CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Communicated on 1 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 42259/20 Patrick STEVENS against Norway lodged on 8 September 2020 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a compensation scheme established in respect of divers in the petroleum sector in the North Sea, where a condition for eligibility was membership of the Norwegian social security scheme at the relevant time, which the applicant, a former North Sea-diver who is of Irish nationality, had not held. The applicant’s application for compensation was dismissed and the applicant challenged that decision before the domestic courts, arguing, inter alia , that his right to obtain compensation from the scheme was a property right and that the decision denying it had entailed discrimination on the basis of nationality. In its judgment of 9 October 2019 the High Court found that the impugned decision was valid and on 15 January 2020 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal against the High Court’s judgment. Before the Court, the applicant maintains that the domestic decisions contravened his rights under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the decision to refuse the applicant compensation from the compensation scheme for divers, and the decisions delivered in the course of the proceedings instituted by the applicant, entail a violation of any rights held by the applicant under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention or under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?