Historic trial: The state won a lawsuit against Eyasu

The Norwegian Immigration Service (UNE) believed that the Constitution was violated when the Norwegian authorities wanted to deport Eyasu Tewelde Tsegay from Norway. The state sued Tsegay to have the decision overturned, and now the Oslo District Court has ruled in favor of the state.

The District Court believes that expelling Tsegay is not contrary to the Constitution’s provision that a law cannot be given retroactive effect.

The court reached the same conclusion in a case that was heard at the same time, where a Chinese citizen had sued the state to have a deportation decision declared invalid.

– The court considers that there are elements of retroactivity in the cases, but that there is no question of unlawful retroactivity, the judgment states.

This is the crux of the matter:

• On 1 November 2018, a new provision was introduced in the Immigration Act.
• It states that a foreigner who has been refused refugee status because of a serious crime can be deported.
• The question is whether this provision provides grounds for deportation – even in cases where the criminal acts were committed before the change in the law came into force.

The Norwegian authorities believed that actions Tsegay had committed when he was serving in the compulsory national service, which, among other things, is responsible for defending the country’s borders, had to be considered torture and inhumane treatment.

This happened several years before Tsegay came to Norway, and before the change in the law in 2018.

When a grand panel of the Norwegian Immigration Service dealt with the case last year, the majority concluded that deportation was contrary to the Constitution’s provision that no laws shall have retroactive effect. Thus, it annulled the deportation decision.

In the case of the Chinese citizen, who was deported for criminal offenses committed in Norway almost twenty years ago, the grand jury came to the opposite outcome. In this case, the deportation decision is upheld after the acquittal by the state.

The case against Tsegay is the first of its kind in Norwegian legal history.

The court points out that for retroactivity to be considered unlawful in such cases, it must be “clearly unreasonable or unfair”.

– That is not the case in the cases, concludes the judge.

The District Court writes in the judgment that it is not a question of Tsegay or the Chinese citizen having to leave Norway because of the decision on deportation.

– They are both protected against return, and have a right to stay in Norway as long as the return protection remains in place. As they only have temporary residence in Norway, regardless of the deportation decision, they would have to leave the country when return protection ceases.

According to the judgment, the main consequence of the decision is that they will not be granted residence on other grounds, should they apply for it.

– In addition, they are subject to an entry ban. In the court’s view, this cannot be considered particularly invasive as they have never had permanent residence in Norway and both come from countries where a visa is required for entry in the first place.

Lawyer Bjørn Vagle, who represents Tsegay, informs VG that a decision has not yet been taken on whether the verdict should be appealed.

– We disagree with the reasoning and the outcome, he writes in a text message.

Director of Communications Bjørn Lyster at the Immigration Board says this about the judgement:

– In one case, UNE won, and in the other we are not a party. It is therefore not up to us to make any appeal assessment. We now have to wait and see if the verdict becomes final or not.

The Ministry of Justice and Emergency Preparedness informs VG that they have no comments on the verdict.

• Copy link
• Copy link
• share on Facebook
• share on Facebook
• Share by email
• Share by email