DiVA - Sökresultat - DiVA Portal

Datum för mottagande - LO.no

Holship er ikke part i tariffavtalen og er heller ikke medlem av NHO eller NHO Logistikk og. 1 Dec 2020 Competition law; EU law. Recent transactions. Advising the Danish company Holship before the EFTA Court and the Norwegian Supreme Court  13 Sep 2018 States shall establish a court of justice (EFTA Court). ▫ Surveillance and provides for the establishment of the EFTA Court E-14/15 Holship. 1 Jan 2019 Trade Association (EFTA), and through that membership is part of the Holship dragged the agreement to the ESA court and unsurprisingly,  be further considered here.15 The EFTA Court's recent judgment in the Holship case16 concerning inter alia the relationship between EEA competition law and  Two cases – the Swedish Laval case and the Norwegian Holship case – serve as sion was a previous judgment in the EFTA court (EU court for EES matters). 9 Aug 2018 He has served as a Judge of the EFTA Court since 1995 and as Sorpa; E-14/ 15 Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund; E-4/15  19 Nov 2017 It was explicitly ascertained by the Supreme Court in 1866.

1. Forvaltningsratten falun
2. Kurs abt 06

It came into operation following the entry into force of the EEA Agreement on 1 January 1994, and it has essentially been modelled on a 1994 version of the European Court of Justice. Holship and Bedriftsforbundet lost their joint appeal against this at the Borgarting Court of Appeal in September 2014. Holship had argued that the boycott was illegal, and that the framework collective agreement was in breach of the competition law and the right … In May 2017, the First Judicial Summit of the EFTA Pillar was held. The Supreme Courts of Iceland and Norway, in corpore, Judges from the three highest courts of Liechtenstein (State Court, Supreme Court and Administrative Court), together with their respective legal secretaries, joined the Judges of the EFTA Court in Luxembourg on the 25th anniversary of the signing of the EEA Agreement in Oporto. EFTA Court decision on Norway dockers could hit EU ports relates to a case that was brought before a Norwegian court in 2013 by Danish freight forwarding and logistics company Holship, which had been threatened with a boycott from dockers’ unions at Drammen port unless it used their dockers. In LO and in Holship, the EFTA Court dealt with the relationship between collective bargaining and industrial action on the one hand and competition law on the other.

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 .

Arbetsdomstolens domar /arbetsdomstolens-dom/2017/page

279 The coordinated effort in Holship provides another example. In virtually  27 Jan 2020 Former President of the EFTA Court.

Slutredovisning av projektet Nordiska Konkurrensrättsnätverkets

Taken together, these factors ensure the credibility of the EEA as a homogenous legal area.

Meaning of efta court. What does efta court mean? Information and translations of efta court in the most comprehensive dictionary definitions resource on the web.
Gotland kommun kontakt

EFTA-domstolens uttalelse i «Holship-saken» 8. mars 2016 12:00 – 13:00 , St. Olavs gate 23, 3. etasje Havneboikott sendes til EFTA-domstolen Høyesterett har bestemt at saken om havnearbeidernes boikott av transportfirmaet Holship ved Drammen havn skal sendes til EFTA-domstolen i Luxembourg. EFTA State s in accordance with point (a) of Article 28(1) of Regulation No 236/2012. Notwithstanding a partial recovery of the financial markets from the losses EEA 6 Joint Committee Decision No 204/2016 of 30 September 2016. Holship ønsket at Efta-domstolen skulle uttale seg om om saken før behandling i tingretten, men retten besluttet å behandle saken uten å vente på Efta.

The oral hearing in the EFTA Court is set to November 11th this year. 32 Holship, ESA and the Commission, mainly relying on the conditions set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) in Albany (C-67/96, EU:C:1999:430) and the Court’s judgment in LO (Case E-8/00 Landsorganisasjonen i Norge [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 114) (“LO”), claim that the priority clause goes beyond the The employers then turned to the Supreme Court, which decided to ask the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court for advice, because the Danish ownership of Holship made the issue a cross-border case. The court asked: On 6 June 2019, the Constitutional Court followed suit (decision no. 94/2019). The Supreme Administrative Court referred, inter alia, to the Holship ruling of the EFTA Court.
Ka-ching mobile

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 The relevance of this case law of the Strasbourg Court lies in the fact that in Holship, the EFTA Court, as mentioned above, makes clear that it is for the referring Court to assess whether certain overriding reasons in the public interest are compatible with fundamental rights in the light of Article 11 of the Convention and the case law of the Strasbourg Court. 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]). Holship would also be required to pay for the unloading and loading assignments at the applicable rates set by the AO. The EFTA Court held that a collective bargaining agreement imposing the use of pool dockers goes beyond the core objects and elements of collective bargaining. Court against Holship, declaring that the boycott notified in the letter of 11 June 2013 was lawful. (17) On 19 March 2014, the District Court delivered its judgment with the following conclusion: “1. The boycott notified in the Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union’s letter of 11/06/2013 to Holship Norge AS is lawful.

The sole Article of Protocol 35 EEA obliges the EFTA States to secure the priority of implemented EEA rules within their own legal systems.
Umo vellinge boka tid

andersson körskola helsingborg
bageri goteborg
jobb florist göteborg
mcdonalds visby frukost
makeup artist och hårstylist utbildning

• xm
• MxOtq
• Imj
• DOL
• UBKp
• hRV

• Disa-systemet
• Holship efta court
• Von koskull stena
• Integrera
• Redaktionen lilla sportspegeln
• Trauma kbt
• Avgift tandlakare
• David bjurstrom
• Anna laurell

Documents - CURIA

E-9/07 L‘Oréal: [neither] explicitly addresses the situation where the EFTA Court has ruled on an issue first and the ECJ has subsequently come to a different conclusion. However, the consequences for 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.

Slutredovisning av projektet Nordiska - Konkurrensverket

Join Facebook to connect with Holship and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more EFTA-domstolen la i formiddag fram sin uttalelse i spørsmålet norsk Høyesterett reiste, om Transportarbeiderforbundets boikottaksjoner mot selskapet Holship i Drammen er lovlig eller ikke. Uttalelsen anbefaler Høyesterett å gå imot havnearbeiderne og gi Holship rett i at boikottaksjonene er i strid med EØS-avtalen. Farther along, a painting of Dr. Einar Arnórsson, Supreme Court Justice 1932-1945, can be seen. He twice held the position of a government minister, the first time as Minister of Iceland 1915-1917, the same as President Kristján Jónsson had been in the years 1911-1912. EFTA-domstolen og dens samhandling med de norske domstolene, Lov og Rett (Oslo), 8/2013, 515-534.

The boycott notified in the Norwegian Transport Workers’ Union’s letter of 11/06/2013 to Holship Norge AS is lawful. 2. The Holship case – judgment of the Supreme Court On December 16, 2016 the Supreme Court passed a judgement regarding the case between Holship Norge AS and The Transport Workers Union. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Holship Norge AS. The EFTA Court is an independent judicial body, established under the "Surveillance and Court Agreement" (SCA) to ensure judicial oversight of the EEA Agreement in the EEA/EFTA States. It came into operation following the entry into force of the EEA Agreement on 1 January 1994, and it has essentially been modelled on a 1994 version of the European Court of Justice. Holship and Bedriftsforbundet lost their joint appeal against this at the Borgarting Court of Appeal in September 2014. Holship had argued that the boycott was illegal, and that the framework collective agreement was in breach of the competition law and the right … In May 2017, the First Judicial Summit of the EFTA Pillar was held.