The case has not ‘ended’:
 27 August Application to Supreme Court for Review of Breivik Judgement.
On 27 August 2012 an application was filed with the Norwegian Supreme Court for Review of the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement, to set aside (A) the Necessity ruling, and (B) the conviction and Remit to Oslo District Court for hearing of further evidence to conclude Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Evidentiary Enquiry. The finding of guilt, in the absence of full Objective and Subjective Necessity Test Conclusions renders the Guilt Finding Inadequate.
Additionally the application for review also requested an Order to Set Aside the Oslo District Court: Breivik Judgement’s failure to disclose the pending Judicial Ethics violation complaint against Judge Wenche Arntzen, filed on 06 June 2012 to the Supervisory Committee for Judges (Case 2012-072 ), as a violation of Aarhus Convention Article 3.(3)(4)(5) and general ECHR public accountability transparency (Lithgow & Others v. United Kingdom) principles.
The Norwegian Supreme Court Registrar initially refused to respond to the Application, or to provide reasons for their refusal. A complaint of Slow Case Processing against the Supreme Court Registrar was submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 02 September 2012. On 10 September the Secretary General of the Supreme Court: Gunnar Bergby responded, by refusing to issue a case number or refer the application to another relevant court, citing alleged lack of locus standi/legal standing.
On 11 September, the applicant provided a detailed response to Mr. Gunnar Bergby, clarifying her legal standing in terms of (I) her applications to the Oslo District Court, which were never officially refused; and still pending resolution with the Supervisory Committee for Judges; and among others (II) her legal standing in terms of her ‘legal interest’ in the matter, in terms of Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Interlocutory Appeal: Section 377: An interlocutory appeal may be brought against a court order or decision by any person who is affected thereby) and The Dispute Act: Section 29-8: Legal Standing: (2): “A person who is not a party to the action may appeal against rulings that relate to their rights or obligation’. It is a matter for a court to make an impartial enquiry into any applicants alleged lack of ‘legal standing’, if or where, any respondent raises the matter as an issue of contention.
 Notifications to Norwegian Foreign Press Association (FPA)
The Norwegian Foreign Press Association as well as all their members, which include journalists from Reuters, Agence France Presse (AFP), Associated Press (AP), Al Arabija, Al Jazeera, BBC, Bloomberg, Globe and Mail, Xinhua, Die Welt, Irish Times, Himalayan Times, Itar-Tass, etc., were notified by 13:00 hrs (GM+2) on 07 September 2012 of, among others the Application for Review of Breivik Judgement filed with Norway Supreme Court.