CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 avril 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   301 9.4.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT A v. NORWAY   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of A v. Norway (application no. 28070/06).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of two defamatory newspaper publications, concerning the applicant’s possible involvement in the murder of two young girls, having damaged his reputation and honour.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 19,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 12,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, A, is a Norwegian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Kristiansand (Norway).   The case concerned A’s complaint about the unfavourable outcome of a defamation suit he brought against the Fœdrelandsvennen newspaper following their publication of two articles concerning the preliminary investigation into the murder (and in the case of the second article also rape) of two young girls (the so-called Baneheia case) in 2000 and which implicated him.   The applicant, 42 years’ old at the time, had served prison sentences for murder and assault with a knife. He had been released from prison about a year before two girls, of eight and ten respectively, were raped and stabbed to death in the area which he visited regularly after his release. He was questioned about the murders as a possible witness but was released after 10 hours; two other men were subsequently convicted of the crimes.     The police’s interest in A attracted considerable media attention. Several national newspapers reported on his interrogation and criminal past, but did not disclose his identity. However, the Fœdrelandsvennen, the main district newspaper on the southern coast of Norway, published articles on the Baneheia case on two consecutive days in May 2000. These articles disclosed details of the applicant’s past criminal convictions and stated that he had allegedly been seen by witnesses in the very same area and at the same time as the girls were killed. The articles also contained other sufficient elements to identify him, namely an interview with him insisting on his innocence, details of his place of work, residence and neighbourhood, and a large picture of him albeit from a distance and somewhat blurred.   Also in May 2000, a television station, TV2 , reported in a news broadcast that members of the press had followed a 42-year old murderer in the city where the two girls were raped and stabbed. It also showed an interview with the applicant on his way to the area of the murders.   A brought defamation proceedings against the Fœdrelandsvennen newspaper and TV2 . The domestic courts found in his favour and awarded him compensation as regards the TV2 report. In respect of the newspaper articles, however, the domestic courts agreed that the publications had been defamatory in as much as they were capable of giving the ordinary reader the impression that the applicant was regarded as the most probable perpetrator of the murders, yet concluded that, on balance, the newspaper had been right to publish the articles, as it had acted in the interest of the general public, which had the right to be informed of the developments in the investigation and pursuit of the perpetrators.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 June 2006 and was examined together for admissibility and merits.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greece), President , Nina Vajic   (Croatia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Elisabeth Steiner(Austria), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), judges , and also Soren Nielsen, Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complained that the domestic courts’ findings – in justification of the Fœdrelandsvennen newspaper publishing defamatory material about him – had affected negatively his right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise as well as his private life.     Decision of the Court   The Court first noted the domestic courts’ ruling that the published articles had been defamatory in nature as they had given the impression that the applicant had been a prime suspect in the murder case of the two girls. Although the applicant had not been mentioned by name, the photographs and details of his places of work and residence had made it possible for persons who already knew him to identify him as a possible suspect of aggravated crimes of a particularly reprehensible nature.   The Court further found that the news report had wrongly conveyed the idea that there had been facts pointing to the applicant as a suspect. While it had been undisputed that the press had the right to deliver information to the public, and the public had the right to receive such information, these considerations did not justify the defamatory allegations against A and the consequent harm done to him. Indeed, the applicant had been persecuted by journalists in order to obtain his pictures and interviews, and in particular during a period in his life when he had been undergoing rehabilitation and reintegration into society. As a result of the journalistic reports, he had found himself unable to continue his work, had to leave his home and had been driven into social exclusion.   The Court concluded that the publications in question had gravely damaged A’s reputation and honour and had been especially harmful to his moral and psychological integrity and to his private life, in violation of Article 8.   The Court dismissed A’s allegations under Article 6§ 2 as it found that Article not applicable to the matters complained of, given in particular that no public authority had charged A with a criminal offence.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.