DOCSLIB.ORG

Selected Decisions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Selected Decisions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Volume I INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION SELECTED DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION Thirty-sixth to seventy-fifth sessions (August 1988 – August 2011) INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION SELECTED DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION Volume I Thirty-sixth to seventy-fifth sessions (August 1988 – August 2011) UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 2012 NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. * * * Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. HR/CERD/PUB/1 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales N° E.12.XIV.2 ISBN-13: 978-92-1-154195-3 e-ISBN-13: 978-92-1-055245-5 © 2012 United Nations All worldwide rights reserved Contents Page Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 FINAL DECISIONS I. Opinions under article 14 of the Convention (Committee’s session indicated in brackets) No. 1/1984 [36] Yilmaz-Dogan v. Netherlands ............................................................. 3 No. 2/1989 [39] Demba Talibe Diop v. France ............................................................. 7 No. 3/1991 [44] Michel L.N. Narrainen v. Norway ........................................................ 12 No. 4/1991 [42] L.K. v. Netherlands ............................................................................. 18 No. 6/1995 [55] Z.U.B.S. v. Australia ........................................................................... 22 No. 8/1996 [54] B.M.S. v. Australia .............................................................................. 34 No. 10/1997 [54] Ziad Ben Ahmed Habassi v. Denmark ............................................... 43 No. 11/1998 [59] Miroslav Lacko v. Slovakia ................................................................. 49 No. 13/1998 [57] Anna Koptova v. Slovakia ................................................................... 55 No. 16/1999 [56] Kashif Ahmad v. Denmark .................................................................. 65 No. 17/1999 [57] B.J. v. Denmark .................................................................................. 70 No. 26/2002 [62] Stephen Hagan v. Australia ............................................................... 75 No. 27/2002 [63] Kamal Quereshi v. Denmark .............................................................. 82 No. 29/2003 [68] Dragan Durmic v. Serbia and Montenegro ......................................... 88 No. 30/2003 [67] The Jewish community of Oslo et al. v. Norway ................................. 97 No. 31/2003 [66] L.R. et al. v. Slovakia .......................................................................... 108 No. 32/2003 [66] Emir Sefic v. Denmark ........................................................................ 118 No. 34/2004 [68] Mohammed Hassan Gelle v. Denmark ............................................... 124 No. 38/2006 [72] Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma et al. v. Germany ..................... 130 No. 39/2006 [72] D.F. v. Australia ................................................................................. 136 No. 40/2007 [71] Murat Er v. Denmark ........................................................................... 140 No. 41/2008 [75] Ahmed Farah Jama v. Denmark ......................................................... 146 II. Decisions declaring communications inadmissible No. 5/1994 [46] C.P. v. Denmark ................................................................................. 153 No. 7/1995 [51] Paul Barbaro v. Australia .................................................................... 159 No. 9/1997 [53] D.S. v. Sweden .................................................................................. 166 No. 18/2000 [58] F.A. v. Norway .................................................................................. 171 No. 19/2000 [59] Sarwar Seliman Mostafa v. Denmark ................................................ 174 No. 21/2001 [59] D.S. v. Sweden .................................................................................. 179 No. 22/2002 [62] POEM and FASM v. Denmark ............................................................ 180 No. 25/2002 [62] Ahmad Najaati Sadic v. Denmark....................................................... 188 No. 28/2003 [63] The Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination v. Denmark……………….. .................................................................. 194 No. 36/2006 [71] P.S.N. v. Denmark .............................................................................. 199 INDEXES Index by article of the Convention…………………………………………………………........ 207 Subject index…………………………………………………………...…………………………. 209 Author and victim index…………………………………………………………........................ 212 iii Introduction Promoting and encouraging universal respect to receive and consider communications from for and observance of human rights and individuals or group of individuals, under fundamental freedoms for all, without article 14. Such communications are distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference considered in closed meetings and all based on race, colour, descent, or national or documents pertaining to the work of the ethnic origin is one of the main purposes of the Committee under article 14 are confidential United Nations. The adoption of the until a final decision has been made. International Convention on the Elimination of By 20 January 2012, the following 54 States All Forms of Racial Discrimination was an had made the declaration under article 14: important step in the codification process to combat such discrimination. It constitutes the Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, normative basis upon which international Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia (Plurinational efforts to eliminate it should be built. State of), Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, As at 20 January 2012, there were 175 State Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, parties to the Convention, which was adopted Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, by the General Assembly in resolution Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965 and opened Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, for signature and ratification in New York on Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of 7 March 1966. The Convention entered into Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San force on 4 January 1969 in accordance with Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, the provisions of its article 19. South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the In accordance with its article 8, the Committee former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was Ukraine, Uruguay, and Venezuela (Bolivarian established to ensure that the Convention is Republic of). observed and implemented. The Committee is Upon receiving a communication, the composed of 18 independent experts of high Committee transmits it to the State party moral standing and acknowledged impartiality. concerned for observations relevant to the Members are elected for a term of four years question of admissibility of the communication. and serve in their personal capacity. They may Conditions for admissibility are specified in the be re-elected if nominated. Convention and in the Committee’s rules of The Committee convenes twice a year for procedure (HRI/GEN/3/Rev.3), pursuant to three-week sessions. It elects a Chair, three which the Committee ascertains: Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur from among its x That the communication is not anonymous own members for a term of two years. These and that it comes from an individual or officers are eligible for re-election. The group of individuals subject to the Committee’s main activity is to monitor the jurisdiction of a State party recognizing the implementation of the Convention by its State competence of the Committee under article parties through periodic reporting. In addition 14; to the reporting procedure, there are two other mechanisms through which the Committee x That the individual claims to be a victim of a performs its monitoring functions: the violation by the State party concerned of examination of inter-State communications any of the rights set forth in the Convention. and the examination of individual As a general rule, the communication communications under article 14 of the should be submitted by the individual Convention. himself or by his relatives or designated representatives; Under the individual communications procedure, individuals can, under certain x That the communication is submitted to the circumstances, lodge complaints claiming that Committee within six months after the any of the rights set forth in the Convention exhaustion of domestic remedies; have been violated. No communication can be x That the communication is compatible with received by the Committee if it concerns a the provisions of the Convention; State party to the Convention that has not recognized the competence of the Committee 1 x That the communication is not an abuse of communication and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report for 2004
    Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission Annual Report for 2004 The Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission is an independent body which considers whether a convicted person should have his/her case retried by another court. 1 Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission Annual Report for 2004 The Criminal Cases Review Commission’s activities and composition The Criminal Cases Review Commission was set up following a revision of Chapter 27 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The amendment came into force on 1 January 2004. The Commission has five permanent members and three alternates, all of whom are appointed by the King in Council. The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson [I’m not sure whether this is the done thing in Norway – our first chairperson was female and this is the way she was designated] and one member must hold a university degree in law [LLM]. The Chairperson is appointed for a period of five years and members for a period of three years. The Commission is made up as follows: Chairperson: Janne Kristiansen Vice Chairperson: Ann-Kristin Olsen, Governor of Vest-Agder County Members: Vidar Stensland, Court of Appeal Judge at the Hålogaland Court of Appeal. Svein Magnussen, Professor of Psychology at the University of Oslo. Anne Kathrine Slungård, Director of Communications at SINTEF. Alternates: Anne Elisabeth Landsverk, District Court Judge at the Skien and Porsgrunn District Court (until October 2004) Helen Sæter, District Court Judge at the Fredrikstad District Court (from October 2004) Harald Stabell, advocate and defence counsel Øystein Mæland, Chief Consultant/Head of Department at Ullevål University Hospital. The Commission’s Chairperson is also employed full-time as Head of the Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • Impartiality in Opinion Content (July 2008)
    Quality Assurance Project 5: Impartiality (Opinion Content) Final Report July 2008 Advise. Verify. Review ABC Editorial Policies Editorial Policies The Editorial Policies of the ABC are its leading standards and a day-to-day reference for makers of ABC content. The Editorial Policies – • give practical shape to statutory obligations in the ABC Act; • set out the ABC’s self-regulatory standards and how to enforce them; and • describe and explain to staff and the community the editorial and ethical principles fundamental to the ABC. The role of Director Editorial Policies was established in 2007 and comprises three main functions: to advise, verify and review. The verification function principally involves the design and implementation of quality assurance projects to allow the ABC to assess whether it is meeting the standards required of it and to contribute to continuous improvement of the national public broadcaster and its content. Acknowledgements The project gained from the sustained efforts of several people, and the Director Editorial Policies acknowledges: Denis Muller, Michelle Fisher, Manager Research, and Jessica List, Executive Assistant. Thanks also to Ian Carroll and John Cameron, respectively the Directors of the Innovation Division and the News Division, and to their senior staff, whose engagement over the details of editorial decision-making gave the project layers that an assessment of this sort usually lacks. This paper is published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation © 2008 ABC For information about the paper, please contact: Director Editorial Policies ABC Southbank Centre GPO Box 9994 Melbourne VIC 3001 Phone: +61 3 9626 1631 Email: [email protected] QA Project 05 – Final Report July 2008 ABC Editorial Policies Foreword Opinion and impartiality – are there any other words which, when paired, are more fraught for a public broadcaster? Is any other pair of words more apparently paradoxical? Opinion content is commissioned or acquired by the ABC to provide a particular perspective or point of view.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Norway
    THE SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY On 28 June 2017, the Supreme Court gave judgment in HR-2017-1297-A, (case no. 2017/445), civil case, appeal against judgment and case no. 2017/474, appeal against order ING Bank N.V. (Counsel Henning Harborg Counsel Peder Alvik Sanengen – qualifying test case) v. The Bankruptcy estate of (Counsel Kristoffer Larsen Rognvik Bergen Bunkers AS – qualifying test case) Assisting counsel Egil Horstad) OPINION: (1) Acting justice Kaasen: The case concerns the dismissal of an action from a Norwegian bankruptcy estate against a foreign secured party due to lack of jurisdiction, and the choice of law if the case is not dismissed. (2) Bergen Bunkers AS (hereinafter Bergen Bunkers) engaged in the purchase and sale of bunkers (ship fuel) and in bunker brokerage. The company was wholly owned by O.W. Bunker Norway AS, and both companies were part of a large group. The Danish company O.W. Bunker & Trading A/S was the parent company of the group and had subsidiaries in a number of countries. (3) ING Bank N.V. (hereinafter ING) is a Dutch bank acting as agent and lender under a loan agreement where a number of lenders granted the O.W. Bunker group a loan of 2 USD 700 000 000. The loan agreement was entered into on 19 December 2013 under the condition that the Danish parent company and a total of sixteen other group companies granted security for the loan. ING would also be granted a security interest in the group companies' trade receivables. (4) Bergen Bunkers was not a direct borrower under the loan agreement, but the loan amount was "streamed" downwards in the group so that Bergen Bunkers could also benefit from the loan.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 1998 Unidanmark Unibank Contents
    Annual Report 1998 Unidanmark Unibank Contents Summary . 6 Financial review . 8 The Danish economy . 14 Business description . 15 Retail Banking . 15 Corporate Banking . 21 Markets . 23 Investment Banking . 25 Risk management . 26 Capital resources . 33 Employees . 35 Management and organisation . 37 Accounts Accounting policies . 42 The Unidanmark Group . 44 Unidanmark A/S . 50 Unibank A/S . 55 Notes . 59 Unidanmark’s Local Boards of Shareholders . 84 Unibank’s Business Forum . 85 Branches in Denmark . 86 International directory . 88 Notice of meeting . 90 Management Supervisory Board of Unidanmark Jørgen Høeg Pedersen (Chairman) Holger Klindt Andersen Laurids Caspersen Boisen Lene Haulrik* Steffen Hvidt* Povl Høier Mogens Hugo Jørgensen Brita Kierrumgaard* Kent Petersen* Mogens Petersen Keld Sengeløv * Appointed by employees Executive Board of Unidanmark Thorleif Krarup Supervisory Board of Unibank Unibank’s Supervisory Board has the same members as the Supervisory Board of Unidanmark. In addition, as required by Danish banking legisla- tion, the Danish Minister of Business and Industry has appointed one mem- ber of the Supervisory Board of Unibank, Mr Kai Kristensen. Executive Board of Unibank Thorleif Krarup (Chairman) Peter Schütze (Deputy Chairman) Christian Clausen Jørn Kristian Jensen Peter Lybecker Henrik Mogensen Vision We are a leading financial services company in Denmark with a prominent position in the Nordic market. We ensure our shareholders a return in line with the return of the best among comparable Nordic financial services companies. Through our customer focus, efficient business processes and technology we create customer satisfaction and attract new customers. This confirms the customers in their choice of bank. Unibank is an attractive workplace where team spirit and customer focus are important criteria for individual success.
    [Show full text]
  • Sugar Ray's Bitterness
    Sugar Ray's bitterness By Greg Roberts Sydney Morning Herald 5 October 2002 Rivalry over government funding and political power has spilled over into a nasty brawl in outback Queensland. Greg Roberts reports. ONE of Australia's most powerful Aboriginal leaders points to a patch of dry mulga scrub outside the south-west Queensland town of Charleville. "That's where I grew up as a kid; that's where the tin shed was," says "Sugar" Ray Robinson, deputy chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). "It had a dirt floor; eight of us lived there. We carted water in a bucket from a tap every day. We ate bread and water with sugar sprinkled on it. There wasn't a day went past that I wasn't hungry." Robinson, 56, has come a long way. Today he heads the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services Secretariat and 13 other indigenous bodies. A powerbroker in ATSIC, he is a constant thorn in the side of the commission chairman, Geoff Clark. Robinson predicts that after the October 19 ATSIC elections, Clark will no longer be chairman. "Geoff Clark has a problem and the problem is he is not going to get in as chairman while I'm there," he booms in his trademark gravelly voice. "He hasn't got the numbers. He knows that if he's ever to get back as chairman, I'm his biggest threat." Robinson insists he does not covet the top job. Clark infuriated Robinson recently when he called for an investigation into allegations against his deputy in a series of articles in Brisbane's The Courier-Mail newspaper.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Analysis of the Pilot Courts Replies to the Questionnaire Prepared by the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre
    Strasbourg, 11 December 2008 CEPEJ- SATURN(2008)7 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ) Groupe de Pilotage of the SATURN Centre for judicial time management (CEPEJ-SATURN) Data analysis of the pilot courts replies to the questionnaire prepared by the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre Working document Data analysis of the pilot courts replies to the questionnaire prepared by the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre of the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe − Draft, 20 November 2008 Marco Fabri and Domenico Piscitelli1 Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council, Italy Research Centre for Judicial Studies, University of Bologna, Italy Introduction This analysis is based on the replies to the questionnaire designed by the SATURN Centre of the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe. The first section is an Executive Summary, the second section is the Data Analysis. The Appendix, as requested by the SATURN working group, entails four documents: a) the detailed tables that were not decided to include in the main Data Analysis, b) the complete answers to the so called “hypothetical cases”, c) the questionnaire, d) the Programme known as “Strasbourg” implemented by the court of first instance of Turin, Italy. Executive Summary Data analysis synthesis The courts that replied to the questionnaire were 79 from 27 countries. Most of the replies came from Serbia (27), “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (15), and Georgia (5). As agreed by the SATURN Group, in order to have a balanced database, it was decided to include in this analysis only the official pilot courts, and not more than two courts for the countries mentioned above.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcondon.Apology.Feb0
    The Hardest Word Author: Matthew Condon QWeekend Magazine (Brisbane, Australia) - Courier Mail Saturday, February 7, 2009 Was Kevin Rudd's "sorry" speech an act of heartfelt reconciliation or an empty gesture? One year on, Qweekend asks 14 indigenous Australians. To read it now, one year on, it no longer contains the fire glow of its initial delivery, nor does it make its way so directly to the human heart, removed from its astonishing emotional context on that morning of February 13 last year. But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's now famous "sorry" speech to Australia's Stolen Generations, his first major act of parliamentary business as leader of the nation, remains a significant specimen of political rhetoric. Flat on the page it continues to show life because we can still readily connect it to the memory of that cloudy Canberra day, and how the nation stopped in the manner of great sporting events or great tragedy. More than 1.3 million Australians watched Rudd read the speech live on television. Thousands of indigenous Australians converged on the capital, filling the House of Representatives visitors' gallery and spilling outside. As Australians, we are largely unused to witnessing first-hand the making of history, unless it comes from the blade of a cricket bat or the lunging head of a horse. Here we would be spectators to something as intangible, yet as elementary, as an apology from one group of human beings to another. Here, at nine o'clock on a Wednesday morning in late summer, a prime minister would open the 42nd Parliament of the Commonwealth by attempting to build a metaphorical bridge between white and black Australians using words alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Denmark - on Your Bike! the National Bicycle Strategy
    Denmark - on your bike! The national bicycle strategy July 2014 Ministry of Transport Frederiksholms Kanal 27 1220 Copenhagen K Denmark Telefon +45 41 71 27 00 ISBN 978-87-91511-93-6 [email protected] www.trm.dk Denmark - on your bike! The national bicycle strategy 4.| Denmark - on your bike! Denmark - on your bike! Published by: Ministry of Transport Frederiksholms Kanal 27F 1220 Copenhagen K Prepared by: Ministry of Transport ISBN internet version: 978-87-91511-93-6 Frontpage image: Danish Road Directorate Niclas Jessen, Panorama Ulrik Jantzen FOREWORD | 5v Foreword Denmark has a long tradition for cycling and that makes us somewhat unique in the world. We must retain our strong cycling culture and pass it on to our children so they can get the same pleasure of moving through traf- fic on a bicycle. Unfortunately, we cycle less today than we did previously. It is quite normal for Danes to get behind the wheel of the car, even for short trips. It is com- fortable and convenient in our busy daily lives. If we are to succeed in en- couraging more people to use their bicycles, therefore, we must make it more attractive and thus easier to cycle to work, school and on leisure trips. We can achieve this by, for example, creating better cycle paths, fewer stops, secure bicycle parking spaces and new cycling facilities. In the government, we are working for a green transition and we want to promote cycling, because cycling is an inexpensive, healthy and clean form of transport. The state has never before done as much in this regard as we are doing at present.
    [Show full text]
  • Robson on Toowoomba Mosque by Frank Robson
    SBS report by Frank Robson on Toowoomba Mosque https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/feature/garden-city-burning-who-set-mosque-fire By Frank Robson Grainy CCTV shows the man police believe set fire to a mosque – twice. Who is the arsonist targeting Toowoomba’s Muslim community? Published August 3, 2016. Reading time: 20 mins On a cold and starry night during the holy month of Ramadan, wind whistles through the fire-damaged timbers of Toowoomba’s Garden City Mosque. Once a Christian church, the brick and timber chapel with its distinctive arched roof became the city’s first mosque amid much rejoicing early in 2014. CCTV released by Queensland Police shows the suspected arsonist. At the time, there were predictions “10,000 rednecks” would oppose the mosque, set on a large corner block in a leafy residential suburb near the CBD. But it didn’t happen. Apart from some neighbours' complaints over parking problems, and a few obscenities shouted from passing vehicles, peace and harmony prevailed in the Darling Downs city once described as “the buckle on Queensland’s Bible belt”. Then, in January and April last year, the mosque in West Street, Harristown, was hit by two still unsolved arson attacks. The first, in a wooden outbuilding, did little damage. But the second effectively destroyed the interior of the mosque, rendering it unusable. Both fires were deliberately lit between 1am and 2am, probably by the same person, but despite an ongoing investigation, police admit they’re no closer to making an arrest than when they began. Imam of Garden City Mosque, Abdul Kader, explains what happened.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses On the Legitimacy of Economic Development Takings DYRKOLBOTN, SJUR,KRISTOFFER How to cite: DYRKOLBOTN, SJUR,KRISTOFFER (2016) On the Legitimacy of Economic Development Takings, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11559/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk On the legitimacy of economic development takings Sjur Kristoffer Dyrkolbotn Thesis submitted to Durham Law School at Durham University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 24th March 2016 99 947 words excluding bibliography Contents List of Abbreviations 2 Abstract 7 Acknowledgements 9 List of Abbreviations 10 1 Introduction and Summary of Main Themes 11 1.1 Property Theory and Economic Development Takings . 15 1.2 A Democratic Deficit in Takings Law? . 19 1.3 Putting The Theory to the Test . 21 1.4 A Judicial Framework for Compulsory Participation .
    [Show full text]
  • The Two EEA Courts’ – a Norwegian Perspective 1
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives ‘The two EEA Courts’ – a Norwegian perspective 1 Dr. Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen, University of Bergen A. Introduction – the notion of ‘EEA Courts’ To most Norwegian lawyers, the term ‘the two EEA Courts’ would probably be understood as a reference to the EFTA Court and the Supreme Court of Norway rather than, as suggested here, to the EFTA Court and ECJ. The understanding of the ECJ as not only an EU but also an EEA Court of Justice has only slowly sunk in to the Norwegian legal community.2 However, not least due to the somewhat troubling prospects to the free movement of capital in the EEA offered by the ECJ’s application of Article 40 EEA in a recent string of cases, 3 appreciation of the ECJ as the gatekeeper for market operators from the EFTA States seeking judicial protec- tion in the EU appears to gain ground: If the ECJ embarks on an interpretation of EEA law which differs from its own interpretation of corresponding provisions of EU law, the result will be gradual undermining of the Agreements overall goal to extend the internal market to include the EFTA States. Thus, the fate of the EEA Agreement at long last hangs on its continued acceptance by the ECJ. Even acknowledging that the ECJ is to be understood as an EEA Court, most Norwegian lawyers would probably argue that this raises the number of EEA Courts to three – the Supreme Court of Norway, the EFTA Court and the ECJ.4 A recent survey of the applica- tion of EEA law in Norwegian courts 1994-2010 has revealed that lower Norwegian courts indeed do appear to see the Supreme Court as an EEA Court proper, taking its decisions into 1 Readers with command of Norwegian should be warned at the outset that this contribution draws heavily upon the more extensive account in the author’s report ‘EU/EØS-rett i norske domstoler’ [EU/EEA law in Norwegian Courts], Report commissioned by the Norwegian EEA Review Committee, Oslo 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Norway - Order - HR-2019-2206-A
    Utskrift fra Lovdata - 15.01.2021 15:16 The Supreme Court of Norway - Order - HR-2019-2206-A Authority The Supreme Court of Norway – Order Date 2019-11-27 Published HR-2019-2206-A Keywords Civil process. Jurisdiction. Lugano Convention. Summary A number of European truck manufacturers had been charged with extensive fines by the European Commission for price fixing. Posten Norge AS with Norwegian and foreign subsidiaries had purchased a large number of trucks from these manufacturers, also from one manufacturer's Norwegian subsidiary. This subsidiary was not comprised by the European Commission's decision. Posten Norge AS with subsidiaries brought an action before Oslo District Court against all manufacturers together with the Norwegian subsidiary invoking Article 6 (1) of the Lugano Convention on special jurisdiction. It was held that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the loss that the price fixing had caused for the claimants. The Supreme Court, after having conducted an oral hearing, stated that the condition in Article 6 (1) of the Lugano Convention that the claims must have been closely connected that the provision to apply – the «closeness requirement» – assumes that the same legal and factual situation creates a risk of conflicting judgments resulting from separate proceedings. The claimant carries the burden of proving that the conditions for accumulation are met. In the review, a relatively thorough assessment must be made of whether the claims are so closely connected, legally and factually, that it is expedient to hear and determine them together. The claimant must demonstrate a certain likelihood that the closeness requirement is met.
    [Show full text]