ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT

of 17 November 1999

in Case E-1/99 (Request for an Advisory Opinion from Norges Høyesterett): Storebrand Skadeforsikring AS v. Veronika Finanger

Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives - driving under the influence of alcohol - compensation for passengers

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

(2000/C 3/03)

In Case E-1/99: 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 Norges Høyesterett (Supreme Court of Norway), for an Advisory Opinion in the case pending before it between the Storebrand Skadeforsikring AS and Veronika Finanger, on the interpretation of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, with particular reference to the following Acts referred to in Annex IX to the EEA Agreement: the Act referred to in point 8 of Annex IX (Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability); the Act referred to in point 9 of Annex IX (Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles); and the Act referred to in point 10 of Annex IX (Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles), the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson and Carl Baudenbacher (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges; and Gunnar Selvik, Registrar, gave an Advisory Opinion on 17 November 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:

It is incompatible with EEA law (Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles) 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.
Judgment of the Court

of 9 October 2002

in Case E-6/01: Request for an Advisory Opinion from Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court): CIBA Speciality Chemicals Water Treatment Ltd and Others v The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Labour and Government Administration

Rules of procedure - Admissibility - Jurisdiction of the Court - Competence of the EEA Joint Committee

(2003/C 10/09)

In Case E-6/01: 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 byrett (Oslo City Court) for an Advisory Opinion in the case pending before it between CIBA Speciality Chemicals Water Treatment Ltd and Others and the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Labour and Government Administration on the interpretation of: Articles 92, 93, 98 and 102 of the EEA Agreement; Article 97 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court; Annex II to the EEA Agreement, Chapter XV (Dangerous substances), Point 1, in particular the statement concerning possible derogations by an EFTA State from the Community acts relating to classification and labelling of dangerous substances; Joint Statement by the EEA Joint Committee adopted on 22 June 1995, concerning the EEA Agreement - Annex II, Chapter XV - regarding the review clauses in the field of dangerous substances (OJ C 6, 1996, p. 7), in particular Annex II to that Joint Statement, providing for certain derogations by Norway; and, Joint Statement by the EEA Joint Committee adopted on 26 March 1999, concerning the EEA Agreement - Annex II, Chapter XV - regarding the review clauses in the field of dangerous substances (OJ C 185, 1999, p. 6), in particular the Annex to that Joint Statement, providing for certain derogations by Norway, the Court, composed of Thór Vilhjálmsson (Judge-Rapporteur), President, Carl Baudenbacher and Per Tresselt, Judges, gave a judgment on 9 October 2002, the operative part of which declares as follows:

The EEA Joint Committee was competent to adopt the Joint Statement of 26 March 1999, authorising certain derogations for Norway in respect of the relevant Communtiy rules concerning classification and labelling of dangerous substances.
Judgment of the Court

of 19 June 2003

in Case E-2/02: Technologien Bau- und Wirtschaftsberatung GmbH and Bellona Foundation v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority - State aid - Admissibility - Locus standi)

(2003/C 222/09)

In Case E-2/02: Technologien Bau- und Wirtschaftsberatung GmbH and Bellona Foundation v EFTA Surveillance Authority - Application for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's decision No 90/02/COL of 31 May 2002 concerning the notifications of a proposal for amended depreciation rules of 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, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment of 19 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares the application of 30 July 2002 inadmissible.

2. Orders the Applicants to pay the costs of the Defendant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2004

in Case E-2/04 Reidar Rasmussen, Jan Rossavik, and Johan Käldman, and Total E&P Norge AS, v/styrets formann (chairman of the board)

(Transfer of undertakings — Council Directive 77/187/EEC — time of transfer — objection to transfer of employment relationship)

(2006/C 45/07)

In Case E-2/04 between Reidar Rasmussen, Jan Rossavik, and Johan Käldman, and Total E&P Norge AS, v/styrets formann (chairman of the board) — REQUEST to the Court by Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal), on the interpretation of Article 1 and Article 3(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. An entity within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of 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 part of businesses as amended by Directive 98/50/EC and incorporated into the EEA Agreement may retain its identity in a situation where part of an undertaking is transferred from one company to another that carries out the same or corresponding activities together with another affiliated company within the same group of companies, and where each company takes over some of the employees in question.

2. The application of the Directive, pursuant to Article 1, is not precluded when the maintenance and support functions of an undertaking are transferred while the production function is not, and the employees of all these functions work as a team both before and after the transfer.

3. The Directive may, pursuant to Article 1, be applicable in the situation of a transfer of maintenance tasks on a fixed offshore installation for gas production where a considerable part of the workforce, in terms of numbers and qualifications, that performed the transferred function is taken over by a company that continues to carry out these tasks on the same installation. The application of the Directive is not precluded by the mere fact that the ownership of the tools and instruments, which the maintenance staff used before the transaction in question, and which they have continued to use afterwards, is not taken over by the company in question.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/6

COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT

(2005/C 253/07)

Appointment of the Registrar of the EFTA Court

Mr Henning Harborg was appointed Registrar of the EFTA Court pursuant to Article 9, Protocol 5 of the ESA/Court Agreement for the period from 1 September 2004 to 31 August 2007, to succeed Mr Lucien Dedichen. At a public sitting of the EFTA Court of 28 September 2004, Mr Henning Harborg took the oath prescribed in Article 10, Protocol 5 of the ESA/Court Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/21

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 May 2008

in Case E-7/07

Seabrokers AS and The Norwegian State, represented by Skattedirektoratet (the Directorate of Taxes)

(Freedom of establishment — Double taxation agreement — Calculation of maximum credit allowance for tax paid in another EEA State — Debt interest and group contributions)

(2008/C 239/10)

In Case E-7/07 between Seabrokers AS and The Norwegian State, represented by Skattedirektoratet (the Directorate of Taxes) — Request to the Court by Stavanger tingrett (Stavanger District Court), concerning the interpretation of Article 4 EEA on prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, Article 31 EEA on the freedom of establishment and Article 40 EEA on free movement of capital in the EEA, the Court, composed of Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judge-Rapporteur, Carl Baudenbacher, President and Henrik Bull, Judge, gave judgment on 7 May 2008, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. an EEA State which attributes, in applying the principle of net income taxation, a portion of debt interest expenses of a company to income earned through its branch in another EEA State, when calculating the maximum credit allowance for tax paid in that State, restricts the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 31 EEA, insofar as the expenses can only be linked to the company's business in the former State;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 307/25

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 18 April 2012

in Case E-15/10

Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Market for business-to-consumer over-the-counter parcel delivery — Distribution network — Exclusivity agreements — Conduct liable to eliminate competition on the market — Justification — Duration of infringement — Fine)

2012/C 307/11

In Case E-15/10 Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for annulment of Decision No 322/10/COL of 14 July 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case No 34250 Norway Post/Privpak) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 18 April 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Sets the fine imposed by Article 2 of Decision No 322/10/COL of 14 July 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case No 34250 Norway Post/Privpak) on Posten Norge AS at EUR 11 112 000;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders Posten Norge AS to bear its own costs and to pay 75 % of ESA’s costs and the costs of Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2010

in Case E-8/10

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications)

(2011/C 148/03)

In Case E-8/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, all the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, all the measures necessary to fully implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;
1.

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes is to be interpreted as meaning that funds which a lending credit institution delivers to a borrowing credit institution, and which must be repaid on a predetermined date, together with interest which has been specially negotiated, are to be regarded as a deposit within the meaning of that provision. This applies even though the funds are not placed in a special account in the name of the lending credit institution, the borrowing credit institution has not issued any special documents recording the receipt of the funds, has not paid premiums in respect of the funds to the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund, and the funds have not been entered as a deposit in the books of the borrowing credit institution. However, such funds transferred from one credit institution to another, pursuant to a loan agreement, constitute deposits not covered by the guarantee schemes provided for in Directive 94/19/EC. Such funds are thus not eligible for repayment under that Directive. Therefore, a distinction can be made between a functional definition of eligible deposits under Directive 94/19/EC, which is based on Article 1(1) read in light of Article 2, and a technical definition, which also includes deposits not covered by the guarantee schemes provided for in Directive 94/19/EC and, thus, not eligible for repayment. It is for the national court to ascertain whether a technical or a functional definition of deposit is to be applied under national law for the purposes of the present case.
—

Moreover, an EEA State may suspend or withdraw an authorisation to pursue the profession of a medical doctor based on information concerning the personal aptitude of a migrant doctor relating to the professional qualification other than language skills, such as the ones in question, only if such requirements are objectively justified and proportionate to achieve the objective of protecting public health and if the same information would also entail a suspension or withdrawal of authorisation for a national doctor. If such grounds for suspension or withdrawal are available to the competent authorities at the time of assessment, the authorisation may be denied.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/17

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 11 September 2013

in Case E-6/12

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Social security for migrant workers)

(2013/C 372/06)

In Case E-6/12, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by maintaining in force the administrative practice of not assessing whether a child, living together with another parent outside Norway, is mainly dependent on the parent who is living in Norway and separated from the other parent, the Kingdom of Norway is in breach of Article 1(f)(i), second sentence, in conjunction with Article 76 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 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), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 11 September 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force the administrative practice under the Child Benefits Act of not assessing whether a child, living together with another parent outside Norway, is mainly dependent on the parent who is living in Norway and separated from the other parent, the Kingdom of Norway is in breach of Article 1(f)(i), second sentence, of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 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), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto;

2. Dismisses the application as to the remainder; and,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 25 March 2013

in Case E-10/12

Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf.

(Directive 91/533/EEC — Obligation to inform employees — Amendments to a written contract of employment — Effect of non-notification of amendments)

2013/C 270/05

In Case E-10/12 Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital 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 by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), on the interpretation of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 25 March 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship must be interpreted as not requiring that compensation to an employee is to be assessed on the basis of a written contract of employment if no written document has been handed over to the employee concerning amendments, temporary or permanent, that may have been made to the essential aspects of the contract of employment or employment relationship between the parties within the time limits laid down in Article 5 of the Directive. This applies also in the context of bankruptcy proceedings or a comparable division of a limited liability company.
1.

When a credit agreement is linked to a consumer price index, it is not compatible with Directive 87/102/EEC to calculate the total cost of the credit and the annual percentage rate of charge on the basis of 0 % inflation if the known rate of inflation at the time of the credit agreement is not 0 %. It is for the national court to assess, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, the legal consequences of and the remedies for such incorrect information, provided that the level of protection established by Directive 87/102/EEC, as interpreted by the Court, is not compromised. For the situation that the referring court does not consider the contractual terms on the indexation of repayment instalments of the consumer loan in question to be mandatory regulatory or statutory provisions within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, the answers to the subsequent questions are as follows:
4.

The difference in treatment entailed by section 10-60 of the Tax Act creates a tax disadvantage for resident taxpayers to whom the legislation on controlled foreign companies applies, which is such as to hinder their exercise of freedom of establishment, dissuading them from establishing, acquiring or maintaining a subsidiary in an EEA State in which the latter is subject to low levels of taxation. It therefore constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment within the meaning of Articles 31 and 34 EEA. If the tax disadvantage resulting from the differential treatment for resident taxpayers under section 10-60 is such as to hinder the beneficiaries from investing funds in another EEA State, without any intention to influence the control or the management of an undertaking, and from engaging in the movement of capital of a personal nature, it constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital within the meaning of Article 40 EEA and Annex XII to the EEA Agreement. Moreover, a rule of national law entailing that, in contrast to participants in comparable domestic entities, personal participants in a controlled foreign company in another EEA State are not afforded any opportunity to undo the economic double taxation that the Norwegian CFC rules entail constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment under Articles 31 and 34 EEA, or, depending upon the assessment of the national court, the free movement of capital which is, in principle, prohibited by Article 40 EEA.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 122/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 24 September 2014

in Case E-7/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Article 36 EEA — Full registration tax on leased motor vehicles temporarily imported by Norwegian residents to Norway)

(2015/C 122/06)

In Case E-7/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by maintaining in force national rules which provide that a full amount of registration tax is due for foreign-registered leased motor vehicles temporarily imported by Norwegian residents to Norway, without the person having any right to an exemption or refund where the vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in Norway on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that manner, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 36 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 24 September 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that by maintaining in force national rules which provide that a full amount of registration tax is due for foreign-registered leased motor vehicles temporarily imported by Norwegian residents to Norway, without the person having any right to an exemption or refund where the vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in Norway on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that manner, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 36 EEA.