ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/16

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 12 May 2014

in Case E-8/12

Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of decisions of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility)

(2015/C 49/09)

In Case E-8/12, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION for annulment of three EFTA Surveillance Authority Decisions, as notified on 18 May 2012, 23 May 2012, and 2 July 2012, denying access to specific documents in ESA Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak – an antitrust infringement case) and in ESA Case No 68736 (DB Schenker – a public access request case concerning the antitrust infringement case above), and also denying access to the procedures for handling public access requests and administering case files, under the Rules on Access to Documents (‘RAD 2008’) established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL of 27 June 2008 (unpublished), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, made an order on 12 May 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Finds that there is no need to adjudicate on the action directed towards ESA’s letter of 9 May 2012 as notified on 18 May 2012 (Event No 633455) to the extent that it concerns access to a statement of content in ESA Case No 34250.

2. Dismisses as inadmissible the action directed towards ESA’s letter of 9 May 2012 as notified on 18 May 2012 (Event No 633455) to the extent that it concerns access to ‘a letter dated or received on 13 July 2010 from Norway Post’ and ‘minutes from meetings between ESA, including its president, and Norway Post and/or the Norwegian Government’.

3. Dismisses as inadmissible the action directed towards ESA’s letter of 22 May 2012 as notified on 23 May 2012.

4. Finds that there is no need to adjudicate on the action directed towards ESA’s letter dated 2 July 2012 as notified on 2 July 2012 (Event No 639495) to the extent that it concerns ESA’s procedures for administering case files or ESA’s procedures for handling public access requests.

5. Dismisses as inadmissible the action directed towards ESA’s letter dated 2 July 2012 as notified on 2 July 2012 (Event No 639495) to the extent that it concerns access to ESA College decisions containing the current empowerment of its directors.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 3 June 2013

in Case E-14/12

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfill its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Articles 31 and 36 EEA — Obligation on temporary work agencies to deposit a guarantee — Indirect and direct discrimination — Residence requirement — Justification)

2013/C 277/09

In Case E-14/12, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by maintaining in force legislation which imposes on persons resident in Liechtenstein who are responsible for a temporary work agency the obligation to supply a guarantee of 50 000 Swiss francs, whereas the guarantee of 100 000 Swiss francs is imposed upon persons performing a similar function who are resident outside of Liechtenstein, and on agencies seeking to deliver temporary employment services cross-border, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 3 June 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force legislation which imposes on persons resident in Liechtenstein who are responsible for a temporary work agency the obligation to supply a guarantee of 50 000 Swiss francs, whereas the guarantee of 100 000 Swiss francs is imposed upon persons performing a similar function who are resident outside of Liechtenstein, and on agencies seeking to deliver temporary employment services cross-border, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/13

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 23 October 2013

in Case E-2/13

Bentzen Transport AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Refusal to commence proceedings for alleged failure of an EEA State to fulfil its obligations in the field of procurement — Actionable measures — Admissibility)

2014/C 81/13

In Case E-2/13, Bentzen Transport 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 annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 507/12/COL of 19 December 2012 in Case No 71620 concerning the closure of a case against Norway commenced following receipt of a complaint against the State in the field of public procurement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order on 23 October 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/34

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 29 August 2014

in Case E-8/13

Abelia v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Proper representation before the Court — State aid — Alleged aid granted to lessors of premises to public schools — Decision not to open the formal investigation procedure — Legal interest — Status as interested party — Competitive link)

(2015/C 92/08)

In Case E-8/13, Abelia, supported by Akademiet Bergen AS, Akademiet Drammen AS, Akademiet Sandnes AS, Akademiet Oslo AS, Akademiet VGS Molde AS and Akademiet VGS Ålesund AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — Application for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 160/13/COL of 24 April 2013 on alleged aid granted to lessors of premises to public schools, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 29 August 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. dismisses the application as inadmissible.
1.

declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 16b, first indent, of Annex IX and point 4, first indent, of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 amending Directive 98/26/EC on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems and Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements as regards linked systems and credit claims), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement Article 2 of the Act within the time prescribed;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/6

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 31 March 2015

in Case E-20/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents)

(2015/C 350/09)

In Case E-20/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 EEA by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make, as such and within the time prescribed, part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 56x of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 17/2011 of 1 April 2011, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 31 March 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 56x of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol l thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 17/2011 of 1 April 2011.
1.

Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2008/43/EC of 4 April 2008 setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, 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 467/23

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 27 October 2015

in Case E-10/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2009/126/EC on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during refuelling of motor vehicles at service stations)

(2016/C 467/10)

In Case E-10/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 21au of Chapter III of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during refuelling of motor vehicles at service stations), 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 27 October 2015, 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 21au of Chapter III of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on Stage II petrol vapour recovery during refuelling of motor vehicles at service stations), 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 120/24

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 2 August 2016

in Case E-35/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues)

(2017/C 120/12)

In Case E-35/15, 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 at point 56i of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues) by failing to (i) develop and implement an appropriate waste reception and handling plan for each port as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC; (ii) evaluate and approve the waste reception and handling plans, monitor their implementation and ensure their re-approval at least every three years as required by Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/59/EC; and (iii) ensure the availability of port reception facilities in all ports in Norway adequate to meet the needs of the ships normally using the ports without causing undue delay to ships as required by Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 August 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation arising under the Act referred to at point 56i of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues) within the time-limit prescribed by: a. failing to develop and implement an appropriate waste reception and handling plan for each port in Norway as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC; b. failing to evaluate and approve the waste reception and handling plans for all ports in Norway, monitor their implementation and ensure their re-approval at least every three years as required by Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/59/EC; and c. failing to ensure the availability of port reception facilities in all ports in Norway adequate to meet the needs of the ships normally using the port without causing undue delay to ships as required by Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33/6

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 31 March 2016

in Case E-4/15

Icelandic Financial Services Association v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Admissibility — Locus standi — Status of an association)

(2017/C 33/05)

In Case E-4/15: Icelandic Financial Services Association v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 298/14/COL of 16 July 2014, notified in OJ C 400, 13.11.2014, p. 13 and EEA Supplement No 66, 13.11.2014, p. 1 (‘the contested decision’), to close the case concerning existing aid to the Icelandic Housing Financing Fund (Íbúðalánasjóður), the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order of 31 March 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. Icelandic Financial Services Association is to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 119/10

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 27 November 2017

in Case E-19/16

Thorbjørn Selstad Thue supported by the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v The Norwegian Government

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

(2018/C 119/11)

In Case E-19/16, Thorbjørn Selstad Thue supported by the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v The Norwegian Government — REQUEST to the Court pursuant to 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 Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen, and Ása Ólafsdóttir (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 27 November 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The necessary time spent travelling, outside normal working hours, by a worker, such as the appellant, to and/or from a location other than his fixed or habitual place of attendance in order to carry out his activity or duties in that other location, as required by his employer, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC.

2. No intensity assessment is required of the amount of work performed while travelling.
1.

Declares that, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at point 17h of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the Community), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, by not introducing, within the time prescribed, the technical roadside inspections required by Article 3(1) of the Act.
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 Norwegian Central Bank’s policy rate in force on the first calendar day of the month in which payment is due, increased by three and a half percentage points.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 June 2018

in Case E-12/17

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 448/2013)

(2018/C 414/09)

In Case E-12/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration 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 31bbc of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its legal order, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

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 31bbc of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 448/2013 of 15 May 2013 establishing a procedure for determining the Member State of reference of a non-EU AIFM pursuant to 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.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 13 December 2019

in Case E-1/18

EFTA Surveillance Authority

v

The Kingdom of Norway

(Directive 2006/54/EC – employment and working conditions – parental benefits)

(2020/C 90/03)

In Case E-1/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway – APPLICATION seeking a declaration that, by maintaining in force provisions such as Section 14-13 first, second and third paragraphs and Section 14-14 first paragraph of the National Insurance Act, which render the father’s entitlement to parental benefits dependent on the mother’s situation whereas the mother’s entitlement is not dependent on the father’s situation, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1)(c) of the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)), the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), and Siri Teigum (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 13 December 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the application.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 17 November 2020

in Case E-9/19

Abelia and WTW AS

v

EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority – State aid – eHealth – Admissibility – Status as interested party – Doubts or serious difficulties – Notion of an undertaking)

(2021/C 75/05)

In Case E-9/19, Abelia and WTW AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority – APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 57/19/COL of 10 July 2019 to close the case without opening the formal investigation procedure as to whether the public financing of eHealth and digital health infrastructure in the Norwegian healthcare system, as well as the provision of certain support services and registers, constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 17 November 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Dismisses the application as unfounded.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 November 2021

in Case E-17/20

Zvonimir Cogelja v the Directorate of Health (Embætti landlæknis),

(Free movement of persons and services – Directive 2005/36/EC – Evidence of formal qualifications – Issuance of evidence – Competent authority)

(2022/C 69/12)

In Case E-17/20, Zvonimir Cogelja v the Directorate of Health (Embætti landlæknis) – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, and in particular Article 25, in conjunction with Articles 3(1)(c), 21 and 26 of that directive, as adapted to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 10 November 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

In order for the competent authority of an EEA State to issue evidence of formal qualifications for specialist medical training in compliance with Article 25 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, it must be able to assess and confirm that the requirements for issuing the evidence of formal qualifications are fulfilled. This is possible if the EEA State offers specialist medical training that fulfils the minimum requirements under Directive 2005/36/EC within its own territory. Otherwise, that competent authority must have in place a system that secures the verification of compliance with the requirements laid down in Article 25 of Directive 2005/36/EC, for example by having in place a curriculum or its equivalent describing a comprehensive programme of education and training. If not, that competent authority may not issue such evidence of formal qualifications under Directive 2005/36/EC.