Prof. Dr. Carl Baudenbacher President of the EFTA Court The contribution of the EFTA Court to the establishment of

3. EEA: Extension of the EC internal market to the EFTA States (Art. 1 EEA; ECJ Ospelt [2003]; EFTA Court ESA v Iceland [2003]) Two pillars (EC and EFTA) with law that is largely identical in substance Individuals and economic operators as main protagonists: Free access to the markets in both EEA pillars Homogeneity goal Reciprocity expectations of both sides A. Introduction

4. II. EFTA Court Third European jurisdiction (after ECHR and ECJ/CFI) Example of judicialization of international law From 7 to 5 to 3 judges (+ 6 ad hoc judges) Cabinet system A. Introduction

5. II. EFTA Court Secrecy of deliberations and of vote Appointment and reappointment of judges No Advocate General Language regime A. Introduction

6. B. Homogeneity I. Statutory principle Article 6 EEA "Without prejudice to future developments of case law, the provisions of this Agreement, in so far as they are identical in substance to corresponding rules of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and to acts adopted in application of these two Treaties, shall, in their implementation and application, be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities given prior to the date of signature of this Agreement."

7. B. Homogeneity I. Statutory principle Article 3 II SCA "In the interpretation and application of the EEA Agreement and this Agreement, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court shall pay due account to the principles laid down by the relevant rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Communities given after the date of signature of the EEA Agreement and which concern the interpretation of that Agreement or of such rules of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community in so far as they are identical in substance to the provisions of the EEA Agreement or to the provisions of Protocols 1 to 4 and the provisions of the acts corresponding to those listed in Annexes I and II to the present Agreement."

8. B. Homogeneity II. General principle? ECJ Ospelt (2003): The ECJ is responsible for securing homogeneity EFTA Court ESA v Iceland (2003): Reference to ECJ Ospelt ECJ Bellio Fratelli (2004): Both courts are responsible for securing homogeneity EFTA Court Fokus Bank (2004): Reference to ECJ Bellio Fratelli

9. B. Homogeneity II. General principle? ECJ Keller Holding (2006) and subsequent cases: Bellio formula EFTA Court Norwegian Waterfalls (2007): Presumption that identically worded provisions are to be interpreted in a homogeneous way (in casu: Article 125 EEA)

10. B. Homogeneity III. EFTA Court going first Reasons Consequences: Responsibility of the EFTA Court Judicial dialogue (almost 50 cases in particular in the fields of State monopolies, labour law, TV without frontiers, insurance law, IP law, food law, State aid law, competition law, free movement of services and freedom of establishment, tax law and free movement of capital)

11. B. Homogeneity IV. Result: EFTA Court following ECJ (and CFI) case law Basic structures and principles (but “creative homogeneity”) ECJ and CFI taking into account EFTA Court case law in certain circumstances

12. C. EC Constitutional Principles I. EC law Direct effect (ECJ van Gend en Loos), primacy (ECJ Costa v ENEL), state liability (ECJ Francovich and Brasserie du Pêcheur) II. EEA law on the books Individual rights and judicial defense of these rights Reciprocity (Preamble to the EEA Agreement) Homogeneity Article 7 EEA and Protocol 35

13. C. EC Constitutional Principles III. EEA law in Action ECJ Opinion 1/91 Quasi-direct effect (EFTA Court Restamark [1994]) Direct effect in EC law (CFI Opel Austria[1997]) Quasi-primacy (EFTA Court Einarsson [2002]) Indirect effect (EFTA Court Karlsson [2002]; A [2007])

14. C. EC Constitutional Principles III. EEA law in Action State liability (EFTA Court Sveinbjörnsdóttir [1998], ECJ Rechberger [1999]; EFTA Court Karlsson [2002]; Icelandic Supreme Court Sveinbjörnsdóttir [1999]; Swedish Supreme Court Andersson [2004]; Norwegian Supreme Court Finanger II [2005]; Liechtenstein Supreme Court Tschannett [2006] - annulled by the State Court [2007]); new case pending before the EFTA Court (reference by the Oslo City Court).

15. D. Dynamic EEA in particular Argument of the Government of Iceland in Sveinbjörnsdóttir: In case of inhomogeneity due to non-dynamic interpretation of EEA law, governments and diplomats are competent; rejected by the EFTA Court Argument of the Government of Norway in Karlsson that securing a dynamic EEA is for the governments and not for the Court; rejected by the EFTA Court The problem of the “widening gap” between the EC Treaty and the EEA Agreement. Dynamic interpretation and its limits recognized by the EFTA Court in Pedicel (2005)

16. E. Case studies on judicial Dialogue with the Community courts I. The precautionary principle in foodstuff law ECJ Sandoz (1983); EFTA Court Kellogg's (2001); CFI Pfizer Animal Health and Allpharma (2003): references to EFTA Court Kellogg’s; ECJ Monsanto (2003); ECJ Commission v Denmark (2003): references to EFTA Court Kellogg’s;

17. E. Case studies on judicial Dialogue with the Community courts I. The precautionary principle in foodstuff law ECJ Commission v Netherlands (2004): reference to EFTA Court Kellogg’s; ECJ Bellio Fratelli (2004): references to EFTA Court Kellogg’s; EFTA Court Pedicel (2005): references to the existing ECJ and CFI and EFTA Court case law

18. E. Case studies on judicial dialogue with the Community courts II. Repackager of pharmaceuticals adding his own design under the Trademark Directive ECJ Bristol Myers Squibb (1996) EFTA Court Paranova (2003) Request for a preliminary ruling of the ECJ in Boehringer Ingelheim II by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (2004): Reference to EFTA Court Paranova

19. E. Case studies on judicial dialogue with the Community courts II. Repackager of pharmaceuticals adding his own design under the Trademark Directive Advocate-General Sharpston in Boehringer Ingelheim II (2006): Suggestion that the ECJ follow EFTA Court Paranova ECJ Boeringer Ingelheim II (2007) follows EFTA Court Paranova

20. E. Case studies on judicial dialogue with the Community courts II. Repackager of pharmaceuticals adding his own design under the Trademark Directive

21. E. Case studies on judicial dialogue with the Community courts III. Discriminatory taxation of dividends ECJ Manninen (2004): Inbound dividends EFTA Court Fokus Bank (2004): Outbound dividends Advocate-General Geelhoed Test Claimants IV (2006) and Denkavit (2006): Outbound dividends; suggestion that the ECJ does not follow EFTA Court Fokus Bank ECJ Test Claimants IV and Denkavit (2007): Slightly different result than EFTA Court Fokus Bank, no reference

22. E. Case studies on judicial dialogue with the Community courts

23. F. Conclusions I. EEA Agreement works smoothly on the judicial level II. EFTA Court is not overburdened, but often faces fresh legal questions Homogeneity is no one way street IV. EFTA Court gives input to ECJ/CFI case law IV. Reciprocity expectations have largely been fulfilled