ANNUAL REPORT 2015 ›
Sivilombudsmannen – Norwegian Parliamentary Ombudsman Parliamentary Sivilombudsmannen – Norwegian
ANNUAL REPORT 2015
DOCUMENT 4 (2015–2016) The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s strategy 2015–2019
Objective: The Parliamentary Ombudsman is tasked with ensuring that individuals do not suffer injustice at the hands of the public administration
Vision: A known and clear voice speaking up against injustice
Reputational values: Trustworthy, objective and independent – respect for individuals
Working environment values: Sense of community and responsibility, openness and freedom of speech, respect for each other
Goals: ›› We shall focus our efforts where the impact is greatest
›› We shall raise our public profile
›› We shall enjoy the public’s trust
›› We shall have an impact on the public administration
›› We shall have a clear management
›› Our work processes shall be efficient and expedient
›› Our working environment shall be socially inclusive and professionally stimulating e ro essing o a om laint
om laint re ieve
ssesion eat er investigate t e om laint
e om laint is re e te or: t e om laint is investigate an t e o uments are re uire rom t e a ministration
e om lainant re ieves a rovisional ans er
e om laint is lose or: t e ase is investigate an i nee e a letter is sen t to t e a ministration e om lainant is noti ie letter
e investigation onitues t e om lainant is given t e o orturnit to omment on t e in ings o t e om u sman
e arliamentar m u sman gives is o inion in t e ase 10 um er o om laints in :
en er ent o t e ases onsi ere ere lose it ritisism
Closed with criticism We om lain a out:
esolved 10 The case processing time 25 National insurance benefits
65 Public disclosure, duty of securecy, access to documents Closed without criticism esidence permit
um er o one alls re ieve in : um er o letters re ieve : We make om laints on: County governors um er o letters sent rom t e mu smans o i e: The Norwegian abour and elfare Administration Municipal administrative bodies um er o ages visite at t e e site uring one mont : um er o om laints re ieve t e se ure transmisson rom t e e site: Document 4 (2015–2016) The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Report for 2015
Submitted to the Storting on 29 March 2016 Foreword
The annual report for 2015 covers my first year in Another goal of the strategy plan is to devote more office as the Parliamentary Ombudsman and for me resources to general and systematic investigations. it therefore represents something of a milestone. This is in line with the Storting’s wishes. By increasing this component, the Ombudsman office will be better As I will come back to below, our office has experienced able to fulfil its mandate. It is a precondition that some major changes in 2015. Much of the year has such investigations are initiated and carried out in a also been spent on preparing changes that will be strategic and expedient way, however. For the case implemented in the years to come, particularly in officers in our office, it is difficult to accomplish this 2016. Most importantly, we sought to achieve this on top of the day-to-day work of handling demanding through a thorough process in which a strategy plan complaint cases. We have therefore established a was developed for the period 2015–2019. The plan new division with special responsibility for systematic is proactive and ambitious, but I believe it is realistic. investigations. This division will not be responsible for handling complaint cases. In addition to sys- One change that readers of this annual report will tematic investigations, it will be assigned certain hopefully take note of is our new graphic profile. In coordinating tasks. The aim is for the division to be accordance with our strategy plan, we have sought operational from August 2016. to give the Ombudsman a modern, durable and recognisable profile. The profile will be used in all The Ombudsman’s core task is to consider the Ombudsman’s communications. complaints, even if we are now devoting more 3
resources to systematic investigations. Citizens public administration makes adjustments after being who complain to us have legitimate expectations of approached by one of the Ombudsman’s case officers a thorough, fast and satisfactory case processing, are perhaps equally important. Such communication so that any injustice can be remedied as soon as usually takes place by formal letters, but can often possible. In the vast majority of cases, we are able also take the form of an informal telephone call. to meet these expectations. The annual report is a Also this side of our activities is reflected in the reflection of a number of individual cases in which annual report. I will not go into detail about the many complaints from citizens have succeeded. And areas in which we work in this foreword, but I would the complaints are now considered relatively fast, like to point out that freedom of information and a factor that is very important if the ombudsman disclosure have been important focus areas for us regime is to work in a satisfactory manner. in 2015, partly because they have been the topic of a number of interesting complaints that have led to There is nonetheless room for improvement. One step important clarifications of matters of principle, and that needs to be taken is to reduce the number of partly because they were the topic of our annual complaints divisions from today’s five to three. Apart human rights seminar. The fact that the seminar from facilitating better prioritisation, it will increase was attended by so many indicates the relevance our possibility of viewing the individual areas of law and importance of knowledge and understanding in in conjunction with each other. In the day-to-day this area. The public’s right to freedom of information operations, larger complaints divisions will also be and disclosure forms an obvious ruling principle, less vulnerable. at the same time as we clearly have the powers to make important and reasonable exceptions. It can If the Ombudsman regime is to work in a satisfactory sometimes be difficult to determine how far these manner, it is essential that we have the power to powers extend. I was satisfied that the seminar gave make an impact on the public administration. It is us a balanced picture, based on input from knowled- generally known that the Ombudsman’s opinions geable spokespersons for all relevant points of view. are not binding, but it is assumed, not least by the Storting, that they will be complied with. In practice, In 2015, the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s National this is normally what happens. In 2015, however, the Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has made regular Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation visits to places where people are deprived of their refused to comply with my opinions in two cases. liberty. Based on these visits, thorough reports have Both cases concerned building in the shore zone, been prepared in which the Ombudsman makes a where non-economic interests come into play, number of recommendations to public authorities. which individuals cannot automatically be expected I note that these reports are well received, including to take into account. The two cases differ, but the by those who are responsible for and work at these common denominator is the consequences for the institutions. That in itself is a good testimonial for an ombudsman regime of the Ministry not complying entity that largely breaks new terrain. with the Ombudsman’s opinions. I therefore found reason to submit a special report on these cases to the Storting. At the time of writing, the case is pending consideration by the Storting’s Standing Aage Thor Falkanger Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs. Parliamentary Ombudsman
It has gradually also become clearer to me that the Ombudsman’s impact on the public administration cannot simply be assessed on the basis of the more formal opinions. The many cases in which the Content
Foreword...... 2
› Articles › The content and importance of the duty to provide guidance
in a digitalised public administration ...... 7
› The power behind the opinions – authority and instruments ...... 12
› The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s experience of two mandates ...... 20
› Freedom of speech for public sector employees ...... 22
› The significance of human rights to the work of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. ....28 › Overview of cases in 2015...... 37 › Statistics ...... 43 › About us › Overview of divisional structure and specialist subject areas ...... 51
› The Ombudsman’s office – staff list...... 52
› Budget and accounts ...... 54
› External activities ...... 55
› Act relating to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public ...... 60 Employees of The Parliamentary Ombudsman Articles 7
The content and importance of the duty to provide guidance in a digitalised public administration
The public administration has must be adapted to individual needs: ‘Users shall be provided with help and guidance in the use of the entity’s a duty to provide guidance even digital services, for example through online guidance, if it prefers to communicate with online chats, direct contact or by attendance in person.’ you digitally. From experience, the Ombudsman knows that users have different needs for assistance and that the By Annicken Elisabeth Sogn, Special Adviser and Deputy Head of Division 1 public administration will do well to remember that the duty to provide guidance applies in this area too. Communication with the public administration is The duty to provide guidance includes everything that becoming increasingly digitalised. As citizens, we has to do with how the party or user in question is to are expected to perform our duties and exercise our proceed in order to meet their obligations or exercise rights by use of the public administration’s digital their rights in an ‘optimum’ manner. This includes solutions. Whilst this is a positive trend, many of us providing each individual user with easily accessible also find it challenging. Pursuant to Section 11 of the and understandable user instructions for the public Public Administration Act, however, we are entitled administration’s digital solutions. to guidance when we need it. Need for exceedingly clear contact information The duty to provide guidance was made very clear by Just before Christmas in 2015, the proprietor of a the Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation small one-man business wrote to the Ombudsman in a circular of 20 November 2015 on digitalisation, that he was in an exasperating situation with respect where the following is stated by way of introduction to ‘meeting [his] public obligations’. He was unable in chapter 1: ‘As a rule, the public administration shall to make digital payment of employer’s National Insu- use web-based services in its communication with rance contributions and advance tax. His attempts private individuals and businesses. These services at digital communication with the Norwegian Tax shall be comprehensive, user-friendly and based on Administration to get the requisite guidance had universal design. The login procedure shall be easy also failed miserably. and secure, and the users shall get the assistance they need in order to find and make use of the services.’ [our emphasis] « This means that contact information must be easy Chapter 2 section 2.1 carries the heading ‘Help the users’. The heading is a strong reminder that the to find for everybody, duty to provide guidance is no less important in a and that it must be clear, digitalised public administration. In section 2.1, the – preferably exceedingly clear » Ministry points out that the way guidance is provided SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 8 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
The businessman’s payment and contact problems A long way to go from digital vision were raised with the Directorate of Taxes on a general to digital reality basis. Visjonen for de digitale veiledningsløsningene på The Directorate replied: ‘In the experience of the The vision behind the digital guidance solutions on Norwegian Tax Administration, this category of users the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration’s regard Altinn as a simple and efficient tool .... Another (NAV) website is that ‘as many people as possible factor is that reporting by commercial players and or- shall be able to satisfy their need for services from ganisations will increasingly take place by electronic NAV by digital communication and not have to involve communication only.’ (our emphasis) The Directorate a NAV office or contact centre’. In order to realise of Taxes assumed that the businessman had used this vision, it is absolutely necessary to ensure that the wrong channels when he failed in his attempt to digitally available information about regulations and get guidance. The Ombudsman does not doubt the practice is correct, complete and up-to-date. Another Tax Administration’s experience of the user category and equally important precondition is that the digital in question. The case nonetheless illustrates how information is easily understandable for everybody. important it is to make sure that contact information for and information about the public administration’s «the Ombudsman therefore guidance services cannot be misunderstood. This means that contact information must be easy to find stated that the public for everybody, and that it must be clear, preferably administration’s digital exceedingly clear. It must also be ensured that the information services guidance provided in response to such queries meets the specific needs of the person who requested it. ‘are an expedient supplement… , This is particularly important where it is mandatory – but no more than that » for users and people subject to a reporting obligation to use the public administration’s digital reporting solutions. Based on recent investigations of specific cases and more general issues raised on the Ombudsman’s The essence of the duty to provide guidance own initiative, it is our clear impression that no part The scope and complexity of the many regulations of the current public administration has found it easy that public agencies have the authority to enforce to meet these essential preconditions for providing are increasing. Queries to the Ombudsman show adequate digital guidance. In case 2015-2236, that some people find it almost impossible to get the Ombudsman therefore stated that the public necessary and adequate guidance from the public administration’s digital information services ‘are an administration about what is required in order to be expedient supplement to the guidance that [users] granted a specific permit or be entitled to a specific must legitimately be able to expect from [the admi- benefit. One of the Ombudsman’s important tasks nistrative agency in question], but no more than that’. is to investigate whether the public administration’s duty to provide guidance in individual cases works In autumn 2015, the Ombudsman investigated Tax as intended: ‘to enable the parties and other interested Norway West’s practice in relation to pensioners who persons to safeguard their interests in specific cases in request guidance on the tax implications of moving the best possible way’; see the purpose definition in abroad (case 2015-2236). The Ombudsman’s view Section 11 of the Public Administration Act. In more of the tax office’s duty to provide guidance, including common terms, the essence of the duty to provide his remark on the duty to provide direct guidance guidance is that users who need it are entitled to even if the same information is available online, is guidance about whatever is or could be important also important in relation to other parts of the public and necessary to ensure that the case in question is administration. The following is therefore reproduced processed correctly and with an optimum outcome from the concluding letter that the Ombudsman sent for him/her. to Tax Norway West: ‘Pursuant to the wording of The content and importance of the duty to provide guidance in a digitalised public administration 9
Section 3-1 [of the Tax Assessment Act], the tax The scope of the duty to provide guidance office’s duty to provide guidance “about acts, regulati- – concrete overall assessment essential ons and standard practice with a bearing on the rights An adequate understanding requires competence and duties of the person in question” depends on and attentiveness on the part of the case officer. On whether “the work situation permits it”’. Nonetheless, some occasions, the Ombudsman has wondered the queries received by the Ombudsman suggest whether this type of misjudgement may be due to a that a private taxpayer’s request for guidance on a lack of competence on the part of the case officer in tax issue is hardly ever rejected with reference to the question. In many cases, the public administration tax office’s work situation. This is in line with good overestimates the user or party’s responsibility for administrative practice whereby public agencies go familiarising themselves with the applicable regula- far in their effort to be accommodating. tions and ascertaining what factual information may be decisive for the outcome of a case. According to the requirements for good adminis- trative practice, the tax office should also prioritise A relatively recent case showing error of judgement correctly the time devoted to guidance activities. The was the Norwegian Public Roads Administration’s more complex the rules, the greater the taxpayer’s processing of a case concerning replacement of a need for thorough guidance. Spanish driving licence (case 2014- 2206), in which the party’s need and legitimate request for guidance Tax Norway West pointed out that the complexity of on ‘applicable acts and regulations and standard the regulations and tax treaties can sometimes con- practice in the applicable area’ pursuant to Section stitute a challenge and that they can be difficult for 11 third paragraph (a) of the Public Administration individual taxpayers to understand. The Ombudsman Act was misjudged. Another case in point concerned agrees. The requirements for guidance that the tax the conditions for earning the right to parental benefit offices must meet are therefore relatively extensive; for a parent without a permanent job who had to work see above. On this basis, it is understandable if the as a temp/stand-in (case 2015-1145). guidance provided must sometimes be somewhat limited due to capacity constraints, so that a full In the case concerning replacement of a Spanish explanation of the applicable regulations may not driving licence, the Ombudsman found reason to be provided in response to a specific query. In such point out in particular that, ‘[e]ven if the [Public Roads cases, it is important to expressly point out that the Administration’s] information service makes it clear guidance provided is not a complete explanation of that the information provided is meant as guidance the rules that may be applicable in relation to the only, this does not relieve the service of the duty individual taxpayer’s tax liability after moving abroad. to provide correct information about applicable regulations in the Public Roads Administration’s area The Ombudsman is aware that a great deal of of responsibility’. relevant information about the tax consequences of moving abroad is available at www.skatteetaten. In the parental benefit case, it was not disputed that no. The Ombudsman is under the impression that the user was entitled to receive guidance on the many of the intended recipients of this information regulations for earning the right to parental benefit. struggle with both the technicalities and the content NAV provided sufficient guidance on the wording of this information. The general information provided of the law. The key issue was whether NAV’s duty on Tax Norway’s website and via tax-related portals to provide guidance included a duty to provide cannot replace the tax offices’ duty to provide information about the non-statutory conditions for guidance on request. This type of information service including days without work in the earning period. is an expedient supplement to the guidance that the The user had informed NAV that she would ‘probably taxpayer must legitimately be able to expect from the have to rely on working as a stand-in and/or temp’. tax office, but no more than that. SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 10 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
The Ombudsman considered that this information Successful digitalisation will probably also facilitate should have prompted NAV to provide information simplification and renewal of the guidance provided in about the non-statutory conditions for including straightforward and unproblematic individual cases. days without work in the earning period for parental In such cases, to-the-point and simple online guidance benefit. will not entail any doubt on the part of those involved..
« Nav nominee is large and « Even a digitalised public complicated regulations » administration must fulfil its duty to provide guidance »
NAV administers a wide and complex set of regulations, handles an extensive case load and Far from all cases are that simple. As soon as the works under considerable pressure. Pursuant to factual circumstances are slightly out of the ordinary Section 11 first paragraph second sentence of the or atypical for the case type, neither the facts of the Public Administration Act, the scope and quality case nor the legal considerations are as obvious. It of the guidance must be ‘adapted to the individual is not always easy in such cases to know how far administrative agency’s situation and capacity’. The the duty to provide guidance extends, or whether Directorate therefore took the view that NAV had the online guidance is sufficient in a particular case. fulfilled its duty to provide guidance, even though As mentioned above, a concrete overall assessment the user had not received any information about the will still be necessary in order to determine the non-statutory conditions for including days without scope of the duty to provide guidance. The need work in the earning period. The Ombudsman did not for such an overall assessment may appear to be agree. The relevant non-statutory conditions were both old-fashioned and laborious. In cases where an easily available to NAV’s case officers in the form of overall assessment is required in order to determine a circular on earning the right to parental benefit as the scope of the duty to provide guidance, the Om- mentioned in Section 14-6 of the Norwegian National budsman will nonetheless uphold the view that the Insurance Act. They were not, however, mentioned in public administration’s digital information services NAV’s brochures on parental benefit or in the general ‘are an expedient supplement to the guidance that information about parental benefit published on the user must legitimately be able to expect from [the NAV’s website. Based on the specific situation, which relevant administrative agency], but no more than the user had clearly made NAV aware of, it would not that’. Even a digitalised public administration must have required too much of an effort to provide her fulfil its duty to provide guidance: Not only must the with guidance on these conditions, which appeared public administration observe the statutory duty to to possibly be of material importance to her. provide information; its case processing must be soundly founded on the requirements for satisfactory Users’ right to individual guidance will be upheld case processing and good administrative practice. The following is stated in the introduction to the circular It is the Ombudsman’s task to ensure compliance on digitalisation: ‘At best, digitalisation – understood on this point, in line with the words of the mandate: to mean the introduction of new technology to an ‘endeavour to ensure that individual citizens are not organisation – may be a catalyst for simplification of unjustly treated by the public administration’; see complex regulations and renewal of redundant and Section 3 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act. laborious administrative practices.’ VeiledningspliktensMakten bak uttalelsene innhold – myndighet og betydning og virkemidler i en digitalisert forvaltning 11
Case 2015/1135
The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) decided to stop payment of a disability pension to a female recipient. The decision was brought before the National Insurance Court, which set aside the decision and sent it back to NAV for reconsideration. NAV informed the woman that it could take up to eight months until the complaint about the discontinuation of the payments was considered. The woman filed a complaint about the case processing time with the Parliamentary Ombuds- man. The Ombudsman asked the Directorate of Labour and Welfare for an explanation of whether and how NAV prioritises such cases. The Directorate was also asked to state whether, in the Directorate’s view, it would be in accordance with good administrative practice for NAV to take eight months to consider the complaint. In the Directorate’s reply, it emerged that NAV’s procedures were intended to ensure that such cases were given priority. Eight months was the maximum time set for reducing the backlog of unresolved cases at the same time as a new disability benefit was introduced. Many cases were resolved sooner than this. The Directorate replied that it was clearly unfortunate that the woman was informed that the case processing time was eight months, since, pursuant to procedures, the case should have had higher priority. NAV was asked to give the case priority immediately. The Ombudsman closed the case after this. NAV reached a decision shortly afterwards.
The case has been reopened following a new complaint in 2016 about the case processing time.
A number of cases are resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction after the Ombudsman has raised the matter with the public administration, either in writing or orally, without a concluding opinion being necessary. In 2015, this applied to 359 cases.
Case 2014/3443
In November 2014, the Ombudsman received a complaint about Tax Norway South’s case processing time in connection with a request for access to information. The complainant requested access to information relating to her deceased father. The complaint against denial of access was sent to Tax Norway South in August 2014. At the time the daughter complained to the Ombudsman, she had still not received an answer concerning the matter. The Ombudsman was informed by telephone that a meeting had been arranged between the Directorate of Taxes and Tax Norway South in December 2014 at which the case was to be decided. It later emerged that a decision had not been reached at this meeting either. The Ombudsman, who had decided to close the case since the parties appeared to be about to resolve it, therefore chose to ask Tax Norway South about what proce- dures it had for informing users about case procedures and expected case processing times. In its reply to the Ombudsman, Tax Norway South explained the time it took by referring to uncertainty about what the practice is as regards access to information in cases of this kind. They also wrote that they realised that it had unfortunately taken too long to consider the request for access and apologised for this. The case was decided shortly afterwards, and the Ombudsman closed the case.
In 2015, the Ombudsman considered 15 complaints about tardy case processing by the Tax Administration. Six of them were resolved by phone, and three of them could be closed there and then. SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 12 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
The power behind the opinions – authority and instruments
In 2015, the Ombudsman found it necessary to submit a special report to the Storting on how the Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s opinions. Other administrative bodies were also reminded of the Ombudsman’s role and mandate.
to use the instruments available to him under the law in the effort to achieve compliance by the Since 2004, the Ombudsman has registered public administration. The background to why the 25 instances of the public administration Ombudsman found it necessary to take this step is failing to comply with the Ombudsman’s that non-compliance with the Ombudsman’s opinions interpretation of the law. could potentially have very great consequences. The Ombudsman is appointed by the Storting in order to supervise the public administration, and is thus part By Thea Jåtog Trygstad, Senior Adviser of Division 4 of the division of power between the branches of the state. As opposed to the courts, the Ombudsman On 30 October 2015, the Ombudsman submitted a may not make binding decisions, but only express an special report to the Storting for the first time in six opinion on matters investigated in detail by his office. years. Pursuant to Section 12 second paragraph of This means that the institution is largely dependent the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman on the Ombudsman enjoying sufficient trust and may, if he considers it ‘appropriate’, issue a special authority in the public agencies for them to comply report to the Storting (and to the relevant adminis- with his requests. In the long term, a lack of respect trative agency). This instrument is not used much. for and compliance with the Ombudsman’s opinions Only in exceptional cases has the Ombudsman taken could undermine the whole ombudsman institution. the step of reporting to the Storting other than in This would in turn weaken the Storting’s control of the annual report on his activities. Not only are such the public administration’s compliance with the law. special reports submitted rather infrequently; in this For those who suffer injustice, any undermining of case, the content is also rather special: The Storting the simple and inexpensive control function that was informed of two instances in which the Ministry the Ombudsman is intended to fulfil would be highly of Local Government and Modernisation had failed unfortunate. to comply with the Ombudsman’s opinions. These general and fundamental considerations Only once before has the Ombudsman deemed it relating to the Ombudsman are pertinent to both the necessary to submit a special report on the grounds cases described in the special report to the Storting. of non-compliance on the part of an administrative agency. The report is therefore an important one, The Ombudsman’s opinion of 18 September 2014 and it illustrates that the Ombudsman is willing (case 2014/1190) concerned dispensation pursuant The power behind the opinions – authority and instruments 13
Special reports (1967–2015)
6 July 1967: Conditions at the special state school for the mentally disabled (Ministry of Education and Church Affairs)) 22 December 1995: Opinion on the Market Council’s decision to prohibit the broadcasting of adverts by TV2 (the Market Council/Ministry of Children and Family Affairs) 4 July 1996: Case processing time in the National Insurance Court (Ministry of Social Affairs) 14 October 1996: Right of access to information under the Freedom of Information Act (various county governors and ministries) 24 February 1998: The Ministry of Justice’s application of the Freedom of Information Act 8 December 1998: Four cases concerning the closing down of schools (the municipal councils, county governors/ education offices) April 2002: Application of the Freedom of Information Act by the municipalities of Lillehammer and Trondheim 21 December 2005: The police and prosecuting authority’s processing of two reports to the police (the Director General of Public Prosecutions) 15 February 2007: The police immigration detention centre at Trandum (the National Police Immigration Service and the Ministry of Justice and the Police) 20 June 2008: Tax assessment for 2005/2006. Special allowance claim for extraordinary sickness expenses due to diabetes (the Directorate of Taxes) 6 October 2008: Case processing time and procedures – the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE) (NPE and the Ministry of Health and Care Services) 8 June 2009: The Ombudsman’s right to receive a copy of the case documents in connection with the consideration of complaints (the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy) 30 October 2015: Special report – The Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation’s failure to comply with the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s opinions to Section 19-2 of the Planning and Building Act from erection of the garage are very closely linked to the requirement for a zoning plan in the land-use part the facts of the case. When the Ombudsman then of the municipal master plan for Sandefjord. The considers that the arguments are insufficient to project concerned the erection of a double garage. grant dispensation under the Act, it appears to be a The Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation rather special situation that the Ministry, in the case reversed the County Governor of Vestfold’s decision of a relatively small project that does not seem to to reject the application. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern a question of principle, chooses to defy the it was doubtful that the advantages mentioned by the Ombudsman in this way, and thus challenge the basis Ministry formed sufficient grounds for granting such for whole ombudsman institution. a dispensation from the zoning plan requirement. The Ministry was requested to reconsider the case, but In individual cases, failure to follow up the Ombuds- this did not change the outcome in the case. It is true man’s opinions could pose other challenges over and that new arguments in favour of dispensation were above a weakening of the ombudsman institution. included in the Ministry’s reconsideration of the case, This is particularly true because the Ombudsman in but the Ombudsman’s assessment and conclusion some areas plays a key role in the interpretation of were nonetheless upheld as stated in the opinion. how the rules are to be understood and applied, for example in areas where cases are seldom brought In itself, the case may not appear to concern an before the courts. A good example of this is the important question of principle. The Ministry’s other case (Opinion of 27 February 2015 – case arguments in favour of granting dispensation for 2014/2809) that formed the background to the SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 14 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
special report to the Storting. The case concerned the are also owners of real property in the shore zone erection of a pavilion in the shore zone, where building and will therefore wish to minimise any limitation projects are generally prohibited under national law; of their access to exploit their own land. The role see Section 1-8 second paragraph of the Planning of the Ombudsman in clarifying the law becomes and Building Act. The prohibition on building does particularly important in such cases. not apply insofar as another building limit is defined in the municipal master plan or in the zoning plan for The Ombudsman may also recommend legal proce- the shore zone. The question in the case was whether edings to make up for the low number of cases that this exception also applied in relation to old zoning are tried by the courts. Such recommendations mean plans for the shore zone where no such building limit that the private party is entitled to legal aid without was defined in relation to the shoreline. The Ministry means testing; see Section 16 first paragraph point 3 took the view that these cases were covered by the of the Act relating to Free Legal Aid. This can compen- exception, while the Ombudsman was of the opinion sate for the risk associated with bringing such a case that the wording of the Act, the preparatory works before the courts, so that financial considerations and the purpose of the provision all indicated that do not stand in the way of such proceedings. This the prohibition on building was applicable in such instrument was used three times in 2015: in a case cases. After the Ombudsman had issued his opinion, concerning double jeopardy (case 2014/682), a case the Ministry sent a letter to all the county governors concerning parental responsibility in connection in which it upheld its interpretation of the law, and with family reunification (case 2014/2319) and a also requested that the letter be forwarded to the case concerning the deadline for applying for return municipal authorities. support (case 2013/1635).
The general question in this case has important It is particularly grave that the cases in the special practical implications, as there are probably many report concern a superior agency’s failure to comply such old zoning plans with no defined building limit in with the Ombudsman’s opinion. The Ministry of Local relation to the shoreline. The Ministry’s understanding Government and Modernisation is the overriding of the law could therefore cause a further reduction sector agency in the area covered by planning and of the shore zone in relation to what the Ombudsman building legislation. considers to be permitted by law. Even if an individual project will be to the advantage of the developer, a However, the Ministry is not alone in failing to comply reduction of the shore zone will often not be to the with the Ombudsman’s opinions. In the past year, the advantage of the general public. Ombudsman has submitted several opinions in which individual municipal authorities have been criticised Regional and state authorities have chief responsibi- and where they have subsequently responded by lity for ensuring that this important area is managed questioning the Ombudsman’s assessment or oth- in accordance with the legislator’s intentions, and it erwise failed to comply with his opinion. gives cause for concern if the public administration, spearheaded by the Ministry, now opens up for In case 2014/576, the Ombudsman submitted an building in the shore zone in contravention of the Act. opinion on 8 July 2015 concerning changes to a municipal sub-plan in Bø municipality. Land that had Cases of this nature are seldom brought before previously been allocated for building holiday homes the courts. It is probably because not many private was reallocated to agriculture, nature conservation individuals feel that they have enough of a stake and open air recreation. The Ombudsman’s opinion in such a question of law to take on the burden was that the adoption of land use objectives must be and risk associated with a lawsuit. In many cases, based on an overall assessment of the qualities of the those who have a legal interest in shore zone cases land in question and must be seen in conjunction with The power behind the opinions – authority and instruments 15
« Bø municipality’s approach to and follow-up of the Ombudsman’s opinion suggest a lack of understanding of the Ombudsman’s mandate and role »
the rest of the planning area. The assessment carried in accordance with what follows from the Ombuds- out by the municipal authority was not deemed to man’s view of the case. In some cases, criticism by be satisfactory. The Ombudsman requested the the Ombudsman means that the legislator comes municipal authority to reconsider the case. into play and amends the law to remove any room for conflict between the prevailing law and the Despite the Ombudsman’s criticism and clear Ombudsman’s opinion. request for reconsideration of the case, Bø municipal council decided that the municipal sub-plan would In autumn 2015, the Ministry of Local Government not be reviewed. The chief municipal executive’s and Modernisation distributed a proposal for consul- presentation of the case contained three options for tation for a series of amendments to the Planning how to proceed: The first option was for the municipal and Building Act. Two of these amendments seem sub-plan to be reconsidered; the second was to to be in direct response to critical opinions from the request the Ombudsman to elaborate on his opinion. Ombudsman. One of them was proposed on the basis The municipal council chose the third option, which of the Ombudsman’s opinion in case 2014/2809 was to ‘take note’ of the Ombudsman’s opinion and concerning old zoning plans without a building conclude the matter without reconsidering the plan. limit along the sea. The Ministry has proposed to incorporate into the law its view that the requirement Bø municipality’s approach to and follow-up of the for building limits should not apply to plans that were Ombudsman’s opinion suggest a lack of understan- prepared pursuant to redundant planning and building ding of the Ombudsman’s mandate and role. An opi- legislation. It appears that the proposal is intended to nion from the Ombudsman is not input to be included contribute to legal clarification of an issue on which or discarded during the public administration’s further different interpretations of the law exist today. processing of the case, but an assessment of and a conclusion on the issues raised by the Ombudsman, Even though the Ministry has not complied with the which the public administration is expected to follow Ombudsman’s opinion in the case, the proposed law up. If such lack of respect and understanding of amendment will now be put to the Storting. In that the Ombudsman’s mandate and role should gain a an issue on which the Ombudsman and the public foothold, the Storting will probably need to exercise administration disagree is submitted to the elected tighter control of the public administration in order national assembly for consideration, an important to maintain the same level of control that the om- element of democracy is upheld: Consideration by budsman regime represents. the legislator reinforces due process protection, particularly through ensuring predictability for and Fortunately, it is still the case that the vast majority of equal treatment of the nation’s citizens, in which case the opinions issued by the Ombudsman are followed the Ombudsman has made a difference. up in a satisfactory manner. The administrative agency often conducts a new and better assessment SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 16 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
Case 2015/3331
A woman applied for sickness benefit following the death of her five-day-old daughter. Her application was incorrectly rejected, and the decision was reversed by NAV two days later. Her complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman concerned the case officer’s conduct towards her during the consideration of the case. The complainant called for case officers to display greater sensitivity and humanity in their direct contact with users. In a letter to the Directorate of Labour and Welfare, the Ombudsman wrote that such sensitivity can be demanding for NAV in many situations, but that good administrative practice requires NAV to do its utmost on this point. The Ombudsman asked the Directorate of Labour and Welfare whether the complainant’s experience was the result of chance and unfortunate, but regrettable, circumstances, or whether it was necessary in general to impress on NAV’s case officers that they must treat all users politely and in a dignified manner based on the user’s situation as it is known to them there and then. The Directorate apologised strongly for the complainant’s unfortunate experience. The way she had been treated was clearly in breach of the agency’s procedures and guidelines for how case officers should treat users. NAV planned to implement necessary measures to prevent more such breaches of procedures.
A request from the Ombudsman can help to shed light on whether administrative practice in a specific field should be more closely examined, and it can also contribute to promoting good administrative practice.
Case 2014/2612
A notice that tax would be levied on an employer as a result of failure to report free board and lodgings and travel home to Poland for employees was sent by the Central Office for Foreign Tax Affairs (COFTA) to the employer’s Polish address, but not to the business’s address in Norway. The business had more than 100 workers from Poland in Norway in 2006 and 2007 for whom COFTA wished to levy tax on the employer based on a so-called summary settlement.
The complainant’s lawyer wrote to the Ombudsman that she found it hard to believe that the Norwegian tax authorities could really levy tax on the employer based on a summary settlement for more than a 100 employees, without responding to the employer’s objections against the tax basis, and without sending a formal decision. The first indication of the existence of the decision had been a bill for the tax claim received 16 months after the notification that never arrived, and then with an additional claim for several hundred thousand Norwegian kroner in accrued interest. One of the points made by the complainant in the case was whether the Tax Authorities had legal authority for omitting to send the decision to the employer who was liable for the tax. Documents in the case showed that the employer was registered with the Brønnøysund Register Centre with a Norwegian, not Polish, business and postal address in the years the case concerned. The investigations made by the Ombudsman show that it was not disputed that COSTA’s notification was never received by the employer. Nor was a written decision in the case sent, as the regulations require.
The Ombudsman arrived at the conclusion that, on several points, COSTA’s consideration of the matter had not been in line with what the employer company had a right to expect. A summary settlement cannot be stipulated on the basis of a summary decision. The summary settlement in this case could not be deemed to have been validly stipulated, and it was therefore not legally binding on the employer company.
The Central Office for Foreign Tax Affairs later informed the Ombudsman that the assessment had been taken note of and that the decision was not binding on the employer company. Sivilombudsmannen har ordet 17
Case 2015/2395
A farmer complained that property tax had been levied on a summer pasture cabin that belonged to his farm in Volda municipa- lity. Buildings run for farming or forestry purposes are exempt from property tax. The complainant pointed out that the cabin was only in use when the livestock were grazing the summer pastures in the mountains. It was used to oversee the livestock. The municipality did not dispute that it was used in this way as part of the general running of the farm. The municipality argued, however, that it was not necessary to use the cabin to oversee the livestock because it was within short driving and walking distance of the main farm. In his opinion, the Ombudsman stated that there is no authority in prevailing law for making it a requirement that using the cabin is necessary or expedient for the running of the farm. Volda municipality was asked to recon- sider the concrete property tax case. The municipality was also requested to bring its practice into line with the Ombudsman’s remarks with effect from the 2016 tax year.
Only buildings used in the running of farms are exempt from property tax.
Case 2014/3520 and case 2015/2817
In 2013, a man complained about the rejection of his application for sickness benefit and was informed by NAV International that the case processing time was six months. In 2014, he was informed that it would take a further three months. Considera- tion of the case had still not been completed in January 2015. In a phone conversation with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, NAV International promised that consideration of the case would be completed in a short space of time. The caseload was the reason given for the delay of almost a year in relation to the case processing time originally indicated.
Of almost 161 complaints about tardy case processing by NAV in 2105, 20 per cent were related to NAV International. The Ombudsman has kept a special eye on NAV International’s case processing times for several years. The Ombudsman therefore requested an overview of case processing times for selected case types. The Ombudsman stated that it was difficult to criticise the long case processing times when the delays were due to the resource situation and the cases are given justifiable priority. However, the users’ right to be informed about the case processing time and delays during processing cannot be set aside as a result of the lack of resources. NAV International now informs users about expected case processing times and any delays.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman can raise cases on his own initiative if several complaints show persistent breaches of case processing times, the duty to provide information or other rules. In 2015, 26 cases were raised at the Ombudsman’s own initiative. SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 18 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
Case 2013/1852
An Afghan national’s application for asylum in Norway was rejected. He thereafter converted to Christianity and requested that the rejection be set aside because he now had a need for protection in relation to his home country because of his Christian faith. The Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) partly set aside the rejection in that he was granted residence on humanitarian grounds. The Board believed that the conversion was genuine and the applicant therefore had a justified fear of persecution in his home country. The majority on the Board nonetheless concluded that he should not be recognised as a refugee. They justified this on the grounds that the original purpose of his christening and joining the church was to obtain a residence permit.
The Ombudsman came to the conclusion that the decisive matter was whether a genuine conversion had taken place, not whether the initial contact with the church was strategically motivated. The Board was requested to reconsider the case.
In its reconsideration of the case, the Board based its decision on the same interpretation of the Immigration Act as the Ombudsman, and the Afghan was granted refugee status and thereby asylum in Norway.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman considered 24 complaints about asylum cases in 2015. Ten of them were dismissed and 14 were considered on their merits.
Case 2014/2564
A woman received a rejection to her application for a residence permit to live together with her husband, who was a Norwegian citizen. The Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) found that the husband had not documented that he would earn enough to meet the income requirement for family immigration. The husband, who was a medical student, had documented a student grant plus future income from an employment relationship he had entered into with Ahus hospital, but not yet started in. He had also secured extra shifts at a catering enterprise. Altogether, he believed that he had documented an income of NOK 249,716 in 2014. The rejection decision and subsequent rejections of applications for reversal were considered by UNE’s secretariat, since they believed that the case did not involve any material questions of doubt. In its decision, UNE did not take account of the documentation of income from the catering enterprise since the employment relationship had not started.
The Ombudsman decided to examine certain aspects of the case more closely. UNE was asked to explain why the employment relationship was disregarded and whether UNE deemed its duty to provide grounds to have been fulfilled.
In its reply to the Ombudsman, UNE wrote that it recognised that the grounds provided in the case were unclear and that it therefore wished to reconsider the case. After reconsideration, UNE concluded, after an overall assessment and under doubt, that it had been substantiated that the conditions for family immigration were nonetheless met, and a permit for this was granted. The Ombudsman therefore took note of UNE’s reversal of its decision and closed the case.
