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.”

References

  1. Almestad K (1994) EFTA Court Report, 177Google Scholar
  2. 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 23–49Google Scholar
  3. 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 79–107Google Scholar
  4. 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 90–124Google Scholar
  5. Baudenbacher C (2010a) The EFTA Court in action. Five lectures. German Law Publishers, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  6. Baudenbacher C (2010b) The EFTA Court in action—Five lectures, German Law Publishers, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 2012Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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 2–28Google Scholar
  10. Baudenbacher LM (2010c) Das Personenfreizügigkeitsabkommen EU-Schweiz ist doch kein Integrationsvertrag. ELR 34–37Google Scholar
  11. Baudenbacher LM (2010d) Gar lustig ist die Jägerei—aber für Schweizer ist sie teurer als für andere, ELR 280–283Google Scholar
  12. Baur G (2011) Kohärente Interpretationsmethode als Instrument europarechtskonformer Rechtsanwendung—eine rechtspolitische Skizze. 25 Jahre Liechtenstein-Institut (1986–2011). Verlag der Liechtensteinischen Akademischen Gesellschaft, SchaanGoogle Scholar
  13. 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)
  14. Bronckers M, Vallery A (2012) Business as usual after Menarini? MLex Magazine January–March 2012, pp 44 ffGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 97–129Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Einarsson OJ (2011) Hæstiréttur og EES-samningurinn - Samningsbrotamál og skaðabótaábyrgð (The Supreme Court and the EEA Agreement—infringment procedure and liability), Úlfljótur, 635 ffGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 ffGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 90–99Google Scholar
  20. Hummer W (1992) Vorder- und Hintergründe des Gutachtens des EuGH zum EWRV, WBl. 33 ffGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 ffGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 fGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 100–135Google Scholar
  24. Líndal S, Magnússon S (2011) Réttarkerfi Evrópusambandsins og Evrópska efnahagssvæðisins – Megindrættir, ReykjavíkGoogle Scholar
  25. Maduro MP (2007) Interpreting European law: judicial adjudication in a context of constitutional pluralism. EJLS 1(2):1 ffGoogle Scholar
  26. Magnússon S (2010) On the authority of advisory opinions, Europarättslig Tidskrift 13:528 ffGoogle Scholar
  27. Magnússon S (2011) Judicial homogeneity in the European Economic Area and the authority of the EFTA Court. Nordic J Int Law 80:507Google Scholar
  28. Norberg S (2002) Perspectives on the future development of the EEA Agreement. Afmaelisrit Thór VilhjálmssonGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 487–506Google Scholar
  30. Ramsey LP (2010) Free speech and international obligations to protect trademarks. Yale J Int Law 35:405Google Scholar
  31. Schäfer A (2006) Die Prozesskostensicherheit – eine Diskriminierung? LJZ 17(1):32Google Scholar
  32. Schweizer RJ (1993) Die schweizerischen Gerichte und das europäische Recht. ZSR NF II(570):620Google Scholar
  33. Sevón L, Johansson M (1999) The protection of the rights of individuals under the EEA Agreement. Eur Law Rev 373:385Google Scholar
  34. 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 170–186Google Scholar
  35. 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 123–130Google Scholar
  36. Spanò RR (2012) The concept of procedural homogeneity. In: Court EFTA (ed) Judicial protection in the European Economic Area. German Law Publishers, Stuttgart, pp 152–159Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. van Gerven W (1993) The genesis of EEA law and the principles of primacy and direct effect. Fordham Int Law J 16(955):989Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Instituut 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EFTA CourtLuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations