ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 413/10

Action brought on 3 August 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-10/16)

(2016/C 413/09)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 3 August 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Øyvind Bø 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 Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 6a and at point 6e of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/68/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment) 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 Article 13 of 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 March 2016, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 13 January 2016 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2014/68/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of pressure equipment, as referred to at point 6a and at point 6e of Chapter VIII 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 67/11

Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-12/17)

(2018/C 67/11)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 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 Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the act referred to at point 31bbc of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its legal order.

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 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at point 31bbc 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 108/17

Action brought on 1 February 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-3/17)

(2017/C 108/15)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 1 February 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler 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 declare that:

1. By maintaining in force an authorisation system for fresh meat and meat products, such as laid down in Article 10 of Act No 25/1993 and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Regulation (IS) No 448/2012, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at Point 1.1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, 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 EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptions in Annex I thereto, and in particular Article 5 of that directive.

2. Iceland bears the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) claims that Iceland has breached its obligations under Directive 89/662/EEC by maintaining in force an authorisation system for the import of, inter alia, fresh meat and meat products.

— ESA submits that the rules concerning the intra-EEA trade of products of animal origin and veterinary checks are harmonised at EEA level. Council Directive 89/662/EEC regulates veterinary checks in intra-EEA trade of products of animal origin. Its main objective is to eliminate veterinary checks at the EEA’s internal borders while reinforcing the checks carried out at the point of origin. The competent authorities of the EEA State of destination may only check, by means of non-discriminatory spot-checks, compliance with the relevant EEA legislation.

— ESA submits that by maintaining in force the authorisation system for the importation of fresh meat and meat products, Iceland imposes additional requirements, which are not allowed by the harmonised at EEA level framework of veterinary checks.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Public Procurement Complaints Committee dated 18 December 2019 in the case of Hraðbraut ehf. v mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, Verzlunarskóli Íslands ses., Tækniskólinn ehf., and Menntaskóli Borgarfjarðar ehf.

(Case E-13/19)

(2020/C 110/10)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 18 December 2019 from the Public Procurement Complaints Committee (kærunefnd útboðsmála), which was received at the Court Registry on 23 December 2019, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Hraðbraut ehf. v mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, Verzlunarskóli Íslands ses., Tækniskólinn ehf., and Menntaskóli Borgarfjarðar ehf. on the following questions:

1. Is a contract into which a ministry enters with an entity that is licensed to operate as an upper secondary school, by which the entity in question undertakes to provide pupils and teachers with services and facilities that are customary at the upper secondary level, and in which allowance is made for financial contributions, to be considered as a public service contract in the sense of Directive 2014/24/EU (cf. in particular, Article 2(9))?

2. Do services of the type described in Question 1 constitute social services or other specific services in the sense of Article 74 of Directive 2014/24/EU, and if so, should the provisions of Chapter I of Title III of the Directive apply regarding the procurement regime?

3. Is it of significance, for the resolution of Questions 1 and 2, whether consideration for the services in question is determined in budget legislation from the Icelandic Parliament or in accordance with a decision by a minister on the basis of applicable domestic law and rules?
1.

The first question concerns the interpretation of the term ‘insurance claim’ provided for in Article 268(1)(g) of Directive 2009/138/EC. (a) What criteria are to be applied in order to determine whether some elements of the debt are not yet known? (b) Must a claim, at least in principle, have arisen, been admitted and/or lodged before the opening of insolvency proceedings (or, alternatively, before the cancellation of the insurance contracts as a result of the opening of winding-up proceedings) in order to be treated as an insurance claim? If not, the following question arises: (c) Does Directive 2009/138/EC provide for a temporal limit on the possibility for insurance claims to arise after the opening of insolvency proceedings in order to prevent the continued postponement of the drawing up of the final account and distribution to the creditors by a reason of a constant lodging of new claims, or, alternatively, how does Directive 2009/138/EC deal with indeterminate debts of that kind? (d) Does the phrase ‘… or cancellation …’ mean that only those premiums owed [by an insurance undertaking] as a result of the cancellation of a contract before the opening of the winding-up proceedings shall be regarded as insurance claims or does it also constitute an insurance claim where the premium is owed by the insurance undertaking as a result of the cancellation of a contract after the opening of the winding-up proceedings?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 8 December 2021 in the case of Anna Bryndís Einarsdóttir v the Icelandic Treasury

