ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/16

Action brought on 19 October 2011 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-14/11)

2011/C 374/11

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 19 October 2011 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively ‘DB Schenker’), represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.

The applicants request the EFTA Court to:

1. Annul the contested decision in so far as it denies access to inspection documents in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak).

2. Order the defendant and any interveners to bear the costs.

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

— The applicants, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS are part of DB Schenker, an international freight forwarding and logistic group, owned by Deutsche Bahn AG. Schenker North AB runs the group’s business operations by land, sea and rail in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, including the subsidiaries Schenker Privpak AS and Schenker Privpak AB (collectively referred to as ‘DB Schenker’).

— On 14 July 2010, the EFTA Surveillance Authority adopted a decision in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak), finding that Norway Post had abused its dominant position in the Norwegian business-to-consumer parcel delivery market in 2000-2006. The applicants are pursuing a damages claim against Norway Post for losses caused by the infringement. On 3 August 2010, the applicants submitted a request for access to documents under the Rules of Access to Documents (RAD) established by a Decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 27 June 2008.

— By a letter dated 16 August 2011, the EFTA Surveillance Authority refused the applicants’ request for access to documents collected during an inspection at the premises of Norway Post between 21 and 24 June 2004. The applicants seek to challenge that refusal under Article 36 SCA.

The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated DB Schenker’s right of access to documents pursuant to Article 2(1) RAD:

— by wrongfully applying the exception in Article 4(1)(b) RAD concerning privacy and personal integrity,

— by wrongfully applying the exceptions in Article 4(2) RAD concerning commercial interests, inspections and investigations and overriding public interest in disclosure, and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 176/10

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 14 February 2011 in the case of Arnulf Clauder

(Case E-4/11)

2011/C 176/08

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 14 February 2011 from Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 16 February 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Arnulf Clauder, on the following questions:

1. Is Directive 2004/38/EC, in particular Article 16(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1), to be interpreted such that a Union citizen with a right of permanent residence, who is a pensioner and in receipt of social welfare benefits in the host Member State, may claim the right to family reunification even if the family member will also be claiming social welfare benefits?

2. Is it of relevance for the answer to Question 1, whether the Union citizen with a right of permanent residence was employed or self-employed in the host Member State prior to attaining retirement age?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/14

Action brought on 4 September 2012 by the Government of Iceland against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-9/12)

2012/C 369/12

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 4 September 2012 by the Government of Iceland, represented by Jóhanna Bryndís Bjarnadóttir, Counsellor at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, acting as agent, Haraldur Steinþórsson, Legal Officer at the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, acting as co-agent, and Dóra Sif Tynes, Attorney at Law, acting as Counsel.

The Applicant seeks a declaration by the EFTA Court that:

1. Article 5 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures; the sale of real estate; and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf. is annulled;

2. Article 6 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures; the sale of real estate; and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf. is void as concerns the reference to Article 5; and

3. The EFTA Surveillance Authority is ordered to pay the full legal costs of the proceedings.

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

— The Applicant, the Government of Iceland, seeks a partial annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision No 261/12/COL, adopted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) on 4 July 2012 the contested decision. The contested decision was adopted following ESA's Decision No 418/10/COL of 3 November 2010 to open a formal investigation procedure.

— The case concerns the application of Article 61(1) EEA and the EFTA Surveillance Authority's State Aid Guidelines on State aid elements in the sales of land and buildings by public authorities, on the sale of real estate in the former US military area in the Reykjanes peninsula by the Icelandic State.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 270/9

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 16 April 2013 in the case of Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State

(Case E-7/13)

2013/C 270/07

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 16 April 2013 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court’s Registry on 29 April 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. v Registers Iceland and the Icelandic State, on the following questions:

1. Is it compatible with EEA Law, and specifically with Article 6 of Council Directive 2003/98/EC, on the re-use of public sector information (cf. the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee, No 105/2005, amending Annex XI (Telecommunication services) to the EEA Agreement), to charge a fee on account of each mechanical enquiry for information from the register if no calculation of the ‘total income’ and the ‘cost’, in the sense of Article 6 of the Directive, is available at the time of the determination of the fee?

2. Is it compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ subject to Article 6 of the Directive is determined, no account is taken of: (a) income accruing to the State when documents are collected, in the form of fees paid by individuals and undertakings for the recording of contracts in the registers of legal deeds; and (b) income accruing to the State when documents are collected, in the form of taxes which are levied as stamp duties on recorded legal deeds at the time when individuals and undertakings apply to have them recorded in the registers of legal deeds?

