Source: http://ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com/rh-data-archive/category/adv%20disciplinary%20boardbfcc5cd4b6
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:15:52+00:00

Document:
JAG EOPGASM Notice to Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Secretariat: Ms. Smagadi, Aarhus Convention Committee Members; and Media, Bar Association & Breivik parties: RE: Aarhus CCC (ref. ACCC/C/2013/82) ruling re: Media Censorship of Env-Scarcity-Conflict Connection during Breivik trial.
I have copied Aarhus Convention Committee Members, due to your failure to honourably and professionally respond to my last request for confirmation of my interpretation of the Committee’s statement.
Please take note that in the absence of a response from the Committee confirming my interpretation, my application to the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union for an Application for Annulment under Article 263 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union; shall request the General Court to interpret the application of Lara Johnstone, for annulment, as also being from JAG Lt. Cdr. Lara Braveheart, as authorized by US Navy Judge Advocate General: Vice Adm. Nanette Derenzi, as part of the NSA Æquilibriæx Sustainable Security Theses Ecology of Peace v. Near Term Extinction campaign.
The declaration to US Navy Judge Advocate General: VADM Nanette Derenzi, CC: Asst. Sec. for Energy, Installations & Environment: VADM Dennis McGinn and Senator James Inhofe: NSA Æquilibriæx Sustainable Security Theses Ecology of Peace v. Near Term Extinction campaign is in support of Æquilibriæx Amicus Applications filed in among others the following cases: Germany v. Beate Zschape; United Kingdom v. Michael Adebolajo; US v Bradley Manning; US v Edward Snowden; ACLU v Clapper; Unitarian Church of LA v NSA.
Communication to the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee – Alleged Non-Compliance by Kingdom of Norway with the obligations under the Aarhus Convention: Rejection of Request for Access to Environmental Information from (a) Newspaper Editors, and (b) Bar Association; by Norwegian Environment Appeals Committee and Parliamentary Ombudsman.
[1.1] Non-compliance to Access to Information (Article 4 (1) & (7)), by Media Editors: Adresseavisen: Editor: Arne Blix; Aftenposten: Editor: Hilde Haugsgjerd; Bergens Tidende: Editor: Trine Eilertsen; Dagbladet: Editor: John Arne Markussen; NRK: Editor: Hans Tore Bjerkaas; TV2: Editor: Alf Hildrum; VG: Editor: Torry Pedersen.
[1.2] A general failure to implement, or implement correctly, the General (Article 3(1)) and Collection and Dissemination of Environmental Information (Article 5(1)) provisions of the Convention; by the Bar Association (Advokatforeningen): Disciplinary Committee and Disciplinary Board for Advocates (Disiplinærnemnden for advokater).
[1.3] Non-Compliance to Access to Justice (Article 9 (1) & (4)), by the Environmental Appeals Board (Klagenemnda for miljøinformasjon): Erroneous ‘Environmental Information’ definition, Denied Due Process and Effective Remedy.
[1.4] Non-Compliance to Access to Justice (Article 9 (1) & (4)), by the Parliamentary Ombudsman: Denied Due Process & Effective Remedy.
Correspondence from Parliamentary Ombudsman: Complaint Regarding the Appeals Board for Environmental Information.
Reference is made to your letter 11 November 2012 and complaints form 12 November 2012 where your complaint about a decision made 10 September 2012 by the Norwegian Appeals Board for Environmental Information. In the decision the Appeals Board find that your "appeals are denied as not justified."
According to the Civil Ombudsman Act section 6 paragraph 4 the Ombudsman "shall decide whether there are sufficient grounds for dealing with a complaint". The Ombudsman has reviewed your complaint and the enclosed documents, and your complaint does not give reasons to initiate further investigations regarding the Appeals Board case processing or decision.
Your case at the Ombudsman's office against the Appeals Board for Environmental Information is hereby concluded.
Reference is made to your e-mails of October 8 and November 3 2012, where you request a justification for statements in the e-mail of September 18 2012 from the secretariat for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information.
The secretariat would like to point out that our e-mail of September 18 2012, were we explained how your appeals had been prepared prior to the Appeals Board decision, is not an administrative decision. We can not provide you with a ruling clarifying the factual and legal grounds for our statements in this e-mail. However, as the decision of the Appeals Board for Environmental Information shows, the board agreed that your appeals were not justified and therefore had to be denied. The board´s grounds for this were, in accordance with the Public Administration Act § 24, stated in the e-mail of September 10 2012 notifying you of the decision. The secretariat does not wish to add anything to these grounds, and will not reply to further e-mail from you regarding this same matter.
We can however inform you that we have chosen to provide you the Appeals Board's decision on an official letterhead. You will find this document enclosed.
Request to Environment Appeals Board in terms of Public Administration Act (PAA), section 23, 24, 25, and (iii) Freedom of Information Act: Section 22.
I have received no response to my request for information submitted to you on 08 October: Appeals Board for Environmental Information Decisions: Media Censorship & AdvokatForengin Disc. Brd & Committee; in response to your ruling of 18 September 2012.
In terms of the Public Administration Act, Section, 24, 25, and 26, and Freedom of Information Act, Section 2: Please could you kindly provide a ruling in consideration of clarifying what factual and legal grounds you considered in terms of coming to your conclusion that my complaint ‘clearly had to be denied’; including clarifying exactly how my complaints do not fit the definition of Environment as clarified by the Aarhus convention and LAW 2003-05-09 # 31: Act concerning the right to information and participation in public decision-making processes relating to the environment (environmental law), as requested in correspondent of 08 October.
Response from Benedikte Strøm: Secretary for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information: RE: Media Censorship & Bar Association complaints; RE: Request for Statutory Authority authorising due process violations.
The secretariat for the Appeals Board for Environmental Information refers to your e-mails of September 10 and 11 2012.
The Appeals Board`s reference number for you appeal of June 18 2012 against Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG is 2012/2. For archival purposes the reference number 2012/708 is used in addition. The Appeals Board's reference number for your appeal of August 16 2012 against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board is 2012/5. For archival purposes the number 2012/1023 is used in addition.
The information on www.miljoklagenemnda.no about how cases prepared has only status as guidance. The rules that are binding for the Appeals Board are found in the regulation December 14 2003 regarding the Appeals Board for Environmental Information. This regulation is available in Norwegian at http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/md/xd-20031214-1572.html.
When receiving appeals that clearly have to be denied, it is not necessary to ask the respondents to provide their arguments. In these cases the secretariat prepares a draft decision and consults the members of the board. If the draft decision is approved by the members of the board, no further discussion is needed. This makes the Appeals Board able to settle obvious cases without arranging unnecessary meetings. Your appeals have been settled this way. Because no meeting has taken place, you will not receive a signed decision.
[A] Complainant files complaint; [B] Adjudicating Authority immediately issues a Case Number; [C] Complaint provided to Respondents, who are given a specific time period for their response; [D] Respondents provide their arguments, detailing issues such as – FOR EXAMPLE in this case - alleged inaccurate ‘environmental information’ definitions; or ‘rights to discriminate against certain cultures/races/religions and censor all information about such culture/religions/races opinions or actions in any court proceeding’; [E] The Complainant is given the opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the Respondent/s; [F] If there are additional issues still unclear, the adjudicating authority can ask for another round of submissions, repeating [D] and [E]; [G] The Adjudicating authority makes a final decision based upon the evidence and arguments submitted to it; which were transparently provided to both parties, and which both parties had the ‘right of reply’ to.
Now, in my complaint to the Environmental Appeals Board against the media publications of (a) Addresseavisen, (b) Aftenposten, (c) Bergens Tidende, (d) Dagbladet, (e) NRK, (f) TV2 and (g) VG, the Environmental Appeals Board has skipped the due process procedures of [B] to [F] and gone straight to [G].
Could you provide the statutory authority that provides the Environmental Appeals Board with this authority to violate due process procedures?
If the Environmental Appeals Board did receive submissions from any of the Media Publications Respondents; please clarify what authority authorizes you to withhold such submissions from the complainant and to deny the complaint a response to such submissions; and provide the complainant with copies of these submissions that were made to the Environmental Appeals Board?
Now, in my complaint to the Environmental Appeals Board against the Bar Association Disciplinary Committee and Disciplinary Board for Advocates, the Environmental Appeals Board has also skipped the due process procedures of [B] to [F] and gone straight to [G].
If the Environmental Appeals Board did receive submissions from either the Disciplinary Board of Disciplinary Committee Respondents; please clarify what authority authorizes you to withhold such submissions from the complainant and to deny the complaint a response to such submissions; and provide the complainant with copies of these submissions that were made to the Environmental Appeals Board?
We refer to your appeal of June 18 2012 against Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG regarding the undertakings decline to provide a justification for the decision not to publish two articles related to the incident on July 22 2011 and terrorism. We also refer to your appeal of August 16 2012 against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board regarding their refusal to provide an environmental justification for the policy to refuse complaints by e-mail.
According to the Environmental Information Act section 16 (1) "Any person is entitled to receive environmental information from undertakings such as are mentioned in section 5, sub-section 2, concerning factors related to the undertaking, including factor inputs and products, which may have an appreciable effect on the environment".
When used in the Environmental Information Act, the term "environment" means the external environment, including archaeological and architectural monuments and sites and cultural environments, cf. section 2 (2) of the act. Information regarding the social environment is thus not considered "environmental information" as the term is defined in the act. Information concerning human health, safety and living conditions, is only considered "environmental information" to the extent that these factors are or may be affected by the state of the external environment or factors that affect or may affect the environment, cf. section 2 (1).
The right to receive environmental information from undertakings is limited to information concerning factors "which may have an appreciable effect on the environment".
Concerning your first appeal, the Appeals Board for Environmental Information would like to point out that the editorial choices made by the staff working for newspapers, TV channels etc. are not factors related to the undertaking which may have an effect on the environment. The information that you have requested from Adresseavisen, Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Dagbladet, NRK, TV2 and VG is thus not "environmental information".
Regarding your second appeal, against the Norwegian Bar Association´s Disciplinary Committee and the Disciplinary Board, the Appeals Board finds that the policy to refuse complaints by e-mail is not a factor which may have an appreciable effect on the environment.
The appeals are denied as not justified.
The decision of the board is final and is not subject for further appeals. Disputes about the duties of undertakings according to The Environmental Information Act may be subject for legal proceedings.
Regarding your first appeal, the secretariat for the Appeals Board adds that editors` freedom to make decisions in editorial issues is granted in the Act regarding Editorial Freedom in the Media section 4.
I have not yet received any reference for this complaint filed on 16 August 2012. In the absence of a response to the issues requested, by 17:00 hrs, on 11 September 2012, I shall file a complaint of slow processing, with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Complaint: Request for Access to Environment Information in terms of S.28 (Freedom of Information Act) and S.10 (Environmental Law) RE: Norwegian Bar Association’s Anti-Environmental Printed Complaints Policy: CCBE Code of Ethics Disciplinary Complaints were filed against 170 Advocates in the Norway v. Breivik matter (4 with Disciplinary Board of Advocates (“Disciplinary Board”; 166 with Bar Association: Disciplinary Committee (“Disciplinary Committee”), by email.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 24
 v.