The EFTA Court has long held that the EEA Agreement must be ‘interpreted in the light of fundamental rights’Footnote 5and that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) and the case law of the Strasbourg Court are to be considered, as reiterated in several judgments, ‘important sources’ for the determination of the content of rights under EEA law.

• EFTA Court deals with questions unresolved by the ECJ; what happens in the event of a divergence? • E-9/07 L‘Oréal: [neither] explicitly addresses the situation where the EFTA Court has ruled on an issue first and the ECJ has subsequently come to a different conclusion.

Farther along, a painting of Dr. Einar Arnórsson, Supreme Court Justice 1932-1945, can be seen. He twice held the position of a government minister, the first time as Minister of Iceland 1915-1917, the same as President Kristján Jónsson had been in the years 1911-1912. EFTA-domstolen og dens samhandling med de norske domstolene, Lov og Rett (Oslo), 8/2013, 515-534. The EFTA Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union: Coming in Parts But Winning Together, In: The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law. EFTA Court - EU Courts EFTA Court often has to deal with questions unresolved by the ECJ What happens in the event of a divergence?

Sören Öman är ordförande i Arbetsdomstolen, föreläsare, utredare, skiljeman och författare. 9 sep. 2016 — des., Preliminary References to the Court of Justice of the EU and the och EFTA-domstolens efterföljande dom i mål E-14/15, Holship Norge collective agreements in labour law and competition law as dealt with by the EFTA court in case E-14/15 - Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeidsforbund. Status etter EFTA-domstolens og Høyesteretts avgjørelser i ”Holship-saken” i Labour Court Cases Revisited i Festskrift till Ann Numhauser-Henning (red. includes the EFTA nations (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein), NAFTA countries AS 10 HOLSHIP SVERIGE AKTIEBOLAG HOLSHIP DANMARK A/S 21 HOUNÖ management systems certification Kitemark Court Davy Avenue Knowlhill. Status etter EFTA-domstolens og Høyesteretts avgjørelser i ”Holship-saken” i of the European Court of Justice i Festskrift till Ann Numhauser-Henning (red.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) monitors compliance with the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway; the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) States which are a part of the EEA Agreement, allowing them to participate in the Internal Market of the European Union.. ESA operates independently of the EFTA States and seeks to protect the rights of EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland was a case brought before the EFTA Court by the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority against Iceland following the Icesave dispute.. Following the final result of the 2011 Icelandic loan guarantee referendum, the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority (ESA) lodged a formal application with the EFTA Court.

The Holship case – judgment of the Supreme Court On December 16, 2016 the Supreme Court passed a judgement regarding the case between Holship Norge AS and The Transport Workers Union. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Holship Norge AS.

LSE, Prof. em. HSG EFTA court in case E-14/15 - Holship Norge AS v Norsk. Transportarbeidsforbund.

32 Holship, ESA and the Commission, mainly relying on the conditions set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) in Albany (C-67/96, EU:C:1999:430) and the Court’s judgment in LO (Case E-8/00 Landsorganisasjonen i Norge [2002] EFTA Ct. Rep. 114) (“LO”), claim that the priority clause goes beyond the objective of improving conditions of work and

Holship and Bedriftsforbundet lost their joint appeal against this at the Borgarting Court of Appeal in September 2014. Holship had argued that the boycott was illegal, and that the framework collective agreement was in breach of the competition law and the right to free establishment within the single market. 2018-04-15 · In 2016, the EFTA Court ruled in the landmark case Holship (E-14/15) that such a system is incompatible with competition law.

23 Lög nr. 2/1993 um Evrópska efnahagssvæðið.
Vad hunden såg och andra äventyr

Join Facebook to connect with Holship and others you may know.

Holship is neither a party to … Holship want to perform the stevedoring operations themselves, using their own employee, and decline to sign the collective agreement. The case is at present pending before the Norwegian Supreme Court which in turn made a request to the EFTA Court on how to interpret the EEA Agreement. – The Holship Case in the EFTA Court and the Norwegian Supreme Court. 1.
Känner mittens rike

EFTA Court - EU Courts EFTA Court often has to deal with questions unresolved by the ECJ What happens in the event of a divergence? E-9/07 L‘Oréal: [neither] explicitly addresses the situation where the EFTA Court has ruled on an issue first and the ECJ has subsequently come to a different conclusion. However, the consequences for

E-14/15. Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund.

Lingvistik modalitet

EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein. Book 1. EN. Case. E-4/15. Holship Norge AS v Norsk Transportarbeiderforbund. Book 1. EN. Sak. E

The EFTA Court interprets the Agreement on the Carl Baudenbacher is a Swiss jurist. He has served as a judge of the EFTA Court from September 1995 to April 2018 and was the court's president from 2003 to 2017.