General Principles

Hreinsson, Páll

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_19

Páll Hreinsson²

1387 Accesses
5 Citations

Abstract

The general principles of EU law comprise a series of unwritten principles, which the EU Courts have extrapolated from the laws of the Member States and have applied in their judicial review. This chapter focuses on the relevant question as to which general principles of EU law also form part of EEA law. Some examples of how these principles have been applied in practice by the EFTA Court within the framework of the EEA Agreement will be discussed, moving from the general principle of homogeneity, which is the cornerstone of the EEA Agreement. The principle of proportionality will also be thoroughly analysed, in particular how it differs from other general principles of EEA law in that it does not protect an independently defined objective, but rather constitutes a guarantee of substantive protection of other legitimate rights requiring a balance to be struck between the means used and the intended aim (or the result attained). The conclusion that must be drawn is that the objective of securing a homogeneous EEA cannot be achieved unless certain general principles of EU law are also applied in EEA law.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 139.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 249.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Tridimas (2006), p. 17.
2.
Craig and de Búrca (2011), p. 109.
3.
Recitals 4, 6 and 15 reads as follows:
- (4) CONSIDERING the objective of establishing a dynamic and homogeneous European Economic Area, based on common rules and equal conditions of competition and providing for the adequate means of enforcement including at the judicial level, and achieved on the basis of equality and reciprocity and of an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Contracting Parties;
- (6) AIMING to promote a harmonious development of the European Economic Area and convinced of the need to contribute through the application of this Agreement to the reduction of economic and social regional disparities;
- (15) WHEREAS, in full deference to the independence of the courts, the objective of the Contracting Parties is to arrive at, and maintain, a uniform interpretation and application of this Agreement and those provisions of Community legislation which are substantially reproduced in this Agreement and to arrive at an equal treatment of individuals and economic operators as regards the four freedoms and the conditions of competition.
Article 1(1) EEA reads as follows:

The aim of this Agreement of association is to promote a continuous and balanced strengthening of trade and economic relations between the Contracting Parties with equal conditions of competition, and the respect of the same rules, with a view to creating a homogeneous European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as the EEA.
4.
The Article refers to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community.
5.
Sevón (1994), p. 341. See also Case C-286/02 Bellio F.lli Srl [2004] ECR I-3465, paragraph 34.
6.
See Case E-1/03 ESA v. The Republic of Iceland [2003] EFTA Ct. Rep. 143, paragraph 27.
7.
Sevón (2002), p. 725; Baudenbacher (2010), p. 53 and Fenger (2006), p. 138.
8.
Case E-2/94 Scottish Salmon Growers Association Ltd v. ESA [1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 59, paragraph 13.
9.
Fenger (2006), p. 134.
10.
Art. 3 EEA. Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA [2004] EFTA Ct. Rep. 11, paragraph 41.
Article 4 EEA. Case E-5/98 Fagtún ehf. [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 51, paragraph 42.
Article 10 EEA. Case T-115/94 Opel Austria GmbH [1997] ECR II-39, paragraph 111.
Article 11 EEA. Case E-1/94 Oy Restamark [1994] EFTA Ct. Rep. 15, paragraph 46; Case E-5/96 Ullensaker kommune and Others [1997] EFTA Ct. Rep. 30, paragraph 21; Case E-6/96 Tore Wilhelmsen AS [1997] EFTA Ct. Rep. 53, paragraph 43; Case E-5/98 Fagtún ehf., cited above, paragraphs 22 and 29; Case E-3/00 ESA v. Norway [2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 73, paragraph 24; Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1, paragraph 39.
Article 13 EEA. Case E-1/94 Oy Restamark, cited above, paragraph 52; C-286/02 Bellio F.lli Srl. cited above, paragraphs 4 and 35.
Article 14 EEA. Case E-1/01 Hörður Einarsson [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1, paragraph 54.
Article 16 EEA. Case E-1/94 Oy Restamark, cited above, paragraph 79.
Article 28 EEA. Case C-431/11 UK v. Council, judgment of 26 September 2013, published electronically, paragraph 51.
Article 29 EEA. Case C-431/11 UK v. Council, cited above, paragraph 51.
Article 31 EEA. Case E-4/00 Brändle [2001–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 123, paragraph 7; Case C-48/11 A Oy, judgment of 19 July 2012, published electronically, paragraph 21.
Article 36 EEA. Case E-1/03 ESA v. Iceland, cited above, paragraph 28; Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS, cited above, paragraph 39.
Article 40 EEA. Case E-1/00 Íslandsbanki-FBA hf. [2000] EFTA Ct. Rep. 8, paragraph 16; Case C-452/01 Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg [2003] ECR I-9743, paragraph 28; Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA, cited above, paragraph 22; Case E-10/04 Paolo Piazza [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 76, paragraph 33; Case C-521/07 European Commission v. The Netherlands [2009] ECR I-4873, paragraph 33; Case C-72/09, Établissements Rimbaud SA [2010] ECR I-10659, paragraph 22; Case C-10/10 European Commission v. Austria [2011] ECR I-5389, paragraphs 16 and 42.
Article 53 EEA. Case E-3/97 Jæger AS [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1, paragraph 19; Case E-8/00 Landsorganisasjonen i Norge [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 114, paragraph 44.
Article 61 EEA. Case E-6/98 Norway v. ESA [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 74, paragraph 11.
Article 69(1) EEA. Case E-2/07 ESA v. Norway [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 280, paragraph 25.
Article 125 EEA. Case E-2/06 ESA v. Norway [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 164, paragraphs 58–61.
11.
Case E-4/00, cited above, paragraph 7; see also Case E-2/97 Mag Instrument [1997] EFTA Ct. Rep. 129, paragraph 25; Case E-5/00 Mangold [2000–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 163, paragraph 7; Case E-6/00 Tschannett [2000–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 203, paragraph 7; Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07 L’Oréal Norge AS and L’Oréal SA [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. 259, paragraph 31; Case E-3/98 Rainford-Towning [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 205, paragraph 21 and Case E-2/06 ESA v. The Kingdom of Norway, cited above, paragraphs 60 and 61; Fenger (2006), p. 136.
12.
Case E-2/02 Bellona [2003] EFTA Ct. Rep. 52, paragraph 39; Case E-18/10 ESA v. The Kingdom of Norway [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 202, paragraph 26; Case E-2/13 Bentzen Transport AS [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 802, paragraphs 37 and 38.
13.
Case E-15/10 Posten Norge AS [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 246, paragraph 110.
14.
Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, concluded at Vienna on 23 May 1969, Vol. 1155, 1–18232.
15.
Baudenbacher (2010), p. 47.
16.
Case E-5/06 ESA v. The Principality of Liechtenstein [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 296, paragraphs 47 and 63.
17.
See, to that effect, Case E-4/01 Karlsson hf. [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 240, paragraph 28; Case E-1/07 Criminal proceedings against A [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 246, paragraphs 38 and 39; Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07 L’Oréal Norge AS and L’Oréal SA, cited above, paragraph 22; Case E-13/11 Granville [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 400, paragraph 52; Case E-18/11 Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v. Kaupthing Bank [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 592, paragraphs 123 and 124; Case E-15/12 Jan Anfinn Wahl [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 534, paragraphs 54 and 55 and Case E-6/13 Metacom AG [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 856, paragraph 69; Case E-12/13 ESA v. Iceland [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 58, paragraph 74; Case E-25/13 Gunnar V. Engilbertsson and Íslandsbanki hf. [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 52, paragraphs 159 and 163; Case E-28/13 LBI hf. and Merrill Lynch International Ltd. [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 970, paragraphs 40–44.
18.
Case C-431/11 United Kingdom v. Council, cited above, paragraph 55.
19.
Case E-12/13 ESA v. Iceland, cited above, paragraph 68.
20.
Case 270/80 Polydor Limited and RSO Records Inc. v. Harlequin Records Shops Limited and Simons Records Limited [1982] ECR 329; see also Case 104/78 Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641, paragraph 30; Case C-312/91 Metalsa [1993] ECR I-3751, paragraph 12.
21.
Case 270/80 Polydor, cited above, paragraph 18.
22.
Case 270/80 Polydor, cited above, paragraph 19.
23.
Case C-351/08 Grimme [2009] ECR I-10777. See also, Baudenbacher (2012b), pp. 10–11.
24.
Case C-351/08 Grimme, cited above, paragraph 29, with a reference to Polydor, cited above. See also C-541/08 Fokus Invest AG [2010] ECR I-1025; C-70/09 Hengartner and Gasser [2010] ECR I-7233.
25.
Fenger (2006), p. 132.
26.
Van Greven (1994), p. 44.
27.
Fredriksen and Mathisen (2014), pp. 29–31.
28.
See the opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Case C-83/13 Fonnship and Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet, delivered on 1 April 2014, published electronically, footnote 56; Norberg et al. (1993), p. 191; Sevón (1992), pp. 338–339 and Van Gerven (1994), pp. 43–44; Stefánsson (2000), pp. 173–176 and Björgvinsson (2006), pp. 240–241.
29.
Case E-1/94 Restamark, cited above, paragraph 58: ‘…The principle of proportionality , which underlies the second sentence of Article 13 EEA, requires that the power of the Contracting Parties to prohibit imports from other Contracting Parties should be restricted to that which is necessary to attain the legitimate aim of protecting health.’ See for comparison Fenger (2004), p. 629.
30.
Case E-3/98 Rainford-Towning, cited above, paragraph 35.
31.
Case E-9/97 Sveinbjörnsdóttir [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 95, paragraph 63.
32.
Baudenbacher (2010), p. 50.
33.
Case E-18/11 Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v. Kaupthing Bank, cited above, paragraphs 58 and 123. Hannesson (2012), pp. 233–237.
34.
The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organisation, and came into force on 24 October 1945.
35.
Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries (1966), p. 211.
36.
Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (2011), pp. 147–148.
37.
Sejersted et al. (2011), p. 104 and Méndez-Pinedo (2009), p. 173.
38.
Norberg et al. (1993), p. 100.
39.
Fredriksen (2013), pp. 55–59.
40.
Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA, cited above, paragraph 41.
41.
The EFTA Court has based many of its judgments concerning infringement actions brought by ESA against EFTA States for failure to fulfil their obligations under the EEA Agreement, inter alia, under Article 3. See, for instance, Cases E-7/97 ESA v. Norway [1998] EFTA Court Rep. 62; E-10/97 ESA v. Norway [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 134; E-2/99 ESA v. Norway [2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1; E-5/01 ESA v. Liechtenstein [2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 287; Case E-4/03 ESA v. Norway [2004] EFTA Ct. Rep. 3; Joined Cases E-5/05, E-6/05, E-7/05, E-8/05, E-9/05 ESA v. Liechtenstein [2006] EFTA Ct. Rep. 142; E-3/08 ESA v. Iceland [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. 308; E-8/09 ESA v. Iceland [2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 180.
42.
See for example Case E-3/10 ESA v. Iceland [2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 188, paragraph 18; Case E-9/10 ESA v. Liechtenstein [2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 304, paragraph 15 and Case E-13/13 ESA v. Norway [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 914, paragraph 20.
43.
Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA, cited above, paragraph 41.
44.
Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 117, paragraph 128 and Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 Hurtigruten ASA [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 758, paragraphs 284–290.
45.
Case E-2/10 Þór Kolbeinsson [2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 234, paragraph 46.
46.
Case E-18/11 Irish Bank Resolution, cited above, paragraph 58.
47.
Case E-9/97 Sveinbjörnsdóttir, cited above, paragraph 61 and Case E-2/10 Þór Kolbeinsson, cited above, paragraph 85.
48.
See, for example, Case E-1/07 Criminal proceedings against A, cited above, paragraph 39 and Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07 L’Oreal Norge, cited above, paragraph 28.
49.
Case E-15/12 Jan Anfinn Wahl, cited above, paragraph 54.
50.
See the opinion of Advocate General Tesauro in Case C-63/89 Assurances du Credit v. Council and Commission [1991] ECR I-1799, p. 1829: ‘It should be pointed out that the principle of equal treatment is fundamental not only because it is a cornerstone of contemporary legal systems but also for a more specific reason: Community legislation chiefly concerns economic situations and activities. If, in this field, different rules are laid down for similar situations, the result is not merely inequality before the law, but also, and inevitably, distortions of competition which are absolutely irreconcilable with the fundamental philosophy of the common market.’
51.
See for comparison Case 39/72 Commission v. Italy [1973] ECR 101, paragraph 24: ‘In permitting Member States to profit from the advantages of the Community, the Treaty imposes on them also the obligation to respect its rules. / For a State unilaterally to break, according to its own conception of national interest, the equilibrium between advantages and obligations flowing from its adherence to the Community brings into question the equality of Member States before Community law and creates discriminations at the expense of their nationals, and above all of the nationals of the State itself which places itself outside the Community rules.’
52.
Case E-5/10 Dr. Joachim Kottke v. Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung [2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 320, paragraph 32.
53.
Case E-5/10 Dr. Joachim Kottke v. Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung, cited above, paragraph 40.
54.
Case E-5/10 Dr. Joachim Kottke v. Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung, cited above, paragraph 52.
55.
See for comparison Case C-323/95 Hayes v. Kronenberger [1997] ECR I-1711, paragraph 18: ‘In so far as it prohibits “any discrimination on grounds of nationality”, Article 6 of the Treaty requires persons in a situation governed by Community law and nationals of the Member State concerned to be treated absolutely equally.’
56.
See for comparison Case C-137/84 Ministére Public v. Mutsch [1985] ECR 2681, paragraph 12.
57.
See Case E-5/98 Fagtún ehf., cited above, paragraph 42.
58.
See Case E-1/01 Hörður Einarsson, cited above, paragraph 14.
59.
See Case E-2/01 Dr Franz Martin Pucher [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 45, paragraphs 24 and 25 and Case E-7/07 Seabrokers AS [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. 172, paragraph 27.
60.
See Case E-10/04 Paolo Piazza, cited above, paragraph 31 and Case E-13/11 Granville, cited above, paragraph 39.
61.
See Case E-1/00 Íslandsbanki-FBA, cited above, paragraphs 35 and 36 and Case E-7/07 Seabrokers AS, cited above, paragraph 27.
62.
Case E-26/13 Icelandic State v. Atli Gunnarsson [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 254, paragraph 84; Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10 The Principality of Liechtenstein and others v. ESA [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 16, paragraphs 159–161, and Joined Cases E-17/10 and E-6/11 The Principality of Liechtenstein and VTM Fundmanagement v. ESA [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 114, paragraph 147.
63.
Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10 The Principality of Liechtenstein and others v. ESA, cited above, paragraphs 159–161.
64.
See for comparison Lenaerts and Van Nuffel (2011), pp. 157 and 158. Case C-281/98 Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano [2000] ECR I-4139, paragraphs 35 and 36; Case C-411/98 Ferlini v. Centre hospitalier de Luxembourg [2000] ECR I-8081, paragraph 50 and case-law cited.
65.
See for comparison Tridimas (2006), p. 62.
66.
Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS, cited above, paragraph 56.
67.
Fenger (2004), p. 624.
68.
Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 Hurtigruten ASA, cited above, paragraphs 313–315.
69.
Case E-4/97 The Norwegian Bankers’ Association [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 38 paragraph 70.
70.
Case E-1/06 ESA v. Norway [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 8, paragraph 31 and Case E-1/09 ESA v. The Principality of Liechtenstein [2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 46, paragraph 38.
71.
Case E-2/01 Dr Franz Martin Pucher, cited above, paragraph 33.
72.
Case E-8/04 ESA v. Liechtenstein [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 46, paragraphs 24 and 29.
73.
Case E-3/05 ESA v. Norway [2006] EFTA Ct. Rep. 102, paragraphs 57, 60 and 62.
74.
Case E-16/10 Philip Morris [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 330, paragraph 84.
75.
Case C-67/98 Zenatti [1999] ECR I-7289, paragraphs 29 and 31 and Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04 Placanica and others [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraph 49.
76.
Case E-3/00 ESA v. Norway, cited above, paragraphs 26 and 41.
77.
Case E-1/06 ESA v. Norway, cited above, paragraph 43.
78.
Case E-3/06 Ladbrokes Ltd. v. The Government of Norway and others [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 86, paragraphs 50 and 51.
79.
Case E-2/06 ESA v. Norway, cited above, paragraphs 72 and 82–90.
80.
Mathisen (2010), pp. 1033–1034.
81.
Case E-1/94 Restamark, cited above, paragraphs 58–60.
82.
Case E-6/96 Wilhelmsen, cited above, paragraph 87.
83.
Case E-3/98 Rainford-Towning, cited above, paragraph 34.
84.
Case E-1/09 ESA v. Liechtenstein, cited above, paragraph 42.
85.
Case E-9/00 ESA v. Norway [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 72, paragraphs 41, 44, 55, 56 and 58.
86.
Case E-1/03 ESA v. Iceland, cited above, paragraph 35.
87.
Case E-10/04 Paolo Piazza, cited above, paragraphs 47 and 48.
88.
Case E-1/05 ESA v. Norway [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 234, paragraphs 44 and 45.
89.
Case E-6/13 Metacom, cited above, paragraph 64.
90.
Case E-5/10 Dr. Joachim Kottke v. Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung, cited above, paragraphs 32, 47–50.
91.
Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA, cited above, paragraph 37; Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord, cited above, paragraph 163; Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10 Liechtenstein and others, cited above, paragraph 156; Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 Hurtigruten ASA, cited above, paragraph 280.
92.
Tridimas (2006), p. 242.
93.
Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10 Liechtenstein and others v. ESA, cited above, paragraph 156 and Joined Cases E-17/10 and E-6/11 Liechtenstein and VTM Fundmanagement v. ESA, cited above, paragraph 142; Case E-9/11 ESA v. Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442, paragraph 100; Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 Hurtigruten ASA, cited above, paragraph 281.
94.
Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA, cited above, paragraph 37; see for comparison Tridimas (2006), p. 246.
95.
Case E-15/12 Jan Anfinn Wahl, cited above, paragraphs 51 and 56.
96.
Case E-12/13 ESA v. Iceland, cited above, paragraph 70.
97.
Case E-17/11 Aresbank S.A. [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 916, paragraph 77.
98.
Case E-9/11 ESA v. Norway, cited above, paragraph 100.
99.
Case T-115/94 Opel Austria GmbH, cited above, paragraph 125.
100.
Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord, cited above, paragraph 163.
101.
Case E-3/11 Pálmi Sigmarsson [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 430, paragraph 52 and Case E-9/11 ESA v. The Kingdom of Norway, cited above, paragraph 99.
102.
Case E-3/04 Tsomakas Athanasios [2004] EFTA Ct. Rep. 95, paragraph 32; Case E-2/05 ESA v. The Republic of Iceland [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 202, paragraph 17; Case E-1/10 Periscopus AS [2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 198, paragraph 48; Case E-15/10 Posten Norge AS, cited above, paragraphs 111 and 280; Case E-14/11 DB Schenker, cited above, paragraphs 78 and 98; Case E-9/12 Iceland v. ESA [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 454, paragraph 58; Case E-11/12 Beatrix Koch and Others [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 272, paragraph 132; Order of the President of 30 May 2013 in Case E-4/13 DB Schenker v. ESA (‘DB Schenker IV’) [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1211, paragraph 17 and Order of the President in Case E-19/13 Konkurrenten no. AS v. ESA, 8 January 2014, not yet reported, paragraph 33.
103.
Tridimas (2006), p. 252.
104.
Case E-7/12 DB Schenker II, cited above, paragraph 127.
105.
Joined Cases E-5/04, E-6/04 and E-7/04 Fesil and Finnfjord, cited above, paragraph 171; Case E-2/05 ESA v. The Republic of Iceland, cited above, paragraph 26; Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10 Liechtenstein and others v. ESA, cited above, paragraphs 143–145 and Joined Cases E-17/10 and E-6/11 The Principality of Liechtenstein and VTM Fundmanagement v. ESA, cited above, paragraph 124.
106.
Joined Cases E-4/10, E-6/10 and E-7/10 Liechtenstein and others v. ESA, cited above, paragraph 145 and Joined Cases E-17/10 and E-6/11 Liechtenstein and VTM Fundmanagement v. ESA, cited above, paragraph 134.
107.
See Case E-8/97 TV 1000 Sverige AB [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 68, paragraph 26 and Case E-2/02 Bellona, cited above, paragraph 37.
108.
Björgvinsson (2007), pp. 35–40.
109.
See Case E-2/03 Ásgeirsson [2003] EFTA Ct. Rep. 185, paragraph 23; Case E-12/10 ESA v. Iceland [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 117, paragraph 60; Case E-4/11 Arnulf Clauder [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 216, paragraph 49; Case E-15/10 Posten Norge AS, cited above, paragraph 85 and Case E-18/11 Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v. Kaupthing Bank, cited above, paragraphs 63 and 64.
110.
Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 Fred. Olsen and Others and Petter Olsen and Others v. Norwegian State [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 400, paragraph 225.
111.
Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 Fred. Olsen, cited above, paragraph 226.
112.
Case E-15/10 Posten Norge AS, cited above, paragraphs 85–90 and 285.
113.
Taki (2013), paragraph 1.
