ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands (Supreme Court of Iceland) by decision of that court of 26 June 1998 in the case of Fagtún ehf. v. Byggingarnefnd Borgarholtsskóla and others (Case E-5/98) (98/C 331/11)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 26 June 1998 of Hæstiréttur Íslands (Supreme Court of Iceland), Iceland, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 June 1998, for an advisory opinion in the case of Fagtún ehf. v. Byggingarnefnd Borgarholtsskóla and others, on the following questions:

1. Does Article 4 of the EEA Agreement prohibit the inclusion in a works contract of a provision to the effect that roof elements are to be produced in Iceland?

2. Does Article 11 of the EEA Agreement prohibit such a
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court on a case pending before the Reykjavík District Court - Alda Viggósdóttir v Iceland Post (Íslandspóstur hf.)

(Case E-3/01)

(2001/C 237/04)

An Advisory Opinion is to be sought from the EFTA Court regarding the following:

1. Is Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC to be interpreted to the effect that the conversion of a State-owned entity into a wholly State-owned limited company constitutes a transfer within the meaning of that provision?

2. Is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC to be interpreted as prohibiting the provision, in an employment contract which is concluded in connection with a transfer within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Directive, of less advantageous terms regarding termination of employment as compared with those enjoyed by the employee prior to the date of the transfer?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 103/27

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Markedsrådet by decision of that court of 7 July 2004 in the case of Pedicel AS v Sosial- og helsedirektoratet

(Case E-4/04)

(2005/C 103/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 7 July 2004 of Markedsrådet (the Market Council), Oslo, Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Pedicel AS v Sosial- og helsedirektoratet, on the following questions:

1. Since wine is not included in the product coverage of Article 8(3) of the EEA Agreement: should the Agreement — including Article 18 and Article 23 cf. Protocol 47 — be so understood that Article 11 and/or Article 36 are applicable to wine?

2. Should Article 11 and/or Article 36 of the EEA Agreement be so understood that they are applicable to national legislation that contains a general prohibition against the advertising of alcoholic beverages, such as in the Act on the sale of alcoholic beverages, section 9-2 et al.?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/38

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur by decision of that court of 4 May 2005 in the case of HOB-vín ehf. v the Icelandic State and the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland

(Case E-4/05)

(2005/C 304/16)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 4 May 2005 of Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), Iceland, which was received at the Court Registry on 17 June 2005, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of HOB-vín ehf. v the Icelandic State and the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland, on the following questions:

1. Do Articles 11 and 16 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area prevent a state enterprise, which holds exclusive right to the retail sale of alcoholic beverages, from demanding that its suppliers deliver to the enterprise alcoholic beverages for retail sale on a specific type of pallet (EUR pallet), and furthermore that that the price of the pallet be included in the product price?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/15

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett in the Case of Olga Rindal v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad

(Case E-11/07)

(2008/C 113/12)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 14 December 2007 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 December 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Olga Rindal v the Norwegian State represented by the Board of Exemptions and Appeals for Treatment Abroad, on the following questions:

1. Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement and Article 22 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to refuse coverage of expenses for treatment abroad which according to international medicine must be considered experimental or test treatment, when there is no entitlement to such treatment in the home State?

2. Is it of significance for the answer to Question No 1 that the method of treatment itself is internationally recognised and documented, but where this only applies to other medical indications than those which the patient in question has?

3. Is it compatible with Articles 36 and 37 of the EEA Agreement to refuse coverage of expenses for hospital treatment abroad if the patient in the home State can receive an offer of adequate medical treatment assessed according to accepted international methods within a medically justifiable time limit? Is it of significance for the answer to Question No 3 whether coverage of such expenses may be refused even if the treatment abroad is considered as possibly more advanced than the treatment in the home State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 150/12

Action brought on 30 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-5/09)

2009/C 150/13

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 30 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, 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 adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 7b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC), 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 64(1) of that Act and under Article 7 EEA and

2. The Republic of Iceland bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— the present case concerns the non-implementation of a reinsurance directive,

— the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not provided any indication that it has implemented the directive into Icelandic law,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/21

Action brought on 23 August 2010 by Aleris Ungplan AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-13/10)

2010/C 320/10

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 August 2010 by Aleris Ungplan AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, NORWAY.

