ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/10

COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT

2011/C 344/07

Upon nomination by the Government of Iceland, Mr Páll Hreinsson was appointed as Judge of the EFTA Court by common accord of the three Contracting Parties to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (the Surveillance and Court Agreement) for the period from 15 September 2011 to 31 December 2014, to succeed Mr Thorgeir Örlygsson. At a public sitting of the EFTA Court on 12 September 2011, Mr Páll Hreinsson took the oath prescribed in Protocol 5, Article 2 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/9

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 March 2013

in Case E-3/12

The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Labour v Stig Arne Jonsson

(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security for migrant workers — Unemployment benefits — Residence in the territory of another EEA State — Condition of actual presence in the State of last employment for entitlement to unemployment benefits)

2013/C 277/07

In Case E-3/12 the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Labour v Stig Arne Jonsson — 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 Borgarting lagmannsrett (‘Court of Appeal’) concerning the rules on free movement of workers within the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Per Christiansen, Acting President and Páll Hreinsson, (Judge-Rapporteur) and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 20 March 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 88/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 6 December 2013

in Case E-16/13

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2008/122/EC on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts)

2014/C 88/12

In Case E-16/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7b of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts), 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, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 6 December 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by failing to correctly implement the Act referred to at point 7b of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to that Act and pursuant to Article 7 of the Agreement;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/31

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 August 2014

in Case E-25/13

Gunnar V. Engilbertsson v Íslandsbanki hf.

(Article 34 SCA — Appeal against a request for an Advisory Opinion — Indexation of mortgage loans — Directive 87/102/EEC — Directive 93/13/EEC — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence)

(2015/C 92/05)

In Case E-25/13, Gunnar V. Engilbertsson v Íslandsbanki hf. — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 28 August 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Directive 93/13/EEC does not generally prohibit contractual terms on the indexation of mortgage loans in contracts between a supplier and a consumer. It is for the referring court to assess whether the term at issue is unfair. The assessment must take into account the Court’s interpretation of the concept of ‘unfair term’.

2. Directive 93/13/EEC does not limit the discretion of an EEA State to determine, whether through legislation or by means of administrative regulation, the factors that may cause changes in a pre-determined index, such as the Icelandic consumer price index, as well as the methods for measuring those changes, provided they are explicitly described in the contract.

3. It is for the competent national court to establish whether a particular contract term has been negotiated individually within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13/EEC.

4. It is for the competent national court to establish whether a contract term relating to the indexation of repayment instalments of a loan to finance real estate purchases must be regarded as having been explicitly and comprehensibly described to the consumer. Such an assessment must take into account the precise wording of the relevant contract terms and all other relevant circumstances, including the circumstances set out in points (a) and (b) of the third question posed by the national court, as well as the national legislation on price indexation.
1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under 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, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 3/4

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 19 June 2015

in Case E-19/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway

(Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Article 33 SCA — Measures necessary to comply with a judgment of the Court)

(2016/C 3/05)

In Case E-19/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway – APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to take, within the time prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 16 July 2012 in Case E-9/11 ESA v Norway, 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, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 19 June 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that 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.
It is consistent with Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23/EC when terms and conditions of pay enjoyed by the transferred employees under the collective agreement with the transferor are replaced, in conformity with national law, by conditions of pay laid down in the collective agreement in force with the transferee after the expiry of the former collective agreement.

A pay reduction – whether significant or otherwise – cannot influence this assessment.

However, the national court must assess whether the applicable national law provides for continuing effects in a situation such as the present. Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23/EC has to be interpreted as meaning that terms and conditions laid down in a collective agreement to which such continuing effects apply constitute ‘terms and conditions agreed in any collective agreement’ so long as those employment relationships are not subject to a new collective agreement or new individual agreements are not concluded with the employees concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 2/4

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 December 2015

in Case E-18/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/65/EU on reporting formalities for ships)

(2017/C 2/05)

APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act referred to at point 56l of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 16 December 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act referred to at point 56l of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 22 September 2016

in Case E-29/15

Sorpa bs. v The Competition Authority

(Abuse of a dominant position — Notion of undertaking — Cooperative agencies established by municipalities — Waste management — Services of general economic interest — Dissimilar conditions applied to equivalent transactions with other trading parties — Price discrimination)

(2017/C 123/08)

In Case E-29/15, Sorpa bs. v The Competition Authority — 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 Iceland (Hæstiréttur Íslands) concerning the interpretation of the EEA Agreement, and in particular Article 54 thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 22 September 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. A municipality may constitute an undertaking within the meaning of Article 54 EEA when it engages in an economic activity, which consists in the offering of goods or services on the market. In order to determine whether an activity such as waste management is economic, account must be taken of the existence of competition with private entities. In that regard, the fact that the fee received for the provision of waste management services cannot exceed the costs incurred must be balanced against the existence of competition on the market.

2. Waste management may constitute a service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 59(2) EEA. It is for the referring court to determine whether the application of Article 54 EEA would make it impossible for the municipalities to provide the waste management services they have been entrusted with, or to provide them under economically acceptable conditions.

