Kart-Tingretter2017 Aarsmelding.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

DE ALMINNELIGE DOMSTOLENE 31.12.2017 var det 63 domstoler i førsteinstans, 6 lagmannsretter, samt Norges Høyesterett. ! 1 Hålogaland lagdømme ! ! Hålogaland lagmannsrett, Tromsø 3 1. Øst-Finnmark tingrett, Vadsø 2. Sis-Finnmárkku diggegoddi/Indre Finnmark tingrett, Tana ! 4 3. Hammerfest tingrett, Hammerfest 2 4. Alta tingrett, Alta ! 5. Nord-Troms tingrett/Davvi-Romssa diggegoddi, Tromsø 5 6. Senja tingrett, Finnsnes HÅLOGALAND 7. Trondenes tingrett, Harstad ! 8. Vesterålen tingrett, Sortland 9. Lofoten tingrett, Svolvær 6 !7 10. Ofoten tingrett, Narvik 8! 11. Salten tingrett, Bodø 12. Rana tingrett, Mo i Rana ! 13. Alstahaug tingrett, Sandnessjøen ! 10 14. Brønnøy tingrett, Brønnøysund 9 Frostating lagdømme Frostating lagmannsrett, Trondheim 15. Namdal tingrett, Namsos Gulating Lagdømme ! 16. Inntrøndelag tingrett, Steinkjer 11 Gulating lagmannsrett, Bergen 17. Fosen tingrett, Brekstad 23. Sogn og Fjordane tingrett, Førde og Sogndal 18. Sør-Trøndelag tingrett, Trondheim 24. Bergen tingrett, Bergen 19. Nordmøre tingrett, Kristiansund 25. Hardanger tingrett, Lofthus 20. Romsdal tingrett, Molde 26. Sunnhordland tingrett, Stord 12 27. Haugaland tingrett, Haugesund 21. Sunnmøre tingrett, Ålesund ! 22. Søre Sunnmøre tingrett, Volda 28. Stavanger tingrett, Stavanger ! 29. Jæren tingrett, Sandnes 30. Dalane tingrett, Egersund 13 Agder lagdømme ! Agder lagmannsrett, Skien 14 31. Lister tingrett, Farsund 32. Kristiansand tingrett, Kristiansand 33. Vest-Telemark tingrett, Kviteseid 34. Aust-Telemark tingrett, Notodden 15 35. Nedre Telemark tingrett, Skien ! 36. Aust-Agder tingrett, Arendal 37. Larvik tingrett, Larvik ! 38. Nordre Vestfold tingrett, Horten FROSTATING 39. Tønsberg tingrett, Tønsberg 17 16 ! 40. Sandefjord tingrett, Sandefjord ! Eidsivating lagdømme ! Eidsivating lagmannsrett, Hamar 41. Nord-Østerdal tingrett, Tynset 19 18 ! 42. Nord-Gudbrandsdal tingrett, Vågå ! 21 43. Valdres tingrett, Fagernes 20 44. Sør-Gudbrandsdal tingrett, Lillehammer !22 45. Sør-Østerdal tingrett, Elverum ! 46. Hedmarken tingrett, Hamar 41 47. Gjøvik tingrett, Gjøvik 42 ! 48. Øvre Romerike tingrett, Eidsvoll ! 23 49. Glåmdal tingrett, Kongsvinger 50. Nedre Romerike tingrett, Lillestrøm ! 44 EIDSIVATING Borgarting lagdømme 43 ! ! Borgarting lagmannsrett, Oslo GULATING 45 46 ! 51. Hallingdal tingrett, Nesbyen 24 ! 51 ! 52. Kongsberg og Eiker tingrett, Hokksund og Kongsberg ! ! 47 ! 53. Ringerike tingrett, Hønefoss 25 54. Oslo tingrett, Oslo ! 53 49 55. Oslo byfogdembete, Oslo 26 ! 48 ! ! 56. Asker og Bærum tingrett, Sandvika 52 54/ ! ! ! 55 57. Drammen tingrett, Drammen ! 56 50 27 ! ! 34 ! 57 ! 58. Follo tingrett, Ski 33 ! 58 59 59. Heggen og Frøland tingrett, Mysen ! ! 28 38 ! !60 60. Moss tingrett, Moss 61 BORGARTING ! ! 39! ! 61. Sarpsborg tingrett, Sarpsborg ! ! ! 35 3!7 62 ! 29 63 62. Fredrikstad tingrett, Fredrikstad 40 63. Halden tingrett, Halden ! 30 36 31 ! AGDER 32 ! ! Målestokk 1 : 6mill Kartdata - Statens kartverk Kartet er produsert av DA (ptm) januar 2018 º.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Þingvellir National Park
World Heritage Scanned Nomination File Name: 1152.pdf UNESCO Region: EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA __________________________________________________________________________________________________ SITE NAME: Þingvellir National Park DATE OF INSCRIPTION: 7th July 2004 STATE PARTY: ICELAND CRITERIA: C (iii) (vi) CL DECISION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE: Excerpt from the Report of the 28th Session of the World Heritage Committee Criterion (iii): The Althing and its hinterland, the Þingvellir National Park, represent, through the remains of the assembly ground, the booths for those who attended, and through landscape evidence of settlement extending back possibly to the time the assembly was established, a unique reflection of mediaeval Norse/Germanic culture and one that persisted in essence from its foundation in 980 AD until the 18th century. Criterion (vi): Pride in the strong association of the Althing to mediaeval Germanic/Norse governance, known through the 12th century Icelandic sagas, and reinforced during the fight for independence in the 19th century, have, together with the powerful natural setting of the assembly grounds, given the site iconic status as a shrine for the national. BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS Þingvellir (Thingvellir) is the National Park where the Althing - an open-air assembly, which represented the whole of Iceland - was established in 930 and continued to meet until 1798. Over two weeks a year, the assembly set laws - seen as a covenant between free men - and settled disputes. The Althing has deep historical and symbolic associations for the people of Iceland. Located on an active volcanic site, the property includes the Þingvellir National Park and the remains of the Althing itself: fragments of around 50 booths built of turf and stone.
[Show full text]
Genealogy in the Nordic Countries 2
Genealogy in The Nordic Countries 2 Finn Karlsen - Genealogy in Nordic Countries 23.09.2018 Presenter: 3 Finn Karlsen, Norway Retired consultant from the Regional State Archive in Trondheim 23.09.2018 4 Short history OF THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES Important years 5 1262 Iceland makes an agreement with Norway 1397 Kalmar Union between Danmark, Sweden and Norway with Iceland 1523 Kalmar union ends and Denmark, Norway and Iceland ruled by a common Danish King 1814 Norway gets its constitution, but ends up in union with Sweden 1905 Norway independent 1907 Iceland independent, but with Danish king 1944 Iceland total independence with President Border changes that might 6 influence our research Norway – Sweden Denmark – Sweden Denmark - Germany 7 Finn Karlsen - Genealogy in Nordic Countries 23.09.2018 8 Finn Karlsen - Genealogy in Nordic Countries 23.09.2018 9 Finn Karlsen - Genealogy in Nordic Countries 23.09.2018 10 Denmark Germany 1864 11 Prince-archives (Fyrstedømmenes arkiver) at National Archive in Copenhagen Ordinary archives like The church records at Landsarkivet in Aabenraa archives Some documents specially for the southern part of Slesvig are at the archive in Slesvig Finn Karlsen - Genealogy in Nordic Countries 23.09.2018 Early laws Norway: Frostating, Gulating and Eidsivating regional Laws 1274 King Magnus made common laws for Norway Laws Denmark: Jyske law, Skånske law and Sjællands law Iceland: 930 (written 1117) Graagaas 1264 Jarnsida 1281 Jonsbok Finn Karlsen - Genealogy in Nordic Countries 23.09.2018 12 13
[Show full text]
The Hostages of the Northmen: from the Viking Age to the Middle Ages
Part IV: Legal Rights It has previously been mentioned how hostages as rituals during peace processes – which in the sources may be described with an ambivalence, or ambiguity – and how people could be used as social capital in different conflicts. It is therefore important to understand how the persons who became hostages were vauled and how their new collective – the new household – responded to its new members and what was crucial for his or her status and participation in the new setting. All this may be related to the legal rights and special privileges, such as the right to wear coat of arms, weapons, or other status symbols. Personal rights could be regu- lated by agreements: oral, written, or even implied. Rights could also be related to the nature of the agreement itself, what kind of peace process the hostage occurred in and the type of hostage. But being a hostage also meant that a person was subjected to restric- tions on freedom and mobility. What did such situations meant for the hostage-taking party? What were their privileges and obli- gations? To answer these questions, a point of departure will be Kosto’s definition of hostages in continental and Mediterranean cultures around during the period 400–1400, when hostages were a form of security for the behaviour of other people. Hostages and law The hostage had its special role in legal contexts that could be related to the discussion in the introduction of the relationship between religion and law. The views on this subject are divided How to cite this book chapter: Olsson, S.
[Show full text]
Magnus Barefoot from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
Magnus Barefoot From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about the second Norwegian king named Magnus Olafsson. For the earlier Norwegian king, see Magnus the Good. Magnus Barefoot Drawing of a coin from the reign of Magnus Barefoot (with confused legend)[1] King of Norway Reign September 1093 – 24 August 1103 Predecessor Olaf III Successor Sigurd I, Eystein I and Olaf Magnusson Co-ruler Haakon Magnusson (until 1095) King of Dublin Reign 1102–1103 Predecessor Domnall Gerrlámhach Successor Domnall Gerrlámhach Born 1073 Norway Died 24 August 1103 (aged 29–30) near River Quoile, Downpatrick Ulster, Ireland Burial near St. Patrick's Church, Downpatrick, Ulster, Ireland Consort Margaret of Sweden Eystein I of Norway Issue Sigurd I of Norway Olaf Magnusson of Norway Ragnild Magnusdotter Tora Magnusdatter Harald IV Gille (claimed) Sigurd Slembe (claimed) Magnus Raude (claimed) Full name Magnús Óláfsson House Hardrada Father Olaf III of Norway Mother Tora?; disputed (see below) Religion Roman Catholicism Magnus Olafsson (Old Norse: Magnús Óláfsson, Norwegian: Magnus Olavsson; 1073 – 24 August 1103), better known as Magnus Barefoot (Old Norse: Magnús berfœttr, Norwegian: Magnus Berrføtt),[2] was King of Norway (as Magnus III) from 1093 until his death in 1103. His reign was marked by aggressive military campaigns and conquest, particularly in the Norse-dominated parts of the British Isles, where he extended his rule to the Kingdom of the Isles and Dublin. His daughter, Ragnhild, was born in 1090. As the only son of King Olaf Kyrre, Magnus was proclaimed king in southeastern Norway shortly after his father's death in 1093. In the north, his claim was contested by his cousin, Haakon Magnusson (son of King Magnus Haraldsson), and the two co-ruled uneasily until Haakon's death in 1095.
[Show full text]
New Datings of Three Courtyard Sites in Rogaland
Frode Iversen 26 Emerging Kingship in the 8th Century? New Datings of three Courtyard Sites in Rogaland The Norwegian ‘courtyard sites’ have variously been interpreted as special cultic, juridical, or military assembly sites, which served at more than the purely local level. Previously, on the basis of studies of artefacts and finds of pottery from these structures, the principal period of use of the courtyard sites in Rogaland has been dated to the early and late Roman Iron Age (AD 1–400) and the Migration Period (AD 400–550) through c. AD 600. To test the validity of this date range, the Avaldsnes Royal Manor Project has commissioned thirty new radiocarbon datings of material from three courtyard sites in Rogaland that Jan Petersen had excavated in 1938–50. These are Øygarden, Leksaren, and Klauhaugane; the latter is one of the largest courtyard sites in Norway. Øygarden has not previously been radiocarbon dated. For Klauhaugene, only a few radiocarbon dates had been obtained prior to this study. Leksaren was radiocarbon dated in the 1990s, with the results rather surprisingly indicating that its use continued into the 7th century. The present study demonstrates that the three investigated sites were in use during the Merovingian Period (AD 550–800) – a finding that both confirms and develops previous chronological frameworks. The courtyard sites in Rogaland fell out of use earlier than in other areas along the western coast of Norway. It is therefore suggested that their abandonment was connected to the emergence in the 8th century of royal power accompanied by greater control over jurisdiction – a royal power that subsequently expanded within the coastal zone.
[Show full text]
Norway 4Th Periodical Report
Strasbourg, 1 July 2008 MIN-LANG/PR (2008) 6 EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR REGIONAL OR MINORITY LANGUAGES Fourth periodical report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter NORWAY Error! Unknown document Error! Unknown Error! Unknown document property name. document property name. property name. 2006/2972 KU/KU2 ckn 18 June 2008 European Charter for Regional or Minority Language Fourth periodical report Norway June 2008 Contents Preliminary section 1. Introductory remarks 2. Constitutional and administrative structure 3. Economy 4. Demography 5. The Sámi language 6. The Kven language 7. Romanes 8. Romany 2 Part I 1. Implementation provisions 2. Bodies or organisations working for the protection and development of regional or minority language 3. Preparation of the fourth report 4. Measures to disseminate information about the rights and duties deriving from the implementation of the Charter in Norwegian legislation 5. Measures to implement the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers Part II 1. Article 7 Objects and principles 2. Article 7 paragraph 1 sub-paragraphs f, g, h 3. Article 7 paragraph 3 4. Article 7 paragraph 4 Part III 1. Article 8 Educations 2. Article 9 Judicial authorities 3. Article 9 paragraph 3 Translation 4. Article 10 Administrative authorities and public service 5. Article 10 paragraph 5 6. Article 11 Media o Article 11 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph a o Article 11 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph b o Article 11 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph c o Article 11 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph e o Article 11 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph f o Article 11 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph g o Article 11 paragraph 2 7.
[Show full text]
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
United Nations CEDAW/C/NOR/7 Convention on the Elimination Distr.: General of All Forms of Discrimination 26 March 2007 against Women Original: English Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Seventh periodic report of States parties Norway* * The present report is being issued without formal editing. For the initial report submitted by the Government of Norway, see CEDAW/C/5/Add.7 which was considered by the Committee at its third session. For the second periodic report, see CEDAW/C/13/Add.15 which was considered by the Committee at its tenth session. For the third periodic report, see CEDAW/C/NOR/3 which was considered by the Committee at its fourteenth session. For the fourth periodic report, see CEDAW/C/NOR/4 which was considered by the Committee at its fourteenth session. For the fifth periodic report, see CEDAW/C/NOR/5 which was considered by the Committee at its twenty-eighth session. For the sixth periodic report, see CEDAW/C/NOR/7 which was considered by the Committee at its twenty-eighth session. 07-28616 (E) 280607 *0728616* CEDAW/C/NOR/7 1. Part I Legislation, gender equality machinery and basic rights .......... 5 1.1 Article 2...................................................... 5 1.1.1 Article 2a Gender equality in basic legislation ................ 5 1.1.2 Article 2b The Gender Equality Act......................... 8 1.1.3 Article 2c National gender equality machinery ............... 9 1.1.4 Article 2d Efforts of the public authorities to promote gender equality...............................................
[Show full text]
Prop. 116 L (2009–2010) Proposisjon Til Stortinget (Forslag Til Lovvedtak)
Prop. 116 L (2009–2010) Proposisjon til Stortinget (forslag til lovvedtak) Endringer i domstolloven (ekstraordinære valg til lekdommerutvalgene m.m.) og straffeloven 1902 (avvergingsplikt) Innhold 1 Hovedinnholdet i proposisjonen ........ 5 6.3 Høringsinstansenes syn ............................ 13 6.4 Departementets vurdering ....................... 13 2 Bakgrunnen for forslaget om endringer i domstolloven ...................... 6 7 Trekning av lekdommere til de 2.1 Domstoladministrasjonens høringsnotat 6 enkelte sakene ......................................... 14 2.2 Høringen ..................................................... 6 7.1 Gjeldende rett ............................................ 14 7.2 Høringsbrevets forslag .............................. 14 3 Ekstraordinære valg til 7.3 Høringsinstansenes syn ............................ 15 lekdommerutvalgene ............................. 8 7.4 Departementets vurdering ....................... 15 3.1 Gjeldende rett ............................................ 8 3.2 Høringsnotatets forslag ............................. 8 8 Valgbarhet for personer med 3.3 Høringsinstansenes syn ............................ 9 begrenset politimyndighet .................... 16 3.4 Departementets vurdering ....................... 9 9 Flytting mellom kommunene i et 4 Suppleringsvalg grunnet sletting fra domssogn .................................................. 16 lekdommerutvalgene ............................. 10 4.1 Gjeldende rett ............................................ 10 10 Avvergingsplikt etter straffeloven
[Show full text]
The Social Context of Norse Jarlshof Marcie Anne Kimball Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2003 The social context of Norse Jarlshof Marcie Anne Kimball Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Kimball, Marcie Anne, "The ocs ial context of Norse Jarlshof" (2003). LSU Master's Theses. 2426. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/2426 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF NORSE JARLSHOF A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and the Arts and Science College In partial fulfillment of the Requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Geography and Anthropology by Marcie Anne Kimball B.S., Northwestern State University of Louisiana, 2000 August 2003 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is grateful to her major professor Dr. Rebecca Saunders, Associate Professor of Anthropology, and her thesis committee members Dr. Paul Farnsworth, Associate Professor of Anthropology, and Dr. Miles Richardson, Professor of Anthropology, all of Louisiana State University. The author is also grateful to Dr. Gerald Bigelow, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Southern Maine, and to Mr. Stephen Dockrill, Director of Old Scatness Excavations, and to Dr. Julie Bond, Assistant Director of Old Scatness Excavations, for their guidance and assistance.
[Show full text]
Exploring the Norwegian Legal Culture
Exploring the Norwegian Legal Culture Held at the Faculty of Law at the University in Bergen 25th and 26th August 2011 by Professor Dr. juris Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde 1. An outline of the lectures • A brief introduction to Norwegian state formation from app. 800 till today • A brief introduction to legal culture • Exploring the Norwegian legal culture by using the legal cultural model 2. Norwegian state formation – Middle Ages • Norway as a territory and no state till app. 1200 – The four law territories: Gulating, Frostating, Eidsivating, Borgarting • The emergence of King and Church as state power from app. 900 • The civil wars from 1130 till 1240 • The strong state app. 1250 till 1350 • The union with Sweden from 1319, and with Denmark and Sweden from 1397 2. Norwegian state formation – Early Modern Period • The Black Plague and other plagues from 1350 till 1450 • The reformation in 1536 – Norway a Danish province • The slow recovery of state power from app. 1550 • The absolute kingdom from 1660 – Norway again an independent kingdom – The bureaucratic state 2. Norwegian state formation – Modern Period • The Norwegian Constitution of 1814 – Norway still independent, but now in union with Sweden • Introduction of the parliamentary system in 1884 – the liberal revolution • The Labour party in government from the 1930s and the introduction of the welfare state – the socialist revolution 3. Legal Culture • An analytical tool and not an entity to deduce legal rules from • The increased references to legal culture from the 1990s – The internationalisation of law – The European Council with the ECHR and the European Union with the ECJ • A label on a black hole of knowledge? 3.
[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]
JUDGMENT of the COURT 23 November 2004∗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 23 November 2004∗ (Free movement of capital – taxation of dividends – tax credit granted exclusively to shareholders resident in a Contracting Party – denial of procedural rights to shareholders resident in other Contracting Parties) In Case E-1/04, REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Frostating lagmannsrett (Frostating Court of Appeal), Norway, in a case pending before it between Fokus Bank ASA and The Norwegian State, represented by Skattedirektoratet (the Directorate of Taxes) on the interpretation of the rules of free movement of capital within the EEA, THE COURT, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Tresselt and Thorgeir Örlygsson, Judges, Registrar: Henning Harborg, ∗ Language of the Request: Norwegian. – 2 – having considered the written observations submitted on behalf of: – Fokus Bank ASA (hereinafter the “Appellant”), by Bettina Banoun, Advokat; – the Norwegian State (hereinafter the “Respondent”), by Thomas Nordby, Advokat, Office of the Attorney General (Civil Affairs), acting as Agent, and Amund Noss, Advokat, Office of the Attorney General (Civil Affairs), acting as co-agent; – the EFTA Surveillance Authority, by Niels Fenger, Director, and Per Andreas Bjørgan, Senior Legal Officer, acting as Agents; – the Commission of the European Communities, by Richard Lyal, Legal Adviser, and Hans Støvlbæk, Member of its Legal Service, acting as Agents; – the United
[Show full text]