Norway’s top administrative law expert criticises foreign minister’s conflict-of-interest practices

A leading Norwegian expert in administrative law has condemned foreign minister Espen Barth Eide’s description of how conflict-of-interest assessments are handled at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, calling it a violation of legal requirements, Dagbladet reports.

In a written response to Parliament’s Control and Constitutional Committee, Eide stated that the Public Administration Act does not require conflict-of-interest evaluations to be recorded in writing, even in cases of doubt where superiors or the ministry’s legal experts are consulted. He argued that such assessments can be resolved orally.

Jan Fridthjof Bernt, emeritus professor of law at the University of Bergen, rejected this interpretation, stating that failing to document such evaluations constitutes “poor administrative practice” and violates the law’s procedural standards.

“It is a fundamental principle of sound case handling that records must show what has been considered and what conclusions were reached,” Bernt told Dagbladet. “If no notes are made, it becomes impossible to verify whether the process was deliberate and defensible—or whether the issue was simply overlooked.”

He emphasised that when a superior is involved in a conflict-of-interest assessment, the process qualifies as formal case handling, triggering documentation requirements under current law. Norway’s updated Public Administration Act—yet to enter into force—explicitly states that case handling “shall primarily be in writing”, with preparatory materials confirming this as an established principle.

While Bernt acknowledged that not every minor decision requires formal documentation, he insisted that conflict-of-interest assessments must be traceable in case files. “The purpose of these rules is not to expose wrongdoing after the fact, but to prevent disputes over impartiality from arising later,” he said. “Failing to address this properly can constitute a serious breach of duty, damaging both the case and the institution’s reputation.”

Under Norwegian law, violations of conflict-of-interest rules typically invalidate the decision in question, while severe breaches of official duties can result in fines or imprisonment for up to two years.

In its response to Bernt’s criticism, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that “the need for documentation will vary” depending on whether the discussion was general or tied to a specific case. While the ministry’s guidelines acknowledge that doubtful decisions “may warrant documentation”, it maintained that efficiency must be balanced against the need for verifiable processes.

The controversy follows Eide’s admission last month that he violated conflict-of-interest rules after his son secured an internship at Norway’s Paris embassy before Christmas.