THE EFTA COURT Clause Samples

THE EFTA COURT. Article 27 A court of justice of the EFTA States, hereinafter referred to as the EFTA Court, is hereby established. It shall function in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and of the EEA Agreement. The EFTA Court shall consist of three judges. (9) Article 29 Decisions of the Court shall be valid only when all its members are sitting in the deliberations. Article 30 The Judges shall be chosen from persons whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the qualifications required for appointment to the highest judicial offices in their respective countries or who are jurisconsults of recognized competence. They shall be appointed by common accord of the Governments of the EFTA States for a term of six years.
THE EFTA COURT. Article 27 A court of justice of the EFTA States, hereinafter referred to as the EFTA Court, is hereby established. It shall function in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and of the EEA Agreement. The EFTA Court shall consist of three judges. (9)
THE EFTA COURT. The EFTA Court was founded in 1994 and shall follow relevant ECJ rulings handed down prior to the date of signature of the EEA Agreement (2 May 1992).11 This aimed at ensuring that from the outset the Single Market playing field was perfectly flat. The EFTA Court is required also to pay “due account” to all subsequent relevant ECJ jurisprudence.12 In practice, the EFTA Court makes no distinction between the two and pays equal regard to post 1994 ECJ case-law. These provisions are pure common-sense. It would prove impossible to ensure an equal playing field for individuals and economic operators across the EU/EFTA divide if the same law wasn’t interpreted in the same way. This pragmatism is the common thread of the EEA Agreement and defines its fundamental principles.13 Indeed, with regard to two major issues, the EFTA Court found it appropriate to go its own way:14 when deciding whether a body of the national administration of an EEA/EFTA State constitutes a court or tribunal entitled to make a reference, it has more and more used a functional instead of an institutional approach.15 And with regard to the question of whether an in-house attorney enjoys the right of audience, the Court has, contrary to the ECJ, opted for a case-by-case approach in the assessment of whether such a representative is sufficiently independent.16 Importantly, experience shows that the ECJ and its Advocates General, the General Court, but also national courts of EU Member States pay due account to the case law of the EFTA Court.17 Indeed, the EFTA Court typically faces novel legal problems requiring it to go first.18 For example, the Court of Appeal referred a case to the ECJ on the basis of the EFTA Court’s findings in Paranova v Merck.19 The ECJ subsequently adopted the EFTA Court’s approach.20 The EFTA Court hears two main types of cases: advisory opinions and direct actions. Advisory opinions are identical, in all but name, to preliminary references made by national courts to the ECJ.21 All direct actions brought before the EFTA Court are brought upon the basis of an infringement of the EEA Agreement itself or of the Surveillance and Court Agreement (i.e. actions for annulment, or for failure to act, of ESA decisions). Just as at the ECJ, there are no dissenting opinions in EFTA Court judgments. The single judgment is the view of the bench as a whole and its deliberations as well as the vote remain secret. Likewise, the internal procedures of the two EEA courts illustrated th...

Related to THE EFTA COURT

  • LAW APPLICABLE AND COMPETENT COURT The Agreement is governed by [insert the national law of the NA]. The competent court determined in accordance with the applicable national law shall have sole jurisdiction to hear any dispute between the institution and the participant concerning the interpretation, application or validity of this Agreement, if such dispute cannot be settled amicably.

  • Application to Court If (i) a claim for indemnification or advancement of Expenses is denied, in whole or in part, (ii) no disposition of such claim is made by the Company within ninety (90) days after the request therefore, (iii) the advancement of Expenses is not timely made pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement or (iv) payment of indemnification is not made pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, the Indemnitee shall have the right to apply to the Delaware Court of Chancery, the court in which the Proceeding is or was pending, or any other court of competent jurisdiction, for the purpose of enforcing the Indemnitee’s right to indemnification (including the advancement of Expenses) pursuant to this Agreement.

  • Right to Petition Court In the event that Indemnitee makes a request for payment of Indemnifiable Amounts under Sections 3 and 5 above or a request for an advancement of Indemnifiable Expenses under Sections 8 and 9 above and the Company fails to make such payment or advancement in a timely manner pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, Indemnitee may petition the Court of Chancery to enforce the Company’s obligations under this Agreement.

  • Appellate Court Orders to Vacate, Reverse, or Materially Modify Judgment If the reviewing Court vacates, reverses, or modifies the Judgment in a manner that requires a material modification of this Agreement (including, but not limited to, the scope of release to be granted by Class Members), this Agreement shall be null and void. The Parties shall nevertheless expeditiously work together in good faith to address the appellate court’s concerns and to obtain Final Approval and entry of Judgment, sharing, on a 50-50 basis, any additional Administration Expenses reasonably incurred after remittitur. An appellate decision to vacate, reverse, or modify the Court’s award of the Class Representative Service Payment or any payments to Class Counsel shall not constitute a material modification of the Judgment within the meaning of this paragraph, as long as the Gross Settlement Amount remains unchanged.

  • Jurisdiction of Courts Québec hereby appoints the person from time to time who holds the position of Delegate General of Québec in New York, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇, as its authorized agent (the “Authorized Agent”) upon whom process may be served in any action by any Underwriter, or by any person controlling such Underwriter, and based upon this Agreement which may be instituted in any State or Federal court in The City of New York, and expressly accepts the non-exclusive jurisdiction of any such court in respect of such action. Québec hereby irrevocably waives any immunity to service of process in respect of any such action to which the Authorized Agent might otherwise be entitled. Such appointment shall be irrevocable as long as any of the Securities remain outstanding, except that, if for any reason the Authorized Agent ceases to be able to act as agent or no longer has an address in The City of New York, Québec will appoint another person or persons in The City of New York, selected in its discretion, as Authorized Agent(s). Québec will take any and all action, including the filing of any and all documents and instruments that may be necessary to continue such appointment or appointments in full force and effect as aforesaid. Service of process upon the Authorized Agent together with written notice of such service mailed or delivered to Québec at its address set forth in Section 11, shall be deemed in every respect effective service of process upon Québec. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any action by an Underwriter, or by any person controlling such Underwriter, and based upon this Agreement may be instituted in any competent court in Québec. Québec hereby waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any immunity to jurisdiction to which it might otherwise be entitled in any action based on this Agreement which may be instituted as provided in this Section in any State or Federal court in The City of New York or in any competent court in Québec.