(Case E-5/21)

(2022/C 153/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 8 December 2021 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2021, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Anna Bryndís Einarsdóttir v the Icelandic Treasury on the following question:

Does Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, on the coordination of social security systems (cf. also Article 21(3) of the Regulation), oblige an EEA State, when calculating payments in connection with maternity/paternity leave, to calculate reference income on the basis of a person’s aggregate wages on the labour market across the entire European Economic Area? Does it infringe the aforementioned provision and the principles of the EEA Agreement (see, for example, Article 29 EEA) if only a person’s aggregate wages on the domestic labour market are taken into account?
Values of thresholds in the field of public procurement applicable during the period 1 July 1994 to 31 December 1995 (1) (94/C 292/08)

The values of the thresholds applicable as of 1 July 1994 regarding public supplies contracts pursuant to the Act referred to in point 3 (2) of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement, except for the contracting authorities listed in Appendix 2 to the Annex, and public service contracts pursuant to the Act referred to in point 5b (3) of the Annex, are as follows:

>TABLE>

Pursuant to the second indent of Article 5 (1) (a) of the Act referred to in point 3 of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement, read with the adaptation 3 (c) and (g) of the Annex, the values of the thresholds applicable within the EEA to contracting authorities listed in Appendix 2 to the Annex are as of 1 July 1994, regarding public supplies contracts, as follows:

>TABLE>

The values of the thresholds applicable as of 1 July 1994 regarding supplies and services contracts pursuant to the Act referred to in point 4 (4) of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement are as follows:

>TABLE>

The values of the thresholds applicable as of 1 July 1994 regarding public works contracts pursuant to the Act referred to in point 2 (5) of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement and works contracts pursuant to the Act referred to in point 4 of the Annex, are as follows:

>TABLE>

(1) Annex 14 to Decision No 7/94 of the EEA Joint Committee (OJ No L 160, 28. 6. 1994, p. 134).

(2) Council Directive 93/36/EEC (OJ No L 199, 9. 8. 1993, p. 1).

(3) Council Directive 92/50/EEC (OJ No L 209, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1)

(4) Council Directive 93/38/EEC (OJ No L 199, 9. 8. 1993, p. 84).

(5) Council Directive 93/37/EEC (OJ No L 199, 9. 8. 1993, p. 54).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 241/23

Publication of the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications' notification of directly awarding a public service contract in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70

2013/C 241/09

1. Name and address of the contracting entity:

The Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications Department of Public and Rail Transport PO Box 8010 Dep 0030 Oslo NORWAY

2. Duration of the public service contract:

From December 2012 to December 2017. The Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications has an option to extend the contract for a period of 3 + 2 years.

3. Description of the passenger transport services to be performed:

International passenger service by rail Oslo–Karlstad–(Stockholm) with two daily round trips. This equals an approximate production of 355 000 train-kilometres per year (Karlstad–Oslo).

4. Description of the parameters of the financial compensation:

The Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications is to pay the contractor a set sum per year, exclusive of VAT. For 2013 this is SEK 4,5 million and for each year 2014-2017 — SEK 4 million.

5. Quality targets, such as punctuality and reliability, and rewards and penalties applicable:

The contractor’s own rules and regulations pertaining to transportation and the sale of tickets shall apply. Standard of punctuality shall be 90 % + 15 minutes. Standard of regularity shall as a minimum be 98 %. In other areas that are not separately regulated by the agreement, the contractor is to set the same general quality requirements as it sets for its own similar transportation services.

