Knowledge

1026:, the EFTA Court declared the Norwegian imputation tax credit system relating to the taxation of dividends was in breach of Article 40 EEA. Under the Norwegian Corporate Tax Act, dividends paid out by Norwegian companies to shareholders were taxed in the hands of the distributing company and again as general income in the hands of the shareholder. To avoid this so-called economic double taxation, shareholders resident in Norway were granted an imputation tax credit to the effect that dividends were only taxed in the company's hand. However, this credit was not granted to shareholders non-resident in Norway. Instead, they were taxed by way of a withholding tax for which the distributing company was liable. In making this differentiation, the Norwegian legislation was based on the assumption that non-resident shareholders were reimbursed in their respective home state. The Court held that the distribution and receipt of dividends constitutes movement of capital within the meaning of Article 40 EEA. That Contracting Parties are, within the framework of bilateral agreements concluded in order to prevent double taxation, at liberty to determine the connecting factors for the purposes of allocating powers of taxation as between themselves does not mean that in the exercise of the power of taxation so allocated, a Contracting Party may disregard EEA law. The Court found furthermore that Article 40 EEA confers a right upon individuals and economic operators to market access. The Norwegian legislation at issue was held to restrict that right, since differential treatment may have the effect of deterring non-resident shareholders from investing capital in Norwegian companies and of impeding Norwegian companies from raising capital outside Norway. Moreover, the differential treatment constituted discrimination. Possible tax advantages in the home state could not offset the restriction and discrimination resulting from tax legislation in Norway. Attempts of the Norwegian government to justify the violation of Article 40 EEA were rejected. The Court considered shareholders resident and non-resident in Norway to be in an objectively comparable situation, referring to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-319/02 1253:); secondly, whether a national provision, under which an employee's consent to working more than 60 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement cannot be revoked, is compatible with the rights that employees have under the Directive; and thirdly, whether a dismissal following a failure to consent to a working time arrangement of more than 48 hours over a seven-day period constitutes a "detriment" within the meaning of the Directive. With regard to the first question, the Court noted that it is for the national court to assess the amount of working time in the case at hand, taking into account the factors clarified by the Court. Working time amounting to an average of 84 hours per week in a cohabitant care arrangement is compatible with Article 6 of the Directive, in circumstances governed by Article 22(1)(a), provided that the worker has explicitly, freely and individually agreed to perform such work, and the general principles of the protection of the safety and health of the worker are observed. With regard to the second question, the Court noted that the Directive does not contain a provision concerning revocation of consent. It is for national law to determine whether such revocation of consent is possible. However, a complete inability to revoke consent, even in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances, may prove incompatible with the Directive, since the possibility for a worker to consent to exceeding the maximum weekly working time is expressly conditional on the EEA State respecting the general principles of the protection of the health and safety of workers, cf. Article 22(1)(a) of the Directive. With regard to the third question, the Court noted that, typically, a dismissal due to a failure to consent to a working time arrangement of more than 48 hours over a seven-day period constitutes a "detriment". However, a notice of dismissal and offer of re-engagement on new terms, following a refusal by a worker to agree to a working time arrangement of more than 48 hours over a seven-day period, is not to be considered a "detriment" if the termination of the employment is based upon reasons that are fully independent of the worker's refusal to agree to perform such additional work. 1265: 1008:, the EFTA Court had to rule on the compatibility with Article 11 EEA of a ban on the import and marketing in Norway of Kellogg's cornflakes fortified with vitamins and iron which have been lawfully manufactured and marketed in other EEA States. It rejected the argument of the Norwegian government that in order to justify a marketing ban on fortified cornflakes produced in Denmark it was sufficient to show the absence of a nutritional need for the fortification with vitamins and iron in the Norwegian population because of the government had already taken care of the problem by giving out certain fortified products to school children on a regular basis. At the same time, the EFTA Court held that in examining whether the marketing of fortified cornflakes that were produced in Denmark may be banned on grounds of the protection of human health, a national government may, in the absence of harmonization, invoke the precautionary principle. According to that principle, it is sufficient to show that there is relevant scientific uncertainty with regard to the risk in question. The Court stated that measures taken must be based on scientific evidence; they must be proportionate, non-discriminatory, transparent, and consistent with similar measures already taken. The conditions to be fulfilled by a proper application of the precautionary principle were, in the view of the Court, first, an identification of potentially negative health consequences, and secondly, a comprehensive evaluation of the risk to health, which must be based on the most recent scientific information. The EFTA Court added that the precautionary principle can never justify the adoption of arbitrary decisions and can justify the pursuit of the objective of "zero risk" only in the most exceptional circumstances. Since the Norwegian fortification policy did not, at the relevant time, fulfil the requirements of EEA law pertaining to the application of that principle, the Court came to the conclusion that Norway had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 EEA. In particular, the measures taken by Norway were considered inconsistent and not based on a comprehensive risk assessment. 1163:, the EFTA States were entitled to opt for the international exhaustion of trade mark rights. The Court emphasized that they retained their sovereignty in foreign trade matters. Unlike the EC Treaty, the EEA Agreement did not establish a customs union, but an enhanced free trade area. The purpose and the scope of the EC Treaty and the EEA Agreement are therefore different. According to Article 8 EEA, the principle of free movement of goods as laid down in Articles 11 to 13 EEA applies only to goods originating in the EEA, while in the Community a product is in free circulation once it has been lawfully placed on the market in a Member State. In general, the latter applies in the context of the EEA only with respect to products originating in the EEA. In the case at hand, the product was manufactured in the United States and imported into Norway. Accordingly, it was not subject to the principle of the free movement of goods within the EEA. Based on this, the EFTA Court rejected the argument put forward by the governments of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom as well as by the European Commission that giving the EEA/EFTA States the right to opt for international exhaustion would lead to disparities in the EEA market. Article 7(1) of the Trade Mark Directive was interpreted so that it was for the EEA/EFTA States' legislatures and courts to decide whether they wanted to introduce or to maintain the principle of international exhaustion of trade mark rights with regard to goods originating from outside the EEA. The EFTA Court found that international exhaustion was in the interest of free trade and competition and thus in the interest of consumers. Furthermore, the principle of international exhaustion was in line with the main function of a trade mark, to allow the consumer to identify with certainty the origin of the products. This interpretation of Article 7(1) of the Trade Mark Directive was also consistent with the 960:). The Court upheld a decision by ESA finding that Norway Post had abused its dominant position in the market for business-to-consumer parcel services with over-the-counter delivery in Norway by pursuing an exclusivity strategy with preferential treatment when establishing and maintaining its Postin-Shop network. The facts of the case were as follows. In 2000 and 2001, Norway Post concluded framework agreements with several undertakings with a view to establish its Post-in-Shop network. Certain agreements specifically excluded competitors in the market for business-to-consumer parcel services from access to any of the outlets in these chains, while others guaranteed Norway Post exclusivity in the outlets which hosted a Post-in-Shop. Due to these exclusivity obligations, once the main roll-out of the Post-in-Shop concept had been implemented towards the end of 2003, Norway Post's competitors were foreclosed from approximately 50% of all outlets belonging to grocery store, kiosk and petrol station chains in Norway. Furthermore, from 2004 to 2006, Norway Post negotiated preference status questions with its partners for the period subsequent to the expiry of those agreements in 2006. While Norway Post did not actively link the negotiations on preference status with the exclusivity obligations, it did not announce to its partners that it would not maintain such clauses in future cooperation agreements. In its judgment, the Court held that the proceedings, which had led to the imposition of a substantial fine on the applicant, as a matter of principle, must respect the guarantees for criminal proceedings enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the 1208:("NHO"), the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise. The applicant sought the annulment of ESA Decision No 160/13/COL of 24 April 2013 where ESA concluded, without initiating the formal investigation procedure, that the contested provisions of the Norwegian VAT Act and VAT Compensation Act did not have the effect of granting State aid, within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA, to public schools or the lessors of premises to public schools. Besides the applicant's legal interest in bringing the action for annulment, which led to the dismissal, the Court had to deal with the situation of the applicant's counsel in light of Article 17(2) of the Statute of the Court, according to which parties other than any EFTA State, ESA, the European Union and the Commission must be represented by a lawyer. The Court examined the relationship between the applicant and the two lawyers that signed the application. The