3. Is it compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive is determined, account is taken of costs incurred by a public sector body in connection with the collection of documents which it is legally obliged to collect, irrespective of whether or not individuals or undertakings request to re-use them?

4. Is it compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ pursuant to the article is determined, the legislature sets the amount of the fee in legislation without any particular amount being made subject to substantive examination?

5. Would it be compatible with Article 6 of the Directive if, when the ‘cost’ pursuant to the Directive is determined, appropriate account were taken of a general requirement in national legislation that public sector bodies be self-financing?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/11

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Fürstentum Liechtenstein dated 21 October 2013 in the case of the Hellenic Capital Market Commission

(Case E-23/13)

2014/C 81/10

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 21 October 2013 from Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Fürstentum Liechtenstein (the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 25 October 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of the Hellenic Capital Market Commission, on the following question:

Must an authority making a request to the competent authority of another Member State in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2003/6/EC set out in its request the facts that give rise to the suspicion that the prohibition on insider dealing and market manipulation has been infringed?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/9

Action brought on 3 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-14/13)

2013/C 294/09

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 3 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Gjermund Mathisen and Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

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

1. by maintaining in force a difference in treatment between domestic mergers and cross-border mergers as a result of the application of Article 51, paragraph 1 of Act No 90/2003 on Income Tax (lög nr. 90/2003 um tekjuskatt), Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 31 and 40 of the Agreement of the European Economic Area;

2. Iceland shall bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The present application by the EFTA Surveillance Authority addresses the failure by Iceland to fulfil its obligations as regards the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital under Articles 31 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA Agreement’), by imposing an immediate tax on assets and shares of companies that merge cross-border with companies established in the other EEA States and on shareholders of such companies, whereas similar transactions within the Icelandic territory do not attract any immediate tax consequences.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/4

Action brought on 1 December 2014 by Kimek Offshore AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-23/14)

(2015/C 39/04)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 1 December 2014 by Kimek Offshore AS, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær, advokat, and Robert Lund, advokat, ALT Law Firm, Fridtjof Nansens plass 6, N-0160 Oslo, Norway.

The applicant requests the EFTA Court:

1. To annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014 on regionally differentiated social security contributions 2014-2020;

2. To order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The applicant, Kimek Offshore, is part of the Kimek Group. Kimek Offshore is a service company in the oil and gas business and hires out mainly welders, pipe welders, mechanics and engineers. Its administration and management is located in Kirkenes, Norway.

— The case concerns an application for annulment of a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority approving regional aid in Norway for the period 2014-2020.

The applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

— breached its obligation to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 and Article 6(1) in Section II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (SCA) (Article 4(4) of Section II of Protocol 3 SCA);
1.

Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed the Act referred to at point 4d of Chapter XI of Annex II to that Agreement, Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products and repealing Council Directive 73/44/EEC and Directives 96/73/EC and 2008/121/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 286/2012 of 27 January 2012 amending, in order to include a new textile fibre name, Annex I, and for the purposes of their adaptation to technical progress, Annexes VIII and IX to Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of the fibre composition of textile products, and as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/5

Action brought on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-20/15)

(2015/C 410/04)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 12 August 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Øyvind Bø and Íris Ísberg, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that by failing to adopt the necessary measures to implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act and Article 7 of the Agreement.

2. Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 28 March 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 28 January 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Directive 2013/10/EU amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, as referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 143/10

Action brought on 16 February 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-6/15)

(2015/C 143/11)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 February 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Xavier Lewis and Clémence Perrin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The applicant requests EFTA Court to declare that:

1. By maintaining in force Sections 20-1, second paragraph and 22-3 of the Planning Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation, which require undertakings carrying out construction works to obtain an authorisation by local municipalities prior to the beginning of their activity, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X of 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), or, alternatively, Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.

2. The Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The case concerns the requirement under Norwegian law (Sections 20-1, second paragraph and 22-3 of the Planning Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation) for undertakings wishing to carry out construction services in Norway to be approved by local municipalities before they start their activity. Such approval must be obtained before every individual construction project.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that the requirement amounts to a restriction which cannot be justified under Article 16(1) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (the ‘Services Directive’) or, alternatively, that such measure amounts to a restriction of freedom to provide services under Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, which cannot be justified under Article 33 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/30

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof, Liechtenstein, dated 9 July 2015, in the Case of Franz-Josef Hagedorn v Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG

(Case E-15/15)

(2016/C 357/10)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 9 July 2015 from Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof, Liechtenstein (The Supreme Court, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Franz-Josef Hagedorn v Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG, on the following questions:

1. Is Article 36(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance to be interpreted as meaning that the duties to provide information referred to therein and in Annex III(A)(a)(11) and (a)(12) and (B)(b)(2) for unit-linked life assurance policies must also be fulfilled in the case where a person who, by a legal transaction, acquires a unit-linked life assurance policy from another person with the consent of the assurer through the transfer of the contract (‘second-hand policies’)?

In the event that the Court answers the first question in the affirmative, the following additional questions are asked:

2.(a) Is Article 36(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC concerning life assurance to be interpreted as meaning that in the event that a unit-linked life assurance policy is acquired by a legal transaction, only general information must be provided to the new policy holder or is the assurance company also required to provide the new policy holder with information specifically regarding the assurance product to be acquired by him, in particular regarding any differences between the investor or risk profiles of the existing policy holder and of the transferee?

In the event that Question 2(a) is answered in the negative, the following question is asked:

2.(b) Is specific information to be given to the transferee of the contract regarding the assurance product to be acquired by him where the existing policy holder is an undertaking, while the transferee of the contract is a natural person or a consumer?

In the event that Question 2(b) is answered in the negative, the following question is asked:

2.(c) Is specific information to be given to the transferee of the contract regarding the assurance product to be acquired by him where the transferor of the policy dispensed with information regarding the assurance product in question, for example because he did not disclose to the assurance company the information necessary in order to assess his own risk or investor profile?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/10

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 5 June 2015 in the case of Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund

(Case E-14/15)

(2016/C 73/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 5 June 2015 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 5 June 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund on the following questions:

A On competition law:

A.1 Does the exemption from the competition rules of the EEA Agreement that applies to collective agreements, as this exemption is described, inter alia, in the advisory opinion of the EFTA Court in Case E-8/00 Landsorganisasjonen i Norge and NKF [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 114, cover the use of a boycott against a port user in order to produce 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 administration office as described in paragraphs 7 and 10 to 14 above, rather than to use its own employees for the same work?

A.2 If not, should such a system be assessed under Article 53 or Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?

A.3 In that case, must the existence of an identical or corresponding system in other ports be taken into account in the assessment of whether there is a noticeable effect on cross-border trade within the EEA?

B On the freedom of establishment:

B.1 Is it a restriction on the freedom of establishment pursuant to Article 31 of the EEA Agreement for a trade union to use a boycott in order to produce acceptance of a collective agreement by a company whose parent company is based in another EEA State, when the collective agreement entails that the company must give preference to buying unloading and loading services from a separate administration office having the characteristics described in paragraphs 10 to 14 above, rather than use its own employees for this work?

B.2 Would it be of significance for the assessment of whether a restriction exists, if the company’s need for unloading and loading services proved to be very limited and/or sporadic?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 120/26

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 31 August 2016 in the case of Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring

(Case E-11/16)

(2017/C 120/14)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 31 August 2016 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 7 September 2016, for an advisory opinion in the case of Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring on the following questions:

Question 1, concerning the interpretation of Article 85(1)(a) of the Coordination Regulation:

When an institution in the injured party’s home country that is responsible for providing benefits, under that country’s legislation ‘is subrogated to’ the injured party’s right against a ‘third party’, other EEA States must recognise the institution’s subrogation to the claim. Does this mean:

— that other EEA States must recognise that the claim has passed from the injured party to the institution and that the existence and scope of the claim depends on the home country’s legislation,

— that other EEA States must recognise that the claim has passed from the injured party to the institution and that the existence and scope of the claim depends on the legislation in the country where the injury occurred, or

— that other EEA States must recognise that the claim has passed from the injured party to the institution, but that the Coordination Regulation has no bearing on the choice of law as regards the existence and scope of the claim?

Question 2, concerning the interpretation of Article 85(1)(b) of the Coordination Regulation:

Where the institution responsible for providing benefits has a direct right against the third party, other EEA States shall recognise such rights. Does this mean:

— that other EEA States must recognise the right in full, including that its existence and scope depends on the home country’s legislation, or