I The complaint. 2 Initial observations made by the Norwegian Government
|
|
- Patrick Little
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case handler: Charlotte Forns Tel: (+32)(0) Brussels, l8 October 2016 Case No: Document No: Norwegian Ministry of Trade Industry and Fisheries Postboks 8090 Dep N-0032 Oslo Norway Dear Sir or Madam, Subject: Complaint against Norway concerning levies on fish exporters and exported fish products contrary to Article 10 and Protocol9 EEA I The complaint By a letter dated 4 May 2016 (Document No ), the EFTA Surveillance Authority ("the Authority") informed the Norwegian Government that it had received a complaint against Norway regarding levies imposed on fish exporters and exported fish products. In particular, the complainant submits that marketing and promotional activities initiated by the Norwegian Seafood Councilr constitute a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative import restrictions in breach of Article I (2) of Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement ("Protocol 9"). According to information submitted by the complainant, the activities of the Norwegian Seafood Council comprise joint marketing efforts abroad and on the domestic market including promotion of fish with Norweglan origin through the trademark "NORGE - Seafood from Norway" and a trout project for which alarge media campaign was launched on 26 September These activities are financed through mandatory levies imposed on fish exporters and exported fish products pursuant to the Regulation on the Regulation of Exports of Fish and Fish Productsz. 2 Initial observations made by the Norwegian Government With our letter dated 4 May 2016, you received a copy of the complaint and were asked to provide your initial observations on the complaint. You responded by letter dated 17 June 2016 (Document No ). As regards the alleged export restrictions in breach of Article 10 EEA and Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement, you emphasise that the products covered by the Norwegian Seafood Council's activities are not covered by Chapters 25 to 97 of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System and, therefore, pursuant to Article 8(3) EEA fall outside the scope of the EEA Agreement. tn addition, you note that no obligations related to the export offish are foreseen by Protocol 9. I Le. Norges sjomatrid. 2 Le. Forskrift om regulering av eksporten av fisk og fiskevarer. Rue Belliard 35, B-1040 Brussels, tel: (+32)(0)2 286 l8 I l, fax (+32X0)2 286 l8 00,
2 Page2 As to the alleged import restrictions in breach of Protocol 9, your arguments which will be described in more detail below fall in two parts. Firstly, it is argued that the Authority lacks competence to assess the complaint, and secondly that the activities of the Norwegian Seafood Council do not constitute quantitative restrictions on import or measures having equivalent effect. 2.1 Alleged import restrictions in breach of Protocol 9: The Authority lacks competence Essentially, you reply that the Authority lacks competence to carry out surveillance of Protocol 9 and in particular surveillance of Article l(2) of Protocol 9. You hold that Protocol 9 is a unique construction in the EEA Agreement, which is not covered by the general supervisory regime of the Agreement, but instead establishes its own system, separate from the supervisory regime which apply to the parts of the EEA Agreement that mirrors the EU internal market law. In this respect, you note that the general supervisory regime is set out in Articles 108 and 109 EEA and Article 5 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement ("the SCA"), and that the Authority needs a clear and firm legal basis in order to exercise the responsibilities which the EFTA States have explicitly conferred upon it. In your view, the Authority has no competence to carry out surveillance of measures conceming products falling outside the scope of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(3) EEA, unless such competence is specifically foreseen. Although you recognise that in line with the general supervisory regime, the Authority normally has the competence to carry out surveillance of the protocols to the EEA Agreement, you submit that Protocol 9 and the system it creates derogates from the general supervisory regime. You recall that in Decisions 195/96/COL, lt6lo5lcol and 729l08lCOL the Authority concluded that it lacks the competence to assess state aid within the meaning of Article a(1) of Protocol 9, and you contend that statements made by the Authority in the said decisions provide general assessments on the interpretation of protocol 9 and its relationship with the main part of the EEA Agreement. On the basis of a particular statement made in Decision l95l96lcol, you infer that the general provisions in the EEA Agreement on the competence of the Authority are not applicable. Your citation (with emphasis added) reads as follows: "... it emerges clearly that Protocol 9 in principleforms an independent, basic set of rules governing trade infish and other marine products, separatefrom (except when otherwise provided) other provisions in Part II in the main body of the EiA Agreement. In othn,.ord* Proto"ol 9 it in prin"ipl" o lr* tr""iolit _for-firh ond rules including those on State aid set out in Chapter 2 of part IV of the Agreement (Articles 6l io 6e, are not applicable to the.fisheries sector. except when explicitly so provided in the relevant articles of the main part of the Agreement (cf,, Articles 2l (r), 23, second paragraph, and 65(1) and (2)) or in protocol 9.,,
3 Page 3 Furthermore, you submit that Protocol 9 must be interpreted with its context in mind, i.e. the fact that when the EEA Agreement was negotiated, it became clear that free movement of fish was not possible and instead it was agreed that the Contracting Parties would maintain their authority to exercise discretion when regulating the marketing of frsh. And you note that Article 6 of Protocol 9 clearly illustrates how violations of Protocol 9 are to be handled. 2,2 Alleged import restrictions in breach of Protocol 9: The activities of the Norwegian Seafood Council do not constitute quantitative restrictions on import or measures having equivalent effect In your reply, it is observed that the Norwegian Seafood Council is a limited liability company in which the Ministry of Trade, lndustry and Fisheries holds all the shares and appoints the board of directors, but that the authorities do not play an active role in the dayto-day operational decisions of the board or in the administrative tasks. Moreover, you obsave that the aim of the Norwegian Seafood Council is to increase the value ofnorwegian seafood resources and that its activities in the Norwegian market mainly seek to increase the overall consumption of seafood by focusing on the nutritional and health benefits of consuming seafood products regardless of their origin. You state that the Norwegian Seafood Council's campaigns are origin neutral and benefit all fish producers operating in Norway, i.e. not only the products holding the Norge-logo (i.e. Norwaybrandmark). As regards the Norge-logo, yort note that it is used as a mark of origin, but that is does not involve any discrimination on the part of the Norwegian Government against imported products. With regard to the trout project mentioned in the complaint, you indicate that the terrn Norwegian Trouthas been used in three TV-campaigns in Norway from l5,but that the campaign is now terminated and that no further campaigns are foreseen. In your view, these activities do not breach Article 1(2) of Protocol 9. 3 The Internal Market Affairs Directorate's preliminary assessment 3.1 The Authority is competent to carry out surveillance of Protocol 9 You hold that Protocol 9 is a unique construction in the EEA Agreement, which is not covered by the general supervisory regime of the Agreement. As a starting point, the Internal Market Affairs Directorate ("the Directorate") observes that pursuant to Articles 108 and 109 EEA, the Authority is competent to monitor the EEA EFTA States' fulfilment of their obligations under the EEA Agreement. In this respect, the notion "EEA Agreement" covers the main EEA Agreement, its Protocols and Annexes and the acts referred to therein, cf. Article }EEA. More detailed rules on the Authority's competence are foreseen inarticle 5 (1) SCA, which i.a. reads as follows:
4 Page 4 "The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall, in accordance with the provisions oj'this Agreement and provisions of the EEA Agreement and in order to ensure the proper functioning of the EEA Agreement: (a) ensure the fuffilment by the EFTA States of their obligations under the EEA Agreement and this Agreement; [...J". In addition, Article 22 SCA provides that "In order to ensure the proper application of the EEA Agreement, the EFTA Surveillance Authority shall monitor the application of the provisions of the EEA Agreement and of the present Agreement by the EFTA States." Furthermore, Article 3l SCA provides that "If the EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that an EFTA State hasfailed to.fulfil an obligation under the EEA Agreement or of this agreement, it shall, unless otherwise provided.for in this Agreement, deliter a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the latter may bring the matter before the EFTA Court." Similar to Article 2 EEA, Article 1 (a) SCA foresees that the notion "EEA Agreement" covers the main EEA Agreement, its Protocols and Annexes and the acts referred to therein. Accordingly, it follows from Articles 108 EEA, 109 EEA, 5 (1) sca, 22 SCA and 31 SCA that the Authority has the competence and the obligation to ensure Norway's fulfilment of its obligations under the EEA Agreement including those foreseen in Protocol 9 and to monitor Norway's application of the EEA Agreernent including protocol 9. In other words, the said provisions provide a sufficiently clear and firm legal basis for the Authority to carry out surveillance of the EEA EFTA States' obligations under protocol 9. No provision in Protocol 9, in the EEA Agreement or in the SCA supports your argument that Protocol 9 derogates from the Authority's competence laid down in Articles 108 EEA, 109 EEA,5 (1) SCA,22SCAand 3l SCA. As regards the decisions to which you refer, i.e. Decisions l95l96lcol, 176lO5lCOL and 729l08lCOL, they all concern the Authority's competence to carryz out surveillance of State aid within the scope of Article 4(l) of Protocol 9. In the said Decisions, the Authority's starting point is that it considers Protocol 9 to form an independent, basic set of rules governing trade in fish and marine products separate from other provisions in Part II in the main body of the EEA Agreement. Next, the Authority observes that Protocol 9 only foresees an ex-post supervision of State aid, and not a continuous surveillance and monitoring function. The Authority then considers whether the competences foreseen in Protocol 26 to the EEA Agreement3 ("Protocol 26,,) and, Article 24 SCA applies to Protocol 9. To this end, the Authority notes that Protocol 26 andarticle 3 Protocol 26 on the powers and functions of the EFTA Surveillance Authority in the field of state aid.
5 Page 5 24 SCA lay down the Authority's competences in the field of state aid by explicitly enumerating the relevant provisions in the EEA Agreement, which the Authority is to ensure that the EEA EFTA States fuifii. As these enumerations do not include Protocol 9 and there is no reason to consider that Protocol 26 and Article 24 SCA were not intended to exhaustively enumerate the Authority's competences in the field of state aid, the Authority concludes that the competences foreseen in Protocol 26 and Article 24 SCA do not extend to Protocol 9. The same analysis can be found in the Authority's letter of 27 July 2016 (Document No ) on closure of Case No concerning the complaint submitted by Marine Harvest ASA and Marine Harvest (Scotland) Ltd on l3 May 2016 as regards alleged state aid in relation to levies imposed on fish exporters and exported fish products.a Clearly, this analysis has only one focus, i.e. the Authority's competence to carry out surveillance of State aid within the scope of Article 4(1) of Protocol 9. It does not touch on the Authority's competence to carry out surveillance of the EEA EFTA States' fulfilment of the obligations foreseen in Article I of Protocol 9 and, therefore, the Directorate cannot see that the said Decisions are relevant for the present case. In this connection, it is noted that the analysis concerning the Authority's competence to carry out surveillance of State aid within Article a(1) of Protocol 9 cannot be applied to Article 1 of Protocol 9 by way of analogy for the reason that the competence and the surveillance obligations conferred upon the Authority in the field of free movement of goods and state aid, respectively, are entirely diflerent. Whereas the Authotity's competence in the field of state aid is limited by the enumeration laid down in Protocol 26 and Article 24 SCA, no enumeration is foreseen in Articles 108 and 109 EEA or in Articles 5(1), 22 and 3l SCA. In fact, with the exception of public procurement, no specific provision on the Authority's competence to carry out surveillance of the EEA EFTA States' fulfilment of their obligations relating to free movement is foreseen in the main part of the EEA Agreement or in the SCA. Consequently, what can be inferred from the fact that neither the main part of the EEA Agreement nor the SCA foresees any explicit competence for the Authority to carry out surveillance of the EEA EFTA States'fulfilment of the obligations foreseen in Article 1 of Protocol 9 is simply that the general provisions on the Authority's competence, i.e. Articles 108 EEA, 109 EEA, 5 (1) SCA,22 SCA and 31 SCA, apply. As to your argument concerning the fact that when the EEA Agreement was negotiated, it became clear that free movement of fish was not possible and instead it was agreed that the Contracting Parties would maintain their authority to exercise discretion when regulating the marketing of fish, the Directorate observes that Article 1 of Protocol 9 explicitly limits the discretion of the Contracting Parties as far as customs duties and quantitative restrictions on import are concerned. ln the light of the above, the Directorate holds that the Authority is competent to consider whether the activities of the Norwegian Seafood Council breach Article 1(2) of Protocol 9. 4 On 20 September 2016, an application to have the decision to close the case annulled was submitted to the EFTA Court where it is being considered under Case No E-12l16.
6 Page The activities of the Norwegian Seafood Council constitute measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on import From the information available to the Directorate, the marketing and promotional activities initiated by the Norwegian Seafood Council appear to have characteristics similar to the UKApple and Pear Development Council which was considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union ("the CJEU") in Case The Apple and Pear Development Council was established by the UK Government with the dual purpose of promoting the sale and purchase of domestic apples and pears and the improvement of the quality of the said products. The board members were appointed by the Government, and the activities of the Apple and Pear Development Council were financed through a statutory levy imposed on producers of the said products. With reference to the "Buy lrish"-case6, the CJEU recalled that a publicity campaign promoting domestic products could come within the ambit of Article 30 EEC (now Article 34 TFEU), if the campaign was supported by the authorities. The CJEU held that "a body such as the Development Council, which is set up by the government of a Member State and is financed by a charge imposed on growers, cannot under Community law enjoy the same.freedom as regards the methods of advertising used as that enjoyed by producers themselves or producers'associations of a voluntary character."t The CJEU then stressed that such a body cannot lawfully promote the purchase of domestics products: "In particular, such a body is under a duty not to engage in any advertising intended to discourage the purchase of products of other Member States or to disparage those products in the eyes of the consumers. Nor must it advise consumers to purchase domestic products solely by reason of their national origin."8 (emphasis added). As for the marketing and promotional activities initiated by the Norwegian Seafood Council, the Directorate observes firstly that the Norwegian Seafood Council is a limited liability company in which the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries holds all the shares and appoints the board of directors. Accordingly, the Norwegian Seafood Council is ultimately under the Ministry's control. Secondly, it is observed that the Norwegian Seafood Council is funded through levies imposed on fish exporters and exported fish products. And thirdly, it is observed that an objective ofthe Norwegian Seafood Council is to increase the demand for Norwegian seafood domestically. The Directorate cannot see how it is possible to carry out marketing and promotional activities aimed at increasing the demand for domestic products on the domestic market without an element of discrimination against imported products being present. Against this background,the Norge-logo - which is more than a simple indication of origin - appears to constitute a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on import. s App I e and P ea r D eve I opm ent C o uncil, Case 222 I 82,EU: C : I 9 83 : Supra, note 4. 7 Paragraph Paragraph 18.
7 PageT In the light of the above, the Directorate's preliminary conclusion is that the domestic marketing and promotional activities of the Norwegian Seafood Council constitute measures having equivalent effect to quantitative import restrictions and, therefore, believes that they infringe Article 1(2) of Protocol 9. TheNorwegian Govemment is invited to submit its observations on the content of this letter by 14 December After that date, the Authority will consider, in light of any observations received from the Norwegian Government, whether to initiate infringement proceedings in accordance with Article 31 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and Court of Justice. Yours faithfully, f,kfu Director Intemal Market Affairs Directorate
2 Correspondence. By letter of 12 January 20154, the Norwegian Government submitted its reply to the Authority's letter of 25 November 2014.
Brussels, 8 July 2015 Case No: 76478 Document No: 761049 Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food Postboks 8007 Dep N- 0030 Oslo Norway Dear Sir or Madam, Subject: Letter of formal notice to Norway concerning
More informationMarine Harvest ASA, represented by Torben Foss and Kjetil Raknerud, advocates,
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 27 November 2017 (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority State aid Fish and other marine products Material scope of the EEA Agreement Protocol 9 Surveillance
More informationORDER OF THE COURT 23 October 2013
ORDER OF THE COURT 23 October 2013 (Refusal to commence proceedings for alleged failure of an EEA State to fulfil its obligations in the field of procurement Actionable measures Admissibility) In Case
More informationThe EFTA Court. Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson Registrar EFTA Court.
The EFTA Court Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson Registrar EFTA Court www.eftacourt.int olafur.einarsson@eftacourt.int Brussels, 13 September 2018 Overview This presentation covers: 1. Legal framework 2. Relationship
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 5 May 2004
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 5 May 2004 (Failure of a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC) In Case E-4/03, EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger, Director,
More informationThe Act has later been amended by Directive 98/48 of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 My 1998.
Brussels, 1 June 2004 Case no: 2743 Event no: 277666 Dec. no: 124/04/COL Dear Sir/Madam, tbject: Letter of formal notice for failure to notify draft technical regulations according to the Act referred
More information(NORWAY) HAVING REGARD TO the Agreement on the European Economic Area 1, in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof, I.
Case No: 62230 Event No: 452970 Dec. No: 718/07 COL EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION OF19 DECEMBER 2007 ON THE SALE OF POWER FROM TINFOS POWER PLANT BY THE MUNICIPALITY OF NOTODDEN TO BECROMAL NORWAY
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 8 July (Exhaustion of trade mark rights)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 8 July 2008 (Exhaustion of trade mark rights) In Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07, REQUESTS to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment
More informationYour ref Our ref Date: 11/
EFTA Surveillance Authority Rue Belliard 35 B-1040 Brussels Your ref Our ref Date: 11/2195 17.08.2015 Information concerning support for studies for frontier workers and their family members in Norway,
More informationImplementation of Directive 2005/47 - Working conditions of mobile workers - cross border services in railway sector
Case handler: Eeva Kolehmainen Brussels, 20 May 2008 Tel: (+32)(0)2 286 132 Case No: 62078 e-mail: eko@eftasurv.int Event No: 477665 Norwegian Mission to the EU Rue Archimède 17 1000 Brussels Dear Sir,
More informationFinal report. EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to NORWAY. from 18 to 27 May regarding the application of EEA legislation related to
Case No: 69173 Event No: 606798 Final report EFTA Surveillance Authority mission to NORWAY from 18 to 27 May 2011 regarding the application of EEA legislation related to catering waste from means of transport
More informationORDER OF THE PRESIDENT 30 May (Intervention Interest in the result of the case)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT 30 May 2013 (Intervention Interest in the result of the case) In Case E-4/13, Schenker North AB, established in Gothenburg (Sweden), Schenker Privpak AB, established in Borås (Sweden),
More informationEFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY
EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY COLLEGE Brussels, 24 September 1999 Doc. No: 99-6990-D / Dec. No. 233/99/COL Ref. No: SEA043.400.001 REASONED OPINION delivered in accordance with Article 31 of the Agreement
More informationORDER OF THE PRESIDENT 23 April (Intervention Application by the European Commission) In Case E-16/ll,
(CO ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT 23 April 2012 (Intervention Application by the European Commission) In Case E-16/ll, EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Director, and Gjermund Mathisen,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT. 30 April 1998
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 30 April 1998 (Failure of a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations safety and health protection of workers in surface and underground mineral-extracting industries Council Directive
More information[Check Against Delivery]
[Check Against Delivery] Case No: 47637 Event No: 756936 Subject: Statement by Mr Frank J. Büchel, Vice-President of the EFTA Surveillance Authority at the EFTA Ministerial Meeting in Liechtenstein on
More information2 Correspondence 4. On25 April 2014, a question regarding restrictions of the rights of entry of TCN family
Brussels, l4 October 2015 Case No: 76560 Document No:762924 Decision No: 42011 S/COL Ministry of Justice and Public Security Postboks 8005 Dep, 0030 Oslo Norway Dear Sir or Madam. Subject: Letter of formal
More informationIssues concerning the Court of Justice
Issues concerning the Court of Justice Catherine Barnard, Trinity College Cambridge The need for a dispute settlement procedure The issue Pending procedures Body to rule on interpretation of the withdrawal
More informationEFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DELEGATED DECISION. of 9 February 2018
Brussels, 9 February 2018 Case No: 80329 Document No: 876009 Decision No: 018/18/COL EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DELEGATED DECISION of 9 February 2018 concerning the disease-free status of Norway regarding
More informationCOMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU)
L 314/2 Official Journal of the European Union 29.11.2011 REGULATIONS COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1222/2011 of 28 November 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1010/2009 as regards administrative
More informationFREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FAROE ISLANDS AND NORWAY
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FAROE ISLANDS AND NORWAY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF NORWAY, OF THE ONE PART, AND THE GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK AND THE HOME GOVERNMENT OF THE FAROE ISLANDS, OF THE
More informationTHE HIGH COURT COMMERCIAL
THE HIGH COURT COMMERCIAL [2016 No. 4809 P.] BETWEEN THE DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER PLAINTIFF AND FACEBOOK IRELAND LIMITED AND MAXIMILLIAN SCHREMS DEFENDANTS Executive Summary of the Judgment 3 rd October,
More informationEU MIDT DIGITAL TACHOGRAPH
EU MIDT DIGITAL TACHOGRAPH MIDT IPC EU-MIDT/Implementation Policy Committee/008-2005 02/05/2005 SUBJECT Procedure on Test Tool Approval EC Interpretative Communication and ECJ Ruling SUBMITTED BY Mirna
More informationDECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE. No 200/2016. of 30 September amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2017/277]
23.2.2017 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 46/13 DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 200/2016 of 30 September 2016 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2017/277] THE
More informationMinutes of College Meeting September 2017
Brussels, 20 September 2017 Doc No: 872799 Minutes of College Meeting 20-20 September 2017 Members present: Sven Erik Svedman Helga Jónsdóttir Frank J. Büchel Officials present: Anders Ihr Asta Magnusdottir
More informationDECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 92/2005. of 8 July amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement
EN EN EN DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 92/2005 of 8 July 2005 amending Annex I (Veterinary and phytosanitary matters) to the EEA Agreement THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE, Having regard to the Agreement
More informationProposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 22.3.2016 COM(2016) 145 final 2016/0078 (NLE) Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION concerning the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Implementation Protocol to the
More informationDECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE. No 199/2016. of 30 September amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2017/276]
L 46/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.2.2017 DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 199/2016 of 30 September 2016 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2017/276] THE
More informationThe Functions of the EFTA Court Skúli Magnússon, Registrar EFTA Court
EEA Seminar 11-12 June 2009 The Functions of the Do the Aims of the EEA Require Any Judicial Functions? CONSIDERING the objective of establishing a dynamic and homogeneous European Economic Area, based
More informationThe EFTA Court: Providing Safe Anchorage to the Single Market
The EFTA Court: Providing Safe Anchorage to the Single Market Michael-James Clifton, LL.B., LL.M. [Adv.], Barrister Chef de Cabinet, Chambers of Judge Bernd Hammermann, EFTA Court Workshop: Market Access:
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 1 July (Admissibility security for costs before national courts free movement of capital freedom to provide services)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 1 July 2005 (Admissibility security for costs before national courts free movement of capital freedom to provide services) In Case E-10/04, REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of
More informationREPORT FOR THE HEARING in Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07
Joined Cases E-9/07 & E-10/07-40 REPORT FOR THE HEARING in Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07 REQUESTS to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance
More informationEuropean Investment Fund. EIF Procurement Guide
Board of Directors Meeting 14/06/2017 Document approved European Investment Fund EIF Procurement Guide Policy for the procurement of services, supplies and works by the EIF Page 1 of 18 Contents 1. GENERAL...
More informationAdequacy Referential (updated)
ARTICLE 29 DATA PROTECTION WORKING PARTY 17/EN WP 254 Adequacy Referential (updated) Adopted on 28 November 2017 This Working Party was set up under Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC. It is an independent
More informationBarbara Richter Bayer MaterialScience AG. Jacquelyn MacLennan / Michael Sánchez Rydelski White & Case LLP, Brussels
MEMORANDUM Brussels Date: To: From: Re: Barbara Richter Bayer MaterialScience AG Jacquelyn MacLennan / Michael Sánchez Rydelski White & Case LLP, Brussels Legal Advice on REACH I. Background The Norwegian
More informationTO THE PRESIDENT AND THE MEMBERS OF THE EFTA COURT WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS. European Commission
Ref. Ares(2016)2184097-10/05/2016 ORIGINAL! 'i Brussels, 10 May 2016 sj.e(2016)2652052 TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE MEMBERS OF THE EFTA COURT WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS submitted pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute
More informationEEA AGREEMENT - PROTOCOL 47 p. 1 PROTOCOL 47 ON THE ABOLITION OF TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE IN WINE
28.4.2018 - EEA AGREEMENT - PROTOCOL 47 p. 1 PROTOCOL 47 ON THE ABOLITION OF TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE IN WINE The Contracting Parties shall authorize imports and marketing of wine products, originating
More information2008 No. 239 FOOD. Made nd June 2008 Coming into operation - 1st July 2008
STATUTORY RULES OF NORTHERN IRELAND 2008 No. 239 FOOD The Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) and the Milk and Milk Products (Protection of Designations) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 Made - -
More informationHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 16 thereof,
Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a Council Decision on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, in the EU-China Joint Customs Cooperation Committee
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 June 2008
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 20 June 2008 (Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor vehicles Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC compensation for non-economic injury conditions
More informationSubmitted by: Mr. Mümtaz Karakurt (represented by counsel, Dr. Ernst Eypeltauer
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Karakurt v. Austria Communication No. 965/2000 4 April 2002 CCPR/C/74/D/965/2000 VIEWS Submitted by: Mr. Mümtaz Karakurt (represented by counsel, Dr. Ernst Eypeltauer State party
More informationTHE HIGH COURT RECORD NUMBER 2017/781 P. JOLYON MAUGHAM, STEVEN AGNEW JONATHAN BARTLEY and KEITH TAYLOR -AND- IRELAND and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BETWEEN: THE HIGH COURT RECORD NUMBER 2017/781 P JOLYON MAUGHAM, STEVEN AGNEW JONATHAN BARTLEY and KEITH TAYLOR -AND- IRELAND and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT STATEMENT OF CLAIM Delivered
More informationon the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights
Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights THE EUROPEAN
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 December 2012 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 December 2012 * (Free movement of goods Directive 2000/13/EC Product coverage Labelling of foodstuffs Misleading labelling Lack of notification to ESA of a national measure Justification
More informationCommittee on Petitions NOTICE TO MEMBERS
EUROPEAN PARLIAMT 2009-2014 Committee on Petitions 10.11.2010 NOTICE TO MEMBERS Subject: Petition 0117/2010 by Angeliki Charokopou (Greek) on behalf of 19 Greek animal welfare associations concerning the
More informationEuropean Economic Area Financial Mechanism Norwegian Financial Mechanism AGREEMENT. between. and
European Economic Area Financial Mechanism 2014-2021 Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2014-2021 AGREEMENT between The Financial Mechanism Committee and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs hereinafter
More informationAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND TURKEY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND TURKEY Note: Austria, Finland and Sweden withdrew from the Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association (the Stockholm Convention) on 31 December 1994.
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 21 March 2018
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 21 March 2018 (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations Directive 2004/18/EC Public procurement Public contract Public works concession) In Case E-4/17, EFTA Surveillance
More informationAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE KINGDOM OF MOROCCO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE KINGDOM OF MOROCCO PREAMBLE The Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation (hereinafter called the
More informationJBW Ltd v Ministry of Justice
Procurement LAW JBW Ltd v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 8 REBECCA HAYNES FEBRUARY 2012 In JBW Ltd v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWCA Civ 8 (16 January 2011) the Court of Appeal held that the procurement
More informationAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA PREAMBLE The Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation (hereinafter called the
More informationEFTA Surveillance Authority Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases
EFTA Surveillance Authority Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases A. The present notice is issued pursuant to the rules of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA
More informationFinal report Draft Implementing Technical Standards on penalties and measures under Directive 2009/65/EC (UCITS Directive)
Final report Draft Implementing Technical Standards on penalties and measures under Directive 2009/65/EC (UCITS Directive) 18 September 2015 ESMA/2015/1409 Date: 18 September 2015 ESMA/2015/1409 Table
More informationInfringement Proceedings & References to the Court of Justice of the EU. Adam Weiss The AIRE Centre
Infringement Proceedings & References to the Court of Justice of the EU Adam Weiss The AIRE Centre 1 Objective Empower you to make complaints to the European Commission which are likely to lead to infringement
More informationThe EDPS has limited the comments below to the provisions of the Proposal that are particularly relevant from a data protection perspective.
Formal comments of the EDPS on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Council Regulation (EU) No 940/2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of VAT. 1. Introduction
More information2008 No FOOD, ENGLAND
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2008 No. 1287 FOOD, ENGLAND The Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) and the Milk and Milk Products (Protection of Designations) (England) Regulations 2008 Made - - - - 13th May
More informationAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA PREAMBLE The Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation (hereinafter called the
More informationagreement on ThE EUroPEaN ECoNoMiC area1 ParT iv CoMPETiTioN and other CoMMoN rules ChaPTEr 1 rules applicable To UNdErTaKiNGs Article 53
Agreement on the European Economic Area 1 PART IV COMPETITION AND OTHER COMMON RULES CHAPTER 1 RULES APPLICABLE TO UNDERTAKINGS Article 53 1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the
More informationSetting the boundaries of a fortress Europe for parallel imports
Setting the boundaries of a fortress Europe for parallel imports Yona MARINOVA *, Phd, University of Aberdeen, European Commission, DG SANCO, I. Introduction The present paper addresses the relationship
More informationCAD GB/HK/et/D(2011)509 c
- ' _ it 8 (ta at q aagan Q Ref. Ares(2011)315757-22/03/2011 EUROPEAN DATA PROTECTION SUPERVISOR *' * *..I'. GIOVANNI BUTTARELLI GIOVANNI BUTTARELLI ASSISTANT-SUPERVISOR Stefano MANSERVISI Stefano MANSERVISI
More informationAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND TURKEY
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND TURKEY Note: Austria, Finland and Sweden withdrew from the Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association (the Stockholm Convention) on 31 December 1994.
More informationENHANCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IN THE SOUTHERN MEDITERRANEAN. National Seminar for Lebanon 9 and 10 October 2014
ENHANCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IN THE SOUTHERN MEDITERRANEAN National Seminar for Lebanon 9 and 10 October 2014 Technical barriers to trade (TBTs) 2 Introduction A standard or technical specification,
More information2. Decisions taken by delegation procedure
Case handler: Nina Hoppe Tel: (+32)(0)2 286 l83l nho@eftasurv.int Brussels, 7 May 2015 Case No: 77292 Document No: 755331 Minutes of College Meeting 16-7 May 2015 Members present: Oda Helen Sletnes, Helga
More informationOpinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor
EDPS - European Data Protection Supervisor CEPD - Contrôleur européen de la protection des données Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Decision concerning access
More informationRegulation on the handling of explosives precursors
Regulation on the handling of explosives precursors Statutory authority: Prescribed by the Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection 2 June 2015 with statutory authority in Act No. 20 of 14 June 2002
More informationAnnex - Summary of GDPR derogations in the Data Protection Bill
Annex - Summary of GDPR derogations in the Data Protection Bill The majority of the provisions in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will automatically become UK law on 25 May 2018. However,
More informationAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA The Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation (hereinafter called the EFTA States),
More informationANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION TRANSPOSING DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC ON FREE MOVEMENT OF UNION CITIZENS
1.1.1.1 Conformity Study for CYPRUS Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States This National
More informationTwinning Project SR 13 IB EC 01
Twinning Project SR 13 IB EC 01 Strengthening Capacities of National Quality Infrastructure (NQI) and Conformity Assessment (CA) Services in the Republic of Serbia Activity 2.1 Trainings and consultancy
More informationEXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 3 P a g e
Opinion 1/2016 Preliminary Opinion on the agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the protection of personal information relating to the prevention, investigation, detection
More informationFinal report. 30 May 2017 ESMA
Final report Draft Implementing Technical Standards on forms and procedures for cooperation between competent authorities under Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 on market abuse 30 May 2017 ESMA70-145-100 Contents
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 16 December 2013 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 16 December 2013 * (Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information Principles governing charging Transparency Notion of cost Self-financing requirements) In Case
More informationOJ Ann. I(I) L. 156(I) 2004 No 3851,
MARKT/2004/11328-00-00 OJ Ann. I(I) L. 156(I) 2004 No 3851, 30.4.2004 The Law on Certain Aspects of Information Society Services, in particular Electronic Commerce, and Related Matters of 2004 is issued
More informationProposal for a COUNCIL DECISION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 29.6.2017 COM(2017) 366 final 2017/0151 (NLE) Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, at the sixth session of the Meeting
More informationHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 16 thereof,
Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger
More informationAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN PREAMBLE The Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation (hereinafter called
More informationREGULATION (EC) No 764/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. of 9 July 2008
13.8.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 218/21 REGULATION (EC) No 764/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 9 July 2008 laying down procedures relating to the application
More informationQuestionnaire 2. HCCH Judgments Project
Questionnaire 2 HCCH Judgments Project Introduction 1) An important current project of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is the development of a convention on the recognition and
More informationProposal for a COUNCIL DECISION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 5.6.2018 COM(2018) 451 final 2018/0238 (NLE) Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION authorising Member States to ratify, in the interest of the European Union, the Protocol amending
More informationREPORT FOR THE HEARING in Case E-23/13
E-23/13-41 REPORT FOR THE HEARING in Case E-23/13 REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice
More informationORDER OF THE COURT 15 November (Preliminary objection to admissibility State aid Decision to close formal investigation procedure)
ORDER OF THE COURT 15 November 2016 (Preliminary objection to admissibility State aid Decision to close formal investigation procedure) In Case E-7/16, Míla ehf., represented by Espen Bakken and Atle Erling
More informationRESOLUTION of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland. of 13 April 2016
RESOLUTION of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of 13 April 2016 declaring the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/71/EC of The European Parliament
More informationUNHCR Provisional Comments and Recommendations. On the Draft Amendments to the Law on Asylum and Refugees
UNHCR Provisional Comments and Recommendations On the Draft Amendments to the Law on Asylum and Refugees 1 1. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) welcomes the opportunity
More informationAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY AND A COURT OF JUSTICE
7.3.2012 The Surveillance and Court Agreement (consolidated) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY AND A COURT OF JUSTICE (OJ L 344, 31.1.1994, p. 3; and EFTA
More informationFree movement of persons
Free movement of persons in the EU vs. in the EEA Prof. Dr. Christa Tobler, LL.M. Europa Institutes of the Universities of Leiden (Netherlands) and Basel (Switzerland) Workshop EU citizenship in times
More information9107/15 TB/at 1 DG G 3 B
Council of the European Union Brussels, 21 May 2015 (OR. en) Interinstitutional Files: 2011/0093 (COD) 2011/0094 (CNS) 9107/15 COMPET 244 PI 35 NOTE From: To: General Secretariat of the Council Council
More information(Notices) NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES EUROPEAN COMMISSION
C 277 I/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.8.2018 IV (Notices) NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES EUROPEAN COMMISSION Guidance Note Questions and Answers:
More informationAct relating to the Courts of Justice of 13 August 1915 No. 5 (Courts of Justice Act)
Act relating to the Courts of Justice of 13 August 1915 No. 5 (Courts of Justice Act) Norway (Unofficial translation) Disclaimer This unofficial translation of the Act relating to the Courts of Justice
More informationDECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 76/2009. of 30 June 2009
EN EN EN DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 76/2009 of 30 June 2009 amending Protocol 10 on simplification of inspections and formalities in respect of carriage of goods and Protocol 37 containing
More informationADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT 3 December 1997 *
ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT 3 December 1997 * (Exhaustion of trade mark rights) In Case E-2/97 REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union L 330/25
14.12.2011 Official Journal of the European Union L 330/25 COMMISSION DECISION of 7 December 2011 concerning a guide on EU corporate registration, third country and global registration under Regulation
More informationGuidance Note on the transposition and implementation of the EU Asylum Acquis. February 2014
Guidance Note on the transposition and implementation of the EU Asylum Acquis February 2014 1. Timeframes for the transposition of the recast EU asylum legislation Directives: EU Directives lay down certain
More informationAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND ISRAEL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND ISRAEL Note: Austria, Finland and Sweden withdrew from the Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association (the Stockholm Convention) on 31 December 1994.
More informationAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA The Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation (hereinafter called the EFTA States),
More informationEDPS Opinion on the proposal for a recast of Brussels IIa Regulation
Opinion 01/2018 EDPS Opinion on the proposal for a recast of Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters
More informationPUBLIC COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 25 November /03 LIMITE MIGR 89
Conseil UE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 5 November 003 3954/03 PUBLIC LIMITE MIGR 89 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS of : Working Party on Migration and Expulsion on : October 003 No. prev. doc. : 986/0
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 27 February 2014 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 27 February 2014 (*) (Coordination of social security systems Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation,
More informationLEGAL OPINION. on the draft agreements on the so-called Icesave accounts in the branches of Landsbanki Íslands hf. in the UK and the Netherlands.
LEGAL OPINION on the draft agreements on the so-called Icesave accounts in the branches of Landsbanki Íslands hf. in the UK and the Netherlands. Requested by the Budget Committee of Althingi on 22 December
More informationData protection and privacy aspects of cross-border access to electronic evidence
Statement of the Article 29 Working Party Brussels, 29 November 2017 Data protection and privacy aspects of cross-border access to electronic evidence On 8th June 2017, the European Commission issued a
More informationFREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND TUNISIA PREAMBLE. the Republic of Tunisia (hereinafter called Tunisia), on the other:
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES AND TUNISIA PREAMBLE The Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation as Members of the European Free
More information