Victories against Norway in the ECHR
Foreign readers are wondering who represented the Riis-family and who won their three cases against Norway in the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg (ECHR), 2004, 2007 and 2008. 
Most people familiar to these cases know that I was the Riis-familie’s representative before the Court in
The Legal500 lawyer Aabø-Evensen has no reason to proclaim victories in
Further on a misleading introduction of the 2008-decision by the ECHR could give reasons to uncertainty regarding this matter
To clear all doubts and misunderstandings regarding the representation of these cases, I will give the following statement:
It was Herman J Berge (me) that instigated the Riis-family to complain against intolerable Norwegian civil procedure (which still hasn’t changed despite these three important victories, see below); that prepared the cases before the ECHR; that filed the cases to the ECHR and that won the cases against Norway in the ECHR. Besides some €5.000 that I was rewarded for my first victory in 2004 I have been paid Zero for my work regarding these cases in the Court in
No lawyer has been helping me or the Riis-family with the ECHR-cases. Prior to the filings of the first case that I won in 2004, I confirm that I got valuable help from a Norwegian judge inspiring and encouraging me to file the application.
The legal situation in
On the request from Attorney General Mr. Bjørn Haug, Judge Nils B Hohle with the Court of Appeals replied on September 14 1978 that:
“I will be in the Court of Appeals in
This correspondence between the Attorney General and a Norwegian judge, where they (basically; the Government and the Court) are discussing how to demolish a party and their case, more than indicates how bad the legal situation was in
Almost 18 years had passed from the case was filed in 1986 till Riis had a binding decision from the Supreme Court in August 2003. The Minister of Justice, Knut Storberget, who by the way is a lawyer, stated through his Attorney General that a complaint against some 18 years of administration of a court case, should be considered as a manifestly ill-founded complaint. Considering a normal life expectancy of some 78 years this statement is lunacy. Amazed by such a judgment one has to ask; who has talked him out of his senses? ECHR agreed with my standing, stating:
"It thus lasted 17 years and five months for three levels of jurisdiction. In the view of the Court, the mere duration of the proceedings raises a serious issue under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
In the light of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention."
Given the fact that the Norwegian Minister of Justice can’t see anything wrong in letting three court cases live their own lives unattended in his own jurisdiction for more than 55 years altogether, and that he even thinks that a complaint against almost two decades of administration each should be regarded as manifestly ill-founded, raises several serious questions about both his leadership as well as his ability to reason. No country will be considered serious when its Minister of Justice embodies thoughts that to such an extent are divided from the people he is to serve.
The situation has become even worse since 1978. After I won the first case against
The Minister of Justice, Mr. Storberget, is responsible for this Norwegian judicial misery, but as his predecessors he doesn’t really demonstrate any interest to it. Norway and her courts are on a daily basis breaching the European Convention on Human Rights, and by doing so confirming that she couldn’t care less about the Convention on Human Rights or any (what Norwegian authorities considers) none-binding judgement delivered from this court.
If you want this to change, then you should stand up not only for your own rights when they are challenged by such a corrupt system, but also for your fellows.
Herman J Berge
 These three victories against
 Sarcastic description of the late Mr. Riis, which obviously was not a friend to the Attorney General, on the contrary.
 The judge has passed away while the Attorney General has retired to the French Riviera, and their crime is long time forgotten.
 Married to a High Court Judge Cirsti Coward.