Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The EFTA Court and Court of Justice of the European Union: Coming in Parts But Winning Together

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence

Abstract

“Homogeneity is the magic formula of the EEA Agreement. EU and EEA law, two separate legal orders, are essentially identical in substance and they must develop in a homogeneous way. The EEA single market can only function undistortedly if there is a level playing field for operators. Competition must be led by economic, not by regulatory advantage. On a judicial level, ensuring homogeneity is a challenging task to be fulfilled by the two EEA courts, the ECJ and the EFTA Court. The EFTA Court’s task was not facilitated by those passages in Opinion 1/91 which doubted the possibility to guarantee judicial homogeneity. But once it became clear that the EFTA Court was serious about this, its large sister court changed gear and opened what over the years became a fruitful dialogue. Three aspects of homogeneity have been carved out: Substantive, effect-related and—only recently—procedural. Twenty years after signing the EEA Agreement there can be no doubt that substantive homogeneity has been preserved. Homogeneity to a large extent has also been safeguarded with regard to effect, primacy and state liability. The potential of the new concept of procedural homogeneity has yet to be defined.”

President of the EFTA Court.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    See also the statement of the first president of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Knut Almestad, at the inaugural session of the EFTA Court on 4 January 1994 in Geneva [1994–1995] EFTA Court Report, 177.

  2. 2.

    Opinion 1/92 [1992] ECR I-2821.

  3. 3.

    ECJ Opinion 1/91 on a draft agreement relating to the creation of the European Economic Area, [1991] ECR I-6079; see Hummer 1992, pp. 33 ff.; Brandtner 1992, pp. 300 ff.

  4. 4.

    Supra, fn. 2.

  5. 5.

    Article 6[2] of the Agreement on a Standing Committee of the EFTA States.

  6. 6.

    [2002] EFTA Court Report 283, at para 33; see also Case E-3/11 Sigmarsson, [2001] EFTA Court Report, 429, para 28.

  7. 7.

    Case E-10/04, [2005] EFTA Court Report, 76, para 39.

  8. 8.

    See Kohler 2007, pp. 141 ff.

  9. 9.

    However, such provisions are contained in Article 16 of the sectoral agreement between the European Community and its Member States on the one part and the Swiss Confederation on the other on the free movement of persons (OJ 2002 L 114/6) and in Article 1(2) of the sectoral agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport, (O.J. 2002 L 114/73).

  10. 10.

    [1998] EFTA Court Report, 95, at para 59; and E-2/03 [2003] EFTA Court Report 185, at para 28.

  11. 11.

    Loc. cit., para 53. But see Protocol 2 to the 2007 Lugano Convention.

  12. 12.

    Skouris 2005.

  13. 13.

    See Baudenbacher 2010a, pp. 74 ff, 2008, pp. 90 ff.; Magnússon 2011, pp. 507, 532f.

  14. 14.

    See Baudenbacher 2012b.

  15. 15.

    The two EEA Courts—Sisters in arms 2012.

  16. 16.

    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, para 23; judgment of 13 December 2007—I ZR 89/05 Micardis, para 17; judgment of 24 April 2008—I ZR 30/05 Lefax/Lefaxin, para 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 Financial 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.

  17. 17.

    See Cases C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim II [2007] ECR I-3391; C-379/05 Amurta [2007] ECR I-9569; C-284/06 Burda [2008] ECR I-4571.

  18. 18.

    See, e.g., Cases E-3/98 Rainford Towning [1998] EFTA Court Report, 205, para 15; E-1/03 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Air passenger tax) [2003] EFTA Court Report, 143, para 21; E-2/06 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Norway (Waterfalls) [2007] EFTA Court Report, 164, para 41.

  19. 19.

    See Baudenbacher 2006, pp. 23, 30 ff.

  20. 20.

    See Baudenbacher 2007, pp. 79 ff., 85 ff.

  21. 21.

    E-2/06 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Norway (Waterfalls) [2007] EFTA Court Report, 164, para 59, emphasis added.

  22. 22.

    See, e.g., E-1/03 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland [2003] EFTA Court Report, 143, para 4.

  23. 23.

    See, e.g., Cases E-6/98 Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 74, para 34; E-1/01 Hörður Einarsson [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1, para 17; E-1/03 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland [2003] EFTA Ct. Rep. 143, para 26; E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA, 2004 EFTA Court Report, 11, para 20.

  24. 24.

    See Swiss Federal Tribunal ATF 104 IV 175 Stanley Adams, consideration 2. c; ATF 105 II 49 Omo, Consideration 3. b.; Austrian Supreme Court ÖBl 1980, 25 Austro-Mechana.

  25. 25.

    Supra, II. 4.

  26. 26.

    See the references to EFTA Court E-1/94 Restamark [1994–1995] EFTA Court Report, 15, and E-2/94 Scottish Salmon Growers [1994–1995] EFTA Court Report, 59, in ECR 1998, II-2739, paras 61 and 108.

  27. 27.

    Para 107.

  28. 28.

    Paragraph 108.

  29. 29.

    [2003] ECR, I-9743, para 29.

  30. 30.

    [1992] ECR I-2821.

  31. 31.

    [2004] ECR, I-3465, para 34, with reference to Ospelt, para 29, and Case E-1/03 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland [2003] EFTA Court Report, 143, para 27.

  32. 32.

    Case 270/80 Polydor Limited and RSO Records Inc. v Harlequin Records Shops Limited and Simons Records Limited, 1982 ECR, 329, paras 18 and 19.

  33. 33.

    See Norberg 2010, pp. 487 ff., 493.

  34. 34.

    Agreement between the European Community and its Member States on the one part and the Swiss Confederation on the other on the free movement of persons, O.J. 2002 L 114/6.

  35. 35.

    Cases C-351/08 Grimme, 2009 ECR, I-10777, paras 27–29; C-541/08 Fokus Invest AG, [2010] ECR, I-1025, paras 26–32; C-70/09 Hengartner and Gasser, [2010] ECR, I-7233, paras 41–43; similar remarks can be found in the ECJ’s order in Case C-476/10 projektart of 24 June 2011, not yet reported, although this case was dealt with under the EEA Agreement and had no implications for Switzerland (para 37). See LM Baudenbacher 2010c, pp. 34 ff.; Id., 2010d, pp. 280 ff.

  36. 36.

    Supra, fn. 24; see, e.g., Neue Zürcher Zeitung of Nr. 34 of 11 February 1982, 21. This commentary was written under a pseudonym by ECJ judge Pierre Pescatore who had participated in the case.

  37. 37.

    van Gerven 1993; see also Bruha 1999; Sevón and Johansson 1999; Norberg 2002.

  38. 38.

    ECJ Opinion 1/91, para 20 f. See, e.g., the submissions of the Government of Norway in Case E-1/94 Restamark, Report for the Hearing, [1994–1995] EFTA Court Report, 35 ff., 53 f., of the Governments of Iceland, Norway and Sweden in Case E-9/97 Sveinbjörnsdóttir, Report for the Hearing [1998] EFTA Court Report, 126, 128, 129, and of the Government of Norway in Case E-4/01 Karlsson, 17 Report for the Hearing [2002] EFTA Court Report, 267 ff.

  39. 39.

    Case E-1/94 Restamark, [1994–1995] EFTA Court Report, 15, para 5.

  40. 40.

    Loc. cit., para 9.

  41. 41.

    Case E-9/97 Erla María Sveinbjörnsdóttir v Iceland [1998] EFTA Court Report, 97, paras 44 ff., 60.

  42. 42.

    Case E-2/10 Þór Kolbeinsson vs The Icelandic State, [2009–2010] EFTA Court Report, 234, para 77.

  43. 43.

    Case C-224/01 Köbler v Austria, [2003] ECR, I-10239. See Einarsson 2011, pp. 635 ff.; in favour of EEA State liability for judicial wrongdoing, see Krüger 2006, pp. 211, 216 f.; Fredriksen 2006, pp. 485 ff.

  44. 44.

    See Baudenbacher 2012c, pp. 2, 9 f.—The EFTA Court also recognised the principle of conform interpretation; E-4/01 Karlsson [2002] EFTA Court Report 240, para 28; E-1/07 Criminal proceedings against A [2007] EFTA Court Report 245, para 39.

  45. 45.

    E-1/01, Report for the Hearing, 2002 EFTA Court Report, 15, paras 137–144.

  46. 46.

    1999 I-3499, para 39.

  47. 47.

    Editorial comments: European Economic Area and European Community: Homogeneity of legal orders? CMLRev 1999, 697, 700.

  48. 48.

    [2002] EFTA Court Report, 240, para 25.

  49. 49.

    Case T-115/94 Opel Austria [1997] ECR, II-39, para 102. With regard to the Commssion’s pleadings in Einarsson supra, III. 2.

  50. 50.

    Case E–1/94 Restamark [1994–1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 17, paras 32–35.

  51. 51.

    Cases E-18/10 ESA v Norway [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 202, para 26, E-15/10 Posten Norge v ESA, judgment of 18 April 2012, not yet reported, paras 109 f.; Order of the Court in Case E-13/10 Aleris Ungplan v ESA [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 3, para 24; Order of the President of 25 March 2011 in Case E-14/10 Konkurrenten.no AS v ESA, para 9; Order of the President of 15 February 2011 in Case E-15/10 Posten Norge v ESA, para 8; Order of the President of 23 April 2012 in Case E-16/11 Iceland v ESA [Icesave], not yet reported, paras 32 f. Magnússon 2010 wrote that the enforcement rules including at the judicial level should be comparable in both EEA pillars and spoke of “institutional homogeneity”, 528 ff., 532 ff.

  52. 52.

    Spanò 2012, III.

  53. 53.

    See the Order of the President of 23 April 2012 in Case E-16/11 ESA v Iceland (Icesave), nyr, para 21.

  54. 54.

    See the Order of the President of 23 April 2012 in Case E-16/11 ESA v Iceland (Icesave), nyr, para 32.

  55. 55.

    E-1/94 Restamark, loc. cit., para 15; E-1/11 Dr A, [2011] EFTA Court Report 2011, 484, paras 34 ff.

  56. 56.

    [1997] ECR, I-4961, paras 35 ff.

  57. 57.

    E-2/94 Scottish Salmon Growers [1994–1995] EFTA Court Report, 59, paras 20 ff.; E-4/97 Norwegian Bankers Association [1998], 38.

  58. 58.

    E–E-5/07 Private Barnehagers [2008] EFTA Court Report, 62, para 36 ff.

  59. 59.

    The President of the Liechtenstein (Supreme) Administrative Court stated at a conference marking the 20th anniversary of the signing of the EEA Agreement in Vaduz that legal issues have to be solved by the competent court of last instance, otherwise legal certainty will not be achieved. The court of last instance for EEA law matters is not the Supreme Administrative Court of Liechtenstein but rather the EFTA Court.

  60. 60.

    See in particular Schäfer 2006, pp. 17, 32; Magnússon 2010, pp. 528 ff.; Baudenbacher 2010b, p. 21 f.; Líndal and Magnússon 2011, p. 156; Baur 2011, pp. 47, 65; Lang 2012 p. 119f.

  61. 61.

    Case C-210/06 Cartesio Oktató és Szolgáltató bt [2008] ECR I-9641.

  62. 62.

    The Court has recently received quite a high number of cases in which the Supreme Court allowed the reference. <http://www.eftacourt.int/index.php/cases> visited 15 May 2012. See also Hreinsson 2012 pp 95ff.

  63. 63.

    Order of the ECJ President of 1 October 2010, not reported.

  64. 64.

    Order of the ECJ President of 15 July 2010, not reported.

  65. 65.

    [2008] ECR I-1649 (intervention in support of the European Parliament and Denmark).

  66. 66.

    [2001] ECR I-7079 (intervention in support of the Netherlands).

  67. 67.

    See, e.g., Maduro 2007 pp. 1 ff.

  68. 68.

    [2005] EFTA Court Report 2005, 1, para 28.

  69. 69.

    See Cases E-8/07 Celina Nguyen v The Norwegian State [2008] EFTA Court Report, 224, para 24. E-4/11 Arnulf Clauder, [2011] EFTA Court Report, 216, paras 34, 46, and 48; E-1/11 Dr A, [2011], EFTA Court Report, 484, para 74.

  70. 70.

    Judgment of 20 November 1989, markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v. Germany, Application No. 10572/83; Judgment of 23 June 1994, Jacubowski v. Germany, Application No. 15088/89; ECtHR Judgment of 25 August 1998, Hertel v. Switzerland, Application No. 25181/94; Judgment of 12 April 2001, Application No. 43524/98, Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft v Switzerland.

  71. 71.

    Judgment of 30 June 2005, Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm v. Ireland, Application No. 45036/98.

  72. 72.

    Originally, in cases Schmidt and Dahlström v. Sweden (Application no. 5589/72), judgment of 6 February 1976, para 36, and Swedish Engine Drivers’ Union v. Sweden (Application no. 5614/72), Judgment of 6 February 1976, para 40, the ECtHR did not recognise a right to strike. This changed in cases Demir and Baykara v Turkey, Application Nr. 34503/97, Judgment of 12 November 2008 [2008] ECHR 1345 and Enerji Yapi-Yol Sen v Turkey, Application Nr. 68959/01, Judgment of 21 April 2009.

  73. 73.

    Concerning the question whether trademarks can be regarded as property rights for the purposes of human rights analysis. ECtHR of 11 January 2007 Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal, App. No. 73049/01, paras 72–78; Ramsey 2010.

  74. 74.

    Judgment of 27 September 2011 in Case A. Menarini Diagnostics S.R.L. v. Italy, Application No 43509/08, §§ 38–44; see also EFTA Court E-15/10 Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority, judgment of 18 April 2012, nyr, paras 84–102.

  75. 75.

    See Baudenbacher 2012a.

  76. 76.

    See Cases E-2/03 Ásgeirsson [2003] EFTA Court Report 185, para 28; E-8/97 TV 1000 [1998] EFTA Court Report 68, para 26; E-2/02 Bellona [2003] EFTA Court Report 52, para 37; E-4/11 Arnulf Clauder, loc. cit., para 48; E-12/10 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland, [2011] EFTA Court Report, 117, para 60.

  77. 77.

    Cases E-4/11 Arnulf Clauder, loc. cit., para 48; E-12/10 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland, [2011] EFTA Court Report, 117, para 60.

  78. 78.

    See Schweizer 1993 II 570, 620.

  79. 79.

    Case E-15/10 Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority, judgment of 16 April 2012, nyr, paras 84 ff.

  80. 80.

    See de la Serre 2012. Concerning the case law of the ECJ at last: Cases C-272/09 P KME Germany and Others v Commission, judgment of 8 December 2011, paras 118 ff., and C 386/10 P Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon v Commission, judgment of 8 December 2012, nyr, paras 45 ff. Commentators have noted that the ECJ did not apply Article 6 ECHR, but limited itself to relying on Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and that it did not make reference to the ECHR’s Menarini judgment; Bronckers and Vallery 2012, pp. 44 ff.

  81. 81.

    [2009] ECR 2009, I-7633; [2007] EFTA Court Report 2007, 8; [2007] EFTA Court Report, 86.

  82. 82.

    See Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07—L’Oréal [2008] ECR, 259 ff.

  83. 83.

    Case C-265/04 Margaretha Bouanich v Skatteverket [2006] ECR, I-923, paras 51–56.

  84. 84.

    Case C-374/04, Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2006] ECR I 11673.

  85. 85.

    Case C-170/05 Denkavit International BV and denkavit France SARL v Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie [2006] ECR, I-11949.

  86. 86.

    Cases C-374/04, Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2006] ECR I 11673, paras 68 ff.; 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, para 51 ff.

  87. 87.

    Norwegian Supreme Court Edquist, Rt. 2010, 1500, para 113, cited by Fredriksen, in this volume.

  88. 88.

    Cases C-540/07, Commission v Italian Republic, [2009] ECR, I-10983, paras 37 f.; C-487/08, Commission v Kingdom of Spain, judgment of 3 June 2010, paras 62, 66 f. The ECJ had already in its 2007 Amurta judgment distanced itself from its previous case-law by holding that “it cannot be excluded that a Member State may succeed in ensuring compliance with its obligations under the Treaty through the conclusion of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation with another Member State” (Case C-379/05, Amurta SGPS v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Amsterdam [2007] ECR, I- 9569, para 79.).

  89. 89.

    Loc. cit., para 17; see Baudenbacher 2012c, p 19.

  90. 90.

    Transcript of the oral hearing, file with the author.

  91. 91.

    Uerpmann 2012.

References

  • Almestad K (1994) EFTA Court Report, 177

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2006) Governments before the EFTA Court. In: Anderson LL, Fenges N, Vesterdorf B, Hagel-Sørensen C (eds) Festskrift til Claus Gulmann. Forlaget Thomson, København, pp 23–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2007) Was ist aus dem Gutachten 1/91 des EuGH geworden? In: Baur G. (ed) Europäer—Botschafter—Mensch: Liber Amicorum für Prinz Nikolaus von Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein Verlag, Schaan, pp 79–107

    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 Univesity Press, Oxford, pp 90–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2010a) The EFTA Court in action. Five lectures. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2010b) The EFTA Court in action—Five lectures, German Law Publishers, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2012a) Swiss economic law facing the challenges of International and European Law. Report for the 2012 Swiss lawyers day, forthcoming in Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2012b) The EFTA judicial system reaches the age of majority—accomplishments and problems. Speech given at the EEA seminar of the EFTA Secretariat of 19 January 2012 in Brussels <http://www.eftacourt.int/images/uploads/CB_The_EFTA_Judicial_System_reaches_the_Age_of_Majority_final.pdf> visited 12 May 2012

  • Baudenbacher C (2012c) 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 2–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher LM (2010c) Das Personenfreizügigkeitsabkommen EU-Schweiz ist doch kein Integrationsvertrag. ELR 34–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher LM (2010d) Gar lustig ist die Jägerei—aber für Schweizer ist sie teurer als für andere, ELR 280–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur G (2011) Kohärente Interpretationsmethode als Instrument europarechtskonformer Rechtsanwendung—eine rechtspolitische Skizze. 25 Jahre Liechtenstein-Institut (1986–2011). Verlag der Liechtensteinischen Akademischen Gesellschaft, Schaan

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandtner B (1992) The ‘drama’ of the EEA: comments on opinions 1/91 and 1/92, 3 EJIL [1992], 300 ff. http://207.57.19.226/journal/Vol3/No2/art5.html (visited 22 April 2012)

  • Bronckers M, Vallery A (2012) Business as usual after Menarini? MLex Magazine January–March 2012, pp 44 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruha T (1999) Is the EEA an internal market? In: Müller-Graff P-C, Selvig E (eds) EEA-EU relations. Berliner Wissenschafts verlag, Berlin, pp 97–129

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Serre EB (2012) A lesson on judicial review from the other European Court in Luxembourg, Kluwer Competition Law Blog of 27 April 2012. http://kluwercompetitionlawblog.com/2012/04/27/a-lesson-on-judicial-review-from-the-other-european-court-in-luxembourg/ visited 27 April 2012

  • Einarsson OJ (2011) Hæstiréttur og EES-samningurinn - Samningsbrotamál og skaðabótaábyrgð (The Supreme Court and the EEA Agreement—infringment procedure and liability), Úlfljótur, 635 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 485 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Hreinsson P (2012) The interaction between Iceland courts and the EFTA Court. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European Economic Area. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart, pp 90–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummer W (1992) Vorder- und Hintergründe des Gutachtens des EuGH zum EWRV, WBl. 33 ff

    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, Prinz von und zu Liechtenstein N, Vesterdorf B, Westbrook J, Wildhaber L (eds) Economic law and justice in times of globalization, Festschrift for Carl Baudenbacher. Nomos Verlag, Baden–Baden, pp 141 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Procure Law Rev 211:216 f

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Publishers, Stuttgart, pp 100–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Líndal S, Magnússon S (2011) Réttarkerfi Evrópusambandsins og Evrópska efnahagssvæðisins – Megindrættir, Reykjavík

    Google Scholar 

  • Maduro MP (2007) Interpreting European law: judicial adjudication in a context of constitutional pluralism. EJLS 1(2):1 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnússon S (2010) On the authority of advisory opinions, Europarättslig Tidskrift 13:528 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnússon S (2011) Judicial homogeneity in the European Economic Area and the authority of the EFTA Court. Nordic J Int Law 80:507

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg S (2002) Perspectives on the future development of the EEA Agreement. Afmaelisrit Thór Vilhjálmsson

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg S (2010) The European Economic Area. In: Oliver P (ed) Oliver on free movement of goods in the European Union, 5th edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 487–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey LP (2010) Free speech and international obligations to protect trademarks. Yale J Int Law 35:405

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer A (2006) Die Prozesskostensicherheit – eine Diskriminierung? LJZ 17(1):32

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer RJ (1993) Die schweizerischen Gerichte und das europäische Recht. ZSR NF II(570):620

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevón L, Johansson M (1999) The protection of the rights of individuals under the EEA Agreement. Eur Law Rev 373:385

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpston E, Clifton M-J (2012) The two EEA Courts—Sisters in arms. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European Economic Area. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart, pp 170–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Skouris V (2005) The ECJ 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, pp 123–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanò RR (2012) The concept of procedural homogeneity. In: Court EFTA (ed) Judicial protection in the European Economic Area. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart, pp 152–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Uerpmann R (2012) International Law as an element of European Constitutional Law. International supplementary constitutions, Jean Monnet working paper 9/03, p 43 f. http://www.JeanMonnetProgram.Org/papers/03/030901-02.html visited 14 March 2012

  • van Gerven W (1993) The genesis of EEA law and the principles of primacy and direct effect. Fordham Int Law J 16(955):989

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EFTA Court, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    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

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2013 T.M.C. Asser Instituut

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Baudenbacher, C. (2013). The EFTA Court and Court of Justice of the European Union: Coming in Parts But Winning Together. In: The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_12

    Download citation

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Societies and partnerships

    Search

    Navigation