8 June 2010

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 13258/09 by Lars LILLO-STENBERG and Andine S ÆTHER e against Norway lodged on 5 March 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Lars Lillo-Stenberg and Mrs Andrine Sæther, are Norwegian nationals who were born in 1962 and 1964 respectively. They live in Oslo . They are represented before the Court by Mr Harald Stabel l, a lawyer practising in Oslo .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The first applicant is a musician and the second applicant is an actress. They are both known to the public in Norway .

On 20 August 2005, the applicants married in a private ceremony, which took place outdoors on an islet in the municipality of Tjøme in Oslo fjord, approximately 100 km south of the capital.

Subsequently, the weekly magazine Se og Hør , hereafter the magazine, published a two-page article about the wedding, accompanied by six photographs. One photograph showed the bride, her father and her bridesmaids arriving at the islet in a small rowing boat; another showed the bride being brought to the groom by her father on the islet surrounded by people; and yet another photograph showed the bride and the groom returning to the mainland on foot by crossing the lake on stepping stones. In the latter photograph, the bride was barefoot with her wedding dress raised above her knees to avoid getting the dress wet. There was also a photograph of a couple and their baby who were wedding guests. Finally, there were two old photographs: one of the applicants framed in a heart and one of the second applicant and the applicant ’ s young son attending a musical festival one month earlier.

The article described the ceremony, the applicants and some of the guests. It stated, inter alia , that the ceremony was touching; that several guests could not hold back their tears when the bride arrived at the islet and a male voice choir starting singing the song “To live is to love”; and that a party took place after the ceremony in the garden of a named guest house. It also stated that the applicants ’ manager had informed the magazine that the applicants did not wish to comment on their wedding.

The applicants brought compensation proceeding against the magazine before Oslo Distric t Court ( Oslo tingrett ) and invoked, among other things, the right to respect for private life under section 390 of the Penal Code and Article 8 of the Convention. It was not in dispute that the magazine was not invited to the wedding and that the photographs were taken without the applicants ’ knowledge approximately 250 m from the islet.

By judgment of 22 November 2006 the Oslo District Court found for the applicants and ordered the magazine to pay them each 50,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK). In addition, the editor responsible was ordered to pay each applicant NOR 15,000 and the journalist and the photographer were ordered to pay each applicant NOR 5,000.

The magazine appealed to the Borgarting High Court ( lagmannsrett ), which by judgment of 13 February 2008 upheld the judgment.

The magazine appealed to the Supreme Court ( Høyesterett ), which by judgment of 2 September 200 8 found against the applicants. The majority of judges (three out of five) attached weight to the fact that the applicants had married in a public place to which the public had access and that the article was neither offensive nor critical.

B. Relevant domestic law

Section 390 of the Penal Code reads as follows:

Any person who violates another person ’ s privacy by giving public information about personal or domestic relations shall be liable to fines or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

Section 250 and 254 shall apply correspondingly.

If the misdemeanour is committed in a printed forum, an order for confiscation may be made in accordance with section 38.

A public prosecution will only be instituted when it is requested by the aggrieved person and required in the public interest.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain ed that their right to respect for private life as secured by Article 8 of the Convention was breached by the Supreme Court ’ s judgment of 2 September 200 8.