The State is not liable for costs in dispute between private parties on restraining order

In a conflict between neighbours, one party requested that the police issue a ban on visits against the neighbour – a cohabiting couple. The police denied the request, and the request was brought before the court, see section 222 a of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Court of Appeal, as opposed to the District Court, found that there was no basis for a ban on visits. The Supreme Court, having conducted an oral hearing, found like the Court of Appeal that the State was not liable for the cohabiting couple’s legal fees. There was no basis for considering the prosecution authority a "counterparty", see section 20-2 subsection 1 of the Dispute Act, since the prosecution authority had requested that a ban be denied. Sources of law did not provide sufficient legal basis for liability for costs, apart from what follows from an analogous application of section 20-2 of the Dispute Act. The starting point is that the State cannot be held liable for costs in a process between the person requesting a ban on visits and the person opposing it if the prosecution authority has not found a basis for such a ban to be issued. Costs should instead be claimed from the private party who brought the case to court.

Read the whole order (Norwegian only) 

Area of law: Criminal procedure, restraining order. Section 222 a of the Criminal Procedure Act, section 20-2 subsection 1 of the Dispute Act. 

Key paragraphs: 48-50

Justices: Falkanger, Noer, Bull, Høgetveit Berg, Hellerslia