https://www.domstol.no/no/hoyesterett/avgjorelser/2022/hoyesterett---sivil/HR-2022-883-A/
In an unanimous judgment, a five-judge panel of the Supreme Court ruled for the congregation and found that:
first, disfellowshipping decisions are justiciable and reviewable by courts in principle, since they have significant consequences for the person's welfare;
second, the art. 10 of the Religious Community Act of 1969, that "very specifically Norwegian law" the appellate court relied on, is inapplicable in this case;
third, there is no reason to invalidate the decision in question because the basic guarantees for legal security (due process) were met, and it wasn't based on a manifestly incorrect fact;
fourth, the plaintiff shall be exempted from paying legal costs of the congregation due to "the welfare significance of the case for [plaintiff] and the uneven balance of power between her as an individual member and Jehovah's Witnesses."
Decisions to exclude Jehovah's Witnesses are not overturned
Jehovah's Witnesses - Ski congregation (lawyer René Stub-Christiansen) (Legal assistant: lawyer Anders Christian Stray Ryssdal) against A (lawyer Per Danielsen)
One woman was excluded from Jehovah's Witnesses because, in the congregation's view, she had exhibited “porneia,” a biblical term for sexual immorality.
Freedom of religion or assembly, enshrined in the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), gives religious communities a large degree of independence, including deciding who should be members. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the exclusion decision had not completely escaped judicial review. Thus, as Jehovah's Witnesses demanded, the case was not dismissed by the courts. It was emphasized that the decision had very great personal consequences for the woman. Jehovah's Witnesses follow a practice that involves a member of the congregation, including the immediate family, avoiding contact with the excluded person.
Nevertheless, it follows from the freedom of religion that a decision made by a religious community on religious grounds cannot be set aside by the courts solely on the basis that it is highly unreasonable. The judicial review must be limited to whether the basic requirements for due process were met, and whether the decision was based on a materially incorrect fact. After a specific review, the Supreme Court concluded that the exclusion decision could not be set aside on any of these grounds. The decision clarifies the courts' right to review decisions in a religious community.
Read the decision in its entirety
Supreme Court judgment 3 May 2022, HR-2022-883-A, (case no. 21-142136SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.