SU

PR

EM

E C

OU

RT

OF

NO

RW

AY

ANNUAL REPORT 2013

1

Section §88 of the constitution

“The Supreme Court decides in the final instance”. It follows from this that the court is the country’s highest court in all types of cases. The main task of the Supreme Court is through its decisions to contribute to a clari-fication and an evolution of the law within the framework that follows from the Constitution and the law.

iNdEx

The Supreme Court in 2013 Page 4

More about the Supreme Court’s duties and main objectives Page 7

Supreme Court Justices Page 8

A few selected cases in 2013 Page 12

Dissenting votes – professional amicable disagreement Page 22

The Human Rights Conventions and the Supreme Court Page 24

The Supreme Court’s administration Page 26

Oldest or youngest - equally exciting! Page 32

A researcher reviews – life in a legal “candy store” Page 33

Scheduling clerk – about playing with jigsaw puzzles on the job Page 34

External activities Page 38

Statistics Page 40

Foto: Jiri Havran

32

Ind

ex

referred to the Supreme Court for a hearing in chambers. Generally, this should be done in a brief and concise appeal where the issue or issues of interest are highlighted.

As mentioned, it is the Appeals Committee that decides whether an appeal shall be referred to the Supreme Court for a hearing in chambers. The Appeals Committee consists in each case of three Supreme Court Justices. They make their decision on the basis of the case documents. The cases that go forward are decided by one of the two chambers with five justices, in exceptional cases by what is known as a reinforced court – the Supreme Court in plenary or in Grand Chambers with eleven justices.

The cases are heard orally – counsel present the legal as well as the factual issues which the Supreme Court must decide. These proceedings are open to the public. Anyone may enter the court rooms and listen in – all you have to do is show up. The Supreme Court’s website www.hoyesterett.no contains information about the cases listed, the subject matter of the case and the time and date of the oral proceedings. When a judgment has been handed down, it is published on the website – in the form of a brief summary as well as in full text for anyone who may be interested.

This annual report describes the activities in 2013. It has been important for us not just to present the dry figures, but also to a certain extent to show how we work and who we are.

The work in the Supreme Court concerns us all. It is important for the community founded on the rule of law which we want Norway to be. In the course of a year we have decisions involving requirements as to the exercise of public authority, decisions of major importance for business and industry and decisions that concern ”the man in the street”. Each case is in principle a decision for the parties involved in the case, but precisely because the Supreme Court is a court that sets a judicial precedent, the reasons for judgment will have an impact on anyone involved in a similar case. The result of this general impact of the judgments handed down by the Supreme Court is that the overall activities concern us all and makes the Supreme Court a challenging and exciting workplace for those of us who are justices or who have other important duties here.

Oslo, 2. january 2014

Tore Schei

Section 88 of the Constitution provides that “the Supreme Court decides in the final Instance”. It follows from this that the court is the country’s highest court in all types of cases. The main task of the Supreme Court is through its decisions to contribute to a clarification and an evolution of the law within the framework that follows fromthe Constitution and the law.

Any appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment by the Court of Appeal requires permission of the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court. The condition for obtaining permission under the Civil Procedure Act is normally that a decision by the Supreme Court will be of importance in terms of principle – it must provide important legal guidance also for other cases.

Many Court of Appeal decisions are appealed, but only a minority of these obtain permission. The eyeof the needle for getting a case heard in chambers is small, in legal as well as practical terms. A strict “filtering” is imperative in order to allow the Supreme Court sufficient time to hear the really important cases. It is up to the lawyers to convince the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court that precisely his or her appeal deserves to be

THE SUPREME COURT iN 2013

Section §88 of the constitution “The Supreme Court decides in the final instance”. It follows from this that the court is the country’s highest court in all types of cases. The main task of the Supreme Court is through its decisions to contribute to a clarifica-tion and an evolution of the law within the framework that follows from the Constitution and the law.

§88

54

SUP

REM

E CO

UR

T

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal and hears cases from all over the country. Together with Parliament (the Storting) and Government the Supreme Court constitutes the country’s constitutional bodies. The courts of law, with the Supreme Court at the top, hear all types of cases. For example, the courts will in the various cases monitor the other government bodies – ensure that legislation is in accordance with the Constitution and that decisions do not contain any errors that would make it necessary to set them aside as invalid.

The Supreme Court hears civil as well as criminal cases and has competence in all areas of the law. All cases that are brought to the Supreme Court are first heard by the Appeals Committee. In addition to deciding appeals against interlocutory orders, the Appeals Committee is a filtering instance when it comes to appeals against judgments. No appeal may be brought to the Supreme Court without the permission of the Appeals Committee. Permission shall normally only be given if the case raises a legal issue which it is of major importance to have clarified through a Supreme Court judgment. This is why the Appeals Committee refuses to grant per-mission to appeal to the Supreme Court in the large majority of appeals against judgments from the Court of Appeal.

For appeals against judgments that are brought to the Supreme Court the court sits with a composition of five justices. To ease the workload the Supreme Court works in two parallel and equal chambers. In some instances, however, cases are heard in the Grand Chamber by eleven justices, or by all of the justices sitting in Plenary Session.

The justices work according to a rota system in both chambers and in the Appeals Committee.

As the highest court in the country the Supreme Court shall clarify any ambiguities in the prevailing law. There may be ambiguities in the text of the law – e.g. about which actions a certain penal provision is intended to cover. The Supreme Court also has a responsibility for the evolution of the law within the framework of legislation where new social problems so require. An evolution of the law will first and foremost be relevant in cases that do not entail punishment. Imposing punishment requires a clear statutory authority. An existing need to be able to impose punishment does not warrant a liberal interpretation of a penal provision.

Legal proceedings in the Supreme Court are almost always oral and are in most cases conducted in open court. However, there is no adduction of immediate evidence in the form of testimonies by parties and witnesses as in the District Courts and Courts of Appeal. Nor does the Supreme Court conduct inspections of sites.

In the Appeals Committee proceedings are conducted in writing and decisions are made on the basis of the case documents.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in chambers, Grand Chamber and Plenary as well as reasoned decisions from the Appeals Committee are published on the court’s website, www.hoyesterett.no. In addition, all decisions made by the Supreme Court and the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court are published in Norsk Retstidende and at www.lovdata.no.

MORE ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT’S TASKS ANd MAiN OBJECTiVES

Foto: Jiri Havran

7

MA

iN O

BJE

CT

iVE

S

CHIEF JuSTICE TORE SCHEI (67)Tore Schei was born in 1946 in Oslo and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 March 1986 and Chief Justice on 1 August 2002. He came to the Supreme Court from a position as Court of Appeal judge of the former Eidsivating Court of Appeal.

SuPREME COuRT JuSTICE LIv GJøLSTAD (68)Liv Gjølstad was born in 1945 in Tønsberg and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 September 1988. She came to the Supreme Court from a position as Court of Appeal judge of the former Eidsivating Court of Appeal.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE STEINAR TJOMSLAND (65)Steinar Tjomsland was born in 1948 in Kristiansand and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 April 1991. He came to the Supreme Court from a position as Assistant Director of the Bank of Norway.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE MAGNuS MATNINGSDAL (62)Magnus Matningsdal was born in 1951 in Hå and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 11 August 1997. He came to the Supreme Court from a position as Senior Presiding Court of Appeal Judge of the Gulating Court of Appeal.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE JENS EDvIN A. SKOGHøy (58)Jens Edvin A. Skoghøy was born in 1955 in Tromsø and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 15 August 1998. He came from a position as a professor at the university of Tromsø.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE KARL ARNE uTGåRD (62)Karl Arne utgård was born in 1951 i Sykkylven and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 15 November 1999. He came from a position as a private practice lawyer. SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE INGSE STABEL (67)Ingse Stabel was born in 1946 i Oslo and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 May 2001. She came from a position as President of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE TORIL MARIE øIE (53)Toril Marie øie was born in 1960 in Oslo and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 August 2004. She came from a position as Deputy Director General at the Ministry of Justice.

THE JuSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT The Supreme Court of Norway has 20 justices headed by the Chief Justice. A broad composition of the court is considered important. The justices must come from and have professional experience from various places in the country. There must be a diversity in professional experience and careers and the justices shall be recruited from the public as well as the private sector. Gender and age composition must be satisfactory, but the basic condition is high professional qualifications.

In 2013 there have been no changes in the composition of justices and at the end of the year the court is composed of seven female and thirteen male justices aged between 47 and 68. A complete overview of the justices’ biographies is available on the Supreme Court‘s website www.hoyesterett.no.

In February/March 2014, a vacancy as a Supreme Court Justice will be posted.

9

CO

UR

T JUST

iCE

S 2013

SuPREME COuRT JuSTICE BåRD TøNDER (65)Bård Tønder was born in 1948 in Sjøvegan and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 15 May 2006. He came from a position as assistant Attorney General of Civil Affairs.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE CLEMENT ENDRESEN (64)Clement Endresen was born in 1949 in Stavanger and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 28 August 2006. He came from a position as a private practice lawyer.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE HILDE INDREBERG (56)Hilde Indreberg was born in 1957 in Oslo and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 April 2007. She came from a position as Deputy Director General at the Ministry of Justice.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE ARNFINN BåRDSEN (47)Arnfinn Bårdsen was born in 1966 in Stavanger and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 July 2008. He came from a position as a Court of Appeal Judge of the Gulating Court of Appeal.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE BERGLJOT WEBSTER (47)Bergljot Webster was born in 1966 in Oslo and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 15 August 2009. She came from a position as a private practice lawyer.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE WILHELM MATHESON (58)Wilhelm Matheson was born in 1955 in Oslo and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 November 2009. He came from a position as a private practice lawyer.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE AAGE THOR FALKANGER (48) Aage Thor Falkanger was born in 1965 in Oslo and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 May 2010. He came from a position as a professor at the university of Tromsø.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE KRISTIN NORMANN (59)Kristin Normann was born in 1954 in Oslo and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 9 August 2010. She came from a position as a private practice lawyer.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE RAGNHILD NOER (54)Ragnhild Noer was born in 1959 in Oslo and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 October 2010. She came from a position as a Court of Appeal Judge of the Borgarting Court of Appeal

SuPREME COuRT JuSTICE HENRIK BuLL (56)Henrik Bull was born in 1957 in Oslo and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 17 January 2011. He came from a position as a judge of the EFTA Court of Justice.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE KNuT H. KALLERuD (57)Knut H. Kallerud was born in 1956 in Kongsberg and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 16 July 2011. He came from a position as assistant Director General of Public Prosecutions.

SUPREME COURT JUSTiCE PER ERIK BERGSJø (55)Per Erik Bergsjø was born in 1958 in Levanger and was appointed Supreme Court Justice on 1 March 2012. He came from a position as a private practice lawyer.

Court room, the Supreme Court’s first chamber lawyers and members of the press

1110

CO

UR

T JUSTIC

eS 2013

A FEW SELECTED CASES iN 2013

The number of cases that are brought to the Supreme Court has in recent years been on the increase. Overall, more cases came in in 2013 than in 2012. In 2013, the Supreme Court heard one civil case in plenary and one civil case in Grand Chamber. Otherwise, the Supreme Court has in chambers heard 63 civil cases and 70 criminal cases. For more detailed information, please see the statistics at the end of this Annual Report.

Below, we have reviewed a few selected cases for 2013 which illustrate the wide range of cases that are brought to the Supreme Court. Several of the cases have received wide media coverage, but not all.

.

CiViL CASES STRuCTuRAL QuOTA SySTEM FOR THE DEEP-SEA FISHING FLEET – PLENARy

A trawl fishing company that owned two trawlers with each their separate fishing quota condemned one of the vessels in return for being allowed to fish both quotas with a new and modern vessel for an indefinite period of time, a right conferred by the Structural Quota Regulation of 2005. In 2007, the government amended the Regulation.

A time limit of 25 years was set determining how long it was allowed to fish with what was known as the structural quota which the shipping company had transferred to the remaining vessel.

The shipping company alleged that the regulatory amendment was in violation of section 97 of the Constitution against retroactive laws and in violation of provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the protection of right of ownership.

The decisions in full text are available on the Supreme Court’s website, in the publication Norsk Rettstidende and at www. Lovdata.no

The Supreme Court in plenary held with dissenting votes 9-8 that the regulatory amendment was neither in contravention of section 97 of the Constitution nor of the ECHR. The majority decided the retroactivity issue to the effect that the introduction of the time limit was not a clearly unreasonable or unfair infringement vis-à-vis the shipping company. In the majority’s opinion, the infringement of the right of ownership was further-more not in contravention of the proportionality requirement under the ECHR. A minority of the justices had a different view of these issues. (Case no. 2012/1548)

The decisions in full text are available on the Supreme Court’s website, in Norsk Retstidende and atwww.Lovdata.no.

From the Supreme Court’s hearing in plenary of the structural quota

system for the deep-sea fishing fleet

1312

SELE

CT

Ed

CA

SES 2013

vALIDITy OF AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE PuRCHASE OF STRuCTuRED SAvINGS PRODuCTS – GRAND CHAMBERIn 2000, a consumer bought share index bonds issued by a Norwegian bank. The purchase was financed in full by the raising of a loan with the same bank. under the agreement, the invested amount was to be repaid in 2006 In addition to a return calculated on the basis of the value trend in certain specific share indexes. The share indexes did not rise sufficiently to yield a return while interest and fees accrued on the loan amount. The consumer filed suit against the bank submitting that the agreements must be set aside under section 36 of the Contracts Act due to an imbalance in the contractual relationship and inadequate information from the bank.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the agreements between the consumer and the bank fall under section 36 of the Contracts Act. The share index bonds were sold by the bank as very safe and favourable investment opportunities but, as a professional party, the bank should to a higher degree have warned that a continued strong growth of the stock market was an uncertain scenario. The bank should also have explained the risk involved in the products and the consequences of loan financingin a way that took into consideration non-professional investors. When the material which the consumer had received as a basis for the investment decision furthermore gave incorrect information about matters of vital importance for assessing the risk involved in the products, this must from an overall point of view lead to the setting aside of the agree-ments. If the bank had in advance given more sober and correct information about the return potential, it was assumed that the consumer would have refrained from making the investment. (Case no. 11/1938)

QuESTION OF WHETHER THERE WERE REASONABLE GROuNDS FOR REFuSING CONSENT TO ACQuISITION OF SHARESThe company in question was upon its formation in 1899 strictly a family company consisting of share-holders within five branches of the family with articles of association conferring right of preemption on the shareholders at a price to be determined by the board of directors. In 1947, these provisions in the articles of association were rescinded. The reason given was that the circle of shareholders was far bigger and less intimately connected than at the start-up of the company and that it was desirable that the individual shareholder be given the oppor-tunity to realize the value of the shares by a free sale at market value. At the same time a provision was included in the articles of association providing that the acquisition of shares in the company was subject to the consent of the board of directors.

In 2010, the company’s biggest individual share-holder, who is not a member of any of the original family branches, acquired a further two shares. This would increase his share of the share capital to 28.02%. The board refused to give its consent to the acquisitions. The reason given by the board was that any further acquisitions might give the share-holder a dominant and controlling position, i.e. he would be able to obtain a controlling minority at the general meeting by decisions which, according to the Companies Act, require a two-third majority.in addition to the question of whether there were pertinent grounds for refusing consent to the acquisitions based on such reasons, the dispute concerned the issue whether the real reason was that the shareholder was not a family shareholder.

The Supreme Court concluded that there were no objective reasons for refusing consent to the acqui-sitions on the grounds that the shareholder would be able to obtain a controlling minority. Importance was attached to the fact that there was nothing in the articles of association to indicate such a limitation. Nor did the objects, operation or distinctive character of the company suggest that such a limitation would be in the company’s best interests. Reference was also made to the fact that a group of family share-holders from the same family, who in a shareholder context acted as an entity, had a larger share of the share capital than the shareholder in question. The latter circumstances – in conjunction with the board’s explicit wish to keep the company as a

family company – suggested that the refusal was in reality attributable to the fact that the shareholder did not belong to any of the original family branches. (Case no. 2012/1072)

vALIDITy OF REGuLATION RELATING TO PARTIAL GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE ENGINEERING INDuSTRy AGREEMENT TO THE MARITIME CONSTRuCTION INDuSTRy

In 2008, the Tariff Board adopted Regulation relating to Partial General Application of the Engineering industry Agreement to the maritime construction industry. under the Regulation also unorganised foreign employees acquired a right to wage and working conditions which are equal to those that Norwegian employees have within the scope of the wage agreement. A group of industrial companies filed a legal action against the State represented by the Tariff Board to have the regulation found invalid. Before the Supreme Court they argued that Article 36 of the EEA Agreement and the EEA Directive relating to seconded employees prevent a general application of contract conditions relating to out-of-town allowance, working hours, overtime allowance and compensation for costs of overnight stays away from home. The Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the disputed provisions satisfy the requirements under EEA law relating to general application and that the Regulation is valid. (Case no. 2012/1447).

THE STATE’S RESPONSIBILITy FOR INADEQuATE PROTECTION OF A CITIZEN AGAINST vIOLATION OF RIGHTS uNDER THE EuROPEAN HuMAN RIGHTS CONvENTION.

After an incident of aggravated threat and violence in 1998 the perpetrator started a year-long persecutionof a woman, which continued in spite of the serving of prison sentences, extensive police operational measures and a more or less uninterrupted regime of restraining orders. Because of serious fear the woman in April 2001 moved with her four children to a different part of the country. She had after that lived at a secret address and changed her name. The mental strain resulted in considerable health problems and disability. The woman alleged that the State was liable for damages because the authorities had not done enough to protect her from the perpetrator ’s persecution. She referred to the obligation to secure rights and freedoms set out in Article 1 of the European Human Rights Convention, compared with Articles 3 and 8. 15

SELE

CT

Ed

CA

SES 2013

The Supreme Court concluded that the State was liable. It was emphasized that the police and pros-ecuting authority had done a great deal to protect the woman. However, based on the knowledge of the perpetrator and his pattern of action and intensity, and the strain on and risk for the woman and her children over a very long period of time, the police and prosecuting authority should have followed up on the information about continued violations of the restraining order in a much bet-ter way. In particular, the possibility of arrest and custody should have been carefully considered and the violations should have been brought to trial as and when they took place as independent criminal offences. The unsatisfactory investigation of the threats on her life in 1999 enhanced the impression of inadequate protection against continued perse-cution and new – potentially very serious – violations of her integrity. (Case no. 2012/1900)

LIMITATION PERIOD FOR COMPLAINT OF CORROSION DAMAGE TO A CARIn November 2003, a buyer purchased a secondhand Mercedes-Benz C180T 2000 model from a used-car company. In 2005, the buyer discovered corrosion on the car doors, two rear wings and the tailgate. The buyer complained and the corrosion damage was repaired by seller in June 2006. In July 2009, buyer discovered that corrosion had returned on the doors. Buyer contacted seller the same month and sent a written complaint in August 2009.

The parties agreed that the corrosion damage established in 2009 was a reflection of the defect which it had been attempted to repair in 2006 and that the car consequently still had a defect. Seller asserted that he had no obligation to repair the damage submitting that the complaint had been filed too late and that the claim was time-barred.The Supreme Court found for the buyer. The Supreme Court found that a defect is not subject to any absolute time limit for complaints if buyer hascomplained and seller ’s attempts to repair has not resulted in a contractual performance. The unsuc-cessful repairs are only subject to a relative time limit for complaints. Buyer must file a complaint within a reasonable period of time from the moment he becomes, or ought to have become, aware of the fact that the defect had not been repaired in a satisfactory manner. Hence, the complaint was not filed too late. Nor did the Supreme Court hold that the claim was time-barred. (Case no. 2012/2190)

QuESTION OF WHETHER A STANDARD HOuSE IS INTELLECTuAL PROPERTyThe builder contacted Norske Hus with a view to erecting the standard house Ambassadør. An architect drew this standard house in 1998 and the rights to the drawings were transferred to Norske Hus.

The negotiations did not lead to any agreement and the builder chose instead to have a third party build a house for him. In this connection Hovin Bygg AS assisted with drawings related to the building application.

Norske Hus asserted that the house that was erected infringed their rights to the Ambassadør type of house and filed suit against the builder and against Hovin Bygg AS.

The Supreme Court cited that also construction art can be intellectual property and found in the light of a review of the history of law that it was not possible to stipulate a particularly strict requirement as to level of originality in this area. The Supreme Court majority (three justices) held that the requirement as to originality was satisfied and referred in their assessment to the summary given by an expert witness:

“The facades work with characteristic elements: an interaction of gable roof with arks and wings. The aesthetic expression is strong. It is dominated by the transverse middle section with gables and pillars which together with the arks and the hip roof produces this characteristic expression. Ambassadør leaves the impression of a low-slung horizontal one-floor building with a domineering cantilever roof, almost a bungalow, and where the heavy roof is made extra heavy by arks and a protruding middle section. (Case no. 2013/138)

CRiMiNAL CASESACCESS TO TAPE RECORDINGS FROM CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGSThe case concerned the demands of the press for access to the tape recordings in the criminal proceedings against Arne Treholt in 1985. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecuting authority’s refusal to grant the press access was an infringement of the freedom of expression according to Article 10.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Since the wording of Article 10 does not provide much guidance, the case had to be solved first and foremost by an analysis of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. The question of access to tape recordings from criminal cases has so far not been heard by the European Court, but a review of the Court’s recent practice shows that Article 10 has at least been made applicable where the press requests access to cases of legitimate public interest, provided that this is a question of access to information that is already available. Reference was also made to the fact that the European Court has in several cases underlined the importance of the press – as a “public watchdog” – being given the opportunity to carry out the investigations necessary. This is for example reflected in the press being secured an extensive protection of source.

The Supreme Court found that the criminal pro-ceedings against Mr. Treholt was of major public interest and that parts of the case have been strongly disputed later. It was also emphasized that to a large extent the trial was conducted behind closed doors so that the public has never been given full access to the Court of Appeal’s evidentiary basis. Based on an overall assessment the Supreme Court found that the refusal to release the tape recordings must be regarded as an infringement under Article 10.1 (case no. 012/1069).

DOCTOR CHARGED WITH HAvING DESTROyED DNA EvIDENCE – ISSuE OF DOCTORS’ CONFIDENTIALITy

A bag of drugs was found on an unconscious person after hospitalisation. The staff contacted the police and a police officer came to collect the bag. The doctor rubbed the bag between his hands before handing it over and was fined for having removed possible traces of DNA.

The Supreme Court concluded that the doctor had acted within the duty of confidentiality to which health personnel is subject. He had accordingly acted lawfully and could not be convicted. The Supreme Court found that the extent of the duty of confidentiality must be based on a concrete evaluation of reasonableness, also in view of the practical possiblities of protecting a patient’s anonymity. In the concrete assessment the Su-preme Court attached importance to the fact that the doctor was aware of his duty of confidentiality, that the hospital had not arranged for anonymi-zation before the doctor handled the bag, that the police officer asked questions relating to the patient’s identity and indicated that DNA samples would be taken and that the patient’s identity could easily be protected. (Case no. 2013/877)

CONvICTION FOR ECONOMIC CRIMEThe two defendants’ professional background was in the shipping industry. Their misappropriation of funds – which amounted to some NOK 20 million – consisted essentially in their having resold ships to companies which they controlled for significantly higher amounts than the original purchase price. The difference was used for purposes irrelevant for the final owner. The fraudulent acts – which amounted to approximately NOK 80 million – con-sisted essentially in the lenders having been given incorrect information about the real purchase price for the same ships.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation and application of the law were correct. Nor did the Supreme Court find any procedural errors in the Court of Appeal’s hearing of the case.

in the Court of Appeal the punishment for one of the offenders was set at a term of imprisonment of five years two and a half of which were suspended. For the other offender punishment was set at four years two of which were suspended. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s sentencing.

The appeals also concerned the issue that the Court of Appeal had confiscated funds from the defendants which had been received by various companies and installations, but also on this point the appeals were quashed. (Case no. 2012/1896)

1716

SELE

CT

Ed

CA

SES 2013

MINuTES OF MEETINGS WITH SOCIAL SERViCES AS EVidENCE iN A CRiMiNAL CASEThe case concerned the issue whether minutes of meetings between the child welfare authorities and an individual could be used as evidence in a later criminal case against the individual in question con-cerning violation of section 219 of the Penal Code (abuse in family relations).

The Supreme Court held that the duty of confi-dentialiy did not prevent the child welfare services from reporting the situation to the police. If a right existed to report a matter to the police, a right also existed to forward information suited to shed light on the question of guilt. The duty of confidentiality accordingly did not prevent the minutes from being used as evidence.

In his meetings with the child welfare services the defendant had admitted having used violence against two of the children. This was taken down in the minutes. The question was accordingly whether it would violate the prohibition against self-incrimi-nation to use the minutes as evidence in the crimi-nal case. The Supreme Court held that since he had made a voluntary statement to the child welfare services it would not be in violation of the prohibi-tion against self-incrimination in the ECHR to use the minutes as evidence. (Case no. 2012/330 and case no. 2012/1998).

QuESTION OF CORPORATE PENALTyOne of the employees of a consultancy firm had aided and abetted corruption in connection with a development project in Africa during the period 2003-2006. The offender was convicted to a prison sentence for this offence and the question before the Supreme Court was whether corporate penalty should be imposed against the company.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the company must be acquitted but was split as regards the reasons in a majority and a minority. However, a united Supreme Court stated that corruption belongs to the core area of corporate penalty and that the regard for the general deterrent effect is an exceptionally strong feature when it comes to penal sanctions against this type of crime.

In the concrete case the majority concluded that the regard for the general deterrent effect, the seriousness of the employee’s act and the company’s lack of guidelines and measures against corruption in principle called for the imposing of corporate penalty.

The consequences which corporate penalty for corruption might have by a shutting out of the company according to the Public Procurement Regulation must in principle be irrelevant for the

decision. However, seven years had elapsed since the criminal behaviour had ceased, which it was difficult to see any reason for in view of the stand-ing of the case. In the light of the time that had elapsed, the majority in the overall assessment attached importance to the fact that the company had initiated several measures to prevent corruption in the future, that the employee who had aided and abetted had received a prison sentence, that his actions had resulted in extensive reactions from the World Bank, and that there was a risk that the practising of the duty to turn down a supplier according to the Purchase Regulation viewed collectively might have disproportionate conse-quences for the company. For these reasons the majority concluded that corporate penalty should not be imposed. (Case no. 2012/2114)

19

SELE

CT

Ed

CA

SES 2013

Orginal foto Sturlason /edited foto Allkopi

The Supreme Court receives groups for guided tours. In 2013, the Supreme Court conducted 40 guided tours for a total of 850 visitors. In connection with the open-house event in October, 300 visitors were briefed about the Supreme Court and given a guided tour of the building. 2120

TH

E SUP

RE

ME

CO

uR

T Bu

ILDIN

G

The Supreme Court shall work for legal clarification and evolution of the law. However, the Supreme Court’s justices do not always concur about the outcome of the cases brought before the court. The decision is in that event made with dissenting votes with the majority’s result as decisive.

In 2013, 22 of a total of 135 decisions in chambers were made with dissenting votes. For 2012 the number was 23 dissenting votes out of 148 deci-sions in chambers. In view of the large element of doubtful cases, the number of dissenting votes is in fact low.

Even if the decisions in chambers, Grand Chamber and plenary are made by personal votes, the wording of which is decided by the individual voting justice, the judgments are nevertheless typically the result of a cooperation. After the conclusion of a trial – often the following day – we have extensive deliberations where each justice orally reviews his or her views on the various issues and the conclusions reached for the issues in question. Subsequently, a draft vote is drawn up by the first-voting justice and, if relevant, also a draft dissenting vote. The other justices put forward written proposals for amendments to the draft.

Normally, a revised draft is then prepared where the input is as a rule reflected to a significant degree. The revised draft is subsequently reviewed by the justices in conference before voting commences with any further amendments after the discussion by the justices in conference. It is the Supreme Court Justices’ ambition that from that point on the judgments shall be the best possible. This applies also to the votes which they do not themselves endorse and it is customary to propose amendments to these as well.

DISSENTING vOTES – PROFESSIONAL AMICABLE DISAGREEMENT

2322

DISSE

NT

ING

vO

TE

S

Through the Human Rights Act of 1999 the fundamental human rights conventions have been made Norwegian law – incorporated, and in such a way that in case of a conflict between these and other Norwegian rules of law, the provisions of the conventions shall prevail. In other words, the conventions set aside any other rules of law that may conflict with them.

Provisions in the incorporated human rights conventions are frequently cited before Norwegian courts. Those most frequently invoked are the provisions of the Europan Human Rights Convention(ECHR), but also issues related to other important conventions, such as the uN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the uN Convention on Civil and Political Rights, have been raised in many cases. There are many examples of rules of law being set aside or interpreted restrictively in order to avoid conflict with the conventions. There are also cases where rights have been rooted direct in the conventions without this giving rise to any question of conflict with other Norwegian rules of law. One example of this is the case relating to liability for the State for inadequate protection of a citizen against violations of rights under the ECHR, see page 15.

Among cases heard in chambers the Supreme Court in 2013 decided on ECHR issues in a total of ten cases, six of which were civil and four criminal. The Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court decided a further fourteen cases, three of which were civil and eleven criminal.

The corresponding figures for 2012 were fourteen decisions in chambers where the cases were evenly divided between criminal and civil cases. The Appeals Committee heard a total of 21 cases with ECHR issues, 16 of which were criminal and five civil.

The trend over the past two years accordingly seems reasonably stable. If we go back to 1998, in other words the year before the Human Rights Act, the number of cases relating to the ECHR heard in chambers was only three. The number of such cases heard by the Appeals Committee the same year, however, was 19.

It happens that Supreme Court decisions in cases relating to the ECHR are appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Formally speaking, this is a complaint against the Norwegian State for breach of the Convention. Cases which the ECHR after a preliminary review finds reason to take a closer look at will initially be “communicated” to the Norwegian State. Subsequently, a specific procedure is initiated leading to a final decision determining whether or not the Convention has been breached.

if the ECHR concludes that a breach has been committed, the relevant states are obliged to put a stop to the breach and to repair its consequences so far as possible. This may involve the reopening of a case that has been decided in conflict with the Convention to allow the handing down of a new judgment consistent with the Convention.

In 2012, a reopening of the Supreme Court’s judgment was requested in what is known as the Ground Lease case from 2007 where the ECHR had established that the decision was not consistent with the Convention. The Appeals Committee decided in 2013 that the examination of the request for a reopening will be suspended until the coming into force of foreshadowed amendments to the rules in the Ground Lease Act relating to the extension of ground lease contracts.

CASES dECidEd iN THE ECHR iN 2013Judgment 14 March 2013 (not violation): Case no. 24117/08 Bernh. Larsen Holding AS et al. v. Norway – whether the tax authorities’ mir-ror copying of a taxpayer ’s electronic files is in violation of article 8 of the ECHR – The Supreme Court’s judgment 20 November 2007 in Case no. 2007/979 (Rt. 2007 Page 1612).

Judgment 5 December 2013 (partial violation): Case no. 52806/09 and 22703/10 vilnes et al. v. Norway – whether the State has treated the North Sea divers in violation of Articles 2, 3 or 8 of the ECHR – The Supreme Court’s judgment 8 October 2009 in Case no. 2009/213 (Rt. 2009 Page 1237).

COMMuNICATED COMPLAINTS AGAINST NORWAy PENDING DECISIONCase no. 13258/09 Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther – whether it is a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR that a weekly paper was considered entitled to publish an article about a private wedding ceremony – The Supreme Court’s judgment 2 September 2008 in Case no. 2008/533 (Rt. 2008 Page 1089).

Case no. 1176/10 Kristiansen – whether a jury member was incompetent under Article 6 of the ECHR – The Supreme Court’s judgment 26 June 2009 in Case no. 2009/612 (HR-2009-1337-A).

Case no. 27473/11 N.A. – whether it is a viola-tion of article 6 of the ECHR to impose liability for non-economic loss after an acquittal in the criminal case – The Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court’s decision 4 November 2010 in Case no. 2010/1692 (HR-2010-1889-u).

Case no. 32504/11 Kaplan et al. – whether a deportation order is in violation of Article 8 of the ECHR - The Supreme Court’s judgment 26 November 2010 in Case no. 2010/833 (Rt. 2010 Page 1430).

Case no. 21272/12 Becker – whether the duty to give evidence of a member of the press is in violation of the ECHR Article 10 – The Supreme Court’s judgment 30 September 2011 in Case no. 2011/970 (Rt. 2011 Page 1266).

Case nos. 48940/13, 48950/13, 50005/13, 48932/13, 51184/13 and 61145/13 D.G.T et al. – whether the implementation of a deportation order will be in violation of Articles 2, 3, 8 or 13 of the ECHR or Protocol no. 4 Article 4 – The Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court’s de-cision and interlocutory order 6 December 2012 in Case no. 2012/1841 (HR-2012-2307-u).

Case nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11 Frisvold and Flom-Jacobsen – on the imposing of surtax and the relationship to the prohibition against double prosecution in Article 4 of the ECHR P7 – The Supreme Court’s judgment 27 September 2010 in Case no. 2010/884 (Rt. 2010 Page 1121) and the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court’s decision 29 October 2010 in Case no. 2010/1484 (HR-2010-01840-u).

THE HuMAN RIGHTS CONVENTiONS ANd THE SUPREME COURT

2524

HU

MA

n R

IGH

TS

The Supreme Court’s administration consists of around 45 people. They are distributed over the Judicial Research unit and an administrative staff.The Chief Justice has as the judicial head of the court also the ultimate administrative responsibil-ity and takes part in the handling of administrative questions of principle and of major practical signifi-cance to the court. The day-to-day administration of the Supreme Court is handled by a Director who is a civil servant and an Assistant Director.

DIRECTOR GuNNAR BERGBy (66)Gunnar Bergby studied law at and graduated from the university of Oslo and has also completed a leadership course at the Norwegian Defence uni-versity College. His former positions include Town Clerk and Chief Executive of Oslo and Senior Judge of the Oslo Court of Probate, Bankruptcy and En-forcement and he was appointed Director of the Supreme Court in February 1994.

ASSiSTANT diRECTOR KJERSTI BuuN NyGAARD (42)Kjersti Buun Nygaard studied law at and graduated from the university of Oslo and has also completed a leadership course at the Norwegian Defence uni-versity College. She has earlier worked as a deputy judge, a researcher and a deputy head of the Judi-cial Research unit at the Supreme Court until she was appointed Assistant Director in May 2011.

JUdiCiAL RESEARCH UNiTThe Judicial Research unit is the biggest unit of the Supreme Court’s administration and consists of 20 people, including the head and deputy head. Apart from the head and deputy head the researchers are appointed for a term of years (seven years).

The Supreme Court’s Judicial Research unit works primarily for the Appeals Committee. When an ap-peal comes to the Supreme Court it is allocated to a researcher. In all cases procedural as well sub-stantive questions are researched. In case of an appeal against a judgment the research is aimed at clarifying whether the case raises issues of princi-ple which should be heard by the Supreme Court. If the Appeals Committee allows the appeal, the researcher will assist the preliminary justice during the case preparation. In case of an appeal against an interlocutory order or a decision the case will be researched with a view to the Appeals Committee’s final decision of the matter. The Judicial Research unit also has assignments for the Chief Justice, the justices and the Director.

One or two researcher vacancies will be published during the first six months of 2014.

HEAD OF THE JuDICIAL RESEARCH uNITBøRRE W. LyNGSTAD (51)Børre W. Lyngstad studied law at and graduated from the university of Oslo in 1988. He was appointed researcher in October 1995, Deputy Head of the Judicial Research unit in June 2003 and Head of the Research unit in July 2005. He has held the positions as a higher executive officer at the secretariat of the Criminal Law Commission, a deputy judge and an acting district court judge of the Eiker, Modum and Sigdal District Court, secretary for the Expropriation Compensation Committee and a Court of Appeal judge of the Borgarting Court of Appeal.

ACTING HEAD OF THE JuDICIAL RESEARCH uNITøISTEIN AAMODT (38)øistein Aamodt studied law at and graduated from the university of Oslo in 2001. He was appointed researcher in September 2006 and deputy head of the Judicial Research unit in July 2011. He has been a tax lawyer at the østfold County Tax Office and a senior tax lawyer at the Tax Directorate.

ACTING DEPuTy HEADBIRTHE ASPEHAuG BuSET (39)Birthe Aspehaug Buset studied law at and gradu-ated from the university of Oslo in 1999. She was appointed researcher in January 2006. She has been a lawyer for the law firm of Kluge.

RESEARCHER NORuNN LøKKEN SuNDET (37) (LEAvE OF ABSENCE)Norunn Løkken Sundet studied law at and gradu-ated from the university of Bergen in 2000. She was appointed researcher in June 2002. She has worked as an assistant lawyer for the law firm of vogt & Wiig, a deputy judge of the Oslo Court of Probate, Bankruptcy and Enforcement, a secretary to the Flood Disaster Committee and an acting Dis-trict Court judge of the Follo District Court. She is currently on leave of absence in order to be acting District Court judge of the Follo District Court .

RESEARCHER KARL INGE ROHDE (37) (LEAvE OF ABSENCE)Karl inge Rohde studied law at and graduated from the university of Tromsø in 2006. He was appointed researcher in July 2006. He is currently on leave of absence in order to be deputy judge of the Dram-men District Court.

RESEARCHER GEIR SuNDE HAuGLAND (36)Geir Sunde Haugland studied law at and graduated from the university of Bergen in 2003. He was appointed researcher in September 2006. He has worked as a higher executive officer at the Cor-rectional Service of the Ministry of Justice, as an adviser to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, a secre-tary of the Methods Evaluation Committee and a deputy judge and an acting District Court judge of the Moss District Court.

RESEARCHER CHIRSTI ERICHSEN HuRLEN (35)Chirsti Erichsen Hurlen studied law at and graduat-ed from the university of Bergen in 2004. She was appointed researcher in June 2008. She has been an assistant lawyer at the law firm of Wiersholm and a deputy judge of the Drammen District Court.

RESEARCHER MARIA BACHE DAHL (38)Maria Bache Dahl studied law at and graduated from the university of Oslo in 2002. She was appointed researcher in January 2009. She has worked as a higher executive officer on the Norwegian Complaints Board for Public Procurements and as an assistant lawyer for the law firm of Thommessen.

RESEARCHER LENE KNAPSTAD (32) (LEAvE OF ABSENCE) Lene Knapstad has a Master of Jurisprudence from the university of Bergen in 2007. She was appoint-ed researcher in March 2010. She has served as an adviser in the legal department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She is currently on leave of absence in order to be a deputy judge of the Moss District Court.

RESEARCHER SvERRE JACOBSEN (40)Sverre Jacobsen studied law at and graduated from the university of Oslo in 1999. He was appointed researcher in April 2010. He has been an assistant lawyer for the law firm of Haavind vislie, a deputy judge of the Sunnhordland District Court and the Lofoten District Court and a lawyer for the law firm of Hjort.

RESEARCHER CHRISTOPHER HAuGLI SøRENSEN (31)Christopher Haugli Sørensen studied law at and graduated from the university of Oslo in 2007. He was appointed researcher in April 2010. He has been a deputy judge of the Oslo Court of Probate, Bankruptcy and Enforcement.

RESEARCHER MERETE ANITA uTGåRD (38)Merete Anita utgård studied law at and graduated from the university of Bergen in 2001. She was ap-pointed researcher in January 2011. She has been an assistant lawyer for the law firm of Schjødt, a police lawyer at the Follo police district and a deputy judge of the Nedre Romerike District Court and the Oslo District Court.

The Supreme Court’s administration consists of around 45 people. They are distributed over the Judicial Research Unit and an administrative staff.

THE SUPREME COURT’S AdMiNiSTRATiON

2726

Ad

MIn

ISTRA

TIOn

RESEARCHER LOLA MAGNuSSEN (33) (LEAvE OF ABSENCE)Lola Magnussen studied law at and graduated from the university of Oslo in 2005. She was appointed researcher in January 2011. She has worked as a lawyer for the law firm of Hjort. She is currently on leave of absence in order to be a deputy judge of the Follo District Court.

RESEARCHER JøRGEN REINHOLDTSEN (28)Jørgen Reinholdtsen has a Master of Jurisprudence from the university of Tromsø in 2010. He was appointed researcher in March 2011. He has worked as an assistant lawyer for the law firm of Hjort.

RESEARCHER MICHAEL LINDSTRøM (31)Michael Lindstrøm has a Master of Jurisprudence from the university of Oslo in 2009. He was appointed researcher in May 2011. He has worked as an assistant lawyer for the law firm of Kluge.

RESEARCHER CAMILLA BERG-HANSEN (35)Camilla Berg-Hansen studied law at and gradu-ated from the university of Oslo in 2003. She was appointed researcher in January 2012. She has worked as an assistant lawyer for the law firm of Bull & Co and as a deputy judge of the Nordre vestfold District Court and the Oslo District Court.

RESEARCHER KRISTINE RøRHOLT (31)Kristine Rørholt has a Master of Jurisprudence from the university of Oslo in 2007. She was appointed researcher in April 2013. She was been a senior adviser in the finance market department of the Ministry of Finance.

RESEARCHER EvA GROTNÆSS BARNHOLDT (33)Eva Grotnæss Barnholdt studied law at and gradu-ated from the university of Oslo in 2005. She was appointed researcher in June 2013. She has worked as a senior adviser to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

RESEARCHER STINE BAuMANN (32)Stine Baumann has a Master of Jurisprudence from the university of Oslo in 2008. She was appointed researcher in August 2013. She has worked as a lawyer for the law firm of DLA Piper Norway.

RESEARCHER KRISTIN SLøRDAHL HJORT (30)Kristin Slørdahl Hjort has a Master of Jurisprudence from the university of Oslo in 2008. She was appointed researcher in August 2013. She has worked as an assistant lawyer for the law firm of Thommessen.

RESEARCHER SIv MyRvOLD (27)Siv Myrvold has a Master of Jurisprudence from the university of Oslo in 2010. She was appointed researcher in September 2013. She has worked as an assistant lawyer for the law firm of Wiersholm.

RESEARCHER SIGRID NySTED (30)Sigrid Nysted has a Master of Jurisprudence from the university of Tromsø in 2010. She was appointed researcher in November 2013. She has worked as a lawyer for the law firm of Bing Hodneland.universitetet i Tromsø i 2010.

28

Ad

MIn

ISTRA

TIOn

The Supreme Court’s Head of Communications, Svein Tore Andersen, is responsible for all media relations and also ensures that new decisions are published on the Supreme Court’s website as soon as possible.

ICT Adviser Ingrid Louise Christensen is responsible for the provision of ICT at the Supreme Court.

JUdiCiAL ASSiSTANTS’ UNiTTwo judicial assistants, who are also law graduates, work in the Supreme Court’s two legal departments. They assist the Justices and counsel during appeal proceedings in addition to proofreading the court decisions, in respect of content as well as language.

Judicial Assistant Per Erik Hild HansenJudicial Assistant Anders Berg Dønås

AdMiNiSTRATiVE UNiTThe Administrative unit handles a number of administrative support functions at the Supreme Court.

Principal Officer Ragnhild Collet-Hanssen is head of the Administrative unit.

Special Librarian Anna Klanderud is the Supreme Court’s librarian.

Adviser Merete Koren is secretary to the ChiefJustice assisting also with financial affairs.

Adviser Anne-Liv Handeland is secretary to the Director and Assistant Director.

Adviser Torill Melleby Jensen assists in the work with the Supreme Court’s budget and accounts. Adviser Randi Stranden is the Scheduling Officer.

Senior adviser Helga Mærde Gruer is an ICT officer. Senior adviser Kjersti Ruud works with the referred cases and is also an ICT officer.

Higher Executive Officers Rizwana yedicam and Gunn May Grinden (leave of absence) organise the guided tours of the Supreme Court building in addition to handling other public relations activities.

Cleaners Oddveig Knutsen and Torill Aagotsrud are responsible for events and for the cleaning of the Supreme Court building.

ushers Morten Almås and Simon Rønneberg’s responsibilities include files and records, mail and the practical handling of appeal proceedings.

THE CASE HANDLING uNITThe Case Handling Unit is the Supreme Court’s general office with responsibility for registering all cases that have come to the Supreme Court in the court’s case handling system. The Case Handling unit also has extensive responsibilities relating to the cases pending before the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court and the cases that have been allowed for hearing by the Supreme Court in chambers.

Head of section Elisabeth Frank SandallSenior Adviser Britt Wenche AaslieSenior Adviser Tove undrum GjøystdalHigher Executive Officer Lisa-Beth PettersenHigher Executive Officer Mariann Solbakk Higher Executive Officer Mette Moe

ADMINISTRATIvE STAFFHEAD OF COMMuNICATIONS AND ICT OFFICER

30

Ad

MIn

ISTRA

TIOn

OLdEST OR yOuNGEST – EQuALLy EXCITING!After Chief Justice Tore Schei, Liv Gjølstad is the Supreme Court Justice who has served the longest on the Supreme Court. 2014 will be her last year in that office. At the same time, as the most recently appointed, Per Erik Bergsjø will embark on his third year as a Supreme Court Justice. Here they both share some reflections on their day-to-day work at the Supreme Court.

PER ERIK BERGSJø:“It was with a measure of awe, but also with great expectations, that I started my first day of work at the Supreme Court. The awe has now been discarded – it ’s been replaced by respect for the job and for my colleagues. My expectations have been more than met. We handle cases of importance, for the individual as well as for society, which may appear as a major challenge for a justice who is new to the bench. However, working in good and close cooperation with others gives a sense of security. As the junior, I can draw on the experience of the others, while being listened to and treated as an equal in the discussions. To have the oppor-tunity to take part in the clarification and evolution of the law is a privilege. And I am constantly learning something new – about the law, about business and industry and about social affairs. It has been said that it is during deliberations that the Supreme Court is alive. Personally, I feel that we are alive all the time, inside and outside the court rooms, with or without the cases, in a professional as well as a social context. There’s probably a reason why Supreme Court Justices do not resign until they have to!

“After 25 years on the Supreme Court, I still find it just as exciting to be handed a new case and see what it contains. The Appeals Committee re-flects the activities of the lower courts, and it’s all about finding the cases that concern issues of principle, preferably with typical factual circumstances, for hearing in chambers. What is unique about the Supreme Court is the actual process. As Head of Chambers and “first-one-out” in the deliberations, I never cease to wonder at the signifi-cance of approach, emphasis and evaluation of the circumstances and the strength arising from the fact that we are several individuals who all contribute. The cases normally have a core where the point is to process and present it as simply as possible. The work is intensive while it ’s in progress, and there is a special responsibility involved in pronouncing judgment in the final instance. However, once a case is over, we are done and I feel that this is a benefit in itself.“

LIv GJøLSTAD:

JøRGEN REINHOLDTSEN:

The Supreme Court’s Judicial Research unit is a very good place to be if you are interested in the law. The Supreme Court is a court that sets judicial precedents, and its focus is on legal issues of principle. The researchers’ job is to assist the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court in identifying these legal issues among the cases that are brought before the Court, and to voice an opinion as to how they should be solved. This work gives an insight into all types of cases and a series of legal issues in civil law as well as public law, criminal law and procedure.

The cases that come to the Supreme Court are highly varied. Some cases can be researched in a very short period of time as it quickly becomes apparent that the appeal clearly cannot succeed, or because no grounds for appeal are presented. Other cases may take days or sometimes weeks to research. It may be a question of a very complex evidentiary picture, which it takes a very long time to work your way through. If the issues of evidence become too predominant in the case, it may lead to a refusal to allow the appeal. If, on the other hand, it is the legal aspects that are complicated, the issue must be researched thoroughly, even if this means scrutinising amendment acts, turning records of judgments inside out or dusting off a statement in preparatory works from 1915. It is especially in such cases that the justices need the researcher’s assistance to allow them time to deal with all the other cases that they are involved in at the same time. Moreover, these are the cases that give the researcher the greatest professional reward.

In addition to giving the Appeals Committee a recommendation as to how the individual case should be solved, the researcher is able to follow the internal process leading up to the final decision. To see how the highest judges in the land assess the issues which you personally have researched is in itself extremely educational. To obtain the Appeals Committee’s “permission” is not a goal in itself, the task of the researcher being first and foremost to prepare the background to the case and to render visible the legal points of view.

With a view to the wide range of professional skills and competence in the Supreme Court, which are continuously aimed at the solving of legal issues, it is difficult to imagine any better or more exciting springboard for the career of a young lawyer than a job with the Judicial Research unit of the Supreme Court.

“The Judicial Research Unit of the Supreme Court is a great place to be for anyone who is interested in the law.”

A RESEARCHER REvIEWS – LIFE IN A LEGAL “CANDy STORE”

3332

OLd

eST OR

YOU

nG

eST

Adviser Randi Stranden is the Supreme Court’s scheduling clerk, and senior adviser Kjersti Ruud assists her in her work. Many lawyers will recognise her cheerful voice. When an appeal has been referred to the Supreme Court for hearing in chambers, the scheduling clerk’s work on the case starts. The scheduling clerk contacts counsel shortly after the referral decision in order to agree a date for the appeal proceedings. This can be a challenging task, as counsel often have tight schedules, in addition to the fact that deadlines for the scheduled cases must be met.

RANDI STRANDEN NARRATES:

“The scheduling clerk’s functions and responsibilities are interesting and rewarding. At times it ’s very hectic and you must be able to juggle several things at once. What I really appreciate is external contact with prosecutors and defence counsel in criminal cases, counsel in civil cases and responses to other enquiries, of which there are sometimes many.

I also have extensive contact with justices and researchers in the event of any developments in the cases referred, such as new documents, requests for depositions etc. Such contact is always positive and useful.

SCHEDuLING CLERK – WHAT’S THAT? ABOuT PLAyING WITH J IGSAW PuZZLES ON THE JOB

“Precision is of major importance in the work and it is often like putting a jigsaw together!”

34 35

SCH

ED

uLIN

G C

LER

K

Foto: Candice Imbert/Council of europe

From The Supreme Court’s study tour to the european Court of Human Rights

EC

HR

exTeRnAL ACTIVITIeS

• Represented at the opening of the judicial year at the european Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

• Attended the Judges Forum in Cape Town • Represented at the Voting Rights Anniversary in

Kristiansand, norway • Attended the nordic Supreme Court Justices

Seminar in Reykjavik • Attended the Chief Judges Conference in Trondheim, norway • Attended the Meeting of the nordic Secretaries General

in Reykjavik• Attended Meeting of nordic Supreme Court

librarians in Reykjavik • Attended conference at the eFTA Court in Luxembourg • Organiser of the meeting of the Supreme Court Presidents

in Lillehammer, norway • Meeting of the International Association of Judges in Ukraine • The Supreme Court Justices’ study tour to the european

Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg • Represented at the opening of the Sameting in Karasjok • Attended the Conference at the Court of Justice of the

european Union in Luxembourg

ExTERNAL ACTiViTiESiNTERNATiONAL ACTiViTiESIn addition to the judiciary activities the Supreme Court has in 2013 had extensive international activities. Partly, the Supreme Court has received visits from international legal communities, in particular courts of law. Partly, the justices, and to some extent others from the court, have attended congresses, seminars and professional conferences in other countries. The Nordic cooperation is here in a special position.

The Supreme Court hosted the Conference of Nordic Chief Justices in August 2013. The conference was held in Lillehammer and several topics of vital interest to the supreme courts of the Nordic countries were discussed.

In October 2013, the Supreme Court’s justices went on a study tour to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. In addition to educational lectures on the activities of the ECHR there were discussions between the ECHR judges and the Supreme Court’ justices about relevant legal issues. The justices also attended the hearing in the Grand Chamber case Hamalainen v. Finland (no. 37359/09).

There are two purposes to the international activities. They are intended to contribute to raising the level of competence in the Supreme Court, and they are partly intended to contribute to the building of states based on the rule of law and the development of such states in other countries.

TRAvELS IN NORWAyAs the highest judicial body in Norway and the only court whose jurisdiction covers the whole country, the Supreme Court endeavours to acquaint itself with all parts of Norway. With this in mind, the Supreme Court every year visits different parts of the country to learn in particular about local business and industry, public institutions and culture. In 2013, the Supreme Court visited Norland.

GuIDED TOuRS AND LECTuRESThe Supreme Court receives groups for guided tours. In 2013, the Supreme Court conducted 40 guided tours for a total of 850 visitors. In connec-tion with the open house event in October, 300 visitors were briefed on the Supreme Court and given a guided tour of the building.

VISITS And eVenTS AT THe SUPREME COURT

• Press lunch at the Supreme Court • Visit of the representatives at the kick-off course for

newly-appointed Justices • Visit of a delegation from the Supreme Court of Latvia• Visit of a delegation from Angola under the auspices of

the International Law and Policy Institute • Visit of judges from Poland’s Constitutional Court • The nordic litigation competition conducted at the

premises of the Supreme Court • Visit of a delegation from the Constitutional Court of South

Africa headed by the President of the Constitutional Court • Open house event at the Supreme Court• Visit of a delegation from Georgia headed by the Presi-

dent of Georgia’s Supreme Court • Visit of the dutch Ambassador • Visit of a delegation from Vietnam headed by the Vice

President of the national Assembly of Vietnam

Foto: John H. Ulvøy, Helgelands blad38

Ex

TE

RN

AL A

CT

iViT

iES

STATiSTiCSCASE LOAd

The number of cases that are brought before the Supreme Court has in recent years been on the increase. In 2013, the total number of cases was higher than in 2012. Below is provided a list showing the distribution of the different types of cases.As regards appeals against judgments in civil cases and criminal cases 12% and 11% respectively were referred to the Supreme Court for hearing in chambers.

For more detailed statistics on cases received in 2013, please see the business statistics published on the Supreme Court’s website.

CASE PROCESSING TIMEThe Supreme Court has in 2013 maintained the satisfactory case processing time from 2012. There is no waiting time for a case to be heard by the Supreme Court. Cases are scheduled as expeditiously as possible according to counsel’s preparations and schedules.

Average processing time from receipt of a case until decision by the Appeals Committee is approxi-mately one month. Average processing time from the Supreme Court’s receipt of a case until appeal proceedings are conducted is approximately four months in criminal cases and approximately seven months in civil cases.

CRiMiNAL CASESSexual offences 17Assault and battery 10Fraud/misappropriation of funds/embezzlement/corruption 7Drug offences 6violation of the Road Traffic Act 3Robbery 3Abuse in close relations 2Trafficking 2inside trading 2Theft 2Tampering with evidence 1Doping offences 1Confiscation 1Entering into terrorist alliances 1Environmental crimes 1Tax fraud 1 Threats against public official 1Violation of the fisheries legislation 1Adduction of evidence 3Competence 1Protection of journalists’ sources 1Access to tape recordings from trial 1Other issues relating to criminal procedure 2

TyPES OF CASES HEARD IN CHAMBERS, GRAND CHAMBER AND IN PLENARy 2013THE LiST iS NOT ExHAUSTiVE

C iViL CASESContract law 8Compensation law 7Labour law 6Taxes and duties 6Insurance law 5Ground lease 5Administration of estates/inheritance 3Housing cooperatives/commonholds 2Limitation 2Bankruptcy law 2Company law 2immigration law 2Section 97 of the Constitution 1Expropriation 1Boundary delineation 1Concession law 1Law relating to allodial rights 1Intellectual property law (copyright) 1visitation with children 1Social security law 1Compulsory debt settlement 1Taxpayer’s right to access to case documents 1DNA evidence from a deceased person 1Competence 2Other issues relating to civil procedure 2

CiViL CASES • Appeals against

judgments received 472

• Appeals against interlocutory orders/decisions received 654

• Heard in chambers 63

• Heard in Grand Chamber 1

• Heard in plenary 1

CRiMiNAL CASES • Appeals against

judgments received 450

• Appeals against interlocutory orders/decisions received 744

• Heard in chambers 70

• Heard in Grand Chamber 0

• Heard in plenary 0

4140

STATiSTiCS

ANNUAL REPORT 2013