The consultation deals with the possibility of incompatibility of a university teaching officer if hired by a Norwegian university. In this regard, it should be noted that Law 53/1984, of 26 December, on the incompatibilities of personnel in the service of Public Administrations states in article 1.3 that:

“In any case, the performance of a job by the personnel included in the scope of application of this Law will be incompatible with the exercise of any position, profession or activity, public or private, that may prevent or impair the strict performance of their duties or compromise their impartiality or independence.”

In this regard, article 1.1 of Act No. 53/1984 provides that: “Personnel within the scope of this Law may not make their activities compatible with the performance, by themselves or by substitution, of a second job, position or activity in the public sector, except in the cases provided for therein.”

On the other hand, Law 53/1984 states in its art. 11.1 that:

“In accordance with the provisions of article 1.3 of this Law, the personnel within its scope may not exercise, by themselves or by substitution, private activities, including those of a professional nature, either on their own account or under the dependence or service of Entities or individuals directly related to those developed by the Department, Agency or Entity where it is intended.

This prohibition shall not apply to private activities which, in the exercise of a legally recognized right, are carried out for themselves by those directly concerned.”

Article 1.3 of Act No. 53/1984 establishes a general principle of incompatibility with the performance of a job by the personnel covered by this Act in the exercise of any position, profession or activity, public or private, which may prevent or impair the strict performance of their duties or compromise their impartiality or independence.

In this regard, it is noted that, regardless of the different cases specifically contemplated by the aforementioned law, the rule itself enables the Administration to assess whether the performance of a second activity may prevent or impair the strict performance of duties or compromise the impartiality or independence of the personnel included in the scope of application of the law.

In this sense, within the duties of any public post, there is strict compliance with schedules and working hours, and always depending on the service needs of the Administration.

According to the consultation letter, it is observed that it would be difficult to complete the working day and the hours (especially those of tutoring) at the University, if another activity is carried out simultaneously in Norway.

In greater abundance, it is noted that the use of the expression “may impede or impair” by the law itself, allows to introduce in its interpretation a notion of risk or probability of a prejudice for the correct performance of public activity that would enable the Administration to deny the requested compatibility.

Under this interpretation, and without prejudice to the above, it is noted that the simple change of residence to Norway by the teacher who would be obliged as stated in the letter sent, allows us to assess said component of risk or probability of impairment to the public service that would be directly linked to the remoteness of his new residence and to the dependence, almost exclusively, on a single means of transport, the air, which does not allow to ensure the presence of the teacher in his workplace at the University for the fulfilment of his duties in the event of nothing improbable that said means of transport could be affected by various circumstances (technical, climatological, labour conflicts, etc. ), and was not operational.

All of the above is without prejudice to remember that, according to the regime of competences of this management center, the answers to queries issued by this general directorate are merely informative and, consequently, do not have the character of a binding criterion, nor do they give rise to rights or expectations of law, nor do they imply any link with the type of procedures to which they refer. In addition, since they are not mandatory or binding, the bodies to which such replies are addressed may, where appropriate, finally take a decision that does not correspond to the opinion contained therein.

The answers to queries contained in this bulletin deal with the issues raised in the light of the regulations in force at the time of their issuance, so that these answers may be affected by subsequent legislative changes or judicial resolutions.