ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/19

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

(Case E-3/08)

(2008/C 113/16)

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 the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 12u of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents), 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 the proceedings.

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

— The present case concerns an EC Regulation on detergents.

— 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 58/11

Action brought on 22 December 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway

(Case E-18/10)

2011/C 58/05

An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 December 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, 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 failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-2/07 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice;

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

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

— the application addresses the failure of Norway to comply with the judgment of the EFTA Court of 30 October 2007 in case E-2/07 in so far as it has not adopted adequate measures since the delivery of that judgment to ensure to pay correctly calculated pensions to all those who suffered as a result of Norway’s breach declared in the judgment,

— the EFTA Surveillance Authority states that the Norwegian authorities have never denied or questioned the obligation to provide a remedy for those illegaly deprived of their rights from 1 January 1994 onwards as found by the EFTA Court,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 292/27

Action brought on 10 August 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Liechtenstein

(Case E-11/10)

2010/C 292/09

An action against Lichtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 August 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, 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 failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to fully implement the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (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)), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of the Directive and under Article 7 EEA.

2. The Principality of Liechtenstein bears the costs of these proceedings.

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

— the application addresses the failure by Liechtenstein to fully comply with 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),

— it is stated in the Application that according to Article 33 of the Directive, read in conjuncture with EEA Joint Committee Decision No 33/2008, Liechtenstein was obliged to take the measures necessary to ensure full compliance with the Directive no later than 1 February 2009 and to communicate to the EFTA Surveillance Authority the text of those measures,

— the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received information from the Liechtenstein government indicating that the Act has been fully implemented into national law, nor is it in possession of any other information which would enable it to conclude accordingly,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 128/10

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur, dated 22 December 2011, in the case of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing hf.

(Case E-18/11)

2012/C 128/06

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 22 December 2011 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 22 December 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing hf., on the following questions:

1. In the case of a discrepancy between the text of the EEA Agreement or rules based upon it, in different languages, so that the substance of individual provisions or rules is unclear, how should their substance be construed in order to apply them in resolving disputes?
2.

If this is the situation, then how is a health-care institution like the plaintiff, which maintains that medicinal products imported from another EEA contracting party have Icelandic marketing authorisation, to demonstrate that this is the case? Is the first paragraph of Article 51 i.f. of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that the health-care institution is required to present a control report to the Defendant as the competent surveillance authority? Is it possible that less stringent requirements regarding the burden of proof could be made regarding the import of medicinal products from Norway, if the products are not intended for further sale or other distribution or marketing in Iceland, but only for the use of persons in the care of the health-care institution?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 66/28

Action brought on 4 December 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-14/12)

2013/C 66/08

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 4 December 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Clémence Perrin and Catherine Howdle, acting as Agents, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

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

1. by maintaining in force a legislation which imposes on persons resident in Liechtenstein who are responsible for a temporary work agency the obligation to supply a guarantee of CHF 50 000, whereas the guarantee of CHF 100 000 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 (‘Liechtenstein’) has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 31 and 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

2. the Principality of Liechtenstein bears the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Liechtenstein has failed to comply with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 25 January 2012 on a failure to fulfil its obligation under Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement in the field of temporary work and employment services.

— The Liechtenstein measures at issue are Articles 25 and 26 of Verordnung vom 11. Juli 2000 zum Gesetz über die Arbeitsvermittlung und den Personalverleih (Regulation of 11 July 2000 concerning job placement and temporary employment services). The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that by these measures, Liechtenstein’s national legislation imposes on persons resident in that country who are responsible for a temporary work agency the obligation to supply a guarantee of CHF 50 000. By the same legislation, an obligation to supply a guarantee of CHF 100 000 when delivering temporary work services is imposed upon persons performing a similar function who are resident outside of Liechtenstein. A guarantee of CHF 100 000 is also required from temporary work agencies established outside of Liechtenstein who seek to provide such services cross-border.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 324/11

Action brought on 2 June 2012 by Risdal Touring AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-4/12)

2012/C 324/09

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 June 2012 by Risdal Touring 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 an operator in the tour bus market, active in Norway and several EU Member States.

— The Applicant seeks the annulment of ESA’s decision, as notified on 5 April 2012, and subsequently notified on 4 May 2012, denying public access to the complete statement of content in ESA Case No 70506.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/11

Action brought on 6 April 2013 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-4/13)

2013/C 174/07

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 6 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 7 February 2013 in Case No 73038 (DB Schenker — access to documents) in so far as it denies access to the inspection documents in Case No 34250 (Norway Post/Privpak);

2. 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 request for access to the documents in Case No 34250 on 3 August 2010 under the rules on public access to documents established by ESA Decision No 407/08/COL on 27 June 2008 (RAD). In a decision dated 16 August 2011, ESA refused access to certain documents in the file (‘inspection documents’). The decision was annulled by a judgment of the EFTA Court in Case E-14/11, 21 December 2012, insofar as it denied full or partial access to inspection documents in Case No 34250 Norway Post/Privpak.

— New rules on public access to documents were enacted by way of ESA Decision No 300/12/COL on 5 September 2012. On 7 February 2013 ESA adopted a decision denying access to a number of the inspection documents under the new rules on public access to documents. The applicants seek to annul that decision under Article 36 SCA.

The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has inter alia:

— taken an unlawful starting point by considering that RAD 2012 is not part of EEA law and not subject to the principle of homogenous interpretation, and given the new rules unlawful retroactive effect;

— infringed Article 4(4) RAD 2012 and the duty to state reasons, cf. Article 16 SCA; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/19

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett, dated 30 August 2013 in the case of Fred. Olsen and others v Staten v/Skattedirektoratet

(Case E-20/13)

(2013/C 372/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 30 August 2013 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 30 August 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fred. Olsen and others v Staten v/Skattedirektoratet, on the following questions:

1. Do trusts as a form of establishment fall within the scope of the freedom of establishment provided for in Article 31 of the EEA Agreement? Supplementary question: If so, who holds rights pursuant to the provision of the EEA Agreement?

2. Provided that the first main question is answered in the affirmative: Does a trust meet the requirement of economic activity in Article 31 of the EEA Agreement?

3. Provided that the first main question is answered in the negative: Does a trust fall within the scope of the right to free movement of capital provided for in Article 40 of the EEA Agreement?

4. Provided that the first or third main question is answered in the affirmative: Do the Norwegian CFC rules involve one or more restrictions on the freedom of establishment or the right to free movement of capital?

5. Provided that the fourth main question is answered in the affirmative: Can the restrictions be regarded as justified by overriding reasons of public interest, and are the restrictions proportionate?

6. Does the continuous wealth taxation of the beneficiaries for the trust’s assets and taxation at a rate of 1,1 % constitute a restriction pursuant to Article 31 and/or Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — and can this be invoked by the beneficiaries in a trust as described in section 2 of the request for an advisory opinion?

If the question is answered in the affirmative:

— Can the restriction be regarded as justified by overriding reasons of public interest, and is the restriction proportionate?

— Is the taxation contrary to the requirement of respect for fundamental rights in the EEA Agreement?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/15

Action brought on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-11/13)

2013/C 287/11

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Clémence Perrin and Maria Moustakali, 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 implement correctly Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 10 of the Act referred to at point 13b in Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation), as adapted to the EEA 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 the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than 4 September 2012, with reasoned opinion issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 4 July 2012 on the failure to correctly implement Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 10 of the Act referred to at point 13b in Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation) (‘the Directive’).
5.

When the medicinal product is a virus vaccine, can the scope of protection under the SPC cover not only the specific strain of the virus that is included in the medicinal product and covered by the basic patent, but also other strains of the virus that are covered by the basic patent? In answering this question, is it of significance whether: (a) such other strains have an equivalent therapeutic effect to the virus strain included in the medicinal product or whether the therapeutic effect is not immediately equivalent? (b) a medicinal product based on such other strain will have to be the subject of a separate marketing authorisation with requirements for documentation of safety and effect?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 163/13

Action brought on 20 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-8/14)

(2014/C 163/12)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewisand Maria Moustakali, 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, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 27 of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast)), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 and by Joint Committee Decision No 54/2010 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 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast) (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 27 of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/22

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Eidsivating lagmannsrett dated 11 February 2015 in the case of Matja Kumba T. M’bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet

(Case E-5/15)

(2015/C 217/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 11 February 2015 from Eidsivating lagmannsrett (Eidsivating Court of Appeal, Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 13 February 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Matja Kumba T. M’bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet on the following questions:

1. Is an average weekly working time of 84 hours (‘7-7 rotation’) in a cohabitant care arrangement in breach of Article 6, see also Article 22(1)(a), of the Working Time Directive (Directive 2003/88/EC)?

2. Is a national provision, under which an employee’s consent to working more than 60 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement cannot be revoked, compatible with the rights that employees have under Article 6, see also Article 22, of the Working Time Directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 480/6

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Fürstliches Obergericht dated 4 November 2015 in the criminal proceedings against A

(Case E-26/15)

(2016/C 480/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 4 November 2015 from the Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 November 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the criminal proceedings against A on the following questions:

1. Must Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing be interpreted as meaning that ‘trust and company service providers’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(3)(c) and point (7)(b) of Article 3 of that Directive, are subject to the obligation to verify the customer’s identity as specified in Article 8(1)(a) and Article 9(1) and (6) of the Directive solely in accordance with the legislation of the Member State in which they are established (in welchem [der Dienstleister für Trusts und Gesellschaften] seinen rechtlichen Sitz hat)?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: what criteria must be used to determine whether ‘trust and company services providers’ are under the obligation to verify the customer’s identity as specified in Article 8(1)(a) and Article 9(1) and (6) of the Directive in accordance with the legislation of another Member State?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 216/9

Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-31/15)

(2016/C 216/06)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, 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 Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 9f of Annex XVII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

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 8 June 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 8 April 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, as referred to at point 9f of Annex XVII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).