ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 December 2019

in Case E-1/19

Andreas Gyrre

v

The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Children and Equality

(Directive 2005/29/EC – Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices – Annex I – Point 9 – Stating or otherwise creating the impression that a product can legally be sold when it cannot)

(2020/C 90/02)

In Case E-1/19, Andreas Gyrre v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Children and Equality – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Borgarting Court of Appeal (Borgarting lagmannsrett) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and in particular point 9 of Annex I thereto, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), and Siri Teigum (ad hoc Judge), gave judgment on 14 December 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

Point 9 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as encompassing situations in which a trader states or otherwise creates the impression, based on the overall impression conveyed to the average consumer at the time of the transactional decision, that a product can legally be sold when it cannot. It does not have a bearing on that assessment whether such a national legislative prohibition, as in the present case, applies in either the EEA State of sale or the EEA State of performance or in both. Nor is that assessment affected by the national legislative prohibition in question being subsequently found to be contrary to EEA law.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 30 June 2021

in Case E-13/20

O v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Labour and Welfare Directorate (Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet)

(Social security – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Articles 7, 63 and 64 – Unemployment benefits – Requirement to stay in the competent EEA State – Unemployed person going to another EEA State)

(2021/C 417/05)

In Case E-13/20, O v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Labour and Welfare Directorate (Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet) – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Norwegian National Insurance Court (Trygderetten) concerning the interpretation of Articles 28, 31 and 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 30 June 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. A requirement that the unemployed person must stay in the competent State to be entitled to a cash benefit in the event of unemployment in cases where the conditions of Articles 64, 65 or 65a are not fulfilled is compatible with Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, including Article 5(b) thereof.

2. Outside the situations expressly mentioned in Articles 64, 65 and 65a of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, a condition to stay in the competent EEA State for entitlement to unemployment benefits does not fall to be assessed under Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement and is not incompatible with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 29 July 2022

in Case E-5/21

Anna Bryndís Einarsdóttir v the Icelandic Treasury

(Articles 6 and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Social security – Migrant worker – Equality of treatment – Calculation of maternity benefit)

(2023/C 29/06)

In Case E-5/21, Anna Bryndís Einarsdóttir v the Icelandic Treasury – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur), concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), and in particular Articles 6 and 21 of that regulation, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2022, the operative part of which is as follows:

Articles 6 and 21(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems do not oblige the competent institution of an EEA State to calculate the amount of a benefit, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on the basis of income received in another EEA State. However, Article 21(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, interpreted in accordance with the objective set out in Article 29 of the EEA Agreement, requires that the amount of a benefit, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, granted to a migrant worker who, during the reference period set out in national law had only had income in another EEA State, must be calculated by taking into account the income of a person who has comparable experience and qualifications and who is similarly employed in the EEA State in which that benefit is sought.

(1) OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
Action brought on 7 May 1994 by Alexander Flandorfer Friedman, Erna Flandorfer Friedman and GFG Bau Dachdecker Spengler GmbH against the Republic of Austria (94/C 250/05)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the EFTA Court on 7 May 1994 by Alexander Flandorfer Friedman, a Slovenian citizen, Erna Flandorfer Friedman, both residing in Vienna (Austria), and GFG Bau Dachdecker Spengler GmbH, Vienna. The applicants state that the first applicant was refused a permanent residence permit in Austria.

The applicants apply for action to be taken against the defendant for infringement of:

(a) Articles 6, 7, 28 (1) to (3), 31 and 34 of the EEA Agreement, Articles 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and Article 4 (4) of Council Directive 68/360/EEC; and

(b) the applicant's rights to free movement of persons under Articles 31 and 34 of the EEA Agreement and Articles 8 (1) and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicants also request a grant of legal aid, including the appointment of a lawyer.
Request for an advisory opinion by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 1 March 1996 in the case of Tore Wilhelmsen AS v. Oslo kommune (Case E-6/96) (97/C 37/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 1 March 1996 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 August 1996, for an advisory opinion in the case of Tore Wilhelmsens AS against Oslo kommune (the municipality of Oslo), on the following question:

1. Is a refusal to grant a licence to sell beer containing more than 4,75 % alcohol by volume, with reference to the established exclusive right of Vinmonopolet, compatible with Article 16 of the EEA Agreement on State monopolies of commercial character?

