[ad_1]
The Supreme Court recently concluded its consideration of the important plenary case on the granting of permits in the 23rd licensing round and Section 112 of the Constitution, and we are now awaiting a ruling. In her DN column on Saturday, Anine Kierulf, under the heading “Constitutional Climate,” goes against my procedure in the case, in a way that requires some clarification.
The central question in the case is the interpretation of § 112 and what barriers it can establish for the Storting and the government. It is an unclear and controversial issue, of great legal and political importance. In this case, § 112 is declared against a decision in oil policy. But depending on how it is interpreted, it can also have importance in other areas of society.
Recently, our office has found § 112 complaints in lawsuits related to the construction of wind power and the killing of wolves, and has also been involved in other cases, in areas as diverse as salmon farming, snowmobiling and new tracks.
The interpretation of § 112 is not obvious, and in the five years that the trial has run, there are naturally many who have had opinions on it. Kierulf himself has previously written about the paragraph, with clear views on how it should be understood. On behalf of the state, I have defended a different legal point of view through three instances. The process in the case has been completed and it will not be correct for you to continue it here.
Given that the case raises unresolved constitutional issues of great importance, the Supreme Court chose to deal with it in plenary, during a seven-day hearing, which is completely extraordinary. This is the most comprehensive treatment that the Norwegian legal system can give to a case. Now it has been taken to court. After five years of disagreement, the time has come for authoritative clarification from the Supreme Court.
The core of Kierulf’s criticism is that I asked the Supreme Court what the Storting’s intention was when it revised § 112 in 2014. But it is a legitimate and legally relevant question. We agree that the will of the Constituent Assembly is important for interpretation. The challenge in this case is that it is not clear what it was, because there was very little debate on this particular paragraph. This was clarified by reviewing the written sources that exist.
So it is up to the Supreme Court to assess what weight it should have.
Kierulf is also critical of the way the case was processed and reproduces me in a way that I don’t recognize myself, with characteristics that I wouldn’t use on an opponent. As I experienced the seven days in the Supreme Court, it was a good process, where both parties worked hard to bring all parties to light, in an objective and comprehensive manner, which hopefully has given the fifteen justices a good basis for making decisions. There was commitment, and at times rhetoric, on both sides. But he is not abnormal at the counter, as Kierulf himself knows from his time as a lawyer.
The plenary case was broadcast directly from the Supreme Court, and the recordings are still available abroad, including on the Rett24 website. This means that anyone who is curious about how the case was carried out can actually walk in and see for themselves, if not at all, the selected parts.
And then we can wait together in suspending the verdict.(Terms)Copyright Dagens Næringsliv AS and / or our suppliers. We would like you to share our cases via a link, which leads directly to our pages. Copying or other use of all or part of the content may only be done with written permission or as permitted by law. For more terms, see here.