independence of one lawyer was not found to be affected by her position as head of the Business Legislation Department of NHO as the Court had not been provided with information demonstrating that the interests of NHO were largely the same as those of the applicant. The other lawyer was also deemed sufficiently independent from the applicant as an employee of an independent law firm, from where she continued to receive her salary, regardless of a contract between NHO and the law firm for the temporary provision of her services. The applicant was thus found to be properly represented before the Court, showing that the right of audience of in-house counsel must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 1094: 1277: 992:, the EFTA Court dealt with an action by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland. The Authority claimed that Iceland had violated the transposed Directive and thus EEA law in the aftermath of its major economic crisis and the collapse of the Icelandic banking sector in 2008, by failing to ensure that British and Dutch depositors using the 'Icesave' accounts offered by Icelandic banks received the minimum amount of compensation set out in Article 7(1) of the Directive. The Court noted that the nature of the result to be achieved fell to be determined by the substantive provisions of the particular directive. Moreover, it noted that as a result of the economic crisis, the regulatory framework of the financial system had been subject to revision and amendment in order to enhance financial stability. But the Court held that the Directive did not envisage the alleged obligation of result to ensure payment to depositors in the Dutch and British branches of Icelandic banks in a systemic crisis of the magnitude experienced in Iceland or how to proceed in a case where the guarantee scheme was unable to cope with its payment obligations remained largely unanswered by the Directive, with its Article 7(6) being the only operative provision that deals with non-payment. Still, the relevant question in 1197:, concerning the application of Norwegian CFC rules to the members of a family for whose benefit a trust had been established in Liechtenstein as a holding entity for shares in several companies, the Court held, first, that the right of establishment, provided for in Articles 31 to 34 EEA, is granted both to natural persons who are nationals of an EEA State and to legal entities ("companies or firms"), no matter whether they have legal personality or not, provided they have been formed in accordance with the law of an EU State or an EFTA State and have their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the territory of the Contracting Parties. Secondly, the Court also recognised that the prevention of tax avoidance may provide a justification, but only where the measures taken target wholly artificial arrangements which do not reflect economic reality. The assessment of the facts in that respect was a matter for the national court. Accordingly, such a tax measure must not be applied where it is proven, on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties, that despite the existence of tax motives a CFC is actually established in the host EEA State and carries on genuine economic activities, which take effect (sc. somewhere) in the EEA. 933:. The EFTA Court held that provisions of the EEA Agreement as well as procedural provisions of the SCA are to be interpreted in the light of fundamental rights and that the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are important sources for determining the scope of these rights. With regard to the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time granted by Article 6(1) ECHR, the EFTA Court observed that the European Court of Human Rights held in a case concerning a delay of two years and seven months due to a reference by a national court to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, that this period of time could not be taken into consideration in the assessment of the length of a particular set of proceedings. To take it into account would adversely affect the system instituted by what is now Article 267 TFEU and work against the aim pursued in substance in that Article, as seen in Case 1058: 749: 1124:, a company that had provided ambulance services for a hospital was no longer considered following a public call for tenders, but was replaced by a second company. No tangible assets were taken over by the second service provider. The office in the hospital building that had been used by the first service provider was no longer available. The second company reemployed four of the first company's nineteen employees. The other employees, including the two plaintiffs, were not offered employment. The EFTA Court ruled that a mere succession of two contracts for the provision of the same or similar services will not, as a rule, be sufficient for there to be a transfer of an undertaking, business, or part of a business within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings 1077:(commonly referred to as 'LO') the EFTA Court had to provide an Advisory Opinion. The issue before the national court was whether a number of Norwegian municipalities had breached certain provisions of the Basic Collective Agreement for Municipalities when they transferred their occupational pension insurance scheme from one supplier, KLP, a private mutual life insurance company wholly owned by members of the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities, to other insurance companies. The municipalities submitted that several provisions in the Basic Collective Agreement were void because they infringed Articles 53 and 54 EEA, the provisions mirroring Articles 81 and 82 EC. The contested provisions stated, 1015:, the Court found that the rules on product coverage of the EEA Agreement mean that its general scope differs from the EU Treaties with regard to agricultural products. In particular, wine does not fall under the EEA provisions on free movement of goods. Further, the Court held that advertisement of wine, closely linked to trade in wine, is not covered by Article 36 EEA on the freedom to provide services, since advertising primarily fulfils the purpose of promoting the sale of wine. The prohibition on advertising of alcoholic beverages also relates to beer and spirits, products generally falling within the scope of the EEA Agreement. The so-called precautionary principle, as defined by the EFTA Court in 1081:, that in the event of a change of the pension company, this should be discussed with union representatives; that before the decision-making body might begin to deal with a possible change of company relevant offers for a new occupational pension scheme should be put before those members of the pension committee who represent the parties to the collective agreement; that the occupational pension scheme had to be based on a financing system that is gender-neutral and does not have the effect of excluding older employees; that before the matter might be decided upon by the municipality there had to be approval from the 1216: 1151: 107: 1601: 186:(ECJ); however, there were legal difficulties in giving Union institutions powers over non-members so the EFTA Court was set up to perform this role instead of the ECJ. EFTA does not envisage political integration. It does not issue legislation, nor does it establish a customs union. Schengen is not a part of the EEA Agreement. However, all of the four EFTA States participate in Schengen and Dublin through bilateral agreements. They all apply the provisions of the relevant Acquis. 597: 528: 664: 1001:, rendered its declaration that triggered the application of the Directive. Thus, depositor protection under the Directive never applied to depositors in Icelandic branches of the affected banks. Accordingly, the transfer of domestic deposits did not fall within the scope of the non-discrimination principle as stipulated by the Directive and could not lead to an infringement of the aforementioned provisions of the Directive read in light of Article 4 EEA. 912:("ESA") approving state aid that access to justice constitutes an essential element of the EEA legal framework which is, however, subject to those conditions and limitations that follow from EEA law. The EFTA Court stated that it was aware of the ongoing debate with regard to the issue of the standing of natural and legal persons in actions against Community institutions and referred, inter alia, to the opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-50/00 436: 390: 574: 482: 413: 344: 31: 551: 505: 459: 321: 1225: 937:. The EFTA Court held that the same must apply with regard to the procedure established under Article 34 of the SCA which, as a means of inter-court cooperation, contributes to the proper functioning of the EEA Agreement to the benefit of individuals and economic operators. The EFTA Court added that, the time period from the registration of the request to the delivery of judgment amounted to a little more than five months. 367: 965: 1181:, the Court held that, the objective of establishing a dynamic and homogeneous European Economic Area can only be achieved if EFTA and EU citizens and economic operators enjoy, relying upon EEA law, the same rights in both the EU and EFTA pillars of the EEA. As regards the substance of the case, the Court found that a homogeneous interpretation of the Rules on Access to Documents adopted by ESA and of 1292: 919:. It added that this discussion is important at a time when the significance of the judicial function which is inspired by the idea of human rights appears to be on the increase, both on the national and international level. The Court found nevertheless that caution was warranted, not least in view of the uncertainties inherent in the refashioning of fundamental Community law. 757: 711: 1106: 1063: 1085:; and that the pension scheme had to be taken note of by the Banking, Insurance and Securities Commission. The EFTA Court found that the relationship between the national law of collective bargaining and the EEA competition rules must be assessed by applying the test established by the ECJ in Case C-67/96 1224: 1057: 871: 710: 264: 1150: 1105: 756: 1276: 1264: 1045: 1033: 836: 808: 282: 1145: 799: 781: 725: 663: 1158: 1093: 1062: 735: 295: 192: 748: 739: 1236: 996: 987: 964: 1215: 832: 618: 277: 726: 1189: 760: 1802:(Request for an Advisory Opinion by the Complaints Commission of the Financial Market Authority (Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht) in proceedings between Inconsult Anstalt v Finanzmarktaufsicht) EFTA Ct. Rep. 86 Delivered on 27 January 2010. 820: 879:, it noted that the objective of establishing a dynamic and homogeneous European Economic Area can only be achieved if EFTA and EU citizens and economic operators enjoy, relying upon EEA law, the same rights in both the EU and EFTA pillars of the EEA. 221:. On 1 January 1994, upon the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, the EFTA Court took up its functions with five judges nominated by Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Switzerland was unable to ratify the EEA Agreement due to a negative 623:. He or she sets the dates and timetable for the sessions of the Court, presides at hearings and deliberations. The President is competent to take decisions on requests for the application of interim measures. Presidents of the EFTA Court include: 769:), and the selectivity criterion in State aid law. Advocates General of the European Court of Justice have also entered a judicial dialogue with the EFTA Court. Conversely, the EFTA Court regularly refers to Opinions of Advocates General. 721: 701: 1241: 1034: 283: 714: 872: 1332: 1424: 70: 1665: 1650: 1249:, the national court asked, firstly, whether an average weekly working time of 84 hours (7–7 rotation) in a cohabitant care arrangement constitutes a breach of Article 6 of the Working Time Directive ( 1237: 1826: 1769: 897: 189: 929: 753:. All three EEA courts (ECJ, EGC, EFTA Court) have not only emphasized the need for a uniform interpretation of EU and EEA law, but have actively seen to it that homogeneity is preserved. 1844:(Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Supreme Court of Norway, Norges Høyesterett). Delivered on 19 April 2016. Corresponding EFTA Court Reports yet to be published. 1164: 997: 1272:, the Court answered questions referred to it by the Supreme Court of Iceland on the interpretation of Article 54 EEA. In 1988, the municipalities in the metropolitan area of 1329: 1185: 736: 1110:, although the first requirement was fulfilled, the second was not. Further, the Court also referred to the application of Articles 53 and 54 of the EEA Agreement. 474: 1412: 1046: 1859: 589: 543: 279: 1894: 2022: 2002: 1988: 1973: 1953: 1939: 1919: 1905: 1840: 1798: 1783: 1711: 1696: 1542: 1452: 1885: 1871: 1855: 1813: 1741: 1726: 1615: 1586: 1557: 1523: 1505: 1486: 875: 428: 1467: 233: 359: 833: 336: 740: 2059: 1308: 1399: 1301: 940: 718: 2064: 778: 1760:(Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Frostating lagmannsrett) EFTA Ct. Rep. 11. Delivered on 23 November 2004. 2044: 1053: 1787:(Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting Lagmannsrett) EFTA Ct. Rep. 4. Delivered on 23 January 2012. 1437: 786:, where conditions for the re-use of public sector information are compared to those of the 1966 US Freedom of Information Act. 1730:(Action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway) EFTA Ct. Rep. 73. Delivered on 5 April 2001. 1082: 1233: 930: 1561:(Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett). Delivered on 12 June 1998. EFTA Court Report, 68. 1700:(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority) EFTA Ct. Rep. 246. Delivered on 18 April 2012. 1546:(Reference for an advisory opinion from the Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) EFTA Ct. Rep. 592. delivered on 27 September 2012 1367: 1261: 1250: 1221: 1217: 1125: 1054: 1042: 1745: 1205: 984: 225:. Liechtenstein postponed membership until 1 May 1995. In 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden left EFTA and joined the 1814: 1238: 1817:(Reference for an advisory opinion from the Labour Court of Norway) EFTA Ct. Rep. 114. Delivered on 22 March 2002. 1875:(Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Høyesterett) EFTA Ct. Rep. 101. Delivered on 8 July 2003. 2069: 1160: 639: 405: 148: 1232:, is a request to the Court under Article 34 SCA from Reykjavík District Court concerning the interpretation of 750: 253: 1357: 983: 236: 1425: 909: 707: 71: 1756: 1685: 1576:, Application No. 5493/72, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Delivered on 7 December 1976. 894: 265: 1572: 1362: 1204:, the Court dismissed an action brought by Abelia, a trade and employers association that is part of 249: 183: 141: 1512: 1352: 1342: 1019:, does not apply in a situation where there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of advertising. 1377: 1067: 222: 171: 152: 777: 961: 52: 1182: 8: 497: 1347: 908:, the EFTA Court held in the context of an action for nullity against a decision of the 1363: 1186: 106: 1089: 645: 520: 2004: 651: 566: 1974: 266: 893:, the Court interpreted the transmitting state principle underlying the so-called 56: 1654:. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011. ECLI:EU:C:2011:816. 1639:, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Delivered on 26 February 1998. 241: 226: 175: 1669: 1592:(Application for annulment) EFTA Court Report, 52. Delivered on 19 June 2003. 2053: 1679: 867:), the EFTA Court characterized the EEA Agreement as an international treaty 602: 533: 229:. Since September 1995, the EFTA Court has consisted of three judges and six 206: 160: 1633: 1068: 633: 627: 382: 313: 451: 179: 1715:(An action against Iceland) EFTA Ct. Rep. 4. Delivered on 28 January 2013 1273: 800: 868: 218: 1527:(Reference for an advisory opinion from the Reykjavík District Court). 1619:(Reference for an advisory opinion from the Reykjanes District Court) 1588: 1490:(Reference for an advisory opinion from the Reykjavík District Court) 1368: 620: 245: 60: 2023: 730: 256: 1339: 30: 1400:"Frequently asked questions | European Free Trade Association" 1336: 1041:, the Court delivered an Advisory Opinion on the interpretation of 291: 1372: 2011:(Liechtenstein) AG . Not yet published. Delivered on 10 May 2016. 952:, have been also been followed by the EFTA Court in Case E-15/10 579: 487: 441: 418: 395: 349: 202: 198: 194: 182:. Enforcement of these laws would normally be carried out by the 156: 556: 510: 464: 372: 326: 284: 237: 214: 210: 164: 1471:(Reference for an advisory opinion from the Tullilautakunta) 1453: 1438:"Norway bows to criticism and re-appoints judge for full term" 1167:, which left the issue open for the Member States to regulate. 170: 1989: 144: 97: 2039: 240:. After the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the 809: 1311: 1772:(Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2004. ECLI:EU:C:2004:484. 794: 782: 1666: 1784: 2026:. Not yet published. Delivered on 22 September 2016. 1456:. EFTA Ct. Rep. 970. Delivered on 16 December 2013. 853: 1727: 1543: 877: 731: 692:Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson (Iceland), 2018 – present 1977:EFTA Ct. Rep. 1304. Delivered on 10 December 2014. 1909:EFTA Ct. Rep. 1178. Delivered on 21 December 2012. 1856:Jørn Ulstein and Per Otto Røiseng v Asbjørn Møller 1992:EFTA Ct. Rep. 674. Delivered on 16 December 2015. 1943:, not yet published. Delivered on 29 August 2014. 1841:Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund 2051: 178:. Consequently, they are subject to a number of 1468:Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark 806:Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark 1872:Paranova AS v Merck & Co., Inc. and Others 2001:Judgment in Joined Cases E-15/15 and E-16/15 1962:EFTA Ct. Rep. 254. Delivered on 27 June 2014. 1697:Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority 1558:TV 1000 Sverige AB v The Norwegian Government 954:Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority 779:1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 244:, it was decided to move the Court's seat to 1928:EFTA Ct. Rep. 400. Delivered on 9 July 2014. 1281: 845:and confirmed this jurisprudence in 2002 in 772: 1260:, the Court ruled on the interpretation of 1114: 895:“TV Without Frontiers” Directive 89/552/EEC 1891:California Trading Company Norway, Ulsteen 988:depositors' wealth from bank failures. In 105: 29: 1829:of 21 September 1999. ECLI:EU:C:1999:430. 1742:Pedicel AS v Sosial- og helsedirektoratet 1616:Public Prosecutor v Ásgeirsson and others 1146:movement of goods. However, the issue in 751:General Court of the European Union (EGC) 287:of recognized competence. A further six 193:designed for the then seven EFTA States 1799:Inconsult Anstalt v Finanzmarktaufsicht 1681:A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. v. Italy 1413:Agreement on the European Economic Area 969: 743: 2052: 1524:Erla María Sveinbjörnsdóttir v Iceland 1171: 686:Skúli Magnússon (Iceland), 2007 – 2012 674:Per Christiansen (Norway), 1995 – 1998 1712:EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland 1161:First Trade Mark Directive 89/104/EEC 1083:Norwegian Public Service Pension Fund 883: 795:Effect, supremacy and state liability 683:Henning Harborg (Norway), 2004 – 2007 680:Lucien Dedichen (Norway), 2001 – 2004 16:Supranational tribunal of EFTA states 1940:Abelia v EFTA Surveillance Authority 1757:Fokus Bank ASA v The Norwegian State 1604:of 25 July 2002. ECLI:EU:C:2002:462. 1285: 1132: 151:members who are also members of the 1651:KME Germany and Others v Commission 1623:185. Delivered on 12 December 2003. 1193:In Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 931:European Convention on Human Rights 689:Gunnar Selvik (Norway), 2012 – 2018 677:Gunnar Selvik (Norway), 1998 – 2001 671:Karin Hökborg (Sweden), 1994 – 1995 13: 2060:International courts and tribunals 1937:Order of the Court in Case E-8/13 1531:95. Delivered on 10 December 1998. 1475:15. Delivered on 16 December 1994. 1097:The guiding principles set out in 14: 2081: 2033: 1494:1. Delivered on 22 February 2002. 1302:list of miscellaneous information 1234:Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 1039:STX Norway Offshore AS and Others 854:Legal nature of the EEA Agreement 2045:Surveillance and Court Agreement 1918:Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 1290: 789: 595: 572: 549: 526: 503: 480: 457: 434: 411: 388: 365: 342: 319: 2065:European Free Trade Association 2014: 1995: 1980: 1965: 1946: 1931: 1912: 1897: 1878: 1862: 1847: 1832: 1820: 1805: 1790: 1775: 1763: 1748: 1733: 1718: 1703: 1688: 1672: 1657: 1642: 1626: 1607: 1595: 1579: 1573:Handyside v. the United Kingdom 1564: 1549: 1534: 1206:Næringslivets Hovedorganisasjon 1101:were confirmed in Case E-14/15 824:In the judgment in Case E-4/01 696: 259: 2008:Rainer Armbruster v Swiss Life 1515: 1506:Karl K. Karlsson hf. v Iceland 1497: 1478: 1459: 1444: 1430: 1418: 1406: 1392: 308:Appointed to current position 1: 1385: 1358:Instructions to the Registrar 1635:Pafitis and Others v. Greece 1427:. OJ L 344, 31.1.1994, p. 3. 1256:In Cases E-15/15 and 16/15, 839:Erla María Sveinbjörnsdóttir 613: 7: 979:is widely considered to be 910:EFTA Surveillance Authority 708:EFTA Surveillance Authority 658: 10: 2086: 1487:Hörður Einarsson v Iceland 1258:Vienna Life and Swiss Life 147:responsible for the three 2020:Judgment in Case E-29/15 1986:Judgment in Case E-5/15, 1971:Judgment in Case E-18/14 1415:. OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3. 1373:Pending and decided cases 1282:Other interesting aspects 773:Methods of interpretation 667:Registrars of the Court: 654:(Iceland), 2018 – present 648:(Liechtenstein) 2003–2017 272: 250:European Court of Justice 184:European Court of Justice 126: 118: 113: 92: 84: 76: 66: 45: 37: 28: 23: 1299:This section contains a 1115:Transfer of undertakings 1637:Application No 20323/92 1220:and Article 7(1)(b) of 859:In its judgment in the 706:Actions brought by the 2070:European Economic Area 172:European single market 153:European Economic Area 1921:Fred Olsen and Others 1827:Judgment of the Court 1770:Judgment of the Court 1602:Judgment of the Court 962:right to a fair trial 917:Pequeños Agricultores 784:Creditinfo Lánstraust 1262:Directive 2002/83/EC 1251:Directive 2003/88/EC 1183:Regulation 1049/2001 1126:Directive 77/187/EEC 1055:Directive 2002/92/EC 970:Fundamental freedoms 826:Karl K. Karlsson hf. 744:The homogeneity goal 49:Rue du Fort Thuengen 1925:the Norwegian State 1887:Mag Instrument Inc. 1172:Other notable cases 1075:Landsorganisasjonen 948:and the ECtHR Case 642:(Iceland) 2000–2002 85:Number of positions 2040:EFTA Court website 1663:Case C-386/10 P - 1440:. 