It appears in the judgment in the so-called “Acer case”. Affiliation with the EU energy agency Acer was in fact part of the decision in 2018.
The district court believes that the Storting interpreted the second paragraph of section 26 of the Constitution correctly, and that the decision did not require more than a simple majority.
In other words, the district court believes that the Constitution was not violated when the Storting adopted the EU’s third energy package in 2018.
– I must admit that I have only read briefly through the court’s reasoning, and have not been able to review the reasoning from a to å. We believe, as we have said, that the EU’s support for Acer, the EU’s energy package, is more than paragraph 115, says leader Roy Pedersen in No to the EU to NRK.
The organization No to the EU took the state to court because they believe that the Storting used the wrong section and thus violated the constitution in the case.
– Are you going to appeal the verdict?
– We have to take a closer look at that. We will have an extraordinary board meeting on Wednesday. We have a month to decide on that, says Pedersen.
An argument about size
He maintains that No to the EU has a different opinion than the Oslo District Court in the case. Pedersen refers to the records in electricity prices, as an example of the Acer agreement is more intrusive than the district court has now ruled.
– There is a yo-yo existence in electricity prices, without the government interfering in the electricity price itself. This shows that the EU and Acer get greater support and that it is very intrusive, says Pedersen.
That Acer should have something to do with the high electricity prices, however, has little support among independent experts.
In 2018, Norway joined the EU’s third energy market package and the energy agency Acer. The “package” is a set of laws and regulations for the electricity and gas market in the EU and the EEA area.
A key point in the “package” was to make it easier to sell electricity and gas across national borders.
No to the EU believes that the decision entails such a large relinquishment of power and authority to the EU that it should have been made in accordance with section 115 of the Constitution, which requires a 3/4 majority.
The state is happy
A clear majority in the Storting, for its part, believed that the decision was “unobtrusive” and that a simple majority pursuant to section 26, second paragraph, was sufficient. The majority relied on statements from the Ministry of Justice’s law department.
No to the EU claims that since the Storting did not use the 3/4 rule, the decision is illegal. The organization will take legal action to stop the introduction of the energy market package in Norwegian law.
– The district court expresses that it does not find the Storting’s understanding of the constitution questionable in any way, writes lawyer Lisa-Mari Moen Jünge to NRK.
Jünge represents the state in the case as a legal assistant together with government lawyer Fredrik Sejersted. She says that the state is satisfied with the Oslo District Court believes that the state has not violated the constitution.
The judgment from the Oslo District Court states that the court believes that it is reasonable to exempt No to the EU from paying for the state’s legal costs.
“The case is of a principled nature, and the balance of power between the parties dictates such an exemption,” it is written in the judgment.
Long day’s journey to trial
Minister of Petroleum and Energy Marte Mjøs Persen says she has noticed the verdict from the Oslo District Court.
– It is up to No to the EU if they want to appeal the verdict. We relate to the distribution of legal costs that the district court has set up, Persen says to NRK.
There was long doubt as to whether No to the EU was allowed to advance the lawsuit at all.
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal originally believed that the organization does not have the right to bring legal action as the Acer decision does not specifically affect them.
If you are not affected, you are not a party to the case – and then you can not sue, was the logic.
However, the Supreme Court looked at the case differently. A majority (12 against 5) of the judges in our Supreme Court thought the questions raised in the case were of such a nature that the lawsuit could be advanced.
In an earlier version of this case, NRK wrote that Pedersen calls electricity prices “ko-ko”. Han sa «jojo». This has been corrected.