PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 25498/08) against the Kingdom of Norway lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Arne Kristiansen, a Norwegian national who was born in 1931, and Tyvik A/S, a limited liability company established under Norwegian law.

The applicants were represented by Mr H. Berge, a jurist residing in Luxembourg. The Norwegian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs F. Platou Amble, Attorney, Attorney-general’s Office (Civil Matters), assisted by Mr E. Bratterud, Attorney.

On 7 June 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. Patent application to NIPO

On 30 November 1990 the first applicant submitted a patent application for a particular method of propulsion of aircrafts and sea vessels to the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (Patentstyrets første avdeling – hereinafter referred to as “NIPO”). Ranging under the Ministry of Trade and Industry, NIPO is a government authority, responsible for processing and deciding on applications for patent protection in Norway. The application was allotted no. 19905214.

In a letter of 21 March 1991, NIPO presented a preliminary opinion stating that the application in its present form was not patentable because it did not reveal a concrete solution to achieve the desired effect. It also questioned whether the invention had any effect at all. Therefore, under former section 28 (currently section 32) of the Regulation (forskrift) to the Patents Act 1967 (patentloven), NIPO required the first applicant to perform a test (“praktiske forsøk”) at an independent research institute and to submit the necessary test documentation. The first applicant replied on 30 September 1991 that he disputed the need for a test and referred to the high costs for such tests. However, he informed NIPO that prototypes were under construction and could be tested in the presence of representatives from NIPO.

In the period from 6 May 1992 to 10 May 1994, there was correspondence between the first applicant and NIPO as to the existence of any need to protect the confidentiality of the application. In February 1993 NIPO asked the Military Supreme Command whether the application should be kept secret on national security grounds, which the latter answered in the negative in March 1993. The first applicant was informed in June 1993.

On 9 May 1994 the first applicant provided NIPO with further information on the subject-matter of the application. On 24 February 1995, NIPO reiterated its request of 21 March 1991 that the first applicant provide evidence from tests showing the technical effect and concrete features of the invention. In his reply of 23 May 1995 the first applicant submitted theoretical views on the subject-matter of the application with reference to a research report of 1965 which, according to him, described tests and results that proved the technical effect of his invention. The required tests were therefore superfluous, in his view.

The first applicant on 27 November 1996 complained about the delays in the processing of his application. The NIPO’s Director General on 9 December 1996 apologised for the delay and said the matter would be given priority.

On 16 December 1996 NIPO maintained its earlier requirement of independent tests, to which a series of exchanges ensued between the applicant and NIPO on the need for tests, including a protest by the applicant questioning NIPO’s technical competence and the submission by him of statements by two academics, dated 14 March and 18 December 1997, respectively.

Whilst apologising for the delay, NIPO maintained its position on the need for testing in a communication to the first applicant of 5 May 1999 and gave him until 5 November 1999 to comply.

By a registered letter of 26 October 1999, received on 11 November 1999, the first applicant again characterised NIPO’s processing as late and technically incompetent without making any new arguments concerning the requirements for granting a patent.

On the ground of the first applicant’s failure to comply with the time-limit of 5 November 1999, NIPO decided to discontinue (henlegge) its examination of his application under section 15(2) of the Patents Act (according to which, in the event of an omission by a patent seeker to provide a statement or to take measures to rectify a notified deficiency, the application shall be shelved). Upon reconsideration of the matter, NIPO informed the first applicant on 18 February 2000 that, although the application had been received on time, it maintained its decision to shelve the application because he had not met the substantive requirements indicated to him on 5 May 1999.

The first applicant then lodged a petition with the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Civil Matters on 8 March 2001.

B. Resumption of examination by NIPO

Following an inquiry by the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Civil Matters, NIPO informed the first applicant on 30 August 2001 that it had annulled its decision to discontinue the matter and gave him until 28 February 2002 to respond to its letter of 5 May 1999. He replied on 24 September 2001 but without presenting any new arguments or material.

On 2 October 2001 NIPO refused the application on the ground that the applicant had not made it probable that the subject-matter of the application had the alleged technical effect.

On 23 January 2002 the Parliamentary Ombudsman informed NIPO that he found no grounds for continuing the investigation of the petition.

