The judges ruled in favor of an alcoholic that he could not be deprived of funds, so that he could not cover his daily need for six pints of beer.
—
Hålogaland Court of Appeal believes that alcohol is absolutely vital for the man.
He thus won over the debt collection company Lindorff in court.
It was Advokatbladet who first mentioned the case.
The man has debts that Lindorff has been commissioned to collect.
However, the Court of Appeal made it clear this week that there is a limit to how much Lindorff can collect from the payments the man receives from Nav.
That limit goes at six pints.
The man has a serious substance abuse problem and does not respond to regular detoxification.
“In a very special situation as in this case, where detoxification does not appear as an alternative and it is clearly stated by the attending physician that alcohol consumption is necessary, the Court of Appeal finds that expenses for alcohol constitute a necessary need that justifies a higher rate of maintenance”, it is stated in the ruling.
Get 200 kroner a day for beer
The man gets 200 kroner transferred daily to a consumer card, so he can buy six pints.
In the district court, Lindorff prevailed. But the man appealed and thus won in the Court of Appeal.
The man’s doctor said in the Court of Appeal that the scheme with daily intake of six pints can be compared with drug substitution (Subutex treatment) in LAR (drug-assisted drug treatment), writes Advokatbladet.
The court agreed.
The court compares the man’s need for money for daily alcohol consumption with his need for money for food, hygiene items, clothes, etc.
Unanimous decision
“The debtor has a guardian, and it has been pointed out that the debtor lacks cognitive abilities to carry out a detoxification through, for example, a spa stay,” the court writes.
“In a very special situation as in this case, where detoxification does not appear as an alternative and it is clearly stated by the attending physician that alcohol consumption is necessary, the Court of Appeal finds that expenses for alcohol constitute a necessary need that justifies a higher rate of maintenance,” writes the Court of Appeal in the decision.
The ruling was unanimous.
–
