UDI 2010-022 Rejection and expulsion of EEA nationals

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose and background

The purpose of this guideline is to provide more detailed guidelines regarding the conditions for rejection and expulsion pursuant to the Immigration Act of 15 May 2008 No 35 Chapter 13 (Special provisions for foreign nationals who fall under the Agreement on the European Economic Area (the EEA Agreement) and the Convention establishing the European Free Trade Association (the EFTA Convention)), Section 121 (c), Section 122 and Section 124.

Pursuant to Section 19-29 final paragraph of the Immigration Regulations, the Directorate of Immigration (UDI) is authorised to provide more detailed guidelines.

The guideline is also issued to update previous guidelines and to provide an overall presentation of the rules on rejection and expulsion pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions in connection with the entry into force of the Immigration Act.

1.2 The guideline's area of application

The objective of the guideline is to provide guidance on when a case concerning rejection or expulsion should be opened in relation to foreign nationals covered by the EEA Agreement or the EFTA Convention.

The guideline is also intended to provide guidance on the substantive content of the provisions on rejection and expulsion of the aforementioned persons and overriding guidelines on the duration of prohibition on entry in expulsion cases pursuant to Section 122 of the Immigration Act. The provisions differ significantly from the provisions on rejection and expulsion of third-country nationals.

The guideline is to be regarded as advisory, it is not exhaustive and does not describe a static practice. A concrete assessment must be made in each case.

Section 10 of the guideline thus provides guidance on the lower limits for opening a case concerning rejection or expulsion.

Where it is considered expedient, the guideline also contains references to cases brought before the European Court of Justice.

1.3 Limitations

The guideline does not regulate rejection pursuant to Section 121 first paragraph (a) and (b) or Section 121 of the Immigration Act or expulsion pursuant to Section 123. Expulsion of third-country nationals to be assessed pursuant to the general part of the Immigration Act is regulated in a separate guideline, however this guideline does contain guidelines on which third-country nationals are to be assessed pursuant to the EEA regulations. See, for example, Section 1.4.

1.4 Persons covered by the guideline

With respect to the group of persons covered by this guideline, Section 121 first paragraph (c) of the Immigration Act covers EEA nationals and their family members. The provisions on expulsion in Section 122 of the Immigration Act apply to foreign nationals with right of residence pursuant to Sections 111, 112, 113 or 114 of the Immigration Act. The provision also applies to foreign nationals with permanent right of residence pursuant to Sections 115 and 116. It is not a decisive factor to be covered by Section 122 of the Immigration Act that the foreign national has formalised their residence pursuant to these provisions.

The following persons are covered by the guideline and are to be assessed pursuant to Section 122 of the Immigration Act:

• EEA nationals with or without right of residence

• Third-country nationals with a valid family relationship to an EEA national exercising his or her rights pursuant to the EEA regulations in Norway

• Third-country nationals who have right of residence as a service provider or in connection with freedom of establishment

• Nationals of Switzerland. Pursuant to Section 19-1 of the Immigration Regulations, cf. Section 110 of the Immigration Act, the rules set out in Chapter 19 of the Regulations and Chapter 13 of the Act also apply to foreign nationals covered by the EFTA Convention.

This guideline uses the term ‘EEA national’ to cover all of the above-mentioned groups.

Reference is made to the Directorate of Immigration’s five guidelines for specification of the conditions for right of residence:

1. UDI 2011-038 Service providers (seconded employees) and business starters who are not EEA nationals.

2. UDI 2011-037 Residence on an independent basis for EEA nationals

3. UDI 2011-016 Varig oppholdsrettarig oppholdsrett (Permanent right of residence – in Norwegian only)

4. UDI 2010-025 Family immigration with an EEA national 

5. UDI 2011-035 Rutiner for EØS-regelverket (Procedures for the EEA regulations – in Norwegian only).

1.5 Limitations

If no legal authority exists for expelling third-country nationals pursuant to the general part of the Immigration Act, for example because of a requirement for a certain maximum penalty, it will not be possible to expel an EEA national for the same type of offence.

2. Background law

2.1 The Directive

Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (external link) on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (the Directive) was incorporated into the EEA Agreement by an EEA Joint Committee decision on 7 December 2007 and entered into force in Norway on 1 March 2009.

The Directive represents a further development of existing rights within the EU, introduces some brand new arrangements, clarifies current law on the free movement of persons, replaces a number of legal acts in the area and codifies developments in law through the European Court of Justice’s interpretations.

Chapter 13 of the 2008 Immigration Act implements the Directive into Norwegian Law.

2.2 The EEA Agreement’s provisions on free movement

The EEA Agreement’s fundamental principle on free movement of persons (Article 1(2)(b) of the EEA Agreement) grants nationals of an EEA country and their family members the right to enter, reside and work in another member state. The free movement of persons is linked to the free movement of workers, self-employed persons and legal entities, and to the free movement of services. The principle will also have significance for EEA nationals who are not in employment.

The principles on free movement in the EEA Agreement must always be seen in relation to the other principles in the Agreement, including the key principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.

The legal basis for the rules on entry, job seeking and residence are primarily found in Article 28 of the EEA Agreement. The exceptions to the general rule are set out in Article 28(3).

3. Rejection and expulsion in the interests of public order or security

3.1 General information

The conditions for expelling foreign nationals covered by the EEA Agreement or the EFTA Convention and their family members follow from Section 122 of the Immigration Act. The provision implements Article 15, Article 27 (1)(2) and Article 28 of the Directive.

The Directive does not use the terms rejection and expulsion in the same way as the Immigration Act, but Article 15 (3) of the Directive states that a prohibition on entry can only be imposed in connection with an expulsion decision in the interests of public order or security. Pursuant to the Immigration Act, only an expulsion decision entails a prohibition on future entry, while rejection is a less invasive measure that means that the EEA national must leave Norway or is refused entry. The aforementioned provisions apply in relation to any measure implemented in the interests of public order or security that affect EEA nationals’ right to free movement, cf. the European Court of Justice’s case law in, among other things, Case 36/75 Rutili (sections 8-21) and Case 30/77 Bouchereau (sections 6-24).

The EEA Agreement’s fundamental principles on free movement must be given the necessary weight in the interpretation and application of the rules on rejection and expulsion. A rejection or expulsion decision will entail such a limitation to the free movement of persons. The basis in EEA law is that public order shall primarily be maintained by the authorities using the same sanctions as apply to Norwegian nationals. The member states shall first and foremost combat undesirable conduct by using legal prohibitions, penal sanctions and other measures. Exceptions to the right to free movement must therefore be interpreted restrictively. This follows from Case 139/85 Kempf (section 13) and C-33/07 Jipa (section 23).

3.2 The regulatory framework

Article 27 (1) and (2) of the Directive reads as follows:

1. Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, Member States may restrict the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of nationality, on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. These grounds shall not be invoked to serve economic ends.

2. Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.

The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted.

Section 122 first paragraph of the Immigration Act reads:

Section 122. Expulsion in the interests of public order or security

A foreign national who has a right of residence under Sections 111, 112, 113 or 114 may be expelled when this is in the interests of public order or security. It is a condition for expulsion that the personal circumstances of the foreign national present, or must be assumed to present, a real, immediate and sufficiently serious threat to fundamental societal interests. The King may issue regulations containing further provisions on the definition of public order and security.

Section 121 first paragraph (c) of the Immigration Act provides legal authority for making decisions concerning rejection when circumstances exist that provide grounds for expulsion:

Rejection and expulsion are further regulated by the Immigration Regulations Section 19-29. The provision reads:

Section 19-29 Rejection or expulsion in the interests of public order or security

Rejection or expulsion in the interests of public order or security, see section 121 and section 122, first paragraph, of the Act may only be grounded in the foreign national's personal circumstances and may only take place where there is provision for sanctions against Norwegian nationals for corresponding offences. Previous convictions cannot alone form the basis for rejection or expulsion.

Rejection or expulsion in the interest of public order presupposes the presence of a real and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental societal interest, beyond the disturbance of social order entailed by any breach of the law.

Rejection or expulsion in the interest of public order or security may inter alia take place if the foreign national

(a) is dependent on narcotic substances or other toxic substances, and the dependence arose before the foreign national was granted right of residence, or

(b) according to competent health service personnel obviously suffers from a serious mental disorder, a manifest psychosis involving states of agitation, delusions or hallucinations with states of bewilderment, and the condition arose before the foreign national was granted right of residence.

The provision of section 19-27 applies correspondingly.

The Directorate of Immigration may establish further guidelines.

3.3 Measures based on the interests of public order or security

Both rejection and expulsion will be measures that can be used in the interests of public order or security.

3.3.1 Public order

‘Public order’ describes the desired state of society. The interests of public order includes the combating of crime and other conduct that is deemed to violate traditional moral norms. Conduct that qualifies for penalties or special sanctions pursuant to the General Civil Penal Code and/or other sanctions that are suitable for combating crime and other forms of serious disturbance of social order, will be covered by the term.

The content of the term may vary according to the place, time and social conditions. The European Court of Justice has given the member states a certain discretionary margin for defining its content in more detail. It has in several decisions defined and limited the scope of the term, however, cf. case 41/74 Van Duyn.

Although the member states have a certain discretionary margin with respect to defining the content of the term, ‘public order’ must be interpreted restrictively, cf. cases 36/75 Rutili (section 27), 30/77 Bouchereau (section 33) and C-33/07 Jipa (section 23). It is a condition that there is a real and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental societal interest, beyond the disturbance of social order entailed by any breach of the law. This follows from the Immigration Act section 122 first paragraph second sentence and the Immigration Regulations section 19-29 second paragraph.

3.3.2 Public security

The term ‘public security’ has little independent meaning alongside ‘public order’. What falls under ‘public security’ will also fall under ‘public order’. The member states have also been given a certain discretionary margin to define the term ‘public security’.

The interests of public security cover the state’s external and internal security, including combating terrorism, espionage, revolutionary revolt etc., cf. cases C-423/98 Albore (section 18 and following) and C-285/98 Kreil (section 15). Combating the most serious types of crime, e.g. organised crime and/or serious drug crime, may also fall under the term. Depending on the circumstances, homicide and serious violence and sexual offences may also be covered.

It is important to note that Section 122 third paragraph of the Immigration Act cites the provisions of the General Civil Penal Code on acts of terrorism, cf. Chapter 18 of the General Civil Penal Code, as special legal authority for expulsion, regardless of the extended protection provided for in the second paragraph. See Section 6.

3.3.3 Personal circumstances

The rejection or expulsion of EEA nationals cannot be justified by considerations of general deterrence, cf. case 67/74 Bonsignore (section 5-7), or on the basis of a general risk, with some exceptions (see e.g. section 10.5.3). Nor can the measures be based exclusively on circumstances that concern another member state’s public order or security, cf. cases C-33/07 Jipa (section 25) and C-503/03 Commission v Spain (section 62). This means that current or previously committed criminal acts or public order offences cannot alone constitute a basis for rejection or expulsion, cf. also case C-348/96 Calfa (section 17-27). It is a requirement that there are personal circumstances relating to the EEA national that indicate that he or she will commit criminal offences or disrupt public order in future. This is defined as the risk of recidivism.

It is sufficient that it is assumed that the EEA national will in future commit sufficiently serious criminal offences or disruptions of public order. It is not a requirement that there is a general or qualified preponderance of probability for recidivism.

If rejection or expulsion of an EEA national is being considered on the basis of criminal offences, the requirement for the probability that he or she will commit criminal acts in future depends on, among other things, the seriousness of the offence in question.

As a rule, the risk of recidivism is to be assessed in relation to the same type of criminal offence, cf. case 30/77 Bouchereau (sections 25-30), and a lower threshold may be defined for deeming the risk of recidivism to be met for more serious offences.

If an EEA national has been given a harsh prison sentence in connection with serious crime, the criminal offences the foreign national has been convicted of can in themselves indicate that the EEA national will commit further criminal offences. This follows from, among other things, the European Court of Justice’s decision in case 30-77 Bouchereau (sections 25-30).

It is clear that criminal offences that come under different provisions in the General Civil Penal Code or special legislation, but that are of the same nature, are relevant to the assessment of the risk of recidivism. Drug crimes pursuant to the General Civil Penal Code may, for example, be of the same nature as violations of the Medicinal Products Act. All types of crimes of gain will also generally be relevant, irrespective of whether they concern theft, handling stolen goods or fraud etc. For several types of organised crime, the crime will often cover different types of criminal offences. In such cases, it will be relevant to consider all the criminal offences in conjunction when assessing whether the risk of recidivism requirement is met.

A concrete assessment must be made in each individual case. The Supreme Court has stated that there is no basis for excluding any type of factors from the assessment, cf. HR 2009-1151-A (external link). Previous criminal offences will be relevant to the assessment even if they are not of the same type of offence that the risk of recidivism is to be assessed in relation to. Other circumstances that will be of primary importance to the assessment of proportionality, such as the foreign national’s family situation or state of health, may also be relevant factors in the risk assessment.

3.3.4 Real, immediate and sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society

‘Real, immediate and sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society’ defines the threshold for the assessment of proportionality required by EU/EEA law for the expulsion of EEA nationals. See section 5.1 on proportionality. The conditions are cumulative.

A minimum threshold cannot be established for how serious a threat must be to quality for expulsion. Consideration must be given to what kind of sanctions the authorities would have applied in relation to their own citizens if they exhibited the same conduct. This is also linked to the requirement for equal treatment of Norwegian citizens and other EEA nationals.

Section 19-29 first paragraph of the regulations presupposes that it is possible to impose sanctions or that other effective measures are available to counteract or combat the equivalent offences by Norwegian citizens. This means that it will not be possible to reject or expel an EEA national for conduct that would not warrant a sanction if a Norwegian national committed the same offence.

As a result of the European Court of Justice’s case law in expulsion cases, including the cases 41/47 Van duyn, C-115 and 116/81 Adoui and Cornuaille and C-348/96 Calfa, the European Commission specified in guidelines issued in 1999 that:

‘ … a State cannot discriminate between its own nationals and other citizens of the Union where it concerns conduct which is deemed to be a threat to public policy or public security. If such conduct on the part of its own nationals is not subject to serious repressive measures, it cannot be a cause for expulsion of other citizens of the Union’. (COM/99/0372)

Case C-268/99 Jany (section 61) also provides guidelines on this.

If, however, the EEA national has committed several criminal offences of a less serious nature over a period of time, these offences together may indicate that the EEA national represents a sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society.

The threat must furthermore be real and immediate at the time of the assessment, cf. cases C-482/01 and C-493/01 Orfanpoulos and Olivieri (sections 82 and 100). This is linked to the assessment of the risk of future offences, described in more detail in section 3.3.3.

A conviction in itself cannot automatically lead to an expulsion decision. The issue to be considered is whether it can be assumed that the EEA national will commit similar offences in future. Important factors in the assessment are the criminal offence’s nature and seriousness and the time that has elapsed since it was committed.

Repeated, less serious criminal offences may pose a threat to public order even though the individual offences cannot be deemed a sufficiently serious threat. However, repeated criminal offences are not in themselves sufficient to conclude that a threat to public order exists. The criminal offence’s nature and seriousness, the frequency of offences and the harm caused by the offence will be relevant factors for consideration, cf. case C-349/06 Polat (section 35).

3.3.5 Failure to register or apply pursuant to the Immigration Act Sections 117 and 118 of the Immigration Act

Section 108 of the Immigration Act provides legal authority for a penalty for violation of certain provisions of the Act, including provisions in Chapter 13. This applies to violations of the registration duty in Section 117, the requirement to apply for a residence card pursuant to Section 118 and violation of the prohibition on entry in Section 124.

Failure to register pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Immigration Act and Chapter 19 of the Immigration Regulations does not, however, constitute a sufficiently serious threat to fundamental societal interests and cannot therefore in itself form the basis for expulsion pursuant to Section 122 or rejection pursuant to Section 121 first paragraph (c), cf. case 48/75 Royer (section 51).

4. Extended protection against expulsion

Pursuant to Section 122 second paragraph (a) of the Immigration Act, EEA nationals and their family members who have permanent right of residence pursuant to Section 115 or 116 may only be expelled if weighty considerations for public order or security so indicate.

Pursuant to section 122 second paragraph (b) and (c), an EEA national who has resided in Norway for ten years, or an EEA national who is a minor, may only be expelled if it is compellingly necessary in the interests of public security. EEA nationals who are minors can also be expelled if expulsion is necessary to safeguard the child’s best interests.

As follows from sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, the member states have a certain discretionary margin with respect to defining the detailed content of the terms public order and public security. Similarly, the states must have a certain discretionary margin when defining the content of the more stringent conditions.

The Directive does not provide guidelines on what the conditions entail, but there has to be a clear difference between the ordinary considerations for public order and security pursuant to Section 122 first paragraph and the weighty considerations that have to apply for the expulsion of EEA nationals covered by the second paragraph (a). There must thus be particularly good reasons to justify expulsion.

The term ‘compellingly necessary in the interests of public security’ in letters (b) and (c) indicate a very high threshold for when the expulsion of EEA nationals who have ten years’ residence or are minors will be a proportionate sanction. EEA nationals covered by this provision must therefore constitute a sufficiently serious threat to society as such, or parts thereof, and the expulsion must be absolutely necessary to protect society from this threat. To what extent the nature of the threat, e.g. the scope of and harm caused by the criminal offence, is so great that expulsion is necessary, is a vital factor.

4.1 Limitations

As a rule, time spent in prison will not be included in the calculation of the period of residence pursuant to Section 122 second paragraph (a) and (b) of the Immigration Act if the EEA national has not formed a relevant connection to Norway during this period.

5. Proportionality

Pursuant to Section 122 fourth paragraph of the Immigration Act, expulsion can only take place if the expulsion decision is in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

The provision reads:

No expulsion decision is made under the provisions of this section if, in view of the seriousness of the offence and the foreign national's connection with the realm, it would constitute a disproportionate measure against the foreign national personally or against the family members. In the assessment of whether expulsion constitutes a disproportionate measure, weight shall be given to, among other things, the person's length of residence in the realm, age, state of health, family situation, financial situation, social and cultural integration in the realm, and connection with the country of origin. In cases concerning children, the child's best interests shall be a fundamental consideration.

