ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Dangerous substances - List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) 528/2012 in the second half of 2021

(2022/C 306/06)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

(Text with EEA relevance)

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 225/2013 of 13 December 2013, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 for the period 1 July – 31 December 2021, at their meeting on 18 March 2022.
ORDER OF THE COURT of 15 June 1994 in Case E-3/94: Alexander Flandorfer Friedman, Erna Flandorfer Friedman, and GFG Bau Dachdecker Spengler GmbH against the Republic of Austria (94/C 250/06)

In case E-3/94: Alexander Flandorfer Friedman, Erna Flandorfer Friedman and GFG Bau Dachdecker Spengler GmbH, Vienna, v. Republic of Austria - application for a decision on jurisdiction, for legal aid including the appointment of a lawyer, and for a declaration that the Republic of Austria has infringed Articles 6, 7, 28 (2) and (3), 31 and 34 of the EEA Agreement and Articles 8 (1) and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the Court, composed of Leif Sevón, President, Björn Haug. Thór Vilhjálmsson (Rapporteur), Kurt Herndl and Sven Norberg, Judges; Karin Hökborg, Registrar, made an order on 15 June 1994, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. the application, except as far as it concerns legal aid, is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. the application, as far as it concerns legal aid, is rejected.

3. the case shall be removed from the Register of the Court.

4. the applicants shall bear their costs.
Removal from the Register of Case E-7/94



Official Journal C 106 , 27/04/1995 P. 0006 - 0006



Removal from the Register of Case E-7/94 (1) (95/C 106/08) By order of 27 February 1995 the Acting President of the EFTA Court ordered the removal from the Register of Case E-7/94 (request for an advisory opinion from Högsta domstolen: Data Delecta Aktiebolag and Ronnie Forsberg against MSL Dynamics Limited). (1) OJ No C 347, 8. 12. 1994.
DECISION of 20 December 1995 on official holidays of the EFTA Court in 1996

THE EFTA COURT,

Having regard to Article 24 (3) of the Rules of Procedure, which requires the Court to observe the official holidays of the place where it has its seat,

Having regard to Article 76 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, which requires the Court to draw up a list of official holidays and to publish it in the EEA Section of and the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities,

Noting that it has been decided that the Court shall move to Luxembourg, whereas a date for the move has not yet been fixed, and noting that a revised list of official holidays may have to be drawn up as a result of such move,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

For the time the seat of the Court remains in Geneva, Switzerland, the following days in 1996 will be observed as official holidays during which the Court will be closed:

>TABLE>
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 19 June 1998 in Case E-10/97: EFTA Surveillance Authority v. The Kingdom of Norway (Failure of a contracting party to fulfil its obligations - health protection for workers exposed to vinyl chloride monomer - Council Directive 78/610/EEC) (98/C 268/11)

In Case E-10/97: EFTA Surveillance Authority v. The Kingdom of Norway - Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time limit, the national provisions necessary to comply with the Act referred to in point 2 of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, i.e. Council Directive 78/610/EEC of 29 June 1978 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on the protection of the health of workers exposed to vinyl chloride monomer, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson and Carl Baudenbacher (judge-rapporteur), judges, gave a judgment on 19 June 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time limit, the national provisions necessary to comply with the Act referred to in point 2 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 78/610/EEC of 29 June 1978 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on the protection of the health of workers exposed to vinyl chloride monomer), as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Norway to pay the
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT of 24 November 1998 in Case E-2/98 (Request for an advisory opinion from Reykjavík City Court): Federation of Icelandic Trade (Samtók versluna rinnar - Félag íslenskra stórkaupmanna, FÍS) v. the Government of Iceland and the Pharmaceutical Pricing Committee (Lyfjaver ssnefnd) (1) (Pricing of pharmaceutical products - general price decrease - price control system) (Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure only the English and Icelandic texts are authentic) (1999/C 44/10)

In Case E-2/98: 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 Héraõsdómur Rykjavíkur (Rykjavík City Court), Iceland, for an advisory opinion in the case pending before it between Federation of Icelandic Trade (Samtók verslunarinnar - Félag íslenskra stórkaupmanna, FÍS) and the Government of Iceland and the Pharmaceutical Pricing Committee (Lyfjaver ssnefnd), on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/105/EEC, the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson and Carl Baudenbacher (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges; and Gunnar Selvik, Registrar, gave an advisory opinion on 24 November 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 4 of Directive 89/105/EEC applies to circumstances where a competent authority, empowered to approve the maximum prices of prescription pharmaceuticals, decides, of its own motion, to decrease the maximum wholesale prices of all pharmaceuticals the cost price of which is over a specific amount, for the purpose of lowering the prices of pharmaceuticals to the public in accordance with prices in neighbouring countries and to reduce State expenditure on pharmaceuticals. Articles 2 and 3 of Council Directive 89/105/EEC do not apply to such general measures.

2. Such a general decision by a competent authority is in conformity with Directive 89/105/EEC in so far as it meets the procedural and transparency requirements laid down in Article 4.

3. It is a requirement of Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105/EEC that the holder of a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product may apply for a derogation from a general decision to decrease wholesale prices. The existence of such a possibility must therefore be ensured in order for national measures to be in conformity with Article 4 of the Directive.

(1) OJ C 275, 3.9.1998, p. 4.
COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT

(2000/C 52/11)

1. Composition of the Court

Upon nomination by the Government of Norway, Mr. Per Tresselt was appointed as Judge of the EFTA Court by common accord of the three Contracting Parties to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (the ESA/Court Agreement) for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005, to succeed Mr Bjørn Haug. At a public sitting of the EFTA Court on 11 January 2000, Mr Per Tresselt took the oath prescribed in Protocol 5, Article 2 of the ESA/Court Agreement.

2. Election of the President of the Court

On 11 January 2000, after the appointment of the new judge to the EFTA Court, Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson was elected as President for the EFTA Court pursuant to Article 30 of the ESA/Court Agreement for the period from 11 January 2000 to 31 December 2002.
Judgment of the Court

of 5 December 2001

in Case E-5/01: EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations - Council Directive 87/344/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance

(2002/C 34/12)

In Case E-5/01: EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein - Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, the national provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3(1), 4, 6 and 7, read in conjunction with Article 2, of the Act referred to in point 6 of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of the Directive and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Thór Vilhjálmsson (Judge-Rapporteur), President, Carl Baudenbacher und Per Tresselt, Judges, gave a judgment of 5 December 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that, that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, the national provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3(1), 4, 6 and 7, read in conjunction with Article 2, of the Act referred to in point 6 of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of the Directive and Article 7 EEA.

2. Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/13

Order of the EFTA Court of 24 April 2007

(Case E-9/04)

(2007/C 232/06)

In Case E-9/04 COSTS,

The Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland, supported by The European Banking Federation, against the EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by the Republic of Iceland

(Taxation of costs)

In Case E-9/04 COSTS The Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland, represented by Dr Hans-Jörg Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, Belgium and Dr Ralf Sauer, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, Germany, supported by the European Banking Federation, represented by Marc Pittie, Avocat, Brussels, Belgium, against EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger, Director, and Bjørnar Alterskjær, Officer, Department of Legal and Executive Affairs, acting as Agents, Brussels, Belgium, supported by the Republic of Iceland, represented by Finnur Þór Birgisson, First Secretary and Legal Officer, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, and Peter Christian Dyrberg, acting as Counsel — application for taxation of the costs to be recovered from the EFTA Surveillance Authority by the European Banking Federation pursuant to the judgment of the EFTA Court of 7 April 2006 in Case E-9/04 The Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2006 EFTA Court Report 45] — the EFTA Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges; Skúli Magnússon, Registrar, has made an Order of 24 April 2007, the operative part of which is as follows:

The total amount of the costs to be paid by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to the European Banking Federation is fixed at EUR 33 365,30.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 17 January 2006

in Case E-4/05: HOB-vín and The Icelandic State and Áfengis- og tóbaksverslun ríkisins (the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland)

(Free movement of goods — State monopolies of a commercial character — requirements to supply goods on pallets and to include the pallet price in the price of the goods — discrimination against importers of alcoholic beverages — abuse of a dominant position)

(2006/C 100/03)

In Case E-4/05 between HOV-vín and Áfengis- og tóbaksverslun ríkisins — REQUEST to the Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), on the interpretation of Articles 11, 16, 57 and 59 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Henrik Bull and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment on 17 January 2006, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 16 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area does not prevent a State enterprise, which holds the exclusive right to the retail sale of alcoholic beverages, from demanding that its suppliers deliver to the enterprise alcoholic beverages for retail sale on a specific type of pallet (EUR pallet), and furthermore that the price of the pallet be included in the product price, unless the national court finds, based on the facts before it, that as part of the policy of the monopoly or of its outlets or as a consequence of failure to enforce the monopoly's rules, importers are in fact treated differently from domestic producers.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 100/4

COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT

(2006/C 100/04)

1. Composition of the Court

Upon nomination by the Government of Norway, Mr Henrik Bull was appointed as Judge of the EFTA Court by common accord of the three Contracting Parties to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (the ESA/Court Agreement) for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2011, to succeed Mr Per Tresselt. At a public sitting of the EFTA Court on 12 January 2006, Mr Henrik Bull took the oath prescribed in Protocol 5, Article 2 of the ESA/Court Agreement.

2. Election of the President of the Court

On 12 January 2006, after the appointment of the new judge to the EFTA Court, Mr Carl Baudenbacher was re-elected as President for the EFTA Court pursuant to Article 30 of the ESA/Court Agreement for the period from 12 January 2006 to 31 December 2008.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 224/19

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 13 May 2009

in Case E-6/08

EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligation — Directive 2002/91/EC on the energy performance of buildings)

2009/C 224/09

In Case E-6/08, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures necessary to implement Articles 6-10 of the Act referred to at point 17 of Annex IV to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, i.e. Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of that Act and under Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Henrik Bull, Judge, and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judge-Rapporteur, gave judgment on 13 May 2009, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement Articles 6-10 of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of the Directive and Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 December 2009

in Case E-5/09

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC)

2010/C 256/07

In Case E-5/09, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 7b of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time-limit prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 1 December 2009, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 176/8

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 17 December 2010

in Case E-11/10

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation)

2011/C 176/05

In Case E-11/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing, within the time limit 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 21b of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 17 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 implement the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 33 of the Act and under Article 7 EEA.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 132/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 January 2013

in Case E-16/11

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes — Obligation of result — Emanation of the State — Discrimination)

2013/C 132/06

In Case E-16/11, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to ensure payment of the minimum amount of compensation to Icesave depositors in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom provided for in Article 7(1) of the Act referred to at point 19a of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes) within the time limits laid down in Article 10 of the Act, Iceland has failed to comply with the obligations resulting from that Act, in particular its Articles 3, 4, 7 and 10, and/or Article 4 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Páll Hreinsson and Ola Mestad (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 28 January 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. dismisses the application;

2. orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by Iceland;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/12

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 25 April 2012

in Case E-13/11

Granville Establishment v Volker Anhalt, Melanie Anhalt and Jasmin Barbaro, née Anhalt

(Jurisdiction agreements — Freedom to provide and receive services — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Justification — Remedies for non-conformity with EEA law)

2012/C 369/10

In Case E-13/11 Granville Establishment v Volker Anhalt, Melanie Anhalt and Jasmin Barbaro, née Anhalt — 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 Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court of Justice), Liechtenstein, concerning the interpretation of Articles 4 and 36 of the EEA Agreement with regard to the Liechtenstein Jurisdiction Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 25 April 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

— Article 36 EEA precludes a provision of domestic law, such as Section 53a(1) of the Jurisdiction Act, which accords only nationals the right not to be sued abroad on the basis of a jurisdiction agreement unless that jurisdiction agreement has been publicly recorded.