ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/12

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 29 July 2016

in Case E-25/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — State aid — Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 SCA — Failure to recover unlawfully granted aid)

(2017/C 108/10)

In Case E-25/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to take within the prescribed time all the necessary measures to recover from the recipients the State aid declared incompatible with the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 404/14/COL of 8 October 2014on the Investment Incentive Scheme in Iceland; by failing to cancel, within the prescribed time any outstanding payments referred to in Article 7 third sentence of that decision; and by failing to provide the EFTA Surveillance Authority, within the prescribed time, with the information outlined in Article 8 of that decision, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and under Articles 6, 7 and 8 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 404/14/COL, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(3) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and Articles 6, 7 and 8 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 404/14/COL of 8 October 2014 on the Investment Incentive Scheme in Iceland, by failing, within the time limits prescribed, to take all the necessary measures to recover from the recipients the State aid declared incompatible with the functioning of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by Articles 3, 4 and 5 of that decision, to cancel any outstanding payments referred to in Article 7 third sentence of that decision, and to provide the EFTA Surveillance Authority with the information outlined in Article 8 of that decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 18/27

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 February 2016

in Case E-21/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/88/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme)

(2017/C 18/11)

In Case E-21/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme) 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, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme) 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 321/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 June 2017

in Case E-17/16

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2009/127/EC amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application)

(2017/C 321/09)

In Case E-17/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1c of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/127/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application) as adapted 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 Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 7 June 2017, 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 1c of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/127/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application) as adapted 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.
1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbe of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/514 of 18 December 2014 on the information to be provided by competent authorities to the European Securities and Markets Authority pursuant to Article 67(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, part of its internal legal order.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 130/4

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 22 December 2017

in Case E-1/17

Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Absolute bar to proceeding with a case — State aid — Decision to close formal investigation procedure)

(2018/C 130/04)

In Case E-1/17, Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 179/15/COL of 7 May 2015 closing a formal investigation concerning State aid granted to Nettbuss Sør AS, which was published in EEA Supplement no. 59/1 to the Official Journal on 27 October 2016, the Court, composed of, Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order of 22 December 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Konkurrenten.no AS is to bear its own costs, and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the County of Aust-Agder and Nettbuss AS.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 May 2019

in Case E-6/18

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/52/EU)

(2019/C 315/08)

In Case E-6/18, 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 Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as adapted by Protocol 1, 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 point 1a of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), 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.
1.

An insurance claim must be based on an insured event occurring before the cancellation of an insurance contract for it to be considered an insurance claim within the meaning of Article 268(1)(g) of Directive 2009/138/EC. However, the scope of an insurance claim cannot be limited to claims that have arisen, been lodged or admitted before the opening of the winding-up procedure if the claim cannot yet be fully determined. In accordance with Article 274(2)(g) of Directive 2009/138/EC, it is for national law to set the specific rules and conditions concerning the lodging, verification and admission of claims, including temporal limits for the lodging of claims and the final determination of the amount of insurance claims in cases where elements of the debt are not yet known, provided that insurance claims are given absolute precedence over other claims in accordance with Article 275(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC. A claim for owed premium arising from the cancellation of an insurance contract after the opening of the winding-up proceedings does not constitute an insurance claim within the meaning of Article 268(1)(g) of Directive 2009/138/EC.
1.

The final paragraph of Article 26 of Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive must be interpreted as meaning that an investment firm may disclose the essential terms of the arrangements relating to the fee, commission or non-monetary benefit in summary form provided that the investment firm has clearly disclosed to the client prior to the provision of an investment or ancillary service that such inducements are paid to or received from a third party; has undertaken to disclose further details at the client’s request; and honours this undertaking. Disclosure in accordance with Article 26 in summary form may be made in general or pre-formulated terms and conditions provided that each individual client receives the information related to the specific investment service and that the information gives the client a sufficient basis on which to make informed investment decisions.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT

of 16 July 2020

In Case E-6/20

Pintail AG v Finanzmarktaufsicht

(2021/C 5/14)

REQUEST to the Court from Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht (Board of Appeal of the Financial Market Authority) for an Advisory Opinion 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 16 July 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:

Case E-6/20 is removed from the Register.
Reference for an advisory opinion, made pursuant to the order of the tullilautakunta dated 19 April 1994, in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Case E-1/94) (94/C 199/08)

Reference has been made to the EFTA Court by an order of the tullilautakunta (Appeals Committee of the National Board of Customs) of 19 April 1994, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 April 1994, for an advisory opinion in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Helsinki District Custom House) on the following questions:

1. Can it be considered, having regard, on the one hand, to the statutory monopoly of Oy Alko Ab (the alcohol company) to import alcoholic beverages but, on the other hand, also to the measures of authorization which the company has announced it is ready to institute in order to permit commercial import of alcohol on terms laid down by the company itself, that the commercial import of alcohol from other Contracting States is not quantitatively restricted or hindered by a measure having equivalent effect contrary to Article 11 of the EEA Agreement, if the administrative court of appeal confirms the decision of the competent customs authority not to permit the imported consignment of alcohol into free circulation without the permission of Oy Alko Ab, which permission is requird by law?

2. Is the statutory monopoly referred to above contrary to Article 16 of the Agreement?

If so:

Is this Article so unconditional and sufficiently precise as to have direct legal effect and should the import monopoly therefore be considered as having expired from 1 January 1994?
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Héra ssdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík City Court) by decision of that court of 12 November 1997 in the case of Erla María Sveinbjörnsdóttir v. Government of Iceland (Case E-9/97) (98/C 84/05)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 12 November 1997 of Héra ssdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík City Court), Iceland, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 November 1997, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Erla María Sveinbjörnsdóttir v. Government of Iceland, on the following questions:

1. Is the act referred to in point 24 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980, as amended by Council Directive 87/164/EEC of 2 March 1987), in particular Article 1(2) and Article 10 of the Directive, to be interpreted to mean that national legislation may provide that an employee may be precluded from receiving payment of a wage claim against an insolvency estate from the State's Wage Guarantee Fund on grounds of family relation to an owner of 40 % of the shares in the insolvent company? The relevant relation in the case at hand is collateral, i.e. siblings?

2. If the answer to question 1 is to the effect that such an employee may not be precluded from receiving payment of a wage claim, is the State liable vis-à-vis the employee for not having adapted national legislation when it became party to the EEA Agreement, so that the employee has a legal right to the payment of the wage
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Héra ssdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík City Court) by decision of that court of 17 April 1998 in the case of Federation of Icelandic Trade (Samtök verslunarinnar - Félag íslenskra stórkaupmanna, FÍS) v. the Government of Iceland and the Pharmaceutical Pricing Committee (Lyfjaver ssnefnd) (Case E-2/98) (98/C 268/10)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 17 April 1998 of Héra ssdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík City Court), Iceland, which was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 1998, for an advisory opinion in the case of Federation of Icelandic Trade (Samtök verslunarinnar - Félag íslenskra stórkaupmanna, FÍS) v. the Government of Iceland and the Pharmaceutical Pricing Committee (Lyfjaver ssnefnd), on the following questions:

1(a) Does Council Directive 89/105/EEC, in particular Articles 2 and 3, apply to circumstances where a competent authority, empowered to approve the maximum prices of pharmaceuticals, decides, on its own motion, to decrease by 2,65 % the wholesale prices of all prescribed pharmaceuticals which are subject to provisions regarding marketing authorisation following the approval by a competent authority of a certain price, and which are subject to provisions regarding authority to increase prices, following the approval thereof by a competent authority, and which cost more than ISK 3 000, 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?

(b) Is such a unilateral decision by a competent authority in conformity with Directive 89/105/EEC?

(c) Does it affect the answer to the question if it is possible to apply for price increases for particular products despite the general decision to decrease wholesale prices?

2(a) Is Article 2(2) of Directive 89/105/EEC to be interpreted to the effect that a unilateral decision by a competent authority, such as the one referred to in question 1, amounts to a rejection by the authority for marketing of a pharmaceutical product at a particular price?

(b) If so, and if it is possible to apply for a price increase for particular products despite the general decision to decrease wholesale prices, does this affect the requirements for the reasoning by the competent authority, the information regarding legal measures available to the wholesaler and the time limits
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 Johann Brändle

(Case E-4/00)

(2001/C 49/11)

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 Johann Brändle, on the following question:

Is the single practice rule applying without exception to all doctors under Liechtenstein national law, and in particular Article 9(1) of the Regulation of 8 November 1988 on the medical professions which provides: "A doctor may pursue his occupation in a self-employed capacity, as a sole practitioner or jointly with others, only if he holds a licence authorising him to do so and only if he himself works on his own behalf in the practice concerned. A doctor may not operate more than one practice, whether as a sole practitioner or jointly with others" 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 from the EFTA Court by Høyesterett by decision of that court of 17 December 2002 in the case of Paranova AS v Merck & Co Inc., et al

(Case E-3/02)

(2003/C 75/12)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 17 December 2002 of Høyesterett (Supreme Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 24 December 2002, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Paranova AS v Merck & Co Inc., et al., on the following questions:

1. Do "legitimate reasons" exist within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 89/104/EEA, cf. Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement, in a case where the conditions for permitting a parallel importer to undertake repackaging of pharmaceutical products and reaffixing of the trade mark have been met, but where the trade mark proprietor opposes the marketing of the repackaged product with the trade mark reaffixed in a packaging that the parallel importer has equipped with coloured stripes and/or other graphic elements that make up a part of the design of the packaging?

2. In answering the question, it should be indicated whether the criterion of necessity that the Court of Justice of the European Communities has applied in interpreting "legitimate reasons" within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 89/104/EEA applies also to the more specific design of the packaging, or if the more specific design of the packaging is to be assessed solely on the basis of the condition that the repackaging must not adversely affect the reputation of the trade mark proprietor or the trade mark.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 40/14

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Frostating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 23 April 2004 in the case of Fokus Bank ASA v Staten v/Skattedirektoratet

(Case E-1/04)

(2005/C 40/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 23 April 2004 of Frostating lagmannsrett (Frostating Court of Appeal), Trondheim, Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 April 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fokus Bank ASA v Staten v/Skattedirektoratet, on the following questions:

1. Is it consistent with Article 40 of the EEA Agreement that imputation tax credit for withholding tax is not granted to taxpayers resident in other member states? (a) Is it of legal significance whether the taxpayer is resident in a member state which, in a tax agreement with Norway, has undertaken to grant credit for withholding tax? (b) Is it of legal significance whether the taxpayer in the specific case actually is granted, or will be granted, credit for the withholding tax?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 117/27

Action brought on 10 February 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of Iceland

(Case E-2/05)

(2005/C 117/08)

An action against the Republic of Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 February 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Bjørnar Alterskjær, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by failing to abolish and recover within the prescribed period the aid provided for under the tax schemes declared incompatible with the EEA Agreement by decision No 21/04/COL of 25 February 2004, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of said decision; and

2. order the Republic of Iceland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

— In March 1999, Iceland adopted Act No 31/1999 on International Trading Companies without notifying the EFTA Surveillance Authority; cf. Article 1(3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (the ‘SCA’).

— On 25 February 2004, the EFTA Surveillance Authority adopted decision No 21/04/COL, finding that the tax measures of the Act constituted State aid according to Article 61(1) EEA, that the aid was unlawful on procedural grounds as notification had not been given, and that the aid was incompatible with the EEA Agreement.

— Applying Article 14 in Part II of Protocol 3 to the SCA, the EFTA Surveillance Authority concluded that the aid should be recovered from the beneficiaries as from the fiscal year 1999.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 40/15

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Follo tingrett dated 24 October 2007 in the Case of L'Oréal Norge AS v Per Aarskog AS and others

(Case E-9/07)

(2008/C 40/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 24 October 2007 from Follo tingrett (Follo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 31 October 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the Case of L'Oréal Norge AS v Per Aarskog AS and others, 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?