Report 2011 - EFTA Court

above, paragraph 55, and the caselaw cited, and Case C-434/04
Ahokainen and Leppik [2006] ECR i-9171, paragraph 38).
87 in this regard, it should be recalled that in proceedings under
Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the
Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice,
which is based on a clear separation of functions between the
Court and the national courts, it is for the national court to
ascertain the facts which have given rise to the dispute and to
establish the consequences that they have for the judgment which
it is required to deliver.
88 in accordance with the above, the answer to the second question
must be that it is for the national court to identify the aims which
the legislation at issue is actually intended to pursue and to
decide whether the public health objective of reducing tobacco
use by the public in general can be achieved by measures less
restrictive than a visual display ban on tobacco products.
V COSTS
89 The costs incurred by the Finnish Government, the icelandic
Government, the Portuguese Government, the Romanian
Government, the United Kingdom Government, ESA and the
European Commission, which have submitted observations to the
Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are a step
in the proceedings pending before Oslo tingrett, any decision on
costs for the parties to those proceedings is a matter for that
court.
CASE E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AS v The Norwegian State 390 360