nach oben

Erschienen in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Norwegian Courts

verfasst von : Thomas Christian Poulsen

Erschienen in: The Handbook of EEA Law

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter gives an overview of the Norwegian court system and addresses the advisory opinion procedure under Norwegian law. A description is given of which bodies may make references, how references are to be made, when they may and should be made, and the effect and application of the EFTA Court’s advisory opinions. The final part of the chapter sums up the experiences of the first 20 years of interaction between Norwegian courts and the EFTA Court.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Liechtenstein EEA Coordination Unit

Nächstes Kapitel Icelandic Courts

Judgments of the Labour Court can only be appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Section 29-13(1) of the Dispute Act 2005.

Section 29-13(2) of the Dispute Act 2005.

Section 321(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1981.

Section 321(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1981.

Section 321(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1981.

Section 30-4 of the Dispute Act 2005 and Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1981.

Which is of course fully in line with Article 34 SCA, see Fredriksen and Mathisen (2014), p. 203; and Skoghøy (2014), p. 144.

See Ot.prp. nr. 72 (1991–1992), p. 75.

Inter alia Case E-1/11 Dr A [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 484, paragraph 34.

See NOU 1999: 19 point 12.2.2.3.

Joined Cases E-8/94 and E-9/94 Mattel Scandinavia and Lego Norge [1994–1995] EFTA Ct. Rep. 113, paragraphs 15 and 16.

Case E-4/04 Pedicel [2005] EFTA Ct. Rep. 1.

Case E-1/11 Dr A, cited above.

Joined Cases E-3/13 and E-20/13 Olsen and Others [2014] EFTA Ct. Rep. 400.

See Sejersted et al. (2011), p. 167; Fjeld (2009), pp. 532–548 (p. 543); Magnussen (1999), pp. 196–216 (p. 201).

Fjeld (2009), pp. 543–544.

Cases 102/81 Nordsee [1982] ECR 1095 and C-126/97 Eco Swiss [1999] ECR I-3055.

Stemsrud and Berg (2006), pp. 3–9.

Fredriksen (2006b), pp. 177–182 (p. 179); and Fjeld (2009), p. 548.

Cf. Section 19-6(4) of the Dispute Act 2005.

Cf. Section 1-1(2) sixth indent of the Dispute Act 2005. It should be added that in Case E-18/11 Irish Bank [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 592, paragraph 64, the EFTA Court held that when a court of last instance refuses to refer a case to another court, it cannot be excluded that the decision may fall foul of the standards of Article 6(1) ECHR, in particular when the decision is not reasoned. The EFTA Court referred to the ECtHR judgment of 20 September 2011 in Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, Case Nos 3989/07 and 38353/07. Bårdsen (2013), pp. 535–546 (p. 541), appears sceptical of the EFTA Court’s judgment.

Sejerstedt et al. (2011), p. 169.

Ibid., p. 168.

In accordance with Section 19-2(2) of the Dispute Act 2005, which prescribes that ‘A ruling on procedural matters during the preparatory stage of the case shall be made by the preparatory judge’.

HR-2003-01094-A.

Cf. Article 8(2) EEA.

See the final judgment in Rt. 2004 p. 834. Interestingly, when the prohibition was challenged anew in 2013, the water scooters in question once again lacked an EEA origin, see the judgment by the Agder Court of Appeal in RG 2013 p. 329.

HR-2005-1630-U (author’s translation). Another example of a reasoned decision not to refer is a decision by the Gulating Court of Appeal of 14 May 2014 (LG-2014-45808). The Court of Appeal stated that it presumed that the case would be satisfactorily elucidated by counsel, on the basis of the available sources of law. Moreover, the Court of Appeal held that it had not been shown that a referral would be appropriate when weighed against the cost and the delay that would be incurred.

See Fredriksen (2006a), pp. 372–402 (p. 378); and Fredriksen (2009), p. 185.

See, inter alia, Fenger and Broberg (2010), pp. 235 et seq.

Skoghøy (2014), p. 144. See also Bårdsen (2013), p. 542.

Rt. 2005 p. 1598 (author’s translation).

The minority’s view has been criticised in Fredriksen (2006a), pp. 380 and 381. Compare, however, the counter-arguments in Skoghøy (2014), pp. 145–146.

Sejerstedt et al. (2011), p. 168; and Fredriksen (2006a), p. 389. This does not, however, relieve the courts from the obligation to interpret and apply the law pursuant to Section 11-3 of the Dispute Act 2005, see Fredriksen (2006a), pp. 389–390.

Similarly Magnussen (1999), p. 204; and Fredriksen (2011), p. 95.

LB-1996-922 and LB-1996-1708.

LB-2004-9889.

St.prp. nr. 100 (1991–1992) p. 330 (author’s translation).

Rt. 2001 p. 1811 (on page 1820) (author’s translation). The minority also concurred to this particular statement.

Rt. 2004 p. 904 (paragraph 67) (author’s translation).

Rt. 2007 p. 1003 (paragraph 81) (author’s translation).

Rt. 2013 p. 258 (paragraph 94) (author’s translation).

In this direction also Bårdsen (2013), p. 545, who nevertheless adds that ‘the tone is perhaps more sharpened’.

Fredriksen (2011).

Ibid., p. 90.

Ibid., p. 89.

Ibid., p. 90.

Ibid. According to Prof. Fredriksen, there is in fact only one example where a Norwegian court has openly not followed case-law from the EFTA Court. That was in the judgment of 2 July 2004 by Oslo District Court in KLM (04-000806TVI-OTIR/07). In that case, the District Court did not make a request for an advisory opinion. That seems peculiar, since the District Court found that there was a discrepancy between the case-law of the EFTA Court and the ECJ.

The judgments by the EFTA Court and the Supreme Court in STX has been commented upon by, inter alia, Barnard (2014), pp. 1–28; Baudenbacher (2013), pp. 515–534; Bårdsen (2013); Fredriksen (2014), pp. 11–37; Myhre (2013), pp. 13–53 (in particular pp. 35–45).

Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).

This is a derogation from the main rule that the home State applies, cf. Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 (‘Rome 1 Regulation’) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6). See also Barnard (2014), p. 4.

Barnard (2014), p. 4.

Ibid., p. 14.

Ibid., p. 4.

Case E-2/11 STX Norway Offshore and Others [2012] EFTA Ct. Rep. 4, paragraphs 70 and 74, for example. The choice of law, i.e. to apply the law of the host State to such an allowance (presuming that it was minimum) was of course in line with Article 3(1)(c) PWD, which sets out that ‘minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates’ may be governed by the host State.

Case E-2/11 STX Norway Offshore and Others, cited above, paragraph 79.

Case E-2/11 STX Norway Offshore and Others, cited above, paragraphs 80 to 88.

Case E-2/11 STX Norway Offshore and Others, cited above, paragraph 102.

Case E-2/11 STX Norway Offshore and Others, cited above, paragraph 97.

It is somewhat unclear whether the Court of Appeal based its conclusion on justification of a restriction on Article 36 EEA, or if it found that there was no restriction at all.

LB-2010-60176-2.

Rt. 2013 p. 258.

Ibid., paragraphs 103 to 117.

Ibid., paragraph 103.

Ibid., paragraphs 143 to 154.

Ibid., paragraph 155.

A relatively similar approach was taken by Oslo District Court in its judgment of 14 September 2012 in the case Philip Morris Norway AS v. Staten v/Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet (10-041388TVI-OTIR/02). The case concerned the Norwegian ban against visual display of tobacco products, and its compatibility with Article 11 EEA on quantitative restrictions on import and measures having equivalent effect. The District Court queried the correctness of the discrimination test the EFTA Court had advised the national court to apply in its judgment in Case E-16/10 Philip Morris [2011] EFTA Ct. Rep. 330. The District Court nevertheless applied the test, but found no discrimination.

Fredriksen (2014), p. 21.

See, on a general level, Pedersen and Poulsen (2009), pp. 103–115 (p. 113), with further references.

Fredriksen (2011), p. 90. In the case of Iceland, the annual average is higher if broken down per capita.

Ibid., pp. 90–92. See also Baudenbacher (2013), pp. 529–531.

See Fredriksen (2011), p. 92; and Bårdsen (2013), pp. 542–543. However, as Prof. Fredriksen shows in his study, most of the extra time spent is related to the formulation of the request and the questions and to initiation of the proceedings when the EFTA Court’s advisory opinion has been handed down.

See Bårdsen (2013), p. 542; and Fredriksen and Mathisen (2014), p. 201. That the question arose during the oral hearing did not, however, stop the Supreme Court from deciding to postpone the case in order to make a request to the EFTA Court in Water Scooters (HR-2003-01094-A), mentioned above.

See Bårdsen (2013), p. 542.

Bårdsen (2013), p. 542; Fredriksen (2011), p. 95; and Bull (2004), pp. 95–114 (p. 113), argue that the Office of the Attorney General for Civil Affairs, who represents the government in civil legal proceedings, is reluctant to involve the EFTA Court, possibly because of a believed increase in the level of procedural risk.

See Fredriksen and Mathisen (2014), p. 200.

Bårdsen A (2013) Noen refleksjoner om forholdet mellom Høyesterett og EFTA-domstolen. Lov og Rett 535–546

Barnard C (2014) Posting matters. Arbeidsrett 1:1–28

Baudenbacher C (2013) EFTA-domstolen og dens samhandling med de norske domstolene. Lov og Rett 515–534

Bull H (2004) European law and Norwegian Courts. In: Müller-Graff PC, Selvig E (eds) The approach to European law in Germany and Norway. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp 95–114

Fenger N, Broberg M (2010) Preliminary references to the European Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Fjeld MK (2009) Retten til å forelegge spørsmål for EFTA-domstolen etter domstolloven § 51 a. Lov og Rett 532–548

Fredriksen HH (2006a) Om mangelen på tolkningsspørsmål fra norske domstoler til EFTA-domstolen. Jussens Venner 372–402

Fredriksen HH (2006b) Om voldgiftsretters mulighet til å innhente rådgivende uttalelser fra EFTA-domstolen. Tidsskrift for Forretningsjus 177–182

Fredriksen HH (2009) Europäische Vorlageverfahren und nationales Zivilprozessrecht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

Fredriksen HH (2011) EU/EØS-rett i norske domstoler, Europautredningen – Rapport nr. 3. Oslo

Fredriksen HH (2014) The troubled relationship between the Supreme Court of Norway and the EFTA Court – recent developments. In: Müller-Graff PC, Mestad O (eds) The rising complexity of European Law. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin, pp 11–37

Fredriksen HH, Mathisen G (2014) EØS-rett, 2nd edn. Fagbokforlaget, Bergen, p 203

Magnussen M (1999) Norske domstolers foreleggelse av tolkningsspørsmål for EFTA-domstolen - bør adgangen benyttes oftere? Tidsskrift for Forretningjus 196–216

Myhre JW (2013) The EFTA Court – gradually more or less relevant? Europarättslig Tidsskrift 13–53

Pedersen JE, Poulsen TC (2009) Høyesterettsavgjørelsers konkrete prejudikatsvirkning - illustrert ved nylige avgjørelser fra et sakskompleks i Høyesterett (Shell). Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 103–115

Sejersted F et al (2011) EØS-rett, 3rd edn. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo

Skoghøy JEA (2014) Tvisteløsning, 2nd edn. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo

Stemsrud O, Berg BH (2006) Voldgiftsretter og EFTA-domstolen – voldgiftslovens gordiske knute? Tidsskrift for Forretningsjus 3–9

Titel: Norwegian Courts
verfasst von: Thomas Christian Poulsen
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: The Handbook of EEA Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24341-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-24343-6

Copyright-Jahr: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24343-6_13