Informal discussions have taken place in the EFTA surveillance authority.

After the results of the 2011 referendum became known, The EFTA Surveillance Authority released the following statement:

The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) is in charge of its implementation.

The original plan for the EEA lacked the EFTA Surveillance Authority, and instead had the European Commission exercising this role.

The court dismissed the application of the EFTA Surveillance Authority and ordered the Authority to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by Iceland.

On 14 December 2011, the EFTA Surveillance Authority lodged a formal application with the EFTA Court.

The committee also discusses issues related to the EEA Agreement, the EEA law and court cases with the EU and the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

Rather than setting up pan-EEA institutions, the activities of the EEA are regulated by the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court.

On 10 June 2011, the EFTA Surveillance Authority ruled that Iceland should take steps towards paying the full amount to the UK and the Netherlands within 3 months after the ruling.

Actions brought by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against an EFTA State for infringement of the EEA Agreement or the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

The Federation of Norwegian Aviation Industries announced that they would consider reporting the subsidies to the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) for violation of the European Community competition law.

In addition, in connection with the EEA Agreement of 1992, two other EFTA organisations were established, the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court.

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland was a case brought before the EFTA Court by the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority against Iceland following the Icesave dispute.

If that procedure does not result in termination of the failure by the Member State, the EFTA Surveillance Authority may bring an action for breach of EEA law before the EFTA Court.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court regulate the activities of the EFTA members in respect of their obligations in the European Economic Area (EEA).

The original plan for the EEA lacked the EFTA Court or the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the European Court of Justice and the European Commission were to exercise those roles.

In their evaluation of the ongoing IceSave dispute, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) decided on 26 May 2010, that the Icelandic government was bound to pay the (minimum) deposit guarantee to all Icesave customers.

The commencement of proceedings before the EFTA Court is preceded by a preliminary procedure conducted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, which gives the EFTA State concerned the opportunity to reply to the complaints against it.

In 2007, the power company Nord-Trøndelag Elektrisitetsverk, owned by Nord-Trøndelag County Municipality, was investigated by the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) for illegal subsidizing Södra Cell Folla with cheap electricity.

The case was opened on 15 December 2011, and has received defence and written observations from the Governments of Iceland, UK, Netherlands, Norway and Liechtenstein as well as the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the European Commission.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority performs the European Commission's role as "guardian of the treaties" for the EFTA countries, while the EFTA Court performs the European Court of Justice's role for those countries.