Issued dealt with in attached PDF:
* Relief Requested:
* Legal Standing: Party in Proceedings:
* Legal Standing: Legal Interest ITO (1) ECHR: ARTICLE 13: Right to an effective remedy and (2) ECHR: ARTICLE 14: Prohibition of discrimination
* Request Norwegian Court Officials Provide Consideration to my Review Application, equivalent to the Consideration Given by Military Judge Lind in the Bradley Manning Courtmartial to Letters from Center for Constitutional Rights.
* Judicial Review vs. Appeal Options: Norwegian Justices Confirm Availability of Judicial Review in Norwegian Courts:
1. Former President of Norwegian Supreme Court Justice Carsten Smith, in "Judicial Review of Parliamentary Legislation: Norway as a European pioneer" (Amicus Curiae, Issue 32, November 2000)
2. Chief Justice of the Norway Supreme Court: Tore Schei's, 4 October 2007 letter to President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice Schei discusses how “... we will give a brief overview of the system of judicial review in Norway.."
3. Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius's letter to the Council of Europe, Venice Commission, where she elucidates on "Judicial Review within a Unified Court System".
* Options for Proceeding with the Application for Judicial Review of the Breivik Judgement in terms of Norwegian Legislation:
(I) Review Application interpreted in terms of Article 13 ECHR read in conjunction with Protocol 7 ECHR and the EFTA Courts Judicial Review Posten Norge Judgement; effectively interpreted as the Right to Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision or a Court Order.
(II) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 306
(III) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 377
(IV) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 389
(V) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO The Dispute Act: Section 29-8 (2)
The Review application can be processed in accordance with any, or a combination of the aforementioned statutory guidelines, referring me either to the Interlocutory Court in terms of Sections 381 to 388, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (Section 389), a relevant Appeals Court.
What the court cannot do, is to deny me due process access to a court. I cannot find any statutory authority that allows a Secretary General to deny me due process access to a court, to make a judicial finding on legal standing (if or where any respondent so demands) in the official proceedings.
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:04 AM
To: Helga Mærde Gruer; 'SecGen: Gunnar Bergby'
Cc: Crt: SupremeCrt: Registrar; Ch.Justice Tore Schei; Dep.Sec.Gen: Kjersti Buun Nygaard; Svein Tore Andersen; Kjersti Ruud
Subject: Response to Sec.Gen G.Bergby decision of 09.09.2012 in Review of Breivik Judgement Application (2011-188627-24)
Gunnar Bergby
Secretary-General / President
Supreme Court of Norway
Secretary General Bergby,
Re: Sec.Gen decision of 09.09.2012, to Application for review of Oslo District Court's judgment of 24 August 2012 (2011-188627-24)
Relief Requested:
Could you kindly provide me with the relevant statute in Norway that provides the Secretary General the authority to refuse to process a case, citing lack of locus standi/legal standing; thereby denying such applicant due process access to be heard by an impartial court?
It is my understanding – perhaps incorrect - that it is not a matter for the Secretary General to make a final ruling on the relevant locus standi / legal interest of any party in any dispute. See for example:
Scottish Salmon Growers Association Limited v. EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-2/94): “The Court finds that this principle must also apply when considering … whether a measure is reviewable and who has locus standi to bring an action for annulment of a decision.” (11)
Private Barnehagers Landsforbund v EFTA Surveillance Authority, supported by Kingdom of Norway (Case E-5/07): The court finds…. “In Husbanken I, it was sufficient for the association whose complaint had been at the origin of the case to show that the legitimate interests of its members were affected by the decision, by affecting their position on the market; and that in this case, where the decision was a decision not to object to State aid, locus standi could even arise alone from the facts that the association was, as a representative of its members, at the origin of the complaint, that it was heard in the procedure and that information was gathered from the State in question” (66)
According to Hans Chr. Bugge, Professor of Environmental Law at the Department of Public and International Law, University of Oslo, in his article: General background: Legal remedies and locus standi in Norwegian law:
"The general criterion for locus standi in civil court cases in Norway is that the plaintiff must have "legal interest" in the case. (Art. 54 of the Civil Proceedings Act.) The dispute must be a live controversy, and the plaintiff must have a sufficiently close connection to the subject matter so as to justify the court's treatment of the dispute. There is no clear definition or delimitation of the concept. Whether a person has "legal interest" is decided discretionary in each case, and depends on individual circumstances. The core question to ask is whether the person has reasonable grounds for having the issue tried by a court. To have "legal interest" to have a matter tried by the courts, the plaintiff must be affected by the matter to such an extent that it justifies the use of the court system. Interests which are only based on public or common rights, such as the public right of way, may be accepted if they are strong enough."
I cannot find any ruling or decision on locus standi, where it says the ‘Secretary General’ of the Courts Administration Act, ruled on a matter of locus standi. All of the locus standi decisions I could find in Norwegian law, all clearly indicate that the matter is heard by the court, not by the Secretary General of Courts Administration.
In the absence of any statutory authority granting you the Secretary General the authority to make a decision on locus standi, as far as I am aware, the matter of locus standi is consequently a matter that is dealt with by the court, not the Secretary General, or any court administration official.
Legal Standing: Party in Proceedings:
Additionally, if there is such statutory authority granting Secretary Generals the authority to adjudicate matters of locus standi, thereby denying an applicant their hearing on a matter of locus standi by an impartial court; could you also provide me with the following evidence, to support your official decision to deny my application due process before an impartial court of law:
1. The court transcript of the day upon which Judge Nina Opsahl publicly acknowledged receipt of my Habeus Mentem (Right of Legal Sanity on behalf of Mr. Breivik) application in open court proceedings, including her interpretation of how my application was interpreted by the court (eg. intervene as a party), and the subsequent ruling by the court, approving or denying my application and decisions therefore; hence confirming my alleged ‘non-party’ status, in this matter.
2. The court transcript of the day upon which Judge Wench Arntzen publicly acknowledged receipt of my Amicus Curiae application in open court proceedings, including her interpretation of how my application was interpreted by the court, and the subsequent ruling by the court, approving or denying my application and hence confirming my alleged ‘non-party’ status, in this matter.
In the absence of such evidence provided to the Supreme Court by the Oslo District Court, proving that my Habeus Mentem and Amicus Curiae applications were provided impartial due process consideration and adjudication; those matters regarding my legal standing status as a ‘party, or not’ to the proceedings, remain unresolved, and can only be resolved before an impartial court.
Furthermore, according to 03 September 2012 correspondence from the Supervisory Committee for Judges, the status of the complaints against Judge Opsahl, Judge Arntzen and Justice Schei for denying me my due process right of access to a court to resolve my disputes, are as follows:
“Your complaints have been given the case numbers 12-071 (Judge Nina Opsahl), 12-072 (Judge Wenche E. Arntzen) and 12-073 (Justice Tore Schei). The complete handling time can be close to six months.
If a party have given a statement in the case, these will be provided the complainant. The Supervisory Committee has not received statements from the other parties involved."
Other issues dealt with in attached PDF:
* Legal Standing: Legal Interest ITO (1) ECHR: ARTICLE 13: Right to an effective remedy and (2) ECHR: ARTICLE 14: Prohibition of discrimination
* Request Norwegian Court Officials Provide Consideration to my Review Application, equivalent to the Consideration Given by Military Judge Lind in the Bradley Manning Courtmartial to Letters from Center for Constitutional Rights.
* Judicial Review vs. Appeal Options: Norwegian Justices Confirm Availability of Judicial Review in Norwegian Courts:
1. Former President of Norwegian Supreme Court Justice Carsten Smith, in "Judicial Review of Parliamentary Legislation: Norway as a European pioneer" (Amicus Curiae, Issue 32, November 2000)
2. Chief Justice of the Norway Supreme Court: Tore Schei's, 4 October 2007 letter to President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice Schei discusses how “... we will give a brief overview of the system of judicial review in Norway.."
3. Supreme Court Justice: Karen Bruzelius's letter to the Council of Europe, Venice Commission, where she elucidates on "Judicial Review within a Unified Court System".
* Options for Proceeding with the Application for Judicial Review of the Breivik Judgement in terms of Norwegian Legislation:
(I) Review Application interpreted in terms of Article 13 ECHR read in conjunction with Protocol 7 ECHR and the EFTA Courts Judicial Review Posten Norge Judgement; effectively interpreted as the Right to Judicial Review of an Administrative Decision or a Court Order.
(II) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 306
(III) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 377
(IV) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO Criminal Procedure Act Section 389
(V) If Review Application is Interpreted ITO The Dispute Act: Section 29-8 (2)
The Review application can be processed in accordance with any, or a combination of the aforementioned statutory guidelines, referring me either to the Interlocutory Court in terms of Sections 381 to 388, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (Section 389), a relevant Appeals Court.
What the court cannot do, is to deny me due process access to a court. I cannot find any statutory authority that allows a Secretary General to deny me due process access to a court, to make a judicial finding on legal standing (if or where any respondent so demands) in the official proceedings.
Respectfully Submitted
LARA JOHNSTONE, Pro Se
PO Box 5042, George East, 6539