Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  II. TRADE POLICY REGIME:  FRAMEWORK AND OBJECTIVES 
(1) GENERAL FRAMEWORK  
1. Norway is a constitutional monarchy with a par liamentary democratic system of governance.  
Parliamentary elections are held every four years;  the last elections were held in September 2009.  In 
accordance with the Constitution of 1814, state pow er is formally distributed among the Storting 
(legislative power), the Government (executive powe r), and the Supreme Court (judicial power).  No 
significant changes have occurred in Norway's ge neral framework for trade policy formulation and 
implementation since its last TPR in 2008.   
2. The Storting, a unicameral parliament composed  of 169 representatives, considers all matters 
formally in plenary sessions.1  However, before bills and other matters are put before the Storting, 
most issues have been examined in one of its 12 standing committees.2  The Storting is the final 
authority in matters concerning the finances of th e State.  The Finance Committee prepares the annual 
State Budget including recommendations on taxes and duties, expected dividends from state-owned 
enterprises, and revenue allocations to municipalitie s and counties.  The Storting decides Norway's 
customs tariffs annually.3  It reviews international agreemen ts and treaties through its Committee on 
Foreign Affairs and Defence.  Its consent must be obt ained prior to ratification of treaties of particular 
importance, or that require a new statute or decision. 
3. The present Cabinet (Council of State), formed by a majority coalition in place since 
October 2005, consists of a Prime Minister and 19 ministers.  The Prime Minister leads and 
coordinates the work of the Government, assisted by his ministers, his Office, and 17 ministries.  The 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs has overall responsibility for the formulation of foreign trade policy, 
including Norway's participation in multilateral trade negotiations, and represents Norway at the 
WTO.  Depending on the subject matter, the trade and trade-related agenda also involves other ministries and agencies such as the Ministry of Fi nance (tariff policy and taxation); the Norwegian 
Customs and Excise (import and export control, collection of duties and taxes on imports); the 
Ministry of Trade and Industry (preferential trad e negotiations, bilateral ec onomic relati ons, business 
promotion abroad, and e-commerce); and Innovati on Norway (export promotion).  Trade-related 
issues are discussed extensively w ith the business community, the farmer and labour unions, and other 
non-governmental organizations.   
4. Norway's court system comprises courts of firs t instance; courts of appeal; and the Supreme 
Court.
4  District courts have competence both in criminal and civil cases.  The courts are independent 
in the exercise of their judicial authority.  The courts are administered by the National Courts 
Administration.  Judges are appointed by the King-in-Council5, following recommendation by the 
National Courts Administration.  The Supreme Court, comprising 19 ordinary justices and the Chief 
                                                      
1 In exercising its legislative functions, the Storting used to be divided into two chambers; the 
Odelsting (127 representatives) and the Lagting (42 representatives).  The Storting merged the two chambers through a constitutional amendment which was passed on 20 February 2007 and entered into force 
on 1 October 2009.   
2 Each representative is assigned to one (and only one) standing committee.   
3 Pursuant to Ministry of Agricu lture Regulation No. 1723 of 22 D ecember 2005, tariffs for agricultural 
goods may be reduced temporarily by administrative decision of the Norwegian Agricultural Authority.   
4 A large number of civil matters are not brought be fore the courts, but settled at the local Conciliation 
Board (Forliksråd), which may act as a mediator and, to a certain extent, th e issuer of first instance judgements. 
5 King-in-Council refers to the meetings of the King  with the Council of St ate, normally held each 
Friday.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 14 
  
  Justice, ensures uniformity of the legal process and hears both civil and criminal cases.  The Supreme 
Court acts wholly independently of the other organs of State in the exercise of its judicial authority.  The Supreme Court and the other courts are empowered, inter alia,  to review the legality of 
Government decisions and the constitutionality of legislation adopted by the Storting.  
5. Laws passed by the Storting are formally signed by the King in Council before they are 
promulgated.  Laws and regula tions are published in Norway's Legal Gazette (Norsk Lovtidend).  
There is an electronic library of laws, regulations, ru les, and decisions, and some of the legal texts are 
available in English.
6   
6. The right of appeal of administrative decisions  is regulated pursuant to Chapter VI of the 
Public Administration Act of 10 February 1967 ( as amended).  Appeals are submitted to, and decided 
by, the administrative agency immediately superior  to the administrative agency that made the 
disputed decision.  The Act also provides an opportun ity for the subordinate agency to reverse its own 
decision.  The affected party or another person with a legal interest in the a ppeal may also take action 
to have the administrative decision reviewed by a c ourt of law.  Another option would be to file a 
complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman fo r Public Administration (Sivilombudsmannen).7   
(2) TRADE POLICY OBJECTIVES  
7. Norway recognizes that its prosperity and high le vel of employment is dependent on trade and 
that the multilateral trading system has served it we ll as a bulwark against protectionism and as a basis 
for growth and welfare.  Norway's participation in  the EEA is seen as an essential complement to its 
WTO membership.  Seeking new markets to explo it comparative advantages and economies of scale, 
Norway is liberalizing trade on a reciprocal basis through bilateral agreemen ts negotiated by EFTA.  
Recognizing trade as an important tool for sustaina ble economic development, Norway has also been 
improving its non-reciprocal preferential schem es for developing countries and LDCs.   
8. While non-trade concerns continue to shape Norw ay's approach to the agriculture sector, the 
WTO is viewed generally as a forum for ambitious endeavours.  Strengthened rules and disciplines, 
notably on fisheries subsidies, and further libera lization of trade in goods and services would be 
important outcomes of the multilateral trade negotiati ons.  Issues related to the social dimension, 
decent work, and climate change could be  pertinent for a post-Doha agenda.   
(3) TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
(i) WTO 
9. Norway was one of the "founding fathers" of the GATT in 1948 and is an original Member of 
the WTO.  It has been an active participant in all rounds of multila teral trade negotiations, as well as 
                                                      
6 See www.lovdata.no.  The transla tions into English are unofficial and may not reflect amendments to 
legislation. 
7 The Parliamentary Ombudsman for Public Administration is empowered to review administrative 
decisions at central and local governme nt level.  The review is normally conducted on the basis of complaints 
filed by affected citizens and entitie s, but the Ombudsman may also initia te cases.  Although the Ombudsman 
may not review the legality of decisions taken by the King-in-Council or examine matters on which the Storting 
has expressed a formal opinion, he has broad powers to review governmental and administrative decisions, except those that fall within the jurisdiction of other watchdogs or the Office of the Auditor General of Norway 
(Riksrevisjonen), which monitors and audits the deployment and administration of public resources. 
Riksrevisjonen reports its findings directly to the Storting.  Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  in the plurilateral negotiations and arrangement s conducted within the framework of the WTO.  
Norway is a signatory to the plurilateral Agreemen t on Trade in Civil Aircraft and the Agreement on 
Government Procurement, and a participant in  the Information Technology Agreement.   
10. Norway attaches importance to its notification obligations.  At the time of its last TPR 
in 2008, regular notifications were outstanding in the areas of agriculture, state trading enterprises, 
technical barriers to trade, and import licen sing.  Norway subsequently provided the pending 
notifications, as well as others covere d by WTO obligations (Table II.1).   
Table II.1 
Notifications under the WTO Agreements, 1 January 2010 to 28 June 2012 
WTO Agreement Subject Year of 
coverage WTO document and date (latest 
if recurrent) 
GATT 1994    
Article XVII:4(a) State trading enterprises  G/STR/N/14/NOR, 28/06/12 
Article XXIV:7(c) Regional trade agreements , changes  WT/REG79/N/1/Add.1, 18/08/10 
WT/REG86/N/1/Add.7, 02/09/11 WT/REG91/N/1/Add.2-3, 04/05/12
WT/REG148/N/1/Add.6, 15/05/12 
Agreement on Agriculture    
Articles 10 and 18.2 Export subsidies 2009 
2010 G/AG/N/NOR/57, 27/10/10 
G/AG/N/NOR/61, 03/11/11 
Article 16.2 Impact on ne t food-importing developing 
countries, food aid, technical and 
financial assistance 2007, 2008 G/AG/N/NOR/54/Rev.1, 04/11/10 
2009 G/AG/N/NOR/60, 04/11/10 
2010 G/AG/N/NOR/62, 01/11/11 
Article 18.2 Domestic support 2008, 2009 
2010 G/AG/N/NOR/59, 01/11/10 
G/AG/N/NOR/64, 02/05/12 
Tariff and other quota commitments  2009 G/AG/N/NOR/56, 27/10/10 
2010 G/AG/N/NOR/63, 08/11/11 
Articles 5.7 and 18.2 Speci al safeguard provisions 
(not invoked) 2008, 2009 
2010, 2011 G/AG/N/NOR/58, 27/10/10 
G/AG/N/NOR/65, 02/05/12 
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
Article 7 and Annex B Draft regul ation (import and release of 
alien organisms)  G/SPS/N/NOR/30, 07/07/10 
G/SPS/N/NOR/30/Add.1, 01/09/10 
Article 7 and Annex B Draft regulation (plants, measures against 
pests)  G/SPS/N/NOR/31, 12/11/10 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade    
Article 10.6 Proposed regulation, hazardous 
substances  G/TBT/N/NOR/17/Rev.1, 20/12/11 
Agreement on Subsidies a nd Countervailing Measures    
Article 25.1 Notification of subsidies  G/SCM/N/220/NOR, 02/09/11 
Article 25.11 Semi-annual reports (no acti ons taken)  G/SCM/N/235/Add.1, 24/04/12 
Agreement on Implementation of GATT Article VI (Anti-dumping)    
Article 16.4 Semi-annual reports (no acti on taken)  G/ADP/N/223/Add.1, 20/04/12 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures    
Article 7.3 2008 notification remaining valid  G/LIC/N/3/NOR/6, 06/07/11 
Agreement on Government Procurement    
Article XIX:5 Notification of procuremen t statistics 2006 GPA/91/Add.5, 15/07/10 
  2007 GPA/94/Add.5, 15/07/10 
  2008 GPA/102/Add.4, 15/07/10 
  2009 GPA/104, 15/07/10 
Annex 3 Notification of national th resholds  GPA/W/309/Add.7, 19/02/10 
Source: WTO Secretariat. WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 16 
  
  11. No formal complaints have been made agai nst Norway under the WTO Dispute Settlement 
Mechanism.  In all, Norway has been  involved in four cases as a complainant.8  The only case 
initiated by Norway since its l ast TPR concerns Regulation (EC) No. 1007/2009 whereby the EU 
prohibits the importation and sale of processed and unprocessed seal products, with certain exceptions 
that are not applied to Norway.  Norway has rese rved its third-party rights in 41 disputes involving 
other WTO Members; 14 of which since its last Review.   
(ii) European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Area 
12. Norway is a founding member of EFTA, established in 1960 to create a free-trade area in 
industrial goods between seven European countries.   While EFTA originally may have provided an 
alternative to the European Economic Community (EEC) as a model for European cooperation, the 
more ambitious agenda for integr ation pursued by the EEC proved attractive, for many EFTA states.9  
As the European Communities embarked on their project to form a single market in the late 1980s, the EEA Agreement (negotiated from 1990 to 1992) beca me a vehicle for the (then 7) EFTA states to 
form a much larger integrated market with the (t hen 12) members of the EC.  The agreement allows 
the free movement of goods, persons, services, and ca pital (the "four freedoms") throughout the EEA 
under equal conditions of competiti on provided by the evolving EU acquis communautaire .
10  
However, the EFTA states have not joined the cust oms union and remain, in principle, autonomous in 
their relations with third countries.    
13. Although subsequent EC enlarg ements and the process leading to the establishment of the 
European Union entailed four major treaty revi sions regulating the functioning of the EU, the 
structure of the EEA Agreement and its institutions  have remained unchanged since entry into force 
on 1 January 1994.  The agreement currently links th ree EFTA member States (Norway, Iceland, and 
Liechtenstein) and the 27 members of the EU.11  The joint institutional framework comprises the EEA 
Council (at Ministerial level), the EEA Joint Co mmittee, the EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee, 
and the EEA Consultative Committee (Chart II.1).  The EFTA member States have retained their 
legislative competencies, and EEA-relevant acts thus require passage by the respective national 
parliaments.  The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA ) and the EFTA Court are parallel institutions to 
the European Commission and the European Court of Justice;  they uphold a uniform legal standard 
with the EU in the EFTA members.   
                                                      
 8 The cases are (i) United States – definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products 
(DS254); (ii) European Communities – definitive sa feguard measure on salmon (DS328); (iii) European 
Communities – anti-dumping measure on farmed salm on from Norway (DS337); and (iv) European 
Communities – measures prohibiting the importation and marketing of seal products (DS401).   
9 The founding members of EFTA were the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, 
Austria, and Switzerland.  Finland, Iceland, and Liechtenstein joined later.  The United Kingdom and Denmark 
left EFTA in 1973 to join the European Union, followed by Portugal (in 1986), Austria, Finland, and Sweden (all in 1995).  
10 Prior to the entry into force of the EEA, Norway 's trade relationship with the EC was essentially 
governed by a free-trade agreement concluded in 19 73.  The FTA was negotiated after an agreement for 
accession to the EEC was rejected by the Norwegians in a September 1972 referend um.  Norway's accession to 
the EC was also rejected in a referendum in November 1994.   
11 Switzerland is also a member of  EFTA and played an active ro le in the EEA negotiations, but 
participation in the EEA was rejected in a referendum  in December 1992.  A new member of the EU also 
becomes a party to the EEA Agreement (Article 128), subject to an agreem ent between the contracting parties 
and the applicant State.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Chart II.1
EEA institutional framework
Source: EFTA Secretariat.Iceland
Liechtenstein
NorwayEEA CouncilCouncil
Presidency
& EEAS
EFTA Standing 
CommitteeEEA Joint 
CommitteeEuropean
External Action 
Service (EEAS)
EFTA Surveillance 
AuthorityEuropean Commission
EFTA CourtEuropean Court of 
Justice
Committee of MPs of the 
EFTA StatesEEA Joint Parliamentary 
CommitteeEuropean Parliament
EFTA Consultative 
CommitteeEEA Consultative 
CommitteeEconomic and Social 
Committee
 
14. Norway and the other EFTA states adapted their legislation to nearly 2,000 legal acts of the 
EU in the process leading to the EEA Agreement.  Consistent with the objective of establishing a 
"dynamic and homogeneous European Economic Area"12, more than 6,000 legal acts have been added 
to the Agreement since then.13  The EFTA Secretariat (in Brussels) and EFTA sub-committees made 
up representatives of the national (EFTA) governments examine EU legal texts to determine their 
EEA relevance.14  The decision to include a legal text in the EEA Agreement is taken by consensus by 
the EEA Joint Committee.15  The decision is binding, but may be subject to the fulfilment of 
constitutional requireme nts (Article 103).16  In Norway, the Storting formally approved 249 new legal 
acts and other agreements under the EEA  between May 1992 and mid-2011.   
                                                      
12 Quote from the preamble of the EEA Agreement. 
13 According to the EFTA Secretariat, 8,311 legal acts had been adopted pursuant to the EEA 
Agreement by the end of 2010.  As ne w acts sometimes replace or invalidate  prior legislation, the (net) number 
of legal acts in force under the EEA was 4,502 on 31 December 2010.  The growth in new legislation has been 
particularly pronounced in the TBT and SPS areas.    
14 The legal texts adopted by EU institutions indicate whether the EU considers them to be of EEA 
relevance, but this is a preliminary, non-binding conclusion to be confirmed by examination by the EFTA 
bodies.  In case of doubt or disagreem ent within EFTA, the matter is discu ssed with the EU and, as necessary, 
referred to resolution at the political level.   
15 Article 93(2) of the EEA Agreement requires the EF TA states to speak with  one voice in the Joint 
Committee, where the European  External Action Service (EEAS) represen ts the EU.  EFTA states coordinate 
their positions in the EFTA Standing Committee.   
16 Failure by an EFTA State to adapt to EU legislati on may lead to the suspensi on of the affected parts 
of the agreement.  This may not be seen as a sanction on the part of the EU, but as recognition that the proper 
functioning of the agreement requires a uniform legal standard throughout the EEA.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 18 
  
  15. In addition to the continuous "updating" of the EEA Agreement due to changes in the aquis 
communautaire , the EFTA states may use the agreement to establish cooperation with the EU in areas 
beyond the "four freedoms", to extend the agreement to  new areas (Article 118) , to conclude further 
agreements on trade in agricultural products, fish and fish products, and to carry on the Financial 
Mechanism Office.  Further to Articles 78-88 of the EEA Agreement, EFTA members have voluntary 
joined a large number of EU programmes and activities, e.g. in research and technological development, consumer protection,  trade facilitation, and statistics.
17  At present, Norway participates 
in 20 EU programmes and 26 specialized EU agencies.18   
16. The EEA Agreement does not cover the EU Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies, but 
the parties are to "continue their efforts with a view to achieving progressive liberalization of 
agricultural trade" (Article 19.2).  The agreement contains provisions on various aspects of trade in 
agricultural and fish products, notably in Protoc ols 3 (processed agricultural goods) and 9 (fish and 
marine products).  Article 118 was utilized in 1998 to extend the agreement to veterinary issues, 
resulting in a revised Annex 1, Chapter 1 entering in to force on 1 January 1999.  Protocol 9 grants 
Norway preferential access to the EU market for certain fish products, and increased duty-free quota 
entitlements have been provided as a result of the recent EU (EEA) enlargements.19  In agricultural 
trade, the EU has expressed some dissatisfaction with Norway's commitment to liberalize trade in 
processed agricultural goods.20  Two (bilateral) agreements have been concluded pursuant to 
Article 19 (in 2002 and 2010), and tw o agreements pursuant to Protocol 3.  Norway's imports of 
agricultural goods from the EU have increased ov er the years.  The 2010 bilateral agreement 
expanded the mutual trade in cheese, and resulted in import quotas for EU meat and somewhat larger 
import quotas for certain inputs for the Norwegian food-processing industry.  Despite a clearly expressed interest on the EU side, Protocol 3 has not been revised since November 2004.  Norway 
refers to the intention of the Protocol 3 Agreement,  which is to create a level playing field within the 
frames of the existing preferential tariffs.  The Norwegian authorities point to steadily increasing 
trade, which in their view display that th e agreement is functioning as intended.   
17. In return for the privileged access to the EU  market and consistent with the objective 
(Article 115) to reduce economic and social disp arities between regions, EFTA states have established 
a financial mechanism to contribute to EU funds and institutions.  The original agreement on EFTA 
financing, which ran from 1994 to 1998, did not cont ain any explicit provision regarding its renewal.
21  
However, the financial mechanism has been contin ued and expanded, particularly following the EU 
enlargement in 2004.22  The EEA mechanism, as well as a separate Norwegian-funded mechanism 
added in 2004, is administered by a Financial Me chanism Office located in Brussels.  Financial 
                                                      
17 Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, updated by th e EFTA Secretariat.  Vi ewed at www.efta.int/legal-
texts/eea/protocols-to-the-agr eement.aspx.  In such cases, the dema nd for participation comes from the EFTA 
states, and is subject to the approval of , or conditions established by, the EU.   
18 Norway participates in 11 of these EU agencies  through decisions of the EEA Joint Committee.  
Participation in the other 15 specialized  agencies is ensured through bilatera l agreements.  In all, the EU has 
established 43 specialized agencies.   
19 Norway is the EU's primary supplier of seaf ood.  According to the Norwegian authorities, 
simplification and liberalization of the trade regime for fish would be beneficial to both parties.  The EU 
maintains high tariffs for "sensitive" fish products, and a sy stem of 54 duty-free bilateral import quotas for fish.   
20 See, for example, document WT/TPR/M/205/Add.1, 19 January 2009, and Council of the European 
Union, "Council conclusions on EU relations with EFTA countries", 14 December 2010.  Viewed at  
www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/ docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/118458.pdf.   
21 During 1994-98, Norway's expenditures on the "loan and grants" programmes under the financial 
mechanism (Protocol 38) amounted to approximately €25 million annually. 
22 The overall financial commitment by the EFTA states over a five -year period is not derived from 
pre-determined formulas, but a negotiated outcome.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  commitments under the two mechanisms amount to €1,788.5 million for the period 2009-14, mostly 
(97%) funded by Norway.23  In addition, Norway's voluntary participation in EU programmes and 
specialized agencies entails financial outlays of approximately €200 million annually. These 
contributions are determined by the financial moda lities pursuant to Protocol 32 and, depending on 
the common interest in Norwegian projects, e. g. in the area of research and technological 
development, a significant part of these outlays may be recycled in Norway.   
18. In January 2010, the Norwegian Government a ppointed a broad-based independent committee 
to undertake a detailed and factual review of the EEA Agreement and other aspects of Norway's 
relationship with the EU.24  The Review Committee presented its findings and recommendations 
in January 2012.25  The Committee estimates that Norway is part of approximately 75% of the entire 
EU cooperative framework, and that Norway's impl ementation of the rules has been on par, if not 
better, than in many EU member States.  Except for the agriculture sector, the Norwegian economy is 
now closely integrated with the EU's internal ma rket.  Ties with the EU's decision-making structures 
are less comprehensive, administratively and politi cally.  According to the Committee, the exemption 
from the EEA appears to have been beneficial for Norway's agriculture sector, while the positive 
effects of the exemptions for the fisheries sector are less apparent.  The majority of the committee 
members find that the EU/EEA rules have rarely  been at odds with the values and priorities 
subscribed to by a broad majority of the Norweg ian political spectrum.  Norway has had to modify, 
but been able to maintain essential elements of, its restrictive policies regarding retail sale of wine and 
spirits; gambling; the acquisition of waterfalls,  mines, etc.; and differentiated employer's 
contributions.26   
19. The Committee's report also states that due to the a dditional steps involved, the EU aquis 
communautaire  normally enters into force with a time lag in the EFTA members.27  In practice, six to 
nine months has become the norm, and up to one year may be considered acceptable.  The ESA monitors the implementation of EEA obligations of the EFTA States.  Formal infringement 
                                                      
23 The projects to be supported by EEA/Norwegian funds are determined by Iceland, Liechtenstein, and 
Norway for the EEA Grants and by No rway for the Norway Grants.  The pr ojects are primarily in the 12 "new" 
EU member States.  Projects in Spain, Portugal, and Greece may only be funded under the EEA financial 
mechanism.    
24 In all, Norway has concluded 74 treaties and agr eements with the EU.  Norway joined the Schengen 
Agreement in 1999, a fram ework agreement that is continuousl y updated with new legal acts.   
25 See Norwegian Official Report (2012).  In addition to WTO (1991) and WTO (1996), the factual 
description in this section is based on information contained in the 911-page NOU document.  A (short) 
summary of NOU 2012:2 is available in English at:  www.europautredningen.no/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ 
NOU201220120002000EN_PDFS.pdf.    
26 The Committee notes that Norway would have pref erred to retain the Gas Negotiations Committee, 
although the compromise solution took  account of Norway's national interest s.  Over the years, Norway has 
been able to maintain 55 exemptions from specific provisions in the EU acquis (349 exemptions for Iceland, and 
1,056 for Liechtenstein).  Since 2005,  Norway (and Iceland/Liechtenstein) has been grated certain exemptions 
from the requirements under Directive 2003/55/EC (internal market in natural gas), Directive 2004/54/EC 
(minimum safety requirements for tunnels), Regulations (EC) Nos. 852/2004 to 854/2004 (the Hygiene Package), and Directive 2006/54/EC (equal opportunities).   
27 The EEA Joint Committee must decide to include  a legal act in the EEA Agreement before the 
implementation process begins in the EFTA members.  Under simplified procedures related to, for example, safeguards and protective measures in  the SPS area, EFTA members must implement and apply the measures in 
the same manner (and within the same deadlines) as the EU member  States.  The EEA Joint Committee 
subsequently takes note of acts subject to simp lified procedures for transparency purposes.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 20 
  
  procedures may eventually be  referred to the EFTA Court.28  The EFTA Court has ruled in nine 
substantive cases brought against Norway by ESA29, and Norway has challenged three ESA decisions 
before the Court.30  Cases filed with the Norwegian courts in relation to EU/EEA legislation have 
related primarily to administrative decisions and rulings, and not the legislative decisions of the 
Storting.  In 39 cases, the Norwegian courts have  sought the opinion of the EFTA Court since 1994.31 
20. The independent report notes that the EEA Ag reement entails the delegation of authority 
without a corresponding level of representation in the European decision-making structures, where 
additions to the EU acquis  are increasingly adopted by single-ma jority voting.  However, in the 
287 instances where the Storting has been required to provide formal assent to expand Norway's 
obligations vis-à-vis  the EU, most gave rise to little deba te and 92% were ap proved unanimously.32  
Although refusing the adoption of EEA relevant legisl ation has been the subject of public debate on 
occasion, no EFTA member has until now exercised this option.33   
21. The Committee nevertheless found a "democratic deficit" in Norway's current association 
with the EU; a deficit present from the entry into force of the EEA Agreement and growing with the 
passage of time.  From a constitutional point of view , the transfer of authority to institutions that 
Norway cannot join as a full-fledged member po ses a particular challenge, particularly as the 
discrepancy between the transfer of formal and de facto  authority is widening, e.g. regarding the 
participation in some of the EU's specialized agencies.34  The report noted that although Norway has 
been efficient in the administration of its rela tionship with the EU, the integration has largely 
proceeded in a fragmentary manner, and most EU member states have either appointed a separate 
minister for European affairs or allocated functions  within the Prime Minister's Office to ensure a 
coordinated national approach to European integration.  The ma jority of the committee members 
noted an interest on the EU side to seek a more  comprehensive approach to the existing framework35, 
and recommended that the Norwegian authoriti es explore such possibilities or, as a minimum, 
adjustments in specific areas (such as the EEA/Norway Financial Mechanisms).   
                                                      
28 See WTO (2008).  According to NOU 2012:2, the 11 proceedings against Norway for untimely 
enactment of directives and regulations that have ended up in the EFTA Court have been mere formalities.   
29 One case (E-9/11), relating to ownership restrictions upheld by the Stock Exchange Act and the 
Securities Depositories Act, is curre ntly before the EFTA Court.   
30 One ongoing case (E-11/11) concerns alleged state aid provided to Hurtigruten.  Individuals and 
enterprises may also bring cases before the EFTA Court (i f ESA decisions affect them directly), but such cases 
have been rare.   
31 The Supreme Court, which has the right (but no obligation) to seek the opinion of the EFTA Court, 
has been relatively reluctant to exercise this option.   
32 249 of the 287 instances related to legal acts and other agreements under the EEA.  Formal assent is 
required in accordance with paragraph 26(2) of the Norwegian Constitution.   
33 Among the more than 6,000 legal acts added to the EEA Agreement since 1994, the refusal option 
was discussed at the political level in Norway in 17 instances, most recentl y concerning Directives 2006/24/EC 
(retention of data in electronic communication services and public communication networks) and 2008/06/EC (third Postal Directive).   
34 According to the Constitution (Article 93), the Storting (three-fourths majority) may consent to 
Norway's membership in an international organization th at exercises powers normally vested in the authorities 
of the State, whereas the interpretation of Article  26(2) allows a limited transfer of formal or de facto  authority 
under a treaty (simple majority).  As specialized agenci es in the EU increasingly ex ercise authority, Norway's 
participation would normally entail obligations on par w ith EU member States, whereas its rights (as a non-EU 
member) may be more limited (e.g. leading positions reserved for EU citizens, exclusion from the budgeting 
process, agency to be located on EU territory).   
35 Council of the European Union (2010). Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  22. The launch of the report in early 2012 marked th e beginning of a period of public debate on 
Norway's relationship with the EU.  The Government has also signalled that it will be preparing a white paper to the Storting on the matter.   
23. The membership of EFTA (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein) has been stable 
since 1995.  The EFTA Convention, which forms the legal basis of the organization, was revised 
in 2001 to extend the provisions of the EEA Agre ement and Switzerland's bilateral agreements with 
the EU to the relations between the EFTA States.  As revised, the Convention covers trade in services 
and investment, free movement of persons, mutual recognition of diplomas, land and air transport, 
government procurement, and inte llectual property rights.  The Annexes and Appendices to the 
Convention are amended occasionally to include new concessions, revised  provisions, or new 
institutional arrangements.  Amendm ents in 2011 concerned air and la nd transport, rules of origin 
(agriculture), and mutual recognition.   
24. Although the EFTA states have retained the right to maintain their own trade regimes vis-à-
vis third countries, they have opted to negotia te and conclude a grow ing number of free-trade 
agreements with partners around the world with in the EFTA framework.  At the end of 2011, 
24 (EFTA) FTAs had been concluded, of which 8 have been finalized since Norway's last TPR (Gulf 
Co-operation Council; Albania; Serbia; Peru; Colombia; Ukraine; Hong Kong, China; and 
Montenegro).
36  The EFTA states have signed joint declarations on cooperation with the Southern 
Common Market (MERCOSUR), Malaysia, Mauritius , and Mongolia.  FTA negotiations are on-going 
with Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, India, Indon esia, Thailand, four countries in Central America 
(Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama),  and the Customs Union between the Russian 
Federation, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.37  EFTA states have been exploring the conclusion of bilateral 
FTAs with China and Japan.  Norway has a bilatera l free-trade agreement with the Faroe Islands.  
Unilaterally, Norway gives products from Greenl and the same treatment as EU products.   
(iii) Bilateral agreements 
25. The Ministry of Trade and Industry and holds the leading role in Norway's negotiations to 
establish free-trade agreements within the EFTA frame work, bilateral trade agreements with countries 
outside the EU, and agreements on investment protecti on.  While priority is given to agreements that 
maximize the potential for increased trade and econom ic growth, negotiations often run in parallel 
with similar efforts by the EU to ensure a level playing field for Norwegian businesses relative to their 
competitors within the EU.  The scope for increased trade in fish and fish products, weighed against 
possible demands for improved access to the Norweg ian market for agricultural goods, are important 
motivations in Norway's selection of negotiation pr iorities, but Norway also takes account of the 
economic interests of its EFTA partners  in the initiation of new negotiations.38   
26. Norway is a party to 14 bilateral treaties on the mutual encouragement and protection of 
investment, but no new bilateral agreement has been concluded since the mid 1990s.39  Some 
provisions on investment protection are included in the EFTA FTAs with Singapore and Ukraine.  
                                                      
36 For details of the older FTAs and their scope, se e WTO (2008).  Norway's ratification of the FTA 
with Colombia is pending.  EFTA states implement their FTAs individually.   
37 An interactive map of EFTA trade relations with th ird countries can be viewed  at:  www.efta.int/free-
trade/fta-map.aspx. 
38 Ministry of Trade and Industry online information.  Viewed at:  www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/nhd/ 
dok/regpubl/prop/2009-2010/prop-1-s-20092010/2/1/3.html?id=580583 (in Norwegian only).   
39 The 14 countries are: Chile, China, Czech Republic, Estonia,  Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Madagascar, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, and Sri Lanka.   WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 22 
  
