Reciprocity

Baudenbacher, Carl

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45189-3_3

Carl Baudenbacher²

563 Accesses
1 Citations

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 159.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
“Reciprocity is a basic principle that permeates the GATT. It is aimed at limiting the scope for free riding that may arise because of the MFN rule and the desire to obtain a quid pro quo for own trade liberalization.” “Reciprocity is often defined in what Jagdish Bhagwati has called ‘first-difference’ terms, and not absolutely. That is countries seek to make equivalent changes in policies, as opposed to striving to establish absolutely similar levels of protection.” See, Hoekman and Mavroidis (2016), p. 21. See furthermore Hreinsson (2016), pp. 349, 350 ff. For the sake of order, it may be added that reciprocity is also an old religious principle. Luke 6:31 reads: “And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.” One could also invoke Confucius, Egyptian ethics, the Golden Rule—it is always the same.
2.
Case C-431/11, United Kingdom v Council [2013] not yet reported, paragraph 42.
3.
Case C-26/62, van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1; Case C-6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585; Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy [1991] ECR I-5375; Case C-160/89, Marleasing v Comercial Internacional de Alimentación [1991] 1 ECR 4135; Case C-91/92, Faccini Dori v Recreb [1994] ECR I-3325.
4.
Barnard (2014), p. 155.
5.
Norberg and Johansson (2016), pp. 3, 20.
6.
See Case 104/81, Kupferberg [1982] ECR, 3641; Swiss Federal Supreme Court ATF 104 IV 175 Adams; 105 II 49 Omo; Austrian Supreme Court Austro-Mechana, ÖBl 1980, 25; Bernitz (2002), p. 25; Group of Legal Experts on the Application and Interpretation of the Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA Countries and the European Communities. A Case Study, Note by the Secretariat, EFTA/GLE 1/87, 18 September 1987, p 80 f.; Baudenbacher (2012b), p. 419, 527 ff.
7.
Norberg et al. (1993), p. 52.
8.
The expression of dilatory formula compromises stems from Carl Schmitt (Schmitt (2008), pp. 85 ff.; original publication date 1928). It means that if a clear solution as a legislature or a treaty-giver cannot be agreed, the problem is left unanswered with the hot potato handed over to the regulators and the courts to resolve.
9.
Van Gerven (1992), p. 955.
10.
Bruha (1999), pp. 97, 108, 116 ff.
11.
Reinisch (1993), p. 11 ff.; Hummer (1994), p. 243 ff.; Lombardi (1992), pp. 1330, 1331; Mader (1992), pp. 1319, 1323.
12.
Sevón (1994), p. 352.
13.
Norberg et al. (1993), p. 206.
14.
See, for example, Örlygsson (2007), pp. 225, 237; Björgvinsson (2015), p. 104 ff.
15.
Sejersted (1997), pp. 43, 53 et seq.
16.
Christiansen (1997), pp. 539, 547.
17.
Norberg et al., cited above, p. 208.
18.
Sejersted (1997), pp. 43, 53 ff.
19.
Christiansen (1997), pp. 539, 547.
20.
Gasser J, Individualrechtsschutz im EWR, http://gasserpartner.com/sites/default/files/rechtsschutz_in_ewr-gasser-062003.pdf, last visited on 14 September 2016.
21.
Schäfer (2006), pp. 17, 32.
22.
Norberg et al., cited above, p. 195.
23.
Ibid., p. 195.
24.
Jacot-Guillarmod (1992), pp. 411, 427.
25.
Smith (1997), pp. 795, 798.
26.
Opinion 1/91 of the Court of 14 December 1991, 1994 ECR I-5267.
27.
See supra, fn. 6.
28.
Case E-01/94, Restamark [1994-1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 35, paragraphs 94–96.
29.
Case E-01/01, Hörður Einarsson v The Icelandic State [2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 3, paragraphs 47 ff.
30.
Case T-115/94, Opel Austria [1997] ECR II-39, paragraphs 100–102.
31.
Cases C-181/73, Haegeman v Belgian State [1974] ECR, 449; C-87/75, Bresciani v Amministrazione Italiana delle Finanze [1976] ECR, 129; C-104/81, Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641.
32.
See Baudenbacher (2000), p. 39 ff.
33.
Case E-9/97, Sveinbjörnsdóttir [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 97, paragraphs 44 ff.; see also: Restamark, cited above; Einarsson, cited above.
34.
Case C-140/97, Rechberger [1999] ECR I-3499, paragraph 39.
35.
Editorial comments: European Economic Area and European Community: Homogeneity of legal orders?, CMLRev 1999, pp. 697, 700.
36.
Case E-4/01, Karlsson [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 240, paragraphs 26 ff.
37.
Case E-2/10, Þór Kolbeinsson vs The Icelandic State [2009–2010] EFTA Ct. Rep., 234, paragraph 77.
38.
Case C-224/01, Köbler v Austria [2003] ECR I-10239. See Jóhannes Einarsson (2011), pp. 635–660.; in favour of EEA State liability for judicial wrongdoing already Krüger (2006), p. 216 f.; Fredriksen (2006), p. 485 ff.
39.
Kolbeinsson, cited above, paragraphs 77, 83.
40.
Case E-3/98, Rainford-Towning [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 207; Case E-5/98, Fagtún [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 54; Case E-1/91, Finanger [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 121. Plus one from the Swedish Supreme Court, Case E-7/94 [1994–1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 110.
41.
Oberster Gerichtshof, 6Ob551/94; see St. Galler Europarechtsbriefe (1995), p. 38 (with note by Irene Klauer); Baudenbacher (1997), p. 169, 201.
42.
See Expert Opinion of the State Court 1995/14 [1996] LES 122.
43.
Judgment of the State Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein in the capacity of a Constitutional Court, StGH 1998/61 [1999] ZBl. 585.
44.
See the extra-judicial article of the President of the Administrative Court Andreas Batliner, Die Anwendung des EWR-Rechts durch liechtensteinische Gerichte – Erfahrungen eines Richters, Liechtensteinische Juristenzeitung 4/04, 139.
45.
Supreme Administrative Court, Judgment 2005/94 of 9 February 2006, paragraphs 21 ff.
46.
Loc. cit., paragraph 27.
47.
Finanger, cited above.
48.
Norges Høyesterett, Case 55/1999, 16 November 2000, Rt. 2000, 1811 (Finanger); with respect to the predictability issue Bull (2004), pp. 95, 102 f.
49.
Graver (2005), p. 7, available at http://www.arena.uio.no/news/news2005/Arena%20Conference%20Nov05/Graver.pdf (last visited on 13 April 2015).
50.
H. 1999/4916.
51.
Liechtenstein Administrative Court, judgment of 9 February 2006, paragraph 31.
52.
Fagtún, cited above.
53.
Case H.2004, 3097, English text taken from Björgvinsson DT, cited above, pp. 37, 45 f.
54.
Ibid., p. 46.
55.
Report for the Hearing in Case E-1/99, Finanger [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 119, paragraphs 8 ff.
56.
Fagtún, cited above.
57.
Case H. 1999, 4429, English text taken from Björgvinsson DT, cited above, pp. 37, 41; see also Örlygsson T, cited above, pp. 225, 234 f.
58.
H.1999, 4916.
59.
Batliner (2004), p. 139 ff.
60.
Ibid., p 99. See also Batliner (2012), p. 53.
61.
Sejersted et al. (2011).
62.
See, for example, https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokument/dep/ud/stmeld/20002001/report_no-12_to_the_storting_2000-2001/7/id193725/; https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/eu_eea_matters/id681151/; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/deea/dv/0220_07b_/0220_07b_en.pdf; last visited on 14 September 2016.
63.
NOU 2012: 2, Utenfor og innenfor— Norges avtaler med EU (“Outside and Inside Norway’s agreements with the European Union” https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/5d3982d042a2472eb1b20639cd8b2341/no/pdfs/nou201220120002000dddpdfs.pdf, last visited on 14 September 2016.
64.
E.g. NOU 2012: 2 (unofficial English translation) Chapter 26, pp. 14 f., http://www.eu-norway.org/Global/SiteFolders/webeu/NOU2012_2_Chapter_26.pdf and Chapter 27, p. 23, http://www.eu-norway.org/Global/SiteFolders/webeu/NOU2012_2_Chapter_27.pdf and Chapter 28, pp. 6 and 10, last visited on 14 September 2016.
65.
Semertzi (2014), pp. 51: 1125, 1127, 1129–1134, 1158.
66.
Brecht (1928), II. Akt Nr. 15.
67.
See the Oral Statement of ESA President Sven Erik Svedman at the 2016 EFTA Ministerial Meeting in Berne of 27 May 2016.
68.
Baudenbacher (2012a), pp. 2, 13 ff.
69.
Fredriksen (2011), cited above, p 187, 205.
70.
Ibid., p 187, 196.
71.
Decision of the Appeals Selection Committee of 17 October 2005.
72.
That this decision was later reversed in the wake of the EFTA Court’s judgment in Case E-1/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Norway [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 8 is irrelevant.
73.
Fredriksen (2011), cited above, p. 187, 197.
74.
Ibid., p 187, 209 f.
75.
Ibid., p 187, 193 f.
76.
See with regard to proportionality: Hreinsson (2016), pp. 349, 363 ff. See also the chapter by Carl Baudenbacher and Theresa Haas, Proportionality as a Fundamental Principle of EEA Law.
77.
Where there was an error in the Norwegian translation of the operative part. Rt. 2009, 1319; Case E-4/04, Pedicel [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1.
78.
Rt. 2007, 1003; Case E-4/03, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Norway [2004] EFTA Ct. Rep. 3; Case E-1/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Norway [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 8.
79.
Rt. 2013, 258; Case E-2/11, STX [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 4.
80.
TOSLO-2004-91,873; Case E-3/06, Ladbrokes [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 86.
81.
Fredriksen (2011), cited above, pp. 187, 207, 195.
82.
Sevón and Johansson (1999), p. 380.
83.
Norberg (2000), p. 367, 374.
84.
Almestad (2012), cited above, pp. 77, 81 f.
85.
Baur (2012), p. 114 f.
86.
On the Authority of Advisory Opinions, Europarättslig tidskrift (Stockholm) 13 (2010), pp. 528 ff., 540.
87.
Kohärente Interpretationsmethode als Instrument europarechtskonformer Rechtsanwendung – eine rechtspolitische Skizze, in: Liechtenstein-Institut, Ed., 25 Jahre Liechtenstein-Institut (1986–2011), Schaan 2011, pp. 47, 65.
88.
On the Authority of Advisory Opinions, Europarättslig tidskrift (Stockholm) 13 (2010), pp. 528 ff., 540.
89.
Die Prozesskostensicherheit – eine Diskriminierung?, LJZ 2006, pp. 17, 32.
90.
Hreinsson (2012), pp. 90, 91; see also Björgvinsson (2015), p. 71 f.; In the recent past, some have suggested that the Supreme Court of Iceland has not correctly implemented the Court’s ruling in Case E-27/13 Sævar Jón Gunnarsson.
91.
Björgvinsson (2007), pp. 37, 45 f.
92.
Magnússon (2014), p. 117, 122.
93.
See Case No. 140/2016 of 19 April 2016; Bjarney Guðrún Ólafsdóttir et al. v. Landsneti hf. and Sveitarfélaginu Vogum.
94.
Case No. 660/2010 from 18 February 2011: Frjálsi fjárfestingabankinn g. Sveini Óskari Sigurðssyni og Samsidanith Chan, and Case No. 225/2011 from 13 May 2011: Lýsing hf. g. Smákrönum ehf.
95.
Case No. 225/2011 from 13 May 2011: Lýsing hf. g. Smákrönum ehf.
96.
Case 189/2012 from 27 April 2012: CIG og co. g. Star Energy.
97.
Case No. 446/2012 from 27 August 2012: BNAP S.A.R.L. g. Kaupþing hf.
98.
Case No. 401/2012 from 3 September 2012: Toppfiskur hf. g. Glitni hf.
99.
Case No. 401/2012 from 3 September 2012: Toppfiskur hf. g. Glitni hf.
100.
Case No. 669/2012 from 30 November 2012: Ákœruvaldið g. X.
101.
Case No. 401/2012 from 3 September 2012: Toppfiskur hf. g. Glitni hf.
102.
Thórisson (2016), pp. 319, 327 f.
103.
Kolbeinsson, cited above; Case No 532/2012 Þór Kolbeinsson v íslenska ríkið, Supreme Court of Iceland, 21 February 2013; Case E-27/13, Sævar Jón Gunnarsson v Landsbankinn [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1093.
104.
Gasser (2003), available at http://gasserpartner.com/sites/default/files/rechtsschutz_in_ewr-gasser-062003.pdf, p. 56, last visited on 15 September 2016; Baur (2011), pp. 47, 63; cf. Schäfer A, pp. 21 f., last visited on 15 September 2016.
105.
StGH 2013/172, judgment of 7 April 2014 in case Spitzer v Landesbank, paragraph 2.1.
106.
Case E-3/02, Paranova v Merck [2003] EFTA Ct. Rep. 101.
107.
Case E-1/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Norway [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 8; see Fredriksen HH (2012), pp. 193 to 194.
108.
Fredriksen (2012), p. 194: reference made to Rt. 2005 p.1598, paragraph 7.
109.
EU/EØS-rett in norske domstoler, Europautredningen, 2011.
110.
Case E-18/11, Irish Bank [2012] EFTA Court Report 592, paragraph 57.
111.
Irish Bank, cited above, paragraph 58.
112.
Case C-452/01, Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg [1993] ECR I-9743.
113.
Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg, cited above, paragraphs 28 and 32.
114.
Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg, cited above, paragraphs 39–40.
115.
Ospelt and Schlössle Weissenberg, cited above, paragraphs 50–52.
116.
Irish Bank, cited above, paragraph 64 with reference to Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v Belgium, Case Nos 3989/07 and 38353/07, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 20 September 2011, paragraphs 59 and 60, and case law cited).
117.
Case E-3/12, Jonsson [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 138, paragraph 60.
118.
Case E-11/12, Beatrix Koch, Lothar Hummel and Stefan Müller [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 275, paragraph 117.
119.
Case E-2/12, HOB-vín ehf. [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 818, paragraph 11.
120.
Karlsson, cited above, paragraph 28.
121.
Case E-3/15, Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz [2015] EFTA Ct. Rep. 512, paragraph 74.
122.
Case 1/07, Criminal proceedings against A [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 246, paragraph 39.
123.
See concerning the concept of circumvention of national law Baudenbacher (2016), p. 424 ff.
124.
Case C-37/92, Criminal proceedings against José Vanacker and André Lesage and SA Baudoux combustibles, 1993 I-4947, paragraph 9.
125.
Baudenbacher (2013), p. 515 ff.
126.
Ibid.
127.
Ahlberg (2013), available at http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/nyheter/news-2013/article.2013-11-06.7982273279; Kagge (2013), available at http://www.aftenposten.no/norge/Frontalangrep-pa-Hoyesterett-106260b.html, last visited on 14 September 2016.
128.
Case E-14/15, Holship, available at http://www.eftacourt.int/cases/detail/?tx_nvcases_pi1%5Bcase_id%5D=251&cHash=455c98053308786a37e6c0c8e1489201, last visited on 14 September 2016.
129.
Available at http://www.eftacourt.int/uploads/tx_nvcases/3_16_Judgment_EN.pdf, last visited on 11 January 2017.
130.
Available at http://www.eftacourt.int/uploads/tx_nvcases/E-19-16_Req_Adv_Op_OJ_text.pdf, last visited on 11 January 2017.
131.
Norwegian Supreme Court, judgment 16 December 2016, HR-2016-2554-P, (sak nr. 2014/2089).
132.
Ibid. (Dissenting vote of Justice Indreberg and six concurring justices), paragraphs 138–201.
133.
Ibid., paragraphs 92–93.
134.
Ski Taxi, cited above, paragraph 61.
135.
Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in Cartes Bancaires, C-67/13 P, EU:C:2014:1958, point 55.
136.
Ibid., point 56.
137.
Irish Bank, cited above, paragraphs 55–62.
138.
In Irish Bank, cited above, paragraph 64 reference was made to the Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v Belgium judgment (Case Nos 3989/07 and 38353/07) of the European Court of Human Rights of 20 September 2011, paragraphs 59 and 60, and case law cited.
139.
Irish Bank, cited above, paragraphs 55–62 and 67–69.
140.
POLITICO of 4 January 2017, http://www.politico.eu/article/norway-accused-of-meddling-with-judicial-independence-per-christiansen-efta/ (last visited 22 March 2017).
141.
Order of the President of 20 February 2017 in Case E-21/16 Pascal Nobile v DAS Rechtsschutz-Versicherungs AG, http://www.eftacourt.int/fileadmin/user_upload/Files/Cases/2016/21_16/E-21-16_order_of_the_President_-_final__accelerated_procedure_.pdf (last visited on 22 March 2017), paragraph 24.
142.
Ibid., paragraph 25.
143.
Sveinbjörnsdóttir, cited above, paragraph 59.
144.
Hegel (1812), pp. 21 ff.
145.
Jonsson, cited above, paragraph 60.
146.
See Magnússon (2010), p. 538 ff.; Baudenbacher (2010), p. 21 f.; Líndal and Magnússon (2011), p. 156; Lang (2012), pp. 100, 114 f.; Gasser (2003), available at http://gasserpartner.com/sites/default/files/rechtsschutz_in_ewr-gasser-062003.pdf, 56, last visited 14 September 2016; Schäfer (2006), available at http://www.residence-trust.li/ZPO2.PDF, p 21 f., last visited on 14 September 2016; Baur (2011), pp. 47, 63.
147.
Case E-29/15, Sorpa v the Icelandic Competition Authority, Report for the Hearing, paragraph 33, available at http://www.eftacourt.int/uploads/tx_nvcases/17_Report_for_the_Hearing_EN.pdf, last visited on 14 September 2016.
148.
See then Chief Justice Tore Schei’s 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.
149.
Case E-3/11 Pálmi Sigmarsson [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 430. It is worthy of note that in Sigmarsson the Court also found it to be inherent in the principle of proportionality that derogations from a fundamental freedom can only be upheld if they are necessary: see paragraph 54 of the judgment.
150.
Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2014-001903&language=EN (last visited on 22 March 2017). The Commission referred to Sigmarsson, cited above, paragraphs 44 ff.

References

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
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 ff
Google Scholar
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 155
Google Scholar
Batliner A (2004) Die Anwendung des EWR-Rechts durch liechtensteinische Gerichte – Erfahrungen eines Richters. Liechtensteinische Juristenzeitung 4/04, p 139
Google Scholar
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 53
Google Scholar
Baudenbacher C (1997) Between homogeneity and independence: the legal position of the EFTA court in the European economic area. Columbia J Eur Law 3:169
Google Scholar
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 ff
Google Scholar
Baudenbacher C (2010) The EFTA court in action – five lectures. German Law Publisher, Stuttgart
Google Scholar
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 ff
Google Scholar
Baudenbacher C (2012b) Swiss economic law facing the challenges of international and European law. ZSR 2012 II, p 419 ff
Google Scholar
Baudenbacher C (2013) EFTA-domstolen og dens samhandling med de norske domstolene. Lov og Rett, 2013, p 515 ff
Google Scholar
Baudenbacher LM (2016) Vom gemeineuropäischen zum europäischen Rechtsmissbrauchsverbot. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden
Book Google Scholar
Baur G (2011) Kohärente Interpretationsmethode als Instrument europarechtskonformer Rechtsanwendung – eine rechtspolitische Skizze. In: Liechtenstein-Institut (Hrsg) 25 Jahre Liechtenstein-Institut (1986–2011), Schaan, p 47
Google Scholar
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 10
Google Scholar
Bernitz U (2002) European law in Sweden. JURE Bokhandel, Stockholm
Google Scholar
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 37
Google Scholar
Björgvinsson DT (2015) The intersection of international law and domestic law. A theoretical and practical analysis. Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, USA, p 104 ff
Google Scholar
Brecht B (1928) Die Dreigroschenoper, II
Google Scholar
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, 108
Google Scholar
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 ff
Google Scholar
Christiansen P (1997) The EFTA Court. Eur Law Rev, p 539
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 2006, p 485 ff
Google Scholar
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 ff
Google Scholar
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
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
Hegel GWF (1812) Wissenschaft der Logik [1812–1816] Nürnberg 1812, Band 1, 1, pp 21 ff
Google Scholar
Hoekman B, Mavroidis P (2016) World Trade Organization: law, economics and politics, 2nd edn. Routledge, London
Google Scholar
Hreinsson P (2012) The case of Iceland. In: EFTA Court (ed) Judicial protection in the European economic area. German Law Publisher, Stuttgart, p 90 ff
Google Scholar
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 349
Google Scholar
Hummer W (1994) Vorrang für EWR-Recht in der österreichischen Rechtsordnung?, Österrechische Blätter für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, p 243 ff
Google Scholar
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 ff
Google Scholar
Jóhannes Einarsson O (2011) Hæstiréttur og EES-samningurinn: samningsbrotamál og skaðabótaábyrgð. Úlfljótur 64(4):635–660
Google Scholar
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
Klauer I (1995) Oberster Gerichtshof 6Ob551/94; St. Galler Europarechtsbriefe, p 38
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 Procurement Law Rev 4:211 ff
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 Publisher, Stuttgart, p 100 f
Google Scholar
Líndal S, Magnússon S (2011) Réttarkerfi Evrópusambandsins og Evrópska efnahagssvæðisins – Megindrættir, Reykjavík, p 156
Google Scholar
Lombardi A (1992) Die Gestaltung des künftigen EWR-Rechts: Grundzüge des Verfahrens im EWR und im schweizerischen Recht. Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 1:1330
Google Scholar
Mader L (1992) Eurolex: ein Versuch, das schweizerische Recht dem Recht des Europäischen Wirtschaftsraumes anzupassen. Aktuelle Juristische Praxis 1:1319
Google Scholar
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 ff
Google Scholar
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 117
Google Scholar
Norberg S (2000) Perspectives on the Future Development of the EEA Agreement. In: Afmaelisrit Thór Vilhjálmsson, Reykjavik, p 367
Google Scholar
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 3
Chapter Google Scholar
Norberg S et al (1993) Commentary to the EEA agreement. Fritzes, Stockholm
Google Scholar
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 225
Google Scholar
Reinisch A (1993) Zur unmittelbaren Anwendbarkeit von EWR-Recht, Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung. Internationales Privatrecht und Europarecht, p 11 ff
Google Scholar
Schäfer A (2006) Die Prozesskostensicherheit – eine Diskriminierung?, LJZ, 17. Available at http://www.residence-trust.li/ZPO2.PDF, last visited on 22 August 2018
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
Schmitt C (2008) Constitutional theory. Duke University Press, Durham and London
Book Google Scholar
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 ff
Google Scholar
Sejersted F et al (2011) EØS-rett, 3rd edn. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo
Google Scholar
Semertzi A (2014) The preclusion of direct effect in the recently concluded EU free trade agreements. CML Rev 51:1125–1158
Google Scholar
Sevón L (1994) Primacy and direct effect in the EEA. Some reflections, Liber Amicorum Ole Due, Gad Jura, Copenhagen, pp 339–354
Google Scholar
Sevón L, Johansson M (1999) The protection of the rights of individuals under the EEA agreement. Eur Law Rev 24:380
Google Scholar
Smith C (1997) Case law harmonization. In: Göranson U, Håstad T, Frändberg Å (eds) Festskrift till Stig Strömholm. Iustus Förlag, Uppsala, p 795
Google Scholar
Thórisson SG (2016) Icelandic bar. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law. Springer, Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London, p 319
Google Scholar
Van Gerven W (1992) The genesis of EEA law and the principles of primacy and direct effect, [1992–93]. Fordham Int Law J 16:955
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

EFTA Court, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Carl Baudenbacher

Authors

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

EFTA Court, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Carl Baudenbacher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baudenbacher, C. (2017). Reciprocity. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Fundamental Principles of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45189-3_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45189-3_3
Published: 16 August 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45188-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45189-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics