Report 2011 - EFTA Court

96/71. it argues that EEA law does not preclude Member States
from applying their legislation, or collective agreements as the
case may be, to any person employed, even temporarily, within
their territory. 43 iceland submits that national rules on employees’
insurance cover constitute such legislation. it argues further that
tort and insurance law is not harmonised in EEA law and that in
the absence of harmonisation, rules of tort and insurance law fall
outside the ambit of EEA law. 44
122. However, if the Court should conclude that the requirements
of Article 7 of the Posting Act come within the scope of the
Directive, iceland submits that if in turn those requirements
are considered a restriction, they are in any case justified.
iceland states that the objective of the legislation is to provide
insurance cover to workers posted to iceland and their families.
iceland considers this to be an imperative requirement. it adds
that the requirements at issue are established in collective
agreements which are legally protected and from which there
can be no exemptions. iceland refers to Article 3(10) of the PWD
and reiterates its general arguments made in respect of that
provision. 45
123. iceland further submits that any restriction at issue here is
both suitable and necessary for securing attainment of the
abovementioned objective. 46 it submits also that Article 7 of the
Posting Act is necessary to protect the legal rights of workers
posted to iceland and thus ensure social cohesion. Essentially,
iceland submits the same with respect to any assessment under
Article 36 EEA, should the Court find the requirements under
Article 7 of the Posting Act to fall outside the Directive and within
the scope of Article 36 EEA.
43 Reference is made to recital 12 in the preamble to the Directive.
44 Reference is made to Case E-1/99 Finanger [1999] EFTA Ct. Rep. 119 and Case E-7/00
Helgadóttir [2001] EFTA Ct. Rep. 246.
45 Further reference is made to Commission v Luxembourg, cited above, paragraphs 65 and
66, and to the Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak in the case, points 60 to 62.
46 Reference is made to Laval un Partneri, cited above, paragraph 101.
Case E-12/10 EFTA Surveillance xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Authority v iceland
182