Request for an Advisory Opinion to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) by decision of that court of 6 April 2001 in the case of Karl K. Karlsson hf. v Republic of Iceland (Case E-4/01)
Date: 2001-04-12
Institutions: Iceland
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, EFTA, European Economic Area, Iceland, competition law, interpretation of the law

30.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 242/5

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA COURT

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des
F(cid:252)rstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein) by decision
of that court of 12 March 2001 in the case of Dr Martin Franz Pucher

(Case E-2/01)

(2001/C 242/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 12 March 2001 of Verwaltungsbeschwer-
deinstanz des F(cid:252)rstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court for the Principality of Liechtenstein), which
was received at the Court Registry on 14 March 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Dr Martin
Franz Pucher, on the following questions:

1. Does the residence requirement imposed by Article 180(a)(1) of the PGR constitute overt or covert
discrimination on grounds of nationality, within the meaning of Article 4 EEA, alternatively, does that
residence requirement constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment provided for by Article
31 EEA?

2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

is the discrimination or restriction justified on
public-interest grounds, in particular those of public policy and/or public security (see Article 33 EEA)?

Request for an Advisory Opinion to the EFTA Court by HØra(cid:240)sd(cid:243)mur Reykjav(cid:237)kur (Reykjav(cid:237)k
District Court) by decision of that court of 6 April 2001 in the case of Karl K. Karlsson hf. v
Republic of Iceland

(Case E-4/01)

(2001/C 242/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by HØra(cid:240)sd(cid:243)mur Reykjav(cid:237)kur (Reykjav(cid:237)k District Court), which
was received at the Court on 12 April 2001, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Karl K. Karlsson hf. v
Republic of Iceland on the following questions:

1. Should the provisions of the EEA Agreement,

in particular Articles 11 and 16, be interpreted as
meaning that
Iceland was obliged to abolish the State monopoly for the import and wholesale
distribution of alcoholic beverages as of the commencement of the Agreement on 1 January 1994?

2. If the aforementioned question is answered in the affirmative, is Iceland liable for compensation to a
legal person which, at the time of entry into force of the Agreement, was the exclusive agent for a
specific type of alcoholic beverage, for the financial loss it incurred due to the fact that the import and
wholesale distribution of the alcoholic beverage was not permitted until nearly two years after the entry
into force of the EEA Agreement, provided that the conditions for liability for compensation according
to the case-law of the EFTA Court and Court of Justice of the European Communities are fulfilled?

3. If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, are the conditions for liability for compensation

according to the case-law of the aforementioned courts fulfilled?