The dismissed officer was upheld: – My client can walk with a straight back

The highly decorated officer was decommissioned in August last year. In October this year, the entire conflict unfolded in an eight-day trial. Now the Oslo district court has ruled that this decision is invalid and that he must get his position back. Elisabeth Stenwig at the Government Attorney says in a short comment that they will decide on the appeal within the deadline. – Not illegal retaliation At the same time, the officer’s claim that he was subjected to illegal retaliation on the part of the Armed Forces is not upheld. Therefore, the Norwegian Armed Forces do not have to pay compensation either, according to the Oslo District Court. But the court believes that the Norwegian Armed Forces must pay the man’s legal costs of over NOK 1.1 million. – He can walk with a straight back The man’s lawyer, Edvard Bakke, says that he is very satisfied with the sentence. – My client can now walk with a straight back because a unanimous district court has determined that there was no legal basis for depriving him of his position, says Bakke. Bakke says that they will consider in more detail the part of the judgment that deals with retaliation. – This is nevertheless of secondary importance for my client, says Bakke. Bitter conflict It was reported in August last year that he was dismissed on the day due to poor leadership skills. It happened shortly after he had sent in a notice against Major General Elisabeth Michelsen. After this, he filed a lawsuit against the Norwegian Armed Forces. During an eight-day trial, details of a working environment were revealed, where the safety representative said that “the employees walked like zombies.” HARD AGAINST THE DEFENSE: Lawyer Edvard Bakke represented the dismissed officer. Photo: Dag Kessel / news Fears for the Armed Forces’ operational ability It also emerged that the Armed Forces believed the relationship of trust between the officer and Michelsen was so bad that it could affect the Armed Forces’ operational ability. The dismissal took place half a year after the outbreak of war in Ukraine. The defense believed there was a great risk that the officer’s department would not function as expected when the relationship of trust between central commanders was so poor. This is to some extent rejected by the Oslo district court, which believes that “the dismissal decision was built on an unjustifiable factual basis.” Internal criticism in the Defense Forces The Defence’s own internal audit has revealed serious shortcomings in the Defence’s handling of the conflict. An outside law firm also dismissed a number of allegations made against the officer by one of his subordinates. In the judgment from the Oslo District Court, there is very harsh criticism of the Defense for “lack of contradiction”, that is to say that the accused has not been allowed to give his answer. The court believes that the officer has not been told enough about what is at the basis of the accusations of a poor working environment. – Exposed to intrigue During the entire trial, it turned out that the parties have very different opinions about who was responsible for the poor working environment. Michelsen believes there is overwhelming documentation that he did not have the ability and will to rectify what she believes was a very poor working environment at the department. The officer’s lawyer, Edvard Bakke, however, believes that he was exposed to intrigue and unfair criticism. – It is also clear that a manager is completely put out when he receives an unjustified notice against him, and is opposed by his own subordinates, Bakke said during the trial. – Not illegal retaliation There was great interest in the trial because it is precisely Major General Elisabeth Michelsen who has been appointed to lead the Norwegian Armed Forces’ work against bullying and harassment. It therefore caused a stir when the officer’s lawsuit was, among other things, about what he believes to be illegal retaliation after reporting her. This is rejected by the Oslo District Court. The court believes that there can be no evidence that the dismissal is the result of retaliation. WAS PARTIALLY GRANTED: Elisabeth Stenwig at the Government Attorney. Photo: Dag Kessel / news Considering appeal For both parties, there are important principles at stake. There is therefore great interest in whether any of the parties appeal. Lawyer Elisabeth Stenwig at the Government Attorney’s Office says that she is satisfied with the part of the judgment that states that no illegal retaliation has occurred. As for the decision that the dismissal is invalid, she says that they will decide on the appeal within the deadline.



ttn-69