How EEA law is interpreted
Gunnar SELVIK
Registrar EFTA Court
www.eftacourt.int
gunnar.selvik@eftacourt.int
Brussels 4 September 2014
General points on the EFTA Court
 Established as a part of the EEA cooperation
the 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
THE TWO PILLAR STRUCTURE
UNDER THE EEA AGREEMENT
ICELAND
LIECHTENSTEIN
NORWAY
EEA COUNCIL
Ministers of EU and
EFTA EEA states
EU COUNCIL
EFTA STANDING
COMMITTEE*
EEA JOINT
COMMITTEE
EEAS+EUROPEAN
COMMISSION
EFTA Secretariat
EEAS, Commission and
EU and EFTA
government
representatives
Commission
Services
EFTA
SURVEILLANCE
AUTHORITY
EU COURTS
EFTA COURT
COMMITTEE OF
MPs OF THE EFTA
STATES
EFTA Secretariat
EFTA
CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
EFTA Secretariat
* Switzerland has observer status
EEA JOINT
PARLIAMENTARY
COMMITTEE *
EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT
MPs from the EFTA
parliaments and MEPs
EP Secretariat
EEA
CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE*
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC
AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE (EESC)
EESC Secretariat
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
Mr Carl
BAUDENBACHER
Judge/President
CH
Mr Páll
HREINSSON
Judge
ICE
Mr Per
CHRISTIANSEN
Judge
NOR
Mr Philipp
SPEITLER
Legal Secretary
GER
Mr Kjartan
BJÖRGVINSSON
Legal Secretary
ICE
Mr Jørgen
REINHOLDTSEN
Legal Secretary
NOR
Mr Michael James
CLIFTON
Legal Secretary
(temp) UK
Ms Kerstin
Schwiesow
Personal Assistant
GER
Ms Hrafnhildur
EYJÓLFSDÓTTIR
Personal Assistant
ICE
Ms Silje
NÆSHEIM
Personal Assistant
NOR
Mr Salim
GUETTAF
Man. premises
FRA
Mr Gunnar
SELVIK
Registrar
NOR
Ms Bryndis
Ms Giulia
Ms Harriet
PALMARSDÓTTIR
PREDONZANI
BRUHN
Research Lawyer Adm. & Fin. Officer Transl./Adm.Officer
ICE
(temp) ITA
NOR
Mr Tomasz
Ms Sharon
Ms Mary
Mazur
WORTELBOER
COX,
Info/Comm Coord Adm.&Fin. Assistant Adm. Assistant
(temp) POL
UK/LUX
UK
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)
Advisory
Opinions (AO)
• 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
 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
Procedure
 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)
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: eftacourt@eftacourt.int
Advisory Opinions – 1994 - 2014
94 Advisory Opinions - per country
5
27
17
Icelandic Courts
Norwegian Courts
Liechtenstein Courts
Others
45
1, rue du Fort Thüngen, L-1499 Luxembourg
5
www.eftacourt.int
Direct Actions – 1994 - 2014
120 Direct Actions - divided by applicant
16
47
21
Against ESA
ESA v Iceland
ESA v Norway
ESA v Liechtenstein
36
1, rue du Fort Thüngen, L-1499 Luxembourg
3
www.eftacourt.int