Samstaða Þjóðar - Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti... - samstada-thjod... http://samstada-thjodar.blog.is/blog/samstada-thjodar/?offset=100 Samstaða Þjóðar - Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti almennings og sjálfstæði Íslands 15.2.2012 | 16:52 Correspondence with the Commission of the European Union Áskorun til forseta Stjórnarskráin Peningastefnan Icesave-vextir Íslands EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate General Internal Market and Services FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS Financial Stability Head ofUnit Brussels, 10.02.2012 MARKT H4/SS/ms Ares (2012)s-163283 Mr. Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson Mr. Pétur Valdimarsson Laugarásvegur 4 104 Reykjavík Iceland E-mail: [email protected] Subject: Complaint Nr. CHAP(2011) 2011 related to alleged breaches of the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Dear Sirs, Thank you for your letter of 20 December 2011. In this letter you come back with the same issues that have already been dealt with in previous correspondence with this service. As indicated to you in our letters of 27.07.2011 and 24.11.2011, the factual and legal circumstances described by you do not show any infringement of EU law by the British or Dutch authorities that would justify a Commission's action pursuant to Article 258 of the TFEU. I therefore confirm that your complaint Nr. CHAP(2011)2011 has been closed. 1 of 60 5.3.2013 04:19 Samstaða Þjóðar - Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti... - samstada-thjod... http://samstada-thjodar.blog.is/blog/samstada-thjodar/?offset=100 Yours faithfully, Nathalie de Basaldúa Contact: Silvia Scatizzi, Telephone: +32 229 60 881, [email protected] ______________________________________________________________________ Samstaða þjóðar NATIONAL UNITY COALITION Baráttusamtök fyrir sjálfstæðu ríki á Íslandi og fullveldisréttindum almennings. Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins. Commission of the European Union Attention: Silvia Scatizzi Rue de la Loi 200 B-1049 Brussels BELGIUM Your: MARKT H4/SS/ms Ares(2011)s- 1367350 2 of 60 5.3.2013 04:19 Samstaða Þjóðar - Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti... - samstada-thjod... http://samstada-thjodar.blog.is/blog/samstada-thjodar/?offset=100 Reykjavík, 20. December 2011 Third letter of complaint to the Commission of the European Union, concerning breaches of the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands . Complaint No. CHAP(2011) 2011. Dear Ms. Nathalie de Basaldúa. We wish to thank for the letter from the EU Commission dated 24 th November 2011. Having carefully examined your arguments on behalf of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, we wish to submit following additional remarks regarding our complaint. 1. We understand the political motivation behind your arguments, leading to refusal to acknowledge that the accused states breached Iceland’s sovereignty, infringed the EEA Agreement, violated international human rights, broke an EU agreement with Iceland and waged an economic warfare against a NATO founding member. The Brussels Agreement from 14 November 2008. 2. The Brussels Agreement between Iceland and the European Union is a legally valid document, done on a ministerial level. You are right that the Agreement is of a high level “political nature” which just makes its content more important and completely undisputable. The document is an International Agreement done in accordance with Public International Law. 3. The Commission has not produced any evidence which should hinder the European Court of Justice to acknowledge the factual importance of the Brussels Agreement. The Agreement proves that all parties involved accepted that Iceland’s “unprecedented difficult situation” called for unprecedented assistance by the European Union, as well as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. 4. Because of the “ unprecedented difficult situation” of Iceland the European Union promised to “continue to be involved and consulted”. Furthermore, the European Union as well as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands promised to provide necessary help “concerning financial assistance for Iceland, including the IMF.” The exact wording of the Agreement is as follows: The acceptance by all parties of this legal situation will allow for the expeditious finalization of negotiations underway concerning financial assistance for Iceland, including the IMF. These negotiations shall be conducted in a coordinated and consistent way, and shall take into account the “unprecedented difficult situation ” of Iceland and therefore the necessity of finding arrangements that allow Iceland to restore its financial system and its economy. The EU and the EEA Institutions will continue to be involved and consulted on this process. 5. Further prove can be given, that the Brussels Agreement was of a high level political nature as well as constituting a legal document under Public International Law. We wish to advice, that on 05 December 2008 the Alþingi (Legislative Assembly of Iceland) passed a resolution based on the Brussels Agreement, stating Alþingi’s legal position towards the Icesave claims of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the financial arrangements made by Iceland at the end of the year 2008 with the International Monetary Fund were based on the Brussels Agreement. The fact that these important and high profile actions rest on the Brussels Agreement make it abundantly clear that the Agreement was far from being “purely of a political nature” , as your statement says. 6. It can be firmly stated that the “general principles” of the European Court of Justice do not apply to the “unprecedented difficult situation” of Iceland. There exists no doubt that the Brussels Agreement proves that our cases against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are worthy of deliberations by the European Court. One way or the other, 3 of 60 5.3.2013 04:19 Samstaða Þjóðar - Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti... - samstada-thjod... http://samstada-thjodar.blog.is/blog/samstada-thjodar/?offset=100 our cases will be dealt with by the court. Discretion of the European Court of Justice. 7. We appreciate that you confirm our understanding, that the Icelandic state can on its own undertake action against the guilty states of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, under Article 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This will undoubtedly be done, once the country is out of the current “unprecedented difficult situation” . In the meantime, we as individuals insist on freely exercising our human rights of having our three cases tried before the European Court of Justice and for that purpose refer to Article 258 of TFEU. 8. The European Court of Justice has repeatedly expressed: “In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 (169) EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.” Examples: Case C-52/08 Commission v the Portugal [ 2011 ], paragraph 40: In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied. Case C-195/04 Commission v Republic of Finland [ 2007 ], paragraph 21: However, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied. Case C-98/04 Commission v United Kingdom [2006 ], paragraph 16: It is appropriate at the outset to note that the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied. Case C-525/03 Commission v Italian Republic [ 2005 ], paragraph 8: It is appropriate at the outset to emphasise that the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied. Case C- 417/02 Commission v Greece [2004 ], paragraph 16: In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied. Case C-439/99 Commission v Italy [2002 ], paragraph 8: It should be noted at the outset that the Court may consider of its own motion whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for an action for failure to fulfil obligations to be brought are satisfied. Case C-362/90 Commission v Italy [ 1992 ], paragraph 8: As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the fact that the Italian Government formally pleaded the inadmissibility of the action only in its rejoinder cannot prevent the Court from examining this issue. The arguments relied upon in that respect by the Italian Government had already been submitted in its defence, in which it had formally contended that the action be dismissed. The Commission therefore had the opportunity to answer those arguments in its reply. Furthermore, and in any event, the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 169 of the Treaty for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil an obligation are satisfied. 9. (a) Liability claims against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands will arise from the breaches of these states against Iceland . The enormous damage done to Iceland by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands is in the order of IKR.10.000.000.000.000. This equals about EUR.200.000 per person living in Iceland. One of the consequences of the crimes done by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands is massive emigration from Iceland. Since 2008, yearly emigration from Iceland equals all births in the country. This would equal 10.000.000 people emigrating 4 of 60 5.3.2013 04:19 Samstaða Þjóðar - Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti... - samstada-thjod... http://samstada-thjodar.blog.is/blog/samstada-thjodar/?offset=100 from the European Union over a three years period.