ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Permanent exclusion orders are, in principle, not contrary to EEA law, provided that they satisfy the conditions set out in Articles 27 and 28 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 and may be lifted in accordance with Article 32 thereof. An expulsion measure must be based on an individual examination. As regards EEA nationals who have legally resided for a period of more than 10 years in the host State, expulsions may only be adopted, pursuant to Articles 27 and 28(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC, on imperative grounds of public security, in circumstances where the personal conduct of the individual concerned poses an exceptionally serious threat that an expulsion measure is necessary for the protection of one of the fundamental interests of society. This is provided that such protection cannot be attained by less strict means, having regard to the length of residence of the EEA national in the host State, and in particular to the serious negative consequences such a measure may have for an EEA national and his/her family members who have become genuinely integrated into the host State. Any subsequent exclusion decision must be limited to what is necessary to safeguard the fundamental interest that the expulsion intended to protect. The exclusion decision must adhere to the principle of proportionality.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 December 2021

in Case E-2/21

Norep AS v Haugen Gruppen AS

(Self-employed commercial agents – Directive 86/653/EEC – Article 1(2) – Definition of ‘commercial agent’ – Negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of the principal)

(2022/C 153/08)

In Case E-2/21, Norep As v Haugen Gruppen AS – 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 Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett) concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 December 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, and in particular the term ‘negotiate’, should be interpreted as not necessarily presupposing the agent’s direct involvement with the placing of orders by customers with the principal, or excluding a scenario in which orders go directly from customers to the principal.
Reference for an advisory opinion by Marknadsdomstolen by order of that court of 30 August 1994 in the case of Konsumentombudsmannen against De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB (Case E-4/94) (94/C 347/11)

Reference has been made to the EFTA Court by an order of 30 August 1994 of Marknadsdomstolen (the Market Court), Sweden, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 September 1994, for an advisory opinion in the case of Konsumentombudsmannen (the Consumer Ombudsman) against De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB, on the following questions:

1. Does Article 2 (2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (the TV Directive) or the transmitting State principle contained therein prevent a receiving State from taking action against an advertisement which is distributed by an advertiser by means of television broadcasts from other EEA States?

2. Is the application of the provision in Section 11 (1) of Radiolagen (the Swedish Radio Act), which prohibits advertising aimed at children, compatible with Article 11 of the EEA Agreement?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fredrikstad byrett by decision of that court of 16 May 1997 in the case of Mag Instrument Inc. v California Trading Company Norway, Ulsteen (Case E-2/97) (97/C 209/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 16 May 1997 of Fredrikstad byrett (Fredrikstad City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 21 May 1997, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Mag Instrument Inc. v California Trading Company Norway, Ulsteen, on the following questions:

1) Is Article 7, paragraph 1 of Council Directive 89/104/EEC to be understood as conferring a right on a trade mark proprietor to prevent an import from a third country outside the EEA, when the said import takes place without the consent of the trade mark proprietor?

2) In other words, is the same provision to be understood to the effect that exhaustion of the trade mark right may neither be limited to national exhaustion nor expanded to include international
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court) by decision of that court of 14 May 1998 in the case of Blyth Software Ltd v. AlphaBit AS (Case E-4/98) (98/C 331/10)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 14 May 1998 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 2 June 1998, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Blyth Software Ltd v. AlphaBit AS, on the following questions:

1. Is it incompatible with Article 4 of the EEA Agreement for national procedural rules to empower a Norwegian court to decide, at the request of a defendant, that a company with its place of business (domicile) in an EEA country other than Norway must provide security for costs when it brings an action against a company with its place of business (domicile) in Norway, when such provision of security cannot be required from legal persons with their place of business (domicile) in Norway?

2. If such a requirement is not, as a starting proposition, compatible with the EEA Agreement, is Article 4 of the EEA Agreement none the less to be interpreted to the effect that a requirement for provision of security for costs can be justified (proportional) on the basis of the intended purposes and objective
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik City Court) pursuant to an order of Hæstiréttur Íslands (Supreme Court of Iceland) of 13 January 2000 in the case of Lánasýsla ríkisins v. Fjárfestingarbanka atvinnulífsins hf

(Case E-1/00)

(2000/C 130/11)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik City Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 7 February 2000, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Lánasýsla ríkisins v. Fjárfestingarbanka atvinnulífsins hf., on the following question:

Is it compatible with the EEA Agreement, in particular Articles 4, 40, 42 and 61, when the national law of a Contracting Party provides:

a) that a borrower, who is entitled to a state guarantee, shall pay a guarantee fee on foreign loans but not on domestic loans?

b) that a borrower, who is entitled to a state guarantee, shall be subject to the payment of a higher guarantee fee on loans from entities in other Contracting Parties to the EEA compared to loans from domestic entities?
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 March 2001 in the case of Dr Martin Franz Pucher

(Case E-2/01)

(2001/C 242/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 12 March 2001 of Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 March 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Dr Martin Franz Pucher, on the following questions:

1. Does the residence requirement imposed by Article 180(a)(1) of the PGR constitute overt or covert discrimination on grounds of nationality, within the meaning of Article 4 EEA, alternatively, does that residence requirement constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment provided for by Article 31 EEA?

2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative: is the discrimination or restriction justified on public-interest grounds, in particular those of public policy and/or public security (see Article 33 EEA)?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykaness by decision of that court of 27 June 2003 in the case of The State Prosecutor v Ásgeir Logi Ásgeirsson, Axel Pétur Ásgeirsson and Helgi Már Reynisson

(Case E-2/03)

(2003/C 248/05)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 27 June 2003 of Héraðsdómur Reykaness (District Court of Reykjanes), Hafnarfirði, Iceland, which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2003, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of The State Prosecutor v Ásgeir Logi Ásgeirsson, Axel Pétur Ásgeirsson and Helgi Már Reynisson, on the following questions:

1. Does the term "trade regimes" in Article 7 of Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement and Appendix 3 to the same Protocol, extend to the rules of origin contained in the agreement between European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland, signed on 22 July 1972, so as to prevail over the rules of origin contained in Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement?

2. If the rules of origin contained in Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement are, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 7 of Protocol 9, considered to apply to the circumstances of the case, then does defrosting, heading, filleting, boning, trimming, salting and packing fish that has been imported frozen whole to Iceland from countries outside the EEA constitute sufficient working and processing within the meaning of these rules for the product to be considered of Icelandic origin?

3. Irrespective of whether the Court takes a position on the interpretation of Protocol 3 to the Agreement of 1972, interpretation is requested of the rules of origin contained in Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement as to whether defrosting, heading, filleting, boning, trimming, salting and packing fish that has been imported into Iceland frozen whole from countries outside the EEA constitutes sufficient working and processing for the product to be considered of Icelandic origin.

4. If Article 7 of Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement is considered to apply to the rules of origin contained in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland referred to in question 1, and if these rules of origin are considered to prevail over the rules of origin contained in Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement, and if the EFTA Court is competent to provide an opinion on the interpretation of the rules of origin of this agreement, is then the processing of the type described in question 2 sufficient working and processing in the sense of the Protocol in question in order for the product to be considered of Icelandic origin?

5. Subject to the same proviso regarding the competence of the EFTA Court to interpret the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland which was signed on 22 July 1972, to which Member States of the European Union does protocol 6 to that agreement apply?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/71

Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Prosessindustriens Landsforening, Borregaard, Elkem ASA, Norsk Hydro ASA, Eramet Norway AS, Norske Skogindustrier ASA, Södra Cell Folla AS, Tinfos Titan & Iron KS, and Yara International ASA against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-6/04)

(2004/C 319/13)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 31 August 2004 by Prosessindustriens Landsforening, Borregaard, Elkem ASA, Norsk Hydro ASA, Eramet Norway AS, Norske Skogindustrier ASA, Södra Cell Folla AS, Tinfos Titan & Iron KS, and Yara International ASA, represented by Onno W. Brouwer, advocaat, and Michael Schuette, Rechtsanwalt, Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer, Bastion Tower, Place du Champ de Mars 5, 1050 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; 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:

— EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 148/04/COL of 30 June 2004 (the ‘Decision’) concerns electricity tax and considers the failure to apply that tax to the manufacturing industry to constitute State aid.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61(1) EEA.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61 EEA and Part II of Protocol 3 on State aid regarding the qualification of existing aid as new aid.

— The Decision infringes the principle of legal certainty.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority failed to follow proper procedure, violating Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Part II of Protocol 3 to the ESA/Court Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33/6

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting Lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 9 October 2006 in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v Staten v/Finansdepartementet

(Case E-4/06)

(2007/C 33/04)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 9 October 2006 of Borgarting Lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 16 October 2006, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v Staten v/Finansdepartementet (The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Finance) on the following question:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/60

Action brought on 8 March 2007 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of Iceland

(Case E-3/07)

(2007/C 186/09)

An action against the Republic of Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 8 March 2007 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Arne Torsten Andersen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by failing to adopt or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred at the second indent of point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Area (Directive 2002/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Act and Article 7 EEA; and

2. order the Republic of Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The present case concerns the non-implementation of an environmental protection directive.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not provided any indication that it has implemented the directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 208/5

Request for an Advisory Opinion to the EFTA Court by Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht dated 27 March 2009 in the case of Inconsult Anstalt v Finanzmarktaufsicht

(Case E-4/09)

2009/C 208/05

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 27 March 2009 from Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht (the Appeals Commission of the Financial Market Authority), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2009, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Inconsult Anstalt v Finanzmarktaufsicht, on the following questions:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/22

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Obergericht dated 19 May 2010 in the case of Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetlye Stiftung

(Case E-5/10)

2010/C 325/06

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 19 May 2010 from Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 27 May 2010, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetlye Stiftung, on the following questions:

1. Does the Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force in Liechtenstein on 1 May 1995, constitute a (multilateral) treaty which, as a result of the prohibition of discrimination contained particularly in Article 4 thereof, prohibit an obligation to provide security for costs from being imposed on claimants who reside in another EEA Member State if claimants who reside in Liechtenstein are not obliged to provide such security for costs? In the event that the first question is answered in the negative:
1.

By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to fully implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 755/2008 of 31 July 2008 amending Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63(1) of the Directive and under Article 7 EEA;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 44/21

Action brought on 15 December 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-16/11)

2012/C 44/06

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 15 December 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Gjermund Mathisen, acting as Agents, 35, Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. declare that by failing to ensure payment of the minimum amount of compensation to Icesave depositors in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom provided for in Article 7(1) of the Act referred to at point 19a of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes) within the time limits laid down in Article 10 of the Act, Iceland has failed to comply with the obligations resulting from that Act, in particular its Articles 3, 4, 7 and 10, and/or Article 4 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area; and

2. order Iceland to bear the costs.

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

— Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 referred to at point 19a of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, as amended, provides for minimum harmonised rules as regards deposit guarantee schemes. At the material time, Directive 94/19/EC was implemented into Icelandic law by Act No 98/1999 on Deposit Guarantees and Investor-Compensation Schemes. Under Directive 94/19/EC, deposit-guarantee schemes must cover the aggregate deposits of each depositor up to ECU/EUR 20 000 in the event of deposits being unavailable.

— In early October 2008, the Icelandic bank Landsbanki Íslands hf. collapsed and was taken over by the Icelandic State. The depositors in the foreign branches of Landsbanki (‘Icesave’) in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands lost access to their deposits.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 199/8

Action brought on 11 April 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-8/11)

2011/C 199/04

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 11 April 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Florence Simonetti, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

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

1. by failing to ensure that its competent authorities have made and, where relevant, approved strategic noise maps and drawn up noise action plans for all major roads on its territory which have more than six million vehicle passages a year, and to ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI to the Directive are sent to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and

2. the Republic of Iceland be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to make noise maps and noise action plans regarding major roads with more than six million vehicle passages a year.
2.

If Question 1 is answered by the Court to the effect that Annex III A a11 and a12 of Directive 2002/83/EC does not restrict ‘unit-linked policies’ to investment companies (‘Common Funds’) within the meaning of Directive 85/611/EEC: 2.1. Does Directive 2002/83/EC oblige assurance undertakings to provide policy holders with advice or simply to notify them of the details set out in Annex III of the said Directive? 2.2. Is the duty to communicate information under Annex III A a11 of Directive 2002/83/EC sufficiently complied with if the assurance undertaking supplies the securities identification number (WKN), or, how else is ‘definition of the units’ to be understood in order to fulfil the requirement to communicate information? It must be borne in mind that the Member State of the commitment does not require any additional information from the assurance undertaking within the meaning of Article 36(3) of Directive 2002/83/EC. 2.3. Is the duty to communicate information under Annex III A a12 of Directive 2002/83/EC sufficiently complied with if the assurance undertaking supplies the securities identification number (WKN) or should more detailed information be provided? It must be borne in mind that the Member State of the commitment does not require any additional information from the assurance undertaking within the meaning of Article 36(3) of Directive 2002/83/EC.