Gjermund Mathisen

Norsk Lovkommentar Doi: https://min.rettsdata.no/rettskilder/lover/lov-2004-03-05-12

Hovedrevidert 23.10.2024

The EFTA Court - Developing the EEA over Three Decades p. 299-313 Doi: https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/efta-court-9781509968800/

Norsk Lovkommentar Doi: https://min.rettsdata.no/rettskilder/lover/lov-1975-06-13-39

Hovedrevidert 24.06.2022

Europarecht 55(Beiheft 1) p. 313-326

European Current Law 13(12) p. 1071-1084

Norsk Lovkommentar Doi: https://min.rettsdata.no/rettskilder/lover/lov-1977-03-25-22

Hovedrevidert 09.11.2019

European Law Review 44(4) p. 532-547

"Effect on trade" is seeing a renaissance in decisional practice in the field of state aid. The Commission is refining its approach to assessing whether potential aid measures affect trade between Member States such as to engage art.107 TFEU. The present contribution analyses the systemic implications of this shift, and argues that the refined approach re-balances the application of the "liable to affect trade" test as developed in case law. This test, and thus the outer limit of the notion of state aid, is analysed in light of related rules, especially de minimis rules in state aid law, and competition law rules on effect on trade. In this light, the Commission's reasoning in relevant cases is assessed as robust, whereas the general approach is seen as coming with some challenges, especially for use at the national level. However, the approach is promising enough that it deserves the support of the Courts in Luxembourg, the first signs of which are now showing.

Juridisk metode og tenkemåte p. 386-419

Agreement on the European Economic Area - A Commentary p. 585-611

Tidsskrift for strafferett p. 469-487

Tidsskrift for Rettsvitenskap 126(3) p. 418-420

Common market law review 50(2) p. 662-664

Lov og Rett 49(5) p. 302-304

Nordic Journal of International Law 79(1) p. 1-33

For almost half a century, the Nordic countries have had a particular system of regional extradition. That system inspired and influenced the development of the European Arrest Warrant scheme at the turn of the millennium. Now, with the former Nordic system being replaced by a “Nordic Arrest Warrant”, the Nordic countries have in turn been inspired and influenced by the European Arrest Warrant scheme. In the future, it may be that the Nordic Arrest Warrant will inspire and influence further developments of the European Arrest Warrant scheme. The present article attempts an analysis of past and future interaction between developments on the Nordic level and the European Union level in this field.

Europarättslig tidskrift 13(1) p. 13-29

Common market law review 47(4) p. 1021-1048 Doi: https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/47.4/COLA2010045

Consistency and coherence have become increasingly visible in the 2000s as substantive preconditions for the justification of Member State measures restricting free movement. In particular, the ECJ has lately taken to insisting that restrictive national legislation is appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective pursued only if it genuinely reflects a concern to attain it “in a consistent and systematic manner”. In substance, similar exigencies are however also found in earlier case law. Consistency, in this context, may be understood to mean that nothing is allowed to counteract the attainment of the objective (purportedly) pursued by the restrictive measure, whilst coherence may be used to describe that a measure is intelligible as a means to attain the objective. On this basis, it is argued that a requirement of consistency and coherence is neither fundamentally new nor separate from a traditional EU law model for justification, whereby a restrictive measure must pursue a legitimate objective and be suitable, necessary and proportionate stricto sensu. The analysis carried out also shows that some inconsistencies might frequently have to be accepted and do not necessarily thwart justification of a restrictive measure. At the same time, consistency makes even relatively restrictive measures easier to justify; and the better the coherence between a restrictive measure and its objective, the better chances are that a Member State will gain acceptance for it.

European Human Rights Law Review 15(5) p. 486-494

This article explores how the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee have dealt with issues related to fair trial in the context of proceedings for extradition or surrender. It assesses to what extent the two human rights bodies have struck the right balance between conflicting considerations at issue in this context.

Rendezvous of European Legal Cultures p. 195-208

Nytt Norsk Tidsskrift (NNT) 26(2) p. 181-188

Jussens Venner 44(4) p. 238-253

Lov og Rett 48(9) p. 569-571

Gyldendal Akademisk

Forhandlingerne ved Det 37. nordiske Juristmøde, Bind II p. 353-358

Regulation strategies in the European Economic Area p. 127-138

Jussens Venner 42(2) p. 80-92

Tidsskrift for strafferett 6(3) p. 235-237

Tidsskrift for strafferett 6(1) p. 3-6

Tidsskrift for strafferett 5(1) p. 65-67

Tidsskrift for strafferett 3(3) p. 277-299

Fagbokforlaget

Norsk lovkommentar. 5.utg. (Tidligere utg. med tittel: Karnov : norsk kommentert lovsamling). 3 b p. 1455-1474