On 16 March 2026, I was arrested at my home in Tromsø under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Greece.
Greek authorities wanted Norway to surrender me so that I could be prosecuted in Greece.
Two months later, on 15 May, the Hålogaland Court of Appeal unanimously refused.
That judgment is one of the most important documents in this case.
Not because Norway decided whether I am guilty or innocent under Greek law. It did not.
But because, before Norway could surrender me, a Norwegian court had to examine the conduct Greece relied upon in seeking my surrender.
And what the court actually found deserves to be read.
What the Norwegian court examined
The Court of Appeal considered whether the legal requirements for surrender were satisfied.
One of the central questions was dual criminality: whether the conduct described by the Greek authorities would also constitute criminal conduct under Norwegian law.
Because the court found that the relevant conduct had been carried out wholly or partly from Norway, it concluded that the dual-criminality requirement applied fully. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…
The court then examined the Greek accusations against me.
The conduct attributed to me included communicating with others, receiving information about people travelling towards Greece and assisting in initiating asylum procedures.
The Court of Appeal found that assisting someone in applying for asylum is not a criminal act under Norwegian law. It also found that merely receiving information from another person is not in itself criminal. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…
The court examined whether my actions could amount to participation or complicity in organised unlawful activity connected to unlawful border crossings.
Its reasoning is important.
The court observed that the actions attributed to me — receiving personal information and initiating asylum applications — were relatively far removed from the core conduct of an unlawful border crossing.
The Greek charge did not state that I influenced who undertook the journey or their decision to travel.
Nor did it describe me as having a role in deciding where the border crossing would take place.
The court also noted that I was in Norway.
And it found that I was not a necessary link in the course of events. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…
Assisting people to seek asylum
There is another part of the judgment that I believe is particularly important.
The Court of Appeal pointed out that initiating asylum procedures did not simply have a weak connection to an unlawful border crossing.
It pointed in the opposite direction.
The court reasoned that assisting with asylum procedures was a contribution towards asylum seekers presenting themselves to public authorities.
It further found that the actions attributed to me, considered in isolation, were lawful acts protected by international treaties binding on both Norway and Greece. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…
The court also considered the allegation that I had facilitated people avoiding legally required border controls.
It found that the Greek charge did not concretely describe what required control had been avoided, what act of evasion had occurred, or how I had assisted anyone in avoiding such controls.
Again, the court noted the contradiction: helping someone initiate an asylum procedure requires that person to present themselves to public authorities. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…
After examining the accusations, the Court of Appeal concluded that the dual-criminality requirement was not satisfied.
The request for my surrender therefore had to be refused.
But the court did not stop there.
Freedom of expression
The Court of Appeal separately examined whether surrender would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
This part of the judgment concerned Article 10 — freedom of expression.
The court stated that my expressions are protected under Article 10. It then considered the wider situation in Greece, including the treatment of refugees and the situation faced by human-rights defenders documenting their treatment. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…
The court referred to findings of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Commission, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.
It specifically considered documented pushbacks and concerns about smear campaigns, threats, attacks and misuse of criminal law against human-rights defenders working on migration. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…
The Court of Appeal then considered whether there was a connection between my protected expression and the criminal proceedings against me.
Its conclusion was clear:
There were concrete indications that the charges against me represented a real risk of violation of my freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
For that reason as well, the request for surrender had to be refused.
The decision was unanimous. 13_04 Kjennelse Hålogaland lagm…
The formal conclusion of the Court of Appeal was:
“The conditions for surrendering Tommy Olsen to Greece are not met.”
What the judgment did not decide
It is equally important to be precise about what the Norwegian judgment did not decide.
The Court of Appeal did not acquit me of the Greek charges.
It did not terminate the criminal proceedings in Greece.
And it did not decide what the Greek court must do when my case comes before it.
Its task was to determine whether Norway could lawfully surrender me to Greece on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant.
The answer was no.
International reaction
The significance of the decision was subsequently recognised by international human-rights organisations.
Amnesty International reported that the Norwegian court had confirmed that the actions for which I am prosecuted in Greece are not punishable under Norwegian law and that the charges represent “a real risk of violation of his freedom of expression.” Amnesty also reported that the decision would not be appealed. Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch reported that the Court of Appeal unanimously recognised that the acts described by the Greek authorities did not constitute criminal offences under Norwegian law and that surrender would risk violating my freedom of expression under Article 10. Human Rights Watch called on Greece to revoke the European Arrest Warrant and drop the charges. That call is Human Rights Watch’s position, not a finding of the Norwegian court. Human Rights Watch
The Greek prosecution continues
The Norwegian decision ended the attempt to surrender me from Norway.
It did not end the case in Greece.
The European Arrest Warrant remains active, and my trial is scheduled to begin on Rhodes on 6 October. Amnesty confirmed after the Norwegian decision that the warrant and Greek charges remained in place. Amnesty International
That creates an extraordinary situation.
A Norwegian appellate court has examined the conduct Greece relied upon when seeking my surrender and concluded that the dual-criminality requirement was not satisfied.
The same court separately found concrete indications of a real risk that the charges against me would violate my freedom of expression.
Yet the Greek criminal proceedings continue.
That is why this judgment matters.
And that is why I believe people should be able to read it themselves rather than simply being told what it says.
Read the complete judgment
Today, Aegean Boat Report is publishing the complete decision of the Hålogaland Court of Appeal.
For the protection of vulnerable individuals named in the proceedings, identifying information relating to refugees has been redacted from the publicly available judgments. These redactions do not affect the court’s reasoning or conclusions. Journalists and human rights organisations covering the case have been provided with the original, unredacted documents for independent verification.
OFFICIAL NORWEGIAN ORIGINAL
Hålogaland Court of Appeal — 15 May 2026
Case No. 26-050254SAK-HALO
This is the authoritative version of the judgment.
OFFICIAL NORWEGIAN JUDGMENT
UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Published to make the judgment accessible internationally.
The Norwegian original remains authoritative. In the event of any discrepancy, the Norwegian original controls.
UNOFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Read the judgment. Read what the court actually decided. Then make up your own mind.
🔗 Defending myself in Greece costs money. If you want to help, you can support my legal defence here:
