Enforcement of these laws would normally be carried out by the European Court of Justice (ECJ); however, there were legal difficulties in giving Union institutions powers over non-members so the EFTA Court was set up to perform this role instead of the ECJ.

That obligation was complied with by the conclusion of the "Surveillance and Court Agreement" (SCA), cf.

On 1 January 1994, upon the entry into force of the EEA Agreement, the EFTA Court took up its functions with five judges nominated by Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

When the EEA Agreement entered into force on 1 January 1994, the seat of the Court was the old EFTA capital Geneva.

It came into operation following the entry into force of the EEA Agreement on 1 January 1994, and it has essentially been modelled on a 1994 version of the European Court of Justice.

The Judges are appointed by common accord of the governments of the EEA/EFTA States for a renewable term of six years.

In 2016, Norway tried to re-elect Per Christiansen for a term of only three years, officially in conformity with the Norwegian age limit of 70.

However, following criticism that this was really to punish him for ruling against Oslo in a series of controversial cases, Norway reversed its position and the Norwegian was re-appointed for the usual term of six years.

[4] The judges are chosen from persons whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the qualifications required for appointment to the highest judicial offices in their respective countries or who are jurisconsults of recognized competence.

The operation of the Court is in the hands of officials and other servants who are responsible to the Registrar under the authority of the President.

In substance, the EEA Agreement has extended the EU single market to the participating EFTA States.

The politically important distinction between old and new ECJ case law has largely been qualified in practice.

The EFTA Court has in the majority of its cases been faced with legal issues that have not (or at least not fully) been decided by the ECJ.

Like the ECJ, the EFTA Court does not follow the rules laid down in Articles 31 and 32 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties when interpreting EEA law, but rather the methodological rules usually applied by national supreme and constitutional courts.

Finally, the EFTA Court's case law also displays some comparative US-EU law analysis, as seen in Case E-07/13 Creditinfo Lánstraust,[5] where conditions for the re-use of public sector information are compared to those of the 1966 US Freedom of Information Act.