CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 27 mai 1998

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        Application No. 34471/97                       by Elsa DRISSI                       against Norway           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 27 May 1998, the following members being present:              MM     J.-C. GEUS, President                  M.A. NOWICKI                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs    G.H. THUNE            MM     F. MARTINEZ                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  A. ARABADJIEV              Ms     M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 9 October 1996 by Elsa DRISSI against Norway and registered on 14 January 1997 under file No. 34471/97;         Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to the information provided by the applicant on 12 and 20 May 1998 and by the respondent Government on 15 May 1998;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Norwegian citizen, born in 1955 and resident in Oslo. Before the Commission she is represented by Mr Eirik Djønne, a lawyer in Oslo.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         On 19 May 1994 at 21.15 hrs four plainclothed police officers, two officers in uniform as well as a journalist and a photographer from the newspaper Aftenposten entered the applicant's flat. At the time the applicant and her four-year-old child were being visited by the child's father M. Before entering the applicant's flat the journalist and the photographer did not introduce themselves to her. She therefore took them for police officers. The applicant's flat was searched and drugs were found. The applicant and M were handcuffed and arrested and child care officials came to pick up their child. Those officials were accompanied by a journalist from another newspaper. The applicant was asked whether she would agree to the presence of that journalist, who was writing an article on the work of the child care officials. The applicant agreed. It was only when the applicant and M were about to leave the flat with the police that they were informed of the presence of the journalist and the photographer from Aftenposten.         The applicant was released on the following day and no charges were brought against her. On 26 May 1994 she complained to the the Special Investigatory Body (Det særskilte etterforskningsorgan; SEFO) of Eidsivating. She had allegedly requested to be shown a search warrant but the purported warrant had been shown to her so briefly that she had been unable to read it. When she had affirmed that no drugs were to be found in her flat, the journalist from Aftenposten had allegedly said: "It seems we came on the wrong day." Moreover, when the telephone had rung a police officer had stated: "The shop is open." To the applicant this had amounted to an accusation that she was dealing in drugs. The applicant concluded that by authorising the presence of the journalist and the photographer of Aftenposten the police had violated its obligation to respect secrecy (taushetsplikt).         On 20 September 1994 the Press Ethics Board (Pressens faglige utvalg) found that Aftenposten had violated the code of ethics, as its journalist and photographer had not informed the applicant immediately of their professions. The newspaper had stated to the Board that the circumstances had made it impossible for its representatives to introduce themselves to the applicant. Given that the applicant had not been asked whether she consented to their presence, the Board found it immaterial that the journalist and the photographer had been authorised by the police to enter the flat. They should also have identified themselves to the applicant.         On 10 February 1995 SEFO found no reason to take further action against any police officer, as it had not been shown that a criminal offence had been committed. SEFO noted that a search warrant had been duly issued in view of the suspicion that the applicant had been possessing drugs in her flat. The journalist and the photographer from Aftenposten had been working on a larger article concerning the work of the anti-drugs squad of the Oslo police and had been duly authorised to be present. Aftenposten had not published any material relating to the incident. Nevertheless, in the circumstances of the case the presence of the journalist and the photographer had not shown sufficient respect for the applicant's private life. SEFO noted, however, that a superior within the Oslo Police Department had authorised the two to participate in the work of the anti-drugs squad. Furthermore, the instructions relating to the presence of media representatives during police actions had been unclear. On the other hand, SEFO recalled a decision of the Prosecutor-General (Riksadvokaten) of 21 May 1992 in which he had demanded that the Oslo Police Department draw up new instructions with a view to safeguarding privacy in situations where media representatives participate on the spot in measures taken by the police.         On 22 February 1996 the Public Prosecutor found that, objectively speaking, the police had violated its secrecy obligation. It was very regrettable that the Prosecutor-General's clear statement of 21 May 1992 had not been complied with. Agreeing with SEFO's conclusions, the Public Prosecutor nevertheless decided not to press any charges. On 10 April 1996 the Prosecutor-General, agreeing with SEFO, found that the fact that the police had authorised the journalist and the photographer to attend the incident in the applicant's home could not in itself lead to a finding that the relevant police officers had violated their secrecy obligation and thereby committed a criminal offence. The Prosecutor-General also placed emphasis on the fact that Aftenposten had not published any material relating to the incident. Finally, he noted that new guidelines and instructions were to be issued in respect of the participation of media in police work.         On 28 June 1996 the applicant petitioned the Ministry of Justice, seeking an apology and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Apparently no reply was given.     COMPLAINT         The applicant complained that her rights under Article 8 of the Convention were violated, since the police authorised the journalist and the photographer to enter her home without informing her of their professions and thus without her consent. The interference with her rights under Article 8 was allegedly neither in accordance with the law nor necessary in a democratic society.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 9 October 1996 and registered on 14 January 1997.         On 4 March 1998 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.         On 12 and 15 May 1998, respectively, the applicant and the Government informed the Commission that they had reached a friendly settlement on the following terms:         (translation from Norwegian)         "[The applicant] has complained to [the Commission] about       the presence of representatives of the press during a       police search of her flat on 19 May 1994 in Oslo. The       parties have reached the following agreement:       1.    The Government regret the distress which       the incident caused [the applicant]. The Ministry of       Justice will take steps to propose rules [in the relevant       instructions] concerning the attitude of the police towards       media.         2.    [The applicant] will receive from the Government NOK       15.000 for non-pecuniary damage and declares at the same       time that she has obtained full and final satisfaction in       every respect of the matter.         3.    The Government will cover [the applicant's] costs for       legal representation in the amount of NOK 17.500.         4.    [The applicant] will withdraw her application to [the       Commission].         The time-limit in respect of paras. 2 and 3 is one month       from the last signature.         Oslo, 13 May 1998                 Oslo, 12 May 1998         (signed)                          (signed)       (the applicant and her counsel)   (the Government Agent)"         On 20 May 1998 the applicant confirmed that she wished to withdraw her application.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The applicant complained of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention resulting from the manner in which the police had entered and searched her flat.         By letters of 12 and 15 May 1998, respectively, the applicant and the respondent Government referred to the friendly settlement concluded between the parties. On 20 May 1998 the applicant confirmed her wish to withdraw the application.         Noting the terms of the friendly settlement reached between the parties, the Commission considers that the Convention issue underlying the application has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention. Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting the respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.      M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               J.-C. GEUS       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber