[ad_1]
No one has been convicted in the Nav scandal just for having been to an EEA country, Setterik’s lawyer stated at Nav’s hearing in EFTA Court. – Reinspikka lies, answers the condemned social security.
In January, Nav’s convict Rune Halseth received an unreserved apology from then-Nav boss Sigrun Vågeng. He now claims that the Attorney General in the Nav cases is in danger of lying at the hearing on the scandal in the EFTA Court. Photograph: Stian Lysberg Solum / NTB
– No one has been convicted just for staying abroad, but for failing to inform Nav about this, satirical Nav lawyer Henry John Mæland told the EFTA Court when the hearing on the scandal took place. social security on Thursday.
The Court has been asked to clarify the extent to which Norway has violated EEA rules by requiring that recipients of sickness benefits, job clearance benefits and care benefits reside in Norway.
The authorities have acknowledged that the rules were broken from June 1, 2012, when the new EU social security regulation came into force, and until last fall, when the social security scandal broke out in public. EEA rules on free movement take precedence over Norwegian law.
During this period, at least 86 people may have been wrongly convicted of social security fraud, 48 of them to prison.
also read
The state with controversial conclusion: no social security scandal before 2012
– pure lie
The leader of the organization for those affected by the Nav (Nav-it) scandal, Rune Halseth, tells NTB that he jumped in the chair when he heard Mæland’s statement. On Thursday, he was demoted by other Nav convicts who followed the digital broadcast of the EFTA Court hearing.
– What you say is completely wrong. People asked Nav to travel abroad and received a yes, including me, in exchange for calling back after 14 days. Yet we have been convicted, Halseth argues.
At least 86 may have been convicted of social security fraud in uri Photo: Vidar Ruud
– So what he’s saying is a lie. It’s very serious, he says.
Halseth himself was sentenced to five months in prison in 2017. The sentence was served the following year.
Mæland rejects
Mæland, for his part, denies having made an incorrect declaration.
– Our review of criminal cases shows that the courts have found convicts guilty of fraud by failing to inform Nav of their stay abroad and thereby misleading Nav. Several of them have also been convicted of false testimony, the underwriter’s attorney tells NTB.
Helseth also accuses Setterik’s attorney of omitting important dimensions from his statement.
Henry John Mæland is Setter’s attorney in the Nav cases. Photo: Marit Hommedal
– What it does not mention is the Nordic agreement that beneficiaries of social security have the same rights in the Nordic countries as in their country of origin. He also failed to mention that Nav has agreements with many countries in Europe for people who receive work authorization money, so they can keep the activity obligation there, he says.
Nav-it is now considering informing more government officials and Nav managers in municipalities.
– The reports will be based on deprivation of liberty, misunderstanding in the service and concealment of information, says Halseth.
Divorce in 2010?
The Supreme Court has asked the EFTA Court for answers to a total of 16 questions. Among the most important is whether Norway has broken the rules even before 2012.
also read
The Government denies the Storting access to the report on the social security scandal
The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs has argued that there is a significant difference in the legal situation before and after June 1, 2012, and that the new EU social security rules cannot be compared with the old ones.
Both the European Commission, a majority in the committee that has investigated the Nav scandal, and various legal experts, on the other hand, believe that the misinterpretation dates back to 1994, when Norway joined the EEA.
The decision of the EFTA Court is expected for the new year.
Sample cloth
As a piece of evidence of EEA law, the EFTA Court must deal with a Nav judgment that has previously reached the Supreme Court. A man in his 60s was sentenced to 75 days in prison for gross negligence and gross fraud because he had been in Italy while receiving money for work.
The case is particularly interesting because the action for which the 60-year-old was convicted stretches on both sides of the breaking point in 2012.
