PRESS RELEASE FROM BAUDENBACHER LAW AG. RECEIVED ON 09 JULY 2025
What is the NAV scandal? The NAV scandal came to light in 2019. It stemmed from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration’s (NAV) misinterpretation of European Economic Area (EEA) regulations, specifically regarding the eligibility of social security benefits for individuals residing in other EEA countries. In response, the Norwegian government established an investigative committee, which released the “Blindsonen” report in 2020, highlighting the widespread institutional shortcomings. NAV incorrectly required recipients of certain benefits—such as sickness and care allowances—to remain in Norway, leading to over 80 wrongful convictions for social security fraud, 7,510 people have so far been identified as affected, and 793 individuals being unjustly ordered to repay benefits. NAV’s error may have been present since the EEA agreement’s implementation in 1994.
Source: NewsinEnglish, Rett24, Frifagbevegelse, Khrono, VG, NAV, NRK, and TV2.
Baudenbacher Law AG has on 9 June 2025 lodged two complaints to the European Court
of Human Rights.
1.
The first applicant, was under police investigation and charged for social security fraud, deprived of social security benefits for five years and was requested to pay back large sums of money. She is a 100% disabled mother of three young children which endured a decade-long battle due to serious errors by the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV). She initially received welfare benefits starting in April 2010, but NAV later accused her of fraud for living in Spain and demanded repayment of benefits from 2013 to
2015—totaling 182,058 NOK plus interest.
Despite being legally entitled to support, NAV withheld her benefits from May 2015 to February 2020, amounting to approximately 2.3 million NOK including interest. The errors left the family in severe financial distress, forcing them to sell their home and belongings to survive. The situation caused significant psychological harm to the mother and her family, including suicidal thoughts. NAV’s actions created a vicious cycle: the family couldn’t afford to return to Norway, which NAV then used as a reason to deny further benefits.
NAV unlawfully gathered personal information from the family’s community and even their doctor, and filed a police report based on this data. They also secretly collected IP addresses of welfare recipients, including the mother’s, without legal grounds. These actions led to the mother being criminally charged and further deepened the family’s trauma.
The first applicant’s human rights under Article 3, 6, 7, 8, 13 and Protocol 1, Article 1 are violated. In Norwegian courts, none of these, except Protocol 1, Article 1 were found to be violated. The Applicant has not received redress for non-pecuniary loss.
2.
The second applicant was in 2016 wrongfully sentenced to five months imprisonment for aggravated fraud and social security fraud. He served 85 days in total, first 12 days at low-security llseng Prison and then 73 days at HaIden maximum-security prison, where he was put in the department for sex-offenders.
Due to poor health, heightened anxiety, and his bipolar disorder, which at the time manifested itself in a depressive state and was at a risk to be exacerbated, the Applicant requested to postpone serving the sentence. A specialist in clinical adult recommended to avoid incarceration, stating that “it is not advisable for the patient to serve his sentence, given his current state of health”. The Applicant, a former professional athlete, had recently undergone an operation on his foot when he was sent for incarceration, requiring
him to walk on crutches. The Applicant did not receive adequate treatment, as evidenced by the prison logs and later hospital records. He never saw a doctor, only the prison nurse, and never got adequate painkillers or treatment. He had severe foot pains during the entire prison stay. Within four months of being released, the Applicant’s condition worsened so much that a part of his foot was amputated in October 2018. The prison and health journals confirm that he suffered from pain, dizziness, mental problems, and claustrophobic attacks during his time in prison.
The second Applicant was also subjected to regular full-body strip searches while imprisoned, in direct violation of ECHR art 3. violations. The Applicant was of extremely poor health during his entire prison time and posed no threat to prison security. The Applicant argued in Norwegian courts that his treatment in prison violated ECHR Art. 3 on prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, but was rejected in this. He has only received a symbolic compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
3.
The Norwegian state had to admit that it violated the EEA Agreement since its entry into force on 1 January 1994 by making welfare payments conditional on physical presence of beneficiaries on Norwegian soil. The domestic courts too had to acknowledge the systematic violation, but denied any culpability of the Government and the NAV leadership.
In Norway, the separation of powers is undermined by the systematic appointment of judges who have been socialized as bureaucrats and are close to the state. This is incompatible with the requirement of a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. A recent example of this is the appointment of Therese Steen on 20.06.2025 to the Supreme Court, a bureaucrat who was the Director General at the Prime Minister’s office from 2018-2024. 12 Particularly serious is the appointment of lawyers who have been molded by the state attorney (Regjeringsadvokaten). This group of around 50 lawyers has made it its mission to fight private and business operators mercilessly and relentlessly in Norwegian and international courts.
The request to refer questions to the EFTA Court was also rejected without reasons. In the NAV scandal, the Ministry of Justice and the Regjeringsadvokaten advised NAV and the government throughout the entire period of systematic violations of the law, i.e. for around 30 years. They devised the best strategy and recommended how to violate the Convention and EEA law.
Both applicants have suffered a denial of justice in Norwegian courts, partly because of the State Attorneys diverse participation in the NAV case. Despite testifying under oath about being wrongfully charged and subjected to illegal surveillance by NAV, the Applicant’s claims were dismissed. The State Attorney actively defended these violations, falsely claiming the IP surveillance was legal and misrepresenting her arguments under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The State Attorney not only ignored key facts, including the interrogation of her doctor and the wrongful criminal charge. They also relied on a secret 2014 government report—partly authored by State Attorney staff themselves—that laid the groundwork for restricting welfare abroad. These same individuals are now defending the State in court, raising serious concerns about conflict of interest and bad faith. The Courts allow this. The Supreme Court’s Appeals Committee, consisting of three former bureaucrats, denied the appeal without explanation, leaving the first applicant without redress and reinforcing a pattern of institutional injustice.
