Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Brussels 4 September 2014
How EEA law is interpreted
Gunnar SELVIKRegistrar EFTA Court
General points on the EFTA Court
Established as a part of the EEA cooperationthe adjudication role
Independent international Court with clearly defined competences
Seated in Luxembourg
The original model: A Joint EEA Court
5 judges from the ECJ - 3 judges from the EFTA states• Competence to decide all EEA cases with binding
effect for both EFTA and EU
ECJ’s Opinion 1/91 turned it down as it would:• Entail a transfer of competence from the ECJ• Interfere with the ECJ’s exclusive competence to
interpret EU law• Contradict the EC Treaty
The current model: A separate EFTA Court
The EFTA Court interprets the EEA agreement in the EFTA states
The EU Courts interpret the EEA agreement in the EU states
EEA COUNCILMinisters of EU and
EFTA EEA states
EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
EEAS, Commission and EU and EFTA
government representatives
EEA JOINT PARLIAMENTARY
COMMITTEE *MPs from the EFTA
parliaments and MEPs
EEA CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE*
EU COUNCIL
EEAS+EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Commission Services
EU COURTS
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
EP Secretariat
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE (EESC)
EESC Secretariat
THE TWO PILLAR STRUCTURE THE TWO PILLAR STRUCTURE UNDER THE EEA AGREEMENTUNDER THE EEA AGREEMENT
ICELANDLIECHTENSTEIN
NORWAY
EFTA STANDING COMMITTEE*
EFTA Secretariat
EFTA SURVEILLANCE
AUTHORITY
EFTA COURT
COMMITTEE OF MPs OF THE EFTA
STATES EFTA Secretariat
EFTA CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEEEFTA Secretariat
* Switzerland has observer status
Legal basis EEA agreement article 108(2): provides that the EFTA
States shall establish the EFTA Court
Surveillance and Court Agreement (SCA) article 27: the legal basis for the establishment of the EFTA Court
Protocol 5 SCA: Statutes
Rules of Procedure
Instructions to the Registrar
Organisation of the EFTA Court
3 judges • Each EFTA state nominates one judge
One cabinet per judge, legal secretaries and personal assistants
Registrar responsible for procedural questions and for the administration of the Court
No Advocate General (≠ ECJ)
No General Court (≠ ECJ)
Organigram
Ms SharonWORTELBOERAdm. Assistant
UK/LUX
Mr CarlBAUDENBACHERJudge/President
CH
Ms KerstinSchwiesow
Personal AssistantGER
Mr Michael James CLIFTON
Legal Secretary(temp) UK
Mr SalimGUETTAF
Man. premisesFRA
Mr Páll HREINSSON
JudgeICE
Mr PerCHRISTIANSEN
JudgeNOR
Ms MaryCOX,
Info/Comm CoordUK
Ms GiuliaPREDONZANI
Research Lawyer(temp) ITA
Ms BryndisPALMARSDÓTTIR
Transl./Adm.OfficerICEMs Hrafnhildur
EYJÓLFSDÓTTIR Personal Assistant
ICE
Ms SiljeNÆSHEIM
Personal AssistantNOR
Mr PhilippSPEITLER
Legal SecretaryGER
Mr Kjartan BJÖRGVINSSON Legal Secretary
ICE
Mr JørgenREINHOLDTSENLegal Secretary
NOR
Ms HarrietBRUHN
Adm. & Fin. OfficerNOR
Mr GunnarSELVIK
RegistrarNOR
Mr TomaszMazur
Adm.&Fin. Assistant(temp) POL
Types of cases
Direct Actions (DA)
• Infringement actions vs. EFTA States:- Initiated by ESA (art 31 SCA)- Initiated by another EFTA State
(art 32 SCA)
• Infringement actions vs. ESA: - Validity of ESA’s decisions (art
31 SCA)- ESA’s failure to act (art 37 SCA)- Liability of ESA (art 39 SCA)• Parties: ESA, EFTA States and in
some cases private entities
Advisory Opinions (AO)
Advisory Opinions Who? ”..any court or tribunal in an EFTA-State..” - Art
34(2) SCA (wider term than traditional courts)
When? ”Where... that court or tribunal considers it necessary to enable it to give judgment..” - Art 34(2) SCA (similar to ECJ’s preliminary rulings)
Effect? Always followed, but formally speaking not binding for national courts (≠ ECJ’s preliminary rulings)►Norwegian Surpreme Court in Finanger case:”…must be given
considerable weight...” (repeated in the STX case: ”..special reasons required to deviate from it... ”)
►National courts’ incorrect interpretation of the EEA agreement is in principle a breach of treaty obligations
Main focus on written procedure
Usually followed by an oral hearing
Right to make written observations and to participate in the oral hearing: EFTA states, EU states, ESA, Commission and also
private parties (in certain cases)
Procedure
The Relationship between the EU Courts and the EFTA Court
Article 105(2,3) EEA – formal equality
Art. 6 EEA and Art. 3 SCA: EEA to be interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the ECJ
EFTA Court following the ECJ
EFTA Court goes first
EFTA Court rulings on EEA specific problems
Statistics (case load)
Incoming cases
Total 1994–2014: Annual average: ”Low point”: ”High point”:
→216 cases (56% DA/44% AO)
→≈ 10,5 cases → 2 cases (1999) → 30 cases (2013)
Case handling time: 6-8 months (ECJ: 22-24 months)
WWW.EFTACOURT.INT Court Diary
Composition of the Court
Legal Sources regarding the Court
Decided and Pending Cases
Yearly Reports of the Court as from 2004
Contact Info: [email protected]
Advisory Opinions – 1994 - 2014
1, rue du Fort Thüngen, L-1499 Luxembourgwww.eftacourt.int
5
Direct Actions – 1994 - 2014
1, rue du Fort Thüngen, L-1499 Luxembourgwww.eftacourt.int
3