114.
See e.g. Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur SA [1996] ECR I-1029, paragraph 95.
115.
See Tridimas (2006), pp. 418 and 421.
116.
Case E-4/01 Karlsson hf., cited above, paragraph 28; see also Case E-15/12 Jan Anfinn Wahl, cited above, paragraph 55.
117.
See Tridimas (2006), pp. 418 and 421.
118.
Case E-8/07 Celina Nguyen [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. 224, paragraph 24.
119.
Case E-2/10 Þór Kolbeinsson, cited above, paragraph 46; Case E-13/11 Granville, cited above, paragraph 52.
120.
Case E-15/12 Jan Anfinn Wahl, cited above, paragraph 54; Case E-6/13 Metacom AG, cited above, paragraph 69 and Case E-12/13 ESA v. Iceland, cited above, paragraph 73.
121.
Case E-8/07 Celina Nguyen, cited above, paragraph 24 and Case E-11/12 Beatrix Koch and Others, cited above, paragraphs 75–78.
122.
Case E-1/11 Dr A [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 484, paragraph 74.
123.
Case E-12/10 ESA v. Iceland, cited above, paragraphs 40 and 60; Case E-2/11 STX Norway Offshore AS and Others [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 4, paragraphs 29 and 76; Case E-4/11 Arnulf Clauder, cited above, paragraphs 34 and 46; Case E-3/12 Stig Arne Jonsson, cited above, paragraph 75 and Case E-6/12 ESA v. Norway [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 618, paragraph 112.
124.
Case E-11/12 Beatrix Koch and Others, cited above, paragraph 121 and Case E-15/12 Jan Anfinn Wahl, cited above, paragraphs 129 and 130.
125.
Case E-11/12 Beatrix Koch and Others, cited above, paragraph 132.
126.
Case E-7/13 Creditinfo Lánstraust hf. [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 970, paragraphs 45 and 46.
127.
Hannesson (2012), pp. 238–244.
128.
Case E-2/02 Bellona, cited above, paragraph 36; Case E-15/10 Posten Norge AS, cited above, paragraph 84; Case E-14/11 DB Schenker I, cited above, paragraph 123 and Case E-11/12 Beatrix Koch and Others, cited above, paragraph 117.
129.
As mentioned in the Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health [2002] ECR II-3305, paragraph 115, the existence of such principle had in essence and at the very least implicitly been recognised by the ECJ, see in particular, Case C-331/88 Fedesa and Others [1990] ECR I-4023; Case C-405/92 Mondiet [1993] ECR 1-6133; Case C-435/92 APAS [1994] ECR I-67; Case C-179/95 Spain v. Council [1999] ECR I-6475; and Case C-6/99 Greenpeace France and Others [2000] ECR I-1651.
130.
Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS, cited above, paragraph 60 and Case E-16/10 Philip Morris, cited above, paragraph 82.
131.
See also Baudenbacher (2010), p. 59.
132.
Case E-3/00 ESA v. Norway, cited above, paragraph 25.
133.
Case E-3/00 ESA v. Norway, cited above, paragraphs 26 and 32.
134.
Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS, cited above, paragraph 60.
135.
Case C-212/97 Centros [1999] ECR I-1459, paragraphs 24 and 25, and case-law cited.
136.
Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Cases C-255/02, C-419/02 and C-223/03 Halifax and Others [2006] ECR I-1613, paragraphs 60 and following.
137.
See the opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Case C-83/13 Fonnship and Svenska Transportarbetareförbundet, cited above, paragraph 71, concerning EEA law.
138.
Case E-15/11 Arcade Drilling [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 676, paragraphs 87–89.
139.
Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 Fred Olsen and Others, cited above, paragraphs 164–166.
140.
Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 Fred Olsen and Others, cited above, paragraphs 173–174.
141.
Case E-3/12 Stig Arne Jonsson, cited above, paragraph 58.
142.
Case E-4/01 Karlsson hf., cited above, paragraph 29.
143.
Baudenbacher (1999), p. 94.
144.
Fenger (2006), p. 137.
145.
Case E-4/01 Karlsson hf. [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 240, paragraph 30 and Case E-2/12, HOB-vín ehf. [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1092, paragraph 120.
146.
Case E-9/97 Sveinbjörnsdóttir, cited above, paragraphs 65 and 66 and Case E-4/01 Karlsson hf. [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 240, cited above, paragraph 32.
147.
Case E-4/01 Karlsson hf. [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 240, paragraph 38; Case E-8/07 Celina Nguyen [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. 224, paragraph 33; Case E-2/10 Þór Kolbeinsson [2009–2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 234, paragraph 82 and Case E-2/12 HOB-vín ehf. [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1092, paragraph 129.
148.
Case E-2/12 HOB-vín ehf., cited above, paragraphs 130 and 131.
149.
Case E-4/01 Karlsson hf., cited above, paragraph 32.
150.
Case E-2/12 HOB-vín ehf., cited above, paragraph 128.
151.
Case E-4/01 Karlsson hf., cited above, paragraph 33. For a detailed discussion on the subject, see Fredriksen (2013).
152.
Regarding Norway, see St.prp. no. 100 (1991–1992) point 1.7.2 (pp. 37–38), point 8.2.3 and 8.2.4 (pp. 317–318) and Innst. S. No. 248 (1991–1992) pp. 84–85. Regarding Sweden, see Regjeringens proposition 1991/1992 no. 170. Regarding Finland, see Regjeringens proposition 1992 no. 95, and regarding Iceland, see Parliamentary Report A [Alþingistíðindi A] of 1992–1993, 50. The principles of ‘direct effect’ and ‘primacy’ of EU law were therefore not made part of the Agreement, see Vilhjálmsson (2002), p. 902.
153.
Sevón (1994), pp. 339 and 352 and Sejersted (1997), p. 56.
154.
See inter alia Case E-1/07 Criminal proceedings against A, cited above, paragraphs 40 and 41. In Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07 L’Oréal Norge, cited above, the EFTA Court, in paragraph 22, stated: ‘In light of the Defendants’ submissions, which also address the issue of whether Article 7(1) of the Trade Mark Directive can be directly applicable and take precedence over a national rule that fails to transpose the relevant EEA rule correctly into national law, the Court recalls, as a preliminary remark, that the Directive could not in any case have direct effect and primacy pursuant to EEA law […].’
155.
Case 6/64 Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585.
156.
Case 26/62 van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1.
157.
Case 41/74 van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337.
158.
Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR I-6099.
159.
Opinion 1/92 [1992] ECR I-2838.
160.
Case T-115/94 Opel Austria GmbH, cited above, paragraphs 101 and 102.
161.
Sevón (1994), p. 351.
162.
Méndez-Pinedo (2009), p. 146.
163.
Case E-1/01 Hörður Einarsson, cited above, paragraph 52: ‘The preamble to Protocol 35 to the EEA Agreement makes clear that the Agreement does not require any Contracting Party to transfer legislative powers to any institution of the EEA, and that the homogeneity of the EEA will have to be achieved through national procedures […].’
164.
Norberg et al. (1993), p. 106.
165.
Sejersted (1997), p. 58.
166.
Sevón (1994), p. 340 and Sejersted (1997), p. 58.
167.
Sevón (1994), p. 351.
168.
Case E-1/01 Hörður Einarsson, cited above, paragraphs 51–55.
169.
Case E-1/07 Criminal Proceedings against A, cited above, paragraph 38.
170.
Case E-11/12 Beatrix Koch and Others, cited above, paragraphs 118–120; see also Case E-15/12 Jan Anfinn Wahl, cited above, paragraphs 46–48 and Case E-6/12 ESA v. Norway, cited above, paragraphs 65–67.
171.
Case E-2/12 HOB-vín ehf., cited above, paragraph 128.
172.
Case E-6/06 ESA v. Liechtenstein [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 238, paragraph 19.
173.
Case E-1/07 Criminal proceedings against A, cited above, paragraph 38.
174.
Case E-17/11 Aresbank S.A., cited above, paragraphs 76 and 77.
175.
Case E-4/01 Karlsson hf., cited above, paragraph 28.
176.
Case E-18/11 Irish Bank Resolution Corporation v. Kaupthing Bank, cited above, paragraphs 121–126.
177.
Case E-1/07 Criminal Proceedings against A, cited above, paragraph 42.

References

Baudenbacher C (1999) The EFTA Court and the European Court. In: Müller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) EEA-EU relations. Berlin Verlag, Berlin, pp 69–95
Google Scholar
Baudenbacher C (2010) The EFTA Court in Action. Five lectures. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart
Google Scholar
Baudenbacher C (2012) Some thoughts on the EFTA Court’s phases of life. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European Economic Area. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart, pp 10–11
Google Scholar
Björgvinsson DÞ (2006) EES-réttur og landsréttur. Codex, Reykjavík
Google Scholar
Björgvinsson DÞ (2007) The EEA Agreement and fundamental rights. In: Caflisch L, Callewaert J, Liddell R, Mahnony P, Villiger M (eds) Liber Amicorum Luzius Wildhaber. Human Rights – Strasbourg views, N.P. Engel, Kehl, pp 25–40
Google Scholar
Craig P, de Búrca G (2011) EU law. Text, cases, and materials, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries 1966. United Nations 2005
Google Scholar
Fenger N (2004) Forvaltning & Fællesskab. Om EU-rettens betydning for den almindelige forvaltningsret: Konfrontation og frugtbar sameksistens. Copenhagen
Google Scholar
Fenger N (2006) Limits to a dynamic homogeneity between EC law and EEA law. In: Fenger N, Hagel-Sørensen K, Vesterdorf B (eds) Festskrift til Claus Gulmann. Karnov Group, Copenhagen, pp 132–154
Google Scholar
Fredriksen HH (2013) Offentligrettslig erstatningsansvar ved brudd på EØS-avtalen. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen
Google Scholar
Fredriksen HH, Mathisen G (2014) EØS-rett, 2nd edn. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen
Google Scholar
Hannesson ÓÍ (2012) Giving effect to EEA law – the role of the Icelandic National Courts and the EFTA Court in the European Judicial Dialogue. In: Thejll M (ed) The authority of European law: exploring primacy of EU law and effect of EEA law from European and Icelandic perspectives, series of the Law Institute of the University of Iceland No. 11. Bókaútgáfan CODEX, Reykjavík, pp 155–287
Google Scholar
Lenaerts K, Van Nuffel P (2011) European Union law, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London
Google Scholar
Mathisen G (2010) Consistency and coherence as a condition for justification of member state measures restricting free movement. Common Market Law Rev 47:1021–1048
Google Scholar
Méndez-Pinedo ME (2009) EC and EEA law. A comparative study of the effectiveness of European Law. Europa Law Publishing. Groningen
Google Scholar
Norberg S, Hökborg K, Johansson M, Eliasson D, Dedichen L (1993) EEA law. A commentary on the EEA Agreement. Fritzes, Stockholm
Google Scholar
Sejersted F (1997) Between sovereignty and supranationalism in the EEA context – on the legal dynamics of the EEA-Agreement. In: Müller-Graf PC, Selvig E (eds) The European Economic Area – Norway’s basic status in the legal construction of Europe. Berlin Verlag/Tano Aschehoug, Berlin, pp 43–73
Google Scholar
Sejersted F, Aresen F, Rognstad O-A, Kolstad O (2011) EØS-rett, 3rd edn. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo
Google Scholar
Sevón L (1992) The EEA Judicial System and the Supreme courts of the EFTA states. Eur J Int law 329, No, 2 ff
Google Scholar
Sevón L (1994) Primacy and direct effect in the EEA. Some reflections. Festskrift til Ole Due, GAD 340–354
Google Scholar
Sevón L (2002) ECJ, the EFTA Court and the national courts of the EFTA countries. In: Rettsteori og rettsliv. Festskrift til Carsten Smith til 70-årsdagen 13. juli 2002, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, pp 721–732
Google Scholar
Stefánsson SM (2000) Evrópusambandið og Evrópska efnahagssvæðið. Bókaútgáfa Orators, Reykjavík
Google Scholar
Taki H (2013) Effectiveness. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Tridimas T (2006) The general principles of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Van Gerven W (1994) The genesis of EEA law and the principles of primacy and direct effect, in the European Economic Area EC-EFTA. Kluwer, pp 33–56
Google Scholar
Vilhjálmsson Þ (2002) EFTA-domstolen. In: Rettsteori og rettsliv. Festskrift til Carsten Smith til 70-årsdagen 13. juli 2002. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, pp 897–909
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

EFTA Court, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg
Páll Hreinsson

Authors

Páll Hreinsson
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Páll Hreinsson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

EFTA Court, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Carl Baudenbacher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hreinsson, P. (2016). General Principles. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Handbook of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_19

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_19
Published: 12 December 2015
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