ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/8

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 December 2009

in Case E-7/09

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies)

2010/C 256/08

In Case E-7/09, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 10e of Annex XXII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time-limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 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 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 291/14

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 12 September 2011

in Case E-16/10

Philip Morris Norway AS v the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Health and Care Services

(Free movement of goods — Prohibition on the visual display of tobacco products — Articles 11 and 13 EEA — Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions — Selling arrangements — Protection of public health — Proportionality)

2012/C 291/05

In Case E-16/10, Philip Morris Norway AS v the Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Health and Care Services — 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 District Court (Oslo tingrett), regarding the interpretation of Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), in particular, whether a rule prohibiting the visible display of tobacco products in retail outlets, such as the one established by Norwegian law, constitutes an unlawful restriction pursuant to Article 11 of the EEA Agreement, and, should such a restriction be found to exist, the criteria which are decisive in order to determine if the said display ban is proportionate for the purposes of Article 13 of the EEA Agreement the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Per Christiansen, Judges, gave judgment on 12 September 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. A visual display ban on tobacco products, imposed by national legislation of an EEA State, such as the one at issue in the case at hand, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 11 EEA if, in fact, the ban affects the marketing of products imported from other EEA States to a greater degree than that of imported products which were, until recently, produced in Norway.
2.

Default interest shall be due on the amount from the date of notification of the present order until the date of payment; the applicable interest rate shall be calculated on the basis of the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which payment is due, increased by three and a half percentage points.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/8

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 23 January 2012

in Case E-2/11

STX Norway Offshore AS and Others v The Norwegian State, represented by the Tariff Board

(Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum rates of pay — Maximum working hours — Remuneration for work assignments requiring overnight stay — Compensation for expenses)

2012/C 136/05

In Case E-2/11, STX Norway Offshore AS and Others v The Norwegian State, represented by the Tariff Board — 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 Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal, Norway), concerning the compatibility with EEA law of terms and conditions of employment provided for in a collective agreement declared universally applicable within the maritime construction industry and concerning the interpretation of Article 36 of the EEA Agreement and Article 3 of the act referred to at point 30 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, 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 23 January 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The term ‘maximum work periods and minimum rest periods’ set out in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71/EC covers terms and conditions regarding ‘maximum normal working hours’, such as those described in the request for an Advisory Opinion.

2. Article 3(1), first subparagraph, point (c) of Directive 96/71/EC, as interpreted in light of Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, does, in principle, preclude an EEA State from requiring an undertaking established in another EEA State which provides services in the territory of the first State to pay its workers the minimum remuneration fixed by the national rules of that State for work assignments requiring overnight stays away from home, unless the rules providing for such additional remuneration pursue a public interest objective and their application is not disproportionate. It is for the national authorities or, as the case may be, the courts of the host EEA State, to determine whether those rules in fact pursue an objective in the public interest and do so by appropriate means.

3. Directive 96/71/EC does not permit an EEA State to secure workers posted to its territory from another EEA State compensation for travel, board and lodging expenses in the case of work assignments requiring overnight stays away from home, unless this can be justified on the basis of public policy provisions.
2.

Default interest shall be due on that amount from the date of notification of the present order until the date of payment; the applicable interest rate shall be calculated on the basis of the interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which payment is due, increased by three and a half percentage points.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/14

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

of 12 November 2013

in Case E-22/13

Íslandsbanki hf. v Gunnar V. Engilbertsson

(Withdrawal of a request for an advisory opinion)

2014/C 81/15

REQUEST from Hæstiréttur Íslands (the Supreme Court of Iceland) requesting the EFTA Court to give an advisory opinion pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice,

the President of the Court gave order on 12 November 2013, the operative part of which orders:

Case E-22/13 to be removed from the Register.
1.

Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2003/98/EC require that, when charges are made for the re-use of public sector information, a substantive examination must have been undertaken at the time when the charge is fixed. The examination must show that the total income from such charges does not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination of documents, plus a reasonable return on investment. If the factors relevant to performing a calculation are uncertain, an estimate must at least be made. However, the calculation basis for the charges need only be made available upon request. This applies irrespective of whether the charge is set in legislation, by the relevant public authority or by other means.
1.

declares that, by failing to correctly implement Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 10 of the Act referred to at point 13b of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to that Act and pursuant to Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;
1.

Under Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, a supplementary protection certificate for a veterinary medicinal product may be granted in an EEA State on the basis of a marketing authorisation granted in that State pursuant to the administrative authorisation procedure set out in Title III of Directive 2001/82/EC, including the procedure for authorisation in exceptional circumstances under Article 26(3) of that directive. Such a marketing authorisation constitutes a valid authorisation and, where appropriate, may also constitute the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a veterinary medicinal product within the meaning of Article 3(b) and (d) of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92. Permissions granted on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 8 of Directive 2001/82/EC do not constitute a marketing authorisation within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92. That derogating provision strictly limits the use of the measures permitted under it, stating that it applies only in the event of serious epizootic diseases, in the absence of suitable medicinal products and after informing the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the detailed conditions of use. The determination of whether ‘special approval exemptions’ or ‘AR 16 licences’, granted respectively by Norwegian and Irish authorities between 2003 and 2011, and the provisional marketing authorisation granted in the United Kingdom in 2005 were issued pursuant to national provisions implementing the first paragraph of Article 8 or Article 26(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC depends essentially on the assessment of the facts in the national proceedings, which is a matter for the national court.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/6

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 November 2014

in Case E-9/14

Otto Kaufmann AG

(Admissibility — Exchange of information on convictions of legal persons — Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Directive 2004/18/EC — Directive 2006/123/EC)

(2015/C 183/07)

In Case E-9/14, Otto Kaufmann AG – 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 the Princely Court of Liechtenstein (Fürstliches Landgericht des Fürstentums Liechtenstein) on the interpretation of EEA law with regard to the recording of criminal convictions of legal persons, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 10 November 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement do not require that a criminal conviction of a legal person be clearly recorded. Provisions such as Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC and Article 33 of Directive 2006/123/EC may require an EEA State to provide information, upon request from another EEA State, on convictions relevant to the competence and professional reliability of legal persons. However, these Directives leave the maintenance and handling of relevant information to national law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 467/22

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 2 October 2015

in Case E-7/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe — Limit values for certain pollutants in ambient air — Air quality plan)

(2016/C 467/09)

In Case E-7/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 14c of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe) by surpassing the limit values of sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in ambient air in certain zones in Norway variously for the years 2008 to 2012 and by failing to comply with the air quality plan obligation set out therein, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 October 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that by: (i) surpassing the limit values for sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM10) in ambient air during the years 2009 to 2012 variously in the zones NO3, NO4 and NO6 referred to in Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 1999/30/EC, now Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC; (ii) surpassing the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in ambient air during the years 2010 to 2012 variously in the zones NO1, NO3 and NO5 referred to in Article 4 of Directive 1999/30/EC, now Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC; and (iii) failing to comply with the air quality plan obligation as set out in Article 8(3) of Directive 96/62/EC, now Article 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC variously as regards zones NO1, NO2, NO3, NO4 and NO5; the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under the Act referred to at point 14c of Annex XX of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 120/23

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 2 August 2016

in Case E-34/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2012/46/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery)

(2017/C 120/11)

In Case E-34/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2012/46/EU of 6 December 2012 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery) 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 the Act within the time prescribed or, in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 August 2016, 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 point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2012/46/EU of 6 December 2012 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery) as adapted to the agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
1.

Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has breached its obligations arising from Articles 9, 10, 13 and 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market), as adapted to the EEA Agreement under its Protocol 1: (a) by maintaining in force Article 7 of the Liechtenstein Trade Act which sets up a prior authorisation scheme for undertakings intending to establish themselves in Liechtenstein; (b) by maintaining in force Article 8(1) of the Liechtenstein Trade Act in so far as it imposes conditions that are not clear and unambiguous for granting prior authorisation for undertakings wishing to establish themselves in Liechtenstein, namely the conditions to have the necessary personnel and to have an adequate command of the German language; (c) by failing to ensure that the conditions for the prior authorisation laid down by the Liechtenstein Trade Act do not duplicate requirements and controls which are equivalent or essentially comparable as regards their purpose to which the service provider is already subject in another EEA State; (d) by failing to ensure that the procedure and formalities concerning the prior authorisation under the Liechtenstein Trade Act are clearly laid down; and, (e) by maintaining in force Article 21 of the Liechtenstein Trade Act which requires undertakings to notify in advance their intention to provide cross-border services in Liechtenstein.
4.

The award criteria of a tender procedure must be formulated in such a way as to allow all reasonably well-informed tenderers of normal diligence to interpret them in the same way. The contracting authority is furthermore obliged to verify whether the information submitted by the tenderer is plausible, in the sense that the respective tenderers are capable of providing what was offered in the bid, and whether that bid corresponds to the requirements set out by the contracting authority. The verification requirement must comply with the principle of proportionality. As long as all tenderers are treated equally, the contracting authority may have regard to any information provided in the tender in order to make an effective verification of the information linked to the award criteria. It is for the referring court, having regard to the principles of equal treatment, transparency, and proportionality, to determine whether these conditions were complied with in the underlying tender procedure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 224/17

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 31 March 2017

in Case E-14/16

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply — Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road)

(2017/C 224/08)

In Case E-14/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 17d of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, by failing to comply with Article 3(1), Article 4(1) to (5), Article 5, Article 6(1) and Article 9(1) of the Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under the Act referred to at point 17d of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, by failing, within the time prescribed, to implement Article 3(1), Article 4(1) to (5), Article 5 and Article 9(1) of the Act.

2. Dismisses the application as regards failure to comply with Article 6(1) of the Act.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 June 2018

in Case E-17/17

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/54/EU)

(2018/C 414/14)

In Case E-17/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 8 of Annex V to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers) 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 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 7 June 2018, 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 point 8 of Annex V to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/54/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Corrigendum to Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2018 in Case E-10/17 Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS (Article 53 EEA — Article 54 EEA — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — National rules on the limitation period for claims for damages)

( Official Journal of the European Union C 459 of 20 December 2018 )

(2018/C 466/15)

On page 47, and on the cover, in the title:

for:

‘Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS’,

read:
1.

Disclosure of a complainant’s personal data during proceedings based on a complaint lodged under Article 77 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, or proceedings based on Article 78(1) of that regulation, is not precluded by that regulation or any other provision of EEA law. The question of non-disclosure of a complainant’s personal data must be examined in the light of the principles for processing personal data under Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. Non-disclosure should not be granted if it would inhibit the performance of the obligations provided in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, or the exercise of the right to effective judicial remedy and due process as set out in Article 58(4) and under the fundamental right to an effective judicial remedy.