EFTA Surveillance Authority sues Iceland over primacy of European Economic Area law

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has brought Iceland before the EFTA Court for failing to guarantee that implemented European Economic Area rules take precedence over conflicting provisions of national law, leaving individuals and economic operators unable to rely on the rights those rules confer. The action, registered as Case E-14/26, was lodged on 30 September 2026 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union, C series, of 5 November 2026 under document reference C/2026/5940.

The dispute turns on two provisions of the EEA architecture: Protocol 35 EEA, which obliges the contracting parties to secure the primacy of implemented EEA rules in their domestic legal orders, and Article 3 EEA, which requires them to take all necessary measures to fulfil their treaty obligations. According to the application, Iceland has not adopted the measures needed to make that primacy effective, a gap the Authority says has persisted through successive rulings of the Supreme Court of Iceland.

A decade of warnings before the referral

The application reconstructs a compliance procedure that ran for more than fourteen years before it reached the Luxembourg-based court:

• 11 April 2012: the Authority asked Iceland whether Supreme Court rulings cited in its request cast doubt on the country’s compliance with Protocol 35 EEA; Iceland did not reply.
• 13 December 2017: a letter of formal notice concluded that Iceland had breached Protocol 35 EEA and Article 3 EEA, with observations requested by 13 February 2018.
• 18 December 2018: the Icelandic Government replied that a working group had been set up, whose report and preliminary findings had been presented to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in August 2018.
• 30 September 2020: the Authority delivered a reasoned opinion calling on Iceland to comply by 30 December 2020.
• 30 April 2021: after obtaining an extension, the Government argued in writing that Article 3 of the Icelandic EEA Act already satisfied the country’s obligations.
• 30 September 2026: the Authority decided to refer the matter to the EFTA Court.

What the Authority is asking the court to rule

The application contains two heads of claim. First, the Authority asks the court to declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures to ensure that implemented EEA rules prevail over conflicting national provisions, and thus failing to ensure that individuals and economic operators can rely on their EEA-derived rights, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Protocol 35 EEA and Article 3 EEA. Second, it asks the court to order Iceland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Who is acting for the Authority

The EFTA Surveillance Authority is represented in the proceedings by five agents acting on its behalf:

• María Escobar Gómez
• Hildur Hjörvar
• Johanne Førde
• Sigrún Ingibjörg Gísladóttir
• Melpo-Menie Joséphidès

All are listed as acting as Agents of the Authority, with an address at Avenue des Arts 19H, 1000 Brussels, Belgium.

The significance extends beyond inter-state procedure. If the court endorses the Authority’s reading, firms and private parties operating in Iceland would gain a firmer basis for invoking EEA-derived rights before national courts even where domestic statutes say otherwise, while a ruling for Iceland would leave the practical force of Protocol 35 EEA dependent on how the national legislature and Supreme Court choose to apply it. The case also tests how strictly the EFTA Surveillance Authority can police the constitutional dimension of EEA membership, an area where the treaty text leaves the mechanism of primacy to the contracting parties but not the result.

Source: Official Journal of the European Union, C series, C/2026/5940, 5 November 2026, p. 1/1 (official reference: C/2026/5940).