230 likes | 462 Views
A.IntroductionB.Homogeneity between EEA and EC lawC.EC constitutional principles in particularD.Dynamic EEA in particularE.Judicial dialogue with the Community courtsF.Conclusions. Contribution of the EFTA Court . EEA: Extension of the EC internal market to the EFTA States (Art. 1 E
E N D
3. EEA:
Extension of the EC internal market to the EFTA States (Art. 1 EEA; ECJ Ospelt [2003]; EFTA Court ESA v Iceland [2003])
Two pillars (EC and EFTA) with law that is largely identical in substance
Individuals and economic operators as main protagonists: Free access to the markets in both EEA pillars
Homogeneity goal
Reciprocity expectations of both sides A. Introduction
4. II. EFTA Court
Third European jurisdiction (after ECHR and ECJ/CFI)
Example of judicialization of international law
From 7 to 5 to 3 judges (+ 6 ad hoc judges)
Cabinet system A. Introduction
5. II. EFTA Court
Secrecy of deliberations and of vote
Appointment and reappointment of judges
No Advocate General
Language regime A. Introduction
6. B. Homogeneity I. Statutory principle
Article 6 EEA
"Without prejudice to future developments of case law, the provisions of this Agreement, in so far as they are identical in substance to corresponding rules of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and to acts adopted in application of these two Treaties, shall, in their implementation and application, be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities given prior to the date of signature of this Agreement."
7. B. Homogeneity I. Statutory principle
Article 3 II SCA
"In the interpretation and application of the EEA Agreement and this Agreement, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court shall pay due account to the principles laid down by the relevant rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Communities given after the date of signature of the EEA Agreement and which concern the interpretation of that Agreement or of such rules of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community in so far as they are identical in substance to the provisions of the EEA Agreement or to the provisions of Protocols 1 to 4 and the provisions of the acts corresponding to those listed in Annexes I and II to the present Agreement."
8. B. Homogeneity II. General principle?
ECJ Ospelt (2003): The ECJ is responsible for securing homogeneity
EFTA Court ESA v Iceland (2003): Reference to ECJ Ospelt
ECJ Bellio Fratelli (2004): Both courts are responsible for securing
homogeneity
EFTA Court Fokus Bank (2004): Reference to ECJ Bellio Fratelli
9. B. Homogeneity II. General principle?
ECJ Keller Holding (2006) and subsequent cases: Bellio
formula
EFTA Court Norwegian Waterfalls (2007): Presumption
that identically worded provisions are to be interpreted in
a homogeneous way (in casu: Article 125 EEA)
10. B. Homogeneity III. EFTA Court going first
Reasons
Consequences:
Responsibility of the EFTA Court
Judicial dialogue (almost 50 cases in particular in the fields of State monopolies, labour law, TV without frontiers, insurance law, IP law, food law, State aid law, competition law, free movement of services and freedom of establishment, tax law and free movement of capital)
11. B. Homogeneity IV. Result:
EFTA Court following ECJ (and CFI) case law
Basic structures and principles (but “creative homogeneity”)
ECJ and CFI taking into account EFTA Court case law in
certain circumstances
12. C. EC Constitutional Principles I. EC law
Direct effect (ECJ van Gend en Loos), primacy (ECJ Costa
v ENEL), state liability (ECJ Francovich and Brasserie du
Pęcheur)
II. EEA law on the books
Individual rights and judicial defense of these rights
Reciprocity (Preamble to the EEA Agreement)
Homogeneity
Article 7 EEA and Protocol 35
13. C. EC Constitutional Principles III. EEA law in Action
ECJ Opinion 1/91
Quasi-direct effect (EFTA Court Restamark
[1994])
Direct effect in EC law (CFI Opel Austria[1997])
Quasi-primacy (EFTA Court Einarsson [2002])
Indirect effect (EFTA Court Karlsson [2002];
A [2007])
14. C. EC Constitutional Principles III. EEA law in Action
State liability (EFTA Court Sveinbjörnsdóttir [1998], ECJ
Rechberger [1999]; EFTA Court Karlsson [2002]; Icelandic
Supreme Court Sveinbjörnsdóttir [1999]; Swedish Supreme
Court Andersson [2004]; Norwegian Supreme Court Finanger
II [2005]; Liechtenstein Supreme Court Tschannett [2006] -
annulled by the State Court [2007]); new case pending before
the EFTA Court (reference by the Oslo City Court).
15. D. Dynamic EEA in particular Argument of the Government of Iceland in Sveinbjörnsdóttir: In case of inhomogeneity due to non-dynamic interpretation of EEA law, governments and diplomats are competent; rejected by the EFTA Court
Argument of the Government of Norway in Karlsson that securing a dynamic EEA is for the governments and not for the Court; rejected by the EFTA Court
The problem of the “widening gap” between the EC Treaty and the EEA Agreement.
Dynamic interpretation and its limits recognized by the EFTA Court in Pedicel (2005)
16. E. Case studies on judicial Dialogue with the Community courts I. The precautionary principle in foodstuff law
ECJ Sandoz (1983); EFTA Court Kellogg's (2001);
CFI Pfizer Animal Health and Allpharma (2003):
references to EFTA Court Kellogg’s;
ECJ Monsanto (2003); ECJ Commission v Denmark
(2003): references to EFTA Court Kellogg’s;
17. E. Case studies on judicial Dialogue with the Community courts I. The precautionary principle in foodstuff law
ECJ Commission v Netherlands (2004): reference to
EFTA Court Kellogg’s;
ECJ Bellio Fratelli (2004): references to EFTA Court
Kellogg’s;
EFTA Court Pedicel (2005): references to the existing
ECJ and CFI and EFTA Court case law
18. E. Case studies on judicial dialogue with the Community courts II. Repackager of pharmaceuticals adding his own design under the Trademark Directive
ECJ Bristol Myers Squibb (1996)
EFTA Court Paranova (2003)
Request for a preliminary ruling of the ECJ in
Boehringer Ingelheim II by the England and Wales
Court of Appeal (2004): Reference to EFTA Court
Paranova
19. E. Case studies on judicial dialogue with the Community courts II. Repackager of pharmaceuticals adding his own design under the Trademark Directive
Advocate-General Sharpston in Boehringer
Ingelheim II (2006): Suggestion that the ECJ
follow EFTA Court Paranova
ECJ Boeringer Ingelheim II (2007) follows
EFTA Court Paranova
20. E. Case studies on judicial dialogue with the Community courts II. Repackager of pharmaceuticals adding his own design under the Trademark Directive
21. E. Case studies on judicial dialogue with the Community courts III. Discriminatory taxation of dividends
ECJ Manninen (2004): Inbound dividends
EFTA Court Fokus Bank (2004): Outbound dividends
Advocate-General Geelhoed Test Claimants IV (2006) and
Denkavit (2006): Outbound dividends; suggestion that the
ECJ does not follow EFTA Court Fokus Bank
ECJ Test Claimants IV and Denkavit (2007): Slightly different
result than EFTA Court Fokus Bank, no reference
22. E. Case studies on judicial dialogue with the Community courts
23. F. Conclusions I. EEA Agreement works smoothly on the judicial level
II. EFTA Court is not overburdened, but often faces fresh legal questions
Homogeneity is no one way street
IV. EFTA Court gives input to ECJ/CFI case law
IV. Reciprocity expectations have largely been fulfilled