DOCSLIB.ORG

To Read the Report of the EFTA Court 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

REPORT OF THE EFTA COURT 2019 eftacourt.int Reproduction is authorised, provided that the source REPORT is acknowledged. The recommended mode of citation of the EFTA Court’s case law is either of the following: – Casenumber,namesoftheparties(option1). – Casenumber,dateofthejudgment,namesofthe OF THE parties(option2). EFTA Court 1rueduFortThüngen EFTA COURT L-1499Luxembourg www.eftacourt.int 2019 Concept and Design by Imprimerie Centrale, Luxembourg Printed by Imprimerie Centrale, Luxembourg 4 | Foreword Foreword | 5 Lookingbackontheyear2019,ithasbeenasuccessfuloneforthe Court and the EEA Agreement as a whole. I am pleased to observe thatwewitnessedanincreaseinthecaseloadoftheCourt,with13 newcasesbeingregistered,ofwhich12wererequestsforanadvisory opinion.Ofthesecases,fivestemfromquasi-judicialandadministrative bodies outside the regular Court system. This represents an interesting development,whichIbelieveisreflectiveoftheimportantrolethese bodies play in the application of EEA law in the EFTA States. We also witnessedfirstrequestsfromboththeIcelandicandNorwegianPublic ProcurementComplaintsBoards. TherequestfromtheIcelandicTribunalwasthefirstrequestforan advisory opinion received from Iceland in well over two years, and itisnowmorethantwo-and-a-halfyearssincearequesthasbeen received from an Icelandic court. This represents a considerable cause for concern, and we can only hope that this tendency will not continue for much longer. Asregardsjudgmentshandeddownin2019,Fosen-Linjen II is the most noteworthy.TheNorwegianSupremeCourtdecidedtorequestasecond advisoryopinionfromtheEFTACourt,seekingclarificationconcerning 6 | Foreword Foreword | 7 theapplicablestandardofliabilityforthe“positivecontractinterest”(loss thus fell outside its scope. Accordingly, the Court’s conclusion was that ofprofits).TheEFTACourtfoundthat“Article2(1)(c)oftheRemedies NorwaywasnotinbreachoftheDirective. Directivedoesnotrequirethatanybreachoftherulesgoverningpublic Turning to the cases that are presently pending, I am pleased to see that procurementinitselfissufficienttoawarddamagesforthelossofprofit wehavealreadyreceivedthefirstquestionsconcerningtheinterpretation to persons harmed by an infringement of EEA public procurement rules”. oftheGeneralDataProtectionRegulation,probablythemostsignificant AnothersignificantjudgmentwasrenderedinthecaseofD and E, E-2/19. piece of legislation recently incorporated into the EEA Agreement. ThiscaseconcernedtherelationshipbetweentheResidenceDirective andthesectoraladaptationsapplicabletoLiechtensteininthefieldoffree In other developments, the European Court of Human Rights dismissed a movement of persons, which are of great importance to Liechtenstein. caseagainstNorway,initsDecisioninApplicationno.47341/15,inwhich The conclusion was that the sectoral adaptations could not have the the applicant alleged that the EFTA Court declaring his challenge against effect of depriving EEA nationals, to whom Liechtenstein has a granted ESA’s decision inadmissible, amounted to an infringement of his right to aresidencepermit,ofrightsprovidedforundertheDirectiveevenif a fair trial. The Court of Human Rights noted, in particular, that the EFTA that permit was granted without Liechtenstein being under an EEA law CourtwassetuptooperateasajudicialbodysimilartotheCJEU,with obligation to grant it. the same essential procedural principles. The alleged violation could, therefore, not be attributed to structural shortcomings of the EFTA Court Lastly,intheso-calledparentalbenefitscase,E-1/18,theCourtdismissed regime. Furthermore, the Court of Human Rights noted that the application theEFTASurveillanceAuthority’s(ESA)pleathatheldthattheparental inthecasedidnotdiscloseanyappearanceofmanifestdeficienciesin benefitschemeestablishedbytheNorwegianNationalInsuranceAct the protection of the applicant’s Convention rights. wasinbreachoftheEqualTreatmentDirective.TheCourtheldthatthe scheme did not concern “employment and working conditions” within TheEEAAgreementcelebratedits25thanniversarylastyear.Amongst themeaningofArticle14(1)(c)oftheEqualTreatmentDirective,and the events held to celebrate this important milestone in the life of the 8 | Foreword Contents | 9 Contents EEAwasananniversaryconferenceheldjointlybytheCourtandthe FOREWORD 5 EFTASurveillanceAuthorityinBrusselslastspring.Theconference CASESUMMARIES 11 wasagreatsuccess,withover300peopleinattendanceandahostof distinguished speakers. Case E-2/18, C v Concordia Schweizerische Kranken- und UnfallversicherungAG,LandesvertungLiechtenstein 12 An occasion such as this anniversary represents a good opportunity Case E-3/18,EFTASurveillanceAuthorityvIceland 15 toreflectuponthefutureaswellasthepast.Iamanoptimistwhen Case E-4/18,EFTASurveillanceAuthorityvIceland 17 it comes to the future of EEA law. The reason is that I see a clear Case E-5/18,EFTASurveillanceAuthorityvIceland 19 willingness on the part of the EFTA States to make it work. They have Case E-6/18,EFTASurveillanceAuthorityvIceland 21 shown themselves to be responsible and solution oriented with regard Case E-1/17COSTS,NettbussASvKonkurrenten.noAS 24 to the incorporation of legal acts in the Agreement, and when it comes Case E-1/17COSTSII,TheCountyofAust-AgdervKonkurrenten.noAS 27 tothesubsequentimplementationinthenationallegalsystems,the Case E-7/18,Fosen-LinjenASvAtBAS 30 findingsofESA’slastInternalMarketScoreboardshowedthattheEFTA Case E-2/19,DandE 34 States have all improved upon their performance in transposing EEA Case E-1/18,EFTASurveillanceAuthorityvTheKingdomofNorway 37 directivesintonationallaw.Thecontributionofnationaljudgesshould Case E-1/19,AndreasGyrrevTheNorwegianGovernment, also be acknowledged, as their awareness and dedication to their role representedbytheMinistryofChildrenandEquality 40 asEEAlawjudgesisinstrumentalintheeffectivenessoftheAgreement. I wouldliketoendwiththesewords,whichIbelievebothaptlydescribe NEWSANDEVENTS 45 the past of the EEA and which should also guide us for the future. JUDGESANDSTAFF 53 PállHreinsson President 10 | Case Summaries Case Summaries | 11 2019 Case Summaries 12 | Case Summaries Case Summaries | 13 C –– V –– Concordia Schweizerische Kranken- und Unfall- versicherung AG, Case E-2/18 Landesvertung Liechtenstein (Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – but resides in another EEA State, Article 24 – Pensioner residing outside where the State of residence has competent State – Benefits in kind in the refused benefits in kind to the pen- place of residence – Reimbursement sionerbecausethosebenefitsfallout- procedure) side the scope of its social security system. Judgment of the Court of 14 May 2019 The Court held that when a pensioner isnotentitledtobenefitsinkindinthe The Princely Court of Liechtenstein EEA State of residence, because the (Fürstliches Landgericht) referred benefits fall outside the scope of its questionstotheCourtwhichsoughtto social security system, the pensioner clarify the interpretation of Regulation isentitled,pursuanttoArticle24(1)of (EC)883/2004(theRegulation)ofthe theRegulation,toreceivethebenefits European Parliament. The Princely in kind provided at the expense of the CourtquestionedwhetherArticle24of institutionsreferredtoinArticle24(2) the Regulation provides a mandatory of the Regulation. This means that procedurefortheprovisionofbenefits when a pensioner is entitled to bene- in kind to an insured pensioner who fits in kind under the legislation of a receives a pension from one EEA State single EEA State, the cost shall be 14 | Case Summaries Case Summaries | 15 EFTA Surveillance borne by the competent institution of the State of residence. The Court also Authority that EEA State, in accordance with the held on the basis of both the Imple- reimbursement procedure set out in menting Regulation and the Regulation –– V –– Article35oftheRegulationandRegu- that if the competent institution does lation(EC)No987/2009. not provide the pensioner with infor- mation as to the reimbursement pro- Iceland For pensioners to be permitted to cedure to be followed, that must not make a claim directly to the competent adversely affect the pensioner’s rights institution in the EEA State under vis-à-vis the institution. whose legislation the pension is paid, they must be able to demonstrate that It would be contrary to the purpose of they are not entitled to receive the ben- protecting people residing in an EEA Case E-3/18 efits from the State of residence, in State other than the competent EEA accordance with Article 24(1) of the State, to prohibit an EEA State from Regulation. Moreover, in accordance granting better protection than that (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its the modalities of the electronic com- with Article 76 of the Regulation, the arising from the application of Article obligations – Failure to implement – plaint form and on the modalities of pensioner has a right to submit claims 24,whichappliestosituationswhere Regulation (EU) 2015/1051) the cooperation between contact for reimbursement directly to the com- thepensionerisnotentitledtobenefits pointsprovidedforinRegulation(EU) petent institution in the EEA State in kind under the legislation of the EEA Judgment of the Court No524/20143oftheEuropeanParlia- under whose legislation the pension is Stateofresidence. « of 14 May 2019 ment and of the Council on online dis- paid, in particular, but not only, if they pute resolution for consumer dis- have been refused reimbursement by eftacourt.int/cases/e-02-18/ The EFTA Surveillance Authority initi- putes), as adapted to the Agreement ated proceedings against Iceland for under
Recommended publications
  • Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses

    Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses

    Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 by Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Adviser: Jerry Moon ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 Name of researcher: Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Name and degree of faculty adviser: Jerry Moon, Ph.D. Date completed: July 2010 This dissertation reconstructs chronologically the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Norway from the Haugian Pietist revival in the early 1800s to the establishment of the first Seventh-day Adventist Conference in Norway in 1887. The present study has been based as far as possible on primary sources such as protocols, letters, legal documents, and articles in journals, magazines, and newspapers from the nineteenth century. A contextual-comparative approach was employed to evaluate the objectivity of a given source. Secondary sources have also been consulted for interpretation and as corroborating evidence, especially when no primary sources were available. The study concludes that the Pietist revival ignited by the Norwegian Lutheran lay preacher, Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771-1824), represented the culmination of the sixteenth- century Reformation in Norway, and the forerunner of the Adventist movement in that country.
  • The Origin, Development, and History of the Norwegian Seventh-Day Adventist Church from the 1840S to 1889" (2010)

    The Origin, Development, and History of the Norwegian Seventh-Day Adventist Church from the 1840S to 1889" (2010)

    Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2010 The Origin, Development, and History of the Norwegian Seventh- day Adventist Church from the 1840s to 1889 Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations Part of the Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, Christianity Commons, and the History of Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Snorrason, Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik, "The Origin, Development, and History of the Norwegian Seventh-day Adventist Church from the 1840s to 1889" (2010). Dissertations. 144. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/144 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 by Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Adviser: Jerry Moon ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: THE ORIGIN, DEVELOPMENT, AND HISTORY OF THE NORWEGIAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH FROM THE 1840s TO 1887 Name of researcher: Bjorgvin Martin Hjelvik Snorrason Name and degree of faculty adviser: Jerry Moon, Ph.D. Date completed: July 2010 This dissertation reconstructs chronologically the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Norway from the Haugian Pietist revival in the early 1800s to the establishment of the first Seventh-day Adventist Conference in Norway in 1887.
  • ISDC's Letter N°55

    ISDC's Letter N°55

    ISDC’S LETTER| N° 55 Page 1 ISDC’s Letter N°55 2e édition 2020 – Juin avec supplément spécial COVID-19 Éditorial Édition: Jun Zheng, Alfredo Santos, Marie Papeil Contributions de l’Institut par : John Curran, Karim El Chazli, Karen T. Druckman, Johanna Fournier, Anne-Grace Kleczewski, Krista Nadakavukaren, Rodrigo L’Institut 2 Polanco, Ilaria Pretelli, Josef Skala, Henrik Westermark et Jun Zheng. Bibliothèque 3 Chères lectrices, chers lecteurs, Covid-19 4 Nous avons le plaisir de vous proposer la deuxième édition de l’ISDC’s Letter pour Brèves juridiques 16 l’année 2020. Cette newsletter, rédigée pendant cette période de confinement si Allemagne 16 particulière, se concentre sur deux axes principaux, les nouveautés liées à l’Institut Angleterre, Autriche 17 et les nouveautés dans le monde juridique. Nous avons évidemment ajouté du Belgique, Chili 18 contenu par rapport au Covid-19, sur les différentes législations en cours ou Chine 19 modifiées pendant cette période. Danemark, Egypte 20 EAU, Espagne 21 Pour les nouveautés juridiques, elles se composent tout d’abord de brèves, dans 20 USA, Inde 22 ordres juridiques différents, classées par ordre alphabétique. Puis, nous vous Italie, Liechenstein 23 présentons un extrait d’une étude comparative sur le droit à l’autonomie et le droit N. Zealand, Norvège, Portugal 24 de vote pour les personnes handicapées. Rep. Tchèque, Royaume-Uni 25 Suède 26 Nous espérons que cette newsletter vous trouve en bonne santé et que nous pourrons vous revoir prochainement au sein de l’Institut suisse de droit comparé ! Étude de droit comparé 27 Les éditeurs Autour de l’Institut 29 Agenda 30 ISDC’S LETTER| N° 55 Page 2 L’Institut Réouverture de l’Institut Depuis le 14 mars, notre bâtiment est fermé au public.
  • To Read the Report of the EFTA Court 2020

    To Read the Report of the EFTA Court 2020

    REPORT OF THE EFTA COURT 2020 eftacourt.int Reproduction is authorised, provided that the source REPORT is acknowledged. The recommended mode of citation of the EFTA Court’s case law is either of the following: – Casenumber,namesoftheparties(option1). – Casenumber,dateofthejudgment,namesofthe OF THE parties(option2). EFTA Court 1rueduFortThüngen EFTA COURT L-1499Luxembourg www.eftacourt.int 2020 Concept and Design by Imprimerie Centrale, Luxembourg Printed by Imprimerie Centrale, Luxembourg 4 | Foreword Foreword | 5 Theyear2020willberememberedfortheCOVID-19pandemic,whichhas hadamajorimpactallovertheplanet.TheoperationsoftheEFTACourt were no exception, as we had to close the premises when Luxembourg enteredintolockdowninMarch2020.Fortunately,theCourtwasableto continue to function close to normal and we have continued to deliver judgmentsthroughoutthepandemic.Afewdaysbeforethelockdown was announced, we were able to hold two oral hearings at the Court. Subsequently, the pandemic required us to organise hearings via video conference, which, thanks to the effort and dedication of our staff, were successful.In2020weorganisednineoralhearingsinsuchamanner andmorearescheduledforearly2021.Toensuretheaccessibilityand transparency of the hearings, they have been streamed live on the Court’s website. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who participated in the hearings, and to those who helped make them possible. LastyearsawseveralnoteworthyjudgmentsfromtheEFTACourt. I would,inparticular,liketohighlightthatinCampbell,
  • JUDGMENT Pronounced 22 December 2020 by the Supreme

    JUDGMENT Pronounced 22 December 2020 by the Supreme

    UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION JUDGMENT pronounced 22 December 2020 by the Supreme Court of Norway in plenary session with Chief Justice Toril Marie Øie Justice Jens Edvin A. Skoghøy Justice Bergljot Webster Justice Wilhelm Matheson Justice Aage Thor Falkanger Justice Kristin Normann Justice Henrik Bull Justice Knut H. Kallerud Justice Arne Ringnes Justice Ingvald Falch Justice Espen Bergh Justice Cecilie Østensen Berglund Justice Borgar Høgetveit Berg Justice Erik Thyness Judge Kine Steinsvik HR-2020-2472-P, (case no. 20-051052SIV-HRET) Appeal from the Borgarting Court of Appeal judgment of 23 January 2020. Natur og Ungdom Föreningen Greenpeace Norden Naturvernforbundet (Friends of the Earth Norway) (Intervenor) Besteforeldrenes klimaaksjon (Norwegian (Advocate Emanuel Feinberg – for assessment Grandparents Climate Campaign) (Intervenor) Advocate Cathrine Hambro – for assessment) versus The Government of Norway through the (the office of the Attorney Ministry of Petroleum and Energy General of Norway in the person of Advocate Fredrik Sejersted) (Co-Counsel Advocate Anders Flaatin Wilhelmsen) UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION 2 VOTING (1) Justice Høgetveit Berg: The issues in the case and its background Subject matter in the case (2) The case involves the issue of whether a Royal Decree of 10 June 2016 is invalid. The decree – the Decision – involves awarding 10 petroleum production licences for a total of 40 blocks or sub-blocks on the Norwegian continental shelf in the maritime area referred to as Barents Sea South and Barents Sea South-East – the 23rd
  • Annual Report 2015 Contents

    Annual Report 2015 Contents

    SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY SUPREME COURT ANNUAL REPORT 2015 CONTENTS CONTENTS The Supreme Court in its bicentenary year 2015 Page 4 Summary of Supreme Court cases and procedure Page 6 The Supreme Court’s Bicentenary Page 7 - “HONOURABLE GENTLEMEN!” Page 8 - 200 years in two minutes – It began in a library Page 10 - The Bicentenary Meeting Page 12 Bicentenary celebration at Akershus castle Page 14 Open house in the Supreme Court Page 16 Justice Tjomsland captivates his audience Page 18 “The most difficult thing I have ever done as a researcher” Page 20 A powerful meeting with the lions Page 21 Law Truth Justice Page 22 Supreme Court commemorative stamp Page 23 A selection of cases from 2015 Page 24 The Supreme Court and International Law Page 29 Supreme Court Justices Page 31 Justice Liv Gjølstad looks back Page 33 The Supreme Court's administration Page 36 Rizwana Yedicam informs Page 41 New faces Page 42 County tour 2015 Page 43 Outside the courtroom Page 44 Statistics Page 46 Cover page: The Justice Building in Christiania 1903, which is now the Supreme Court Building. Photo: Unknown photographer Oslo Museum 2 3 Photo: Morten Brakestad SUPREME COURT SUPREME THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS BICENTENARY YEAR Under the Norwegian Constitution of 1814, the entertainment, etc. outside the building. year, judiciary service has carried on as usual, and Supreme Court is one of our three constitutional The event attracted an enthusiastic crowd. You can as such, 2015 has been a busy year with many bodies. However, it took time to establish a read more about the various events in the important cases.
  • The International Insolvency Review

    The International Insolvency Review

    The InternationalThe InternationalInsolvency Review Insolvency Review Third Edition Editor Donald S Bernstein Law Business Research The International Insolvency Review The International Insolvency Review Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in The International Insolvency Review - Edition 3 (published in October 2015 – editor Christopher Kandel) For further information please email [email protected] The International Insolvency Review Third Edition Editor Donald S Bernstein Law Business Research Ltd PUBLISHER Gideon Roberton SENIOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT MANAGER Nick Barette SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGERS Katherine Jablonowska, Thomas Lee, Felicity Bown, Joel Woods ACCOUNT MANAGER Jessica Parsons PUBLISHING MANAGER Lucy Brewer MARKETING ASSISTANT Rebecca Mogridge EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Sophie Arkell HEAD OF PRODUCTION Adam Myers PRODUCTION EDITOR Claire Ancell SUBEDITOR Janina Godowska MANAGING DIRECTOR Richard Davey Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2015 Law Business Research Ltd www.TheLawReviews.co.uk No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein.
  • Magnus Barefoot from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

    Magnus Barefoot from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

    Magnus Barefoot From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the second Norwegian king named Magnus Olafsson. For the earlier Norwegian king, see Magnus the Good. Magnus Barefoot Drawing of a coin from the reign of Magnus Barefoot (with confused legend)[1] King of Norway Reign September 1093 – 24 August 1103 Predecessor Olaf III Successor Sigurd I, Eystein I and Olaf Magnusson Co-ruler Haakon Magnusson (until 1095) King of Dublin Reign 1102–1103 Predecessor Domnall Gerrlámhach Successor Domnall Gerrlámhach Born 1073 Norway Died 24 August 1103 (aged 29–30) near River Quoile, Downpatrick Ulster, Ireland Burial near St. Patrick's Church, Downpatrick, Ulster, Ireland Consort Margaret of Sweden Eystein I of Norway Issue Sigurd I of Norway Olaf Magnusson of Norway Ragnild Magnusdotter Tora Magnusdatter Harald IV Gille (claimed) Sigurd Slembe (claimed) Magnus Raude (claimed) Full name Magnús Óláfsson House Hardrada Father Olaf III of Norway Mother Tora?; disputed (see below) Religion Roman Catholicism Magnus Olafsson (Old Norse: Magnús Óláfsson, Norwegian: Magnus Olavsson; 1073 – 24 August 1103), better known as Magnus Barefoot (Old Norse: Magnús berfœttr, Norwegian: Magnus Berrføtt),[2] was King of Norway (as Magnus III) from 1093 until his death in 1103. His reign was marked by aggressive military campaigns and conquest, particularly in the Norse-dominated parts of the British Isles, where he extended his rule to the Kingdom of the Isles and Dublin. His daughter, Ragnhild, was born in 1090. As the only son of King Olaf Kyrre, Magnus was proclaimed king in southeastern Norway shortly after his father's death in 1093. In the north, his claim was contested by his cousin, Haakon Magnusson (son of King Magnus Haraldsson), and the two co-ruled uneasily until Haakon's death in 1095.
  • Handskrifter Av Norske Mellomalderlover Ved

    Handskrifter Av Norske Mellomalderlover Ved

    Magnus Rindal Handskrifter av norske mellomalderlover ved Nasjonalbiblioteket NB tema 8 Nasjonalbiblioteket/bokselskap.no Oslo 2020 Magnus Rindal: Handskrifter av norske mellomalderlover ved Nasjonalbiblioteket. NB tema 8, Nasjonalbiblioteket, Oslo 2020 ISBN: 978-82-7965-468-1 (digital, bokselskap.no), 978-82-7965-467-4 (epub), 978-82-7965-469-8 (mobi), 978-82-7965-470-4 (særtrykk) Teksten er lastet ned fra bokselskap.no Forord I 2024 er det 750 år sidan Magnus Lagabøtes landslov kom. Lova er overlevert i 39 handskrifter frå mellomalderen, og nokre få yngre. Dei fleste ligg i samlingar i Danmark og Sverige. Tre av mellomalderhandskriftene ligg i dag i norske samlingar, to ved Nasjonalbiblioteket og eitt ved Gunnerusbiblioteket i Trondheim. To av desse tre har vore i Noreg frå dei blei skrivne. Dei to eldste ligg ved Nasjonalbiblioteket. Eit hovudmål for denne boka er å kaste lys over dei handskriftene av norske mellomalderlover som ligg ved Nasjonalbiblioteket. Hovudvekta vil liggje på handskriftene frå mellomalderen, Ms.4° 1 og Ms.4° 317, som begge inneheld landslova. Dei blir grundig beskrivne, også med omsyn til innhald og språk. Ein del rettarbøter er overleverte i begge desse handskriftene, og for å lette lesinga er opplysningar om innhaldet gjevne to stader. Boka omfattar også dei 25 handskriftene av omsetjing av landslova til dansk, og andre handskrifter av norske lover. Innleiingsvis er det gjeve eit samla oversyn over dei norske lovene frå mellomalderen, som alle finst i avskrifter ved Nasjonalbiblioteket. Her har eg henta stoff også frå Rindal 2004 og Rindal og Spørck 2018, endå om det ikkje er særskilt nemnt.
  • The Effects of EFTA Court Jurisprudence on the Legal Orders of the EFTA States

    The Effects of EFTA Court Jurisprudence on the Legal Orders of the EFTA States

    ARENA Working Papers WP 04/18 The Effects of EFTA Court Jurisprudence on the Legal Orders of the EFTA States By Hans Petter Graver Professor dr. juris Department of Private Law University of Oslo 1 Abstract Establishment of the EEA with a court for the EFTA Countries ten years ago gives an opportunity to examine more facets of interrelations between courts and legal orders of different jurisdictions. The EEA differs from the Community legal order in that it is constructed as an agreement under public international law without the referrals of power included in the EC-treaty. On the other hand, the object of the agreement is to mirror the law of the Single Market into the relations between the EFTA states and the EC. Formally, the EFTA Court has a position more of an international tribunal than that of a supranational Court. Figures from the first ten years do not reflect this difference between the EFTA Court and the ECJ. Differences between the two courts regarding matters like legal basis, history, recruitment, workload and duration of proceedings, at least taken together, do not seem to influence the supply of referrals from national courts. Other factors such as similarities between the Nordic countries and construction of the national legal order have greater explanatory potential than differences between the EEA and the EC and in the institutional arrangements of the two courts. In the reception of the jurisprudence of the EFTA Court and the ECJ, the Norwegian Supreme Court does not distinguish according to legal obligations, but seems to take an approach similar to national courts in Member States of the EU.
  • References for Preliminary Rulings

    References for Preliminary Rulings

    1 REFERENCES FOR PRELIMINARY RULINGS 1. Introduction 1 5. Other Ways of Obtaining 1.1. Preliminary rulings in the Legal Guidance from Community judicial system 1 Community Bodies 17 1.2. The structure of this book 3 5.1. Asking the European 2. History and Development Commission for guidance on of the Preliminary the interpretation of Reference Procedure 4 Community law 17 3. Outline of the Different 5.2. Asking the European Possibilities of Making Ombudsman for guidance References to the Court on the interpretation of of Justice 8 Community law 22 3.1. Overview 8 6. The Preliminary Reference 3.2. Article 68 of the EC Treaty 9 System in the Future 25 3.3. Article 35 of the EU Treaty 10 6.1. Overview 25 3.4. The Euratom Treaty 11 6.2. Transfer of preliminary cases to 3.5. Conventions 11 the Court of First Instance 26 3.6. Preliminary references and the 6.3. Green light procedures 30 Common Foreign and 6.4. Docket control 31 Security Policy 13 6.5. Limiting the right to refer to 3.7. The Treaty of Lisbon 13 courts of last instance 33 4. References to the 6.6. Decentralised Community courts 34 EFTA Court 16 6.7. The best way forward? 35 1. Introduction 1.1. Preliminary rulings in the Community judicial system A reference for a preliminary ruling is a request from a national court of a Member State to the Court of Justice of the European Community to give an authoritative interpretation on a Community act or a decision on the validity of such an act.
  • Exploring the Norwegian Legal Culture

    Exploring the Norwegian Legal Culture

    Exploring the Norwegian Legal Culture Held at the Faculty of Law at the University in Bergen 25th and 26th August 2011 by Professor Dr. juris Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde 1. An outline of the lectures • A brief introduction to Norwegian state formation from app. 800 till today • A brief introduction to legal culture • Exploring the Norwegian legal culture by using the legal cultural model 2. Norwegian state formation – Middle Ages • Norway as a territory and no state till app. 1200 – The four law territories: Gulating, Frostating, Eidsivating, Borgarting • The emergence of King and Church as state power from app. 900 • The civil wars from 1130 till 1240 • The strong state app. 1250 till 1350 • The union with Sweden from 1319, and with Denmark and Sweden from 1397 2. Norwegian state formation – Early Modern Period • The Black Plague and other plagues from 1350 till 1450 • The reformation in 1536 – Norway a Danish province • The slow recovery of state power from app. 1550 • The absolute kingdom from 1660 – Norway again an independent kingdom – The bureaucratic state 2. Norwegian state formation – Modern Period • The Norwegian Constitution of 1814 – Norway still independent, but now in union with Sweden • Introduction of the parliamentary system in 1884 – the liberal revolution • The Labour party in government from the 1930s and the introduction of the welfare state – the socialist revolution 3. Legal Culture • An analytical tool and not an entity to deduce legal rules from • The increased references to legal culture from the 1990s – The internationalisation of law – The European Council with the ECHR and the European Union with the ECJ • A label on a black hole of knowledge? 3.