The Sameting's possibility to declare third-party intervention
Supreme Court order 14 October 2020, HR-2020-1956-A, (case no. 19-183958SIV-HRET) and (case no. 19-183965SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against order.
The Sameting (Counsel Joakim Bakke-Nielsen) (Assisting counsel John Gjermund Flatabø), A, B (Counsel Sicilie Kristin Kanebog) v. X municipality (Counsel Roald Angell)
Justices: Øie, Indreberg, Matheson, Ringnes, Steinsvik
Two Sami women had brought an action against the municipality in which they grew up, claiming compensation for the child welfare services' failure to follow them up as children. In the Court of Appeal, the Sameting declared third-party intervention in accordance with section 15-7 subsection 1 (b) of the Dispute Act. The Supreme Court, having conducted an oral hearing, found that the Sameting should be permitted to act as third-party intervener. The Sameting had to be considered a public body charged with promoting specific interest, and thus fell within the circle of public bodies who may declare third-party intervention. The Sameting also had a clear precedent interest in clarification of the issue of principle regarding Article 108 of the Constitution and other human rights obligations in a Sami context that are relevant when laying down the principle of due care in section 2-1 of the Compensatory Damages Act. The function as a representative body for the safeguarding of Sami interests made it reasonable and natural that the Sameting was permitted to declare third-party intervention. The Supreme Court also found that the capacity to sue requirement in section 2-1 of the Dispute Act does not apply a public body that meets the conditions for declaring third-party intervention.