ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 291/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 December 2011

in Case E-3/11

Pálmi Sigmarsson v the Central Bank of Iceland

(Free movement of capital — Article 43 EEA — National restrictions on capital movements — Jurisdiction — Proportionality — Legal certainty)

2012/C 291/06

In Case E-3/11, Pálmi Sigmarsson v the Central Bank of Iceland — 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 43 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 14 December 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

A national measure which prevents inbound transfer into Iceland of Icelandic krónur purchased on the offshore market, is compatible with Article 43(2) and (4) of the EEA Agreement in circumstances such as those in the case before the referring court.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/4

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 July 2013

in Case E-7/12

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

(Action for failure to act — Non-contractual liability of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Legitimate expectations — Principle of good administration — Failure of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision within a self-imposed time limit)

2013/C 309/04

In Case E-7/12, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under Articles 37 and 46 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for a declaration of a failure to act and non-contractual liability of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 9 July 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby declares:

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the claim that ESA failed to act in relation to the remaining documents in Case No 34250;

2. Dismisses the action to the remainder;

3. Orders ESA to pay the costs concerning the failure to act, its own costs concerning the action for non-contractual liability and half of those of the applicants concerning the action for non-contractual liability;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 384/15

Composition of the EFTA Court

Appointment of the Registrar of the EFTA Court

2012/C 384/13

Mr Gunnar Selvik was appointed Registrar of the EFTA Court pursuant to Article 9, Protocol 5 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement for the period from 1 September 2012 to 31 August 2015, to succeed Mr Skúli Magnússon.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/8

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 25 November 2014

in Case E-4/13

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

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Article 38 SCA — ESA’s Rules on public access to documents 2012)

(2015/C 183/09)

In Case E-4/13, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s (‘ESA’) Decision of 7 February 2013 to deny access to the inspection documents in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak) after the Court annulled ESA’s first decision on 21 December 2012 in Case E-14/11. The contested decision was made under the new rules on public access to documents that ESA enacted on 5 September 2012 by way of Decision No 300/12/COL (‘RAD 2012’) (not published in the Official Journal), which was given retroactive effect to DB Schenker’s access request of 3 August 2010, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, made an order on 25 November 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. The applicants are to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 May 2014

in Case E-23/13

Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC)

(Directive 2003/6/EC — Admissibility — Judicial or administrative function — Information request — Requirement in national law to set out the facts that give rise to the suspicion)

(2015/C 49/08)

In Case E-23/13 Hellenic Capital Market Commission (HCMC) — 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 from the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein) concerning the interpretation of Article 16 of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 9 May 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

A requirement that obliges the authority requesting information in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2003/6/EC to specify the facts giving rise to the suspicion is not compatible with Directive 2003/6/EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 122/4

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 24 September 2014

in Case E-1/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2006/38/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures)

(2015/C 122/05)

In Case E-1/14, 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 18a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 24 September 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 18a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, 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 201/9

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 January 2015

in Case E-15/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products — Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 286/2012)

(2015/C 201/09)

In Case E-15/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement 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 4d of Chapter XI of Annex II to that Agreement (Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 286/2012 of 27 January 2012 amending in order to include a new textile fibre name, Annex I, and, for the purposes of their adaptation to technical progress, Annexes VIII and IX to Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen 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 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Act referred to at point 4d of Chapter XI of Annex II to that Agreement, Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 286/2012 of 27 January 2012 amending in order to include a new textile fibre name, Annex I, and, for the purposes of their adaptation to technical progress, Annexes VIII and IX to Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 131/6

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 24 September 2014

in Case E-3/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/12/EC on airport charges)

(2015/C 131/06)

In Case E-3/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith, of the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 65a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, namely Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 24 September 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 65a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 422/8

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 September 2015

in Case E-12/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights)

(2016/C 422/07)

In Case E-12/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein – APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 28 September 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 29 July 2016

in Case E-32/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2006/126/EC — Directive 2011/94/EU — Directive 2012/36/EU)

(2017/C 108/13)

In Case E-32/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Acts referred to at point 24f of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (recast), Commission Directive 2011/94/EU of 28 November 2011 amending Directive 2006/126/EC and Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Acts referred to at point 24f of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (recast), Commission Directive 2011/94/EU of 28 November 2011 amending Directive 2006/126/EC and Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts within the times prescribed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 18/29

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 February 2016

in Case E-23/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/53/EU)

(2017/C 18/13)

In Case E-23/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein – APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Articles 15 and 16 of the Act referred to at point 15zn of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation, as corrected), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 164/2013 of 8 October 2013, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement Articles 15 and 16 of the Act referred to at point 15zn of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation, as corrected), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 1/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 July 2017

in Case E-9/16

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Chemical substances – Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – Free movement – Restrictions procedure – Legal basis)

(2018/C 1/09)

In Case E-9/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway – APPLICATION for a declaration that Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at point 12zc of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)), as adapted under its Protocol 1, and/or its obligations under the Agreement, by maintaining in force a national provision such as Section 2-32 of the Norwegian Product Regulation which bans the manufacture, import, export and sale of consumer products containing certain concentrations of perfluorooctanoic acid, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Ása Ólafsdóttir (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 14 July 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the application.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/48

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 15 November 2016

in Case E-7/16

Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Preliminary objection to admissibility – State aid – Decision to close formal investigation procedure)

(2017/C 189/12)

In Case E-7/16, Míla ehf. v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION under Article 36(2) of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for the annulment of Decision No 061/16/COL of 16 March 2016 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to close the formal investigation into alleged State aid through the lease of an optical fibre previously operated on behalf of NATO, the Court, composed of, Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order of 15 November 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 June 2018

in Case E-11/17

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/61/EU)

(2018/C 414/08)

In Case E-11/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31d, 31eb and 31i of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement that Act within the time prescribed, and/or by failing to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement that Act, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31d, 31eb and 31i of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
1.

Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has, in relation to a tender procedure carried out by the Municipality of Kristiansand in 2015 for the construction and operation of an underground car park under Torvet in Kristiansand, failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, referred to at point 2 of Annex XVI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, by failing to: (i) publish a contract notice throughout the EEA in accordance with the legal requirements laid down in Article 58(3) of the Directive; (ii) use a complete and sufficiently precise set of CPV codes, in breach of Article 58(2) of the Directive, in conjunction with Article 1(14) of the Directive and Regulation (EC) No 2195/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 on the Common Procurement Vocabulary (CPV), referred to at point 6a of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement; and (iii) respect the minimum time limit for the submission of applications in an award procedure, as prescribed by Article 59 of the Directive.