NORWAY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Knud Jacob Knudsen, Nicholas Foss Barbantonis, Jenny Sandvig and Oda Lauksund Engamo, Advokatfirmaet Simonsen Vogt Wiig
Right to legal clarification in parental benefit dispute – HR-2023-2432-A In a lawsuit addressing a father’s right to paren- tal benefit, the respondent, namely the Norwe- gian Social Services (NAV), argued for dismissal under Section 1-3 of the Dispute Act. The argu- ment was that the father did not have a genuine need for legal clarification, as he had received full salary from his employer throughout the period in question. The Supreme Court highlighted that the father claimed to have the right to parental benefits. When such claim is denied, the need for legal clarification arises. Under Norwegian law, the employer is entitled to reclaim the salary paid to an employee during parental leave if the employee receives paren- tal benefits. The fact that the father received his salary during the leave did not negate his claim for parental benefits, provided that the condi- tions of the law for parental benefit are met. The Supreme Court also noted that whether the employer chooses to seek repayment upon the granting of parental benefits is a matter strictly between the employer and the employee, and it does not influence the decision of NAV. The Supreme Court compared the situation to the cases where a third party covers the legal costs for an individual involved in an administra- tive complaint or a lawsuit. In such situations, the Supreme Court has ruled that third-party coverage does not preclude the awarding of legal costs to that party. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the conditions in Section 1-3 of the Dispute Act were met.
The official translated summary of the ruling can be read here . Third-party intervention – HR-2024-691-U In a recent legal proceeding involving a munici- pality, the municipality’s interest organisation sought to intervene as a third party ( partshjelp ) after the appeal had already been allowed to proceed. This request faced objections from the opposing party. In Norwegian law, acting as a third-party inter- venor according to the Dispute Act § 15-7 and submitting a written statement according to § 15-8 (amicus curia) are intended to be alternative options that exclude each other. Additionally, if third-party intervention is declared after the appeal has been allowed, there must be special reasons for it to be permitted. The interest organisation had submitted a writ- ten statement according to Section 15-8 of the Dispute Act. In its declaration for third-party intervention, the preference to intervene as a third party rather than having its earlier writ- ten submission considered in the decision- making process for the case, was expressed. The Appeals Committee ruled that the written submission made during the initial stages of the appeal should not be included in the decision- making basis during the court’s review. Under Section 30-7 of the Dispute Act, new claims cannot be asserted, the prayer for relief in respect of existing claims cannot be broadened and new facts or evidence cannot be submitted after the appeal has been granted, unless spe- cial grounds suggest otherwise. In assessing whether special reasons existed, emphasis should be placed on whether the par- ticipation of a third party will change the nature
1091 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook