Six former guards are behind the lawsuit against the Department of Defense. A total of 30 were kicked out of the park in August last year for taking illegal drugs.
The six guards who are now suing the state believe they are being subjected to human rights abuses.
They believe their dismissals were invalid because the armed forces violated their own rules and Norwegian law in the process of expelling them from the armed forces. They want a court to assess that.
In addition, they are claiming compensation “for the financial loss incurred as a result of an incorrect graduation decision.”
Partner and attorney Inger Zadig at Elden Advokatfirma represents the Six Guardians.
Photo: Nader Alam/NRK
– We tried to solve this case amicably without any success, after which we have no other choice but to take the case to court to get court help to prove the human rights violations that occurred in this case, the guards’ lawyer, Inger Zadig, tells NRK.
The former guards told NRK this fall:
- The impression was given that they would get a lighter sentence if they admitted to using illegal drugs
- It appeared that the hair tests were carried out incorrectly by the commanders and not by the military police. The hair samples were not subsequently analyzed
- The impression was given that the drug use would be reported to the police if the hair samples, which had never been analyzed, showed results for narcotic substances, and they did not confess.
Zadig believes that the Norwegian Armed Forces were not allowed to do this, and that the Norwegian Armed Forces in doing so violated Norwegian law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
– The armed forces used coercive interventions that had no authority, misled and were incorrectly informed of their rights and duties, and were in a difficult and stressful situation, she said.
The defense told NRK that they have not received the lawsuit yet.
– The Ministry of Defense is not aware that legal action has been taken in this case and therefore cannot comment further on the case. We will make a decision on the lawsuit in the usual way when it is submitted to the ministry, press officer Lars Jjmpel wrote in an email.
Make a strong impression on them
The process has been criticized by both guards and experts. Several rangers in the fall asked to take back their place in the garden, but this did not lead to success.
In December last year, they were told that complaints would not be accepted. In January, they were supposed to have finished their initial service.
– The guard period in the armed forces is over now anyway – what do they want to achieve?
– It’s complicated. Among other things, they missed tuition credits, and didn’t have that year in the armed forces on their resume, Zadig says.
How did the situation affect them?
The way they were treated and portrayed in the media as almost drug addicts had a strong effect on them. They feel a deep injustice that their rights have been violated to such an extent without anyone taking care of them and making sure that everything is going well.
Defense Representative: The justification for the dismissal is not clear
Defense representative Roald Lineaker says he believes the logic used by the defense to produce 30 guards is not clear.
Defense Representative Roald Lineker
Photo: Vilma Taupo/NRK
– In general, we have the idea that we should take a closer look at the leeway that the head of the department has to resign in such cases in the future, he tells NRK.
He says that department heads have the opportunity to give what is called a disciplinary sanction to people who have acted in a way that is not necessarily punishable by civil law.
At the same time, he points out, there must be valid reasons before someone loses their job in the military:
– The Ombudsman Committee is not sure of the legal situation that led to the dismissal of staff in primary service, for example on the basis of drugs.
– What do you think about the consideration of the case in court?
– I think this might be interesting, and I hope it will clarify as well. Then we try the case as to which legal opinion should apply.
“Coffee trailblazer. Certified pop culture lover. Infuriatingly humble gamer.”