2. Is a refusal to grant a licence to sell beer containing more than 4,75 % alcohol by volume, with reference to the established exclusive right of Vinmonopolet, compatible with the principles of free movement of goods in Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement?

3. Do EEA rules stipulate, to what extent it is the State or the municipality that is competent to decide applications for licences to sell alcohol, regardless of the content of the national legislative provisions on the competence given to municipalities to decide certain cases?

4. Do EEA rules contain substantive provisions on the unconditional right of individuals to sell alcohol to the general public, regardless of national legislation stipulating a licensing system for sale of all types of alcohol to the general
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 21 October 1997 in the case of TV 1000 Sverige AB v. the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs (Case E-8/97) (98/C 20/10)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 21 October 1997 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 24 October 1997, for an advisory opinion in the case of TV 1000 Sverige v. the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs, on the following questions.

1. Does Article 22, first sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC introduce a common standard for what 'might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors` or is it left up to each individual EU and EFTA country to determine the degree of pornography, violence, etc., which is to be deemed to have the damaging effects referred to in Article 22?

2. In the event that Article 22, first sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC establishes a common standard for the European Economic Area: is the Swedish norm which accepts scenes shot in close-ups with masturbation, licking and sucking of sexual organs, intercourse, dwelling on ejaculation in the mouths of women and group sex an expression of the common norm in Article 22 which is to apply for the European Economic Area?

3. Can the provision in Article 22(I) second sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC concerning the choice of broadcast time and technical measures apply to circumstances which are to be subsumed under Article 22(I) first sentence?

4. If a film is deemed to be contrary to Article 22(I) first sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC, is Article 2(2)(a) a further impediment to the temporary interruption of further broadcast of television broadcasts under Article 2(2)?

5. Are repeated acts contrary to Article 22 of the TV Directive to be subsumed under Article 2(2)(a) or
Action brought on 20 December 1999 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-2/99)

(2000/C 52/10)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 December 1999 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Anne-Lise H. Rolland, acting as Agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74, Rue de Trèves, B-1040 Burssels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the national provisions necessary to comply with Article 10(2) of the Act referred to in point 1a of Annex VII of the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC), as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, with regard to the professions coming under the heading "3. Seafaring Sector" of Annex C to the Act, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

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

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

- Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 (the "Act") provides for a general system for the recognition of professional education and training. Article 10(2) of the Act provides for mutual recognition of medical certificates when they are required for taking up or pursuing a regulated profession. As concerns seafarers, the Norwegian legislation provides in short that medical certificates must be issued in accordance with Norwegian provisions and by doctors approved by the Norwegian authorities. The applicant submits that this requirement amounts to a violation of Article 10(2) of the Act.

- According to Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, acts referred to or contained in the Annexes ot the Agreement shall be binding upon the Contracting Parties and be, or be made, part of the internal legal order.

- Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC is referred to in point 1a of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement.

- It follows from Article 17 of the Act, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, that Norway was to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Act by 1 July 1994 and immediately to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of the measures taken to that end.

- At the expiry of the abovementioned time-limit, Norway had not taken the legislative measures necessary to comply with the Act. Nor had such measures been taken at the end of the time-limit set by the EFTA Surveillane Authority in its reasoned opinion, in which it requested Norway to take the measures necessary to comply with the Act. Norway has, therefore, failed to comply with its obligations under Article 17 of the Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 11 October 2001 in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v. Vectura AS

(Case E-8/01)

(2002/C 134/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 11 October 2001 of Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 November 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v. Vectura AS, on the following questions:

1. Will a market share of over 60 % in the relevant market, in itself be sufficient for a finding that an undertaking has a dominant position under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?

2. If question 1 is answered in the negative, will a market share of over 60 % in the relevant market in itself create a presumption that an undertaking has a dominant position under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?

3. If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, and an undertaking has such a market share, what other market conditions in the relevant market might imply that the undertaking nonetheless does not have a dominant position under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?

4. If a dominant undertaking provides marketing support to some customers and not to others, could that constitute abuse under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, if that marketing support:

(i) must be viewed in its entirety as being a price discount for the dominant undertaking's performance of distribution services for the customers in question?

(ii) must be viewed in its entirety as being compensation for marketing services which the customers in question provide to the undertaking?

(iii) must be viewed partially as being compensation for marketing services which the customers in question provide to the undertaking, and partially as a price discount for the dominant undertaking's performance of distribution services for the customers in question?

5. If a dominant undertaking has unjustifiably treated its customers differently, could a finding of infringement of Article 54 of the European Economic Agreement be made, without a concurrent finding that the differential treatment has impaired competition in the market in which the customers compete?
Action brought on 22 April 2002 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-1/02)

(2002/C 134/07)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 April 2002 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Dora Sif Tynes, acting as Agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue de Trèves/Trierstraat, 74, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that the Kingdom of Norway has, by maintaining in force a rule which reserves a number of academic posts exclusively for women, failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 7 and 70 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area and Articles 2(1), 2(4) and 3(1) of the Act referred to in point 18 of Annex XVIII to the Agreement (Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions); 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 7 EEA provides 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.

- Article 70 of the EEA Agreement requires the Contracting Parties to promote the principle of equal treatment for men and women by implementing the provisions specified in Annex XVIII to the Agreement, one of which is Council Directive 76/207/EEC.

- Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training, promotions and working conditions is listed in Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement.

- Article 2(1) of Directive 67/207/EEC lays down the principle of equal treatment, stating: "For the purposes of the following provisions, the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on the grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status".

- However, Article 2(4) of Directive 76/207/EEC stipulates that "This Direcive shall be without prejudice to measures to promote equal opportunity for men and women, in particular by removing existing inequalities which affect women's opportunities ..."

- Furthermore, Article 3(1) of Directive 76/207/EEC sets out that: "Application of the principle of equal treatment means that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex in the conditions, including selection criteria, for access to all jobs or posts, whatever the sector or branch of activity, and to all levels of the occupational hierarchy".

- The applicant pleads that the Norwegian rule in question allowing for reservation of certain academic posts to women only is in breach of EEA provisions on gender equality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 40/15

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Gulating lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 3 May 2004 in the case of Reidar Rasmussen m.fl. v Total E&P Norge AS

(Case E-2/04)

(2005/C 40/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 3 May 2004 of Gulating lagmannsrett (Gulating Court of Appeal), Bergen, Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 13 May 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Reidar Rasmussen m.fl. v Total E&P Norge AS, on the following questions:

1. Is Article 1 of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 applicable in a situation where part of an undertaking, provided that it is organised as an independent economic entity, is handed over from one company to another, and where the same or corresponding activities are carried out by the acquiring company and an affiliated company within the same group of companies? Does the fact that some working relationships are directly handed over from the transferor to the acquiring company and others to its affiliated company preclude application of the Directive?

2. Is application of the Directive pursuant to Article 1 precluded in the event that the maintenance and support functions of the undertaking are handed over while the production function is not, and the employees of all these functions work as a team both before and after the transfer?

3. Is the Directive applicable pursuant to Article 1 in the event of a handover of maintenance tasks on a fixed offshore installation for gas production where a considerable part, in terms of numbers and qualifications, of the workforce which performed this function with the transferor, is handed over to an acquirer that continues to carry out these maintenance tasks on the same installations under a service contract? Is application of the Directive precluded if the ownership of the tools and instruments which the maintenance staff used before the handover, and which they have continued to use after the handover, is not taken over by the acquirer?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/49

Action brought on 18 December 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-6/06)

(2007/C 72/24)

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 18 December 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Lorna Young, 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 failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that Act and Article 7 EEA, and

2. Order the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The case concerns the non-implementation of the environmental noise directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/20

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Stavanger tingrett dated 25 May 2007 in the case of Seabrokers AS v Den Norske Stat v/Skattedirektoratet

(Case E-7/07)

(2007/C 301/12)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 25 May 2007 from Stavanger tingrett (Stavanger District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 30 May 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Seabrokers AS v Den Norske Stat v/Skattedirektoratet, on the following questions:

1. Is it contrary to Article 4, 31 or 40 of the EEA Agreement to attribute, according to the principle of net income taxation, debt interest to the income abroad when calculating the maximum credit allowance?

2. Is it contrary to Article 4, 31 or 40 of the EEA Agreement to attribute, according to the principle of net income taxation, group contributions to the income abroad when calculating the maximum credit allowance?