The applicant requests the EFTA Court:

1. to annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 248/10/COL concerning Cases Nos 66111 and 66744 of 21 June 2010;

2. to order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The Applicant, Aleris Ungplan AS, is a private provider of youth services in Norway. Aleris Ungplan AS is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Aleris Group which has its headquarter in Stockholm, Sweden.

— The Applicant lodged a complaint with the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that the exclusion of all youth care providers except for non-profit organisations from two public procurements relating to youth care services in Norway was contrary to the EEA Agreement.

— With the contested decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the case, considering that the exclusions were not contrary to the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/11

Action brought on 21 May 2010 by the Principality of Liechtenstein against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-4/10)

2010/C 191/09

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 May 2010 by the Principality of Liechtenstein, represented by Dr Andrea Entner-Koch, acting as Agent for the Principality of Liechtenstein, EEA Coordination Unit, Austrasse 79/Europark, FL-9490 Vaduz.

The Principality of Liechtenstein requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 regarding the taxation of captive insurance companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act;

2. In the alternative, declare void Articles 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010, to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of that Decision; and

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

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

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 declared that the tax rules applicable to captive (re)insurers in Liechtenstein, under Articles 82(a) and 88(d)(3) of the Liechtenstein Tax Act, constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement, as they taxed captive (re)insurers more favourably than ‘normal insurance companies’. The EFTA Surveillance Authority further decided that the alleged aid constituted unlawful aid subject to recovery from the captive (re)insurers as from 6 November 2001.

— The applicant contends that the tax provisions at stake do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/9

Action brought on 13 September 2011 by Asker Brygge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-12/11)

2011/C 325/05

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 September 2011 by Asker Brygge AS, represented by Thomas Nordby, attorney-at-law and Espen Bakken, attorney-at-law, Arntzen de Besche Advokatfirma AS, Bygdøy allé 2, 0204 Oslo, Norway.

The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

1. declare void Articles 1 and 2 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 232/11/COL;

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

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

— In its Decision No 232/11/COL of 13 July 2011 on the notification of the sale of land at Nesøyveien 8, gnr. 32 bnr. 17, in the municipality of Asker, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that the sale constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and that it shall be subject to recovery.

— The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested Decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/13

Action brought on 9 March 2011 by the VTM Fundmanagement AG against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-6/11)

2011/C 135/07

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 March 2011 by the VTM Fundmanagement AG, represented by Dr Michael Sánchez Rydelski, Rechtsanwalt, of Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Avenue Louise 240, BE-1050 Brussels, Belgium and Dr Hans-Michael Pott, Rechtsanwalt, of Sernetz Schäfer Rechtsanwälte, Berliner Allee 10, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany.

The VTM Fundmanagement AG requests the EFTA Court to:

1. annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 on the taxation of investment undertakings under the Liechtenstein Tax Act;

2. in the alternative, declare void Articles 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010, to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of that Decision; and

3. order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 416/10/COL of 3 November 2010 declared that the aid measure implemented by the Liechtenstein authorities in favour of investment companies, and which were repealed with effect from 30 June 2006, were not compatible with Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority further decided that the alleged aid constituted unlawful aid subject to recovery from investment companies receiving it from 15 March 1997 until the date in which beneficiaries last benefited from the tax exemptions following their repeal in 2006.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/8

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Skatteklagenemnda ved Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter, dated 13 March 2013, in the case of Fred Olsen and others v Staten v/Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter

(Case E-3/13)

2013/C 270/06

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 13 March 2013 from Skatteklagenemnda ved Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter (the Appeals Board of the Central Taxation Office for Large-Sized Enterprises), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 March 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fred Olsen and others v Staten v/Sentralskattekontoret for storbedrifter, on the following questions:

1. Do trusts as a form of establishment fall within the scope of the freedom of establishment provided for in Article 31 EEA? Supplementary question: If so, who holds rights pursuant to the provisions of the EEA Agreement?

