Lexploria

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

Menu

DRISSI v. NORWAY

DRISSI v. NORWAY

LEXI