New hearing of a claim for compensation for expropriation in connection with a new government quarter

A state expropriation included the surrender of road and parkland from two title numbers that belonged to the municipality. The municipality argued that the measure caused inconvenience for the building on a third title number, which also belonged to the municipality, and which was not a party to the case. The municipality stated that the built-up property must also be considered "remaining property", see section 8 of the Expropriation Compensation Act, and claimed that these disadvantages should be compensated in the ongoing expropriation case. The State rejected the claim. The Supreme Court, after having conducted an oral hearing, took as its starting point that several title numbers that make up an operating unit may jointly constitute "remaining property" under section 8. However, the Court of Appeal, which like the District Court had allowed the claim to be brought, emphasised that the use of parts of the expropriated road area was necessary for access to the building. The Supreme Court stated that even if a road was necessary for access to the building, this in itself could not mean that the road and the building were parts of the same operating unit. A closer assessment had to be carried out, which the Court of Appeal had not done. The Court of Appeal's order was set aside.

Read the order (Norwegian only)

Area of law: Section 8 of the Expropriation Compensation Act

Key paragraphs: 26, 35, 42, 52‒54

Justices: Indreberg, Bull, Arntzen, Bergh, Steinsvik