Advertisement

Reciprocity

Chapter

Abstract

The principle of reciprocity is the twin maxim to the principle of homogeneity. In EEA law, the principle of reciprocity goes beyond the trade law concept of requiring both ‘sides’ of the agreement to grant economic operators and citizens the same rights to do business. Reciprocity as a matter of EEA law gives citizens and economic operators rights which can be enforced in court. This chapter considers the principle as it has been understood over time by reference to direct effect and primacy, State liability and conform interpretation, obligation of the courts of last resort to refer, and the legal nature of the Court’s preliminary rulings (judgments in the form of “advisory opinions”). The chapter goes on to consider the Court’s relationship with the national supreme courts and criticises the Norwegian ‘room for manoeuvre’ doctrine.

References

  1. Ahlberg K (2013) The EFTA Court clashes with Norway’s Supreme Court, Nordic Labour Journal. Available at http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/nyheter/news-2013/article.2013-11-06.7982273279
  2. Almestad K (2012) Reflections on the postal service directive and the EEA review. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European economic area. German Law Publisher, Stuttgart, p 77 ffGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnard C (2014) Reciprocity, homogeneity and loyal cooperation: dealing with recalcitrant National Courts?. In: Baudenbacher C et al (eds) The EEA and the EFTA court: decentred integration. Oxford and Portland Oregon, p 155Google Scholar
  4. Batliner A (2004) Die Anwendung des EWR-Rechts durch liechtensteinische Gerichte – Erfahrungen eines Richters. Liechtensteinische Juristenzeitung 4/04, p 139Google Scholar
  5. Batliner A (2012) in Tschütscher K and Baudenbacher C, 20 Jahre Unterzeichnung des EWR-Abkommens_Ein Vierakter mit Original-Darstellern. Schaan, Regierung des Fürstentums Liechtenstein, p 53Google Scholar
  6. Baudenbacher C (1997) Between homogeneity and independence: the legal position of the EFTA court in the European economic area. Columbia J Eur Law 3:169Google Scholar
  7. Baudenbacher C (2000) The legal nature of EEA law in the course of time. A Drama in six acts, and more may follow. Afmaelsrit Thór Vilhjálmsson, p 39 ffGoogle Scholar
  8. Baudenbacher C (2010) The EFTA court in action – five lectures. German Law Publisher, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  9. Baudenbacher C (2012a) Some thoughts on the EFTA Court’s phases of life. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European economic area. German Law Publisher, Stuttgart, p 2 ffGoogle Scholar
  10. Baudenbacher C (2012b) Swiss economic law facing the challenges of international and European law. ZSR 2012 II, p 419 ffGoogle Scholar
  11. Baudenbacher C (2013) EFTA-domstolen og dens samhandling med de norske domstolene. Lov og Rett, 2013, p 515 ffGoogle Scholar
  12. Baudenbacher LM (2016) Vom gemeineuropäischen zum europäischen Rechtsmissbrauchsverbot. Nomos Verlag, Baden-BadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baur G (2011) Kohärente Interpretationsmethode als Instrument europarechtskonformer Rechtsanwendung – eine rechtspolitische Skizze. In: Liechtenstein-Institut (Hrsg) 25 Jahre Liechtenstein-Institut (1986–2011), Schaan, p 47Google Scholar
  14. Baur G (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. Stuttgart, pp 10Google Scholar
  15. Bernitz U (2002) European law in Sweden. JURE Bokhandel, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  16. Björgvinsson DT (2007) Application of article 34 of the ESA/Court Agreement by the Icelandic courts. In: Monti M, von Liechtenstein N, Vesterdorf B, Westbrook JL, Wildhaber L (eds) Economic law and justice in times of globalisation. Festschrift for Carl Baudenbacher, Baden-Baden/Wien/Bern, p 37Google Scholar
  17. Björgvinsson DT (2015) The intersection of international law and domestic law. A theoretical and practical analysis. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, USA, p 104 ffGoogle Scholar
  18. Brecht B (1928) Die Dreigroschenoper, IIGoogle Scholar
  19. Bruha T (1999) Is the EEA an internal market? In: Müller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) EEA-EU relations. Berliner Wissenschafts, Berlin, p 97, 108Google Scholar
  20. Bull H (2004) European law and Norwegian courts. In: Mueller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) The approach to European law in Germany and Norway. Berlin, p 95 ffGoogle Scholar
  21. Christiansen P (1997) The EFTA Court. Eur Law Rev, p 539Google Scholar
  22. Fredriksen HH (2006) Statlig erstatningsansvar for nasjonale domstolers brudd pa EOS-retten (State liability for breach of the EEA agreement by national courts). Lov og Rett 2006, p 485 ffGoogle Scholar
  23. Fredriksen HH (2012) The two EEA Courts – a Norwegian perspective. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European economic area. German Law Publishers, p 193 ffGoogle Scholar
  24. Gasser J (2003) Individualrechtsschutz im EWR, Vaduz. Available at http://gasserpartnercom/sites/default/files/rechtsschutz_in_ewr-gasser-062003pdf, 56, last visited 14 Sept 2016
  25. Graver HP (2005) EEA, Supremacy and the Liquidity of Law – does EU Law Trump the Norwegian Constitution?, ARENA Working Papers, 2005, 7 available at http://www.arena.uio.no/news/news2005/Arena%20Conference%20Nov05/Graver.pdf, last visited on 13 April 2015
  26. Hegel GWF (1812) Wissenschaft der Logik [1812–1816] Nürnberg 1812, Band 1, 1, pp 21 ffGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoekman B, Mavroidis P (2016) World Trade Organization: law, economics and politics, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Hreinsson P (2012) The case of Iceland. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European economic area. German Law Publisher, Stuttgart, p 90 ffGoogle Scholar
  29. Hreinsson P (2016) General principles and prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law. Springer, Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London, p 349Google Scholar
  30. Hummer W (1994) Vorrang für EWR-Recht in der österreichischen Rechtsordnung?, Österrechische Blätter für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, p 243 ffGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacot-Guillarmod O (1992) La procedure d’avis consultative devant la future Cour AELE. In: Mélanges en l’honneur de Jacques-Michel Grossen, Neuchâtel, p 411 ffGoogle Scholar
  32. Jóhannes Einarsson O (2011) Hæstiréttur og EES-samningurinn: samningsbrotamál og skaðabótaábyrgð. Úlfljótur 64(4):635–660Google Scholar
  33. Kagge G (2013) Frontalangrep på Høyesterett, Aftenposten, 21 Oxtober. Available at http://www.aftenposten.no/norge/Frontalangrep-pa-Hoyesterett-106260b.html, last visited on 14 September 2016
  34. Klauer I (1995) Oberster Gerichtshof 6Ob551/94; St. Galler Europarechtsbriefe, p 38Google Scholar
  35. Krüger K (2006) Action for damages due to bad procurement: on the intersection between EU/EEA law and national law, with special reference to the Norwegian experience. Public Procurement Law Rev 4:211 ffGoogle Scholar
  36. Lang JT (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 Publisher, Stuttgart, p 100 fGoogle Scholar
  37. Líndal S, Magnússon S (2011) Réttarkerfi Evrópusambandsins og Evrópska efnahagssvæðisins – Megindrættir, Reykjavík, p 156Google Scholar
  38. Lombardi A (1992) Die Gestaltung des künftigen EWR-Rechts: Grundzüge des Verfahrens im EWR und im schweizerischen Recht. Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 1:1330Google Scholar
  39. Mader L (1992) Eurolex: ein Versuch, das schweizerische Recht dem Recht des Europäischen Wirtschaftsraumes anzupassen. Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 1:1319Google Scholar
  40. Magnússon S (2010) On the authority of advisory opinions: reflections on the functions and the normativity of advisory opinions of the EFTA court. Europarättslig Tidskrift, p 538 ffGoogle Scholar
  41. Magnússon S (2014) Efficient judicial protection of EEA rights in the EFTA pillar – different role for the National Judge? In: Baudenbacher C et al (eds) The EEA and the EFTA court: decentred integration. Hart, Oxford and Portland Oregon, p 117Google Scholar
  42. Norberg S (2000) Perspectives on the Future Development of the EEA Agreement. In: Afmaelisrit Thór Vilhjálmsson, Reykjavik, p 367Google Scholar
  43. Norberg S, Johansson M (2016) The history of the EEA agreement and the first twenty years of its existence. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law. Springer, Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London, p 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Norberg S et al (1993) Commentary to the EEA agreement. Fritzes, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  45. Örlygsson T (2007) Iceland and the EFTA Court. In: Monti M, von Liechtenstein N, Vesterdorf B, Westbrook JL, Wildhaber L (eds) Economic law and justice in times of globalisation. Festschrift for Carl Baudenbacher, Nomos Publishers, Baden-Baden/Wien/Bern, p 225Google Scholar
  46. Reinisch A (1993) Zur unmittelbaren Anwendbarkeit von EWR-Recht, Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung. Internationales Privatrecht und Europarecht, p 11 ffGoogle Scholar
  47. Schäfer A (2006) Die Prozesskostensicherheit – eine Diskriminierung?, LJZ, 17. Available at http://www.residence-trust.li/ZPO2.PDF, last visited on 22 August 2018
  48. Schei T (2014) Speech at the Court’s 20th Anniversary Conference on 20 June 2014, “Chief Justices’ tea time: To Refer or not to Refer, that is the question.” Available at https://www.domstol.no/en/Enkelt-domstol/-Norges-Hoyesterett/Articles/EFTA-Courts-20th-Anniversary-Conference-June-2014/, last visited on 14 September 2016
  49. Schmitt C (2008) Constitutional theory. Duke University Press, Durham and LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sejersted F (1997) Between sovereignty and supranationalism in the EEA context. In: Müller-Graff PC, Selvig E (eds) The European economic area: Norway’s basic status in the legal construction of Europe. Berlin, p 43 ffGoogle Scholar
  51. Sejersted F et al (2011) EØS-rett, 3rd edn. Universitetsforlaget, OsloGoogle Scholar
  52. Semertzi A (2014) The preclusion of direct effect in the recently concluded EU free trade agreements. CML Rev 51:1125–1158Google Scholar
  53. Sevón L (1994) Primacy and direct effect in the EEA. Some reflections, Liber Amicorum Ole Due, Gad Jura, Copenhagen, pp 339–354Google Scholar
  54. Sevón L, Johansson M (1999) The protection of the rights of individuals under the EEA agreement. Eur Law Rev 24:380Google Scholar
  55. Smith C (1997) Case law harmonization. In: Göranson U, Håstad T, Frändberg Å (eds) Festskrift till Stig Strömholm. Iustus Förlag, Uppsala, p 795Google Scholar
  56. Thórisson SG (2016) Icelandic bar. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law. Springer, Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London, p 319Google Scholar
  57. Van Gerven W (1992) The genesis of EEA law and the principles of primacy and direct effect, [1992–93]. Fordham Int Law J 16:955Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EFTA CourtLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations