ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 17/12

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 3 October 2007

in Case E-6/06

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfill its obligations — 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)

(2008/C 17/08)

In Case E-6/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein:

APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the adoption of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 14 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judge, and Henrik Bull Judge-Rapporteur, gave judgment on 3 October 2007, 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 the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement, i.e. 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 and the sectoral adaptation contained in Annex XX to that Agreement, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/17

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 21 February 2008

in Case E-5/07

Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — Municipal kindergartens — State aid — Notion of undertaking — Decision not to raise objections — Initiation of the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility)

(2008/C 113/14)

In Case E-5/07, Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority — application for the annulment of Decision No 39/07/COL of 27 February 2007 on public financing of municipal day-care institutions in Norway, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judge, and Bjørg Ven, ad hoc Judge, gave judgment on 21 February 2008, the operative part of which is as follows:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 6 January 2010

in Case E-1/09

EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Residence requirements)

2010/C 305/08

In Case E-1/09, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by requiring the members of the management board and of the executive management of banks established in Liechtenstein to be, by reason of their residence, in a position to actually and unobjectionably perform their functions and duties, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEA Agreement, in particular Articles 28 and 31 thereof; and that by requiring lawyers, patent lawyers, auditors and trustees to be, by reason of their residence, in a position to fulfil their tasks, actually and on a regular basis, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEA Agreement, in particular Article 31 thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur) Judges, gave judgment on 6 January 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by requiring the members of the management board and of the executive management of banks established in Liechtenstein to be, by reason of their residence, in a position to actually and unobjectionably perform their functions and duties, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of the EEA Agreement.

2. Declares that, by requiring lawyers, patent lawyers, auditors and trustees to be, by reason of their residence, in a position to fulfil their tasks actually and on a regular basis, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of the EEA Agreement.

3. Dismisses the application insofar as it relates to Article 28 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/19

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 June 2011

in Case E-18/10

EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway

(Non-compliance with a judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Article 33 SCA — Measures necessary to comply with a judgment of the Court)

2011/C 336/13

In Case E-18/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that, 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, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 28 June 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment 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;
1.

Save in exceptional circumstances it is not compatible with Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) interpreted in light of Article 3 of the EEA Agreement to hold a worker liable under national tort law for all, or the greater share, of the losses suffered as a result of an accident at work due to his own contributory negligence when it has been established that the employer had not on his own initiative complied with rules regarding safety and conditions in the work place. Exceptional circumstances may exist where the employee has caused the accident wilfully or by acting with gross negligence, but even in such cases a complete denial of compensation would be disproportionate and not in compliance with the Directives except in extreme cases of the employee being substantially more to blame for the accident than the employer.
2.

The definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company based on the assessment of the tax authorities that the company is in avoidance of taxation consequent to an obligation to wind up and liquidate the company pursuant to national company law may be justified on the grounds of maintaining the balanced allocation of powers of taxation between the EEA States and preventing tax avoidance. These grounds constitute overriding reasons in the public interests. Moreover, the definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company is appropriate in relation to ensuring the attainment of these objectives. The definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable by a company based on the assessment of the tax authorities in the EEA State of origin that the company is in avoidance of taxation consequent to an obligation to wind up and liquidate the company pursuant to national company law must be regarded as not going beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives relating to the need to maintain the balanced allocation of powers of taxation between the EEA States and to prevent tax avoidance, insofar as it provides for the consideration of objective and verifiable elements in order to determine whether the relocation of a head office represents an arrangement incompatible with the rules of domestic company law. If the consideration of objective and verifiable elements leads to the conclusion that the company is not in compliance with the rules of national company law and should therefore be subject to liquidation, the definitive establishment of the amount of tax payable must be confined to the consequences of liquidation in order to remain compatible with the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court to verify whether the decision at issue in the main proceedings goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives pursued by the legislation. A national measure that prescribes the immediate recovery of tax on unrealised assets and tax positions at the time of the assessment of the tax authorities that a company has lost its status as a separate legal entity under national law, but without any decision by the authorities or courts competent to determine that the company has lost that status, is precluded by Article 31 EEA.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 291/16

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 December 2011

in Case E-8/11

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/49/EC on the assessment and management of environmental noise)

2012/C 291/07

In Case E-8/11, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to ensure that its competent authorities have made and, where relevant, approved strategic noise maps and drawn-up noise action plans for all major roads on its territory which have more than six million vehicle passages a year, and to ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI to the Directive are sent to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement (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, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 14 December 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure that within the time-limits prescribed its competent authorities made and, where relevant, approved strategic noise maps and drew up noise action plans for all major roads on its territory which have more than six million vehicle passages a year, and to ensure that the information from strategic noise maps and summaries of the action plans as referred to in Annex VI to the Directive were sent to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Articles 7(1), 8(1) and 10 of the Act referred to at point 32g of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement (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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 22 July 2013

in Case E-9/12

Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — State Aid Guidelines — Well-publicised bidding procedure comparable to an auction — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 309/05

In Case E-9/12, Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the partial annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures, the sale of real estate and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf., the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 22 July 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. dismisses the application;
3.

Individuals and economic operators who have been harmed by the incorrect application of Directive 2000/13/EC may rely on the free movement of goods in order to be able to render the State liable for the breach of EEA law. Damage caused by a national measure such as that described in the first question entails State liability if the national court finds that the application of the national legislation or administrative regulation constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of EEA law and there is a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured party. A breach of EEA law is sufficiently serious where damage is caused by a national measure such as that described in the second question if the national legislation or administrative regulation cannot be considered effective due to a failure to notify it pursuant to Article 19 of Directive 2000/13/EC. Such a breach entails State liability if the national court finds a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the State and the damage sustained by the injured party.
2.

Under the second indent of Article 30(1) of Directive 2001/24/EC the beneficiary must prove that, whether for substantive or procedural reasons, under the law governing the act detrimental to the creditors as a whole, there is no possibility, or no longer a possibility, to challenge the act in question. A concrete assessment of the specific act in question must be undertaken. Consequently, even if the act can in principle be challenged under the law of the EEA State governing it, it is sufficient that the beneficiary proves that the requirements for such a challenge are not fulfilled in the case at hand. It must be assessed according to the rules of the home EEA State whether or not the beneficiary has proved that the law applicable to the act does not allow any means of challenge.
1.

Declares that by failing to implement correctly Article 1 paragraphs 15 to 18, 19(a), 21, 22(a), 23 to 28, 36, 37, 39 to 42 and Article 2 paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Act referred to at points 14, 16e and 31 of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 as regards banks affiliated to central institutions, certain own funds items, large exposures, supervisory arrangements and crisis management), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, and by failing to inform the Authority of the text of such measures, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 422/6

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 23 September 2015

in Case E-23/14

Kimek Offshore AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Action for annulment — State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Admissibility — Legal interest — Status as interested party — Doubts or serious difficulties — General measures — Aid scheme)

(2016/C 422/05)

In Case E-23/14, Kimek Offshore AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014 on the compatibility of Norway’s regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme with the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur) Judges, gave judgment on 23 September 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Annuls ESA Decision No 225/14/COL of 18 June 2014 on the compatibility of Norway’s regionally differentiated social security contributions scheme with the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in so far as it closed the preliminary investigation as regards section 1(4) of the Norwegian Parliament’s Decision No 1482 of 5 December 2013 on determination of the tax rates etc. under the National Insurance Act for 2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 201/6

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 January 2015

in Case E-12/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/125/EC on ecodesign requirements for energy-related products — Failure to implement)

(2015/C 201/06)

In Case E-12/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 6 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 67/2011 of 1 July 2011, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 28 January 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 6 of Chapter IV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 67/2011 of 1 July 2011, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 2/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 December 2015

in Case E-5/15

Matja Kumba T M'bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet

(Directive 2003/88/EC — Working time — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Organisation of working time — Rest periods — Maximum weekly working time — Derogations from minimum rest periods — Workers' consent — Detriment)

(2017/C 2/03)

In Case E-5/15, Matja Kumba T M'bye and Others v Stiftelsen Fossumkollektivet — 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 Eidsivating Court of Appeal (Eidsivating lagmannsrett) concerning the interpretation of Article 6 and Article 22(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 16 December 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. A working time amounting to an average of 84 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement is compatible with Article 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC, in circumstances governed by Article 22(1)(a), provided that the worker has explicitly, freely and individually agreed to perform such work, and the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of the worker are observed. This entails that where an EEA State makes use of the option provided for in Article 22(1) of the Directive, the national legislature must take due account of the physical and mental well-being of workers. However, such a working time arrangement is only compatible with Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive if the conditions for the application of the derogation in Article 17(2), in conjunction with Article 17(3)(c)(i), are fulfilled.

2. A provision of national law, according to which a worker's consent to work more than 60 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement cannot be revoked, is compatible with Articles 6 and 22 of the Directive, provided that the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of workers are observed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 3/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 15 July 2015

in Case E-1/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Commission Directive 2010/26/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 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)

(2016/C 3/06)

In Case E-1/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt, and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1a, seventh indent, of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/26/EU of 31 March 2010 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 76/2013 of 3 May 2013, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 15 July 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1a, seventh indent, of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/26/EU of 31 March 2010 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 76/2013 of 3 May 2013, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.