The EOS Committee’s annual report for 2020

Read the full report here (pdf)

Below you may read a summary of the main issues in the annual report:

The Norwegian Police Security Service (PST):

The Committee has criticised PST in a case concerning the exchange of information about a Norwegian citizen with a service in a country where there is a risk that human rights will not be respected. In connection with a review of PST’s exchange of information with foreign services, the Committee looked into the exchange of information about a Norwegian who was imprisoned abroad. The Committee stated that PST’s assessment of the risk associated with disclosing information about the person in question to PST’s partner in the country in question, was inadequate.

The Norwegian Intelligence Service (NIS):
The Committee has full right of access to all the EOS services’ ongoing cases, with one exception: cases that the NIS defines as involving ‘particularly sensitive information’. In 2019 and 2020, we reviewed 19 cases/operations dating back several years that were no longer defined as ‘particularly sensitive information’. The Committee has found no indications that the NIS has exceeded its powers or that the rights of any person have been violated.

The National Security Authority (NSM) and the Norwegian Defence Security Department (FSA):
• In a complaint case, the Committee has concluded that the complainant’s rights were violated when NSM on incorrect grounds altered a security clearance decision from CONFIDENTIAL to no clearance.

• FSA and NSM were both criticised by the Committee for unreasonably long case processing time in connection with a complaint case. More than four years elapsed from the complainant submitted personal information as the basis for security clearance until NSM made its final decision to deny security clearance.

• Both NSM and FSA were criticised in a complaint case that concerned access to information in a security clearance case. The complainant was denied access to factual information recorded in an internal document. Moreover, a duty of secrecy under criminal liability was imposed on the complainant regarding information provided to the security clearance authority by the complainant.

Read the full report here (pdf)

See previous annual reports here