§ 35. Repeal and amendment of other Acts
§ 35 is a technical final provision. It says that from the time the Act comes into force, amendments are made to other Acts. The text of the law shown here does not set out the amendments in full, but it marks that the Debt Collection Act (inkassoloven) affected other rules when it came into force.
Machine-translated from Norwegian. The Norwegian text is the one that applies. Read the original in Norwegian.Norsk English العربية Polski Українська
The text of the law (unofficial translation)
From the time the Act enters into force, the following amendments are made to other Acts: – – –.
What does this mean?
§ 35 is not a rule about what you should do when you receive a debt collection (inkasso) claim. It is not about the payment deadline (betalingsfrist), debt collection fees, the demand for payment (betalingsoppfordring) or good debt collection practice (god inkassoskikk). It is a technical legal rule.
When a new Act is passed, other Acts often have to be adjusted at the same time. This may be because old rules become unnecessary. It may be because section numbers have to be changed. It may be because terms have to be aligned. It may also be because the new Act moves an area of law from old rules to new rules.
§ 35 says that from the time the Debt Collection Act comes into force, amendments are made to other Acts. In the text you see, the actual list of amendments has been replaced with “– – –”. This means the amendments are not reproduced in full in this version. Lovdata often does this when amending provisions are historical and have already been carried out.
This is common in Norwegian law. Final provisions on amendments to other Acts are often important when the Act is passed, but less important for someone reading the Act many years later. Once the amendments have been carried out, they live on in the Acts that were amended.
For you reading the Debt Collection Act today, § 35 mainly means this: When the Debt Collection Act came into force, other rules were adjusted so that the legal system would fit together.
Why does it only say “– – –”?
When an Act amends other Acts, the amendments can be long. They can affect many sections in several Acts. Once the amendments have been carried out, it is often not necessary to show the whole history in the current text of the law.
That is why “– – –” is used as a marker. It means that text has been left out. It does not mean the rule is wrong. Nor does it mean you are missing an important payment rule.
In practice, this is historical legislative technique. The amendments were made when the Act came into force. If you want to find out exactly which Acts were amended at the time, you have to look at the original Act or historical legal data.
But for ordinary debt collection questions, this is rarely necessary. You normally do not need § 35 to assess a debt collection claim.
What does “from the time the Act enters into force” mean?
This refers back to § 33. § 33 says that the Act enters into force from the time the King in Council (Kongen) decides. For the Debt Collection Act, that date was 1 October 1989.
§ 35 says that the amendments to other Acts take effect from the same time. This means that when the Debt Collection Act started to apply, the related amendments started to apply too.
This is important because the legislation must be coordinated. It would have been messy if the Debt Collection Act came into force on one day while necessary amendments to other Acts only came later. That could have led to overlaps, gaps or conflicts.
§ 35 ensures that the whole package comes into force together.
Why does an Act have to amend other Acts?
Because Acts are connected. When one area is regulated anew, old references can become wrong.
Imagine that an older Act had rules on debt collection or referred to old debt collection rules. When the Debt Collection Act came, such references might have had to be changed. Otherwise, the legislation would point to old or wrong rules.
A new Act may also repeal old provisions. Repeal means that an old rule is removed. Amendment means that an existing rule is adjusted.
§ 35 is therefore a clean-up rule. It makes the rest of the legislation fit with the new Debt Collection Act.
Is § 35 important for debtors?
Usually not directly. If you have received a debt collection claim, other sections are almost always more important.
You should look at § 9 if the question is whether the debt collection notice (inkassovarsel) was sent correctly. You should look at § 10 if the demand for payment is missing information. You should look at § 17 if you are wondering about debt collection costs (inkassokostnader). You should look at § 8 if the debt collector (inkassator) has behaved unreasonably.
§ 35 normally does not give you an argument for avoiding payment. It only says that other Acts were amended when the Debt Collection Act came into force.
But § 35 can be useful if you work with legislative history. It shows that the Debt Collection Act did not come alone. It was part of a larger legal clean-up.
What happens to the amendments after they have been made?
Once the amendments to other Acts have been carried out, they become part of the Acts that were amended. You then usually do not need to go back to § 35.
If another Act was amended when the Debt Collection Act came into force, the amended Act will show the new text. § 35 is just the tool that made the change.
It is like moving into a renovated flat. Once the wall is painted, you do not need to read the work order every time you look at the wall. The work order explains what was done, but the finished result is there.
That is how § 35 works. It explains that amendments were made. You will find the practical rules in the Acts after the amendments have been incorporated.
Examples
Per receives a debt collection claim for an unpaid mobile phone bill. He wonders whether the fees are correct. Per finds § 35 and sees that it is about repeal and amendment of other Acts. It does not help him with the fee. He should instead read § 17 on costs, § 19 on amounts set by regulation and § 20 on maximum rates (maksimalsatser). If Per believes he never received a debt collection notice, § 9 is important. If the demand for payment lacks an explanation of the claim, § 10 is important. The outcome is that § 35 does not resolve Per's case. It is a technical final rule.
Mette is researching how the debt collection rules changed when the Debt Collection Act came. She reads § 35 and sees that amendments were made to other Acts from the time it came into force. For Mette, § 35 is useful as a lead. It shows that she must look at historical amendments if she wants to understand the whole reform. But she cannot see all the amendments directly in the current text, because they are marked with “– – –”. She must use historical sources for the details.
Common mistakes
- Thinking that “– – –” means the text of the law is missing by mistake
- Using § 35 as an argument in an ordinary debt collection case
- Thinking that § 35 sets its own payment deadlines
- Forgetting that § 35 is a historical and technical final provision
- Reading the final provisions before the practical rules in §§ 8 to 20
What should you do?
If you have an ordinary debt collection case, you should not spend time on § 35 first. Start with the rules that apply to the case itself.
Check whether the claim is correct. Check whether it is overdue. Check whether you received a debt collection notice under § 9. Check whether the demand for payment meets § 10. Check whether the costs can be charged under § 17.
If, on the other hand, you work with legislative history, § 35 can be a starting point. You should then examine the original text of the law and which Acts were actually amended.
For websites that explain the Act section by section, § 35 should be explained briefly and calmly. The reader should understand that this is a technical provision, not a rule that decides today's debt collection claims.