EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

Last updated
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
CourtEFTA Court
Full case name EFTA Surveillance Authority, applicant, supported by the European Commission, intervener, v Iceland, defendant
DecidedJanuary 28, 2013 (2013-01-28)
CitationCase E-16/11 [2013] EFTA Ct. Rep. 4
Court membership
Judges sitting Carl Baudenbacher, Páll Hreinsson, Ola Mestad
Case opinions
Application dismissed in its entirety. The Court found that Directive 94/19/EC placed no obligation on EEA States to insure deposits other than to establish a deposit insurance scheme in accordance with the Directive. The Court found that Iceland had established such a scheme and that it did not discriminate on grounds of nationality in the context of the issuance of payments to depositors.
Decision byCarl Baudenbacher, Páll Hreinsson, Ola Mestad

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland was a case brought before the EFTA Court by the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority against Iceland following the Icesave dispute.

Contents

Following the final result of the 2011 Icelandic loan guarantee referendum, the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority (ESA) lodged a formal application with the EFTA Court. The case was opened on 15 December 2011, and has received defence and written observations from the governments of Iceland, UK, Netherlands, Norway and Liechtenstein as well as the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the European Commission. [1]

The oral hearing in the case took place on 18 September 2012. The judgment was delivered on 28 January 2013, in Iceland's favour. The court dismissed the application of the EFTA Surveillance Authority and ordered the authority to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by Iceland.

The case

Following the collapse of Landsbanki in October 2008, the governments of the UK and Netherlands guaranteed for the deposits in Landsbanki's foreign branches. According to the Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes (94/19/EC) [2] as implemented in Icelandic law (Act No. 98/1999), Iceland's deposit-guarantee schemes must cover up to €20,000 of deposits per person made in Landsbanki's foreign branches. Since the Icelandic deposit-guarantee scheme did not cover this sum, ESA claims that Iceland breached the Directive, specifically articles 3, 4, 7 and 10. [3] In addition, ESA claims that Iceland has breached Article 4 of the EEA Agreement, [4] by discriminating on grounds of nationality.

The Government of Iceland claims [5] that it has implemented a deposit-guarantee scheme "in accordance with the manner in which the Directive has been implemented across the EU", satisfying the requirements of the Directive. Although the deposit-guarantee scheme was unable to "cope with the failure of 85% of the Icelandic banking system within a few days in October 2008", this does not require the Icelandic Government to be liable "to pay the sums specified in the Directive in the event that the deposit-guarantee scheme fails". Also, Iceland did not discriminate on the grounds of nationality, when it transferred domestic depositors to a new bank.

ESA answers [6] that the wording "obligation of result" as used in the Directive "means that in all circumstances depositors must receive the minimum compensation required by the Directive." It is up to the member state to decide how this should take place. Concerning discriminating on grounds of nationality, ESA writes:

The Icelandic authorities took two measures in respect of depositors in domestic branches. First, they moved them to new banks with the consequence that those depositors, unlike the depositors in the foreign branches, never lost access to their deposits. Second, the Icelandic Government issued a declaration on 6 October 2008 that it would guarantee deposits in domestic branches in full, as mentioned in paragraph 34 of the Application.

Thus, on or before 5 October 2008, all depositors in the branches of Landsbanki were in the same position: all were depositors in a failing bank, likely to lose access to their deposits. By 9 October 2008, the depositors in the domestic branches still had full access to their deposits and a Government declaration guaranteeing their deposits in full. The depositors in the foreign branches had been left out in the cold with no access to their deposits and only the minimum guarantee of the TIF.

The Authority repeats that it is a breach of the Directive read in the light of Article 4 EEA to differentiate between depositors protected under the Directive by providing protection for some depositors while leaving others without any or any comparable protection.

— EFTA Surveillance Authority [7]

A further Icelandic reply concerning the "obligation of result" states:

The Icelandic Government contends that there is no "obligation of result" upon the State to ensure that a properly established deposit-guarantee scheme is able to pay compensation in all circumstances, and, in particular, the wholly exceptional circumstances of a systemic bank failure.

The Authority confuses the "obligation of result" imposed upon the Contracting States by the Directive, with the social result of improved deposit protection sought by the Directive.

It is essential to consider the Authority's argument against the economic realities. The Authority does not dispute the primary facts set out in the Icelandic Government's Defence. Thus it is accordingly not contested that (inter alia):

The foregoing facts do not reflect a Europe-wide failure by the Contracting States to properly implement the Directive. If there had been such a failure, it might have been expected that the Commission would have commented as such in its Impact Assessment. Rather, they reflect the practical realities of deposit-guarantee schemes. It is inherent to those schemes that they cannot pay out in the event of a widespread banking failure, any more than a fire insurer would be able to pay out if an entire city were to be destroyed by fire, rather than a single house or street.

That does not mean that deposit-guarantee schemes are defective. They simply cannot, however, provide cover against any eventuality, no matter how extreme.

The Commission was well aware of this limitation to deposit-guarantee schemes when it first proposed the Directive, and as a result made no provision for any such guarantee. As noted in Iceland's Defence, the Commission explicitly acknowledged that the Directive did not address the circumstances where "the schemes' resources have been exhausted". This practical reality is also fully reflected in the Commission's Impact Assessment. It recognised that deposit-guarantee schemes could not deal with large-scale banking failures.

This reality is simply ignored by the Authority. It instead seeks to derive an "obligation of result" upon the State to achieve a result that no deposit guarantee scheme could itself achieve: a guarantee that applied to every account holder irrespective of the scale of the financial crisis.

— The Government of Iceland [8]

The Government of Norway has filed a written observation with the court concerning a State's obligation to guarantee compensation with its own funds, writing:

The Authority claims in its Application that the Directive imposes an obligation of result on the States which in essence is twofold: The States are to ensure both that a deposit guarantee scheme is set up, and that duly verified claims by depositors of unavailable deposits are paid within the deadline laid down in Article 10 of the Directive. The Authority holds that the States must take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of that obligation.

The Authority, despite underlining that it does not seek a declaration that Iceland must compensate depositors from public funds, nevertheless asserts that the States' obligation of result

"may mean, should all else fail, that the state will ultimately be responsible for the compensation of depositors up to the amount provided for in Article 7, in order to discharge its duties under Directive 94/19/EC".

In the Government's view, this can for all practical purposes be regarded as a claim that the Directive imposes an obligation on the State to guarantee compensation to depositors through its own funds, as a last resort.

The Government disagrees with such a reading of the Directive[...]

— The Government of Norway [9]

Judge Dismissal

A Norwegian judge, Per Christiansen was dismissed from the EFTA panel following remarks he made to the media, suggestions made in legal analysis, that he may have supported the EFTA case, and through the court, the UK and the Netherlands position. [10]

Relevant law

The Directive on deposit-guarantee schemes (94/19/EC) [11]

Each Member State shall ensure that within its territory one or more deposit-guarantee schemes are introduced and officially recognized. Except in the circumstances envisaged in the second subparagraph and in paragraph 4, no credit institution authorized in that Member State pursuant to Article 3 of Directive 77/780/EEC may take deposits unless it is a member of such a scheme.

Deposit-guarantee schemes introduced and officially recognized in a Member State in accordance with Article 3 (1) shall cover the depositors at branches set up by credit institutions in other Member States.

Until 31 December 1999 neither the level nor the scope, including the percentage, of cover provided shall exceed the maximum level or scope of cover offered by the corresponding guarantee scheme within the territory of the host Member State.

Before that date, the Commission shall draw up a report on the basis of the experience acquired in applying the second subparagraph and shall consider the need to continue those arrangements. If appropriate, the Commission shall submit a proposal for a Directive to the European Parliament and the Council, with a view to the extension of their

Deposit-guarantee schemes shall stipulate that the aggregate deposits of each depositor must be covered up to ECU 20 000 in the event of deposits' being unavailable. Until 31 December 1999 Member States in which, when this Directive is adopted, deposits are not covered up to ECU 20 000 may retain the maximum amount laid down in their guarantee schemes, provided that this amount is not less than ECU 15 000.

Deposit-guarantee schemes shall be in a position to pay duly verified claims by depositors in respect of unavailable deposits within three months of the date on which the competent authorities make the determination described in Article 1 (3) (i) or the judicial authority makes the ruling described in Article 1 (3) (ii).

EEA Agreement Article 4 [12]

Within the scope of application of this Agreement, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Free Trade Association</span> Regional trade organization and free trade area

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is a regional trade organization and free trade area consisting of four European states: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. The organization operates in parallel with the European Union (EU), and all four member states participate in the European single market and are part of the Schengen Area. They are not, however, party to the European Union Customs Union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Economic Area</span> European free trade zone established in 1994

The European Economic Area (EEA) was established via the Agreement on the European Economic Area, an international agreement which enables the extension of the European Union's single market to member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). The EEA links the EU member states and three of the four EFTA states into an internal market governed by the same basic rules. These rules aim to enable free movement of persons, goods, services, and capital within the European single market, including the freedom to choose residence in any country within this area. The EEA was established on 1 January 1994 upon entry into force of the EEA Agreement. The contracting parties are the EU, its member states, and Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. New members of EFTA would not automatically become party to the EEA Agreement, as each EFTA State decides on its own whether it applies to be party to the EEA Agreement or not. According to Article 128 of the EEA Agreement, "any European State becoming a member of the Community shall, and the Swiss Confederation or any European State becoming a member of EFTA may, apply to become a party to this Agreement. It shall address its application to the EEA Council." EFTA does not envisage political integration. It does not issue legislation, nor does it establish a customs union. Schengen is not a part of the EEA Agreement. However, all of the four EFTA States participate in Schengen and Dublin through bilateral agreements. They all apply the provisions of the relevant Acquis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Landsbanki</span> Failed Icelandic commercial bank

Landsbanki, also commonly known as Landsbankinn was one of the largest Icelandic commercial banks; it failed as part of the 2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis when its subsidiary sparked the Icesave dispute. On October 7, 2008, the Icelandic Financial Supervisory Authority took control of Landsbanki and created a new bank for all the domestic operations called Nýi Landsbanki and the bank continued to operate under the same name.

Kaupthing Bank was a major international Icelandic bank, headquartered in Reykjavík, Iceland. It was taken over by the Icelandic government during the 2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis and the domestic Icelandic-based operations were spun into a new bank New Kaupthing, which was subsequently renamed Arion Banki. All the non-Icelandic assets and debts remained with the now defunct Kaupthing Bank. Prior to its collapse, it also allegedly loaned money to various parties with the purpose of buying Kaupthing shares.

Deposit insurance or deposit protection is a measure implemented in many countries to protect bank depositors, in full or in part, from losses caused by a bank's inability to pay its debts when due. Deposit insurance systems are one component of a financial system safety net that promotes financial stability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">EFTA Court</span> Supranational tribunal of EFTA states

The EFTA Court is a supranational judicial body responsible for the three EFTA members who are also members of the European Economic Area (EEA): Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority</span> Compliance monitoring agency for European Economic Area in some non-EU countries

The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) monitors compliance with the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway (the EEA EFTA States). ESA operates independently of the States and safeguards the rights of individuals and undertakings under the EEA Agreement, ensuring free movement, fair competition, and control of state aid.

In establishing Landsbanki, the Icelandic parliament hoped to boost monetary transactions and encourage the country's nascent industries. Following its opening on 1 July 1886, the bank's first decades of operation were restricted by its limited financial capacity; it was little more than a savings and loan society. Following the turn of the 20th century, however, Icelandic society progressed and prospered as industrialisation finally made inroads, and the bank grew and developed in parallel to the nation. In the 1920s Landsbanki became Iceland's largest bank, and was made responsible for issuing its bank notes. After the issuing of bank notes was transferred to the newly established Central Bank of Iceland in 1961, Landsbanki continued to develop as a commercial bank, expanding its branch network in the ensuing decades.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Icesave dispute</span> Dispute between Iceland and foreign depositors.

The Icesave dispute was a diplomatic dispute among Iceland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. It began after the privately owned Icelandic bank Landsbanki was placed in receivership on 7 October 2008. As Landsbanki was one of three systemically important financial institutions in Iceland to go bankrupt within a few days, the Icelandic Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund had no remaining funds to make good on deposit guarantees to foreign Landsbanki depositors, who held savings in the Icesave branch of the bank.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Financial Services Compensation Scheme</span> UK government agency

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) is the UK's statutory compensation scheme for customers of UK authorised financial services firms. This means it can step in to pay compensation if a firm is unable, or likely to be unable, to pay claims against it. Compensation can be in any form and by any method it determines is appropriate. It is an operationally independent body, set up under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and funded by a levy on authorised financial services firms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008–2011 Icelandic financial crisis</span> Default of three major Icelandic banks

The Icelandic financial crisis was a major economic and political event in Iceland between 2008 and 2010. It involved the default of all three of the country's major privately owned commercial banks in late 2008, following problems in refinancing their short-term debt and a run on deposits in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Relative to the size of its economy, Iceland's systemic banking collapse was the largest of any country in economic history. The crisis led to a severe recession and the 2009 Icelandic financial crisis protests.

The Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund is the statutory deposit insurance scheme in Iceland. It is established under Act No. 98/1999 on Deposit Guarantees and Investor-Compensation Scheme, which transposes European Union directives 94/19/EC and 97/9/EC into Icelandic law, in accordance with the decisions of the European Economic Area.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008 is an Order of HM Treasury to freeze the assets of Icelandic bank Landsbanki in the United Kingdom made under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, by virtue of the fact that the Treasury reasonably believed that "action to the detriment of the United Kingdom's economy has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons." As required by the enabling Act, the Order was approved by both Houses of Parliament on 28 October 2008, which was 20 days after the Order had come into force.

Paul v Germany [2004] ECR I-09425 is a European Court of Justice case regarding the civil liability of bank regulators in a case where those regulators were alleged to have failed in their duty. As of November 2008, it is the only ECJ case to consider the Deposit Guarantee Directive (94/19/EC), which was one of the causes of the Icesave dispute between Iceland and the United Kingdom in late 2008.

The 2010 Icelandic loan guarantees referendum, also known as the Icesave referendum, was held in Iceland on 6 March 2010.

The Norwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund administers the deposit guarantee, which guarantees deposits in Norwegian banks. The Norwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund is regulated by the Act on the Norwegian Banks’ Guarantee Fund of 23 March 2018 and the Financial Institutions Act of 10 April 2015, Chapter 19 and Chapter 20. The fund was established on 1 July 2004 following a merger of the Commercial Banks' Guarantee Fund and the Savings Banks' Guarantee Fund. The Savings Banks' Guarantee Fund has a history dating back to 1921, when the guarantee scheme was a voluntary scheme.

A referendum on the repayment of loan guarantees by Iceland to the governments of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands over the failure of the Icesave bank was held in Iceland on 9 April 2011. This was the second referendum on the issue after a previous one was held in March 2010. After the referendum failed to pass, the British and Dutch governments said that they would take the case to the European courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nemea Bank</span>

Nemea Bank was a pan-European direct bank incorporated in Malta, providing banking and investment services to individuals, businesses, institutions and high net worth individuals based in the 31 countries of the European Economic Area (EEA). The bank is currently under administration and its license was withdrawn by the ECB on the 23rd March 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Area</span>

The United Kingdom (UK) was a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 2020, following the coming into force of the 1992 EEA Agreement. Membership of the EEA is a consequence of membership of the European Union (EU). The UK ceased to be a Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement after its withdrawal from the EU on 31 January 2020, as it was a member of the EEA by virtue of its EU membership, but retained EEA rights during the Brexit transition period, based on Article 126 of the withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK. During the transition period, which ended on 31 December 2020, the UK and EU negotiated their future relationship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Passports of the EFTA member states</span>

Passports of the EFTA member states are passports issued by the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) member states Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. EFTA is in this article used as a common name for these countries.

References

  1. ↑ "Case E-16/11 - EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland". EFTA Court. 2011-12-15. Retrieved 2012-06-30.
  2. ↑ "Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes". Eur-Lex. 1994-05-30. Retrieved 2012-06-30.
  3. ↑ "Action brought on 15 December 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland" (PDF). EFTA Court. 2011-12-15. Retrieved 2012-06-30.
  4. ↑ "Agreement on the European Economic Area" (PDF). EFTA. 2011-11-15. Retrieved 2012-06-30.
  5. ↑ "In the EFTA Court Case E-16/11" (PDF). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iceland. 2012-03-08. Retrieved 2012-06-30.
  6. ↑ "In the EFTA Court Reply" (PDF). EFTA Surveillance Authority. 2012-04-10. Retrieved 2012-06-30.
  7. ↑ Reply
  8. ↑ Rejoinder
  9. ↑ Written observations by the Government of Norway
  10. ↑ "EFTA Court Judge Possibly Unfit to Rule on Icesave". Iceland Review. 23 June 2011. Retrieved 15 February 2016.
  11. ↑ "Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes". Eur-Lex. 1994-05-30. Retrieved 2012-06-30.
  12. ↑ "Agreement on the European Economic Area" (PDF). EFTA. 2011-11-15. Retrieved 2012-06-30.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.