. 
The Norwegian Supreme Court saw no reason to deviate from the EFTA Court's guidelines on residency requirements for the payment of unemployment benefits.
In August 2019, a man was accused of gross social security fraud for failing to inform Nav between 4 June 2012 and 11 March 2014 that he had been in Sweden for several periods while receiving unemployment benefits .
Therefore, the prosecutor's office concluded that he was wrongly paid more than NOK 200 because Art. 000-4 of the Act on social security determines the conditions of stay in Norway in order to obtain the right to unemployment benefits.
The man was found guilty in the Asker and Bærum District Court and sentenced to 60 days in prison. The judgment was appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Statement by the EFTA Court
Later that year, the case was suspended pending clarification by the EFTA Court, following a social security scandal that uncovered incorrect applications for residence in Norway in connection with sickness benefits and unemployment benefits.
Read our next article: Is commuting to work paid?
In a similar unemployment benefit case, which was heard at the Borgarting Court of Appeal the following year, the court obtained an advisory interpretative opinion from the EFTA Court on whether the residence requirement under the Social Security Act § 4-2 was contrary to EEA legislation.
The court replied that it was not contrary to EEA law to require that a person receiving unemployment benefits reside in Norway. This conclusion was used as the basis for the on and the judgment was delivered in accordance with the opinion .
Referring to the Nav judgment, the Supreme Court clarifies that the EFTA Court's understanding of EEA law cannot be departed from unless there are "good and compelling reasons" for doing so.
The member with the first right to vote, Kine Steinsvik, therefore looks more closely at whether there are good and valid reasons to depart from the EFTA Court's interpretation, but concludes that there are none.
“I do not see that the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU provides a sufficiently clear basis for departing from the understanding of EEA law by the EFTA Court. The court explained how the relationship between the provisions of the Social Security Regulation in Articles 64-65a and the main principles of free movement should be understood, and I found no reason to depart from the conclusions of the court.
The Supreme Court therefore accepts that the requirement in Section 4-2 of the Social Insurance Act to reside in Norway as a condition for obtaining unemployment benefit is compatible with EEA law and rejects the appeal.
"Therefore, the Court of Appeal did not rely on a misapplication of the law in convicting Nav of failing to inform Nav that the defendant was in Sweden while receiving unemployment benefits," writes Steinsvik. . Thus, the authority upheld the conviction of the man who received the benefit while residing in Sweden.
