ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/4

Action brought on 16 July 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-18/15)

(2015/C 357/04)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 July 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Øyvind Bø and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, 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 failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56 l 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 by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

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

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

— The application addresses the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than on 18 February 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 18 December 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order (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 referred to at point 56 l of Chapter V of Annex XIII 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 92/36

Action brought on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-2/15)

(2015/C 92/10)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Janne Tysnes Kaasin, 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 failing to adopt the measures necessary to make as such part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 66he of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 104/2013 of 4 February 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards the screening of passengers and persons other than passengers by Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) equipment in combination with Hand Held Metal Detection (HHMD) equipment), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement;

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

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 9 September 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 9 July 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 104/2013 of 4 February 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards the screening of passengers and persons other than passengers by Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) equipment in combination with Hand Held Metal Detection (HHMD) equipment, as referred to at point 66he of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and the sectoral adaptations in Annex XIII (‘the Act’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 216/13

Action brought on 22 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-35/15)

(2016/C 216/10)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Markus Schneider and Øyvind Bø, 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 the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under the Act referred to at point 56i of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues) within the time limit prescribed by a. failing to develop and implement an appropriate waste reception and handling plan for each port in Norway as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC; b. failing to evaluate and approve the waste reception and handling plans for all ports in Norway, monitor their implementation and ensure their re-approval at least every three years as required by Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/59/EC; and c. failing to ensure the availability of port reception facilities in all ports in Norway adequate to meet the needs of ships normally using the port without causing undue delay to ships as required by Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC.

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

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

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘ESA’) claims that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to comply in time with key obligations for the protection of the marine environment under Directive 2000/59/EC (the ‘Directive’ or the ‘Port Reception Facilities Directive’).

— In order to reduce the discharge of ship-generated waste and cargo residues into the sea, the Directive obliges the EEA States to ensure that adequate facilities, capable of receiving ship-generated waste and cargo residues, are available in all their ports and to develop and implement waste reception and handling plans for each port.

— On 23 October 2007 the Norwegian authorities notified ESA that the Port Reception Facilities Directive had been implemented into national law.

— At the request of ESA, the European Maritime Safety Agency carried out an inspection, and issued a report on 28 September 2010, presenting, inter alia, the shortcomings of Norway’s compliance with the Directive.

— ESA delivered a reasoned opinion on 10 July 2013, which maintained that Norway had failed to fulfil, inter alia, its obligations under Article 4(1), 5(1) and 5(3) of the Directive. Norway was requested to take the necessary measures to comply with the reasoned opinion no later than 10 September 2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/8

Action brought on 17 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-23/15)

(2015/C 410/07)

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider, Clémence Perrin and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Articles 15 and 16 of the Act referred to at 15zn of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantion, as corrected), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

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

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

— The application addresses the failure by the Principality of Liechtenstein to comply, no later than on 11 April 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 11 February 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation, as corrected, as referred to at point 15zn of Chapter XIII 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 26/16

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 19 February 2016 in the case of Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA og Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v staten v/Konkurransetilsynet

(Case E-3/16)

(2017/C 26/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 19 February 2016 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 24 February 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Ski Taxi SA, Follo Taxi SA og Ski Follo Taxidrift AS v staten v/Konkurransetilsynet on the following questions:

1. What is the legal test when determining whether an agreement between undertakings has a competition-restricting object within the meaning of Article 53 EEA? a) In this context, is it sufficient in order to be able to categorise a form of conduct as an infringement by object pursuant to Article 53 EEA, that the cooperation is capable of restricting competition?

2. What is the legal significance for the consideration of whether a form of conduct constitutes an infringement by object, that such cooperation took place openly vis-à-vis the procuring authority?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/35

Action brought on 21 June 2016 by Míla ehf. against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-7/16)

(2016/C 347/07)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 June 2016 by Míla ehf., represented by Espen Bakken, attorney at law and Atle Erling Lunder, attorney at law, Arntzen de Besche Advokatfirma AS, Bygdøy allé 2, 0204 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare void Articles 1 and 2 of ESA Decision 061/16/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 061/16/COL of 16 March 2016.

— As a consequence of the EFTA Court's judgment in Case E-1/13, the EFTA Surveillance Authority initiated a formal investigation procedure to look into the lease by the Defence Agency of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland with Og fjarskipti of 1 February 2010, for the use and operation of an optical fibre. The investigation was concluded with Decision No 061/16/COL where the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that the lease did not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 67/10

Action brought on 20 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-11/17)

(2018/C 67/10)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, 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 points 30, 31bb, 31eb, 31i and 31d of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement that act within the time prescribed, and/or by failing to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement that 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 Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010, as referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31eb, 31i and 31d of Annex IX 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 73/23

Action brought on 11 January 2017 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-1/17)

(2017/C 73/13)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 11 January 2017 by Konkurrenten.no AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, N-0151 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Annul ESA Decision No 179/15/COL dated 7 May 2015; and

2. Order the defendant and any intervener to pay 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.

— On 23 March 2011, Konkurrenten filed a combined State aid and public procurement complaint against Norway, which led to the EFTA Surveillance Authority opening two separate investigations: one on public procurement issues (ESA cases no. 69548 and 69656) and one on State aid issues (ESA cases no. 69694 and 73321).

