ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

Whether a profession in the host State and a profession in the home State can be considered as the ‘same profession’ for the purposes of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. That assessment must be based on a comparison between the activities covered by the profession in the home State and the activities of the profession the applicant wishes to pursue in the host State. d If the activities covered by the two professions are comparable, in the sense that they are equivalent in terms of the activities they cover, taking into account any relevant differences in the scope and nature of those activities, they must be considered the same profession for the purposes of Directive 2005/36/EC. In determining whether a profession in the home State and a profession in the host State constitute the same profession for the purposes of Directive 2005/36/EC, the pursuit of certain activities for a limited time in the context of training subject to the condition of commitment to further studies cannot be considered the pursuit of a profession. Differences in the degree of independence and patient responsibility may be relevant in determining the exact scope or nature of activities when assessing whether two professions are the ‘same profession’ for the purposes of Directive 2005/36/EC.
2.

In relation to a benefit such as the transitional benefit, it is not relevant in the context of the assessment under the first question that there is a requirement of occupational activity for continued entitlement to the benefit in question when the youngest child reaches the age of one year.
Reference for an advisory opinion by Marknadsdomstolen by order of that court of 30 August 1994 in the case of Konsumentombudsmannen against TV-Shop i Sverige AB (Case E-5/94) (94/C 347/12)

Reference has been made to the EFTA Court by an order of 30 August 1994 of Marknadsdomstolen (the Market Court), Sweden, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 September 1994, for an advisory opinion in the case of Konsumentombudsmannen (the Consumer Ombudsman) against TV-Shop i Sverige AB, on the following question:

Does Article 2 (2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (the TV Directive) or the transmitting State principle contained therein prevent a receiving State from taking action against an advertisement which is distributed by an advertiser by means of television broadcasts from other EEA States?
Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Nedre Romerike herredsrett by decision of that court of 2 September 1997 in the case of Jan og Kristian Jæger AS v. Opel Norge AS (Case E-3/97) (97/C 376/12)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 2 September 1997 of Nedre Romenike herredsrett (Nedre Romerike municipal court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 4 September 1997, for an advisory opinion in the case of Jan og Kristian Jæger AS v. Opel Norge AS, on the following questions:

1. (a) Does Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement, regarding the rules on selective distribution, prohibit an importer, on entering into a dealership agreement concerning motor vehicles, from imposing conditions regarding a certain shareholder structure of the dealer?

(b) If so, will this be applicable regardless of the aim or effects of the condition?

(c) Did such a prohibition exist in September 1995?

2. (a) Does Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement, regarding the rules on selective distribution, prohibit an importer, on entering into a dealership agreement concerning motor vehicles, from imposing conditions regarding the owners and/or general manager in the dealer company holding ownership interests in other companies which deal and/or hold ownership interests in other companies which deal with motor vehicles?

(b) If so, is this applicable regardless of the aim or effects of the condition?

(c) Did such a prohibition exist in September 1995?

3. Does it follow from Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement that an importer of motor vehicles in September 1995 had an obligation to enter into a dealership agreement with any or all who wished to be dealers and who otherwise met the qualitative criteria the importer could lawfully impose on dealers?

4. Is Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement to be construed to the effect that negotiations about an agreement or an agreement to enter into an agreement is tantamount to an 'agreement` and, consequently, sufficient to bring the matter within the scope of Article 53 (1)?

5. Is Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement to be construed to the effect that a refusal to accept a dealer falls to be examined pursuant to Article 53 when that refusal can serve to enforce an anticompetitive policy or contractual pratice between the importer and other, existing dealers?

6. Is Article 53 (2) to be construed to the effect that if a condition is contrary to Article 53 (1) and/or the rules on selective distribution, the entire contract is then of no legal force or
Action brought on 10 April 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-3/00)

(2000/C 165/07)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 April 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Peter Dyrberg, acting as agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74, Rue de Trèves/Trierstraat, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the EEA Agreement, by applying its legislation so as to prohibit the import and marketing in Norway of cornflakes, fortified per 100 g with 1 mg thiamine, 1 mg riboflavin, 10 mg niacin and 7 mg iron, which are lawfully manufactured and marketed, in other EEA States;

2. order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

- Article 11 of the EEA Agreement prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports, and all measures having an equivalent effect thereto, unless such a measure is justified under Article 13 of the EEA Agreement,

- by refusing an application for authorisation to import cornflakes, fortified per 100 g with 1 mg thiamine, 1 mg riboflavin, 10 mg niacin and 7 mg iron Norway has, according to the applicant, failed to comply with Article 11 of the EEA Agreement,

- the applicant submits that justification for this prohibition cannot be found in Article 13 of the EEA Agreement on grounds of public health, since there is no evidence that the fortified product creates a health risk.
Request for an Advisory Opinion to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) by decision of that court of 6 April 2001 in the case of Karl K. Karlsson hf. v Republic of Iceland

(Case E-4/01)

(2001/C 242/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court on 12 April 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Karl K. Karlsson hf. v Republic of Iceland on the following questions:

1. Should the provisions of the EEA Agreement, in particular Articles 11 and 16, be interpreted as meaning that Iceland was obliged to abolish the State monopoly for the import and wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages as of the commencement of the Agreement on 1 January 1994?

2. If the aforementioned question is answered in the affirmative, is Iceland liable for compensation to a legal person which, at the time of entry into force of the Agreement, was the exclusive agent for a specific type of alcoholic beverage, for the financial loss it incurred due to the fact that the import and wholesale distribution of the alcoholic beverage was not permitted until nearly two years after the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, provided that the conditions for liability for compensation according to the case-law of the EFTA Court and Court of Justice of the European Communities are fulfilled?

3. If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, are the conditions for liability for compensation according to the case-law of the aforementioned courts fulfilled?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/70

Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-5/04)

(2004/C 319/12)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 31 August 2004 by Fesil ASA and Finnfjord Smelteverk AS, represented by Jan Magne Langseth, Advokat, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt AS, Dronning Mauds gt. 11, P.b. 2444 Solli, N-0201 Oslo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; and

2. Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL (the ‘Decision’) concludes that the Norwegian measure exempting the manufacturing and the mining industries from the tax on electricity consumption constitutes State aid and that it constitutes new aid as from 1 January 2002.

— The Decision concludes that the relevant measures are incompatible with the EEA Agreement and the incompatible aid must be recovered from the aid recipients.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority has not made a correct assessment of Article 61(1) EEA.

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority misuses its powers under the EEA Agreement by its incorrect application of Article 61(3) EEA and the Environmental Guidelines.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/27

Action brought on 31 July 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-2/06)

(2006/C 258/11)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 31 July 2006 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger, acting as Agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that the Kingdom of Norway, by maintaining in force measures, as laid down in Act 16 of 14 December 1917, which grant a time limited concession on the acquisition of waterfalls for energy production to private and all undertakings from other Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement and require them to give all installations to the Norwegian State without compensation, at the expiry of the concession, to the exclusion of Norwegian public undertakings which benefit from concessions for an unlimited period of time, Norway has infringed Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement. and

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

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

— The case concerns transfer of property rights to hydroelectric power plants to the Norwegian State without compensation at the expiry of the concession period. This transfer is referred to in Norwegian law as ‘reversion’ (‘hjemfall’ in Norwegian), even if the State never held any property rights to the waterfall or hydroelectric installation in the past.

— Under Act No 16 of 14 December 1917 (the ‘Industrial Licensing Act’), the duration of a concession to use waterfalls and hydroelectric installations is unlimited to companies owned at least 2/3 by the Norwegian State, county municipalities or municipalities, but is limited to all others, including all companies in which owners from other EEA States, alone or together with Norwegian private owners, hold more than 1/3 of the share capital.

— The consequence is that reversion only applies to the latter category.

— This, according to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, means that reversion as it now operates discriminates against owners from other EEA States, which is an infringement of Articles 31 and 41 of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 186/61

Action brought on 4 April 2007 by Private Barnehagers Landsforbund against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-5/07)

(2007/C 186/10)

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 4 April 2007 by Private Barnehagers Landsforbund, represented by Peter Dyrberg and Ingvald Falch, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, Dronning Mauds gt 11, Oslo, Norway.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority No 39/07/COL of 27 February 2007 on public financing of municipal day-care institutions in Norway; and

2. order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The applicant is the association of private kindergartens in Norway,

— The applicant contends that Norway's system for the funding of kindergartens entails State aid which is incompatible with the EEA Agreement,

— The EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision No 39/07/COL of 27 February 2007 declared that the system at issue did not entail such State aid, arguing first that kindergartens cannot be considered as undertakings, and second that the measure did not have an effect on cross-border trade. Moreover, in case aid should be involved, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that it would be compatible with the EEA Agreement under Article 59(2) of the Agreement;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 208/6

Action brought on 22 June 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Case E-7/09)

2009/C 208/06

An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 June 2009 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Bjørnar Alterskjær and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, BELGIUM.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

1. By failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 10e of Annex XXII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that Act and under Article 7 EEA; and

2. The Principality of Liechtenstein bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

— the present case concerns the non-implementation of a directive concerning cross-border mergers of limited liability companies,

— the EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Principality of Liechtenstein has not provided any indication that it has implemented the directive into Liechtenstein law,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/21

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 26 March 2010 in the case of Þór Kolbeinsson v the Icelandic State

(Case E-2/10)

2010/C 325/05

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 26 March 2010 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 6 April 2010, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Þór Kolbeinsson v the Icelandic State, on the following questions:

1. Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) that a worker, due to his own contributory negligence, is held liable for losses suffered as a result of an accident at work, when it has been established that the employer has not on his own initiative complied with rules regarding safety and conditions in the work place?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/9

Action brought on 9 July 2010 by Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft against the EFTA Surveillance Authority

(Case E-7/10)

2010/C 256/09

An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 July 2010 by Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft, represented by Dr. Michael Sánchez Rydelski, Rechtsanwalt for Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft, Kirchstrasse 12, 9490 Vaduz, LIECHTENSTEIN.

Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft requests the EFTA Court to:

1. annul EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 regarding the taxation of captive insurance companies under the Liechtenstein Tax Act;

2. in the alternative, declare void Articles 3 and 4 of EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 97/10/COL of 24 March 2010 to the extent that they order the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 of that Decision; and

3. order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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

— The Applicant, Swisscom RE Aktiengesellschaft, a wholly owned subsidiary of Swisscom AG, has carried out captive reinsurance operations in Liechtenstein for the Swisscom Group since its establishment in 1997.

— The Applicant submits that the EFTA Surveillance Authority incorrectly applied Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. The Liechtenstein tax measures do not constitute State aid because captives do not qualify as undertakings within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement. Furthermore, the Liechtenstein tax measure cannot be regarded as selective measures under Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 29/12

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht, dated 14 September 2011, in the case between Granville Establishment and Volker Anhalt, Melanie Anhalt and Jasmin Barbaro, née Anhalt

(Case E-13/11)

2012/C 29/09

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 15 September 2011 from Fürstliches Landgericht, Liechtenstein (Princely Court of Justice, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 22 September 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case between Granville Establishment and Volker Anhalt, Melanie Anhalt and Jasmin Barbaro, née Anhalt, on the following questions:

1. Can a national of an EEA State rely on a provision such as Section 53a of the Liechtenstein Jurisdiction Law, which accords Liechtenstein nationals the right not to be sued abroad on the basis of a jurisdiction agreement unless that jurisdiction agreement has been publicly recorded, and derive directly there from also the right not to be sued in Liechtenstein (and, thus, from the perspective of that national, also abroad) on the basis of a jurisdiction agreement unless it has been publicly recorded?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 176/9

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Statens helsepersonellnemnd dated 25 January 2011 in the case of an appeal from A

(Case E-1/11)

2011/C 176/06

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 25 January 2011 from Statens helsepersonellnemnd (The Norwegian Appeal Board for Health Personnel), which was received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of an appeal from A, on the following question:

Does Directive 2005/36/EC or other EEA law allow the authorities of Member States to apply national rules providing for a right to deny an authorisation as a medical doctor or only to grant a limited authorisation as a medical doctor to applicants with insufficient professional qualifications, to a migrant applicant from another Member State who formally fulfils requirements under Directive 2005/36/EC for a right to mutual recognition of professional qualifications (authorisation as a medical doctor without limitations), when the professional experience of the applicant in Norway has unveiled insufficient professional qualifications?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 29/5

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 14 September 2012 in the case of Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf.

(Case E-10/12)

2013/C 29/06

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 14 September 2012 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 14 September 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Yngvi Harðarson v Askar Capital hf., on the following question:

Should Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991, on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship, be interpreted as meaning, in circumstances including bankruptcy proceedings or a comparable division of a limited liability company, that compensation to an employee is to be assessed on the basis of a written contract of employment if no written document has been handed over to the employee concerning amendments, temporary or permanent, that may have been made to the main features of the contract of employment or employment relationship between the parties within the time-limits laid down in Article 5 of the Directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/13

Action brought on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-9/13)

2013/C 287/09

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Markus Schneider, 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 (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the Authority forthwith of, all the measure necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 16a of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/48/EU of 5 July 2010 adapting to technical progress Directive 2009/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed (both except for paragraph 3 of Annex II to the Directive on roadworthiness certificates which is only to be implemented by 31 December 2013), the Kingdom of 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: