173 Heyesterett distanserte seg fra den oppfatning av eiendomsrettens urkrenkelighet somMorgenstierne hadde artikulert innen statsrettend'° Den skarpe politiske strid om den nye, intervensjonistiske star og dens forhold til de ervervede rettigheter, utlost av konsesjonslovgivningen, ble bilagt av Hoyesterett ved at det formulerte en moderne eiendomsrett. H0yesterett bante derved vei for en sterkere politisk begrensning av eidendomsretten, samtidig som provingsretten ble understreket, men ikke benyttet i denne saken. Forkortelser: Rt - Norsk Retstidende UfL — Ugeblad for Lovkyndighed, Statistik og Statsokonomi St.-E- Storthings-Efterretninger St.-F— Storthings-Forhandlinger St.-T—Stortingstidende. Summary The Norwegian Supreme Court andJudicial Review 1850—1920 The right of the Supreme Court (H0yesterett) to review the constitutionality of laws passed by Parliament {Stortinget) was established very early in the Norwegian political system. The only Supreme Court recognised to have such a power earlier was that of the United States. The theory explaining the historical growth of the right of judicial review in Norway which is dominant today in academic circles was devised by a historian, Jens Arup Seip, and a lawyer, Torstein Eckhoff, both professors at Oslo University. Seip and Eckhoff explain the appearance of judicial review in the Norwegian political systemas a means of defending conservative political interests, deemed necessary as a result of the arrival of parliamentary democracy in 1884. The article evaluates this historical theory. The author bases his argument on an analysis of case law, legal theory and public records of contemporary political debates. In the analysis of the case law, special reference is made to two judgments of the Supreme Court, delivered on February 1st, 1854 and November 1st, 1866. In both of these cases the majority of the Court ruled that legislation was incompatible with the Constitution. While the earlier judgment made no reference as to why the Court considered it was entitled to exercise this power, the later judgment contained an explicit formulation of the Court’s competence in this regard. Thus, an examination of the case law of the Supreme Court shows that the power of judicial review was firmly established several decades before 1884. Se B. Morgenstierne, L^rebog i den norske Statsforfatningsret, 2. utg. (1909), s. 658 ff, og «Om individuelle nxringsrettigheters uangripelighet», Rt. 1915, s. 1041 ff. - I den unyanserte historieskrivning om norsk konservativ stats- og rettstenkning sammenstilles ofte Morgenstierne og Aschehoug. Men det er i flere vesentlige henseender en misvisende sammenstilling. Omgrunnlovens § 105 mente således Aschehoug at den muliggjorde sosialisme i form av et statlig produksjonsmonopol ved et forhud, uten erstatning, mot all privat produksjon {Socialokonomik, hd. 1 (1903), s. 340 f.)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=