ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Does Directive 96/71/EC, including its Article 3(1) first subparagraph (a) and/or (c), see second subparagraph, permit an EEA State to secure workers posted to its territory from another EEA State, the following terms and conditions of employment, which, in the EEA State where the work is being performed, have been established through nationwide collective agreements that have been declared universally applicable in accordance with Article 3(8) of the Directive: (a) maximum normal working hours; (b) additional remuneration to the basic hourly wage for work assignments requiring overnight stays away from home, with an exception for employees who are hired at the work site; and (c) compensation for travel, board and lodging expenses in the case of work assignments requiring overnight stays away from home, with an exception for employees who are hired at the work site? What bearing, if any, does the proportion of employees covered by the relevant collective agreement, before it was declared universally applicable, have on the answers to the above questions?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 66/30

Action brought on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-13/12)

2013/C 66/10

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 30 November 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 10 of Part 7.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 laying down the conditions governing the preparations, placing on the market and use of medicated feedingstuffs in the Community), 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 EEA Agreement; and

2. order Iceland 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 is required under Article 15 of Council Directive 90/167/EEC of 26 March 1990 (‘the Directive’), and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, to take the necessary measures in order to implement the Directive, and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures taken.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that it has received no such information from the Icelandic Government, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude that the measures necessary to implement the Directive have been taken.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 324/12

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett dated 21 May 2012 in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson

(Case E-3/12)

2012/C 324/10

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 21 May 2012 from Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 29 May 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Staten v/Arbeidsdepartementet v Stig Arne Johnsson, on the following question:

When national legislation requires, inter alia, actual stay in the State in order to be entitled to unemployment benefits, is it then compatible with Article 71(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to require continued stay in the competent State (the State of last employment) in order to be granted such benefits from this State, also in the case of a wholly unemployed person who, during his/her last employment, has stayed there as a ‘non-genuine’ frontier worker?

Is it relevant to the answer to this question whether:

1. the unemployed person lives in a country near the competent State (the State of last employment), so that it is possible in practice for that person to appear at the employment office in that State even if he/she does not stay there?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 132/13

Action brought on 13 February 2013 by the Míla ehf. against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-1/13)

2013/C 132/08

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 February 2013 by Míla ehf., represented by Espen I. Bakken, attorney at law and Thomas Nordby, attorney at law, Arntzen de Besche Advokatfirma AS, Bygdøy allé 2, 0204 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

1. declare void Article 1 of ESA Decision No 410/12/COL;

2. order the Authority to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

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

— The Applicant seeks the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 410/12/COL of 21 November 2012, to close the case without opening the formal investigation procedure as to whether the subsidised lease of optical fibres, previously operated on behalf of NATO, to Vodafone, is to be regarded as State aid.

— The contested Decision was adopted as a result of a complaint from Míla ehf. concerning alleged unlawful State aid granted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Iceland through subsidised lease for the use of two optical fibres which were previously operated by NATO. In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that the lease by the Defence Agency of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Iceland with Og fjarskipti (also referred to as ‘Vodafone’) of 1 February 2010 for the use and operation of an optical fibre did not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement and closed the case without further investigations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/32

Action brought on 16 August 2013 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-19/13)

2013/C 347/13

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 August 2013 by Konkurrenten.no AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.

The applicants request the EFTA Court to:

1. annul ESA Decision No 519/12/COL of 19 December 2012 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene), and order the defendant and any intervener to pay the costs;

2. annul ESA Decision No 181/13/COL of 8 May 2013 (Kollektivtransportproduksjon AS, Oslo Vognselskap AS and Unibuss AS), and order the defendant and any intervener to pay the costs;

3. order ESA (and any intervener) to bear the costs.

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

— The applicant, Konkurrenten.no AS, is a privately owned operator in the express bus market between the central and southern regions of Norway.

— The applicant filed a State aid complaint with ESA on 11 August 2006 and a second complaint on 8 September 2011 concerning aid to AS Oslo Sporveier.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the case concerning the first complaint without a formal investigation on 21 June 2010. This decision was annulled by the EFTA Court on 22 August 2011 in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no AS v ESA [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 266.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s decision of 28 March 2012 to open the formal investigation into potential aid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene was published in the Official Journal of the European Union, and the EEA Supplement thereto, on 5 July 2012.

— By a decision of 19 December 2012, the EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the formal investigation into potential aid to AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene. On 8 May 2013, the EFTA Surveillance Authority made a decision on alleged aid to Kollektivtransportproduksjon AS, Oslo Vognselskap AS and Unibuss AS. Neither decision has yet been published in the Official Journal or the EEA Supplement.

— By this present action the applicant seeks to annul both decisions.

The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

in relation to the first decision (of 19 December 2012): — unlawfully classified a capital injection as in part existing aid and in part no aid and classified an annual lump-sum compensation as existing aid, and — infringed Article 61 EEA in relation to the use of accumulated negative tax positions against group contributions;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/14

Action brought on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-10/13)

2013/C 287/10

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis 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 to implement correctly Article 2(1)(a)-(d) and Article 2(2)(a)-(b) of the Act referred to at point 21b in Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act;

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

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

— The application addresses the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than 20 August 2012, with reasoned opinion issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 20 June 2012 on the failure to correctly implement Article 2(1)(a)-(d) and Article 2(2)(a)-(b) of the Act referred to at point 21b in Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation) (‘the Directive’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 400/16

Action brought on 23 September 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-19/14)

2014/C 400/07

An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 September 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Markus Schneider and Gjermund Mathisen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.

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

1. The Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing to take, by the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion sent to the Kingdom of Norway by the EFTA Surveillance Authority pursuant to Article 31(2) of that Agreement, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442.

2. The Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses the failure of Norway to comply, no later than 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion, delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that state’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (SCA), to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 163/12

Action brought on 14 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-7/14)

(2014/C 163/11)

An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 14 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Gjermund Mathisen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that by maintaining in force national rules which provide that a full amount of registration tax is due for foreign-registered leased motor vehicles temporarily imported by Norwegian residents to Norway, without the person having any right to an exemption or refund where the vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in Norway on a permanent basis or in fact used in that manner, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.

2. Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— Norwegian legislation provides that foreign-registered leased cars which are temporarily imported by Norwegian residents are in principle subject to the full registration tax from the moment they are used in Norway. The EFTA Surveillance Authority is of the view that this is contrary to the principle of free movement of services. It maintains that Norway has so far failed to adopt the necessary legislative measures to ensure compliance with Article 36 EEA.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/21

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 20 January 2015 in the Case of the Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz v Gemeinde Vaduz

(Case E-3/15)

(2015/C 217/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 20 January 2015 from Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (State Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 22 January 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of the Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz v Gemeinde Vaduz on the following questions:

1. Is Directive 2011/92/EU of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment applicable in the Principality of Liechtenstein to EIA procedures which are still based, under transitional arrangements, on the Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (Law on Environmental Impact Assessment) of 10 March 1999 (‘the old version of the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment’)?

2. If so, is there an unlawful restriction of the right of complaint of environmental organisations under Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU in conjunction with Article 20 of the old version of the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment in the present case if the Government takes a general decision on the environmental compatibility of the project pursuant to Article 16 of the old version of the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment in a separate procedure, but — in the form of conditions — reserves the resolution of crucial issues relating to the project’s environmental compatibility to subsequent authorisation procedures under special legislation?

3. If so, does Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU have direct effect in respect of the EIA procedure at issue, which forms the basis for the individual complaint to the State Court?
1.

Must Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing be interpreted as meaning that ‘trust and company service providers’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(3)(c) and point (7)(b) of Article 3 of that Directive, are subject to the obligation to obtain information on the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship as specified in Article 8(1)(c) and Article 9(6) of the Directive solely in accordance with the legislation of the Member State in which they are established (in welchem [der Dienstleister für Trusts und Gesellschaften] seinen rechtlichen Sitz hat)?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 216/12

Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-34/15)

(2016/C 216/09)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Øyvind Bø and Íris Ísberg, 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 Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Commission Directive 2012/46/EU of 6 December 2012 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 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, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

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 13 July 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 13 May 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Directive 2012/46/EU of 6 December 2012 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/7

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Fürstliches Obergericht dated 20 December 2016 in the case of Pascal Nobile v DAS Rechtsschutz-Versicherungs AG

(Case E-21/16)

(2017/C 155/05)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 20 December 2016 from the Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 20 December 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Pascal Nobile v DAS Rechtsschutz-Versicherungs AG on the following questions:

1. Does Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) preclude a contractual agreement between a legal expenses insurance and an insured person, according to which it is a breach of duty of the insured person, releasing the insurance company from its obligations, if the insured person mandates an attorney to represent his interests, without the consent of the legal expenses insurance, at a point in time when the insured person would be entitled to make a claim according to the legal expenses insurance contract?

2. In the event that question 1 is answered in the negative: In litigation proceedings, when does an inquiry or do proceedings referred to in Article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC start, leading to the free choice of a lawyer? Is the relevant point in time solely based on the formal commencement of court proceedings (the lawsuit being filed with the court), or are prior steps also included, and, if so, which ones?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/39

Action brought on 17 November 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-17/16)

(2017/C 9/09)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 November 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1c of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/127/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application) as adapted by way of Protocol 1 thereto and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

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 9 April 2016, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 9 February 2016 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2009/127/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application, as referred to at point 1c of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).
Action brought on 28 March 2019 by the County of Aust-Agder against Konkurrenten.no AS

(Case E-1/17 COSTS 2)

(2019/C 233/06)

An action against Konkurrenten.no AS was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 March 2019 by the County of Aust-Agder, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Amie Eliassen of Kluge Advokatfirma AS, Bryggegata 6, Postboks 1548 Vika, 0117 Oslo, Norway.

The applicant asks that the Court make the following order:

1. That the total amount of the costs to be paid by Konkurrenten.no AS to the County of Aust-Agder is NOK 403 430,92, converted into euros at the European Central Bank’s official rates on the day of the notification of the order.

2. Default interest shall be due on that amount from the date of notification of the present order until the date of payment; the applicable interest rate shall be calculated on the basis of the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which payment is due, increased by three and a half percentage points.

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

— Konkurrenten.no AS brought an action against Decision No 179/15/COL of 7 May 2015, by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, before the EFTA Court on 11 January 2017. The applicant applied for leave to intervene in the Case, E-1/17 Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority, which was granted by Order of the President on 12 July 2017.

— Article 70(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court states. ‘If there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court shall, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, make an order.’