Norway

Landmark Employment cases to be heard by the Norwegian Supreme Court

by Marie B. Hagberg

Published: 22 June 2026

The Norwegian Supreme Court is scheduled to take on several interesting employment cases during fall and winter, and here are the ones we are excited to follow up on in the coming months:

Working time – exemption as "particularly independent position": The case concerns whether a Project Manager in a construction company were correctly classified as holding a "particularly independent position" and thus exempted from the majority of the working time rules in Chapter 10 of the Norwegian Working Environment Act ("NWEA"). In the case, the Project Manager claimed a right to overtime compensation for work in excess of the regular working hours in the company, on the basis that he believed his de facto independence in the position did not meet the criteria to qualify as "particularly independent" within the meaning of Section 10-12 (2) of the NWEA.

Both the city court and the appeal court ruled that the position did qualify as a particularly independent, and thus were correctly exempted from the working time rules. The Project Manager appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court has decided to take on the case in so far as to assess whether the appeal court has correctly interpreted the assessment of and categorization as "particularly independent" in Section 10-12 (2) of the NWEA. This is the first time the Supreme Court will assess this rule, which is highly relevant and practical, and the case is therefore followed with interest by both employees and employers. The Supreme Court hearing is scheduled for 2 and 3 September 2026.

Holiday – The right to take out additional holiday for employees over 60 years of age: A nurse working in the home care service in a Norwegian municipality requested to take out the additional holiday that is granted to employees who have reached the age of 60 on days that included Sundays and Public holidays. For this extra holiday, the Norwegian Holidays Act stipulates that the employee is free to choose when the extra holiday is taken, unless otherwise is agreed between the parties. No such agreement was in place with the municipality, which meant that the nurse as a starting point had the liberty to decide when the extra holidays were to be taken.

The municipality rejected the nurse's request to take out extra holiday in a period that included Sundays and Public holidays, on the basis that the Norwegian Holidays Act only refers to the right to holiday on "business days", which expressly excludes Sundays and Public holidays. Both the city court and the appeal court found the municipality could not deny the holiday on this basis, as the Norwegian holiday system presupposes that such days may also be included in the holiday period, despite them not being deducted from the number of holidays that each employee is entitled to each year. The appeal court also stated that the Norwegian legislator had used this system as a conscious choice, to reach a balance between employees working a regular work week and employees who are part of shift plans.

The appeal court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court. This will be an interesting case to follow, as it is rare that the question before the Norwegian Supreme Court solely relates to the Norwegian Holidays Act. The Supreme Court hearing is scheduled for 21 October 2026.

Hire-in of workforce and the principle of equal treatment for seafarers: Dates have now been set for the Norwegian Supreme Court to assess the applicability of the Temporary Agency Work Directive (Directive 2008/104/EC) for employees who are hired out to work on board a vessel in the petroleum industry on the Norwegian Continental Shelf.
The case is interesting for several reasons. First, it raises the question of choice of law between the NWEA and the Maritime Labour Act. These are mutually exclusive, and the Temporary Agency Work Directive has only been implemented in the NWEA. Second, it raises the question of applicability of the Temporary Work Agency Directive and Norway's obligations as an EEA Country. As part of the case, the Norwegian Supreme Court sought an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court, addressing two main questions. These were i) whether the Temporary Work Agency Directive applies to seafarers, and ii) whether the Norwegian Continental Shelf is part of the "territory" within the meaning of Article 126 (1) of the EEA Agreement. The EFTA Court found that the Directive applies to seafarers, and that the Norwegian Continental Shelf is part of the geographical scope of the EEA Agreement, in direct contradiction to the position advanced by the Norwegian State in the case. You can read our newsletter about the ruling from the EFTA Court here.

The Supreme Court hearing is scheduled for 28 and 29 October 2026, and 2 and 3 February 2027. Due to the principal nature of the question, the Chief Justice has decided to schedule the hearing for consideration by the Grand Chamber, which means that eleven Supreme Court judges will participate in the case.

Whether platform workers are regarded as permanent employees: The Supreme Court is due to assess whether delivery couriers in Wolt Norway AS are to be regarded as permanent employees or as independent contractors taking on consultancy work. The ruling has shifted from the city court, where two of three judges ruled that the couriers were employees, to the appeal court, where four of five judges ruled that the couriers were in fact independent contractors.

The majority in the city court, found that Wolt's platform dictated the couriers' working conditions and remuneration to such an extent that they had limited autonomy, which in sum demonstrated that Wolt exercised significant control and supervision over the couriers. Thus, the couriers were deemed as employees.

In the appeal court, a majority of four judges ruled that the couriers were independent contractors taking on consultancy work. The appeal court noted that there were arguments to support both conclusions, but deemed that the couriers' freedom and self-autonomy were evident, both in how many and which of the deliveries that each accepted to take on. They were also free to be inactive for new assignments for longer periods, thus being free to take leave of absence, holiday or similar. Therefore, each courier directly controlled their working hours and the intensity of their work.

The Supreme Court ruling will therefore represent an interesting and important clarification on the distinction between employees and independent contractors. The date for the hearing has not been set yet. We wrote about the case last summer, when the ruling from the city court had been delivered, also with a Scandinavian perspective. You can find our newsletter here.