2. If the first main question is answered in the affirmative: Does a trust meet the requirement of economic activity provided for in Article 31 EEA?

3. If the first main question is answered in the negative: Does a trust fall within the scope of the right to free movement of capital provided for in Article 40 EEA?

4. If the first or third main question is answered in the affirmative: Do the Norwegian CFC rules involve one or more restrictions on the freedom of establishment or the right to free movement of capital?
3.

If the answer to the second question is that Directive 93/13/EEC does not restrict the discretion of the Member State referred to in that question, then the third question is: Is a contractual term regarded as having been individually negotiated within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive when: (a) it is stated in the bond which the consumer signs when taking the loan that his obligation is index-linked and the base index to be used when calculating price changes is specified in the bond; (b) the bond is accompanied by a payment schedule showing estimated and itemised payments to be made on the due dates of the loan, and it is stated in the schedule that these estimates may change in accordance with the indexation provision of the bond; and (c) both the consumer and the supplier sign the payment schedule at the same time and in conjunction with the signature of the bond by the consumer?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/5

Action brought on 10 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-18/13)

2013/C 294/05

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. declare that by failing (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 21ar of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants), as adapted to 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;

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

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

— The present application by the EFTA Surveillance Authority addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 3 December 2012, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 3 October 2012 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 21ar of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 11/17

Action brought on 10 November 2014 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-22/14)

(2015/C 11/07)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 November 2014 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively DB Schenker), represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, N-0151 Oslo, Norway.

The applicants request the EFTA Court to:

1. Annul ESA’s decision of 9 September 2014 in Case No 75697 (DB Schenker);

2. Order ESA and any intervener to bear the costs.

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

— The applicants, Schenker North AB and Schenker Privpak AB, both established in Sweden, and Schenker Privpak AS, established in Norway, are part of the DB Schenker group. The group is a global freight forwarding and logistics undertaking owned by Deutsche Bahn AG.

— By its judgment in Case E-5/13 DB Schenker v ESA on 7 July 2014, the EFTA Court annulled ESA’s decision of 25 January 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refused full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) and refused to grant access to the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL.

— On 17 July 2014, DB Schenker received a letter by e-mail from ESA informing them that ESA had again decided to refuse DB Schenker access to the contested documents. DB Schenker was invited to submit a confirmatory application if it wanted ESA to reconsider its position.

— On 27 August 2014, DB Schenker sent a confirmatory application to ESA. On 9 September 2014 ESA sent an e-mail to DB Schenker containing a copy of the decision, which again refused DB Schenker full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to the same documents, i.e. the documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system), and the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL. DB Schenker seeks to annul this decision under Article 36 SCA.

The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

— infringed the commercial interests exception in Article 4(4) RAD (2012) and the professional secrecy obligation in Article 122 EEA, Article 14(4) SCA and Article 28(2) of Chapter II of Protocol 4 SCA, and thereby wrongfully suppressed the contested documents in contravention of the public right of access in Article 2(1) RAD 2012,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 334/33

Action brought on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-14/14)

(2014/C 334/14)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Janne Tysnes Kaasin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 and by Joint Committee Decision No. 127/2012 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

2. Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 5 May 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 5 March 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/11

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 13 April 2015 in the case of De Nederlandsche Bank NV v the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund (TIF)

(Case E-9/15)

(2015/C 366/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 13 April 2015 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court, Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 17 April 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of De Nederlandsche Bank NV v the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund (TIF) on the following questions:

1. Is it compatible with the provisions of the EEA Agreement, and in particular with Article 7(1) of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, in the event of a systemic crisis, that the obligations of a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme should be restricted to its assets at the time when deposits become unavailable in the sense defined in Article 1(3) of the Directive and the assets are not sufficient to meet the claims of each depositor for up to EUR 20 000?

2. Is it compatible with the provisions of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes that following a systemic crisis, a Member State enacts legislation or issues regulatory acts authorising a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme to establish a new department or account for the collection of premiums and to decide that those premiums are to be channelled into the new department or account for the purpose of building up a fund intended exclusively to meet possible future shocks and not to be available for the payment of earlier obligations?