03/12/2025
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ao7001s6QDU
A Norwegian company can be prosecuted if it failed to take measures to prevent human rights violation! 😳👉🇳🇴🎖️⛽️👮🏼♀️🤥🎬👁️
– If the Norwegian ministry knew, it could be held criminally liable .
Terje Einarsen, a law professor at the University of Bergen, believes that the owner of a company can be prosecuted if it failed to take measures to prevent human rights violations.
This week, the control committee in the Storting held its first meeting after receiving the government's response letter about Telenor. The meeting ended with the committee sending new letters to three ministers to gain insight into the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Industry's ownership dialogue with Telenor.
Telenor customers' user data:
– If the owner, as the Ministry of Trade and Industry is for Telenor, knew of a significant risk of human rights violations and criminal acts, he or she may be criminally liable, says law professor Terje Einarsen at the University of Bergen.
Terje Einarsen, Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Bergen. He is also the head of the Norwegian branch of the International Commission of Jurists. Panorama has requested an interview and sent several questions to Minister of Trade and Industry Cecilie Myrseth (Labour Party) following the answers she sent to the Control Committee in the Storting.
She has not answered the questions, including whether the state, as Telenor's main owner, could have done more to prevent the regime in Myanmar from gaining access to Telenor customers' personal data. Yesterday, Panorama reported that the Control Committee in the Storting has given the government one week to share the Ministry of Trade and Industry's ownership dialogue with Telenor.
And the day before, the committee's head said that the government's Telenor response generates more questions than answers.
He was upset that the committee was denied access to the ownership dialogue the ministry has had with Telenor.
Telenor, With an ownership stake of almost 60 percent, the Norwegian state is the majority owner of Telenor.😳👉🇳🇴📞60%
– That the committee has to drag and beg to get documentation in such a serious case surprises me.
The impression left, after reading the answers, is that the government wants to keep parts of the communication with Telenor outside the Storting, said Per-Willy Amundsen.
UN principles: Owner “has an independent responsibility”
In the same article, Betrayed by Norway author Nicolai Prydz referred to the answers as “a disclaimer of responsibility”, and Diego Alexander Foss, advisor to the Nordic Center for Sustainable Finance, pointed out that “owners of a company have an independent responsibility”.
Foss, who has followed the Telenor case closely since the coup, referred to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which Norway helped to adopt in the UN Human Rights Council, and has later reinforced through its own action plan for business and human rights.
With an ownership stake of almost 60 percent, the Norwegian state is the majority owner of Telenor.
According to a report from the UN Human Rights Council, owners have “independent responsibility” meaning that owners, just like the company’s management and board, have a responsibility to ensure that human rights are not violated.
This responsibility is not limited to checking that the company’s management does its job, but includes, among other things, the use of due diligence assessments and using their ownership influence to reduce the risk of human rights violations. This includes all state owned companies like NAV, Child Protective Services and Norwegian embassies around the world.
The Norwegian Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Industry and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the government is given one week to submit its entire ownership dialogue related to Telenor’s nightmare in Myanmar.!🇳🇴👁️📞
In the follow-up letters sent by the Control Committee yesterday to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Industry and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the government is given one week to submit its entire ownership dialogue related to Telenor’s nightmare in Myanmar.
The committee wants answers about the company’s cooperation with the junta, about the disclosure of personally sensitive telecommunications data “which in the ultimate consequence may have led to the arrest, imprisonment, torture and ex*****on of opposition figures”.
In addition, they want information about the sale of the subsidiary “to new owners loyal to the regime”, as well as about the installation and testing of surveillance equipment that can be used to monitor customers in real time.
The ministers involved, could be held liable for complicity in Telenor's breach of the rules, including criminal law 😳👉🇳🇴🎖️👁️
Einarsen. – If it’s disclosed that the ministry knew that there was a risk that Telenor customers' data could be accessed by the regime, and yet did not do enough to prevent it, the ministry, and perhaps the ministers involved, could be held liable for complicity in Telenor's breach of the rules, including criminal law, says the professor.
He points out that several regulations may apply, and says that this makes the case demanding.
– One is corporate law, which, among other things, excludes direct financial liability for shareholders for the company's actions. But then other rules come into play, if, for example, there is a risk that the company has contributed to human rights violations. Here, there are international standards for responsible business, explains Einarsen.
– These apply primarily to the company itself, but an owner may also be obliged to make such risk assessments.
This is, for example, well illustrated by the fact that the Ministry of Finance, as owner of the Petroleum Fund, has ordered Norges Bank to manage the fund in accordance with international standards.
The Ministry has also created its own guidelines that the Council on Ethics has worked according to. All of this has been done to ensure that the fund is managed responsibly.
Similarly, the Ministry of Trade and Industry must ensure that Telenor operates responsibly, explains Einarsen.
– A ministry is also an enterprise
The next regulation that may apply in the Telenor case is tort law.
– In this context, it is possible to imagine a possible tort liability related to victims or relatives affected by a negligent exchange of information with the regime in Myanmar.
But here the owner – the Ministry of Trade and Industry – cannot be held liable as a shareholder.
This is Telenor's, and possibly the management and board's, responsibility, says Einarsen.
When he talks about Telenor's main owner being criminally liable, Einarsen is based on the fact that a company can be held liable under sections 27-28 of the Norwegian Penal Code.
An enterprise can be held liable under Sections 27-28 of the Norwegian Penal Code.
– A ministry, a public enterprise, is an enterprise within the meaning of the Norwegian Penal Code.
The ministry can in principle be imposed a corporate penalty if someone who has acted on its behalf has violated a criminal provision and acted intentionally or negligently.
In relation to Telenor, this may firstly apply to violations of sanctions legislation, for example by disclosing sensitive information to authorities in a country that is under international sanctions, such as Myanmar, explains the professor.
He points out that Norway has the so-called Myanmar Regulation, based on EU law.
– The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Industry can theoretically be held liable for complicity in a violation of sanctions if the minister or others in the ministry knew about the risk of actions by Telenor that are actually in violation of the law and yet failed to intervene, explains Einarsen.
– The coup regime is responsible Secondly, the general criminal law can be applied, the professor believes.
This includes War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and Genocide.
Chairman of the Control Committee:
– The government's answers provide more questions than answers ?
– Engaging in or contributing to the systematic or widespread persecution of democracy or human rights defenders, where they are subjected to imprisonment, torture or murder, is a crime against humanity.
In such cases, as in Myanmar after the coup, it is not necessary to prove each individual murder or each case of torture, says Einarsen. If the case comes before a court, according to the professor, it is sufficient that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that such cases occurred, and that the actions were systematic, or to a large extent directed against those perceived by the regime as enemies.
– But how can an owner be affected by this part of the Criminal Code?
– If we assume that Telenor is criminally liable, and that the Ministry of Trade and Industry as the owner has had sufficient knowledge of the situation and has nevertheless failed to do anything to stop, for example, Telenor's sharing of data with the regime in time, then the Ministry of Trade and Industry, or people there, may also be held liable for complicity.
This is complicated, but not that complicated, says the professor.
UD's review: – Several people have thought the same Einarsen maintains that this is a logical legal line of thought.
Together with the organization Justice for Myanmar (JFM), ICJ Norway has reported Telenor for violating the Myanmar Regulations, which regulate Norwegian and international sanctions against Myanmar to prevent human rights violations.
We ask the ICJ Norway leader what he thinks about the fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also chose to report Telenor for violating the Myanmar Regulations.
– The Ministry of Foreign Affairs report indicates that several competent groups have thought some of the same thoughts, independently of each other, says Einarsen.
He points out that he did not know that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had already reported Telenor in 2023 when ICJ Norway reported the mobile giant in December 2024.
Einarsen and ICJ Norway have tried to gain access to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' report to see how it is justified, as well as to the Police Security Service's (PST) justification for dismissing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs report.
However, the request was rejected by both the PST and the appeals body at the national public prosecutor's office.
– I hope that these and other documents – which can shed light on who knew what and when – will at least be made available to the Storting’s Constitutional Committee or a Storting-appointed investigation commission, says Einarsen.
The Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy has declined to comment on Professor Terje Einarsen’s reflections.😳👉🇳🇴🎖️👮🏼♀️⛽️🤑⛄️🎅🏻🤥📞🎬👁️
Operation paperclip for dummies!
