Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) [2013]
Rt. 2013 s. 1345 · Høyesterett · Norway
Scandinavian Lawscandinavian-lawScandinavian LawCivil procedure; jurisdiction; forum non conveniens
Issue
Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies in Norwegian civil procedure.
Held
The Supreme Court declined to apply the doctrine, holding that Norwegian courts must hear cases over which they have jurisdiction under the EU/EEA framework.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Civil procedure; jurisdiction; forum non conveniens, then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) is included in the Scandinavian Law case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Civil procedure; jurisdiction; forum non conveniens. The reported citation is Rt. 2013 s. 1345, and the decision is associated with Høyesterett. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
The material factual signal for Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) is: A Norwegian court had jurisdiction over a maritime accident involving a foreign ship, but the defendant argued that a foreign court was a more appropriate forum. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Scandinavian Law, use the facts to explain why Civil procedure; jurisdiction; forum non conveniens was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.
Procedural History
Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) is reported as a decision of Høyesterett. The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.
Issue
Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies in Norwegian civil procedure.
Held
The Supreme Court declined to apply the doctrine, holding that Norwegian courts must hear cases over which they have jurisdiction under the EU/EEA framework.
Ratio Decidendi
Forum non conveniens is not recognized in Norway under the Lugano Convention; jurisdiction must be exercised if established.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
For reasoning, start with the ratio: Forum non conveniens is not recognized in Norway under the Lugano Convention; jurisdiction must be exercised if established. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Scandinavian Law, the case should be compared with related authorities on Civil procedure; jurisdiction; forum non conveniens; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.
Plain-English Explanation
Plainly, Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) is a case to use when a Scandinavian Law answer needs an authority on Civil procedure; jurisdiction; forum non conveniens. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) (Rt. 2013 s. 1345) strengthens a Scandinavian Law answer because the case reflects the principle that Forum non conveniens is not recognized in Norway under the Lugano Convention; jurisdiction must be exercised if established. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies in Norwegian civil procedure. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
scandinavian-law
Scandinavian Law
Civil procedure; jurisdiction; forum non conveniens
case authority
exam application
Key Passages
Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Civil procedure; jurisdiction; forum non conveniens in Scandinavian Law. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
In an exam, introduce Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Civil procedure; jurisdiction; forum non conveniens, then move quickly to analysis.
Revision Checklist
Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Use Rt. 2013 s. 1345 (Internasjonal rettergang) in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with A Norwegian court had jurisdiction over a maritime accident involving a foreign ship, but the defendant argued that a foreign court was a more appropriate forum., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.