Peter wrote:
Also there is no such thing as “EASA membership”.
I think EASA would disagree. Switzerland is AFAIK considered an EASA MS which means it should have an agreement with the EU under the article 66 of the Basic Regulation. It’s an interesting relationship as they don’t have voting rights AIUI.
Peter wrote:
A country in the EU has to adopt EU regs
Not true. Regulations apply directly, EU MS doesn’t have to adopt anything, just respect it and refrain from introducing new contradictory laws (to put it simply).
PS:
Peter wrote:
Not in this context, I think.
Yes, in this context. It’s just outdated information. EEC was renamed to EC (1993 IIRC) and after Lisbon treaty went into force (2009) EU became the Community. EEC or EC is no more.
Switzerland doesn’t implement EASA regulations through the standard legislative process but rather as an addendum to the bilateral agreement on air transport. Once the new (or amended) regulation is approved for inclusion by the bipartite Swiss / EU commission it has then force of law.
If you want to check what is currently in force, this is where it’s all at.
Martin wrote:
They have to implement those regulations at a national level since they’re not in the EU AIUI
There is (in Norway) an adoption process consisting of the responsible government body writing position statements describing the effects of the new regulations, the impacts on Norwegian legal texts, circulating them to the stakeholders and in the end EU regs are simply adopted. Takes less than a year. No transcription into Norwegian laws. Relevant texts are just amended with a reference to the EU regulation.
AFAIK they never have refused a EU reg
Why doesn’t Norway join the EU, in that case?
They would get a huge party out of it, 100% allowable as Expenses 
Don’t know for Norway but Switzerland is a full member of EASA and therefore has to take over all EASA legislation line, hook and sinker. They have done that in the past.
What they have done however is to gold plate them, e.g. as in ELA1 which they grudgingly state is now law but woe to who dares to implement it.
Peter wrote:
Why doesn’t Norway join the EU, in that case?
Because they do not want all the important decisions to be taken in Brussels And they want to have access to the European markets so they can sell their fish which is harvested in Norway, and then air freighted to China for processing before being sent back to Norway for export to the EU.
So they are in a situation where decisions are taken in Brussels, and they do not have a vote! But since they are not in the Union, they feel good about it. “Union” has a heavy negative connotation in Norway because of the long lasting union with Denmark dating back to the 15th century, followed by a union with Sweden that they broke out of in 1905.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Once the new (or amended) regulation is approved for inclusion by the bipartite Swiss / EU commission it has then force of law.
Aviathor wrote:
in the end EU regs are simply adopted
You’re both saying what I tried to describe. So in this process, nowhere does anyone replace the word “community” with “Switzerland” or “Norway”, and at least for Switzerland I can’t find a law that says “wherever you find the word ‘community’, read ‘Switzerland’ instead”. So now we have a law about an operator residing in the community. Reading this as a citizen, I clearly decide that they can’t mean anyone in Switzerland.
@Rwy20 there’s plenty law in fact…
dans tous les cas où les actes auxquels il est fait référence dans la présente annexe mentionnent les Etats membres de la Communauté européenne, remplacée par l’Union européenne, ou l’exigence d’un lien de rattachement avec ceux-ci, ces mentions sont réputées, aux fins de l’accord, renvoyer également à la Suisse ou à l’exigence d’un lien identique de rattachement avec celle-ci;
sans préjudice de l’art. 15 du présent accord, le terme «transporteur aérien communautaire» visé dans les directives et règlements communautaires qui suivent, s’applique également à un transporteur aérien détenteur d’une autorisation d’exploitation et ayant son principal lieu d’activité et, le cas échéant, son siège statutaire en Suisse conformément au règlement (CE) no 1008/2008 du Parlement européen et du Conseil. Toute référence au règlement (CEE) no 2407/92 du Conseil s’entend comme une référence au règlement (CE) no 1008/2008 du Parlement européen et du Conseil;
Rwy20 wrote:
and at least for Switzerland I can’t find a law that says “wherever you find the word ‘community’, read ‘Switzerland’ instead”
I think you are right. Or at least that is the natural way of interpreting it. At the same time it is unclear enough, is “community” defined any place? Do you have a reference to the exact wordings?
