Kærur til Evrópusambandsins vegna efnahagsárása Bretlands og Hollands gegn Íslendingum

 

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti almennings og sjálfstæði Íslands.    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/cr Ares (2011) 
 



                                                                                  Reykjavík, 25. September 2011  
 

Complaint No. CHAP(2011) 2011 to the Commission of the European Union.
 
In reference to the letter from the EU Commission dated 27^th July 2011, we wish to submit additional remarks regarding our complaint No. CHAP(2011) dated 25^th June 2011.
 
 
General remarks.

1.  The fierce economic attack by Britain and the Netherlands, starting in October 2008 and continuing for almost two years, is without any precedent. This fact was confirmed by the European Union during the French Presidency of the EU 1 July – 31 December 2008. An agreement to this effect was reached on 14^th November 2008 with Britain and the Netherlands, under leadership of the French finance minister Christine Lagarde. According to the agreement these states should »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«.

  

2.  The EU Commission does not have authority to make judgement in the name of the European Court of Justice. Only the Court itself can decide if there can be found any settled cases which resemble the unprecedented situation of Iceland. This fact makes it necessary that the Court processes our complaint. The European Court of Justice has repeatedly expressed its dismay with untimely case rejections of the Commission.

  

3.  Article 232 of the EU Treaty states: »Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the preceding paragraphs, complain to the Court of Justice that an institution of the Community has failed to address to that person any act other than a recommendation or an opinion.« Accordingly, if the Commission fails to address our complaint, we will take our cases direct to the European Court of Justice.

4. In its letter of 27.07.2011, the Commission states the finding that our »complaint does not show any infringement of EU law by the British or Dutch authorities and will therefore not lead to opening infringement proceedings«. This surprising conclusion seems to be partly based on a General Principle of the European Court of Justice. This General Principle can be stated thus: »the existence of an infringement must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion«.

  

5.  The Commission fails to mention that on several occasions the European Court of Justice has expressed Exceptions from the General Principle. These Exceptions specify that an infringement case is admissible and indeed desirable, independent of the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, provided that one out of three conditions is fulfilled:

  

a)   The affected Community rules can be considered very important.
b)   Liability claims against the Member State can arise from the breach.
c)   The ECJ ruling can serve as a preventive measure of repeated occurrence.

   

6.  In the three cases where Britain and the Netherland infringed the jurisdiction of Iceland and breached the EEA agreement these conditions were clearly met. Not only was one of the conditions met but all three of them. Therefore it is in the interest of the future of European Union that the European Court of Justice finds our cases admissible and reaches a factual verdict. The Commission should not shy away from preparing the cases and bringing them to ruling of the Court.

 

  

Cross-border banking within the European Economic Area.  

  

7.  In cross-border banking within the European Economic Area, reorganisation and winding up of branches of credit institutions is under the jurisdiction of the home Member State. This is firmly established in Directive 2001/24/EC. Accordingly, reorganisation and winding up of Landsbanki branches in Britain and the Netherlands belonged to the jurisdiction of Iceland and not the host Member State jurisdiction. Directive 2001/24/EC states:

Article 3. Adoption of reorganisation measures - applicable law.
 
1. The administrative or judicial authorities of the home Member State shall alone be empowered to decide on the implementation of one or more reorganisation measures in a credit institution, including branches established in other Member States.
 
2. The reorganisation measures shall be applied in accordance with the laws, regulations and procedures applicable in the home Member State, unless otherwise provided in this Directive.
 

Article 9. Opening of winding-up proceedings - Information to be communicated to other competent authorities.
 
1. The administrative or judicial authorities of the home Member State which are responsible for winding up shall alone be empowered to decide on the opening of winding-up proceedings concerning a credit institution, including branches established in other Member States.
 
A decision to open winding-up proceedings taken by the administrative or judicial authority of the home Member State shall be recognised, without further formality, within the territory of all other Member States and shall be effective there when the decision is effective in the Member State in which the proceedings are opened.
 
Article 10. Law applicable.
 
1.  A credit institution shall be wound up in accordance with the laws, regulations and procedures applicable in its home Member State insofar as this Directive does not provide otherwise.  

  

8.  An infringement of EU law by authorities of Britain and the Netherlands is therefore obvious, since the jurisdiction of Iceland was breached by these states. We present three separate cases where the jurisdiction of Iceland was breached and consequently an infringement was done against EU law.

  

  

The FSA Supervisory Notices of October 2008. 

  

9. On October 3^rd, 6^th and 10^th of the year 2008, the Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) in Britain issued Supervisory Notices (SN) which effectively put the London branch of Landsbanki into default administration. These Supervisory Notices infringed the jurisdiction of Iceland and were thus illegitimate. They thereby constituted a breach of existing rules of the treaty governing the European Economic Area.

  

10. On 20^th July 2010 the FSA rescinded the Supervisory Notices from October 3^rd and 6^th but that of 10^th October is still in force at this date. Therefore, the General Principle »the existence of an infringement must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion« does certainly not apply in this case. The breach by Britain of the jurisdiction of Iceland is still in existence and has not been amended.

  

  

The HM Treasury freezing orders of October 2008 against Iceland.

 

11. On October 8^th and 20^th of the year 2008, HM Treasury of Britain infringed the jurisdiction of Iceland, by issuing Orders called The Landsbanki Freezing Orders (S.I.2008/2668 and S.I.2008/2766) The freezing orders were directed towards:
 
(a) Landsbanki Íslands,
(b) Landsbanki Receivership Committee,
(c) Central Bank of Iceland,
(d) Icelandic Financial Services Authority,
(e) Government of Iceland.  
 
The freezing orders were of such enormity that they were directed against the whole Icelandic state and thus the entire Icelandic people. 

  

12. The Freezing orders were based on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which is a law established in wake of the terror attacks on 11^th September 2001 (9/11 attacks) against the United States of America. This law is explicitly intended to combat crimes of major proportions against the United Kingdom and specifically to meet the threat of terrorism. A dispute of commercial nature with a single bank does certainly not constitute a threat to be fought off by the use of anti-terrorism legislature. The Freezing Orders were in force until 15^th June 2009, or in more than 8 months. 

  

13.The United Nations General Assembly has since 1994 used following political description of terrorism: 
 
»Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.«
 
This description of terrorism hardly fits any of the institutions hit by the wrath of HM Treasury.

  

14. Reference is made to the European Council’s Framework Decision of 13^th June 2002 on combating terrorism (3), which defines terrorism as described in following points:
 
(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h). 

 

15. One must stretch the imagination very far in order to reconcile the HM Treasury’s view of terrorism with any accepted definitions. Indeed, we maintain that Britain’s decision to brand the Icelandic institutions as seats of terrorism is pure fabrication. It is clearly a violation of internationally accepted human rights and comes nowhere close to internationally accepted definitions of terrorism. The application of Anti-terrorism law by one state of the European Economic Area against another state of EEA, can not be ignored but must be thoroughly investigated by the European Court of Justice.

    

  

Netherlands’ infringement of the jurisdiction of Iceland. 

  

16. On 13^th October 2008 the Amsterdam District Court (Rechtbank Amsterdam) declared emergency regulations applicable to the Dutch branch of Landsbanki. This was done at the request of the Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank) and the ruling was based on Dutch law. The court appointed administrators to handle the affairs of the branch, including all assets and dealings with customers. These rulings infringed the jurisdiction of Iceland and were thus a breach of Directive 2001/24/EC. 

  

17. The illegal administrative proceedings of the Amsterdam Court continued for 18 months, or from October 13^th 2008 until 13^th March 2010 when the Amsterdam District Court finally decided to lift the emergency application. It took the court this long to discover that the banking license of Landsbanki had not been revoked and that the basis for its ruling was non-existent. It is still to be determined if the ruling was caused by incompetence or deliberate infringement of the jurisdiction of Iceland.

     

  

Concluding remarks.  

  

18. We have shown that Britain and the Netherlands infringed the jurisdiction of Iceland and thus dishonoured Directive 2001/24/EC. These states breached the EEA principles of “free movement of capital” and “the freedom to provide services”. The breach by Britain of the jurisdiction of Iceland is still in existence and has not been amended. 

  

19. We furthermore maintain that the Netherlands took part with Britain in a conspiracy to deny Iceland access to international financial markets. It is documented that these states have used their access to the International Monetary Fund and the European Investment Bank to illegally deny Iceland financial loans and economic advice. These actions are additional breaches of the EEA principles.

  

20. We have pointed out that the European Court of Justice is not only concerned with implementation of EU regulations, but is also occupied with basic principles which manifest themselves in following three situations: 
 
  The affected Community rules can be considered very important.
  Liability claims against the Member State can arise from the breach.
  The ECJ ruling can serve as a preventive measure of repeated occurrence. 

  

21. The use by Britain of a law called the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, against interests of all citizens of Iceland must be investigated by a competent court of law. The European Court of Justice will surely appreciate the opportunity to rule on the legality of such a grievous act by a member state of the European Union. 

  

22. This letter is an addition to our earlier complaint to the Commission, dated 25 June 2011. As stated in our previous letter, we offer our full cooperation with the Commission in order to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. We stress the importance of our complaint to all the citizens of Europe. 

                                    Citizens of Iceland.
 
                                         Sincerely.  

  

       Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson                      Pétur Valdimarsson
       Laugarásvegur 4                                    Lækjarhvammur 20
       104 Reykjavík                                        220 Hafnarfjörður
       Iceland                                                   Iceland

 _____________________________________________________________________
    Skrásett heimilisfang: Laugarásvegur 4, 104 Reykjavík   -   Netföng: [e-mail] / [e-mail]

  

 

______________________________________________________________________


              

 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate General Internal Market and Services
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Financial Stability
 

Brussels, 27/07/2011
MARKT H4/SS/cr Ares (2011)

 

Mr. Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson
Mr. Petur Valdimarsson
Laugarásvegur 4
104 REYKJAVIK
Iceland
E-mail: [e-mail]

 
Subject: Complaint Nr. CHAP(2011) 2011 related to alleged breaches of
               the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
 

Dear Sirs,
 
I refer to your complaint Nr. CHAP(2011)2011 concerning alleged breaches of the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
 
We have carefully examined the information provided in your letter of 25 June 2011. Our analysis of your complaint based on the relevant EEA and EU law provisions, is the following.
 
The Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008 of the UK Treasury was revoked by Statutory Instrument 2009 N. 1392 of 10th June 2009. Since the contested order has been repealed, any potential incompatibility of its provisions with EEA or EU law has been eliminated. As a consequence, the Commission cannot conduct any legal proceedings against the UK authorities in relation to this Order.
 
It's important to recall that according to settled case- law of the Court of Justice, the Commission, in exercising its powers of monitoring compliance with EU law, has the function, in the general interest of the Union, of ensuring that the Member States give effect to the Treaty and the provisions adopted by the institutions and of obtaining a declaration, of any failure to fulfil the obligations deriving therefrom with a view to bringing it to an end. The Court has thus clarified that the existence of an infringement must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, inter alia judgements of 27 October 2005, Commission/Italy, C-525/03, ECR 1-9405, point 14, and of 6 December 2007, Commission/Germany, C-456/05, ECR 1-10517, point 15). It is therefore outside the Commission's remit to verify a situation that does no longer exist.
 
As regards the ruling of the Amsterdam District Court referred by you, we would point out that according to settled-case law, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from EU law, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, secondly, that they do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (see case C 129/00 Commission /Italy, ECR 1-14637, point 25). The information provide by you do not show any violation of these principles in connection with the ruling of the Amsterdam Court quoted by you.
 
In view of the above, we regret to inform you that the examination of your complaint does not show any infringement of EU law by the British or Dutch authorities and will therefore not lead to opening infringement proceedings. Should you have further elements that might show the existence of an infringement, we would ask you to provide us with these elements within two months of the receipt of the present letter. In the absence of such elements, your complaint will be closed within this deadline.
 

Yours sincerely,
 
Silvia SCATIZZI

  
 
Contact:
Silvia Scatizzi, Telephone: [phone], [e-mail]

______________________________________________________________________

                                    
 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti almennings og sjálfstæði Íslands.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

 

Commission of the European Union
(Attn: Secretary-General)
Rue de la Loi 200B-1049
Brussels
BELGIUM 
 

                                                                                             Reykjavík, 25. June 2011


    
Inquiry and preliminary complaint:
  
Regards the EU Commission’s responsibility to investigate and process a complaint directed at Britain’s and the Netherland’s breach of the EEA principles of “free movement of capital” and “the freedom to provide services”.
 
1.    According to the EEA Agreement, “free movement of capital” and “freedom to provide services” are fundamental rights granted to all citizens of the EEA states.
 
2.    According to Article 109(1-5) of the EEA Agreement, the EU Commission has the obligation to monitor the fulfilment of the agreement by EU states. Complaints regarding the performance of EU states shall be directed to the EU Commission and shall be examined by the EU Commission and brought before the European Court of Justice.
      
3.    We citizens of Lýðveldið Ísland are of the opinion that Britain and the Netherlands have breached these aforementioned fundamental rights of the EEA Agreement by their actions directed at Icelandic interests, starting in the autumn of 2008.
 
4.    On 8^th October 2008, the British Government issued Order No.2668, called The Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008. The order was based on a law against terrorism and is called Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

5.    The freezing order was of such enormity that it was in fact directed against the whole Icelandic state and thus the entire Icelandic people. Following parties were specified as terrorists by the Freezing Order:
  
(a) Landsbanki Íslands,
(b) Landsbanki Receivership Committee,
(c) Central Bank of Iceland,
(d) Icelandic Financial Services Authority,
(e) Government of Iceland.

6.    We maintain that besides breaching the EES Agreement, Britain is guilty of infringement of Icelandic jurisdiction, illegal economic coercion, illegal use of anti-terror legislation and violation of human rights. We furthermore maintain that Britain took part with the Netherlands in a conspiracy to deny Iceland access to international financial markets.
 
7.    We remind of the British military occupation of Iceland during 10^th May 1940 – 7^th July 1941. We also remind of the Cod Wars which Britain has regularly waged against Iceland. As a matter of fact, throughout the history of Iceland, Britain has frequently used forceful means to further its interests against Iceland, a nation which never has had any military defences.
 
8.    On 13^th October 2008 the Amsterdam District Court (Rechtbank Amsterdam) ruled that since the Dutch branch of Landsbanki was without banking authorization it should be put under the administration of De Nederlansche Bank, which is the central bank of the Netherlands. The duration of the administration was decided to be 18 months.
 
9.    On 8^th March 2010 the Amsterdam District Court dismissed an application by the DNB administrators of the Landsbanki branch to extend the term of administration. As a result, the regulations ceased to apply on March 13^th 2010. It took the court 18 months to discover that the banking license of Landsbanki had not been revoked. The proclamations to this effect by DNB had been proven lies and Landsbanki had in fact held a banking license from 1886.
     
10.We maintain that the decision of the Amsterdam District Court on 13^th October 2008 constituted an infringement of the jurisdiction of Iceland. As a consequence authorities in the Netherlands breached the EEA principles of “free movement of capital” and “the freedom to provide services”.
     
11.We furthermore maintain that the Netherlands took part with Britain in a conspiracy to deny Iceland access to international financial markets. It is documented that these states have used their access to the International Monetary Fund and the European Investment Bank to illegally deny Iceland financial loans and economic advice. These actions are additional breaches of the EEA principles.

We ask the EU Commission to consider our Inquiry and preliminary complaint concerning the illegal behaviour of Britain and the Netherlands against the Icelandic people. We have avoided detailing our accusations and forwarded only a few references to EEA laws and regulations. We consider the Commission capable of providing the legal references. However, if required we would be happy to provide a more detailed complaint.
 
Besides asking the Commission to undertake an investigation of our cases against Britain and the Netherlands, we also ask the Commission to prosecute these cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union. As with the investigation, we are more than willing to cooperate with the Commission in this respect.
 


                                               Citizens of Iceland.
 
                                                       Sincerely.


        Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson                       Pétur Valdimarsson
        Laugarásvegur 4                                     Lækjarhvammur 20
        104 Reykjavík                                          220 Hafnarfjörður
        Iceland                                                     Iceland 
 

 _____________________________________________________________________
    Skrásett heimilisfang: Laugarásvegur 4, 104 Reykjavík   -   Netföng: [e-mail] / [e-mail]