ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/5

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht dated 12 October 2017 in the case Edmund Falkenhahn AG v the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority

(Case E-9/17)

(2018/C 46/06)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 12 October 2017 from the Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht (Appeals Board of the Financial Market Authority), which was received at the Court Registry on 12 October 2017, for an Advisory Opinion in the case Edmund Falkenhahn AG v the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority on the following questions:

I/1. Is it compatible with Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions (Electronic Money Directive) if electronic money has a value different from par value on the receipt of funds in the period between issuance (Article 11(1)) and redemption (Article 11(2)), provided that redemption (Article 11(2)) is at least at par value?

I/2. If Question I/1 is answered in the affirmative: Can the different value referred to in Question I/1 be linked to a variable value (such as the price of gold)?

I/3. If Question I/2 is answered in the affirmative: In the case of a link to a variable value (such as the price of gold), is it compatible with Article 12 of the Electronic Money Directive for redemption (Article 11(2)) to be realised at an amount above par value?

II/1. Does Article 7(2) first and second subparagraph of the Electronic Money Directive define exhaustively what are to be regarded as secure, low-risk assets within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of the Electronic Money Directive read in conjunction with Article 9(1)(a) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market (Payment Services Directive)?

II/2. If Question II/1 is answered in the negative: Does Article 9(1)(a) of the Payment Services Directive preclude the competent authority from defining what constitutes secure, (liquid) low-risk assets only as part of the decision on the granting of an authorisation in accordance with Article 10 of the Electronic Money Directive?

II/3. If Question II/2 is answered in the negative: Is the reference to Article 9(1) and (2) of the Payment Services Directive contained in the first sentence of Article 7(1) of the Electronic Money Directive to be interpreted as meaning ‘secure, low-risk assets’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of the Electronic Money Directive or as meaning ‘secure, liquid low-risk assets’?
Action brought on 9 November 2018 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland

(Case E-5/18)

(2019/C 9/09)

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, 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 7d, 7f and 7k of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC), 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 23 April 2018, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 21 February 2018 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC, as referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7k 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’).
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Public Procurement Complaints Committee dated 17 September 2019 in the case of Tak – Malbik ehf. v the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration and Þróttur ehf.

(Case E-7/19)

(2020/C 23/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 17 September 2019 from the Public Procurement Complaints Committee (kærunefnd útboðsmála), which was received at the Court Registry on 23 September 2019, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Tak – Malbik ehf. v the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration and Þróttur ehf. on the following question:
1.

The EU Court of Justice has held that Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38/EC grant a right to reside in a host State to a minor child who is a national of another EU State and who satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b), and that ‘the same provisions’ allow a parent who is that child’s primary carer to reside with the child in the host Member State, see, for example Case C-86/12 Alokpa paragraph 29. At the same time, the EU Court of Justice has also held that such a parent does not come within the personal scope of the Directive as provided for in Article 3(1), see Alokpa paragraphs 24-26. In a situation as described above, may the parent’s right of residence be based on the Directive alone or in the light of the EEA Agreement, or does such a right presuppose that the Directive is to be applied together with Article 21 TFEU, or possibly that the Directive is to be given a broad interpretation in the light of Article 21 TFEU?
1.

Must 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) (Collection of EEA law (EWR-Rechtssammlung): Annex IX - 1.01), in particular Articles 27 and 28 thereof, and Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), and the Second Council Directive of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC (88/357/EEC), in particular Article 1(b), Article 7(1)(a) to (c), Article 10, Article 11(7) and Article 21 thereof, and the First Council Directive of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, Regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance (73/239/EEC), in particular Articles 13 and 14 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that these grant rights to creditors of a supervised direct insurance undertaking who are not policy holders, insured persons or beneficiaries of this insurance undertaking or other party to an insurance contract concluded with this insurance undertaking and to whom as injured third party also otherwise no direct right of action against this insurance undertaking as a result of an insurance law relationship is directly conferred and whose claims are owed not by reason of an insurance contract or another activity to which these legal bases are applicable in the framework of direct insurance but whose claims, such as those of the applicants as insurers of third party policy holders, are asserted as recourse claims, in the widest sense, directly against the supervised direct insurance undertaking, in the sense that the competent authority, such as, here, the defendant, has to exercise supervisory measures, which it must carry out under the directives cited, also in the interests of these creditors and on infringement of the corresponding obligations it is liable to the creditors for resulting losses.
Action brought on 7 December 2022 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway

(Case E-15/22)

(2023/C 18/04)

An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 7 December 2022 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Kyrre Isaksen, Marte Brathovde and Melpo-Menie Joséphidès, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 19H Avenue des Arts, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare that Norway, by not providing and operating data link services by 5 February 2018, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 of 16 January 2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky (1), and

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

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

— By the present Application, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘the Authority’) seeks a declaration that Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 (‘the Regulation’).

— The Authority requested, in a letter to the Norwegian Government dated 31 May 2018, information regarding the status for the implementation of data link services in Norway. The Norwegian Government replied on 2 July 2018, confirming that the air traffic service provider designated by Norway, Avinor Air Navigation Services (Avinor Flysikring), had not yet implemented the data link services as required by the Regulation.

— Following a letter of formal notice issued by the Authority on 10 June 2020, the Norwegian Government, in its reply on 12 October 2020, did not dispute the Authority’s assessment that Norway had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) and Article 7(1) of the Regulation.

— In a reasoned opinion of 10 November 2021, the Authority maintained its assessment and concluded that, by not providing and operating data link services by 5 February 2018, Norway had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and 7(1) of the Regulation.

— The Norwegian Government, in its letter of 15 February 2022, referred to technical challenges, unreasonable costs and safety concerns as reasons for not implementing data link services by the deadline set out in the Regulation or in the Authority’s reasoned opinion.

— The Authority submits that there is no legal basis in the Regulation, as incorporated into the EEA Agreement, or otherwise in that Agreement, based on which non-compliance of the obligations set out in Articles 3(1) and 7(1) of the Regulation could be justified in this case.

(1) OJ L 13, 17.1.2009, p. 3.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 January 2022 by G. Modiano Limited and Standard Wool (UK) Limited against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-1/22)

(2022/C 103/11)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 January 2022 by G. Modiano Limited and Standard Wool (UK) Limited, represented by Karl O. Wallevik, Attorney at Law, Advokatfirmaet Wallevik, Klostergaten 36, 5005 Bergen, Norway, and Charles Whiddington and Zanda Romata, Solicitors, Steptoe & Johnson L.L.P., 489 Avenue Louise, 1050 Brussels Belgium.

G. Modiano Limited and Standard Wool (UK) Limited request the EFTA Court to:

1. Declare this appeal admissible and well-founded.

2. Declare ESA’s decision of 9 November 2021 in case number 84045 void.

3. Declare that the Subsidy Scheme is new aid and that the Collecting Stations have been receiving unlawful aid at least since 2002 and ask ESA to quantify the amount of unlawful aid.

4. Order ESA to cover the costs of G. Modiano Limited and Standard Wool (UK) Limited.

5. Take such other and further measures as justice may require.

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

— G. Modiano Limited is a private limited company incorporated in England and Wales. Its principal activity is the import, export, processing, dealing in sheep’s wool.

— Standard Wool (UK) Limited is a private limited company incorporated in England and Wales. It is an international wool processor and trader, with a particular focus on early-stage wool processing and trading.

— On 6 September 2019, G. Modiano Limited and Standard Wool (UK) Limited (‘the applicants’) submitted a complaint to the EFTA Surveillance Authority regarding the Norwegian Wool Subsidy Scheme (‘the Subsidy Scheme’).

— This application is an action for an annulment of the EFTA Surveillance decision, adopted on 9 November 2021, closing the complaint (‘the contested decision’).
Notice published pursuant to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (96/C 350/06)

Slots have been reserved at Oslo Airport, Fornebu for air services between Oslo and the route area Helgeland, and Oslo and the route area Sogn and Fjordane.

The slots in operation at Oslo Airport, Fornebu on the said routes during the scheduling periods summer 1996 and winter 1996/97 are reserved for the subsequent equivalent scheduling periods.

The slots in operation during the 1996 summer period have been published in the Imposition of public service obligations for the route areas
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/25

Notice from the EFTA Secretariat

2012/C 161/06

Please be informed that the Surveillance and Court Agreement and its Protocol 4 have been updated on the Secretariats web-site, please see:

http://efta.int/legal-texts/the-surveillance-and-court-agreement.aspx
3.

Services and areas potentially covered by the award: Local/regional passenger services by bus, performed by the following companies: Indre Namdal Trafikk AS, Namdalsbussen AS, Steinkjerbuss AS and NettBuss Trøndelag AS. Covering areas of Overhalla, Namskogan, Høylandet, Grong, Lierne, Røyrvik, Snåsa, Fosnes, Namsos, Namdalseid, Flatanger, Verran, Meråker, Stjørdal and Steinkjer municipalities in Nord-Trøndelag county.
EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 71/94/COL of 27 June 1994 concerning the status of Norway with regard to infectious hematopoietic necrosis and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia

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, and in particular Article 17 and Protocol 1 (4) (d) thereof,

Having regard to the Act referred to in point 5 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area concerning the animal health conditions governing the placing on the market of aquaculture animals and products (Council Directive 91/67/EEC; hereinafter referred to as 'the Aquaculture Act`), and in particular Article 5 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, an EFTA State can obtain for one or more continental and coastal zones the status of approved zone free from certain diseases affecting fish and molluscs;

Whereas Norway, by letter dated 3 May 1994, has submitted the appropriate justifications for granting, as far as infectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHN) and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS) are concerned, the status of approved zone to its territory, as well as the national rules ensuring compliance with the conditions to be respected for maintenance of the approved status;

Whereas, accordingly, Norway should, as far as IHN and VHS are concerned, be granted the status of approved continental and coastal zone;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

1. Norway is recognized as approved continental zone and as approved coastal zone for fish with regard to infectious haematopoietic necrosis and viral haemorrhagic septicaemia.

2. This Decision shall enter into force on 1 July 1994.

3. This Decision is addressed to the EFTA States.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 June 1994.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Pekka SÄILÄ

College Member
EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION No 189/94/COL of 30 November 1994 setting up the list of establishments in the EFTA States for which are granted temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat

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, and in particular Article 17 and Protocol 1 (4) (d) thereof,

Having regard to the Act referred to in point 19 of Chapter 1 of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area on the conditions for granting temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat (Council Directive 91/498/EEC), and in particular Article 2 (2) 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 (c) thereof,

Whereas the EFTA States have submitted to the EFTA Surveillance Authority the lists of establishments for which it is proposed to grant a derogation from certain provisions of the Act referred to in point 18 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area on health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat (Council Directive 64/433/EEC);

Whereas it is suitable to determine the list of these establishments;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

1. The establishments listed in the Annex are granted derogations in the sense of Article 2 of the Act referred to in point 19 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area on the conditions for granting temporary and limited derogations from specific Community health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat (Council Directive 91/498/EEC).

2. This Decision shall enter into force on 1 December 1994.

3. This Decision is addressed to the EFTA States.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 November 1994.

For the EFTA Surveillance Authority

Pekka SÄILÄ

College Member

ANNEX

List of establishments of the EFTA States for which is granted a temporary and limited derogation from specific health rules on the production and marketing of fresh meat

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>
Authorization for State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 11 of the Act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections (95/C 312/11)

Date of adoption: 27. 9. 1995

EFTA State: Norway

Aid No: 95-004

Title: Existing State aid to the shipbuilding industry:

- Grants for shipbuilding, newbuildings and conversions,

- Export credit guarantees for ships (by the GIEK),

- The guarantee scheme for ship construction

Objective: Contract-related producion aid to shipbuilding

Legal basis:

- Directions by the Royal Ministry of Industry and Energy of 28. 12. 1994 ('Føresegner for statleg støtte ved kontrahering av skip`), as amended by the Ministry's directions of 18. 1. 1995

- For guarantees by the Guarantee Institute for Export Credits (GIEK) and the guarantee scheme for ship construction: the annual State budget

Budget: For the grant scheme for shipbuilding and conversion: Nkr 1 064 million for 1995

Aid intensity: For the construction of vessels of not less than 100 GT:

- 9 % for vessels whose contract value is ECU 10 million or more,

- 4,5 % for vessels of a contract value less than ECU 10 million,

- 4,5 % for major conversions of vessels of at least 1 000 GT

Credit guarantees within the limits of the OECD Understanding on Export Credits for Ships

Duration: Until 31 December 1995

Conditions: Reports pursuant to Article 12 of the Act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the EEA
E1996C1121(02)

Authorization of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 11 of the Act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement EFTA Surveillance Authority decision not to raise objections



Official Journal C 350 , 21/11/1996 P. 0006 - 0006
Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority (97/C 90/05)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority announces that pursuant to Articles 4 (2) and 4 (3) of the Act referred to in point 1b of Annex XV to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Council Directive 90/684/EEC on aid to shipbuilding) it has decided to set the common maximum ceiling for operating aid to shipbuilding, referred to in Articles 4 (1) and 5 (1) of the Directive, at 9 % for the period from 1 January 1997 until Articles 1 to 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3094/95 become applicable in the European Community, but no longer than until 31 December 1997.

In view of the provisions of Article 4 (2), second subparagraph, of the Directive, the maximum level of aid permissible for the construction of small ships of a contract value of less than ECU 10 million as well as for all ship conversions covered by the Directive has at the same time been fixed at 4,5 % for the same period, except for the construction of such ships destined for national utilization in Greece.
E1998C0820(02)

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



Official Journal C 263 , 20/08/1998 P. 0005 - 0005
Communication from the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the 16th Amendment of the procedural and substantive rules in the field of State aid (extension of the period of validity of the rules on aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty)

(1999/C 111/08)

By decision of 16 December 1998, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided that pending adoption by the authority of revised rules on the same subject, the rules in chapter 16 of its State Aid Guidelines, concerning aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, adopted on 19 October 1994, and extended until 31 December 1998 by the Authority's Decision No 298/97/COL of 17 December 1997, shall continue to apply until 31 December 1999.
Authorisation 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

(1999/C 223/11)

Date of adoption: 10 March 1999

EFTA Staate: Norway

Aid No: 98-015

Title: Notification of individual grant from the Rural Development Fund managed by the Country Commissioner of Hordaland to Granvin Bruk P/L

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

Legal basis: Regulations for Rural Development Fund by Ministry of Agriculture, 9 February 1996

Aid intensity: 3,05 % NGE of the investment costs in fixed production assets

Amount of aid: Aid from Rural Development Fund: NOK 3 million

Duration: Individual award of aid