ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union L 45/16

DECISION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES No 3/2016/SC

of 2 June 2016

extending the tasks of the Office for the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism [2017/314]

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement,

Having regard to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 1/2004/SC of 5 February 2004 establishing an Office for the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism,

Having regard to the Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2014-2021,

Having regard to Protocol 38c on the EEA Financial Mechanism (2014-2021), inserted into the EEA Agreement by the aforementioned Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2014-2021,

Having regard to the Agreement between the Kingdom of Norway and the European Union on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period 2014-2021,

Recalling that Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 1/2004/SC only gives the Office for the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism a mandate to administer the 2004-2009 Financial Mechanisms and that Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 6/2010/SC of 9 December 2010 only extends the mandate of the aforementioned Office to administer the 2009-2014 Financial Mechanisms,

Considering the need for a Secretariat to administer the EEA and the Norwegian Financial Mechanisms 2014-2021,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1. The Office for the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism, established by Standing Committee Decision No 1/2004/SC, is hereby additionally entrusted with the task of serving as a secretariat assisting in the management of the EEA Financial Mechanism 2014-2021 and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014-2021.

2. Regarding the EEA Financial Mechanism 2014-2021, the Office shall report to the EEA Financial Mechanism Committee.

3. Regarding the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014-2021, the Office shall report to the Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of entering into force or on the day of provisional application of the legal act establishing the EEA Financial Mechanism for the period 2014-2021.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/27

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

(2018/C 205/06)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 25/2008 of 14 March 2008, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) for the period 1 January – 30 June 2017, at their meeting on 22 September 2017.
Official Journal of the European Union

Medicinal products – List of marketing authorisations granted by the EEA EFTA States for the second half of 2018

(2020/C 123/06)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 74/1999 of 28 May 1999, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning marketing authorisations for medicinal products for the period 1 July – 31 December 2018, at their meeting on 29 March 2019:
Official Journal of the European Union

Dangerous substances – List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) in the first half of 2020

(2021/C 39/03)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 25/2008 of 14 March 2008, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) for the period 1 January-30 June 2020, at their meeting on 25 September 2020.
Composition of the Court (94/C 208/10)

1. Composition of the Court

At a formal sitting on 4 January 1994, Messrs Bjørn Haug, Thór Vilhjálmsson, Kurt Herndl, Sven Norberg and Leif Sevón, appointed as Judges of the EFTA Court by decision of the Governments of the EFTA States of 16 June 1993, took the oath according to Protocol 5, Article 2 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (the EFTA Agreement).

In accordance with Article 30 as adjusted by the Protocol adjusting the EFTA Agreement and Protocol 5, Article 3 of the EFTA Agreement, Messrs Thór Vilhjálmsson and Kurt Herndl were determined by lot as Judges whose terms of office are to expire after the first three years.

2. Election of the President of the Court

On 4 January 1994, the Judges elected Judge Leif Sevón as President of the Court, pursuant to Article 30 of the EFTA Agreement.

3. Appointment of the Registrar

At a formal sitting on 4 January 1994, Ms Karin Hökborg, appointed as Registrar of the EFTA Court pursuant to Protocol 5, Article 9 of the EFTA Agreement, took the oath provided for in Protocol 5, Article 10 of the Agreement.

4. Appointment of the Assistant Registrar

The EFTA Court has appointed Mr Heikki Kanninen as Assistant Registrar pursuant to Article 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 20 June 1995 in Case E-1/95 (reference for an advisory opinion from the Varbergs tingsrätt): Samuelsson against Svenska staten (the Swedish State) (1) (Admissibility - Council Directive 80/987/EEC - National measures to counter abuse - Proportionality) (95/C 239/08)

(Pursuant to Article 27 (5) of the Rules of Procedure authentic in English and Swedish)

In Case E-1/95: reference 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 Varbergs tingsrätt (Varberg District Court), Sweden, for an advisory opinion in the case pending before it between Ulf Samuelsson and Svenska staten - on the interpretation of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Council Directive 87/164/EEC of 2 March 1987 - the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President; Thór Vilhjálmsson, Kurt Herndl, Sven Norberg and Gustav Bygglin (Rapporteur), Judges; Karin Hökborg, Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 June 1995, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 10 (a) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as precluding the application, as a measure against abuse, of a provision of national law according to which an employee is not entitled to remuneration if, within two years prior to the bankruptcy decision, he was granted remuneration through the guarantee for a wage claim which arose in mainly the same activity.

(1) OJ No C 142, 8. 6. 1995, p. 6.
ORDER OF THE COURT of 27 June 1997 in Case E-7/96: Paul Inge Hansen v. EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for failure to act - Admissibility) (97/C 282/07)

In Case E-7/96: Paul Inge Hansen v. EFTA Surveillance Authority - application for an order requiring the EFTA Surveillance Authority to take a decision, for compensation and for 'preliminary authorization`, concerning an alleged infingement by the Government of Norway of the EEA Agreement - the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson (Rapporteur) and Carl Baudenbacher, Judges; and Per Christiansen, Registrar, made an order of 27 June 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Each party shall bear their own costs.
DECISION OF THE COURT

of 12 June 1998

in Case E-4/97 (Decision on admissibility in direct action case): Norwegian Bankers' Association v. EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by The Kingdom of Norway, represented by the Office of the Attorney General (Civil Affairs)(1)

State aid - Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority - Admissibility

(Pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure only the English text is authentic)

(1999/C 223/05)

In Case E-4/97: Norwegian Bankers' Association v. EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by the Kingdom of Norway, represented by the Office of the Attorney General (Civil Affairs), Application for a decision on the admissibility of an application brought under Article 36 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Norwegian Bankers' Association for annulment of the decision of 9 July 1997 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Carl Baudenbacher, Judges, gave a decision, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that the application is admissible.

2. Reserves the decision on costs.

(1) OJ C 366, 4.12.1997, p. 7.
COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT



Official Journal C 331 , 29/10/1998 P. 0024 - 0024



COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT (98/C 331/08) Appointment of the Registrar of the EFTA Court Mr Gunnar Selvik was appointed Registrar of the EFTA Court pursuant to Article 9, Protocol 5 of the ESA/Court Agreement for the period from 1 September 1998 to 31 August 2001, to succeed Mr Per Christiansen. At a public sitting of the EFTA Court of 17 September 1998, Mr Gunnar Selvik took the oath prescribed in Article 10, Protocol 5 of the ESA/Court
Advisory Opinion of the Court

of 14 June 2001

in Case E-6/00 (Request for an Advisory Opinion from the Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein): Dr Jürgen Tschannett

Right of establishment - Single practice rule - Justification by overriding reasons of general interest

(Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure only the English and German texts are authentic)

(2001/C 237/05)

In Case E-6/00: request to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a surveillance authority and a Court of Justice by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), for an Advisory Opinion in the case pending before it concerning Dr Jürgen Tschannett, in the interpretation of Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Thór Vilhjálmsson, President, Carl Baudenbacher and Per Tresselt (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges; and Gunnar Selvik, Registrar, gave an Advisory Opinion on 14 June 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:

A national provision of a contracting party to the EEA Agreement which provides that a physici may not operate more than one practice, regardless of location, is incompatible with Article 31 EEA.
Judgment of the Court

of 22 March 2002

in Case E-3/01 (request for an Advisory Opinion from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court)): Alda Viggósdóttir v Íslandspóstur hf. (Iceland Post Ltd)

Council Directive 77/187/EEC - Transfer of a State administrative entity to a State-owned limited liability company

(2002/C 140/15)

In Case E-3/01: request for 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 (Reykjavík District Court), for an Advisory Opinion in a case pending before it concerning the interpretation of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, with particular reference to Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses, in particular Articles 1 and 3 thereof, the Court, composed of: Thór Vilhjálmsson, President, Carl Baudenbacher (Judge-Rapporteur) and Per Tresselt, Judges, gave a judgment on 22 March 2002, the operative part of which declares as follows:

The conversion of a State entity into a wholly State-owned limited liability company may constitute a transfer within the meaning of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses. That Directive may apply when an employee, at the time of the transfer, was protected as an employee under national employment law. It is for the national court to assess whether that was the case or whether the employee enjoyed protection from dismissal under public law.

An employee cannot waive the rights conferred upon him by the mandatory provisions of Directive 77/187/EEC. The Directive does not, however, preclude an agreement with the new employer to modify the employment relationship to the extent that such modification is permitted by the applicable national law in situations other than those involving the transfer of an undertaking.
Judgment of the Court

of 12 December 2003

in Case E-1/03 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Republic of Iceland

(Failure of a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations - free movement of services - higher tax on intra-EEA flights than on domestic flights)

(2004/C 51/03)

In Case E-2/03, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Republic of Iceland - Application for a declaration that, by maintaining in force the Icelandic Act on Air Transport Infrastructure Budget and Revenues for Aviation Affairs No 31/1987 (/Lög nr. 31 frá 27. mars 1987 um flugmálaáætlun og fjáröflun til framkvæmda í flugmálum), which subjects flights from Iceland to other EEA States to a higher tax rate than that charged for domestic flights and flights to Greenland and the Faroe Islands, the Republic of Iceland has failed to respect its obligations under Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on Access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Tresselt (Judge-Rapporteur) and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment of 12 December 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that by maintaining in force the Icelandic Act on Air Transport Infrastructure Budget and Revenues for Aviation Affairs No 31/1987 (/Lög nr. 31 frá 27. mars 1987 um flugmálaáætlun og fjáröflun til framkvæmda í flugmálum), which imposes a higher tax per passenger travelling from Iceland to other EEA States than per passenger travelling on domestic flights, the Republic of Iceland has failed to respect its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on Access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.

2. Orders the Republic of Iceland to pay the costs of the proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/12

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 December 2004

in Case E-3/04 Tsomakas Athanasios and Others with Odfjell ASA as an accessory intervener and The Norwegian State, represented by Rikstrygdeverket (The National Insurance Administration)

(Freedom of movement for workers — social security for migrant workers — Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — form E 101 — Article 3 EEA)

(2006/C 45/08)

In Case E-3/04 between Tsomakas Athanasios and Others with Odfjell ASA as an accessory intervener and The Norwegian State, represented by Rikstrygdeverket — REQUEST to the Court by Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal), on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

It is not compatible with the choice of law rules contained in Title II of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and as referred to in Annex VI, point 1 to the EEA Agreement, that a flag State proceeds from the premises that a State of residence must have issued a form E 101 or a statement containing equivalent information, for the legislation of the State of residence to apply in accordance with Article 14b(4), and that in the absence of such documentation, the legislation of the flag State shall apply in accordance with Article 13(2)(c).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/18

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 26 June 2007

in Case E-2/06

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Conditions for concession for acquisition of hydropower resources — Scope of the EEA Agreement — Free movement of capital— Right of establishment — Indirect discrimination — Public ownership — Security of energy supply — Environmental protection — Proportionality)

(2007/C 301/10)

In Case E-2/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — Application for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has infringed Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement by maintaining in force measures as laid down in Act No 16 of 14 December 1917 relating to acquisition of Waterfalls, Mines and Other Real Property etc. (lov 14. desember 1917 nr. 16 om erverv av vannfall, bergverk og annen fast eiendom m.v.), which grant to private undertakings and all undertakings from other Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement a time-limited concession for the acquisition of waterfalls for energy production, with an obligation to surrender all installations to the Norwegian State without compensation at the expiry of the concession period, whereas Norwegian public undertakings benefit from concessions for an unlimited period of time, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Henrik Bull, Judge, and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judge-Rapporteur, gave judgment on 26 June 2007, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has infringed Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement by maintaining in force measures as laid down in Act No 16 of 14 December 1917 relating to acquisition of Waterfalls, Mines and Other Real Property etc., which grant to private undertakings and all undertakings from other Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement, a time-limited concession for the acquisition of waterfalls for energy production, with an obligation to surrender all installations to the Norwegian State without compensation at the expiry of the concession period, whereas Norwegian public undertakings benefit from concessions for an unlimited period of time.
1.

Declares that by maintaining in force rules in lov av 28. juli 1949 nr. 26 om Statens Pensjonskasse relating to pension rights accrued on the basis of periods of employment after 1 January 1994 pursuant to which the survivor's pension of a widower whose spouse became a member of the Public Service Pension Fund prior to 1 October 1976 is curtailed in relation to his other income whereas a widow in the same circumstances receives her survivor's pension without curtailment, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 69(1) EEA and Article 5 of the Act referred to at point 20 in Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes, as amended by Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996), as adapted by Protocol 1 thereto.
2.

In order to qualify as a ‘durable medium’, an Internet site must enable the customer to store the information required under Article 12 of the Directive in a way which makes it accessible for a period of time adequate to the purposes of the information, that is, for as long as it is relevant for the customer in order to protect his interests stemming from his relations with the insurance intermediary. This may cover the time during which contractual negotiations were conducted even if not resulting in the conclusion of an insurance contract, the period during which an insurance contract is in force and, to the extent necessary, the period after such a contract has lapsed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/21

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 22 August 2011

in Case E-14/10

Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Local bus transport services — Existing aid — Obligation to state reasons — Decision to close the case without opening the formal investigation procedure)

2011/C 336/15

In Case E-14/10, Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by Kollektivtransportproduksjon AS as intervener — APPLICATION for the annulment of Decision No 254/10/COL of 21 June 2010 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Per Christiansen, Judges, gave judgment on 22 August 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Annuls Decision No 254/10/COL of 21 June 2010 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/12

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 31 January 2011

in Case E-13/10

Aleris Ungplan AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Refusal of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to commence proceedings for alleged failure of an EEA State to fulfil its obligations in the field of procurement — Actionable measures — Admissibility)

2011/C 141/12

In Case E-13/10: Aleris Ungplan AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 248/10/COL of 21 June 2010 on procurement for youth care services in Norway, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), and Per Christiansen, Judges, gave order of 31 January 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 29/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 17 August 2012

in Case E-12/11

Asker Brygge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — Option agreement — Relevant time of assessment for considering the market value)

2013/C 29/05

In Case E-12/11, Asker Brygge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 232/11/COL of 13 July 2011 concerning sale of land at Nesøyveien 8, gnr. 32 bnr. 17, in the Municipality of Asker, Norway, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 17 August 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the application;