OF

ANNUAL REPORT 2014 2 CONTENTS

C O N T E N T S

The Supreme Court in 2014 Page 4 Summary of Supreme Court cases and procedure Page 6 The Supreme Court in 1814 and 2014 Page 7 - Establishment and appointment of justices Page 8 - New justices continue the proud tradition Page 11 - The Supreme Court expands Page 12 Preparations for the Supreme Court's bicentenary celebration Page 15 A selection of cases from 2014 Page 16 Dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court Page 22 Conventions on human rights and the Supreme Court Page 24 The EEA agreement and the Supreme Court Page 26 Supreme Court justices Page 31 The Supreme Court's administration Page 34 Court Usher - what is that? Page 40 County Tour 2014 Page 42 Outside the courtroom Page 44 Statistics Page 46

Front page, the Supreme Court's visit to the millennium site at (Photo: Henrik Tveit)

3 THE SUPREME COURT IN 2014

In 2014 we celebrated the Norwegian Constitutional Bicentenary. The Constitution established the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, with judicial power vested in the Supreme Court and the subordinate courts. The Constitution is the foundation on which Norway, as a democracy based on the rule of law, was built.

During its first fifty years as the supreme judicial power, the Supreme Court developed the basic framework of judicial review of the legislative and executive branches. All laws must conform with the limitations that follow from the Constitution. In the event of conflict, the Constitution prevails or the law must be interpreted restrictively, in order to eliminate the conflict. Executive decisions must be made within the framework of the law, and they must be based on fact and prudent administrative procedures. Executive discretion, when exercised, must not be clearly unjust. Decisions that fail to comply with these constraints are dismissed as unlawful.

Over the last twenty years, the supervisory role of the judicial branch has expanded to include judicial review of law and administrative decisions, examining whether they conflict with conventions on 4 SUPREME COURT

basic human rights, which were incorporated into 1815, and there were centenary and Norwegian law through the Human Rights Act of sesquicentenary celebrations on 30 June in 1999. Many of the rights protected by these 1915 and 1965, respectively. The bicentenary conventions have now been anchored in the celebration for the Supreme Court will be held on Constitution with the constitutional amendments 30 June 2015. of May 2014. Compliance with these rights is now subject to constitutional review. 2014 was a busy year for the Supreme Court, with many important cases. This year, like last year, The judicial review carried out by the judicial we have tried to present the institution in a wider branch of the other two branches of government perspective, moving beyond mere case summaries are central to Norway's standing as a nation based and dry statistics. on the rule of law. Judicial review is a core undertaking for the Supreme Court and the As a prelude to the bicentenary, we look into two subordinate courts, along with settling disputes in "extremes" on the timeline, presenting some key civil cases and passing judgment in criminal cases. events in Supreme Court history from 1814 and 2014, respectively. The report also presents the Until the dissolution of the union with Denmark in highlights of the bicentenary celebration of 1814, there was a joint Danish-Norwegian Supreme the Supreme Court. Court based in . After the dissolution of the union, this became a purely Danish Supreme I hope you find the report interesting. Court, which could no longer hear cases from Norway. Putting together a Norwegian Supreme , 2 January 2015 Court took some time, but efforts to establish it began immediately upon the signing of the Constitution on 17 May 1814.

The met for its first session and delivered its first judgment on 30 June 5 SUMMARY OF SUPREME COURT CASES AND PROCEDURE

Section 88 of the Constitution provides that "the It is up to the lawyers to convince the Appeals Supreme Court decides in the final instance". Selection Committee that precisely their client's case should be heard by the Supreme Court in From this, it follows that the Supreme Court is the chambers. Generally, this is done in a brief and country’s highest court in all types of cases. The concise appeal, highlighting the issue or issues of main task of the Supreme Court is to contribute, principle at stake. through its decisions, to a clarification and an evolution of the law within the framework that As mentioned above, the Appeals Selection follows from the Constitution and prevailing law. Committee decides whether or not to refer an appeal to the Supreme Court for a hearing in Any appeal to the Supreme Court against a chambers. The Appeals Selection Committee is judgment by the must be granted comprised of three Supreme Court justices. They leave from the Appeals Selection Committee of the decide on the basis of the case documents. The Supreme Court. The condition for granting leave to cases that go forward are decided by one of the appeal pursuant to procedural legislation is two chambers set with five justices, or, in normally that a decision by the Supreme Court will exceptional cases, by a so-called reinforced court – be of importance in terms of principle; it must a plenary session of the Supreme Court with all 20 provide important legal guidance for other cases. justices or a grand chamber set with 11 justices. Even though a Supreme Court decision will only be legally binding for the parties to that particlar case, Cases are heard orally – counsel for the appellant the Supreme Court's position as a stare decisis accounts for the legal and factual issues court means that any decision it delivers will have the Supreme Court has to consider. These oral implications for anyone involved in similar cases. proceedings are open to the public. Anyone can enter the courtroom and listen in — all you have to Many court of appeal decisions are appealed, but do is show up. The Supreme Court's website, only a small portion of these are granted leave. www.hoyesterett.no, has information on the The odds of having your case heard by the court cases to be heard, specifying the subject matter of in chambers are long, both legally and in practical each case and when it is scheduled for hearing. terms. This stringent "filtering" is necessary for the Supreme Court to have enough time to hear the When a judgment is delivered, it is published on truly important cases. the website — in the form of a brief summary as well as the full text of the judgment for anyone who might be interested. Photo: Jiri Havran

THE SUPREME COURT IN 1814 AND 2014 Over the next few pages, we highlight some major events in the court's history from the constitutional year of 1814 and the bicentenary year of 2014

7 THE SUPREME COURT IN 1814 ESTABLISHMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES

During the union, Norway and Denmark had a joint These six were Councillor Hans Falbe, Justice Peter Danish-Norwegian Supreme Court. It was seated Collett, Court of Appeal Judge Jørgen Mandix, in Copenhagen. Upon the dissolution of the union Court of Appeal Judge Jens Petter Debes, Chief by the Treaty of Kiel of 14 January 1814, this joint Local Judge Andreas Kiønig and City Judge Fredrik arrangement ceased to exist. The new situation Motzfeldt. Kiønig and Motzfeldt had participated required Norway, as a free country, to establish its in the Constituent Assembly at . The age own Supreme Court. Section 89 of the Constitution of the justices ranged from 35 to 65 years old. In of 17 May 1814 thus reads: addition to the justices, a justice secretary and two clerks of record. "To decide in the final instance, one must, as soon as possible, establish a Supreme Court, which must Chief Justice Bull's annual "emoluments" was set to not comprise less than the Chief Justice and 6 4000 riksbankdaler, whereas the salary of the other appointed justices." justices varied between 2000 and 2600 riksbankdaler. The justice and clerks of record and The term "as soon as possible" was taken literally. law would be paid 1400 and 1000 riksbankdaler per On 25 May 1914, just days after the Norwegian year, respectively. Constituent Assembly, the government began working to establish the new court. They worked The government could not have found a better man fast. In July, a draft "mandate" for the Supreme than Johan Randolf Bull to take office as chief Court was ready. This draft provided that the justice. He was a man of "sound judgment and procedure would be part oral, part written, humanist values in combination with longstanding depending on the case. However, this was a experience and a pragmatic approach to the controversial issue. The debate continued almost realities of life". At 65 years old, his until the Supreme Court was formally established a contemporaries referred to him as the year later, on 30 June 1815. "distinguished old man"—a nickname that speaks volumes about the average life expectancy at the On 27 September 1814, the government appointed time, which was about 40 years. Johan Randolf Bull, the County Governor of , as the first Supreme Court Chief Justice. Councillor Falbe claimed he had been assured In addition, the six other justices—or assessors, as repeatedly by King Christian Frederik that he would 8 they were called back then—were also appointed. be appointed Chief Justice. He was so disappointed THE SUPREME COURT IN 1814

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES APPOINTED ON 27 SEPTEMBER 1814:

Chief Justice:

• County Governor Johan Randolf Bull

Justices: • Chamberlain Councillor Hans Hagerup Falbe • Justice Peter Collett • Court of Appeal Judge Jørgen Mandix • Court of Appeal Judge Jens Petter Gløersen Debes • Chancery Secretary Chief Local Judge Andreas Aagard Kiønig • City Judge Frederik Motzfeldt

when he was only appointed 1st Assessor that he of Christiania refused to relinquish the best rooms chose to decline the office. Petter Collett then for this purpose, despite the government's positive moved up to 1st Assessor. The vacancy left by Falbe response to Justice Bull's proposal. The Supreme was later filled, in June 1815, by Advocate Court had to settle for a hall on the ground floor of Christopher Friman Omsen being appointed the building. The court described its new premises 6th Assessor. Once all the justices had been as "modest accommodations", and there was no appointed, it was important to find suitable room for a justice office or archive. Thus the facilities for the new court. This proved difficult. Supreme Court's official inauguration and later Christiania was not prepared to house all the new proceedings had to be held in the library of the institutions that accompanied its role as the capital Cathedral School at Dronningens gate 15. of the newly independent Norway. The Supreme Court remained in cramped quarters, In October 1814, Chief Justice Bull approached the and the problem was not resolved until 1903, when government, proposing that the Supreme Court the court moved into the new Justice Building in take over the premises of what had been the Kristiania, which is now known as the Supreme highest court in the country during the union with Court building. Denmark—the High Court of Appeal. It had been located in Stiftsgaarden, the governor's estate, at This article is based on G. Hallager, Norges Høiesterett 1815-1915, Volume Rådhusgaten 13. However, the County Governor I 1815-1863, and Nils Rune Langeland, Siste ord, Høgsterett i norsk historie 1814-1905. 9 10 Photo: Sturlason JUSTICES 2014

THE SUPREME COURT IN 2014 NEW JUSTICES CONTINUE THE PROUD TRADITION

Arne Ringnes and are the "Before I started this job, I thought that sitting in two most recently appointed Supreme Court court all the time perhaps would be boring," says justices. They have agreed to meet with us in the . "Quite the contrary. It has been Hall of Justices in the First Chamber, where the intense." He finds the collaboration with the other walls are covered with portraits of the 187 women justices even more positive than he imagined it and men who have been appointed Supreme Court would be; working together and "making each justices since 1814. "That makes us the 188th and other better"—to use a tired old phrase—is his 189th justice," Wenche Arntzen concludes. After favourite aspect of his new job. reviewing the portraits, she notes that she is female justice no. 15. However, there are a lot of procedures to learn, and the pace is high. Wenche Arntzen says she The two justices started almost at the same time, expected things to move fast in the Supreme Court. during the fall of 2014, and they were assigned She was not disappointed. "We haven't exactly offices next to each other on the ground floor, been idle since we started," they chuckle. They nicknamed "the Balkan", where many of the most have noticed, however, that the Supreme Court experienced Supreme Court justices also have their justices seem to stay young. "There must be some offices. They admit that they have consulted with rejuvenating X-factor here, and we hope to reap each other quite a bit. When they do, they often the benefits," says Arntzen, smiling. laugh, and their good spirits can be heard through the walls and ceiling. She continues the legacy of former Justice Georg Fredrik Rieber-Mohn. His booming laugh led to Both justices have approached their work with zest sound-proofing material being fitted in the ceiling and enthusiasm, and in court they have made their of the room where the justices take their lunch. mark by asking the advocates a lot of questions. With Arntzen in office, this sound-proofing again "You can't get a proper understanding of the case serves its purpose. In the words of Arne Ringnes: without questions and dialogue," says Arntzen, who "When Wenche Arntzen lets out a hearty laugh in had a reputation in the of not letting the office next door, it doesn't help that the walls advocates off the hook without explaining are thick and the case before you is interesting. themselves properly. You can't help but join in." 11 Six law clerks moved into the new loft floor in 2014

THE SUPREME COURT IN 2014 THE SUPREME COURT EXPANDS

The founding fathers at Eidsvoll would likely have based architect did not win the 1896 architectural nodded approvingly in view of the linden trees competition, because the mail ship from Bergen along the path to the Supreme Court building, had was delayed, and his submission failed to reach they been given the opportunity to take a stroll the on time. However, his idea for how to best from old Hammersborg down Akersgata today. utilize the long, narrow plot won the jury over. Sparre's design placed the city court, as the court They would probably also have been proud of how of first instance, on the ground floor, the court of Section 88 of the Constitution is manifested in the appeal, as the court of second instance, on the distinguished red brick building on Supreme Court second floor, and the Supreme Court on the third Square. The flag flies from the old Kristiania Justice floor. Building, and if you look up, the new floor of the building will certainly catch your eye. It was particularly fortunate that Sparre's designs also incorporated a loft. In the 1960s, the case load Behind the flag, the roof has been lifted, and the increased dramatically, and the Supreme Court had bright, airy new floor now provides fantastic office to hire law clerks. The desperate need for new space for the Supreme Court's Legal Secretariat in office space challenged creativity, and the loft was a new, state-of-the-art office landscape at the very eventually put to good use. top of the highest court in the country. Today, the Supreme Court has 20 law clerks, who The building's original architect, Hans Jakob Sparre, prepare appeals for the Supreme Court Appeals 12 would undoubtedly have approved. This Bergen- Selection Committee. In the spring of 2014 the SUPREMETHE LOFT COURT BUILDING 13

office

can't certainly in windows it own her is a colleague Sturlason All photos: year. every than 2000 cases more reviews Secretariat Legal The work. to place but briefs, their

Loft". Here, floor in "the new in

20 Court's Supreme is one of the a brand loft is a good the reflected be hurt. set-up new of this advantages if the sure She isn't will the is that set-up aspect of the new Her favourite and closer together, now are clerks something discuss to need if you away far never a case. concerning and skylights large from light natural each office. Lola Magnussen pleased with is very She clerks. law of plenty get They landscape. office the new and the lower floors of the building. building. of the floors lower the All in all, Legal Secretariat were pleased to move into six new six new into move to pleased were Secretariat Legal on offices on floor plans formal more the forgone have they In preparing for next year's bicentenary, our librarian, Vivi Østby, came across an old centenary edition of the regional newspaper. Here she is, reading the morning edition of Aftenposten, dated 25 June 1915, with Information Officer Svein Tore Andersen. The paper's main headline was "The Supreme Court of Norway through one hundred years". 14 THE SUPREME COURT IN 2014 PREFACE

THE SUPREME COURT IN 2014 PREPARATIONS FOR THE SUPREME COURT'S BICENTENARY CELEBRATION

2015 BICENTENARY • The bicentenary of the Supreme Court will be celebrated on 30 June 2015 with a formal ceremony in the Supreme Court courtroom • Later that day there will be a reception for the Supreme Court and prominent guests, hosted by the Government at Castle • The next day, on 1 July 2015, the Supreme Court is open to the public, with various tours and lectures

During 2014, the Supreme Court has been The author of this volume is Professor preparing for next year's bicentenary Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde at the University of celebration. In connection with the Bergen. celebration, the Supreme Court will be publishing an anniversary issue of articles In 2015, the University of Bergen will also exploring the Supreme Court and its legal host two seminars on the Supreme Court practice. and its business.

The Norwegian Courts Administration will The Norwegian National Archives has be publishing a third volume of the planned a special exhibition, and the Bank Supreme Court's history, detailing the of Norway will issue a special coin to years 1965-2015. commemorate the bicentenary. A SELECTION OF DEFAMATION I A man of Somali origin suffered brain damage after CASES FROM 2014 having been knocked to the ground. He was left behind by an ambulance that had been called to the scene. One of the paramedics brought a In 2014, one civil case was heard by the Supreme defamation case against the tabloid newspaper Court's grand chamber. In addition, 56 civil cases Dagbladet in the wake of the paper's presentation and 47 criminal cases were heard by the Supreme of what happened. The Supreme Court concluded Court in chambers. For more detailed information, that the paper's coverage, including allegations of please refer to the statistics included at the back inadequate patient care, was protected by the right of the annual report. to free speech under the terms of the ECHR, Article 10, no. 1. However, Dagbladet's allegations that the Below is a selection of cases from 2014 that serves treatment was racially motivated were found to fall to illustrate the diversity of the subject matters outside the scope of protected speech. The paper considered by the Supreme Court. was ordered to pay NOK 200,000 in damages to the paramedic. Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (Rt. 2014, page 152) CIVIL CASES DEFAMATION II

RIGHT TO OPERATE A SKI INSTRUCTOR In a series of articles in the newspaper Avisa BUSINESS IN A SKI RESORT , a surgeon was accused of operating on healthy patients for no reason, removing vital The owner of an alpine skiing facility refused to organs and causing the patients irreparable harm allow a commercial ski school to operate in the and risk of major complications. skiing facility without paying for access. The The Supreme Court concluded that these Supreme Court concluded that the ski trails in the allegations were both defamatory and unlawful. skiing facility were classified as "uncultivated land" The claims that the surgeon had committed serious under the terms of the Outdoor Recreation Act. malpractice were unfounded. Furthermore, Avisa Provisions regarding unrestricted right of way on Nordland had access to information indicating that foot stipulated that the skiing facility could not its coverage was incomplete and misleading, but refuse to allow other parties to engage in issued no reservations. The Supreme Court commercial ski school activities on the ski trails. awarded the surgeon NOK 400,000 in damages. However, the ski schoolcould not demand that its (HR-2014-02398-A) instructors be allowed to access the lift system at regular consumer prices. (Rt. 2014, page 36) APPOINTMENT OF HEAD OF THE NORWE- GIAN DEFENCE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

An applicant believed himself to have been passed over for appointment in contravention of the Gender Equality Act, when a women was appointed The full text of each decision is Head of the Norwegian Defence University College. available on the Supreme Court's His claim was not successful. The stipulation of the qualification requirements, and how to weigh website, from Norsk Retstidende these against each other, is left to the employer to (the Norwegian Legal Gazette) and decide. The court system can review whether the on Lovdata.no. stipulated quality requirements have been met. However, the courts cannot determine which of 16 the applicants is better qualified; all they can do is CASESFROM 2014 A SELECTION OF

review whether the decision made is objective and He demanded that the grave be opened to establish proper. A decision is in contravention of the Gender paternity by collecting a biological sample from the Equality Act if the person considered better remains for DNA analysis. The Supreme Court qualified is passed over due to gender. In the concluded that the interests of establishing present case, the Supreme Court had no paternity take precedence over the interests of not reservations about the specific decision being in disturbing a deceased person's final resting place, favour of the female applicant. particularly when there is no other way of Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (Rt. 2014, page 402) obtaining biological samples. (Rt. 2014, page 585)

VALUE-ADDED TAX ON THE SALE OF TAX ON PURCHASE OF APARTMENT IN SPAIN E-PAPERS TOGETHER WITH THE PRINTED EDITION A Norwegian limited liability company had purchased an apartment in Spain. The Supreme The sale of printed newspapers is exempt from Court concluded that while both the potential in- value-added tax, whereas the sale of e-papers is come from rentals and subject to tax. One publisher sold e-papers at a potential profit on a future sale of the apartment higher price to customers who subscribed to the were relevant considerations at the time of e-paper only, and charged a much lower price to purchase, this investment was not a common or customers who subscribed to both the e-paper and sensible choice for a regular company. Private the printed edition. The Supreme Court concluded interests were found to be the main motivating that the e-paper had different commercial purposes factor for the purchase. The decision to levy taxes as an independent subscription than as an addition on the company for withdrawing assets for personal to the subscription for the printed paper. use and dividend tax on the shareholder were thus Consequently, the actual market value of the upheld. Dissenting opinion: 4-1. e-paper as an addition to the printed edition, (Rt. 2014, page 614) calculated at NOK 519, would be subject to value-added tax. Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (Rt. 2014, page 486) PENALTY IMPOSED PURSUANT TO THE AQUACULTURE ACT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PUNISHMENT OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A SLEDDING ACCIDENT DURING A JOB A salmon farming enterprise claimed that a contra- SEMINAR vention fee imposed pursuant to the Aquaculture Act constituted punishment, which can only be imposed by judgment pursuant to Section 96 of the A person got injured in a sledding accident in Constitution This claim was not successful. connection with a job seminar. The Supreme Court Provisions regarding administrative sanctions are concluded that the sledding accident occurred "at not uncommon. Legislators had considered how work", and that the injury thus would be the provisions related to the Constitution when the classified as an occupational injury. The purpose of arrangement with fees was first implemented. The the sledding activity was to reinforce the provisions pertaining to the fee had been team-building among the seminar participants and implemented in the interests of the industry itself generate enthusiasm for the professional part of and protecting the environment. The contravention the seminar. The employer organized the sledding penalty was levied against a small number of activity, and the employees were expected to industry actors. The right of appeal and to initiate participate. legal action against the validity of the decision gave (Rt. 2014, page 513) sufficient due process guarantees to uphold the rationale behind Section 96 of the Constitution. DNA ANALYSIS OF INTERRED PERSON (Rt. 2014, page 620) A man claimed to be the son of a deceased person. 17 LIABILITY FOLLOWING BACKFLOW FROM SEWAGE A home was damaged by backflow from the municipal sewage network. The damage to the GRAND CHAMBER CASE: building amounted to approx. NOK 1,150,000. The Supreme Court concluded that the municipality CAPITALIZATION RATE APPLIED IN CASES was objectively liable. However, damage to rooms INVOLVING PERMANENT PERSONAL INJURY not approved for habitation by building authorities, which amounted to NOK 103,000, was not covered A young woman had become permanently disabled as a due to a disclaimer of liability in the water and consequence of a traffic accident. She claimed that the sanitation regulations. (Rt. 2014, page 656) capitalization rate, which is used to calculate lump-sum compensation, should be reduced. Since 1993, the capitalization rate and the tax disadvantage have been COMPULSORY MENTAL HEALTH CARE 5 percent and 25 percent, respectively. The Supreme A woman sought to be released from compulsory Court concluded that the general capitalization rate mental health care. This would likely cause her would be reduced to 4 percent and the taxdisadvantage condition to significantly deteriorate within three to 20 percent. A majority vote of seven justices found that to four months. The Supreme Court concluded that the capitalization rate should be general and apply to all the so-called "deterioration condition" in the cases, whereas a minority vote of four justices argued for Mental Health Care Act had been met. the establishment of a separate capitalization rate of 3 The Supreme Court found that the long-acting percent for means managed by the county governor (i.e. effect of today's antipsychotic medication indicated the means of minors). (HR-2014-02425-S) an adjustment to the stipulations in the preparatory works to the act of a maximum period of two months. (Rt. 2014, page 801) CASESFROM 2014 A SELECTION OF

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR constituted aggravating circumstances. The OPERATING A FERRY Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal's sentence of 13 years imprisonment. A ferry company claimed additional considera- (Rt. 2014, page 12) tion for operating a ferry connection, because the construction of a road had been postponed. At the time the contract was concluded, the new road ATTEMPTED FORCED MARRIAGE would cause another ferry connection to close, The court of appeal found a man of Kurdish origin which would have resulted in increased traffice and guilty of attempting to force his 16-year-old daugh- higher revenues for the ferry company. The ter to marry his brother's son. This attempt took Supreme Court concluded that there were no the form of consistent social pressure intended to grounds on which to claim additional consideration break down his daughter's resistance to marriage. under the terms of the contract or general He had also contacted a mullah i Iran and made provisions regarding false premises. Dissenting arrangements for a marriage contract. The Supreme opinion: 4-1. (Rt. 2014, page 866) Court set his penalty at a term of imprisonment of one year and four months. (Rt. 2014, page 205) SURVIVOR'S COMPENSATION FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER PROTECTED GOSHAWK

A person found guilty of gross negligence A person was indicted for shooting a strictly pro- manslaughter was ordered to pay survivor's tected goshawk as it was attacking a hen. The issue compensation/damages to his family. The was whether this shooting was an exonerating Supreme Court found that the standard amount circumstance under the self-defence provision of paid in damages in connection with gross Section 17 of the Nature Diversity Act. The negligence manslaughter could suitably be adjusted Supreme Court concluded that the act could not be to NOK 125,000. No exceptions for certain survivors interpreted to mean that the offender should first would be made solely on the reason that they lived have attempted to chase the goshawk away rather in a low-cost country. Furthermore, the offender's than killing it. If the legislator had intended other weak financial position or the fact that there was wise, the act would have to be amended. The a large number of survivors is not sufficient as defendant was thus acquitted. (Rt. 2014, page 238) grounds on which to deviate from the norm or mitigate liability. (Rt. 2014, page 892) VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER UNDER PARTICULARLY AGGRAVATING CIRCUM- STANCES CRIMINAL CASES Two persons sought out an acquaintance in connection with collection of debts and subjected VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER him to gross violence. They made several torture-like attempts to hang him. The man was left The offender had brutally killed a man by stabbing hanging from a cargo strap and later died from him 33 times in total. He had prevented others asphyxiation. The Supreme Court concluded that from calling for help and threatened them into the standard penalty for manslaughter under giving a false statement to police regarding an particularly aggravating circumstances committed unknown assailant. The Supreme Court stated that after the penalty increase in 2010 would normally the penalty for "ordinary manslaughter" normally be imprisonment for a period of 15-16 years. entails a period of imprisonment of no less than The penalty in this particular case was set to 12 years. The brutal manner in which the man was imprisonment for a period of 17 years. killed, and the offender's subsequent conduct (Rt. 2014, page 268) 19 FISHERIES RESTRICTION — SVALBARD TREATY that he had applied for asylum "without delay" and overturned the court of appeal's judgment. A German fishing vessel had trawled the fisheries (Rt. 2014, page 645) protection zone at Svalbard. Their catch included haddock in excess of the catch limit of 19 percent, as established by the regulations relating to the SERVING ALCOHOL AT A "PRIVATE PARTY" restriction of haddock fisheries. The shipping company was fined—and later sentenced in the Three men had sent out invitations for a Hallo- court of appeal—to pay a penalty and suffer con- ween party via a members-only Facebook page. The fiscation. Unlike vessels from Norway, Russia and page was set up so that friends could invite their Greenland, which have special haddock quotas, EU friends, who, in turn, could invite their friends, etc. vessels are only allowed to take haddock as a sub- Alcohol was served at this party. The men did not sidiary catch. The Supreme Court concluded that have a licence to serve alcohol. The Supreme Court the regulations not discriminate against EU fishing concluded that this party could not be defined as a vessels in contravention of the principle of equal "private party" under the terms of the Alcohol Act, treatment in the Svalbard Treaty, insofar as this and that a licence thus was required to serve treaty applies in the fisheries protection zone. The alcohol. The court of appeal's acquittal was unequal treatment protected objective and overturned. (Rt. 2014, page 686) legitimate concerns and was not disproportionate or discriminating. The court of appeal's judgment was thus upheld. (Rt. 2014, page 272) EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS BY PERSONAL SUPPORT CONTACT A personal support contact had embezzled NOK PROHIBITION AGAINST PENALIZING REFU- 79,000 from a client's account. The Supreme Court GEES FOR ILLEGAL ENTRY AND PRESENCE concluded that the embezzlement was aggravated. Pursuant to the Refugee Convention, Article 31, no. When a health care or social care worker embezzles 1, it is prohibited to penalize refugees for illegal funds, the court must treat the offence severely to entry if they are coming directly from a territory serve as a general deterrence. Hence, a community where their lives or good health are threatened and sentence in this case was not an option. they present them selves "without delay" to the The penalty was set to imprisonment for a period authorities and show good cause for their need for of 60 days, of which 30 days were suspended. protection. The Supreme Court concluded that the (Rt. 2014, page 691) district court and court of appeal had interpreted the term "without delay" too stringently. A citizen of Cameroon had presented false identification at DOES ACCEPTING THREE INVITATIONS TO the passport control at Oslo Airport upon his arrival DINNER CONSTITUTE CORRUPTION? to Norway. In an interview later that same day, he An operations manager in a municipal company applied for asylum. The Supreme Court concluded responsible for much of the public transport in the CASESFROM 2014 A SELECTION OF

region had accepted invitations to three dinners of the robbers arrived at the scene of the violence. paid for by a bus manufacturer. The Supreme Court The Supreme Court stated that he was culpable for concluded that dining and social interaction, in a mental complicity to "assault and battery under form that in material aspects corresponds to particularly aggravating circumstances", in that he ordinary customer relations and traditional had incited the violence by his previous active customer interaction, do not constitute corruption. participation in the robbery. (Rt. 2014, page 930) (Rt. 2014, page 786)

COMPLICITY II REFUGEE ESPIONAGE A man complained about noise from a party in the A Sudanese intelligence officer had gathered infor- neighbourhood. He first received a blow to the mation from the Sudanese exile community in Oslo. head from one of the men at the party and then a He purported to be a refugee. The information he kick in the head from another. The man sustained gathered was forwarded to the Sudanese Embassy a cerebral haemorrhage and died. It could not be in Oslo. The Supreme Court concluded that it was determined whether it was the blow or the kick not a condition for being convicted of espionage that led to his cerebral haemorrhage. The Supreme that the information gathered was not openly avail- Court concluded that the two men at the party able ("secret"). The determining factor is rather could not be penalized for complicity in the that the intelligence gathering in itself is secret, for subsequent death, as there was no actual or mental example by purporting to be a refugee. Nor is it a complicity. (Rt. 2014, page 1134) factor whether the espionage activity has harmed Norwegian interests or the life, health, freedom or property of individuals. The determining factor is CAN A DECEASED PERSON BE CONVICTED? whether the intelligence gathering has the poten- A defendant died before his appeal could be heard tial to harm such interests. The intelligence officer by the appellate court. The Supreme Court was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment concluded that convicting a deceased person for a period of one year and three months. contravenes with the right to a fair trial established (Rt. 2014, page 901) by Section 95 of the Constitution, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and RELEASE ON PAROLE FROM PREVENTIVE Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil CUSTODY and Political Rights. The court stated, inter alia, that serious doubts can be raised as to whether the Three inmates who had been sentenced to preven- conditions of a fair trial have been met if the court, tive custody demanded to be released on parole. upon determining the question of guilt, cannot The Supreme Court concluded that release on hear the offender's immediate testimony. parole can only be denied if the prosecuting Dissenting opinions: 3-2. (Rt. 2014, page 1045) authority can substantiate that the conditions for preventive custody are still present. There must therefore be an imminent risk that the inmate will SURPLUS MATERIAL FROM WIRE TAPS commit another serious crime. The Supreme Court ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE found no imminent risk of the three inmates reoffending. They were released on parole for the Pursuant to an amendment from 2013, additional remainder of their respective periods of preventive information (surplus material) from wire tapping custody, though on specific terms. activities is now admissible as evidence. The (Rt. 2014, pages 934, 946 and 951) Supreme Court concluded that the material in question in this case should have been deleted in 2011, when the indictment was filed, and that the COMPLICITY I evidence thus was not admissible in court. The calls of the main defendant's spouse should also have A man was first robbed and then subjected to ex- been deleted immediately. Dissenting opinions: 3-2. tensive violence. He was already injured when one (Rt. 2014, page 1105) 21 DISSENTING OPINIONS IN THE SUPREME COURT

In 2014, 19 of a total of 104 decisions in chambers Six of the dissenting opinions were given in cases and grand chamber were delivered with dissenting involving tax law. This high number of dissenting opinions. Four of these dissenting opinions were opinions can be attributed to the fact that a dis- given in criminal cases. These cases involved proportionately high number of cases heard by the sentencing for sexual crimes, evidence from Supreme Court involve tax law. communications control, the passing of judgment on an appeal when the appellant is deceased, and The other dissenting opinions were given in cases the use of wire tapping as key evidence. The other involving gender equality, defamation, law of mort- dissenting opinions, 15 in total, were given in civil gages and pledges, contract law, procedural law cases, spanning a wide range of subject matters. and damages.

% 35

30

Sivil 25

20 Totalt

15

10 Straff

5

0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year

For the last fifteen years, the number of dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court have remained relatively stable at approx. 14-22 percent. The frequency is somewhat lower in criminal cases (9-18 percent) than in civil cases (15-31 percent). These figures exclude decisions made by the Appeals Selection Committee. DISSENTING OPINIONS

DISSENTING OPINIONS IN THE SUPREME COURT

Specifically, the cases where dissenting opinions were given concerned: Public fees and taxes. Introduction of connection fee after concluding an agreement for municipal Criminal cases water supply. Dissenting opinions 3-2 over grounds. (Rt. 2014, page 429) Sentencing. Use of community sentence in connection with sexual crimes. Gender equality. Appointing a woman to the Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (Rt. 2014, page 459) position of Head of the Norwegian Defence University College. Dissenting opinion: 4-1. Communications control. Use of surplus material (Rt. 2014, page 402) from communications control. Dissenting opinion: 3-2. (Rt. 2014, page 1105) Defamation. Defamatory coverage of paramedic response. Dissenting opinion: 4-1. Criminal case against deceased person. The (Rt. 2014, page 152) passing of judgment when survivors succeeded to the appeal upon the death of the person convicted. Damages. Threshold for damages to police Dissenting opinions: 3-2. (Rt. 2014, page 1045) officers for receiving threats. Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (Rt. 2014, page 745) Criminal procedure. Question of whether wire-tapping met the defendant's rights to a fair Lien. Statutory lien as basis for enforcement trial and whether the appellate court had assessed without registration. Dissenting opinions 3-2 over the evidence in compliance with the presumption grounds. (Rt. 2014, page 14) of innocence as established by criminal law. Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (HR-2014-02472-A) Contract law. Open tender— risk of anticipated infrastructure developments being postponed. Civil cases Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (Rt. 2014, page 866)

Tax. Validity of tax assessment following sole Civil procedure. Presentation of investigative report shareholder's personal use of company apartment. as evidence in a case involving summary dismissal. Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (Rt. 2014, page 614) Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (Rt. 2014, page 773)

Tax. Value of municipal basic grant following the Damages. Capitalization rate in case involving transfer of a medical practice as a basis for permanent injury. Dissenting opinions 7-4 over depreciation. Dissenting opinion of 4-1 over capitalization rate for means of minors. grounds. (Rt. 2014, page 986) (HR-2014-02425-S)

Tax. Tax allowance for withholding tax paid abroad. Compulsory purchase. Loss of parking space inside Dissenting opinions: 3-2. (HR-2014-02162-A) building limits as defined by the Road Act as basis for compensation for compulsory purchase. Value-added tax. Term "investment goods" in the Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (Rt. 2014, page 538) VAT Act, Section 9-1, Subsection 2. Does demolition constitute "new developments" pursuant to law? Benefits. Claim for pension payments under the Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (HR-2014-02430-A) terms of a group insurance was barred by lapse of time, cf. Section 18-6, Subsection 3, and Section Value-added tax. Tax base in connection with the 19-9 of the Insurance Contracts Act. sale of e-papers together with the printed edition. Dissenting opinions: 3-2. (HR-2014-02470-A) Dissenting opinion: 4-1. (Rt. 2014, page 486)

23 CONVENTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE SUPREME COURT

In 1999, the international conventions on basic of the ECHR (Rt. 2014, page 238). Article 10 of the human rights were incorporated into Norwegian ECHR regarding freedom of speech was central to a law through the Human Rights Act. This act case involving defamatory newspaper coverage currently incorporates the European Convention on (Rt. 2014, page 152). Furthermore, the Supreme Human Rights (ECHR), the International Covenant Court has considered whether Article 6 of the ECHR on Civil and Political Rights, the International and Section 96 of the Constitution pertaining to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, right to a fair trial is an impediment to the the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and prosecution of a deceased person. the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms (Rt. 2014, page 1045) of Discrimination against Women. In 2014, a constitutional amendment also incorporated Sometimes private parties bring Supreme Court several basic human rights. decisions to the European Court of Human Rights, ECtHR, in Strasbourg. When this happens, the State Our laws must conform to human rights. In the of Norway, not the Supreme Court, is the event of conflict, the Constitution prevails or the respondent. If the ECtHR does not find sufficient law must be interpreted restrictively, in order to grounds to review the case further, it is dismissed. eliminate the conflict. If not, the Strasbourg court will determine whether a violation of the convention has occurred. In 2014, human rights have been central to several Supreme Court decisions. For example, one case In the event the ECtHR finds that the ECHR has involved the Supreme Court considering whether been violated, member states are obligated to end Article 8 of the ECHR and Section 102 of the the violation and remedy its consequences insofar Constitution, regarding the right to privacy, it is possible. This could mean that a case, where prevented surplus material from the Supreme Court decision was found to be in communications control from being used as violation of the convention, must be reopened, so evidence (Rt. 2014, page 1105). A criminal case that a new decision can be made in pursuance of involving the killing of a protected goshawk had the the convention. 24 Supreme Court assessing the conditions of Article 7 ECHR/ECTHR

Supreme Court law clerks on a study visit to the European Court of Human Rights, October 2014

NORWEGIAN CASES REVIEWED BY THE ECTHR IN 2014 justification—Supreme Court Appeals Selection Committee order of 19 September 2008. Judgment, 16 January 2014 (no violation) (HR-2008-01598-U) Case no.: 13258/09 Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther— whether it constitutes a violation of Article 8 of the Judgment, 18 December 2014 (no violation) ECHR that a magazine was found to be entitled to Case no. 27473/11 N.A. — whether it constitutes a publish an article covering a private wedding violation of Article 6 of the ECHR to order a ceremony—Supreme Court judgment of defendant to pay damages (damages for 2 September 2008. (Rt. 2008, page 1089) non-economic loss) after being acquitted— Supreme Court Appeals Selection Committee order Judgment, 24 July 2014 (violation) 04 November 2010. (HR-2010-01889-U) Case no. 32504/11 Kaplan et al. — whether a deportation order constitutes a violation of Article APPLICATIONS AGAINST NORWAY IN 2014, STILL PENDING 8 of the ECHR — Supreme Court judgment of 26 November 2010. (Rt. 2010, page 1430) Case no.: 39731/12 Wolland—whether search and seizure from advocate constitutes violation of Judgment, 2 October 2014 (violation) Articles 6, 8 or 13 of the ECHR, or Protocol no. 1, Case no. 15319/09 Hansen—whether it constitutes Article 1— Supreme Court Appeals Selection a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR that leave to Committee order, 20 December 2011. appeal to the court of appeal was denied without (HR-2011-02367-U) 25 THE EEA AGREEMENT AND THE SUPREME COURT

The EEA Agreement came into force on 1 January (Finnanger I), Rt. 2004, page 904 (Paranova), 1994. Through the EEA Act, the main text of the Rt. 2009, page 839 (advertisement for alcohol), agreement was incorporated into Norwegian law. Rt. 2012, page 1793 (motor vehicle liability) and In 2014, the agreement had been in effect for 20 Rt. 2013, page 258 (General application of wage years. The EFTA states (Norway, Iceland and agreements). Two of the opinions were requested Liechtenstein) have, under the terms of Article 108 by the Supreme Court (Finanger I and Paranova). of the agreement, established their own court — In addition, the hearing of Rt. 2007, page 1003 the EFTA Court. The court consists of three judges (Norsk Tipping) involved a ruling from the EFTA and is seated in Luxembourg. Court.

It falls to the EFTA Court to prepare advisory In the summer of 2014, the EFTA Court celebrated opinions to the courts of the member states on the its 20th anniversary. The Supreme Court interpretation of the EEA Agreement. "Where such participated in a conference in Luxembourg, which a question is raised before any court or tribunal in included a panel on advisory opinions, entitled: an EFTA State, that court or tribunal may, if it ‘To refer or not to refer’. The backdrop for this considers it necessary to enable it to give debate included the EFTA Court president criticizing judgment, request the EFTA Court to give such an Norway for not requesting enough advisory opinion", cf. the Surveillance and Court Agreement, opinions from the court. Chief Justice Schei Article 34. This arrangement has been incorporated accounted for the practices of the Supreme Court into Norwegian law through Section 51a of the and its motivations, but also promised to review Courts of Justice Act. our practices in light of this debate. The EFTA Court website summarizes the conclusion to the debate Since 1994, Norwegian courts and tribunals as follows: “At the end Chief Justice Schei invited have requested advisory opinions from the EFTA the EFTA-Court to a round table with the Supreme Court in 43 cases. Six of these cases have been Court of Norway on the matter.” The invitation heard by the Supreme Court. They are included in culminated in a joint seminar in Oslo in October 26 Rt. 1997, page 1965 (transfer of business), 2014 for all judges and legal staff with the two courts. Rt. 2000, page 1811 EEA

President of the EFTA Court, Carl Baudenbacher (left), Supreme Court Chief Justice Tore Schei and EFTA Court Legal Secretary Philipp Speitler (right) during the seminar in Oslo.

In October 2014, the Supreme Court of Norway and the EFTA Court met for a joint seminar in the Supreme Court building, where all judges and law clerks from the two institutions participated.

Main topics included the EFTA Court's requirements for requests for advisory opinions, the expectations of the Supreme Court to advisory opinions given by the judges in Luxembourg, and when an issue should be presented to the EFTA Court.

Furthermore, the seminar also included a detailed presentation of Supreme Court cases involving EEA issues and referrals over the years. The seminar contributed to a better mutual understanding of how the two courts work and what their needs are. 27 Judges, law clerks and directors of the Supreme Court of Norway and the EFTA Court, gathered for a seminar in October 2014 Photo: Sturlason 29

Photo: Candice Imbert/Council of Europe Photo: Sturlason JUSTICES 2014

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

CHIEF JUSTICE TORE SCHEI (68) INGSE STABEL (68) Tore Schei was born in 1946 in Oslo and was Ingse Stabel was born in 1946 i Oslo, and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 March 1986. appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 May 2001. He took office as Chief Justice on 1 August 2002. She came from a position as President of the He came to the Supreme Court from a position as National Insurance Court. an appellate judge at the former Court of Appeal. TORIL MARIE ØIE (54) Toril Marie Øie was born in 1960 in Oslo, and was LIV GJØLSTAD (69) appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 August 2004. Liv Gjølstad was born in 1945 in Tønsberg and was She came from a position as Deputy Director appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 September General at the Ministry of Justice. 1988. She came to the Supreme Court from a position as an appellate judge at the former BÅRD TØNDER (66) Eidsivating Court of Appeal. Bård Tønder was born in 1948 in Sjøvegan, and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 15 May 2006. STEINAR TJOMSLAND (66) He came from a position as Assistant Attorney Steinar Tjomsland was born in 1948 in , General of Civil Affairs. and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 April 1991. He came to the Supreme Court from a CLEMENT ENDRESEN (65) position as Assistant Director of the Bank of Norway. Clement Endresen was born in 1949 in and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 28 August 2006. He came from a position as a private (63) practice lawyer. Magnus Matningsdal was born in 1951 in Ha, and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 11 August (57) 1997. He came to the Supreme Court from a position as Senior Presiding Court of Appeal Judge Hilde Indreberg was born in 1957 in Oslo, and was in . appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 April 2007. She came from a position as Deputy Director JENS EDVIN A. SKOGHØY (59) General at the Ministry of Justice.

Jens Edvin A. Skoghøy was born in 1955 in Tromsø, ARNFINN BÅRDSEN (48) and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 15 August 1998. He came from a position as a Arnfinn Bårdsen was born in 1966 in Stavanger, professor at the University of Tromsø. and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 July 2008. He came from a position as an appellate KARL ARNE UTGÅRD (63) judge at Gulating Court of Appeal. Karl Arne Utgard was born in 1951 i , and he was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 15 November 1999. He came from a position as a private practice lawyer. 31 (48) - (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) PER ERIK BERGSJØ (56) Bergljot Webster was born in 1966 in Oslo, Per Erik Bergsjø was born in 1958 in , and and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 March 15 August 2009. She came from a position as a 2012. He came from a position as a private practice private practice lawyer. Webster is currently on a lawyer. leave of absence to head up Advokatlovutvalget, a government commission to review legislation ARNE RINGNES (59) pertaining to lawyers. Arne Ringnes was born in 1955 in Oslo, and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 18 August (59) 2014. He came from a position as a private practice Wilhelm Matheson was born in 1955 in Oslo, and lawyer. was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 November 2009. He came from a position as a WENCHE ELIZABETH ARNTZEN (55) private practice lawyer. Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen was born in 1959 in Oslo, and was appointed Supreme Court Justice (60) on 29 September 2014. She came to the Supreme Kristin Normann was born in 1954 in Oslo, and was Court from a position as a judge at Oslo appointed Supreme Court Justice on 9 August 2010. District Court. She came from a position as a private practice lawyer. (55) Justices Erik Møse (64) and (49) Ragnhild Noer was born in 1959 in Oslo, and was have been granted long-term leaves of absence after appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 October being appointed judge at the European Court of Human 2010. She came from a position as an appellate Rights in Strasbourg and Parliamentary Ombudsman for judge at Gulating Court of Appeal. Public Administration, respectively.

HENRIK BULL (57) was born in 1957 in Oslo, and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 17 January For more detailed information about the justices and 2011. He came from a position as a judge at the their backgrounds, please visit the Supreme Court EFTA Court of Justice. website www.hoyesterett.no. KNUT H. KALLERUD (58) Knut H. Kallerud was born in 1956 in , and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 16 July 2011. He came from a position as Assistant Director General of Public Prosecutions. 32 JUSTICES 2014

Photo: Sturlason

33 The Supreme Court's administrative staff totals roughly 45 people. These are distributed in two units, the Legal Secretariat and the administrative unit.

two-year temporary position as Deputy Secretary- THE SUPREME General of the Supreme Court in August 2014. COURT'S Kjersti Buun Nygaard (43) left the position of Deputy Secretary-General in October 2014, when she was ADMINISTRATION appointed judge at Court of Appeal. LEGAL The Supreme Court's administrative staff totals roughly 45 people. The Chief Justice is the head of SECRETARIAT the court, and as such, he also has overall administrative responsibility, and takes part in the The Legal Secretariat is the largest unit in the handling of administrative issues of principle and Supreme Court's administration, and it employs 20 issues of major practical significance for the court. people, including the Head and the Deputy Head of The day-to-day administration of the Supreme the Legal Secretariat. Law clerks are appointed for Court is handled by the Secretary-General and a fixed term (seven years). Deputy Secretary-General. The Legal Secretariat primarily works to serve the Appeals Selection Committee. When an appeal is SECRETARY-GENERAL GUNNAR BERGBY (67) received by the Supreme Court, it is allocated to a Gunnar Bergby has a law degree from the law clerk. In all types of cases, procedural as well University of Oslo, and he has also completed a as substantive issues are reviewed. TotalDefence Course at the Norwegian Defence University College. Previously in his career, he was, In case of an appeal against a judgment, the among other things, City Magistrate of Oslo and research is aimed at clarifying whether the case Chief City Judge of Oslo. He took up his raises issues of principle that ought to be heard by appointment as Secretary-General of the Supreme the Supreme Court. If the Appeals Selection Court in February 1994. Committee allows the appeal, the law clerk will assist the preliminary justice during the case preparation. In case of an appeal against an order DEPUTY SECRETARY-GENERAL or a decision, the case will be researched with a ELIN HOLMEDAL (43) view to prepare the Appeals Selection Committee’s Elin Holmedal has a law degree from the University final decision on the matter. of Oslo and an LL.M from the United States. She also studied at the Norwegian Business School (BI). The Legal Secretariat also has assignments for Previously in her career, she was a senior consult- the Chief Justice, the justices and the ant at the Ministry of Justice, an advocate at the Secretary-General. Office of the Attorney General, and a judge at Law clerk vacancies will be advertised in early 34 Borgarting Court of Appeal, before she accepted a 2015. ADMINISTRATION

HEAD OF THE LEGAL SECRETARIAT . ØISTEIN AAMODT (39) Øistein Aamodt graduated with a law degree from the University of Oslo in 2001. He was appointed CHIRSTI ERICHSEN HURLEN (36) law clerk in September 2006 and deputy head of Chirsti Erichsen Hurlen graduated cand.jur. from the Legal Secretariat in July 2011. He took over as the University of Bergen in 2004. She was Head of the Legal Secretariat in November 2014. appointed law clerk in June 2008. She has He has worked as a tax lawyer at Østfold County previously worked as a trainee advocate at the law Tax Office and a senior tax lawyer at the Norwegian firm Wiersholm, assistant judge at Directorate of Taxes. District Court and special consultant at the Parliamentary Constitutional Division. On 1 January 2015, she will take office as one of DEPUTY HEAD OF THE LEGAL SECRETARIAT two Deputy Heads of the Legal Secretariat. BIRTHE ASPEHAUG BUSET (40) Birthe Aspehaug Buset graduated with a law de- gree from the University of Oslo in 1999. She was LENE KNAPSTAD (33) appointed law clerk in January 2006, and Deputy Lene Knapstad graduated with a law degree from Head of the Legal Secretariat in November 2014. the University of Bergen in 2007. She was She has previously worked as a lawyer at the law appointed law clerk in March 2010. She has firm Kluge. previously worked as an adviser at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as an assistant judge at Moss District Court. LAW CLERKS NORUNN LØKKEN SUNDET (38) SVERRE JACOBSEN (41) (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) Sverre Jacobsen graduated with a law degree from Norunn Løkken Sundet graduated cand.jur. from the the University of Oslo in 1999. He was appointed University of Bergen in 2000. She was appointed law clerk in June 2010. He has previously worked as law clerk in June 2002. She has previously worked a trainee advocate at the law firm Haavind Vislie, as a trainee advocate at law firm Vogt & Wiig, an assistant judge at Sunnhordland District Court and assistant judge at Oslo Oslo Court of Probate, District Court and a lawyer at Bankruptcy and Enforcement, a secretary for the the law firm Hjort. Norwegian Tsunami Disaster Evaluation Commission and acting District Court Judge at Follo District Court. She is currently on a leave of CHRISTOPHER HAUGLI SØRENSEN (32) absence to serve as acting District Court Judge at Christopher Haugli Sørensen graduated cand.jur. . from the University of Oslo in 2007. He was appointed law clerk in April 2010. He has previously worked as an assistant judge at Oslo KARL INGE ROHDE (38) (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) Court of Probate, Bankruptcy and Enforcement. Karl Inge Rohde graduated cand.jur. from the University of Tromsø in 2005. He was appointed law clerk in June 2006. He is currently on a leave of MERETE ANITA UTGÅRD (39) absence to serve as acting District Court Judge at Merete Anita Utgård graduated cand.jur. from the Drammen District Court. University of Bergen in 2001. She was appointed law clerk in January 2011. She has previously worked as a trainee advocate at the law GEIR SUNDE HAUGLAND (37) firm Schjødt, police prosecutor at Follo Police (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) District and assistant judge at Nedre Romerike Geir Sunde Haugland graduated cand.jur. from the District Court and . University of Bergen in 2003. He was appointed law clerk in September 2006. He has previously worked LOLA MAGNUSSEN (34) as a senior consultant at the Ministry of Justice, a Lola Magnussen graduated cand.jur. from the consultant at the Parliamentary Ombudsman and University of Oslo in 2005. She was appointed law a secretary at the Committee for the Evaluation of clerk in January 2011. She has previously worked as Investigation Methods. He is currently on a leave of a lawyer at the law firm Hjort and as an assistant absence to serve as acting District Court Judge at judge at Follo District Court. 35 36

Photo: Sturlason ADMINISTRATION

JØRGEN REINHOLDTSEN (29) worked as a trainee advocate at the law firm (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) Wiersholm. Jørgen Reinholdtsen graduated with a law degree from the University of Tromsø in 2010. He was SIGRID NYSTED (31) appointed law clerk in March 2011. He has Sigrid Nysted graduated with a law degree from previously worked as a trainee advocate at the law the University of Tromsø in 2010. She was appoint- firm Hjort. He is currently on a leave of absence to ed law clerk in November 2013. She has previously work as a law clerk at the EFTA Court. worked as a lawyer at the law firm Bing Hodneland.

MICHAEL LINDSTRØM (32) KNUT ANDRÉ AASTEBØL (31) Michael Lindstrøm graduated with a law degree Knut André Aastebøl graduated with a law degree from the University of Oslo in 2009. He was from the University of Oslo in 2008. He was appointed law clerk in May 2011. He has previously appointed law clerk in January 2014. He has worked as a trainee advocate at the law firm Kluge. previously worked as a lawyer at the law firm Steenstrup Stordrange.

CAMILLA BERG-HANSEN (36) MARTE THERESE STRAND ERIKSEN (35) (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) Marte Therese Strand Eriksen graduated cand. jur. Camilla Berg-Hansen graduated cand.jur. from the from the University of Oslo in 2006. She was University of Oslo in 2003. She was appointed law appointed law clerk in January 2014. She has clerk in January 2012. She has previously worked as previously worked as a trainee advocate at the law a trainee advocate at the law firm Bull & Co and as firm Wiersholm, as a deputy member at the an assistant judge at Nordre District Court National Insurance Court and as an assistant judge and Oslo District Court. She is currently on leave of at Jæren District Court and Oslo District Court. absence to serve as the Head of the Oslo and Akershus County Social Welfare Board. BENEDICTE HAAVIK URRANG (26) KRISTINE RØRHOLT (32) Benedicte Haavik Urrang graduated with a law Kristine Rørholt graduated with a law degree from degree from the University of Oslo in 2012. She was the University of Oslo in 2007. She was appointed appointed law clerk in March 2014. She has law clerk in April 2013. She has previously worked previously worked as a trainee advocate at the law as a senior adviser at the Ministry of Finance. firm BAHR.

EVA GROTNÆSS BARNHOLDT (34) Eva Grotnæss Barnholdt graduated cand.jur. from ANDREAS HJETLAND (25) the University of Oslo in 2005. She was appointed Andreas Hjetland graduated with a law degree from law clerk in June 2013. She has previously worked the University of Oslo in 2013. He was appointed as a senior adviser at the Parliamentary law clerk in March 2014. He has previously worked Ombudsman. as a traineeadvocate with law firm Simonsen Vogt STINE BAUMANN (33) Wiig. Stine Baumann graduated with a law degree from the University of Oslo in 2008. She was appointed law clerk in August 2013. She has previously KARIN ELISABETH NÆSS (33) worked as a lawyer at the law firm DLA Piper Karin Elisabeth Næss graduated with a law degree Norway. from the University of Oslo in 2006. She was appointed law clerk in May 2014. She has previously worked as a trainee advocate at the law KRISTIN SLØRDAHL HJORT (31) firms Wikborg Rein and BAHR, as an adviser at the Kristin Slørdahl Hjort graduated with a law degree Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, and as a lawyer at from the University of Oslo in 2008. She was the law firm Langseth. appointed law clerk in August 2013. She has previously worked as a traineeadvocate at the law firm Thommessen. Head of the Legal Secretariat Børre W. Lyngstad passed away on 24 July 2014 after battling serious illness.

SIV MYRVOLD (28) Law clerk Maria Bache Dahl left her position in February 2014 Siv Myrvold graduated with a law degree from the University of Oslo in 2010. She was appointed to take up a position as lawyer at the Bærum Municipal law clerk in September 2013. She has previously Attorney's office. INFORMATION AND ICT OFFICERS Information Officer Svein Tore Andersen (61) is Senior Executive Officer Kjersti Ruud (58) assists in responsible for press relations and webpublishing. case scheduling, offers ICT consulting and plays a ICT Officer Ingrid Louise Christensen (31) is key role in the plans for digital summaries at the responsible for all ICT systems. Supreme Court.

Higher Executive Officer Rizwana Yedicam (36) CLERKS OF RECORD organizes the guided tours of the Supreme Court All Supreme Court proceedings include a clerk of building, in addition to handling other public record. The clerks of record are law graduates, who relations activities. assist justices and counsel during proceedings. In addition, they proofread all Supreme Court Higher Executive Officer Gunn May Grinden (44) decisions. works as an ICT assistant.

Per Erik Hild Hansen (63) is the clerk of record in Oddveig Knutsen (60) and Torill Aagotsrud (57) are the first chamber, and Anders Berg Dønås (29) is responsible for events and for the cleaning of the the clerk of record in the second chamber. Supreme Court building. The responsibilities of Court Usher Morten Almås ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT (52) include files and records, mail and the practical handling of appeal proceedings. The administrative unit handles a number of In October 2014, Simon Rønneberg (32) left the administrative support functions. The unit is Supreme Court to take another position as the headed by a Principal Officer. Ragnhild Collet- court usher at Oslo District Court. Bjørn Vidar Hanssen (41) was the Principal Officer until Oc- Kristoffersen (39) has been appointed to replace tober 2014, when she left to take the position of him, assuming his post as court usher in February Municipal Executive in the Municipality of Hole. In 2015. He is coming to the Supreme Court from a January 2015, Akmal Hussain (37) will take office as position as a security guard at DSS. the new Principal Officer. He is coming from a position as head of department at Oslo Tax Adviser Anne Liv Handeland retired in 2014, after Collection Office. working at the Supreme Court for 16 years. Anna Klanderud also retired, after working at the Vivi Østby (47) is the Supreme Court librarian. Supreme Court for 22 years. There is a library on site, available to employees. Her responsibilities as librarian include expand- ing the collection of printed and electronic source CASE-HANDLING UNIT material. She also helps other employees search for information. She came from a position as Head The Case-Handling Unit is the Supreme Court's Librarian at the Institute for Energy Technology at general office. Among other things, this unit is Kjeller in March 2014. responsible for registering all cases submitted to the Supreme Court in the case handling system Adviser Merete Koren (61) is secretary to the Chief "Høyrett". The Case-Handling Unit also has Justice, assisting also in financial matters. extensive responsibilities relating to the cases pending before the Supreme Court's Appeals Adviser Camilla Johansen (32) (leave of absence) Selection Committee and the cases that have been is secretary to the Secretary-General and Deputy allowed for hearing by the Supreme Court in Secretary-General. She came from a position as chambers. adviser at Norfund in June 2014. Line Woldseter (40) came in as a substitute for Johansen in The Head of the Case-Handling Unit is Elisabeth December 2014. She came from a position as a Frank Sandall (60). Her team also includes Higher sales secretary at Nobel Catering. Executive Officers Mette Moe (57), Lisa-Beth Pettersen (49), and Mariann Solbakk (48) and Adviser Torill Melleby Jensen (57) assists in the Senior Executive Officer Britt Wenche Aaslie (69). work with the budget and accounts. In 2014 the team was further reinforced by Higher Executive Officers Monica Gereke Heia (46) and Adviser Randi Stranden (62) is the Scheduling Julie so-Man Ng (33) joining the unit. They both Officer, and handles a lot of the contact with have experience working as paralegals with the Tax counsel and other parties. Administration and Brækhus Dege Advokatfirma DA, respectively. Senior Executive Officer Helga Mærde Gruer (56) is an ICT-consultant, providing assistance and Tove Undrum Gjøystdal retired in December 2014, 38 guidance related to ICT systems, as well as testing after working in the Supreme Court for 14 years. the administrative software Høyrett. ADMINISTRATION

Photo: Sturlason COURT USHER - WHAT IS THAT?

Morten Almås is one of two court ushers at the Supreme Court, and he has worked here since 2010. As the court usher, Morten is the building's jack of all trades. With his friendly presence and positive attitude, he makes sure all the practicalities of court proceedings in the Supreme Court go off without a hitch. The right chair in the right location and the right robes for the right justice. Morten is also a key player when it comes to organizing the many seminars and receptions that take place in the building.

Morten's responsibilities also include filing and records, as well as mail. He also assists in preparing case documents.

MORTEN ALMÅS EXPLAINS:

"The responsibilities of a court usher are diverse and manifold. It is important to keep track of all the details. My job puts me in contact with many of the people who work here at the Supreme Court, as well as with members of the public who pass "My job puts me in contact with many of through here. That is the best part of my job, in my the people who work here in the opinion. I also love the beautiful building we have Supreme Court, as well as with members the privilege of working in. of the public who pass through here. That's the best part of my job, in my I find it inspiring to work at the Supreme Court, opinion." given the level of expertise everyone demonstrates. The people who work here are extremely intellectual, and I have never heard better speeches than the ones delivered here." 40 COURT USHER COUNTY TOUR 2014 HIGHLIGHTS FROM 7 MUNICIPALITIES IN 3 DAYS

The Supreme Court is the highest court in Norway, and it is the only court whose jurisdiction covers the entire country. Therefore, we find it very important to learn more about all regions of our country. As a part of this effort, the Supreme Court tours one of Norway's counties each fall to learn more about local government, business, public institutions and culture. In 2014, we travelled to . COUNTYTOUR 2014

The starting point for our trip was Walaker Hotel in the village of Solvorn in Luster, a municipality known for its hydroelectric power plant. Walaker is the oldest family-run hotel in the country, with a history dating back almost 400 years.

"We have to play to each other's strengths!" Reputation Manager for Football, Rasmus Mo, spoke from the heart: Teamwork is the key to success at all levels. It doesn't matter if it's football, education or juicing apples at Lerum in Sogndal.

Via Statens hus in to a historic rural tour in , which included product sampling and Gregorian chanting at Ciderhuset.

Over Gaularfjellet along the national tourist route to Førde and Florø, with stops along the way. Snøggbåten transported the group across Sognesjøen to the old posting inn in Skerjehamn in , showcased on the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation's show "Der ingen skulle tru at nokon kunne bu" (which aired in October 2010). At Skerjehamn, local entrepreneurs within fish farming, information technology and music festival organizing presented their businesses.

Visit to the Millennium Site at Gulating in Eivindvik. The national anthem performed in front of Bård Breivik's memorial of the old assembly site. The Supreme Court would like to thank County Governor Anne Karin Hamre and Deputy County Governor Gunnar Hæreid and their staff, as well as all mayors and other contributors for an amazing tour schedule.

43 OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES In 2014, like previous years, the Supreme Court has welcomed a number of visitors from international law communities. For example, in October 2014, we were visited by the entire EFTA Court. Furthermore, our justices have participated in congresses, seminars and judicial meetings in other countries, see info box. IN THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING THE FOLLOWING EVENTS TOOK PLACE: The Supreme Court is working closesly with • Press breakfast equivalent courts in the other Nordic countries, and this collaboration enjoys a unique position. • Lecture and guided tours for new judges

In October 2014, all Supreme Court law clerks • The Norwegian Association of the Blind and Partially went on a study visit to the European Court on Sighted donated the Constitution in Braille Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. In addition to attending lectures on ECtHR's activities, ECtHR • Visit from the Standing Committee on Justice staff and the Supreme Court law clerks discussed relevant judicial issues. The law clerks also sat in on • Seminar on the future of the European Court of Human Rights TTagayeva et al. vs. Russia (no. 26562/07 et al.). • Visit by female justices from Austria The purpose of the Supreme Court's international activities is two-fold. It should contribute to further • Visit by Supreme Court justices from Bulgaria develop the expertise within the Supreme Court, and it should contribute to the • Visit by Supreme Court justices from Thailand building of states based on the rule of law and the development of such in other countries. • Visit by the Courts Administration from Bosnia- Hercegovina TRAVELS IN NORWAY • Reception in connection with the Nordic Judicial In 2014, the Supreme Court's annual county tour Seminar went to Sogn og Fjordane. For more information, please see separate section on this tour on pages • Visit by Angola's Minister of Justice and entourage 42-43. • Seminar for advisers to political parties in In addition to the county tour, some Supreme Court parliament representatives also participated in a number of • Seminar for European Supreme Court justices seminars and events around the country. Please see organized by the University of Oslo the info box for more details. • Seminar with the EFTA Court GUIDED TOURS AND SEMINARS IN THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING. • Open day The Supreme Court accepts groups for guided • Centenary memorial seminar for Rolv Ryssdal tours.In 2014, the Supreme Court gave a total of 54 (for Pluricourts) guided tours, with 1334 visitors in all.

In connection with the open day in October, 260 visitors were treated to a presentation on the Supreme Court and a guided tour of the Supreme Court building. Every year, a large number of judicial seminars and events are also held in the building. See info box for more details. 44 ACTIVITY EXTERNAL

EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES Among other things, we attended or participated in the following:

• Represented at the opening of the judicial year at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg • Represented at the employment fairs at the Universities of Bergen, Tromsø and Oslo • Exchange programme with the Supreme Court of United Kingdom • The XVI Congress of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts in Vienna • Nordic Senior Judges' Seminar in Finland

• The 30th Nordic Moot Court on Human Rights in Reykjavik • Represented at the general assembly of the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union (ACA) in Paris

• Participated in the EFTA Court's 20th anniversary celebration in Luxembourg • Meeting with the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the European Union in Rome

• The 40th Nordic Judicial Seminar in Oslo • Meeting in the International Association of the Supreme Administrative Jurisdiction (IASAJ) in Poland

• The 3rd Congress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice in Korea • Seminar at the European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA) in Luxembourg • Study visit to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg • Meeting in the International Association of Tax Judges in Washington D.C • Seminar on the Supreme Court's history at the University of Bergen • Meeting in the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union (ACA) in the Czech Republic • Visit to the University of Cape Town, Constitutional Court and Judges Forum in South Africa • Conference on the European Commercial Judges Forum in Copenhagen

• Nordic Supreme Court Chief Justices Seminar in Sweden STATISTICS

CASE LOAD The Supreme Court receives a large number of appeals each year. Below is a list showing the distribution of the different types of cases and subject matters in 2014. For appeals against judgments in civil cases and criminal cases, approx. 15 percent and 10.5 percent of the cases, respectively, were referred to the Supreme Court for hearing in chambers.

CIVIL CASES

• Appeals against judgments received 496 • Appeals against CRIMINAL CASES orders/decisions received 619 • Heard in chambers 56 • Appeals against judgments received 400 • Heard in grand chamber 1 • Appeals against orders/decisions received 761

• Heard in chambers 47

For more detailed information about the cases received by the Supreme Court in 2014, please see the statistics published on the Supreme Court's website.

CASE PROCESSING TIMES

The Supreme Court has in 2014 maintained the The average processing time from receipt of a case satisfactory case processing times from recent until the Appeals Selection Committee has made its years. There is no waiting time for a case to be decision is approximately one month. The average heard by the Supreme Court. Cases are processing time from the Supreme Court’s receipt scheduled as expeditiously as possible of a case until appeal proceedings are held is according to counsel’s preparations and schedules. approximately six months in civil cases and three months 46 in criminal cases. STATISTICS

TYPES OF CASES HEARD BY THE COURT IN CHAMBERS AND GRAND CHAMBER IN 2014 THE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE

CIVIL CASES CRIMINAL CASES Tax law 13 Assault and battery 6 Contract law 7 Sexual crimes 5 Law of damages 5 Preventive custody—parole/minimum sentence 4 Labour law/gender equality 3 Manslaughter 2 Expropriation 3 Confiscation 2 Social security law 3 Long processing times 2 Recall of taxi licences 2 Abuse in close relationships 2 Forced sale 2 Threats 2 Compulsory mental health care 2 Embezzlement/corruption 2 Defamation 2 Shooting of protected bird 1 Section 96 of the Constitution 1 Refugee Convention 1 Professional responsibility of lawyers 1 Refugee espionage 1 Public access to land 1 Disturbance of private life 1 Child welfare/visitation rights 1 Lack of licence to serve alcohol 1 Sample for DNA analysis from deceased person 1 Drugs 1 Family/probate 1 Violation of fisheries legislation 1 Insurance law 1 Violation of firearms legislation 1 Set-off claims in bankruptcy 1 Withdrawal from criminal attempt 1 Allodial rights 1 Forced marriage 1 Ground lease 1 Extradition 1 Compulsory debt settlement 1 Admission of evidence 3 Attorney-client confidentiality 1 Impartiality 3 Other matters pertaining to civil procedure 3 Attorney-client confidentiality 1 Other matters pertaining to criminal procedure 2

47 ANNUAL REPORT 2014