5.1 Proportionality principle

A measure in the interests of public order or security must be in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The principle requires balance between the measure and the purpose and between the EEA national’s and Norway’s interests.

The principle of proportionality is a general EU/EEA legal principle, and is enshrined in, among other things Article 27 (2) of the Directive.

Pursuant to the European Court of Justice's case law, proportionality is required between the goal one wishes to achieve and the instruments used to realise the goal. In rejection and expulsion cases, this principle means that the measure used to safeguard the interests of public order or security must be reasonable in relation to the goal the measure seeks to address. The proportionality requirement must always be specifically assessed.

This element of the principle of proportionality is covered by Section 122 first paragraph.

5.2 Proportionality assessment

Section 122 fourth paragraph of the Immigration Act describes the other element of the principle of proportionality in EU/EEA law; the issue of whether expulsion, although necessary to safeguard the interests of public order or security, is nonetheless too severe a sanction seen in relation to the principle of free movement

The provision provides guidelines on which factors are to be given emphasis.

In judgment HR-2009-1151-A (external link), concerning the interpretation of the proportionality assessment in the Immigration Act of 1988 Section 58 fourth paragraph, the Supreme Court made a statement on the interpretation of the provision. The Supreme Court states that the assessment does not differ from that performed in relation to third-country nationals and that nor does the case law of the European Court of Justice provide grounds for special treatment of EEA nationals. The Supreme Court also states that the prevailing practice is closely linked to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Reference is made to the Directorate of Immigration’s guideline UDI 2010-024 section 11.

6. Expulsion on grounds of acts of terrorism – Section 122 third paragraph

Chapter 18 of the General Civil Penal Code (external link) contains provisions on penalties for those who commit, threaten to commit, plan or finance an act of terrorism.

Legal measures against terrorism represent the implementation of the UN Convention of 9 December 1999 for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001.

Acts of terrorism may lead to expulsion pursuant to Section 122 first paragraph of the Immigration Act. However, the third paragraph of the provision contains special legal authority to expel an EEA national who has violated the provisions of Chapter 18 of the General Civil Penal Code, or if he or she has provided a safe haven for a person the foreign national knows to have committed such an offence. A corresponding provision is found for third-country nationals in Sections 66, 67 and 68 of the Immigration Act.

In the event of expulsion on grounds of acts of terrorism, the extended protection in Section 122 second paragraph will not apply. In most cases, acts of terrorism will under all circumstances be covered by the wording ‘compellingly necessary in the interests of public security’.

A general preponderance of probability is sufficient to conclude that the EEA national has committed such acts that can form the basis for expulsion pursuant to this provision. The assessments of the Norwegian Police Security Service (PST) must be taken into account.

The UN Resolution imposes a duty on the member states to safeguard the interests of other countries’ security with respect to terror threats. Terrorists and persons with links to terrorism can therefore be expelled from Norway even if the threat in question is directed at other countries, and even if the person has not been convicted of the offence.

For expulsion pursuant to this provision, the conditions of the first and fourth paragraphs must also be met, both in cases where the EEA national has been convicted of acts of terror, and if he or she has not been convicted.

7. Rejection

Rejection entails that the EEA national must leave Norway or be refused entry. Unlike expulsion, the decision does not constitute a prohibition on future entry.

EEA nationals and their family members may be rejected pursuant to Section 121 first paragraph (c) of the Immigration Act when circumstances exist that provide grounds for expulsion. Whether such circumstances exist is determined on the basis of an assessment pursuant to the whole of Section 122 first paragraph. The rejection provision in Section 121 first paragraph (c) does not therefore allow an EEA national to be rejected simply because he/she is assumed to pose a threat to public order. The cumulative conditions in section 122 first paragraph of the Immigration Act that a person’s conduct must constitute a ’real, immediate and sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society’ must always be met.

7.1 Rejection if expulsion would be disproportionate

Even if the EEA national’s conduct is deemed to meet the requirements of Section 122 first paragraph of the Immigration Act, an expulsion decision may seem disproportionate in relation to the seriousness of the offence for which the expulsion of the foreign national is being considered and in relation to the principle of free movement in the EEA area. It will then be possible to make a rejection decision and in that way safeguard the interests of public order, without the measure being too invasive in relation to the EEA national.

The limits set out in section 9 and the following of the guideline about when a rejection or expulsion case is to be opened provide guidance on when a rejection decision can be made on these grounds.

7.2 Rejection pursuant to Section 19-29 third paragraph of the Immigration Regulations

An EEA national can be rejected pursuant to the provisions of Section 19-29 third paragraph of the Regulations if he or she has a drug addiction or suffers from a mental disorder etc.

8. Duration of prohibition on entry – Section 124 of the Immigration Act

The prohibition on entry in connection with an expulsion decision pursuant to Section 124 of the Immigration Act can be made permanent or temporary, but it shall not apply for less than two years. When determining the duration of the prohibition, assessment pursuant to Section 122 first paragraph of the Immigration Act will be advisory.

This means that the severity of the threat and the type of societal interests concerned shall have a bearing on the duration of the prohibition on entry.

Pursuant to Article 32 of the Directive, an EEA national who has been expelled may subsequently invoke significant changes in the conduct that formed the basis for the expulsion decision, and, pursuant to Section 124 of the Immigration Act, the prohibition on entry may be lifted if warranted by new circumstances.

If these rules are considered together, the prohibition on entry shall not be of a longer duration than that necessary in the interests of public order or security. The longer the prohibition on entry imposed, the more real, immediate and serious the threat must be. A permanent prohibition on entry may be necessary in cases involving very serious crime.

9. The police’s preparation of the case

9.1 Opening a case

If there are grounds for rejection or expulsion, the police shall open a case.

The procedures for case processing are regulated in UDI 2010-005 Saksbehandlingsrutiner ved utvisning av straffedømte utlendinger (Case processing procedures for expulsion of convicted foreign nationals – in Norwegian only), cf. Section 68 first paragraph (b) or Section 122 of the Immigration Act. Special case processing procedures are regulated in the following guidelines:

UDI 2010-020 Saksbehandlingsrutiner for hastesaker om bortvisning og utvisning (Guidelines for case processing in connection with cases concerning rejection after entry and urgent expulsion cases – in Norwegian only).

