Menu - English

Pioneer Divers in the Norwegian Sector of the North Sea


OSLO COURT RULING

The Oslo Court has issued the following press release concerning the NSDA’s case against the Government of Norway:

Oslo tingrett / Oslo Courthouse

 Click to go to the official web page

 North Sea Divers claim did not succeed

The lawsuit of 19 ex-divers against the Norwegian government (Ministry of labour and social inclusion) did not succeed. The Court did not find the Government legally responsible, neither objectively nor subjectively, for their health damages.

The complaining divers were employed or contracted by diving companies and oil companies operating on the Norwegian Continental Shelf from 1964 to 2004. The Norwegian government did not employ them. Even so, the complainants claimed that the Government should be economic responsible for their health damages during this period, mainly due to the following reasons;

  • The Government did not comply with basic human rights.
  • The Government knew, but did not tell, about the risks of deep sea diving.
  • The Government acted with negligence, by not making adequate regulations to protect the divers against health damages, and by not keeping satisfactory supervision.
  • Even though the Government did not employ the divers directly, the Government was strongly involved in the petroleum sector, as owner of the natural resources, legislator, supervisor, and administrator of licenses and receiver of tax.
  • The exploration of oil and gas, and thus the deep sea diving, made the country rich and favored the whole society. The fair solution must be that health damages from diving are compensated by the collective, and not by the divers themselves.

There is no doubt, Oslo District Court acknowledges, that the pioneer divers suffered risks and health injuries due to their diving activities. However, the court cannot find legal grounds to state liability of the Government, neither objectively nor subjectively, and neither with reference to the law itself nor to previous court practice.

Subjective liability

When considering subjective liability, the court emphasizes that neither The Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority nor the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate did put aside any reasonable demands from the divers regarding supervision. Subsequently, the court states that the divers right to life were not offended. Neither were they exposed to inhuman or dishonorable treatment. Thus, the court cannot find any violation of the human right declaration.

Objective liability

Objective liability implies a legal obligation to compensate damages, even though there is not a question of “guilt”, negligence or intention to harm. In this case however, there is not a sufficient connection between the Government and the activities that injured the divers, to state such an objective liability. The role of the authorities as lawmaker, supervisor, administrator of licenses, receiver of tax and owner of the natural resources, do not itself make the Government a wrongdoer, the court underlines.

 The court underlines, however, that human considerations indicate that the objective liability could be expanded, in order to fully compensate the long-term injuries of the divers. But such an expansion in the non-legislative area of the objective liability should initially be made by the Supreme Court.

On these grounds, Oslo District Court has not found legal basis to award the plaintiffs compensation.

In response to this judgment, it clearly goes against the Royal Commission chaired by Petter A. Lossius, Judge, Borgarting Court of Appeals.

Click here to go to the official web page

Specifically the sections: 7.8 Liability issues 7.8.1 Liability for damages under Norwegian law 7.8.2 Liability for damages on the part of the Norwegian State Click here to go to the official web page

The full judgment by Oslo Court is in Norwegian and will be translated into English in due course (whenever that is). For now, the current consensus is that the Oslo Court felt that it was out of its depth on this one and is passing the buck to someone who might be up to actually making a ruling.

The indication is that the judge would have liked to rule in favor of the divers and families, but then would have been required to make a new legal precedent which could affect future rulings on similar pending cases in the court.

There are numerous paradoxes and contradictions, the most obvious one being that the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate and the labor inspection authorities are not found to be culpable for neglecting to follow through in their capacity as controlling body for the industry. In saying this, the judge is basically stating that no government control body need worry about doing a slapdash or sloppy job, because there will be no repercussions.

If taken to its extreme this verdict could then save the government several hundreds of millions of kroner, because they could get rid of ALL governmental control bodies - as they serve no practical purpose anyway.

He goes on to say that the power sharing traditions of the Norwegian authorities prevents him from ruling against any misconduct on part of the Parliament - thereby basically granting any politician immunity from prosecution for any idiotic stunt pulled while serving in the Parliament.

Another factor here is that by doing this the judge effectively ignores the fact that this is a case brought forward on the basis of the European Human Rights Convention, and that in itself precludes the case from the usual constraints of Norwegian Legislation as the convention since being signed by Norway in 1963 has had precedence over domestic Norwegian legislation.

The long and short of it all is that the verdict, in the way it is written, is designed for us to succeed when bringing the case to a higher court.

If you, like me are having difficulty in following the convoluted language and implications of this bureaucratic double speak I would refer you to an old but very good British documentary series which covered quite well this subject. It was called “Yes Minister”. The following are a couple of clips which will hopefully help you understand;

·        Yes Minister: Government Policy Policy Click here to view

·        Yes Minister: A Public Inquiry Click here to view

If any one out there is serious and can help to find the families, or who just wants more information please contact me directly:

Tom Wingen
Brunla Gård. N-3294 Stavern, Norway
Tel: (+47) 959 444 85 | E-mail: mail@pioneerdivers.org