3. In order to determine whether a public entity constitutes an undertaking within the meaning of the EEA competition rules when it provides waste management services, it is irrelevant whether that entity is a municipality or a cooperative agency entered into by several municipalities.

4. Article 54 EEA does not apply to anti-competitive conduct which is required of undertakings by national legislation, or if national legislation creates a legal framework which itself eliminates any possibility of competitive activity on their part. However, Article 54 EEA may apply if national legislation does not preclude undertakings from engaging in autonomous conduct which prevents, restricts or distorts competition.

5. Should an EEA State, by national legislation, grant public entities a derogation from the application of the EEA competition rules, for instance by granting them special or exclusive rights, it must do so in accordance with the EEA competition rules, in particular with Article 59(1) EEA.

6. The owners of a municipal cooperative may be regarded as the trading parties of that cooperative within the meaning of Article 54(2)(c) EEA, unless they form one undertaking with that cooperative.
1.

Article 36(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC does not address legal transactions such as those in which an existing unit-linked life assurance policy is transferred via a purchase agreement from one person to another where the insured risk, namely the insured person, under the assurance policy remains the same. A transfer of a unit-linked life assurance policy by a legal transaction does not constitute a change in the policy conditions unless the terms of the assurance policy are also amended, thereby altering the balance of rights and obligations of the parties to the assurance contract. It falls to the referring court to assess the facts of the cases and to determine whether the relevant transfers led to a change in the policy conditions of the unit-linked life assurance policies acquired by the applicants.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 66/31

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 24 May 2016

in Case E-2/16

Gerhard Spitzer v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Preliminary objection to admissibility — Refusal to commence infringement proceedings — Directive 2002/47/EC — Challengeable measures — Time limit — Admissibility)

(2017/C 66/11)

In Case E-2/16, Gerhard Spitzer v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under Article 36(2) of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 425/15/COL of 25 November 2015 on financial collateral arrangements in Liechtenstein, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave order of 24 May 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
3.

The objective of reducing excessive risk incentives of owners of banks or insurance companies, particularly in relation to the risk of misuse of power, reflects overriding reasons in the general interest capable of justifying national measures which restrict the freedom of establishment as guaranteed by Article 31 EEA. It is for the referring court to identify the objectives which are in fact pursued by the national measures, as well as to determine whether the legitimate aims are pursued in a suitable and consistent manner.
3.

The definition in Article 2(d) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the term ‘public communications network’ must be interpreted as covering a network as described in the first question, used to provide services as described in the second question, irrespective of whether those services are made available only to the subscribers of the particular undertaking, provided that the network is used wholly or mainly for the provision of such publicly available services.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 June 2018

in Case E-16/17

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 231/2013)

(2018/C 414/13)

In Case E-16/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bba of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 231/2013 of 19 December 2012 supplementing Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to exemptions, general operating conditions, depositaries, leverage, transparency and supervision), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.
1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 5 of the Act referred to at point 1 in Part 1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market) as amended and as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1 and Annex I, by maintaining in force: (i) the authorisation system for the import of fresh meat and meat products laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Article 3(a) and Articles 4 and 5 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012; (ii) the authorisation system for the import of raw eggs and egg products laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Article 3(e) and Article 4 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012; (iii) the authorisation system for the import of unpasteurised milk and dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk laid down in Article 3(f) and Article 4 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012, and the additional requirements concerning certain cheeses laid down in the third paragraph of Article 5 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012; and (iv) an administrative practice requiring importers of treated egg and dairy products to submit data to the relevant national authority proving that the products have been treated in accordance with national legislation.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 22 December 2020

in Case E-10/19

Bergbahn Aktiengesellschaft Kitzbühel v Meleda Anstalt

(Directive (EU) 2015/849 – Anti-money laundering – Information on beneficial ownership – Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing – Adequate, accurate and current information – Data minimisation)

(2021/C 141/12)

In Case E-10/19, Bergbahn Aktiengesellschaft Kitzbühel v Meleda Anstalt – 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 Princely Court of Appeal (Fürstliches Obergericht) concerning the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 22 December 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 30(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing must be interpreted as requiring a legal entity to take reasonable measures to seek to confirm the identity of its beneficial owner, such as requiring underlying documentation, when the circumstances of a situation present it with doubts as to the accuracy of the information received.

2. The obligation of a legal entity under Article 30(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 is not altered by the fact that the owning entity is a legal person with a registered office in an EEA State nor by the profession of its board members.

3. It is for the referring court to ascertain to what extent the information on beneficial ownership processed is in line with the principle of data minimisation in point (c) of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data by being adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary to identify the beneficial owner and, if needed, to confirm the identity of the beneficial owner.

4. Point (v) of Article 3(6)(b) and point (c) of Article 3(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 cannot be interpreted as obliging anyone to prove the non-existence of indirect ownership or ultimate control by a natural person.