ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/4

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 15 December 2016

in Case E-1/16

Synnøve Finden AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food

(Product coverage of the EEA Agreement — Dairy products — State aid — State resources — Effect on trade and distortion of competition — Freedom of establishment)

(2017/C 133/04)

In Case E-1/16, Synnøve Finden AS v the Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food — 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 Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) concerning the interpretation of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Articles 31 and 61 thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 December 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 61 EEA must be interpreted as meaning that a mechanism, provided for by national regulation, according to which an undertaking is granted NOK 0,50 per litre for a quantity limited up to 100 million litres for the distribution of certain products, some of which fall within the scope of the EEA Agreement, constitutes a State aid measure, provided that the referring court, having regard to all the facts before it and the guidance provided by the Court, finds that there is an intervention by the State or through State resources, that the intervention is liable to affect trade between EEA States, that it confers a selective advantage on the beneficiary and that it distorts or threatens to distort competition. Such a finding by the referring court would render the scheme subject to the notification requirement laid down in Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice.

2. In the event that a State aid scheme is inseparably linked to certain products not exclusively outside the scope of the EEA Agreement, the measure as a whole must be notified to the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 June 2018

in Case E-14/17

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 447/2013)

(2018/C 414/11)

In Case E-14/17, 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 31bbb of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), 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 31bbb of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 447/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing the procedure for AIFMs which choose to opt in under Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 21 December 2017

in Case E-5/17

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v The Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Medicinal products — Supplementary protection certificate — Certificate of negative duration)

(2018/C 130/03)

In Case E-5/17, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v The Icelandic Patent Office (Einkaleyfastofan) — 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 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 21 December 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 permits the issuing of a supplementary protection certificate where the period that has elapsed between the date on which the basic patent application was lodged and the date of the first marketing authorisation in the EEA is less than five years. This result is not affected by the fact that the Joint Committee Decision incorporating Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 into the EEA Agreement has not entered into force.
1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 7ja of Annex XIX to the Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1051 of 1 July 2015 on the modalities for the exercise of the functions of the online dispute resolution platform, on the modalities of the electronic complaint form and on the modalities of the cooperation between contact points provided for in Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement.
2.

It is not compatible with the second indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2003/6/EC for the determination of whether a price is at an ‘abnormal’ or ‘artificial’ level to be made on the basis of the individual prerequisites for the investor executing a transaction. The determination of an ‘abnormal’ or ‘artificial’ price within the meaning of the second indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2003/6/EC may be established on the basis of an individual transaction. It is for the referring court to assess and determine which signals and factors are relevant for its assessment. Such factors may include comparisons with previously reported prices and changes in trading and market conditions, both in terms of the relevant market, the financial instrument and its issuer. A price can be secured within the meaning of the second indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2003/6/EC in a transaction involving a security that is not traded in an auction mechanism, but that has come into being through direct negotiations between two of several brokerage houses. It is for the referring court to determine whether the price has been secured, taking into account factors such as the nature and type of the market in question, including the type and pricing of financial instrument traded on the market, whether the market and the relevant financial instrument is characterised by low liquidity in trading, as well as the information available to market participants, including the means by which information on trades is made available.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 18 June 2021

in Case E-10/20

ADCADA Immobilien AG PCC in Konkurs v the Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht)

(Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 – Investor protection – Notion of an ‘offer of securities to the public’ – Disclosure of information – Obligation to publish a prospectus – Exemptions)

(2021/C 417/04)

In Case E-10/20, ADCADA Immobilien AG PCC in Konkurs v the Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht) – 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 Board of Appeal of the Financial Market Authority (Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht) concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market, and repealing Directive 2003/71/EC, in particular point (b) of Article 1(4) and point (d) of Article 2 thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 18 June 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Whether sufficient information is presented on the terms of the offer and the securities to be offered, so as to enable an investor to decide to purchase and subscribe for those securities in accordance with point (d) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market, must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, subject to verification by the referring body, there is an ‘offer of securities to the public’ within the meaning of point (d) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

2. It may be relevant to an assessment of whether there is an ‘offer of securities to the public’ within the meaning of point (d) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 that a communication includes certain clearly visible indications stating that further information may be obtained elsewhere, and the full bond terms are not accessible online or otherwise generally available. However, if a communication already presents sufficient information for the purposes of point (d) of Article 2, the inclusion of such statements or the fact that the full bond terms are not accessible online or otherwise generally available will not be capable of altering its qualification as an ‘offer of securities to the public’.
1.

In the context of national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a foreign EEA-based company which is in a group with a Norwegian-based company is in a comparable situation to that of a Norwegian-based company which is in a group with another Norwegian-based company. It is immaterial for the comparability assessment that no actual group contribution has been made from the company based in another EEA State to the Norwegian-based company. Article 31 EEA, read in conjunction with Article 34 EEA, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment where a company liable to taxation in Norway may, by using group contribution rules, lessen or remove the impact of rules limiting interest deductions in respect of loans taken out with affiliated companies, provided it is in a group with other companies liable to taxation in Norway, whereas this is not possible if it is in a group with companies liable to taxation in other EEA States.
Reference for an advisory opinion by Högsta domstolen by order of that court of 12 September 1994 in the case of Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny Forsberg against MSL Dynamics Limited (Case E-7/94) (94/C 347/13)

Reference has been made to the EFTA Court by an order of 12 September 1994 of Högsta domstolen (the Supreme Court), Sweden, which was received at the Court Registry on 26 September 1994, for an advisory opinion in the case of Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronny Forsberg against MSL Dynamics Limited, on the following question:

In a case before a District court regarding payment for delivery of goods, the Swedish defendants request the plaintiff, a British company, to provide security for costs for court proceedings in accordance with Section 1 of the Act (1980:307) on the obligation of foreign plaintiffs to provide security for costs for court proceedings.

Is it contrary to the Agreement on the European Economic Area - primarily Article 4 - to require a plaintiff, which is a British legal person, to provide security for costs for court proceedings, when no corresponding requirement is placed upon Swedish legal persons?
Request for an advisory opinion by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 21 May 1996 in the case of Tor A. ASK and Others v. ABB Offshore Technology AS and Aker Offshore Partner AS (Case E-3/96) (96/C 332/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 21 May 1996 of Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 May 1996, for an advisory opinion in the case of Tor A. ASK and Others v. ABB Offshore Technology AS and Aker Offshore Partner AS, on the following questions:

1. Does Article 1 (1) of the Council Directive 77/187/EEC cover a situation where a time-limited contract regarding maintenance and modification expires, and the principal concludes new time-limited contracts covering the same or other maintenance work with one or more other contractors?

2. Is it of any significance to the answer to question 1 that the contract falls under Council Directives 90/531/EEC and 93/38/EEC?

3. Is it of any significance if employees and/or equipment are taken over or transferred between companies holding maintenance contracts with Statoil?
Action brought on 20 October 1997 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-7/97) (98/C 20/09)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 October 1997 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Håkan Berglin, Director of the Legal and Executive Affairs Directorate, acting as Agent, EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74, rue de Trèves, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, the national provisions necessary to comply with the Act referred to in point 16f of Annex XVIII of the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 92/104/EEC of 3 December 1992 on the minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries), as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations within the meaning of Article 13 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

2. order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

- Directive 92/104/EEC sets out certain minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries,

- according to Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, acts referred to or contained in the Annexes to the Agreement or in decisions of the EEA Joint Committee shall be binding on the Contracting Parties and be, or be made, part of the internal legal order,

- by Decision No 7/94 of 21 March 1994 of the EEA Joint Committee, which entered into force on 1 July 1994, Directive 92/104/EEC was added as a new point 16f of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (see Articles 1 and 3 of, and point A(2) of Annex 16 to the Decision),

- it follows from Article 2 of the Decision and Article 13 of the Act, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, that Norway was to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Act by 3 December 1994 and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of the measures taken to this end,

- at the expiry of the abovementioned time limit, Norway had not taken the legislative measures necessary to comply with the Act. Nor had such measures been taken at the end of the time limit set by the EFTA Surveillance Authority in its reasoned opinion, in which it requested Norway to take the measures necessary to comply with the Act. Norway has, therefore, failed to comply with its obligations within the meaning Article 13 of the Act and Article 7 of the EEA
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett (Supreme Court of Norway) by decision of that court of 23 June 1999 in the case of Storebrand Skadeforsikring AS v. Veronika Finanger

(Case E-1/1999)

(1999/C 223/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 23 June 1999 of Norges Høyesterett (Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June 1999, for an advisory opinion in the case of Storebrand Skadeforsikring AS v. Veronika Finanger, on the following question:

Is it incompatible with EEA law for a passenger who sustains injury by voluntarily driving in a motor vehicle not to be entitled to compensation unless there are special grounds for being so, if the passenger knew or must have known that the driver of the motor vehicle was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and there was a causal link between the influence of alcohol and the injury?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (/Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 15 June 2000 in the case of Dr Jürgen Tschannett

(Case E-6/00)

(2001/C 49/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 15 June 2000 of Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstenstums Liechtenstein (/Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 June 2000, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Dr Jürgen Tschannett, on the following questions:

1. Is the single practice rule applying without exception to all doctors under Liechtenstein national law, and in particular Article 9(1) of the Regulation of 8 November 1988 on the medical professions which provides: "A doctor may pursue his profession in a self-employed capacity, as a sole practitioner or jointly with others, only if he holds a licence authorising him to do so and only if he himself works on his own behalf in the practice concerned. A doctor may not operate more than one practice, whether as a sole practitioner or jointly with others" compatible with the EEA and/or with the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement) of 2 May 1992?

2. If the answer to the first question is that the Liechtenstein single practice rule, as laid down in Article 9(1) of the Regulation of 8 November 1988 on the medical professions, is basically compatible with the EEA, does that none the less mean that, in an individual case, regard must be had to the specialist medical activities carried on by an "occupational physician", so that the necessary exceptions should be made for such specific activities, which do not require a "medical practice" within the generally accepted meaning of the term?
Action brought on 30 July 2002 by Technologien, Bau- und Wirtschaftsberatung GmbH and The Bellona Foundation against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-2/02)

(2002/C 293/07)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 30 July 2002 by Technologien, Bau- und Wirtschaftsberatung GmbH and The Bellona Foundation, represented by Advokathuset Feydt & Hamborgstrøm, St. Olavs gate 21A, N-0165 Oslo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annual the decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 31 May 2002 - on the notifications of a proposal for amended depreciation rules on the Petroleum Tax Act for production equipment and pipelines for gas linked to new large-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities located in Finnmark county or the municipalities of Kåfjord, Skjervøy, Nordreisa or Kvænangen in Troms county and the application of these rules to the Snøhvit project (Aid No 020.500.041) (Norway); and

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

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support

- Article 5.2(1) of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's State Aid Guidelines, provides that "the EFTA Surveillance Authority is obliged to open the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement whenever it is in any doubt about the compatibility of the aid with the functioning of the EEA Agreement."

- Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement provides that "aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest" may be considered compatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

- The applicant pleas that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has misused its powers and infringed general principles of Community law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 40/16

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 28 May 2004 in the case of Tsomakas Athanasios m.fl. v Staten v/Rikstrygdeverket

(Case E-3/04)

(2005/C 40/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 28 May 2004 of Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal), Bergen, Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 4 June 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Tsomakas Athanasios m.fl. v Staten v/Rikstrygdeverket, on the following question:

Is it compatible with the choice of law rules contained in Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, that the flag State proceeds from the premise that the State of residence must have issued a form E 101 or a statement containing information equivalent to that found in form E 101, 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)?