In 2015, the Parliamentary Ombudsman considered 109 complaints concerning residence permits, including family immigration cases. Sivilombudsmannen har ordet 19
Case 2013/3330
Bodø municipality advertised an operating grant for a physiotherapist. Of the 13 applicants, five were called to attend an interview. The municipality announced who had been awarded the operating grant in an email in December the same year, but did not send the grounds for the recommendation until the grant was awarded in January the year after. The four applicants who were not awarded the operating grant appealed against the award decision. Two of the appeals were dismissed because the municipality meant that they were filed too late. The last two appeals were considered by the appeals board, which did not find in their favour. All four applicants complained to the Ombudsman about case processing errors and an incorrect award based on qualifications.
The Ombudsman asked Bodø municipality to explain how the applicants had been informed about the award, the impartiality of the manager and what assessments had been made in relation to the qualification principle. Questions were also raised about the role of the manager since the person who considered both the awarding of the operating grant and the initial dismissal of the two appeals was the case officer for the presentation of the case in the appeals board and also attended during the board’s consideration of the appeals. In the statement from the lawyer from KS Advokatene on behalf of the municipality, it is stated, among other things, that the person who was awarded the grant was so clearly the best qualified that the municipality had no reason to believe that any of the other applicants would not accept the decision, but that it acknowledges in retrospect that this assessment was incorrect. In the lawyer’s view, the grounds satisfied the requirements of the Public Administration Act. In his opinion, the Ombudsman stated that Bodø municipality’s awarding of the operating grant to the physiotherapist inspires little confidence. The case processing was in breach of the provisions of the Public Administration Act on impartiality, the require- ment to inform about the decision and the grounds for the decision. The Ombudsman stated that the case processing errors did not necessarily lead to the result of the award being incorrect. The deficiencies in the case processing nonetheless mean that an injustice was committed against the complainants.
The Ombudsman asked the municipality to take note of the criticism and make sure that the same errors were not repeated.
In its response to the Ombudsman, the municipality agreed with the criticism. They nonetheless believed that it is an advantage if a person who is familiar with the case is present during the appeals board’s consideration. The municipality later apologised to the four applicants, but did not reverse its awarding of the operating grant.
The Ombudsman considered 15 complaints concerning the awarding of operating grants, services offered in/outside institutions and agreements with public authorities in 2015. Even though circumstances are uncovered that warrant criticism, this will rarely lead to an award subsequently being changed. SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 20 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s experience of two mandates
Since the Parliamentary recommendations to public authorities concerning measures and changes that should be implemented. Ombudsman has been working In contrast to what the conventional mandate has under two mandates since been understood to mean, the Ombudsman is in 2013 – a conventional mandate this area expected to stay ahead of events. While the Ombudsman’s most important instruments have tra- combined with a preventive ditionally been to request that injustice be remedied mandate – it is time to reflect on and, if applicable, criticise the authorities for event that have already occurred, the preventive effort some of the experience gained. consists of making recommendations to prevent in- justice in the future. Among other things, this means By Parliamentary Ombudsman Aage Thor Falkanger that the consideration of individual complaints does not fall under the scope of the preventive mandate. The office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman was established in 1962 with a single mandate, namely The above is obviously a simplified description in to ‘endeavour to ensure that individual citizens are many ways. There are more similarities between the not unjustly treated by the public administration’; two mandates than what is immediately apparent: see Section 3 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act. From the beginning, this mandate has been un- Even though the Ombudsman has traditionally derstood to mean that the Ombudsman’s main task focused on complaints from citizens, general is to investigate whether citizens have been or are investigations have regularly been conducted on being unjustly treated by public authorities. If this is the Ombudsman’s own initiative, in accordance with the case, the authorities may be criticised and, based Section 5 of the Ombudsman Act, with a view to on the circumstances, they may also be requested to ascertaining whether citizens are unjustly treated. remedy the injustice. The mandate has primarily been This has not least been accomplished by visiting fulfilled by the Ombudsman considering complaints the types of institutions that now fall under the submitted by citizens. In slightly simplified terms, scope of the preventive mandate, i.e. places where the Ombudsman’s traditional perspective can thus people are deprived of their liberty involuntarily. Such be said to have been retrospective, in much the same investigations have also been carried out in many way as the courts. other areas, however, on topics such as freedom of information and disclosure, employees’ freedom of The preventive mandate assigned to the Ombudsman speech, case processing in public administration in 2013 (see Section 3a of the Parliamentary Ombuds- and entitlement to various welfare benefits, just to man Act) entails a somewhat different approach. mention a few. Such general investigations have Under the preventive mandate, the Ombudsman largely focused on substantiating acts of injustice shall make regular visits to places where people are already committed. At the same time, circumstances or may be deprived of their liberty, for the purpose of have naturally been observed that could lead to unjust preventing that these people are subjected to torture treatment in the future, and recommendations have and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or been issued on what action to take to prevent this. punishment. The preventive effort is manifested in It would also be too much of a simplification to say The Parliamentary Ombudsman's experience of two mandates 21
that the preventive mandate addresses the future « The benefits of having two only. Even though prevention is clearly in focus, the mandate does not preclude the Ombudsman from mandates at the Ombudsman pointing out breaches of the Convention against office far exceed the challenges Torture where a visit gives grounds for this. On the contrary, the Ombudsman will consider it a duty to in the form of synergies » raise the alarm in such situations, even if the breach is discovered in connection with a visit that is based There are several advantages of assigning the on the preventive mandate. preventive function to the Ombudsman. As a representative of the Storting, the Ombudsman has Despite the modifications mentioned above, it is clear a solid institutional platform and also the necessary that the profile of the preventive mandate differs so- independence in relation to other public authorities. mewhat from that of the Ombudsman’s conventional In general, the Ombudsman endeavours to act in an activities. That entails certain challenges. Among impartial and level-headed manner, based on sound other things, it is necessary to draw a line between professional judgement. The preventive effort also the two parts of the Ombudsman’s activities. This benefits from this approach. We find that the relevant has been done by establishing what is known as the authorities make an effort to facilitate our work and Parliamentary Ombudsman’s National Preventive follow up our recommendations. The institutions Mechanism (NPM), a unit that is separate from the we visit also express that they appreciate what they Ombudsman’s conventional complaints divisions. describe as a proper and thorough review by an ex- Within the office, the demarcation between the two ternal and independent body, and that they consider mandates has not posed any significant problems. our visits an opportunity for an inspiring and useful While complaints from people who are deprived dialogue in relation to their day-to-day performance of their liberty are handled by the Ombudsman’s of demanding tasks. The NPM also benefits from the complaints divisions, the NPM concentrates its Ombudsman’s legal expertise, both through being efforts on general investigations of places of de- part of a wider, highly competent legal environment tention. External parties, not least potential users of and through being able to obtain legal input from our services, may find it more difficult to distinguish other case officers when needed. between the two mandates. It does not seem to have created any major problems, however. In connection However, it is not only the preventive effort that bene- with its visits to institutions, the NPM is careful to fits from the synergies of having the two mandates in inform managers, staff and, not least, detainees, of one place. The more conventional ombudsman acti- its mandate, pointing out in particular that it cannot vities also benefit from this. There is thus no doubt consider individual complaints. Other steps have also that the preventive mandate has helped to revitalise been taken to make it clear to external parties, for the office. It is noted in particular that the new tasks example by providing written information, that the represent something new and different, and that this NPM represents a separate part of the Ombudsman’s has been a good opportunity for us to see things in activities and is charged with specific tasks. Should a new light and put them into perspective. It has not the NPM nonetheless receive a complaint, it will be least inspired us to renew parts of our conventional forwarded for consideration by the right person at activities. As mentioned above, the Ombudsman has the Ombudsman’s office. mainly focused on complaints cases and that is how it should continue to be. It is very important for citi- The benefits of having two mandates at the Ombuds- zens to know that their complaints are being properly man office far exceed the challenges in the form of addressed. Nonetheless, there are many arguments synergies. in favour of devoting more resources to more general, systematic investigations in future – investigations aiming not only to identify acts of injustice already SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 22 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
committed, but to make recommendations with a separate division charged with carrying out general, view to preventing injustice in the future. The idea, systematic investigations on its own initiative. This of course, is that a general investigation will have division will clearly be able to draw inspiration from a different and perhaps greater impact than the and build on the knowledge of the NPM. Hence it consideration of complaints, and that, at least in should be possible to utilise the expertise built in some contexts, preventing future injustice can have a the NPM in different ways when we now devote even greater effect than trying to remedy acts of injustice more resources to conducting general, systematic already committed. By way of comparison, it is better investigations. In summary, after nearly two years to prevent fires than to devote all the resources to of co-existence, it is clear that the two mandates extinguishing fires that have already been sparked. In are compatible, and that the arrangement also yields organisational terms, we will facilitate an adjustment significant advantages. of our course by the establishment in 2016 of a
Freedom of speech for public sector employees
In the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s view, concrete measures are needed to strengthen public sector employees’ freedom of speech, and this should take place through more active guidance from authorities at the overriding level. In 2015, we carried out a survey on our own initiative of the Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation’s work on public sector employees’ freedom of speech. On conclusion of this work, it was recommended that the Ministry revise the existing circular to the municipalities concerning employees’ freedom of speech, or create a new circular. The same applied to the Ethical Guidelines for the Public Service.
By May-Britt Mori Seim, Senior Adviser, and Elisabeth Fougner, Senior Adviser and Deputy Head of Division 5.
Complaints and other enquiries to the Ombudsman about and guidance on the issue. In 2015, the have shown that there is uncertainty in both the Ombudsman therefore raised the issue with the central government and municipal administration Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation, about the limits of employees’ freedom of speech. which is responsible for the employer function at Media stories have reinforced the impression that the central government level. measures are needed to ensure more knowledge Freedom of speech for public sector employees 23
Freedom of speech – a fundamental right legitimate, objective interests. It has also pointed out Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. It is provi- that it takes a lot to exceed the limits for employees’ ded for in Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution freedom of speech. and also follows from international commitments, including the ECHR Article 10. These provisions also Employees will normally be able to make statements protect employees’ freedom of speech. Freedom of that are not subject to the duty of confidentiality, speech is important to ensure debate is as well-infor- and that express the employee’s own opinion. This med as possible, thereby strengthening democracy. includes statements that the employer perceives Employees can contribute special insight into as undesirable, unfortunate or unpleasant. Public conditions that concern their own work. In addition to sector employees have wide-reaching freedom – in strengthening the debate, their views can contribute both form and content – to express their opinions to counteracting and uncovering illegal activities or in public, also about their own area of work and their matters worthy of criticism. own workplace. In principle, it is the employer who must prove that the statement harms or may harm It is the employees’ right to speak on their own behalf the organisation. that is protected. The employer is free to decide who makes statements on behalf of the enterprise, and The considerations underlying the duty of loyalty what they say. Whether an employee is perceived to must be weighed in each case against the conside- have spoken on their own or the employer’s behalf rations underlying the freedom of speech, in line with can therefore be decisive in whether the statement Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution and Article is protected by the freedom of speech. 10 (2) of the ECHR. In such case, emphasis must be placed on the fact that freedom of speech is a human Employees do not have an unlimited right to speak right, protected by the Norwegian Constitution and on their own behalf, however. The freedom of speech the ECHR, while the duty of loyalty is a non-statutory can be restricted in particular by the statutory duty of principle intended to protect the employer’s interests. confidentiality and the non-statutory duty of loyalty. This means that the restrictions on the freedom of speech must be justifiable and proportionate. The duty of loyalty entails that employees are obliged to demonstrate loyalty to the organisation they work in. That does not mean that an employer, based on « The guidelines should be a tool his/her own expectations of the employees’ loyalty, is to ensure a correct interpretation, free to regulate or sanction statements that employ- ees make on their own behalf. In general, a great deal not a rigid restriction of employees’ is required for the duty of loyalty to restrict freedom of right to give their opinion » speech. In Report to the Storting No 26 (2003–2004) Om endring av Grunnloven § 100 (‘On amendment of Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution’ – in The assessment of whether a statement is disloyal Norwegian only), the Ministry of Justice expressed will depend, among other things, on the employee’s that, as a rule, only statements that ‘clearly harm or position or function in the company. Because a may harm the employer’s interests unnecessarily’ concrete assessment is needed, it can be difficult must be considered to be disloyal. to stipulate clear guidelines for what employees can give their opinion on. For that reason, public The Ombudsman has, on a number of occasions, employers should exercise caution when drawing emphasised that employers are not entitled to react up regulations and guidelines that have a bearing on to statements made by employees unless they employees’ right to give their opinion. That freedom of represent a clear risk of harming the employer’s speech is a fundamental right, and the considerations SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 24 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
underlying freedom of speech and the advantages Ethical guidelines for government employees of employees’ freedom of speech, should be clearly The Ethical Guidelines for the Public Service describe expressed. The guidelines should be a tool to ensure public officials’ freedom of speech. The Ombudsman a correct interpretation, not a rigid restriction of has provided some critical remarks on the guidelines. employees’ right to give their opinion. Among other things, it has pointed out that it is unfortunate that the regulations describe the duty Guidance to the municipalities of loyalty, which is after all an exception, before the the freedom of speech and the duty of loyalty for main rule on freedom of speech. Furthermore, there municipal and county employees’. The circular has is no basis for stating that the duty of loyalty implies not been updated. In Report to the Storting No 26 that employees ‘must behave in the public interest’. (2003–2004), it was stated that the Ministry intended As mentioned, it is in principle only statements that to revise the circular, but this has not been done. In clearly harm or may harm the employer’s interests connection with the Ombudsman’s investigation, unnecessarily that should be considered disloyal. the Ministry has expressed that, following a closer assessment, it will revoke the circular instead of The Guidelines also state that employees shall ‘not updating it. The reason is that there is a risk of more groundlessly’ discuss their employer or the public detailed regulation being perceived as restricting service ‘in negative terms’. It is natural to interpret employees’ freedom of speech. In particular, the this to mean that the statements must be true. Ministry has referred to how internal regulations can However, the Ombudsman has previously concluded become static, and that regular updating, information that absolute requirements for truth entail difficult and guidance are required to keep up with legal evidentiary issues that in practice may undermine developments. the freedom of speech; see e.g. the annual report for 2006 p. 83 (case 2006/530). Report to the In the Ombudsman’s view, a guide that describes Storting No 26 (2003–2004) p. 103 also states that the legal point of departure and provides recommen- ‘it is difficult to stipulate a truth requirement for dations on measures and guidelines may help to expressions of opinion’. protect municipal employees’ freedom of speech. The municipalities would not be bound by such a The Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation guide, but it would be a useful tool. has emphasised, that, if the Guidelines are read as a whole, it is clear that they are not in contravention of As the Ministry has mentioned, the guidelines must the Norwegian Constitution. The Ombudsman doubts not be too rigid. The Ombudsman believes that the whether this is correct. In any case, it is unfortunate responsible sector ministry has sufficient insight, that such a comprehensive reading and interpretation awareness and expertise to be able to take this into of such extensive and detailed guidelines is necess- account and to prepare expedient guidelines. It is ary, as the Ministry seems to presume. therefore difficult to see how central guidelines would present any threat to the freedom of speech. Offentlig ansattes ytringsfrihet 25
Case 2015/2814
After a prolonged dispute between the County Governor and a cabin owner about, among other things, a building permit, a complaint was filed with the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The cabin owner’s lawyer complained about the lack of response to a claim for the coverage of case costs and asked a number of general questions relating to the municipality’s assessment of the legality of various projects. Following a phone call from the Ombudsman to the County Governor, the case officer promised to respond to the claim from the cabin owner. Four days after the phone call, the claim for case costs was partly granted. The claim had been put forward more than a year before. The Ombudsman could not consider the remaining contents of the complaint because it is outside the Ombudsman’s mandate to answer general legal questions. The case was therefore closed.
The Ombudsman frequently receives complaints concerning planning and building law. In 2015, there were 453 such cases.
Case 2015/862 and case 2015/947
A general permit was granted in 2009 for the construction of a new building. The fee for processing the case was a good NOK 600,000. The project was not commenced within the three-year deadline and a new application for a general permit was therefore sent. The municipality granted the permit and stipulated a new processing fee. A request was then submitted for the first fee to be set aside. The municipality refused to change it. A complaint about the size of the fee was filed with the Parliamentary Ombudsman because the developer believed that it exceeded the costs incurred by the municipality in connection with its processing of the application for a general permit.
The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, among other things because it was such a long time since the fee was originally issued and because the municipality, based on the fee from 2009, had reduced the fee for processing the new application for a general permit. As a result of this complaint, the Ombudsman became aware of weaknesses in the municipality’s fee regulations. The complaint was therefore followed up with an investigation at the Ombudsman’s own initiative. The investigation concluded with an opinion in which the municipality was criticised for charging fees based on standardised and linear rates with no safety valve that could pick up on unlawfully high fees. The municipality has announced that it will probably amend its fee regulations.
In 2015, the Ombudsman considered eight complaints about building application fees.
Case 2015/2526
In a case concerning the redemption of a leasehold plot, the homeowner believed that he had to pay a substantially higher price than others in the same area. An appeal was submitted about the case to the County Governor. It was rejected because it fell within the bounds of legal discretion. A complaint was submitted to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman dismissed the case since it concerned a complaint about a private law matter. In the dismissal, the Ombudsman stated that he is reticent about considering complaints concerning private law matters where the public authorities are a party. In this case, the municipality was deemed to be the lessor in a private law contractual relationship.
It follows from the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act Section 4 that the Ombudsman’s area of responsibility is ‘the public administration’. SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 26 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
Case 2015/671
A woman with mild Parkinson’s disease had accelerator and brake controls installed on the steering wheel of her car in order to reduce pains caused by static tensing of her muscles. This could occur, for example, as a result of using the foot pedals on long drives. The woman obtained a medical certificate stating that she met the requirements for a normal driving licence but understood the information she received from NAV and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Office to mean that she had to take driving lessons and a separate driving test in order to drive a car with such extra equipment. She passed the driving test. Afterwards, she was told that she had now lost the right to drive a car without such extra equipment installed. The Norwegian Public Roads Administration also decided that she had lost the right to drive a snowmobile, tractor and moped. She protested about this, since her needs varied with how she felt from day to day and the driving distance, and she had a medical certificate stating that she met the health requirements for a driving licence for an ordinary car.
The Directorate of Public Roads did not agree with her, and stated that she had forfeited her right to drive as a result of being diagnosed with Parkinson’s, but regained it by installing the extra equipment and undergoing a positive driving assessment.
When a complaint about the case was filed with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Directorate of Public Roads was requested, among other things, to explain why it was necessary for the woman to undergo a driving assessment in order to drive with the extra equipment and whether the Public Roads Administration was entitled to limit the woman’s driving entitlement.
The Ombudsman concluded that the Public Roads Administration was not authorised to assess an individual’s state of health, neither legally nor medically. The Ombudsman’s opinion states that the Directorate of Public Roads had misinterpreted the rules that apply to the Public Roads Administration’s right to impose restrictions on a person’s driving entitlement. It was also pointed out that the decision limiting her driving entitlement was based on an incorrect assumption. The Directorate of Public Roads was requested to reconsider the case.
The Directorate subsequently set aside the decision. The woman was granted a class B driving entitlement, including the right to drive a moped, snowmobile and tractor, without special adaptations being required.
In 2015, the Ombudsman considered 93 complaints about cases concerning driving licences and parking permits. Fifty-nine of the complaints were dismissed, while 34 were considered on their merits. Four of these resulted in criticism.
Case 2015/1280
When a mother and son moved to another part of town, the municipality demanded that the son change schools. The son needed stable surroundings he was used to and the mother therefore wanted him to continue at his old school. She appealed the municipality’s decision to the County Governor but the appeal was rejected. In the complaint to the Ombudsman, she described how maladjusted her son was at the new school.
The Ombudsman decided to consider the complaint. In a letter, the Ombudsman requested the County Governor to explain whether, in a case like this, good administrative practice means that it should be made clear how specialist opinions and other particular circumstances relating to the child have been assessed. It was also questioned whether the requirements in Article 3(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child were met in the grounds for the rejection.
The County Governor reconsidered the case and emphasised the child’s best interests rather than the local school principle. The decision was set aside and the son was allowed to continue to attend his original school.
Forty-nine complaints concerned matters relating to primary/lower secondary school in 2015. Sivilombudsmannen har ordet 27
Case 2013/2668
After two complaints against rejections of applications for criminal injuries compensation, the Ombudsman looked into the practice of the Compensation Board for Victims of Violent Crime in general.
In one of the cases, the application for criminal injuries compensation was rejected because the Board believed that the claim was time-barred. The violent crime took place in 1992 and the perpetrator was convicted of the offence. The victim’s lawyer pointed out that the regulations and the Compensation Board’s website state that claims for compensation based on criminal offences that took place before 1 July 2001 are not subject to a time-bar.
In the other case, the victim was not granted compensation because a sufficiently close connection was not found to exist between the act of violence and the work incapacity. Because the victim did not receive compensation, the Compensation Board also rejected the claim for compensation for legal fees.
After having studied the case, the Ombudsman found that the Compensation Board’s decisions were without legal basis and that developments had gone in the direction of a more rigid practice than there were grounds for. The Ministry of Justice and Public Security was informed about the deficiencies in the Board’s practice.
The public administration acknowledged that there was no legal authority for the practice it followed and explained what changes it would make.
The Ombudsman can raise matters on his own initiative based on complaints, media coverage or similar. Pursuant to the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act, the ministry or authority in question must be informed about deficiencies in their practices. In 2015, the Ombudsman raised 26 matters on his own initiative.
Case 2015/242
A municipality rejected an application for a start loan. The applicant appealed against the rejection but the appeal was unsuccessful. Following a complaint to the Ombudsman, the municipality was asked, among other things, about its procedures for handling appeals, particularly in connection with the special rules on impartiality that apply to municipalities’ handling of appeals. The reason for this question was that the presentation of the case to the appeals committee was written by the same case officer who had rejected the application in the first place. In its reply to the Ombudsman, the municipality acknowledged that it was necessary to change the procedure in order to meet the statutory requirement.
The appeal was then reconsidered. The case was thereby closed on the Ombudsman’s part.
A total of 3,093 cases were closed in 2015, while 238 cases were closed after obtaining a written statement from the public administration. SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 28 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
The significance of human rights to the work of the Parliamentary Ombudsman
As a complaints body and the national preventive mechanism against torture and ill-treatment, the Parliamentary Ombudsman bases its work on a number of human rights sources.
By Ingvild Lovise Bartels, Senior Adviser, and Johannes Flisnes Nilsen, Adviser in the NPM
When the Parliamentary Ombudsman institution They are: was established in 1962, human rights sources had a limited impact on decisions made by the Norwegian ››The European Convention on Human Rights public administration. This has since changed. First (ECHR) by the principle of presumption, whereby Norwegian law is presumed to be in accordance with our human ››The UN International Covenant on Civil and rights obligations. The adoption of the Human Rights Political Rights (ICCPR) Act in 19991 represented a turning point for the public The UN Convention on Economic, Social and administration. The Act states that international ›› Cultural Rights (CESCR) human rights conventions incorporated in the Act shall have the force of Norwegian law, and that these ››The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child protocols and conventions shall take precedence (CRC) over any conflicting Norwegian provisions (see Section 3 of the Act). Five international human rights ››The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms conventions have been implemented in Norwegian of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) domestic law through this Act. They are all very important to the public administra- tion’s application of the law.2 In 2003, human rights were so firmly established in Norwegian law that an addition to Section 3 of the Parliamentary Ombuds- man Act, concerning how the Ombudsman shall contribute to ensuring that the public administration respects and safeguards human rights, was adopted without further discussion.
1 Act of 21 May 1999 No 30 relating to the strengthening of the status of human rights in Norwegian law (the Human Rights Act). 2 Other acts ensure the implementation of other human rights conventions in full or in part, including the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the UN Convention against Torture (CAT) and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). They are also very important to the public administration’s work. The significance of human rights to the work of the Parliamentary Ombudsman 29
In May 2014, human rights gained an even stronger set out in the ECHR Protocol 7 Article 4, to mention position in Norwegian law in that certain human just a few examples. rights were included in Chapter E of the Norwegian Constitution. The primary objective of the human In 2015, the Ombudsman gave three opinions that rights conventions is to give people individual rights made express reference to a human rights obligation. and protect the minority from encroachments by the On 11 February 2015, the Ombudsman gave an majority. These rights are now safeguarded through opinion that concerned, among other things, the the Constitution, laws and non-statutory require- ECHR Article 6(3)(b) on the right of a defendant to ments of satisfactory case processing. The right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation file a complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman of his defence (case 2013/2792). The case concerned gives people an opportunity to exercise their rights. the Correctional Services’ disclosure of documents prepared by an inmate to the police and the prose- Since June 2013, the Ombudsman has also served cuting authority. According to the inmate, one of the as the national preventive mechanism against torture documents was a ‘strategy document’ intended as and ill-treatment.3 Among other things, this means preparation for the appeal hearing in a criminal case that the Ombudsman shall make regular visits to against him. The Ombudsman did not find reason to places where people are or may be deprived of their criticise the Directorate of the Norwegian Correctional liberty. Service for disclosing documents to Kripos (the Norwegian National Criminal Investigation Service) The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s consideration as part of the security assessment of the inmate. of complaints that particularly concern Norway’s However, the Directorate does not seem to have human rights obligations made an adequate assessment of the right to make The Parliamentary Ombudsman and his staff must, the relevant documents available to the prosecuting like the public administration and the courts, apply authority’s investigation of and preparation for ordinary legal method in their consideration of the appeal hearing before the Court of Appeal. In complaints concerning Norway’s human right obliga- its assessment, the Directorate should have given tions. The Ombudsman’s consideration of complaints consideration to the defendant’s right to prepare his in recent years illustrates the broad range of human defence in the ongoing criminal case, cf. the ECHR rights issues that public administration staff must Article 6(3)(b). There is therefore justified doubt about deal with: The best interests of the child must often whether the Correctional Services was right to make be considered in immigration cases, and the same the document available to the prosecuting authority. applies to the right to respect for private and family life and protection against expulsion (‘non-refoule- On 16 June 2015, the Ombudsman gave an opinion in ment’). Questions concerning legal restrictions a case concerning the reprimand of a teacher (case on the freedom of speech may arise when public 2014/2908, unpublished). The Ombudsman found administration staff make critical statements about that the teacher’s posting of a poem on Facebook conditions in the workplace. The right to freedom of was consistent with freedom of speech and that it speech and information is used as an argument when did not violate the general duty of loyalty in the em- journalists want access to the public administration’s ployment relationship. There was therefore no legal documents. Protection of right of ownership may basis for the reprimand, and it must be considered have a bearing on planning and building matters and an unlawful restriction of the complainant’s freedom assets that give rise to justified expectations, such of speech. The municipality was asked to withdraw as statutory welfare. Some administrative sanctions the reprimand. In an opinion of 13 August 2015 are considered punishment pursuant to the ECHR concerning the police’s decision on the surrender Article 6. This makes particular requirements of the of a passport based on a risk of illegal activities strength of evidence and case processing time, and abroad, the Norwegian Police Directorate was asked may also give rise to questions about the prohibition to reconsider the case (case 2014/606). Reference against repeat criminal prosecution (double jeopardy) was made, among other things, to the ECHR Protocol
3 See the Act relating to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration Section 3a. SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 30 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
4 Article 2(2) and ICCPR Article 12(2) on the right to lawyers and judges, politicians and non-profit organi- liberty of movement and the right to leave a country’s sations. The topic for the seminar on 14 October 2015 territory. was ‘The significance of transparency and freedom of speech in the public administration’. The seminar In addition to considering complaints from citizens, addressed issues relating to access to documents, the Ombudsman can open a case on his own open meetings and public sector employees’ freedom initiative. Based on individual cases, the Ombudsman of speech. initiated a case in 2015 concerning public sector em- ployees’ freedom of speech in relation to the Ministry Human rights sources of particular importance of Local Government and Modernisation, which is to the preventive mandate responsible for the state’s employer function at the The Optional Protocol to the Convention against central level (case 2015/940). In his final statement Torture,4 abbreviated OPCAT, was adopted by the of 22 December 2015, the Ombudsman concluded UN General Assembly in 2002. The Optional Protocol that concrete measures are needed to strengthen does not establish a new norm over and above what public sector employees’ freedom of speech, and follows from the UN Convention against Torture, but that the most expedient way of achieving this is it stipulates new work methods to prevent torture through more active guidance from authorities at and ill-treatment of people deprived of their liberty. the overriding level. The Optional Protocol presupposes broad-based preventive work in several sectors. On 14 May 2013, External activities the Storting agreed that Norway would endorse the In order to shed light on human rights issues and Protocol, and on 21 June 2013, the Parliamentary facilitate dialogue and a well-informed debate, the Ombudsman was assigned the role of Norway’s Parliamentary Ombudsman organises an annual national preventive mechanism against torture and seminar on selected topics for public administration ill-treatment.5 staff, representatives of the academic community,
The topic at the annual seminar of human rights were the influence of freedom of speech and a transparent public sector. Participants were the Parliamentary ombudsman, Dr. juris Anine Kierulf, head of office Annette Dahl, head of division Helge Eide, KS, Siri Gedde Dahl, organisation of the press, Elisabeth Kjær, Ministry of Defence, professor Jan Fridjof Bernt, Aslak Bonde, host.
4 The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). 5 Se sivilombudsmannsloven §3a. The significance of human rights to the work of the Parliamentary Ombudsman 31
A separate preventive unit (the National Preventive A number of UN declarations, resolutions and Mechanism, NPM) has been established at the principles are also relevant to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s office, the staff of which have Ombudsman’s preventive mandate. Among them is interdisciplinary expertise. Regular visits to places the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment where people are or may be deprived of their liberty of Prisoners, which were revised in 2015 and named are a key element of the NPM’s work. This includes The Nelson Mandela Rules, in honour of the former police custody facilities, prisons, mental health care President of South Africa who was imprisoned for institutions, child welfare institutions, immigration more than 27 years. The revised rules, which have detention centres and nursing homes. been adopted by the UN General Assembly, reflect international agreement on requirements for the Based on these visits, the NPM issues recommen- treatment of prison inmates. The Body of Principles dations to the relevant authorities with the aim for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of of preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or Detention or Imprisonment contain standards for degrading treatment or punishment. The NPM also the treatment of all persons deprived of their liberty, provides for the opportunity to submit proposals and irrespective of the reason.8 comments concerning existing or draft legislation. The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Reports from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Torture also established an international preventive and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention9 committee that works in parallel with the national are also sources that can contribute to a better preventive mechanisms, the UN Subcommittee on understanding of the prohibition on torture. the Prevention of Torture (SPT).6 The committee comprises 25 independent experts. The committee The ECHR Article 3 sets out an absolute prohibition members can visit all places of detention in the against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment states that have endorsed the Optional Protocol, or punishment. The European Court of Human Rights both announced and unannounced visits. The SPT’s (ECtHR), which pronounces legally binding judgments mandate is also to provide advice and guidance to concerning violation of the Convention, has been the national preventive mechanisms. important in establishing case law concerning the prohibition against torture in individual cases. How The Parliamentary Ombudsman submits an annual the ECtHR interprets and applies ECHR Article 8 on report to the Storting and the SPT on its preventive the right to respect for privacy is also relevant in efforts (Doc 4:1 (2015–2016)). considering the conditions for people deprived of their liberty. The European Prison Rules, adopted by Other UN conventions are also important in the the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers in preventive effort. For example, Article 10(1) of the 2006, are also a source of law for the Parliamentary International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Ombudsman’s preventive efforts. The European states that all persons deprived of their liberty shall Committee for the Prevention of Torture10 (CPT) was be treated with humanity and with respect for the established through the adoption of the European inherent dignity of the human person.7 Convention against Torture, which Norway endorsed in 1989. The Committee visits places of detention in the member states and serves as a non-judicial supplement to the ECtHR. The CPT consists of 47 independent experts from the fields of law, medicine and psychiatry.
6 The UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT). 7 See also the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). 8 See also, among other things, the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (‘the Beijing Rules’) and the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Sanctions for Women Offenders (‘the Bangkok Rules’). 9 The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 10 The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 32 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
Through the 26 years it has existed, the CPT has paid During its visits, the NPM focuses especially on regular visits to places of detention in all the Council conditions that are known to be associated with a of Europe’s member states. The Committee publishes risk of serious violations of integrity. The choice of reports on the findings and recommendations made focus areas is based on reports from the CPT’s visits after a visit. The CPT also prepares annual reports to Norway, reports from the UN Committee against and what are known as CPT standards, which Torture and other treaty bodies, previous visits by the are the Committee’s general recommendations Ombudsman to places of detention, information from for how to protect people deprived of their liberty civil society, inspection reports and other sources. against torture and ill-treatment. The standards are updated regularly and they apply to prisons, police Body searches custody facilities, mental health care institutions and Police custody facilities, prisons, mental health immigration detention centres. They also focus on care institutions and other closed institutions have vulnerable groups such as minors and women. The procedures for conducting body searches on arrival. CPT has visited Norway five times, most recently in For several years, the Ombudsman has followed May 2011. The Committee’s recommendations for up the CPT’s recommendation that body searches the Norwegian authorities have in some cases contri- should only be carried out based on an assessment buted to important legislative amendments, including in each case and by an officer of the same gender. If a on the use of solitary confinement in detention on full removal of clothing is necessary, the body search remand.11 The Parliamentary Ombudsman has had should take place in two stages to avoid leaving the meetings with the Committee in connection with detainee completely naked. these visits, and the CPT’s recommendations form an important basis for its preventive efforts. Isolation Being detained in a police custody facility means being locked in a cell for 22–24 hours a day. In the « It is positive and healthy that so-called ‘custody cell case’ in Oslo District Court on national authorities are challenged 2 June 2014, the Norwegian state was found guilty of violation of the ECHR Article 8 on the protection by international experts » of privacy and the prohibition on discrimination set out in Article 14 for the use of solitary confinement in a police custody cell. In its reports, the Ombudsman The fact that several international parties organised has focused on whether the police carry out concrete under the UN and the Council of Europe are concer- assessments of the need for solitary confinement ned with the same issues and visit the same places and whether they initiate measures that can make of detention puts extra pressure on the authorities. the time in detention easier if solitary confinement It is positive and healthy that national authorities is unavoidable. are challenged by international experts with an outside perspective on well-established practices The CPT recommends that prison inmates are offered and regulations. at least eight hours of social activity every day, engaged in meaningful activities. This is important to The use of human rights sources the prison environment in general and as a preventive in the preventive efforts measure against the harmful effects of isolation for In 2015, the NPM has visited prisons, police custody individual inmates. Frequently locking inmates in their facilities, mental health care institutions and the cells, for example because of a high occupancy level police immigration detention centre at Trandum.12 and low staffing, is therefore a problem that both the
11 See the Criminal Procedure Act Section 186a. 12 Ringerike Prison, Lillestrøm police custody facility, Bjørgvin Prison’s Juvenile Unit, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Ålesund police custody facility, Trondheim Prison, Telemark Hospital, places of detention at Oslo Airport Gardermoen, Trandum police immigration detention centre, the Skien branch of Telemark Prison, Kongsvinger Prison and Sørlandet Hospital, Kristiansand. The reports from these visits are available on the Ombudsman’s website. The significance of human rights to the work of the Parliamentary Ombudsman 33
CPT and the Ombudsman have addressed in their These are just some examples of how the NPM preventive efforts. collects and uses information from different inter- national sources in its work on preventing torture Isolation in a security cell is a particularly intrusive and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. form of solitary confinement, because the stimuli and furnishing are limited to an absolute minimum. The Ombudsman’s cooperation with other Based on the CPT’s recommendations, the Ombuds- human rights bodies man has recommended that persons detained in The wide range of sources of law in the human rights security cells are ensured time outdoors every day, field means it is important to follow international legal that round-the-clock lighting that disturbs sleep is developments and how they impact the conditions avoided, that body searches of inmates in security in Norway. Based on this, among other things, cells are not conducted as a matter of routine, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman has established that they do not have to be naked in the cell. In the close contact with the non-profit organisation The event of a concrete suicide risk, the inmate should Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), be provided with suitable suicide prevention clothing. which is a Swiss organisation with expertise in torture prevention. The Council of Europe funds an The ECtHR has pronounced judgment in a number electronic newsletter entitled European NPM network of cases concerning the isolation of particularly that the Ombudsman makes contributions to. It dangerous offenders, and the CPT has prepared contains up-to-date information from the ECtHR, standards for high-security units. Both ECtHR case the CPT and the SPT, and preventive mechanisms law and the CPT’s standards, in addition to the new in different countries can raise different questions Mandela Rules and the report from the UN Special for discussion. International ombudsman networks Rapporteur on Torture, formed the basis for the such as the European Network of Ombudsmen and Ombudsman’s recommendations following the visit the International Ombudsman Institute (IOI) help to the highest security section at the Skien branch to bring together ombudsmen and representatives of Telemark Prison on 2–4 June 2015. of the treaty bodies, and they regularly put torture prevention issues on the agenda for their conferences Health services and seminars. The CPT’s standards for police custody facilities state that inmates should have access to health In 2015, the Parliamentary Ombudsman took the services when necessary, and that the relationship initiative for a Nordic network of national preventive of trust between doctor and patient must be mechanisms, which includes representatives of safeguarded during medical examinations. The UN the ombudsmen in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Principles of Medical Ethics of 1982 also underline Finland. this. Among other things, the NPM has looked at how confidentiality was handled in connection with The Ombudsman has also established an advisory medical assessments and the treatment of detainees committee that contributes expertise, information, in the accident and emergency unit, and, based on advice and input to the preventive efforts. The the findings, the Ombudsman has issued several National Institution for Human Rights is one of the recommendations for how such examinations permanent members on the committee. The National can be improved. Access to medical services is Institution for Human Rights was established on important in prison, too. The CPT recommends that 1 July 2015 as an institution under the Storting, which a medical assessment be carried out in connection facilitates closer cooperation with the Ombudsman with admission interviews, including an assessment than before. of the suicide risk. The prison health department’s opening hours and procedures for requesting an appointment are also factors that have a bearing on inmates’ access to medical services, on which the Ombudsman has provided recommendations. SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 34 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
Case 2014/1906
A nurse complained that she had been passed over in connection with an internal appointment at a hospital. The job was not advertised, neither internally nor externally. In the Ombudsman’s consideration of the complaint, it emerged that no formal record had been kept of interviews, the obtaining of references or the assessment of qualifications carried out during the appointment process. Nor were the decisions in writing. The hospital was therefore asked, among other things, to explains its procedures in connection with appointments. The Ombudsman stated that the lack of written documentation in connection with the appointment is in breach of good administrative practice and general principles of administrative law, and underlined that these principles apply to health trusts on a par with other parts of the public administration. The Ombudsman also had comments relating to the failure to advertise the position, whether the case had been insufficiently assessed, the assessment of qualifications and the hospital’s treatment of the complainant while the Ombudsman was considering the case. The hospital subsequently took note of the criticism and stated that it would change its procedures.
When the Ombudsman criticises the public administration’s practice, the administrative body in question is asked to explain how it will follow up remarks or requests.
Case 2015/1353
A journalist requested access to a list of integration grants awarded to Norwegian municipalities in 2014. He wanted to be sent the list in a different file format than PDF because he believed that the PDF format led to data in the original file not being displayed and to columns being displaced, so that it was difficult to see which data belonged together. The journalist therefore asked the Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi) to hand over the information in Excel format, or as a spreadsheet or raw data. This request was rejected with reference to the fact that he had been given the file in the archive format, which was PDF. IMDi did not believe that they were obliged pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act to create a file in a different format than the archive format in order to comply with the request for access. The journalist appealed to the Ministry of Children and Equality, which upheld the decision. He then complained to the Ombudsman, who asked the Ministry whether it would be practically possible to grant access to the information in Excel format or another file format that provided a better reproduction of the data, and, in such case, what resources this would require. In its answer to the Ombudsman, the Ministry wrote that, in their work on replying to the Ombudsman’s question, it had received new information that IMDi had an Excel file containing the requested information. In IMDi’s opinion, however, this was not a case document in the sense of the Freedom of Information Act because the file was not archived, and they therefore were not obliged to grant access to it. The Ministry pointed out that, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the right to a copy applies to ‘all existing formats’, and it reversed its rejection decision. IMDi was then asked to hand over the information in Excel format.
The Ombudsman considered 229 complaints in 2015 concerning the freedom of information, the duty of secrecy and access to documents. Sivilombudsmannen har ordet 35
Case 2014/3131
A journalist requested access to the phone bills of all government ministers and the Prime Minister. The ministries and the Office of the Prime Minister rejected the request on privacy and national security grounds. The journalist complained about the rejection to the Ombudsman. In connection with the investigations, the Office of the Prime Minister and the ministries were asked to explain what concrete information in the bills was covered by the Freedom of Information Act’s provisions on exemption from public disclosure. Following this, the Ministry of Education and Research granted access to the bills, with the exception of information about the Minister’s secret phone number. The latter was redacted in accordance with the exemption provision concerning personal matters.
The Office of the Prime Minister replied on behalf of the other ministries. They believed that the case raised matters of principle concerning the limits on the right of access. The Office of the Prime Minister also referred to the fact that the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act concerning exemption from public disclosure for confidential information provide legal authority for exempting personal information. This could, for example, be information showing when the ministers communicate, how they communicate when travelling, who they speak to, the frequency of conversations and the use of text messages, so that it should not be possible to map the individual ministers’ preferences as regards communication and online activity, both job-related and private. The Office of the Prime Minister therefore believed that only a list of costs could be disclosed.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, if the information concerns ‘personal matters’, it must be information of a personal nature that it is normal for individuals to wish to keep private. When the information is related to public servants’ performance of their jobs, more is required for it to be deemed to be confidential than if the information concerned ordinary citizens. The Ombudsman did not rule out that some of the information in the phone bills could concern ‘personal matters’. In such case, this information would have to be redacted after a concrete assessment in each case, and not be solved by exempting all the entries. The same applies to information that can be exempted on national security grounds. It was not clear from the bills who the Prime Minister or the individual ministers spoke to. The bills provide little precise information about where the ministers had been. In most cases, the travel plans of the Prime Minister and the other ministers are known in advance. There was no reason, therefore, to exempt the phone bills from disclosure. In his opinion, the Ombudsman concluded that the Office of the Prime Minister and the ministries could not deny access on a general basis. The Office of the Prime Minister and the ministries were requested to reconsider the request for access.
The Office of the Prime Minister reconsidered the matter and granted the journalist access to some information in the phone bills that had previously been exempted.
When the Ombudsman investigates a case, the public administration is requested to send the case documents. The Ombudsman is entitled to do this, cf. the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act Section 7. Overview of cases in 2015
This chapter gives an overview of cases of general interest, self-initiated cases and cases in which the ombudsman has pointed out shortcomings in laws, regulations or administrative practice 37
Cases of general interest
Pursuant to Section 12 of the Instructions for the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration, the annual report shall contain a ‘survey of the proceedings in the individual cases which the Ombudsman feels are of general interest’. The criteria for the selection of cases are whether the case is representative of the type of case concerned, whether it is a relevant example of a procedural error, whether the case involves matters of principle and legal clarification, and whether the case raises issues affecting due process protection. A list of cases classified by legal area is provided below.
General administrative law
2013/2792 Disclosure of documents by the Correctional Services to the police and prosecuting authority
2013/3258 Award of operating grant to physiotherapist in private practice. Case processing and assessment of qualifications by the municipality
2013/3330, 2013/3335, 2014/419, 2014/471 Award of operating grant to physiotherapist. Impartiality, assessments of qualifications and requirement for the content of complaints etc.
2014/1963 Coverage of case costs pursuant to Section 36 of the Public Administration Act in disciplinary matter
2014/2206 The public administration’s duty to provide guidance and the appeal body’s justification. Replacement of driving licence from EEA county
2014/2594 Requirement for grounds for decision to refuse valuation
2014/3290 Information to user about actual expected case processing time and about administrative entity/appeal body
2014/3496 Duty to reverse invalid decision
2014/3510 Duty of secrecy concerning information from the Norwegian Tax Administration in sales licence case
2015/234 Consideration of request concerning assessment of misconduct – right not to open a supervisory case etc.
2015/253 Payment of patient’s charges for stay in nursing home – review by the county governor of the municipality’s exercise of discretionary judgment etc.
2015/1145 Case concerning rejection of claim for compensation – inadequate guidance from NAV on the earning rules for parental benefit
2015/1530 Case costs pursuant to Section 36 of the Public Administration Act – the control exemption
2015/2269 DeCoverage of case costs in cases decided by the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Tribunal
Family and person
2014/3357 og 2014/3361 Remuneration of lawyers appointed guardians
Agriculture, forestry and reindeer husbandry
2014/2729 Swedish reindeer husbandry in Norway. Relationship between the Reindeer Husbandry Act and the Cross-Border Reindeer Grazing Act
Open meetings
2015/91 Lack of access to public meetings in Herøy municipality
2014/3082 Lack of access to public meetings in Hobøl municipality SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 38 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
Commerce – authorisations, permits and licences
2014/3344 Right to administrative confiscation of driving licence pursuant to Section 37f of the Professional Transport Actf
Freedom of information and disclosure
2014/1865 Access to information about the Skattefunn projects
2014/1882 Rejection of request for access to list of applicants for Supreme Court judge vacancies
2014/2291 Access to compilation of information from the police register of criminal cases (STRASAK). Number of murder cases in Norway by police district
2014/2514 Access to severance agreement
2014/3085 Access to documents. The Norwegian Defence Estates Agency’s report on the procurement of cleaning services
2014/3131 Access to the Prime Minister and the government ministers’ phone bills
2015/487 Access to Ministry of Finance document
2015/803 Rejection of request for access to document subject to publication embargo
2015/905 The Norwegian Tax Administration’s application of Section 3-13 of the Tax Assessment Act in cases concerning request for access to the Tax Administration’s shareholder register
2015/949 og 2015/1458 Access to documents concerning sale of vessels by the Armed Forces. Question whether the duty of secrecy applies to information about criminal offences
2015/1210 Access to documents in compensation case – question of duty of secrecy concerning personal circumstances
2015/1403 Duty to keep archive and records for data retrieval from public records
2015/2459 Case processing in connection with access to documents relating to preparatory city government meetings and city government conferences – question concerning what regulations apply
2015/2474 Rejection of request for access to unpublished article – question concerning duty of secrecy
Planning and building
2014/576 Municipal sub-plan for Bø municipality
2014/2104 Dispensation from zoning plan requirement concerning the floor area of a house. Relevant considerations
2014/2809 The prohibition on building in the shore zone – relationship to old zoning plans
2014/3195 Claim for assured connection to water and sewage system, and access, under private lawt
2014/3445 Dispensation from old zoning plan – question of whether the considerations underlying the plan have been materially set aside»
2015/8 Right not to prosecute violations of the Planning and Building Act – ‘less important’ violations
2015/561 Dispensation for building of detached house – question of sufficient information about the project
2015/947 No provision in the Regulations on Building Application Fees on the right to deviate from the standardised rates
2015/2090 Right to grant exemption from conditions in a dispensation decision
2015/1194 Provision in municipal sub-plan on the use of development agreements in connection with the implementation of projects
2015/1365 Exemption from provision on building density in zoning plan
2015/1370 The importance of financial and practical consequences in an application for dispensation submitted in arrears Overview of cases in 2015 39
The police and prosecuting authority
2014/606 Police decision concerning the surrender of a passport based on a risk of illegal activity
Tax and tax assessment, property tax
2015/1477 Property tax on developed property in regulated public outdoor recreation area subject to building prohibition
2015/1681 Case costs in property tax cases
2015/2236 The tax office’s duty to provide guidance in connection with enquiries from pensioners on emigration for tax purposes etc.
2015/2323 Information about right of appeal and deadline for appealing in connection with the imposition of property tax
2015/2395 Case concerning property tax on mountain farm/summer pasture farm cabin in Volda municipality
2015/2511 Case concerning property tax on reindeer herding cabin
2015/2702 The Directorate of Taxes’ deadline for requesting re-examination by the National Tax Appeals Board
Appointments
2014/1745 og 2014/1834 Appointment and relocation to firefighter positions
2014/1789 Appointment of churchwarden and disclosure of list of applicants
2014/1906 Case processing requirements and assessments of qualifications in connection with appointments in health trust
2014/2434 Appointment of interns – assessment of qualifications and the use of pre-defined score system
2014/2469 Appointment of intern. Written documentation and assessment of qualifications
2014/2472 Appointment of interns. Written documentation and assessments of qualifications
2014/3528 Appointment to position as response team leader in the fire and rescue service
2015/2059 Qualification requirements in connection with appointment to position as chief fire officer
2015/2142 Preparation of list of applicants
Customs and excise, value added tax
2013/967 Understanding of Section 2 first paragraph (c) of the VAT Compensation Act
2014/1276 Right to deduct incoming VAT in connection with insufficient sales documentation
Welfare and pensions
20144/2612 Summary settlement – especially whether a summary settlement can be stipulated on the basis of a summary decision
2015/1135 NAV’s processing time in cases referred back from the National Insurance Court
2015/2817 NAV International’s case processing times
Immigration cases
2013/1852 The Immigration Appeals Board’s decision in case concerning protection – convert from Afghanistan
2013/2041 Reversal of decision concerning reintegration support for nationals of Kosovo
2014/2319 Assessment of parental responsibility in case concerning residence permit on the basis of family reunification with mother in Norway SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 40 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
Road traffic
2014/2522 Revocation of driving licence on the grounds of lack of sobriety
2014/2891 Revocation of driving licence in connection with failure to meet medical requirements – Section 34 second paragraph of the Road Traffic Act
2015/1491 Driving licence. Calculation of seniority in connection with awarding of taxi licence
Freedom of expression
2015/940 Self-initiated investigation – public sector employees’ freedom of expression
Self-initiated cases
In addition to considering complaints, the Ombudsman may raise matters on his own initiative. Twen- ty-six such cases were opened in 2015. Some of them are not published on the Ombudsman’s website because they do not contribute anything new to a legal issue, because they do not involve matters of principle or on the basis of other assessments. The cases below are cases of general interest.
Case number Title
2014/2885 The legal basis for payment of National Insurance benefits to municipalities, such as payment of patient charges for stays in institutions
2014/3290 Preliminary answer stipulating the expected case processing time – the Directorate of Labour and Welfare
2014/3344 Right to administrative confiscation of driving licence pursuant to Section 37f of the Professional Transport Act
2014/3422 Case processing time for complaints pursuant to the Planning and Building Act – Asker municipality
2015/169 Exclusion from NAV’s premises
2015/372 Understanding of Section 29-4 third paragraph of the Planning and Building Act – the Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation
2015/905 The Ministry of Finance’s application of the duty of secrecy pursuant to Section 3-13 of the Tax Assessment Act
2015/940 Public sector employees’ freedom of expression
2015/947 Fee regulations for Kristiansand municipality 2015
2015/1057 Procedures for logging of documents in access cases – the Ministry of Culture
2015/2112 Tax deduction for minimum pension recipients – need for specifications in Lignings-ABC (tax assessment guide)
2015/2236 The tax office’s guidance following enquiries from pensioners who are considering moving abroad for tax purposes
2015/2269 Coverage of case costs in cases decided by the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Tribunal
2015/2357 Case concerning coverage of expenses for medical services abroad
2015/2817 NAV International’s case processing times
2015/2824 Information about My NAV
Overview of cases in 2015 41
Cases in which the Ombudsman has pointed out shortcomings in laws, regulations or administrative practice
The work on complaints and cases raised on the Ombudsman’s own initiative sometimes uncovers shortcomings in laws, regulations or administrative practice. Section 11 of the Ombudsman Act states that the Ombudsman may notify the relevant ministry if he becomes aware of such shortcomings.
In 2015, the Ombudsman asked the public administration to consider changes or additions to laws and regulations or to amend administrative practice in 12 cases. A selection of these cases is presented below.
2013/2014 Appeal against rejection of reintegration support for nationals of Kosovo
2014/2434 Appointment of interns – assessment of qualifications and the use of pre-defined score system
2014/2612 Appeal against three decisions by the Central Office for Foreign Tax Affairs – summary settlement and two subsequent dismissal decisions
2014/2885 Legal basis for payment of National Insurance benefits
2014/3344 Right to administrative confiscation of driving licence pursuant to Section 37f of the Professional Transport Act – self-initiated case
2015/947 Fee regulations for Kristiansand municipality – self-initiated case
2015/1057 Procedures for logging of documents in access cases – self-initiated case
2015/1135 Long processing time in case referred back from the National Insurance Court
2015/1491 Calculation of seniority in connection with awarding of taxi licence
2015/2112 Tax deduction for minimum pension recipients – need for specifications in Lignings-ABC (tax assessment guide) – self-initiated case
2015/2236 The tax office’s guidance following enquiries from pensioners who are considering moving abroad for tax purposes
2015/2817 NAV International’s case processing times
Special report
30. oktober 2015 Special report – the Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation’s failure to comply with the Ombudsman’s opinions Statistics
This chapter contains an overview of new cases in 2015, the Ombudsman’s case processing times, the outcome of the cases and a breakdown of cases between administrative bodies.
The figures are also available at sivilombudsmannen.no together with an overview of cases by subject area and geographical location.
43
New cases The Ombudsman’s office received 3,053 cases in 2015. In addition, it raised 26 cases on its own initiative. In the last four years, the number of new cases has been stable at around 3,000. Since 2014, the Ombudsman’s visits to administrative bodies are no longer included in the figures. The number of cases raised on the Ombudsman’s own initiative was lower in 2015 than in 2014. Among other things, this is a consequence of the work on reducing the case processing time for complaints. The Ombudsman recognises that today’s complaints departments do not have the capacity to consider demanding cases raised on their own initiative and also maintain the short processing time for new complaints. In 2015, work has been carried out on an organisational change that entails merging several complaints departments into bigger units, and establishing a dedicated department that will work on cases raised on the Ombudsman’s own initiative, among other things.
2013 2014 2015
Complaints and written enquiries 2942 3109 3053
Self-initiated cases 45 35 26
In total 2987 3144 3079
Closed and open cases The number of open cases was further reduced in 2015. At the same time, the number of new cases has decreased somewhat. Since 2013, the number of open cases has been reduced by 82.
2013 2014 2015
Cases closed during the year 3076 3211 3093
Open cases at year-end 329 260 247
Requests for access and phone enquiries The number of requests for access increased again somewhat in 2015. That the number is still below the 2013 level may be because documents are increasingly becoming available on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s website.
The Ombudsman received fewer phone enquiries in 2015 than the year before. It is a goal that those who need it will be able to find as much information as possible on the website. No one will be referred to the website if they want to speak to a case officer.
2013 2014 2015
Number of requests for access 1208 719 842
Full disclosure granted 959 493 494
Partial disclosure granted 65 56 195
Disclosure refused 184 170 153
Number of phone enquiries 1722 2041 1900
Full disclosure – the documents are disclosed unedited. Partial disclosure – the documents are partially redacted. SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 44 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
Case processing times
The case processing time is decreasing for all categories of cases. The biggest decrease is found in cases that are closed after being raised with the public administration. In 2015, the case processing time was reduced by 40 days in relation to 2014. Since 2013, the time has been reduced by just over 70 days.
Development in case processing times, 2010–2015
2012
2013 2011 2010 2014
2015
ase ro essin time in da s in time ro essin ase 2011 2012 2010 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2010 2013
2014 2015
ismissed ases ases losed ithout bein raised ases losed a ter bein raised ith the ubli administration ith the ubli administration
Average case processing time in number of days
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Dismissed cases 17 16 14 11 9
Cases closed without being raised with the public administration 47 46 36 27 24
Cases closed after being raised with the public administration 183 210 189 158 118 Statistics 45
Outcome of cases
The cases that are considered can be divided into two main categories by outcome: dismissed cases and cases considered on their merits.
Dismissed cases and cases considered on their merits Cases in which there are no grounds for dismissal are deemed to have been considered on their merits. When the Ombudsman carries out a preliminary investigation to establish whether there are sufficient grounds for considering the complaint, the case is also deemed to have been considered on its merits even if it is closed without the matter being raised with the public administration. Cases in which the complainant’s problem has been resolved are also deemed to have been considered on their merits. Such cases may include criticism of the administrative body in question. General enquiries that are unrelated to a specific complaint and enquiries submitted for information purposes are classified as dismissed cases.
In 2015, the Ombudsman considered more than 3,000 complaints and enquiries, of which about half were dismissed. The number of complaints and dismissed cases has been stable in the past three years. The main reason for dismissing a case is that it is still under consideration by the public administration. Other frequent reasons for dismissal are that the case is unsuitable or lacks sufficient grounds, that it is more suitable for the courts, that it is time-barred or that it was only submitted for information purposes.
The Ombudsman has continued the practice of dismissing cases that are not suitable for consideration.
Cases are dismissed in accordance with the prioritisation criteria for case processing and with reference to Section 6 fourth paragraph of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act.
A total of 146 cases were closed with criticism or a recommendation to reconsider the case. This represents ten per cent of cases considered on their merits. Cases are often resolved by the Ombudsman making a phone call to the administrative body in question. This was the case in 359 cases, or approximately 25 per cent of the cases.
2014 2015
Dismissed cases 1721 1667
Cases considered on their merits 1490 1426
1. No need to obtain written statement from the public administration 1190 1188
a) Case resolved by means of a phone call or similar 309 310
b) The letter of complaint, in some cases supplemented by case documents, 881 878 showed that the complaint could not succeed
2. Written statement obtained from the public administration (submission) 300 238
a) Case resolved without the Ombudsman having to issue a final opinion 47 49
b) Case closed without criticism or a recommendation, 71 43 meaning that the complaint did not succeed
c) Case closed with criticism or a recommendation to reconsider the matter 182 146
. SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 46 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
Cases considered on their merits Grounds for criticism in closed cases
Of all the cases considered on their merits, 25 per cent of In 78 per cent of the cases that were closed with criticism, the cases were resolved following a letter or phone call the criticism concerned the decision. The case processing from the Ombudsman. Sixty-five per cent of the cases were time was criticised in 12 per cent of the cases. closed without criticism, and ten per cent were closed with criticism.
losed ith riti ism ase ro essin issues esolved he ase ro essin time losed ithout riti ism losed ith riti ism
Reasons for dismissal
Fifty-four per cent of the complaints were dismissed in 2015. More than half were still under consideration by the public administration.
o ri ht o om laint om laints ithdra n b the om lainant non mous and in om rehensible en uiries ime barred matters n uiries et unrelated to a om laint
etters submitted or in ormation ur oses utside the mbudsman s remit nsu i ient rounds or om laint Still under onsideration b the ubli administration
Subject areas
Most complaints concern benefits in connection with illness, case processing time and non-receipt of a reply, building matters and public disclosure, duty of secrecy and access to documents. A complaint can be classified by several subject areas, which means that the sum is far higher than the number of complaints.
Selected subject areas (see sivilombudsmannen.no for a complete overview)
National Insurance benefits 438
Building matters 453
Public disclosure, duty of secrecy, access to documents 229
Residence permit 109
Complaints concerning long processing time and non-receipt of a reply are common. This applies to several of the subject areas. Statistics 47
Breakdown of closed cases by administrative body
The overview shows how many cases were closed in 2015 by each individual administrative body.
All parts of the public administration are represented in the complaints, meaning the central government, county and municipal administration.
A majority of the complaints, 76 per cent, concern the central government level. Most of the complaints against central government bodies concern the county governors and the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV). Of more than 500 complaints against NAV, 195 were considered on their merits, but only eight resulted in criticism. The figures for the Directorate of Immigration (UDI) paint a similar picture. Of 109 complaints, 70 were considered on their merits, and three resulted in criticism. At the overriding level, the breakdown of complaints against the different administrative bodies is stable from one year to the next.
Complaints against the municipal administration accounted for 20 per cent (621) of closed cases in 2015, while complaints against the county administration accounted for 1.3 per cent.
Breakdown of cases by administrative body Closed cases by administrative body CONSIDERED IN TOTAL DISMISSED ON THEIR CRITICISM MERITS Office of the Prime Minister 5 3 2 1 The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs 12 4 8 3 The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV) 506 311 195 8 The Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority 6 5 1 0 The Norwegian Public Service Pension Fund 12 8 4 0 The Social Security Appeal Tribunal 51 29 22 1 Kommunal Landspensjonskasse – KLP 1 1 0 0 The Pension Insurance for Seamen 1 0 1 0 The Petroleum Safety Authority Norway 1 1 0 0 The Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion 7 3 4 1 The Norwegian Children, Youth and Family Affairs Service 3 1 2 0 The County Social Welfare Boards 3 3 0 0 The Norwegian Consumer Council 2 2 0 0 The Consumer Dispute Commission 1 1 0 0 The Market Council 1 0 1 0 The Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombudsman 6 3 3 3 The Directorate of Integration and Diversity 2 2 0 0 The Ministry of Finance 16 6 10 5 The Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway 3 1 2 0 The Norwegian Tax Administration 105 48 57 3 Norwegian Customs and Excise 14 9 5 1 The Norwegian National Collection Agency 20 13 7 0 The Norwegian Financial Services Complaints Board 3 3 0 0 The Ministry of Defence 10 2 8 2 The Norwegian Defence Estates Agency 2 2 0 0 SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 48 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
CONSIDERED IN TOTAL DISMISSED ON THEIR CRITICISM MERITS The Norwegian Armed Forces 9 8 1 0 The complaints board for compensation and ex gratia payment for psychological damage resulting from 3 2 1 0 participation in international operations The Ministry of Health and Care Services 13 3 10 3 Supervisory commissions 1 1 0 0 The Norwegian System of Compensation to Patients, the 22 10 12 0 Patient Injury Compensation Board The Directorate of Health 11 6 5 1 The Norwegian Board of Health Supervision 8 5 3 0 Hospitals and health institutions 40 27 13 7 Regional health authorities 4 4 0 0 Helfo (the Norwegian Health Economic Administration) 15 11 4 0 The Norwegian Governmental Appeal Board regarding 1 0 1 0 medical treatment abroad The Norwegian Medicines Agency 1 1 0 0 The National Air Ambulance Services of Norway 1 0 1 0 The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services 1 0 1 0 The Health and Social Services Ombudsman 4 4 0 0 The Norwegian Registration Authority for Health Personnel 6 5 1 0 The Norwegian Appeal Board for Health Personnel 7 2 5 0 The Ministry of Justice and Public Security 24 13 11 4 The Norwegian Police Directorate 52 17 35 5 The Directorate of Immigration 109 39 70 3 The Immigration Appeals Board 56 19 37 2 The Correctional Services 96 61 35 4 The police and prosecuting authority 126 89 37 0 Execution and enforcement officers 13 13 0 0 The courts 37 35 2 0 The Norwegian Bar Association’s Disciplinary 5 5 0 0 Committee 3 0 3 0 The Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning 1 0 1 0 The Norwegian Bar Association’s Disciplinary 2 0 2 0 Committee 1 1 0 0 The Compensation Board for Victims of Violent Crime 1 0 1 0 The Rent Disputes Tribunal 3 3 0 0 The Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission 27 9 18 2 The Norwegian Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority 1 1 0 0 The Ministry of Environment and Climate 9 5 4 1 The Norwegian Environment Agency 9 6 3 1 The Directorate for Cultural Heritage 1 1 0 0 The Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation 19 9 10 4 The Norwegian State Housing Bank 8 5 3 0 The Norwegian Mapping Authority 6 2 4 0 The Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (Difi) 2 2 0 0 Statistics 49
CONSIDERED IN TOTAL DISMISSED ON THEIR CRITICISM MERITS The Ministry of Culture 12 6 6 2 The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation 2 2 0 0 The Church of Norway 9 6 3 1 The Norwegian Gaming and Foundation Authority 2 2 0 0 The place names complaints board 1 1 0 0 The Norwegian Media Authority 2 1 1 0 The Norwegian Film Institute 1 0 1 0 The Norwegian Church Endowment 1 1 0 0 The Ministry of Education and Research 5 0 5 1 The Research Council of Norway 1 0 1 0 The Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund 21 12 9 0 The Directorate for Education and Training 2 2 0 0 Universities and university colleges 46 25 21 3 The National Committee for Research Ethics in Medicine and 1 1 0 0 Health Care The Ministry of Agriculture and Food 6 1 5 0 The Norwegian Food Safety Authority 26 11 15 0 Statskog 1 1 0 0 The Norwegian Natural Perils Pool 1 0 1 0 The Norwegian Agriculture Agency 16 7 9 3 The veterinarian legal advice board 1 0 1 0 The Ministry of Industry and Fisheries 6 3 3 2 The Norwegian Maritime Authority 2 1 1 0 The Brønnøysund Register Centre 4 3 1 0 The Directorate of Fisheries 3 1 2 0 The Norwegian Metrology Service 1 1 0 0 The master craftsman certificate board 1 0 1 0 The Ministry of Petroleum and Energy 10 7 3 1 The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) 1 1 0 0 The Ministry of Transport and Communications 13 2 11 2 Avinor AS 3 2 1 0 The Norwegian National Rail Administration 2 0 2 0 The Norwegian Public Roads Administration 35 19 16 3 The Norwegian Communications Authority 1 1 0 0 The Norwegian Coastal Administration 2 1 1 0 The Civil Aviation Authority Norway 2 1 1 0 The Transport Complaints Board 1 1 0 0 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs 12 3 9 1 County governors 528 166 362 26 County administrative bodies 40 17 23 2 Municipal administrative bodies 621 378 243 34 Others 97 95 2 0 In total 3093 1667 1426 146 About us 51
Overview of divisional structure and specialist subject areas
T PA IA TA O S A
Division 1 Division 2 Division 3 Division 4
National Insurance Immigration ocial ser ices lanning and building and pensions rison conditions Child welfare aps and partitioning Ta and ta assessment ealth and care Child support Conser ation and roperty ta ser ices Legal aid and ad ocacy protection mployer s National ealth personnel ublic compensation ollution and Insurance contributions atient compensation schemes en ironmental health Competition olice isheries and hunting protection Value added ta rosecution matters ducation and research Industry, agriculture, pecial ta es tudent loans forestry and reindeer Customs and e cise Road traffic husbandry National opulation ousing Natural disasters egister Church and culture Compensation and nergy amily and personal law e propriation Legal ight of way
Division 5 National Preventive Mechanism Administration
reedom of information re ention of torture and other ersonnel and disclosure cruel, inhuman or degrading inance ublic appointment and treatment or punishment in Archi es employment matters places of detention Library Communications eception Transport Office services Commerce, authorisations IT permits and licences Internet unicipal charges perational support ublic property ublic records ublic procurement efence SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 52 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
The Ombudsman’s office – staff list
As per 31 December 2015, the Ombudsman’s office had the following divisional structure and comprised the following staff.
Division 1: Division 4: Administration:
Head of Division: Bjørn Dæhlin Acting Head of Division: Øystein Nore Nyhus Head of Administration: Solveig Antila Deputy Head of Division: Annicken Elisabeth Sogn Deputy Head of Division: Marianne Kortner Senior Adviser: Heidi Quamme Kittilsen Senior Adviser: Sigrid M. F. Oftebro Finance, personnel, operational support: Senior Adviser: Eirik Namli Senior Adviser: Thea Jåtåg Trygstad Senior Adviser: Einar Fiskvi Adviser: Martine R. Kaspersen Senior Adviser: Janicke Wiggen Senior Adviser: Marianne Guettler Adviser: Harald Ankerstad Senior Adviser: Lindy Ulltveit-Moe Monrad Higher Executive Officer: Hilde Kjensmo Adviser: Helene Oeding Adviser: Mette Bech Hansen Administrative Officer: Law student Christensen Viktoria Steen Svendsen Higher Executive Officer: Ingrid Jerve Aanstad Office and switchboard services: Administrative Officer: Law student Senior Executive Officer: Mary Anita Borge Jostein G. Frank Senior Executive Officer: Torill H. Carlsen Administrative Officer: Law student Yasaman Division 5: Senior Executive Officer: Nina Olafsen
Aalaei Head of Division: Annette Dahl Senior Executive Officer: Mette Stenwig, Deputy Head of Division: Elisabeth Fougner Senior Adviser: Karen Haug Aronsen Communication: Division 2: Senior Adviser: Siv Nylenna Senior Adviser: Anette Hansen Head of Division: Eivind Sveum Brattgard Senior Adviser: Kari Bjella Unneberg Senior Adviser: Jostein Løvoll Senior Adviser: May-Britt Mori Seim Arkiv, bibliotek og web: Senior Adviser: Kjetil Fredvik Adviser: Jon Sverdrup Efjestad Head of Archives: Annika Båshus Senior Adviser: Eirik Namli Adviser: Liv Jakobsen Føyn Adviser: Lene Stivi Adviser: Caroline Klæth Eriksen Adviser: Eivind Vigeland Grøn National Preventive Mechanism: (also affiliated to the National Preventive Adviser: Kristin J. E. Rydning Head of Division: Helga Fastrup Ervik Mechanism) Higher Executive Officer: Jonatan Michaeli Senior Adviser: Ingvild Lovise Bartels Adviser: Elisabeth Nordby Higher Executive Officer: Sara Angell Hambro Senior Adviser: Kristina Baker Sole Adviser: Anne-Marie Sviggum Adviser: Johannes Flisnes Nilsen Senior Executive Officer: Anne Kristin Larsen Division 3: Senior Executive Officer: Kari Partyka
Head of Division: Berit Sollie Others: Archives, library, communication and internet: Deputy Head of Division: Bente Kristiansen Head of Division: Harald Gram Eksternt tilsatt personale Senior Adviser: Marianne Lie Løwe Special Adviser: Yeung Fong Cheung * Adviser: Stine Elde (Funded by the Ministry Adviser: Martin N. Ness of Foreign Affairs) The following members of staff were Richardsen on leave as per 31 December 2015:
Senior Adviser: Ingeborg M. Nakken Sæveraas Senior Adviser: Ingeborg Skonnord Senior Adviser: Kari Rørstad Senior Adviser: Torbjørn Hagerup Nagelhus Rådgiver: Signe Christophersen Rådgiver: André Klakegg Førstekonsulent: Cathrine Elisabeth Aaseth About us 53
Gender equality summary
Number of employees as of 31 December 2015: Number of employees paid by the hour 65 as of 31 December 2015:
Number of employees on full leave Number of full-time as of 31 December 2015: as of 31 December 2015: 50,5
Pay
Men Women Men % Women % average per month average per month
2015 25 % 75 % 54 968 51 576 Total in workforce 2014 28 % 72 % 51 681 51 936
2015 50 % 50 % 88 558 86 266 Executive management 2014 43 % 57 % 88 366 85 808
2015 6 % 14 % Part-time** The Ombudsman is not included in these statistics. 2014 10 % 14 % ** proportion of each gender working part-time
Sick leave 2015 1,1 % 3,9 % certified by doctor 2014 0,8 % 4,4 % SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 54 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
Budget and accounts1
ITEM DISPOSABLE BUDGET2 ACCOUNTS
Payroll expenses 49 620 000 44 584 112
Transferred from 2014 2 052 000
Operating expenses 18 380 000
Investments 937 246
Purchase of services 5 279 080
Other operating expenses 14 767 054
Total expenses 70 052 000 65 567 492
Repayment of unused grants 2 904 470
Reimbursements - 1 819 962
Profit – transferred to 2016 3 400 000
The accounts of the Parliamentary Ombudsman are audited by the Office of the Auditor General of Norway.
1 Accounts and budget based on reporting under chapter 4301 of the central government accounts do not include debit authorisations for other budget chapters. 2 Includes original grant for 2015, grants transferred from 2014 and an additional grant in 2015. External activities 55
External activities
The Parliamentary Ombudsman himself and members of his staff hold very many meetings and carry outKommunikasjon many visits during the course of a year. In 2015, around 30 interviews were given to Norwegian and international media, 41 talks and lectures were given, and around 130 meetings and visits were carried outI 2015 in Norway har det and abroad.vært 1464 artikler om Sivilombudsmannen på trykk iThere nettaviser, have been papiraviser1,464 articles about og ithe etermedier. Parliamentary Ombudsman in online and printed newspapers and broadcast media.
MEDIA CONTACT 2 June Interview in Telemarksavisa about the NPM’s visit to Skien Prison. 4 June Interview in Fædrelandsvennen about whether 12 Jan Article about a report from the National temporary revocations of alcohol licences are Institution for Human Rights about the human in conflict with the prohibition against double rights situation in Norwegian nursing homes. jeopardy (opinion). 5 Feb Interview in the law students’ journal Stud. Jur. 16 June Interviews in Romerikes Blad and on NRK about about individuals’ due process protection the report from the visit to places of detention 6 March Dagsnytt 18 – radio debate about freedom of at Gardermoen airport. speech for public sector employees etc. 26 June Interview in Kommunal Rapport about access 10 March Radio interview on P4 to information and publication embargoes 16 March Long case processing times for family 26 June Interview in Østlandsposten about conditions reunification at the UDI, interview in newspaper for homosexuals in prisons. BT. 28 June Interview in Aftenposten about a self-initiated 17 March Radio interview about criticism of Ringerike case concerning the ministries of Justice and Prison Finance’s case processing and procedures for 23 March Radio interview on P4 and P5 about the report dealing with requests for information. from Ringerike Prison 3 July Radio interview on P4 about the NPM’s findings 24 March Interview in Bergens Tidende about the NPM’s concerning suicides in prisons (on remand). annual report, prisons and conditions for 8 July Interview in Dagsavisen about the increase prisoners. in the number of complaints in a number of 26 March Radio interview on NRK P2 about the lack of institutions and to appellate bodies. right of appeal concerning certain National 12 Aug Interview on German TV about the serving of Insurance benefits and response from the sentences in the Netherlands Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. 14 Oct Interview in Klassekampen about a seminar on 8 April Interview in Kommunal Rapport openness and freedom of speech in the public 16 April Article in Kommunal Rapport about employees’ administration. freedom of speech and written documentation 14 Oct Story in Journalisten about the opening speech in recruitment matters. at the Ombudsman’s seminar: There are some 7 May Radio interview on NRK P2 about short good reasons for limiting openness. consultation deadlines for government bills. 11 Nov Interviews about a report from Skien Prison 18 May Article in Kommunal Rapport about case with NRK radio, Dagsavisen, Nettavisen etc. processing in connection with the granting of 27 Nov Interview in the journal Psykisk helse (‘Mental authorisations to physiotherapists. health’) about visits to mental health care 21 May Interview in Bergens Tidende about the police’s institutions (reports from Diakonhjemmet case processing relating to the revocation of hospital and Telemark Hospital). driving licences 9 Dec Took part in NRK P2 Nyhetsmorgen, TV2, 22 May Interview on TV2 following an unannounced Aktuelt NRK 2 etc. about the report from the visit to Trandum police immigration detention visit to Trandum police immigration detention centre centre 29 May Interview on NRK about sobriety and confiscation of driving licences and investigations about the police’s revocation of driving licences and driving permits, NRK radio, TV and online SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 56 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
TALKS IN NORWAY 23 July Lecture about the Parliamentary Ombudsman at the University of Oslo’s Human Rights 8 Jan Contribution at the open hearing in the Storting Summer Course about the report of the NI working group. 21 Aug Lecture at the Correctional Service of Norway 19 Jan Talk on the Ombudsman’s human rights Staff Academy (KRUS) mandate at the Norwegian Centre for Human 25 Aug Lecture for lawyers in the Norwegian Rights Directorate of Taxes on ‘The Ombudsman’s 10 Feb The Parliamentary Ombudsman – what’s new reflections on the Tax Administration’s case in the past year’ at the seminar ‘Administrative processing’. law – news and updating’ under the auspices of 4 Sept The Jeløy Seminar, talk on the Ombudsman’s Juristenes Utdanningssenter role, especially in relation to planning and 12 Feb Talk at a course in social security law organised building law. by Juristenes Utdanningssenter 10 Sept Lecture at a national conference on planning 25 Feb Contribution at a seminar on freedom of and building law in Bergen, under the auspices information in the Nordic countries organised of the Ministry of Local Government and by the Norwegian Press Association. Modernisation. 25 Feb Lecture at the Correctional Service of Norway 14 Sept Lecture at a Supreme Court lunch on being the Staff Academy (KRUS) Parliamentary Ombudsman. 4, 11 and Three talks at a seminar for trainee lawyers: 22 Sept Lecture about the Ombudsman’s opinions 18 March ‘Dealings with the public administration’. about fees at a conference about innovation 17 March Talk on ‘The county governors’ reviewing of and change in the public sector organised zoning plans in appeal cases’ at a five-county by the Norwegian Association of Municipal conference for lawyers organised by the Engineers. county governors of Hedmark, Oppland, 25–27 Sept Judicial policy seminar at Geilo on the use of Møre og Romsdal, Sør-Trøndelag and Nord- coercion in psychiatry and the child welfare Trøndelag service. 24 March Presentation of the Parliamentary 14 Nov The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s human Ombudsman’s annual reports to the Storting’s rights seminar at the House of Literature on Standing Committee on Scrutiny and the importance of openness and freedom of Constitutional Affairs speech in the public administration. 26 March Breakfast seminar and launch of the 14 Nov Lecture at a course for trainee lawyers on Parliamentary Ombudsman’s annual reports ‘Dealings with the public administration’ 27 March Talk at a seminar held by the Danish 15 Nov Lecture at a departmental seminar in the Parliamentary Ombudsman in Copenhagen National Insurance Court on selected opinions 15–17 April Attended and contributed to the Spring from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Conference 2015 (the Vestlia Seminar) under 19 Nov Lecture to human rights students at the Faculty the auspices of the Forum for Planning and of Law at the University of Oslo Building Law. The talks ‘What’s new from the 28 Nov Lecture at a course for trainee lawyers on Ombudsman’ and ‘Section 19-2 Dispensations’ ‘Dealings with the public administration’. 22 April Talk for students at the University of Tromsø 28 Oct Talk to the Directorate of Taxes on public sector about the Ombudsman’s preventive efforts employees’ freedom of speech. 23 April Talk at a Norwegian Bar Association seminar 29 Oct Lecture at the annual health law seminar on the history of the Norwegian Supreme Court organised by JUS at Farris Bad. 23 April Talk to trainees at Oslo Prison 2 Nov Lecture for NAV Appeals on child maintenance 4 May Talk for the Norwegian Tax Administration on and the Ombudsman’s handling of such cases. due process protection 9 Nov Lecture at the Rolv Ryssdal Seminar 2015 2 June Talk for the Confederation of Norwegian organised by the University of Oslo on the Enterprise (NHO): What is the significance of UN’s human rights treaty bodies and their the Parliamentary Ombudsman to Norwegian significance in Norwegian law. business and workplaces? 12–13 Nov Control Commission Conference 11 June Contribution at a meeting of the Forum for 25 Nov Lecture at a JUS course, on the duty to provide Planning and Building Law about the prohibition guidance and the duty of clarification. against building in the shore zone and old 25–26 Nov The 8th national conference on human rights, zoning plans without defined building limits. the use of force and ethics External activities 57
28 Nov Lecture on freedom of speech for employees of 4 March Cooperation meeting with Norway’s National Bærum municipality. Institution for Human Rights, the Ombudsman 30 Nov Lecture on freedom of information trends in for Children and the Equality and Anti- the public administration for JUC (a network Discrimination Ombudsman for people who work in the fields of public 6 March Meeting with the Supervisory Council for the law, municipal law, administrative law and police immigration detention centre at Trandum constitutional law). 10 March Meeting with the supervisory commission for 10 Dec Seminar on women in prison organised by Diakonhjemmet Hospital the Directorate of the Norwegian Correctional 11 March Meeting with the Ministry of Local Government Service. and Modernisation 11 March Visit to Ålesund custody facility, Sunnmøre police district MEETINGS, VISITS AND PARTICIPATION 12 March Meeting with the Norwegian Labour and IN SEMINARS IN NORWAY Welfare Administration (NAV) on the basis of two cases 12 March Seminar and dinner on the occasion of Attorney 6 Jan Open hearing in the Storting about the report General Sven Ole Fagernæs’s 70th birthday. from the National Institution for Human Rights’ 13 March Meeting with the Norwegian Police Directorate working group. 17–19 March Visit to Trondheim Prison 6–9 Jan Visit to Ringerike Prison 18 March Dinner at the Royal Palace in connection with a 7 Jan Meeting with Juss-Buss (free legal aid service) state visit from Latvia 9 Jan Meeting with the Norwegian Board of Health 23 March The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s annual Supervision reports are submitted to the Storting’s 12 Jan Meeting with Tor-Geir Myhrer, researcher at the Presidium repr. by First Vice President Marit Norwegian Police University College, on the Nybakk duty of confidentiality and the police’s use of 24 March Meeting of the advisory committee of Norway’s coercive measures National Institution for Human Rights 15–18 Jan Participated in the KROM Conference. 24 March One-day seminar at the Correctional Service 2 Feb Visit to Lillestrøm custody facility, Romerike Region East office about exclusion from police district. company and the use of coercive measures 4 Feb Meeting with the organisations Wayback, 17 March Meeting with the supervisory committee for Retrett and SON. mental health care in Telemark 9 Feb Visit by Ole Kr Fauchald from the University of 8 April Took part in a seminar organised by the Oslo – talk on the Aarhus Convention. Norwegian Centre Against Racism: ‘A critical 9 Feb Meeting with the National Association for look at Trandum police immigration detention Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender centre’ People (LLH) 8–10 April Visit to Telemark Hospital 11 Feb Meeting with Njål Høstmælingen, director at the 17 April Meeting with the Directorate of the Norwegian International Law and Policy Institute AS (ILPI) Correctional Service 11 Feb Visit to Bjørgvin Prison’s Juvenile Unit 21 April Office meeting: Jens Edvin Skoghøy gave a 23 Feb Supreme Court lunch with a lecture by Erik talk about administrative sanctions and double Mose: News from the European Court of jeopardy Human Rights (ECtHR). 23 Feb Meeting of the advisory committee to the 21 April Meeting for the heads of the regional National Preventive Mechanism administrations of the Norwegian Correctional 24 Feb Meeting with the administration of the Ministry Service of Justice and Public Security 22 April Visit to Bjørgvin Prison’s Juvenile Unit 24–27 Feb Visit to Diakonhjemmet Hospital 22 April Visit to places of detention at Gardermoen 26 Feb Attended the launch of the NOAS report airport ‘Freedom first – a report on alternatives to 24 April Meeting with patients and staff from Gaustad detention’ Hospital 3 March Hearing at the Storting on White Paper 12 27 April Meeting of the advisory committee to the (2014–2015) regarding increasing capacity in National Preventive Mechanism the correctional service SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 58 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
28 April Participated in a hearing at the Storting on 10 Sept Took part in a Norwegian Medical Association ‘Consent to entering into the agreement with seminar on Trandum police immigration the Netherlands of 2 March 2015 on the use of detention centre a prison in the Netherlands and changes to the 10 Sept Took part in an International Court of Justice national budget 2015’ (Prop. 92 LS (2014– seminar on the implementation of the CRPD 2015)). Convention in Norway, focusing on coercive 28 April Meeting with the medical law department at the measures in mental health care and the need Ministry of Health and Care Services for law reforms 29 April Participated in a seminar organised by the 11 Sept Meeting with Facundo Chavez, OHCHR Human Norwegian Bar Association’s Human Rights Rights and Disability Advisor Committee 17 Sept Human Rights Forum at the Norwegian Centre 5 may Attended the launch of the 2014 Yearbook on for Human Rights about a new white paper on Human Rights in Norway human rights 12 May Office meeting: Asbjørn Rachlew gave a lecture 21 Sept Event organised by the Scandinavian Solitary on police questioning and interview techniques. Confinement Network 19–22 May Visit to the police immigration detention centre 22 Sept Launch of the Ombudsman for Children’s report at Trandum on the use of coercion in the child welfare 20 May Meeting with the Evaluation Committee for the service and in mental health care EOS Committee 22 Sept Meeting with the County Governor of Rogaland 27 March Cooperation meeting with Norway’s National and decision-makers at Stavanger University Institution for Human Rights, the Ombudsman Hospital for Children and the Equality and Anti- 2 Oct Official opening of the 160th Storting Discrimination Ombudsman 14 Oct The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Human 29 May Took part in a seminar on the 10th Anniversary Rights Seminar 2015: ‘The significance of of the Norwegian Bureau for the Investigation transparency and freedom of speech in public of Police Affairs administration’ 1 June Visit to Troms police district 19 Oct Conference on antipsychotic and forced 2–4 June Visit to the Skien branch of Telemark Prison medication in psychiatric treatment ‘Medicating 15–16 June Visit to Søndre Buskerud police district the psyche – more harm than good?’ 16 June Jan Fredrik Qvigstad on Norges Bank 1816– 19 Oct Meeting organised by the Equality and Anti- 2016. Discrimination Ombudsman: ‘Violations of the 22 June Presentation of publication marking the 200th human rights of people with disabilities’ anniversary of the Norwegian Supreme Court 21 Oct Meeting with PRESS on communication with 30 June Reception and dinner on the occasion of the children and young people 200th anniversary of the Norwegian Supreme 22 Oct Banquet for members of the Storting at the Court Royal Palace 4 Aug Meeting with Juss-Buss (free legal aid service) 26 Oct Cooperation meeting with Norway’s National 17 Aug Meeting of the advisory committee to the Institution for Human Rights, the Ombudsman National Preventive Mechanism for Children and the Equality and Anti- 18 Aug Meeting with the secretariat of Discrimination Ombudsman Rettighetsutvalget (‘the rights committee’) 27 Oct Lecture by law professor Kjetil Mujezinović 19 Aug Meeting with representatives of the Red Larsen on CRPD Article 14 and the use of force Cross’s volunteer visitor scheme for the police in mental health care immigration detention centre at Trandum 28 Oct Open meeting at the Ministry of Children, 24–25 Aug Visit to Hedmark police district Equality and Social Inclusion on Norway’s next 25–28 Aug Visit to Kongsvinger Prison report to the UN Committee on the Rights of 26 Aug Meeting with the Ministry of Petroleum and the Child Energy 28 Oct Meeting with the Ombudsman for Children on 27 Aug Meeting with RVTS East – the regional resource communication with children and young people centre for violence, traumatic stress and suicide 3 Nov Meeting with Red Cross Youth on prevention communication with children and young people 2 Sept Meeting with the Equality and Anti- 4 Nov Attended the GIGA Inspiration Day: Children and Discrimination Ombudsman and the young people in mental health care organisation We Shall Overcome (WSO) 9 Nov Meeting with the Correctional Service of 7–9 Sept Visit to Sørlandet Hospital Kristiansand Norway Staff Academy (KRUS) on the training of escorts at Trandum External activities 59
11 Nov Meeting with the legal aid organisation for 8 Oct Visit by guest researchers from China, Vietnam women (JURK) on women in prison and Indonesia organised by the Norwegian 17 Nov Study visit to Ullersmo Prison Centre for Human Rights 20 Nov Lucy Smith’s Children’s Rights Day 21 Oct Visit by a youth delegation from the Moroccan 25 Nov Meeting with Dr Elina Steinerte, researcher Association of Human Rights (AMDH) under at the University of Bristol, on the serving of the auspices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sentences in the Netherlands 18 Nov Meeting with a delegation from the Ukrainian 30 Nov Human Rights Forum on the child welfare parliament under the auspices of the Storting service and due process protection at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights 30 Nov Visit by the Norwegian Directorate of Labour MEETINGS AND VISITS ABROAD, PARTICIPATION and Welfare, presentation of ‘My NAV’ IN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES ETC. 7 Dec Meeting about the advisory committee to the National Preventive Mechanism 9 Dec Meeting with psychiatrist Petter Andreas 2 March CPT Conference ‘The CPT at 25: taking stock Ringen on medicinal and non-medicinal and moving forward’ treatment in involuntary mental health care 27 March Took part in events to mark the 60th 15 Dec Meeting with psychologist Olav Nyttingnes anniversary on 1 April of the Danish of Akershus University Hospital about mental Parliamentary Ombudsman. health 30 March – Took part in the conference ‘Strategies for 1 April tackling torture and improving prevention’ at Wilton Park in Brighton MEETINGS AND VISITS FROM ABROAD 20 April Representatives of the NPM visited the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen 27–29 April Took part in a seminar organised by the 20 Jan The Council of Europe Commissioner for European Network of Ombudsmen in Poland Human Rights Nils Muižneks visited Norway 5–6 May Nordic-Baltic training/workshop on ‘Integrating and met with the Parliamentary Ombudsman the Preventive Approach’ in Helsinki 22 April Visit by Gyeonggi Provincial Government from 11–13 May Participated in the 6th ICAC Symposium in South Korea concerning anti-corruption and Hong Kong – A Future Without Corruption – transparency systems in Norway One Vision, Multiple Strategies 1 June Meeting with Ethiopia’s Chief Justice of 3–4 June Participated in the Jean-Jacques Gautier the Supreme Court and Minister of Justice Symposium in Geneva on LGBT persons organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. deprived of their liberty, under the auspices of 11 June Member of the UN Subcommittee on the Association for Prevention of Torture (APT) Prevention of Torture Mari Amos visited 11–14 June Assignment as a judge in a Nordic mock trial Norway and met with the Nordic preventive about human rights mechanisms. 16–19 June IOI workshop ‘Implementing a preventive 12 June Cooperation meeting at the Parliamentary mandate’, Riga Ombudsman’s offices with the Nordic 10–13 Aug Summer school at the University of Bristol Law preventive mechanisms, including a visit to Ila School: ‘Preventing torture and ill-treatment Detention and Security Prison of female detainees through gender-sensitive 7 Sept Representatives of the Swedish Standing monitoring’ Committee on Justice visit the Parliamentary 19–23 Aug Meeting of ombudsmen from the Western Ombudsman Nordic countries in Iceland 10 Sept Visit by a delegation from Angola organised by 24 Sept Panel debate on gender-sensitive preventive the International Law and Policy Institute (ILPI) work, side event during the OSSE/ODIHR 11 Sept Meeting with a representative of Morocco’s meeting in Warsaw Human Rights Council organised by the 29 Sept Round table conference in London organised by Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Open Society Foundation and the University 16 Sept Visit by exchange students and professors of Bristol Law School on ‘Pre-trial detention’ from Yunnan University Law School in China 1 Oct Attended a seminar in Stockholm on OPCAT organised by the Norwegian Centre for Human organised by the Swedish Parliamentary Rights Ombuds-men: ‘Preventing torture in Sweden and Europe’. SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 60 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
13–14 Oct Council of Europe conference in Strasbourg on 5 June Apologises for unfortunate handling of personal freedom of speech data during prison visit 30 Oct–1 Nov Attended the Eighth Annual Conference and 8 June The County Governor of Vestfold sets aside General Meeting of the IAACA in St Petersburg an invalid decision after criticism from the in Russia on anti-corruption. The theme for the Parliamentary Ombudsman conference was Prevention and Education 16 June Report from visit: Was unaware of inmate in 17–18 Nov China was examined on fulfilment of custody its commitments under CAT in Geneva. 22 June The Ministry had no right to stipulate a Participated as an observer. publication embargo 2 Dec Study visit to Märsta immigration detention 28 May NAV changes its procedures for new work centre in Sweden organised by the Swedish capacity assessments following criticism from Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s OPCAT unit the Parliamentary Ombudsman 7–8 Dec Meeting of ombudsmen from the Western 10 Aug. The municipal sub-plan for Lifjell must be Nordic countries in Copenhagen reconsidered 11 Dec Meeting with the Nordic preventive 10 Aug NAV is liable in damages due to inadequate mechanisms and visit to Ellebæk immigration guidance in connection with parental benefit detention centre 12 Aug Shareholder information in the Tax Administration’s register of shareholders is public PRESS RELEASES 20 Aug Women are not offered the same services as men in Trondheim Prison 11 Nov New report from visit: High occupancy level 10 January The National Insurance Court should do more leads to more stringent conditions for prison to ensure due process protection in connection inmates with the policy of stimulating benefit claimants 4 Dec Summer pasture cabin used for farming to work. purposes is exempt from property tax 17 March Report from a visit to Ringerike Prison – The 9 Dec Critical of how detainees are treated at Trandum health service for inmates must be improved 23 March • The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s annual report – Lack of due process protection in relation to key National Insurance benefits • Annual report from the National Preventive Mechanism – Human rights violations take place in Norway • Lack of freedom of speech and open meetings • Points out deficiencies in sanitary conditions in prisons 12 May When elected representatives meet, it is a public meeting 13 May The Norwegian Public Roads Administration must maintain its website and provide better guidance Act relating to the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration 61
The constitution of the Kingdom of Norway Article 75 litra 1: It devolves upon the Storting to appoint a person, not a member of the Storting, in a manner prescribed by law, to supervise the public administration and all who work in tis serve, to assure that no injustice is done against the individual citizen.*
* Addendum by Constitutional provision dated 23 June 1995 no. 567.
Act relating to the Parliamentary Section 3a. National preventive mechanism Ombudsman for Public Administration The Ombudsman is the national preventive mechanism as described in Article 3 of the Optional Protocol of 18 December (the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act) 2002 to the UN Convention of 10 December 1984 against Act of 22 June 1962 No.8 as subsequently amende, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or most recently by Act of 21 June 2013 No. 89. Punishment. The Ombudsman shall establish an advisory committee for Section 1. Election of the Ombudsman. its function as the national preventive mechanism. After each general election, the Storting elects a Parliamen- Added by Act of 21 June 2013 No 89 (in force from 1 July 2013). tary Ombudsman for Public Administration, the Parliamentary Section 4. Sphere of responsibility. Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is elected for a term of four The Ombudsman’s sphere of responsibility encompasses years reckoned from 1 January of the year following the general the public administration and all persons engaged in its election. service. It also encompasses the conditions of detention for The Ombudsman must satisfy the conditions for appoint- persons deprived of their liberty in private institutions when ment as a Supreme Court Judge. He must not be a member of the deprivation of liberty is based on an order given by a public the Storting. authority or takes place at the instigation of a public authority If the Ombudsman dies or becomes unable to discharge or with its consent or acquiescence. his duties, the Storting will elect a new Ombudsman for The sphere of responsibility of the Ombudsman does not the remainder of the term of office. The same applies if the include: Ombudsman relinquishes his office, or if the Storting decides a) matters on which the Storting has reached a decision, by a majority of at least two thirds of the votes cast to deprive b) decisions adopted by the King in Council, him of his office. c) the activities of the courts of law, If the Ombudsman is temporarily unable to discharge his d) the activities of the Auditor General, duties because of illness or for other reasons, the Storting e) matters that, as prescribed by the Storting, come under may elect a person to act in his place during his absence. In the Ombudsman’s Committee or the Parliamentary Om- the event of absence for a period of up to three months, the budsman for the Norwegian Armed Forces, Ombudsman may authorise the Head of Division to act in his f) decisions that as provided by statute may only be made place. by a municipal council, county council or cooperative If the Presidium of the Storting finds that the Ombudsman municipal council itself, unless the decision is made by is disqualified to deal with a particular matter, it will elect a a municipal executive board, a county executive board, substitute Ombudsman to deal with the matter in question. a standing committee, or a city or county government Amended by Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to Storting under section 13 of the Act of 25 September 1992 No resolution of 19 February 1980) and Act of 6 September 1991 No 72. 107 concerning municipalities and county authorities. The Ombudsman may nevertheless investigate any such Section 2. Instructions decision on his own initiative if he considers that it is The Storting will issue general instructions for the activities required in the interests of due process of law or for other of the Ombudsman. Apart from this the Ombudsman is to special reasons. discharge his duties autonomously and independently of the In its instructions for the Ombudsman, the Storting may Storting. establish: Amended by Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to Storting a) whether specific public institutions or enterprises shall resolution of 19 February 1980). be regarded as belonging to the public administration or a part of the services of the state, the municipalities or Section 3. Purpose. the county authorities under this Act, As the Storting’s representative, the Ombudsman shall, b) that certain parts of the activity of a public agency or as prescribed in this Act and in his instructions, endeavour a public institution shall fall outside the sphere of the to ensure that individual citizens are not unjustly treated by Ombudsman’s responsibility, the public administration and help to ensure that the public administration respects and safeguards human rights. Amended by Act of 22 March 1968 No 1, Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to Storting resolution of 19 February 1980), Act of 19 December 1980 No 63, Act of 11 June 1993 No 85, Act of 15 March 1996 No 13, Act of 2 December 2011 No 46 (in Amended by Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to Storting force from 1 January 2012, Act of 25 May 2012 No 28 (in force from 1 July 2012 pursuant to a resolution of 19 February 1980), Act of 16 January 2004 No 3 (in force from 1 January resolution of 25 May 2012 No 449) and Act of 21 June 2013 No 89 (in force from 1 July 2013). 2004) and Act of 29 June 2007 No 82 (in force from 1 July 2007)..
SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 62 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
Section 5. Basis for action. The duty of confidentiality continues to apply after the The Ombudsman may consider cases either in response to Ombudsman has left his position. The same duty of confiden- a complaint or on his own initiative. tiality applies to his staff and others who provide assistance.
Endret ved lov 8. feb. 1980 nr. 1 (ikr. 1. mars 1980 iflg. stortingsvedtak 19. feb. 1980). Amended by Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to Storting resolution of 19 February 1980), Act of 28 July 2000 No 74 (in force from 1 January 2001 pursuant to Storting resolution of 14 June 2000 No 863), Act of 2 December 2011 No 46 (in Section 6. Further provisions regarding complaints force from 1 January 2012) and Act of 21 June 2013 No 89 (in force from 1 July 2013). and time limits for complaints Any person who believes he has been subjected to injustice Section 10. Completion of the by the public administration may bring a complaint to the Ombudsman’s procedures in a case Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is entitled to express his opinion on matters Any person who is deprived of his personal freedom is within his sphere of responsibility. entitled to complain to the Ombudsman in a sealed letter. The Ombudsman may call attention to errors that have been A complaint shall state the name of the complainant and committed or negligence that has been shown in the public must be submitted not later than one year after the admi- administration. If he finds sufficient reason for so doing, he nistrative action or matter complained of was committed or may inform the prosecuting authority or appointments authority ceased. If the complainant has brought the matter before a of what action he believes should be taken in this connection higher administrative agency, the time limit runs from the date against the official concerned. If the Ombudsman concludes on which this authority renders its decision. that a decision must be considered invalid or clearly unreasona- The Ombudsman will decide whether a complaint provides ble or that it clearly conflicts with good administrative practice, sufficient grounds for dealing with the matter. he may express this opinion. If the Ombudsman believes that there is reasonable doubt relating to factors of importance in Amended by Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to Storting resolution of 19 February 1980). the case, he may make the appropriate administrative agency aware of this. Section 7. Right to information. If the Ombudsman finds that there are circumstances that The Ombudsman may require public officials and all others may entail liability to pay compensation, he may, depending on the situation, suggest that compensation should be paid. engaged in the service of the public administration to provide The Ombudsman may let a case rest when the error has been him with such information as he needs to discharge his duties. rectified or with the explanation that has been given. As the national preventive mechanism, the Ombudsman has a The Ombudsman shall notify the complainant and others corresponding right to require information from persons in the involved in a case of the outcome of his handling of the case. He service of private institutions such as are mentioned in section may also notify the superior administrative agency concerned. 4, first paragraph, second sentence. To the same extent he may The Ombudsman himself will decide whether, and if so in require that minutes/records and other documents are produced. what manner, he will inform the public of his handling of a case. The Ombudsman may require the taking of evidence by the As the national preventive mechanism, the Ombudsman courts of law, in accordance with the provisions of section may make recommendations with the aim of improving the 43, second paragraph, of the Courts of Justice Act. The court treatment and the conditions of persons deprived of their hearings are not open to the public. liberty and of preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or
Amended by Act of 22 March 1968 No 1, Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March degrading treatment or punishment. The competent authority 1980 pursuant to Storting resolution of 19 February 1980), Act of 17 June 2005 No 90 (in shall examine the recommendations and enter into a dialogue force from 1 January 2008 pursuant to Decree of 26 January 2007 No 88) as amended by Act of 26 January 2007 No 3, Act of 2 December 2011 No 46 (in force from 1 January 2012) with the Ombudsman on possible implementation measures. and Act of 21 June 2013 No 89 (in force from 1 July 2013). Amended by Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to Storting resolution of 19 February 1980) and Act of 21 June 2013 No 89 (in force from 1 July 2013). Section 8. Access to premises, places of service etc. The Ombudsman is entitled to access to places of service, Section 11. Notification of shortcomings in legislation offices and other premises of any administrative agency and and in administrative practice. any enterprise that comes within his sphere of responsibility. If the Ombudsman becomes aware of shortcomings in acts, regulations or administrative practice, he may notify the Amended by Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to Storting resolution of 19 February 1980) and Act of 21 June 2013 No 89 (in force from 1 July 2013). ministry concerned to this effect.
Amended by Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to Storting Section 9. Access to documents and duty of confidentiality. resolution of 19 February 1980). The Ombudsman’s case documents are public. The Ombuds- man will make the final decision on whether a document is to be Section 12. Reporting to the Storting wholly or partially exempt from access. Further rules, including The Ombudsman shall submit an annual report on his on the right to exempt documents from access, will be provided activities to the Storting. A report shall be prepared on the Ombudsman’s activities as the national preventive mechanism. in the instructions to the Ombudsman. The reports will be printed and published. The Ombudsman has a duty of confidentiality as regards information concerning matters of a personal nature to which The Ombudsman may when he considers it appropriate submit he becomes party to during the course of his duties. The special reports to the Storting and the relevant administrative duty of confidentiality also applies to information concerning agency. operational and commercial secrets, and information that is classified under the Security Act or the Protection Instruction. Amended by Act of 22 March 1968 No 1, Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to ***Storting resolution of 19 February 1980), Act of 21 June 2013 No 88 and Act of 21 June 2013 No 89 (in force from 1 July 2013). Act of law and instruction 63
Section 13. Pay, pension, other duties. Section 3. Formulating and substantiating complaints. The Ombudsman’s salary is fixed by the Storting or the (See Section 6 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act.) agency so authorised by the Storting. The same applies to Complaints may be submitted directly to the Ombudsman. remuneration for a person appointed to act in his place under A complaint should be made in writing and be signed by the section 1, fourth paragraph, first sentence. The remuneration for complainant or a person acting on their behalf. In the event that a person appointed pursuant to the fourth paragraph, second the Ombudsman receives an oral complaint, he shall ensure sentence, may be determined by the Storting’s Presidium. The that it is immediately recorded in writing and signed by the Ombudsman’s pension will be determined by law. complainant. The Ombudsman may not hold any other public or private As far as possible, the complainant should provide an appointment or office without the consent of the Storting or account of the grounds for the complaint and present evidence the agency so authorised by the Storting. and other documents in the case. . Amended by Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to Storting resolution of 19 February 1980) and Act of 28 June 2002 No 56. Section 4. Exceeding the time limit for complaints. (See Section 6 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act.) Section 14. Employees If the time limit for a complaint under section 6 of the Act – 1 Employees at the Ombudsman’s office will be appointed by (one) year – has been exceeded, this does not prevent the the Presidium of the Storting on the recommendation of the Ombudsman from taking up the matter on his own initiative. Ombudsman or, in accordance with a decision of the Presidium, by an appointments board. Temporary appointments for up to Section 5. Conditions for considering a complaint. six months will be made by the Ombudsman. The Presidium will If a complaint is made concerning a decision that the lay down further rules regarding the appointments procedure complainant is entitled to have reviewed by a higher adminis- and regarding the composition of the board. trative body, the Ombudsman shall not deal with the complaint The salary, pension and working conditions of employees will unless he finds that there are special grounds for considering be fixed in accordance with the agreements and provisions that it immediately. The Ombudsman shall give the complainant apply to employees in the central government administration. advice on their right to have the decision reviewed through administrative channels. If the complainant is unable to have Amended by Act of 8 February 1980 No 1 (in force from 1 March 1980 pursuant to Decree of 19 February 1980) and Act of 19 June 2009 No 82. the decision reviewed because the time limit for complaints has been exceeded, the Ombudsman shall decide whether the Section 15. circumstances indicate that he should nevertheless consider 1. This Act enters into force on 1 October 1962 – – – the case. 2. – – – If a complaint concerns other matters that can be brought before a higher administrative authority or specific regulatory Instructions for the Parliamentary body, the Ombudsman should direct the complainant to take up the case with the competent authority or to submit the case to Ombudsman for Public Administration the authority in question, unless the Ombudsman finds special grounds for considering the case immediately himself. Section 1. Purpose. The provisions of the first and second paragraphs do not (See Section 3 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act.) apply if the King is the only complaints body available. The Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration shall seek to ensure that individual citizens are not unjustly Section 6. Investigating complaints. treated by the public administration and that senior officials, (See Sections 7 and 8 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act.) officials and others engaged in the service of the public KComplaints which the Ombudsman considers further should administration do not make errors or neglect their duties. as a general rule be presented to the administrative body or official concerned. The same applies to subsequent statements Section 2. Sphere of responsibility. and information from the complainant. The administrative body or official concerned must always be given the opportunity to (See Section 4 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act.) comment before the Ombudsman issues an opinion as set out The Norwegian Parliamentary Intelligence Oversight Committee in section 10, second and third paragraphs, of the Parliamentary shall not be considered as part of the public administration Ombudsman Act. for the purposes of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman will decide what measures should be taken The Ombudsman shall not consider complaints concerning in order to clarify the circumstances of the case. He may obtain the intelligence, surveillance and security services that the the information he considers necessary in accordance with the Committee has already considered. provisions of section 7 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act, and may set a deadline for complying with an order to provide The Ombudsman shall not consider complaints about cases information or submit documents etc. He may also make dealt with by the Storting’s ex gratia payments committee. further inquiries of the administrative body or enterprise to The exception for the activities of the courts of law under which the complaint applies, see section 8 of the Parliamentary section 4, first paragraph, c), also includes decisions that may Ombudsman Act. be brought before a court by means of a complaint, appeal or The complainant is entitled to familiarise himself with other judicial remedy. the statements and information provided in the case, unless he is not entitled to do so under the rules applicable to the Amended by Storting resolutions of 22 October 1996 No 1479, 2 December 2003 No 1898 (in force from 1 January 2004),17 June 2013 No 1251 (in force from 1 July 2013). administrative body involved.
SIVILOMBUDSMANNEN – NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN 64 ANNUAL REPORT 2015
If he for special reasons finds it necessary, the Parliamentary Section 11. Access to the Ombudsman can obtain an expert opinion. Parliamentary Ombudsman’s case documents 1. Case documents from the Ombudsman may be exempted Section 7. from public disclosure when special reasons so indicate. Notifying a complainant when a complaint is not investigated. Ombudsmannens saksdokumenter kan unntas offentlighet (See Section 6 fourth paragraph når særlige grunner tilsier det. Ombudsmannens interne of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act.) saksdokumenter kan unntas offentlighet. If the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds that there are no 2. Case documents from the Ombudsman may be exempted grounds for dealing with a complaint, the complainant from public disclosure when special reasons so indicate. shall be notified immediately. In such cases, the Ombudsman 3. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s internal case documents should, as far as possible, advise the complainant of any may be exempted from public disclosure. other legal avenues that may exist or forward the case to the 4. Documents exchanged between the Storting and the appropriate authority himself. Ombudsman and that concern the Ombudsman’s budget and internal administration may be exempted from public Section 8. Cases considered on the disclosure. Ombudsman’s own initiative. 5. Access may be requested to the public content of the records (See Section 5 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act.) the Ombudsman maintains for registering documents in If the Ombudsman finds reason to do so, he may further cases that are opened. The Archives Act of 4 December investigate proceedings, decisions or other matters on his own 1992 No 126 and the Archives Regulations of 11 December initiative. The provisions of section 6, first, second and fourth 1998 No 1193 apply correspondingly to the Ombudsman’s paragraphs, shall apply correspondingly to such investigations. activities to the extent they are appropriate.
Amended by Storting resolution of 14 June 2000 No 1712 (in force from 1 January 2001). Section 8a. Special provisions relating to the Parliamentary Ombudsman as national preventive mechanism Section 12. Annual report to the Storting The Ombudsman may receive assistance from persons (See Section 12 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act.) with specific expertise in connection with its function as the The Ombudsman’s annual report to the Storting shall be national preventive mechanism in accordance with section 3a submitted by 1 April each year and shall cover the Ombudsman’s of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act. activities in the period 1 January–31 December of the previous year. The Ombudsman shall establish an advisory committee to The report shall contain a summary of procedures in cases provide expertise, information, advice and input in connection which the Ombudsman considers to be of general interest, and with its function as the national preventive mechanism. shall mention those cases in which he has called attention to The advisory committee shall include members with expertise shortcomings in acts, regulations or administrative practice, or on children, human rights and psychiatry. The committee must has issued a special report under section 12, second paragraph, have a good gender balance and each sex shall be represented of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act. In the annual report, the by a minimum of 40% of the membership. The committee may Ombudsman shall also provide information on activities to include both Norwegian and foreign members. oversee and monitor that the public administration respects Added by Storting resolution of 17 June 2013 No 1251 (in force from 1 July 2013). and safeguards human rights. If the Ombudsman finds reason to do so, he may refrain from Section 9. Completion of the Ombudsman’s procedures in a case. mentioning names in the report. The report shall in any case not (See Section 10 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act.) include information that is subject to the duty of confidentiality. The Ombudsman shall personally make a decision in all The account of cases where the Ombudsman has expressed cases that are accepted following a complaint or that he has an opinion as mentioned in section 10, second, third and considered on his own initiative. He may nevertheless give fourth paragraphs, of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act, shall specific members of staff the authority to complete cases that summarise any response by the relevant administrative body clearly must be rejected or that clearly do not provide sufficient or official about the complaint, see section 6, first paragraph, grounds for further consideration. third sentence. The Ombudsman’s decision is issued in a statement in which A report concerning the Ombudsman’s activities as the he gives his opinion on the questions that apply in the case national preventive mechanism shall be issued before 1 April and that come within his sphere of responsibility, see section each year. This report shall cover the period 1 January–31 10 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act. December of the previous year.
Amended by Storting resolution of 2 December 2003 No 1898 (in force from 1 January 2004). Amended by Storting resolution of 14 June 2000 No 1712 (in force from 1 January 2001), 12 June 2007 No 1101 (in force from 1 July 2007), 17 June 2013 No 1251 (in force from 1 July 2013). Section 10. Instructions for employees at the Ombudsman’s office. Section 13. Entry into force (See Section 2 of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act.) These instructions enter into force on 1 March 1980. From The Ombudsman will issue out further instructions for his the same date, the Storting’s Instructions to the Parliamentary staff. He may give the employees the authority to make the Ombudsman of 8 June 1968 are repealed. necessary preparations for cases that are dealt with by the Ombudsman. Photo: page 2 og 5: Mona Ødegård, page 11, 16, 18, 25, 26 og 34: Istock Design: Miksmaster Creative · www.miksmaster.no Print: RKGrafisk ANNUAL REPORT 2015 ›
Sivilombudsmannen – Norwegian Parliamentary Ombudsman Parliamentary Sivilombudsmannen – Norwegian
www.sivilombudsmannen.no [email protected] Office address: Akersgata 8, Oslo Postal address: P.O. Box 3 Sentrum, NO-0101 Oslo, Norway Telephone (+47) 22 82 85 00 Toll free number (+47) 800 80 039 Telefax (+47) 22 82 85 11
This annual report is published at the website www.sivilombudsmannen.no