Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Handbook of EEA Law pp 211–223Cite as

Attorney General of Norway

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1255 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter gives a brief introduction to the Office of the Norwegian Attorney General and presents some experiences made during 20 years of litigation before the EFTA Court. This includes reflections on the judicial dialogue between national courts and the EFTA Court, followed by an examination of various material issues, such as the principle of homogeneity, the internal market and the ECHR.

The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily represent those of the Attorney General.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, Case 103/88 Fratelli Costanzo [1989] ECR 1839, paragraph 33.

  2. 2.

    Between 2007 and 2013, the Norwegian State has been party to nine proceedings in which an advisory opinion was requested by the national court. In most cases, two-thirds of the cases in this period, the parties were in agreement as to the need for an advisory opinion . Disagreements usually concern whether the subject matter of the dispute falls within the competence of the EFTA Court , see Sect. 3.2 below.

  3. 3.

    For example, proceedings between private parties or references from courts in Iceland or Liechtenstein.

  4. 4.

    See for example Case E-1/94 Restamark, paragraph 25.

  5. 5.

    Case E-1/11 Dr A, paragraph 34.

  6. 6.

    See, to this effect, Case C-394/11 Belov, not yet reported, paragraphs 51 to 53.

  7. 7.

    Joined Cases E-3/13 and 20/13 Fred. Olsen and Others v. Norway. Postscript: the EFTA Court reached the conclusion that the Tax Appeals Board for the Central Tax Office should be recognised as a ‘court or tribunal’.

  8. 8.

    For example Case E-2/11 STX Norway Offshore and Others v. Staten v/Tariffnemnda, paragraph 52. See also EFTA Court Notice 1/99 on Advisory Opinions Requests.

  9. 9.

    See for instance Case E-10/04 Piazza and Schurte, paragraph 21.

  10. 10.

    See, to this effect, Case E-1/94 Restamark, paragraph 25.

  11. 11.

    Case E-15/11 Arcade Drilling v. Staten v/Skatt Vest.

  12. 12.

    Ibid, paragraph 32.

  13. 13.

    Ibid, paragraph 45.

  14. 14.

    Case E-3/06 Ladbrokes.

  15. 15.

    Ibid, paragraph 57.

  16. 16.

    The maximum speaking time that may be allotted is 30 minutes for the parties to the proceedings and 15 minutes for other interested parties.

  17. 17.

    Notes for the guidance of Counsel in written and oral proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (2009), point 14(b)(4); and Notes for the guidance of Counsel in written and oral proceedings before the EFTA Court (2012) 15(d)(4).

  18. 18.

    For example, Case C-E-2/06 ESA v. Norway, paragraph 59.

  19. 19.

    See for instance Case E-4/01 Karlsson, paragraph 28; and Case E-1/07 Criminal Proceedings against A, paragraphs 40 and 41.

  20. 20.

    For example, Case E-1/07 Criminal Proceedings against A, paragraph 39. The principle of consistent interpretation entails that national courts apply the interpretative methods recognised by national law as far as possible in order to achieve the result sought by the relevant EEA rule.

  21. 21.

    For example, Case E-9/97 Sveinbjörnsdottir, paragraphs 62 et seq; and Case E-4/01 Karlsson, paragraphs 37 et seq.

  22. 22.

    Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07 L’Oréal, paragraphs 27 to 29.

  23. 23.

    Case E-2/06 ESA v. Norway, paragraph 59.

  24. 24.

    Case E-9/97 Sveinbjörnsdottir, paragraph 59.

  25. 25.

    OJ [2004] L158/77.

  26. 26.

    OJ [2008] L124/23.

  27. 27.

    Case E-15/12 Wahl, paragraph 75.

  28. 28.

    See for example, Case E-26/13 Iceland v. Atli Gunnarsson. Postscript: Whereas Directive 2004/38 cannot introduce rights in the EEA Agreement based on the concept of Union Citizenship, the EFTA Court held that individuals cannot be deprived of rights which have been maintained by that directive. Whether a right under the directive is based on the concept of Union Citizenship or exists independently from that concept will presumably have to be assessed on a case by case basis, also taking into account the Court of Justice’s jurisprudence.

  29. 29.

    Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.

  30. 30.

    Joined Cases C-267 and 268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6907, paragraph 16.

  31. 31.

    Case C-391/92 Commission v. Greece [1995] ECR I-1621, paragraphs 16 to 19. See also, mutatis mutandis, Case C-47/88 Commission v. Denmark [1990] ECR, paragraphs 9 to 11.

  32. 32.

    Case E-16/10 Philip Morris, paragraph 48.

  33. 33.

    Ibid, paragraph 51. See also Case E-19/11 Vín Trío v. Iceland, paragraph 59.

  34. 34.

    See for example, Case E-5/96 Ullensaker kommune and Nille, paragraphs 23 to 27; Case E-6/96 Wilhelmsen and Oslo kommune, paragraph 45; and Case E-9/00 ESA v. Norway, paragraph 50. For a general analysis on inter alia the Keck-doctrine, see e.g. Wennerås and Bøe Moen (2010), p. 387.

  35. 35.

    Case E-3/06 Ladbrokes, paragraph 47.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 and C-68/98 to C-71/98 Finalarte and Others [2001] ECR I-7831, paragraphs 38 to 41.

  38. 38.

    Case C-243/01 Gambelli [2003] I-13031, paragraphs 67 to 69.

  39. 39.

    For example, Case E-4/04 Pedicel, paragraph 56.

  40. 40.

    Case E-3/06 Ladbrokes, paragraph 51.

  41. 41.

    The application of the proportionality principle is normally left to the national courts in preliminary reference cases, whereas the EFTA Court itself applies the proportionality principle in infringement proceedings and cases concerning the validity of acts adopted by the EFTA institutions.

  42. 42.

    For example, Case E-3/05 ESA v. Norway, paragraph 61; and Case E-1/06 ESA v. Norway, paragraphs 51 to 52.

  43. 43.

    Case E-9/11 ESA v. Norway, paragraphs 83 to 90.

  44. 44.

    Ibid, paragraph 96.

  45. 45.

    OJ [2004] L145/1.

  46. 46.

    OJ [1997] L18/1.

  47. 47.

    Case E-2/11 STX Norway Offshore and Others v. Staten v/Tariffnemnda.

  48. 48.

    Rt 2013 p. 528, paragraphs 95 to 103.

  49. 49.

    Case E-15/10 Posten Norge AS v. ESA.

  50. 50.

    Ibid, paragraphs 93 and 94.

  51. 51.

    Case T-53/03 BPB [2008] ECR II-1331, paragraphs 61 to 64 with further references.

  52. 52.

    See for example, ECtHR Cases Zaicevs v. Latvia, no 65022/01, paragraph 55; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no 38789/04, paragraph 33; and Luchaninova v. Ukraine, no 16347/02, paragraph 72.

  53. 53.

    See for example, Case C-7/98 Kromback [2000] ECR I-1935, paragraph 25.

Reference

  • Wennerås P, Bøe Moen K (2010) Selling arrangements, Keeping Keck. Eur Law Rev 35:387

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of the Attorney General, Oslo, Norway

    Pål Wennerås

Authors
  1. Pål Wennerås
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pål Wennerås .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EFTA Court, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Carl Baudenbacher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wennerås, P. (2016). Attorney General of Norway. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Handbook of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_10

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation