Correspondence with the Commission of the European Union

        

Stjórnarskráin

Áskorun til forseta  Íslands

Peningastefnan

Icesave-vextir

 

 

    

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate General Internal Market and Services

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Financial Stability
Head ofUnit

 

Brussels, 10.02.2012
MARKT H4/SS/ms Ares (2012)s-163283
 

Mr. Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson
Mr. Pétur Valdimarsson
Laugarásvegur 4
104 Reykjavík
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,

  

Thank you for your letter of 20 December 2011.

  

In this letter you come back with the same issues that have already been dealt with in previous correspondence with this service.

  

As indicated to you in our letters of 27.07.2011 and 24.11.2011, the factual and legal circumstances described by you do not show any infringement of EU law by the British or Dutch authorities that would justify a Commission's action pursuant to Article 258 of the TFEU.

  

I therefore confirm that your complaint Nr. CHAP(2011)2011 has been closed.

  

 

Yours faithfully,
 

Nathalie de Basaldúa

 

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

______________________________________________________________________

   

 

 

 

 

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, 20. 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]
______________________________________________________________________

   

 

 

 

    

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate General Internal Market and Services

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Financial Stability
Head ofUnit



 

  

Brussels, 24/11/2011
MARKT H4/SS/ms Ares (2011)s - 1367350

 

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 additional information provided in your second letter of 25 September 2011. However, our conclusion regarding the requested opening of an infringement procedure remains unchanged. In the Commission's view the information you provided does not show any infringement of EU law and does not justify the commencement of a procedure in European Court of Justice ("ECJ").

  

In the first place, we would like to stress that the Court of Justice has clarified that the action under Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union cannot be exercised by individuals against the failure of the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings in accordance with Article 258 of the Treaty (1). In addition, according to Article 258 of the Treaty and the jurisprudence of the EJC (2) the question of whether to bring an action against a Member state is in the "entire discretion" of the Commission. In light of such broad discretion, be advised that the ECJ has consistently refused (3) actions against the Commission for declining to commence an infringement procedure on the basis of a private complaint (Article 265 TFEU).   

  

Our analysis of your additional information based on the relevant EEA and EU law provisions, is the following.

   

a)    General.

  

In relation to the Agreement of the 14 November 2008 that you mention, we would like to point out that this agreement is purely of a political nature and has no legal effect. Therefore, the Commission cannot take it into account in the analysis of your complaint.

  

We underline once more that the ECJ has 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. (4) It is therefore outside the Commission's remit to verify a situation that no longer exists.

  

We acknowledge the jurisprudential development of exceptions to this "general principle" that you address in your letter. We would point out however that there is no proof that any of the exceptions would apply in this case. In particular, there is no evidence that either the Freezing Order of 2008 revoked by the British authorities in June 2009 or the rulings of the Amsterdam District Court of 13 October 2008 continue to produce effects and that any liability claims against these Member States can arise from the alleged breaches. Specifically, we are not aware that the Icelandic authorities governing the Landsbanki Islands winding-up proceedings encounter any difficulty in exercising their rights under the Winding Up Directive 2001/24/EC with respect to the bank branches in London and Amsterdam. On the contrary, we have recently noticed an announcement from Landsbanki Islands stating that the recovery process and the sale of the estate assets are successfully proceeding (5).

   

b)    Landsbanki Freezing Order.

  

As indicated in our letter of 27 July 2011, the Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008 of the UK Treasury was revoked by Statutory Instrument 2009 N. 1392 of 10th June 2009 and any potential incompatibility of its provisions with EEA or EU law has thus been eliminated. With regards to this point, your argumentation in the additional letter is based exclusively on the premise that the UK has wrongfully used the term "terrorism" and its derivatives in applying it to Iceland and Landsbanki. We stress that this in itself, even if assumed to be true, does not lead to violation of the Directive 2001/24/EC or any other EEA or EU law. Consequently, the Commission cannot conduct any legal proceedings against the UK authorities in relation to this Order.

   

c)    Dutch Court rulings.

  

As explained in our previous letter, it is the Commission's conclusion that the rulings of Dutch Courts and the information provided by you do not indicate a violation of the principle of equivalence or principle of effectiveness that would require the matter to be brought before the ECJ. Your second letter does not provide any additional relevant information that would require further elaboration of our previous conclusions. We therefore confirm that the action by the Dutch authorities does not indicate any infringement of EU law and can therefore not lead to opening of an infringement procedure.

   

d)    FSA Supervisory Notices.

  

With regards to the FSA Supervisory notices of October 3rd, 6th and 10th, we agree that the first two notices were rescinded by the Notice of Rescission of 20 July 2010. For the reasons elaborated above we conclude that any potential incompatibility of these notices with EU law has been eliminated and cannot lead to opening an infringement procedure.

     

We fully agree that the Notice of Rescission has expressly left in effect the requirements of the third Supervisory Notice dated 10 October 2008. However, the content of this Notice requires Landsbanki to take certain precautionary measures in consequence of their breach of liquidity requirements. Specifically, these requirements are to "preserve all information and documents", "deal in an open and cooperative way with the [Financial Services Compensation] Scheme" and to "take reasonable steps to ensure that its agents /.../ preserve such information". In our view, these obligations are in no way contrary to the provisions of the Directive 2001/24/EC which relate to the reorganisation process and measures and the opening and winding-up proceedings. On the contrary, these requirements imposed by host Member State (UK) guarantee that potential future decisions of the home Member State (Iceland) will be recognized and given effect in the host Member State as requested by Directive 2001/24/EC (Article 9).

  

There is no assertion or evidence that these requirements prevent Landsbanki from accessing its assets in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, since the United Kingdom had decided to compensate British depositors of Landsbanki through its own deposit guarantee scheme, it is only natural that it needed to take reasonable measures to ascertain the amount of these deposits which it did in part through the third Supervisory Notice. In our view, such proceeding has not violated any provision of the Directive. Moreover, the Commission has found no other EEA or EU law potentially being infringed by the mentioned notice.

  

In view of the above, we confirm 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 four weeks of the receipt of this letter. In the absence of such elements, your complaint will be closed within this deadline.

 

Yours faithfully, 

Nathalie de Basaldúa
 

(1) See case C-72/90 Order of the Court of 23 May 1990, Asia Motor France v Commission of the European Communities and case C- 247/90, Order of the Court of 7 November 1990. Maria-Theresia Emrich v Commission of the European Communities.

(2) Case 7/68 Commission v. Italy [1968] ECR423.

  

(3) E.g. case 247/87 Star Fruit Co. v. Commission [1987] ECR 291-302.

  

(4) See, inter alia judgements of 27 October 2005, Commission v. Italy, C-525/03, ECR1-9405, point 14, and of 6 December 2007, Commission/Germany, C-456/05, ECR 1-10517, point 15).

  

(5) News announcement from Landsbanki Islands hf. - Creditors meeting 17.11.2011.

             

  
 
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
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
Head ofUnit



 

 

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]