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)
Date: 2000-09-27
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA, Norway, collective agreement, interpretation of the law, local government, trade union

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?

C 49/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.2.2001

5(a) Is

it compatible with Article 53 of

the EEA
Agreement for a collective agreement provision to
provide
concerning occupational
pension schemes made by an insurance company
to an employer must be approved by representatives
for the parties to a collective agreement?

an offer

that

5(b) If question 5(a) is answered in the affirmative, will
the assessment be otherwise if approval can only
take place through unanimity amongst the parties?

6.

it compatible with Article 53 of

Is
the EEA
Agreement for a collective agreement provision to
is a condition for transfer of an
provide that
new
occupational
insurance product must have been tacitly or
expressly accepted by a public body?

it
pension

scheme

that

the

7(a) Is

it compatible with Article 53 of

the EEA
for collective agreement provisions to
Agreement
provide that a change of supplier of an occupational
pension scheme is subject to the condition that the
employer, before a decision on change can be made,
must have entered into a separate agreement on
through
transfer of pension schemes
mutual
approval by the public body which administers the
transfer scheme?

7(b) If question 7(a) is answered in the affirmative, will
inclusion in the

the assessment be otherwise if

transfer agreements cannot
decision on change has been made?

take place before a

8. Can the sum of provisions in a collective agreement,
such as the provisions in clause 2.1.8, second, third
the Basic Collective
and fourth paragraphs of
Agreement for municipalities, etc.,
for the period
1998-2000, be held to be contrary to Article 53
of the EEA Agreement even though none of the
the
provisions, viewed in isolation, come under
prohibition therein?

Interpretation of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement

9. Can an association of municipalities which is an
interest and an employer organisation, such as the
Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Auth-
orities, be regarded as an (cid:145)undertaking(cid:146) under Article
in the negotiation of
54 of
collective agreements?

the EEA Agreement

10.

it has

assuming that

Can an undertaking,
a
(cid:145)dominant position(cid:146), conclude an agreement for or
practise conditions for change of supplier of occu-
pational pension schemes such as those laid down in
clause 2.1.8, second, third and fourth paragraphs of
the Basic Collective Agreement for municipalities,
etc.,
regardless of
Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?

the period 1998-2000,

for

Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of
Norway

(Case E-9/00)

(2001/C 49/15)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before
the EFTA Court on 21 December 2000 by the EFTA
Surveillance Authority, represented by Peter Dyrberg, acting
as Agent of
the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74 Rue de
TrŁves, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should declare that the
Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the following provisions of the EEA Agreement:

(cid:151) Article 11, by applying more restrictive measures regarding
licences to serve alcoholic beverages with an alcoholic
content between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, mostly
imported from other EEA States, compared to beer with
the same alcohol content, mainly produced domestically,
these measures not being necessary and proportionate in
relation to the objective of safeguarding public health under
Article 13 of the EEA Agreement.

(cid:151) Article 16, by applying two forms of sale at the retail level
where beer with an alcohol content between 2,5 % and
4,75 % by volume, mainly produced domestically, may be
sold outside the outlets of the State controlled Wine and
Spirits Monopoly ((cid:145)Vinmonopolet(cid:146)), while other alcoholic
beverages with
content, mostly
imported from other EEA States, may only be sold
through the Monopoly, and

alcohol

same

the

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

that

(cid:151) Article 16 provides

any State monopoly of a
commercial character must be adjusted so that no discrimi-
nation regarding the conditions under which goods are
procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC
Member States and EFTA States,