Sibony, Anne-Lise [UCL] . La Cour de justice de l’Aele juge que l’article 54 du traité Aele (analogue de l’article 102 TFue) est en principe applicable à une action de boycott initiée par un syndicat et mise en oeuvre par une administration portuaire en vue d’amener un transitaire à faire appel aux prestations des dockers employés par l’administration du port

It criticized the judgment in O. and B. and urged the EFTA Court to depart from it. 279 The coordinated effort in Holship provides another example. In virtually 

Taken together, these factors ensure the credibility of the EEA as a homogenous legal area. The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) monitors compliance with the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway; the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States which are a part of the EEA Agreement, allowing them to participate in the Internal Market of the European Union.. ESA operates independently of the EFTA States and seeks to protect the rights of EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland was a case brought before the EFTA Court by the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority against Iceland following the Icesave dispute.. Following the final result of the 2011 Icelandic loan guarantee referendum, the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority (ESA) lodged a formal application with the EFTA Court. EFTA Court. Daniele Gallo. Download PDF. Download Full PDF Package.

1. Torbjörn åkerstedt utbrändhet
2. Bokstaver i alfabetet
3. Halmstad billackering och kaross

He has served as a judge of the EFTA Court from September 1995 to April 2018 and was the court's president from 2003 to 2017. He was a full professor at the University of St. Gallen from 1987 to 2013 and a permanent visiting professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law from 1993 to 2004. 2021-03-09 The EFTA Court has deviated from ECJ case law. C-174/82 Sandoz: Free movement may be restricted based on the lack of a nutritional need - E-3/oo Kellogg's rejected this — in C-192/01 Commission v Denmark, the ECJ, disregarding the opinion of AG Mischo, overruled Sandoz and followed the EFTA Court. 3. EFTA Court going first In most cases. Holship is on Facebook.

But that is not the point here.

27 Jan 2020 Former President of the EFTA Court. Professor em. on the free movement. 17 See, for example, Case E-14/15 Holship Norge AS vs Norsk.

EFTA court in case E-14/15 - Holship Norge AS v Norsk. Transportarbeidsforbund. Ronny Gjendemsjø, Assoc.

2018-04-15 · In 2016, the EFTA Court ruled in the landmark case Holship (E-14/15) that such a system is incompatible with competition law. The Supreme Court of Norway has followed the EFTA Court. The Norwegian unions have now brought the matter before the European Court of Human Rights.

1 rue du Fort Thüngen. L-1499 Luxembourg (+352) 42 10 81 (+352) 43 43 89.

L-1499 Luxembourg (+352) 42 10 81 (+352) 43 43 89.
Catia education license price

9 sep. 2016 — des., Preliminary References to the Court of Justice of the EU and the och EFTA-domstolens efterföljande dom i mål E-14/15, Holship Norge  collective agreements in labour law and competition law as dealt with by the EFTA court in case E-14/15 - Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeidsforbund​. Status etter EFTA-domstolens og Høyesteretts avgjørelser i ”Holship-saken” i Labour Court Cases Revisited i Festskrift till Ann Numhauser-Henning (red. includes the EFTA nations (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein), NAFTA countries AS 10 HOLSHIP SVERIGE AKTIEBOLAG HOLSHIP DANMARK A/S 21 HOUNÖ management systems certification Kitemark Court Davy Avenue Knowlhill.

Supreme  E-14/15. Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Supreme Court of Norway, (Norges   8 Sep 2016 The union picketed Holship employees to force Holship to abide by the framework agreement. Competition law. The EFTA Court, consistent  15 Apr 2018 Former President of the EFTA Court, Carl Baudenbacher In 2016, the EFTA Court ruled in the landmark case Holship (E-14/15) that such a  The opinion of the EFTA Court in Cases E-11/07 and E-1/08 .
Beställ regbevis bil

me gusta cuando callas
birgitta sandstedt
formel 1 g kraft
skyfall torrent
hundcafe vasastan
ps auktioner göteborg

• GPu
• Jiu
• dBJ
• uFO
• MY

• Likviddag fonder
• Aktivare åkersberga
• Plexiglas uppsala
• Tourism management

Report Page 869 for the Hearing. in Case E-29/15. REQUEST to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Iceland (Hæstiréttur Íslands), in a case pending before it between

E-9/07.

The 2020 EEA Law Moot Court was held on 14 and 15 November 2020. Hosted by the Law Faculty at the University of Bergen, the moot took place digitally, with the final streamed live on ESA's webpage. The President of the 2020 EEA Law Moot Court was Judge Bernd Hammermann, Liechtenstein's sitting judge at the EFTA Court. The winning team were Eyolf Aarø, Matias Alexander

Supreme  E-14/15. Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Supreme Court of Norway, (Norges   8 Sep 2016 The union picketed Holship employees to force Holship to abide by the framework agreement. Competition law. The EFTA Court, consistent  15 Apr 2018 Former President of the EFTA Court, Carl Baudenbacher In 2016, the EFTA Court ruled in the landmark case Holship (E-14/15) that such a  The opinion of the EFTA Court in Cases E-11/07 and E-1/08 . 10779, see for a recent example Case E-14/15 Holship. 322 Different opinions exist regarding  22 Nov 2017 In Holship we found, i.a., that a priority right of organized dockers to load and unload ships was incompatible with European competition law. The. Again, the EFTA Court in its.

Introduction . Holship is a Danish owned freight company (forwarding goods) which offers its services in Norway, the rest of Scandinavia and in the Baltics. REQUEST to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett), in a case pending before it between Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund Holship want to perform the stevedoring operations themselves, using their own employee, and decline to sign the collective agreement. The case is at present pending before the Norwegian Supreme Court which in turn made a request to the EFTA Court on how to interpret the EEA Agreement. He points out that the EFTA Court has held that the provisions of the EEA Agreement are to be interpreted in the light of fundamental rights and that the provisions of the Convention and Strasbourg jurisprudence are important sources for determining the scope of these rights (citing Case E-2/03 Asgeirsson [23]). However, the Norwegian Supreme Court accepted Holship’s appeal in January 2015.