Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-9/00)
Date: 2000-12-21
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, State monopoly, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, beer, marketing, restriction on competition

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,

15.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 49/11

(cid:151) by requiring that retail sales of other alcoholic beverages
than beer, with an alcohol content between 2,5 % and
4,75 % by volume, only take place through Vinmonopolet,
while allowing beer to be sold in grocery stores pursuant to
municipal licence, Norway has, according to the applicant,
failed to comply with Article 16 of the EEA Agreement,

(cid:151) beer is overwhelmingly domestically produced, while other
alcoholic drinks with the same alcoholic content are mostly
imported. Furthermore, according to the applicant, there is
a competitive relationship between these products,

(cid:151) Article 11 of

the EEA Agreement prohibits quantitative
restrictions on imports, and all measures having an
thereto. Such a measure may only be
equivalent effect

allowed if
Agreement,

it

is justified under Article 13 of

the EEA

(cid:151) by not allowing licences held by restaurants and other
to cover other alcoholic
to serve beer
establishments
beverages having the same alcoholic content,
including
beverages based on spirits, Norway has, according to the
applicant,
the EEA
failed to comply with Article 11 of
Agreement,

(cid:151) the applicant submits that justification for this prohibition
cannot be found in Article 13 of the EEA Agreement on
grounds of public health, since the measure chosen is
unnecessary and disproportionate.