Judgment of the Court of 22 February 2002 in Case E-1/01: Hörður Einarsson v the Icelandic State (Differentiated value added tax on books — Article 14 EEA — Competing products — Indirect protection of domestic products)
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EU law, VAT rate, book trade, national law

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115/13

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 22 February 2002

in Case E-1/01: Hörður Einarsson v the Icelandic State

(Differentiated value added tax on books — Article 14 EEA — Competing products — Indirect protection of
domestic products)

(2002/C 115/05)

In Case E-1/01: Hörður Einarsson v the Icelandic State — Request to the Court under Article 34 of the
Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of
Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) for an Advisory Opinion on the Inter-
pretation of Articles 4, 10 and 14 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of: Thór Vilhjálmsson,
President, Carl Baudenbacher and Per Tresselt (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave an Advisory Opinion on 22
February 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The power of an EEA State to levy value added tax does not exclude the application of EEA rules.

2. A national provision of an EEA State providing that books in the language of that EEA State are subject
is incompatible with Article 14 EEA.

to a lower value added tax than books in foreign languages,

3. Such a national provision cannot be justified on grounds relating to the public interest of enhancing the

position of the national language.

4. When a provision of national law is incompatible with Article 14 EEA, and that Article has been
implemented in national law, a situation arises which is governed by the undertaking assumed by the
EFTA States under Protocol 35 to the EEA Agreement, the premise of which is that the implemented
EEA rule shall prevail.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 22 February 2002

in Case E-2/01: Dr Franz Martin Pucher

(Right of establishment — Residence requirement for at least one board member of a domiciliary company)

(2002/C 115/06)

In Case E-2/01: Dr Franz Martin Pucher — Request to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement
between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by
Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (Administrative Court of the Principality of
Liechtenstein) for an Advisory Opinion in the appeal by Dr Franz Martin Pucher against the decision of the
Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein on the interpretation of Articles 4, 31 and 33 of the EEA
Agreement, the Court, composed of: Thór Vilhjálmsson, President, Carl Baudenbacher and Per Tresselt
(Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave an Advisory Opinion on 22 February 2002, the operative part of which is
as follows:

1. A provision of the national law of an EEA State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, requiring
that at least one member of the board of directors of a domiciliary company, having authority to
manage and represent same, must be permanently residing in that State, constitutes a restriction on the
freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 31 EEA.

2. Such a national provision cannot be justified on grounds of public policy and/or public security within

the meaning of Article 33 EEA.