Calculation of compensation for disadvantages after installation of municipal water pipeline be reexamined

In Bærum, a new municipal main water pipeline has been installed from Rykkinn to Skui. Parts of the pipeline have been laid in the ground beneath an agricultural property for horse farming. The municipality had been given a permanent right to have the pipeline installed in the ground, and a temporary right of disposal over parts of the property to carry out the construction work. The construction work led to disadvantages for the horse farming. Among other things, it was problematic to cross the construction area to ride out of the property.

The appeal concerns the calculation of compensation for the disadvantages. According to section 8 of the Expropriation Compensation Act, general disadvantages are compensated only to the extent that they exceed the tolerance limit under the Neighbourhood Act, while special disadvantages are compensated in full. A key question in the Supreme Court was whether the distinction between general disadvantages and special disadvantages lies in the nature of the disadvantage or in the individual effects.

The Supreme Court notes that the purpose of the special rule for general disadvantages is that the property from which land is surrendered, is not placed in a more favourable position than neighbouring properties who may suffer the same disadvantages. Equality considerations are best safeguarded if emphasis is placed on the nature of the disadvantage. A main distinction goes between disadvantages directly linked to the surrender itself, and disadvantages caused by the measure for which land has been surrendered. Disadvantages directly caused by the actual surrender will be special disadvantages. Disadvantages caused by the measure for which land has been surrendered, including construction work in connection with completion of the measure, will as a clear starting point be general disadvantages. This also applies if the property that has surrendered land, is affected particularly hard. It cannot be ruled out that certain disadvantages from the measure must be regarded as special disadvantages, but if so, the exception is narrow.

Based on the individual effects on the horse farming, the Court of Appeal had concluded that the disadvantages were special disadvantages. According to the Supreme Court, this is an error of law and the Court of Appeal must conduct a new hearing.

The judgment provides guidance on the distinction between special disadvantages and general disadvantages.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Area of law: Expropriation law, section 8 of the Expropriation Compensation Act

Key paragraphs: 59–61, 66, 68–69

Justices: Øie, Bergsjø, Bergh, Steinsvik, Hellerslia