| Samstaša žjóšar NATIONAL UNITY COALITION Barįttusamtök fyrir sjįlfstęšu rķki į Ķslandi og fullveldisréttindum almennings. Stöndum vörš um Stjórnarskrį Lżšveldisins. | EFTA Court1, rue du Fort ThüngenL-1499 Luxembourg
28 April 2012.
TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THEEFTA COURT
REQUEST TO INTERVENE
Submitted pursuant to Article 36 of the Statute of the EFTA Court by
Samstaša žjóšar, a registered association in Iceland,represented by Loftur Altice Žorsteinsson and Pétur Valdemarsson,
hereby applies to the EFTA Court for leave to intervene in Case E-16/11 in support of the Republic of Iceland and on behalf of the nation of Iceland.
Article 36 of the EFTA Court Statute: Any EFTA State, the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the Community and the EC Commission may intervene in cases before the Court. The same right shall be open to any person establishing an interest in the result of any case submitted to the Court, save in cases between EFTA States or between EFTA States and the EFTA Surveillance Authority. An application to intervene shall be limited to supporting the form of order sought by one of the parties.Our application rests on following argumentation:
With regard to: the efforts of the Government of Iceland to defend the interests of the nation of Iceland, we are urged to intervene in the case brought against the general public of Iceland by the European Union, through the mediation of the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
With regard to: complaints by Samstaša žjóšar to the Commission of the European Union, concerning breaches of the EEA Agreement by Britain and the Netherlands.
With regard to: our application to the European Ombudsman, to allow the case of Iceland against Britain and the Netherlands to be heard before the European Court of Justice.
With regard to: the refusal of the EU Commission to investigate the obvious illegal behaviour of Britain and the Neterlands.
With regard to: the refusal of the EU Commission to prosecute Britain and the Netherlands before the European Court of Justice for the breaches made by these states against the EEA Agreement.
With reference to: enclosed letters of complaint dated 25 June 2011, 25 September 2011 and 20 December 2011.
With reference to: the fact that the Icesave accounts were fully insured by the Deposit Guarantee Systems in Britain and the Netherlands. The FSCS in Britain and DNB in the Netherlands reimbursed the Icesave account holders in these countries, as they had obligations to do. Regarding Britain this is proven by Article 6.1.17 of the FSA Handbook, which states:
»Incoming EEA firms which obtain cover or 'top up' under the provisions of COMP 14 are firms whose Home State scheme provides no or limited compensation cover in the event that they are determined to be in default. Under FEES 6.6, the FSCS is required to consider whether incoming EEA firms should receive a discount on the amount that they would otherwise pay as their share of the levy, to take account of the availability of their Home State cover. The amount of any discount is recoverable from the other members of the incoming EEA firm's sub-class.«
With reference to: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, the EEA Agreement is not binding for Iceland in a situation prevailing in the autumn of 2008. This condition is called Rebur Sic Stantibus and is specifically stated in Article 62 of the Convention.
With reference to: the extremity of the Icesave demands of Britain and the Netherlands, Case E-16/11 is directed against the people of Iceland and is not limited to the Icelandic state. Therefore the limitation stated in Article 36 »save in cases between
EFTA States and the EFTA Surveillance Authority« is not valid. Samstaša žjóšar. Loftur Altice Žorsteinsson - Pétur Valdemarsson
_________________________________________________________________________
|
Meginflokkur: Evrópumįl | Aukaflokkar: Stjórnmįl og samfélag, Utanrķkismįl/alžjóšamįl, Vķsindi og fręši | Breytt 13.5.2012 kl. 11:43 | Facebook
«
Sķšasta fęrsla
|
Nęsta fęrsla
»