Legal action regarding coercion in psychiatry may partially be heard in court
Supreme Court order 3 May 2024, HR-2024-826-A, (case no. 23-139855SIV-HRET and case no. 23-139872SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against Borgarting Court of Appeal's order.
I.
A (Counsel Mads Andenæs), The International Commission of Jurists - Norwegian branch (intervener) (Counsel Kaare Andreas Shetelig) v. The State represented by the Ministry of Health and Care Services (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Andreas Hjetland)
II.
B (Counsel Mads Andenæs), The International Commission of Jurists - Norwegian branch (intervener) (Counsel Kaare Andreas Shetelig) v. The State represented by the Ministry of Health and Care Services (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Andreas Hjetland)
Two women who had been transferred to psychiatric care at various times between 1988 and 2016 and subjected to coercive measures such as medication, seclusion, isolation, and restraint during these periods, brought an action against the State contending that these measures violated provisions of the Constitution, the ECHR, and the ICCPR. When considering the question of whether the action could be brought – a matter handled by a division of the Supreme Court – a majority of four justices found that section 1-3 of the Dispute Act does not allow for declaratory actions regarding violations of the Constitution. This followed from the preparatory works to the Dispute Act and the Constitution considered together. The Supreme Court unanimously found that the actions should be proceed for the alleged Convention violations to the extent they were sufficiently current. This condition was deemed to be met for enforcement measures implemented approximately eight years before the action was brought. Partially dissenting opinions 4-1.
Read the whole order (Norwegian only) (PDF)
Areas of law: Civil procedure. Human Rights. The Constitution.
Key paragraphs: 34–36, 39–42, 49–50, 56 og 64–65
Justices: Indreberg, Bull, Falch, Steinsvik, Hellerslia