ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

State aid – Decision to raise no objections to certain state aid measures and finding no state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

(2022/C 428/06)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measures, or considers that the following measures do not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

Date of adoption of the decision 6 July 2022 Case No 85218 Decision No 160/22/COL EFTA State Norway Region Sandnes Municipality Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) Sandnes Ulf Legal basis Municipal decisions Type of measure Investment and operating aid Objective Sports, recreation and education Form of aid Grants, loan, guarantee, lease agreement Economic sectors Football stadium Name and address of the granting authority Sandnes Municipality Postboks 583, NO-4302 Sandnes NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
EFTA Surveillance Authority’s notice on state aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates for the EFTA States applicable as from 1 May 2022

(Published in accordance with the rules on reference and discount rates set out in Part VII of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines and Article 10 of ESA’s Decision No 195/04/COL 14 July 2004 (1) )

(2022/C 321/02)

Base rates are calculated in accordance with the Chapter on the method for setting reference and discount rates of ESA’s State Aid Guidelines as amended by ESA’s Decision No 788/08/COL of 17 December 2008. To obtain the applicable reference rates, appropriate margins shall be added to the base rate in accordance with the State Aid Guidelines.

Base rates have been determined as follows:

Iceland Liechtenstein Norway 1. 5.2022 – 3,12 -0,57 1,17

(1) OJ L 139, 25.5.2006, p. 37 and EEA Supplement to the OJ No. 26/2006, 25.5.2006, p. 1.
DECISION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES No 4/94/SC of 10 January 1994 establishing a financial mechanism committee

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area as adjusted by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement, and in particular Part VIII thereof and Article 1 (2) of Protocol 38 thereto,

Having regard to the Cooperation Agreement between the EFTA States and the European Investment Bank (EIB) as adjusted by the Protocol adjusting the Cooperation Agreement, hereinafter referred to as the Cooperation Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the management of the financial mechanism, established under Article 116 of the EEA Agreement, a financial mechanism committee, hereinafter referred to as the Committee, is hereby established.

Article 2

1. Each EFTA State, for which the Agreement on a Standing Committee of the EFTA States has entered into force, shall be represented in the Committee and shall have one vote.

2. Before the Agreement on a Standing Committee of the EFTA States enters into force for the Principality of Liechtenstein, Liechtenstein may participate in the work of the Committee without, however, having the right to vote.

Article 3

The Committee shall appoint a liaison officer who shall at the same time serve as the secretary of the Committee. The liaison officer shall ensure close and continuous cooperation between the Committee, the EIB and the EC Commission pertaining to the execution of the Cooperation Agreement.

Article 4

Decisions by the Committee shall be taken by unanimity unless otherwise provided in its Rules of Procedure.

Article 5

The Committee shall take the decisions necessary for the proper functioning of the financial mechanism and keep its operation under review. It shall, in particular, give to the EIB guidelines on the operations to be carried out under the Cooperation Agreement and decide on proposals for interest rebates and grants under Article 2 (4) and 3 (2) of Protocol 38 to the EEA Agreement, respectively, when such proposals have been submitted by the EIB to the Committee for approval and after having been informed of the opinion of the EC Commission,

Article 6

The Committee shall, subject to approval by the Standing Committee, determine, on the basis of the Cooperation Agreement, the amount of the instalments to be paid to the EFTA States' account at the EIB and calculate the share of, and the amount to be paid by, each EFTA State. Calls for payment shall be issued by the liaison officer.

Article 7

The Committee shall adopt its Rules of Procedure to be approved by the Standing Committee.

Article 8

The Committee shall semi-annually submit a report on its activities and on the operation of the financial mechanism to the Standing Committee.

Article 9

This Decision shall take immediate effect.

Article 10

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 10 January 1994

For the Standing Committee

The Chairman

Antti SATULI
Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States

No 1/2001/SC

of 24 January 2001

amending the Rules of Procedure of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES,

Having regard to the Agreement on a Standing Committee of the EFTA States as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on a Standing Committee of the EFTA States, hereinafter referred to as the Agreement, and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 2/95/SC of 18 May 1995 amending the Rules of Procedure of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States,

Whereas the EFTA States have agreed to amend the Rules of Procedure of the Standing Committee regarding the Chairmanship of subcommittees and working groups,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Decision of the Standing Committee No 1/94/SC (Rules of Procedure) shall be amended as follows:

1. The following shall be added in Article 19(2): ", following a timely written proposal by an EFTA State to the Chairman of the Standing Committee."

2. The following paragraph shall be added in Article 20: "2. The Chairman of each working group shall be appointed by the relevant subcommittee, following a timely written proposal by the working group to the Chairman of the subcommittee concerned."

3. The current text of Article 20 shall become paragraph 1.

Article 2

This Decision shall take immediate effect.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 24 January 2001.

For the Standing Committee

The President

N. v. Liechtenstein
EN Official Journal of the European Union L 122/32

DECISION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES

No 1/2007/SC

of 25 October 2007

amending Decision of the Standing Committee No 5/2004/SC establishing a principle of cost sharing for the EEA Financial Mechanism

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement,

Having regard to Protocol 38a on the EEA Financial Mechanism inserted into the EEA Agreement by the Agreement on the participation of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic in the European Economic Area, and amended by the Agreement on the participation of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania in the European Economic Area,

Having regard to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 5/2004/SC of 23 September 2004 establishing a principle of cost sharing for the EEA Financial Mechanism,

Having regard to the fact that Liechtenstein now is in the position to produce its own official data on Gross Domestic Product (GDP),

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Paragraph 6 and 7 of the Annex to the Decision of the Standing Committee No 5/2004/SC establishing a principle of cost sharing for the EEA Financial Mechanism shall be replaced by the following:

‘6. The GDP data on which the contributions for a specific year t are to be based, shall be delivered by 1 February of the same year and shall relate to the years t-4, t-3 and t-2. For Liechtenstein, the three most recent years for which data is available shall be used.’

Article 2

This Decision shall take immediate effect. It shall apply for the first time for the tranche 2007-2008.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Dangerous substances — List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) in the second half of 2017

(2018/C 305/11)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 25/2008 of 14 March 2008, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) for the period 1 July – 31 December 2017, at their meeting on 27 April 2018.
Official Journal of the European Union

Dangerous substances — List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) 528/2012 in the second half of 2019

(2020/C 308/04)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 225/2013 of 13 December 2013, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 for the period 1 July – 31 December 2019, at their meeting on 20 March 2020.
Official Journal of the European Union

Dangerous substances - List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 (REACH) in the second half of 2020

(2021/C 324/09)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 25/2008 of 14 March 2008, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) for the period 1 July – 31 December 2020, at their meeting on 19 March 2021.
NoC239/6ΓΕΝΙ OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 14.9.95
EFTA-COURT
JUDGMENT OFTHECOURT
of16June1995
inJoinedCasesE-8/94andE-9/94(referenceforanadvisoryopinionfromtheMarkedsr&det ):
Forbrukerombudet against1.MattelScandinaviaA/Sand2.LegoNorgeA/S(')
(Admissibility—Freemovementofservices—CouncilDirective89/552/EEC—Transmitting
Stateprinciple—Televisedadvertisingtargetingchildren—Broadcasters/advertisers—Circum­
vention—Directedadvertising—CouncilDirective84/450/EEC)
(95/C239/07)
(PursuanttoArticle27(5)oftheRulesofProcedureauthenticinEnglishandNorwegian)
InCasesE-8/94andE-9/94:referencetotheCourtunderArticle34oftheAgreement
betweentheEFTAStatesontheEstablishmentofaSurveillanceAuthorityandaCourtof
JusticebytheMarkedsr&det (theMarketCouncil),Oslo(Norway)foranadvisoryopinionin
thetwoproceedingspendingbeforeinbetweenForbrukerombudet and1.MattelScandinavia
A/S,2.LegoNorgeA/S—ontheinterpretationofCouncilDirective89/552/EECof3
October1989onthecoordinationofcertainprovisionslaiddownbylaw,regulationoradmin­
istrativeactioninMemberStatesconcerningthepursuitoftelevisionbroadcastingactivities,as
wellasArticles11,13and36oftheEEAAgreement—theCourt,composedof:BjernHaug,
President;Th6rVilhjalmsson ,KurtHerndl,SvenNorberg(Rapporteur)andGustavBygglin,
Judges;KarinHokborg,Registrar,gaveajudgmenton16June1995,theoperativepartof
whichisasfollows:
Articles2(2)and16ofCouncilDirective89/552/EECof3October1989onthecoordination
ofcertainprovisionslaiddownbylaw,regulationoradministrative actionsinMemberStates
concerningthepursuitoftelevisionbroadcastingactivities,asintegratedintotheEEA
Agreement,mustbeinterpretedasprecludingaprohibitionimposedonanadvertiser,whereby
heispreventedfromshowinganadvertisementcontainedinatelevisionprogrammeofa
broadcasterestablishedinanotherEEAState,ifthisarisesasaconsequenceofageneral
prohibition,laiddowninnationallaw,ofadvertisements whichspecificallytargetchildren.
(')OJNoC398,31.12.1994,p.19.
Removal from the Register of Case E-4/94



Official Journal C 106 , 27/04/1995 P. 0006 - 0006



Removal from the Register of Case E-4/94 (1) (95/C 106/06) By order of 27 February 1995 the Acting President of the EFTA Court ordered the removal from the Register of Case E-4/94 (request for an advisory opinion from Marknadsdomstolen: Konsumentombudsmannen against De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB). (1) OJ No C 347, 8. 12. 1994.
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT 14 March 1997 (Council Directive 77/187/EEC - transfer of part of a business) (97/C 136/06)

In Case E-3/96:

REQUEST to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal) for an advisory opinion in the case pending before it between

Tor Angeir Ask and Others

and

ABB Offshore Technology AS and Aker Offshore Partner AS

on the interpretation of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses.

On those grounds,

THE COURT,

in answer to the questions referred to it by Gulating lagmannsrett by order of 21 May 1996, hereby gives the following advisory opinion, taking the first and the third questions together:

1. Article 1 (1) of the Act referred to in point 23 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses) is to be interpreted as meaning that it may cover a situation where a time-limited contract regarding maintenance and modification work on an oil platform expires and the principal concludes a new time-limited contract with another contractor. However, the Article does not apply in a situation in which there is no transfer of significant tangible or intangible assets, including essential equipment, nor the taking over or re-engagement of an essential part of the workforce, in terms of number and expertise, who were especially assigned by the predecessor to the performance of its contract.

2. The fact that a transaction is subject to public procurement Directives does not by itself prevent Council Directive 77/187/EEC from being applicable in a case such as the one at hand.

Bjørn HAUG

Thór VILHJÁLMSSON

Carl BAUDENBACHER

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 March 1997.

Per CHRISTIANSEN

Registrar

Bjørn HAUG
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT of 12 June 1998 in Case E-8/97 (Request for an advisory opinion from Oslo byrett): TV 1000 Sverige AB v. The Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs (1) (Council Directive 89/552/EEC - Transfrontier television broadcasting - Pornography) (Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure, only the English and Norwegian texts are authentic) (98/C 268/12)

In Case E-8/97, request to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, for an advisory opinion in the case pending before it between TV 1000 Sverige AB and the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs, on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/552/EEC, the Court, composed of Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Carl Baudenbacher, Judges; and Asle Aarbakke, Registrar/Legal Secretary, gave an Advisory Opinion on 12 June 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:

Under Article 2(2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC, it is for the national authorities of the receiving State to determine, in accordance with that State's values and national legislation, which programmes might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors within the meaning of Article 22, first paragraph, first sentence of the Directive.

The exception in the second sentence of Article 22, first paragraph does not extend to programmes 'which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors` dealt with in the first sentence of Article 22, first paragraph.

All the conditions listed in Article 2(2)(a) to (d) of the Directive must be fulfilled in order for the receiving State to restrict retransmission, regard being had to the principle of proportionality and the decision being subject to supervision by the Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority, as the case may be.

The criteria in Article 2(2)(a) and (b) are separate criteria, with (a) regulating the gravity of the infringement and (b) providing that the right to provisional suspension of retransmission arises when material infringing Article 22, as laid down in Article 2(2)(a), has been broadcast on three occasions within a period of 12 months.

(1) OJ C 20, 22.1.1998, p. 18.
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT of 24 November 1998 in Case E-1/98 (Request for an advisory opinion from Borgarting lagmannsrett): the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Social Affairs and Health v. Astra Norge AS (1) (Free movement of goods - Copyright - Disguised restriction on trade) (Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure only the English and Norwegian texts are authentic) (1999/C 44/09)

In Case E-1/98: request to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), Norway, for an advisory opinion in the case pending before it between the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and Astra Norge AS, on the interpretation of Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area and Council Directive 65/65/EEC on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ 22, 9.2.1965, p. 369), as amended by Directives 75/318/EEC, 75/319/EEC and 83/570/EEC, referred to in point 1 of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson and Carl Baudenbacher (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges; and Gunnar Selvik, Registrar, gave an advisory opinion on 24 November 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:

Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement, in combination with Directive 65/65/EEC, are to be interpreted as Agreement not permitting the protection of a direct importer's national copyright in a summary of product characteristics, approved by the competent medicinal products authority, which would have the consequence that the medicinal products authority may not give out, approve or lay down the same summary of product characteristics for a product imported by way of parallel import without the consent of the direct importer.

(1) OJ C 263, 20.8.1998, p. 7.
Order of the President of the Court of 21 May 2002



Official Journal C 177 , 25/07/2002 P. 0007 - 0007



Order of the President of the Court of 21 May 2002 (2002/C 177/06) In Case E-8/01, Gunnar Amundsen AS and Others v Vectura AS, concerning the issue of whether there has been an infringement of Article 54 EEA, and a claim for compensation for loss resulting from the infringement, the President of the Court made and Order of 21 May 2002, the operative part of which orders Case E-8/01 removed from the Register.
1.

Declares that, by adopting Regulation No 853 of 28 August 1998 regarding type approval of gaming machines, without previously notifying the EFTA Surveillance Authority at the drafting stage, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation under 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 by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, and referred to in point 1 of Chapter XIX of Annex II to the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/10

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 23 November 2004

in Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA and The Norwegian State, represented by Skattedirektoratet (the Directorate of Taxes)

(Free movement of capital — taxation of dividends — tax credit granted exclusively to shareholders resident in a Contracting Party — denial of procedural rights to shareholders resident in other Contracting Parties)

(2006/C 45/06)

In Case E-1/04 between Fokus Bank ASA and the Norwegian State, represented by Skattedirektoratet, — REQUEST to the Court by Frostating lagmannsrett (Frostating Court of Appeal) on the interpretation of the rules of free movement of capital within the EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment on 23 November 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 40 EEA precludes legislation whereby shareholders resident in a specific Contracting Party are granted a tax credit on dividends paid by a company resident in that Contracting Party, whereas non-resident shareholders are not granted such a tax credit. Whether the taxpayer is resident in another Contracting Party which, in a tax agreement with the Contracting Party wherein the dividend is distributed, has undertaken to grant credit for withholding tax, or whether the taxpayer in the specific case actually is granted, or will be granted, credit for the withholding tax, is of no legal significance.