ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 291/66

EMAS

The Eco-Management and Audit Scheme

List of registered sites in Norway in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the council of 19 March 2001

(2006/C 291/18)
EN Official Journal of the European Union L 78/57

DECISION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES

No 5/2010/SC

of 9 December 2010

amending Decision of the Standing Committee No 4/2004/SC establishing a Financial Mechanism Committee

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE EFTA STATES,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as the EEA Agreement,

Having regard to the Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014,

Having regard to Protocol 38b on the EEA Financial Mechanism inserted into the EEA Agreement by the aforementioned Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014,

Having regard to the Agreement between the Kingdom of Norway and the European Union on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period 2009-2014,

Having regard to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 4/2004/SC of 3 June 2004 establishing a Financial Mechanism Committee (1),

Having regard to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the EFTA States No 1/2010/SC of 28 January 2010 establishing an EEA Financial Mechanism Interim Committee 2009-2014 (2),

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

In Article 1 of Decision No 4/2004/SC the second sentence of paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following wording:

‘The Committee shall manage the EEA Financial Mechanism 2004-2009 and the EEA Financial Mechanism 2009-2014.’

Article 2

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 2009-2014.

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.

Done at Brussels, 9 December 2010. For the Standing Committee The Chairman Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON The Secretary-General Kåre BRYN

(1) OJ L 52, 23.2.2006, p. 54.

(2) OJ L 53, 4.3.2010, p. 19.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 338/10

Dangerous substances — List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) in the first half of 2015

(2016/C 338/12)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 25/2008 of 14 March 2008, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) for the period 1 January-30 June 2015, at their meeting on 30 October 2015.
(18)

In light of the above, the Standing Committee is of the view that the measure in question is both effective and proportionate as it contributes to mitigating the identified long-term structural risks in the Norwegian banking sector. The Standing Committee notes that the clearest evidence for this conclusion is found in the stress test results of the Norwegian authorities, which suggest that the measures will be effective for promoting financial stability in Norway by maintaining the capital level of Norwegian credit institutions at the necessary level for the conservation of their current loss-absorption capacity. In support of this conclusion about the proportionality of the measure, the Standing Committee notes that this implies that in actual terms there will be no significant increase of capital requirements for Norwegian credit institutions. For several of the subsidiaries of parent undertakings established in other EEA Member States the capital requirements will increase by close to 1.5 percentage point, but the Standing Committee notes that according to the Ministry these credit institutions have capital levels in excess of the requirements implied by a SyRB rate of 4,5 % on Norwegian exposures. The Ministry acknowledges that some Norwegian credit institutions may need to increase their capital ratio somewhat to maintain a management buffer on top of the overall Pillar 1 and 2 requirements. Meanwhile, the transitional period until 31 December 2022 for banks not using the Advanced IRB approach, should ensure that the changes in the SyRB requirement do not result in undue increases in capital requirements for credit institutions that are not significantly impacted by the abolishment of the Basel I floor, and whose Pillar 2 requirements may have to be recalibrated once the higher SyRB applies to them after the transition period. This approach should mitigate distortions that the notified measure may cause and ensure that any adverse impacts on domestic banks and their lending capacity remain limited.
Official Journal of the European Union

Dangerous substances – List of authorisation decisions taken by the EEA EFTA States in accordance with Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) in the first half of 2019

(2020/C 123/10)

Subcommittee I on the free movement of goods

To be noted by the EEA Joint Committee

With reference to EEA Joint Committee Decision No 25/2008 of 14 March 2008, the EEA Joint Committee is invited to note the following lists concerning authorisation decisions adopted on the basis of Article 64(8) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) for the period 1 January–30 June 2019, at their meeting on 6 December 2019.
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) 528/2012 in the first half of 2021

(2022/C 29/05)

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 2021, at their meeting on 24 September 2021.
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT of 12 June 1998 in Case E-8/97 (Request for an advisory opinion from Oslo byrett): TV 1000 Sverige AB v. The Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs (1) (Council Directive 89/552/EEC - Transfrontier television broadcasting - Pornography) (Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure, only the English and Norwegian texts are authentic) (98/C 275/06)

In Case E-8/97, 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 TV 1000 Sverige AB and the Norwegian Goverment, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs, on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/552/EEC, the Court, composed of Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Carl Baudenbacher, Judges; and Asle Aarbakke, Registrar/Legal Secretary, gave an Advisory Opinion on 12 June 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:

Under Article 2(2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC, it is for the national authorities of the receiving State to determine, in accordance with that State's values and national legislation, which programmes might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors within the meaning of Article 22, first paragraph, first sentence of the Directive.

The exception in the second sentence of Article 22, first paragraph does not extend to programmes 'which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors` dealt with in the first sentence of Article 22, first paragraph.

All the conditions listed in Article 2(2)(a) to (d) of the Directive must be fulfilled in order for the receiving State to restrict retransmission, regard being had to the principle of proportionality and the decision being subject to supervision by the Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority, as the case may be.

The criteria in Article 2(2)(a) and (b) are separate criteria, with (a) regulating the gravity of the infringement and (b) providing that the right to provisional suspension of retransmission arises when material infringing Article 22, as laid down in Article 2(2)(a), has been broadcast on three occasions within a period of 12 months.

(1) OJ C 20, 22.1.1998, p. 18.
DECISION of 22 August 1996 on official holidays of the EFTA Court in Luxembourg

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,

Having regard to the fact that the moving of the seat of the Court from Geneva, Switzerland, to the City of Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, as from 1 September 1996, makes it necessary to draw up a revised list of official holidays, replacing the list of official holidays of the EFTA Court as published in the EEA Section of the Official Journal of the European Communities No L 123, of 23 May 1996 and the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities No 23, 23 May 1996,

DECIDES:

As long as the EFTA Court is seated in Luxembourg, the following days will be observed as official holidays during which the Court will be closed:

New Year's Day

Easter Monday

1 May

Ascension Day

Whit Monday

23 June (National Day of Luxembourg)

24 June, where 23 June is a Sunday

15 August (Assumption)

1 November (All Saints' Day)

25 December

26 December
Judgment of the Court

of 8 July 2003

in Case E-3/02 between: Paranova AS and Merck & Co., Inc. and Others

(2003/C 222/10)

Parallel imports - Article 72 of Directive 89/104/EEC - Use of coloured stripes on the parallel importer's repackaging design - Legitimate reasons

In Case E-3/02, between: Paranova AS and Merck & Co., Inc. and Others - Request to the Court by Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway) for an Advisory Opinion on the interpretation of Article 7(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1), as referred to in point 4 of Annex XVII to the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher (Judge-Rapporteur), President, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment of 8 July 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. "Legitimate reasons" within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Directive to oppose the further commercialisation of repackaged pharmaceutical products may exist where the packaging has been equipped with coloured stripes along the edges if this is liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark. Whether this is the case, is to be answered by the national court on the basis of the relevant facts.

2. The question of whether "legitimate reasons" exist if coloured stripes are used in the described presentation of a product cannot mechanically be assessed on the basis of the necessity test as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 July 2005

in Case E-8/04 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Right of establishment — Residence requirement for one member of management board and one member of executive management in banks)

(2006/C 45/11)

In Case E-8/04, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Principality of Liechtenstein —APPLICATION seeking an order from the EFTA Court that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to respect its obligations, arising from Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by maintaining in force Section 25 of the Banking Act (Gesetz vom 21 Oktober 1992 über die Banken und Finanzgesellschaften), whereby a residence requirement is imposed on at least one member of the management board and one member of the executive management in a bank established in its territory, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Tresselt (Judge-Rapporteur) and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment of 1 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to respect its obligations, arising from Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, by maintaining in force Section 25 of the Banking Act (Gesetz vom 21 Oktober 1992 über die Banken und Finanzgesellschaften), whereby a residence requirement is imposed on at least one member of the management board and one member of the executive management of a bank established in its territory.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 57/23

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 24 November 2005

in Case E-2/05

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland

(State aid — Failure of a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3 SCA — Validity of a decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Termination of tax measures and recovery of aid — Absolute impossibility to implement a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority)

(2006/C 57/08)

In Case E-2/05, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Republic of Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under points 2, 3 and 4 of the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision No 21/04/COL of 25 February 2004 with regard to International Trading Companies, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Tresselt and Stefán Már Stefánsson (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment of 24 November 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that by failing to terminate the tax scheme declared incompatible with the EEA Agreement by Decision No 21/04/COL of 25 February 2004, to recover the aid provided, and to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority as required, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under points 2, 3 and 4 of the said decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 263/4

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 June 2008

in Case E-8/07 between:

Celina Nguyen and The Norwegian State, represented by Justis- og politidepartementet (the Ministry of Justice and the Police)

(Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Compensation for non-economic injury — Conditions for State liability — Sufficiently serious breach)

(2008/C 263/04)

In Case E-8/07 between Celina Nguyen and the Norwegian State, represented by Justis- og politidepartementet (the Ministry of Justice and the Police) — Request to the Court by Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), concerning the interpretation of the EEA Agreement, with particular reference to the following Acts referred to in Annex IX:

— the Act referred to in point 8 of Annex IX (Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, hereinafter the ‘First Motor Vehicle Insurance Directive’),

— the Act referred in point 9 of Annex IX (Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, hereinafter the ‘Second Motor Vehicle Insurance Directive’),

— the Act referred to in point 10 of Annex IX (Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, hereinafter the ‘Third Motor Vehicle Insurance Directive’),

the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judge-Rapporteur and Ola Mestad (ad hoc), Judge, gave judgment on 20 June 2008, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. it is not compatible with the First, Second and Third Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives to except redress for non-economic injury (‘pain and suffering’), which is a form of civil liability, from the compulsory insurance system under national law;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 99/9

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 29 October 2008

in Case E-2/08

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/26/EC relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery)

2009/C 99/07

In Case E-2/08, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — 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 at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time limit prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Henrik Bull, Judge-Rapporteur, and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judge, gave judgment on 29 October 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 implement the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, i.e. 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, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/14

Order of the EFTA Court of 9 November 2012

2013/C 277/11

In Case E-14/10 COSTS,

Konkurrenten.no AS against EFTA Surveillance Authority,

(Taxation of costs)

In Case E-14/10 COSTS, Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the taxation of costs recoverable following the judgment of the Court of 22 August 2011 in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no v ESA (2011) EFTA Ct. Rep. 266 — the EFTA Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges; has made an Order of 9 November 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

The total amount of the costs to be paid by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to Konkurrenten.no AS is fixed at EUR 93 002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 148/4

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2010

in Case E-9/10

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications)

(2011/C 148/04)

In Case E-9/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 755/2008 of 31 July 2008 amending Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2010, 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 fully implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2007 of 5 December 2007 amending Annexes II and III to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 755/2008 of 31 July 2008 amending Annex II to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 75/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 30 November 2012

in Case E-19/11

Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State

(Free movement of goods — Admissibility — Product coverage — Articles 11 and 16 EEA — State monopolies of a commercial character — Rules concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly — Product selection rules — Refusal to sell alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine — Discrimination between domestic and imported products — Absence of domestic production)

2013/C 75/08

In Case E-19/11 Vín Tríó ehf. v the Icelandic State — 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 Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), on whether Articles 11 and 16 of the EEA Agreement preclude a State monopoly on the retail of alcohol from refusing to accept for sale in its retail outlets alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 30 November 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

It does not contravene Article 16(1) EEA if an EEA State 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 outlets alcoholic beverages containing stimulants such as caffeine.