courts of appeal in norway * This article is a slightly modified version of an article published in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 83 (2015) p. 461-486. 1 A detailed overview over the competences of the Norwegian Supreme Court compared to other European Supreme Courts is contained in Sunde, Jørn Øyrehagen 2015 p. 53 ff. 2 Cf. Case Taxquet v. Belgium. See the response to this case in the Norwegian literature: Rui, Jon Petter 2009 pp. 229-251; Backer, Inge Lorange 2009 pp. 301-330; Strandbakken, Asbjørn 2009 pp. 101-109. 3 The Norwegian Supreme Court stated in two decisions that the Norwegian jury-system does not violate art. 6ECHR. Norsk Rettstidene (Rt.) [Norwegian Law Review] 2009 p. 750 and 773. It was, however, made clear that the legislator may choose to regulate the re280 oday the norwegiancourt system can be – to some extent simplified – described as one pyramidal hierarchy with one Supreme Court on top, six appellate courts on the regional level T and 66 local courts as courts of first instance. In general, there are neither specialized branches of courts on each of this levels nor specialized bodies in the courts themselves. As a consequence, the competences of the courts are very wide. This applies especially for the Supreme Court. This court has a general competence to review both the application of law and the facts of the case.1 This all-compassing competence, which is quite unique compared to other Supreme Courts in Europe, has just one exception. In major criminal cases the participation of lay judges at the level of appeal courts is mandatory. The verdict of this jury is binding even for the Supreme Court. This juridical structure is to a certain extent the result of an ideal that the people’s participation in juridical decisions would lead to fairer outcomes. In the nineteenth century this opinion was based on observations regarding the court order in the early Middle Ages. Deeply embedded in an unhistorical perception of the Norwegian culture, this ideal is still an obstacle to necessary legal reforms. This can be demonstrated by the politicians’ unwillingness to revise the traditional jury-system in criminal cases despite the fact that judgments from the ECtHR,2 the Norwegian Supreme Court3 and recommendations of seIntroduction
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=