Abstract: In recent decades the development of nearly all countries of the world community is marked by two different directions and at the same time complementary trends — globalization and regionalization. Both of these processes are inextricably connected with the legal integration of the participating countries, as they require the creation of a single (integral) legal framework for the development of integration processes and the interaction of the subjects of integration. However, the «layering» of regulatory impact of international instruments of various kinds and levels, often leads to their inconsistent and sometimes contradictory, which significantly reduces the efficiency of the integration process. For the new independent states realization of marked trends is the entry into the World Trade Organization, on the one hand, and the intensification of inter-state integration in the Eurasian space — on the other. The questions of «coexistence» and the principles of the interaction of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and regional integration entities, as well as the impact of WTO law, including the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, on the formation of technical regulation systems in alliances of international economic integration, operating in Eurasia are discussed.

Keywords: World Trade Organization, the Eurasian Economic Community, the Customs Union of the Eurasian Economic Community , technical barriers in trade, technical regulations, standards , international standard.

Abstract: The article deals with the implementation of the decisions of the Eurasian Economic Commission in the legal systems of the Customs Union. The author analyzes the law and practice of the international obligations of States arising from the decisions of the Eurasian Economic Commission. Suggestions and recommendations for improving the implementation of decisions of the Eurasian Economic Commission based on analysis of the current international legal and domestic regulatory framework, as well as contemporary legal doctrine are made in the article.

Keywords: Eurasian Economic Commission, the Customs Union, integration, solutions, legal system, international obligations.

Abstract: The article is devoted to the stages of the European Free Trade Association Court formation and development — “birth”, “growing-up”, “lawful age”, and “maturity”, — results and perspectives of its activity. The problem of legal Nature of Agreement on the Common Economic Space is researched. The conclusion on basic difference between the common economic space law and the European Union law is made. It consists in the absence of determined common politics. The question on cooperation between the European Free Trade Association Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union in view of regime of law interpretation uniformity is analyzed. The European Free Trade Association Court is recognized by the European courts as reputable judicial instance. The national courts and government of the States-Parties of the Common Economic Space and European Free Trade Association are guided by its judgments.

Keywords: the Common Economic Space, the European Free Trade Association Court, law interpretation, human rights, basic principles of the Common Economic Space law, primacy of the Common Economic Space law, direct application of the Common Economic Space law, responsibility of state, precautionary principle, principle of uniformity, principle of reciprocity, prejudicial judgment, access to justice.

References:
1. Alemanno A. “A Tale of Inter/Judicial Dialogue and Jurisprudential Cross-fertilization: the Precautionary Principle
in EU, EEA and WTO Law” in Baudenbacher (ed.) Dialogue Between Courts in Times of Globalization and
Regionalization, Intl. Dispute Resolution Volume 2, Stuttgart, 2010, 27 ff., 29 ff.
2. Bast J. “European Economic Area (EEA)” paragraph 22 // www.mpepil.com
3. Baudenbacher C. “Governments before the EFTA Court”, Festkrift til C. Gulmann, Kobenhavn, 2006.
4. Baudenbacher C. “The EFTA Court, the ECJ and the Latter’s Advocates General — a Tale of Judicial Dialogue”
in Continuity and Change in EU Law in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs, edited by A. Arnull, P. Eckhout and Takis
Tridimas, Oxford, 2008.
5. Baudenbacher C. “Trademark Law and Parallel Imports in a Globalized World — Recent Developments in Europe
with Special Regard to the Legal Situation in the United States” Fordham Int’l L.J. 645, 1998.
6. Baudenbacher C. “Wie sollen Konflikte im Verhaeltnis Schweiz-EU geloest warden?” Festschrift fuer Rolf Weber,
Bern 2011.
7. Baudenbacher, “The EFTA Court in Action — 5 Lectures”, Stuttgart, 2010, 21 f.
8. Bjorgvinsson D. “EES-rettur og landsrettur”, Reykjavik, Bokautgafan Codex, 2006.
9. Brandter B. “The Drama” of the EEA: Comments on Opinions 1/91 and 1/92, 3 EJIL, 1992.
10. Buschle D. “The Enforcement of Energy Law in Wider Europe” in Buschle, Hirsbrunner and Kaddous, European
Energy Law, Basel 2011.
11. Fredriksen H.H. «One Market, Two Courts: Legal Pluralism vs. Homogeneity in the European Economic Area”,
Nordic Journal of International Law 79, 2010.
12. Fredriksen H.H. EU/EOS-rett I norske domstoler, Report commissioned by the norwegian EEA Review, Committee,
Oslo 2011.
13. Graver H.P. “Supranationality and national Legal Autonomy in the EEA Agreement” Arena Working Papers 00/23.
14. Henrik Bull “European Law and norwegian Courts”, in Mueller-Graff Eds, The Approach to European Law in
Germany and norway, Berlin, 2004.
15. Icelandic Supreme Court, Sveinbjornsdottir, no. 236/1999, H 1999 4916.
16. Magnusson S. “On the Authority of the Advisory Opinions”, 13 Europaraettslig Tidskrift, 2010 528 ff.
17. Magnusson S. “Judicial Homogeneity in the European Economic Area and the Authority of the EFTA Court”, Nordic
Journal of International Law 80, 2011.
18. Mueller-Graff and Selvig. “The European Economic Area: norway’s basic status in the legal construction of Europe”,
1997, Berlin.
19. Norberg S. et al. “The European Economic Area, EEA Law. A Commentary on the EEA Agreement”, Stockholm,
1993.
20. Orlygsson Th.“Iceland and the EFTA Court, Twelve Years of Experience” in Mario Monti, Prinz nikolaus von und
zu Liechtenstaein, Bo Vesterdorf, Jay Westbrook, (eds) “Economic Law and Justice in Times of Globalization”,
Festschrift for Carl Baudenbacher, Baden-Baden/Berne/Vienna 2007.
21. Schaefer A. “Die Prozesskostensichereit — eine Diskriminierung?”, LIZ 1/06, 17, 32.
22. Scouris V. “The ECJ and the EFTA Court under the EAA Agreement: a Paradigm for International Cooperation
between Judicial Institutions” in C / Baudenbacher/ P. Tresselt / T. Orlyfsson, eds, The EFTA Court Ten Years On.
23. Sevon L. “Primacy and Direct Effect in the EEA. Some Reflections” in Liber Amicorum Ple Due, 1994.
24. Timmermans Ch. “Creative Homogeneity” in Martin Jahansson, nils Wahl, Ulf Bernitz (eds) A European for all
seasons: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Sven norberg, Brussles 2006.
25. Titues van Stiphout “The L’Oreal Case — Some Thoughts on the Role of the EFTA Court in the EEA Legal Framework,
Two Courts: Legal Pluralism vs. Homogeneity in the European Economic Area”, loc.cit. 482, 495 ff.
26. “The European Economic Area” in Oliver on Free Movements of Goods in the European Union, 5th Ed., Oxford and
Portland, Oregon 2010, 487 ff., 493.
27. Austrian Supreme Court, 9 Oba 193/98t of 7th Oct. 1998, DRdA 1998.
28. Case E-9/97 Erla Maria Sveinbjornsdottir v Iceland, 1998, EFTA Ct Rep. 97, P.44 ff, 60.
29. Case 174/82 Sandoz BV, 1983, ECR, 2443.
30. Case 192/01 Commission v Denmark,2003, ECR, I-9693.
31. Case 270/80 Polydor Ltd abd RSO records vs Harlequin Records Shops Ltd and Simons Records Ltd, 1982 ECR, 329,
paragraphs 18 & 19.
32. Case C-140/971999 ECR, I-3499, P.39
33. Case C-192/01 Commission v Denmark, 2003 ECR, I-9693.
34. Case C-224/01 Koebler vs Austria, 2003 ECR, I-10239.
35. Case C-236/01 Monsanto 2003 ECR, I-8105, paragraph106.
36. Case C-265/04 Margaretha Bouanich v Skatterverket, 2006 ECR, I-923, paragraph 51-56.
37. Case C-284/06 Burda 2008 ECR I-4571.
38. Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim II, 2007 ECR I-3391.
39. Case C-348/98 Ferreira, 2000, ECR I-6711.
40. Case C-355/96 Silhouette v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft, 1998 ECR, I-4799.
41. Case C-374/04, Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 2006
ECR I 11673.
42. Case C-379/05 Amurta 2007 ECR I-9569.
43. Case C-452/01 Margarethe Ospelt and Schloessle Weissenberg Familienstifung, 2003, ECR, I-9743.
44. Case C-487/08, judgment of 3rd June 2010, paragraph 62,66 f.
45. Case C-537/03 Candolin, 2005 ECR I-5745, at paragraph 22: Reference to paragraph 42 of the Advocate General’s
Opinion.
46. Case C-540/07, 2009 ECR, I-10983, paragraph 37 f.
47. Case E-1/01 Einarsson, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep. 1, Para 47 ff.
48. Case E-1/01 Hordur Einarsson, 2002, EFTA Ct Rep.1, Para 17.
49. Case E-1/03 EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Iceland (2003) EFTA Court Report, 143, Para 21.
50. Case E-1/03, 2003 EFTA ct Rep.143, Para 26.
51. Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA, 2004 EFTA Ct Rep. 11, Para 20.
52. Case E-1/07 Criminal Proceedings against A, 2007 EFTA Ct Rep., 245, P. 39.
53. Case E-1/94 Restamark, 1994-95 EFTA Ct Rep. 15, Para 75 ff.
54. Case E-1/99,1999 EFTA Ct. Rep., 119.
55. Case E-12/10 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Republic of Iceland, judgment of 28 June 2011, nyr, r. 60.
56. Case E-18/10 “EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway, judgment of 28th June 2011, nyr, paragraph 28.
57. Case E-2/02 Technologien Bau- und Wirtschaftsberatung and Bellona v EFTA Surveillance Authority, 2003, EFTA
Ct Rep., 52, p. 37.
58. Case E-2/03 «Asgeyrson», EFTA 2003, Court Report, 185, Para 28.
59. Case E-2/06 EFTA Surveillance Authority v. norway (Waterfalls), 2007 EFTA Court Report, 164, Para 41.
60. Case E-2/10 Kolbeinsson vs The Icelandic State, 2009-2010 EFTA Ct/ Rep. 234, P 77.
61. Case E-2/10 Kolbeinsson, 2009-2020 EFTA Ct., Rep., 234, paragraphs 7, 69, 77.
62. Case E-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway, 2000-2001 EFTA Ct. Rep., 73.
63. Case E-3/98 Rainford Towning (1998) EFTA Court Report, 205, Paragraph 15.
64. Case E-4/01 Arnulf Clauder, judgment of 26 July 2011, nyr, Para 48.
65. Case E-4/01 Arnulf Clauder, judgment of 26 July 2011, nyr, paragraph 48.
66. Case E-4/01, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep., 240, P. 26 ff.
67. Case E-6/01 CIBA, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep., 281, paragraph 12/13.
68. Case E-6/98 norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority, 1999, EFTA Ct. Report 74, Para 34.
69. Case E-8/00 — Landsorganisasjonen I norge (norwegian Federation of Trade Unions) with norsk Kommuneforbund
(norwegian Union of Municipal Employees), 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep. 114.
70. Case E-8/07 Celina nguen vs norwegian State 2008 EFTA Court Rep., 224, Para 24.
71. Case E-8/97 TV 1000 Sverige v norway, 1998 EFTA Ct Rep, 68, p. 26.
72. Case E-9/07 and E-10/07 L’Oreal norge AS v Aarskog Per AS and Others and Smart Club norge, 2008, EFTA Court
Rep., 259.
73. Case Mag Instrument Inc/ v California Trading Company norway, Ulsteen, 1997, EFTA Court, 127.
74. Case T-115/94 «Opel', Avstriya, protiv Soveta», ECR 1997, II, 37, Para 107.
75. Case T-115/94, ECR, 1997 II, 37. P.102.
76. Case T-70/99 Alpharma, 2002 ECR, II-3495, paragraphs 136,156 etc.
77. Case E-4/01 Karlsson, 2002 EFTA Ct/ Rep/ 240, P. 28.
78. Case S-210/06 Cartesio ( 2008), ECR, I-9641.
79. Case-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway (Kellogs) 2000-2001 EFTA Ct. Rep. 73.
80. ECJ Opinion 1/91o proekte soglasheniya po sozdaniyu EEA, 1991 ECR I-6079.
81. Sase C-374/04, paragraph 68 ff; C-17005 Denkavit Intl BV and Denkavit France SARL v Ministre del’Economie, des
Finances et de l’Industrie, 2006 ECR I-11949, paragraph 51 ff.
82. Sase E-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway “Kellog’s”, 2000-2001 EFTA Ct.Rep.,73.
83. Sase no. ARB/10/7 Philip Morris Brand Sarl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal
Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay.
84. England and Wales Court of Appeal, Adams v Lancashire County Council and BET Catering Services Ltd, 1997 ICR
834, 1997 IRLR 436.
85. German Supreme Court, judgment of 19th Sept. 2005 — II ZR 372/03, p.6; judgment of 24th Apr.2008 — I ZR 30/05
Lefax/Lefaxin, Rdnr.22.
86. German Supreme Fiscal Court, judgment of 9th Aug. 2006-I R 31/01; judgment of 29th Apr.2010 — I-ZR 66/08.
87. norwegian Supreme Court Edquist, Rt. 2010 p. 1500, paragraph 113.
88. norwegian Supreme Court, Finanger II, Rt/2005, 1365 etc.
89. Opinion of Advocate General Mischo, 2003 ECR, I-9693, paragraph 79.

References (transliteration):
1. Alemanno A. “A Tale of Inter/Judicial Dialogue and Jurisprudential Cross-fertilization: the Precautionary Principle
in EU, EEA and WTO Law” in Baudenbacher (ed.) Dialogue Between Courts in Times of Globalization and
Regionalization, Intl. Dispute Resolution Volume 2, Stuttgart, 2010, 27 ff., 29 ff.
2. Bast J. “European Economic Area (EEA)” paragraph 22 // www.mpepil.com
3. Baudenbacher C. “Governments before the EFTA Court”, Festkrift til C. Gulmann, Kobenhavn, 2006.
4. Baudenbacher C. “The EFTA Court, the ECJ and the Latter’s Advocates General — a Tale of Judicial Dialogue”
in Continuity and Change in EU Law in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs, edited by A. Arnull, P. Eckhout and Takis
Tridimas, Oxford, 2008.
5. Baudenbacher C. “Trademark Law and Parallel Imports in a Globalized World — Recent Developments in Europe
with Special Regard to the Legal Situation in the United States” Fordham Int’l L.J. 645, 1998.
6. Baudenbacher C. “Wie sollen Konflikte im Verhaeltnis Schweiz-EU geloest warden?” Festschrift fuer Rolf Weber,
Bern 2011.
7. Baudenbacher, “The EFTA Court in Action — 5 Lectures”, Stuttgart, 2010, 21 f.
8. Bjorgvinsson D. “EES-rettur og landsrettur”, Reykjavik, Bokautgafan Codex, 2006.
9. Brandter B. “The Drama” of the EEA: Comments on Opinions 1/91 and 1/92, 3 EJIL, 1992.
10. Buschle D. “The Enforcement of Energy Law in Wider Europe” in Buschle, Hirsbrunner and Kaddous, European
Energy Law, Basel 2011.
11. Fredriksen H.H. «One Market, Two Courts: Legal Pluralism vs. Homogeneity in the European Economic Area”,
Nordic Journal of International Law 79, 2010.
12. Fredriksen H.H. EU/EOS-rett I norske domstoler, Report commissioned by the norwegian EEA Review, Committee,
Oslo 2011.
13. Graver H.P. “Supranationality and national Legal Autonomy in the EEA Agreement” Arena Working Papers 00/23.
14. Henrik Bull “European Law and norwegian Courts”, in Mueller-Graff Eds, The Approach to European Law in
Germany and norway, Berlin, 2004.
15. Icelandic Supreme Court, Sveinbjornsdottir, no. 236/1999, H 1999 4916.
16. Magnusson S. “On the Authority of the Advisory Opinions”, 13 Europaraettslig Tidskrift, 2010 528 ff.
17. Magnusson S. “Judicial Homogeneity in the European Economic Area and the Authority of the EFTA Court”, Nordic
Journal of International Law 80, 2011.
18. Mueller-Graff and Selvig. “The European Economic Area: norway’s basic status in the legal construction of Europe”,
1997, Berlin.
19. Norberg S. et al. “The European Economic Area, EEA Law. A Commentary on the EEA Agreement”, Stockholm,
1993.
20. Orlygsson Th.“Iceland and the EFTA Court, Twelve Years of Experience” in Mario Monti, Prinz nikolaus von und
zu Liechtenstaein, Bo Vesterdorf, Jay Westbrook, (eds) “Economic Law and Justice in Times of Globalization”,
Festschrift for Carl Baudenbacher, Baden-Baden/Berne/Vienna 2007.
21. Schaefer A. “Die Prozesskostensichereit — eine Diskriminierung?”, LIZ 1/06, 17, 32.
22. Scouris V. “The ECJ and the EFTA Court under the EAA Agreement: a Paradigm for International Cooperation
between Judicial Institutions” in C / Baudenbacher/ P. Tresselt / T. Orlyfsson, eds, The EFTA Court Ten Years On.
23. Sevon L. “Primacy and Direct Effect in the EEA. Some Reflections” in Liber Amicorum Ple Due, 1994.
24. Timmermans Ch. “Creative Homogeneity” in Martin Jahansson, nils Wahl, Ulf Bernitz (eds) A European for all
seasons: Liber Amicorum in Honour of Sven norberg, Brussles 2006.
25. Titues van Stiphout “The L’Oreal Case — Some Thoughts on the Role of the EFTA Court in the EEA Legal Framework,
Two Courts: Legal Pluralism vs. Homogeneity in the European Economic Area”, loc.cit. 482, 495 ff.
26. “The European Economic Area” in Oliver on Free Movements of Goods in the European Union, 5th Ed., Oxford and
Portland, Oregon 2010, 487 ff., 493.
27. Austrian Supreme Court, 9 Oba 193/98t of 7th Oct. 1998, DRdA 1998.
28. Case E-9/97 Erla Maria Sveinbjornsdottir v Iceland, 1998, EFTA Ct Rep. 97, P.44 ff, 60.
29. Case 174/82 Sandoz BV, 1983, ECR, 2443.
30. Case 192/01 Commission v Denmark,2003, ECR, I-9693.
31. Case 270/80 Polydor Ltd abd RSO records vs Harlequin Records Shops Ltd and Simons Records Ltd, 1982 ECR, 329,
paragraphs 18 & 19.
32. Case C-140/971999 ECR, I-3499, P.39
33. Case C-192/01 Commission v Denmark, 2003 ECR, I-9693.
34. Case C-224/01 Koebler vs Austria, 2003 ECR, I-10239.
35. Case C-236/01 Monsanto 2003 ECR, I-8105, paragraph106.
36. Case C-265/04 Margaretha Bouanich v Skatterverket, 2006 ECR, I-923, paragraph 51-56.
37. Case C-284/06 Burda 2008 ECR I-4571.
38. Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim II, 2007 ECR I-3391.
39. Case C-348/98 Ferreira, 2000, ECR I-6711.
40. Case C-355/96 Silhouette v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft, 1998 ECR, I-4799.
41. Case C-374/04, Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 2006
ECR I 11673.
42. Case C-379/05 Amurta 2007 ECR I-9569.
43. Case C-452/01 Margarethe Ospelt and Schloessle Weissenberg Familienstifung, 2003, ECR, I-9743.
44. Case C-487/08, judgment of 3rd June 2010, paragraph 62,66 f.
45. Case C-537/03 Candolin, 2005 ECR I-5745, at paragraph 22: Reference to paragraph 42 of the Advocate General’s
Opinion.
46. Case C-540/07, 2009 ECR, I-10983, paragraph 37 f.
47. Case E-1/01 Einarsson, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep. 1, Para 47 ff.
48. Case E-1/01 Hordur Einarsson, 2002, EFTA Ct Rep.1, Para 17.
49. Case E-1/03 EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Iceland (2003) EFTA Court Report, 143, Para 21.
50. Case E-1/03, 2003 EFTA ct Rep.143, Para 26.
51. Case E-1/04 Fokus Bank ASA, 2004 EFTA Ct Rep. 11, Para 20.
52. Case E-1/07 Criminal Proceedings against A, 2007 EFTA Ct Rep., 245, P. 39.
53. Case E-1/94 Restamark, 1994-95 EFTA Ct Rep. 15, Para 75 ff.
54. Case E-1/99,1999 EFTA Ct. Rep., 119.
55. Case E-12/10 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Republic of Iceland, judgment of 28 June 2011, nyr, r. 60.
56. Case E-18/10 “EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway, judgment of 28th June 2011, nyr, paragraph 28.
57. Case E-2/02 Technologien Bau- und Wirtschaftsberatung and Bellona v EFTA Surveillance Authority, 2003, EFTA
Ct Rep., 52, p. 37.
58. Case E-2/03 «Asgeyrson», EFTA 2003, Court Report, 185, Para 28.
59. Case E-2/06 EFTA Surveillance Authority v. norway (Waterfalls), 2007 EFTA Court Report, 164, Para 41.
60. Case E-2/10 Kolbeinsson vs The Icelandic State, 2009-2010 EFTA Ct/ Rep. 234, P 77.
61. Case E-2/10 Kolbeinsson, 2009-2020 EFTA Ct., Rep., 234, paragraphs 7, 69, 77.
62. Case E-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway, 2000-2001 EFTA Ct. Rep., 73.
63. Case E-3/98 Rainford Towning (1998) EFTA Court Report, 205, Paragraph 15.
64. Case E-4/01 Arnulf Clauder, judgment of 26 July 2011, nyr, Para 48.
65. Case E-4/01 Arnulf Clauder, judgment of 26 July 2011, nyr, paragraph 48.
66. Case E-4/01, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep., 240, P. 26 ff.
67. Case E-6/01 CIBA, 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep., 281, paragraph 12/13.
68. Case E-6/98 norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority, 1999, EFTA Ct. Report 74, Para 34.
69. Case E-8/00 — Landsorganisasjonen I norge (norwegian Federation of Trade Unions) with norsk Kommuneforbund
(norwegian Union of Municipal Employees), 2002 EFTA Ct. Rep. 114.
70. Case E-8/07 Celina nguen vs norwegian State 2008 EFTA Court Rep., 224, Para 24.
71. Case E-8/97 TV 1000 Sverige v norway, 1998 EFTA Ct Rep, 68, p. 26.
72. Case E-9/07 and E-10/07 L’Oreal norge AS v Aarskog Per AS and Others and Smart Club norge, 2008, EFTA Court
Rep., 259.
73. Case Mag Instrument Inc/ v California Trading Company norway, Ulsteen, 1997, EFTA Court, 127.
74. Case T-115/94 «Opel', Avstriya, protiv Soveta», ECR 1997, II, 37, Para 107.
75. Case T-115/94, ECR, 1997 II, 37. P.102.
76. Case T-70/99 Alpharma, 2002 ECR, II-3495, paragraphs 136,156 etc.
77. Case E-4/01 Karlsson, 2002 EFTA Ct/ Rep/ 240, P. 28.
78. Case S-210/06 Cartesio ( 2008), ECR, I-9641.
79. Case-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway (Kellogs) 2000-2001 EFTA Ct. Rep. 73.
80. ECJ Opinion 1/91o proekte soglasheniya po sozdaniyu EEA, 1991 ECR I-6079.
81. Sase C-374/04, paragraph 68 ff; C-17005 Denkavit Intl BV and Denkavit France SARL v Ministre del’Economie, des
Finances et de l’Industrie, 2006 ECR I-11949, paragraph 51 ff.
82. Sase E-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v norway “Kellog’s”, 2000-2001 EFTA Ct.Rep.,73.
83. Sase no. ARB/10/7 Philip Morris Brand Sarl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal
Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay.
84. England and Wales Court of Appeal, Adams v Lancashire County Council and BET Catering Services Ltd, 1997 ICR
834, 1997 IRLR 436.
85. German Supreme Court, judgment of 19th Sept. 2005 — II ZR 372/03, p.6; judgment of 24th Apr.2008 — I ZR 30/05
Lefax/Lefaxin, Rdnr.22.
86. German Supreme Fiscal Court, judgment of 9th Aug. 2006-I R 31/01; judgment of 29th Apr.2010 — I-ZR 66/08.
87. norwegian Supreme Court Edquist, Rt. 2010 p. 1500, paragraph 113.
88. norwegian Supreme Court, Finanger II, Rt/2005, 1365 etc.
89. Opinion of Advocate General Mischo, 2003 ECR, I-9693, paragraph 79.