ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 60/26

Action brought on 11 January 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-1/05)

(2005/C 60/10)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 11 January 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Per Andreas Bjørgan, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that by maintaining in force the requirement on up-front payment of completion costs found in Section 3(2) of the Norwegian Regulation of 21 November 1989 No 1167 on the Allocation of Costs, Losses, Income, Funds etc. between Insurance Undertakings in a Concern and between Branches and Contracts of Insurance Undertakings, and Section 10 of the Norwegian Regulation of 22 September 1995 No 827 on Insurance Services and the Establishment of a Branch of an Insurance Undertaking with Headquarters in another EEA State, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation pursuant to Article 33 of the Act referred to at point 11 of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and

2. Order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

— Article 33 of the Act states that the EEA State of the commitment ‘shall not prevent a policy holder from concluding a contract with an assurance undertaking authorised under the conditions of Article 4 as long as that does not conflict with legal provisions protecting the general good in the Member State of the commitment’.

— The preamble of the Act states that ‘within the framework of an internal market it is in the policy-holders' interest that they should have access to the widest possible range of assurance products available in the Community so that they can choose that which is best suited to their needs… [I]n an internal market for assurance the consumer will have a wider and more varied choice of contracts’.

— The Norwegian requirement in Section 10 of Regulation of 22 September 1995 No 827 requires foreign assurance undertakings to calculate and require payment of completion costs in accordance with Section 3(2) of Regulation of 21 November 1989 No 1167 in order to market their products in Norway.

— The requirement prevents a policy-holder in Norway from entering into a contract with an assurance undertaking that distributes completion costs over a period of time, thereby limiting consumer choice.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33/10

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 14 September 2007 in the case of Celina Nguyen v The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Justice and the Police

(Case E-8/07)

(2008/C 33/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 14 September 2007 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 17 September 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Celina Nguyen v The Norwegian State, represented by the Ministry of Justice and the Police, on the following questions:

1. Is it compatible with the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives to except redress for non-economic loss (‘pain and suffering’) from the compulsory insurance system under national law?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/18

Action brought on 21 February 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Republic of Iceland

(Case E-2/08)

(2008/C 113/15)

An action against the Republic of Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 February 2008 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Florence Simonetti, acting as agents.

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

1. by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC 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 EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that Act and Article 7 EEA; and

2. the Republic of Iceland be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The present case concerns the non-implementation of an environmental protection directive.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not provided any indication that it has implemented the directive into Icelandic law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 41/32

Action brought on 6 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-2/09)

(2009/C 41/10)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 6 February 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær 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 the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 66s of Chapter VI of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Regulation (EC) No 593/2007 of 31 May 2007 on the fees and charges levied by the European Aviation Safety Agency), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 EEA; and

2. the Republic of Iceland be ordered to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— the present case concerns an EC regulation on the fees and charges levied by the European Aviation Safety Agency,

— Article 7 of the EEA Agreement states that: ‘Acts referred to or contained in the Annexes to the Agreement or in decisions of the EEA Joint Committee shall be binding upon the Contracting Parties and be, or be made, part of their internal legal order as follows: (a) an act corresponding to an EEC regulation shall as such be made part of the internal legal order of the Contracting Parties; (b) an act corresponding to an EEC directive shall leave to the authorities of the Contracting Parties the choice of form and method of implementation.’,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/10

Action brought on 18 August 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-12/10)

2010/C 298/08

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 18 August 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.

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

1. by maintaining in force Articles 5 and 7 of Act No 45/2007 on the rights and obligations of foreign undertakings that post workers temporarily in Iceland and on their workers’ terms and conditions of employment, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 36 of the EEA Agreement and Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 30 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto;

2. the Republic of Iceland bears the costs of these proceedings.

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

— the application concerns which requirements the EEA States are permitted to impose regarding the employment conditions of workers posted to their territory,

— it is stated in the Application that Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, read in conjunction with Article 36 EEA, only allows the imposition of the minimum requirements listed in Article 3(1)(a)-(g) of the Directive,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/9

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 16 December 2011 in the case of Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State

(Case E-19/11)

2012/C 136/06

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 16 December 2011 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 26 December 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State, on the following questions:

1. Does it contravene Article 11 or the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area if a Contracting Party provides in legislation, or through administrative acts, that a body exercising a State monopoly on the retail of alcohol may refuse to accept for sale in its retail outlets alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine?

2. If the EFTA Court considers that an arrangement such as that described in the first question constitutes a quantitative restriction on imports, or a measure having equivalent effects, in the sense of Article 11 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, then an answer is requested to the question of whether such an arrangement may nevertheless be regarded as justified with reference to Article 13 of the Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/8

Action brought on 21 July 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway

(Case E-9/11)

2011/C 294/08

An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 July 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Florence Simonetti Gjermund Mathisen, 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 such restrictions on the rights of persons and undertakings established in EEA States to own holdings and exercise voting rights in regulated markets in Norway as provided for in Sections 35(1), (2) and (3) and 36 of the Act of 29 June 2007 No 74 on Regulated Markets (the Stock Exchange Act) and Sections 5-3(1), (2) and (3) and 5-4 of the Act of 5 July 2002 on Registration of Financial Instruments (the Securities Depositories Act), the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 31 and 40 EEA.

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

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

— Norwegian legislation restricts ownership of and voting rights in financial services infrastructure institutions. As a main rule, the Stock Exchange Act prohibits the holding of more than 20 % of the shares in stock exchanges, as well as the voting for more than 20 % of the total voting capital or 30 % of the votes represented at the general meeting. Corresponding rules with respect to securities depositories are laid down in the Securities Depositories Act.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that the contested legislation is incompatible both with the freedom of establishment under Article 31 EEA and with the freedom movement of capital under Article 40 EEA.
4.

Is it sufficient grounds for considering public policy and public security to be threatened in the sense of paragraph 1 of Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC that a EEA Member State, party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, has in its legislation defined as punishable, conduct that consists of conniving with another person on the commission of an act, the commission of which is part of the activities of a criminal organisation, or is such legislation considered as general prevention in the sense of paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Directive? This question is based on the fact that ‘organised crime’ in the sense of domestic law refers to an association of three or more persons, the principle objective of which is, for motives of gain, directly or indirectly, deliberately to commit a criminal act, or when a substantial part of the activities involves the commission of such an act.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 324/13

Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-5/12)

2012/C 324/11

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 June 2012 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 to:

1. Annul the contested decision; and

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

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

— The Applicant is a privately owned company, incorporated in Norway. The company is active in the regional express bus market between the Southern and Central region in Norway.

— The Applicant seeks the annulment of ESA’s decision, as notified on 5 April 2012, which denies public access to the complete statement of content in ESA Case No 60510.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/10

Action brought on 13 March 2013 by Bentzen Transport AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-2/13)

2013/C 174/06

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 March 2013 by Bentzen Transport AS, represented by Line Voldstad, Lawyer, Advokatfirma DLA Piper Norway DA, Postboks 1364 Vika, 0114 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision of 19 December 2012, Case No 71620, concerning closing a case against Norway commenced following receipt of a complaint against the State in the field of public procurement;

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 Applicant is a local Norwegian company operating in the waste-management business since 1992.

— The basis for the application is the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision in Case No 71620, not to initiate procedure against Norway when requested by the applicant to assess whether the Norwegian Government’s management of a tender process was in compliance with the directives under the EEA Agreement.

The Applicant claims, inter alia, that:

— the EFTA Surveillance Authority has not assessed whether the awarding of the public contract was in compliance with Directive 2004/18/EC and thus infringed its duty to uphold Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC and the fundamental rules of the EEA Agreement applicable to public procurement and asserts that the principle of equal treatment has been violated;

— the EFTA Surveillance Authority infringed its special duty under Article 23 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement to ensure that the regulations in the EEA Agreement relating to public procurement are upheld by the EFTA States; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/20

Action brought on 4 October 2013 by the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-21/13)

(2013/C 372/09)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) was brought before the EFTA Court on 4 October 2013 by Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA), represented by Ami Barav, Barrister of the Bar of England and Wales and Avocat of the Paris Bar, Peter Dyrberg, Advokat of the Danish Bar and Damien Reymond, Avocat of the Paris Bar, c/o Olswang, 326 Avenue Louise, bte 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.

The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

(i) annul the contested decision in as far as it approves the inclusion of the ‘non-prime’ matches of the FIFA World CupTM on the Norwegian events’ list;

(ii) order ESA to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by FIFA in connection with these proceedings.

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

— The applicant, the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA), seeks the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) decision No 309/13/COL of 16 July 2013 under Article 14(2) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) (the contested decision), in so far as it approves the inclusion on the Norwegian events’ list, drawn up pursuant to Article 14(1), of all the matches played within the framework of the final stage of the FIFA World CupTM, especially the matches other than the final, the semi-finals and the matches played by the Norwegian team (the ‘non-prime’ matches).

— On 12 July and 5 August 2013, FIFA requested a communication of the contested decision from ESA. In response, ESA provided them with a link to the on-line database in which the decision was published.

— FIFA is the organiser and the sole original rights’ holder of the FIFA World CupTM, which figures on the Norwegian list as approved by ESA. It considers that, in approving the inclusion on that list of the entire FIFA World CupTM, in particular the ‘non-prime’ matches played within the framework of that competition, ESA has committed a manifest error and disregarded EEA law and the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (SCA).

The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

— infringed Article 16 SCA; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/12

Action brought on 24 June 2013 by Abelia against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-8/13)

2013/C 287/08

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 24 June 2013 by Abelia, represented by attorney-at-law Ingebjørg Harto and attorney-at-law Nina Lea Gjerde, Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO), PO Box 5250 Majorstuen, 0303 Oslo, Norway.

The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

1. declare void Article 1 of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 160/13/COL of 24 April 2013;

2. order the Authority to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

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

— The applicant is a trade and employers association within the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (Næringslivets Hoved-organisasjon) representing 1 250 member companies within IT, telecommunications, research and development, consultancy and education services.

— The basis for the application is the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 160/13/COL of 24 April 2013 to close the case without opening the formal investigation procedure as to whether the Norwegian provisions on VAT and VAT compensation are to be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 455/15

Action brought on 22 October 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-21/14)

(2014/C 455/10)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 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, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products), 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 EEA 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 Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 4 of Chapter IV of Annex II 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 Eidsivating lagmannsrett dated 31 March 2014 in the case of Enes Deveci and Others v Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden

(Case E-10/14)

(2014/C 274/05)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 31 March 2014 from Eidsivating lagmannsrett (Eidsivating Court of Appeal, Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 8 April 2014, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Enes Deveci and Others v Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden, on the following questions:

1. Is it consistent with Article 3(1), cf. Article 3(3), of Council Directive 2001/23/EC that the transferee undertaking assigns the individual employees covered by the transfer a place in a pay table set out in a collective agreement that applies in the transferee undertaking, with effect from a date after the collective agreement that applied in the transferor undertaking has expired, even if this results in a pay reduction for the individual employees?

2. Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether the collective agreement that applied to the employees of the transferor was still in force when the transferee’s collective agreement was made applicable to the employees covered by the transfer of the undertaking?