UDI 2010-017: Hurtigprosedyre - rutiner for utvisning ved soningsoverføring (Fast-track procedure – procedures for expulsion of convicted foreign nationals who fall under the Optional Protocol to the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters – in Norwegian only).

UDI 2011-010: Hurtigprosedyre - utvisning ved grov vold og vold i nære relasjoner (Fast-track procedure – expulsion on grounds of aggravated violence and domestic violence – in Norwegian only).

9.2 Special documentation

What can be considered documentation relevant to the assessment of rejection or expulsion will vary from case to case.

The police must ensure, before forwarding a case to the Directorate of Immigration, that the case has been clarified as thoroughly as possible so that a decision can be made, cf. Section 17 of the Public Administration Act (external link).

The police must, in the same way as for third-country nationals, determine whether the EU national has a connection to Norway.

In order to assess whether the condition that the person’s conduct must constitute a ‘real, immediate and sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society’ is met, a more detailed account of the specific circumstances in the case is vital. A police report is therefore particularly important in cases concerning EEA nationals.

Among other things, the police report should contain information about:

Penal sanctions

If prosecution considerations have been crucial to the decision to issue a penalty notice for a criminal offence instead of bringing it before the courts, the police must specify in more detail what kind of considerations were decisive in this context. The penalty imposed may have significance for whether rejection or expulsion is deemed a necessary measure. If a penalty notice was issued for the offence or the penalty is low in relation to the maximum penalty or sentencing practice, this may indicate that the violation does not constitute such a serious threat to public order or security that rejection or expulsion is necessary. It will then be important for the police to provide information about circumstances relating to the EEA national that lead the police to believe that rejection or expulsion is nonetheless a necessary measure.

If the EEA national has previously been convicted in Norway, or the police have knowledge of the person being convicted abroad, this must be made clear in the report. Copies of previous judgments or penalty notices from Norway must be included in the documentation forwarded, if practically possible. Previous criminal offences from abroad must, if possible, be documented and explained: The type of offence and when it was committed, the date of the judgment and the penal sanction imposed, and information about when a prison sentence was served.

If the EEA national has been convicted abroad, and it is this offence that he or she may be expelled for, sufficient documentation must be presented about the criminal offence, preferably in the form of a translation of the judgment. If it is not possible to procure a translation, thorough information must be provided as mentioned in the section above.

Personal circumstances – threat assessment

If a penal sanction has been imposed on the EEA national by judgment, the information presented in the grounds for the judgment will often provide sufficient information on which to assess whether there is a risk of the EEA national committing criminal acts in the future.

If a penal sanction has been imposed on the EEA national by judgment based on a plea of guilty or as a penalty notice, sufficient information will rarely be available to assess whether there is a risk of the EEA national committing criminal offences in the future. A police report describing the facts of the case will then be necessary. In the report, the police must explain, as clearly as possible, whether there are any personal or individual circumstances relating to the EEA national that indicate that it is necessary to reject or expel the person in the interests of public order or security. It is crucial that the police clarify the factors discussed under sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4.

If the EEA national has not previously been convicted, or if a judgment or penalty notice is not final and enforceable, but the police consider it necessary to reject the person from Norway in the interests of public order or security, the police must make a concrete assessment of what kind of threat the person represents. It is then necessary that the police provide a thorough account of the case and the investigative material that forms the basis for the assessment.

10. Guidance on the lower limits for opening a case concerning rejection or expulsion for violation of the General Civil Penal Code or other legislation

10.1 Introduction

A wide range of different categories of offences may fall under the term ‘public order or security’. The types listed below state points of departure for when rejection or expulsion may be considered.

The guideline provides guidance on the lower limits for rejecting or expelling foreign nationals who have had penal sanctions imposed on them in Norway or where there are concrete grounds for assuming that the EEA national will commit criminal acts in Norway.

If rejection or expulsion is being considered in relation to the EEA national for a criminal offence committed abroad, the offence and the penalty imposed must be assessed in relation to corresponding Norwegian penal provisions and the sentencing practice for violations of these provisions.

The list is not exhaustive, neither with respect to the violations that may lead to rejection or expulsion, nor with respect to which factors importance should be attached when assessing the seriousness of the offence, personal circumstances or in the proportionality assessment.

10.2 Special provisions relating to connections to a criminal environment

If the EEA national has been arrested by the police in connection with the arrest of other persons and penal sanctions are later imposed on these other persons but not on the EEA national, it will be relevant to look at the EEA national’s connection to the convicted persons, the situation at the time of the arrest and other circumstances that can clarify any connection the EEA national has to a criminal environment.

If indications are found that the EEA national has a connection to a criminal environment, it will be particularly important to prepare a threat assessment pursuant to section 9.2. (section on police report, punishment etc.)

If the EEA national has such a special connection, this may constitute an indication that the threat the EEA national poses should be considered more real, immediate and serious. It may also have a bearing on the duration of the prohibition on entry, in relation to that stated in section 8.

10.3 Unlawful gains

10.3.1 Theft

Rejection

EEA nationals and their family members with right of residence pursuant to the Immigration Act Sections 112–116 may not be rejected.

Rejection may be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for at least two instances of theft or minor theft, cf. the Penal Code Section 321 (external link) or the Penal Code Section 323 (external link)

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for one instance of theft, cf. the Penal Code Section 321 (external link). It is a condition that circumstances exist showing that the theft was professionally executed, and that the stolen items were intended for further sale. One instance of theft of consumables that are obviously intended for personal use, such as food, drink, clothing and hygiene items, will not result in rejection.

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for one instance of aggravated theft, cf. the Penal Code Section 322 (external link).

It is the number of thefts that is decisive, not the number of penalty notices. Rejection may therefore be considered when one penalty notice has been accepted relating to two or more thefts or minor thefts.

Expulsion

Expulsion may be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for at least three instances of theft or minor theft, cf. the Penal Code Section 321 (external link) or the Penal Code Section 323 (external link)

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for one instance of theft, cf. the Penal Code Section 321 (external link). It is a condition that circumstances exist showing that the theft was professionally executed, and that the stolen items were intended for further sale. One instance of theft of consumables that are obviously intended for personal use, such as food, drink, clothing and hygiene items will not result in expulsion. Expulsion shall be reserved for the more serious cases, where the stolen items are of high value.

