Railway package could derail the EEA Agreement

Norwegian authorities propose to undermine the EFTA pillar in the European Economic Area Agreement, replacing the system of two separate pillars with just one. In doing so, the fundamental principles of the EEA Agreement are put at stake.

Fierce popular opposition and public debate has delayed the Norwegian parliament’s handling of the proposed incorporation of the EUs 4th Railway package into the EEA Agreement. After the Norwegian Supreme Court in March concluded that the Storting, if it so wishes, can adopt the EU's 4th Railway Package by way of a simple majority, a final decision is expected in May.

The Supreme Court has assessed the Storting's practice of "unobtrusive" transfer of authority and whether or not this is compatible with the Constitution. Only article 115 of the Constitution directly deals with transfer of sovereignty to international bodies, requiring a ¾ majority to do so. Nevertheless, consecutive EEA Acts have been passed as “unobtrusive” and refer to a different article in the Constitution that only requires simple majority. The Court states that this practice has obtained judicial legality, simply due to the fact that the Storting has allowed it to pass for decades.

However, the Supreme Court was not asked to consider, nor has it considered, the consequences for the EEA agreement in light of the fact that the government's railway proposal evades the two-pillar structure.

The core of the matter is that authority will be transferred directly to EU bodies, contrary to the EEA Agreement system where the EU and the three EFTA[1] countries shape two separate pillars. For Norwegians and Icelanders who have regarded the EEA agreement as a national compromise and as a lasting alternative to EU membership, this development is worrying.

Text continues below the illustration.

The two-pillar structure is necessary because the EEA EFTA States have not transferred any legislative competences to the EU or to the joint EEA bodies. In addition, the EEA EFTA States are also, as a main rule, constitutionally unable to accept binding decisions made by the EU institutions directly. Attribution: EFTA

Should the railway package be adopted in the manner proposed by the Solberg government, this implies that authority concerning, among other things, access and safety on Norwegian railway tracks will be transferred directly to the EU Railway Agency (ERA), to the EU Commission and to the European Court of Justice. That is, to EU bodies where Norway does not have the right to vote or has no representation whatsoever.

Norway should not be allowed to redefine the rules of the game

The precondition for the EEA Agreement has always been that it must be intergovernmental, and not supranational like an EU membership. Legislative, executive, and judicial powers were to remain national, with a few agreed exceptions. The sovereignty of the EFTA countries Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein is safeguarded by way of two separate pillars, one EU-pillar and one EFTA-pillar. Within the EEA-EFTA pillar all decisions are taken by consensus. The system ensures that decisions in the EU should never have a direct effect in Norway or other EFTA states. Separate bodies – the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) and the EFTA Court – are responsible for enforcement within the EFTA pillar.

Law professor Christoffer Conrad Eriksen at the University of Oslo writes in a report to the Norwegian Railway Workers’ Association and the Norwegian Locomotive Engine Drivers' Association that the transfer of authority to the EU bodies "would be a breach of the special decision-making process in the EEA agreement's two-pillar system" ("EU fourth railway package - constitutional issues", April 2020). Eriksen further points out that this may make it more difficult to reject demands from the EU to transfer authority directly to EU bodies in future cases.

Although Iceland at present has no railways, it is of fundamental importance to all parties if authority is transferred to EU bodies. The Norwegian government has initiated a joint statement in the EEA Committee with Iceland and Liechtenstein, but has refused to publish its contents.

“Iceland should consider the consequences before letting Norway redefine the rules of the game in the EEA procedure”, warns Roy Pedersen, head of the broad ‘No to the EU’ movement in Norway.

Albeit his organization wants Norway to revoke the EEA Agreement, Mr. Pedersen voices concerns he shares with those who still have faith in the EEA Agreement as a lasting alternative to EU membership. An increasing number of supranational EU agencies are challenging the sovereignty of the three EEA-EFTA states embedded in the very structure of the Agreement.

Icelandic politicians have expressed anxiety that the structure of the EEA agreement is collapsing. Foreign Minister Gudlaugur Thór Thórdarson put it this way at a meeting of the EEA Council on 23 May 2018:

“It has become more and more difficult, when EU acts providing for such delegation of powers are incorporated into the EEA Agreement, to find solutions that respect the two-pillar structure of the Agreement. This development is causing more and more unease in Iceland, for parliamentarians, scholars and the general public alike. It is debatable how much further Iceland can go in accepting solutions which are not fully compatible with the two-pillar structure.”[2]

ESA's Norwegian President Bente Angell-Hansen, too, has warned against allowing EU agencies to weaken the two-pillar structure. After emphasizing the desire to "protect and promote the EEA Agreement” at a meeting of the EFTA Ministers on 27 October last year[3], she stated: “We believe the time is ripe to see that the EEA-EFTA pillar is well served when it comes to these developments by adhering to the 2-pillar-structure that makes the EEA Agreement so unique.” Being an experienced diplomat, Angell-Hansen does not mention the railway package or other concrete examples, but as she says: “When a 1-pillar solution is the outcome, it erodes the possibility to bring a case before the EFTA Court.” In other words, when decisions are transferred to the EU, the EEA bodies become marginalized.

