EFTA states prepare to sign a free trade agreement with the Philippines | Lukas Lehmann/EPA Brexit Files Insight Why EFTA court may not be an easy Brexit compromise Brits are keen to avoid oversight by the European Court of Justice after Brexit and some have suggested the European Free Trade Association court as an alternative.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has made departure from the European Court of Justice a red-line for the U.K. government in Brexit negotiations. The EU27 counter that the ECJ is the only appropriate judicial body to adjudicate, for example, matters relating to the rights of EU citizens who decide to stay in the U.K. after Britain leaves the bloc.

Earlier this week the Times suggested an alternative, picking up on comments by the president of the ECJ: the European Free Trade Association court.

Such a role seems odd — even to the president of the EFTA court, Carl Baudenbacher.

“That is not my idea,” Baudenbacher told POLITICO. After all, the EFTA court rules on the law in EFTA countries. Theoretically the court could try its hand at a Brexit deal if asked. “We are able judges and at the end of the day judging is like any other human activity.”

His court is the equivalent of the ECJ for Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, who are part of the European Economic Area but not members of the EU. Its three judges oversee the application of EEA law (a copy of many EU laws) in those countries, each of which sends one judge.

For example, when investors lost out from the collapse of Icelandic bank Icesave, Iceland was sued before the EFTA court for allegedly failing to implement EEA rules. Many investors were EU citizens — mainly British and Dutch — who had invested in Icesave via online accounts.

However when Norway’s Statoil had a tax dispute with the city of Tallinn in Estonia, it was the European Court of Justice that weighed in. Who has jurisdiction depends on where the legal dispute arises.

So, it would be odd for judges from Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein to weigh in on legal disputes over the Brexit deal if the U.K. does not join EFTA.

All the more so since the EU would not accept having the judges of the EFTA court ruling over the application of the Brexit deal for disputes arising within the EU.

The EFTA model does demonstrate that the EU is prepared to trust foreign judges enforcing a form of EU law in their own lands. Why that should not apply to the U.K. courts — the jurisdiction of choice for company and litigants the world-over — is not clear.

Of course, the situation might look very different if the U.K. actually joined EFTA and the EEA — the so-called Norway option — whether in transition to a full exit, or permanently.

Baudenbacher made clear that several British bugbears with the ECJ would not apply to the EFTA court.

Although the two courts sit within a few blocks of each other in Luxembourg and apply often identical laws, they are “fully independent.” National courts are not obliged to seek guidance from the EFTA court, unlike in the EU, and when they do its rulings are not binding. “The EFTA states enjoy much more flexibility” in how they comply, observes Baudenbacher.

That being said, the EFTA Court would remain, in the eyes of true Brexiteers at least, a foreign court. Even if the U.K. wound up sending two judges given its greater economic clout, they could still be outvoted by the judges from Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

Jakob Hanke contributed to this piece.

This insight is from POLITICO's Brexit Files newsletter, a daily afternoon digest of the best coverage and analysis of Britain’s decision to leave the EU. Read today’s edition or subscribe here.