ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 323/15

Action brought on 12 November 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-6/08)

(2008/C 323/10)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 12 November 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.

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

1. by failing to adopt or to notify the Authority within the time prescribed, of the measures necessary to implement Articles 6-10 of the Act referred to at point 17 of Annex IV to the Agreement on the European Economic Area as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1) of that Act and Article 7 EEA, and

2. the Kingdom of Norway be ordered to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 41/31

Action brought on 3 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-1/09)

(2009/C 41/09)

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 3 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Florence Simonetti, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels.

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

1. by requiring the members of the management board and of the executive management of banks established in Liechtenstein to be, by reason of their residence, in a position to actually and flawlessly perform their functions and duties, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEA Agreement, in particular Articles 28 and 31 thereof;

2. by requiring a residence, wherefrom he is able to fulfil his tasks effectively and on a regular basis, for lawyers, patent lawyers, auditors and trustees the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEA Agreement, in particular Article 31 thereof;

3. the Principality of Liechtenstein bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— the case concerns residence requirements under Liechtenstein law for members of the management board and of the executive management of banks established in Liechtenstein, and for lawyers, patent lawyers, auditors and trustees,

— Article 28 EEA secures freedom of movement for EEA nationals and abolishes discrimination based on nationality within EEA as regards inter alia employment,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/22

Action brought on 2 September 2010 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-14/10)

2010/C 320/11

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 September 2010 by Konkurrenten.no AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, NORWAY.

The applicant requests the EFTA Court:

1. to annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 254/10/COL of 21 June 2010 (AS Oslo Sporveier and AS Sporveisbussene);

2. to order the Defendant to pay the costs.

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

— The Applicant, Konkurrenten.no AS, is a privately owned operator in the Norwegian express bus market.

— On 11 August 2006, the Applicant lodged a complaint with the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that the City of Oslo has granted aid to AS Oslo Sporveier (now: Ruter AS) and its subsidiary, AS Sporveisbussene (now: Unibuss AS), in violation of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement.

— With the contested decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the case. It considered that State aid contrary to Articles 61(1) and 49 of the EEA Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 had been granted. It further considered that the aid was existing aid pursuant to Article 1(b)(i) and (v) of Part II of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, and that it was terminated in 2008. It concluded that no further action was required.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/20

Action brought on 17 November 2016 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-14/11 COSTS)

(2017/C 73/10)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 November 2016 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively ‘DB Schenker’), represented by Jon Midthjell of Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, NO-0151 Oslo, Norway.

The applicant asks that the Court make the following order:

1. The total amount of the remaining costs to be paid by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB, and Schenker Privpak AS, is fixed at EUR 183 951.

2. That amount shall bear interest for late payment from the date on which the present order is served on the parties until the date of actual payment. The rate of interest to be applied shall be calculated on the basis of the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which the deadline falls, increased by three and a half percentage points.

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

— The applicants, collectively referred to as ‘DB Schenker’, run business operations by land, sea and rail in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. DB Schenker was the applicant in Case E-14/11 against the EFTA Surveillance Authority before the EFTA Court.

— Article 70(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court states. ‘If there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court shall, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, make an order.’
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/8

Action brought on 29 August 2011 by the Kingdom of Norway against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-11/11)

2011/C 325/04

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 29 August 2011 by the Kingdom of Norway, represented by Ketil BØE MOEN, advocate, Office of the Attorney General, and Beate GABRIELSEN, adviser, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as agents for the Kingdom of Norway.

The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

1. annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011; and

2. order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011 declared that the three measures provided for in the Supplementary Agreement, signed by Norwegian authorities and Hurtigruten in 2009, constituted State aid which is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA in so far as they constitute a form of overcompensation for public service.

— The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested Decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/21

Action brought on 7 December 2016 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-7/12 COSTS)

(2017/C 73/11)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 7 December 2016 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively ‘DB Schenker’), represented by Jon Midthjell of Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, NO-0151 Oslo, Norway.

The applicant asks that the Court make the following order:

1. The total amount of the remaining costs to be paid by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB, and Schenker Privpak AS, is fixed at EUR 125 657.

2. That amount shall bear interest for late payment from the date on which the present order is served on the parties until the date of actual payment. The rate of interest to be applied shall be calculated on the basis of the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which the deadline falls, increased by three and a half percentage points.

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

— The applicants, collectively referred to as ‘DB Schenker’, run business operations by land, sea and rail in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. DB Schenker was the applicant in Case E-7/12 against the EFTA Surveillance Authority before the EFTA Court.

— Article 70(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court states. ‘If there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court shall, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, make an order.’
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 360/6

Action brought on 19 June 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-6/12)

2012/C 360/05

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 19 June 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Fiona M. Cloarec, 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 the administrative practice of not assessing whether a child, living together with another parent outside Norway, is mainly dependent on the parent who is living in Norway and separated from the other parent, the Kingdom of Norway is in breach of Article 1(f)(i), second sentence, in conjunction with Article 76 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto;

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

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

— Chapter 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 regulates the coordination of the grant of family benefits in cross-border cases.

— Article 1(f)(i) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 defines the term ‘member of the family’ as ‘any person defined or recognised as a member of the family or designated as a member of the household by the legislation under which benefits are provided (…); where, however, the said legislations regard as a member of the family or a member of the household only a person living under the same roof as the employed or self-employed person or student, this condition shall be considered satisfied if the person in question is mainly dependant on that person. (…)’.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that under Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, family benefits are benefits intended to enable one of the parents to devote himself or herself to the raising of a young child and designed to remunerate the service of bringing up a child, to meet other costs of caring for and raising a child and, as the case may be, to mitigate the financial disadvantages entailed in giving up income from an occupational activity.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority claims that the purpose of Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 is to guarantee the family members of workers, residing in another EEA State, the grant of family benefits provided for by the applicable legislation of the State to which the worker is affiliated.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/12

Action brought on 8 April 2013 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-5/13)

2013/C 174/08

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 8 April 2013 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 ESA’s decision of 25 January 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refuses full or partial access under Article 3(a) RAD 2012 and Articles 4(4) and 4(6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) and refuses to grant access to the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL;

2. annul ESA’s decision of 18 February 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refuses full or partial access under Articles 4(4) and 4(6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system);

3. order ESA (and any intervener) 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 the DB Schenker group, an international freight forwarding and logistic group. Schenker North AB runs the group’s business operations in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, including the subsidiaries Schenker Privpak AS and Schenker Privpak AB.

— The applicants submitted a confirmatory application with ESA, on 14 January 2013, for access to documents in the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) of 14 July 2010. On 25 January 2013 and 18 February 2013, ESA decided on the access request under its new rules on public access to documents (RAD 2012), enacted by way of ESA Decision No 300/12/COL on 5 September 2012. The applicants seek to annul those decisions under Article 36 SCA in so far as they deny full or partial access to the documents it requested.

The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

— infringed the public right of access to documents in Article 2(1) RAD 2012 and the duty to state reasons, cf. Article 16 SCA with regards to documents denied under Article 3(a) RAD 2012,

— infringed the public right of access to documents in Article 2(1) RAD 2012 with regard to documents refused access to, in full or in part, under Article 4(6) RAD 2012, and
1.

Is it compatible with Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area and/or Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC that a State (A), which is party to the Agreement, does not give spouses the option of pooling their personal tax credits in connection with the assessment of income tax in circumstances in which both spouses move from State (A) and live in another State (B) in the European Economic Area and one of them receives a pension from State (A) while the other has no income, yet the tax position of the couple would be different if both lived in State (A), including the fact that they would be entitled to pool their personal tax credits?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/8

Action brought on 9 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-15/13)

2013/C 294/08

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Catherine Howdle 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 (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 7d of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under 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 present application by the EFTA Surveillance Authority addresses the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than 5 November 2012, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 5 September 2012 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order, Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (the Act), as referred to at point 7d of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 455/14

Action brought on 17 October 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-20/14)

(2014/C 455/09)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 October 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Clémence Perrin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that 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 Agreement on the European Economic Area (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 Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under 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 on 19 April 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 February 2014 regarding that State’s failure to make, as such, part of its national legal order 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 referred to at point 56x of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/4

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht dated 18 March 2014 in the proceedings concerning Otto Kaufmann AG

(Case E-9/14)

(2014/C 274/04)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 18 March 2014 from Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court of Justice, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 March 2014, for an Advisory Opinion in the proceedings concerning Otto Kaufmann AG, on the following question:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/11

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Obergericht, Liechtenstein, dated 19 May 2015, in the Case of Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung

(Case E-13/15)

(2015/C 366/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 19 May 2015 from Fürstliches Obergericht, Liechtenstein (Princely Court of Appeal, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 29 May 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Abuelo Insua Juan Bautista v Liechtensteinische Invalidenversicherung, on the following questions:

1. Is a recipient of benefits (claimant) prohibited, because the debtor institution is bound by the findings of the institution of the place of stay or residence under the second sentence of Article 87(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, from challenging those findings in the procedure before the debtor institution?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/35

Action brought on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-1/15)

(2015/C 92/09)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Øyvind Bø, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that by failing to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith, of the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1a, seventh indent, of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/26/EU of 31 March 2010 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, 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 on 18 February 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 18 December 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Directive 2010/26/EU of 31 March 2010 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, as referred to at point 1a, seventh indent, of Chapter XXIV 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’).