OSLO NEC - SUPREME COURT HEARING CONCLUDES, OUTCOME

UNCLAS OSLO 000363

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ABLD AMGT KLIG NO
SUBJECT: OSLO NEC - SUPREME COURT HEARING CONCLUDES, OUTCOME
UNCERTAIN

REF: A) Oslo 110
B) 08 Oslo 501 and previous


1. (SBU) Summary: From May 12 - 14, opponents of the NEC sparred
with GON lawyers before Norway's Supreme Court, contending that the
Oslo City Council's rezoning decision in favor of the NEC should be
overturned. After three appeals spanning the period 2006 - 08, all
of them unsuccessful, our opponents tried a new tack: arguing that
the City had devoted insufficient consideration to alternative NEC
sites prior to voting. The GON showed that, in fact, the embassy
had given careful consideration to over two dozen properties, but it
is neither common nor practical to require a formal study of
alternative locations prior to voting on a rezoning proposal.
Moreover, GON attorneys pointed out that the City Council had
explicitly rejected a proposal to investigate alternative properties
more thoroughly. We are guardedly optimistic the high court will
rule in our favor, putting an end to four years of ongoing
litigation. End Summary.


2. (U) A five-judge panel of randomly selected supreme court judges
received written testimony and heard oral arguments by opposing
attorneys from May 12 - 14. Our opponents' lawyer, in asking the
court to overturn the Oslo City Council's decision in December 2005
to rezone the NEC site, once again raised the issue of a lack of a
formal environmental assessment prior to the vote four years ago.
He highlighted the existence of a suitable NEC site in Nordby, a
forested plot of land several miles west of the Oslo city limits,
arguing that the City Council had paid inadequate attention to
alternative locations. At times the lawyer all but accused the
Embassy of having misled the city.


3. (U) Attorneys representing the GON reminded the court that all
of the information required for a formal environmental assessment
had already been discussed and analyzed. Included in their written
testimony were numerous documents compiled at post and by OBO,
showing that several dozen property sites had been properly
evaluated; Huseby had emerged as the superior site by virtue of its
size and location closer to GON ministries than any other property
under consideration. Other documents showed that embassy properties
around the world of at least 10 acres were clearly the norm, with
the exception of several small NEC's located on remote Pacific
island nations.


4. (U) The press corps was present during most of the hearing. The
newspaper of record, Aftenposten, published an objective article
documenting the embassy's decade-long struggle to relocate. Two
neighborhood papers featured articles that reiterated our opponents'
point of view, questioning why we needed 10 acres.


5. (SBU) The GON attorney, Gunnar Haereid, was hesitant to predict
the outcome of the case. He noted that the opposition was wise to
avoid any further discussion of security concerns or the loss of
green space, neither issue having elicited any sympathy from the
lower courts. Haereid acknowledged that the consideration of
alternative locations was a vulnerable point, but noted in court
that the Oslo City Council had voted down a proposal to investigate
other possible NEC sites five months before it approved our
rezoning. In the end, he said, the high court would base its ruling
on one of two things: (1) the alleged requirement to include an
analysis of alternative locations in an environmental assessment;
or (2) the precedent for sustaining the legal, political decision,
backed by thorough analysis, the Oslo City Council made four years
ago in rezoning the NEC site.


6. (SBU) Our legal advisor was somewhat more optimistic, giving us
nearly two-to-one odds of victory. He opined that there was
virtually no new information discussed before the high court, other
than the existence of the Nordby site and discussion of the proposed
London NEC site, which is smaller than ten acres. He believed that
neither factor would have any material impact on the Supreme Court's
decision.


7. (SBU) We are guardedly optimistic that the high court will rule
in our favor when it announces its decision, some time before June

30.

WHITNEY