ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 201/8

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 January 2015

in Case E-14/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2009/48/EC on the safety of toys)

(2015/C 201/08)

In Case E-14/14, 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 of Chapter XXIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 127/2012 of 13 July 2012, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 28 January 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 of Chapter XXIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 127/2012 of 13 July 2012, 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 131/8

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 24 September 2014

in Case E-5/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives)

(2015/C 131/08)

In Case E-5/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 32ff of Chapter V of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA Agreement’), namely Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 24 September 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 32ff of Chapter V of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 422/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 28 September 2015

in Case E-6/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market — Local authorisation requirement for construction works)

(2016/C 422/06)

In Case E-6/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway – APPLICATION for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market), or, alternatively, Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, by maintaining in force Sections 20-1, second paragraph and 22-3 of the Planning and Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation, which require undertakings carrying out construction works to obtain an authorisation by local municipalities prior to the beginning of their activity, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 28 September 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X of the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market) by maintaining in force Section 20-1, second paragraph and Section 22-3 of the Planning and Building Act, read in conjunction with Sections 9-1 to 9-4 and 11-1 of the Building Regulation, which require undertakings carrying out construction works to obtain an authorisation by local municipalities prior to the beginning of their activity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/14

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 29 July 2016

in Case E-31/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/77/EU amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights)

(2017/C 108/12)

In Case E-31/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at the indent in point 9f of Annex XVII to the Agreement of the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights) as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 29 July 2016, 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 the indent in point 9f of Annex XVII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, 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 18/26

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 1 February 2016

in Case E-20/15

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2013/10/EU amending Directive 75/324/EEC on aerosol dispensers)

(2017/C 18/10)

In Case E-20/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU of 19 March 2013 amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU of 19 March 2013 amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, 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 1/8

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 July 2017

in Case E-11/16

Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring, supported by the Norwegian Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Trafikkforsikringsforeningen)

(Article 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Rights of institutions responsible for benefits against liable third parties — Subrogation and direct rights)

(2018/C 1/10)

In Case E-11/16, Mobil Betriebskrankenkasse v Tryg Forsikring, supported by the Norwegian Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Trafikkforsikringsforeningen) — 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 Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) concerning the interpretation of Article 85(1) 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, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 20 July 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Where an institution responsible for benefits has, by virtue of the legislation which it administers, a subrogated or direct right against a third party responsible for an injury sustained in another EEA State, Article 93(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 requires other EEA States to recognise such rights as provided for under the law of the EEA State to which that institution is subject.

2. However, that subrogated or direct right cannot exceed the rights that the injured person has against the third party responsible for the injury under the national law of the EEA State where the injury occurred, including any applicable rules of private international law.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 189/49

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 16 November 2016

in Case E-4/16

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)

(2017/C 189/13)

In Case E-4/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that 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 by failing to take, within the time prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 2 December 2013 in Case E-13/13 ESA v Norway, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 16 November 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that 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 by failing, within the time prescribed, to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 2 December 2013 in Case E-13/13 ESA v Norway.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 17 September 2018

in Case E-10/17

Nye Kystlink AS Color Group AS and Color Line AS

(Article 53 EEA — Article 54 EEA — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — National rules on the limitation period for claims for damages)

(2018/C 459/16)

In Case E-10/17, Nye Kystlink AS v Color Group AS and Color Line AS — 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 the principles of equivalence and effectiveness in the context of national rules on the limitation period for claims for damages in cases where fines have been imposed under Articles 53 and 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 17 September 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The principle of equivalence requires that a national limitation rule that lays down a separate limitation period of one year for bringing an action for damages arising from a criminal offence that has been established by a final criminal conviction must be applied correspondingly to an action for damages for infringement of Articles 53 and 54 EEA that has been established by a final decision by the EFTA Surveillance Authority imposing a fine, in so far as those actions have a similar purpose, cause of action and essential characteristics.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 24 April 2018

in Case E-7/17

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2014/29/EU)

(2018/C 280/04)

In Case E-7/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point 6f of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of simple pressure vessels), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order, and in any event has failed to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement the Act, as required by Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 24 April 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 6f of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement (Directive 2014/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of simple pressure vessels), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 May 2019

in Case E-2/18

C

v

Concordia Schweizerische Kranken- und Unfallversicherung AG, Landesvertretung Liechtenstein

(Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 24 — Pensioner residing outside the competent State — Benefits in kind in the place of residence — Reimbursement procedure)

(2019/C 315/04)

In Case E-2/18, C v Concordia Schweizerische Kranken- und Unfallversicherung AG, Landesvertretung Liechtenstein — 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 Princely Court of Liechtenstein (Fürstliches Landgericht) 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, Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. When a pensioner is not entitled to benefits in kind in the EEA State of residence, due to the fact that the benefits fall outside the scope of its social security system, the pensioner is entitled, pursuant to Article 24(1) 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, to receive benefits in kind at the expense of the competent institution in the EEA State under whose legislation the pension is paid.
2.

Any period of residence pursuant to and in conformity with the conditions set out in Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC by an EEA national in an EEA State other than the EEA State of origin, during which the EEA national has created or strengthened family life with a third-country national, creates a derived right of residence for the third-country national upon the EEA national’s return to the EEA State of origin. The notion of residence must be interpreted as allowing reasonable periods of absence which may or may not be work-related, and which as to their duration do not contravene and are not inconsistent with a genuine residence. This is without prejudice to Article 35 of Directive 2004/38/EC. However, that an EEA national consciously places himself or herself in a situation conferring a right of residence in another EEA State does not in itself constitute a sufficient basis for assuming abuse.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 15 July 2021

in Case E-9/20

EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway

(Free movement of workers – Freedom of establishment – Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 – Combined residence and nationality requirement for corporate officers – General manager – Members of the board – Consistency)

(2021/C 426/08)

In Case E-9/20, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway –APPLICATION seeking a declaration that, by maintaining in force various nationality and/or residence requirements laid down in Norwegian company law in respect of persons who occupy certain management roles in companies registered and incorporated in Norway, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 31 and 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as well as Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 15 July 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force Sections 6-11(1) and 6-36(2) of the Public Limited Companies Act, Section 6-11(1) of the Private Limited Companies Act and Sections 7-5 and 8-4(5) of the Financial Undertakings Act, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of the EEA Agreement.

2. Dismisses the application as to the remainder.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 25 February 2021

in Case E-5/20

SMA SA and Société Mutuelle d’Assurance du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics v Finanzmarktaufsicht Liechtenstein

(State liability – Directive 2009/138/EC – Supervisory obligations – Insurance claims – Policy holders and beneficiaries)

(2021/C 245/16)

In Case E-5/20, SMA SA and Société Mutuelle d’Assurance du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics v Finanzmarktaufsicht Liechtenstein – 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 Supreme Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Fürstlicher Oberster Gerichtshof) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), in particular Articles 27 and 28, and its predecessors Directive 73/239/EEC, Directive 88/357/EEC and Directive 92/49/EEC, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 25 February 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:

Articles 27 and 28 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II), Directive 73/239/EEC, Directive 88/357/EEC and Directive 92/49/EEC do not confer any express rights on economic operators that claim to be creditors of an insurance undertaking in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings and cannot give rise to any liability claim against a supervisory authority under the principle of State liability.
Action brought on 13 June 1994 by Reinhard Helmers against the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Sweden (Case E-6/94) (95/C 51/06)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 June 1994 by Reinhard Helmers, residing in Lund, Sweden.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. order the Government of Sweden to:

(a) and its discrimination against the applicant;

(b) reinstal the applicant in his original position at Lund University;

(c) pay the applicant accumulated compensation in accordance with a collective contract;

(d) pay the appropriate social insurance and pension contributions; and

(e) pay interest in accordance with the Swedish law on interest;

2. declare that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has infringed Article 37, second and third paragraphs, of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by failing to decide on the applicant's complaint within two months of it being lodged with the Authority;

3. declare void the decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority of 20 July 1994 to close the applicant's case against the Governement of Sweden concerning unjustified discrimination as being outside the scope of the Authority's duty of surveillance, in accordance with Article 36, fourth paragraph, of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice.
Request for an advisory opinion by Varbergs Tingsrätt by decision of that court of 2 March 1995 in the case of Samuelsson v. the Kingdom of Sweden (Case E-1/95) (95/C 142/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 2 March 1995 of Varbergs Tingsrätt (District Court of Varberg), which was received at the Court Registry on 6 March 1995, for an advisory opinion in the case of Ulf Samuelsson v. the Kingdom of Sweden, on the following question:

Is Article 10 (a) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1) to be interpreted as meaning that section 9 (a) of the Swedish Wage Guarantee Act, which states that an employee is not entitled to remuneration if, within two years prior to the bankruptcy decision, he was granted remuneration through the guarantee for a claim which arose in mainly the same activity, having regard to its general scope, clearly exceeds the right of derogation permitted by Article 10 (a) of the Directive?

(1) OJ No L 283, 20. 10. 1980, p. 23.