ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/4

Action brought on 3 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-12/13)

2013/C 294/04

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 3 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Clémence Perrin and Catherine Howdle, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. declare that by failing to implement correctly Article 1, paragraphs 15-18, 19(a), 21, 22(a), 23-29, 36-37, 39-42 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;

2. order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than 12 November 2012, with reasoned opinion issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 September 2012 on the failure to correctly implement Article 1, paragraphs 15-18, 19(a), 21, 22(a), 23-29, 36-37, 39-42 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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/32

Action brought on 10 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-3/14)

(2014/C 138/09)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare 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 65a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

2. Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses Norway’s failure to comply, no later than 30 March 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 30 January 2013 regarding that state’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 65a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 334/31

Action brought on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-11/14)

(2014/C 334/12)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 July 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Janne Tysnes Kaasin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare 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 2 of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payments in commercial transactions), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

2. Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 18 February 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 18 December 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payments in commercial transactions (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 2 of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 163/9

Action brought on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-4/14)

(2014/C 163/08)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 13 January 2014 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Gjermund Mathisen and Auður Ýr Steinarsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 4 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

2. Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 26 August 2013, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 26 June 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 4 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/7

Action brought on 21 April 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-11/15)

(2015/C 209/06)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 April 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Markus Schneider and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, (Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council), 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.

2. Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 24 November 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 24 September 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at points 7a, 7e and 7i of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 480/6

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 9 November 2015 in the case of Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian State

(Case E-28/15)

(2016/C 480/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 9 November 2015 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 November 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian State on the following question:

Does Article 7(l)(b) cf. Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC confer derived rights of residence to a third-country national who is a family member of an EEA national who, upon returning from another EEA State, is residing in the EEA State in which the EEA national is a citizen?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 216/10

Action brought on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-32/15)

(2016/C 216/07)

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Øyvind Bø and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Acts referred to at point 24f of Annex VIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area: — Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, and — Commission Directive 2011/94/EU of 28 November 2011 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences, — Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts within the time prescribed, or in any event by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.

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

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

— The application addresses the failure by the Principality of Liechtenstein to comply, no later than on 24 August 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 24 June 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, as well as Commission Directive 2011/94/EU of 28 November 2011 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences, and Commission Directive 2012/36/EU of 19 November 2012 amending Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on driving licences, as referred to at point 24f of Annex VIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/3

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 14 December 2016 in the case of Torbjørn Selstad Thue and the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v the Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security

(Case E-19/16)

(2017/C 133/03)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 14 December 2016 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 December 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Torbjørn Selstad Thue and the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v the Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security on the following questions:

1. Is the time spent on a journey ordered by the employer, to and/or from a place of attendance other than the employee’s fixed or habitual place of attendance, when such travel takes place outside normal working hours, to be considered working time within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC?

2. Insofar as travel as described in Question I is not by itself sufficient to be classified as working time, what is the legal test and the relevant elements to be considered in the assessment of whether the time spent on travel should nonetheless be deemed to constitute working time? As part of this question, an opinion is requested on whether an intensity assessment should be made of the amount of work performed while travelling.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/40

Action brought on 17 November 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-18/16)

(2017/C 9/10)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 17 November 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at point l2zzq of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

2. Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 2 May 2016, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 2 March 2016 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, as referred to at point l2zzq of Chapter XV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).
Action brought on 26 February 2019 by Nettbuss AS against Konkurrenten.no AS

(Case E-1/17 Costs)

(2019/C 197/08)

An action against Konkurrenten.no AS was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 February 2019 by Nettbuss AS, represented by Camilla Borna Fossem of Advokatfirmaet Schjødt AS, Ruseløkkveien 14, NO-0201 Oslo, Norway.

The applicant asks that the Court make the following order:

1. Konkurrenten.no will pay to Nettbuss AS the amount of NOK 442 125 (or equivalent in euro) in addition to the relevant default interest rates.

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

— Konkurrenten.no AS brought an action against Decision No 179/15/COL of May 2015, by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, before the EFTA Court on 11 January 2017. The applicant was directly affected by ESA’s decision and applied for leave to intervene in the Case, E-1/17 Konkurrenten.no AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority. The applicant was granted leave to intervene by Order of the President on 12 July 2017.

— Article 70(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the EFTA Court states. ‘If there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court shall, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, make an order.’
2.

Which legal criteria shall be particularly emphasised in the assessment of whether a national sports federation's concrete refusal to approve professional national team athletes' individual sponsorship contracts for such markings — so that the rights to such markings remain with the federation — shall be deemed a restriction on the athlete's freedom to provide services pursuant to Article 36 EEA or Directive 2006/123/EC (the Services Directive)? (a) What bearing will it have on the assessment that the national sports federation had already entered into a valid contract with the national team's main sponsor for logo exposure of the marking in question on helmets/headgear? Is this of significance in the assessment of whether a restriction exists, alternatively in the assessment of whether there are objective and sufficient grounds for the refusal? Provided that a restriction is deemed to exist;
Action brought on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-6/18)

(2019/C 9/10)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Catherine Howdle, and Ingibjörg Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1a of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 and under Article 7 of the EEA 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.

2. Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 3 April 2018, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 31 January 2018 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as referred to at point 1a of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).
3.

Must Article 6(5) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 be interpreted as meaning that even where a Member State has exercised the exception provided for in Article 13(1)(m) of this Regulation, any time spent as described in Article 4(e) of this Regulation and time spent driving vehicles (in each case in relation to journeys involving specialised vehicles transporting money and/or valuables) must be recorded as ‘other work’ in accordance with Article 6(5) of the Regulation mentioned? If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, must Article 6(5) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 be applied also where the relevant Member State has exempted the vehicles concerned in accordance with Article 3(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 (now Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 165/2014)?
1.

In connection with the assessment of ‘same profession’, see Articles 1 and 4 of the Directive, answers are requested to the following questions: a. What is the legal assessment and what are the legally relevant factors in the determination of whether a profession in the State where the qualification was obtained and that in the host State constitute the ‘same profession’? b. In the determination of ‘same profession’, must the host State take account of professional activities which the applicant in question may pursue in the State where the qualification was obtained, only under supervision and on the condition that the applicant has commenced a course of further education and training or undertaken to commence such a course of education and training within two years? If so, is it of any consequence that the applicant has opted not to commence or undertake to commence such a course of further education and training? c. What importance does differences in degree of independence in pursuing a profession and responsibility for patients have in the determination of whether it is the ‘same profession’?
2.

Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings. Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support: — Eviny AS (‘the applicant’) is a Norwegian renewable energy company, incorporated under Norwegian law, producing and distributing electrical power in Western Norway. — Decision No 161/22/COL (‘the contested decision’) was adopted following a complaint from NELFO, a Norwegian trade association, dated 11 May 2017, about state aid granted by the Municipality of Bergen. — The contested measures relate to overcompensation for payment of operation and maintenance costs and capital costs in relation to streetlight infrastructure in Bergen. — The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested decision and bases its application on the following pleas: — The EFTA Surveillance Authority committed a manifest error of assessment in its application of the notion of undertaking by concluding that streetlight ownership and operation is an economic activity; — The EFTA Surveillance Authority committed a manifest error of assessment by concluding that the applicant received an economic advantage through overcompensation; — There is no distortion of competition or effect on trade; — The alleged aid must be classified as existing aid not subject to recovery; and — The contested decision is based on an insufficient examination of the facts and fails to provide a proper reasoning in violation of Article 16 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice.
Announcement from Norway concerning Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons

Announcement of invitation to apply for petroleum production licences on the Norwegian Continental Shelf - 16th Round of Licensing

(1999/C 313/11)

The Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy hereby announces an invitation to apply for petroleum production licences on the Norwegian Continental Shelf in accordance with Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons.

Applications for petroleum production licences shall be submitted to The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy PO Box 8148 Dep. N - 0033 Oslo

no later than 31 January 2000, at 3 p.m.

The award of petroleum production licences in the 16th Licensing Round on the Norwegian Continental Shelf is planned to take place during March 2000.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, tel. (47) 22 24 62 09.