Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF E. AGAINST NORWAY

Doc ref: 11701/85 • ECHR ID: 001-55512

Document date: June 6, 1991

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

CASE OF E. AGAINST NORWAY

Doc ref: 11701/85 • ECHR ID: 001-55512

Document date: June 6, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54

(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the

Convention"),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human

Rights in the case of E. against Norway delivered on

29 August 1990 and transmitted the same day to the Committee

of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in an application against

Norway lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on

13 May 1985 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by

Mr E., a Norwegian national, who complained inter alia that while

in detention he had not had access to a court satisfying the

requirements of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the

Convention;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the

Commission on 12 April 1989 and by the Government of Norway on

19 June 1989;

Whereas in its judgment of 29 August 1990 the Court unanimously:

- held that there had been no violation of Article 5,

paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the Convention as regards the scope

of the Norwegian courts' power to review the lawfulness of the

applicant's detention;

- held that there had been no violation of Article 5,

paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), as regards their power to order his

release;

- held that there had been a violation of Article 5,

paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), on account of the failure, in the review

proceedings instituted on 3 August 1988, to take a decision

"speedily";

- rejected the claim for just satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers

concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the

Convention;

Having invited the Government of Norway to inform it of the

measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of

29 August 1990, having regard to its obligation under Article 53

(art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of

Ministers, the Government of Norway gave the Committee

information about the measures taken in consequence of the

judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this

resolution,

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by

the Government of Norway, that it has exercised its functions

under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution DH(91)16

Information provided by the Government of Norway

during the examination of the case of E. against Norway

by the Committee of Ministers

The Norwegian authorities have distributed the Court's judgment

together with a circular letter dated 16 January 1991 to all the

courts in Norway describing the implications of the Court's

judgment of 29 August 1990.

In this circular it is stressed that special expeditious measures

should be taken by the courts in proceedings instituted against

the state according to Chapter 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure

in cases of preventive detention. The circular states that, upon

the court's receipt of such a law suit, the necessary preparatory

measures, such as obtaining the defendant's observations and the

appointment of medical specialists, should be taken as soon as

possible. Time for the main hearing should be fixed promptly.

In this connection the circular refers to section 319 of the Code

of Civil Procedure which enables the court, when expeditious

action is needed, to limit the period of notification for the

main hearing to three days and, in extraordinary circumstances,

to one day.

The circular also points out that the circumstances of each case

will determine the acceptable length of time between the

institution of court proceedings and the passing of judgment but

that the European Court's judgment in the present case emphasised

that eight weeks was an unacceptably long period of time.

If the person concerned requests his release and the court finds

that the substantive conditions for the deprivation of liberty

are no longer fulfilled, it must order his release. Such an

order will be effected immediately in accordance with section 148

of the Code of Civil Procedure unless the court decides that it

is not justified to release him before the case is examined on

appeal. In that case it is particularly important that the case

be given priority also by the appeal court.

Finally, the circular letter underlines that it is the

responsibility of the head of each court to implement the

necessary administrative changes to meet the time requirements

set out in the Court's judgment.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant