Abstract
The present chapter describes the background to the EEA Agreement, from the aftermath of the Second World War and the creation of EFTA to the 1973 bilateral Free Trade Agreements between the individual EFTA States and the then European Economic Community. It thereafter sets out the relationship between the EU and the EFTA States, against the background of a generally improved world economic situation and the need to improve the competitiveness of the European countries, starting with the Luxembourg Declaration and leading up to the Delors initiative in January 1989, which announced a change of the very parameters of the relationship. The chapter then explains how the subsequent negotiations of the EEA Agreement were carried out and the hurdles had to be overcome. The last part of the chapter briefly discusses aspects of the developments since the entry into force of the EEA Agreement on 1 January 1994, such as the dynamic and homogeneous development of the Agreement and the protection of the rights of individuals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
During the late 1950s and the 1960s the Member States of the European Communities were frequently referred to as the ‘(inner) Six’ and the EFTA countries as the ‘(outer) Seven’.
- 2.
The idea of a Nordic Customs Union, in which Finland would also participate, was eventually discarded in July 1959 at a Nordic Ministerial meeting in Kungälv, Sweden.
- 3.
After the first year of operation of EFTA there was a total of 50 EFTA staff. During the first 30 years it never reached 100. That figure was only exceeded in 1990 in view of the EEA negotiations when the staff increased to 160.
- 4.
The EFTA emblem, consisting of a circle of the flags of the EFTA countries with ‘EFTA’ in the middle, thus already included the Finnish flag, and the term ‘EFTA countries’ was generally used in EFTA during these years to cover both the Member States of EFTA and Finland.
- 5.
Ireland had already somewhat earlier asked for negotiations on membership in the Communities.
- 6.
The Eighth Annual Report of EFTA of September 1968 contains under the heading European integration the following statement: ‘The disappointing record of efforts during the past twelve months to achieve EFTA’s long-term aim of a single market in Western Europe is well known, and need hardly be recounted again in detail here.’
- 7.
Since 1993, the Convention has 18 Member States (4 EFTA States, 13 EU States and Australia). In the early 1990s it was realised that because of an incompatibility between the Convention and EU law it was not possible for new countries to be admitted. In 1995 it was therefore decided to create the PIC Scheme. PIC and the PIC Scheme operate in parallel and are jointly referred to as PIC/S and have today 44 Member States, see http://www.picscheme.org.
- 8.
The Hallmarking Convention today has 19 Member States (16 EU Member States, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). The PIC/S and the Hallmarking Convention are serviced by a joint Secretariat in Geneva.
- 9.
The first results were seen in 1973 with the signature of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention). The Convention entered into force in 1977 and the European Patent Office began its work on 1 January 1978. The Convention which is open to all European countries counted from the outset most of the EFTA countries as members. In 1975 the Community Member States signed the Convention for the European Patent for the Common Market (Community Patent Convention) in Luxembourg forming the second part of the new European patent system. That Convention, in spite of subsequent efforts and new instruments, never entered into force. After repeated efforts during many years two EU Regulations were adopted in December 2012 (Regulation 1257/2012 on unitary patent protection and Regulation 1260/2012 regarding the translation arrangements). Those regulations, which were adopted under the enhanced cooperation procedure, will provide for a European patent with unitary effect (unitary patent). The regulations have entered into force, but will only apply from the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, which still awaits ratification of a certain number of the 25 Member States having signed it (13 needed).
- 10.
It may be of interest to note that at an EFTA Ministerial Meeting in November 1969 relief was expressed that the European Community in a report published on 1 October 1969 on EFTA countries’ candidatures for membership had finally recognised the existence of EFTA.
- 11.
The FTAs with Iceland came into force on 1 March 1973, while the Norwegian and the Finnish FTAs came into force on 1 July 1973 and 1 January 1974, respectively. The FTAs with the ECSC came into force on 1 January 1974 except for the Finnish and Norwegian ones, which came into force 1 year later.
- 12.
In view of the future accession of Spain to the European Communities, the EFTA countries in 1979 concluded a Free Trade Agreement with Spain, providing for parallel tariff reductions in trade with Spain to those Spain had achieved with the EC for the period up to the Spanish accession. This paved the way for equal treatment of EFTA trade with Spain with that of the Communities also during this period. With regard to Portugal such a situation was already achieved through Portugal’s membership in EFTA.
- 13.
The meeting was chaired on the side of the Communities by the French Foreign Minister, Claude Cheysson, and on the EFTA side by the Swedish Minister for Foreign Trade, Mats Hellström. The EC Commission was represented by its Vice-President, Wilhelm Haferkamp, and the Secretary-General of EFTA, Per Kleppe, also participated in the meeting.
- 14.
See the conclusions of the EC Council of 15 September 1986 and the declaration of EFTA Ministers of 3 December 1986 in reply thereto (EFTA’s 26th Annual Report).
- 15.
In the first mandate the Group was also given two more tasks, to study the question of settlement of disputes within the framework of the FTAs and other Agreements between the EFTA countries and the EC and to study the legal aspects of appropriate models for cooperation between the EC and the EFTA countries in areas covered by mandates agreed upon by the HLCG.
- 16.
Illustrative of the views on the possibilities of creating a homogeneous and dynamic EES and how far one had advanced by this time are the contributions which were made to two seminars, one held at the College d’Europe in Bruges on 1 and 2 July 1988 under the heading ‘EEC and EFTA – More than just good friends?’ Jamar and Wallace (eds.), Bruges 1988, and the other in Neuchâtel from 13 to 15 October 1988 with the heading ‘L’avenir du libre échange d’Europe. Vers un espace économique européen?’ Olivier Jacot-Guillarmod (ed.) Zurich 1990.
- 17.
The meeting was co-chaired by the Spanish and Norwegian Foreign Ministers, Francisco Fernandez Ordonez and Thorvald Stoltenberg, with the Commission represented by President Delors and Vice-President Frans Andriessen. Georg Reisch, Secretary-General of EFTA also attended the meeting.
- 18.
Acquis communautaire is the expression used to cover all EU law including legal acts, ECJ case-law etc.
- 19.
A conference under the title: ‘Creating a European Economic Space, Legal Aspects of EC-EFTA Relations’ was held in Dublin on 20–22 October 1989, in which several of the participants also had participated in the fact-finding talks. The papers from the conference, as edited by Mary Robinson and Jantien Findlater, published in 1989 (Irish Centre for European Law, Trinity College, Dublin 2) under the heading of the conference, illustrate the considerable development in legal thinking on the EFTA side since 1988.
- 20.
The meeting was chaired for the European Communities by Roland Dumas, Foreign Minister of France, and for the EFTA countries by Jón Baldvin Hannibalson, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Iceland.
- 21.
From the outset the EC Member States wanted also to become Contracting Parties to the Agreement, which, however, the Commission contested on the basis that the Agreement would not cover any area which would not fall within the competence of the European Communities. The matter was settled only at the end of July 1991, when the EC Member States unanimously decided that they should also be Contracting Parties to the Agreement.
- 22.
At the opening meeting of the negotiations it was suggested by the EC side that the English term ‘European Economic Space’ should be changed to ‘European Economic Area’ for linguistic reasons. It was underlined that there was no substantive change intended and that the corresponding expressions in the other languages e.g. Espace économique européen (EEE) in French, and Europäischer Wirtschaftsraum (EWR) in German should be unchanged. The EFTA side accepted the proposal.
- 23.
On the EFTA side the chairmanship was held by Ulf Dinkelspiel, Sweden and the other chief negotiators at the level of officials were, for Austria Manfred Scheich, for Finland Veli Sundbäck, for Iceland Hannes Hafstein, for Liechtenstein Prince Nikolaus von Liechtenstein, for Norway Eivinn Bergh and for Switzerland Franz Blankart. On the EC side the chief negotiator was Horst Krenzler of the European Commission.
- 24.
Until the end of June 1990 the chairmanship of the HLNG was thus held by the Swedish chief negotiator. He was then for the second half of 1990 succeeded by the Swiss chief negotiator. In the first half of 1991 the Austrian chief negotiator took the chair and in the second half of 1991 he was succeeded by the Finnish chief negotiator. The Icelandic chief negotiator held the EFTA chair during the first half of 1992.
The chairmanships of the Negotiating Groups were for the EC side Nikolaus Van Der Pas of the EC Commission for NGs I to III, Eric Hayes of the EC Commission for NG IV and Jean-Louis Dewost of the EC Commission for NG V. On the EFTA side Frank Belfrage, Sweden, chaired NG I, Antti Satuli, Finland, chaired NG II, Friedrich Hamburger, Austria, chaired NG III during the first year, whereafter he was succeeded by Eikka Kosonen, Finland. Knut Almestad, Norway, chaired NG IV and Mathias Krafft, Switzerland, chaired NG V.
- 25.
This structure has been maintained after the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, for the administration of the Agreement.
- 26.
The meeting was chaired, for the Community, by Gianni de Michelis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy, and for the EFTA countries by Jean-Pascal Delamuraz, Federal Councillor for Economic Affairs of Switzerland.
- 27.
The meeting was chaired, for the Community, by Jacques Poos, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, and for the EFTA countries by Wolfgang Schüssel, Minister for Economic Affairs of Austria.
- 28.
Opinion of the Court of Justice 1/91 [1991] ECR 1-6079 and OJ 1992 C110/1.
- 29.
For comments upon this opinion and some erroneous findings of the Court, see Norberg (2012).
- 30.
OJ 1992 C136/1 and [1992] ECR 1-2821.
- 31.
A provision to this effect, which earlier had been laid down in an Agreed Minute, was now transferred by the Contracting Parties to become Protocol 48. At the same time, in order to avoid any conclusions a contrario, the Contracting Parties added in the Final Act that the Agreed Minutes are to have a binding character.
- 32.
The Standing Committee of the EFTA States serves inter alia as a forum in which the EEA/EFTA States consult one another and arrive at a common position before meeting the EU in the EEA Joint Committee.
- 33.
Case E-1/95 Ulf Samuelsson v. Svenska staten [1994–1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 145.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
See further EFTA Bulletin September 2014, Handbook on EEA EFTA procedures for incorporating EU Acts into the EEA Agreement.
- 37.
EEA horizontal challenges may arise when a provision in an act or proposal has a material and/or structural impact on EEA law or the EEA institutional framework. They may occur, for example, in relation to the delegation of competence in the EU pillar, fines to be imposed by an EU institution or body, reference to criminal sanctions or provisions with third-country elements.
- 38.
While from the outset there were rather equal parts of Directives and Regulations, respectively, the tendency has over the years been very much in favour of the latter. Thus, of the 484 acts incorporated during 2014 until 15 October, 73Â % of these were Regulations. This puts evidently additional pressure upon the EFTA side to be able to act swiftly.
- 39.
As mentioned above Liechtenstein adhered to the EEA on 1 May 1995.
- 40.
Cases E-8/94 Forbrukerombudet v. Mattel Scandinavia A/S and E-9/94 Forbrukerombudet v. Lego Norge A/S [1994–1991] EFTA Ct. Rep. P. 143.
- 41.
Case E-3/00, ESA v. Norway ‘Kellogg’s’ [2000–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 73.
- 42.
In both these cases the line taken by the EFTA Court was later followed by the EU, see more about this in the contribution mentioned in note 2 above, p. 50.
- 43.
Case C-192/01 Commission v. Denmark [2003] ECR I-9693.
- 44.
Case E-3/00 ESA v. Norway ‘Kellogg’s’ [2000–2001] EFTA Ct, Rep. 73.
- 45.
Case C-42/07 Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional [2009] ECR I-7633, paragraphs 65 to 67.
- 46.
Case E-1/06 ESA v. Norway [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 8, paragraph 51.
- 47.
- 48.
See note 15 above.
- 49.
See Sect. 1.8.
- 50.
Cf. Case 181/73 Haegeman [1974] ECR 449.
- 51.
The principle of State liability was first recognised by the ECJ in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Bonifaci [1991] ECR I-5357. This judgment was delivered on 19 November 1991, 4 days after the conclusion of the EEA negotiations (see Sect. 1.10 above). The principle of State liability was therefore not discussed during the negotiations.
- 52.
Case E-1/94 Restamark [1994–1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 15, paragraph 77.
- 53.
Case E-9/97 Sveinbjörnsdóttir [1998] EFTA Ct Rep. 95, paragraphs 60 and 62.
- 54.
Case E-4/01 Karlsson [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 240, paragraph 28. For a different view on the link between the transfer of legislative powers and the right for individuals and economic operators to rely directly on non-implemented EEA rules before national courts, see Sevón and Johansson (1999), p. 373, which also contains an analysis of the elements on which the case-law of the EU Court of Justice on direct effect is based, seen in the context of the EEA Agreement.
- 55.
Ibid.
- 56.
See e.g. Case E-15/12 Wahl [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 534.
- 57.
On the subject of equal judicial protection in the EEA, see Sevón and Johansson (1999), p. 373.
- 58.
Finanger v. Norway Rt. 2005 p. 1365, para s 58. Unofficial translation, copied from Fredriksen (2013), p. 884.
- 59.
Case E-11/12 Koch and Others [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 272, paragraph 116, and case-law cited therein.
- 60.
References
Fredriksen H (2013) State liability and EEA law: the same or different? Eur Law Rev 38:884
Johansson M (2012) The two EEA Courts – sisters in arms. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European Economic Area. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart
Johansson M (2015) Judicial protection in the EEA EFTA states – direct effect of EEA law revisited. In: EFTA Court (ed) The EEA and the EFTA Court, decentered integration. Hart, Oxford
Johansson M, Norberg S (2011) EES-rätten – dynamisk ipso jure! Europarättslig Tidskrift ERT, p. 795
Norberg S (2012) Justice in the European Economic Area – the role of the EFTA Court. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European Economic Area. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart
Sevón L, Johansson M (1999) The protection of the rights of individuals under the EEA Agreement. Eur Law Rev 24:373
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Norberg, S., Johansson, M. (2016). The History of the EEA Agreement and the First Twenty Years of Its Existence. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Handbook of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24341-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24343-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)