DOCSLIB.ORG

From Scandinavian Exceptionalism to Penal Populism?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Scandinavian Exceptionalism to Penal Populism? From Scandinavian Exceptionalism to Penal Populism? An Exploration of Changes in the Norwegian Penal Debate Katrine Antonsen Master´s Thesis in Criminology Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law Faculty of Law UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Autumn 2019 II From Scandinavian Exceptionalism to Penal Populism? An Exploration of Changes in the Norwegian Penal Debate. III © Katrine Antonsen 2019 From Scandinavian Exceptionalism to Penal Populism? An Exploration of Changes in the Norwegian Penal Debate. Katrine Antonsen http://www.duo.uio.no/ Print: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo IV ABSTRACT Title: From Scandinavian Exceptionalism to Penal Populism? An Exploration of Changes in the Norwegian Penal Debate. Author: Katrine Antonsen Supervisor: Peter Scharff Smith Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law Faculty of Law University of Oslo Autumn 2019 The U.S. and Western Europe have during recent decades experienced a transformation in the perception of issues of crime, punishment and public safety. This transformation has come to be labelled “the punitive turn,” manifested through increased imprisonment rates, harsher and retributive penalties, and a populist public discourse (Pratt, 2007). These are trends which criminologist have referred to as “penal populism” or a new “culture of control,” marking the end of the penal-welfare era, dominated by welfare and social policies (ibid.; Garland, 2001). International scholars have, however, argued that the Scandinavian countries have resisted these trends, due to the holding of unique egalitarian and inclusionary characteristics. These perceptions have given rise to a number of studies on Scandinavian resistance to penal excess, where the Scandinavian penal exceptionalism thesis, developed by John Pratt, has provoked and reinforced extensive discussion on the Nordic penal landscape (Pratt, 2008a; b). However, these claims have been challenged by Nordic scholars, who argue that the forces which have led to penal excess in other modern societies now have been observed in a Scandinavian context (e.g. Shammas, 2015; Balvig et al., 2015). This study explored the case of Norway, through an evaluation of the Norwegian penal debate. It addressed the rhetoric and attitudes applied to issues of crime and punishment, through an empirical analysis of a selection of Norwegian penal debates occurring between 2008 and 2019. Drawing on the theoretical framework of the potentially conflicting theories of Scandinavian penal exceptionalism and penal populism, the thesis explored the assumption of Norwegian resistance to the punitive penal culture deriving from the U.S, now spreading across Western Europe. Based on the three most common attributes to penal populism V identified by key scholars: “the politicisation of penal populist discourse”, “the changing objectives of punishment” and “an emotional-oriented penal policy,” the thesis attempted to disclose the prevalence of these trends in the Norwegian penal debate between 2008 and 2019, in order to disclose change over time. The findings suggested that penal populism in the Norwegian penal debate has not been successfully countered by the existence of a so-called egalitarian welfare state, despite strong arguments for Scandinavian resistance to penal excess in international comparative criminology and welfare research. It was argued that the issues of crime and punishment has become politicised for political gain; that retribution has come to be prioritised before correctional measures; and that there has been a rearrangement in the roles and influence of the key stakeholders to criminal justice policy, as the political climate is changing from rational to emotional. However, it was argued that the Norwegian penal debate has adopted a passive approach to penal populism, where a gradual and passive politicisation and intensification of penal policy was evident in the empirical data. The thesis thereby argued that the Norwegian penal debate has come to be at least partially influenced by trends of penal populism, as the phenomenon indeed was a visible force in the debates tackling contemporary penal issues. However, it noted that the prevalence of penal populism in a Norwegian context is moderate, as well as far less extreme in comparison with the tendencies of penal excess observed by several scholars in the Anglophone societies. It was thereby suggested that the characteristics of the Norwegian society might have facilitated a slow-paced transformation. On the one hand, this implies that the unique features of this society indeed have lessened the receptiveness to penal excess. On the other, it also proposes that the argument of Scandinavian resistance to penal excess is understated accounting for the Norwegian penal debate in 2019. The thesis did, however, highlight the distinction between talk (penal debate, rhetoric) and action (implementation of penal reforms, change of legislation). Although it suggested that several trends of penal populism were evident in a Norwegian context, it did so based on political rhetoric in the official discourse. Recommendations were therefore made to investigate the implementation of concrete legislation and reforms, to further explore the prominence of penal populism in a Norwegian context, as well as to disclose whether the tendencies as disclosed are “just talk” or put into action. VI VII VIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have been greatly inspired, supported, and assisted by a number of people throughout the process of writing this thesis. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge my co-workers, and the inmates at Romerike Prison, for sparking my interest in Norwegian penal policy and practice. I would also like to thank all my friends and co-students at Domus Nova. You have made these past two years a great experience. Thank you to my supervisor Peter Scharff Smith, for constructive feedback, guidance, and words of encouragement. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my family, friends, and Jack, for invaluable support, patience, and understanding throughout the all-consuming process of writing this thesis, Oslo 20/11/19 Katrine IX TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Research Question and Research Objectives........................................................................................................ 2 1.2 Thesis Structure.................................................................................................................................................... 4 2. BACKGROUND: SCANDINAVIAN RESISTANCE IN THE ERA OF PENAL EXCESS?....... 6 2.1 Scandinavian Penal Culture, Welfare and History............................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 The Nordic Model..............................................................................................................................................9 2.2 The “Punitive Turn” .............................................................................................................................................11 2.3 Scandinavian Penal Policy: Insider vs. Outsider Perspectives..............................................................................13 2.4 The Punitive Turn: Nordic Style?......................................................................................................................... 15 2.4.1 Penal Populism and the Norwegian Penal Debate............................................................................................. 18 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK................................................................................................................20 3.1 Scandinavian Exceptionalism............................................................................................................................ 20 3.1.1 Pratt´s thesis of Scandinavian Exceptionalism.................................................................................................. 21 3.1.2 Requirements for Scandinavian Exceptionalism............................................................................................... 22 3.1.3 In Defence of Scandinavian Exceptionalism..................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Penal Populism.................................................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1 The Politicisation of Penal Policy Discourse.....................................................................................................25 3.2.2 The Changing Objectives of Punishment.......................................................................................................... 29 3.2.3 An Emotional-Oriented Penal Policy.................................................................................................................30 4. METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................................................35 4.1 Research Design....................................................................................................................................................35 4.1.1 Triangulation...................................................................................................................................................... 36 4.1.1.1 Theoretical Triangulation................................................................................................................................37
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report for 2004
    Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission Annual Report for 2004 The Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission is an independent body which considers whether a convicted person should have his/her case retried by another court. 1 Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission Annual Report for 2004 The Criminal Cases Review Commission’s activities and composition The Criminal Cases Review Commission was set up following a revision of Chapter 27 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The amendment came into force on 1 January 2004. The Commission has five permanent members and three alternates, all of whom are appointed by the King in Council. The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson [I’m not sure whether this is the done thing in Norway – our first chairperson was female and this is the way she was designated] and one member must hold a university degree in law [LLM]. The Chairperson is appointed for a period of five years and members for a period of three years. The Commission is made up as follows: Chairperson: Janne Kristiansen Vice Chairperson: Ann-Kristin Olsen, Governor of Vest-Agder County Members: Vidar Stensland, Court of Appeal Judge at the Hålogaland Court of Appeal. Svein Magnussen, Professor of Psychology at the University of Oslo. Anne Kathrine Slungård, Director of Communications at SINTEF. Alternates: Anne Elisabeth Landsverk, District Court Judge at the Skien and Porsgrunn District Court (until October 2004) Helen Sæter, District Court Judge at the Fredrikstad District Court (from October 2004) Harald Stabell, advocate and defence counsel Øystein Mæland, Chief Consultant/Head of Department at Ullevål University Hospital. The Commission’s Chairperson is also employed full-time as Head of the Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Norway
    THE SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY On 28 June 2017, the Supreme Court gave judgment in HR-2017-1297-A, (case no. 2017/445), civil case, appeal against judgment and case no. 2017/474, appeal against order ING Bank N.V. (Counsel Henning Harborg Counsel Peder Alvik Sanengen – qualifying test case) v. The Bankruptcy estate of (Counsel Kristoffer Larsen Rognvik Bergen Bunkers AS – qualifying test case) Assisting counsel Egil Horstad) OPINION: (1) Acting justice Kaasen: The case concerns the dismissal of an action from a Norwegian bankruptcy estate against a foreign secured party due to lack of jurisdiction, and the choice of law if the case is not dismissed. (2) Bergen Bunkers AS (hereinafter Bergen Bunkers) engaged in the purchase and sale of bunkers (ship fuel) and in bunker brokerage. The company was wholly owned by O.W. Bunker Norway AS, and both companies were part of a large group. The Danish company O.W. Bunker & Trading A/S was the parent company of the group and had subsidiaries in a number of countries. (3) ING Bank N.V. (hereinafter ING) is a Dutch bank acting as agent and lender under a loan agreement where a number of lenders granted the O.W. Bunker group a loan of 2 USD 700 000 000. The loan agreement was entered into on 19 December 2013 under the condition that the Danish parent company and a total of sixteen other group companies granted security for the loan. ING would also be granted a security interest in the group companies' trade receivables. (4) Bergen Bunkers was not a direct borrower under the loan agreement, but the loan amount was "streamed" downwards in the group so that Bergen Bunkers could also benefit from the loan.
    [Show full text]
  • Dokument Nr. 11
    Dokument nr. 11 (2017–2018) 2017-2018 Saker og interpellasjoner som Stortinget ikke har behandlet i sesjonen 2017–2018 Utarbeidet av Stortingets ekspedisjonskontor Dokument nr. 11 (2017–2018) Saker og interpellasjoner som Stortinget ikke har behandlet i sesjonen 2017–2018 Departementsforkortelse: Statsministerens kontor................................................................................................ SMK Arbeids- og sosialdepartementet .............................................................................. ASD Barne- og likestillingsdepartementet...................................................................... BARNL Finansdepartementet..................................................................................................... FIN Forsvarsdepartementet ................................................................................................. FD Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet............................................................................. HODE Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet............................................................................. HODH Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet ....................................................................... JBI Klima- og miljødepartementet .................................................................................. KLD Kommunal- og moderniseringsdepartementet ................................................. KMD Kulturdepartementet ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stortingstidende Referat Fra Møter I Stortinget
    Stortingstidende Referat fra møter i Stortinget Nr. 42 · 28. januar Sesjonen 2019–2020 Fra 1. oktober 2019 har Stortinget innført ny voteringsordning med faste voteringstidspunkter. Derfor vil saksreferat og tilhørende votering i perioder være i ulike hefter. Dette er markert i referatet. 2020 28. jan. – Dagsorden 2023 Møte tirsdag den 28. januar 2020 kl. 10. Votering kl. 15. (Innst. 109 S (2019–2020), jf. Dokument 8:173 S (2018–2019)) President: To n e W i l h e l m s e n Tr ø e n 7. Interpellasjon fra representanten Emilie Enger Dagsorden (nr. 42): Mehl til justis- og beredskapsministeren: «I 2016 bestemte regjeringen at 126 lensmanns- 1. Redegjørelse av statsministeren om regjeringens kontor over hele landet skulle legges ned. 5. april sammensetning 2018 vedtok Stortinget følgende: «Stortinget ber 2. Innstilling fra justiskomiteen om Representantfor- regjeringen sørge for en reell styrking av de lens- slag fra stortingsrepresentantene Kari Elisabeth mannskontorene som står igjen etter gjennomfø- Kaski, Karin Andersen og Sheida Sangtarash om ringen av politireformen.» I perioden 2016 til 2018 mer rettferdig inkasso og ulike tiltak for å hindre at har 85 kommuner med gjenværende lensmanns- flere havner i gjeldsfeller kontor hatt en nedgang i politiårsverk. Et eksempel (Innst. 115 S (2019–2020), jf. Dokument 8:97 S på dette er Lier kommune med over 25 000 innbyg- (2018–2019)) gere. Lier fikk beholde sitt lensmannskontor etter 3. Innstilling fra justiskomiteen om Representantfor- politireformen, men likevel er staben redusert fra slag fra stortingsrepresentantene Emilie Enger 24 stillinger på fulltid, til to stillinger på åtte timer i Mehl, Geir Inge Lien, Ole André Myhrvold, Liv uken.
    [Show full text]
  • Kartlegging Av Partienes Toppkandidaters Erfaring Fra Næringslivet Stortingsvalget 2021
    Kartlegging av partienes toppkandidaters erfaring fra næringslivet Stortingsvalget 2021 I det videre følger en kartlegging av hvilken erfaring fra næringslivet toppkandidatene fra dagens stortingspartier i hver valgkrets har. Det vil si at i hver valgkrets, har alle de ni stortingspartiene fått oppført minst én kandidat. I tillegg er det kartlagt også for øvrige kandidater som har en relativt stor sjanse for å bli innvalgt på Stortinget, basert på NRKs «supermåling» fra juni 2021. I noen valgkretser er det derfor mange «toppkandidater». Dette skyldes at det er stor usikkerhet knyttet til hvilke partier som vinner de siste distriktsmandatene, og ikke minst utjevningsmandatene. Følgende to spørsmål har vært utgangspunktet for kartleggingen: 1. Har kandidaten drevet egen bedrift? 2. Har kandidaten vært ansatt daglig leder i en bedrift? Videre er kartleggingen basert på følgende kilder: • Biografier på Stortingets nettside. • Offentlig tilgjengelig informasjon på nettsider som Facebook, LinkedIn, Proff.no, Purehelp.no og partienes egne hjemmesider. • Medieoppslag som sier noe om kandidatenes yrkesbakgrunn. Kartleggingen har derfor flere mulige feilkilder. For eksempel kan informasjonen som er offentlig tilgjengelig, være utdatert eller mangelfull. For å begrense sjansen for feil, har kildene blitt kryssjekket. SMB Norge tar derfor forbehold om dette ved offentliggjøring av kartleggingen, eller ved bruk som referanse. Aust-Agder (3+1) Navn Parti Drevet egen bedrift? Vært daglig leder i en bedrift? Svein Harberg H Ja Ja Tellef Inge Mørland Ap Nei Nei Gro-Anita Mykjåland Sp Nei Nei Marius Aron Nilsen FrP Nei Nei Lætif Akber R Nei Nei Mirell Høyer- SV Nei Nei Berntsen Ingvild Wetrhus V Nei Nei Thorsvik Kjell Ingolf Ropstad KrF Nei Nei Oda Sofie Lieng MDG Nei Nei Pettersen 1 Akershus (18+1) Navn Parti Drevet egen bedrift? Vært daglig leder i en bedrift? Jan Tore Sanner H Nei Nei Tone W.
    [Show full text]
  • Innberetning 1 (2017–2018) Innberetning Til Stortinget Fra Valgkomiteen
    Innberetning 1 (2017–2018) Innberetning til Stortinget fra valgkomiteen Innberetning fra valgkomiteen om sammen- Per Olaf Lundteigen, Sp setningen av Stortingets faste komiteer Kristian Tonning Riise, H Atle Simonsen, FrP Hadia Tajik, A Erlend Wiborg, FrP Til Stortinget Energi- og miljøkomiteen Va l g ko m i t e e n skal herved innberette at antallet medlemmer i de faste komiteer er fastsatt slik: Åsmund Aukrust, A Une Aina Bastholm, MDG – arbeids- og sosialkomiteen 11 medlemmer Sandra Borch, Sp – energi- og miljøkomiteen 17 medlemmer Else-May Botten, A – familie- og kulturkomiteen 12 medlemmer Tina Bru, H – finanskomiteen 20 medlemmer Espen Barth Eide, A – helse- og omsorgskomiteen 15 medlemmer Ola Elvestuen, V – justiskomiteen 11 medlemmer Liv Kari Eskeland, H – kommunal- og forvaltningskomiteen 15 medlem- Terje Halleland, FrP mer Lars Haltbrekken, SV – kontroll- og konstitusjonskomiteen 10 medlemmer Stefan Heggelund, H – næringskomiteen 15 medlemmer Hege Haukeland Liadal, A – transport- og kommunikasjonskomiteen 15 med- Ole André Myhrvold, Sp lemmer Gisle Meininger Saudland, FrP – utdannings- og forskningskomiteen 15 medlem- Runar Sjåstad, A mer Tore Storehaug, KrF – utenriks- og forsvarskomiteen 16 medlemmer Lene Westgaard-Halle, H Va l g ko m i t e e n meddeler at følgende er valgt til Familie- og kulturkomiteen medlemmer av Stortingets faste komiteer: Geir Jørgen Bekkevold, KrF Arbeids- og sosialkomiteen Terje Breivik, V Lise Christoffersen, A Masud Gharahkhani, A Arild Grande, A Marianne Haukland, H Margret Hagerup, H Kari Henriksen,
    [Show full text]
  • Data Analysis of the Pilot Courts Replies to the Questionnaire Prepared by the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre
    Strasbourg, 11 December 2008 CEPEJ- SATURN(2008)7 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ) Groupe de Pilotage of the SATURN Centre for judicial time management (CEPEJ-SATURN) Data analysis of the pilot courts replies to the questionnaire prepared by the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre Working document Data analysis of the pilot courts replies to the questionnaire prepared by the Steering Group of the SATURN Centre of the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe − Draft, 20 November 2008 Marco Fabri and Domenico Piscitelli1 Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council, Italy Research Centre for Judicial Studies, University of Bologna, Italy Introduction This analysis is based on the replies to the questionnaire designed by the SATURN Centre of the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe. The first section is an Executive Summary, the second section is the Data Analysis. The Appendix, as requested by the SATURN working group, entails four documents: a) the detailed tables that were not decided to include in the main Data Analysis, b) the complete answers to the so called “hypothetical cases”, c) the questionnaire, d) the Programme known as “Strasbourg” implemented by the court of first instance of Turin, Italy. Executive Summary Data analysis synthesis The courts that replied to the questionnaire were 79 from 27 countries. Most of the replies came from Serbia (27), “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (15), and Georgia (5). As agreed by the SATURN Group, in order to have a balanced database, it was decided to include in this analysis only the official pilot courts, and not more than two courts for the countries mentioned above.
    [Show full text]
  • Vil Gi Advokatene Ny Salær-Ordning
    |Advokaten ADVOKATBLADET | NR. 11 2017 | 97. ÅRGANG | Vil gi advokatene ny salær-ordning Lederen i Stortingets justiskomité vil gravlegge dagens måte å fastsette salæret på Innhold 28 22 Nyheter 4 Vil ha flere straffesaker i Høyesterett Nyheter fra Universitetsforlaget 6 Førstelagmann tapte klagesak mot advokat 8 0 i økning i 2018 Magnus Matningsdal Arne Fliflet 9 Negativ til forhandlingsrett Straffeloven Statsforfatningen i Norge 10 Reell salærsats: 524 kroner pr. time De straffbare handlingene, kommentarutgave 11. utgave 12 Bekymret for «advokat-syndromet» 48 Forsvarerseminaret 2017 Den 20. mai 2005 ble det vedtatt ny straffelov. Statsforfatningen i Norge er et standardverk 14 Vil slåss for forhandlingsrett Loven trådte i kraft 1. oktober 2015. innen norsk juridisk litteratur. Boken gir en 16 – Vi er altfor fokusert på voldtekt Denne boken inneholder kommentarer til bred innføring i rettsreglene for norsk statsstyre. straffelovens andre del – de straffbare Den fremstiller og analyserer de vidtrekkende IBA Sydney 2017 handlingene. konstitusjonelle reformer som ble vedtatt 18 Fortalte om norske leder- lønninger på IBA Kr 1599,- gjennom grunnlovsendringene i 2014, 2015 og 2016. 19 Vant pris for advokat-kamp i Tyrkia Domstol «light» for seksuelle trakasseringssaker Kr 899,- 20 – Viktig oppdragsplass 21 På terrasse-party down under «VIL HARVEY WEINSTEINS fall – HVIS JEG KALLER noen en neger, 22 Advokat-utfordringer verden over endelig reformere menn?» spurte så vil jeg fra nyttår kunne bli klaget New York Times nylig på lederplass. inn for den nye Diskrimineringsnemn- Jorun I. Rui Stein Ness og Anne Siiri Øyasæter Forsvarerseminaret 2017 da, der det vil være muntlige 32 – Advokater er maktmennesker 65 ÅR GAMLE Harvey Weinstein er forhandlinger ledet av folk med dom- Mistenktes innsyn i straffesaken Eiendomsutvikling 39 – Burde vi kanskje jobbe mer produsenten bak kjente filmer som stolkompetanse.
    [Show full text]
  • Dokument Nr. 15:3 (2020-2021)
    Dokument 15:3 (2020–2021) Spørsmål til skriftlig besvarelse med svar Spørsmål nr. 301-450 29. oktober –13. november 2020 Innhold 301. Fra stortingsrepresentant Bård Hoksrud, vedr. Veidirektoratet får hastebehandlet godkjenningen av Åstfjordbrua og tilhørende to tunneler, besvart av samferdselsminister ................................................................................ 11 302. Fra stortingsrepresentant Mona Fagerås, vedr. OsloMet, besvart av forsknings- og høyere utdanningsminister ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 303. Fra stortingsrepresentant Eigil Knutsen, vedr. nye SAR Queen-helikoptrene, besvart av justis- og beredskapsminister ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 304. Fra stortingsrepresentant Geir Pollestad, vedr. kinodrift i Time kommune, besvart av kultur- og likestillingsminister ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 305. Fra stortingsrepresentant Marit Knutsdatter Strand, vedr. Lærerundersøkelsen, besvart av kunnskaps- og integreringsminister ......................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses On the Legitimacy of Economic Development Takings DYRKOLBOTN, SJUR,KRISTOFFER How to cite: DYRKOLBOTN, SJUR,KRISTOFFER (2016) On the Legitimacy of Economic Development Takings, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/11559/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk On the legitimacy of economic development takings Sjur Kristoffer Dyrkolbotn Thesis submitted to Durham Law School at Durham University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 24th March 2016 99 947 words excluding bibliography Contents List of Abbreviations 2 Abstract 7 Acknowledgements 9 List of Abbreviations 10 1 Introduction and Summary of Main Themes 11 1.1 Property Theory and Economic Development Takings . 15 1.2 A Democratic Deficit in Takings Law? . 19 1.3 Putting The Theory to the Test . 21 1.4 A Judicial Framework for Compulsory Participation .
    [Show full text]
  • The Two EEA Courts’ – a Norwegian Perspective 1
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives ‘The two EEA Courts’ – a Norwegian perspective 1 Dr. Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen, University of Bergen A. Introduction – the notion of ‘EEA Courts’ To most Norwegian lawyers, the term ‘the two EEA Courts’ would probably be understood as a reference to the EFTA Court and the Supreme Court of Norway rather than, as suggested here, to the EFTA Court and ECJ. The understanding of the ECJ as not only an EU but also an EEA Court of Justice has only slowly sunk in to the Norwegian legal community.2 However, not least due to the somewhat troubling prospects to the free movement of capital in the EEA offered by the ECJ’s application of Article 40 EEA in a recent string of cases, 3 appreciation of the ECJ as the gatekeeper for market operators from the EFTA States seeking judicial protec- tion in the EU appears to gain ground: If the ECJ embarks on an interpretation of EEA law which differs from its own interpretation of corresponding provisions of EU law, the result will be gradual undermining of the Agreements overall goal to extend the internal market to include the EFTA States. Thus, the fate of the EEA Agreement at long last hangs on its continued acceptance by the ECJ. Even acknowledging that the ECJ is to be understood as an EEA Court, most Norwegian lawyers would probably argue that this raises the number of EEA Courts to three – the Supreme Court of Norway, the EFTA Court and the ECJ.4 A recent survey of the applica- tion of EEA law in Norwegian courts 1994-2010 has revealed that lower Norwegian courts indeed do appear to see the Supreme Court as an EEA Court proper, taking its decisions into 1 Readers with command of Norwegian should be warned at the outset that this contribution draws heavily upon the more extensive account in the author’s report ‘EU/EØS-rett i norske domstoler’ [EU/EEA law in Norwegian Courts], Report commissioned by the Norwegian EEA Review Committee, Oslo 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Norway - Order - HR-2019-2206-A
    Utskrift fra Lovdata - 15.01.2021 15:16 The Supreme Court of Norway - Order - HR-2019-2206-A Authority The Supreme Court of Norway – Order Date 2019-11-27 Published HR-2019-2206-A Keywords Civil process. Jurisdiction. Lugano Convention. Summary A number of European truck manufacturers had been charged with extensive fines by the European Commission for price fixing. Posten Norge AS with Norwegian and foreign subsidiaries had purchased a large number of trucks from these manufacturers, also from one manufacturer's Norwegian subsidiary. This subsidiary was not comprised by the European Commission's decision. Posten Norge AS with subsidiaries brought an action before Oslo District Court against all manufacturers together with the Norwegian subsidiary invoking Article 6 (1) of the Lugano Convention on special jurisdiction. It was held that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the loss that the price fixing had caused for the claimants. The Supreme Court, after having conducted an oral hearing, stated that the condition in Article 6 (1) of the Lugano Convention that the claims must have been closely connected that the provision to apply – the «closeness requirement» – assumes that the same legal and factual situation creates a risk of conflicting judgments resulting from separate proceedings. The claimant carries the burden of proving that the conditions for accumulation are met. In the review, a relatively thorough assessment must be made of whether the claims are so closely connected, legally and factually, that it is expedient to hear and determine them together. The claimant must demonstrate a certain likelihood that the closeness requirement is met.
    [Show full text]