The justification given by the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications for deviating from the EEA system is that the EFTA Surveillance Authority does not have competence where railways are concerned, and that it would be cumbersome to establish a separate EFTA body. But ESA has no more expertise in financial supervision or energy matters, and yet the two-pillar structure was not circumvented in these cases. Therefore, the justification for the railway package to be treated otherwise, is not sustainable.

What the Storting could do to safeguard the integrity of the EEA Agreement, is to ask the Norwegian government to rework the railway legislation acts imposed by the Railway package in such a way that the transfer of authority is handed to ESA and the EFTA Court. Thereby, one can also avoid the transfer of legislative authority to the EU Commission, in that the supplementary rules issued by the Commission are dealt with in the ordinary way in the EEA and do not apply until they have been approved by the EEA Joint Committee. So far, the Solberg government stubbornly has rejected to adapt the proposed legislation in this way, stating instead that evading the EFTA pillar is a “new creation within the EEA“.

Five Norwegian opposition parties, the Labour Party, the Center Party, the Socialist People's Party, the Red Party and the Green party, all say no to the 4th Railway Package. Presently, only four votes are lacking to prevent the government from gaining a majority. Concerns from Iceland might lead more MPs to reconsider before Parliament is expected to give its final vote by the end of May.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

[1] Switzerland is also member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), but is not part of the EEA Agreement.

[2] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1608-2018-INIT/en/pdf

[3] https://www.eftasurv.int/newsroom/updates/written-statement-esa-president-bente-angell-hansen-2020-efta-ministerial-meeting


Se alle arrangementer

Modellmakeri om EØS 

24. mai 2024

Det er svært lite troverdig at handelen med EU skulle bli redusert med en tredjedel uten EØS-avtalen. 

Oslo Nei til EUs høringsinnspill til Fornybardirektivet

21. mai 2024

Oslo Nei til EU støtter ikke forslaget om at Fornybardirektivet skal gjøres gjeldende for Norge.

Handelen og samarbeidet kan fortsette uten EØS-avtalen

16. mai 2024

Den dagen EØS-avtalen sies opp, overtar automatisk handelsavtalen mellom Norge og EU igjen. Den sikrer tollfrihet for norske industrivarer til EU, skriver Einar Frogner, leder av Nei til EU.

EUs helikopterregelverk HOFO på norsk sokkel 

15. mai 2024

Faglig utvalg i Nei til EU arrangerer webinar om EUs helikopterregelverk HOFO på norsk sokkel den 29. mai klokka 11.00 til 11.30.  Se webinaret her!

Den europeiske unionen viser sitt sanne andlet.  

08. mai 2024

Norske styresmakter har ikkje avgjort om dei vil seia ja til Fornybardirektivet, heller ikkje når dei eventuelt vil ta eit standpunkt i saka.   Dette likar den europeiske unionen lite. Kommissæren for det aktuelle politikkområdet stiller krav, kjem med fristar og meir enn antydar straffereaksjonar.

Tvilsom gevinst av EØS

08. mai 2024

Anslagene for økonomisk gevinst samsvarer dårlig med den faktiske økonomiske utviklingen i EU gjennom tiårene med EØS-avtalen.

Kraft og tvang mot folkestyre

29. april 2024

Fornybardirektivet går løs på selve grunnlaget for lokaldemokratiet.

Veto mot fornybardirektivet 

29. april 2024

EUs energikomissær Kadri Simson truer Norge med konsekvenser dersom ikke Fornybardirektivet innføres innen august 2024. EU kommer med direkte trusler mot Norge.  

EØS-debatten er et spørsmål om å ta demokratiet på alvor 

29. april 2024

For å sikre folkestyret må Norge stanse maktoverføringen til EU. Regjeringens lovnader om å bruke handlingsrommet i EØS må følges opp i praksis.

EUs reviderte avløpsdirektiv mangler lokal tilpasning 

29. april 2024

Forurensing fra avløp må reduseres, men EUs reviderte avløpsdirektiv mangler lokal tilpasning og går dermed feil vei inn i fremtiden. 

EUs bygningsenergidirektiv mangler lokal tilpasning 

29. april 2024

Klimagassutslipp fra bygg må ned, men bygningsenergidirektivet mangler lokal tilpasning og går dermed feil vei inn i fremtiden. 

Nyanser av EØS

22. april 2024

EØS-utredningen gjør rett i å avdramatisere konsekvensene ved å bruke vetoretten mot EU-regler.