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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy