Search
document

Document text Analytics

TREHOLT v. NORWAY

Doc ref: 14762/89 • ECHR ID: 001-1144

Document date: July 6, 1989

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

TREHOLT v. NORWAY

Doc ref: 14762/89 • ECHR ID: 001-1144

Document date: July 6, 1989

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 14762/89

by Arne TREHOLT

against Norway

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 6 July 1989, the following members being present:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

J. A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

H. G. SCHERMERS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 6 February 1989

by Arne TREHOLT against Norway and registered on 8 March 1989 under

file No. 14762/89;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

The applicant is a Norwegian citizen, born in 1942. He is at

present serving a twenty year prison sentence. Before the Commission

he is represented by Mr. Ole Krarup, Copenhagen, Denmark.

On 20 January 1984 the applicant was arrested and charged with

espionage. On 20 June 1985 the applicant was found guilty of the

charge brought against him and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment

by the High Court (Eidsivating lagmannsrett). The applicant appealed

against this judgment to the Supreme Court (Høyesterett) but he later

withdrew his appeal. Instead he applied to the High Court for the

reopening of his case. However, his petition was rejected by the High

Court on 11 February 1988 and this decision was upheld by the Supreme

Court on 15 August 1988.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant invokes Article 6 of the Convention. He is of

the opinion that this provision has been violated both during the

investigation of his case and during the trial in the High Court.

THE LAW

The applicant has invoked Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention

complaining that this provision was violated during the investigation

of his case and during his trial.

However, the Commission is not required to decide whether or

not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a

violation of this provision as Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention

provides that the Commission "may only deal with a matter ... within a

period of six months from the date on which the final decision was

taken". According to the Commission's established case-law the "final

decision" within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention

refers only to the final decision involved in the exhaustion of all

domestic remedies according to the generally recognised rules of

international law. In this respect the Commission recalls that it has

constantly held that an application for the reopening of the

proceedings or similar extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general

rule, be taken into account in the application of Article 26 (Art. 26)

of the Convention (cf. for example No. 10326/83, Dec. 6.10.83, D.R. 35

p. 218).

The Commission finds that, in the present case, the

applicant's petition for a retrial was not an effective remedy under

the generally recognised rules of international law. Consequently, the

decision regarding this petition cannot be taken into consideration

in determining the date of the final decision for the purpose of

applying the six months time-limit laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26).

The final decision regarding his conviction and sentence is

accordingly the decision of the High Court which was given on

20 June 1985, whereas the present application was submitted to the

Commission on 6 February 1989, that is more than six months after the

date of this decision. Furthermore, an examination of the case does

not disclose the existence of any special circumstances which might

have interrupted or suspended the running of that period.

It follows that the application has been introduced out of

time and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant