A claim for non-pecuniary damages against the State for a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR was time-barred

The case concerned the determination of the starting point of the limitation period for a claim for non-pecuniary damages against the State for a violation of the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether the State's liability for non-pecuniary damages arising from violations of the ECHR had been adequately established in Norwegian law more than three years before the action was commenced, which would give the claimant reasonable grounds for bringing an action against the State seeking compensation for the violation to which she claimed to have been subjected. Referring to the Human Rights Act, the preparatory works to the Constitution, case law and legal literature, the majority of the Supreme Court concluded that, even prior to two Supreme Court judgments from 2024, the State's liability for non-pecuniary damages had been established under Norwegian law. Uncertainty concerning the precise legal basis of that liability does not postpone the commencement of the limitation period. The claim for non-pecuniary damages was therefore time-barred under section 9 (1) of the Limitation Act. In the present case, limitation involved neither excessive formalism nor excessive flexibility. Accordingly, Article 13 of the ECHR did not preclude the claim from being time-barred.

The minority of the Supreme Court proceeded on the basis that the State's liability for non-pecuniary damages was not clarified until the two Supreme Court judgments on non-pecuniary damages delivered in 2024. Until then, it was unclear both whether the State could be held liable for non-pecuniary damages under Norwegian law and on what legal basis such liability would rest. The limitation period had therefore not begun to run when the action was brought.

The judgment clarifies the significance of legal uncertainty for the starting point of the limitation period under section 9 (1) of the Limitation Act and that, even before 2024, Norwegian law recognised a right to non-pecuniary damages against the State for violations of the ECHR.

Area of law: Limitation of claims for non-pecuniary damages for violations of the ECHR

Key paragraphs: 31, 44, 51 and 52

Justices: Webster, Steinsvik, Sivertsen, Vang, Heggberget