Judgment of the Court of 12 December 2003 in Case E-2/03 between Ákæruvaldið (The Public Prosecutor) and Ásgeir Logi Ásgeirsson, Axel Pétur Ásgeirsson and Helgi Már Reynisson (Jurisdiction — admissibility — fish products — Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement — rules of origin — Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement — Free Trade Agreement EEC-Iceland)
Date: 2003-12-12
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA Court, Iceland, fishery product, free-trade agreement, interpretation of the law, originating product

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/3

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 12 December 2003

in Case E-1/03 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Republic of Iceland

(Failure of a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — free movement of services — higher tax on intra-EEA
flights than on domestic flights)

(2004/C 51/03)

In Case E-2/03, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Republic of Iceland — Application for a declaration
that, by maintaining in force the Icelandic Act on Air Transport Infrastructure Budget and Revenues for
Aviation Affairs No 31/1987 (Lög nr. 31 frá 27. mars 1987 um flugmálaáætlun og fjáröflun til
framkvæmda í flugmálum), which subjects flights from Iceland to other EEA States to a higher tax rate
than that charged for domestic flights and flights to Greenland and the Faroe Islands, the Republic of
Iceland has failed to respect its obligations under Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic
Area and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on Access for Community
air carriers to intra-Community air routes, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per
Tresselt (Judge-Rapporteur) and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment of 12 December 2003, the
operative part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that by maintaining in force the Icelandic Act on Air Transport Infrastructure Budget and
Revenues for Aviation Affairs No 31/1987 (Lög nr. 31 frá 27. mars 1987 um flugmálaáætlun og
fjáröflun til framkvæmda í flugmálum), which imposes a higher tax per passenger travelling from
Iceland to other EEA States than per passenger travelling on domestic flights,
the Republic of
Iceland has failed to respect its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 36 of the
Agreement on the European Economic Area and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No
2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on Access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.

2. Orders the Republic of Iceland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 12 December 2003

in Case E-2/03 between Ákæruvaldið (The Public Prosecutor) and Ásgeir Logi Ásgeirsson, Axel
Pétur Ásgeirsson and Helgi Már Reynisson

(Jurisdiction — admissibility — fish products — Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement — rules of origin — Protocol 4
to the EEA Agreement — Free Trade Agreement EEC-Iceland)

(2004/C 51/04)

In Case E-2/03, between Ákæruvaldið (The Public Prosecutor) and Ásgeir Logi Ásgeirsson, Axel Pétur
Ásgeirsson and Helgi Már Reynisson — Request to the Court by the Héraðsdómur Reykjaness (Reykjanes
District Court) on the interpretation of the rules of origin in trade in fish, as referred to in Protocols 4 and
9 to the EEA Agreement and Protocols 3 and 6 to the Free Trade Agreement between the European
Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland of 22 July 1972, the Court, composed of: Carl
Baudenbacher (Judge-Rapporteur), President, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, gave judgment
of 12 December 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

C 51/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2004

1. The term ‘trade regime’ in Article 7 of Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement and its Appendix 3 does not
extend to the rules of origin contained in the Free Trade Agreement between the European Economic
Community and the Republic of Iceland, signed on 22 July 1972. The rules of origin contained in
Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement therefore apply.

2. Defrosting, heading, filleting, boning, trimming, salting and packing of fish frozen whole that was
imported from outside the EEA does not constitute sufficient working and processing within the
meaning of Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement in order for the products to obtain EEA originating
status.

Action brought on 19 December 2003 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of
Norway (Case E-4/03)

(2004/C 51/05)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 19 December 2003 by
the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger, Director and Arne Torsten Andersen,
Officer, Legal and Executive Affairs Directorate, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority,
74, Rue de Trèves, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by adopting Regulation of 28 August 1998 No 853 regarding type approval of gaming
machines (Forskrift av 28. august 1998 nr. 853 om typegodkjenning av gevinstautomater) without
notifying the EFTA Surveillance Authority at the drafting stage, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to
fulfil its obligation under Article 8 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter XIX of Annex II to the
Agreement on the European Economic Area, Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations, as amended and adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1
thereto; and

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 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying
down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations,
as amended (the ‘Act’), obliges Norway to immediately communicate to the EFTA Surveillance
Authority any draft technical regulation.

— Except in special cases referred to in Article 8 of the Act, Article 9 of the Act requires the EFTA States
to postpone adoption of technical regulations for a period of three months subsequent to its notifi-
cation to the Authority.