Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proportionality as a Fundamental Principle of EEA Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Fundamental Principles of EEA Law

Abstract

The principle of proportionality bridges legal thinking all around the world. From its German origins, it has expanded to national and international jurisdictions alike. At present, the principle forms an indispensable part of the judicial review conducted by the Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. Despite its apparent omnipresence, a closer look at the principle’s usage reveals many different forms of application and varying degrees of intensity of judicial review.

This chapter sets out the specifics of this “uberprinciple” of law in the EEA legal order and its application beyond. It takes into account not only the Court’s case law, but also developments in other jurisdictions. In particular, the chapter discusses the application of proportionality by the courts of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, both in dealing with domestic law and the application of EEA law. Particular emphasis is placed on the operation of the preliminary reference procedure in this regard.

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
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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.

    Cohen-Eliya and Porat (2013a), pp. 25 ff.; see also Claasen (2012), p. 651.

  2. 2.

    See, for example, Koch (2003), p. 49, who considers that the need to strike a balance between individual rights and the public interest is inherent in the German system (“systemimmanent”).

  3. 3.

    See, for example, Koch (2003), p. 55; Pirker (2013).

  4. 4.

    BVerfGE 3, 383 (399).

  5. 5.

    Huber (2016), p. 102.

  6. 6.

    Schwarze (2012), p. 712; Koch (2003), p. 47 ff.

  7. 7.

    See Cohen-Eliya and Porat (2013a), p. 24; also Huber (2016), p. 98; Koch (2003), p. 39 ff.

  8. 8.

    Cohen-Eliya and Porat (2013b), p. 126.

  9. 9.

    Similarly Stone Sweet and Mathews (2008). In this article, the authors contend that “specific identifiable agents (judges and law professors-turned judges) were instrumental in bringing [proportionality analysis] to treaty based regimes… In principle one could map the network of individuals and the connections between institutions that facilitated the spread of [proportionality analysis]”.

  10. 10.

    See Reich (2011), p. 266, referring to Cassis de Dijon (Case 120/78 Rewe v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, EU:C:1979:42). Compare also the cases mentioned by Von Danwitz (2012) (Case 11/70, EU:C:1970:114) and Buitoni (Case 122/78, EU:C:1979:43). President Kutscher participated in all three cases.

  11. 11.

    See Stone Sweet and Mathews (2008), p. 122.

  12. 12.

    See Hilf and Puth (2002) who make reference to ECtHR, Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium v Belgium, Judgment of 23 July 1968, paras 10 and 32.

  13. 13.

    Haguenau-Moizard and Sanchez (2015), p. 143; see also Greer (2004), p. 433; Claasen (2012), p. 654; see also infra.

  14. 14.

    See Schwarze (2012), p. 710 ff.

  15. 15.

    Claasen (2012), p. 651.

  16. 16.

    Koch (2003), pp. 48–157, discusses proportionality in Germany, France, the UK, Ireland, Austria, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, and in the case law of the ECtHR. For Norway compare Harbo (2015), p. 136 ff.

  17. 17.

    Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/36/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, 77, as corrected by OJ 2004 L 229, 35, OJ 2005 L 30, 27, and OJ 2005 L 197, 34). Incorporated into the EEA Agreement at point 1 of Annex V and point 3 of Annex VIII to the Agreement by EEA Joint Committee Decision.

  18. 18.

    Silver and Others v UK (Application no. 5947/72; 6205/73; 7052/75; 7061/75; 7107/75; 7113/75; 7136/75) of the European Court of Human Rights of 24 October 1983, paragraph 86.

  19. 19.

    See Peters (2016), p. 2. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2773733 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2773733, last visited on 22 May 2017.

  20. 20.

    Cohn (2010), pp. 583–629.

  21. 21.

    See Challenor (2015), p. 267 ff.; Grimm (2007), p. 383 ff.; Rodriguez Ferrere (2007).

  22. 22.

    Global Influences on the Australian Judiciary, Australian Bar Association Conference, Paris, 8 July 2002, http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_global.htm, last visited on 20 May 2017.

  23. 23.

    See for example Acción de incumplimiento 46-AI-99 Secretería de la Comunidad Andina contro la República de Venezuela.

  24. 24.

    Laudo No 1/2005 del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión contra el Laudo arbitral del Tribunal Arbitral ad hoc en la controversia ‘prohibición de importación de neumaticos remoldeados procedentes del Uruguay’, 20 December 2005.

  25. 25.

    For further analysis, Andenas and Zleptnig (2006–2007), p. 408 et seq.

  26. 26.

    Panel Report on “United States - Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930”, L/6439, adopted on 7 November 1989, paragraph 5.26.

  27. 27.

    Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, DSR 2001:I, p 5, paragraphs 161 and 162.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., paragraph 122.

  29. 29.

    Another example is Case No. ARB/02/1 LG&E v Argentine Republic of 25 July 2007.

  30. 30.

    Schlink (2012), pp. 291; see also Cohen-Eliya and Porat (2011), pp. 263–286.

  31. 31.

    Cohen-Eliya and Porat (2011), part II.

  32. 32.

    Tsakyrakis (2013), p. 3.

  33. 33.

    In German “Wesengehaltsgarantie”; see for example Huber (2016), p. 106.

  34. 34.

    Schwarze (2012), p. 711; Von Danwitz (2012), Prechal (2008).

  35. 35.

    Jowell (1996).

  36. 36.

    Schönberg (2000), p, 6 ff.; Von Danwitz (2012); see also Prechal (2008).

  37. 37.

    Harbo (2015), p. 149.

  38. 38.

    See for example Reich (2011), p. 268 who identifies even four different approaches.

  39. 39.

    Case 265/87, Hermann Schräder HS Kraftfutter GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Gronau, EU:C:1989:303; see Schwarze (2012), p. 713.

  40. 40.

    Von Danwitz (2012), p. 373; see also Prechal (2008), p. 3 ff.

  41. 41.

    See Case 331/88, The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Fedesa and Others, EU:C:1990:391, where the ECJ held that “… the legality of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue.” (Emphasis added).

  42. 42.

    Von Danwitz (2012), p. 378; Reich (2011), p. 96.

  43. 43.

    Case C-387/97 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic, EU:C:2000:356, paragraph 90: A penalty payment must be “appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate both to the breach which has been found and to the ability to pay of the Member State concerned.”

  44. 44.

    See, for example, the Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in Case C-189/02 P, Dansk Rørindustri and Others v Commission, EU:C:2004:415, point 102; this means that it is “necessary [inter alia] to examine ‘the relative gravity of the participation of each undertaking’” (point 108).

  45. 45.

    Steenbergen (2008), p. 259 ff.

  46. 46.

    Case C-519/04 P, Meca-Medina, EU:C:2006:492, paragraph 42.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., paragraph 47.

  48. 48.

    Von Danwitz (2012), p. 380; see Case C-28/09, Commission v Austria, EU:C:2011:854, paragraph 126.

  49. 49.

    See, for example, Claasen (2012), p. 653; Haguenau-Moizard and Sanchez (2015), p. 143.

  50. 50.

    See, for example, Haguenau-Moizard and Sanchez (2015), p. 144 with reference to Article 14 and the Belgian Linguistics Case, Application no. 1474/62; see also Gerards (2013), p. 467.

  51. 51.

    Harris et al. (2014), p. 505.

  52. 52.

    See also Haguenau-Moizard and Sanchez (2015), p. 144 with reference to the Belgian Linguistics Case, Application no. 1474/62, cited above, paragraph 7.

  53. 53.

    Gerards (2013), p. 467.

  54. 54.

    Haguenau-Moizard and Sanchez (2015), p. 145.

  55. 55.

    Handyside v. The United Kingdom (Application no. 5493/72) of the European Court of Human Rights of 7 December 1976.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., paragraphs 48 and 50.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Haguenau-Moizard and Sanchez (2015), p. 146.

  59. 59.

    Gerards (2013), p. 469 ff.

  60. 60.

    Saint-Paul Luxembourg S.A. v. Luxembourg (Application No 26419/10) of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 April 2013, paragraph 44.

  61. 61.

    Ibid, paragraph 44.

  62. 62.

    See, for example, here https://strasbourgobservers.com/2013/05/01/ecthr-really-applies-less-restrictive-alternative-saint-paul-luxembourg-s-a-v-luxembourg/.

  63. 63.

    Case E-1/94, Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark, [1994–1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 15.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., paragraphs 58 ff.

  65. 65.

    Compare Case E-3/06, Ladbrokes Ltd v The Government of Norway, Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs and Ministry of Agriculture and Food [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 86; see also the cases cited by Hreinsson (2016), pp. 363 ff.

  66. 66.

    See Joined Cases E-26/15 and E-27/15, Criminal Proceedings against B and B v Finanzmarktaufsicht, not yet reported, paragraph 94.

  67. 67.

    Case E-4/04, Pedicel AS v Sosial- og helsedirektoratet [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1, paragraph 56.

  68. 68.

    For example in Case E-21/13, The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 854, paragraphs 81 ff.

  69. 69.

    A recent is Case E-19/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein, judgment of 10 May 2016, not yet reported.

  70. 70.

    Case E-9/11, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442.

  71. 71.

    Case E-8/16, Netfonds Holding ASA m.fl. v Staten v/Finansdepartementet, judgment of 16 May 2017, not yet reported.

  72. 72.

    Case E-1/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Gaming Machines) [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 8.

  73. 73.

    Case E-3/06, Ladbrokes, cited above.

  74. 74.

    Case E-3/98, Herbert Rainford-Towning [1998] EFTA Ct. Rep. 205.

  75. 75.

    Case E-2/01, Dr. Franz Martin Pucher [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 44.

  76. 76.

    Case E-8/04, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 46.

  77. 77.

    Case E-1/09, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein [2009–2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 46.

  78. 78.

    Case E-2/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Norwegian Waterfalls) [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 164, paragraph 73 et seq.

  79. 79.

    Case E-19/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein, judgment of 10 May 2016, not yet published, paragraph 45 et seq.

  80. 80.

    Case E-1/03, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland (Icelandic Air Passenger Tax) [2003] EFTA Ct. Rep. 143, para 34 et seq.

  81. 81.

    Case E-1/95, Ulf Samuelsson v Svenska staten [1994–1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 145, paragraphs 31 and 32.

  82. 82.

    HCMC para 81.

  83. 83.

    Case E-6/13, Metacom AG v Rechtsanwälte Zipper & Collegen [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 856, paragraph 64.

  84. 84.

    Ibid.

  85. 85.

    See, for example, Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13, Fred. Olsen and Others v The Norwegian State [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 400, paragraph 225, where the Court held that “fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the EEA Agreement are applicable in all situations governed by EEA law”.

  86. 86.

    Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13, Fred Olsen and Others, cited above, paragraph 229.

  87. 87.

    Ibid., paragraph 230.

  88. 88.

    In German: “Wesensgehaltsgarantie”.

  89. 89.

    Case E-5/10, Dr Kottke, cited above.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., paragraph 40.

  91. 91.

    Case E-15/11, Arcade Drilling AS v Staten v/Skatt Vest [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 676, paragraph 83.

  92. 92.

    Case E-6/13, Metacom, cited above, paragraph 62.

  93. 93.

    See, for example, Case E-5/98, Fagtún ehf. v Byggingarnefnd Borgarholtsskóla, the Government of Iceland, the City of Reykjavík and the Municipality of Mosfellsbær [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 51, paragraph 37: “If a Contracting Party claims to need protection …, it will have to satisfy the Court that its actions are genuinely motivated …, that they are apt to achieve the desired objective and that there are no other means of achieving protection that are less restrictive of trade”. See also Case E-9/11 EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 442, paragraph 88; and Case E-1/03 EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland (Icelandic Air Passenger Tax) [2003] EFTA Ct. Rep. 143, paragraph 35.

  94. 94.

    Case E-15/10, Posten Norge AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 246; Case E-14/11, DB Schenker v EFTA Surveillance Authority (“DB Schenker I”) [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1178; Case E-7/12, DB Schenker v EFTA Surveillance Authority (“DB Schenker II”) [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 356; Case E-8/12, DB Schenker v EFTA Surveillance Authority (“DB Schenker III”) [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 148; Case E-5/13, DB Schenker v EFTA Surveillance Authority (“DB Schenker IV”) [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 304; Case E-4/13, DB Schenker v EFTA Surveillance Authority (“DB Schenker V”) [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1180; and Case E-22/14, DB Schenker v EFTA Surveillance Authority (“DB Schenker VI”) [2015] EFTA Ct. Rep. 350.

  95. 95.

    Case E-15/10, Posten Norge, cited above, paragraph 100; emphasis added.

  96. 96.

    Barbier de La Serre (2014), p. 432; furthermore, Temple Lang (2012), p. 467: “The Norway Post judgment therefore provides an interpretation of [Article 6 ECHR] of very great scope and importance. It has the effect of providing a single principle requiring in-depth judicial review of administrative procedures in competition cases in EU law, in EEA law and under the Convention, at least in all cases involving serious sanctions.” See also Baudenbacher (2016), p. 37(9).

  97. 97.

    Case E-14/11, DB Schenker I, cited above, paragraph 123.

  98. 98.

    Ibid., paragraph 125.

  99. 99.

    Ibid., paragraph 127.

  100. 100.

    For an analysis of the Court’s case law on access to documents, see Polley (2014), p. 435; Polley and Clifton (2016), p. 625.

  101. 101.

    See for example Case E-10/04, Paolo Piazza v Paul Schurte AG [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 76, paragraph 43.

  102. 102.

    Case E-1/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Gaming Machines) [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 8, paragraphs 30 to 41 or Case E-14/15 EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Holship) Official Journal 2016/C 467/14, paragraphs 121 to 129.

  103. 103.

    See also Stone Sweet and Mathews (2008), p. 95.

  104. 104.

    Case E-2/06, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Norwegian Waterfalls) [2007] EFTA Ct. Rep. 164, paragraph 73 et seq.

  105. 105.

    Case E-8/16, Netfonds Holding ASA m.fl. v Staten v/Finansdepartementet, judgment of 16 May 2017, not yet published, paragraph 115: “An obligation of dispersed ownership in banks and insurance companies may only serve as a means, subject to the suitability and necessity assessment, of ensuring the objective pursued but not as a legitimate aim in itself”.

  106. 106.

    Case E-2/11, STX Norway Offshore AS m.fl. v Staten v/ Tariffnemnda [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 4, paragraph 82.

  107. 107.

    Ibid., paragraph 83.

  108. 108.

    Ibid., paragraph 85.

  109. 109.

    Case E-14/15, Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund, not yet reported.

  110. 110.

    Ibid., paragraph 122.

  111. 111.

    Ibid.

  112. 112.

    Ibid., paragraph 122.

  113. 113.

    Ibid., paragraph 125 (emphasis added).

  114. 114.

    Ibid., paragraph 123.

  115. 115.

    Sørensen and Rasmussen v Denmark (Application nos. 52562/99 and 52620/99) of European Court of Human Rights of 11 January 2006 [2008] 46 EHRR 29, paragraphs 54 and 58.

  116. 116.

    Case E-14/15, Holship, cited above, paragraph 127.

  117. 117.

    Ibid., paragraph 126: “In particular, boycotts, such as the one at issue, detrimentally affect their situations. They are barred from performing the unloading and loading services and may even lose their employment if their employer affiliates to the Framework Agreement.”

  118. 118.

    Case E-3/06, Ladbrokes, cited above, paragraph 56.

  119. 119.

    Case E-1/06, Gaming Machines, cited above, paragraph 29.

  120. 120.

    Case E-3/00, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Kellogg’s) [2000–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 73, paragraph 27; see also paragraph 25 ff. of the same judgment.

  121. 121.

    Case E-16/10, Philip Morris Norway AS v Staten v/Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 330, paragraph 80.

  122. 122.

    Case E-3/00, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway [2000–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 73.

  123. 123.

    Case E-1/06, Gaming Machines, cited above, paragraph 35.

  124. 124.

    Case E-4/04, Pedicel, cited above, paragraph 60.

  125. 125.

    Case E-3/00, Kellogg’s, cited above, paragraph 29.

  126. 126.

    Ibid., paragraph 32.

  127. 127.

    Case E-2/11, STX, cited above, paragraph 87.

  128. 128.

    Hreinsson (2016), p. 365 et seq.

  129. 129.

    Case E-1/05, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 234, paragraph 39.

  130. 130.

    Norwegian Waterfalls, cited above, paragraph 82 et seq.; see also Hreinsson (2016), p. 366.

  131. 131.

    Von Danwitz (2012), p. 380.

  132. 132.

    Case E-3/06, Ladbrokes, cited above, paragraph 51.

  133. 133.

    Case E-3/00, Kellogg’s, cited above, paragraph 41.

  134. 134.

    Case E-1/06, Gaming Machines, cited above, paragraphs 42 ff.

  135. 135.

    Judgment of 16 May 2017, not yet reported, http://www.eftacourt.int/uploads/tx_nvcases/8_16_Judgment_EN.pdf, last visited on 20 May 2017.

  136. 136.

    Von Danwitz (2012), p. 380.

  137. 137.

    See in this regard also Case E-3/06 Ladbrokes, cited above, paragraph 52.

  138. 138.

    Case E-1/06, Gaming Machines, cited above, paragraph 45.

  139. 139.

    Early examples include Case E-1/94 Restamark, cited above, paragraph 59 ff. and Case E-1/95, Samuelsson, cited above, paragraphs 31 and 32.

  140. 140.

    See Case E-4/04, Pedicel, cited above, paragraph 56; Case E-1/05, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 234, paragraph 43; also Hreinsson (2016), p. 366.

  141. 141.

    Case E-9/11, ESA v Norway, cited above, paragraph 96: “In this regard the Court finds that the defendant has not sufficiently demonstrated … that other forms of control, even if administratively more burdensome, may not achieve the relevant public interest objective in an equally effective way” (emphasis added).

  142. 142.

    Case E-2/01, Dr. Pucher, cited above, paragraph 35. Against this background, the Court held that “more appropriate and less restrictive means of monitoring and controlling of the activities of domiciliary companies could … comprise periodic reporting”.

  143. 143.

    Case E-1/05, ESA v Norway, cited above, paragraph 40 ff.

  144. 144.

    Case E-3/98, Herbert Rainford-Towning, cited above.

  145. 145.

    Case E-2/01, Dr. Pucher, cited above, paragraph 39.

  146. 146.

    Case E-10/04, Paolo Piazza, cited above, paragraph 47.

  147. 147.

    Case E-15/11, Arcade Drilling, cited above, paragraph 94 ff.

  148. 148.

    Ibid., paragraph 103.

  149. 149.

    Ibid.

  150. 150.

    Joined Cases E-26/15 and E-27/15, Criminal proceedings against B, cited above, paragraphs 97 and 98.

  151. 151.

    Ibid., paragraph 95 ff.

  152. 152.

    Case E-5/10, Dr. Kottke, cited above; see also Hreinsson (2016), p. 370.

  153. 153.

    Ibid., paragraphs 47, 48 and 49.

  154. 154.

    Ibid., paragraphs 50 ff.

  155. 155.

    Cohen-Eliya and Porat (2013b).

  156. 156.

    Schwarze (2012), p. 718: “Einzelfallkorrektiv”.

  157. 157.

    Von Danwitz (2012), p. 368.

  158. 158.

    See, for example, Hoch (2000), p. 73.

  159. 159.

    Contrariwise, Petersen (2017).

  160. 160.

    Mahoney (2010), p. 158.

  161. 161.

    Ueda (2003), p. 563.

  162. 162.

    See more generally Tsakyrakis (2013), p. 5.

  163. 163.

    Amongst others Rosas (2005), p. 167; Bücker and Warneck (2011), Vries et al. (2012), Gerstenberg (2009), p. 493. This criticism was in particular fuelled by the ECJ’s judgments in cases such as C-112/00, Schmidberger, C-438/05, Viking and C-341/05 Laval.

  164. 164.

    Rosas (2005), p. 350; cf. also Boer (2013).

  165. 165.

    Vries (2013).

  166. 166.

    Tsakyrakis (2009).

  167. 167.

    Schwarze (2012).

  168. 168.

    Ueda (2003), p. 564, asks: “How can we estimate with any degree of precision the costs and benefits concerned with the operation of any measure? To what extent can we conceive of the concerned losses or gains in terms of tangible costs and benefits? How can we address ripple and indirect effects? … How do we reckon invisible or non-pecuniary costs and benefits, such as opportunity costs or enjoyment of a pristine environment?”

  169. 169.

    Werlauff (2010), p. 818.

  170. 170.

    Tsakyrakis (2013), p. 7.

  171. 171.

    Kumm (2007), p. 174.

  172. 172.

    See, in this regard, also the debate in political science kicked off by Burley and Mattli (1993).

  173. 173.

    Haguenau-Moizard and Sanchez (2015), p. 151.

  174. 174.

    Mahoney (2010), p. 155.

  175. 175.

    Von Danwitz (2012), p. 375.

  176. 176.

    See Kumm (2007), p. 172.

  177. 177.

    Kumm (2007), p. 16.

  178. 178.

    See also Andenas and Zleptnig (2006–2007), p. 393.

  179. 179.

    Koch (2003), p. 127 ff.

  180. 180.

    Act no. 62/1994 Lög um mannréttindasáttmála Evrópu; see also Björgvinsson (2015), p. 68.

  181. 181.

    These provisions have been referred to by the ECtHR in Case Hafsteindóttir v Iceland, paragraph 33. They are summarised as provisions which codified “notably the limited powers conferred on the police (by a so-called general mandate) to take such measures as are necessary to maintain law and order and the rule of proportionality applying to the use of force.”

  182. 182.

    An English translation of this act is available at https://eng.forsaetisraduneyti.is/acts-of-law/nr/17 (last visited on 05.04.2017).

  183. 183.

    Hreinsson (2003), p. 504.

  184. 184.

    Icelandic Supreme Court, Case no 660/2016, judgment of 15 December 2016, Matvælastofnun v þrotabú Beis ehf.: “[…] skal stjórnvald því aðeins taka íþyngjandi ákvörðun þegar lögmætu markmiði, sem að er stefnt, verður ekki náð með öðru og vægara móti. Skal þess þá gætt að ekki sé farið strangar í sakirnar en nauðsyn ber til.”

  185. 185.

    Icelandic Supreme Court, Case no 182/2007, judgment of 27 September 2007, Björgun ehf. v íslenska ríkinu: “Þá er ekki fallist á að skerðingin brjóti gegn stjórnskipulegri meðalhófsreglu.”

  186. 186.

    See, for example, Thorarensen (2003) with reference to case 167/2002 from 14 November 2002 Alþýðusamband Íslands v the Icelandic State and Samtök atvinnulífsins and Samtök atvinnulífsins v Alþýðusamband Íslands.

  187. 187.

    An English translation of the Icelandic Constitution is available at: http://www.government.is/constitution/ (last visited on 08.06.2017).

  188. 188.

    Olafsson v. Iceland (Application no. 58493/13) of the European Court of Human Rights of 16 March 2017.

  189. 189.

    Ibid., paragraph 62.

  190. 190.

    Thorarensen (2003).

  191. 191.

    Ibid., p 102.

  192. 192.

    Gesetz vom 21 Juni 1989 über die Landespolizei idF 01.06.2016.

  193. 193.

    Gesetz vom 21. April 1922 über die allgemeine Landesverwaltungspflege (die Verwaltungsbehörden und ihre Hilfsorgane, das Verfahren in Verwaltungssachen, das Verwaltungszwangs- und Verwaltungsstrafverfahren), idF 01.01.2017.

  194. 194.

    Another example is Article 69 of the Baugesetz of 11 December 2008 (idF 01.04.2017).

  195. 195.

    Liechtenstein Administrative Court, decision of 19 September 2016, VGH 2016/045, paragraph 4; see also Kley (1998), p. 227.

  196. 196.

    Ibid., paragraph 5.

  197. 197.

    E.g. Liechtenstein Administrative Court, decision of 19 December 2014, VGH 2014/2a, para. 4.

  198. 198.

    See Hoch (2000), p. 71; with reference to the judgment of the State Court in Case 1973/1.

  199. 199.

    Hoch (2000), p. 71.

  200. 200.

    See also Hoch (2000), p. 71.

  201. 201.

    See Höfling (2012) with reference to the judgment of the State Court in Case 1989/3.

  202. 202.

    Harbo (2015), p. 136; with reference to the judgment of the Norwegian Supreme Court in Case Rt. 2008, 560, paragraph 48.

  203. 203.

    Ibid., p. 176.

  204. 204.

    Ibid., p. 177.

  205. 205.

    Ibid., p. 177.

  206. 206.

    Norwegian Supreme Court, HR-2016-2195-S, judgment of 21 October 2016, dissenting opinion by Justice Ingvald Falch, paragraphs 99 ff.; in particular 121 to 123; it may be added that the majority dismissed the case and accordingly did not go on to consider the possible impact on the right to property.

  207. 207.

    Nunez v Norway (Application No 55597/09) of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 June 2011.

  208. 208.

    In a similar vein Harbo (2015), p. 178: “One could claim that the manifestly unreasonable test is an excessive burden test and thus has similarities with the proportionality stricto sensu test”; Ibid., p. 190.

  209. 209.

    Nunez v Norway, cited above, paragraph 84.

  210. 210.

    Harbo (2015), p 185 ff., with reference to Rt. 1973 o. 460 (Fjœrkre).

  211. 211.

    Ibid., p. 136.

  212. 212.

    Ibid., p. 175.

  213. 213.

    Ibid., p. 137.

  214. 214.

    Bjorge (2010), p. 45.

  215. 215.

    Compare for example the finding of the majority in paragraph 79 which attaches some weight to the possibility of administrative manoeuvre, albeit not directly naming institutional balance. (“I add that, should the expulsion in the present case be regarded as disproportionate, it would be difficult to envisage when it should be possible to expel a foreign national who has a child with a person holding a residence permit. It would have the consequence that a foreign national in such a situation would normally be protected against expulsion. It would imply a change in current practice, and would moreover have clearly undesirable aspects.”).

  216. 216.

    Harbo (2015), p. 191.

  217. 217.

    See the speech by Justice Arnfinn Bårdsen on “The Norwegian Supreme Court and the internationalisation of law” (available at https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/artikler-og-foredrag/the-norwegian-supreme-court-and-the-internationalisation-of-law.pdf).

  218. 218.

    Björgvinsson (2007), p. 49.

  219. 219.

    Case E-5/98, Fagtún ehf. v Byggingarnefnd Borgarholtsskóla, the Government of Iceland, the City of Reykjavík and the Municipality of Mosfellsbær [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 51.

  220. 220.

    Ibid., paragraph 4.

  221. 221.

    Ibid., paragraph 32.

  222. 222.

    Ibid., paragraph 37.

  223. 223.

    Ibid.

  224. 224.

    Örlygsson (2007), p. 234.

  225. 225.

    Icelandic Supreme Court, Case no 169/1998, judgment of 18 November 1999; available at: https://www.haestirettur.is/default.aspx?pageid=347c3bb1-8926-11e5-80c6-005056bc6a40&id=9d3f0654-76b6-4d8c-97bb-adb393fd2047 (last visited on 08.06.2017).

  226. 226.

    Icelandic Supreme Court in Case 191/2012, judgment of 17 October 2013; available at https://www.haestirettur.is/default.aspx?pageid=347c3bb1-8926-11e5-80c6-005056bc6a40&id=50280333-7669-4d38-951a-37061ac7de99 (last visited on 08.06.2017).

  227. 227.

    Case E-1/03, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland (Icelandic Air Passenger Tax) [2003] EFTA Ct. Rep. 143.

  228. 228.

    130. löggjafarþing 2003–2004 Þskj. 1441 — 947. mál. Frumvarp til laga um breyting á lögum um flugmálaáætlun og fjáröflun til flugmála, nr. 31/1987, með síðari breytingum; available at http://www.althingi.is/altext/130/s/1441.html (last visited on 08.06.2017).

  229. 229.

    Batliner (2012), p. 9; Id. in Tschütscher and Baudenbacher (2012), p. 53.

  230. 230.

    Case E-4/00, Dr. Johann Brändle [2000–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 123; Case E-5/00, Dr. Josef Mangold [2000–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 163; and Case E-6/00, Dr Jürgen Tschannett [2000–2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 203.

  231. 231.

    Liechtenstein Administrative Court, Case No 2000/54, decision of 19.09.2001, paragraph 15: “Diesen Ausführungen des EFTA-Gerichtshofes in seinem zitierten Gutachten kann sich die VBI des Fürstentums Liechtenstein anschliessen.”; available at http://www.gerichtsentscheide.li/default.aspx?mode=akten&txtakt=VBI%202000/54&value=VBI%202000/54&id=650&backurl=?mode=akten%26txtakt=VBI%202000/54%26value=VBI%202000%2F54.

  232. 232.

    Case E-2/01, Dr. Franz Martin Pucher [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 44.

  233. 233.

    Liechtenstein Administrative Court, Case No 2000/142, decision of 27.03.2002; available at http://www.gerichtsentscheide.li/default.aspx?mode=suche&txt=E-2/01&id=664&backurl=?mode=suche%26txt=E-2/01 (last visited on 08.06.2017).

  234. 234.

    Supra, Sect. 2.4.4.

  235. 235.

    Case E-10/04, Paolo Piazza, cited above, paragraph 48.

  236. 236.

    Ungerank (2010).

  237. 237.

    StGH 2006/94; available at: http://www.gerichtsentscheide.li/default.aspx?mode=suche&txt=2006/94&id=1606&backurl=?mode=suche%26txt=2006/94.

  238. 238.

    StGH 1997/31, StGH 2002/37 and StGH 2002/52.

  239. 239.

    The State Court’s earlier approach had also been criticised in the academic literature, as the State Court noted in its judgment; see StGH 2006/94 paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the State Court’s reasoning.

  240. 240.

    Government proposal which explicitly refers to the EFTA Court’s judgment: http://bua.gmg.biz/bua/Services/pdf/bua2009_048.pdf?nr=48&year=2009, bill amending the ZPO: https://www.gesetze.li/lilexprod/showpdf.jsp?media=pdfs&lgblid=2009206000&version=0.

  241. 241.

    Case E-5/10, Dr. Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung [2009–2010] EFTA Ct. Rep. 320.

  242. 242.

    Ibid., paragraph 48.

  243. 243.

    Ibid., paragraph 49.

  244. 244.

    Ibid., paragraph 50.

  245. 245.

    Ibid., paragraph 51.

  246. 246.

    For example Lennert and Heilmann (2011), p. 25 ff.

  247. 247.

    Available at http://www.gerichtsentscheide.li/default.aspx?mode=suche&txt=E-5/10&id=3323&backurl=?mode=suche%26txt=E-5/10.

  248. 248.

    Norwegian Supreme Court, HR-2016-2554, judgment of 16 December 2016, paragraphs 75 ff.

  249. 249.

    Case E-14/15, Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund, cited above, paragraph 126.

  250. 250.

    Supra, Sect. 2.4.2.

  251. 251.

    Ibid., Case E-14/15, paragraph 130. Here, the Court referred to the ECJ’s judgment in Commission v Spain, dealing with a similar system established in Spanish ports, in which the ECJ concluded that the system was not necessary for the attainment of the objective of “protection of workers”, as there were viable alternative and less restrictive measures available. The Spanish port system was amended very recently. See Real Decreto-ley 4/2017, de 24 de febrero, por el que se modifica el régimen de los trabajadores para la prestación del servicio portuario de manipulación de mercancías dando cumplimiento a la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 11 de diciembre de 2014, recaída en el asunto C-576/13 (procedimiento de infracción 2009/4052).

  252. 252.

    HR-2016-2554, cited above, paragraph 103.

  253. 253.

    Ibid., paragraph 118.

  254. 254.

    Ibid., paragraphs 128 and 129; this implicit affirmation of the EFTA Court’s conclusion is noteworthy for the reason that the Supreme Court analysed the same question a few years before. At that time, it came to the conclusion that the boycott profited from the exemption of competition law. See Rt. 1997, 334 (Port of Sola) as quoted in HR-2016-2554 paragraph 73.

  255. 255.

    Ibid., paragraphs 85, 86, 87, 113.

  256. 256.

    Ibid., paragraphs 86 and 117.

  257. 257.

    Supra, Sect. 2.5.

  258. 258.

    Norwegian Supreme Court, HR-2009-1319-A - Rt-2009-839, judgment of 24 June 2009; Case E-4/04 Pedicel, cited above.

  259. 259.

    HR-2007-1144-A - Rt-2007-1003; Case E-1/06 Gaming Machines, cited above.

  260. 260.

    Rt. 2013, 258; Case E-2/11 STX, cited above.

  261. 261.

    Oslo District Court, TOSLO-2004-91873, judgment of 3 October 2008; Case E-3/06 Ladbrokes, cited above.

  262. 262.

    Oslo District Court, 10-041388TVI-OTIR, judgment of 14 September 2012; Case E-16/10 Philip Morris, cited above.

  263. 263.

    Norwegian Supreme Court, HR-2013-496-A, judgment of 5 March 2013.

  264. 264.

    See for example Poulsen (2016), p. 267 ff.; Fredriksen (2014), p. 16 ff.

  265. 265.

    https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/e2cd20328db8497d9d50962622e59f54/74557---formal-letter---reply-to-norway-regarding-their-letter-of-20-january-2017.pdf.

  266. 266.

    Norwegian Supreme Court, HR-2009-1319-A - Rt-2009-839, judgment of 24 June 2009.

  267. 267.

    In paragraph 47 the Supreme Court states: “Det kreves med andre ord at de alternative tiltak skal være likeverdige med hensyn til måloppnåelse, og det må være åpenbart at dette er tilfellet”. And Ibid., paragraph 62: “Det er ikke fra den ankende parts side gjort gjeldende at det er forskningsmessig belegg for at den effekt reklame må antas å ha for totalvolumet vil bli eliminert ved innføring av restriksjoner på hvordan alkoholreklame tillates utformet, eventuelt ved at det også innføres påbud om at det skal inntas helseadvarsel i alle annonser. Den ankende part har imidlertid gjort gjeldende at det ikke er fremlagt dokumentasjon for at det anførte alternative tiltak vil være uten virkning, og at dette innebærer at staten ikke har fylt sin bevisbyrde, og at totalforbudet da må anses unødvendig. Jeg finner det klart at heller ikke den teoretiske mulighet for at innholdsmessige begrensninger skulle ha like god effekt som et totalforbud, kan føre til at totalforbudet anses uforholdsmessig. Det må sies å være en naturlig formodning for at reklame, også med innholdsmessige begrensninger, vil ha betydning for totalforbruket, og det er ikke særlige omstendigheter som kan begrunne en bevisføringsplikt for staten utover dette, jf. EFTA-domstolens angivelse av. at det må være åpenbart at de alternative tiltak vil sikre den samme måloppnåelse.”

  268. 268.

    Ibid., paragraph 37; see also Harbo (2012), p. 148.

  269. 269.

    Case E-4/04, Pedicel, cited above, paragraph 61 and point 3 of the operative part.

  270. 270.

    HR-2009-1319-A - Rt-2009-839, cited above, paragraph 60 and 61.

  271. 271.

    Ibid., paragraph 61.

  272. 272.

    Ibid., paragraph 62: “naturlig formodning”.

  273. 273.

    Ibid., paragraph 62.

  274. 274.

    Ibid., paragraph 62.

  275. 275.

    Harbo (2012), p. 145 et seq.

  276. 276.

    Oslo District Court, 10-041388TVI-OTIR, judgment of 14 September 2012. Oslo District Court cites the Supreme Court in Pedicel on various points, in particular regarding the proportionality assessment.

  277. 277.

    Case E-1/06, Gaming Machines, cited above, paragraph 49.

  278. 278.

    Ibid., paragraph 50.

  279. 279.

    Case E-3/06, Ladbrokes, cited above.

  280. 280.

    See Planzer (2016), p. 692.

  281. 281.

    Case E-3/06, Ladbrokes, cited above, paragraph 59: “If it turns out that the national authorities have opted for a rather low level of protection it is less probable that a monopoly is the only way of achieving the level of protection opted for”.

  282. 282.

    Ibid., paragraph 60: “The restriction placed on the monopoly provider must be taken into account when identifying the level of protection … A low level of protection exists if the Norwegian authorities tolerate high numbers of gaming opportunities and a high level of gaming activity. Important factors … are restrictions on how often per week or per day games are on offer, restrictions on the number of outlets which offer games of chance and on sales and marketing activities of the outlets, as well as restrictions on advertising and on development of new games…”.

  283. 283.

    Ibid., paragraph 61; the Court held in particular that the national court must determine factors such as the extent and effect of marketing and “whether the advertising of the gambling and betting services is rather informative than evocative in nature”.

  284. 284.

    Planzer (2016), p. 691 ff.

  285. 285.

    See, inter alia, paragraph 98 and 101 of HR-2007-1144-A - Rt-2007-1003.

  286. 286.

    Harbo (2012), p. 153.

  287. 287.

    HR-2007-1144-A - Rt-2007-1003, cited above, paragraph 105 “iøynefallende likhet”.

  288. 288.

    Oslo District Court, TOSLO-2004-91,873, judgment of 3 October 2008.

  289. 289.

    Harbo (2012), p. 141, found this circumstance rather “puzzling”; in particular in view of the fact that the EFTA Court “chose to focus on the necessity test rather than the suitability test”.

  290. 290.

    Harbo (2012), p. 142.

  291. 291.

    The appeal to Borgarting Court of Appeal was withdrawn; see Harbo (2012), p. 144, footnote 22.

  292. 292.

    Harbo (2012), p. 140.

  293. 293.

    Infra, Sect. 5.

  294. 294.

    Case E-14/15, Holship, cited above, concerned primarily a discussion of the legitimate aim.

  295. 295.

    Harbo (2012), p. 150.

  296. 296.

    HR-2007-1144-A - Rt-2007-1003, cited above, paragraph 106: “Dette viser etter min mening at EFTA-domstolens moderate prøvingsintensitet i denne saken er i god harmoni med den norske tradisjon ved domstolsprøving av. vurderinger av. utpreget politisk karakter”.

  297. 297.

    Supra, Sect. 2.5.

  298. 298.

    HR-2016-2554, cited above, paragraph 86.

  299. 299.

    Supra, Sects. 1 and 2.1.

  300. 300.

    See, for example, Case E-1/06, Gaming Machines, cited above, paragraphs 25 to 53 (in particular the findings regarding the necessity of the measure, where the Court also criticised the policy decision (paragraph 50)).

  301. 301.

    Harbo (2012), p. 153.

  302. 302.

    Baudenbacher (2012), p. 189.

  303. 303.

    See already Baudenbacher (2006), p. 23 ff.

  304. 304.

    Case E-4/00, Dr. Johann Brändle, cited above, paragraphs 27 ff. Case E-5/00, Dr. Josef Mangold, cited above, paragraph 25 ff. and Case E-6/00, Dr Jürgen Tschannett, cited above, paragraphs 28 ff.

  305. 305.

    Case E-3/00, Kellogg’s, cited above.

  306. 306.

    Case E-3/06, Ladbrokes, cited above.

  307. 307.

    Case E-3/00, Kellogg’s, cited above, paragraph 27.

  308. 308.

    Ibid., paragraph 43 ff.

  309. 309.

    Case E-3/00, Kellogg’s, cited above, paragraph 28.

  310. 310.

    See the chapter by Carl Baudenbacher, Reciprocity.

  311. 311.

    See the Order of the President of 20 February 2017 on accelerated procedure in Case E-21/16, Pascal Nobile v DAS Rechtsschutz-Versicherungs AG, not yet reported.

References

  • Andenas M, Zleptnig S (2006–2007) Proportionality: WTO law: in comparative perspective. Tex Int Law J 42:371

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier de La Serre E (2014) Standard of review in competition law cases. In: EFTA Court (ed) The EEA and the EFTA Court. Hart, p 418

    Google Scholar 

  • Batliner A (2012) Practical issues regarding the application of EEA law through the eyes of a National Judge. In: Baudenbacher C et al. The EEA and the EFTA Court: Decentred integration: to mark the 20th anniversary of the EFTA Court, EFTA Court (ed) Hart, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2006) Governments before the EFTA Court. In: Fenger N et al (eds) Festskrift til Claus Gulman. København

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher C (2012) 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, Court of Justice of the European Union (ed) Springer, p 183

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudenbacher LM (2016) Aspects of competition law enforcement in selected European jurisdictions. ECLR 37(9):343–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorge E (2010) The status of the ECHR in Norway: should Norwegian courts interpret the convention dynamically? Eur Public Law 16(1). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1552421

  • 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/Wirtschaftsrecht und Justiz in Zeiten der Globalisierung: Festschrift für Carl Baudenbacher. Nomos Verlag, Verlag Österreich, Stämpfli Verlag AG, Baden-Baden, Wien, Bern p 37

    Google Scholar 

  • Björgvinsson DT (2015) The intersection of international law and domestic law: a theoretical and practical analysis. Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer NJ (2013) Fundamental rights and the EU internal market: just how fundamental are the EU treaty freedoms? A normative enquiry based on John Rawls’ political philosophy. Utrecht Law Rev 9(1)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bücker A, Warneck W (eds) (2011) Reconciling fundamental social rights and economic freedoms after Viking. Laval and Rüffert, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Burley AM, Mattli W (1993) Europe before the Court A theory of legal integration. Int Organ 47(1) Winter 1993

    Google Scholar 

  • Challenor B (2015) The balancing act: a case for structured proportionality under the second limb of the Lange test. Univ West Aust Law Rev 40:267 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Claasen CD (2012) Das Prinzip der Verhältnismäßigkeit im Spiegel europäischer Rechtsentwicklungen. In: Sachs M, Siekmann H, Blanke HJ, Dietlein J, Nierhaus M, Püttner G (eds) Der grundrechtsgeprägte Verfassungsstaat: Festschrift für Klaus Stern zum 80. Geburtstag, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, p 651

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Eliya M, Porat I (2011) Proportionality and the culture of justification. Am J Comp Law 59(2) (Spring 2011), 463

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Eliya M, Porat I (2013a) Proportionality and justification. Univ Toronto Law J 64 (2012) no. 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Eliya M, Porat I (2013b) Proportionality and constitutional culture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn M (2010) Legal transplant chronicles: the evolution of unreasonableness and proportionality review of the administration in the United Kingdom. Am J Comp Law 58(3) (Summer 2010), 583–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksen HH (2014) The Troubled Relationship between the Supreme Court of Norway and the EFTA Court –Recent Development. Available at https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/7861/The%20Troubled%20Relationship%20between%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20Norway%20and%20the%20EFTA%20Court%20-%20Recent%20Developments.pdf?sequence%C2%BC1

  • Gerards J (2013) How to improve the necessity test of the European court of human rights. ICON 11(2):466–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstenberg O (2009) The role of the ECJ in the protection of fundamental and social rights, economic constitutionalism or deliberative constitutionalism. In: Calliess G-P et al (eds) Soziologische Jurisprudenz: Festschrift für Gunther Teubner zum 65. Geburtstag

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer S (2004) “Balancing” and the European court of human rights: a contribution to the Habermas-Alexy debate. Camb Law J 63(2):412–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm D (2007) Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence. Univ Toronto Law J 57:383 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Haguenau-Moizard C, Sanchez Y (2015) The principle of proportionality in European law. In: Ranchordas S, de Waard B (eds) The judge and the proportionate use of discretion: a comparative administrative law study. Taylor & Francis Ltd, Routledge, London, p 142

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbo TI (2012) Legal integration through judicial dialogue. In: Fauchald K, Nollkaemper A (eds) The practice of International and National Courts and the (De-)Fragmentation of international law. Hart, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbo TI (2015) The function of proportionality analysis in European law. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harris D et al (2014) Law of the European convention on human rights. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilf M, Puth S (2002) The principle of proportionality on its way into WTO/GATT law. In: Von Bogandy A, Mavroidis PC, Mény Y (eds) European integration and international co-ordination: studies in transnational economic law in honour of Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, London, New York, p 199

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoch H (2000) Schwerpunkte in der Entwicklung der Grundrechtssprechung des Staatsgerichtshofes. Available at: http://www.sfplex.li/CFDOCS/cms3/admin/cms/download.cfm?FileID=8947&GroupID=281&WatermarkMenuEntriesObjectID=8771

  • Höfling W (2012) Schranken der Grundrechte. In: Liechtenstein Politische Schriften, Band 52

    Google Scholar 

  • Hreinsson P (2003) Meðalhófsregla Stjórnsýslulaga. In: Stefánsson SM og Matthíasson VM (eds) Lögberg - Rit Lagastofnunar Háskóla Íslands, p 503

    Google Scholar 

  • Hreinsson P (2016) General principles. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, p 349

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huber PM (2016) The principle of proportionality. In: Schroeder W (ed) Strengthening the rule of law in Europe. Hart, Oxford, p 98

    Google Scholar 

  • Jowell J (1996) Is proportionality an Alien concept? Eur Public Law 2(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kley A (1998) Allgemeine Grundsätze des liechtensteinischen Verwaltungsrechts. In: Liechtenstein Politische Schriften, Band 23

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch O (2003) Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit in der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Gemeinschafen. In: Schriften zum Europäischen Recht (Band 92). Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (2007) Institutionalising Socratic Contestation: The Rationalist Human Rights Paradigm, Legitimate Authority and the Point of Judicial Review, p 172

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennert P, Heilmann D (2011) Die Auslegung der aktorischen Kaution im Lichte des Allgemeinen Europäischen Diskriminierungsverbotes in Art. 4 des Abkommens zum Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum: Besprechung Urteil des EFTA-Gerichtshofes vom 17. Dezember 2010, Rechtssache E-5/10, LJZ 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney P (2010) Reconciling Universality of Human Rights and Local Democracy – the European Experience. In: Festschrift für Renate Jaeger Grundrechte und Solidarität - Durchsetzung und Verfahren Hohmann-Dennhardt, C, Masuch, P, Villiger M (eds) Kehl-am Rhein

    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/Wirtschaftsrecht und Justiz in Zeiten der Globalisierung: Festschrift für Carl Baudenbacher, Baden-Baden, Wien, Bern, p 225

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2016) Proportionality as a Global Constitutional Principle (2016). Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2016-10, p 2. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2773733 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2773733

  • Petersen N (2017) Proportionality and judicial activism. Cambridge University Press, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirker B (2013) Proportionality analysis and models of judicial review. Europa Law Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Planzer S (2016) Gambling law. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) Handbook of EEA law. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Polley R (2014) Third party access to file in competition cases. In: EFTA Court (ed) The EEA and the EFTA court. Hart, p 435

    Google Scholar 

  • Polley R, Clifton M-J (2016) The principles of transparency and openness, and access to documents. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law, p 625

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulsen TC (2016) Norwegian courts. In: Baudenbacher C (ed) The handbook of EEA law. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechal S (2008) Free movement and procedural requirements: proportionality reconsidered. Leg Issues Econ Integr 35(3):201. Kluwer Law International, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich N (2011) “Verhältnismässigkeit” als “Mega-Prinzip” im Unionsrecht? Überlegungen zur Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofes der Europäischen Union (EuGH) zum Verhältnis der Grundfreiheiten zur Autonomie des Nationalstaates. In: Mehde V, Ramsauer U, Seckelmann M (eds) Staat, Verwaltung, Information, Festschrift für Hans Peter Bull zum 75. Geburtstag, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, p 259

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez Ferrere MB (2007) Proportionality as a Distinct Head of Judicial Review in New Zealand, Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (with Honours) at the University of Otago, October 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosas A (2005) Fundamental rights in Luxembourg and Strasbourg courts. In: Baudenbacher C et al (eds) The EFTA court, ten years on. Hart

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlink B (2012) Proportionality in constitutional law: why everywhere but here? Duke J Comp Int Law 22(2):291

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönberg SJ (2000) The principle of proportionality’s many faces: a comparative study of judicial review in English. French and EU Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze J (2012) Dimensionen der Verhältnismässigkeit. In: Schwarze, Europarecht: Strukturen, Dimensionen und Wandlungen des Rechts der Europäischen Union, p 710

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen J (2008) Proportionality in competition law and policy. Leg Issues Econ Integr 35(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone Sweet A, Mathews J (2008) Proportionality balancing and global constitutionalism. Columbia J Transl Law 47 (fall 2008), no. 1:72

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple Lang J (2012) Judicial review of competition decisions under the European convention on human rights and the importance of the EFTA Court: the Norway post judgment. Eur Law Rev 37:467

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorarensen B (2003) Áhrif meðalhófsreglu við skýringu stjórnarskrárákvæða. In: Stefánsson SM og Matthíasson VM (eds) Lögberg - Rit Lagastofnunar Háskóla Íslands, p 51

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsakyrakis S (2009) Proportionality an assault on human rights. Int J Comp Law 7(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsakyrakis S (2013) Total freedom: the morality of proportionality. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2220255 (last visited on 11.05.2017)

  • Tschütscher K, Baudenbacher C (2012) 20 Jahre Unterzeichnung des EWR-Abkommens_Ein Vierakter mit Original-Darstellern, Schaan, Regierung des Fürstentums Liechtenstein

    Google Scholar 

  • Ueda J (2003) Is the principle of proportionality the European approach?: a review and analysis of trade and environment cases before the European court of justice. Eur Bus Law Rev 14(5):557–593

    Google Scholar 

  • Ungerank W (2010) Entsprechen die nunmehrigen Bestimmungen der ZPO betreffend die Sicherheitsleistung für Prozesskosten dem EWR-Recht? LJZ 2010, Seite 32 (Heft 2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Danwitz T (2012) Thoughts on proportionality and Coherence in the jurisprudence of the court of justice. In: Cordonnel P, Rosas A, Wahl N (eds) Constitutionalising the EU judicial system, essays in honour of Pernilla Lindh. Hart, Oxford, Portland, Oregon, p 367

    Google Scholar 

  • Vries S (2013) The protection of fundamental rights within Europe’s internal market after Lisbon – an endeavour for more harmony. In: Vries SA et al (eds) Balancing fundamental rights with the EU treaty freedoms: the European court of justice as tightrope walker. Hart

    Google Scholar 

  • Vries SA et al (2012) Balancing fundamental rights with the EU treaty freedoms: the European court of justice as tightrope walker. Europa Instituut Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Werlauff E (2010) Proportionality lost – proportionality regained. In: Koch H, Hagel-Sorensen K, Haltern UR (eds) Europe. The new legal realism: essays in honour of Hjalte Rasmussen. Djøf Publishing, Copenhagen, p 817

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EFTA Court, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Carl Baudenbacher & Theresa Haas

Authors
  1. Carl Baudenbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Theresa Haas
    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

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baudenbacher, C., Haas, T. (2017). Proportionality as a Fundamental Principle of EEA Law. In: Baudenbacher, C. (eds) The Fundamental Principles of EEA Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45189-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45189-3_9

  • Published:

  • 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

Search

Navigation