Search
document

Document text Analytics

ANTONSEN v. NORWAY

Doc ref: 20960/92 • ECHR ID: 001-45908

Document date: July 9, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

ANTONSEN v. NORWAY

Doc ref: 20960/92 • ECHR ID: 001-45908

Document date: July 9, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 20960/92

Alf Oddmund Antonsen

against

Norway

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 9 July 1997)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Alf Oddmund Antonsen against Norway

on 30 June 1992. It was registered on 18 November 1992 under file

No. 20960/92.

2. The applicant was represented by Ms Synnøve Fjellbakk Taftø.

3. The Government of Norway were represented by their Acting Agent,

Mr Frode Elgesem of the Solicitor General's Office.

4. On 15 January 1997 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the

application partially admissible in so far as it concerns the

applicant's complaint that he did not have a fair hearing in the

criminal proceedings against him. It then proceeded to carry out its

task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as

follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition

referred to it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,

undertake together with the representatives of the parties

an examination of the petition and, if need be, an

investigation, for the effective conduct of which the

States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,

after an exchange of views with the Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal

of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly

settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human

Rights as defined in this Convention."

5. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had

reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 9 July 1997 it adopted

this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the

Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the

solution reached.

6. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

Mr J.-C. GEUS, Acting President

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

7. The applicant is a Norwegian citizen, born in 1942 and resident

in Romset, Norway.

8. On 3 July 1991 the public prosecutor decided to present the

applicant with the option of accepting a fine of 1,000 NOK and the

confiscation of 4,050 NOK, equivalent to the value of certain fish the

applicant had caught allegedly in violation of the provisions of the

Act relating to sea-water fisheries (saltvannsfiskeloven) and the

Regulation (forskrift) of 16 November 1990 concerning cod fishing with

conventional tools in a particular area of Norwegian maritime

territory.

9. The applicant did not accept the fine and proceedings were

consequently instituted against him in the District Court (herredsrett)

of Vesterålen. By judgment of 5 September 1991 the applicant was

acquitted. On 18 September 1991 the public prosecutor lodged an appeal

against this judgment. By judgment of 3 April 1992 the Supreme Court

(Høyesterett) found the applicant guilty of the charges brought against

him and sentenced him to a fine of 1,000 NOK and to submit to the

confiscation of 4,050 NOK.

10. Before the Commission the applicant complained, under Article 6

of the Convention, that he did not have a fair hearing before the

Supreme Court because he was convicted following an acquittal without

being heard by the Supreme Court.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

11. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission (Second Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the

parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance

with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties

to submit any proposals they wished to make.

12. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,

acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to

explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

13. By letters of 25 February and 6 March 1997 the parties indicated

their willingness, in principle, to reach a friendly settlement and

requested the Commission's assistance in this respect.

14. By letter of 16 April 1997 the Commission (Second Chamber)

informed the parties that, having regard to the relevant case-law and

the subject matter of the case, it was of the opinion that it would be

reasonable to settle the case on the basis of the payment by the

Government of the sum of 15,000 NOK. Furthermore, the Government should

pay a sum, to be determined by the parties, which should cover

reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the

Commission which had not already been covered by the Commission's grant

of legal aid.

15. On 15 May 1997 the Government informed the Commission that they

accepted settling the case on the terms suggested by the Commission.

16. On 28 May 1997 the applicant informed the Commission that he

accepted the terms of the friendly settlement set out in the

Commission's letter of 16 April 1997.

17. On 17 June 1997 the Government informed the Commission that the

parties had agreed that the Government pay 20,000 NOK in order to cover

the applicant's costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before

the Commission.

18. At its session on 9 July 1997, the Commission (Second Chamber)

noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of

a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28

para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case

had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined

in the Convention.

19. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER J.-C. GEUS

Secretary Acting President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant