⚖️🔎🛡️
OPEN STATEMENT AND LEGAL MANIFESTO
A Cry from the Soul, a Demand for Justice, and the Search for Truth
Concerning the Violation of Property Rights, the Loss of Cultural Assets, the Absence of an Effective Investigation, and the Prolonged Restriction of Access to Case Materials
I address this statement to the international community, human rights organisations, European institutions, representatives of the legal and academic communities, journalists, researchers, and every person for whom the concepts of justice, legality, human dignity, and the inviolability of private property are not empty words.
This document constitutes an open statement, a personal manifesto, and an official presentation of my legal position.
This is not merely an account of lost property.
It is an account of what happens to an individual when the public authorities entrusted with protecting his rights fail for years to provide clear answers, ensure transparent proceedings, or offer an effective means of establishing the fate of property that represented a significant part of his life.
It is also a demand for the truth.
I am not asking for special treatment. I am not demanding privileges. I demand only that which must be guaranteed to every individual in a state governed by the rule of law: a lawful procedure, access to documents, an objective examination of evidence, an effective investigation, the restoration of violated rights, and accountability for those whose actions or omissions contributed to the serious consequences that followed.
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF MY FORCED ABSENCE
In 2018, I faced serious health problems related to heart disease. In my assessment, the medical assistance available to me in Norway did not provide the necessary quality and continuity of treatment.
My state of health compelled me to leave the Kingdom of Norway in order to undergo an urgent and prolonged course of cardiac treatment abroad.
My departure did not constitute a voluntary abandonment of my home, my property, or any of my lawful rights. It was necessitated by the need to preserve my health and life.
It was precisely during the period of my forced stay abroad that actions were undertaken in connection with the termination of my occupancy and the clearance of the residential premises I occupied in the Municipality of Øvre Eiker.
I maintain that, during this procedure, adequate protection was not provided for my interests as an absent individual who was abroad for a legitimate medical reason. Effective measures were not taken to safeguard the property located in the apartment, prepare a complete inventory, arrange its secure transfer and responsible storage, and subsequently return it to its lawful owner.
As a result of these events, property belonging to me—including a collection of artworks, historical documents, and other cultural assets—was lost and, according to the information available to me, may have been unlawfully appropriated or removed by third parties.
The precise circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the collection, the identities of the persons involved, the sequence of actions taken by public officials and third parties, and the subsequent fate of individual items have still not been established through a transparent, comprehensive, and convincing procedure in which I, as the injured party, could participate effectively.
For this reason, I insist that the circumstances of what occurred require not formalistic responses, but a full and independent investigation.
II. THE COLLECTION AS A PART OF MY LIFE
The lost property was not a random assortment of household items.
The collection had been assembled over several decades. It included items that, in my assessment, possessed artistic, historical, documentary, and cultural value.
Its creation required more than financial investment. It embodied years of work, knowledge, memory, respect for European culture, and a desire to preserve historical heritage for future generations.
Every item had its own history. Many of these objects were associated with particular periods of my professional activities, research, and personal biography. Certain materials may have been significant not only to me, but also to historians, art specialists, archivists, and future researchers.
I initially considered transferring the most significant parts of the collection to the National Museum of Norway, the Ministry of Culture, or other public institutions in the country. My intention was to preserve these cultural assets and make them accessible to society.
However, subsequent events compelled me to reconsider that decision.
A state to which an individual intends voluntarily to donate cultural assets must first be capable of protecting his lawful ownership of them. It must guarantee that no administrative procedure, no absence of the owner for medical reasons, and no institutional indifference will create conditions under which his property may disappear.
If public and municipal authorities failed to ensure the safekeeping of property situated within the premises at the time administrative or enforcement actions were carried out, the issue extends beyond the potential criminal responsibility of the persons who directly appropriated the property.
It raises the question of institutional responsibility.
Who made the relevant decisions?
Who had access to the premises?
Was a complete inventory of the property located there prepared?
Were photographs or video recordings made?
Which individuals were present when the premises were cleared?
To whom were the keys transferred?
Where were the belongings taken?
Who was responsible for their safekeeping?
Which documents record and substantiate each action?
Why did a significant part of the property disappear?
Why have these questions still not received clear and documentary answers?
III. PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATE
The right to property is one of the fundamental foundations of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms guarantees every natural and legal person the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his or her possessions.
The protection afforded by this provision is not limited to prohibiting the formal expropriation of property by the state. Depending on the specific circumstances, it requires the existence of a lawful procedure, the observance of a fair balance, the protection of the individual against arbitrary interference, and the establishment of effective legal mechanisms through which property rights may be defended.
I maintain that the necessary degree of legal and practical protection was not ensured in the handling of my home and property.
If representatives of municipal, police, enforcement, or other public authorities participated in clearing the premises, exercised control over them, obtained access to the property located inside, or were aware of the risk of its loss, they were obliged to act in good faith, maintain proper documentation, and exercise due diligence.
A mere assertion that the direct removal or appropriation of the property may have been committed by third parties does not, in itself, eliminate the question of the responsibility of public authorities.
It is necessary to determine:
whether reasonable measures were taken to prevent the loss of the property;
whether a comprehensive inventory was prepared;
whether the owner was notified in a timely manner;
whether due consideration was given to his state of health and the fact that he was undergoing medical treatment abroad;
whether a responsible custodian was appointed;
whether the movement and transfer of the property were properly documented;
which persons had physical access to the apartment;
whether procedural safeguards were observed;
whether the actions or omissions of public officials may have contributed to the disappearance of the property.
Until these questions have been answered, the matter cannot be regarded as having been fully and conscientiously examined.
IV. THE INVIOLABILITY OF THE HOME AND HUMAN DIGNITY
What occurred concerns more than property rights alone.
A home represents a person’s private sphere—a place in which personal documents, family memories, the results of one’s work, books, photographs, and possessions comprising the material history of one’s life are preserved.
Article 8 of the European Convention protects the right to respect for private and family life and the home. A corresponding principle is enshrined in Article 102 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway.
Any interference with the right to respect for the home must have a clear legal basis, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate. It must not be transformed into a procedure through which an individual undergoing medical treatment is effectively deprived of the opportunity to protect himself, his property, and his documents.
Even if the original decision concerning the clearance of the residential premises had some formal legal basis, this did not relieve the competent authorities of their obligation to comply with the law at every subsequent stage.
The lawfulness of a decision and the lawfulness of the manner in which that decision is executed are not the same thing.
No administrative or enforcement decision can serve as authorisation for the uncontrolled handling of another person’s property. It cannot justify the absence of an inventory, the loss of belongings, access by unidentified individuals, or the disappearance of property.
V. THE PROLONGED ABSENCE OF AN EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION
After discovering the loss of my property, I repeatedly contacted the competent Norwegian authorities and demanded an investigation and the establishment of the truth.
However, in my assessment, instead of a comprehensive, consistent, and independent examination, I received predominantly formal responses and decisions terminating further examination of the matter.
My complaints did not result in the exhaustive establishment of:
a complete list of the lost property;
the identities of the persons present when the apartment was cleared;
the procedure by which access to the premises was granted;
the place to which the belongings were initially moved;
the persons responsible for their safekeeping;
the subsequent movement of each item;
possible purchasers or recipients of the property;
the role of municipal and police officials;
the reasons for the loss of documents, artworks, and historical assets.
I cannot recognise as effective an investigation that fails to answer the central questions raised by the case.
Nor can I accept a practice in which each new complaint is considered in isolation, without reconstructing the complete chronology of events and without comparing and assessing the actions of all the authorities involved.
If the relevant materials are distributed among the police, the municipality, enforcement services, administrative departments, and other institutions, the state’s obligation is not to direct an individual through an endless bureaucratic circle. Its obligation is to ensure a coordinated and effective examination.
VI. ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS AS A CONDITION OF EFFECTIVE LEGAL PROTECTION
The prolonged restriction of my access to documents relating to the events and the subsequent consideration of my complaints is of particular importance.
Without access to the case materials, an individual cannot determine:
what evidence was actually collected;
which witnesses were interviewed;
which versions of events were examined;
which documents were requested from the municipal authorities;
whether the persons who had access to the premises were identified;
on what grounds decisions to terminate the case were adopted;
whether information concerning the whereabouts of particular cultural assets was examined;
whether contradictions among different documents and statements were resolved.
I recognise that legislation may provide for specific restrictions on access to certain categories of information. Any such restriction, however, must have a specific legal basis, pursue a legitimate aim, and be proportionate.
An exception cannot be transformed into a general rule, nor can reliance on internal procedures be used as a means of excluding the injured party entirely from participation in the case.
Article 100 of the Constitution of Norway establishes the right of access to documents of the state and municipalities, subject to limitations prescribed by law for compelling reasons. Article 95 guarantees the right to have one’s case determined by an independent and impartial court within a reasonable time and the right to fair judicial proceedings.
Article 6 of the European Convention may also be relevant insofar as the determination of civil rights and obligations is concerned, including the effective ability to protect property interests within the appropriate proceedings.
The concealment or prolonged withholding of essential documents places an individual in a position of practical procedural helplessness.
VII. THE RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY
Article 13 of the European Convention guarantees the right to an effective domestic remedy in respect of an arguable complaint concerning the violation of rights protected by the Convention.
The effectiveness of a remedy cannot be assessed solely by the existence of an institution, an address to which a complaint may be submitted, or the possibility of obtaining a registration number.
A legal mechanism must be capable of:
examining the substance of the complaint;
considering material evidence;
establishing the relevant circumstances;
determining responsibility;
bringing an ongoing violation to an end;
restoring the violated rights;
providing appropriate redress.
If complaints are transferred between institutions for years, discontinued without examination of the central circumstances, or resolved through standardised formulations, a legitimate question arises: was the system of remedies made available practically effective, rather than merely existing in a formal sense?
Article 92 of the Constitution of Norway imposes upon state authorities the obligation to respect and ensure the human rights enshrined in the Constitution and in international treaties binding upon Norway.
This obligation must be manifested through concrete action, not merely through official declarations.
VIII. THE LEGAL CHARACTER OF MY ASSERTIONS
I recognise the distinction between the personal conviction of an injured party, a reasonable suspicion, a legal assessment, and guilt established by a final judgment of a court.
Accordingly, this manifesto does not replace a judicial decision and does not declare any particular individual guilty in advance.
My use of the terms “theft,” “plundering,” “unlawful appropriation,” “inaction,” and “possible responsibility of public officials” reflects my assessment of what occurred, based upon the disappearance of the property, the documents available to me, the results of my complaints, and the prolonged absence of any exhaustive explanation.
It is precisely an independent investigation that must establish:
whether a criminal offence was committed;
who directly took possession of the property;
whether particular individuals acted jointly;
whether official negligence or abuse of authority occurred;
whether a causal connection exists between the conduct of public authorities and the loss of the property;
whether criminal, civil, administrative, or disciplinary liability should apply.
My task as the author of this statement is not to assume the powers of a court, but to raise questions, present the available information, and demand a lawful examination.
IX. MY FORMAL DEMANDS
On the basis of the foregoing, I demand the following:
First. That a full, independent, and impartial investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of my property be reopened or initiated.
Second. That all public officials and private individuals who participated in clearing the apartment, moving the belongings, storing the property, and adopting subsequent decisions be identified.
Third. That I be granted access to all materials that may lawfully be disclosed, including decisions, registration logs, inventories, records, photographs, video recordings, correspondence between public authorities, and documents relating to the transfer of the property.
Fourth. That, in respect of any documents to which access is restricted, a separate reasoned decision be provided identifying the specific legal basis, the duration of the restriction, and the procedure for appealing against it.
Fifth. That the preservation of all paper and electronic materials relating to the case be secured, including official correspondence, registration data, access logs, audio recordings, and archival copies.
Sixth. That an independent review be conducted of the actions and omissions of the Municipality of Øvre Eiker, the police authorities in the Buskerud region, and any other public bodies involved.
