EFTA-dómstóllinn svarar meðalgöngu-kröfu Samstöðu þjóðar

Jón Sigurðsson	Myntráð	Kanadadalur	Icesave-vextir	Ólafur og Dorit	Icesave-vextir
Stjórnarskráin	Ólafur og Dorit	Vinstrivaktin	Samtök fullveldis	Evrópuvaktin	Heimssýn

  

  

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir sjálfstæðu ríki á Íslandi    og fullveldisréttindum almennings.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

  

Samstaða þjóðar

National Unity Coalition
 

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

  

Copies were sent to:

EFTA Surveillance Authority.

Government of Iceland.

European Commission.

Government of Lichtenstein.

Government of Norway.

Government of the United Kingdom.

   

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT

15 June 2012

(Intervention — Interest in the result of case — Inadmissibility — Manifest inadmissibility)

  

In Case E-16/11,

EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Director, and Gjermund Mathisen, Officer, Legal & Executive Affairs, acting as Agents, Brussels, Belgium,

applicant,

v

Iceland, represented by Kristján Andri Stefánsson, Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, Dora M. Hjaltested, Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Co-Agent and Tim Ward QC, acting as Counsel, 

defendant,

APPLICATION seeking a declaration that by failing to ensure payment of the minimum amount of compensation to Icesave depositors in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom provided for in Article 7(1) of the Act referred to at point 19a of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes) within the time-limits laid down in Article 10 of the Act, Iceland has failed to comply with the obligations resulting from that Act, in particular its Articles 3, 4, 7 and 10, and/or Article 4 of the European Economic Area,

   

THE PRESIDENT

makes the following 

Order

  

I Main proceedings.

1. Iceland implemented Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes (hereinafter “Directive 94/19/EC” or “the Directive”) through the enactment of Act No 98/1999 on Deposit Guarantee and Investor Compensation Scheme. Act No 98/1999 set up the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund (hereinafter “TIF”) which started operations on 1 January 2000.

2. In October 2006, Landsbanki Islands hf (hereinafter “Landsbanki”) launched a branch in the United Kingdom which provided online savings accounts under the brand name “Icesave”. A similar Icesave online deposit branch was launched in the Netherlands which began accepting deposits in Amsterdam on 29 May 2008.

3. As a part of a tumultuous worldwide financial crisis, there was a run on the Icesave accounts in the United Kingdom from February to April 2008.

4. In accordance with the division of responsibility laid down under the Directive, deposits at the British and Netherlands branches of Landsbanki were under the responsibility of the Icelandic TIF.

5. From May 2008, Landsbanki opted to take part in the Netherlands deposit guarantee scheme to supplement its home scheme. At that time, the minimum amount guaranteed under the Netherlands scheme was EUR 40 000 per depositor, later raised to EUR 100 000 per depositor. Similarly, the Landsbanki branch in the United Kingdom joined the UK deposit-guarantee scheme for additional coverage. Deposits at the British branch of Landsbanki in excess of the minimum amount guaranteed by the Icelandic TIF were later guaranteed by the UK scheme to a maximum of GBP 50 000 for each retail depositor.

6. On 6 October 2008, Landsbanki’s Icesave websites in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom ceased to work and depositors at those branches lost access to their deposits.

7. On 7 October 2008, Landsbanki collapsed and the Icelandic Financial Supervisory Authority (hereinafter “FME”) assumed the powers of the meeting of Landsbanki’ s shareholders and immediately suspended the bank’s board of directors. FME appointed a winding-up committee which, with immediate effect, assumed the full authority of the board.

8. In order to avoid a potential run on bank deposits on their markets, the Netherlands and UK authorities organised for depositors with the Landsbanki branches in their respective countries to file claims with the deposit-guarantee scheme in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The UK Government arranged for the pay out of all retail depositors in full, while the Netherlands Government arranged for the compensation of all depositors to a maximum of EUR 100 000.

9. According to Article 10 of the Directive, implemented into Icelandic law by Article 7(1) of Regulation No 120/2000 on Deposit Guarantees and Investor-Compensation Scheme, the payments from TIF to depositors should have been made at the latest within three months of 27 October 2008. On 26 January 2009, 24 April 2009 and 23 July 2009, the Minister of Economic Affairs extended the deadline for payouts from the fund, each time for three months, based on Article 10(2) of the Directive (Article 7(4) of Icelandic Regulation No 120/2000).

10. The final deadline for payments expired on 23 October 2009.

11. On 26 May 2010, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (hereinafter “ESA”) sent a letter of formal notice to Iceland alleging failure to ensure that Icesave depositors in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom receive payment of the minimum amount of compensation provided for in Article 7(1) of the Directive as amended within the time-limits laid down in Article 10 of the Directive, in breach of the obligations resulting from the Directive and/or Article 4 of the EEA Agreement (hereinafter “EEA”).

12. Iceland was requested to submit its observations within two months of the receipt of that letter. At the request of the Icelandic Government, ESA granted extensions to that deadline, first until 8 September 2010, then until 7 December 2010 and finally until 2 May 2011.

13. The Icelandic Government replied to the letter of formal notice on 2 May 2011. In that reply, the Icelandic Government maintained that it was not in breach of its obligations under the Directive or Article 4 EEA.

14. ESA was unconvinced by the reply to the letter of formal notice and delivered a reasoned opinion to Iceland on 10 June 2011.

15. Iceland replied to the reasoned opinion on 30 September 2011 and submitted an additional letter of 13 December 2011 which presented further information on the winding-up of the Landsbanki estate and summarised recent judgments of the Icelandic Supreme Court concerning the reordering of the priority of creditors in that winding-up.

16. By application lodged at the Court on 15 December 2011, ESA brought an action under the second paragraph of Article 31 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (hereinafter “SCA”) seeking a declaration that by failing to ensure payment of the minimum amount of compensation to Icesave depositors in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom provided for in Article 7(1) of the Act referred to at point 19a of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area within the timelimits laid down in Article 10 of the Act, Iceland has failed to comply with the obligations resulting from that Act, in particular its Articles 3, 4, 7 and 10 and/or Article 4 EEA and ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

17. On 3 February 2012, the Government of Iceland requested an extension of the period in which to submit its defence. That request was granted on 6 February 2012, setting a time-limit for the submission of the defence of 8 March 2012.

18. In its defence, lodged at the Court on 8 March 2012, Iceland contends that the Court should dismiss the application and seeks an order that ESA pay its costs.

19. On 28 March 2012, the European Commission requested leave to intervene in support of ESA.

20. On 10 April 2012, ESA submitted its reply to the defence.

21. Following observations submitted by the parties, the Commission was granted leave to intervene by Order of the President on 23 April 2012.

22. On 9 May 2012, the Government of the United Kingdom submitted written observations.

23. On 11 May 2012, the Government of Iceland submitted its rejoinder. On the same date, the Government of Liechtenstein submitted written observations.

24. On 15 May 2012, the Government of the Netherlands and the Government of Norway submitted written observations. Further, the Government of Iceland submitted an urgent request to receive the written observations. This request was granted by the Registrar on 16 May 2012.

25. On 23 May 2012, the European Commission submitted its statement in intervention.

26. By document lodged at the Court’s Registry on 7 May 2012, the Samstaa þjóðar (National Unity Coalition) sought leave to intervene pursuant to Article 36 of Protocol 5 to the SCA on the Statute of the EFTA Court (hereinafter “the Statute”) in support of the form of order sought by Iceland.

27. The National Unity Coalition is an association registered in Iceland. It submits that its application to intervene in support of Iceland should be granted on the basis that Article 36(2) of the Statute cannot apply in the instant case.

28. Pursuant to Article 36(2) of the Statute, 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 may intervene in that case.

29. The present proceedings are between an EFTA State and the EFTA Surveillance Authority. Accordingly, it is not open to the National Unity Coalition to establish an interest in the result of the case. The National Unity Coalition therefore lacks standing pursuant to Article 3 6(2) of the Statute and its application for leave to intervene is inadmissible (see by way of analogy: order of the President of the ECJ of 26 February 1996 in Case C 181195 Biogen Inc v Smithkline Beecham Biological SA [1996] ECR 1-717).

30. Article 89(1) of the Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “RoP”) provides that the intervener shall be represented in accordance with Article 17 of the Statute and that Articles 32 and 33 RoP shall apply.

31. In that regard, no instrument or instruments constituting or regulating the National Unity Coalition or a recent extract from the register of companies, firms or associations or any other proof of its existence in law has been submitted as required pursuant to Article 33(5)(a) RoP. Nor is it apparent that the applicant intervener is represented by a lawyer authorized to practice before a court of an EEA State as required by Article 17 of the Statute. No proof of properly conferred authority to such a lawyer has been received by the Registry pursuant to Article 33(5)(b) RoP.

32. Moreover, Article 89(1) RoP provides that an application to intervene must be made within six weeks of the publication of the notice referred to in Article 14(6) RoP. In accordance with Article 14(6) RoP, notice of the action was given in the EEA Section of the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 February 2012. The time-limit for submission of an application to intervene was 29 March 2012.

33. The present application to intervene was lodged at the Court’s Registry on 7 May 2012, and is therefore out of time.

34. Additionally, no description of the case has been submitted as required by Article 89(1 )(a) RoP nor has an address for service at the place where the Court has its seat has been provided, as required by Article 89(1)(d) RoP.

35. In view of the inadmissibility of the application and its serious formal and procedural deficiencies, it is clear from Article 89(1) RoP read in the light of Article 88(1) RoP that the application for leave to intervene is manifestly inadmissible.

36. Therefore, in light of the above, and without being obliged to take any further steps pursuant to Article 89(2) RoP, the application for leave to intervene by Samstaða Þjóðar should therefore be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

37. There is no need to rule on costs as none have been incurred.

On those grounds,

 

THE PRESIDENT

hereby orders:

1. The application for leave to intervene by Samstaða þjóðar is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. There is no need to rule on costs.

Luxembourg, 15 June 2012.

 

Skúli Magnússon         Carl Baudenbacher

Registrar                          President

 

 

Samstaða þjóðar krefst meðalgöngu fyrir EFTA-dómstólnum