ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 May 2019

in Case E-5/18

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2013/11/EU)

(2019/C 315/07)

In Case E-5/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7k of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7k of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
2.

Penalties under Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 may neither be imposed, nor are necessary or proportionate, if the journeys at issue were undertaken by specialised vehicles transporting money and/or valuables on the territory of other EEA States where those EEA States have granted an exception under Article 13(1)(m) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, and any individual conditions to such exceptions are complied with, since no infringement has taken place.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 15 July 2021

in Case E-11/20

Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State

(Directive 2003/88/EC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Working time – Travel to a location other than a worker’s fixed or habitual place of attendance – International travel)

(2021/C 426/07)

In Case E-11/20, Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State – 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 Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, in particular Article 2 (1), the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 15 July 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The necessary time spent travelling, outside normal working hours, by a worker, such as the plaintiff in the main proceedings, to a location other than his fixed or habitual place of attendance in order to carry out his activity or duties in that other location, as required by his employer, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. It is immaterial whether that journey is made entirely within the EEA or to or from third countries if the employment agreement is established under and governed by the national law of an EEA State.
1.

In order to determine whether a marriage of convenience for the purposes of Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States exists, in circumstances in which reasonable doubts exist as to whether the marriage in question is in fact genuine, it is necessary for the national authorities to establish, on the basis of a case-by-case examination, that at least one spouse in the marriage has essentially entered into it for the purpose of improperly obtaining the right of free movement and residence by a third-country national spouse rather than for the establishment of a genuine marriage.
Action brought on 28 April 1994 by the Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited (SSGA) against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-2/94) (94/C 199/09)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 April 1994 by the Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited (SSGA), whose registered office is in Perth, Scotland, represented by Alastair Sutton, Barrister, and Alsadair R. M. Bell, Solicitor, with an address for service at the offices of Edmond Tavernier, Rue Töpffer 11, CH-1206 Geneva.

The applicant claims that the EFTA Court should:

- annul the decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority dated 24 March 1994,

- order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:

The applicant, a company formed to promote the interests of Scottish salmon growers, contests the EFTA Surveillance Authority's decision of 24 March 1994 to close its file on the complaint which the applicant had lodged concerning alleged infringements of the State aid provisions of the EEA Agreement by the Kingdom of Norway in granting State aid to its salmon industry. The contested decision was taken on the grounds of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's lack of competence under the relevant provisions of the EEA Agreement.

The applicant asserts, first, that the contested decision is not in accordance with Article 62 (1) (b) of the EEA Agreement and Article 5 (1) of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice on the grounds that the EFTA Surveillance Authority is the only competent authority to deal with the complaint, and its refusal to do so is tantamount to a denial of justice for the applicant.

Secondly, the applicant submits that Article 16 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice and, thus, an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 36 of that Agreement has been infringed by the Authority's failure to state any or any adequate reasons for its decision.
Request for an advisory opinion by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 27 November 1995 in the case of Eilert Eidesund v. Stavanger Catering A/S (Case E-2/95) (96/C 149/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 27 November 1995 of Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating High Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 4 December 1995, for an advisory opinion in the case of Eilert Eidesund v. Stavanger Catering A/S, on the following questions:

1. Does the termination of a catering contract with one company and the signing of a new catering contract with another company fall under Council Directive 77/187/EEC, when no condition is made in the contract that equipment and/or employees are also to be taken over?

2. Will it make any difference to the answer to question No 1 if the new catering company takes over the employees and the stocks?

3. Will it make any difference to the answer to question No 1 if the contract falls under Council Directives 77/62/EEC, 80/767/EEC and 88/295/EEC on the award of public supplies contracts?

4. Do rights under Article 3 (1) and (2) also include the right to uphold insurance schemes, including pension schemes, with the new employer that the employee had with the employer who lost the contract?

5. Will the answer to question No 1 be different in cases where:

(a) employees of the original catering company apply for a post in the normal way and after competing are employed in the new catering company,

and

(b) there is an agreement between the new catering company and the old catering company, or between the principal and the new catering company, to the effect that the employees are also to be taken over?
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Høyesteretts Kjæremålsutvalg by decision of that court of 16 September 1997 in the case of European Navigation Inc. v. Star Forsikring AS (uoa) (Case E-5/97) (97/C 376/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 16 September 1997 of Høyesteretts Kjæremålsutvalg (Interlocutory Appeal Committee of the Supreme Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 September 1997, for an advisory opinion in the case of European Navigation Inc. v. Star Forsikring AS (uoa), on the following questions:

1. Is it incompatible with Article 4 of the EEA Agreement for national procedural rules to empower a Norwegian court to decide, at the request of a defendant, that a company with its place of business (domicile) in another EEA country than Norway must provide security for costs when it brings an action against a company with its place of business (domicile) in Norway, when such provision of security cannot be required from legal persons with their place of business (domicile) in Norway?

2. If such a requirement is not, as a starting proposition, compatible with the EEA Agreement, is Article 4 of the EEA Agreement none the less to be interpreted to the effect that a requirement for provision of security for costs can be justified (proportional) on the basis of the intended purposes and objective
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting Lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 13 February 1998 in the case of the Norwegian Government, Royal Ministry of Social Affairs and Health v. Astra Norge AS (Case E-1/98) (98/C 263/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 13 February 1998 of Borgarting Lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 February 1998, for an advisory opinion in the case of the Norwegian Government, Royal Ministry of Social Affairs and Health v. Astra Norge AS, on the following questions:

1. Is there a measure present having effect equivalent to import restrictions contrary to Article 11 of the EEA Agreement which cannot be justified by reference to industrial or commercial property in Article 13 of the EEA if a summary of product characteristics which is approved/laid down by the competent medicinal products authority in accordance with Council Directive 65/65/EEC, amended, inter alia by Article 4(9) of Council Directive 83/570/EEC, is protected by the importer's (direct importer's) national copyright law, with the consequence that the medicinal products authority may not give out/approve/lay down the same summary of product characteristics for a product imported by way of parallel import without the consent of the direct importer?

2. Does Directive 65/65/EEC, as amended, primarily Articles 4a and 5 of the Directive, allow national legislation to provide copyright protection for a summary of product characteristics which is approved/laid down by the medicinal products authority in that manner and with the consequences described in question
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (/Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 13 June 2000 in the case of Dr Josef Mangold

(Case E-5/00)

(2001/C 49/12)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 13 June 2000 of Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (/Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 June 2000, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Dr Josef Mangold, on the following question:

Is the single practice rule applying without exception to all dentists under Liechtenstein national law, and in particular Article 23(1) of the Regulation of 8 November 1988 on the medical professions which provides: "A dentist may pursue his profession in a self-employed capacity, as a sole practitioner or jointly with others, only if he holds a licence authorising him to carry on his profession on a self-employed basis and only if he himself works in the pratice concerned. A dentist may not operate more than one practice, whether as a sole practitioner or jointly with other doctors" compatible with the EEA and/or with the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement) of 2 May 1992?
Request for an Advisory Opinion to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) in the case of Hörður Einarsson v the Republic of Iceland

(Case E-1/01)

(2001/C 164/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court on 11 January 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Hörður Einarsson v the Republic of Iceland on the following questions:

1. Is it compatible with EEA law, in particular Articles 14 and 10 of the EEA Agreement, or, as the case may be, Article 4 of the EEA Agreement, that a value added tax (VAT) on books is imposed in accordance with Icelandic law which is higher (24,5 %) on books in foreign languages than on books in the Icelandic language (14 %), when books in Icelandic are generally published in Iceland, while books in other languages are generally published in other countries, including other EEA countries?

2. In particular, is (a) Article 14 of the EEA Agreement to be understood in the sense that books in Icelandic and books in other languages are similar products within the meaning of that provision, or (b) different taxation on books according to language, in the manner described above, likely to afford indirect protection to domestic book production?

3. Can the difference in the VAT percentage levied be justified by the aim of the Icelandic authorities to enhance the position of the Icelandic language through a lower rate of VAT charged on books in Icelandic?

4. Does Iceland's power to levy VAT prevent the application of EEA rules, in particular Articles 14 and 10 of the EEA Agreement, in the present case?

5. If, following the answers to the above questions, the rules regulating value added tax on books are deemed incompatible with the EEA Agreement, do the EEA Agreement or the rules deriving therefrom contain any provisions as to what rules are to be applied in cases of conflict between national law and rules deriving from the EEA Agreement?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 40/18

Action brought on 23 November 2004 by the Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-9/04)

(2005/C 40/11)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 November 2004 by the Bankers' and Securities Dealers' Association of Iceland, represented by Dr. Hans-Jörg Niemeyer of Hengeler Mueller, avenue Cortenbergh 1118, B-1000 Brussels and Dr. Ralf Sauer of Hengeler Mueller, Charlottenstraße 35/36, 10117 Berlin, Germany.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul the decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 11 August 2004, Decision 213/04/COL (Icelandic Housing Financing Fund); and

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

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

— The applicant is the business association of all Icelandic commercial banks and acts as their service and clearing bank.

— The Icelandic Housing Financing Fund (‘HFF’) provides general loans to individuals for the purpose of constructing or purchasing residential housing, and additional loans to individuals with low income.

— The applicant claims that the general loans are normal banking services, and that HFF's de facto state monopoly contravenes the freedom to provide services, the right of establishment, and the free movement of capital.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 213/04/COL of 11 August 2004 declared the HFF system to be compatible with the State aid rules according to Article 59(2) EEA.
1.

Declare that by applying a requirement of residence in the county of Finnmark or in seven specified municipalities in the county of Troms for the entitlement of the Finnmark supplement to the family allowances, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation pursuant to Article 73 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VI to the EEA Agreement (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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 adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; or, alternatively Declare that by applying said residence requirement, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Act referred to at Point 2 of Annex V (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 74/65

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 26 November 2007 in the Case of L'Oréal Norge AS v Smart Club Norge AS

(Case E-10/07)

(2008/C 74/15)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 26 November 2007 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 29 November 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the Case of L'Oréal Norge AS v Smart Club Norge AS, on the following questions:

1. Is Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC to be understood to the effect that a trade mark proprietor has the right to prevent imports from third countries outside the EEA when such imports take place without the consent of the trade mark proprietor?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 99/15

Action brought on 16 February 2007 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-2/07)

(2007/C 99/15)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 February 2007 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger, Arne T. Andersen and Lorna Young, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

1. By maintaining in force rules in the Lov av 28. juli 1949 nr. 26 om Statens Pensjonskasse relating to pension rights accrued on the basis of periods of employment after 1 January 1994 pursuant to which the survivor's pension of a widower whose spouse became a member of the Public Service Pension Fund prior to 1 October 1976 is curtailed in relation to his other income whereas a widow in the same circumstances receives her survivor's pension without curtailment, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 69(1) EEA and Article 5 of the Act referred to at point 20 in Annex XVIII of the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes, as amended by Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996), as adapted by Protocol 1 thereto, and

2. The Kingdom of Norway bear the costs of these proceedings

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

— The case concerns rules in the Norwegian Public Service Pension Act relating to the pension rights of widowers whose spouses became members of the Public Service Pension Fund prior to 1 October 1976, wherein: — Their survivors' pensions are curtailed in relation to their other income; — Widows in the same circumstances receive their survivors' pensions without curtailment.

— Article 69(1) EEA provides that men and women shall receive equal pay for equal work.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 99/10

Action brought on 1 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-3/09)

2009/C 99/08

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 1 April 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, BELGIUM.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

1. By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 7b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (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 prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of that Act and under Article 7 EEA. and

2. The Principality of Liechtenstein bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The present case concerns the non-implementation of a reinsurance Directive.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Principality of Liechtenstein has not provided any indication that it has implemented the Directive into Liechtenstein law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/19

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 26 March 2010 in the case of Periscopus AS v Oslo Børs ASA and Erik Must AS

(Case E-1/10)

2010/C 320/08

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 26 March 2010 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2010, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Periscopus AS v Oslo Børs ASA and Erik Must AS, on the following question:

Is it in accordance with Article 5(4) second subparagraph of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to order an offeror making a public bid to offer a bid price that exceeds the price that the offeror paid or agreed to during the six-month period preceding the time when the obligation to make an offer arose, considering that the market price at the time at which the obligation to make a bid arose is higher than the price that the offeror would otherwise be obliged to offer pursuant to the (Norwegian) Securities Trading Act?