ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 216/8

Action brought on 16 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-30/15)

(2016/C 216/05)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Clémence Perrin 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 Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products), 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.

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 14 March 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 14 January 2015 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products, as referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII 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’).
1.

Declare that the Principality of Liechtenstein has breached its obligations arising from Articles 9, 10, 13 and 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X to 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), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, and, to the extent that establishments and the provisions of cross-border services fall outside the scope of that Act, its obligations arising from Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement: (a) by maintaining in force Article 7 of the Liechtenstein Trade Act which sets up a prior authorisation scheme for undertakings intending to establish themselves in Liechtenstein; and, (b) by maintaining in force Article 8(1) of the Liechtenstein Trade Act in so far as it imposes conditions that are not clear and unambiguous for granting prior authorisation for undertakings intending to establish themselves in Liechtenstein (namely the obligation to have the necessary personnel and the obligation to have an adequate command of the German language); and, (c) by failing to ensure that requirements, which are equivalent or essentially comparable as regards their purpose, to which the service provider is already subject in another EEA State or in the same EEA State in the procedure for prior authorisation for undertakings wishing to establish themselves in Liechtenstein are not duplicated and that the procedure and formalities concerning the authorisation scheme under the Trade Act is clearly laid down; and, (d) by maintaining in force Article 21 of the Liechtenstein Trade Act which sets up a prior authorisation scheme for undertakings wishing to provide cross-border services in Liechtenstein; and
1.

Can point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002, on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), be interpreted in such a way that the term ‘electronic communications network’ covers the conveyance of signals that are written as an SMS message on users’ end device connected via a web browser to the ‘My Pages’ web server in a telecommunications undertaking’s web domain, via the public internet and to the PHP script software on the same telecommunications undertaking’s web domain, which receives the signals, processes them and conveys them in turn from the telecommunications undertaking’s web domain to an SMS server (SMSC) in its communications system, which then sends them on over a telephone network to the recipient telephone number?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 67/12

Action brought on 21 December 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-13/17)

(2018/C 67/12)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2017 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 Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 31bbe of Annex IX to that Agreement (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/514 of 18 December 2014 on the information to be provided by competent authorities to the European Securities and Markets Authority pursuant to Article 67(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.

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 12 September 2017, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 July 2017 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/514 of 18 December 2014 on the information to be provided by competent authorities to the European Securities and Markets Authority pursuant to Article 67(3) of Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as referred to at point 31bbe of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).
1.

By maintaining in force (i) an authorisation system for the import of raw eggs and raw egg products such as the one laid down in Article 10 of Act No 25/1993 and Articles 3 (e) and 4 of Regulation (IS) No 448/2012; (ii) an authorisation system for the import of unpasteurised milk and dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk and additional requirements, such as laid down in Article 10 of Act No 25/1993 and Article 3 (f), 4 and 5 of Regulation (IS) No 448/2012, and a prohibition of the marketing of imported dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk, such as laid down in Article 7a of Regulation (IS) No 104/2010; and (iii) an administrative practice of requiring importers to make a declaration and obtain an approval for the import of treated egg and dairy products, such as the one established in the context of the application of Regulation (IS) No 448/2012, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at Point 1.1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market as amended and as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptions in Annex I thereto, and in particular Article 5 of that directive.
1.

Does it follow from Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR) or from another provision of EEA law that an adversarial general procedure to hear a complaint may be carried out under the GDPR without disclosing the name and address of the complainant in the complaint procedure? If the answer to the question is in the affirmative: Is it necessary in this case that a legitimate reason for the anonymisation is at least prima facie established or are no reasons required for the anonymisation?
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 24 January 2019 in the case of D and E

(Case E-2/19)

(2019/C 197/07)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 24 January 2019 from Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 29 January 2019, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of D and E, on the following question:

Must Directive 2004/38, in particular Article 3(1) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(d) thereof, and the first sentence of Point III of [EEA Joint Committee] Decision No 191/1999 be interpreted as meaning that a family member of a national of an EU Member State has the right to obtain a permit of the same validity as that of the person on whom he depends even if the person on whom he depends obtained the right of residence in Liechtenstein only on the basis of national law and not on the basis of EEA law?
Action brought on 28 August 2020 by Telenor ASA and Telenor Norge AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-12/20)

(2020/C 343/15)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 August 2020 by Telenor ASA and Telenor Norge AS, represented by Siri Teigum, advocate, Advokatfirmaet Thommessen AS, Postboks 1484 Vika, 0116 Oslo, Norway.

The Applicants request the EFTA Court:

— to annul the Decision of 29 June 2020 in Case No 71480 Telenor in whole;

— in the alternative, to annul the Decision in part, that is in relation to two or one of the contested individual infringements; and

— in the alternative, to annul the Decision in part in relation to SPs, in so far as 2011 and 2012 is concerned;

— in the alternative, to annul or reduce the fines imposed on the Applicants in exercise of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction; and

— to order ESA to pay the Applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

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

— Telenor ASA is a global telecommunications operator that offers its services in the Nordics, and in Asia. Telenor Norge AS, which operates in the Norwegian market for telecommunication services, is its subsidiary. The Decision holds Telenor ASA and Telenor Norge AS jointly and severally liable for the fines in question (hereinafter jointly referred to as Telenor or the Applicant).

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) adopted a Decision in Case No 71480 (the Decision) on 29 June 2020, which concluded that Telenor had infringed Article 54 EEA by applying unfair tariffs not allowing equally efficient competitors, relying on wholesale access and origination services on Telenor’s public mobile telephone network in Norway, to replicate the stand-alone mobile broadband (MBB) services offered by Telenor Norge AS to residential customers in Norway, without incurring a loss, including wholesale NRO tariffs to Network Norway (NwN) from 1 August 2008 to 31 August 2010, wholesale MVNO tariffs to Ventelo from 1 January 2008 to 30 November 2010 and wholesale Service Provider (SP) tariffs from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2012.

— ESA imposed three separate fines of EUR 32 562 000 (related to NwN), EUR 27 783 000 (related to Ventelo) and EUR 51 606 000 (related to SPs), respectively, in total EUR 111 951 000, on Telenor, and ordered Telenor to immediately bring such acts to an end insofar as it had not already done so. In addition, ESA ordered Telenor to refrain from repeating such conduct, and any conduct having the same or equivalent object or effect.

— According to the Applicant, the Decision does not justify the finding of an infringement of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement, cf. Article 1.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 1 July 2021 in the case of PRA Group Europe AS v Staten v/Skatteetaten

(Case E-3/21)

(2021/C 426/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 1 July 2021 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 2 July 2021, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of PRA Group Europe AS v Staten v/Skatteetaten on the following questions:

1. Is there a restriction within the meaning of Article 31 EEA, read in conjunction with Article 34, when group contributions from Norwegian companies increase the maximum deduction for interest and thus the entitlement to deduction of interests on debt to affiliated parties under the limited interest deduction rule, a possibility which, under Norwegian tax rules, is not available for investments by or in EEA companies?

2. Is an EEA company that is in a group with a Norwegian company in a comparable situation to that of a Norwegian company that is in a group with another Norwegian company, and what significance does it have for the comparability assessment that no actual group contribution has been made from the EEA company to the Norwegian company, but rather a loan?
Action brought on 3 June 2022 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-6/22)

(2022/C 271/09)

An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 3 June 2022 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Kyrre Isaksen, Ingibjörg-Ólöf Vilhjálmsdóttir, and Melpo-Menie Joséphidès, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Avenue de Arts 19H, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act referred to at point 19bi of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/778 of 2 February 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the circumstances and conditions under which the payment of extraordinary ex post contributions may be partially or entirely deferred, and on the criteria for the determination of the activities, services and operations with regard to critical functions, and for the determination of the business lines and associated services with regard to core business lines), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order;

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

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

— By this application, the EFTA Surveillance Authority seeks a declaration that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the act referred to at point 19bi of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), that is Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/778 of 2 February 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the circumstances and conditions under which the payment of extraordinary ex post contributions may be partially or entirely deferred, and on the criteria for the determination of the activities, services and operations with regard to critical functions, and for the determination of the business lines and associated services with regard to core business lines (‘the Act’), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, part of its internal legal order.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 241/22

Publication of the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications' notification of directly awarding a public service contract in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70

2013/C 241/08

1. Name and address of the contracting entity:

The Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications Department of Public and Rail Transport PO Box 8010 Dep 0030 Oslo NORWAY

Hedmark fylkeskommune PO Box 4404 2325 Hamar NORWAY

2. Duration of the public service contract:

The agreement covers a six — 6 — year period starting T13 up to and including T18. Each party has an option to cancel the agreement with the purpose to start renegotiations; this process has to start at the latest eighteen — 18 — months before T16, i.e. in June 2014.

3. Description of the passenger transport services to be performed:

International passenger service by rail Kongsvinger–Charlottenberg with three daily round trips divided evenly on morning, noon and evening.

4. Description of the parameters of the financial compensation:

The Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications and Hedmark fylkeskommune are co-financing the agreement with SEK 1 747 000 exclusive of VAT for the first three-year period (T13-T15). The Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications is set to pay SEK 407 000 and Hedmark fylkeskommmune SEK 1 340 000.

5. Quality targets, such as punctuality and reliability, and rewards and penalties applicable:

The report must as a minimum include the following parameters: train-km Kongsvinger–Charlottenberg, seat-km Kongsvinger–Charlottenberg, revenue passenger-km Kongsvinger–Charlottenberg, number of travellers Kongsvinger–Charlottenberg, agreed train-km, and actual km covered.

6. Conditions relating to essential assets:

VTAB is responsible for ensuring that the rail service has appropriate material and sufficient capacity, with Regina train set of two or three rail wagons.
Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the method of application of Article 61 (3) (c) of the EEA Agreement to regional aid (94/C 158/04)

Thresholds for the application of Article 61 (3) (c) to regional aid

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has described the method for application of Article 61 (3) (c) of the EEA Agreement to regional aid in the Procedural and Substantive Rules in the Field of State Aid, adopted and issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 19 January 1994. The method makes use of threshold indices for assessing the socio-economic situation of a region. The threshold indices are to be updated annually to reflect changes in the EFTA State's position with respect to income and structural unemployment compared to the EEA average. The EFTA Surveillance Authority has on 4 May 1994 decided to use the following indices:

>TABLE>
E1994C0915(01)

Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 (3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 258 , 15/09/1994 P. 0003 - 0003
Information procedure - technical regulations (94/C 326/06)

Act referred to in point 1 of Section XIX of Annex II to the EEA Agreement laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (Council Directive 83/189/EEC)

Notifications of draft national technical regulations received by the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

>TABLE>

The EFTA Surveillance Authority would draw the attention to the Act referred to in point 6 of section XIX of Annex II to the EEA Agreement concerning the non-respect of certain provisions of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations. In this act, it is considered that if a technical regulation is adopted without communicating the draft or respecting the standstill obligation, when required under the provisions of Directive 83/189/EEC, that regulation cannot be enforced against third parties and that litigants therefore have a right to expect national courts to refuse to implement national technical regulations that have not been notified as required by the Directive.

Information on these notifications can be obtained from the national administrations, a list of which was published in the EEA Section of and the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communities No C 199 of 21. 7. 1994.
E1995C0608(03)

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licences pursuant to Article 13 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers



Official Journal C 142 , 08/06/1995 P. 0005 - 0005
EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 68/95/COL of 19 June 1995 approving the plan presented by Norway to monitor and control salmonella in poultry

THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in particular Article 17 and Protocol 1 (4) (d) thereof,

Having regard to the Act referred to in Point 34c of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area concerning measures for protection against specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal origin in order to prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and intoxications (Council Directive 92/117/EEC; hereinafter referred to as the Zoonoses Act) and in particular Article 8 (3) thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, as adjusted by the Protocol Adjusting the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and in particular Article 5 (2) (d) and Protocol 1, Article 1 (e) thereof,

Whereas in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Zoonoses Act, Norway has by letter dated 24 April 1995 sent a plan to monitor and control salmonella in Norwegian poultry;

Whereas the aforementioned plan meets the criteria laid down in Article 8 (2) of the Zoonoses Act;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the EFTA Veterinary Committee assisting the EFTA Surveillance Authority;

Whereas the plan should be approved accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

1. The plan presented by Norway to monitor and control salmonella in poultry is hereby approved.

2. Norway shall bring into force by 1 September 1995 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementing the plan referred to in Point 1.

3. This Decision shall enter into force on 1 September 1995.

4. This Decision is addressed to Norway.

5. This Decision shall be authentic in the English language.

Done at Brussels, 19 June 1995.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Björn FRIÐFINNSSON

College Member
E1996C0620(01)

Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 (3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 177 , 20/06/1996 P. 0004 - 0004
Authorization for State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1 (3) of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections (97/C 209/05)

Date of adoption: 14 May 1997

EFTA State: Norway

Aid No: 97-002

Title: Individual award of aid to International Pipe System AS

Objective: Aid for regional development within the map of assisted areas for Norway

Legal basis: Circular letter H-3/96 from the Ministry of Local Government and Labour

Aid intensity: 21,64 % of the investment costs related to machinery and equipment

Amount of aid: Aid from the Industrial Fund of the Municipality of Surnadal: NOK 2,987 million

Aid from the Norwegian Industrial and Regional Fund: NOK 7,1 million

Duration: Individual award of aid