NORWAY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Knud Jacob Knudsen, Nicholas Foss Barbantonis, Jenny Sandvig and Oda Lauksund Engamo, Advokatfirmaet Simonsen Vogt Wiig
of the case or lead to its complication. Particu- lar attention has been paid to whether the third party can act within the set timeframe, whether it will displace the main parties, and whether the participation could lead to duplicate proceed- ings. The Appeal Committee ruled that these conditions were met. This decision implies that the prior submission does not preclude the interest organisation from intervening as a third party. Furthermore, the rul- ing serves as a precedent for handling similar cases where third-party interventions are sought after the commencement of an appeal, balanc- ing procedural integrity with the rights and inter- ests of all parties involved. The Court’s duty to test the application of law against the Constitution and the ECHR – HR-2024-1544-U In a recent case, the Supreme Court addressed an issue concerning the Court’s duty to test the application of law against the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression. The question was whether the Norwegian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) should be applied in evaluating the disclosure of a district court’s ruling concerning child welfare. Although the appeal did not explicitly argue that the district court’s decision violated the Consti- tution or the ECHR, it referenced several legal precedents where Article 10 of the ECHR, which protects freedom of expression and informa- tion, was considered. The Supreme Court clari- fied that the decision-making process under the Courts of Justice Act § 130 subsection 1 letter a
involves weighing privacy concerns against the necessity for freedom of expression and infor- mation. This provision, the court emphasised, must align with both the Constitution § 100 and ECHR Article 10, which safeguard freedom of expression and information, as well as Constitu- tion § 102, ECHR Article 8, and Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protect privacy. The case gained particular significance because the appellant, a news medium, sought to pub- licly disclose the judgment, underscoring the critical importance of freedom of expression. In such cases, the court noted the importance of balancing the right to privacy against the right of freedom of expression rooted in the Consti- tution and the ECHR. The Supreme Court also pointed out that an appeal typically challenges the initial balancing of rights conducted by the district court. This implies that under the Courts of Justice Act § 130 subsection 1, the require- ments to invoke the Constitution or ECHR are not overly stringent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the court of appeal erred by not examining the appli- cation of the law in relation to the Constitution and the ECHR. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that legal interpretations adequately reflect the fundamental rights enshrined in both national and international law, particularly in sensitive cases involving both the freedom of expression and individual privacy rights.
1092 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook