Correspondence from Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint Regarding the Appeals Board for Environmental Information.
Reference is made to your letter 11 November 2012 and complaints form 12 November 2012 where your complaint about a decision made 10 September 2012 by the Norwegian Appeals Board for Environmental Information. In the decision the Appeals Board find that your "appeals are denied as not justified."
According to the Civil Ombudsman Act section 6 paragraph 4 the Ombudsman "shall decide whether there are sufficient grounds for dealing with a complaint". The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.
Your case at the Ombudsman's office against the Appeals Board for Environmental Information is hereby concluded.
Response from Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint on Supreme Court of Norway.
Reference is made to your letter 2. September 2012 with attachments, and previous correspondence, last our letter 11. July 2012.
Your complaint regards Supreme Court's omission to provide your application with a case number. You have applied for a review of the Breivik Judgement.
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about the public authorities and aims to right individual wrongs and injustices. However, with reference to the Act concerning the Storting's Ombudsman for Public Administration, section 4, first paragraph, litra c), decisions of the courts of law can not be handled by the Ombudsman. Therefore, neither your complaint regarding the omission to provide you with a number nor your application for a review of the Breivik case, will not be examined by the Ombudsman.
the case does not give reason for more from the Ombudsman. Future ltters from you regarding the Breivik case will be recorded and read, but you can not expect any answers from here.
Subject: RE: [12.-09] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
Espen Eiken: The decisions of the Supervisory Committee for Judges are always written in Norwegian. There has never been a tradition to write the decisions in English even if the complaint is in English. There was no individual person who decided that the decisions should be made in Norwegian. The Committee has no arrangement for translating its decisions. It is therefore assumed that the complainants provides necessary translations. The Supervisory Committee have not received any statements from the parties.
Lara Johnstone: So, are you saying that the Supervisory Committee for Judges who dealt with my complaints cannot speak or write English? Who translated my complaint for them, or did they just ignore it, cause they do not speak English, and refuse all complaints that are not in Norwegian? Surely if a court accepts a complaint written in a particular language, then they should provide the speaker of such language with the response in their language, or they should inform the complainant to fuck off, because they refuse to accept complaints in any language except Norwegian? How did the Justices know what the complaint was about, if they cannot speak English? Does the Supervisory Committee for Judges accept complaints in English? If so, how can they justify providing a ruling that is not in the language of the complaint? Either they should only accept complaints in Norwegian, or if they accept complaints in other languages, then they should provide a ruling in that particular language?
Correspondence to Ms. Eiken: Subject: [12.-09] RE: Tilsynsutvalget for dommere - Klage: Justice Tore Schei, Judge Wenche Arntzen, Judge Nina Opsahl
I have received the rulings. Thank you.
1. Could you clarify why they are in Norwegian?
2. Could you clarify who the person was who made the decision that the rulings should be made in Norwegian
3. Could you provide an English translation?
4. If not, could you provide me with the name of the person who refuses to provide an English translation.
5. Finally: Could you also confirm whether the Supervisory Committee received any verbal or written statements from the parties; and if so, why such statements were not provided to me.
Espen Eiken: 03 Sep: "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."
Decision by Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint Regarding the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission.
Reference is made to your letter 3 November 2012 where you seem to be asking for assistance from the Ombudsman in regards to slow case processing by The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission (PFU).
According to the Act concerning the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration 29 June 1962 No. 8 ("The Ombudsman Act") Section 4, the Ombudsman may consider complaints regarding "public services". Hence, the Ombudsman may investigate most types of matters that have been dealt with and decided on by Norwegian public authorities. Private disputes and questions regarding private associations and organisations, on the other hand, fall outside his jurisdiction. The Norwegian Press Complaints Commission (PFU) was established by the Norwegian Press Association and is not consider part of public administration.
Based on the above, your letter cannot be dealt with by the Ombudsman.
Complaint (PDF) submitted to Ombudsman of Slow Case Processing by PFU: Press Complaints Commission: RE: Appeal to PFU Sec.Gen. ITO Public Admin Act (S.23,24,25) & Freedom of Info Act (S.2): Case 239/12; Re: Complaint: News & Views from Norway: News in English Article.
Appeal to Secretary General for Access to Information; in terms of (i) Statutes of the Press Complaints Commission, Section 4; (ii) Public Administration Act (PAA), section 23, 24, 25, and (iii) Freedom of Information Act: Section 2.
Relief Requested: Order the: (A) Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association to provide complainant with their Written Reasons for their 28 August 2012 decision to refuse my representation that special circumstances of journalistic/editorial ethics warrant that my complaint (Case 239/12 - Lara Johnstone vs. Views and News from Norway) be processed in the absence of Mr. Breivik’s consent.
Alternatively, (B) If the Secretariat of the Norwegian Press Association are sincerely concerned about the reasons for Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent; that the Committee ask Mr. Breivik to provide the Committee with an argument upon which he justifies his lack of consent; which would provide the Committee with a better understanding and an opportunity to reassess their 28 August decision whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved.
Complaint (PDF) to Parliamentary Ombudsman of Slow Case Processing by Supreme Court: Secretary General: Gunnar Bergby: Re: Request for Statute Granting Sec Gen Authority to make ruling on Legal Standing:
On 27 September Petitioner filed an Application for Review of ‘Breivik Judgement’ filed with Supreme Court Registrar on 27 August 2012 to Set Aside the Judgements (1) ‘Necessity (Nodrett) Ruling’ and (2) Defendant’s Conviction (Finding of Guilt) and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of Further Evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. A complaint of slow case processing was filed with the Ombudsman on 02 September 2012.
On 10 September, Secretary General Gunnar Bergby issued a ruling denying Petitioners’s Application for review citing Petitioner’s alleged lack of legal standing.
On 11 September, Petitioner filed a request for clarification of the ruling, requesting among others the specific statute that grants a Sec. Gen. the authority to make a ruling on legal standing, when, this is generally a matter that is decided upon by a court, if the respondent party raises it as a matter of dispute.
No response has been received to petitioner’s 08 October reminder letter.
Supv. Comm. for Judges: Ruling: Breivik Case Irregularities Complaints Against Judges Opsahl, Arntzen and Schei
[Received 03 November] On 23 October, the Supervisory Committee for Judges changed their minds and decided they were not going to process the complaints. Previously they had said that the complaints would be processed, whereby all the Judges would be required to submit a statement about their reasons, in accordance to the issues raised in the complaints.
However the Supervisory Committee for Judges now decided that all the Judges do not have to submit their affidavits, and the complaints will be ruled as 'obviously unfounded'.
The decision by the Committee is in Norwegian (I have not translated all of it yet): Judge Opsahl (PDF), Judge Arntzen (PDF), Justice Schei (PDF).
RH Data Archive:
Radical Honoursty Eco-Feminist legal applications and complaints submitted to Norwegian and European Authorities in the Norway v. Breivik trial.