments in commercial transactions, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 28 January 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Act referred to at point 2 of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payments in commercial transactions), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 2/4

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 December 2015

in Case E-13/15

Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung

(Coordination of social security systems — Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Binding effect of medical findings of institution of place of stay or residence — Right to challenge those findings — Principle of equal treatment)

(2017/C 2/04)

In Case E-13/15, Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung — 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 Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht) concerning the interpretation of Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 16 December 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 does not prevent a recipient or claimant of benefits from challenging the findings of an institution of the place of stay or residence made under the said provision in an administrative procedure before a debtor institution.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 3/6

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 15 July 2015

in Case E-2/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 on screening of passengers by ETD and HHMD equipment)

(2016/C 3/07)

In Case E-2/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration 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 adopt the measures necessary to make as such part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 66he, twelfth indent, of Annex XIII to the Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 104/2013 of 4 February 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards the screening of passengers and persons other than passengers by Explosive Trace Detection (‘ETD’) equipment in combination with Hand Held Metal Detection (‘HHMD’) equipment), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and the sectoral adaptations in Annex XIII, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 July 2015, 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 adopt the measures necessary to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 66he, twelfth indent, of Annex XIII to the Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 104/2013 of 4 February 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards the screening of passengers and persons other than passengers by Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) equipment in combination with Hand Held Metal Detection (HHMD) equipment), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and the sectoral adaptations in Annex XIII.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/8

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 26 July 2016

in Case E-28/15

Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals Board

(Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence — Derived rights for third country nationals)

(2017/C 90/09)

In Case E-28/15, Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals Board – 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 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 26 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

Where an EEA national, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC, has created or strengthened a family life with a third country national during genuine residence in an EEA State other than that of which he is a national, the provisions of that directive will apply by analogy where that EEA national returns with the family member to his home State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 18/25

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 February 2016

in Case E-17/15

Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v The Icelandic State

(Jurisdiction — Article 8 EEA — Import of raw meat — Directive 89/662/EEC — Harmonisation of the regulatory regime for veterinary checks)

(2017/C 18/09)

In Case E-17/15, Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v The Icelandic State — 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 Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the applicability of the provisions of the Agreement on the European Economic Area to the import to Iceland of raw meat products, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The field of application of the EEA Agreement as defined in Article 8 EEA does not entail that an EEA State has discretion to set rules on the importation of raw meat products, since that discretion may be limited by provisions incorporated into an Annex to the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 321/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 June 2017

in Case E-18/16

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors)

(2017/C 321/10)

In Case E-18/16, 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 point 12zzq of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 7 June 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 12zzq of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the Agreement.