6. Conditions relating to essential assets:

None.
Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 (3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections (95/C 14/04)

Date of adoption: 19 October 1994

EFTA State: Finland

Aid No: 94-026

Title: Regional investment aid granted to SMEs in areas of the subregional units of Jyväskylä, Kuopio, Oulu and Vaasa

Objective: Increase the number of competitive small and medium-sized enterprises located in the subregional units mentioned above

Legal basis: Aid to Business Act (Laki yritystuesta 1136/93); Decision of the Council of State on Aid to Business (Valtioneuvoston päätös yritystuesta 1689/93); Regional Development Act (Laki alueiden kehittämisestä 1135/93)

Aid intensity: 15 % for small enterprises, 7,5 % for medium-sized enterprises

Duration: Unlimited

Conditions: Simplified annual report

Date of adaption: 9 November 1994

EFTA State: Finland

Aid No: 94-025

Title: State guarantees for domestic and international loans of Oy Sisu-Auto Ab

Objective: The guarantees cover domestic and international loans of Oy Sisu-Auto Ab, a majority State-owned company, manufaturer, inter alia, of military vehicles, terminal tractors, special purpose motor vehicles and components of such vehicles. The loans are to be taken by the company in connection and due to the financing of the acquisition of the Transmec, Tractor and Loggingdivisions from Valmet Oy, which is a limited liability company listed in the Helsinki stock exchange where the State Government is the majority owner

Legal basis: Government proposal on the State guarantees for domestic and international loans of Oy Sisu-Auto Ab, submitted to the Parliament on 27 May 1994

Budget: Guarantees can cover loans up to FM 800 million taken by Oy Sisu-Auto Ab in 1994 to 1995

Cost of guarantee: Front end fees: 0,4 % to 0,6 %

Annual fees on the amounts outstanding: 0,4 % to 0,6 %

Date of adoption: 16 November 1994

EFTA State: Norway

Aid No: 94-045

Title: Map of assisted areas

Objective: Regional investment aid

Legal basis: Regional aid according to EU/EEAcompetition rules - list of eligible areas in Norway (identical to current target zones A, B and C for regional development)

Budget: No budget directly allocated to the map

Coverage: 25 % of total population

Aid intensity: Article 61 (3) (a) areas:

- Target zone A: 35 % NGE, SME top-up 15 % gross population coverage 2 %

Article 61 (3) (c) areas:

- Target zone B: 25 % NGE, SME top-up 5 % gross population coverage 11 %

- Target zone C: 15 % NGE, SME top-up 10 % gross population coverage 12 %

Duration: 31 December 1997
Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 (3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections (95/C 170/07)

Date of adoption: 24. 5. 1995

EFTA State: Norway

Aid No: 95-003 (ex Aid No: 93-141)

Title: 'Development grants` scheme administered by the Norwegian Industrial and Regional Development Fund (SND)

Objective:

- Aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for consultancy help, training and dissemination of knowledge

- Aid for investment in applied research and development

Legal basis:

- Law on SND of 3 July 1992 No 97

- Society rules of SND of 4 January 1993

- State budget chapter 2420 post 50, Development grants

Budget: Budget appropriation for 1995: Nkr 194 million

Aid intensity:

- 50 % of costs related to consultancy help, training and dissemination of knowledge

- 25 % (35 % for SMEs) of costs related to investment in applied research and development

Duration: Indefinite

Conditions: Simplified annual report
Authorization for State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 11 of the Act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections (96/C 350/04)

Date of adoption: 19 June 1996

EFTA State: Norway

Aid No: 96-002

Title: Prolongation of existing State aid to the shipbuilding industry:

Grants for shipbuilding, newbuildings and conversions

Export credit guarantees for ships (by the GIEK)

The guarantee scheme for ship construction

Objectives: Contract-related producion aid to shipbuilding

Legal basis:

- directions by the Royal Ministry of Industry and Energy of 6 February 1996 ('Føresegner for statleg støtte ved kontrahering av skip`)

- for guarantees by the Guarantee Institute for Export Credits (GIEK) and the guarantee scheme for ship construction: the annual state budget

Budget: Nkr 400 million for contracts entered into in 1996

Aid intensity: For the construction of vessels of not less than 100 GRT:

- 9 % for vessels whose contract value is at least ECU 10 million,

- 4,5 % for vessels of a contract value less than ECU 10 million,

- 4,5 % for major conversions of vessels of at least 1 000 GRT

Credit guarantees within the limits of the OECD

Understanding on Export Credits for Ships

Duration: Applies to new binding contracts entered into as from 1 January 1996 and until the OECD Agreement respecting normal competitive conditions in the commercial shipbuilding and repair industry enters into force, and until 30 September 1996 at the latest, provided that delivery takes place not later than 31 December
E1997C1113(02)

Authorization for State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 11 of the Act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 343 , 13/11/1997 P. 0009 - 0009
Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority (97/C 37/06)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority announces that pursuant to Article 4 (2) and (3) of the Act referred to in point 1 b of Annex XV to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 90/684/EEC on aid to shipbuilding) it has decided to set the common maximum ceiling for operating aid to shipbuilding, referred to in Articles 4 (1) and 5 (1) of the Directive, at 9 % for the period as from 1 October 1996 until Articles 1 to 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/95 become applicable in the European Community, but no longer than until 31 December 1996.

Observing the provisions of Article 4 (2), second subparagraph, of the Directive, the maximum level of aid permissible for the construction of small ships of a contract value of less than ECU 10 million as well as for all ship conversions covered by the Directive has at the same time been fixed at 4,5 % for the same period, except for the construction of such ships destined for national utilization in
E1998C0820(03)

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 11 of the Act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 263 , 20/08/1998 P. 0006 - 0006
E1998C0514(01)

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 11 of the Act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 148 , 14/05/1998 P. 0010 - 0010
Changes made by Norway to public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services on the route Værøy-Bodø (1999/C 16/10)

1. Route

Pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/en_392R2408.html, Norway has decided to alter public service obligations as of 1 August 1999 in respect of the scheduled air services operated between Værøy heliport and Bodø.

2. The new public service obligations include the following

Minimum frequencies

- 1 February to 31 October: two daily return services Monday-Friday, one on Saturday and one on Sunday,

- 1 November to 31 January: one daily return service.

Timetables

- On days when two return services are required, schedules must enable travellers from Værøy to arrive in Bodø before noon, and return in the afternoon or evening.

Helicopter category

- Helicopters with minimum 15 seats shall be used on the route, the air carriers being informed that VFR daylight conditions apply to operations at Værøy heliport.

Fares

- The basic one way fare in the first operating year may not exceed NOK 700. For each subsequent operating year, this fare shall be adjusted on 1 August within the limit of the consumer price index for the 12-month period ending 15 June the same year, as published by Statistics Norway, http://www.ssb.no/www-open/english/statistics by subject/

- The carrier shall take part in the interline agreements in force on domestic services at the time in question, and shall offer all discounts available under such agreements.

- Social discounts conforming to the usual practice shall be offered.

Service continuity

The number of flights cancelled for reasons directly attributable to the carrier must not exceed 2 % of the intended number of flights on an annual basis.

3. Other

These public service obligations replace those set out in Official Journal of the European Communities C 28 and the EEA Supplement 5/96.

4. Further information

Further information can be obtained from:

Ministry of Transport and Communications

PO Box 8010 Dep

N-0030 Oslo

Tel. (47-22) 24 82 41

Fax (47-22) 24 95 72

e-mail: stig.lindahl@sd.dep.telemax.no

This documentation is also available on internet: http://www.odin.dep.no/sd/
Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement

EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections

(2000/C 3/05)

Date of adoption: 10 November 1999

EFTA State: Norway

Aid No: 99-007

Title: Notification of new aid scheme, "Project Development Grant" "(Prosjektutviklingstilskudd)"

Objective: Primary objective is aid to R& D, secondary objective is aid to SMEs

Legal basis: Fiscal Budget for 1999, Law on The Industrial and Regional Development Fund (SND) of 3 July 1992, No 97

Aid intensity: Up to 50 % gross, with an extra 10 % gross for SMEs and with an extra 5 % gross for regional aid areas (Article 61(3)(c) EEA).

Amount of aid: NOK 100 million (EUR 11,4 million) for the four-year period 1999 to 2002.

Duration: For the four-year period 1999 to 2002, but decided upon by the Norwegian Parliament each year in relation to State budget appropriations.