ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/8

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 15 May 2013

in Case E-12/12

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfill its obligations — Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC)

2013/C 277/06

In Case E-12/12, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures necessary to implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 7h of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, i.e. Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 May 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing within the time limit prescribed to adopt the measures necessary to implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 7h of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, i.e. Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, or to notify ESA thereof, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 27 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 132/12

Amendments to the rules of procedure of the EFTA Court

adopted by the Court on 16 May 2012

(Only the English text is authentic)

2013/C 132/07

THE EFTA COURT,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and Court of Justice, signed in Oporto on 2 May 1992, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof;

Having regard to Protocol 5 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, on the Statute of the Court, and in particular Article 43 thereof;

Whereas it is necessary for the Court, in the light of experience, to have a clear legal basis for the enactment of practice directions with a view to improving the conduct of the proceedings, in particular with regard to the lodging of written pleadings and the conduct of hearings before it,

ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING DECISION AMENDING ITS RULES OF PROCEDURE:

Article 1

The following text shall be inserted after Article 97a:

‘Article 97b The Court may issue practice directions relating in particular to the preparation and conduct of the hearings before it and to the lodging of written statements of case or written observations.’

Article 2

1. This Decision, which is authentic in English, shall be published in the EEA Section of, and the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union, and shall enter into force on the day following its publication.

2. This Decision shall be officially translated by the Court into German, Icelandic and Norwegian.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 27 June 2014

in Case E-26/13

The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson

(Free movement of persons — Article 28 EEA — Directive 2004/38/EC — Directive 90/365/EEC — Right of residence — Right to move from the home State — Less favourable tax treatment)

(2015/C 68/03)

In Case E-26/13, The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson — 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 from the Supreme Court of Iceland (Hæstiréttur Íslands) concerning the interpretation of Article 28 of the EEA Agreement and Article 7 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, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 June 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

It is not compatible with Article 1 of Directive 90/365/EEC and Article 7(1)(b) and (d) of Directive 2004/38/EC that an EEA State does not give spouses who have moved to another EEA State the option of pooling their personal tax credits in connection with the assessment of income tax, whereas they would be entitled to pool their personal tax credits if they lived in the home State, in a situation where one of them receives a pension from the home State, and that pension constitutes all or nearly all of that person’s income, while the other spouse has no income.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 88/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 15 November 2013

in Case E-9/13

EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Commission Directive 2010/48/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers)

2014/C 88/08

In Case E-9/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 16a of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/48/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed (both except for paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Directive on roadworthiness certificates which is only to be implemented by 31 December 2013), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 15 November 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 16a of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/48/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers), as adapted by the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed (both except for paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Directive on roadworthiness certificates which is only to be implemented by 31 December 2013), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 31 March 2015

in Case E-17/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions on pursuit of the profession of ‘Dentist’ in Liechtenstein — Proportionality)

(2015/C 350/08)

In Case E-17/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 EEA by maintaining in force national rules, such as Article 63 of the Health Act and the transitional provision in the Act on the repeal of that Article, including the applicability of Article 63(2) of the Health Act in those respects, which require an authorised ‘Dentist’ to pursue this profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 31 EEA by maintaining in force Article 63 of the Health Act, which requires that a person holding the qualification referred to in German as ‘Dentist’ has to pursue this profession as an employee, under the direct supervision, instruction and responsibility of a fully qualified dental practitioner (‘Zahnarzt’).
1.

Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 457/12

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT

of 7 October 2015

in Joined Cases E-8/15 and E-9/15,

Financial Services and Compensation Scheme Limited v The Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund and De Nederlandsche Bank N.V. v The Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund

(2016/C 457/09)

Requests to the Court from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) for Advisory Opinions under 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 made an Order of 7 October 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

Joined Cases E-8/15 and E-9/15 are removed from the Register.
2.

However, in so far as such legislation gives rise to difficulties and additional costs for activities carried out under the rules governing the freedom to provide services and is liable to be additional to the controls already conducted in the home EEA State of the trust and company service provider, thus dissuading the latter from carrying out such activities, it constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services. Article 36 EEA must be interpreted as not precluding such legislation provided that it is applied in a non-discriminatory manner, justified by the objective of combating money laundering and terrorist financing, suitable for securing the attainment of that aim and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. In particular, for national supervisory measures of the host EEA State to be considered proportionate, there should be no general presumption of fraud, leading to full, systematic checks of all those who are established in other EEA States and provide services on a temporary basis in the host EEA State. Furthermore, the host EEA State must, when requesting information, such as documents, located in the EEA State of establishment, grant the service provider a reasonable period of time to provide that information, e.g. by handing over copies of documents. In this regard, the appropriate length of the notice will depend on the volume of documents requested and the medium on which they are stored.
1.

The exemption from the EEA competition rules that applies to collective agreements does not cover the assessment of a priority of engagement rule, such as the one at issue, or the use of a boycott against a port user in order to procure acceptance of a collective agreement, when such acceptance entails that the port user must give preference to buying unloading and loading services from a separate company, such as the administrative office at issue, in place of using its own employees for the same work.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 119/9

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 27 November 2017

in Case E-12/16

Marine Harvest ASA supported by the Federation of Norwegian Industries (Norsk Industri) v EFTA Surveillance Authority supported by the Kingdom of Norway

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Fish and other marine products — Material scope of the EEA Agreement — Protocol 9 — Surveillance competence)

(2018/C 119/10)

In Case E-12/16, Marine Harvest ASA supported by the Federation of Norwegian Industries (Norsk Industri) v EFTA Surveillance Authority supported by the Kingdom of Norway – APPLICATION for the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision of 27 July 2016 in ESA Case No 79116, and for a declaration that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has the competence and obligation to carry out surveillance of State aid to the fisheries sector, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 November 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the application as unfounded.

