Court of Justice of the European Communities: Opinion Regarding the Draft Agreement between the European Community and the European free Trade Association Relating to the Creation of the European Economic Area

AbstractIn this article the apparent incompatibility between the judicial architecture of the European Economic Area (EEA) and the overall goal of uniform interpretation and application of the common rules in all EEA States is examined. In practice, homogeneity appears achievable only if the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court succumbs to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), granting the latter the final word on the interpretation of the EEA Agreement. It is argued that, as far as substantive EEA law is concerned, this is exactly what the EFTA Court has done over the past 17 years of the EEA's existence. The result is a well-functioning EEA Agreement. The price to pay for the EFTA States is the revelation of the perhaps inconvenient truth that the de facto supreme authority on the interpretation of EEA law rests with the ECJ.

Download Full-text

Competition Rules in the European Economic Area

International Journal of Legal Information ◽

10.1017/s0731126500027232 ◽

1993 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 16-32

Author(s):

Fariborz Nozari

Keyword(s):

World Trade ◽

Trade Association ◽

European Economic Area ◽

Social Unit ◽

European Economic ◽

European Free Trade Association ◽

Economic Area ◽

The World ◽

Competition Rules ◽

Economic Bloc

On October 22, 1991, after exhaustive negotiations between the European Community (EC) and the Member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) an agreement on the formation of the European Economic Area (EEA) was reached. Hence, the foundation was laid for an economic and social unit embracing 19 countries and about 380 million people, forming the world's largest economic bloc and a regional single market responsible for ca.40 percent of the world trade.The Agreement consists of a preamble and nine parts covering the objectives and principles, the four freedoms of movements of goods, persons, service and capital, provisions on competition and other common rules, horizontal policies relevant to the four freedoms, cooperation outside the four freedoms, institutional provisions, funding, and final provisions.

Download Full-text

Does the EFTA Court Interpret the EEA Agreement as if it were the EC Treaty? Some Questions Raised by the Restamark Judgment

International and Comparative Law Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0020589300058735 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 45 (1) ◽

pp. 198-212 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Vincent Kronenberger

Keyword(s):

Free Trade ◽

European Community ◽

Free Trade Area ◽

European Economic Area ◽

Member States ◽

European Economic ◽

Trade Area ◽

Economic Area ◽

European Court ◽

Homogeneous Area

The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement signed in May 1992 between the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) States, the European Community (EC) and the EC member States' seeks to establish “a dynamic and homogeneous” area by extending provisions which apply within the European Community to the EEA.2 The first decision of the EFTA Court,3 interpreting the EEA Agreement to determine its application within the legal orders of the EFTA States, concerned the Finnish alcohol monopoly. The Restamark decision was awaited with great interest to know to what extent the EFTA Court would follow the European Court of Justice's interpretation of the EC Treaty in order to achieve the aims of the EEA Agreement.

Download Full-text

Iceland

EU Banking and Insurance Insolvency ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198759393.003.0017 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Gabriel Moss QC ◽

Bob Wessels ◽

Matthias Haentjens

Keyword(s):

European Commission ◽

Free Trade ◽

Internal Market ◽

Trade Association ◽

European Economic Area ◽

European Economic ◽

Eu Legislation ◽

European Free Trade Association ◽

The Eu

Iceland is not a member of the EU. However, as a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), it participates in the EU’s internal market through the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA). Iceland adopts EU legislation with the most notable exclusions being laws regarding agriculture and fisheries. The EEA was established on 1 January 1994 upon entry into force of an agreement between the EFTA States and the EU’s predecessors. A Joint Committee consisting of the EEA–EFTA States plus the European Commission, representing the EU, has a role of extending relevant EU law to the non-EU members. An EEA Council meets at least biannually to govern the overall relationship between the EEA members. The EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court regulate the activities of the EFTA members in respect of their obligations under the EEA Agreement.

Download Full-text

Square Pegs and Round Holes: The Free Movement of Persons Under EEA Law

Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies ◽

10.1017/cel.2017.8 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 19 ◽

pp. 165-186

Author(s):

Christian NK FRANKLIN

Keyword(s):

Free Trade ◽

Case Law ◽

Fundamental Principle ◽

Free Movement ◽

Trade Association ◽

Eu Law ◽

European Free Trade Association ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Free Movement Of Persons ◽

The Eu

AbstractWhilst the European Union’s aim of achieving an ‘ever closer Union’ is not an objective of EEA cooperation, homogeneity demands that we follow the same path: as the Union gets ever closer, so too does EEA cooperation, in light of the demands of the fundamental principle of homogeneity. This is particularly well demonstrated by looking at developments in the field of the free movement of persons. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA Court) in this field shows that in situations where homogeneity is put to the test, there seems little to suggest that a more national sovereignty-friendly approach has been adopted than under EU law. Notwithstanding the integral differences between the EU and EEA legal constructs, the EFTA Court has proven highly adept at keeping pace with EU developments in the field through a number of bold and creative interpretations of EEA law, and by using different tools to arrive at uniform conclusions.

Download Full-text

European Union Public Procurement Remedies Regimes

Public Sector Transformation Processes and Internet Public Procurement ◽

10.4018/978-1-4666-2665-2.ch008 ◽

2012 ◽

pp. 162-184

Author(s):

Kai Krüger

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Public Procurement ◽

European Economic Area ◽

European Economic ◽

Eu Member States ◽

Eu Directive ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Economic Area ◽

Set Up ◽

The Eu

The chapter explores the Nordic statutory EU-based remedy regimes. Due to the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement, the EU commitments do not vary between EU member states, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden and (non-members) Norway and Iceland. The legislation on procurement remedies is assumed to be EU/EEA compliant. There are however material differences in the set up for handling disputes and complaints—also subsequent to the 2010-2012 Nordic adaptation of EU Directive 2007/66/EC on enhanced procurement remedies. The pending issue is whether the EU “sufficiently serious breach” principle on treaty infringements applies on liability for procurement flaws. Loss of contract damage has been awarded in all Nordic countries, whereas cases on negative interest (costs in preparing futile tender bids) seem more favorable to plaintiffs. Per mid-2012, there are no Nordic rulings on the effect of the recent somewhat ambiguous EU Court of Justice Strabag and Spijkers 2010 rulings.

Download Full-text

European Free Trade Association

International Organization ◽

10.1017/s002081830002470x ◽

1961 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 203-204 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Keyword(s):

Free Trade ◽

European Economic Community ◽

Agricultural Products ◽

Trade Association ◽

European Free Trade Association ◽

The Press ◽

Swiss Confederation ◽

The Creation ◽

Near Future ◽

Tariff Reductions

An important item of discussion during the Autumn months of 1960 among the members of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) was reported to be the question of association with the European Economic Community (EEC), but the press announced in October a “lack of progress” in resolving the problems encountered. The question was said to have been included in the issues taken up at the second ministerial meeting of the Council, held in Berne, Switzerland, on October 11 and 12, 1960. Mr. Max Petitpierre, president of the Swiss Confederation, reportedly stated in an address to the Council that, even if there was little prospect of an agreement between EEC and EFTA in the immediate future, it was imperative that the two organizations work together, not only for commercial and economic reasons, but also because of the mission that Europe was called on to discharge toward the newly independent countries. Since, however, an acceptable settlement with EEC seemed impossible in the near future, the Council determined that EFTA should proceed with its own plans. In pursuance of this decision, the Ministers decided to establish a consultative committee, representative of all aspects of economic activity, including labor, to advise on all facets of the activity of the Association. Also considered at the meeting was the possibility of an additional 10 percent tariff reduction to take effect as of January 1, 1961, to keep pace with the EEC cut scheduled for that date, but the Council concluded that too little time had elapsed since the first 20 percent tariff reductions on July 1, 1960, to make any modification of the timetable feasible at this time; it resolved, nevertheless, to re-examine the question early in 1961. The Ministers noted with satisfaction that the original tariff cuts had gone into operation without difficulty, and reasserted that the object of EFTA was not the creation of an inward-looking preferential bloc—for example, no restrictions on trade with third countries had been introduced with the creation of the group. EFTA offered to all trading nations, whether producers of industrial or agricultural products, stated the Council, the opportunities of an expanding market.

Download Full-text

The Nordea Bank Denmark Case (C-48/13)

Nordic Tax Journal ◽

10.1515/ntaxj-2014-0028 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 (2) ◽

pp. 231-242

Author(s):

Anders Nørgaard Laursen

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

European Court Of Justice ◽

Tax Law ◽

European Economic Area ◽

Member States ◽

European Economic ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Economic Area ◽

European Court

Abstract This paper reports on an investigation of a recent decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in case C-48/13, Nordea Bank Denmark, concerning the Danish rules for reincorporation of losses from permanent establishments situated in European Union/ European Economic Area (EU/EEA) member states other than Denmark. The article includes comments on various EU tax law aspects of the case - namely the restriction test applied by the ECJ, the justifications brought forward by the intervening governments and the question of proportionality - and examines the consequences of the Danish tax law going forward.

Download Full-text