  Norway has signed general conventions for the av oidance of double taxation and the prevention of 
fiscal evasion, and other international agreements  regarding tax matters, with a large number of 
countries and territories.40   
(iv) Generalized System of Preferences 
27. Norway introduced a GSP scheme for imports from developing countries in 1971.  Over the 
last 20 years, free-trade provisions under an EFTA FTA have replaced the former GSP treatment for 
many of these countries.  In addition, Norway's elimination of MFN customs duties on most manufactured goods has removed the preferential marg in previously offered through the GSP scheme.  
Therefore, GSP treatment is currently relevant for no more than 10% of Norway's imports from 
developing countries.   
28. The Norwegian Government conducted a comp rehensive revision of Norway's GSP scheme 
in 2007.
41  As a result, 140 developing countries and te rritories are eligible for GSP treatment, and 
64 of them (50 LDCs and 14 low-income countries)  qualify for duty- and quota-free market access for 
all goods under the scheme in force since 1 January 2008.42  Changes were also made in the rules of 
origin and the safeguard provisions to simplify the system.43   
29. Norway is committed to providing informati on about its GSP scheme and making it effective 
for as many countries as possible.  The utilization ra te of the GSP scheme is relatively high, and GSP 
imports from LDCs doubled in value between 2006 and 2010.44  However, according to a recent 
study, the GSP reform does not appear to have le d to any significant increase in imports from LDCs 
and low-income countries since 2008, with the ex ception of fresh flowers and certain vegetables 
imported from Africa.45  Valued at NKr 2.1 billion, Norway's imports from LDCs and the 14 low-
income countries represented only 0.46% of Norway's total imports in 2010.46  The main development 
on the GSP front since 2008 has been a marked rise in imports of feedstuff from Brazil and Peru, and 
meat from Botswana and Namibia.   
(4) INVESTMENT REGIME  
30. With a few exceptions, Norway's investment regi me is open to private (domestic and foreign) 
investors on the basis of equal treatment.  Norway does not have any specific legislation or policy 
pertaining to foreign investment.  Rather, the treatme nt of foreign investment may be included as part 
                                                      
 40 Ministry of Finance online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-
topics/taxes-and-duties/tax-treaties-between-norway-and-other-st.html?id=417330 
41 WTO document WT/COMTD/N/6/Add.4, 10 April 2008.   
42 Myanmar was re-admitted into the GSP scheme on 27 January 2012. 
43 See WTO (2008).   
44 The utilization rate measures imports on which GSP treatment is claimed and effected relative to 
imports that are eligible.  According to Statistics Norw ay, the utilization rate varied between 81% and 89% for 
LDCs, and 73% and 82% for other beneficiaries during 2004-10.  (Statistics Norway online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/09/05/ uh aar_ en/tab-35-en.html).  Statistics Norway includes 
the 14 low income countries as well as Botswana and Namibia in its "LDC group".   
45 Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) (2012).   
46 Norway's imports consisted mainly of textile s and clothing from Bangladesh and Cambodia, 
agricultural goods from Kenya and Ethiopia, and minerals and metals from Tajikistan, Congo, Ghana, 
Mauretania, and Mozambique.  Occasional imports of used ships from Liberia and crude oil from Angola and Equatorial Guinea may cause significant fluctuations in LDC imports.  Trade statistics may to some extent 
understate Norway's "true" trade with LDCs, as some goods arrive via neighbouring countries (in particular, the 
Netherlands and Sweden) and may be recorded as imports from these partners.   Norway WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  of broader policies applied in specific sectors.  Fo r example, the Government's policy towards state 
ownership identifies eight enterprises where the Norwegian State holds equity, inter alia,  to ensure 
that their corporate headquarters and essential func tions remain in Norway, but otherwise draws no 
distinction between (private) Norwegian and foreign capital.47   
31. Consistent with Norway's acceptance of th e "four freedoms" under the EEA Agreement, 
Norway may not restrict investments from citizens of another EEA member unless the restrictions are 
derived from the pursuit of specific policy objectives and the same restrictions apply to Norwegian 
citizens.  Exceptionally, provisions prohibit more th an 40% foreign ownership of an enterprise that 
owns (directly or indirectly) a Norwegian-registered fishing vessel.48  Non-EEA investors face 
restrictions in certain activities related to audiovisua l services, air transport, and maritime transport.  
Other ownership restrictions, e.g. in relation to fish-farming concessions49 or under the Media 
Ownership Act, apply to all investors irrespective of nationality.50  Norwegian and foreign investors 
alike may be subject to requirements or conditions in the acquisition of real estate, particularly 
properties containing agricultural and forest land, or waterfalls.  Some activities are also reserved for 
publicly owned institutions, e.g. certain railway tran sport services, certain postal services, the retail 
distribution of wine and spirits, and gambling.   
32. According to the OECD's FDI regulatory restri ctiveness index, Norway's average score is 
better than the OECD average for the 14 economic s ectors covered (Table II.2).  Half of the covered 
sectors are identified as fully "open";  the most restrict ed sectors are fishing, transport, real estate, and 
business services.   
33. The global financial crisis had a significant, but  relatively short-lived negative effect on 
corporate investments in Norway.  Net corporate investment in non-financial assets, which had increased from NKr 107 billion in 2005 to 203 billion in 2007, fell to NKr 99 billion in 2009, but recovered (to NKr 128 billion) in 2010.
51  Although there was a marked slowdown in Norwegian 
investments abroad from 2008 to 2009, the stock of FDI in Norway increased by NKr 120 billion 
from 2007 to 2008, and a further NKr 73 billion from 2008 to 2009.52  At end 2010, the stock of FDI 
in Norway was at NKr 1,007 billion, and the stoc k of Norwegian FDI abroad at NKr 1,131 billion, 
both increasing by 15% in the course of the year .  While Norwegian investment abroad is 
predominantly in the form of equity investments ( 89%), FDI inflows are a mix of equity investments 
(53%) and other capital, such as inter-company loans.   
                                                      
47 Ministry of Trade and Industry (2011), pp. 86-100 .  The eight enterprises enumerated in category 2 
(Commercially-oriented enterprises with domestic locati on of corporate functions) are Aker Holding AS (State 
ownership 30%), DNB ASA (34%), Kongsberg Gruppen ASA (50.001%), Nammo AS (50%), Norsk Hydro 
ASA (34.26%), Statoil ASA (67%), Telenor ASA (53.96%), and Yara International ASA (36.21%).  See also 
Chapter III.   
48 Act No. 15 of 26 March 1999 (the Participation Act), section 5.  Norway's right to apply such 
restrictions in the fisheries sector is specifically reco rded in Annexes VIII (Right of Establishment) and XII 
(Free Movement of Capital) to the EEA Agreement.   
49 Concerning fish farming concessions for salmon and trout, an authorization is required to control 
between 15% and 25% of the total national biomass.  No  single operator, irrespective of nationality, is allowed 
to control more than 25% of the total national biomass of salmon and trout.   
50 The Media Ownership Act prohibits the accumula tion of market share beyond one third for 
newspapers, TV, or radio nationally (or 60% in regional  markets), with additional provisions regarding cross-
ownership or multi-media ownership.   
51 Statistics Norway online information.  Viewed  at:  http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/09/01/ 
nri_en/tab-05-en.html. 
52 Statistics Norway online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.ssb.no/di_en/. WT/TPR/S/269/Rev.1 Trade Policy Review 
Page 24 
  
  Table II.2 
Norway's FDI regulatory restrictiveness indexa, 2010 
 Norway OECD average Non-OECD average 
Agriculture and forestry 0.000 0.128 0.227 
Fishing 0.500 0.320 0.333 
Mining 0.050 0.122 0.209 
Manufacturingb 0.000 0.030 0.059 
Electricity 0.000 0.123 0.125 
Construction 0.000 0.053 0.055 
Distributionc 0.000 0.029 0.120 
Hotels and restaurants 0.000 0.030 0.077 
Transport 0.350 0.227 0.289 
Media 0.125 0.180 0.316 
Telecom 0.000 0.092 0.174 
Financial servicesd 0.033 0.053 0.132 
Business services 0.188 0.067 0.167 
Real estate 0.250 0.283 0.277 
Total 0.071 0.095 0.157 
a 1 = closed;  0 = open. 
b Average scores for 5 manufacturing sectors. c Average scores for retail and wholesale distribution. 
d Average scores for banking, insurance, and other finance. 
Source:  OECD (2010), OECD's FDI Restrictiveness Index:  2010 update .  Viewed at:  http:// www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/ 
19/45563285.pdf.  
34. Foreign-controlled enterprises accounted for approximately 25% of the total value added 
in Norway in 2009.53  Much of this investment is in large enterprises engaged in administrative and 
support services, or oil and gas extraction.54  Due to their concentration in oil and gas extraction, 
U.S.-controlled businesses are the most important in  terms of value added, followed by enterprises 
from France and the United Kingdom.  Swedish-controlled enterprises are more wide-spread across the Norwegian economy, accounting for 28% of the number of foreign-controlled enterprises and 
23% of their employees.  
 
35. According to a study conducted by Statistics Norway, Norwegian-based enterprises controlled 
2,678 enterprises abroad, employing so me 218,000 persons, at the end of 2009.55  Although these 
enterprises are located in 110 countries around the world, Norwegian businesses predominantly invest 
in the EU;  the primary location is Sweden , followed by Denmark, Germany, and the 
United Kingdom.56  The majority of these enterprises are engaged in manufacturing (38%) or 
wholesale and retail trade (20%).   
                                                      
53 Statistics Norway online information.  Viewed  at:  http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/01/ 
utfono_en/. 
54 Foreign-controlled enterprises account for 37% of large businesses (over 250 employees) registered 
in Norway, but only 2.1% of total registered enterprises.   
55 Statistics Norway online information.  Viewed at:  http://www.ssb.no/ufats_en/. 
56 The predominance of the EU in outward FDI is consistent in terms of the number of enterprises 
(69%), annual turnover of the enterprises (65%), and employment (58%).  In 2008, Norwegian-controlled 
enterprises in Sweeden, employing more than 45,000 workers, had a combined turnover of NKr 144 billion.