Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document E2005P0003

Action brought on 12 April 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-3/05)

OB C 159, 30.6.2005, p. 28–28 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.6.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/28

Action brought on 12 April 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway

(Case E-3/05)

(2005/C 159/10)

An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 12 April 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Arne Torsten Andersen, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

Declare that by applying a requirement of residence in the county of Finnmark or in seven specified municipalities in the county of Troms for the entitlement of the Finnmark supplement to the family allowances, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation pursuant to Article 73 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VI to the EEA Agreement (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; or, alternatively

Declare that by applying said residence requirement, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Act referred to at Point 2 of Annex V (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and

2.

Order the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

—

The case concerns a regional supplement to Norwegian family allowances, which is granted to persons responsible for the upbringing of children residing in the designated area.

—

Norwegian law requires that the grantee of the supplement reside in the designated area with their child. The supplement is not dependent on the location of the grantee's place of employment.

—

Article 29 EEA provides for the coordination of social security schemes in order to provide freedom of movement of workers and self-employed persons within the EEA.

—

Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 stipulates that an employed or self-employed person subject to the legislation of an EEA State and residing in another EEA State shall be entitled to the family benefits provided by the former EEA State as if they were residing therein.

—

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 states that migrant workers shall enjoy the same social advantages as national workers.
Top