Norway's supreme court has rejected a lawsuit from fugitive former U.S. spy contractor Edward Snowden against the Norwegian government, upholding the verdict of two lower courts, it said on Friday.

Snowden's law firm said in April he would take the state to court to secure free passage to the Nordic country to receive a free speech award. Both the Oslo District Court and an appeals court have since dismissed the case.

The Norwegian justice ministry could not be compelled to issue an advance decision on whether or not to extradite Snowden to the United States if he were to come to Norway, the supreme court said. </s> Edward Snowden speaks via video link during a conference at University of Buenos Aires Law School, Argentina, November 14, 2016. REUTERS/Marcos Brindicci

OSLO (Reuters) - Norway’s supreme court has rejected a lawsuit from fugitive former U.S. spy contractor Edward Snowden against the Norwegian government, upholding the verdict of two lower courts, it said on Friday.

Snowden’s law firm said in April he would take the state to court to secure free passage to the Nordic country to receive a free speech award. Both the Oslo District Court and an appeals court have since dismissed the case.

The Norwegian justice ministry could not be compelled to issue an advance decision on whether or not to extradite Snowden to the United States if he were to come to Norway, the supreme court said. </s> Norway’s supreme court has rejected Edward Snowden’s request for a legal guarantee that would allow him to collect an award in the Scandinavian country without risk of being extradited to the US.

The supreme court upheld decisions by lower courts that also refused the request.

An Oslo law firm filed the lawsuit in April on behalf of the former National Security Agency contractor and the Norwegian chapter of the free speech and literary organisation Pen, which had invited him to receive its Ossietzky Prize.

Mr Snowden, who is in Russia, faces charges in the US that could land him in prison for up to 30 years for leaking details of a secret US eavesdropping programme to journalists. </s> Oslo: Norway's supreme court on Saturday rejected a final appeal by fugitive whistleblower Edward Snowden to secure assurances he would not be extradicted to the US should he travel to Norway to collect an award.

Just as was the case in an original lawsuit and the subsequent appeal to a lower court in Oslo, the supreme court said it could not evaluate an extradition request preemptively.

Former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, Snowden, who lives in exile in Russia, faces charges of espionage and theft of state secrets in his homeland that could land him up to 30 years in jail.

It's a further blow for the 33-year-old US citizen and his supporters at the Norwegian branch of the PEN Club who hoped he would be able to pick up the Ossietzky prize, which celebrates "outstanding efforts for freedom of expression."

Norway was one of the countries where Snowden sought asylum after fleeing the United States in 2013, but Oslo's response was that asylum seekers had to be physically present in the country to apply.

Considered a whistleblower by some and a traitor by others, Snowden won a similar Norwegian award in 2015, but was likewise unable to collect it.

Snowden has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, which is also awarded in Norway, for the last three years, although without winning it. </s> Norway have threatened to extradite Edward Snowden if he sets foot in the country in order to pick up the Ossietzky Prize awarded to him for freedom of expression.

Noway’s Supreme Court rejected Snowden’s request for guarantees that he will not be extradited to the US, meaning that the NSA whistleblower will not be able to pick up the prize in person.

An extradition suit filed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden’s lawyers against the Norwegian government in April has already been rejected by Oslo District court and an appeals court.

Norwegian law firm Schjoedt petitioned the Oslo court on behalf of Snowden back in April to get it “legally established that Norway has no right to extradite Snowden to the US.”

The Supreme court on Friday could not be compelled to issue an advance decision on whether or not to extradite Snowden to the United States if he was to head to Norway, Reuters reported.

The American, who has been seeking refuge in Russia, wanted to travel to Norway to receive the Ossietzky Prize, from the local branch of writers’ group PEN International, for “outstanding efforts for freedom of expression.”

PEN was forced to postpone the award ceremony from November to next June after Norway rejected the original plea.

“We are very disappointed and really regret it,” PEN president William Nygaard said following the court’s decision, adding that Snowden is likely to receive the award in Russia.

PEN would continue to “do our utmost to highlight the role of whistleblowers,” Nygaard added, as quoted by DW.

