Third letter of complaint to the Commission of the European Union

 

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir sjálfstæðu ríki á Íslandi    og fullveldisréttindum almennings.    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/ms Ares(2011)s- 1367350
  
                                                                                    Reykjavík, 18. December 2011 

Third letter of complaint to the Commission of the European Union, concerning breaches of the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Complaint No. CHAP(2011) 2011.

  

Dear Ms. Nathalie de Basaldúa.

  

We wish to thank for the letter from the EU Commission dated 24^th November 2011. Having carefully examined your arguments on behalf of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, we wish to submit following additional remarks regarding our complaint.

  

1.    We understand the political motivation behind your arguments, leading to refusal to acknowledge that the accused states breached Iceland’s sovereignty, infringed the EEA Agreement, violated international human rights, broke an EU agreement with Iceland and waged an economic warfare against a NATO founding member.

   

The Brussels Agreement from 14 November 2008.

  

2.    The Brussels Agreement between Iceland and the European Union is a legally valid document, done on a ministerial level. You are right that the Agreement is of a high level “political nature” which just makes its content more important and completely undisputable. The document is an International Agreement done in accordance with Public International Law.

  

3.    The Commission has not produced any evidence which should hinder the European Court of Justice to acknowledge the factual importance of the Brussels Agreement. The Agreement proves that all parties involved accepted that Iceland’s “unprecedented difficult situation” called for unprecedented assistance by the European Union, as well as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

  

4.    Because of the “unprecedented difficult situation”  of Iceland the European Union promised to “continue to be involved and consulted”. Furthermore, the European Union as well as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands promised to provide necessary help “concerning financial assistance for Iceland, including the IMF.”  The exact wording of the Agreement is as follows:

  

The acceptance by all parties of this legal situation will allow for the expeditious finalization of negotiations underway concerning financial assistance for Iceland, including the IMF. These negotiations shall be conducted in a coordinated and consistent way, and shall 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. The EU and the EEA Institutions will continue to be involved and consulted on this process.

  

5.    Further prove can be given, that the Brussels Agreement was of a high level political nature as well as constituting a legal document under Public International Law. We wish to advice, that on 05 December 2008 the Alþingi (Legislative Assembly of Iceland) passed a resolution based on the Brussels Agreement, stating Alþingi’s legal position towards the Icesave claims of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the financial arrangements made by Iceland at the end of the year 2008 with the International Monetary Fund were based on the Brussels Agreement. The fact that these important and high profile actions rest on the Brussels Agreement make it abundantly clear that the Agreement was far from being “purely of a political nature” , as your statement says.

   

6.    It can be firmly stated that the “general principles” of the European Court of Justice do not apply to the “unprecedented difficult situation” of Iceland. There exists no doubt that the Brussels Agreement proves that our cases against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are worthy of deliberations by the European Court. One way or the other, our cases will be dealt with by the court.

  

Discretion of the European Court of Justice.

  

7.    We appreciate that you confirm our understanding, that the Icelandic state can on its own undertake action against the guilty states of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, under Article 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This will undoubtedly be done, once the country is out of the current “unprecedented difficult situation”. In the meantime, we as individuals insist on freely exercising our human rights of having our three cases tried before the European Court of Justice and for that purpose refer to Article 258 of TFEU.

  

8.    The European Court of Justice has repeatedly expressed: “In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 (169) EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.” Examples:

  

Case C-52/08 Commission v the Portugal [2011], paragraph 40: 

In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-195/04  Commission v Republic of Finland [2007], paragraph 21:

However, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-98/04 Commission v United Kingdom [2006], paragraph 16:

It is appropriate at the outset to note that the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-525/03 Commission v Italian Republic [2005], paragraph 8:

It is appropriate at the outset to emphasise that the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-417/02 Commission v Greece [2004], paragraph 16:

In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-439/99 Commission v Italy [2002], paragraph 8:

It should be noted at the outset that the Court may consider of its own motion whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for an action for failure to fulfil obligations to be brought are satisfied.

Case C-362/90 Commission v Italy [1992], paragraph 8: 

As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the fact that the Italian Government formally pleaded the inadmissibility of the action only in its rejoinder cannot prevent the Court from examining this issue. The arguments relied upon in that respect by the Italian Government had already been submitted in its defence, in which it had formally contended that the action be dismissed. The Commission therefore had the opportunity to answer those arguments in its reply. Furthermore, and in any event, the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 169 of the Treaty for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil an obligation are satisfied. 

   

 9. (a) Liability claims against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands will arise from the breaches of these states against Iceland.                                                                 The enormous damage done to Iceland by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands is in the order of IKR.10.000.000.000.000. This equals about EUR.200.000 per person living in Iceland. One of the consequences of the crimes done by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands is massive emigration from Iceland. Since 2008, yearly emigration from Iceland equals all births in the country. This would equal 10.000.000 people emigrating from the European Union over a three years period.

                 

10. (b) The affected European Community rules involved in our cases are very important.                                                                                                                             The accused states breached Iceland’s sovereignty, infringed the EEA Agreement, violated international human rights, broke an EU agreement with Iceland (Brussels Agreement) and waged an economic warfare against a NATO founding member. If this list of crimes is not enough for deliberations by the European Court of Justice, the Court should be abolished immediately.

  

11.(c) A ruling by the European Court of Justice, against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, will serve as a preventive measure of repeated occurrence.                                                                                                                               These states will continue their colonial behaviour unless they receive the punishment which they deserve for their grave infringements of human rights. These states have for hundreds of years used force against Iceland, not to mention all other peoples which they have harassed. If these powers are not stopped they will be encouraged by the leniency.

  

Concluding remarks.

  

12.In view of the proofs that we have provided, it should not be too difficult for the Commission to do a genuine investigation of our cases against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. We refer to our previous letters, whose content does not need to be repeated. We remind that if the Commission is not convinced of the atrocities committed by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, it should consult with the official sources in Iceland, mentioned previously.

   

13. Summing up our arguments, we accuse the United Kingdom and the Netherlands of:   

• having breached Iceland’s sovereignty,
• infringed the EEA Agreement,
• violated international human rights,
• broken an EU agreement with Iceland and
• waged an economic warfare against Iceland - a NATO founding member.

Refusing to acknowledge these facts will only add to the widespread disillusion amongst the people of Europe about the future of the European Union.                        
 

  

 

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]
______________________________________________________________________