2. Orders Marine Harvest ASA to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 224/18

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 6 April 2017

in Case E-5/16

Municipality of Oslo

(Directive 2008/95/EC — Trade mark — Copyright — Public policy — Public domain — Distinctiveness — Descriptiveness — Signs consisting exclusively of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods)

(2017/C 224/09)

In Case E-5/16, Municipality of Oslo – 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 Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights (Klagenemnda for industrielle rettigheter) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2008/95/EC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, and in particular Article 3(1)(b) to (f) thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 6 April 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The registration as a trade mark of a sign which consists of works for which the copyright protection period has expired, is not in itself contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality within the meaning of Article 3(1)(f) of Directive 2008/95/EC.

2. Whether registration for signs that consist of works of art as a trade mark shall be refused on the basis of accepted principles of morality within the meaning of Article 3(1)(f) of Directive 2008/95/EC depends, in particular, on the status or perception of the artwork in the relevant EEA State. The risk of misappropriation or desecration of a work may be relevant in this assessment.

3. Registration of a sign may only be refused on basis of the public policy exception provided for in Article 3(1)(f) of Directive 2008/95/EC, if the sign consists exclusively of a work pertaining to the public domain and registration of this sign would constitute a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society.

4. Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC may apply to two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional shapes, including sculptures.

5. Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC must be interpreted as being applicable to two-dimensional and three-dimensional representations of the shape of a good.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 30 May 2018

in Case E-6/17

Fjarskipti hf. V Síminn hf.

(Article 54 EEA — Abuse of a dominant position — Margin squeeze — Right to claim damages — Applicability of provisions of the EEA Agreement in domestic proceedings — Significance of a final ruling of a competition authority)

(2018/C 335/11)

In Case E-6/17, Fjarskipti hf. v Síminn 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 the District Court of Reykjavík (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 30 May 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. A natural or legal person must be able to rely on Article 54 EEA, as it is, or has been made, part of domestic law, in order to claim compensation before a national court for a violation of the prohibitions laid down in that provision.

2. It is not a prerequisite for a court’s assessment of a damages claim for violation of competition rules that a national competition authority has handed down a final ruling finding a violation of Article 54 EEA. Where a national competition authority has given such a ruling, EEA law does not require that the ruling is binding on the national courts in a follow-on action. In the absence of EEA law governing the procedure and remedies for violations of competition law, it falls under the procedural autonomy of each EEA State to lay down the detailed rules on the degree of significance to be attached to a final ruling, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

3. The fact that a dominant undertaking is obliged to purchase termination services from other operators at a rate higher than its own, does not preclude a finding that the dominant undertaking’s own pricing practice in the form of a margin squeeze constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 54 EEA.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 August 2019

in Case E-7/18

Fosen-Linjen AS, supported by the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon)

v

AtB AS

(Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Claim for compensation for the loss of profit — Gravity of the breach — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

(2019/C 378/07)

In Case E-7/18, Fosen-Linjen AS, supported by the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon) v AtB AS — 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 Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett) concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, and in particular Article 2(1)(c) thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Bernd Hammermann and Ola Mestad (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 1 August 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts does not require that any breach of the rules governing public procurement in itself is sufficient to award damages for the loss of profit to persons harmed by an infringement.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 July 2020

in Case E-7/19

Tak – Malbik ehf. v the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration and Þróttur ehf.

(Public Procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Public works contract – Public service contract)

(2020/C 374/07)

In Case E-7/19, Tak – Malbik ehf. v the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration and Þróttur ehf – 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 Public Procurement Complaints Committee (Kærunefnd útboðsmála) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, and in particular points (6), (7) and (9) of Article 2(1) thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen, and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 16 July 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:

In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, there is no public works contract within the meaning of point (6) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC. A public contract which has as its object the provision of services other than those referred to in point (6) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, constitutes a public service contract within the meaning of point (9) of Article 2(1) thereof.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 23 November 2021

in Case E-16/20

Q and Others v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals Board (Utlendingsnemnda – UNE)

(Continued right of residence – Stepchild, an EEA national – Derived rights for third-country national parent carer – Abuse of rights –Marriage of convenience –Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 – Directive 2004/38/EC)

(2022/C 69/11)

In Case E-16/20, Q and Others v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals Board (Utlendingsnemnda – UNE) – 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) concerning the interpretation 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 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, and in particular Articles 7(1)(b), 12(3) and 35, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 23 November 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The child of an EEA national who previously worked in another EEA State and the child’s third-country national parent caring for that child, derive a right of residence on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union. This applies regardless of whether the child is common to the EEA national and the spouse, or the child is of the spouse only.

2. A child who is the descendant of the EEA national’s third-country national spouse only, who was granted a right of residence on the basis of Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 using the EEA national as a reference person, retains such right of residence even if the EEA national has applied for divorce from the parent of that child.