Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship Between the EFTA Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Handbook of EEA Law

Abstract

The relationship between the EFTA Court and the ECJ has, in the first two decades of the former’s existence, been characterised by a constructive judicial dialogue. The Court follows the relevant case-law of the ECJ when available and as far as the facts are identical. However, even if the ECJ has gone first, there may be situations where the Court comes to the conclusion that it must go its own way. The Court for its part is often called upon to go first, i.e. to decide on novel legal questions. The references to the Court’s case-law by Advocates General, the ECJ and the General Court have grown exponentially, giving the Court greater influence on the development of EU case-law than the drafters of the EEA Agreement and of the SCA may have imagined.

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)
  • 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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case E-10/14 Deveci [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1363, paragraph 64.

  2. 2.

    Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Done at Lugano on 16 September 1988 (OJ 1988 L 319, p. 9).

  3. 3.

    OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1; see Basedow (2000), pp. 687 et seq.; Tagaris (2003), pp. 399 et seq., 431.

  4. 4.

    See Baur (2014), pp. 25 et seq.

  5. 5.

    As Denmark had opted out from the Brussels I Regulation, it did not apply on its territory until recently. Thus, Denmark is separately mentioned as a Contracting Party.

  6. 6.

    OJ 2007 L 339, p. 3.

  7. 7.

    Heerstrassen (1993); Duintjer Tebbens (1993), pp. 49 and 53; Kohler (1992), pp. 11 et seq.

  8. 8.

    OJ 2007 L 339, p. 27.

  9. 9.

    Kohler (2007), fn 575, pp. 151 et seq.

  10. 10.

    Case C-133/11 Folien Fischer and Fofitec, judgment of 25 October 2012, published electronically.

  11. 11.

    See Kohler (2007), pp. 151 et seq.

  12. 12.

    Case C-394/07 Gambazzi [2009] ECR I-2563, paragraphs 35 et seq. The referenced judgment of the Swiss Supreme Court is Case 4P082/2004.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., paragraph 36.

  14. 14.

    HR-2012-2393-A, Norske Retstidende (Rt) 2012, 1951; see the critical remarks by Kohler (2014), pp. 237 et seq.

  15. 15.

    See Baudenbacher (2006), pp. 23 et seq.

  16. 16.

    See Hreinsson (2015).

  17. 17.

    Case E-1/94 Restamark [1994–1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 15, paragraph 24.

  18. 18.

    See Cases E-18/10 ESA v. Norway [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 202, paragraph 26, and E-15/10 Posten Norge v. ESA, [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 246, paragraphs 109 et seq.; order of the Court in Case E-13/10 Aleris Ungplan v. ESA [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 3, paragraph 24; order of the President of 25 March 2011 in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no AS v. ESA, paragraph 9; and order of the President of 15 February 2011 in Case E-15/10 Posten Norge v. ESA, paragraph 8.

  19. 19.

    See Case E-23/13 Hellenic Capital Market Commission [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 88, paragraphs 30 et seq.

  20. 20.

    Order of the Court in Case E-8/13 Abelia [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 638, paragraph 46; see Baudenbacher and Speitler (2015), pp. 211 et seq.

  21. 21.

    Case E-3/00 ESA v. Norway [2000–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 73.

  22. 22.

    Case C-174/82 Sandoz [1983] ECR 2445.

  23. 23.

    Opinion of Advocate General Mischo of 12 December 2002 in Case C-192/01 Commission v. Denmark [2003] ECR I-9693, point 79.

  24. 24.

    Case C-192/01 Commission v. Denmark [2003] ECR I-9693, paragraphs 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53; see Bronckers (2005), pp. 105 et seq.; Alemanno (2008), pp. 57 et seq.

  25. 25.

    Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in Case C-192/01 Commission v. Denmark, cited above, points 35 and 144.

  26. 26.

    Case E-15/10 Posten Norge v. ESA, cited above, paragraph 100.

  27. 27.

    In Cases C-272/09 P KME Germany v. Commission [2011] ECR I-12789, paragraph 94 and C-386/10 P Chalkor v. Commission [2011] ECR I-13085, paragraph 54, the ECJ has, however, emphasised that ‘that does not mean that the Courts of the European Union must refrain from reviewing the Commission’s interpretation of information of an economic nature. Not only must those Courts establish, among other things, whether the evidence relied on is factually accurate, reliable and consistent but also whether that evidence contains all the information which must be taken into account in order to assess a complex situation and whether it is capable of substantiating the conclusions drawn from it.’

  28. 28.

    See Opinion of Advocate General Kokott of 18 April 2013 in Case C-501/11 P Schindler, published electronically, points 25 and 26; Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet of 26 September 2013 in Case C-295/12 P Telefónica v. Commission, published electronically, point 63; Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi of 30 January 2014 in Case C-382/12 P Mastercard v. Commission, published electronically, fn. 102 and 105. General Court Cases T-392/08 AEPI; T-398/08 Stowarzyszenie Autorów ZaiKS; T-401/08 Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto ry; T-410/08 GEMA; T-411/08 Artisjus Magyar Szerzői Jogvédő Iroda Egyesülete; T-413/08 Slovenský ochranný Zväz Autorský pre práva k hudobným dielam (SOZA); T-414/08 Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība; T-415/08 Irish Music Rights Organisation; T-416/08 Eesti Autorite Ühing; T-417/08 Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL; T-418/08 OSA; T-419/08 LATGA; T-420/08 SAZAS; T-421/08 Performing Right Society; T-422/08 SACEM; T-425/08 Koda; T-428/08 STEF; T-432/08 AKM; T-433/08 SIAE; T-434/08 Tono; T-442/08 CISAC, all judgments of 12 April 2013.

  29. 29.

    See with regard to this concept Timmermans (2006), pp. 471 et seq.

  30. 30.

    Case E-5/10 Dr. Kottke [2009–2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 320.

  31. 31.

    Case E-8/00 Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions and Others v. Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities and Others [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 114.

  32. 32.

    Case C-67/96 Albany [1999] ECR I-5751.

  33. 33.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs of 28 January 1999 in Case C-67/96 Albany [1999] ECR I-5751, point 109.

  34. 34.

    Case E-8/00 Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions, cited above, paragraph 35.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., paragraph 56.

  36. 36.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-67/96 Albany, cited above, points 192, 194, 296.

  37. 37.

    See Viol (2004), pp. 353 et seq., 360 et seq., 367 et seq., 370 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 23 May 2007 in Case C-438/05 Viking Line [2007] ECR I-10779, point 27 and fn 24. Advocate General Poiares Maduro also referred to Advocate General Jacobs in Albany.

  39. 39.

    See Restamark, cited above.

  40. 40.

    Case E-8/97 TV 1000 Sverige [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 68.

  41. 41.

    Case E-1/99 Finanger [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 119.

  42. 42.

    Case E-2/97 Mag Instruments [1997] EFTA Ct. Rep. 127.

  43. 43.

    Kellogg’s, cited above.

  44. 44.

    Case E-1/10 Periscopus [2009–2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 198.

  45. 45.

    Case E-16/10 Philip Morris [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 330.

  46. 46.

    Case E-4/09 Inconsult [2009–2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 86; see in this respect Baudenbacher and Haas (2015), pp. 536 et seq.

  47. 47.

    Case E-4/11 Clauder [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 216.

  48. 48.

    Case E-3/11 Sigmarsson [2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 430; Case E-18/11 Irish Bank Resolution Corporation [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 592; Case E-17/11 Aresbank S.A. [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 916; Case E-10/12 Hardarson [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 204.

  49. 49.

    Case E-16/11 ESA v. Iceland (Icesave) [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 4.

  50. 50.

    Opinion of the Court of 14 December 1991—Opinion delivered pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 228(1) of the Treaty—Draft Agreement between the Community, on the one hand, and the countries of the European Free Trade Association, on the other, relating to the creation of the European Economic Area—Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR I-6079, paragraph 53. See also Protocol 2 to the 2007 Lugano Convention.

  51. 51.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen of 11 July 2013 in Cases C-277/12 Vitālijs Drozdovs v. Baltikums AAS and C-22/12 Katarína Haasová v. Rastislav Petrík, Blanka Holingová, published electronically, point 58. In its judgments of 24 October 2013, the ECJ makes reference to the Court’s case-law.

  52. 52.

    See Baudenbacher (2010), pp. 74 et seq.; Baudenbacher (2008), pp. 90 et seq.; Magnússon (2011), pp. 507 and 532 et seq.

  53. 53.

    See, inter alia, Joined Cases C-34/95, C-35/95 and C-36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v. De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB and TV-Shop i Sverige AB [1997] ECR I-3843, paragraph 37 (reference to Joined Cases E-8/94 and E-9/94 Forbrukerombudet v. Mattel Scandinavia and Lego Norge [1994–1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 113, paragraphs 54–56 and paragraph 58); Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 16 June 2005 in Joined Cases C-232/04 and C-233/04 Nurten Güney-Görres and Gul Demir v. Securicor Aviation (Germany) Ltd and Kötter Aviation Security GmbH & Co. KG [2005] ECR I-11237, fn. 23 (reference to Case E-2/04 Rasmussen [2004] EFTA Ct. Rep. 57); Opinion of Advocate General Elmer of 4 March 1997 in Case C-189/95 Franzén [1997] ECR I-5909, point 3 (reference to Restamark, cited above); Case C-140/97 Rechberger and Others [1999] ECR I-3499, paragraph 39 (reference to Case E-9/97 Sveinbjörnsdóttir [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 95); Case C-41/02 Commission v. The Netherlands, paragraph 62 and Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 14 September 2004, fn. 46 [2004] ECR I-11375 (reference to Case E-3/00 ESA v. Norway, cited above, paragraphs 36 and 37); Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak of 5 July 2002 in Case C-300/10 Marques Almeida, published electronically, fn. 25 (reference to Cases E-7/00 Helgadóttir [2000–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 246, paragraph 30, and E-8/07 Nguyen [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. 224, paragraph 24); Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston of 9 October 2008 in Case C-276/05 The Wellcome Foundation [2008] ECR I-10479, point 33 (reference to Case E-3/02 Paranova v. Merck [2003] EFTA Ct. Rep. 101, paragraphs 41–45); Opinion Advocate General Jääskinen of 29 April 2010 in Case C-72/09 Établissements Rimbaud [2010] ECR I-10659, fn. 39 (reference to Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA [2004] EFTA Ct. Rep. 11, paragraphs 20 et seq.); Case C-49/11 Content Services, paragraph 45 and Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi of 6 March 2012, published electronically, fn. 14 (reference to Case E-4/09 Inconsult Anstalt, cited above); Opinion of Advocate General Kokott of 18 April 2013 in Case C-501/11 P Schindler Holding and Others v. Commission, published electronically, fn. 18 and 20 (reference to Case E-15/10 Posten Norge v. ESA, cited above, paragraphs 87, 88 and 89); Case T-345/12 Akzo Nobel and Others v. Commission, published electronically, paragraph 80 (reference to Case E-14/11 DB Schenker v. ESA [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1178, paragraph 189).

  54. 54.

    See Johansson (2012), pp. 212 and 213 et seq.

  55. 55.

    See also Baudenbacher (2013), pp. 341 et seq.; Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi of 1 April 2014 in Case C-83/13 Fonnship, published electronically, fn. 36, 53, 54 and 56.

  56. 56.

    Paranova v. Merck, cited above.

  57. 57.

    Case C-427/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova [1996] ECR I-3457.

  58. 58.

    Paranova v. Merck, cited above.

  59. 59.

    Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim and Others [2007] ECR I-3391, paragraph 13, question (1) (b). Other cases in which national courts of EU States have felt prompted to refer questions to the ECJ in light of a certain judgment of the Court are Cases C-379/05 Amurta [2007] ECR I-9569 and C-284/06 Burda [2008] ECR I-4571.

  60. 60.

    See the reference to paragraphs 41–45 of the EFTA Court’s judgment in paragraph 38 of the ECJ’s ruling in Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim and Others, cited above, and Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, paragraphs 50–53; see also Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in The Wellcome Foundation, cited above, paragraphs 33–36.

  61. 61.

    BGH of 14.6.2007—I ZR 173/04—STILNOX, paragraph 23; 13.12.2007 I ZR 89/05 Micardis, paragraph 17; 24.4.2008—I ZR 30/05 Lefax/Lefaxin, paragraph 22.

  62. 62.

    Early examples are thereferences of Advocate General Lenz to Joined Cases E-8/94 and E-9/94 Mattel/Lego in Case C-222/94 Commission v. United Kingdom [1996] ECR I-4025, at point 3, fn. 4; of Advocate General Jacobs to Joined Cases E-8/94 and E-9/94 Mattel/Lego in Joined Cases C-34/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v. De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB and C-35/95 and C-36/95 TV-Shop i Sverige AB, cited above, points 21, 46, 63, 85, or of Advocate General Elmer to Restamark, cited above, in Case C-189/95 Criminal proceedings against Harry Franzén, cited above, point 3.

  63. 63.

    Case E-8/00 Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions, cited above, paragraph 35.

  64. 64.

    See Baudenbacher (2008), pp. 90 et seq.; Baudenbacher (2013), pp. 341 et seq.; Kokott and Dittert (2014), pp. 43 et seq.; Mengozzi (2014), pp. 53 et seq.

  65. 65.

    Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07 L’Oréal [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. 259; overruling Case E-2/97 Maglite [1997] EFTA Ct. Rep. 127, in light of ECJ judgment in Case C-355/96 Silhouette [1998] ECR I-4799.

  66. 66.

    See Cases C-374/04 Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2006] ECR I-11673, paragraphs 68 et seq. and C-170/05 Denkavit Internationaal BV and Denkavit France SARL v. Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie [2006] ECR I-11949, paragraphs 51 et seq., on the one hand, and C-487/08 Commission v. Kingdom of Spain [2010] ECR I-4843, paragraphs 62, 66 et seq., on the other.

  67. 67.

    Rosas (2007), pp. 13 et seq.

  68. 68.

    See Baudenbacher (2013), pp. 341 et seq.

  69. 69.

    Case T-115/94 Opel Austria [1997] ECR II-39, paragraph 108.

  70. 70.

    One also cannot overlook that superior courts of EU Member States such as the German Supreme Court, the German Supreme Fiscal Court, the Austrian Supreme Court, and the England and Wales Court of Appeal have referred to the Court’s case-law. See, e.g., German Supreme Court, judgment of 19 September 2005—II ZR 372/03, p. 6; judgment of 14 June 2007—I ZR 173/04 STILNOX, paragraph 23; judgment of 13 December 2007—I ZR 89/05 Micardis, paragraph 17; judgment of 24 April 2008—I ZR 30/05 Lefax/Lefaxin, paragraph 22; German Supreme Fiscal Court, judgment of 9 August 2006—I R 31/01; judgment of 29 April 2010—I ZR 66/08; decision of the German Supreme Fiscal Court to request a preliminary ruling from the CJEU I R 56/05 of 9.5.2007; Austrian Supreme Court, 9 ObA 193/98t of 7 October 1998, DRdA 1998, 269; England and Wales Court of Appeal, Adams v. Lancashire County Council and BET Catering Services Ltd [1997] ICR 834 [1997] IRLR 436; Boehringer Ingelheim v. Swingward [2004] EWCA Civ 129.

  71. 71.

    Skouris (2005), pp. 123 and 125.

  72. 72.

    See Restamark, cited above.

  73. 73.

    Kronenberger (1996), pp. 198 and 207.

  74. 74.

    Skouris (2005).

  75. 75.

    Skouris (2014), pp. 3 et seq.

References

  • Alemanno A (2008) The Shaping of European Risk Regulation by Community Courts. Jean Monnet Working Paper 18/08, p 57

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow J (2000) The Communitarization of the Conflict of Laws under the Treaty of Amsterdam. CMLRev 37(3):687–708

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2006) Governments before the EFTA Court. In: Thomsen F (ed) Festskrift til Claus Gulmann. Thomsen - GadJura, Copenhagen, p 24–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2008) The EFTA Court, the CJEU, and the Latter’s Advocates General – A Tale of Judicial Dialogue. In: Arnull A, Eckhout P, Tridimas T (eds) Continuity and Change in EU law. Essays in honour of Sir Francis Jacobs, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 90–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2010) The EFTA Court in Action. Five Lectures. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2013) The EFTA Court’s Relationship with the Advocates General of the European Court of Justice. In: Kronenberger V et al. (eds) De Rome á Lisbonne: les juridictions de l’Union européenne á la croisée des chemins: mélanges en l’honneur de Paolo Mengozzi. Bruylant, Brussels, p 341–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C, Haas T (2015) Webseiten als dauerhafte Datenträger. GRUR Int 6:519-528

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C, Speitler P (2015) Der Syndikus der Gegenwart – Interessensvertreter oder Anwalt des Rechts? NJW 17:1211–1214

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur G (2014) Liechtenstein: Eine Lücke von 160 km2 im europäischen Rechtsraum. In: Liechtenstein-Institut (ed) Beiträge zum liechtensteinischen Recht aus nationaler und internationaler Perspektive, Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Herbert Wille, Liechtensteinische Akadem. Ges., Schaan, p 25–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronckers M (2005) Exceptions to Liberal Trade in Foodstuffs: The Precautionary Approach and Collective Preferences. In: Baudenbacher C, Tresselt P, Örlygsson T (eds) The EFTA Court. Ten Years On. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, p 105–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Duintjer Tebbens H (1993) Die einheitliche Auslegung des Lugano-Übereinkommens. In: Reichelt G (ed) Europäisches Kollisionsrecht: Die Konventionen von Brüssel, Lugano und Rom: Ausländische Erfahrungen und österreichische Perspektiven. Lang, Frankfurt am Main, p 49–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerstrassen F (1993) Die künftige Rolle von Präjudizien des EuGH im Verfahren des Luganer Übereinkommens. Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 39(3):179–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Hreinsson P (2015) General principles. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, p 212–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler C (1992) Integration und Auslegung – Zur Doppelfunktion des Europäischen Gerichtshofes. In: Jayme E (ed) Ein internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht für Gesamteuropa. Müller, Jur. Verl., Heidelberg, p 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler C (2007) Dialog der Gerichte im Europäischen Justizraum: Zur Rolle des EuGH bei der Auslegung des neuen Übereinkommens von Lugano. In: Monti M et al. (eds) Economic Law and Justice in Times of Globalisation (Wirtschaftsrecht und Justiz in Zeiten der Globalisierung). Festschrift für Carl Baudenbacher. Nomos, Baden-Baden, p 141–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler C (2014) Homogeneity or Renationalisation in the European Judicial Area? Comments on a Recent Judgment of the Norwegian Supreme Court. In: EFTA Court (ed) The EEA and the EFTA Court. Decentred Integration. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, p 237–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokott J, Dittert D (2014) European Courts in Dialogue. In: EFTA Court (ed) The EEA and the EFTA Court. Decentred Integration. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, p 43–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronenberger V (1996) Does the EFTA Court Interpret the EEA Agreement as if it Were the EC Treaty? Some Questions Raised by the Restamark Judgment. Int Comp Law Q 45(1):198–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnússon S (2011) Judicial Homogeneity in the European Economic Area and the Authority of the EFTA Court: Some Remarks on an Article by Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen. Nordic J Int Law 80(4):507–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Mengozzi P (2014) The Advocates General and the EFTA Court. In: EFTA Court (ed) The EEA and the EFTA Court. Decentred Integration. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, p 53–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosas A (2007) The European Court of Justice in Context: Forms and Patterns of Judicial Dialogue. Eur J Legal Stud 1(2):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Skouris V (2005) The CJEU and the EFTA Court under the EEA Agreement: A Paradigm for International Cooperation between Judicial Institutions. In: Baudenbacher C, Tresselt P, Örlygsson T (eds) The EFTA Court. Ten Years On. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, p 123–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Skouris V (2014) The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Development of the EEA Single Market: Advancement through Collaboration between the EFTA Court and the CJEU. In: EFTA Court (ed) The EEA and the EFTA Court. Decentred Integration. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, p 3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Tagaris H (2003) La révision et communautarisation de la Convention de Bruxelles par le règlement 44/2001. Cahiers de droit européen 39(3-4):399–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans C (2006) Creative Homogeneity, Liber Amicorum in Honour of Sven Norberg. Bruylant, Brussels, p 471–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Viol M (2004) Die Anwendbarkeit des Europäischen Kartellrechts auf Tarifverträge, unter rechtsvergleichender Betrachtung der Rechtsordnungen der Schweiz, der USA und Deutschlands. Dissertation, Universität St. Gallen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EFTA Court, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

    Carl Baudenbacher

  2. St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Carl Baudenbacher

Authors
  1. Carl Baudenbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carl Baudenbacher .

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

Baudenbacher, C. (2016). The Relationship Between the EFTA Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Handbook of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_8

  • 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