Previously US authorities indicated an intention to file an extradition request should the former NSA contractor, who exposed extensive US mass surveillance, head to Norway. At home. Snowden is expected to face espionage charges, which could land him up to 30 years in jail.

Snowden, a former NSA contractor became famous in 2013 for leaking classified information. His leaks ultimately led to significant revelations about global mass surveillance programs employed by various governments, particularly the US. Snowden has been living in Russia, where he was granted in 2013. </s> Norway's Supreme Court has rejected Edward Snowden's attempt to win free passage to visit the country and receive an award for free speech.

Mr Snowden, who currently resides in Russia, copied and leaked thousands of classified NSA documents in 2013, revealing the scale of US government surveillance after the 9/11 attacks.

In April, the 33-year-old took Norway to court in an attempt secure free passage, through Oslo's District Court, an appeals court and finally the country's Supreme Court.

But the court ruled that Norway's Justice Ministry could not be forced to make a decision in advance regarding whether or not they would extradite Snowden to the US.

Mr Snowden is wanted by his home country to face trial on charges brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.

President Barack Obama has stated he will not give the former CIA employee and NSA contractor a presidential pardon unless he appears in court.

Mr Obama told the German newspaper Der Spiegel: "I can’t pardon somebody who hasn’t gone before a court and presented themselves.

"So that’s not something that I would comment on at this point.

"I think that Mr Snowden raised some legitimate concerns. How he did it was something that did not follow the procedures and practices of our intelligence community."

President-elect Donald Trump has promised to step up efforts to arrest the whistleblower - something Mr Snowden has said he is not worrying about.

Mr Snowden said: “I don't care. The reality here is that yes, Donald Trump has appointed a new director of the Central Intelligence Agency who uses me as a specific example to say that, look, dissidents should be put to death.

"But if I get hit by a bus, or a drone, or dropped off an airplane tomorrow, you know what?

"It doesn't actually matter that much to me, because I believe in the decisions that I've already made." </s> FILE - In this Feb. 14, 2015, file photo, Edward Snowden appears on a live video feed broadcast from Moscow at an event sponsored by ACLU Hawaii in Honolulu. Europe's human rights court is about to publish what could be a landmark ruling on the legality of mass surveillance. The case brought by civil liberties, human rights and journalism groups and campaigners challenges British surveillance and intelligence-sharing practices revealed by American whistleblower Edward Snowden. (AP Photo/Marco Garcia, File)

FILE - In this Feb. 14, 2015, file photo, Edward Snowden appears on a live video feed broadcast from Moscow at an event sponsored by ACLU Hawaii in Honolulu. Europe's human rights court is about to publish what could be a landmark ruling on the legality of mass surveillance. The case brought by civil liberties, human rights and journalism groups and campaigners challenges British surveillance and intelligence-sharing practices revealed by American whistleblower Edward Snowden. (AP Photo/Marco Garcia, File)

STRASBOURG, France (AP) — Europe’s human rights court handed a partial victory Thursday to civil rights groups that challenged the legality of mass surveillance and intelligence-sharing practices exposed by American whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that some aspects of British surveillance regimes violated provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights that are meant to safeguard Europeans’ rights to privacy.

Specifically, the court said there wasn’t enough independent scrutiny of processes used by British intelligence services to sift through data and communications intercepted in bulk.

The ruling cited a “lack of oversight of the entire selection process” and “the absence of any real safeguards.”

The court’s seven judges also voted 6-1 that Britain’s regime for getting data from communications service providers also violated the human rights convention, including its provisions on privacy and on freedom of expression.

But the ruling wasn’t all bad for British spies. The court said it is “satisfied” that British intelligence services take their human rights convention obligations seriously “and are not abusing their powers.”

The court also gave a green light to procedures British security services use to get intelligence from foreign spy agencies, saying the intelligence-sharing regime doesn’t violate the convention’s privacy provisions.

The ruling is not final and could be appealed.

Civil liberties campaigners who brought the case hailed the judgment as a landmark victory against the mass surveillance that governments have defended as an important tool in fighting terrorism.

Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, said the ruling “vindicates Mr. Snowden’s courageous whistleblowing.”

“Under the guise of counterterrorism, the U.K. has adopted the most authoritarian surveillance regime of any Western state, corroding democracy itself and the rights of the British public,” Carlo said in a statement. “This judgment is a vital step towards protecting millions of law-abiding citizens from unjustified intrusion.”

Dan Carey, a lawyer for the complainants, said: “There needs to be much greater control over the search terms that the government is using to sift our communications.”

Caroline Wilson Palow, another of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, said the ruling “confirms that just because it is technically feasible to intercept all of our personal communications, it does not mean that it is lawful to do so.”

The British government said it would give “careful consideration” to the court’s findings.

It noted that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which was the subject of the challenge, had been replaced by new legislation in 2016.

“This includes the introduction of a ‘double lock’ which requires warrants for the use of these powers to be authorised by a Secretary of State and approved by a judge,” the government said in a statement.

“An Investigatory Powers Commissioner has also been created to ensure robust independent oversight of how these powers are used.”

Rights groups, though, say Britain’s surveillance laws are still far too intrusive.

___

John Leicester in Paris and Jill Lawless contributed to this report. </s> A mass surveillance programme by the UK government breached human rights, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

In a major case brought by charities including Amnesty and human rights group Big Brother Watch, the ECHR ruled that Article 8 - a right to private life - was breached by a "bulk interception regime".

The case was brought after revelations from US whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed British surveillance and intelligence sharing practices.

An operation dubbed 'TEMPORA' allowed intelligence services "to tap into and store huge volumes of data".

In a ruling published today, the court ruled there was insufficient monitoring of the interception of information.

The court also found that "the regime for obtaining communications data from communications service providers" violated the same part of the code of human rights.

The regime also violated article 10, the court ruled, because there was not enough protection to ensure the safety of confidential journalistic sources.

However, the court ruled that sharing the information with foreign governments did not break the code.

In a statement, the court said: "While the Court was satisfied that the intelligence services of the United Kingdom take their Convention obligations seriously and are not abusing their powers, it found that there was inadequate independent oversight of the selection and search processes involved in the operation - in particular when it came to selecting the Internet bearers for interception and choosing the selectors and search criteria used to filter and select intercepted communications for examination.

"Furthermore, there were no real safeguards applicable to the selection of related communications data for examination, even though this data could reveal a great deal about a person’s habits and contacts."

Three applications - from Big Brother Watch, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and 10 human rights charities - were joined together, and were lodged after Mr Snowden's revelations.

All applicants felt their line of work meant they were more subject to having their communications intercepted by intelligence services.

Silkie Carlo, director of the organisation, observed: "Under the guise of counter-terrorism, the UK has adopted the most authoritarian surveillance regime of any Western state, corroding democracy itself and the rights of the British public.

"This judgment is a vital step towards protecting millions of law-abiding citizens from unjustified intrusion. However, since the new Investigatory Powers Act [the so-called Snoopers' Charter in the UK] arguably poses an ever greater threat to civil liberties, our work is far from over." </s> A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived part of a lawsuit in which the publisher of Wikipedia and other groups said mass online surveillance by the U.S. National Security Agency violated the U.S. Constitution.

By a 3-0 vote, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the Wikimedia Foundation could pursue claims challenging the so-called Upstream surveillance, involving the bulk searching of Internet communications.

The appeals court said a lower court judge erred in dismissing that claim because the main allegations were "not speculative," giving the group standing to sue for violations of the U.S. Constitution's First and Fourth Amendments.

"The allegation that the NSA is intercepting and copying communications suffices to show an invasion of a legally protected interest," Circuit Judge Albert Diaz wrote. "Indeed, there's nothing speculative about it."

Tuesday's decision also upheld the dismissal of related claims by eight other groups, including Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch, saying they could not plausibly show the NSA was intercepting their communications through what it called a "dragnet."

Circuit Judge Andre Davis dissented from that part of the decision, saying he would have found the other plaintiffs had standing.

A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the appeal for the plaintiffs and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Supreme Court of Norway rejects NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden's extradition lawsuit against the Norwegian government.