Judgment of the Court of 30 May 2002 in Case E-4/01: Request for an Advisory Opinion from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court): Karl K. Karlsson hf. and The Icelandic State (State alcohol monopoly — incompatibility with Article 16 EEA — State liability in the event of a breach of EEA law — Conditions of liability)
Date: 2002-05-30
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, EFTA Court, European Economic Area, Iceland, alcohol, competition law, financial loss, indemnification, interpretation of the law

25.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 177/7

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA COURT

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

of 21 May 2002

(2002/C 177/06)

In Case E-8/01, Gunnar Amundsen AS and Others v Vectura AS, concerning the issue of whether there has
been an infringement of Article 54 EEA, and a claim for compensation for loss resulting from the
infringement, the President of the Court made and Order of 21 May 2002, the operative part of which
orders Case E-8/01 removed from the Register.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 30 May 2002

in Case E-4/01: Request for an Advisory Opinion from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík
District Court): Karl K. Karlsson hf. and The Icelandic State

(State alcohol monopoly — incompatibility with Article 16 EEA — State liability in the event of a breach of EEA
law — Conditions of liability)

(2002/C 177/07)

In Case E-4/01: 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 for an
Advisory Opinion in the case pending before it concerning the questions of whether
the State
monopoly on the import and wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages in force in Iceland until 1
December 1995 was incompatible with the EEA Agreement, and, if so, whether a prospective importer of
alcoholic beverages is entitled to compensation from the State for financial loss incurred as a result of that
monopoly, the Court, composed of Thór Vilhjálmsson, President, Carl Baudenbacher and Per Tresselt
(Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave a judgment on 30 May 2002, the operative part of which declares as
follows:

1. The maintenance after 1 January 1994 of a State monopoly on the import of alcoholic beverages is

incompatible with Article 16 EEA.

2. An EEA State will, under the EEA Agreement, be liable to a prospective importer of alcoholic beverages
for loss or damage incurred as a result of the maintenance of a State monopoly on the import of
alcoholic beverages, provided that the conditions for State liability are fulfilled. Where those conditions
are fulfilled, compensation by the State for such loss and damage must be based on national liability
law. The rules on compensation laid down by national law must not be less favourable than those
relating to similar domestic claims and must not be framed so as to make it in practice impossible or
excessively difficult to obtain compensation.

3. It is, in principle, for the national court to decide whether the conditions for State liability are fulfilled.
In that assessment, the following considerations are to be taken into account: (1) Article 16 EEA is
intended to confer rights on individuals; (2) the breach of Article 16 EEA is sufficiently serious to entail
liability; (3) whether there is a direct causal link between the breach of Article 16 EEA and any damage
sustained, is for the national court to decide.