C. Appeal to NIPO’s Board of Appeals

On 27 November 2001 the first applicant appealed to the Board of Appeals (Patentstyrets annen avdeling) against NIPO’s decision of 2 October 2001.

Following a period of circulation of the case files among the members of the Board of Appeals, the first meeting on the case was held on 13 September 2004. The Board of Appeals took a different view than NIPO and indicated a new formulation of the patent claims which might lead to a patent, but only for sea vessels. The applicant was informed correspondingly in a letter of 29 September 2004.

During the period from 12 November 2004 to 13 January 2005, there was correspondence between the Board of Appeals and the first applicant in order to arrange a meeting, which was held on 2 February 2005. The subject-matter of the appeal was discussed together with the further process.

On 14 February 2005, NIPO was informed that 50% of the ownership to the application had been transferred to the second applicant Tyvik AS. Thereafter, mostly both applicants, occasionally only the first applicant, acted as claimants in the relevant proceedings (to simplify “applicants” is used in the following).

In the period from 2 May 2005 to 17 October 2005, the Board of Appeals and the applicants exchanged various communications regarding the patentability of the original patent claims. By a decision of 14 November 2005, the Board of Appeals concluded that the invention in application no. 19905214 had a technical effect, but the Board did not consider whether other patent requirements had been fulfilled. The applicants had received information on how to change the claims into a patentable invention but had been unwilling to do so. Consequently, the Board did not find any grounds to continue processing of the application. Accordingly, NIPO’s decision was set aside and the application was referred back to NIPO for further consideration.

D. Reconsideration by NIPO

Following the return of the application to NIPO, it concluded in its letter of 29 November 2005 that the subject-matter of NO 19905214 could not be considered novel.

The applicants, represented by Mr. H. Berge, filed a new complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 13 March 2006 concerning the proceedings before NIPO. In particular they claimed that the executive officer of NIPO had been prejudiced as he was responsible for considerable parts of the previous processing and the refusal of the application prior to the appeal to the Board of Appeals. The Parliamentary Ombudsman replied on 22 March 2006 and 29 June 2006 that he could not decide on complaints until the processing of the application had been completed, but assumed that the case would now be examined with due diligence (“tilbørlig hurtighet”).

Exchanges of correspondence between NIPO and the applicants continued between 31 May 2006 and 11 June 2006. NIPO provided guidance and suggested that specific changes be made to the patent claims in order to render the subject-matter of the application patentable. The applicants disagreed.

On 20 June 2007, the application was formally refused due to lack of novelty (see paragraph 35 below).

E. Second appeal to Board of Appeals

On 20 August 2007 the applicants appealed to the Board of Appeals. On 29 November 2007, they were informed that the Board, after having examined the case (on 12 November 2007) had found it clear that the conditions for granting a patent had not been fulfilled in so far as concerned aircrafts. However, the application might succeed in respect of a more limited field of sea vessels. It was proposed that the patent requirements be formulated in a similar manner as proposed in the Board of Appeals’ letter of 29 September 2004 (see paragraph 18 above).

The communication of 29 November 2007 further warned the applicants that if the patent requirements were not defined in accordance with the indications given, the Office’s rejection might be confirmed. In the alternative, the part of the application that related to air transport might be disjoined from that which related to sea transport, in which case it might be expected that the former part would be rejected. As an alternative to delimiting against the requirements to aircrafts, dividing the application into two parts, one concerning aircrafts, another concerning sea vessels, could be considered, in accordance with section 11 of the Patents Act. In that case, a rejection of the separate part relating to air crafts ought to be expected.

The applicants were given until 29 January 2008 to comment and were warned that the case might be determined on the basis of the case-file as it stood as at that date.

In a letter to the Board of Appeals of 28 January 2008, the applicants submitted their observations to the communication of 29 November 2007 and altered the definition of patent requirements.

On 22 September 2008 the Board of Appeals confirmed NIPO’s refusal of the patent requested (see paragraph 25 above), albeit on a different reasoning. Whilst NIPO had been sceptical about whether the patent requested could serve according to its purpose, the Board of Appeals had no doubt that the results could be achieved with the invention that could be exploited industrially and that the application could not be rejected on this ground. Both NIPO and the Board of Appeals found that the application did not involve any novelty in respect of aviation, though the reasoning differed. Unlike NIPO, the Board of Appeals found that the application could have succeeded in a limited area of sea transport. The applicants had been advised that in order to succeed, the patent requirements would have to be defined so as to exclude aviation but had not been willing to do so. The application as presented did therefore not fulfil the conditions for grant of patent.

The applicants have apparently not challenged the Board of Appeals’ decision of 22 September 2008 before the Norwegian courts.

F. Subsequent developments

According to the applicants, the patent applications they had filed in 2003, made in light of the patent application of 30 November 1990 (no. 19905214), had been granted in the United States of America, Russia, China and Singapore and “through the EPO [European Patent Office] as well”.

The Government submitted that according to Espacenet (a database provided by EPO), the applicants had not claimed priority with respect to no. 19905214 in any of the above mentioned countries or in EPO. The granted EPO patent had claimed priority in relation to another and separate application by the applicants, namely no. 20015844, which had been based on knowledge from no. 19905214. When comparing the EPO patent claims with no. 19905214, one would observe that the former had been based on additional features that had made the invention patentable.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e1
001-119049_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
25498/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-119049_a8_e2
001-119049_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Kingdom of Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e3
001-119049_a8_em3
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Arne Kristiansen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e4
001-119049_a8_em4
DEM
NO_MASK
Norwegian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e5
001-119049_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
1931
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-119049_a8_e6
001-119049_a8_em6
ORG
QUASI
Tyvik A/S
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e7
001-119049_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr H. Berge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e8
001-119049_a8_em8
LOC
QUASI
Luxembourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e9
001-119049_a8_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
Norwegian Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e10
001-119049_a8_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs F. Platou Amble
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e11
001-119049_a8_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
Attorney-general’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e12
001-119049_a8_em12
PERSON
QUASI
Mr E. Bratterud
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e13
001-119049_a8_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
7 June 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em14
ORG
NO_MASK
001-119049_a8_em16
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e15
001-119049_a8_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
30 November 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em16
ORG
NO_MASK
Norwegian Industrial Property Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em17
ORG
NO_MASK
001-119049_a8_em16
Patentstyrets første avdeling
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em18
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e16
001-119049_a8_em19
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Trade and Industry
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em20
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e17
001-119049_a8_em21
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e18
001-119049_a8_em22
CODE
QUASI
19905214
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e19
001-119049_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
21 March 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em25
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e20
001-119049_a8_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
30 September 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em27
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em28
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e21
001-119049_a8_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
6 May 1992
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e22
001-119049_a8_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
10 May 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em31
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e23
001-119049_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
February 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em33
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e24
001-119049_a8_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
March 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e25
001-119049_a8_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
June 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e26
001-119049_a8_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
9 May 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em37
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e27
001-119049_a8_em38
DATETIME
QUASI
24 February 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em39
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e19
001-119049_a8_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
21 March 1991
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e28
001-119049_a8_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
23 May 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e29
001-119049_a8_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
1965
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e30
001-119049_a8_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
27 November 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em44
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e31
001-119049_a8_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
9 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e32
001-119049_a8_em46
DATETIME
QUASI
16 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em47
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em48
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em49
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e33
001-119049_a8_em50
DATETIME
QUASI
14 March and 18 December 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em51
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e34
001-119049_a8_em52
DATETIME
QUASI
5 May 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e35
001-119049_a8_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
5 November 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e36
001-119049_a8_em54
DATETIME
QUASI
26 October 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e37
001-119049_a8_em55
DATETIME
QUASI
11 November 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em56
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e35
001-119049_a8_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
5 November 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em58
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em59
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e38
001-119049_a8_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
18 February 2000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e34
001-119049_a8_em61
DATETIME
QUASI
5 May 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e39
001-119049_a8_em62
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliamentary Ombudsman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e40
001-119049_a8_em63
DATETIME
QUASI
8 March 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em64
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e41
001-119049_a8_em65
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliamentary Ombudsman for Civil Matters
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em66
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e42
001-119049_a8_em67
DATETIME
QUASI
30 August 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e43
001-119049_a8_em68
DATETIME
QUASI
28 February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e34
001-119049_a8_em69
DATETIME
QUASI
5 May 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e44
001-119049_a8_em70
DATETIME
QUASI
24 September 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e45
001-119049_a8_em71
DATETIME
QUASI
2 October 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em72
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e46
001-119049_a8_em73
DATETIME
QUASI
23 January 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e39
001-119049_a8_em74
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliamentary Ombudsman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em75
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em76
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em77
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e48
001-119049_a8_em78
DATETIME
QUASI
27 November 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em79
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e49
001-119049_a8_em80
ORG
NO_MASK
Patentstyrets annen avdeling
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em81
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e45
001-119049_a8_em82
DATETIME
QUASI
2 October 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em83
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e50
001-119049_a8_em84
DATETIME
QUASI
13 September 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em86
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e51
001-119049_a8_em87
DATETIME
QUASI
29 September 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e52
001-119049_a8_em88
DATETIME
QUASI
12 November 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e53
001-119049_a8_em89
DATETIME
QUASI
13 January 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em90
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e54
001-119049_a8_em91
DATETIME
QUASI
2 February 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e55
001-119049_a8_em92
DATETIME
QUASI
14 February 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em93
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e56
001-119049_a8_em94
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
50%
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e57
001-119049_a8_em95
DATETIME
QUASI
2 May 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e58
001-119049_a8_em96
DATETIME
QUASI
17 October 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em97
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e59
001-119049_a8_em98
DATETIME
QUASI
14 November 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em99
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e18
001-119049_a8_em100
CODE
QUASI
19905214
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em101
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em102
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em103
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em104
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e60
001-119049_a8_em105
DATETIME
QUASI
29 November 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e18
001-119049_a8_em106
CODE
QUASI
19905214
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e61
001-119049_a8_em107
PERSON
QUASI
Mr. H. Berge
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e39
001-119049_a8_em108
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliamentary Ombudsman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e62
001-119049_a8_em109
DATETIME
QUASI
13 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em110
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em111
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em112
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e39
001-119049_a8_em113
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliamentary Ombudsman
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e63
001-119049_a8_em114
DATETIME
QUASI
22 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e64
001-119049_a8_em115
DATETIME
QUASI
29 June 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em116
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e65
001-119049_a8_em117
DATETIME
QUASI
31 May 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e66
001-119049_a8_em118
DATETIME
QUASI
11 June 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em119
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e67
001-119049_a8_em120
DATETIME
QUASI
20 June 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em121
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e68
001-119049_a8_em122
DATETIME
QUASI
20 August 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em123
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e69
001-119049_a8_em124
DATETIME
QUASI
29 November 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e70
001-119049_a8_em125
DATETIME
QUASI
12 November 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em126
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e51
001-119049_a8_em127
DATETIME
QUASI
29 September 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e69
001-119049_a8_em128
DATETIME
QUASI
29 November 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e71
001-119049_a8_em129
ORG
NO_MASK
Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e72
001-119049_a8_em130
DATETIME
QUASI
29 January 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em131
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e73
001-119049_a8_em132
DATETIME
QUASI
28 January 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e69
001-119049_a8_em133
DATETIME
QUASI
29 November 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e74
001-119049_a8_em134
DATETIME
QUASI
22 September 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em135
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em136
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em137
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em138
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em139
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em140
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e14
001-119049_a8_em141
ORG
NO_MASK
NIPO
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em142
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e47
001-119049_a8_em143
ORG
NO_MASK
Board of Appeals
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e74
001-119049_a8_em144
DATETIME
QUASI
22 September 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e4
001-119049_a8_em145
DEM
NO_MASK
Norwegian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e75
001-119049_a8_em146
DATETIME
QUASI
2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e15
001-119049_a8_em147
DATETIME
QUASI
30 November 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e18
001-119049_a8_em148
CODE
QUASI
19905214
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e76
001-119049_a8_em149
LOC
NO_MASK
United States of America
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e77
001-119049_a8_em150
LOC
NO_MASK
Russia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e78
001-119049_a8_em151
LOC
NO_MASK
China
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-119049_a8_e79
001-119049_a8_em152
LOC
NO_MASK
Singapore
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e18
001-119049_a8_em153
CODE
QUASI
19905214
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e80
001-119049_a8_em154
CODE
QUASI
20015844
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e18
001-119049_a8_em155
CODE
QUASI
19905214
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-119049_a8_e18
001-119049_a8_em156
CODE
QUASI
19905214
Arne Kristiansen
NOR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Arne Kristiansen