CELEX: E2001P0004
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-12 00:00:00
Title: 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)

Important legal notice

|

E2001P0004

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)  

Official Journal C 242 , 30/08/2001 P. 0005 - 0005

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)(2001/C 242/09)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík 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?