07 May 2024
The EU Association Agreement with Andorra and San Marino
On 26 April 2024, the European Commission put forward a proposal for the Council to conclude the Association Agreement (AA) between the European Union and Andorra and San Marino. The AA with Andorra and San Marino goes another step further and introduces in an unprecedented manner the supervision and jurisdiction of the European Commission and the Court of Justice (CJEU) in the context of an association agreement. Accordingly, the Union may now have fully exhausted its association competence when it comes to the depth of integration it may offer third countries. Continue reading >>
0 
06 February 2024
Bricolage, Bullshit, and Bustle
On 15 December 2023, the Swiss Federal Council (Government) announced that it intended to start formal negotiations with the EU on the conclusion of a Framework Agreement (FA) 2.0. Five existing and two new treaties between the EU and Switzerland are to be subject to dynamic alignment and institutionalised, i.e. provided with a monitoring and judicial mechanism. The project, which is practically fixed in the decisive questions by a “Common Understanding” (“CU”) between the two parties, is based on a triple B approach: in substance, it consists of unsuccessful bricolage, the foundations were laid by bullshit, and because elections and a change of the Commission are imminent in the EU, bustle is supposedly of the essence. The CU summarizes what the Parties have informally agreed on. Continue reading >>14 July 2023
The EFTA Court vs Liechtenstein’s Constitutional Court
On July 4 2023, the Court of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) issued its advisory opinion in RS v Steuerverwaltung des Fürstentums Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein’s Constitutional Court had already found in 2020 that a difference in tax rate on income for resident and non-resident employees was incompatible with the free movement of workers. Nonetheless, the Administrative Court of Liechtenstein found it necessary to refer the exact same issue to the EFTA Court, upon which the EFTA Court came to a similar conclusion as the Constitutional Court. The reason thereto? The Constitutional Court had suspended the annulment of the national law for reasons of legal certainty. The question consequently arose of how the national court should further proceed. Should it immediately give full effect to the law of the European Economic Area (EEA) by following the EFTA Court and disapplying the national legislation, or should it give priority to the findings of its own Constitutional Court and nonetheless apply the national legislation, even if that legislation breaches EEA law? How should the national court deal with this conflict of allegiance? Continue reading >>
0
25 June 2020
Loyalty vs. Sovereignty
The German Constitutional Court’s Weiss ruling has led to a major debate as to whether a national supreme court may disregard ECJ case law, asserting that the ECJ had acted ultra vires. Similar debates have existed for quite some time in the EFTA pillar of the EEA, consisting of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. A relatively small but powerful group of lawyers in the Norwegian administration (led by the Government Attorney), orthodox dualist professors and judges loyal to the government has used Norway’s dominant position to attempt to redefine EEA law. One of the most effective strategies is the suppression of the notion of loyalty or good faith and its replacement by a strategy of creating “room for manoeuvre” (“RFM”) for Norway. Continue reading >>29 February 2020
For Norway it’s Official: The Rule of Law is No More in Poland
The so-called “muzzle law”, adopted by the Polish parliament on January 23, was the last straw. On Thursday 27 February, the board of the Norwegian Court Administration decided to withdraw from its planned cooperation with Poland under the justice programme of the EEA and Norway Grants, due to concerns over the Polish justice reforms. Continue reading >>29 November 2019
The Rule of Law in a European Economic Area with National “Room for Manoeuvre”
The former president of the EFTA Court, Carl Baudenbacher, lashes out at more or less the entire Norwegian legal community in his attempt to explain how Norway’s social security authorities (‘NAV’) have come to misinterpret Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems for years, and how public prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges, academics and the EFTA Surveillance Authority all failed to reveal this. This reply challenges his narrative and attempts to explain how use of the “room for manoeuvre” that EU/EEA law leaves to the national legislator can very well be combined with loyal fulfilment of EEA law obligations in an EEA based on the rule of law. Continue reading >>21 November 2019
“Room for Manoeuvre” is the Real Reason for Norway’s EEA Scandal
Hans Petter Graver's explanation of the reasons for the EEA scandal that is currently shaking Norway is not convincing. The total failure of politics, administration, and courts cannot be explained by alleged “conflicts of law” problems, an “extraordinary situation” allegedly created by Norway’s EEA accession, or by a “legal overload” which occurred 25 years ago when EU single market law had to be taken over. Every European country that has joined the EEA on the EFTA side or the EU had to overcome these challenges. Continue reading >>14 November 2019
The Impossibility of Upholding the Rule of Law When You Don’t Know the Rules of the Law
On October 28 2019, it became known that the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration has been systematically breaching the rule of law for years when it applied the EEA legislation incorrectly in cases of unemployment and sickness benefits and work assessment allowances. According to the Attorney General, at least 48 people have been wrongly convicted of social security fraud, 36 of whom have been sentenced to prison. Later investigations have revealed that the number is much higher. This blatant disregard of the rule of law illustrates what happens when political pressure meets legal professionals, judges and an administration who are blissfully ignorant when it comes to European law. Continue reading >>
0
12 December 2016
Brexit and the Single Market: You say Article 50, we say Article 127?
Hard on the heels of the Article 50 case heard last week by the UK Supreme Court, comes the announcement of another challenge to the UK Government’s Brexit plans, this time based on Article 127 of the EEA agreement. Much like Article 50 TEU, that provision allows contracting parties to the EEA agreement to withdraw from it. The claimants in the Article 127 challenge contend that withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 will not lead to withdrawal from the EEA, given that with Article 127 the EEA agreement contains its own termination clause. Hence their argument goes that unless the Government also triggers Article 127, the UK will stay in the EEA even after Brexit; and that would mean that the UK would remain in the single market. Much like the Article 50 case, the impending court case therefore seeks a declaration by the High Court that the Government cannot trigger Article 127 without prior approval of Parliament. The claimants’ hope is that while Parliament may feel politically bound by the EU referendum result to allow the Government to leave the EU, it may not vote in favour of leaving the EEA, viz. the single market, as this was not a question on the ballot paper. It is the aim of this blogpost to identify the three main hurdles the claimants are likely to be facing and discuss whether these can be overcome. Continue reading >>26 July 2016
BrEXIT AND BreUK-UP
How to balance the aim of the UK to leave the European Union with the complex independence and border issues this would cause in Scotland and Northern Ireland? One possible scenario could be for Scotland to broker a five-year EFTA-EEA "naughty step" membership for the United Kingdom, at the end of which Scotland could itself become an independent EFTA-EEA member state and thus be well positioned to re-enter the European Union. Continue reading >>
0