Snorri seeks court ruling before Parliament changes Protocol 35 law

Snorri Másson, deputy chairman of the Centre Party, wants courts to rule on the dispute over implementing Protocol 35 before Parliament changes the law, mbl.is reported. He said he did not know exactly how Iceland should respond if the ruling went against the country.

Snorri made the comments in a debate with Guðmundur Ari Sigurjónsson, deputy chairman of the Social Democratic Alliance, on mbl.is’s Spursmál programme. The two clashed over the need for and consequences of the proposed changes.

Snorri argued that the changes would tie Iceland more closely to an unpredictable course of events. He said the government and Foreign Minister Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir were bringing Iceland closer to the European Union and shifting more influence from Iceland to Brussels. He linked this to the result of a referendum on continuing negotiations with the EU.

He said Iceland’s legal position should be defended in court rather than the changes being approved “in haste at Brussels’ request.” Asked whether he would support implementing the protocol if the court ruled against Iceland, Snorri said the situation would need to be reassessed and a reasoned decision made in the country’s interests and in the interests of good cooperation with Europe.

Snorri said he doubted the court would rule that the changes were required if Iceland’s case were defended properly, including on the basis of arguments made previously. When asked again what should happen if those arguments failed, he said Iceland would have to respond, but that he did not know exactly how.

Guðmundur Ari said Snorri’s answer illustrated the difficulty the Centre Party had created for itself. The party could find itself in government having to meet obligations it was now criticising, he said. Guðmundur Ari described the issue as neither a threat to the republic nor a transfer of powers, but “a simple priority rule” for cases where Icelandic law conflicts with EEA rules.

He rejected Snorri’s link to the referendum, saying the proposal continued work begun in 2023, under the previous government, to fulfil Iceland’s obligations under the EEA Agreement.

The two also disagreed over whether the changes were constitutional. Snorri said Supreme Court justices had considered them unconstitutional. Guðmundur Ari said the matter was disputed and referred to commentary by legal scholars and the case’s explanatory memorandum.

Guðmundur Ari said Parliament could still pass laws and explicitly state that they take precedence over rules in the EEA Agreement. He said he trusted the foreign minister “without a doubt” to protect Iceland’s interests and believed litigation could be avoided if Parliament dealt with the matter thoroughly.