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for aggravated theft, cf. the Penal Code Section 322 (external link).

It is the number of thefts that is decisive, not the number of penalty notices. Expulsion may therefore be considered when one penalty notice has been accepted relating to three or more thefts or minor thefts.

Personal circumstances

In addition to an enforceable decision, there must be personal circumstances on the part of the EEA national that pose a real, immediate and sufficiently serious threat to fundamental public interests (risk of re-offending). It is a requirement that there are personal circumstances relating to the EEA national that indicate that he or she will commit criminal offences or disrupt public order in future, and that this constitutes a sufficiently serious threat.

The circumstances surrounding the offence will be decisive. If there are indications that the offence was committed as part of a more extensive activity or a network involved in crimes of acquisition, this can be characterised as a personal circumstance that makes rejection or expulsion of the EEA national necessary and proportional.

A penalty notice for one instance of minor theft will not result in rejection or expulsion, even if circumstances indicate that there are personal circumstances on the part of the EEA national that represent a real, immediate and sufficiently serious threat to fundamental public interests.

As a general rule, at least two instances of theft or minor theft must have been committed in order for rejection to be considered, and three instances for expulsion to be considered. The fact that the stolen items are intended for personal use will not prevent rejection or expulsion from being considered in the event of several instances of theft or minor theft. When assessing whether personal circumstances exist that indicate a risk of re-offending, it will as a rule be necessary for the police to write a report explaining the circumstances of the theft and the personal circumstances relating to the EEA national.

In the assessment, emphasis may be placed on the elements below. It will not be sufficient to place decisive emphasis on one element alone. Emphasis may also be placed on other elements than those mentioned here:

• The EEA national does not have a place of residence or other connection to Norway.

• The EEA national does not have funds for self-support.

• The offence was committed by a group of people acting together.

• The offence appears to have been planned and professionally executed.

• The offence was committed shortly after entry into Norway.

• The EEA national has previously been punished for crimes of acquisition, including waivers of prosecution.

• The EEA national does not have a documentable purpose for the stay, which for example indicates that he or she will work or has come as a tourist.

• The EEA national is registered as having been part of a criminal environment or together with others who have been convicted of criminal offences.

• The EEA national has committed a number of offences over a short period of time.

• The stolen items are easy to sell.

• The offence was committed using bags, items of clothing, tools or other equipment specially designed to avoid alarm systems in, for example, shops or cars.

• Other information indicates that there is a risk of a similar offence being committed (re-offending).

10.3.2 Handling stolen goods

Rejection or expulsion may be considered when a judgment is final and enforceable or a penalty notice has been accepted for violation of Section 332 or 334 of the General Civil Penal Code. The advisory limits for theft specified above may provide guidance on when rejection or expulsion can be considered for handling stolen goods.

In addition to a final and enforceable decision, there must be personal circumstances relating to the EEA national that mean that rejection or expulsion is a necessary measure in the interests of public order. See the information under section 10.3.1 on personal circumstances.

10.3.3 Robbery

Rejection or expulsion may be considered when a judgment is final and enforceable or a penalty notice has been accepted for violation of Section 327 of the General Civil Penal Code. Robbery is in itself such a serious crime that the requirement for it to pose a sufficiently serious threat cannot be particularly stringent in the assessment of whether expulsion is a proportional measure.

There must also be personal circumstances relating to the EEA national that make expulsion a necessary measure in the interests of public order or security. See the information under section 10.3.1 on personal circumstances.

10.3.4 Fraud

Rejection or expulsion may be considered when a judgment is final and enforceable or a penalty notice has been accepted for violation of Section 371 or 373 of the General Civil Penal Code. The advisory limits for theft specified above may provide guidance on when rejection or expulsion can be considered for fraud.

In addition to a final and enforceable decision, there must be personal circumstances relating to the EEA national that mean that rejection or expulsion is a necessary measure in the interests of public order. In this assessment, the facts of the specific case must be taken into account, e.g. whether the fraud has resulted in considerable financial loss or whether it has a great potential for harm.

If the EEA national has been convicted of repeated frauds and/or attempts at fraud, each case may not involve a large sum of money. The offence may nonetheless be characterised as being so serious that it provides grounds for rejection or expulsion. This will often be the case in what is known as quick change fraud. Repeated such frauds or attempts at such may indicate a fairly immediate risk of re-offending.

In cases concerning welfare fraud, particular emphasis, as an aggravating factor, is given to the fact that the welfare authorities are dependent on correct information being given about the need for society's welfare schemes. Incorrect and withheld information breaches the relationship of trust between society and its citizens, and welfare abuse is detrimental to society.

10.4 Document forgery and false statements

Rejection or expulsion may be considered when a judgment is final and enforceable or a penalty notice has been accepted for violation of Section 221 first paragraph, Section 361 first paragraph (b) or Section 362 of the General Civil Penal Code.

Whether or not document forgery or false statements may lead to rejection or expulsion will depend, among other things, on the seriousness and scope of the offence. Examples of offences that may lead to rejection or expulsion are document forgery in connection with welfare fraud as mentioned under section 10.3.4.

There must also be personal circumstances relating to the EEA national that make expulsion a necessary measure in the interests of public order or security.

10.5 Violence and threats

The term ‘violence’ covers, among other things, physical assault (Section 271 first paragraph of the General Civil Penal Code), aggravated physical assault (Section 272 first paragraph), bodily harm (Section 273), aggravated bodily harm (Section 274 first paragraph), and sexual offences (Chapter 26).

Acts of violence are serious integrity violations that fall under the interests of public order. As a rule, acts of violence constitute a sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society. Threats of violence are to be assessed in the same way.

The main rule is that a final and enforceable judgment must have been passed or a penalty notice accepted for rejection or expulsion to be considered.

In cases where there is a concrete and real risk of aggravated acts of violence, this may constitute a sufficiently serious threat to the fundamental interests of society even without a judgment or penalty notice. Rejection of the EEA national may then be considered.

10.5.1 Rejection

Rejection can be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for physical assault, cf. Section 271 first paragraph of the General Civil Penal Code, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for threats of violence, cf. Section 263 of the General Civil Penal Code, or

• there is a concrete risk of the EEA national committing the aforementioned criminal offences or more serious offences.

10.5.2 Expulsion

Expulsion can be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for physical assault or bodily harm, cf. Section 271 first paragraph or Section 273 of the General Civil Penal Code, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for threatening to commit the above-mentioned acts or similar, cf. Section 263 of the General Civil Penal Code.

10.5.3 Personal circumstances

In addition to the existence of a sufficiently serious criminal offence, there must also be personal circumstances relating to the EEA national that make rejection or expulsion necessary.

If a penal sanction has been imposed:

The circumstances surrounding the act may provide an indication of whether it was a one-off, or whether there is reason to assume it to be probable that the EEA national will commit similar offences in future.

If there is a concrete risk of acts of violence – Rejection:

In cases where a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice has been accepted, but where the police and immigration authorities nonetheless believe that the EEA national represents such a risk to public order or security that rejection is regarded as a necessary measure, the relevant circumstances must be thoroughly clarified in a police report. The police must carry out a concrete threat assessment of the risk the EEA national poses to public order or security.

Rejection on such grounds may be considered in the following cases:

• Persons who came to Norway to take part in illegal demonstrations at which major riots and violent clashes are feared

• Persons who came to Norway in connection with football matches for the purpose of creating trouble, i.e. so-called ‘hooligans’ or ‘casuals’

• Members of criminal motorcycle gangs on their way to motorcycle meetings in Norway, and there are clear grounds to assume that the main purpose of the meeting is to plan or carry out new criminal offences

• There is concrete information to indicate that the purpose of the EEA national’s entry into Norway is to hurt specific people in the realm. This could be cases concerning family violence where one of the parties lives abroad or cases where professional enforcers or their henchmen have been instructed to hurt persons living in Norway, either to put them out of action or to make an example of them in order to frighten them and/or others.

In the cases mentioned above, it may be necessary to reject the EEA national already at the border to prevent him or her achieving his/her objective, not least where the interests of potential victims in Norway must be safeguarded.

In order to be able to consider rejection on these and similar grounds, stringent requirements are made in relation to the substantiation and credibility of any tip-offs. If the police have amassed sound evidence through communication monitoring and international police cooperation that very clearly reveals the concrete purpose of the stay, this documentation may form the basis for a rejection decision.

It will also be relevant to obtain documentation of whether

• The EEA national has been convicted in Norway or abroad

• The EEA national has been rejected/expelled from other countries in connection with similar events

• The EEA national has brought equipment that suggests that he/she is going to take part in criminal acts

• The EEA national is part of an organisation/group that acts in concert and where a number of the other participants have previously been rejected/expelled from similar events and/or have been convicted previously.

10.6 Drugs

Rejection or expulsion can be considered if the penal sanctions have been imposed on the EEA national for violation of Section 231 of the General Civil Penal Code or Section 31, cf. Chapter VIII, of the Medicinal Products Act.

The substances defined as illicit drugs are listed in the Regulations relating to drugs etc. (the narcotic drugs list) (FOR-1978-06-30-8). For involvement with other types of drugs than those mentioned below, a discretionary assessment must be made of how dangerous the drug is compared with those mentioned below.

10.6.1 Hashish and marijuana

Rejection

Rejection can be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the importation of at least 10 grams of hashish or marijuana, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the possession of more than 15 grams of hashish or marijuana.

Expulsion

Expulsion can be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the importation of at least 15 grams of hashish or marijuana, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the possession of more than 20 grams of hashish or marijuana.

10.6.2 Khat

Rejection

Rejection can be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the importation of at least 2 kg of khat, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the possession of at least 10 kg of khat.

Expulsion

Expulsion can be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the importation of at least 10 kg of khat, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the possession of at least 20 kg of khat.

10.6.3 Cocaine, amphetamine and heroin

Rejection

Rejection can be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the importation of a user dose, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the possession of more than 0.25 grams of heroin or 1 gram of amphetamine or cocaine.

Expulsion

Expulsion can be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the importation of more than 0.25 grams of heroin or 0.5 grams of amphetamine or cocaine, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the possession of more than 0.5 grams of heroin or 1.5 grams of amphetamine or cocaine.

10.6.4 LSD and ecstasy

Rejection

Rejection can be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the importation of more than two user doses, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the possession of more than five user doses.

Expulsion

Expulsion can be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the importation of more than five user doses, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for the possession of more than ten user doses.

10.6.5 Personal circumstances

There must also be personal circumstances relating to the EEA national that make rejection or expulsion necessary. A concrete assessment must be made in each individual case.

Examples of personal circumstances that can be given emphasis in connection with the assessment:

• The EEA national has previously been encountered by the police, or has been encountered with persons who have previously been convicted of drug-related offences

• The EEA national is encountered in a place where drugs are known to be sold

• How the crime was executed, including the degree of professionalism and the EEA national’s role

• Whether the crime was committed as part of a more extensive operation

• Whether there are indications that the EEA national is part of a network that can be associated with drug-related crime

• The EEA national has a documentable connection to a criminal network

• The EEA national was equipped with specially-designed devices to evade detection systems

• The amount and nature of the drug indicate the EEA national’s usage pattern or other drug-related crime pattern

• The EEA national is in possession of a large amount of money and has no satisfactory explanation for this

The list is not exhaustive. The factors in the list must be seen in relation to each other and form part of a concrete overall assessment.

If a foreign national who has been convicted of a drug-related offence admits to regularly using drugs or there are clear indications that he or she regularly uses narcotic drugs, there can, as a rule, be presumed to be personal circumstances that make rejection or expulsion necessary in the interests of public order or security.

10.7 Violations of the Road Traffic Act

The interests of public order or security also strongly apply to all types of traffic offences. Although travel that entails repeated violations of the Road Traffic Act in itself represents a not inconsiderable risk to others, measures such as rejection or expulsion should be reserved for the most serious violations of the Road Traffic Act. There must also be personal circumstances that make rejection or expulsion a necessary measure in the interests of public order or security.