Seventh. That the whereabouts of every item capable of being identified through photographs, descriptions, catalogues, expert materials, or witness statements be established.
Eighth. That measures be taken to return any surviving property to its lawful owner.
Ninth. That an independent assessment of the material and non-material damage be conducted, including an evaluation of the cultural, historical, and documentary significance of the lost collection.
Tenth. That, if violations are established, fair compensation be provided and the question of the legal responsibility of the persons concerned be examined.
Eleventh. That protection be guaranteed against every form of pressure, persecution, retaliation, or adverse administrative action arising from my complaints and the public presentation of my legal position.
X. AN APPEAL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
I call upon international human rights organisations, legal associations, research institutions, journalists, and independent experts to take notice of this case.
The issue concerns more than the financial value of the lost objects.
It concerns the ability of a democratic state to investigate honestly the conduct of its own authorities.
It concerns the right of an individual to obtain documents, understand what happened to his property, and secure an examination of his complaint on its merits.
A matter that appears insignificant to a state system may represent an individual’s entire life.
A collection can be described in an inventory. It can be assigned a monetary value. Yet it is impossible fully to measure the suffering of a person who has lost the results of decades of work and who, for many years thereafter, has been unable to obtain a clear answer concerning the location of his belongings or the identity of those responsible for their disappearance.
XI. A CRY FROM THE SOUL AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH
I am not writing this document out of a desire for revenge.
Revenge does not return property, restore justice, or strengthen the rule of law.
I am writing it because silence in the face of prolonged uncertainty transforms a violation into a norm and a formal refusal into a final judgment against a person who has never truly been heard.
I do not ask anyone to take my word for it.
I ask that the documents be disclosed.
I ask that the facts be examined.
I ask that the sequence of events be established.
I ask that the persons involved be questioned.
I ask for an explanation of where the property was taken.
I ask that the legal basis for every decision be identified.
I ask to be given the opportunity to defend my rights not blindly, but on the basis of complete and accessible evidentiary materials.
If the public authorities acted lawfully and in good faith, an open examination will confirm this.
If mistakes were made, they must be acknowledged and corrected.
If negligence, abuse of authority, or a criminal offence occurred, those responsible must be held accountable in accordance with the law.
The truth must not represent a threat to a state governed by the rule of law.
On the contrary, a state’s ability to disclose documents, acknowledge an error, restore the rights of an injured person, and hold those responsible to account is evidence of its strength.
XII. FINAL LEGAL DECLARATION
I hereby formally declare that I will continue my lawful struggle to establish the fate of my property, restore my violated rights, and obtain an effective remedy.
I reserve the right to apply:
to the competent administrative and law enforcement authorities of Norway;
to prosecutorial and supervisory authorities;
to the Parliamentary Ombudsman;
to the national courts;
to international human rights organisations;
to the European Court of Human Rights, subject to compliance with the applicable admissibility requirements;
to other competent national and international institutions.
I further reserve the right to publish documents and analytical materials where their disclosure is permitted by law, to engage independent experts, to conduct documentary research, and to inform the public about the progress of the case.
I am prepared to submit the evidence in my possession to a competent and independent authority and to provide formal testimony subject to the responsibility prescribed by law.
My objective is not public condemnation without a trial.
My objective is the establishment of the truth through the law.
I am neither a court nor an investigative authority. I am a person who has lost property belonging to him and who has demanded answers to legitimate questions for many years.
I demand not revenge, but justice.
Not concealment, but transparency.
Not a formalistic response, but an examination on the merits.
Not institutional self-protection, but the rule of law.
Not oblivion, but the restoration of truth.
Until the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of my collection have been objectively established, the documents have been disclosed to the extent required by law, and the conduct of all persons involved has received an independent legal assessment, I cannot regard this case as closed.
The truth does not disappear merely because a case has been closed.
Property rights do not cease to exist as a consequence of administrative silence.
The responsibility of the state cannot be extinguished through formal correspondence.
Justice begins where an individual is granted the right to be heard.
Mayer Meir Kaltenbrunner, Ph.D.
Author, Independent Researcher, and Journalist
Kingdom of Norway
© 2026
