Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1732
This regulation introduces provisional anti-dumping duties on candles and similar articles imported from China. The European Commission found that Chinese exporters were dumping these products, causing significant harm to EU manufacturers. To determine the normal value (the price at which the goods are sold in their country of origin), the Commission rejected using domestic Chinese prices due to economic distortions. Instead, they constructed a normal value based on production costs in Thailand (and some data from Türkiye). The regulation then details the investigation process, injury assessment to the EU industry, and establishes a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered. It concludes by setting specific anti-dumping duty rates for named Chinese companies and a general rate for all other imports, requiring a valid commercial invoice for the application of individual duty rates.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1533
This regulation updates the rules for marine equipment used on EU ships. It ensures that marine equipment design, construction, performance, and testing standards align with the latest international norms by updating the list of applicable international instruments, defined in Directive 2014/90/EU. The most crucial element is the Annex, which lists specific marine equipment and outlines applicable regulations, testing standards, and conformity assessment modules. A transitional period is provided for equipment type-approved under older rules, allowing manufacturers and shipowners time to adapt to the new requirements. Regulation (EU) 2024/1975 is repealed.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1737
This regulation imposes provisional anti-dumping duties on valine imports from China. The Commission’s investigation was triggered by a complaint from Eurolysine SAS, a Union producer. The probe found that Chinese exporters were dumping valine, thus harming the Union industry. Due to “significant distortions” in the Chinese economy, the Commission rejected using domestic Chinese prices to determine the normal value. Instead, it constructed a normal value using Colombian data as a representative country. It sets out the provisional duty rates for individual companies and a residual rate for all other imports from China, specifying the need for a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration to benefit from individual duty rates.
Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreements and Protocols between the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway
The notice announces the entry into force of agreements and protocols about financial mechanisms between the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, covering the EEA and Norwegian Financial Mechanisms from May 2021 to April 2028. These agreements, signed on September 12, 2024, came into effect on August 1, 2025, meaning that financial cooperation and funding can now be implemented.
Action brought on 20 August 2025 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Liechtenstein
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) has initiated legal action against Liechtenstein for not implementing Directive (EU) 2019/770, concerning contracts for digital content and services, within the required timeframe, as per the EEA Agreement. The ESA requests the EFTA Court to declare Liechtenstein in breach of its obligations and to order Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings. The ESA highlights the core issue of the dispute and the specific legal obligation that Liechtenstein is alleged to have breached.
Action brought on 20 August 2025 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Liechtenstein
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) is suing Liechtenstein for failing to implement Directive (EU) 2019/771 on contracts for the sale of goods within the EEA Agreement’s deadline. The ESA requests the EFTA Court to declare Liechtenstein in breach of its obligations and to order Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings. The Directive aims to modernize and harmonize consumer protection rules related to the sale of goods across the European Economic Area.
Action brought on 19 August 2025 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) is suing Iceland for its failure to incorporate Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 on explosives precursors into its national law, as required by the EEA Agreement. The ESA requests the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in breach of its obligations and to order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. The key concern is the failure to implement Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 within the framework of the EEA Agreement.
Action brought on 19 August 2025 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) has initiated legal action against Iceland, alleging a breach of the EEA Agreement for failure to implement Directive (EU) 2019/2161, which modernizes Union consumer protection rules. The ESA asks the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of its EEA obligations and to order Iceland to cover the costs of the proceedings. The core of the action revolves around Iceland’s alleged failure to implement Directive (EU) 2019/2161.
Action brought on 20 August 2025 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) is suing Iceland for not implementing Directive (EU) 2019/770 on digital content and digital services contracts into its national law within the prescribed timeframe of the EEA Agreement. The ESA requests the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in breach of its obligations and to order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Action brought on 19 August 2025 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) has initiated legal action against Iceland for failing to implement Directive (EU) 2016/2102 regarding the accessibility of websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies, as required under the EEA Agreement. The ESA asks the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of its EEA obligations and to order Iceland to cover the costs of the proceedings.
Action brought on 20 August 2025 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) is suing Iceland for failing to implement Directive (EU) 2019/771 concerning contracts for the sale of goods into its national law within the prescribed timeframe of the EEA Agreement. The ESA requests the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in breach of its obligations and to order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Review of each of legal acts published today:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1732 of 13 August 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of candles, tapers and the like originating in the People’s Republic of China
Here’s a breakdown of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1732:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This regulation imposes a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of candles, tapers, and similar items originating from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The European Commission initiated this action due to findings of dumping (selling products at unfairly low prices) by Chinese exporters, which is causing material injury to the Union industry. The regulation outlines the investigation process, the determination of dumping and injury, and the methodology used to calculate the anti-dumping duties.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Initiation and Investigation (Section 1):** Details the start of the investigation, parties involved, and the sampling methods used for Union producers, importers, and exporting producers.
* **Product Definition (Section 2):** Defines the scope of the investigation, specifying the products covered (candles, tapers, etc.) and their characteristics. It also establishes the concept of “like product” referring to EU-produced candles.
* **Dumping Determination (Section 3):** This is a crucial section. Due to “significant distortions” in the Chinese economy, the Commission rejects using domestic Chinese prices to determine the normal value. Instead, it constructs a normal value based on production costs and sales in a “representative country” (Thailand, with some data from Türkiye). It details the factors of production (raw materials, labor, energy), their valuation, and adjustments made.
* **Injury Determination (Section 4):** Assesses the economic state of the Union industry, examining factors like production, sales, market share, prices, and profitability. It concludes that the Union industry has suffered material injury.
* **Causation (Section 5):** Establishes a link between the dumped imports from China and the injury suffered by the Union industry. It also examines and dismisses other potential causes of injury.
* **Level of Measures (Section 6):** Determines the level of anti-dumping duties needed to remove the injury. It considers raw material distortions in China and applies Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation.
* **Union Interest (Section 7):** Assesses whether imposing measures is in the overall interest of the EU, considering the impact on various stakeholders.
* **Provisional Anti-Dumping Measures (Section 8):** Imposes provisional anti-dumping duties on the specified products from China. It lists the duty rates for specific companies and a rate for “all other imports.” It also includes a condition regarding a valid commercial invoice for the application of individual duty rates.
* **Registration (Section 9):** Discontinues the registration of imports.
* **Final and Information Provisions (Sections 10 and 11):** Sets deadlines for interested parties to submit comments and requests for hearings.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Article 1:** Specifies the products subject to the anti-dumping duty (candles, tapers, etc. under CN code 3406 00 00) and the countries of origin (People’s Republic of China).
* **Article 1(2):** Lists the specific anti-dumping duty rates for named Chinese companies and the “all other imports” rate.
* **Article 1(3):** Sets out the requirement for a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration for companies to benefit from individual duty rates. This is crucial for importers.
* **Article 2:** Provides deadlines for interested parties to submit comments or request hearings.
* **Annex:** Lists the cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample and their TARIC additional codes.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1533 of 23 July 2025 laying down rules for the application of Directive 2014/90/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards design, construction and performance requirements and testing standards for marine equipment and repealing Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1975
Okay, here’s a breakdown of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1533.
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This regulation updates the rules for marine equipment design, construction, performance, and testing standards within the European Union. It ensures that marine equipment complies with the latest international standards by updating the list of applicable international instruments. The regulation also repeals the previous Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1975 and provides transitional arrangements for equipment already approved under older national standards.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Article 1:** States that the design, construction, performance requirements, and testing standards outlined in the international instruments (as defined in Directive 2014/90/EU) apply to all marine equipment listed in the Annex of this regulation.
* **Article 2:** Formally repeals Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1975.
* **Article 3:** Establishes transitional provisions. It allows marine equipment that was legally type-approved under national rules before specific dates to continue to be placed on the market and installed on EU ships for a limited time. This applies to equipment listed as new items in Implementing Regulations (EU) 2022/1157, 2024/1975 and 2025/1533.
* **Article 4:** Sets the entry into force date as the fortieth day after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
The Annex is the most substantial part, listing specific items of marine equipment and detailing:
* Item designation (e.g., MED/1.1 for lifebuoys)
* Applicable regulations of SOLAS 74 (as amended) and relevant IMO resolutions/circulars
* Testing standards
* Modules for conformity assessment
* First placing on the market date
* Last placing on board date
Compared to previous versions, this regulation updates the references to international instruments and testing standards to reflect the most recent amendments and technological advancements. It introduces new rows and modifies existing ones to ensure alignment with current international requirements.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Transitional Periods (Article 3):** This is crucial for manufacturers and shipowners. Equipment compliant with older national type-approval rules can still be used for a while, but only until the dates specified in Article 3. This allows time to adapt to the new requirements.
* **The Annex:** This is the core of the regulation. It provides the specific technical requirements for each piece of marine equipment. Stakeholders need to consult this Annex to ensure their equipment meets the necessary design, construction, performance, and testing standards.
* **Reference to International Instruments:** The regulation repeatedly refers to international instruments and IMO resolutions. Users need to be familiar with these documents to fully understand the requirements.
* **General Notes in the Annex:** These notes provide important context for interpreting the Annex, including how to handle amendments to international instruments and the meaning of “placing on board.”
* **Modules for Conformity Assessment:** The regulation specifies which conformity assessment modules (B+D, B+E, etc.) from Directive 2014/90/EU apply to each item of marine equipment. This determines the process manufacturers must follow to demonstrate compliance.
* **New Rows:** Pay close attention to the rows marked as “(NEW ROW)” in the Annex. These indicate updated requirements that must be met for equipment placed on the market after the specified dates.
* **Acronyms:** The list of acronyms is essential for understanding the references to various international standards and organizations.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1737 of 13 August 2025 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of valine originating in the People’s Republic of China
Here’s a breakdown of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1737:
**1. Essence of the Act:**
This regulation imposes a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of valine originating from the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The European Commission initiated an investigation following a complaint by a Union producer, Eurolysine SAS, alleging dumping practices that were causing material injury to the Union industry. The regulation outlines the investigation process, the findings related to dumping and injury, and the justification for imposing provisional duties.
**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**
The regulation is structured as follows:
* **Procedure:** Details the initiation of the investigation, registration of imports, identification of interested parties, sampling methods used for importers and exporting producers, and verification visits conducted.
* **Product Definition:** Defines the product under investigation as valine and its esters, salts thereof, originating in the PRC. It also defines the “like product” as those with the same basic characteristics and uses, whether produced in the Union, the PRC, or sold for export.
* **Dumping:** This section is the most extensive, detailing the methodology for determining normal value, including the finding of significant distortions in the PRC economy, the selection of Colombia as a representative country, and the construction of the normal value based on undistorted costs.
* **Injury:** Assesses the injury suffered by the Union industry based on various macroeconomic and microeconomic indicators.
* **Causation:** Examines the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury to the Union industry, considering other potential factors.
* **Level of Measures:** Determines the level of anti-dumping duties needed to remove the injury.
* **Union Interest:** Assesses whether imposing measures is in the overall interest of the Union, considering the interests of the Union industry, importers, and users.
* **Provisional Anti-Dumping Measures:** Specifies the provisional duty rates for individual companies and a residual rate for all other imports from the PRC.
* **Registration:** States that the registration of imports should cease.
**3. Main Provisions for Practical Use:**
* **Anti-Dumping Duties:** The regulation specifies provisional anti-dumping duty rates for named Chinese exporting producers and a general rate for all other imports of valine from China.
* **Conditions for Individual Duty Rates:** To benefit from the individual duty rates, importers must present a valid commercial invoice with a specific declaration.
* **Discontinuation of Registration:** Customs authorities are directed to discontinue the registration of imports of valine from China.
Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union, Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Kingdom of Norway on an EEA Financial Mechanism for the period May 2021-April 2028, the Agreement between the Kingdom of Norway and the European Union on a Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the period May 2021-April 2028, the Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway and the Additional Protocol to the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Iceland [2025/1752]
This notice announces the entry into force of several agreements and protocols related to financial mechanisms between the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. These agreements concern the EEA Financial Mechanism for the period May 2021-April 2028, the Norwegian Financial Mechanism for the same period, and additional protocols to existing agreements with Norway and Iceland. The agreements, signed on September 12, 2024, officially came into effect on August 1, 2025.
The notice does not detail the structure of the agreements or their specific provisions. It simply states that the agreements and protocols have entered into force according to their respective terms. There is no information about changes compared to previous versions within this notice.
The most important aspect of this notice is the confirmation that these financial mechanisms are now operational. This means that the financial cooperation and funding programs outlined within the agreements can now be implemented, facilitating projects and initiatives within the European Economic Area (EEA) and between the EU and Norway.
Action brought on 11 June 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Liechtenstein (Case E-13/25)
This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Liechtenstein before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Liechtenstein has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) by not implementing Directive (EU) 2019/770 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services within the prescribed timeframe. The ESA requests the Court to declare Liechtenstein in breach of its obligations and to order Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The document is structured as follows: it identifies the parties involved (the EFTA Surveillance Authority and Liechtenstein), states the request made by the ESA to the EFTA Court, and presents the legal and factual background supporting the ESA’s claim. The background includes a timeline of communications between the ESA and Liechtenstein, starting with a letter of formal notice sent by the ESA to Liechtenstein on 17 July 2024, followed by a reasoned opinion issued on 4 December 2024, and Liechtenstein’s responses indicating delays in implementation.
The most important provision of this document is the ESA’s request to the EFTA Court to declare that Liechtenstein has failed to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement by not implementing Directive (EU) 2019/770 within the prescribed time. This highlights the core issue of the dispute and the specific legal obligation that Liechtenstein is alleged to have breached. The document also emphasizes the importance of adhering to the deadlines set by the ESA for implementing EU legislation into national law.
Action brought on 11 June 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Liechtenstein (Case E-15/25)
This document pertains to an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Liechtenstein before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Liechtenstein has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) by not implementing Directive (EU) 2019/771 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods within the prescribed timeframe. The ESA is requesting the EFTA Court to declare Liechtenstein in breach of its obligations and to order Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.
**Structure and Main Provisions:**
The document outlines the legal basis for the action, referencing specific points of Annex XIX to the EEA Agreement and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. It details the timeline of communications between the ESA and Liechtenstein, including the letter of formal notice, Liechtenstein’s response, the reasoned opinion issued by the ESA, and Liechtenstein’s subsequent reply. The ESA contends that Liechtenstein has neither implemented the Directive nor informed the ESA of any implementing measures. The document concludes by stating that the ESA has not received any notification or information indicating that Liechtenstein has incorporated the Directive into its legal order.
**Main Provisions for Use:**
The key provision is the allegation that Liechtenstein has failed to implement Directive (EU) 2019/771, which concerns contracts for the sale of goods. This Directive aims to modernize and harmonize consumer protection rules related to the sale of goods across the European Economic Area. The failure to implement this Directive by Liechtenstein could have implications for consumer rights and cross-border trade within the EEA.
Action brought on 12 June 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-16/25)
This document outlines an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland before the EFTA Court. The core issue is Iceland’s alleged failure to incorporate Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 on explosives precursors into its national law, as required by the EEA Agreement. The EFTA Surveillance Authority argues that Iceland has not fulfilled its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement. The Authority requests the Court to declare Iceland in breach of its obligations and order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The document is structured as follows: it identifies the parties involved (the EFTA Surveillance Authority and Iceland), states the request made to the EFTA Court, and then provides the legal and factual background for the action. The background details the steps taken by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, including sending a letter of formal notice and a reasoned opinion to Iceland, and Iceland’s lack of response or action to implement the relevant EU regulation. The action is based on Iceland’s failure to incorporate specific points of Chapter XV and Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, which relate to Regulation (EU) 2019/1148, into its internal legal order.
The most important provision is the request for the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in breach of its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, due to its failure to incorporate Regulation (EU) 2019/1148 on explosives precursors into its national law. This highlights the core of the dispute and the potential consequences for Iceland if the Court rules in favor of the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
Action brought on 11 June 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-11/25)
This document outlines a legal action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) by not implementing Directive (EU) 2019/2161, which concerns the modernization of Union consumer protection rules. The ESA claims Iceland neither adopted the necessary measures to implement the Directive within the prescribed time nor informed the ESA of any such measures. The ESA is asking the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of its EEA obligations and to order Iceland to cover the costs of the proceedings.
The document is structured as a formal notice of legal action. It includes:
1. Identification of the parties involved: the EFTA Surveillance Authority as the applicant and Iceland as the defendant.
2. The requests made to the EFTA Court: a declaration of Iceland’s failure to fulfill its obligations and an order for Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
3. A summary of the legal and factual background: this includes references to the specific act (Directive (EU) 2019/2161), the alleged failures of Iceland, and the correspondence between the ESA and Iceland, including the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion.
4. The pleas in law: the legal arguments supporting the ESA’s claim that Iceland has failed to meet its obligations under the EEA Agreement.
The core of the action revolves around Iceland’s alleged failure to implement Directive (EU) 2019/2161, which amends previous directives (93/13/EEC, 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC, and 2011/83/EU) to better enforce and modernize consumer protection rules within the European Union. The ESA argues that Iceland was obligated to incorporate this Directive into its national law under the EEA Agreement and that it failed to do so within the stipulated timeframe or to inform the ESA of any progress.
Action brought on 11 June 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-12/25)
This document is an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) by not implementing Directive (EU) 2019/770 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services within the prescribed timeframe, or by failing to inform the ESA of its implementation. The ESA requests the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in breach of its obligations and to order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The document outlines the legal basis for the action, referencing Annex XIX to the EEA Agreement, Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, and Article 31 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement (SCA). It details the procedural steps taken by the ESA, including sending a letter of formal notice to Iceland, receiving a response indicating ongoing legislative work, delivering a reasoned opinion, and ultimately referring the matter to the EFTA Court due to Iceland’s non-compliance. The ESA claims it has not been notified nor has any information suggesting that Iceland has implemented the Directive into its legal order.
The core issue is Iceland’s alleged failure to transpose Directive (EU) 2019/770 into its national law within the deadline. The most important aspect of this document is the potential consequences for Iceland if the EFTA Court rules in favor of the ESA, which could include financial penalties and the obligation to implement the Directive.
Action brought on 11 June 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-10/25)
This document is an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland before the EFTA Court. The ESA claims that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under the EEA Agreement by not implementing Directive (EU) 2016/2102 on the accessibility of websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies within the prescribed time. The ESA requests the EFTA Court to declare Iceland’s failure to comply with the EEA Agreement and order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The document outlines the legal background, factual circumstances, and pleas in law supporting the ESA’s action. It details the ESA’s claim that Iceland has not adopted the necessary measures to implement Directive (EU) 2016/2102, which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement. The ESA initiated the proceedings by sending a letter of formal notice to Iceland, followed by a reasoned opinion, both of which were not met with compliance or adequate response from Iceland. As a result, the ESA decided to refer the matter to the EFTA Court, seeking a declaration of Iceland’s non-compliance and an order for Iceland to cover the costs of the proceedings.
The most important provision of this act is the request for the EFTA Court to declare that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Act referred to at point 5oc of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof.
Action brought on 11 June 2025 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-14/25)
This document is an action brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) against Iceland before the EFTA Court. The ESA alleges that Iceland has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) by not implementing Directive (EU) 2019/771 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods into its national law within the prescribed timeframe. The ESA is asking the EFTA Court to declare Iceland in violation of its obligations and to order Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The document outlines the legal and factual background of the case. It details the specific provisions of Annex XIX to the EEA Agreement and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement that Iceland is accused of violating. The ESA initiated the proceedings by sending a letter of formal notice to Iceland, followed by a reasoned opinion, providing deadlines for Iceland to comply. As Iceland failed to respond or take the necessary measures, the ESA decided to bring the matter before the EFTA Court.
The most important provision of this act is the request by the EFTA Surveillance Authority for the EFTA Court to declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7n of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive (EU) 2019/771) by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof. This highlights the core issue of Iceland’s non-compliance with EU law as incorporated into the EEA Agreement.
