Abstract
Under Icelandic Law, only the District Courts, the Labour Court and the Supreme Court are permitted to request an advisory opinion under Article 34 SCA. This (with only one exception) excludes a number of quasi-judicial administrative bodies from interacting directly with the EFTA Court. Another critical feature of the Icelandic system is the fact that decisions made by the District Courts to refer may be appealed to the Supreme Court which may annul the decision or amend it to its liking. Considering the number of referrals from Icelandic Courts, the attitude of Icelandic courts can hardly be considered as hostile. However, a certain tendency to ‘safeguard the autonomy of the Icelandic legal order’ and avoid interaction with the EFTA Court can be detected in certain sensitive cases.
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.
The Government has recently published proposals for the introduction of three level court system for both civil and criminal cases. It is expected that a formal bill will be submitted to the Althing even as soon as autumn 2015.
- 2.
At present only two specialised courts exist: The Labour Court (Félagsdómur) and the State Court (Landsdómur) which rules on charges of Ministers brought by the Althing. It is noted that registrations of property, injunctions, liquidations have been transferred from the courts to administrative agencies (District Commissioners) or court appointed agents (liquidators).
- 3.
These districts courts are the following: District Court of Reykjavik (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur), District Court of Reykjanes (Héraðsdómur Reykjaness), District Court of Suðurland (Héraðsdómur Suðurlands), District Court of Austurland (Héraðsdómur Austurlands), District Court of Norðausturland (Héraðsdómur Norðausturlands), District Court of Norðvesturland (Héraðsdómur Norðvesturlands), District Court of Vestfirðir (Héraðsdómur Vestfjarða) and District Court of Vesturland (Héraðsdómur Vesturlands).
- 4.
In 2009, the number of supreme court judges was increased temporarily to 12 and the number of district judges to 43. From 1 January 2013, there will be no new appointments to the Supreme Court until the number of supreme court judges has fallen back down to 9. The same will apply to the district courts after 1 January 2015, setting the number of district judges at 38. The District Court of Reykjavik is, by far, the biggest court of the country with 23 judges. The District Court of Reykjanes houses 7 judges. Other district courts are composed of either three, or only one judge.
- 5.
Article 4a of the Judicial Act No. 15 of 1998, as amended by Law No. 45 of 2010. Available in English on http://eng.innanrikisraduneyti.is/laws-and-regulations/nr/109.
- 6.
Ibid, Article 4.
- 7.
For further reading, see Magnusson (2009), pp. 261–273.
- 8.
Cf. Article 3 of Law No 88 of 2008 on Criminal Procedure.
- 9.
According to the Report prepared by F. Björnsson in 2005 (‘Úrskurðarnefndir í stjórnsýslunni’), there are 58 of these bodies.
- 10.
According to a recent amendment, these sessions may now be presided by law clerks. In practice, a great majority of all civil actions will be decided during these regular sessions due to the fact that an application is either uncontested or the defendant is simply absent when the case is called. In these cases a judge will validate the application by a signature and fix the costs. The application can thereafter be enforced by the District Commissionaire, e.g. by seisure.
- 11.
It may be recalled that these actions are not carried out by agents of the judiciary but, typically, by the District Commissionaires who are part of the executive branch. However, decisions taken by these officers are subject to full revision by the courts.
- 12.
For further discussion, see Magnusson (2009).
- 13.
Cf. Article 143 of Law No. 91 of 1991 on Civil Procedures.
- 14.
Cf. supra 2.
- 15.
E.g. Case E-4/09 Inconsult Anstalt v. Finanzmarktaufsicht [2009–2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 86. paragraph 23, and Case E-1/11, Norwegian Appeal Board for Health Personnel – appeal from A, [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 484 paragraphs 31–42.
- 16.
These bodies would, no doubt, satisfy criteria for being considered as a court or tribunal under Article 34 SCA, see supra 16.
- 17.
- 18.
For critical comments in English, see Björgvinsson (2007), pp. 45–46.
- 19.
For critical comments in English, see Björgvinsson (2007), pp. 46–48. Similar reasoning can be found in Tobacco Advertisement, judgment of 6 April 2006 in case no 220/2005.
- 20.
See e.g. Stapi lífeyrissjóður, judgment of 29 April 2014 in Case No 267/2014.
- 21.
ESA’s reasoned opinion of 24 February 2010, referred to in press release (10)05 available at www.eftasurv.int.
- 22.
Case E-1/99 Storebrand Skadeforsikring AS v. Veronika Finanger [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 119.
- 23.
See for a similar reasoning Commerzbank v. Kaupþing, judgment of 16 April 2013 in case No 166/2013.
- 24.
Icesave II (judgment 10 March 2015 in cases 140 and 141/2015) is also of interest in this respect.
- 25.
Case E-18/11 Irish Bank [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 592, paragraph 58 and Case E-3/12 Staten v/Arbeidsdeparte-mentet v. Stig Arne Jonsson [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 136, paragraph 60. For discussion, cf. Magnusson (2014), pp. 117–130.
- 26.
For a thorough discussion with respect to EEA law, cf. Temple Lang (2012).
- 27.
Until this day, it is only fair to state that ESA has been reluctant to criticise decisions or trends by the highest courts of the EFTA States concerning referrals to the EFTA Court.
- 28.
When reviewing an order made by the district court upon procedural appeal, the Supreme Court will deliver a judgment (dómur). When the Supreme Court requests an advisory opinion itself, it would do so by an order (úrskurður) of the Court.
- 29.
Cf. for instance, Case E-19/11 Vín Tríó ehf. v. Icelandic State [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 974, where it was stated that questions from national courts enjoy a presumption of relevance. Consequently, where the questions concern the interpretation of EEA law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling, unless it is obvious that the interpretation of EEA law that is sought is unrelated to the facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual, or legal material necessary for it to give a useful answer to the questions submitted.
- 30.
Cf. Yngvi Hardarson, judgment of 27 August 2012 in case no 451/2012.
- 31.
Case C-210/06 Cartesio [2008] ECR I-723. For discussion cf. Magnusson (2010), pp. 528–551 (542–543).
- 32.
Case E-18/11 Irish Bank, supra 26.
- 33.
For comparison, cf. Case C-166/73 Rheinmühlen I [1973] ECR 33.
- 34.
In Irish Bank, supra 26, the request for an advisory opinion, submitted by the district judge, was unclear as to whether the judge had accepted the formulation/filtering of the questions decided by the Supreme Court or whether the judge wanted to stick to the questions as he had originally formulated them. ESA and the Commission took the view that the district judge had not accepted the changes made by the Supreme Court and that the advisory opinion should focus on the original questions.
- 35.
See Fréttablaðið 6 July 2011, p. 6.
- 36.
- 37.
Judgment of 15 February 2007 in case no 120/2006.
- 38.
Hannesson and Méndez-Pinedo (2012), p. 254.
- 39.
Hreinsson (2012), p. 96.
- 40.
The EFTA Court has demonstrated understanding for speedy procedures, cf. e.g. Order of the President in Case E-18/14 WOW air ehf. [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. I-1330 where accelerated procedures were applied for the first time upon a request from an Icelandic court.
References
Björgvinsson DÞ (2007) Application of Article 34 SCA by the Icelandic Courts. In: Monti M with others (eds) Economic law and justice in times of globalisation – Festschrift for Carl Baudenbacher. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden
Hannesson ÓÍ, Méndez-Pinedo E (2012) The authority of European law: exploring primacy of EU law and effect of EEA law from European and Icelandic perspectives. The Law Institute of the University of Iceland, Reykjavik
Hreinsson P (2012) The interaction between Icelandic Courts and the EFTA Court. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European Economic Area. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart
Magnusson S (2009) Experts on the bench – reflections on pragmatic solutions from up-north. Civil Justice Q 28:261–273
Magnusson S (2010) On the Authority of Advisory opinions. Europarättslig tidskrift, 13(3):528–551 (542–543)
Magnusson S (2014) Efficient judicial protection of EEA rights in the EFTA pillar – different role for the national judge? The EEA and the EFTA Court, decentred integration. Hart Publishing Ltd., Oxford and Portland
Örlygsson T (2007) Iceland and the EFTA Court. In Monti M with others (eds) Economic law and justice in times of globalisation – Festschrift for Carl Baudenbacher. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden
Temple Lang J (2012) The duty of National Courts to provide access to justice in the EEA. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European Economic Area. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart
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
Magnússon, S. (2016). Icelandic Courts. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Handbook of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_14
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)