No basis for compensation for costs when a reversal decision is due to circumstances beyond the public administration's control.
Supreme Court judgment 21 December 2021, HR-2021-2552-A, (case no. 21-095562SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
A (Counsel Olav Lægreid), The Norwegian Bar Association (intervener) (Counsel Kaare Andreas Shetelig) v. The State represented by the Directorate of Labour and Welfare (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Ida Hjort Kraby)
Justices: Falkanger, Kallerud, Falch, Østensen Berglund, Sæther
A woman's application for disability benefit had been rejected by NAV Appeals because the requirement of implementation of labour oriented measures had not been met, see section 12-5 subsection 1 of the National Insurance Act. After such measures had been attempted, it was clear that she was unable to enter the labour market. NAV Appeals then reversed its decision, and the woman was granted disability benefit after all. Like the previous instances, the Supreme Court found that section 36 of the Public Administration Act did not provide a legal basis to cover the woman's costs incurred in connection with her appeal. It was assumed that the reversal was not due to errors in the original decision, but due to the measures having clarified that she did not have the necessary capacity for work or income. This clarification had to be regarded as new factual information in the case. The reversal was thus due to circumstances beyond the administrative agency's control, and costs could not be claimed under section 36 of the Public Administration Act. The appeal against the Court of Appeal's judgment was dismissed, however so that the costs awards were set aside in all instances.