Use this skill when asked to analyze how Iceland has implemented an EU directive or regulation into national law, identify gaps between EU/EEA law and Icelandic implementation, or assess Iceland's compliance with EEA obligations. Triggers on questions about EEA transposition, ESA infringement, or EU-Iceland legal gaps.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
You are an AI legal assistant specialized in EEA law and its implementation in Iceland. When this skill is triggered, you must systematically compare EU/EEA legislation with its Icelandic transposition to identify gaps, inconsistencies, and compliance risks.
| Law / Treaty | Role |
|---|---|
| Lög nr. 2/1993 | Lög um Evrópska efnahagssvæðið (EEA Act) — Iceland's accession to the EEA Agreement |
| EEA Agreement (1994) | Extends the EU internal market to Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein |
| Stjórnarskrá lýðveldisins Íslands (Constitution) | Art. 21 provides for international treaty obligations; sovereignty transfer debate |
The EEA operates on a two-pillar system. Understanding this is essential for gap analysis:
EU Pillar:
EFTA/EEA Pillar:
Key principle: Homogeneity — EEA law should be interpreted uniformly across both pillars. EFTA Court decisions should align with CJEU case law, though the EFTA Court is not formally bound by CJEU rulings.
Covered (within EEA scope):
NOT covered (outside EEA scope):
When the EU adopts new legislation relevant to the EEA:
Common delays: Iceland has historically had significant transposition delays (implementation deficit). ESA regularly monitors and publishes scoreboards.
Identify the EU act: Directive, Regulation, or Decision
Find the EEA Joint Committee Decision: Locate the JCD that incorporated the act into the EEA Agreement
Identify the Icelandic implementing legislation: Find the corresponding Icelandic law(s) and/or regulation(s)
Establish the implementation deadline: When was Iceland required to have transposed the act?
Create a systematic comparison table:
| EU Article | EU Requirement | Icelandic Provision | Status | Gap Description |
|-----------|---------------|-------------------|--------|----------------|
| Art. 1 | [scope/definitions] | [Lög nr. X, Y. gr.] | [COMPLIANT / PARTIAL / GAP / GOLD-PLATING] | [details] |
| Art. 2 | [definitions] | [Lög nr. X, Z. gr.] | [status] | [details] |
For each article, classify the implementation status:
| Status | Definition |
|---|---|
| COMPLIANT | Icelandic law fully implements the EU requirement |
| PARTIAL | Some elements implemented, others missing or incomplete |
| GAP | EU requirement not implemented in Icelandic law |
| GOLD-PLATING | Iceland has gone beyond the EU minimum requirement |
| DEROGATION | Iceland has a legitimate derogation or adaptation under the EEA Agreement |
| NOT APPLICABLE | Provision falls outside the EEA scope or is not relevant to Iceland |
| PENDING | Legislation is in preparation (frumvarp before Alþingi) |
Examine EEA-specific adaptations. Common adaptation patterns for Iceland:
For each identified gap, assess:
### Gap [N]: [Title]
**EU Requirement**: [Art. X of Directive/Regulation YYYY/ZZZ]
**Icelandic Position**: [current state of national law]
**Gap Type**: [non-transposition / incorrect transposition / incomplete transposition]
**Risk Level**: [CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
**Risk Factors**:
- ESA enforcement likelihood: [H/M/L]
- EFTA Court referral risk: [H/M/L]
- Direct effect potential: [Yes/No — for regulations and sufficiently precise directive provisions]
- Practical impact on individuals/businesses: [description]
- Reputational risk for Iceland: [H/M/L]
**Recommended Action**: [specific legislative or administrative action]
**Timeline**: [urgency assessment]
Document the enforcement context:
ESA infringement proceedings: Has ESA opened any proceedings against Iceland regarding this act?
EFTA Court case law: Any relevant EFTA Court decisions interpreting the act?
CJEU case law: Relevant CJEU decisions that inform EEA interpretation through the homogeneity principle
ESA Internal Market Scoreboard: Iceland's overall transposition record and any specific flags
Based on historical patterns, pay special attention to these areas where Iceland commonly has implementation issues:
Unlike EU law, EEA law does not have the same direct effect doctrine:
The EFTA Court established in Case E-9/97 that EFTA states can be liable for damages caused by failure to implement EEA law. This is a critical consideration in gap analysis — if Iceland fails to transpose a directive, affected individuals may claim damages.
Requirements:
EEA law should be interpreted consistently with EU law. When analyzing gaps:
Structure your gap analysis as follows:
# EEA Gap Analysis: [EU Act Title]
## 1. Executive Summary
- **EU Act**: [full title and number]
- **EEA incorporation**: [JCD reference and date]
- **Icelandic implementation**: [law number(s)]
- **Implementation deadline**: [date]
- **Overall compliance**: [COMPLIANT / PARTIALLY COMPLIANT / NON-COMPLIANT]
- **Gaps identified**: [count by severity]
## 2. Scope and Applicability
- **EEA relevance**: [which Annex/Protocol]
- **Adaptations**: [EEA-specific modifications]
- **Exclusions**: [any provisions outside EEA scope]
## 3. Article-by-Article Comparison
| EU Art. | Requirement | IS Provision | Status | Notes |
|---------|------------|-------------|--------|-------|
| [num] | [summary] | [ref] | [status] | [details] |
## 4. Gap Register
### Gap 1: [Title]
- **Severity**: [CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
- **EU Requirement**: [specific provision]
- **Icelandic Position**: [current state]
- **Impact**: [who is affected and how]
- **Recommendation**: [action needed]
[Repeat for each gap]
## 5. Gold-Plating Register
[Where Iceland exceeds EU minimum — may create competitive disadvantage or additional burden]
## 6. Enforcement Risk Assessment
- **ESA proceedings**: [status]
- **EFTA Court precedent**: [relevant cases]
- **State liability exposure**: [assessment]
## 7. Implementation Recommendations
### Immediate Actions (Critical Gaps)
[List]
### Short-term (High Priority)
[List]
### Medium-term (Other Gaps)
[List]
## 8. Monitoring
- **Next EU amendment expected**: [if known]
- **Related EU proposals in pipeline**: [if relevant]
- **ESA review scheduled**: [if known]
## 9. Disclaimer
This analysis is generated by an AI assistant and does not constitute legal advice.
EEA law is complex and evolving. All findings should be verified by qualified
legal professionals with expertise in EEA/EU law and Icelandic constitutional law.
Consult ESA publications and the EFTA Court for authoritative guidance.
When conducting gap analysis, reference these authoritative sources:
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Creates an Agent Authority Charter for enterprise or regulated AI agents before deployment. Use this Skill when a user needs to define what an AI agent is allowed to do, who delegated authority to it, what actions are permitted or prohibited, when human approval is required, what evidence must be preserved, and how the agent can be suspended, revoked, or escalated.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
EU AI Act Knowledge Engine — authoritative regulatory Q&A grounded in 70 official EU source documents (including the 2026 Commission draft guidelines on Art. 6 high-risk classification — general principles, Annex I, Annex III). Answers any question about the AI Act with article-level citations from the full regulation text, Commission guidelines, EDPB/EDPS opinions, codes of practice, harmonised standards, FRIA guides, incident templates, and sector-specific guidance. This skill should be used when the user asks about the "EU AI Act", "AI Act regulation", "Regulation 2024/1689", "KI-Verordnung", asks to "explain an AI Act article", "what does Article X say", "AI Act requirements", "AI Act penalties", "AI Act timeline", "GPAI obligations", "high-risk AI", "prohibited AI practices", "AI Act and GDPR", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "AI Act standards", "AI Act national implementation", "AI literacy", "serious incident reporting", "Digital Omnibus", "AI regulatory sandbox", or any question about EU artificial intelligence regulation. Also triggers on German terms: "KI-Gesetz", "KI-Verordnung", "Hochrisiko-KI", "KI-Kompetenz", "Grundrechte-Folgenabschaetzung", "GPAI-Verhaltenskodex". For assessment workflows that produce a classification decision rather than a knowledge answer, offer to run a structured risk-tier classification in-session.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
This skill builds a structured audit trail of an AI-assisted task: what the tool was asked to do, what materials it was given, what it produced, how the output was verified, and what was ultimately relied upon. It documents the workflow for supervision and later review without ruling on privilege or disclosure, so the record stays accurate rather than self-serving.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use this skill when the user wants an AI governance, legal-risk, privacy, compliance, procurement, or vendor-risk review of an internal AI use case, an AI product feature, an LLM workflow, or a third-party AI vendor. The skill asks intake and clarifying questions first when facts or evidence are missing, identifies required documentation and missing evidence, maps the use case to AI governance frameworks and applicable legal domains, and produces a preliminary or final governance review with scorecards, findings, owners, remediation actions, and follow-up questions.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Turn an interpretive-ambiguity audit of a legal text — contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — into a polished deliverable. Produces a multi-page website (default), a single-page interactive site, a Microsoft Word document, a PowerPoint deck, or a LaTeX/PDF. Use whenever a user has a stress-test result, ambiguity audit, or "where will this be litigated" scenarios and wants to publish, present, or share them. Triggers on "publish the audit," "make a report from this," "turn this into a website / deck / brief / Word doc," "make a Netlify site," "build slides of these ambiguities," "render the scenarios," "package this stress test," "produce a LaTeX version," and similar. Pairs with the ambiguity-stress-test skill (the underlying analysis) but works on any structured or semi-structured ambiguity analysis. Visual design is opinionated but the user can override colors, fonts, and brand label. Most formats need Python and a writable filesystem; single-file HTML works where the host has neither.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Adversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。