The procurement of nursing home operations in Oslo municipality carried out within the established framework
Supreme Court judgment 8 December 2025, HR-2025-2425-A, (case no. 25-027782SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against Borgarting Court of Appeal's judgment 13 December 2024.
Oslo Municipality (Counsel Ane Grimelid), Ideelt Nettverk (Counsel Christian Henrik Reusch (intervener), Frivillighet Norge (Counsel Goud Helge Homme Fjellheim) (intervener) v. Stendi AS, Norlandia Care Norge AS (Counsel Aksel Joachim Hageler), NHO Geneo (Counsel Thomas Naalsund) (intervener)
Attending under section 30-13 of the Dispute Act:
The State represented by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security
(The Office of the Attorney General represented by Kristin Hallsjø Aarvik)
In the autumn of 2020, Oslo municipality conducted a tendering procedure for the operation of up to 800 nursing home places. The procedure was reserved for “non-profit organisations,” meaning entities that pursue one or more social objectives and do not aim to make a profit.
Two commercial groups, both significant providers of health and social services, including nursing home operations, subsequently brought an action against Oslo municipality. They argued that the municipality was not entitled to reserve the tendering procedure for non-profit organisations. In their view, the municipality is free to choose whether to provide the services itself or procure them from a third party, but if it opts for procurement, all qualified providers must be allowed to participate on equal terms.
The Supreme Court concluded that the tendering procedure complied with the Norwegian Public Procurement Regulations, which implement the EU framework in this area. The Court acknowledged that reserving participation for certain providers generally conflicts with the principle of equal treatment, but held that the municipality could reserve the contracts for non-profit entities under an exception established by the Court of Justice of the European Union for procurements of health and social services. The procedure in question fell within the scope of this exception.
Read the judgment from the Supreme Court (Norwegian only) (PDF)
Justices: Webster, Høgetveit Berg, Thyness, Sivertsen, Vang