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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy