Summaries

22 December 2006 Landlord and tenant law. Contract law. Redemption. Shared-ownership apartments 

The issue in the case was whether the landlord of shared-ownership apartments was entitled to redeem the tenants’ mortgage debentures that secured their deposits.

Reference:            HR-2006-02156-A, case no. 2006/1292, civil appeal. 

 

22 December 2006 Limitation. Damages. Limitation Act section 3

The case concerns the date on which the limitation period begins to run for a claim for compensation for fire damage caused by the faulty installation of electric wiring. The issue was whether the limitation period started to run from the date when the wiring was installed or from the date of the fire.

Reference:            HR-2006-02155-A, case no. 2006/1138, civil appeal. 

 

21 December 2006 Insurance fraud. Sentencing. Community service 

The case concerns an appeal against a conviction for insurance fraud, see the Penal Code section 272 subsection 1, second sentence.

Reference:            HR-2006-02143-A, case nos. 2006/1326 and 2006/1345, criminal appeals. 

 

21 December 2006  Sentencing. Letting of premises for prostitution. Penal Code section 202 subsection 1(b)

The case concerns sentencing of a man who was convicted of having let out premises to be used for prostitution, see the Penal Code section 202 subsection 1(b). 

Reference:            HR-2006-02140-A, case no. 2006/1507, criminal appeal. 

 

21 December 2006 Sentencing. Military Penal Code section 34 subsection 2, second sentencing alternative, cf. subsection 1 

The case concerns sentencing following conviction for failing to report to compulsory military service.

Reference:            HR-2006-02146-A, case no. 2006/1343, criminal appeal. 

 

21 December 2006 Impartiality of judge. Courts of Justice Act section 108 

A judge had made an order to remand the accused in custody pending trial pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act section 171 subsection 1 no. 3. The issue in the case was whether the judge’s impartiality could thereby be deemed to be impaired so that he was incompetent pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act section 108 to participate in the subsequent criminal trial where the prosecution’s plea was for loss of civil rights pursuant to the Penal Code section 29.

Reference:            HR-2006-02144-A, case no. 2006/1509, criminal appeal. 

 

15 December 2006 Interest for payment in arrears of social security benefits. ECHR 

The issue in the case was whether the rule in section 22-17 of the National Insurance Act, which provides that interest is not payable when occupational injury benefit or other social security benefits is paid in arrears, is in violation of the prohibition against discrimination in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, cf. Article 1 of Protocol 1 dated 20 March 1952, and whether the rule in the National Insurance Act must be set aside pursuant to the Human Rights Act section 3. 

Reference:            HR-2006-02110-A, case no. 2006/668, civil appeal. 

 

15 December 2006 Family reunion – pro forma marriage 

The issue in the case was whether a marriage between a Pakistani man and a Norwegian woman was bona fide and thereby entitled the Pakistani man to a residence and work permit in Norway, see the Immigration Act section 9.

Reference:            HR-2006-02109-A, case no. 2006/807, civil appeal. 

 

15 December 2006 Taxation Act (1911) section 53 subsection 1 fourth sentence 

The case concerns the right to carry forward losses following the sale of a business enterprise, see the Taxation Act 1911 section 53 subsection 1, fourth sentence, and gives rise to questions concerning the application of the provision to the winding-up of an enterprise over time.

Reference:            HR-2006-02108-A, case no. 2006/656, civil appeal

 

15 December 2006 Social security law. Occupational injury. Football injury 

The case concerns the rejection of a claim that a football injury was an occupational injury pursuant to the National Insurance Act section 13-3. The main issue concerns interpretation of the term “employment injury” in section 13-3 subsection 2 of the Act.

Reference:            HR-2006-02107-A, case no. 2006/1135, civil appeal. 

 

13 December 2006 Damages. Compensation for non-economic loss. Unlawful prosecution. Criminal Procedure Act section 446 subsection 1(b) 

The issue in the case was whether an award of damages and compensation for non-economic loss for unlawful prosecution should be reduced because the accused had given cause to the investigations that were made, see the Criminal Procedure Act section 446 subsections 1(b).

Reference:            HR-2006-02095-A, case no. 2006/735, civil appeal. 

 

8 December 2006 Property tax. Electronic device. Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM). Catch Communications ASA

The issue in the case was whether a local authority could charge property tax on an electronic device - a DSLAM-box – which was owned by a broadband company and installed in a Telenor telephone exchange, see the Property Tax Act section 4 subsection 2, third and fifth sentence.

Reference:            HR-2006-02070-A, case no. 2006/311, civil appeal. 

 

8 December 2006 Property tax. Telenor’s telecommunications network

The case concerns the validity of an administrative decision of a local authority to charge property tax on property connected to Telenor’s telecommunications network and, in particular, the extent of the tax obligation, see the Property Tax Act section 4 subsection 2, second and third sentence of.

Reference:            HR-2006-02069-A, case no. 2006/632, civil appeal. 

 

8 December 2006 Sentencing. Fine. Failure to submit tax return. Tax Assessment Act section 12-1 no. 1 (d), cf. chapter 4

The case concerns the imposition of a fine for failure to submit a pre-completed tax return, including the level of the surtax (in percent) to be incorporated into the fine.

Reference:            HR-2006-02066-A, case no. 2006/1321, criminal appeal. 

 

8 December 2006 Duty to provide information. Tax Assessment Act section 12-1 no. 1(a) cf. section 4-1. 

The case concerns the application of the Tax Assessment Act section 12-1 no. 1(a). The main issue in the case was whether there was a duty to provide information pursuant to the Tax Assessment Act section 4-1 even though in the circumstances of the present case the information in question was irrelevant to the taxpayer’s actual tax assessment.

Reference:            HR-2006-02065-A, case no. 2006/1495, criminal appeal. 

 

8 December 2006 Verbal cooperation agreement on purchase of woodland 

The issue in the case was whether two bidders had concluded a binding verbal cooperation agreement concerning the purchase in equal shares of a woodland and other outlying area of land. If the answer was no, the question to be determined was whether there was liability in damages for breach of the duty of loyalty during the negotiations. 

Reference:            HR-2006-02061-A, case no. 2006/373, civil appeal. 

 

7 December 2006 Tax law. Assessment law. Anti-avoidance rules 

The main question in the case was whether the anti-avoidance rules should apply to section 13-1 of the Taxation Act in circumstances where a participant in a general partnership had worked for the partnership without salary and, in that case, what effect the anti-avoidance rules would have in relation to the rules in the Taxation Act on the ”split-model” of taxation. The case also gives rise to questions concerning the application of surtax. The case concerns review of a tax assessment for 2001 pursuant to rules that have subsequently been amended. All references to tax rules are references to the rules for 2001 only.

Reference:            HR-2006-02054-A, case no. 2006/558, civil appeal. 

 

4 December 2006 Reopening of case. Prosecution. Article 4 Protocol 7 ECHR 

The issue in the case was whether Article 4 of Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights constituted a bar to the reopening of a prosecution after prosecution proceedings had been dropped due to insufficient evidence, see section 74 subsection 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Reference:            HR-2006-02034-A, case no. 2006/1221, criminal appeal. 

 

4 December 2006 Regulation of ground rent for a plot for a holiday home

The case concerns a claim for an upward regulation of a ground rent for a plot on which a holiday home was built. The question was whether the ground rent should be fixed as a reasonable return on the value of the plot, or whether it should be regulated in accordance with a change in the value of money since the lease was entered into, see the Ground Lease Act of 20 December 1996 no. 76 section 15.

Reference:            HR-2006-02033-A, case no. 2006/702, civil appeal. 

 

28 November 2006 Employment law. Preferential right to employment following a period of temporary employment

The case concerns the preferential right to reemployment following a period of temporary employment pursuant to section 67 no. 1 of the former Employment Act of 4 February 1977 no. 4.

Reference:            HR-2006-02008-A, case no. 2006/798, civil appeal. 

 

28 November 2006 The State’s liability in tort. Negligence. Duty to give guidance. Priority of cases in the public administration. Compensation Act section 2-1

The issue in the case was whether the state is liable to pay compensation in a case where the processing of a claim for disability pension had taken an unreasonable amount of time.

Reference:            HR-2006-02007-A, case no. 2006/923, civil appeal. 

 

27 November 2006 Criminal law. Fishery law. Fishery protection zone around Svalbard

The case concerns an appeal from the masters of two Spanish fishing vessels who were fined for failing to keep a catch log of cod and, as regards one of the shipmasters, incorrect reporting of fish fished in the fishery protection zone around Svalbard. It also concerns an appeal from the ship-owner whose vessel was confiscated on account of the offences. The appeal gave rise to a number of issues related to the fishery protection zone around Svalbard and the relationship to the Svalbard Treaty. As regards the ship-owner, it also gave rise to questions concerning the relationship to Article 4(1) of Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Reference:            HR-2006-01997-A, case no. 2006/871, criminal appeal. 

 

23 November 2006 Calculation of reduction in sentence for time spent in custody on remand. Penal Code section 60 subsection 1, second sentence

The case concerns a person on remand in custody who was placed in a very high security department pursuant to an administrative decision made by the prison authorities.

Reference:            HR-2006-01981-A, case no. 2006/1054, criminal appeal

 

23 November 2006 Trade mark law 

The issue in the case was whether the registration of a depiction of a life buoy as a trade mark for Vesta Forsikring AS (Vesta Insurance AS) was invalid and in breach of section 14 no. 7 of the Trade Mark Act of 3 March 1961 no. 4. The provision states that a trademark may not be registered if “it is liable to be confused with a trademark which someone else has started to use before the applicant, and the applicant was aware of this use when he filed his application for registration”.

Reference:            HR-2006-01978-A, case no. 2006/614, civil appeal. 

 

22 November 2006 Sentencing. Drug felony. Penal Code section 162 subsections 1, 3 and 5. Organised crime

The case concerns sentencing following conviction for storage and sale of a large quantity of heroin and amphetamine, and sale of a large quantity of cocaine.

Reference:            HR-2006-01973-A, case no. 2006/740, criminal appeal. 

 

22 November 2006 Sentencing. Social security fraud. Community service. Guiding principles. Penal Code section 270 subsection 1 no. 1, cf. subsection 2, Penal Code section 28a

The case concerns sentencing following conviction for social security fraud. A 25-year-old man with previous convictions had unlawfully received NOK 76.675 in social security benefits. The issue in the case was whether he should be given a short custodial sentence or a community service order. The first voting justice stated that, as a general rule, the accused should be given a custodial sentence when social security fraud committed with intent involves an amount in excess of NOK 60 000. Dissent 4-1.

Reference:            HR-2006-01969-A, case no. 2006/1490, criminal appeal. 

 

22 November 2006 Landlord and tenant law. Legal interest. ECHR 

The case concerns an interlocutory appeal against a decision of the court of appeal ordering repossession of an apartment in the town of Harstad. The issue was whether the tenants had a sufficient legal interest to require a substantive hearing of the appeal after they had terminated the lease and vacated the property, see the Civil Procedure Act section 54.

Reference:            HR-2006-01968-A, case no. 2006/481, civil interlocutory appeal. 

 

21 November 2006 Sentencing. Bodily harm etc. Rehabilitation. Community service 

The issue in the case was whether regard for the accused’s prospects of rehabilitation justified a community service order for breach primarily of the Penal Code section 229 second sentencing alternative cf. section 232 (bodily harm committed with intent and causing illness or inability to work lasting more than two weeks or incurable defect or injury).

Reference:            HR-2006-01966-A, case no. 2006/919, criminal appeal. 

 

17 November 2006 Suspension of lawyer’s practicing certificate. Courts of Justice Act section 230 subsection 1 no. 1

The case concerns the validity of the suspension of a lawyer’s practicing certificate pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act section 230 subsection 1 no. 1.

Reference:            HR-2006-01943-A, case no. 2006/561, civil appeal.

 

9 November 2006 Criminal law. Sentencing. Compensation for non-economic loss. Sexual offence

The case concerns sentencing and compensation for non-economic loss following conviction pursuant to the Penal Code section 193 subsection 2, which provides among other things that it is an offence to exploit another person’s mental illness in order to commit an act of indecency.

Reference:            HR-2006-01894-A, case no. 2006/970, criminal appeal.

 

9 November 2006 Tax law. Tax assessment. Surtax. Plenary decision

The issue in the case was whether the imposition of ordinary 30 % surtax for failing to submit a mandatory income tax return constitutes a bar against subsequent criminal proceedings for serious tax fraud, see Article 4(1) of Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Dissent 14-1.

Reference:            HR-2006-01893-P, case no. 2006/623, criminal appeal.

 

8 November 2006 Sami law, administrative law, reversal of decision, Reindeer Farming Act section 4

The case concerns the validity of an administrative decision of the Ministry of Agriculture to reverse a decision of the area board granting approval to transfer a management unit pursuant to the Reindeer Farming Act section 4.

Reference:            HR-2006-01885-A, case no. 2006/744, civil appeal.

 

7 November 2006 Tax assessment. Surtax

The case concerns the validity of the decision of the Tax Appeal Board to impose increased surtax of 45 % on a taxpayer, see the Tax Assessment Act section 10-4 no. 1, cf. section 10-4 no. 2, cf. section 10-3 (b).

Reference:            HR-2006-01879-A, case no. 2006/649, civil appeal.

 

1 November2006 Impartiality of jury foreman. Courts of Justice Act section 108

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the foreman of the jury at the court of appeal hearing, who was chairman of the board of the Incest Centre in the county of Sør-Trøndelag, was incompetent to sit on the grounds of impartiality in a case concerning sexual abuse of a step-child.

Reference:            HR-2006-01859-A, case no. 2006/1145, criminal appeal.

 

1 November 2006 Sentencing. Aggravated robbery. Long-term remand in custody pending trial. Penal Code section 267 cf. section 268 subsection 2

The case concerns sentencing following conviction for aggravated robbery, including whether the convicted persons should be required to serve the unserved portion of a previous sentence after they had been held on remand in custody pending trial for a long period of time.

Reference:            HR-2006-01858-A, case nos. 2006/1128 and 2006/1270, criminal appeal.

 

1 November 2006 Right of retention in illegally parked vehicle. Judicial review. Interpretation of “unfair terms and conditions” in the Marketing Control Act section 9a

The case concerns the validity of a decision of the Marketing Board in a complaint against Østlandske Autoberging (“Østlandske Vehicle Recovery”). Østlandske Autoberging had contracts with private individuals for the removal of illegally parked cars from private property. In its decision, the Marketing Board referred to the Marketing Control Act section 12 subsection 1 first sentence cf. section 9a and issued a prohibition against the company from exercising a right of retention in the vehicle until the fee payable as a consequence of the removal has been paid.

Reference:            HR-2006-01867-A, case no. 2006/731, civil appeal.

 

25 October 2006 Sentencing. Rape. Letting of premises for prostitution

 The case concerns sentencing for altogether six counts of rape of two women and for the letting of premises for use for prostitution.

Reference:            HR-2006-01820-A, case no. 2006/1124, criminal appeal.

           

25 October 2006 Community service. Penal Code section 229, first sentencing alternative

The case concerns the application of a community service order following a conviction for bodily harm, see the Penal Code section 229, first sentencing alternative.

Reference:            HR-2006-01816-A, case no. 2006/1103, criminal appeal.

 

25 October 2006 Right to release of patient journals. Act relating to enforcement of civil claims section 15-1, cf. section 15-6. The Health Personnel Act section 21 and section 45

The case concerns a medical practitioner’s application for an interlocutory injunction in order to obtain delivery of patient journals when he moved his place of employment from one doctor’s surgery to another.

Reference:            HR-2006-01815-A, case no. 2006/597, civil interlocutory appeal.

 

On 25 October 2006, the Supreme Court delivered the following judgement in a case concerns judicial review of an administrative decision to place a prison inmate in an especially high security section of the prison. The key issues relate to judicial review of administrative decisions in cases where a substantial part of the basis for the decision has been kept secret from the detainee pursuant to section 7 (c) and (d) of the Execution of Sentences Act and from the court in connection with judicial review of the legality of the decision pursuant to section 204 no.2 of the Civil Procedure Act. 

Reference:  HR-2006-01817-A, case no. 2006/486, civil interlocutory appeal.

 

19 October 2006 Deadline for bringing action. Payment and Collection of Taxes Act section 48 no. 5

There were two main issues in the interlocutory action. The first issue was whether the deadline for bringing an action pursuant to the Payment and Collection of Taxes Act 1952 section 48 no. 5 applies to an action for compensation/reimbursement. The second issue was whether the applicant should be granted reinstatement for breach of the deadline for bringing a claim for invalidity or annulment of the tax assessment decision.

Reference:            HR-2006-01796-A, case no. 2006/1284, civil interlocutory appeal.

 

19 October 2006 Deadline for bringing action. Payment and Collection of Taxes Act section 48 no. 5

The issue in the case was whether the deadline in the Payment and Collection of Taxes Act section 48 no. 5 applies to an action for compensation for loss resulting from failure to adequately implement the main part of the EEA Agreement in Norwegian tax law.

Reference:            HR-2006-01795-A, case no. 2006/543, civil interlocutory appeal.

 

17 October 2006 Sentencing. HIV-infection. Penal Code section 155

The case concerns sentencing of a woman who was convicted of having exposed a man to the danger of infection by the HIV virus.

Reference:            HR-2006-01770-A, case no. 2006/678, criminal appeal.

 

17 October 2006 Anti avoidance rules in taxation law

The case concerns the validity of the tax assessment for Telenor Property Holding AS - formerly Telenor Communication AS - for the income year 2001. On 21 December 2001, Telenor Property Holding AS sold its shareholding in the Danish mobile telephone company Sonofon Holding AS to an associated company in the Telenor Group at a loss of NOK 8.605.074.125. The issue in the case was whether Telenor Property Holding AS was entitled to a deduction against income tax for the realisation loss pursuant to the Taxation Act section 10-31 subsection 2, cf. section 6-2 and chapter 9. The result depends on whether a deduction must be disallowed on account of the non-statutory anti-avoidance rules in taxation law.

Reference:            HR-2006-01761-A, case no. 2006/327, civil appeal.

 

13 October 2006 The public prosecutor’s right of appeal. Criminal Procedure Act section 75

The case concerns the power of the public prosecutor to file an appeal within the time-limit for appeal but after the judgement has been accepted by the competent police prosecuting authority.

Reference:            HR-2006-01752-A, case no. 2006/1205, criminal appeal.

 

13 October 2006 Patient compensation. Temporary scheme

The case concerns a claim for compensation pursuant to the temporary scheme for patient compensation for somatic hospitals and outpatients’ clinics, which entered into force on 1 January 1988. The transitional rules applied until they were repealed and are replaced by the Patient Compensation Act of 15 June 2001 no. 53.

Reference:            HR-2006-01750-A, case no. 2006/889, civil appeal.

 

13 October 2006 Inheritance tax. Application of anti-avoidance rules

The case concerns the validity of the Tax Directorate’s determination of inheritance tax for the heirs of Cathrine Nagell-Erichsen. The rules on valuation in the Inheritance Tax Act section 11A cf. the Company Taxation Act section 2-2 no. 2 that was then in force, provides that unquoted shares shall be valued at 30% of the shares’ proportionate share of the limited company’s total fiscal capital value. The main issue in the case was whether this provision provided a basis for applying non-statutory anti-avoidance rules to a transfer of NOK 200.000.000 as new equity capital to a wholly-owned investment company. The transfer was made shortly before Cathrine Nagell-Erichsen’s death.

Reference:            HR-2006-01749-A, case no. 2005/1560, civil appeal.

 

10 October 2006 Importation of drugs by medical practitioner without licence

The issue in the case was whether a medical practitioner who had received prescription drugs that are classified as narcotics by post from abroad without a licence could be punished pursuant to the Penal Code section 162 subsection 1 for the illegal importation of drugs.

Reference:            HR-2006-01728-A, case no. 2006/1085, criminal appeal.

 

10 October 2006 Impartiality. Courts of Justice Act section 108

The case concerns the competence of three Supreme Court justices on the grounds of impartiality in connection with the Supreme Court’s hearing of case HR-2006-01893-P. Mrs Justice Gjølstad, Mrs Justice Coward and Mr Justice Tønder withdrew from the bench.

Reference:            HR-2006-01726-P, case no. 2006/623, criminal appeal.

 

21 September 2006 Temporary employment. Employment Act (1977) section 58A no. 1

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the employment relationship between an employee in the ambulance service and his employer was being practiced in breach of the Employment Act 1977 section 58A no. 1 on the right to engage temporary employees. Reference: HR-2006-01605-A, case no. 2006/155, civil appeal.

 

21 September 2006 Sentencing. Reduction in sentence for time spent in custody. Penal Code section 13

The case concerns interpretation of the Penal Code section 132a and sentencing, including calculation of the deduction for time spent on remand in custody, see the Penal Code section 60 subsection 1, second sentence. Reference: HR-2006-01606-A, case no. 2006/1093, criminal appeal.

 

20 September 2006 Forced mental health care. Penal Code section 39 no. 1

The case concerns an application to commute a criminal sentence to forced mental health care, see the Penal Code section 39 no. 1. Reference: HR-2006-01595-A, case no. 2006/1156, criminal appeal.

 

20 September 2006 Forced mental health care. Penal Code section 39 no. 2

The case concerns an application to commute a criminal sentence to forced mental health care, see the Penal Code section 39 no. 2. Reference: HR-2006-01596-A, case no. 2006/1052, criminal appeal.

 

19 September 2006 Social security law. Occupational injury. National Insurance Act section 13-6

The issue in the case was whether an injury suffered by an employee during a police arrest at his place of work during work time could be deemed to be an occupational injury within the terms of the National Insurance Act section 13-6 subsection 2. Reference: HR-2006-01587-A, case no. 2006/509, civil appeal.

 

15 September 2006 Sentencing. Immigration Act section 47 subsection 2 (d).

The case concerns sentencing for breach of the Immigration Act section 47 subsection 2 (d). The particular issue in the case was whether the appropriate penalty was an unconditional sentence or a community service order. Reference: HR-2006-01574-A, case no. 2006/1108, criminal appeal.

 

8 September 2006 Sentencing. Penal Code section 162 subsections 1 and 2

The case concerns an appeal against sentence for a conviction for a serious drug offence. The issue was whether a community service order should be made instead of a prison sentence and, in the latter case, whether part of the sentence should be conditional. Reference: HR-2006-01548-A, case no. 2006/1053, criminal appeal.

 

8 September 2006 Sentencing. Serious drug offences. Community service order. Confession

The case concerns sentencing for serious drug offences, including whether the Court should make a community service order and the relevance of a confession. Reference: HR-2006-01549-A, case no. 2006/941, criminal appeal.

 

8 September 2006 State liability. Contributory negligence. Motor Car Liability Act section 4, cf. se

The issue in the case was whether the State’s liability pursuant to the Motor Car Liability Act section 4 cf. section 16 subsection 1 should lapse or be reduced on account of the victim’s contribution to the injury, see the Motor Car Liability Act section 7 subsection 1. Reference: HR-2006-01550-A, case no. 2006/303, civil appeal.

 

8 September 2006 Animal Protection Act section 24 subsection 3 (as it was worded in 2002), cf. secti

In 2002, the Rendalen Animal Protection Board made an administrative decision which, amongst other things, implied that sheep had to be kept away indefinitely from a defined area of grazing land that was exposed to beasts of prey. The issue in the case was whether there was legal authority for the decision in section 24 subsection 3, cf. section 2 of the Animal Protection Act, as the provision was worded in 2002. Reference: HR-2006-01551-A, case no. 2006/149, civil appeal.

 

7 September 2006 Sentencing. Theft of postal items. Penal Code section 257, cf. section 258

The case concerns sentencing where the predominant offence was theft of postal items. Reference: HR-2006-01539-A, case no. 2006/741, criminal appeal.

 

7 September 2006 Tax law. Gains tax. Anti avoidance rules

The case concerns the validity of an administrative decision made by the Bergen Tax Appeal Board whereby A was taxed pursuant to the Taxation Act 1911 section 43 subsection 2 on gains made upon the sale of property in Bergen. The issue in the case was whether, before the sale, he had transferred his beneficial interest in the property to his children by way of gift. This also raised the question of application of non-statutory anti-avoidance rules. Reference: HR-2006-01540-A, case no. 2006/224, civil appeal.

 

7 September 2006 Prohibited witness testimony. Criminal Procedure Act section 119.

The case concerns interpretation of the prohibition against witness testimony in the Criminal Procedure Act section 119 subsections 1 and 2. The Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal’s interlocutory order. Reference: HR-2006-01541-A, case no. 2006/447, criminal interlocutory appeal.

 

7 September 2006 The Sale of Property Act. Price reduction . Compensation.

The case concerns the buyer’s claim for a price reduction or compensation pursuant to the Sale of Property Act. The issues in the case include the question whether there was a defect, whether the conditions for submitting a claim were satisfied, and the seller’s right to remedy the defect. In the event that the Supreme Court found the seller liable in the main claim, it was also necessary to consider the seller’s claim for recourse against the contractor who had performed the faulty building and excavation work. Reference: HR-2006-01542-A, case no. 2005/1429, civil appeal.

 

5 September 2006 Criminal law. Securities trading. Insider trading. Securities Trading Act section 1

A finance director was convicted of insider trading and sentenced in the Court of Appeal to 90 days’ imprisonment, of which 60 days were conditional. Following an appeal by the prosecuting authority, the Supreme Court increased the sentence to 6 months’ imprisonment. Reference: HR-2006-01523-A, case no. 2006/680, criminal appeal.

 

5 September 2006 Criminal procedure. Criminal Procedure Act section 294.

Appeal against sentence for A police statement taken in Germany should have been submitted to the Court of Appeal and counsel for the defence if the Norwegian police had received it before judgement was passed. Objectively, there was a procedural error notwithstanding that the failure to submit the statement was due to circumstances in Germany. The case had not been fully clarified pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act section 294 since the court was unaware that a police interrogation had taken place before it passed judgement. The same applied even though neither the court, nor the prosecution or defence counsel could be reproached, see Rt-2005-321. The Supreme Court quashed the judgement of the Court of Appeal and the main hearing. Reference: HR-2006-01524-A, case no. 2006/586, criminal appeal

 

1 September 2006 Arson. Sentencing.

The issue in the case was whether a protective custody order should be made for a conviction of arson that could easily have led to loss of life, see the Penal Code section 148 subsection 1, first sentencing alternative. Reference: HR-2006-01514-A, case no. 2006/676, criminal appeal.

 

1 September 2006 Compensation. Subsidence damage. Planning and Building Act.

The case concerns a claim against a local authority for compensation for damage caused to a residential property by subsidence, see the Damages Act section 2-1 no. 1. A main issue in the case was whether the local authority should have imposed conditions in the building licence pursuant to the Plan and Building Act section 68 subsection 2, alternatively whether there were particular problems with the land on which the property was built of which the local authority should have informed the builder. Reference: HR-2006-01515-A, case no. 2006/139, civil appeal.

 

29 August 2006 Right to remedy defects with real property. Sale of Property Act section 4-10

The case concerns the seller’s right to remedy defects with the sold property pursuant to the Sale of Property Act section 4-10. The issue in the case was whether the buyer had forfeited his right to claim a price reduction because he had not given the seller adequate opportunity to remedy the defects. Reference: HR-2006-01486-A, case no. 2005/1424, civil appeal.

 

29 August 2006 Competition clause. Contract Act section 38

The case concerns interpretation of the Contract Act section 38 on competition clauses in employment contracts. Reference: HR-2006-01495-A, case no. 2006/829, civil interlocutory appeal.

 

28 August 2006 Procedural error. Approval of an interpreter

The case before the Supreme Court concerned the authorisation and approval of an interpreter who had translated documents that were submitted to the court, see the Courts of Justice Act section 136 subsection 2. The issue was whether the Court of Appeal had made a procedural error, see the Criminal Procedure Act section 343 subsection 1. Reference: HR-2006-01480-A, case no. 2006/634, criminal appeal

 

28 August 2006 Limitation of claim for compensation or price reduction

The issue in the case was whether a property buyer’s claim for compensation or price reduction was statute barred pursuant to the Limitation Act section 3 no. 2, section 10 no. 1 and section 15. Reference: HR-2006-01481-A, case no. 2006/127, civil appeal.

 

28 August 2006 Industrial Transport Act section 4. Taxi licence

The case concerns the interpretation of the Industrial Transport Act section 4, cf. government regulation of 26 March 2003 no. 401 on inland industrial transport by motor vehicle and ship (Industrial Transport Regulation) section 8. The issue was whether it was sufficient that documentation for the qualifying conditions in the Act and Regulation for the grant of a licence was submitted within the application deadline. Reference: HR-2006-01482-A, case no. 2006/426, civil appeal.

 

28 August 2006 Sentencing. Provision on repeated offences in the Penal Code section 61

The case concerns sentencing, including the relevance of the provision on repeated offences in the Penal Code section 61, in a case where the predominant offence was a count of bodily harm, see the Penal Code section 229 second sentencing alternative. Reference: HR-2006-01483-A, case no. 2006/862, criminal appeal.

 

22 August 2006 The Damage Act section 3-5 subsection 1(b), cf. section 3-3

The case concerns the measure of damage for non-economic loss following gross negligent rape, cf. the Damage Act section 3-5 subsection 1(b), cf. section 3-3. Reference: HR-2006-01463-A, case no. 2006/787, civil appeal.

 

22 August 2006 Number of offences, judge’s summing up, sentencing.

The case concerns appeal against conviction for breach of the Penal Code section 162 subsection 1 and subsection 3, first sentence, cf. subsection 5. The first question was whether storage and transfer of drugs amounts to one or two offences,see the Penal Code section 62. The second question was whether the judge’s summing up was based on a correct interpretation of the law. Thirdly, the case concerned appeal against sentencing. Reference: HR-2006-01464-A, case no. 2006/560, criminal appeal.

 

22 August 2006 Assault. Borderline case between Penal Code section 228 subsection 1 and section 229

The issue in the case was whether blows and kicks during a fight constituted assault pursuant to the Penal Code section 228, or bodily harm pursuant to section 229. Reference: HR-2006-01465-A, case no. 2006/653, criminal appeal.

 

21 August 2006 Animal Protection Act section 9 on the destruction of animals

The case concerns interpretation of the Animal Protection Act section 9 on the destruction of animals. More particularly, the question was whether the common method for killing domesticated reindeer, which involves shooting them with a saloon rifle at a range of 3–4 metres, was in breach of the Act. Reference: HR-2006-01453-A case no. 2006/505, criminal appeal

 

29 June 2006 Criminal procedure. Police custody during trial. European Convention on Human Rights

The accused in a criminal case was remanded in police custody during a criminal trial.The issue in the case was whether this was a procedural error. The Supreme Court held that the adjudicating court had considered the issue thoroughly and continuously throughout the trial and there was a proper basis for the decision not to postpone the trial. The conditions for remand in police custody were satisfied, see the government regulation pursuant to the Implementation of Sentences Act section 4-1. Nor was it a procedural error that the police had followed the normal supervision routine whereby the accused was controlled every half hour, see the Instructions to the Police section 9-4 subsection 2. The allegation that the accused had been unable to properly safeguard his interests during the case was not proven. Nor did the procedure constitute a violation of Art 6 no. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Reference: HR-2006-01155-A, case no. 2006/547, criminal appeal.

 

29 June 2006 Criminal procedure. Criminal law. Aggravated theft. Receiving stolen property. Acquitta

The issue in the case was whether an acquittal for aggravated theft and receiving stolen goods was a bar to a subsequent indictment for aiding and abetting insurance fraud, see the Criminal Procedure Act section 51 subsection 1 and Article 4(1) of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The majority of the Supreme Court held that the factual basis for the two indictments were the same but that, notwithstanding, the new indictment did not constitute repeated criminal proceedings. The Court attached weight to the fact that the circumstances upon which the indictment for insurance fraud was based (see Penal Code section 272) is not covered by the description of the offence of receiving stolen property in the Penal Code section 317, since section 317 does not penalise aiding and abetting the main offence. Nor did acquittal for aggravated theft, see the Penal Code section 257 cf. section 258, constitute a bar to an indictment for aiding and abetting insurance fraud. One justice came to the same conclusion but on different grounds. Reference: HR-2006-01159-A, case no. 2006/566, criminal appeal.

 

29 June 2006 Criminal law. Receiving stolen property. Application of law

A car was parked in a third party’s garage in connection with an insurance fraud. When the owner of the garage became aware of this, he telephoned the insurance company and offered to give the insurance company information in return for a sum of money. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether this could form the basis for a conviction for receiving stolen property or aiding and abetting receiving stolen property, see the Penal Code section 317. The Supreme Court acquitted him on the grounds that the car did not constitute a “profit” or “proceeds” of a criminal act, see the Penal Code section 317. Reference: HR-2006-01161-A, case no. 2006/541, criminal appeal.

29 June 2006 Compensation. Patient injury compensation.

Injury caused during treatment of a child at A child who was already medically disabled suffered a permanent brain injury during treatment at a public hospital. The case concerned the assessment of standardised damages pursuant to the Damages Act section 3-2a. The Supreme Court held that it was wrong to apply a general gross principle in cases where the victim of the injury was already medically disabled before the injury was inflicted. In assessing the amount of damages, the Supreme Court applied the separation principle, which meant that it ignored the predisposition and only considered the degree of medical disability that the subsequent tortuous act had inflicted on the victim. Reference: HR-2006-01162-A, case no. 2006/9, civil appeal.

28 June 2006 Compulsory purchase. Internal and external recreational area. Measure of compensation

The case concerned the measure of compensation following a compulsory purchase order. The issue in the case was whether the land in question was an internal or external recreational area. In the light of court practice, the Supreme Court held that the law did not open for a concrete evaluation when applying the exception for internal recreational areas. Reference: HR-2006-01136-A, case no. 2006/305, civil appeal.

 

28 June 2006 Criminal law. Drink-driving. Confiscation of driving licence. Application of law. Sente

A man who was under the influence of alcohol had turned on the ignition of a motorcar in order to turn on the car headlights. The hand brake was released and the car rolled forward for a distance of 1.5 – 2 meters. The Supreme Court held that this constituted «driving» in the terms of the Road Traffic Act section 22 subsection 1. The Court held that there were grounds for fixing the period of confiscation of the driving licence below the statutory minimum since the accused had only been negligent and the driving was very limited, see the Road Traffic Act section 33 no 1 subsection 6. Reference: HR-2006-01139-A, case no. 2006/707, criminal appeal.

 

28 June 2006 Criminal law. Aggravated embezzlement. Sentencing. Community service order

A bank employee was convicted of embezzlement after she had misappropriated some NOK 102 000 by transferring money from a rent deposit account to her own personal account. The Supreme Court held that the offence constituted aggravated embezzlement, see the Penal Code section 255, cf. section 256. In sentencing, the Supreme Court attached weight to the fact that the accused had repaid about half of the money before she had reason to believe that the embezzlement had been discovered and the bank’s loss risk was limited. There were grounds for making an exception to the general rule that the penalty for aggravated embezzlement is unconditional imprisonment. The Court imposed an order for 75 hours’ community service. Reference: HR-2006-01150-A, case no. 2006/302, criminal appeal.

 

27 June 2006 Criminal law. Sexual offence. Rape. Repeated offence. Sentencing.

The case concerns sentencing for a number of offences including rape, see Penal Code section 192. The Supreme Court applied the provision in the Penal Code section 192 subsection 3 (c) on increased sentence in the event of repetition since the accused was previously convicted by a Swedish court of aggravated rape, see the Penal Code section 61 subsection 3. The Court imposed a sentence of five years’ imprisonment. Reference: HR-2006-01130-A, case no. 2006/368, criminal appeal.

27 June 2006 Family law. Marital agreement on separate property. Measure of compensation.

The issue in the case was whether a marital agreement that provided that the marital home was the husband’s separate property should be set aside or adjusted, see the Marriage Act section 46 subsection 1. Based on the facts in the case, the majority of the Supreme Court held that there were no grounds for setting aside the agreement either in whole or in part, but that the wife was entitled to compensation pursuant to section 46 subsection 2, second sentence. Dissent 3-2. Reference: HR-2006-01131-A, case no. 2006/329, civil appeal.

27 June 2006 Criminal law. Grievous bodily harm. Sentencing

A 19-year-old man was convicted of grievous bodily harm for having stabbed another person with a broken bottle. The case concerned sentencing for breach of the Penal Code section 231 first sentencing alternative, cf. section 232. The majority of the Supreme Court found that there were mitigating circumstances: the accused had ADHD for which he was not under medication when the criminal was committed, through no fault of his own. The Supreme Court fixed the sentence at two years and nine months, of which nine months was conditional. Dissent 3-2. Reference: HR-2006-01132-A, case no. 2006/549, criminal appeal.

21 June 2006 Expropriation law. Compensation. Noise.

The development of a harbour in order to export rock from a quarry made it necessary to acquire land and rights through compulsory purchase. The case concerned compensation pursuant to the Act relating to Compensation for Expropriation of Real Property section 8, cf. the Neighbouring Properties Act section 2 subsection 4 for the nuisance caused by noise. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the valuation appeal court on the grounds that the appeal court had not given adequate reasons for its determination of the critical level pursuant to the Neighbouring Properties Act section 2 subsection 4 and that its application of general principles was unclear. The assessment of the nuisance caused by noise had to be made on the basis of the general guidelines that existed at the date of adjudication. Reference: HR-2006-01088-A, case no. 2005/1591, civil appeal.

21 June 2006 Compensation law. Breach of duty of confidentiality. Invasion of privacy. Medical Pract

A doctor at the National Hospital (Rikshospitalet) had disclosed confidential information about a patient with a genetic disorder to a television crew that was making a documentary about how insurance companies use genetic information. The Supreme Court held that the patient had not given an informed consent to the use of the information and that the doctor could not rely on the consent that had been given, see the Medical Practitioners Act section 32. The Supreme Court held that the doctor’s breach of his duty of confidentiality pursuant to the Medical Practitioners Act section 31 constituted an invasion of privacy pursuant to the Damages Act section 3-6. Reference: HR-2006-01089-A, case no. 2005/1765, civil appeal and case no. 2005/1767, civil interlocutory appeal.

21 June 2006 Criminal law. Sexual intercourse with a minor. Unreserved confession. Sentencing

The case concerns sentencing following a conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a child below 16, see the Penal Code section 195 subsection 1, first sentencing alternative. Although the accused insisted that he believed that the victim was over 15, he admitted to all of the facts that formed the basis of the assessment of whether he had acted negligently, see the case reported in Rt-2005-823. On this basis, the Supreme Court held that confession was unreserved, see the Penal Code section 59 subsection 2. The Court imposed a sentence of one year and five months’ imprisonment. Reference: HR-2006-01090-A, case no. 2006/507, criminal appeal.

21 June 2006 Tax law. Property tax. Cable television route

The Supreme Court held that a cable television route fell within the definition of “plant and works” and was therefore liable to property tax pursuant to the Property Tax Act 1975 section 4 subsection 2. In light of the judgement recorded in Rt-2002-94, the Supreme Court attached weight to the fact that the cable works were run on a commercial basis and were part of a production operation. The Court also attached weight to the internal connection between cable television routes, telecommunications networks and power networks. Although there was a long tradition for not imposing property tax on such networks, this tradition was not binding on the local authority. Reference: HR-2006-01097-A, case no. 2005/1718, civil appeal.

20 June 2006 Inheritance law. Transfer of property. Gift. Advancement of inheritance

The case concerns the setting aside of a transfer of property from an undivided estate to one of the heirs on the grounds that the transfer constituted a gift, see the Inheritance Act section 19. Consideration was agreed for the property but was not paid and, shortly after, the transfer was changed to a gratuitous transfer. The Supreme Court held that the transfer had a clear element of gift and set it aside. Reference: HR-2006-01072-A, case no. 2006/98, civil appeal.

19 June 2006 Civil procedure. Civil Procedure Act. Legal interest. European Convention on Human Righ

A pharmaceutical company was ordered to suspend a television campaign on the grounds that it constituted advertising for a prescription drug. Three years after the advertising had stopped, the television company that had broadcasted the feature instigated legal proceedings and claimed that the suspension order was invalid. The Supreme Court held that the condition that the claim shall be relevant was not fulfilled and that the television company lacked legal interest pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act section 54. The lack of relevance also meant that the action could not be brought pursuant to Articles 13 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Reference: HR-2006-01057-A, case no. 2005/1626, civil interlocutory appeal.

16 June 2006 Intellectual property rights. Use of logo. Copyright

The case concerns the use of a logo without the copyright owner’s permission. The Supreme Court held that the sale of so-called «spin off»-products fell within the business of the national broadcasting company NRK. It followed therefore from the applicable collective wage agreement that the NRK logo could be used in advertising for such products. However, material from television programs for advertising purposes that had no connection with NRK’s business could not be used without the copyright owner’s permission. Reference: HR-2006-01045-A, case no. 2005/1726, civil appeal.

14 June 2006 Civil claim brought in connection with criminal proceedings. Claim for compensation for

The case concerns a claim for compensation for non-economic loss suffered by a 7-year-old girl who was the victim of a sexual offence (Penal Code section 200). The Supreme Court held that the claim for an increase in the compensation awarded by the lower court in the criminal proceedings need not necessarily be made by way of appeal, see the Criminal Procedure Act section 434. There was no maximum time limit for submitting a claim for rehearing of a civil claim brought in connection with criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court awarded NOK 30.000 in compensation to the victim. Reference: HR-2006-01029-A, case no. 2006/217, civil appeal.

13 June 2006 Social security law. Compensation law. Substantial factor rule.

A service manager at the Oslo Tram Company suffered an accident at work. In the period that followed, he suffered from headaches, shoulder pains, memory loss and concentration problems. He claimed damages to cover expenses for medical assistance and medicines. In assessing the claim, the Supreme Court held that a condition for coverage pursuant to the National Insurance Act section 5-25 subsection 1 first sentence is that the expenses are substantially and in the main caused by occupational pains or injuries. Reference: HR-2006-01017-A, case no. 2005/1537, civil appeal.

12 June 2006 Administration law. Nature law. Establishment of nature reserve. Assessment of compensa

The establishment of a nature reserve prevented the landowners from using stones and rock from a beach within the reserve area as drainage material. The case concerned the assessment of compensation after the preservation order was made, see the Nature Conservation Act section 20. The Supreme Court took its starting point in the compensation rule in section 6 of the Compensation for Expropriation of Real Property Act. Since it was foreseeable that the landowners would have used the stones and rocks, the Supreme Court awarded compensation for the additional cost of acquiring drainage material from another source, see section 6 subsection 1, second sentence. Reference: HR-2006-00997-A, case no. 2006/209, civil appeal.

12 June 2006 Criminal law. Penalty for repeated offences. Sentencing. Application of law

The Supreme Court held, on an interpretation of the relevant sources of law, that the conditions in the Penal Code section 61 do not apply to the penalty for repeated drink-driving offences pursuant to the Road Traffic Act section 31 subsection 3. Reference: HR-2006-00999-A, case no. 2006/433, criminal appeal.

2 June 2006 Criminal law. Acquisition of firearms. Criminal procedure. Scope of the indictment. Appl

In light of the history of the provision and the legislative intent, the Supreme Court applied a narrow interpretation to the Penal Code section 161 so that it only covers acquisition of firearms etc where the motive is to use the firearms etc. to commit a criminal offence. The Supreme Court held that a conviction for aiding and abetting breach of section 161 did not go beyond the scope of the indictment, see the Criminal Procedure Act section 38. The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal against sentence. Reference: HR-2006-00962-A, case no. 2006/331, criminal appeal.

2 June 2006 Criminal law. Military penal law. Failure to report to compulsory military service. Sent

In view of changes in recent years in the number of youths who are enlisted for compulsory military service, the Supreme Court imposed a conditional sentence for failure to report to compulsory military service, see the Military Penal Code section 34 subsection 2, second sentencing alternative. Reference: HR-2006-00963-A, case no. 2006/258, criminal appeal.

2 June 2006 Criminal law. Perjury. Sentencing. Community service order

Based on a concrete assessment of the facts, the Supreme Court held that it was inappropriate to impose a community service order for perjury in connection with an application for asylum in Norway, see the Penal Code section 166 subsection 1. Reference: HR-2006-00964-A, case no. 2006/690, criminal appeal.

1 June 2006 Transport law. Road transport

The carrier had given the wrong delivery address, so that goods to be transported by road did not arrive at the correct address. The Supreme Court held that delivery to the wrong company at the wrong address was a fundamental breach of the contract of carriage. The carrier had been negligent in giving the wrong address and he was ordered to compensate the consignor’s financial loss pursuant to general principles of contract law. Since the wrongful delivery was caused by the carrier’s breach of the transport agreement, it was irrelevant to the carrier’s liability that the goods were delivered to the company that was named in the consignment note. Failure by the consignor to control the information in his copy of the consignment note did not exempt the carrier from liability pursuant to the Road Transport Act section 28, and there was no question of imposing shared liability pursuant to section 30. Reference: HR-2006-00938-A, case no. 2005/1353, civil appeal.

30 May 2006 Sentencing. Promotion of prostitution. Penal Code section 202 subsection 1 cf. section

The case concerns sentencing for the promotion of another’s prostitution as part of the business of an organised criminal group, see the Penal Code section 202 subsection 1 and section 60a. Reference: HR-2006-00905-A, case no. 2006/77, criminal appeal.

23 May 2006 Sentencing. Homicide

The case concerns sentencing of two young men who were convicted of a number of offences, the most serious of which for both of them was homicide. Reference: HR-2006-00870-A, case no. 2005/235, criminal appeal.

23 May 2006 Civil Procedure. Civil Procedure Act. Validity of marriage settlement. Evidence. Lawyers

The issue in the case was whether a lawyer’s duty of confidentiality pursuant to section 205 of the Civil Procedure Act covered evidence relating to the assessment of the validity of a marriage settlement so that discovery could not be ordered pursuant to sections 250 and 251 no. 2 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Supreme Court held that after a client’s death, the lawyer can be released from his duty of confidentiality if the advantage that is derived from this substantially exceeds the breach of confidentiality between the lawyer and his client. Important factors in this assessment will be the interests and the presumed will of the deceased. The decision of the Court of Appeal was quashed and referred back for a rehearing as it was based on too narrow an interpretation of the exceptions to the rule. Reference: HR-2006-00868-A, case no. 2005/1789, civil interlocutory appeal.

23 May 2006 Civil procedure. Civil Procedure Act. Securing evidence

The case concerns the requirement of identification/specification of computer-stored material that was the subject of a petition to secure evidence pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act section 271a. The Supreme Court held that the applicant had a limited right to particularize the petition even in the interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court gave certain guidelines on what is required to sufficiently identify/specify the evidence in the petition. Reference: HR-2006-00867-A, case no. 2006/90, civil interlocutory appeal.

23 May 2006 Social security law. Changes to pension rules for state employees. “Breakpoint”-rule. P

The issue in the case was whether an amendment to the pension rules for state employees also applied to state employees who had retired before the amendment entered into force on 1 May 2000. The Supreme Court attached decisive weight to the travaux preparatoires to the amendment, which clearly stated that the legislator had intended the amendment to apply to state employees who had retired before 1 May 2000. Reference: HR-2006-00855-A, case no. 2006/57, civil appeal.

18 May 2006 Tax law. Public limited liability company. Surtax

The issue in the case was whether a company should have been granted an exemption from the duty to pay surtax because the error in the tax assessment was a manifest calculation and writing error, see the Tax Assessment Act section 10-3 (a). The majority of the Supreme Court found that the error that had arisen in the particular case, where a computer program had been used to complete the tax assessment form, constituted a calculation and writing error. As long as it was obvious that an error had occurred, the nature of the error need not be immediately clear. Accordingly, the authorities should not have imposed surtax. Dissent 4-1. Reference: HR-2006-00835-A, case no. 2005/1274, civil appeal.

18 May 2006 Tax law. Private limited liability company. Surtax

The issue in the case was whether a company should have been granted an exemption from the duty to pay surtax because the error in the tax assessment was a manifest calculation and writing error, see the Tax Assessment Act section 10-3(a). The majority of the Supreme Court based their decision on the legal principles stated in HR-2006-0035-A and found that there was either a calculation or writing error. The majority found that the error was obvious. Dissent 4-1. Reference: HR-2006-00836-A, case no. 2005/1517, civil appeal.

15 May 2006 Firearms Act section 33 subsection 1 second sentence. European Convention on Human Righ

The case concerns sentencing for the unlawful possession of a loaded pistol and other firearms in breach of the Firearms Act section 33 subsection 1 second sentence. A particular issue in the case was whether a possibly illegal search represented a violation of ECHR Article 8 and, if that was the case, whether this was a relevant circumstance in sentencing, see ECHR Art 13. Reference: HR-2006-00815-A, case no. 2006/287, criminal appeal.

11 May 2006 Preventive detention. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Art 5(4)

The issue in the case was whether the time taken to deal with the accused’s application to have a preventive detention order quashed, and the prosecution’s application to have the preventive detention order converted to a preventive custody order, was in violation of ECHR Article 5(4). Reference: HR-2006-00803-A, case no. 2006/109, criminal appeal.

10 May 2006 Petroleum Taxation Act section 10

The case concerns the validity of a condition in a Royal Decree of 6 October 2000 whereby consent was given to the merger between BP and Amoco. The issue was whether section 10 of the Petroleum Taxation Act obliges the tax authorities to grant a tax exemption for anticipated increase in profit on account of reduced administration and operating costs after the merger. Reference: HR-2006-00792-A, case no. 2005/849, civil appeal.

4 May 2006 Sentencing. Damages for non-economic loss. Healing

The case concerns sentencing and the imposition of damages for grossly negligent serious bodily harm caused by the accused in the course of his business as a ”healer”. Reference: HR-2006-00749-A, case no. 2006/291, criminal appeal.

4 May 2006 Contract law. Interpretation. Prohibition against division of land in the Agriculture Ac

The issue in the case was whether a contract for the transfer of a plot of land to build a holiday home was invalid on the grounds that consent had not been given for the division of land pursuant to section 12 of the Agriculture Act. Reference: HR-2006-00750-A, case no. 2005/1647, civil appeal

2 May 2006 The Neighbour Act section 9 cf. section 2.

The case concerns a claim for compensation pursuant to section 9 cf. section 2 of the Neighbour Act brought by the owners of property around the Oslo Gardermoen Airport for nuisance caused to the properties, in particular noise from aeroplanes that take off from and land at the airport. Reference: HR-2006-00731-A, case no. 2005/548, civil appeal

2 May 2006 Termination of contract

The issue in the case was whether there were grounds for terminating a price cap contract in an agreement for the supply of electric power where payment of the premium was delayed. Reference: HR-2006-00732-A, case no. 2005/833, civil appeal

28 April 2006 Manslaughter. Sale of alcohol containing methanol.

Penal Code sections 153, 239 second sentencing alternative and 238. Customs Act. Alcohol Act The case concerns sentencing for, among other things, manslaughter as a result of the sale of alcohol that contained methanol and gives rise in particular to the question whether the manslaughters were committed under extremely aggravating circumstances. Reference: HR-2006-00715-A, case no. 2005/1598, criminal appeal.

26 April 2006 Compensation for compulsory purchase

The case concerns the measure of compensation to be paid following the compulsory purchase of land for the purpose of implementing a local development plan where the land was allocated to ”the public benefit – school/kindergarten”. The main questions in the case were whether the development plan should form the basis for the measure of compensation and, if so, what influence this would have on the result. Reference: HR-2006-00700-A, case no. 2005/1728, civil appeal.

24 April 2006 Legal interest

The issue in the case was whether an injunction that prohibited the broadcasting of a TV program could be appealed in circumstances where the TV program had been broadcasted despite the injunction. The question was whether the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK AS), in these circumstances, had a legal interest in a substantive hearing of the case and, thereby, a review of the lawfulness of the intervention in the freedom of speech and information. Reference: HR-2006-00682-A, case no. 2005/1620, civil interlocutory appeal.

24 april 2006 Penal Code section 317

The case concerns interpretation of section 317 of the Penal Code on receiving the proceeds of crime, and, in particular, the question whether the offence from which the proceeds are derived has to be specified in detail. Reference: HR-2006-00684-A, case no. 2005/1796, criminal appeal.

24. April 2006 Sentencing. Gross negligent rape.

Penal Code section 192 subsection 4 (b), cf. subsection 2 (a) The case concerns sentencing for gross negligent rape including intercourse with a woman who was unconscious due to intoxication. Reference: HR-2006-00685-A, case no. 2006/96, criminal appeal.

24 April 2006 Penal Code section 192 subsection 4, cf. subsection 1 (a)

The case concerns sentencing for gross negligent rape, see the Penal Code section 192 subsection 4, cf. subsection 1 (a) Reference: HR-2006-00686-A, case no. 2006/381, criminal appeal

24 April 2006 Sentencing. Manslaughter. Penal Code section 239

The case concerns a conviction and sentencing for manslaughter where the victim died as a result of methanol poisoning after he had drunk alcohol containing methanol which the accused had sold to him. Reference: HR-2006-00690-A, case no. 2005/1446, criminal appeal

19 April 2006 Tax deduction. Taxation Act 1911 section 44 subsection 1 (a) fifth sentence

The case concerns the right to tax deduction for payments that were alleged to be compensation for unlawful services, see the Taxation Act 1911 section 44 subsection 1 (a) fifth sentence. Reference: HR-2006-00657-A, case no. 2005/966, civil appeal

7 April 2006 Employment law. Interpretation of contract. Employment Act (1977) sections 55C, 55D an

The case concerns a claim by an estate agent company for compensation against an employed estate agent who terminated the employment contract despite a contractual four-year lock-in provision. Reference: HR-2006-00609-A, case no. 2005/1199, civil appeal.

7 April 2006 Criminal law. Application of law. Penal Code section 200 subsection 2 and section 201(

The case concerns the lower limit for what can be deemed to be an ”indecent act” pursuant to section 200 of the Penal Code, and the relationship between this provision and the provision in section 201 of the Penal Code on “sexually offensive or other indecent conduct”. Reference: HR-2006-00610-A, case no. 2006/252, criminal appeal.

6 April 2006 Tax law. Tax assessment.

Nordic Tax Treaty. Tax Assessment Act. Tax Assessment Act section 9-6. EEA Agreeement Article 31 The case concerns the validity of an amended administrative decision which determined the extent to which a Danish company with a permanent place of business in Norway was taxable here, see the Nordic Tax Treaty Article 7. The issue in dispute concerned the attribution of indirect costs, profit on the supply of goods and the apportionment of revenue. It also concerned the time-limits for the right to make an amendment and what evidence was admissible in the judicial review. Reference: HR-2006-00598-A,case no. 2005/846, civil appeal

31 March 2006 Validity of an administrative decision concerning the supplementary imposition of valu

Value Added Tax Act section 14 subsection 2 no 5. The case concerns the validity of an administrative decision made by the Value Added Tax Complaints Board which imposed supplementary value added tax for the fiscal years 1995 and 1996. The question concerned the interpretation of the Value Added Tax Act section 14 subsection 2 no. 5 as the provision was worded in 1995 and 1996, more particularly whether value added tax should be calculated in the same way as for output value added tax when vehicles are made available for car purchasers and car workshop customers. Reference: HR-2006-00568-A, case no. 2005/1191, civil appeal.

31 March 2006 Community service order. Penal Code section 229, first sentencing alternative

The issue in the case was whether it was appropriate to make a community service order following a conviction for bodily harm, see the Penal Code section 229, first sentencing alternative. Reference: HR-2006-00569-A, case no. 2005/1719, criminal appeal.

27 March 2006 Value Added Tax. Foreign Company. Mail-order sale.

The case concerns the validity of an administrative decision which imposed supplementary value added tax on a foreign company. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the company in question carried out taxable trading of goods in Norway within the terms of the Value Added Tax Act section 13, cf. section 3, and section 10 subsection 3. Reference: HR-2006-00536-A, case no. 2005/934, civil appeal.

27 March 2006 Compensation for loss in connection with the transfer of a pension

The case concerns compensation for loss caused by a delay in transferring an individual pension agreement to a new pension fund. The judgement of the district court was upheld. Reference: HR-2006-00537-A, case no. 2005/1178, civil appeal.

15 March 2006 Set-off. Bankrupt estate. Payroll tax. Value added tax

The issue in the case was whether the State was entitled to offset a claim for payroll tax against a bankrupt estate’s claim for a refund of value added tax, see the Tax Payment and Collection Act section 32 no. 3, cf. the National Insurance Act section 24-4 subsection 6. Reference: HR-2006-00448-A, case no. 2005/1146, civil appeal.

15 March 2006 Ship-owner taxation scheme. Taxation Act 1911 section 51A-6 no. 3.

The issue in the case was whether interest on excess paid-up advance tax should be assigned to an account for deferred taxed income (KBI) pursuant to the rules on taxation of ship-owning companies in section 51A-6 no. 3 of the Taxation Act of 1911. Reference: HR-2006-00449-A, case no. 2005/1043, civil appeal.

14 March 2006 Surtax

The case concerns review of an administrative order for the imposition of surtax on the grounds of a date error. Reference: HR-2006-00438-A, case no. 2005/853, civil appeal

10 March 2006 Prohibition against retroactive legislation. Article 97 of the Constitution

The case concerns the validity of a decision of the Oslo County Revenue Office. After a statutory amendment was passed, a driving school was ordered to repay input value added tax that was lawfully deducted before the statutory amendment was passed. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the statutory amendment violated the prohibition against retroactive legislation in Article 97 of the Norwegian Constitution. Reference: HR-2006-00419-P, case no. 2005/1227, civil appeal.

10 March 2006 Sentencing. Protective custody

The case concerns sentencing for aggravated robbery. Reference: HR-2006-00429-A, case no. 2005/1605, criminal appeal.

10 March 2006 Robbery of an articulated trailer carrying dried fish. Road Transport Act sections 27,

The case concerns a claim for compensation against the transporter and the insurer of an articulated trailer carrying dried fish which was robbed, see section 27 of the Road Transport Act. The robbery took place at an unattended car park south of Rome. The issue in the case was whether it was negligent of the driver to park the trailer at the car park over night, see section 38 of the Road Transport Act, which would preclude the transporter from invoking the limitation on liability in section 32 of the Road Transport Act. Reference: HR-2006-00430-A, case no. 2005/1008, civil appeal.

10 March 2006 Payment of insurance settlement

The issue in the case was whether an insurance company is obliged to pay out an insurance settlement (loss) on a car that had been acquired by illegal means. Reference: HR-2006-00431-A, case no. 2005/633, civil appeal.

9 March 2006 Procedural error. New questions to the jury

The Penal Code section 192 subsection 1 (a), cf. subsection 2(a), section 192 subsection 1(b), alternatively the Penal Code section 193 subsection 2. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal had made a procedural error in refusing a request by the prosecuting counsel to submit additional questions to the jury after it had answered no to the question whether the accused was guilty of rape pursuant to the Penal Code section 192 subsection 1 (a), cf. subsection 2 (a). The additional questions concerned breach of the Penal Code section 192 subsection 1 (b), alternatively section 193 subsection 2, and it had to be determined whether the actions constituting this offence were the same as the actions upon which the indictment was based. Reference: HR-2006-00414-A, case no. 2005/1745, criminal appeal.

9 March 2006 Deduction for advantage in compulsory purchase compensation

...Act relating to Compensation for Expropriation of Real Property section 9. The case concerns deductions for advantage in compulsory purchase compensation in a case where the construction of a road provided road access to a building plot on the remainder of the property; see section 9 of the Act relating to Compensation for Expropriation of Real Property. The case also concerns the question whether deductions can only be made in heads of damage that have a causal connection with the advantage. Reference: HR-2006-00420-A, case no. 2005/566, civil appeal.

8 March 2006 Widow’s pension

Marriage Act section 86, cf. section 94 no. 3. Norwegian Constitution Article 97. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Protocol 1 Article 1. The case concerns a claim for widow’s pension from an ex-wife. The issue in the case was whether section 86, cf. section 94 no. 3 of the Marriage Act of 4 July 1991 no. 47, which laid down more stringent conditions for the right to pension compared to the former Marriage Act, constituted a breach vis-à-vis the appellant of Article 97 of the Constitution (prohibition against legislation being given retroactive effect) or Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR. Reference: HR-2006-00404-A, case no. 2005/574, civil appeal.

17 February 2006 Consumer purchase. Boots. Consumer Purchase Act section 29.

The heel on one of a pair of high-heeled boots fell off six weeks after they were purchased. The issue in the case was whether the purchaser could demand a new pair of boots pursuant to the Consumer Purchase Act section 29 subsection 1, or whether the difference between the seller’s replacement costs, approx NOK 450, and the repair costs, approx NOK 65, meant that replacement would involve “unreasonable costs” for the seller, and therefore entitle the seller to cure the default by repair. Reference: HR-2006-00299-A, case no. 2005/883, civil appeal.

16 February 2006 Agency commission. Business premises. Estate Agents Act sections 4-1 and 4-2.

The case concerns a claim for commission by an estate agent on the lease of business premises. The legal dispute between the parties concerns the level of identification that is required between the commission and the contract that was entered into. Reference: HR-2006-00271-A, case no. 2005/600, civil appeal.

16 February 2006 Drugs. Sentencing. Community service

Penal Code section 162 subsection 2 and section 58 first sentence, second sentencing alternative. The case concerns sentencing for drug offences where the main issue was whether there were grounds for imposing a community service order on account of the accused’s limited involvement in the crime. Reference: HR-2006-00275-A, case no. 2006/1, criminal appeal.

16 February 2006 Sentencing. Sexual crimes. Compensation

Penal Code section 195 subsection 1, first sentencing alternative and subsection 2, sections 209, 200 subsections 2 and 3, and 201 (c). Criminal Procedure Act section 3. The case concerns sentencing for sexual offences committed by a man against his daughter and step-daughter. It also concerns a claim for compensation from the step-daughter’s father for legal costs incurred in bringing an action against the mother for transfer of custody rights. Reference: HR-2006-00276-A, case no. 2005/1556, criminal appeal.

16 February 2006 Spouses. Repurchase agreement

The case concerns the validity of an agreement between two spouses for the repurchase at a fixed price of a share of the matrimonial home upon separation. The Supreme Court found that the co-ownership agreement amounted to a prior agreement on repurchase at a fixed price of the matrimonial home upon separation. Since the agreement related to the financial arrangements between spouses, it was void because there was no authority for such agreement in the exhaustive provisions of the Marriage Act on freedom of contract in such arrangements. Reference: HR-2006-00277-A, case no. 2005/511, civil appeal.

15 February 2006 Criminal law. Sentencing. Application of law. Arranged/forced marriage.

Penal Code section 222 subsection 2 first sentencing alternative cf. section 49. A and B were convicted for having threatened C with violence and for having forced her to enter into a marriage against her will, see the Penal Code section 222 subsection 2, first sentencing alternative. The appeal concerns the application of law in relation to the question of guilt and sentencing. Reference: HR-2006-00258-A, case no. 2005/1554, criminal appeal.

2 February 2006 Civil Procedure Act sections 156, 157 and 160.

The conditions for correcting a judgement or pronouncement of a supplementary judgement for costs before the District Court and the Court of Appeal were not satisfied. Reference: HR-2006-00218-A, case no. 2005/744, civil appeal.

1 February 2006 NOKAS, Criminal Procedure Act ,

section 210 cf. sections 203 and 204 cf. section 119, cf. Genetic Material Bank Act sections 15 and 16 and the Health Personnel Act section 23 no. 4 and section 24. The appeal concerns interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Act section 210 cf. sections 203 and 204 cf. section 119 cf. the Genetic Material Bank Act section 15 and 16 and the Health Personnel Act section 23 no. 4 and section 24. The underlying question was whether the police could requisition biological material stored in the genetic material bank from a deceased person who was under investigation for the violent robbery on 5 April 2005 of the was the Norsk Kontantservice AS counting house (NOKAS). Reference: HR-2006-00187-A, case no. 2006/18, criminal interlocutory appeal.

1 February 2006 Criminal Procedure Act section 264 cf. sections 242 and 242a.

The issue in the case was whether material prepared in connection with a petition to deny the accused access to documents pursuant to section 242a of the Criminal Procedure Act were “case documents” within the terms of section 264 cf. section 242 of the same Act. Reference: HR-2006-00189-A, case no. 2005/1815, criminal interlocutory appeal.

31 January 2006 Harmonization/transfer of undertaking within the SAS group of companies.

Employee rights. The issue in the case was whether the transfer of assets from one company to another company within the same group of companies was of such a nature that the rules concerning transfer of undertakings in the Employment Act applied. Reference: HR-2006-00174-A, case no. 2005/744, civil appeal.

30 January 2006 Sentencing. Manslaughter. Climbing frame that collapsed

The case concerns sentencing for manslaughter, see the Penal Code section 239 first sentencing alternative, and, in that connection, breach of the Product Liability Act and appurtenant regulations. Reference: HR-2006-00164-A, case no. 2005/1133, criminal appeal.

30 January 2006 Compensation to survivors. Climbing frame that collapsed

The case concerns a claim from the surviving parents of a child who died when a climbing frame collapsed. The claim was submitted in the course of criminal proceedings where the defendant was convicted of manslaughter; see the Compensation Act section 3-5 subsection 2. Reference: HR-2006-00165-A, case no. 2005/1154, civil appeal.

23 January 2006 Confiscation of driving licence

The case concerns confiscation of a driving licence following conviction for breach of section 162 subsections 1 and 2 of the Penal Code (drug felonies). Reference: HR-2006-00131-A, case no, 2005/1729, criminal appeal.

23 January 2006 Sentencing. Confiscation. Narcotics

Penal Code section 162 subsections 1 and 2. The case concerns sentencing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime following conviction for the illegal purchase and storage of 1200 grams of heroin and sale of 600 grams of heroin. Reference: HR-2006-00132-A, case no. 2005/1679, criminal appeal.

23 January 2006 Sentencing. Confiscation of driving licence.

Road Traffic Act section 22 subsection 1. Civil Procedure Act section 342 subsection 2 no. 4, cf. section 343 subsection 2 no. 8 The defendant had driven a motor vehicle with an excessive blood-alcohol level of 2.03 per thousand. The defendant did not act consciously. The question therefore was whether, if she had been sober, she would be deemed to have acted negligently. Defects in the grounds of the district court’s judgement prevented the appeal being heard. The judgements of both the district court and the Court of Appeal were quashed. Reference: HR-2006-00133-A, case no. 2005/1637, criminal appeal.

11 January 2006 Sale of Property Act section 4-15

The case contains a claim for default interest following the delayed payment of the purchase price for real property, and gives rise to questions concerning the purchaser’s right of retention as security for a claim for defects, see section 4-15 of the Sale of Property Act of 3 July 1992 no. 93. Reference: HR-2006-0052-A, case no. 2005/928, civil appeal.

11 January 2006 Sentencing. Penal Code section 192 subsection 1 (b)

The case concerns sentencing for breach of the Penal Code section 192 subsection 1 (b) (rape) where a woman had put a man’s penis in her mouth while he was asleep. Reference: HR-2006-0053-A, case no. 2005/1681, criminal appeal.

11 January 2006 Penal Code section 195 subsection 1 second sentencing alternative and section 196 s

The case concerns sentencing for breach of the Penal Code section 195 subsection 1 second alternative and section 196 subsection 1. The defendant, who at the time of the crime was about 22 years old, was convicted of four counts of sexual intercourse with two girls below 14 years of age, and 13 counts of sexual intercourse with two girls below 16 years of age. Reference: HR-2006-00054-A, case no. 2005/1574, criminal appeal.

4 January 2006 Criminal law. Illegal fishing

Act relating to Salmonids and Fresh-Water Fish etc sections 49 and 50 no. 2. Act of 23 June 1888 no. 1 relating to fishing rights in the Tana river system, Royal Decree of 1 April 1911 The case concerns the interpretation of the special provisions on the regulation of fishing rights in the Tan river system, more particularly whether the person holding fishing rights can grant a power to a person outside his household to exercise the fishing rights in his stead. Reference: HR-2006-00017-A, case no. 2005/1385, criminal appeal.

3 January 2006 Security. Financial Contracts Act sections 57 and 66

The issue in the case was whether a physical person who grants security for the debts of his limited company shall be deemed to be a consumer in the terms of the Financial Contracts Act section 57. The case also concerns the application of section 66 of the Financial Contracts Act, which regulates the release of security after the deletion of a vendor’s fixed charge on a motor vehicle. Reference: HR-2006-00013-A, case no. 2005/858, civil appeal.