CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;GRANDCHAMBER;ENG — 20 mai 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s858219AB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s40E12E37 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE90BF664 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s144DF6AC { width:6.63pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3E39F0D2 { width:24.22pt; display:inline-block } .s1AE6489F { width:14.15pt; display:inline-block } .sAB1D697D { width:174.81pt; display:inline-block } .s660DD4FA { width:21.3pt; display:inline-block } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s71AD7540 { width:15.55pt; display:inline-block } .s63E120F7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s64A09B87 { width:5.18pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2E3BD715 { width:11.51pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD1FA5280 { width:167.79pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s590A3EF4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-19.85pt } .s275CCCF2 { width:5.86pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s1AA4530B { width:188.47pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD6630765 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7B9E84BC { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAE2C6750 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5CB67CBD { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s63712B6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:27pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:1.95pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1A65163F { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:27pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:1.95pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s86C9F57E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:27pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:9pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8AB0B9E4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s56266050 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:15.85pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8C0F06CF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2775F78B { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .s9BAE5781 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFBE87F32 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:8.8pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s49D2BDB6 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1368240C { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1E58C7A2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:20.35pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEBDD33B0 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:27pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:13.5pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s771A2441 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDF389E35 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA90E1017 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56B0796E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:27pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:1.95pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s40A26CD { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4991353C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify } .sCCB242C3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:31.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:9pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s175D39A8 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s1AF138B1 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6AA809D4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8DD3F840 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB80C9E16 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD1463EA5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify } .s8BA7A365 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:27pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-15.4pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE89AC62E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt; text-align:justify } .sE61C7A7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:11.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF0972ECF { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s28BA0B5C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sC4CF4A9C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sE159D65A { width:141.75pt; display:inline-block } .sD75245C2 { width:66.04pt; display:inline-block } .sE0E3AF24 { width:59.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA427F3F3 { width:21.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF4714B16 { width:72.72pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }         CASE OF BLADET TROMSØ AND STENSAAS v. NORWAY   (Application no. 21980/93 )                       JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG     20 May 1999             In the case of Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article   27 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), as amended by Protocol   No.   11 [1] , and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court 2 , as a Grand Chamber composed of the following judges:   Mr   L. Wildhaber , President ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   J.-P. Costa ,   Mrs   F. Tulkens ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   W . Fuhrmann ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova , and also of Mrs M. de Boer-Buquicchio , Deputy Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 27 and 28 January and on 21   April   1999, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case was referred to the Court, as established under former Article   19 of the Convention [2] 3 , by the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) on 24 September 1998 and by the Norwegian Government (“the Government”) on 29 October 1998, within the three-month period laid down by former Articles 32 § 1 and 47 of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 21980/93) against the Kingdom of Norway lodged with the Commission under former Article 25 by a limited liability company established under Norwegian law, Bladet Tromsø A/S, which publishes the newspaper Bladet Tromsø , and its former editor, Mr   Pål   Stensaas, who is a Norwegian national, on 10 December 1992. The Commission’s request referred to former Articles 44 and 48 and to the declaration whereby Norway recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (former Article 46); the Government’s application referred to former Articles 44 and 48. The object of the request and of the application was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 10 of the Convention. 2.     In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 35 § 3 (d) of former Rules of Court B [3] , the applicants designated the lawyers who would represent them (former Rule 31). 3.     After the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 on 1 November 1998 and in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 § 5 thereof, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. The Grand Chamber included ex officio Mrs H.S. Greve, the judge elected in respect of Norway (Article   27   § 2 of the Convention and Rule 24 § 4 of the Rules of Court), Mr   L.   Wildhaber, the President of the Court, Mrs E. Palm, Vice-President of the Court, and Mr J.-P. Costa and Mr M. Fischbach, Vice-Presidents of Sections (Article 27 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 24 §§ 3 and 5 (a)). The other   members appointed to complete the Grand Chamber were Mr   A.   Pastor Ridruejo, Mr G. Bonello, Mr J. Makarczyk, Mr P. Kūris, Mr   R. Türmen, Mrs F. Tulkens, Mrs V. Strážnická, Mr V. Butkevych, Mr   J.   Casadevall, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr R. Maruste and Mrs S. Botoucharova (Rule 24 § 3 and Rule 100 § 4). Subsequently, Mr W. Fuhrmann, substitute judge, replaced Mr Kūris, who was unable to take part in the further consideration of the case (Rule 24 § 5 (b)). 4.     Mr Wildhaber, acting through the Deputy Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government, the applicants’ lawyers and the Delegate of the Commission on the organisation of the written procedure. Pursuant to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the applicants’ memorial and the Government’s memorial on 5 January 1999. On 15 January 1999 the Secretary to the Commission indicated that the Delegate would submit his observations at the hearing. On various dates between 29 January and 17 March 1999 the Government and the applicants submitted additional observations under Article 41 of the Convention. 5.     In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 27 January 1999.   There appeared before the Court: (a)      for the Government Mr F. Elgesem , Attorney, Attorney-General’s Office     (Civil Matters),   Agent ,   Mr T. Stabell , Assistant Attorney-General (Civil Matters),   Mr K. K allerud , Senior Public Prosecutor,       Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions,   Advisers ; (b)   for the applicants Mr   K. B oyle , Barrister-at-Law, Mr   S. W olland , Advokat ,   Counsel ; (c)   for the Commission Mr   A.S. A rabadjiev ,   Delegate .   The Court heard addresses by Mr Arabadjiev, Mr Wolland, Mr Boyle, Mr   Elgesem and Mr Stabell. THE FACTS I.     the circumstances of the case A.     Background to the case 6.     The first applicant is a limited liability company, Bladet Tromsø A/S, which publishes the daily newspaper Bladet Tromsø in the town of Tromsø. The second applicant, Mr Pål Stensaas, was its editor. He was born in 1952 and lives at Nesbrua, near Oslo. Tromsø is a regional capital of the northern part of Norway. It is the centre of the Norwegian seal hunting industry and has a university which includes an international polar research centre. At the relevant time Bladet Tromsø had a circulation of about 9,000   copies. Like other local newspapers in Norway, it was used as a regular source by the Norwegian News Agency (“NTB”). 7.     Mr Odd F. Lindberg had been on board the seal hunting vessel M/S   Harmoni (“the Harmoni ”) during the 1987 season as a freelance journalist, author and photographer. Several of his articles pertaining to that season had been published by Bladet Tromsø . These had not been hostile to seal hunting. On 3 March 1988 Mr Lindberg applied to the Ministry of Fisheries to be appointed seal hunting inspector for the 1988 season on board the Harmoni . Following his appointment on 9 March 1988 he served on board the Harmoni from 12 March to 11 April 1988, when the vessel returned to its port in Tromsø. Thereafter, and until 20 July 1988, Bladet   Tromsø published twenty-six articles on Mr Lindberg’s inspection. 8.     On 12 April 1988 Bladet Tromsø printed an interview with Mr   Lindberg in which he stated, inter alia , that certain seal hunters on the Harmoni had violated the 1972 Seal Hunting Regulations ( forskrifter for utøvelse av selfangst ) – as amended in 1980 – issued by the Ministry of Fisheries. The headline of the article read (all quotes below are translations from Norwegian): “Research reveals crude hunting methods in the West Ice Deplorable violations of the regulations” The introduction to the article quoted Mr Lindberg as follows (in bigger print): “   ‘If seal hunting is to be permitted to continue, certain sealers have to stop killing the seals in the way they do. During the last two winters, which I have spent in the Arctic Ocean, I have uncovered a great deal which is clearly inconsistent with acceptable seal hunting methods. However, I should like to emphasise: Only a few of the hunters are guilty of [such behaviour] and those few do the [seal hunting] industry a disservice and provide Greenpeace with good arguments. It is really regrettable and completely unnecessary!’   ” The interview continued, inter alia , as follows: “   ‘If seal hunting is to be permitted to continue – and I am of the opinion that it should – there ought to be an inspector on every vessel. One that makes sure that the animals are killed in a proper manner and are not subjected to unnecessary suffering. ... But let me emphasise: I am in favour of seal hunting, though it has to be carried out in an exemplary manner.’ ... Mr Lindberg states that he has been threatened by hunters to remain silent about his observations and experiences during the seal hunting on the West Ice. He does not wish to go into details ... ‘That will be covered in the report I am going to write ...’   ” The article did not mention any seal hunter by name or provide any details of the allegedly illegal hunting methods. 9.     In order to defend themselves against the accusations contained in the above article of 12 April 1988 the skipper on the Harmoni and three of its crew members gave interviews which Bladet Tromsø published on 13 April. The introduction to the main interview stated (in bigger print), inter alia : “The crew on ... the Harmoni is really furious. The allegations made by ‘researcher’ Mr Lindberg regarding ... seal hunters’ beastly killing methods are too much to swallow. ‘Mr Lindberg is expressing a blatant lie. He pretends to be a researcher but has no clue of what he is talking about’, says Mr Kvernmo [crew member]. ” A separate interview with Mr Kvernmo entitled “They feel themselves blackened” quoted him (in an introduction reproduced in bigger print) as follows: “   ‘I do not know what Mr Lindberg is trying to achieve with his accusations of bestial killing of seals. But we feel ourselves blackened and do not want to have this hanging over us.’   ” Later in the interview Mr Kvernmo was quoted as saying: “   ‘... Mr Lindberg describes us as blood-thirsty murderers but we follow the rules and are humane ...’   ” 10.     Mr Lindberg’s official report on the hunting expedition was completed on 30 June 1988, two and a half months after the expedition. This was significantly later than the normal time allotted to the preparation of such reports and after the Ministry of Fisheries had enquired about it. The Ministry received it on 11 July 1988 and, because of the holiday period, did not review it immediately. In his report, Mr Lindberg alleged a series of violations of the seal hunting regulations and made allegations against five named crew members. He stated, inter alia : “I have also noticed that [seals] which have been shot in such a manner that they appear to be dead have ‘awakened’ during the flaying ... I experienced several times that animals which were being flayed ‘alive’ showed signs that their brains’ electric activity had not been terminated.” Mr Lindberg recommended that there should be a seal hunting inspector on every vessel and that compulsory training should be organised for all first-time hunters. Their knowledge of the regulations should also be tested. Finally, Mr Lindberg recommended an amendment to the regulations as regards the killing of mature seals in self-defence. B.     Order of non-disclosure of the report 11.     The Ministry of Fisheries decided temporarily (see paragraph 14 below) to exempt Mr Lindberg’s report from public disclosure relying on section 6, item 5, of a 1970 Act relating to Access of the Public to Documents in the Sphere of the Public Administration ( lov om offentlighet i forvaltningen , Law no. 69 of 19 June 1970). Under this provision, the Ministry was empowered to order that the report not be made accessible to the public, on the ground that it contained allegations of statutory offences. An article published by Bladet Tromsø on 15 July 1988 contained the following observations on the Ministry’s decision: “   ‘The report is of such a nature that we have exempted it from public disclosure’, says [a counsellor in the Ministry]. ‘So far we have merely read through it. When we have had time to study it closely, it will be sent to the Fishing Inspectorate and to the Seal Hunting Council. But first we shall examine all the information provided by inspector Mr Lindberg, in particular as regards any incidents that might be relevant to the Penal Code. Everyone who is personally mentioned in the report will be given an opportunity to explain and defend himself.’   ” C.     The impugned articles published on 15 and 20 July 1988 12.     In the above-mentioned article of 15 July 1988 Bladet Tromsø , having received a copy of the report which Mr Lindberg had transmitted to the Ministry of Fisheries, reproduced some of his statements concerning the alleged breaches of the seal hunting regulations by members of crew of the Harmoni . The headlines on the front page read: “Shock report” “   ‘Seals skinned alive’   ” The text on the front page stated: “Seal hunting inspector Mr Lindberg is criticising Norwegian seal hunters in a shock report on the last ... season. [He] refers to illegal methods of killing, drunken crew members and the illegal start of the hunt before the opening of the hunting season. Not least the report includes an account of his being beaten up by furious hunters, who also threatened to hit him on the head with a gaff [ hakapik ] if he did not keep quiet. ‘The report is of such a character that we have exempted it from public disclosure’, said a spokesperson for the Ministry of Fisheries.” 13.     On 19 and 20 July 1988 Bladet Tromsø published the entire report in two parts. The introduction to the first part stated: “... During the last days [Mr Lindberg’s report] has created considerable turbulence within the seal hunting [profession]. Most consider it a particularly severe attack on a profession which has already met with opposition, both nationally and internationally. In several responses to Bladet Tromsø it is clearly alleged that Mr   Lindberg is an agent of Greenpeace. Mr Lindberg has given us access to his notes from the [expedition]. The report has since been treated as confidential by the Ministry, given, inter alia , that various persons have been named and associated with breaches of the regulations. We have deleted the names ... The report ... does not contain one-sided criticism ... Mr Lindberg also compliments a number of crew members ... [He] in addition writes that he is a sympathiser of seal hunting. But not with the manner in which it was conducted on the West Ice this year.” The second part of Mr Lindberg’s report, which was published by Bladet   Tromsø on 20 July 1988, contained the following statements ( while deleting with black ink the names of the crew members referred to in square brackets below): “At 11.45 [a crew member] beat to death a female harp seal which was protecting her pup.” “At 14.40 [a crew member] beat to death a female harp seal which was protecting her pup.” “At 15.00 [a crew member] beat to death a female harp seal.” “The same day [I] pointed out to the skipper that [a crew member] did not kill cubs in accordance with the regulations (i.e. he ... hit it with the spike [of the gaff] and then dragged the cub after him).” “At 15.00 [a crew member] beat to death a female harp seal which was protecting her pup.” “At 19.00 [a crew member] killed a female [harp seal] which was protecting her pup.” The hunting of harp seals had been legal in 1987. D.     Related publications by Bladet Tromsø during the period from 15   to 20 July 1988 14.     In a commentary of 15 July 1988 Bladet Tromsø stated: “Poor working conditions? Are the authorities in proper control of seal hunting as conducted at present? Do the ... inspectors of the Ministry ... enjoy working conditions enabling them to deliver unbiased reports about seal hunting or do they become too dependent on having a good relationship with the seal hunters? In other words, are the sealing inspectors sufficiently independent in their supervision on board the sealing vessels? These are questions which Bladet Tromsø has received from persons who know the industry well but, for various reasons, do not wish to come forward in public. The background to these questions is the report which Mr Lindberg has transmitted to his employer, the Ministry of Fisheries. Mr Lindberg was assigned as seal hunting inspector on board the Tromsø - registered vessel Harmoni ... during the 1988 season. The report is so critical that the Ministry has decided to keep it ‘confidential’ for the time being. ..., a counsellor in the Ministry ... admits that he has never before received a report from a seal hunting inspector which was ‘so unkind as this one’.   ” 15.     On 18 July 1988 Bladet Tromsø published a further interview with crew member Mr Kvernmo, entitled “Severe criticism against the seal hunting inspector: The accusations are totally unfounded”. The caption under a photograph on the front page stated: “Sheer lies. ‘Judging from what has transpired in the media regarding [Mr Lindberg’s] report, I would characterise his statements as sheer lies’, says Mr Kvernmo. [He] ... demands that the report be handed over immediately [to the crew]. In this he is supported by two colleagues, Mr [S.] and Mr [M.] …” The interview with Mr Kvernmo continued inside the newspaper and bore the headline “   ‘Mr Lindberg is lying’   ”. The newspaper in addition published a letter on the same topic from Mr   Kvernmo to the editor. According to Mr Kvernmo, Mr Lindberg’s presence on board the Harmoni in 1987 had not been appreciated. When he turned up at the departure of the 1988 expedition, this was after having made a number of unsuccessful requests to the shipowner and the crew. As a last resort, he had bluffed the Ministry into believing that he was to go with the Harmoni to the West Ice and that he could take on, on a voluntary basis, the task of inspector. Without further ado, the Ministry had appointed him inspector because he had offered to do the job free of charge. Consequently, the Ministry sent an inspector whose knowledge about seal hunting and hunting regulations was extremely weak and who was psychologically unsuited for the job. He had carried out his tasks in an utterly strange and poor manner. 16.     In an editorial, also published on 18 July 1988, the newspaper stated: “Some people are of the view that Norwegian seal hunting will again suffer from severe criticism from nature activists after the seal hunting inspector has revealed a number of objectionable circumstances in connection with an expedition. We believe this report will strengthen [Norway’s reputation] as a serious seal hunting nation, provided that the contents of the report are used in a constructive manner. In all professions there are certain persons who will abuse the confidence which society has placed in them and who will operate on the edge of the law. The fisheries authorities must react strongly against all abuse. The authorities now have a unique opportunity to clarify the purpose of Norwegian seal hunting and how it should be conducted in an internationally acceptable manner. ... What is revealed by the fresh report ... has to be perceived as a single, regrettable episode warranting ... a closer scrutiny of the manner in which Norwegian seal hunting should be carried out in the years to come ...” 17.     On 19 July 1988 Bladet Tromsø published an article entitled: “The Sailors’ Federation is furious and brands the seal report as: ‘A work commissioned by Greenpeace!’   ” Two representatives of the Norwegian Sailors’ Federation were quoted, inter alia , as follows: “   ‘We know our seal hunters and also have a certain knowledge of ... inspector Mr Lindberg. In the light of this we dare to say: We do not believe a word of what is stated in [his] report! Nor do we doubt for a second that [he] was placed on board the Harmoni by Greenpeace. We will therefore demand that the Ministry provide all the information surrounding [his] appointment ... ... We are also greatly surprised that the writer of Bladet Tromsø ’s editorial [of 18   July 1988] really dares to take a stand in this matter without having any better knowledge of seal hunting. We consider that frightening ...’   ” 18.     On the same date Bladet Tromsø published an interview with Mr   Lindberg, in which he stressed that his report had included positive statements concerning ten crew members, whom he named. 19.     In an interview published by Bladet Tromsø on 20 July 1988 a representative of Greenpeace denied that it had been involved in any way in producing Mr Lindberg’s report. E.     Other related publications, contemporaneous with or post-dating the impugned publications 1.     Press release issued by the Ministry of Fisheries 20.     In a press release dated 20 July 1988, the Ministry of Fisheries stated that because of its peculiar contents and form, the Lindberg report had been exempted from public disclosure until further notice. According to veterinary expertise, it was practically impossible to flay a seal alive, whilst it was usual that reflex movements in the animal’s muscles occur during slaughter. As regards the appointment of Mr Lindberg as an inspector, the Ministry stated that he had referred in his application to the fact that he had attended the seal hunt in 1987 in order to study all aspects of the hunt and to carry out research for the University of Oslo. He intended to attend also the 1988 season. The purpose of his research was to write a book on seal hunting and to carry out scientific work. In addition he had indicated that, since at all events he was to go with the Harmoni during the 1988 season, he was prepared to carry out the inspection without remuneration. The Ministry had had several telephone conversations with Mr Lindberg, during which he said that he had studied biology and was affiliated to several scientific associations, particularly in the area of polar research. In view of the fact that Mr Lindberg was willing to do the job free of charge and, especially, his research background, the Ministry decided to appoint him. While seeking to attend the hunting expedition, he had offered his services to the Institute of Biology at the University of Oslo. As a result, during the expedition, he had collected for the University certain parts of seal bodies. Later investigations had revealed that the inspector had no formal higher education and no competence as a researcher, nor any experience with the killing of animals. His strong reactions and comments on the killing of the animals were characterised by the fact that he did not have the required background for being an inspector. His report could not be regarded as a serious and adequate inspection report. 2.     Publications by Bladet Tromsø 21.     On 21 July 1988 Bladet Tromsø published an article entitled “The Ministry of Fisheries rejects Mr Lindberg’s report”, which quoted a senior official of the Ministry as having said: “   ‘[Mr Lindberg’s] report cannot be regarded as a serious ... inspection report; it is characterised by the fact that he lacks the professional background which an inspector should have …’   ” 22.     Another article published by Bladet Tromsø on the same day quoted Mr Kvernmo as follows: “   ‘We are genuinely pleased that Mr Lindberg’s allegations that we violated legal laws and regulations during this year’s seal hunting ... have been rejected by the Ministry ... We would never accept allegations that we were, among other things, flaying seals alive ...’   ” 23.     A further article published by Bladet Tromsø on 23 July 1988 bore the following headline: “The seal hunters are being bullied – The Sailors’ Federation wants to involve the police: ‘Have the whole seal matter investigated’   ” On the same day Bladet Tromsø published a further interview with a senior official of the Ministry of Fisheries, quoting the latter as having stated: “   ‘In my view the media have now harassed the seal hunting profession enough. Imagine if you, working in the media, were to be harassed in the same manner. I can tell you that there are now seal hunters who cannot sleep and who are receiving telephone calls day and night.’ Yesterday [the official] seemed more or less overcome, not least after [the newspaper] Aftenposten had published photographs taken by Mr Lindberg during this year’s seal hunting showing how seals are being killed with a gaff. [The official] had no compliment to spare for Bladet Tromsø either: ‘You were the ones who started this craziness!’...   ” 24.     In a further article published by Bladet Tromsø on 25 July 1988 two former seal hunting inspectors were quoted as follows: “   ‘We cannot claim that Mr Lindberg has not witnessed and experienced what he describes in his report ... But he has drawn completely wrong conclusions. Norwegian [seal hunters in the Arctic Ocean] are diligent and responsible and have much higher morals than regular Norwegian hunters when it comes to killing animals ...’   ” 3.     Other media coverage 25.     On 15 July 1988 the Norwegian News Agency issued a news bulletin reiterating some of the information provided by Bladet Tromsø on the same date as to Mr Lindberg’s allegations (see paragraph 12 above). It stated that the Ministry of Fisheries was of the view that violations of the seal hunting regulations might have occurred. This bulletin was dispatched to its approximately 150 subscribers and various newspapers published articles which were based on it. 26.     In a bulletin of 18 July 1988 the Norwegian News Agency – using Bladet Tromsø as its source – affirmed, firstly, that the crew had demanded that the report immediately be made accessible to the public (“ straks … offentliggjort ”) and, secondly, that the Association of Fishing Vessel Companies had also called for the report to be made public. The Government submitted that the first statement had been based on Bladet Tromsø ’s article of 18 July 1988 (see paragraph 15 above), misrepresenting, however, the fact that the crew had only requested that the report be handed over to it. In another news bulletin of the same date, the Agency reported the Ministry as having stated that veterinary experts would consider the controversial Lindberg report; that the Ministry would issue further information on the outcome and possibly also on the circumstances of his recruitment as inspector but would not comment any further until it had collected more information. It further stated that, on that date, both the Association of Fishing Vessel Companies and the crew had requested that the report be made accessible to the public. Bladet Tromsø received the bulletin on the same day. According to a news bulletin of 19 July 1988, the Ministry of Fisheries had stated that, when appointing him inspector, it had relied on information supplied by Mr Lindberg himself to the effect that he was carrying out research projects. The Agency understood the Ministry to mean that his research and links to the University of Oslo were thought to be far more extensive than they had been in reality. In a further news bulletin issued later on the same day, the Agency stated that Mr Lindberg had refused to meet with officials of the Ministry to discuss his report. On 19 July 1988 the newspaper Adresseavisen , referring to the news bulletins issued by the Norwegian News Agency, stated that the seal hunters had requested that Mr Lindberg’s report be made public. 27.     Mr Lindberg’s report continued to receive a wide coverage in other media as well. On 29 July and 3 August 1988 extensive excerpts from the report were published in Fiskaren , a bi-weekly for fishermen. One of the articles published on 29 July 1988 bore the following headline: “Mr Lindberg in the report on seal hunting: ‘It happens that animals are being flayed while their eyes are rolling and they are yelping’   ” The introduction to the article read as follows: “   ‘During the last part of the hunting period the animals, once shot, are rarely examined so as to verify that the shots have been lethal ... The animals are thereafter lifted on board, often alive. Animals are therefore often flayed while ... their eyes are rolling and they are yelping.’ These are some of the occurrences which Mr Lindberg claims to have observed while acting as a seal hunting inspector on board the Harmoni ... Such ... statements have made the Ministry ... and professionals consider that Mr Lindberg’s report is ‘not serious’ and wish not to make it accessible to the public. In [his] report Mr Lindberg makes very strong accusations against named hunters. In the excerpts published by Fiskaren we have consistently deleted all names.” 28.     The excerpt published by Fiskaren on 3 August 1988 included the observations which Mr Lindberg had made in the report as reproduced by Bladet Tromsø on 20 July 1988. 29.     Over the following months the debate about Mr Lindberg’s report died out until 9 February 1989, when he gave a press conference in Oslo. A film entitled “Seal Mourning” (containing footage shot by Mr Lindberg from the Harmoni ) showed certain breaches of the seal hunting regulations. Clips from the film were broadcast by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation later the same day and the entire film was broadcast by a Swedish television channel on 11 February 1989. During the next days scenes from the film were broadcast by up to twenty broadcasting companies worldwide, including CNN and the British Broadcasting Corporation. F.     The Commission of Inquiry report 30.     In view of the various reactions to the film, both within Norway and internationally, the Minister of Fisheries was recalled while on an official journey abroad. Seal hunting was debated in Parliament on 14   February   1989 and, on 24 February 1989, the government announced that it would set up a Commission of Inquiry. The government also banned with immediate effect the killing of baby seals or pups. 31.     On 5 September 1990 the Commission of Inquiry submitted an extensive report based on various evidence, including, inter alia , Mr   Lindberg’s inspection report, his footage as well as a book written by him. For the purposes of the inquiry Mr Lindberg had been examined as a witness by the Sarpsborg City Court ( byrett ). The Commission had also heard several of the crew members of the Harmoni as well as other seal hunting inspectors. In its report the Commission of Inquiry found that the truth of most of Mr Lindberg’s allegations relating to specifically named individuals had not been proved. It found no basis for the allegation that seals had been skinned alive or that pups had been kicked or flayed alive (p. 8). On the other hand, the Commission identified several breaches of the hunting regulations (p. 69), which it deemed had been established by the footage presented by Mr Lindberg. For instance, one seal had been killed with the sharp end of a gaff without previously having been hit with its dull end. Another seal had been killed with an axe, whereas a third seal had been lifted on board the Harmoni whilst still alive. The Commission published those parts of Mr Lindberg’s report which pertained to the Harmoni ’s hunting expedition, after deleting the crew members’ names. The Commission further recommended various amendments to the hunting regulations, to their implementation and to the training of hunters. These recommendations were in line with some of the suggestions Mr Lindberg made in his report, notably as to the training of hunters on killing methods, the dissemination to hunters of information on the applicable rules and obligatory presence of an inspector on board every hunting vessel. G.     Defamation proceedings against Mr Lindberg 32.     In March 1989 the crew of the Harmoni had instituted defamation proceedings against Mr Lindberg before the Sarpsborg City Court, referring to statements which he had made about them in respect of the 1987 and 1988 hunting seasons. By judgment of 25 August 1990 the City Court declared five statements in his inspection report null and void under Article   253 § 1 of the Penal Code. Two other statements made by Mr   Lindberg in another context were also declared null and void. Moreover, the City Court prohibited Mr Lindberg from showing in public any of the footage pertaining to the Harmoni and ordered him to pay to the crew compensation (10,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK)) under the Damage Compensation Act 1969 and costs. His request for leave to appeal against the judgment was rejected by the Appeals Selection Committee of the Supreme Court ( Høyesteretts Kjæremålsutvalg ) on 16 May 1991. 33.     Being resident in Sweden, Mr Lindberg opposed the execution in Sweden of the Sarpsborg City Court’s judgment of 25 August 1990, on the ground that it violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. In a decision of 16 December 1998, the Swedish Supreme Court ( Högsta Domstolen ) upheld a decision by the Court of Appeal ( Hovrätten ) of Western Sweden of 25 April 1997, rejecting Mr Lindberg’s claim. While noting that it was not its role to carry out a full review of the Norwegian judgment, the Swedish Supreme Court found that the latter did not entail any breach of Mr Lindberg’s rights under Article 10. This provision did not, therefore, constitute an obstacle to execution. Nor did the fact that the film in question had been shown in Sweden mean that it would run counter to Swedish public-order interests to execute the Norwegian judgment. H.     Defamation proceedings giving rise to the applicants’ complaint under the Convention 34.     On 15 May 1991 the crew members of the Harmoni also instituted defamation proceedings against the applicants, seeking compensation and requesting that certain statements appearing in Mr Lindberg’s report and reproduced by Bladet Tromsø on 15 and 20 July 1988 be declared null and void. 35.     