VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNY #0363 1460647
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 260647Z MAY 09
FM AMEMBASSY OSLO
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 7544

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