Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision of that court of 15 June 2000 in the case of Dr Jürgen Tschannett (Case E-6/00)
Date: 2000-06-15
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA, Liechtenstein, interpretation of the law, occupational medicine, right of establishment, self-employed person

15.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 49/9

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des
F(cid:252)rstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision
of that court of 15 June 2000 in the case of Dr J(cid:252)rgen Tschannett

(Case E-6/00)

(2001/C 49/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 15 June 2000 of Verwaltungsbeschwerde-
instanz des F(cid:252)rstenstums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), which
was received at the Court Registry on 21 June 2000, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Dr J(cid:252)rgen
Tschannett, on the following questions:

1. Is the single practice rule applying without exception to all doctors under Liechtenstein national
the Regulation of 8 November 1988 on the medical
law, and in particular Article 9(1) of
professions which provides:
(cid:145)A doctor may pursue his profession in a self-employed capacity, as
a sole practitioner or jointly with others, only if he holds a licence authorising him to do so and
only if he himself works on his own behalf in the practice concerned. A doctor may not operate
more than one practice, whether as a sole practitioner or jointly with others(cid:146) compatible with the
EEA and/or with the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement) of 2 May
1992?

2. If the answer to the first question is that the Liechtenstein single practice rule, as laid down in
Article 9(1) of the Regulation of 8 November 1988 on the medical professions,
is basically
compatible with the EEA, does that none the less mean that, in an individual case, regard must
be had to the specialist medical activities carried on by an (cid:145)occupational physician(cid:146), so that the
necessary exceptions should be made for such specific activities, which do not require a (cid:145)medical
practice(cid:146) within the generally accepted meaning of the term?

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Arbeidsretten (The Labour Court of
Norway) of 27 September 2000 in the case of Landsorganisasjonen i Norge (Norwegian Federation
of Trade Unions), with Norsk Kommuneforbund (Norwegian Union of Municipal Employees) v
Kommunenes Sentralforbund (Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities) and
Others

(Case E-8/00)

(2001/C 49/14)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Arbeidsretten
(The Labour Court of Norway), which was received at the
Court Registry on 2 October 2000, for an Advisory Opinion
in the case of Landsorganisasjonen i Norge (Norwegian
Federation of Trade Unions), with Norsk Kommuneforbund
(Norwegian Union of Municipal Employees) v Kommunenes
Sentralforbund (Norwegian Association of Local and Regional
Authorities) and Others, on the following questions:

Scope of application of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

1(a) Does a collective agreement generally entail binding
legal effects mutually between the participating
side which can be
members on the employer
regarded as an (cid:145)agreement between undertakings(cid:146)
under Article 53 of the EEA Agreement?

1(b) If an employer organisation concludes a collective
agreement, is this a (cid:145)decision by an association of
undertakings(cid:146) under Article 53 of
EEA
Agreement?

the

1(c) Is a municipality an (cid:145)undertaking(cid:146) under Article 53
in its capacity as

the EEA Agreement when,

of

employer,
agreement without being a party thereto?

it becomes bound by

a

collective

2(a) Can a collective agreement provision which has
objectives other
salary and
working conditions come within the scope of
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement?

than to improve

2(b) If question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative, which

conditions must then be met?

3. Do collective agreement provisions on group occu-
pational pension schemes, such as the provisions in
clause 2.1.8, second, third and fourth paragraphs of
the Basic Collective Agreement for municipalities,
the period 1998-2000 fall within the
etc.,
scope of application of Article 53 of
the EEA
Agreement?

for

Prohibition in Article 53 of the EEA Agreement

4.

it compatible with Article 53 of

Is
the EEA
Agreement for a collective agreement condition to
require that a group occupational pension scheme
be based on a gender-neutral
financing system
which can only be satisfied by one supplier?