On 4 March 1992, after having heard the parties to the case and witnesses over a period of three days, the Nord-Troms District Court ( herredsrett ) gave its judgment in which it unanimously found the following statements defamatory under Article 247 of the Penal Code and declared them null and void ( død og maktesløs; mortifisert ) under Article 253 § 1 (the numbering in square brackets below follows that appearing in the Court’s reasoning):   (Statements appearing in the part of the Lindberg report published by Bladet Tromsø on 20 July 1988) [1.1]   “At 11.45 [a crew member] beat to death a female harp seal which was protecting her pup.” [1.2]   “At 14.40 [a crew member] beat to death a female harp seal which was protecting her pup.” [1.3]   “At 15.00 [a crew member] beat to death a female harp seal.” [1.6]   “At 19.00 [a crew member] killed a female which was protecting her pup.” (Statements appearing in one of the articles published by Bladet Tromsø on 15 July 1988) [2.1]   “Seals skinned alive” [2.2]   “Not least the report includes an account of his (Mr Lindberg) being beaten up by furious hunters, who also threatened to hit him on the head with a gaff if he did not keep quiet.” On the other hand, the District Court rejected the seal hunters’ claim with respect to the following statements published on 20 July 1988: [1.4]   “The same day [I] pointed out to the skipper that [a crew member] did not kill cubs in accordance with the regulations (i.e. he ... hit it with the spike [of the gaff] and then dragged the cub after him).” [1.5]   “At 15.00 [a crew member] beat to death a female harp seal which was protecting her pup.” The District Court provided the following reasons: “As regards the statements concerned, it is a basic condition for declaring these null and void that they be defamatory. This question must be considered in the light of how the statements were perceived by the ordinary newspaper reader. Moreover, the statements must not be interpreted separately. The decisive factor must be how they were understood when the articles were read as a whole. The position is somewhat different, however, as far as justification is concerned. The Court will revert to this matter below. Even though the statements are to be considered on the basis of an overall assessment, it would nevertheless be correct to accord weight to the fact that the matter was splashed across the front page in bold type. The first impression given was thus that something serious had occurred. This impression was not appreciably lessened or altered by the more detailed article inside the newspaper. This factor must be deemed particularly significant. The Court finds it clear that both statements in question of 15 July 1988 are defamatory. One of them read: ‛Seals skinned alive’ (‘ sel levende flådd ’). This assertion must be understood to mean that the seal hunters committed acts of cruelty to the animals. It goes without saying that skinning an animal alive causes severe pain to it. When read as a whole, the statement must be understood to apply not only to one seal, but to several. It gives the impression that the seal hunters not infrequently skinned seals while they were still alive. The other statement reads: ‘Not least the report includes an account of his being beaten up by furious hunters, who also threatened to hit him on the head with a gaff if he did not keep quiet’. This statement must imply that the seal hunters had assaulted Mr Lindberg, which, objectively speaking, amounts to a criminal act, cf. Article 228 of the Penal Code. The threat to hit him on the head with their gaffs if he did not keep quiet comes within the objective description of the offence set out in Article 227 of the Penal Code. The allegation must therefore be understood to mean that the seal hunters had committed two offences. Such a statement must clearly be considered defamatory. As regards the statements concerning female harp seals, it is not disputed that such seal hunting was not permitted in 1988. Reference is made to items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.6 of the allegations ... Item 1.4 also concerns a violation of the seal hunting regulations. In this regard, reference is made to Article 8 b of the regulations, according to which the seal shall first be struck with the blunt end of the gaff and then with the spike. The reason for this is that the animals are to be knocked unconscious before they are killed with the spike. The statement must imply that the blows with the blunt end had been omitted. A breach of the regulations constitutes a criminal offence. It is regarded as a misdemeanour and may be punished by a fine. Generally speaking, an allegation of such a violation must also be considered to be defamatory ... In the Court’s view, the statements relating to the killing of female harp seals must be regarded as defamatory. Hunting for this species of seal was not permitted at all in 1988. The statements do not differ from allegations of illegal hunting in general and imply that the crew behaved in a morally reprehensible manner. The Court will deal below with the question as to whether the statements can be regarded as substantiated and thus lawful. The Court is, however, in doubt as regards the statement quoted in item 1.4. It is not alleged that the seal pups were made to suffer, but simply that the killing methods used were not in accordance with the regulations. Given that it is not alleged that the seal pups were made to suffer, the statement can hardly be interpreted as implying strong moral condemnation of the seal hunter. ... The decisive question is whether the killing is carried out in a responsible manner. The statement cannot be understood to mean that it was not. At any rate, given the fact that it was not suggested that the pups had been made to suffer, the matter must be regarded as trivial. The court has, with some doubt, reached the conclusion that the statement cannot