Competition Litigation in Norway

Overview of Norwegian Civil Proceedings

Generally, Norwegian civil proceedings follow an adversarial model, although some inquisitorial elements may be present depending on the nature of the case. With few exceptions, it is up to the parties involved to decide whether to initiate or withdraw an action, as well as to determine the evidence they wish to present and the arguments they intend to invoke.

During the preparatory stage, the parties exchange written submissions outlining their claims, arguments, and supporting evidence. In the main hearing, the parties present their arguments and evidence orally. The judge adheres to the principle of free assessment of evidence, with the primary rule being that a judgment may only be based on evidence presented orally during the main hearing. This approach ensures that both parties have had ample opportunity to contest the evidence.

As a result, main hearings in Norway are characterized by relatively lengthy, continuous oral proceedings with direct presentation of evidence. The emphasis on the oral hearing and on oral witness testimony may distinguish litigation in Norway from litigation in other jurisdictions.

Notably, the Damages Directive is deemed EEA-relevant, but has yet to be implemented into EEA and transposed into Norwegian law. Implementing the Directive will necessitate various changes and amendments to existing Norwegian legislation. While no official legislative proposal has been put forward, potential modifications may include adjustments to rules concerning evidence and the statute of limitations in competition cases.

Evidence

It generally falls to the parties to decide what evidence to present and invoke, which typically takes the form of documentary evidence and factual and expert witness testimonies.

Norwegian procedural law adheres to the principle of direct presentation of evidence during oral hearings. The court is unrestricted in its assessment, and few objective criteria govern the court’s weighting and evaluation of the conflicting evidentiary facts.

In principle, the weight of all forms of evidence is freely assessed by the court based on the credibiity and reliability of the evidence.

Judges

As a main rule, cases are presided over by one judge in the first instance, three judges in the second instance, and five justices in the Supreme Court.

The disputing parties have no influence over the selection of the professional judges who will preside over the hearing, unless a disqualification motion is brought.

Norwegian judges are generalists in the sense that any judge may adjudicate any matter. In certain cases, the court will decide, and parties may request appointment of expert lay judges, which frequently happens in competition litigation cases.

Public Access

With some exceptions, oral hearings are open to the public, and the public is entitled to access court records, records of judicial mediation, judicial rulings, and statements of costs in most cases.

Business secrets will, however, be kept confidential.

Notable Private Enforcement Cases in Norway

Posten Bring vs. Truck Manufacturers

Follow-on claim in the Trucks case complex, brought to court by the Norwegian public postal service. The District Court dismissed the claim in its entirety; however, Posten was awarded compensation in the recent judgment from the Appeal Court. As of April 2025, the truck manufacturers retain the option to appeal the judgment.

Alarmkundeforeningen vs. Sector Alarm and Verisure

Follow-on from the Norwegian Competition Authority’s decisions to impose fines on residential alarm companies Sector Alarm and Verisure. It was brought to court as a class action lawsuit by Alarmkundeforeningen, an organization established specifically for this purpose. The case was discontinued following a procedural ruling from the Supreme Court regarding the funding of opt-out class actions.

Telia vs. Telenor

Follow-on claim from the Norwegian Competition Authority’s and the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s decisions against Telenor, Norway’s largest telecom provider, for abuse of dominance. The claim was initiated by Telia, the second-largest telecom provider in Norway, and is currently pending trial.

Standalone Claims

Chilimobil vs. Telenor

Chilimobil brought a claim for damages against Telenor alleging abuse of dominant position in the context of prepaid subscriptions. The court concluded that prepaid subscriptions did not represent a separate market and found no basis for a margin squeeze, resulting in Telenor being granted relief. Thommessen represented Telenor.

Emballasjegjenvinning vs. Sirkel Glass

Emballasjegjenvinning brought a claim against Sirkel Glass for abuse of dominant position related to glass packaging recycling services, seeking access to Sirkel Glass’ recycling facilities. This claim was rejected by the court. Thommessen represented Sirkel Glass.