Repeated minor violations of the Road Traffic Act may be a factor in an assessment of the EEA national’s personal circumstances, although the violations, seen in isolation, are not serious enough to lead to rejection or expulsion. Driving under the influence and gross speeding offences can have serious consequences for society, and the offences generally mean that the persons involved represents a serious risk to themselves and to their surroundings. The potential to cause harm through the offence has a bearing on the assessment

A fixed penalty is not a sufficient basis for rejection or expulsion. However, it may have a bearing on the assessment of personal circumstances.

10.7.1 Rejection

Rejection can be considered, among other things, when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for driving under the influence with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 0.5 combined with other serious traffic offences, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for driving under the influence with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 1.0.

10.7.2 Expulsion

Expulsion can be considered when

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for driving under the influence with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 1.0 combined with other serious traffic offences, or

• a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for driving under the influence with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 1.5.

10.7.3 Personal circumstances

There must also be personal circumstances relating to the EEA national that make rejection or expulsion necessary.

Even if the EEA national has been given an unconditional prison sentence for driving under the influence or a speeding offence, it may be that the events behind the criminal offence are so situational that it does not seem likely that he or she will commit such an offence again. In such case, nor will there be a basis for rejecting or expelling the EEA national.

If a penalty notice has been imposed on the EEA national, it is particularly important that the police present documentation of why rejection or expulsion is nonetheless necessary.

The EEA national’s general conduct must be taken into account, and whether the EEA national has previously been fined for violating traffic rules or other inconsiderate conduct that could pose a danger to the public. Emphasis can be placed on attitudes expressed through the EEA national’s conduct.

10.8 Violations of the Customs Act

Rejection or expulsion can be considered if a penal sanction has been imposed on the EEA national for violation of Chapter 16 of the Customs Act (external link).

A fixed penalty is not a sufficient basis for rejection or expulsion. However, it may have a bearing on the assessment of personal circumstances.

Factors of particular interest include:

• Importation as part of extensive and serious organised crime

• The importation of alcoholic goods intended for sale and distribution. Particular emphasis is placed on the risk of spreading substances that are extremely harmful to health, such as methanol

• The importation of weapons and other dangerous objects with great potential to cause harm

• The importation of live plants and animals that pose a serious risk to human life and health or the flora and fauna of Norway

• The importation of medication or dietary supplements that are prescription-only or not approved for sale in Norway and that represent a serious threat to life and health

• The importation of food that represents a serious threat to life and health is they are not subject to the required quality control.

10.8.1 Rejection

Rejection can, among other things, be considered when a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for violation of Section 16-2 of the Customs Act.

10.8.2 Expulsion

Expulsion can, among other things, be considered when a final and enforceable judgment has been passed or a penalty notice accepted for violation of Section 16-2 of the Customs Act.

10.8.3 Personal circumstances

There must also be personal circumstances relating to the EEA national that make rejection or expulsion necessary. In the assessment of whether such personal circumstances exist, the following factors may provide guidance:

• The offence appears to have been planned and professionally executed

• The offence was committed by a group of people acting together

• The offence appears to have been motivated by profit

• The evasion of indirect tax concerns a large sum of money

• False number plates have been used on the vehicle

• The vehicle has been confiscated

• The vehicle has previously been used for the importation of illegal goods

• The vehicle has been modified

• The imported goods are easy to sell

• The importation has taken place at an unmanned border crossing

• The offence was executed together with other persons who have been convicted of criminal offences

• The EEA national does not have a documentable purpose for his/her stay indicating that he/she aims to work or has come as a tourist

• The EEA national has committed a number of offences over a short period of time

• The EEA national is not in employment and/or does not have funds to support him or herself

• The EEA national does not have a connection to Norway

• Other information indicates that there is a risk of similar re-offending.

10.9  Violation of the regulations on export quotas for fish and fishery products from recreational fishing, cf. the Act on Import and Export Regulation

The regulations for the export of fish and fishery products are regulated in the Regulations on export quotas for fish and fishery products from recreational fishing (external link in Norwegian), cf. the Act on Import and Export Regulation (external link in Norwegian).

The regulations regulate catches from recreational fishing in Norway’s internal waters, territorial waters and economic zone. It is not permitted to bring fish or fishery products, including processed products, which includes fish fillets, out of the country. The export quota for fish is 18 kg up to twice a year if it can be documented that the fish was caught under the auspices of a registered tourist fishing company when the fish is taken out of the country, cf. Section 2 of the Regulations on export quotas for fish and fishery products from recreational fishing (external link in Norwegian).

Rejection or expulsion may be considered if a penal sanction has been imposed on the EEA national for intentional violation of Section 4 of the Act on Import and Export Regulation (external link in Norwegian).

10.9.1  Expulsion

In order for expulsion to be considered, the EEA national must, as a rule, have taken part in exports in the range of 300 kg above the export quota, or repeatedly have been penalised for illegal export. Expulsion should only be considered in cases where the export appears to be organised and can be linked to resale.

Rejection

In order for rejection to be considered, the EEA national must, as a rule, have taken part in exports in the range of 100 kg above the export quota, or repeatedly have been penalised for illegal export. Rejection should only be considered in cases where the export appears to be organised and can be linked to resale.

10.9.2  Personal circumstances

There must also be personal circumstances relating to the EEA national that make rejection or expulsion necessary. In the assessment of whether such personal circumstances exist, the following factors may provide guidance:

• The export appears to be organised and intended for resale.

• The export was carried out by a group of people acting together.

• The export appears to have been motivated by profit.

• Illegal fishing gear has been used.

• The export can be linked to illegal fishing.

• The export has taken place at an unmanned border crossing.

• False number plates have been used on the vehicle.

• The vehicle has been confiscated.

• The vehicle has been used for export previously.

• The vehicle has been modified.

• The export was carried out together with other persons who have been convicted of criminal offences.

• The EEA national does not have a documentable purpose for the stay, which indicates that the he or she will work or has come as a tourist.

• The EEA national has committed a number of offences over a short period of time.

• The EEA national is not in employment and/or does not have funds for self-support.

• The EEA national does not have a connection to Norway.

• Other information indicates that there is a risk of a similar offence being committed (re-offending).