Time and place for the trial lecture
27th of March 10:15am-11:00am in Gamle festsal. The title for the trial lecture will be: Gjør rede for rettsutviklingen for eiendomsvernet med utgangspunkt i norsk rett, og forklar i hvilke tilfeller rådighetsbegrensing kan danne grunnlag for erstatning etter en analogi av Grl. § 105 eller folkerettslige regler.
The trial lecture and the disputation can also be followed by zoom.
Adjudication committee
- Accociate professor Katrine Broch Hauge, University of Oslo (leader)
- Professor Ingunn Elise Myklebust, University of Bergen (1. opponent)
- Supreme Court judge Søren Højgaard Mørup, Supreme Court Denmark (2. opponent)
Chair of defence
- Vice Dean Ivar Alvik
Supervisors
- Professor Geir Stenseth, University of Oslo
- Professor Stig Harald Solheim, University of Tromsø
Summary
This thesis examines eminent domain regulations (NO:tilegnelsesreguleringer). In this context, these are land-use plans adopted by authorities to establish a legal basis for acquiring private property to build infrastructure—by compulsory purchase (eminent domain) if necessary. While the research focuses on road and rail infrastructure, these regulations can apply to any public project, such as schools, parks, or cemeteries.
When land-use plans for road and rail are adopted, the affected properties are effectively "locked." The owner can neither develop the property nor sell it to others at market value. In Norway, it often takes a long time—an average of ten years—before such plans are realized through formal expropriation. This thesis discusses the legal limits of the burdens a private party must endure to meet society's need for infrastructure.
Main Findings
The traditional interpretation of the Norwegian Constitution (Grunnloven) § 105 has been that landowners are not entitled to compensation until the property is formally seized by the authorities. Until then, owners have had to accept that their property is "locked" for future infrastructure purposes without any compensation.
The main finding of this thesis is that this traditional view must be qualified:
- Time as a decisive factor: The protection of property in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR P1-1) and the freedom of movement of capital under the EEA Agreement set limits on the duration of such restrictions.
- Risk of international law violations: When a property is restricted for nearly ten years without a final clarification for the owner, there is a significant risk of violating the ECHR and the EEA Agreement.
- Requirements for planning processes: Authorities can no longer leave land-use plans in a drawer for decades. They must either decide to carry out the project or repeal the plan so the owner regains control of their property.
The thesis demonstrates that Norwegian planning authorities must pay greater attention to the element of time in road and rail planning. If planning processes are prolonged, the public's need for infrastructure must eventually yield to the individual’s right to property protection. This requires more active follow-up of adopted plans and an increased awareness of the consequences these restrictions impose on individuals before expropriation occurs.