Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dispute Resolution Under the EEA Agreement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Handbook of EEA Law

Abstract

The EEA enforcement system includes, in particular, the mechanism pursuant to Article 111 EEA for the settlement of disputes between the Member States with respect to the interpretation and the application of EEA law. The chapter describes the different elements of this mechanism and discusses its practical relevance. It also draws a comparison with the legal regimes between the EU and two non-Member States, namely Turkey and Switzerland, respectively.

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.

    Norberg (1992), pp. 274–284 at 275.

  2. 2.

    There is only handful of cases, all of which concern the interpretation and application of EU law. The most recent of these cases is Case C-364/10 Hungary v. Slovak Republic, judgment of 16 October 2012, published electronically.

  3. 3.

    Example given by Sevón (1992), pp. 603–615 at 610.

  4. 4.

    See below Sect. 2.2.

  5. 5.

    As reported in Report & Resolution of the EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee of 27 May 2002 on the Annual Report on the Functioning of the EEA Agreement in 2001, M/20/R/033, at point 7.

  6. 6.

    Baudenbacher (1998), pp. 644–695 at 690 et seq.

  7. 7.

    Case E-2/97 Mag Instrument Inc v. California Trading Company Norway, Ulsteen, [1997] EFTA Ct. Rep. 127.

  8. 8.

    Case C-355/96 Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co. KG v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH [1998] ECR I-4799.

  9. 9.

    Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07 L’Oréal Norge AS v. Aarskog Per AS and Others and Smart Club Norge [2008] EFTA Ct. Rep. 259.

  10. 10.

    See Tobler (1997), pp. 309–319; also Van Stiphout (2006), pp. 442–446.

  11. 11.

    Protocol 48 concerning Arts. 105 and 111, OJ 1994 L 1/218.

  12. 12.

    Opinion 1/92 (‘EEA II’) [1992] ECR I-2821, paragraph 22 et seq.

  13. 13.

    Compare Sevón (1992), p. 604.

  14. 14.

    Opinion 1/91 (‘EEA I’) [1991] ECR I-6079; Opinion 1/92 (‘EEA II’) (fn 12). See e.g. Brandtner (1992), pp. 300–328.

  15. 15.

    Opinion 1/92 (‘EEA II’) (fn 12), paragraph 35.

  16. 16.

    Chase et al. (2006), p. 12.

  17. 17.

    Gittermann (1998), p. 124.

  18. 18.

    Hoffmeister (2012), pp. 107–126 at 79.

  19. 19.

    Similar considerations will apply in the context of Article 107 EEA, according to which an EEA/EFTA State may allow a court or tribunal to ask the ECJ to decide on the interpretation of EEA rules corresponding to EU rules; see also Protocol 34 EEA on the possibility for courts and tribunals of EFTA States to request the Court of Justice of European Communities to decide on the interpretation of EEA rules corresponding to EC rules, OJ 1994 L 1/204.

  20. 20.

    Rs. 270/80 Polydor Limited and RSO Records Inc. v. Harlequin Records Shop and Simons Records Limited [1982] ECR 329.

  21. 21.

    Case C-72/09 Établissements Rimbaud SA v. Directeur général des impôts and Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence [2010] ECR I-10659.

  22. 22.

    Case C-452/01 Margarethe Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg Familienstiftung [2003] ECR I-9743, paragraph 32.

  23. 23.

    Case E-10/04 Paolo Piazza v. Paul Schurte AG [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 76, paragraph 33.

  24. 24.

    See Baur and Tobler (2011), pp. 513–536 at 524 et seq.

  25. 25.

    Norberg (1992), p. 281.

  26. 26.

    European Commission, Staff Working Document of 7 December 2012, A review of the functioning of the European Economic Area, SWD(2012) 425 final, at 5.

  27. 27.

    Opinion 1/00 [2002] ECR I-3493 (Single Sky).

  28. 28.

    Opinion 1/09 [2011] ECR I-1137 (Patent Court).

  29. 29.

    Protocol 33 to the EEA on arbitration procedures, OJ 1994 L 1/204.

  30. 30.

    Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Turkey, of the other part, OJ 217 of 29 December 1964, p. 3687, English version OJ 1973 C 113/1.

  31. 31.

    Decision No 1/95 of the EC–Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the Customs Union, OJ 1996 L 35/1.

  32. 32.

    See e.g. Groenendijk and Guild (2012); Tezcan/Idriz and Slot (2011), pp. 67–92; Karayigit (2011), pp. 411–441.

  33. 33.

    Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970, OJ 1973 C 113/17.

  34. 34.

    Decision No 1/80 of the EC–Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, not published in the Official Journal. See e.g.; Groenendijk (2016), pp. 79–101; Tezcan/Idriz (2009), pp. 1621–1665; also Wiesbrock (2013), pp. 422–442.

  35. 35.

    Decision No 3/80 of the EC–Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of their families, OJ 1983 C 110/60.

  36. 36.

    Peers (1996), pp. 411–430 at 420.

  37. 37.

    See in particular Aslı Bilgin (2013), pp. 73–93.

  38. 38.

    Peers (1996), pp. 417 et seq.

  39. 39.

    See most recently Cottier et al. (2014) and Tobler and Beglinger (2013).

  40. 40.

    See for example Jaag and Zihlmann (2007), pp. 65–102; see also e.g. Senti (2013), p. 260.

  41. 41.

    Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport, OJ 2002 L 114/73.

  42. 42.

    Cooperation Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Swiss Confederation in the field of controlled thermonuclear fusion and plasma physics, OJ 1978 L 242/2.

  43. 43.

    Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation on direct insurance other than life assurance, OJ 1991 L 205/3.

  44. 44.

    Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on the simplification of inspections and formalities in respect of the carriage of goods and on customs security measures, OJ 2009 L 199/24.

  45. 45.

    See Tobler (2012), pp. 1–6.

  46. 46.

    See for example, EEA Joint Committee, Report of 30 May 2013 on the future of the EEA and the EU’s relations with the small-sized countries and Switzerland, at 2.

  47. 47.

    Compare Chase et al. (2006).

  48. 48.

    E.g. Baudenbacher (2013) and Tobler (2013). For a less critical view, see e.g. Glaser and Langer (2013), pp. 563–583.

  49. 49.

    Idem.

  50. 50.

    Gemperle (1992), pp. 72–78 at 77.

References

  • Aslı Bilgin A (2013) The dispute settlement procedures in the Ankara Agreement. Decision no. 1/95 and the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. In: Belgin A, Sebnem A (eds) Turkey’s integration into the European Union: legal dimension. Lexington, Lanham, pp 73–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (1998) Trademark law and parallel imports in a globalized world – recent developments in Europe with special regard to the legal situation in the United States. Fordham Int Law J 1998:644–695

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2013) The judicial dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy. EU Diplomacy Paper 08/2013. College of Europe, Bruges

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur G, Tobler C (2011) Zwischen Skylla und Charybdis – oder: die Schweiz vor der Wahl zwischen bilateralem Weg und EWR? In: Epiney A, Fasnacht T (eds) Schweizerisches Jahrbuch für Europarecht 2010/2011. Stämpfli/Schulthess, Berne, pp 513–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandtner B (1992) The drama of the EEA – comments on opinions 1/91 and 1/92. Eur J Int Law 1992:300–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase C et al (2006) Political & quasi-adjudicative dispute settlement models in European Union Free Trade Agreements. Is the quasi-adjudicative model a trend or is it just another model? WTO Staff Working Paper ERSD-2006-09 (September 2006). http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd200609_e.pdf. Accessed 28 Apr 2014

  • Cottier T et al (2014) Die Rechtsbeziehungen der Schweiz und der Europäischen Union. Stämpfli, Berne

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemperle R (1992) Der institutionelle Bereich. Keine echte Mitbestimmung der EFTA-Länder. In: Zeller W (ed) Der Europäische Wirtschaftsraum EWR. Charakteristiken des EG-EFTA-Vertrages, NZZ Verlag, Zürich, pp 72–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittermann M (1998) Beschlussfassungsverfahren des Abkommens über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum – Ein Modell für die Integration der mittel- und osteuropäischen Staaten in die Europäische Union? Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser A, Langer L (2013) Die Institutionalisierung der bilateralen Verträge: Eine Herausforderung für die schweizerische Demokratie. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht 2013:563–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk K (2016) Citizens and third country nationals: differential treatment or discrimination. In: Carlier JY, Guild E (eds) The future of free movement of persons in the EU, vol 2. Bruylant, Brussels, pp 79–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenendijk K, Guild E (2012) Visa policy of Member States and the EU towards Turkish nationals after Soysal, 3rd edn. Economic Development Foundation Publications No 257, Istanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2012) The European Union and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Chinese J Int Law 2012:107–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaag T, Zihlmann M (2007) Institutionen und Verfahren. In: Thürer D et al (eds) Bilaterale Verträge I & II Schweiz – EU. Handbuch. Schulthess, Zurich, pp 65-102

    Google Scholar 

  • Karayigit MT (2011) Vive la Clause de Standstill: the issue of first admission of Turkish nationals into the territory of a Member State within the context of economic freedoms. Eur J Migration Law 2011:411–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norberg S (1992) Dispute settlement. In: Norberg S et al (eds) The European economic area. EEA law. A commentary on the EEA Agreement. Fritzes, Stockholm, pp 274–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (1996) Living in Sin: legal integration under the EC-Turkey Customs Union. Eur J Int Law 7:411–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senti R (2013) Regionale Freihandelsabkommen in zehn Lektionen. Dike, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevón L (1992) The EEA Judicial System and the Supreme Courts of the EFTA States. In: Jacot-Guillarmod O (ed) Accord EEE. Commentaires et reflexions. EWR-Abkommen. Erste Analysen. EEA Agreement. Comments and reflexions, Schultness/Stämpfli, Zurich, pp 603–615 (also European Journal of International Law 1992:329–340)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tezcan/Idriz N (2009) Free movement of persons between Turkey and the EU: to move or not to move? The response of the judiciary. Common Mark Law Rev 46:1621–1665

    Google Scholar 

  • Tezcan/Idriz N, Slot PJ (2011) Free movement of persons between Turkey and the EU: the hidden potential of Article 41(1) of the additional protocol. In: Kabaalioglu H et al (eds) EU and Turkey: bridging the differences in a complex relationship. IVK, Istanbul, pp 67–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobler C (1997) Zur Reichweite des Erschöpfungsprinzips im Europäischen Markenrecht. Anmerkung zum Entscheid des EFTA-GH vom 3. Dezember 1997 in der Rechtssache E-2/97, Mag Instruments Inc./California Trading Company (Entscheid Maglite), Jus & News 1997, 309–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobler C (2012) Schiedsgerichte im bilateralen Recht? Schweizerische Zeitschrift für internationales und europäisches Recht 2012:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobler C (2013) Die flankierenden Massnahmen der Schweiz in einem erneuerten System des bilateralen Rechts. Jusletter 30 September 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobler C, Beglinger J (2013) Grundzüge des bilateralen (Wirtschafts-)Rechts. Systematische Darstellung in Text und Tafeln, 2 vol. (Text and Charts). Dike, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Stiphout T (2006) Freier Dienstleistungs- und Kapitalverkehr zwischen der EG und Drittstaaten. Eur Law Rep 2006:442–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiesbrock A (2013) Political reluctance and judicial activism in the area of free movement of persons: the court as the motor of EU-Turkey relations? Eur Law J 2013:422–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Europa Institute, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Christa Tobler

  2. Europa Institute, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Christa Tobler

Authors
  1. Christa Tobler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christa Tobler .

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

Tobler, C. (2016). Dispute Resolution Under the EEA Agreement. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Handbook of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_9

  • 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