Sigrún Davíðsdóttir's Icelog

Icesave: the EFTA Court Icesave judgement decision January 28

with 2 comments

The long-awaited judgement in the Icesave case, the action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland, is due at 11.30 on January 28 in Luxembourg where the EFTA Court resides.

The thrust of the case is:

The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that by failing to ensure payment of the minimum amount of compensation to Icesave depositors in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom within the time limits laid down in Directive 94/19/EC, Iceland has failed to comply with its obligations arising under Articles 3(1), 4(1), 7(1) and 10(1) of Directive 94/19/EC. Additionally or in the alternative, the EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has breached the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality under Article 4 EEA. 

Much has been said and written and about this dispute and it is excellent that ESA took action so as to clarify the issues at stake. In addition, a clarification of a state’s obligation regarding the deposit guarantee scheme is of European and general interest.

Here is a link to earlier Icelogs on Icesave.

Follow me on Twitter for running updates.

Written by Sigrún Davídsdóttir

January 4th, 2013 at 2:58 pm

Posted in Iceland

2 Responses to 'Icesave: the EFTA Court Icesave judgement decision January 28'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Icesave: the EFTA Court Icesave judgement decision January 28'.

  1. A clarification of a state’s obligation concerning the guarantee scheme according to European Law when Banks fail, is essential.
    Luxembourg in particular needs direction.

    Why are all the fingers pointed at Iceland and not at Luxembourg?

    In the case of Landsbanki Luxembourg victims were refused any claim to any compensation based on the false accounting and lack of any justification or proper accounting.
    Many clients of the bank still had money in their personal accounts when the bank closed its doors .
    They were simply told they were debtors. No accounting justification was given for the disappearing money, in particular during the administration after the bank failed.

    The Landsbanki clients in credit, were incorrectly told they had no right to any guarantee scheme since they were debtors!

    Charles

    4 Jan 13 at 9:57 pm

  2. There appears little doubt that the EFTA Court in Luxembourg will find for the Plaintifs. I hope that this court will remain independant of the Luxembourg Government and are not in the clutches of this sorry country. I cannot possibly see how Lansabanki Auditors have called you victims debtors, when clearly you are creditors. Perhaps there is some light at the end of the tunnel for the French Landsbanki vicims. Perhaps this link will give you some hope that the Luxemboug Government is getting its house in order.
    http://www.tax-news.com/news/Luxembourg_Improves_Tax_Transparency____59041.html

    carian

    5 Jan 13 at 9:48 am

Leave a Reply