Links to other pages I have put up LegalExecutive.htm FreeLegalHelpOnlineForMigrantWorkers.htm on this issue
TIP. If you want to get a Norwegian court to ask for a "reasoned opinion" from the EFTA Court, it's Norwegian Law 51a you need to cite. This information is not widely known or publicised. This avoids you having your time wasted by regional courts. If Norway has breached EU law which applies to Norway via the EEA Agreement, consider using this strategy. EU / EEA law is, on the whole, clear. Though reasoned opinions are not binding on Norwegian courts, if a Norwegian court goes against a reasoned opinion from the EFTA Court in your favour, it's likely the EFTA Surveillance Authority (and an angry EU) will start asking why? It would undermine Norway's very expensive attempts for years to portray themselves as a caring nation where everyone is happy and equal.
It costs about US$650 to bring a writ / stevning in the Norwegian courts. I am currently trying to raise funds to bring about 10 writs in Norwegian courts versus parts of the Norwegian State on the grounds of negating human rights. Finding Norwegian lawyers to represent you, especially ones familiar with human rights law is nearly impossible. It is also not unknown, in my experience for Norwegian courts to find a pretext not to hear cases so bringing a case is usually just a formality that needs to be overcome before a case can be brought properly before the European Court of Human Rights, possibly the most consequential court in Europe.
My contacts sharing similar interests inform me similar cases to the one outlined below representing the negating by Norway of thousands of EU Citizens' human rights will land in the European Court of Human Rights in the summer of 2019
I am not a lawyer and cannot depict myself as one but I can read and have a brain and can issue writs. I am merely passing on what I have had to learn in my dealings with Norway whilst unable to find a lawyer to represent me. In time, I will make these pages more complete. If I'd wanted to be a lawyer, I'd have studied law. My own career and skills have become useless as the need to defend myself vs the Kingdom of Norway has become pretty much a full-time job.
If you sense the authorities in Norway are not seeking to uphold your rights, finding out from Grow Your Europe how EEA / EU law supports your case then issuing a writ vs Norway and simply telling the court to go straight to the EFTA Court using law number 51a might be the best option. The EU parliament petitions committee advises some EU citizens to go straight to the ECtHR not bothering at all with Norwegian courts of the EFTA court. I applaud the EU Parliament's Petitions Committee's work but am not sure it achieves anything. If you manage to submit a petition, expect to wait a year before it is declared admissible or not.
The international protests against the seizing by Naustdal Barnevernet of the Bodnariu's children must be one of the most effective demonstrations of outrage witnessed in recent years. For a kommune as small as Naustdal to be famous the world over for such a reason will be a source of regret there now and for years to come. It might come as no surprise similar human rights abuses are happening in Jolster / Joelster / Jølster, a neighbouring kommune about an hour away from Naustdal.
If you are in a position to donate to this cause, your help would be greatly appreciated. However, some people are generous to a fault and if your gift would really be better spent on yourself (food, heating, warm socks, a water filter, a sweater or fleece), I would really prefer you did that. Not everyone can afford to donate. Maybe one day you will be blessed to a greater degree and can help then but, until then, my belief is God wants you to be well and happy. Please send your prayers instead if you doubt you can afford to contribute. I know you would if you could. On the other hand, "it's easier for a Camel to ..." you get the idea. If you comfortably off, Thank You in advance. With enough funding, I can bring some pretty nasty stuff into the light, out of the darkness where it hides
This is a current case (May 2019) about another non-Norwegian in Jolster / Joelster, a neighbouring kommune to Naustdal / Forde where the Bodnariu family lived before the seizing of their children by the local Barnevernet / child welfare authorities sparked international revulsion against the Norwegian state and protests in streets around the world. The Bodnarius left Norway once their children were returned and are now in Romania where they are safe from Barnevernet. Great work world. Amazing stuff! The abuse in question here started long before the Bodnariu's children were seized by Barnevernet. The aim is to get anything related to Human Rights into the European Court of Human Rights and everything else into the EFTA Court. I have given up on Norwegian courts. If you have sufficient appetitie to read such things, I have linked to some interesting pages at the end of this page.
The individual in question is the parent of a Norwegian with shared custody of their Norwegian child until 2017 but unable to be present as a parent from 2012 due to the circumstances outlined below, bringing yet more human rights abuse accusations versus the authorities in Sogn og Fjordane in the court in Forde. Being an area with such a low density of population, this may well, relatively, make Sogn og Fjordane the human rights abuse capital of Europe following the sinister case of Barnevernet's intervention with The Bodnariu Children or "The Naustdal Family". The population of Sogn og Fjordane is a mere 109,000 or so varying throughout the year. The population of Naustdal kommune is 2,776. The population of Jolster kommune is 3,070.
The case revolves around the individual being refused permission to live in Norway but remaining being defined by Norway as resident in Norway for tax purposes, being forced by Skatteetaten, the Norwegian tax authorities, to contribute to the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme from which the individual is barred from membership. The individual was and is denied any benefits including free healthcare on the grounds the individual was / is not registered as living in Norway.
This is a common problem for non-Norwegians. Effectively, all UDI (see below) need to do is find a pretext to declare a non-Norwegian's application for a residence permit unsuccessful and that individual ceases to be a member of the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme to which they have contributed though, because not having a residence permit has no effect on a non-Norwegian's status as "resident in Norway for tax purposes", the individual will be forced by Norway to continue to contribute to a Norwegian National Insurance Scheme from which they will be refused any benefits on the grounds they are not REGISTERED as living in Norway.You cannot be REGISTERED as living in Norway if you do not have a residence permit but you can work and pay tax in Norway so long as you are not in Norway more than three months at a time. Norwegian employers often arrange employment contracts to last less than three months and include a free flight "home" to their native land or even take their non-Norwegian workers on a "staff outing" out of Norway (for example on a ferry to Denmark, Sweden or Germany) thus resetting the "three month timer" during which the non-Norwegians can continue working in Norway, paying into the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme and paying tax without being REGISTERED as living in Norway and unable to claim benefits or get free medical care if they become unemployed or fall ill.
After the individual was refused by Norway a family-doctor (Count 1 breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR perhaps also breach of Article 3) on the grounds they were not registered as living in Norway (Norway controls non-Norwegians' residency status), the individual was hospitalised for emergency treatment in Forde, Sogn og Fjordane by ambulance. The individual returned to their native land (they are an EU citizen) to receive free healthcare denied them in Norway. Without a family doctor in Norway, there is no link between the patient and the hospital tasked with delivering specialist medical care. This illustrates how Norway neglects non-Norwegians. If the individual had been given a family-doctor in Norway with whom their medical records from their native land could have been shared, they might have avoided their condition deteriorating to the extent they needed hospitalising in a medical emergency by ambulance. The individual's health has deteriorated to the extent he is currently unable to work and is still denied benefits, social security, welfare by Norway.
The individual's Norwegian child may also have appreciated Norway respecting the health of his non-Norwegian parent and his ability to stay in Norway and receive care as any Norwegian would. The Norwegian child of the individual is an ever greater victim of human rights abuses the the individual. I hope to start looking at cases for that child eventually if funds allow.
Whilst in their native land receiving fre medical care, the individual was invoiced by Helse Forde around $6,870 for the value of their less than a week stay in hospital, treatment provided and the use of an ambulance. A debt collecting firm (Lindorff AS, part of Intrum ) either bought the invoice from Helse Forde or, on behalf of Helse Forde, the local health authority, tried to enforce the invoice. The police in Jolster then administered a case seeking to enforce through the local court the debt to the debt collector. This is particularly serious since The Norwegian Supreme Court stated that
"section 92 of the Constitution must be understood as an obligation of the courts and other authorities to enforce the human rights"
This case suggests the police and courts in Jolster have been ignoring the Norwegian Supreme Court aggravating existing abuses of human rights. Lindorff should have checked the invoice was valid. Helse Forde should have checked the individual had not contributed to the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme. Do you think enforcing human rights in Norwayconsists of Norwegian police taking to court someone who has contributed to the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme for non payment of an invoice served by a Norwegian hospital? (see gaygusuz note below)
The individual had complained, in 2012, to the EFTA Surveillance Authority which seeks to enforce EU rules in Norway. The authority opened a case against Norway and after a great deal of work and Norway being threatened with infringement proceedings for failing to co-operate with the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Norway revealed the individual had actually, as they had always insisted, been paying into the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme. This stopped the court case against the individual in Jolster but only after he had had to deal with the case, when ill and declining offers of work to deal with case.
Norway assured the EFTA Surveillance Authority the individual would henceforth be regarded as a member of the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme. Since then, the denial of benefits to the individual has continued until their destitution has been confirmed. The police failed to assure the individual they will take no more cases against them in the courts in Jolster, Lindorff and Helse Forde have also failed to give similar guarantees justifying the individual staying in their native country to receive free medical care to avoid further cases against them in Norway should they be hospitalised there, abandoning their house in Jolster and Norwegian child.
The denial of benefits by Norway. Breach of Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. ECtHR case law
"The ECtHR found in the Gaygusuz judgment that a social security benefit constituted a ‘pecuniary right’, one of the aims of social security being to give people economic security. In the light of that judgment, there can be no doubt that social security benefits are part of an individual’s assets, as they constitute an entitlement vis-à-vis social security funds. To strip a person of that entitlement without objective justification thus violates the right to property as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights". Put more simply, most people denied benefits, welfare, healthcare become destitute and unable to work through ill health.
Article 3 of the ECHR states
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
Article 8 of the convention states
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence".
Article 13 of the convention states
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
The individual's own attempt to issue a writ versus the Kingdom of Norway failed when, Oslo City Court, in 2015, a Judge of the Court refused to hear the case.
Meanwhile, "Persons deemed, for National Insurance purposes, to be resident in Norway. Persons who are resident in Norway are as a rule obliged to be members of the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme, cf. the National Insurance Act section 21. A person is deemed to be resident if his/her stay in Norway is intended or has lasted for at least 12 months. It is a condition that the person in question has a residence permit in Norway Membership applies irrespective of the employees ’citizenship and the employer’s nationality."
So, after the individual's residence permit application had failed, they remained "living in Norway for tax purposes" even though Norway was a country where they could no longer legally live. They were forced to continue contributing to the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme of which they now, since they lacked a residence permit, could no longer be members. The individual had previously been registered as living in Norway.
The entities covered by this case are
UDI https://www.udi.no/en/ which awards or denies residence permits / registration certificates / work permits etc.
Skatteetaten https://www.skatteetaten.no which decides when an individual is resident in Norway for tax purposes and if they must contribute to the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme as well as assessing an individual's income and issuing tax demands.
Jolster Kommune https://www.jolster.kommune.no which forcibly goes into individuals' bank accounts and removes contributions to the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme even if the individual is not registered as living in Norway or a member of the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme.
Police https://www.politiet.no play a role in administering residency and court cases
HELFO https://www.helfo.no administer access to medical care
NAV https://www.nav.no administer access to welfare, sick pay, unemployment benefit, residency, membership of the Norwegian National Insurance Scheme and pensions. The individual's 2017 complaint to NAV was only registered as a complaint 14 months after it was sent.
Sogn og Fjordane Tingrett https://www.domstol.no/no/Enkelt-domstol/Sogn-og-Fjordane-tingrett/ hears cases in Sogn og Fjordane
Intrum (Lindorff AS debt collectors merged with Justitia to become "Intrum") https://www.unglobalcompact.org/participation/report/cop/create-and-submit/learner/329701
In this support for human rights.
I'm amazed the Bodnariu's case was not raised at this meeting https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=22835&LangID=E