— The public procurement part of the complaint led to the EFTA Surveillance Authority delivering a reasoned opinion against Norway on 27 June 2012.

— The State aid part of the complaint led to the contested decision, No 179/15/COL of 7 May 2015.

— On 7 July 2015 in accordance with Article 5 of the contested decision, the Norwegian authorities informed the EFTA Surveillance Authority, by letter, that the total amount of unlawful aid granted to Nettbuss, a competitor of the Applicant, was NOK 99 453 890.

— On 7 September 2015, the time limit in Article 4 of the contested decision for Norway to recover the unlawful aid expired without recovery taking place.

— Nettbuss refused to pay the recovery claim, and the conflict over the recovery led to the Norwegian authorities asking ESA for a clarification of the contested decision in a letter dated 6 October 2015. In its response of 26 October 2015, the EFTA Surveillance Authority explained that it did not agree with the interpretation of the Norwegian authorities and sided with Nettbuss.

— In a subsequent letter to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, dated 12 November 2015, the Norwegian authorities noted that, as a result of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s interpretation of the contested decision, the recovery claim would have to be significantly reduced.

— On 8 September 2016, the County of Aust-Agder and Nettbuss entered into a settlement agreement whereby Nettbuss agreed to pay back NOK 5 000 000.
1.

Is point 9 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market to be interpreted as covering situations where a trader states or otherwise creates the impression that a product can legally be sold where there is a legislative provision, such as in the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, in an EEA State which provides that the product cannot legally be sold and which is enforced under national law? a. Does it have a bearing on this assessment that the prohibition applies in the EEA State where the product is to be used but not in the State where the product is sold? b. Does it have a bearing on this assessment if, after the sale, it is determined that the prohibition was contrary to EEA law?
3.

In the event that the above Directives are, in principle, applicable to the present case: Is it compatible with the freedom of establishment pursuant to Article 31 et seq. EEA and, moreover, must it be regarded as proportionate, if commercial trading in medicinal products of the kind in question carried out from the State of residence of a natural or legal person within the EEA or between an EEA State and a third country, without these medicinal products coming in contact the territory of the State of residence, is subjected to a statutory authorisation obligation, whose infringement may be penalised as a misdemeanour by a custodial sentence of up to six months?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 26 May 2021 in the case of Norep AS v Haugen Gruppen AS

(Case E-2/21)

(2021/C 417/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 26 May 2021 from Norges Høyesterett (Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2021, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Norep AS v Haugen Gruppen AS on the following questions:

1. Shall the term ‘negotiate’ in Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653 be interpreted as presupposing involvement with orders from customers to the principal, with the result that the orders may not go directly from customers to the principal, as the facts in the present case is described in Chapter 3 above?[ (1)]

2. If question 1 is answered in the negative, which factors are relevant in the assessment of whether sales-related activity is to be deemed to be ‘negotiation’ for the purposes of Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653?

(1) For full text of the Request for an Advisory Opinion, see https://eftacourt.int/download/2-21-request-ao/?wpdmdl=7454
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Trygderetten dated 26 January 2022 in the case of A v Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet

(Case E-2/22)

(2022/C 210/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 26 January 2022 from Trygderetten (The National Insurance Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 27 January 2022, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of A v Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet on the following questions:

1) Does a benefit such as the transitional benefit (overgangsstønad) – see the first paragraph of Section 15-5 of the National Insurance Act, read in conjunction with the first sentence of the second paragraph – come within the material scope of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) according to: a. Article 3(1), in particular (j), or b. Article 3(3), read in conjunction with Article 70?

2) Is it of any significance for the assessment under question 1) that there is a requirement of occupational activity for continued entitlement to a benefit when the youngest child becomes one year old, see Section 15-6 of the National Insurance Act?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1).
Communication from the Kingdom of Norway pursuant to the Act referred to in Point 12 of Annex IV to the EEA Agreement on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1) (96/C 169/08)

The competent authority under Article 10 of Directive 94/22/EC as regards granting, monitoring and use of production licences on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, and the legislation pertaining thereto, is:

The Norwegian Ministry of Industry and Energy,

PO box 8148 Dep,

0033 Oslo,

Norway.

The competent authority as regards the supervision of safety and work environment, and the legislation pertaining thereto, is:

The Ministry of Local Government and Labour,

PO box 8112 Dep,

0032 Oslo,

Norway.

(1) Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 (OJ No L 164, 30. 6. 1994, p. 3).
6.

Quality targets, such as punctuality and reliability, and rewards and penalties applicable: Flytoget AS shall as a minimum stop at the following stations three — 3 — times hourly: Asker, Sandvika, Lysaker, Skøyen, The National Theatre, and Lillestrøm, and as a minimum stop at the following stations six — 6 — times hourly: Oslo Central Station and Oslo Airport Gardermoen; scheduled stops shall be divided evenly throughout the hour, with fixed stoppage times at each station; operating hours shall as a minimum correspond to the opening hours of the airport, i.e. 06.30-24.00; Flytoget AS is given the exclusive right to set the rates of the fares.