In the district court, Rune Halseth, Marianne Evensen and a third person had sued the state to obtain delayed travel and restitution compensation. They had all been prosecuted for having stayed abroad while receiving Work Assessment Allowance (AAP), an interpretation of the rules that has since been found to be incorrect. Halseth and Evensen were sentenced to prison, sentences which have since been overturned.
The Oslo district court sentenced the state to pay Halseth and Evensen NOK 900,000 in compensation, but acquitted the state as a whole and thus did not impose legal costs. Both the plaintiffs and the state then chose to appeal the judgment to the Borgarting Court of Appeal.
The plaintiffs lost
The Court of Appeal has ruled against the plaintiffs. Thus, Halseth and Evensen are left with only the 250,000 and 200,000 kroner they had already been paid in compensation. The third plaintiff receives no compensation as she has not served time in prison.
The judgment has been handed down under dissent. One of the co-judges believed that the compensation should have been set at NOK 900,000-1 million.
– The Court of Appeal did not find that the ECHR or the EEA Agreement gave the private parties the right to more compensation than what two of them had been paid in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act’s rules on compensation for unjustified criminal prosecution, Borgarting Court of Appeal writes in a press release.
The lawyer believes tens of thousands have been deprived of their rights
Lawyer Roy Arteid, who represents the three plaintiffs, tells NTB that his clients are considering appealing to the Supreme Court. He points out that there is disagreement on several points, and believes that the Court of Appeal has not dealt with the case thoroughly enough.
– The Court of Appeal argues that the authorities’ behavior in the NAV case cannot constitute gross negligence in any way that gives the NAV victims any right to real compensation, writes Arteid in a statement to NTB.
In particular, he reacts to the fact that the third plaintiff, who was prosecuted but not imprisoned, was not successful in his claim for restitution.
– Since the case is a pilot case for a later class action, the refusal means that tens of thousands of victims in the same situation have been deprived of their rights, he writes.
The government attorney satisfied
The Court of Appeal adds that it cannot be proven that anyone who can incur the state’s so-called “organ liability” has acted intentionally or grossly negligently in that regard.
– The judgment confirms the sober level we have in Norway for the payment of compensation and restitution, also where the state has made mistakes that have had serious consequences, say David Magnus Myr and Helge Røstum at the Government Attorney. The two have brought the case on behalf of the State.
The duo say the state has always been concerned with cleaning up after the error in Nav, but that the settlement must be in line with current law regarding compensation and compensation payments.
#Nav #scandal #Defeat #plaintiffs #Court #Appeal
**Interview with Rune Halseth and Marianne Evensen Regarding Court Ruling on Compensation**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Rune and Marianne. It’s been a tumultuous journey for both of you regarding the recent court rulings. Can you briefly share your feelings about the outcome of the Court of Appeal’s decision?
**Rune Halseth:** Thank you for having us. Honestly, we were quite disappointed with the Court of Appeal’s ruling. After everything we’ve been through, including our wrongful convictions, we were hopeful that we would receive adequate compensation for the hardships we faced. Although we appreciate the NOK 250,000 and NOK 200,000 we have received, it’s nowhere near what we believe is just.
**Marianne Evensen:** Yes, I echo Rune’s sentiments. This entire experience has been incredibly taxing, both mentally and emotionally. The original ruling offered a glimmer of hope for a fair resolution, but the appellate court’s decision felt like another setback. We thought the judicial system would support us in recognizing the injustices we experienced.
**Editor:** What were your initial thoughts when the Oslo District Court ruled in your favor, awarding NOK 900,000 in compensation?
**Rune Halseth:** It was a relief, for sure. We felt validated; the court acknowledged that we were wronged. However, knowing that the state was acquitted of legal costs gave us mixed feelings. It seemed like a small victory in the grand scheme of things.
**Marianne Evensen:** Exactly. We saw it as a step toward justice, but there’s still a long way to go in terms of accountability. The fact that the state faced no consequences for how we were treated continues to be frustrating.
**Editor:** Facing the possibility of an appeal, how do both of you plan to move forward from here?
**Rune Halseth:** We’re committed to exploring our options. We believe in standing up for what is right and ensuring that this doesn’t happen again to others. We may consider consulting with legal experts to understand further possible courses of action.
**Marianne Evensen:** I think it’s important to also shed light on systemic issues within the legal framework that allowed this to happen. We want to raise awareness about the importance of protecting individuals’ rights, especially when it comes to wrongful prosecutions.
**Editor:** Thank you both for sharing your insights. This is clearly an ongoing battle for justice, and we hope you find the support and resolution you seek.
**Rune Halseth & Marianne Evensen:** Thank you for having us and for the opportunity to speak out.
