|
Журнал зарубежного законодательства и сравнительного правоведения / Journal of foreighn legislation and comparative law
Правильная ссылка на статью:
К. Бауденбахер
Суд Европейской ассоциации свободной торговли
// Журнал зарубежного законодательства и сравнительного правоведения / Journal of foreighn legislation and comparative law.
2011. № 6.
С. 4-20.
URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=59133
К. Бауденбахер Суд Европейской ассоциации свободной торговли
Аннотация:
В статье рассматриваются этапы становления и развития Суда Европейской ассоциации свободной торговли («рождение», «взросление», «совершеннолетие», «зрелость»), итоги и перспективы его деятельности. Исследуется вопрос о правовой природе Соглашения о ЕЭП, принципах права ЕЭП. Сделан вывод об основном различии между правом ЕЭП и ЕС, которое заключается в отсутствии определенных общих политик. Проанализирован вопрос о взаимодействии Суда ЕАСТ с Судом ЕС в рамках режима единообразия толкования права. В заключении отмечено, что Суд ЕАСТ признан судами Евросоюза авторитетной судебной инстанцией, его решениям следуют национальные суды и правительства ЕЭП/ЕАСТ. Приводятся выдержки из решений Суда ЕАСТ.
Ключевые слова:
европейское экономическое пространство, Суд Европейской ассоциации свободной торговли, толкование права, права человека, общие принципы права ЕЭП, примат права ЕЭП, прямое действие права ЕЭП, ответственность государства, принцип предосторожности, принцип единообразия, принцип взаимности, преюдициальное решение, доступ к правосудию.
Abstract: The article is devoted to the stages of the European Free Trade Association Court formation and development
— “birth”, “growing-up”, “lawful age”, and “maturity”, — results and perspectives of its activity. The problem
of legal Nature of Agreement on the Common Economic Space is researched. The conclusion on basic difference between
the common economic space law and the European Union law is made. It consists in the absence of determined
common politics. The question on cooperation between the European Free Trade Association Court and the Court
of Justice of the European Union in view of regime of law interpretation uniformity is analyzed. The European Free
Trade Association Court is recognized by the European courts as reputable judicial instance. The national courts and
government of the States-Parties of the Common Economic Space and European Free Trade Association are guided
by its judgments.
Keywords: the Common Economic Space, the European Free Trade Association Court, law interpretation, human rights, basic principles of the Common Economic Space law, primacy of the Common Economic Space law, direct application of the Common Economic Space law, responsibility of state, precautionary principle, principle of uniformity, principle of reciprocity, prejudicial judgment, access to justice.
Библиография
1. Alemanno A. “A Tale of Inter/Judicial Dialogue and Jurisprudential Cross-fertilization: the Precautionary Principle in EU, EEA and WTO Law” in Baudenbacher (ed.) Dialogue Between Courts in Times of Globalization and Regionalization, Intl. Dispute Resolution Volume 2, Stuttgart, 2010, 27 ff., 29 ff.
2. Bast J. “European Economic Area (EEA)” paragraph 22 // www.mpepil.com
3. Baudenbacher C. “Governments before the EFTA Court”, Festkrift til C. Gulmann, Kobenhavn, 2006.
4. Baudenbacher C. “The EFTA Court, the ECJ and the Latter’s Advocates General — a Tale of Judicial Dialogue” in Continuity and Change in EU Law in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs, edited by A. Arnull, P. Eckhout and Takis Tridimas, Oxford, 2008.
5. Baudenbacher C. “Trademark Law and Parallel Imports in a Globalized World — Recent Developments in Europe with Special Regard to the Legal Situation in the United States” Fordham Int’l L.J. 645, 1998.
6. Baudenbacher C. “Wie sollen Konflikte im Verhaeltnis Schweiz-EU geloest warden?” Festschrift fuer Rolf Weber, Bern 2011.
7. Baudenbacher, “The EFTA Court in Action — 5 Lectures”, Stuttgart, 2010, 21 f.
8. Bjorgvinsson D. “EES-rettur og landsrettur”, Reykjavik, Bokautgafan Codex, 2006.
9. Brandter B. “The Drama” of the EEA: Comments on Opinions 1/91 and 1/92, 3 EJIL, 1992.
10. Buschle D. “The Enforcement of Energy Law in Wider Europe” in Buschle, Hirsbrunner and Kaddous, European Energy Law, Basel 2011.
11. Fredriksen H.H. «One Market, Two Courts: Legal Pluralism vs. Homogeneity in the European Economic Area”, Nordic Journal of International Law 79, 2010.
12. Fredriksen H.H. EU/EOS-rett I norske domstoler, Report commissioned by the norwegian EEA Review, Committee, Oslo 2011.
13. Graver H.P. “Supranationality and national Legal Autonomy in the EEA Agreement” Arena Working Papers 00/23.
14. Henrik Bull “European Law and norwegian Courts”, in Mueller-Graff Eds, The Approach to European Law in Germany and norway, Berlin, 2004.
15. Icelandic Supreme Court, Sveinbjornsdottir, no. 236/1999, H 1999 4916.
16. Magnusson S. “On the Authority of the Advisory Opinions”, 13 Europaraettslig Tidskrift, 2010 528 ff.
17. Magnusson S. “Judicial Homogeneity in the European Economic Area and the Authority of the EFTA Court”, Nordic Journal of International Law 80, 2011.
18. Mueller-Graff and Selvig. “The European Economic Area: norway’s basic status in the legal construction of Europe”, 1997, Berlin.
19. Norberg S. et al. “The European Economic Area, EEA Law. A Commentary on the EEA Agreement”, Stockholm, 1993.
20. Orlygsson Th.“Iceland and the EFTA Court, Twelve Years of Experience” in Mario Monti, Prinz nikolaus von und zu Liechtenstaein, Bo Vesterdorf, Jay Westbrook, (eds) “Economic Law and Justice in Times of Globalization”, Festschrift for Carl Baudenbacher, Baden-Baden/Berne/Vienna 2007.
21. Schaefer A. “Die Prozesskostensichereit — eine Diskriminierung?”, LIZ 1/06, 17, 32.
22. Scouris V. “The ECJ and the EFTA Court under the EAA Agreement: a Paradigm for International Cooperation between Judicial Institutions” in C / Baudenbacher/ P. Tresselt / T. Orlyfsson, eds, The EFTA Court Ten Years On.
23. Sevon L. “Primacy and Direct Effect in the EEA. Some Reflections” in Liber Amicorum Ple Due, 1994.
24. Timmermans Ch. “Creative Homogeneity” in Martin Jahansson, nils Wahl, Ulf Bernitz (eds) A European for all seasons: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Sven norberg, Brussles 2006.
25. Titues van Stiphout “The L’Oreal Case — Some Thoughts on the Role of the EFTA Court in the EEA Legal Framework, Two Courts: Legal Pluralism vs. Homogeneity in the European Economic Area”, loc.cit. 482, 495 ff.
26. “The European Economic Area” in Oliver on Free Movements of Goods in the European Union, 5th Ed., Oxford and Portland, Oregon 2010, 487 ff., 493.
27. Austrian Supreme Court, 9 Oba 193/98t of 7th Oct. 1998, DRdA 1998.
28. Case E-9/97 Erla Maria Sveinbjornsdottir v Iceland, 1998, EFTA Ct Rep. 97, P.44 ff, 60.
29. Case 174/82 Sandoz BV, 1983, ECR, 2443.
30. Case 192/01 Commission v Denmark,2003, ECR, I-9693.
31. Case 270/80 Polydor Ltd abd RSO records vs Harlequin Records Shops Ltd and Simons Records Ltd, 1982 ECR, 329, paragraphs 18 & 19.
32. Case C-140/971999 ECR, I-3499, P.39
33. Case C-192/01 Commission v Denmark, 2003 ECR, I-9693.
34. Case C-224/01 Koebler vs Austria, 2003 ECR, I-10239.
35. Case C-236/01 Monsanto 2003 ECR, I-8105, paragraph106.
36. Case C-265/04 Margaretha Bouanich v Skatterverket, 2006 ECR, I-923, paragraph 51-56.
37. Case C-284/06 Burda 2008 ECR I-4571.
38. Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim II, 2007 ECR I-3391.
39. Case C-348/98 Ferreira, 2000, ECR I-6711.
40. Case C-355/96 Silhouette v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft, 1998 ECR, I-4799.
41. Case C-374/04, Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 2006 ECR I 11673.
42. Case C-379/05 Amurta 2007 ECR I-9569.
43. Case C-452/01 Margarethe Ospelt and Schloessle Weissenberg Familienstifung, 2003, ECR, I-9743.
44. Case C-487/08, judgment of 3rd June 2010, paragraph 62,66 f.
45. Case C-537/03 Candolin, 2005 ECR I-5745, at paragraph 22: Reference to paragraph 42 of the Advocate General’s Opinion.
46. Case C-540/07, 2009 ECR, I-10983, paragraph 37 f.
47. Case E-1/01 Einarsson, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep. 1, Para 47 ff.
48. Case E-1/01 Hordur Einarsson, 2002, EFTA Ct Rep.1, Para 17.
49. Case E-1/03 EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Iceland (2003) EFTA Court Report, 143, Para 21.
50. Case E-1/03, 2003 EFTA ct Rep.143, Para 26.
51. Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA, 2004 EFTA Ct Rep. 11, Para 20.
52. Case E-1/07 Criminal Proceedings against A, 2007 EFTA Ct Rep., 245, P. 39.
53. Case E-1/94 Restamark, 1994-95 EFTA Ct Rep. 15, Para 75 ff.
54. Case E-1/99,1999 EFTA Ct. Rep., 119.
55. Case E-12/10 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Republic of Iceland, judgment of 28 June 2011, nyr, р. 60.
56. Case E-18/10 “EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway, judgment of 28th June 2011, nyr, paragraph 28.
57. Case E-2/02 Technologien Bau-und Wirtschaftsberatung and Bellona v EFTA Surveillance Authority, 2003, EFTA Ct Rep., 52, p. 37.
58. Case E-2/03 «Асгейрсон», EFTA 2003, Court Report, 185, Para 28.
59. Case E-2/06 EFTA Surveillance Authority v. norway (Waterfalls), 2007 EFTA Court Report, 164, Para 41.
60. Case E-2/10 Kolbeinsson vs The Icelandic State, 2009-2010 EFTA Ct/ Rep. 234, P 77.
61. Case E-2/10 Kolbeinsson, 2009-2020 EFTA Ct., Rep., 234, paragraphs 7, 69, 77.
62. Case E-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway, 2000-2001 EFTA Ct. Rep., 73.
63. Case E-3/98 Rainford Towning (1998) EFTA Court Report, 205, Paragraph 15.
64. Case E-4/01 Arnulf Clauder, judgment of 26 July 2011, nyr, Para 48.
65. Case E-4/01 Arnulf Clauder, judgment of 26 July 2011, nyr, paragraph 48.
66. Case E-4/01, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep., 240, P. 26 ff.
67. Case E-6/01 CIBA, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep., 281, paragraph 12/13.
68. Case E-6/98 norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority, 1999, EFTA Ct. Report 74, Para 34.
69. Case E-8/00 — Landsorganisasjonen I norge (norwegian Federation of Trade Unions) with norsk Kommuneforbund (norwegian Union of Municipal Employees), 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep. 114.
70. Case E-8/07 Celina nguen vs norwegian State 2008 EFTA Court Rep., 224, Para 24.
71. Case E-8/97 TV 1000 Sverige v norway, 1998 EFTA Ct Rep, 68, p. 26.
72. Case E-9/07 and E-10/07 L’Oreal norge AS v Aarskog Per AS and Others and Smart Club norge, 2008, EFTA Court Rep., 259.
73. Case Mag Instrument Inc/ v California Trading Company norway, Ulsteen, 1997, EFTA Court, 127.
74. Case T-115/94 «Опель, Австрия, против Совета», ECR 1997, II, 37, Para 107.
75. Case T-115/94, ECR, 1997 II, 37. P.102.
76. Case T-70/99 Alpharma, 2002 ECR, II-3495, paragraphs 136,156 etc.
77. Case Е-4/01 Karlsson, 2002 EFTA Ct/ Rep/ 240, P. 28.
78. Case С-210/06 Cartesio ( 2008), ECR, I-9641.
79. Case-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway (Kellogs) 2000-2001 EFTA Ct. Rep. 73.
80. ECJ Opinion 1/91о проекте соглашения по созданию ЕЭА, 1991 ECR I-6079.
81. Сase C-374/04, paragraph 68 ff; C-17005 Denkavit Intl BV and Denkavit France SARL v Ministre del’Economie, des Finances et de l’Industrie, 2006 ECR I-11949, paragraph 51 ff.
82. Сase E-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway “Kellog’s”, 2000-2001 EFTA Ct.Rep.,73.
83. Сase no. ARB/10/7 Philip Morris Brand Sarl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay.
84. England and Wales Court of Appeal, Adams v Lancashire County Council and BET Catering Services Ltd, 1997 ICR 834, 1997 IRLR 436.
85. German Supreme Court, judgment of 19th Sept. 2005 — II ZR 372/03, p.6; judgment of 24th Apr.2008 — I ZR 30/05 Lefax/Lefaxin, Rdnr.22.
86. German Supreme Fiscal Court, judgment of 9th Aug. 2006-I R 31/01; judgment of 29th Apr.2010 — I-ZR 66/08.
87. norwegian Supreme Court Edquist, Rt. 2010 p. 1500, paragraph 113.
88. norwegian Supreme Court, Finanger II, Rt/2005, 1365 etc.
89. Opinion of Advocate General Mischo, 2003 ECR, I-9693, paragraph 79
References
1. Alemanno A. “A Tale of Inter/Judicial Dialogue and Jurisprudential Cross-fertilization: the Precautionary Principle in EU, EEA and WTO Law” in Baudenbacher (ed.) Dialogue Between Courts in Times of Globalization and Regionalization, Intl. Dispute Resolution Volume 2, Stuttgart, 2010, 27 ff., 29 ff.
2. Bast J. “European Economic Area (EEA)” paragraph 22 // www.mpepil.com
3. Baudenbacher C. “Governments before the EFTA Court”, Festkrift til C. Gulmann, Kobenhavn, 2006.
4. Baudenbacher C. “The EFTA Court, the ECJ and the Latter’s Advocates General — a Tale of Judicial Dialogue” in Continuity and Change in EU Law in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs, edited by A. Arnull, P. Eckhout and Takis Tridimas, Oxford, 2008.
5. Baudenbacher C. “Trademark Law and Parallel Imports in a Globalized World — Recent Developments in Europe with Special Regard to the Legal Situation in the United States” Fordham Int’l L.J. 645, 1998.
6. Baudenbacher C. “Wie sollen Konflikte im Verhaeltnis Schweiz-EU geloest warden?” Festschrift fuer Rolf Weber, Bern 2011.
7. Baudenbacher, “The EFTA Court in Action — 5 Lectures”, Stuttgart, 2010, 21 f.
8. Bjorgvinsson D. “EES-rettur og landsrettur”, Reykjavik, Bokautgafan Codex, 2006.
9. Brandter B. “The Drama” of the EEA: Comments on Opinions 1/91 and 1/92, 3 EJIL, 1992.
10. Buschle D. “The Enforcement of Energy Law in Wider Europe” in Buschle, Hirsbrunner and Kaddous, European Energy Law, Basel 2011.
11. Fredriksen H.H. «One Market, Two Courts: Legal Pluralism vs. Homogeneity in the European Economic Area”, Nordic Journal of International Law 79, 2010.
12. Fredriksen H.H. EU/EOS-rett I norske domstoler, Report commissioned by the norwegian EEA Review, Committee, Oslo 2011.
13. Graver H.P. “Supranationality and national Legal Autonomy in the EEA Agreement” Arena Working Papers 00/23.
14. Henrik Bull “European Law and norwegian Courts”, in Mueller-Graff Eds, The Approach to European Law in Germany and norway, Berlin, 2004.
15. Icelandic Supreme Court, Sveinbjornsdottir, no. 236/1999, H 1999 4916.
16. Magnusson S. “On the Authority of the Advisory Opinions”, 13 Europaraettslig Tidskrift, 2010 528 ff.
17. Magnusson S. “Judicial Homogeneity in the European Economic Area and the Authority of the EFTA Court”, Nordic Journal of International Law 80, 2011.
18. Mueller-Graff and Selvig. “The European Economic Area: norway’s basic status in the legal construction of Europe”, 1997, Berlin.
19. Norberg S. et al. “The European Economic Area, EEA Law. A Commentary on the EEA Agreement”, Stockholm, 1993.
20. Orlygsson Th.“Iceland and the EFTA Court, Twelve Years of Experience” in Mario Monti, Prinz nikolaus von und zu Liechtenstaein, Bo Vesterdorf, Jay Westbrook, (eds) “Economic Law and Justice in Times of Globalization”, Festschrift for Carl Baudenbacher, Baden-Baden/Berne/Vienna 2007.
21. Schaefer A. “Die Prozesskostensichereit — eine Diskriminierung?”, LIZ 1/06, 17, 32.
22. Scouris V. “The ECJ and the EFTA Court under the EAA Agreement: a Paradigm for International Cooperation between Judicial Institutions” in C / Baudenbacher/ P. Tresselt / T. Orlyfsson, eds, The EFTA Court Ten Years On.
23. Sevon L. “Primacy and Direct Effect in the EEA. Some Reflections” in Liber Amicorum Ple Due, 1994.
24. Timmermans Ch. “Creative Homogeneity” in Martin Jahansson, nils Wahl, Ulf Bernitz (eds) A European for all seasons: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Sven norberg, Brussles 2006.
25. Titues van Stiphout “The L’Oreal Case — Some Thoughts on the Role of the EFTA Court in the EEA Legal Framework, Two Courts: Legal Pluralism vs. Homogeneity in the European Economic Area”, loc.cit. 482, 495 ff.
26. “The European Economic Area” in Oliver on Free Movements of Goods in the European Union, 5th Ed., Oxford and Portland, Oregon 2010, 487 ff., 493.
27. Austrian Supreme Court, 9 Oba 193/98t of 7th Oct. 1998, DRdA 1998.
28. Case E-9/97 Erla Maria Sveinbjornsdottir v Iceland, 1998, EFTA Ct Rep. 97, P.44 ff, 60.
29. Case 174/82 Sandoz BV, 1983, ECR, 2443.
30. Case 192/01 Commission v Denmark,2003, ECR, I-9693.
31. Case 270/80 Polydor Ltd abd RSO records vs Harlequin Records Shops Ltd and Simons Records Ltd, 1982 ECR, 329, paragraphs 18 & 19.
32. Case C-140/971999 ECR, I-3499, P.39
33. Case C-192/01 Commission v Denmark, 2003 ECR, I-9693.
34. Case C-224/01 Koebler vs Austria, 2003 ECR, I-10239.
35. Case C-236/01 Monsanto 2003 ECR, I-8105, paragraph106.
36. Case C-265/04 Margaretha Bouanich v Skatterverket, 2006 ECR, I-923, paragraph 51-56.
37. Case C-284/06 Burda 2008 ECR I-4571.
38. Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim II, 2007 ECR I-3391.
39. Case C-348/98 Ferreira, 2000, ECR I-6711.
40. Case C-355/96 Silhouette v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft, 1998 ECR, I-4799.
41. Case C-374/04, Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 2006 ECR I 11673.
42. Case C-379/05 Amurta 2007 ECR I-9569.
43. Case C-452/01 Margarethe Ospelt and Schloessle Weissenberg Familienstifung, 2003, ECR, I-9743.
44. Case C-487/08, judgment of 3rd June 2010, paragraph 62,66 f.
45. Case C-537/03 Candolin, 2005 ECR I-5745, at paragraph 22: Reference to paragraph 42 of the Advocate General’s Opinion.
46. Case C-540/07, 2009 ECR, I-10983, paragraph 37 f.
47. Case E-1/01 Einarsson, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep. 1, Para 47 ff.
48. Case E-1/01 Hordur Einarsson, 2002, EFTA Ct Rep.1, Para 17.
49. Case E-1/03 EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Iceland (2003) EFTA Court Report, 143, Para 21.
50. Case E-1/03, 2003 EFTA ct Rep.143, Para 26.
51. Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA, 2004 EFTA Ct Rep. 11, Para 20.
52. Case E-1/07 Criminal Proceedings against A, 2007 EFTA Ct Rep., 245, P. 39.
53. Case E-1/94 Restamark, 1994-95 EFTA Ct Rep. 15, Para 75 ff.
54. Case E-1/99,1999 EFTA Ct. Rep., 119.
55. Case E-12/10 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Republic of Iceland, judgment of 28 June 2011, nyr, r. 60.
56. Case E-18/10 “EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway, judgment of 28th June 2011, nyr, paragraph 28.
57. Case E-2/02 Technologien Bau-und Wirtschaftsberatung and Bellona v EFTA Surveillance Authority, 2003, EFTA Ct Rep., 52, p. 37.
58. Case E-2/03 «Asgeyrson», EFTA 2003, Court Report, 185, Para 28.
59. Case E-2/06 EFTA Surveillance Authority v. norway (Waterfalls), 2007 EFTA Court Report, 164, Para 41.
60. Case E-2/10 Kolbeinsson vs The Icelandic State, 2009-2010 EFTA Ct/ Rep. 234, P 77.
61. Case E-2/10 Kolbeinsson, 2009-2020 EFTA Ct., Rep., 234, paragraphs 7, 69, 77.
62. Case E-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway, 2000-2001 EFTA Ct. Rep., 73.
63. Case E-3/98 Rainford Towning (1998) EFTA Court Report, 205, Paragraph 15.
64. Case E-4/01 Arnulf Clauder, judgment of 26 July 2011, nyr, Para 48.
65. Case E-4/01 Arnulf Clauder, judgment of 26 July 2011, nyr, paragraph 48.
66. Case E-4/01, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep., 240, P. 26 ff.
67. Case E-6/01 CIBA, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep., 281, paragraph 12/13.
68. Case E-6/98 norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority, 1999, EFTA Ct. Report 74, Para 34.
69. Case E-8/00 — Landsorganisasjonen I norge (norwegian Federation of Trade Unions) with norsk Kommuneforbund (norwegian Union of Municipal Employees), 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep. 114.
70. Case E-8/07 Celina nguen vs norwegian State 2008 EFTA Court Rep., 224, Para 24.
71. Case E-8/97 TV 1000 Sverige v norway, 1998 EFTA Ct Rep, 68, p. 26.
72. Case E-9/07 and E-10/07 L’Oreal norge AS v Aarskog Per AS and Others and Smart Club norge, 2008, EFTA Court Rep., 259.
73. Case Mag Instrument Inc/ v California Trading Company norway, Ulsteen, 1997, EFTA Court, 127.
74. Case T-115/94 «Opel', Avstriya, protiv Soveta», ECR 1997, II, 37, Para 107.
75. Case T-115/94, ECR, 1997 II, 37. P.102.
76. Case T-70/99 Alpharma, 2002 ECR, II-3495, paragraphs 136,156 etc.
77. Case E-4/01 Karlsson, 2002 EFTA Ct/ Rep/ 240, P. 28.
78. Case S-210/06 Cartesio ( 2008), ECR, I-9641.
79. Case-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway (Kellogs) 2000-2001 EFTA Ct. Rep. 73.
80. ECJ Opinion 1/91o proekte soglasheniya po sozdaniyu EEA, 1991 ECR I-6079.
81. Sase C-374/04, paragraph 68 ff; C-17005 Denkavit Intl BV and Denkavit France SARL v Ministre del’Economie, des Finances et de l’Industrie, 2006 ECR I-11949, paragraph 51 ff.
82. Sase E-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway “Kellog’s”, 2000-2001 EFTA Ct.Rep.,73.
83. Sase no. ARB/10/7 Philip Morris Brand Sarl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay.
84. England and Wales Court of Appeal, Adams v Lancashire County Council and BET Catering Services Ltd, 1997 ICR 834, 1997 IRLR 436.
85. German Supreme Court, judgment of 19th Sept. 2005 — II ZR 372/03, p.6; judgment of 24th Apr.2008 — I ZR 30/05 Lefax/Lefaxin, Rdnr.22.
86. German Supreme Fiscal Court, judgment of 9th Aug. 2006-I R 31/01; judgment of 29th Apr.2010 — I-ZR 66/08.
87. norwegian Supreme Court Edquist, Rt. 2010 p. 1500, paragraph 113.
88. norwegian Supreme Court, Finanger II, Rt/2005, 1365 etc.
89. Opinion of Advocate General Mischo, 2003 ECR, I-9693, paragraph 79
|
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