16 January 2017. 1353:Rules of Procedure 1187:European Ombudsman 999:Fjármálaeftirlitið 985:Directive 94/19/EC 944:, Case C-386/10 P 884:Fundamental rights 636:(Norway) 1995–1999 475:Thorgeir Örlygsson 80:6 years, renewable 1326: 1325: 1268:In Case E-29/15, 1222:Directive 2004/38 1148:Paranova v. Merck 1140:Paranova v. Merck 1133:Trade Mark rights 956:(better known as 861:Sveinbjörnsdóttir 646:Carl Baudenbacher 640:Thór Vilhjálmsson 611: 610: 521:Carl Baudenbacher 406:Thor Vilhjálmsson 267:Advocates General 134: 133: 77:Judge term length 2077: 2027: 2018: 2012: 1999: 1993: 1984: 1978: 1969: 1963: 1950: 1944: 1935: 1929: 1916: 1910: 1901: 1895: 1882: 1876: 1866: 1860: 1851: 1845: 1836: 1830: 1824: 1818: 1809: 1803: 1794: 1788: 1779: 1773: 1767: 1761: 1752: 1746: 1737: 1731: 1722: 1716: 1707: 1701: 1692: 1686: 1676: 1670: 1661: 1655: 1646: 1640: 1630: 1624: 1611: 1605: 1599: 1593: 1583: 1577: 1568: 1562: 1553: 1547: 1538: 1532: 1519: 1513: 1501: 1495: 1482: 1476: 1463: 1457: 1448: 1442: 1441: 1434: 1428: 1422: 1416: 1410: 1404: 1403: 1396: 1321: 1318: 1312: 1294: 1293: 1286: 1245:In Case E-5/15, 1218:Directive 90/365 1200:In Case E-8/13, 814:Hörður Einarsson 601: 599: 598: 590:Bernd Hammermann 578: 576: 575: 555: 553: 552: 544:Per Christiansen 532: 530: 529: 509: 507: 506: 486: 484: 483: 463: 461: 460: 440: 438: 437: 417: 415: 414: 394: 392: 391: 371: 369: 368: 348: 346: 345: 325: 323: 322: 299: 298: 280:Per Christiansen 109: 104: 101: 99: 33: 21: 20: 2085: 2084: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2050: 2049: 2036: 2031: 2030: 2019: 2015: 2000: 1996: 1985: 1981: 1970: 1966: 1959:Atli Gunnarsson 1951: 1947: 1936: 1932: 1917: 1913: 1902: 1898: 1883: 1879: 1867: 1863: 1852: 1848: 1837: 1833: 1825: 1821: 1810: 1806: 1795: 1791: 1780: 1776: 1768: 1764: 1753: 1749: 1738: 1734: 1723: 1719: 1708: 1704: 1693: 1689: 1677: 1673: 1662: 1658: 1647: 1643: 1631: 1627: 1612: 1608: 1600: 1596: 1584: 1580: 1569: 1565: 1554: 1550: 1539: 1535: 1520: 1516: 1502: 1498: 1483: 1479: 1464: 1460: 1449: 1445: 1436: 1435: 1431: 1423: 1419: 1411: 1407: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1388: 1322: 1316: 1313: 1306: 1295: 1291: 1284: 1174: 1165:TRIPs Agreement 1156:Mag Instruments 1154:In Case E-2/97 1138:In Case E-3/02 1135: 1120:In Case E-2/96 1117: 1073:In Case E-8/00 1070: 1043:Directive 96/71 1037:In Case E-2/11 1022:In Case E-1/04 1011:In Case E-4/04 1004:In Case E-3/00 972: 922:In Case E-2/03 904:In Case E-2/02 889:In Case E-8/97 886: 856: 812:In Case E-1/01 804:In Case E-1/94 797: 792: 775: 746: 733: 699: 661: 616: 607:2018 – present 596: 594: 584:2011 – present 573: 571: 561:2011 – present 550: 548: 527: 525: 504: 502: 481: 479: 458: 456: 435: 433: 412: 410: 389: 387: 366: 364: 343: 341: 320: 318: 275: 262: 96: 59: 57:Luxembourg City 50: 17: 12: 11: 5: 2083: 2073: 2072: 2067: 2062: 2048: 2047: 2042: 2035: 2034:External links 2032: 2029: 2028: 2013: 1994: 1979: 1964: 1955:Íslenska ríkið 1945: 1930: 1911: 1896: 1877: 1861: 1846: 1831: 1819: 1804: 1789: 1774: 1762: 1747: 1732: 1717: 1702: 1687: 1671: 1656: 1641: 1625: 1606: 1594: 1578: 1563: 1548: 1533: 1514: 1496: 1477: 1458: 1443: 1429: 1417: 1405: 1390: 1389: 1387: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1378:Press releases 1375: 1370: 1365: 1360: 1355: 1350: 1345: 1343:Annual Reports 1337: 1334: 1330: 1324: 1323: 1298: 1296: 1289: 1283: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1266: 1254: 1243: 1226: 1209: 1198: 1191: 1177:In Case 14/11 1173: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1152: 1134: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1116: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1095: 1069: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1047: 1035: 1020: 1009: 1002: 971: 968: 967: 966: 938: 920: 902: 885: 882: 881: 880: 873: 855: 852: 851: 850: 834: 822: 810: 796: 793: 791: 788: 774: 771: 745: 742: 732: 729: 728: 727: 723: 719: 716: 712: 698: 695: 694: 693: 690: 687: 684: 681: 678: 675: 672: 660: 657: 656: 655: 652:Páll Hreinsson 649: 643: 637: 631: 630:(Finland) 1994 615: 612: 609: 608: 605: 592: 586: 585: 582: 569: 567:Páll Hreinsson 563: 562: 559: 546: 540: 539: 536: 523: 517: 516: 513: 500: 494: 493: 490: 477: 471: 470: 467: 454: 448: 447: 444: 431: 429:Gustav Bygglin 425: 424: 421: 408: 402: 401: 398: 385: 379: 378: 375: 362: 356: 355: 352: 339: 333: 332: 329: 316: 310: 309: 306: 303: 274: 271: 261: 258: 242:European Union 176:European Union 132: 131: 128: 124: 123: 122:Páll Hreinsson 120: 116: 115: 111: 110: 94: 90: 89: 86: 82: 81: 78: 74: 73: 68: 64: 63: 47: 43: 42: 39: 35: 34: 26: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2082: 2071: 2068: 2066: 2063: 2061: 2058: 2057: 2055: 2046: 2043: 2041: 2038: 2037: 2025: 2024: 2017: 2010: 2009: 2005: 1998: 1991: 1990: 1983: 1976: 1975: 1968: 1961: 1960: 1956: 1952:Case E-26/13 1949: 1942: 1941: 1934: 1927: 1926: 1922: 1915: 1908: 1907: 1906:DB Schenker I 1903:Case E-14/11 1900: 1893: 1892: 1888: 1881: 1874: 1873: 1865: 1858: 1857: 1850: 1843: 1842: 1835: 1828: 1823: 1816: 1815: 1808: 1801: 1800: 1793: 1786: 1785: 1778: 1771: 1766: 1759: 1758: 1751: 1744: 1743: 1736: 1729: 1728: 1721: 1714: 1713: 1706: 1699: 1698: 1691: 1684: 1682: 1675: 1668: 1667: 1660: 1653: 1652: 1648:C-389/10 P - 1645: 1638: 1636: 1629: 1622: 1621:EFTA Ct. Rep. 1618: 1617: 1610: 1603: 1598: 1591: 1589: 1582: 1575: 1574: 1567: 1560: 1559: 1552: 1545: 1544: 1537: 1530: 1529:EFTA Ct. Rep. 1526: 1525: 1518: 1511: 1510:EFTA Ct. Rep. 1508: 1507: 1500: 1493: 1492:EFTA Ct. Rep. 1489: 1488: 1481: 1474: 1473:EFTA Ct. Rep. 1470: 1469: 1462: 1455: 1454: 1447: 1439: 1433: 1426: 1421: 1414: 1409: 1401: 1395: 1391: 1379: 1376: 1374: 1371: 1369: 1366: 1364: 1361: 1359: 1356: 1354: 1351: 1349: 1346: 1344: 1341: 1340: 1338: 1335: 1331: 1328: 1327: 1320: 1310: 1305: 1303: 1297: 1288: 1287: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1214: 1211:Case E-26/13 1210: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1179:DB Schenker I 1176: 1175: 1166: 1162: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1118: 1109: 1108:Holship Norge 1104: 1103:Holship Norge 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1061: 1056: 1052: 1049:Case E-04/09 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1007: 1003: 1000: 995: 991: 986: 982: 978: 975:Case E-16/11 974: 973: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 943: 939: 936: 932: 928: 925: 921: 918: 915: 911: 907: 903: 900: 896: 892: 888: 887: 878: 874: 870: 866: 862: 858: 857: 848: 844: 840: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 802: 801: 790:Notable cases 787: 785: 780: 770: 768: 764: 758: 754: 752: 741: 737: 724: 720: 717: 713: 709: 705: 704: 703: 691: 688: 685: 682: 679: 676: 673: 670: 669: 668: 665: 653: 650: 647: 644: 641: 638: 635: 632: 629: 626: 625: 624: 622: 606: 604: 603:Liechtenstein 593: 591: 588: 587: 583: 581: 570: 568: 565: 564: 560: 558: 547: 545: 542: 541: 537: 535: 534:Liechtenstein 524: 522: 519: 518: 514: 512: 501: 499: 496: 495: 491: 489: 478: 476: 473: 472: 468: 466: 455: 453: 450: 449: 445: 443: 432: 430: 427: 426: 422: 420: 409: 407: 404: 403: 399: 397: 386: 384: 381: 380: 376: 374: 363: 361: 358: 357: 353: 351: 340: 338: 335: 334: 330: 328: 317: 315: 312: 311: 307: 304: 301: 300: 297: 294: 290: 286: 285:jurisconsults 281: 270: 268: 257: 255: 254:General Court 251: 247: 243: 239: 234: 232: 228: 224: 220: 216: 212: 208: 207:Liechtenstein 204: 200: 196: 190: 187: 185: 181: 180:European laws 177: 173: 168: 166: 162: 161:Liechtenstein 158: 154: 150: 146: 145:judicial body 143: 142:supranational 139: 129: 125: 121: 117: 112: 108: 103: 95: 91: 87: 83: 79: 75: 72: 69: 67:Authorized by 65: 62: 58: 54: 48: 44: 40: 36: 32: 27: 22: 19: 2021: 2016: 2007: 2003: 1997: 1987: 1982: 1972: 1967: 1958: 1954: 1948: 1938: 1933: 1924: 1920: 1914: 1904: 1899: 1890: 1886: 1880: 1869: 1864: 1854: 1849: 1839: 1834: 1822: 1812: 1811:Case E-8/00 1807: 1797: 1792: 1782: 1777: 1765: 1755: 1750: 1740: 1735: 1725: 1720: 1710: 1705: 1695: 1690: 1680: 1674: 1664: 1659: 1649: 1644: 1634: 1628: 1620: 1614: 1609: 1597: 1587: 1581: 1571: 1566: 1556: 1551: 1541: 1536: 1528: 1522: 1517: 1509: 1504: 1499: 1491: 1485: 1480: 1472: 1466: 1461: 1451: 1446: 1432: 1420: 1408: 1394: 1314: 1300: 1269: 1257: 1246: 1229: 1212: 1201: 1194: 1190:reciprocity. 1178: 1155: 1147: 1142: 1139: 1121: 1107: 1102: 1098: 1090: 1086: 1078: 1074: 1059: 1050: 1038: 1030: 1027: 1023: 1016: 1012: 1005: 998: 993: 989: 980: 976: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 934: 926: 923: 916: 913: 905: 898: 890: 876: 864: 860: 846: 842: 838: 829: 825: 817: 813: 805: 798: 783: 776: 766: 762: 759: 755: 747: 738: 734: 700: 697:Jurisdiction 666: 662: 617: 538:1995 – 2018 515:2006 – 2011 492:2003 – 2011 469:2000 – 2005 452:Per Tresselt 423:1994 – 2002 400:1994 – 1995 377:1994 – 1995 360:Sven Norberg 354:1994 – 1995 331:1994 – 1999 292: 288: 276: 263: 260:Organization 248:, where the 235: 230: 191: 188: 169: 137: 135: 18: 1247:Matja Kumba 1091:prima facie 958:Norway Post 869:sui generis 498:Henrik Bull 337:Kurt Herndl 219:Switzerland 38:Established 2054:Categories 1386:References 1213:Gunnarsson 1195:Fred Olsen 1159:under the 1079:inter alia 1024:Fokus Bank 924:Ásgeirsson 715:Agreement; 634:Bjørn Haug 628:Leif Sevón 621:rapporteur 383:Leif Sevón 314:Bjørn Haug 305:Home state 246:Luxembourg 223:referendum 138:EFTA Court 100:.eftacourt 61:Luxembourg 24:EFTA Court 1317:June 2021 1274:Reykjavík 1228:E-18/14, 1051:Inconsult 1017:Kellogg’s 1006:Kellogg’s 899:Handyside 865:vid supra 614:President 119:Currently 114:President 53:Kirchberg 1884:E-02/97 1853:E-02/96 1838:E-14/15 1796:E-04/09 1781:E-02/11 1754:E-01/04 1739:E-04/04 1709:E-16/11 1694:E-15/10 1678:Case of 1632:Case of 1585:E-02/02 1570:Case of 1555:E-08/97 1540:E-18/11 1450:E-07/13 1309:relocate 1242:applied. 1239:Keflavík 1028:Manninen 950:Menarini 914:Unión de 847:Karlsson 821:precise. 659:Registry 296:Judges: 252:and the 46:Location 1724:E-3/00 1613:E-2/03 1521:E-9/97 1503:E-4/01 1484:E-1/01 1465:E-1/94 1348:Statute 1307:Please 1230:Wow Air 1122:Ulstein 1013:Pedicel 994:Icesave 990:Icesave 977:Icesave 946:Chalkor 935:Pafitis 906:Bellona 891:TV 1000 843:Iceland 837:E-9/97 830:Iceland 818:Iceland 763:Pedicel 580:Iceland 488:Iceland 442:Finland 419:Iceland 396:Finland 350:Austria 203:Iceland 199:Finland 195:Austria 174:of the 157:Iceland 155:(EEA): 93:Website 1333:entry. 1202:Abelia 1087:Albany 863:case ( 600:  577:  557:Norway 554:  531:  511:Norway 508:  485:  465:Norway 462:  439:  416:  393:  373:Sweden 370:  347:  327:Norway 324:  293:ad hoc 289:ad hoc 273:Judges 238:Geneva 231:ad hoc 215:Sweden 211:Norway 165:Norway 1868:E-03/ 1270:Sorpa 901:case. 767:infra 765:case 722:them; 446:1995 140:is a 127:Since 51:1499 2006:and 1060:e.g. 302:Name 217:and 163:and 149:EFTA 136:The 130:2018 102:.int 41:1994 1870:02 1590:ESA 981:the 942:KME 98:www 88:3+6 2056:: 1957:v 1923:v 1889:v 1099:LO 841:v 828:v 816:v 269:. 227:EU 213:, 209:, 205:, 201:, 197:, 167:. 159:, 55:, 1683:. 1402:. 1319:) 1315:( 1304:. 1143:, 1128:. 1031:. 927:, 849:.