ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union L 295/63

DECISION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES

No 2/2015/SC

of 24 September 2015

establishing an EEA Financial Mechanism Interim Committee 2014-21 [2015/2024]

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement,

Having regard to the agreement to be concluded establishing a new EEA Financial Mechanism for the period 2014-21,

Having regard to the agreement to be concluded between the Kingdom of Norway and the European Union to establish a Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period 2014-21,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1. An EEA Financial Mechanism Interim Committee 2014-21, hereinafter referred to as the Interim Committee, which should be operative as soon as possible, is hereby established.

2. The Interim Committee shall assist the EFTA States in preparing for the implementation of the EEA Financial Mechanism for 2014-21.

3. The Interim Committee shall report to the Standing Committee.

4. The Interim Committee may be assisted by the Missions of the EEA EFTA States to the EU.

5. The Interim Committee shall on the day of entering into force or on the day of provisional application of the agreement establishing the EEA Financial Mechanism 2014-21 be replaced by an EEA Financial Mechanism Committee 2014-21.

6. The Interim Committee shall discuss and assess possible coordination between the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism.

7. The Interim Committee shall agree upon a Chairman who shall be confirmed by the Standing Committee.

Article 2

This Decision shall take immediate effect.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union L 247/27

DECISION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES

No 1/2016/SC

of 28 April 2016

on internal cost sharing [2016/1660]

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The contributions of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway (hereinafter referred to as the EFTA States) to the EEA Financial Mechanism for the period 2014–2021 are to be divided into seven annual tranches and determined on the basis of Article 2.

Article 2

1. The contributions of the EFTA States to the EEA Financial Mechanism for the period 2014–2021 are based on their Gross Domestic Products (GDP).

2. For any EFTA State, the contribution for a specific financial year t is to be based on the available GDP data for the year t – 2 and correspond to that States' share of GDP (t – 2) in the overall GDP (t – 2) of the EFTA States.

3. The respective GDP data on which the contributions for a specific year t are to be based shall be delivered annually by each EFTA States by 1 March. They shall relate to the year t – 2.

4. Contributions shall be expressed in Euros.

Article 3

The accession of an EFTA State to the EU shall not affect its obligation to contribute to the EEA Financial Mechanism for the period 2014–2021 in accordance with this Decision.

Article 4

This Decision shall take effect on the day of entering into force or on the day of provisional application of the legal act establishing the EEA Financial Mechanism for the period 2014–2021.

Article 5

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 28 April 2016. For the Standing Committee The Chair Kurt JÄGER The Secretary-General Kristinn F. ÁRNASON
Official Journal of the European Union

Medicinal products — List of marketing authorisations granted by the EEA EFTA States for the first half of 2018

(2019/C 68/06)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 74/1999 of 28 May 1999, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning marketing authorisations for medicinal products for the period 1 January — 30 June 2018, at their meeting on 26 October 2018:
Official Journal of the European Union

Dangerous substances — List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 in the first half of 2019

(2020/C 123/12)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 225/2013 of 13 December 2013, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 44(5) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 for the period 1 January – 30 June 2019, at their meeting on 27 September 2019.
Official Journal of the European Union

Medicinal products - List of marketing authorisations granted by the EEA EFTA States for the first half of 2021

(2022/C 29/04)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 74/1999 of 28 May 1999, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning marketing authorisations for medicinal products for the period 1 January – 30 June 2021, at their meeting on 24 September 2021:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 December 1994 in Case E-1/94 (reference for an advisory opinion from the Tullilautakunta): Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark (1) (Admissibility - Free movement of goods - State monopolies of a commercial character - Import monopoly - Articles 11, 13 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - Unconditional and sufficiently precise) (94/C 398/05)

(Pursuant to Article 27 (5) of the Rules of Procedure authentic in English and Finnish)

In Case E-1/94: reference to the Court for an advisory opinion pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the Tullilautakunta (Tullnämnden, the Appeals Committee at the Finnish Board of Customs) in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Helsinki District Customs House) - on the interpretation of Articles 11 and 16 of the EEA Agreement - the Court, composed of: Leif Sevón, President, Björn Haug, Thór Vilhjálmsson, Kurt Herndl and Sven Norberg (Rapporteur), Judges; Karin Hökborg, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 December 1994, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 11 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as precluding a national measure which confers on a statutory State monopoly the exclusive right to import alcoholic beverages falling within the product coverage of the EEA Agreement and originating in the Contracting Parties, or the application to intra-EEA trade of national provisions which require the authorization of the statutory State monopoly for the importation and putting into free circulation of such products, even if such an authorization is granted automatically. Neither can such measures be justified pursuant to Article 13 of the EEA Agreement merely because they form part of an alcohol policy aimed at minimizing the harmful effects to health of consumption of alcoholic beverages, since this objective can be achieved by measures which are less restrictive of the free movement of goods.

2. Article 16 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as meaning that, as from 1 January 1994, every State monopoly of a commercial character not covered by Protocol 8 to the EEA Agreement must be adjusted so as to eliminate the exclusive right to import the goods the subject of the monopoly into a Contracting Party from other Contracting Parties.

3. Article 16 of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted as fulfilling the implicit criteria in Protocol 35 to the EEA Agreement of being unconditional and sufficiently precise.

(1) OJ No C 199, 21. 7. 1994, p. 9.
DECISION of 9 January 1995 on official holidays of the EFTA Court in 1995

THE EFTA COURT,

Having regard to Article 24 (3) of the Rules of Procedure, which requires the Court to observe the official holidays of the place where it has its seat,

Having regard to Article 76 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, which requires the Court to draw up a list of official holidays and to publish it in the EEA Section of and the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

The following days in 1995 will be observed as official holidays during which the Court will be closed:

>TABLE>
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT of 3 December 1997 in Case E-1/97 (request for an advisory opinion from Oslo byrett): Fridtjof Frank Gundersen v. Oslo kommune, supported by the Government of the Kingdom of Norway (Alcohol sales - State monopolies of a commercial character - Free movement of goods) (98/C 20/07)

(Pursuant to Article 27 (5) of the Rules of Procedure only the English and Norwegian texts are authentic)

In Case E-1/97: 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 Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, for an advisory opinion in the case pending before it between Fridtjof Frank Gundersen and Oslo kommune (Oslo municipality), supported by the Government of Norway, on the interpretation of Articles 4, 11, 13 and 16 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson and Carl Baudenbacher (Rapporteur), Judges; and Per Christiansen, Registrar, gave an advisory opinion on 3 December 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 16 of the EEA Agreement does not preclude national provisions according to which red wine, withe wine and rosé wine containing more than 4,75 % alcohol by volume may only be sold at the retail level through a State alcohol retail monopoly, whereas beer with an alcoholic content of less than 4,75 % alcohol by volume (medium-strength beer) may be sold outside the State alcohol retail monopoly by parties who obtain a municipal licence. However, the system of maintaining two dividing lines under which wine or wine products with an alcohol content of between 2,5 % and 4,75 % alcohol by volume may only be sold through the State alcohol retail monopoly, while beer with the same alcoholic content may be sold outside the State alcohol retail monopoly, may lead to discrimination contrary to Article 16 of the EEA Agrement.

2. Articles 4, 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement do not apply to the retail sale of
Composition of the EFTA Court (97/C 90/08)

Election of the President of the Court pursuant to the Transitional Arrangements Agreement

On 5 December 1996, the judges elected Judge Bjørn Haug as President of the EFTA Court under the Transitional Arrangements Agreement and pursuant to Article 30 of the ESA/Court Agreement for a period of three years from 1 January
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT of 23 October 1998 in Case E-4/98: Blyth Software Ltd v. AlphaBit AS (Security of costs - Domicile of plaintiff) (1999/C 44/08)

In Case E-4/98: Blyth Software Ltd v. AlphaBit AS - request for an advisory opinion by Oslo byrett by order of that court of 14 May 1998, concerning the provision of security of costs by a plaintiff domiciled abroad, the President of the Court made an order of 23 October 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:

Case E-4/98 is removed from the Register.
Judgment of the Court

of 14 July 2000

in Case E-1/00 request for an Advisory Opinion from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court): State Debt Management Agency (Lánasýsla ríkisins) v Íslandsbanki-FBA hf, formerly the Icelandic Investment Bank hf (Fjárfestingarbanka atvinnulífsins hf)

Free movement of capital - State guarantees issued on financial loans - Different guarantee fees for foreign and domestic loans

(Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure only the English and Icelandic texts are authentic)

(2001/C 24/02)

In Case E-1/00: 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 Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), for an Advisory Opinion in the case pending before it between the State Debt Management Agency (Lánasýsla ríkisins) and Íslandsbanki-FBA hf, formerly the Icelandic Investment Bank hf (Fjárfestingarbanka atvinnulífsins hf), on the interpretation of Articles 4, 40, 42 and 61 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Thór Vilhjálmsson, President, Carl Baudenbacher and Per Tresselt (Judge-Rapporteur), judges; and Gunnar Selvik, registrar, gave an Advisory Opinion on 14 July 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:

National provisions of a contracting party to the EEA Agreement which provide

(a) that a borrower, who is entitled to a State guarantee, must pay a guarantee fee on loans from entities in other contracting parties but not on loans from domestic entities;

or

(b) that a borrower, who is entitled to a State guarantee, must pay a higher guarantee fee on loans from entities in other contracting parties compared to loans from domestic entities;

are incompatible with Article 40 EEA, read with Council Directive 88/361/EEC.
Composition of the EFTA Court



Official Journal C 344 , 06/12/2001 P. 0008 - 0008



Composition of the EFTA Court (2001/C 344/07) Appointment of the Registrar of the EFTA Court Mr Lucien Dedichen was appointed Registrar of the EFTA Court pursuant to Article 9, Protocol 5 of the ESA/Court Agreement for the period from 1 September 2001 to 31 August 2003, to succeed Mr Gunnar Selvik. At a public sitting of the EFTA Court of 19 October 2001, Mr Lucien Dedichen took the oath prescribed in Article 10, Protocol 5 of the ESA/Court Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/16

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 July 2005

in Case E-10/04 Paolo Piazza and Paul Schurte AG

(Admissibility — security for costs before national courts — free movement of capital — freedom to provide services)

(2006/C 45/12)

In Case E-10/04 between Paolo Piazza and Paul Schurte AG — REQUEST to the Court by Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court of Justice), concerning free movement of services and capital within the EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 1 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

A national provision, which excludes all means of security for costs in court proceedings, originating in other Contracting Parties, violates Article 40 EEA and cannot be justified on grounds of public policy in order to ensure the good functioning of the civil justice system.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 57/24

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 25 November 2005

in Case E-1/05

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Failure of a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — life assurance services — freedom to provide services and right of establishment — Article 33 of Directive 2002/83/EC — justification of restriction based on general good — proportionality)

(2006/C 57/09)

In Case E-1/05, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 33 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance, referred to at point 11 of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment of 25 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force 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, read with 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 obligations pursuant to Article 33 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance, referred to at point 11 of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 275/20

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 8 July 2008

in Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07 between L'Oréal Norge AS (Case E-9/07 and Case E-10/07); L'Oréal SA (Case E-10/07) and Per Aarskog AS (Case E-9/07); Nille AS (Case E-9/07); Smart Club AS (Case E-10/07)

(Exhaustion of trade mark rights)

(2008/C 275/09)

In Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07, between L'Oréal Norge AS and L'Oréal SA on one hand, and Per Aarskog AS, Nille AS and Smart Club AS on the other — Requests to the Court by Follo tingrett (Follo District Court) and Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), concerning the interpretation of the First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC), the Court, composed of Thorgeir Örlygsson, Acting President, Henrik Bull, Judge-Rapporteur and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc), Judge, gave judgment on 8 July 2008, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 12u of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, i.e. 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, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/6

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 December 2009

in Case E-3/09 EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC)

2010/C 256/06

In Case E-3/09, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 7b of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time-limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 1 December 2009, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC, as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64(1) of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
4.

In other cases, too, provision of security may not be required in a manner disproportionately affecting the interests of a non-resident plaintiff in being able to commence legal proceedings. This means in particular that security may not be required for an amount which is out of proportion to the costs likely to be incurred by the defendant or unreasonably high or which must be posted within a very short period of time. The form of security required, the situation giving rise to its imposition and whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to legal aid also constitute important factors.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/35

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 21 December 2012

in Case E-14/11

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

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Access to documents — Admissibility — Measures of Organization of Procedure — Reopening of oral procedure)

2013/C 118/10

In Case E-14/11, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision in Case No 68736 of 16 August 2011 denying the applicants access to certain documents relating to Case No 34250 Norway Post/Privpak on the basis of the Rules on Access to Documents established by the College of the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 27 June 2008, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson Judges, gave judgment on 21 December 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Annuls ESA’s decision of 16 August 2011‘Norway Post/Privpak — Access to documents’ insofar as it denies full or partial access to inspection documents in Case No 34250 Norway Post/Privpak;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders ESA to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the applicant;
The national authorities may make importation by a health care institution, such as the Plaintiff, for use by the people in the care of the institution, of medicinal products from Norway which have been granted national marketing authorisation in Norway, and which are identical or essentially similar to products which have national marketing authorisation in Iceland, subject to a parallel import licence.

Such a licence must be issued under a procedure limited to controlling that the medicinal products in question have a valid marketing authorisation in the EEA State of export, and that the product is identical or essentially similar to products having marketing authorisation in the EEA State of importation.

In this context, the national authorities may not require parallel importers, such as the Plaintiff, to submit manufacturing control reports. Such a practice cannot be justified under Article 13 EEA.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/14

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 31 October 2013

in Case E-2/12

INT, HOB-vín ehf.

(Interpretation of a judgment — Advisory opinion — Application manifestly inadmissible)

2014/C 81/14

In Case E-2/12 INT, HOB-vín ehf. — APPLICATION under Article 39 of the Statute of the Court and Article 95 of the Rules of Procedure for an interpretation of the judgment of the Court of 11 December 2012 in Case E-2/12 HOB-vín [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1092, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave order on 31 October 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.