Application No. 26255/95
by Arnold JUKLERØD
against Norway
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 26 February 1997, the following members being present:
Mr. J.-C. GEUS, Acting President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
D. SVÁBY
P. LORENZEN
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
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 13 December 1994
by Arnold JUKLERØD against Norway and registered on 19 January 1995
under file No. 26255/95;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, a Norwegian citizen, was born in 1925. He died on
25 January 1996 leaving behind three adult children. In the proceedings
before the Commission the applicant is represented by Mr Knut Rognlien,
a lawyer practising in Oslo.
The applicant's previous application No. 18164/91 was declared
inadmissible by a Committee of three members composed pursuant to
Article 20 para. 3 of the Convention on 1 April 1993.
The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may
be summarised as follows.
The applicant was admitted to a mental hospital in 1971 and in
1974. This was registered in a central register for mentally ill
persons. The information concerning the applicant included his name,
date and place of birth, profession, marital status and number of
children. Furthermore, the register contained the diagnosis:
"Paranoia 10", that the applicant's stay at the hospital in 1971 lasted
three months and that he was readmitted in 1974. No other information
about the applicant was entered in the register.
It appears that, in 1990, the applicant requested the National
Archives (Riksarkivet) to delete the above information from the
register. This was apparently refused and appeals to the Health
Directorate (Helsedirektoratet) and the Data Supervisory Board
(Datatilsynet) were unsuccessful.
Therefore, on 13 May 1991, the applicant instituted proceedings
in the Oslo City Court (Oslo Byrett) against the State represented by
the Ministry of Social Affairs in which he maintained his request to
have all information about him deleted from the register and
furthermore he submitted a claim for damages.
By judgment of 29 October 1992 the City Court found against the
applicant and rejected his claims. The Court found, inter alia, that
the registration in question did not, in the circumstances, violate
Article 8 of the Convention.
On 23 February 1993 the Appeals Selection Committee of the
Supreme Court (Høyesteretts Kjæremålsutvalg) granted the applicant
leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court (Høyesterett). On
1 June 1994 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Oslo City
Court in its entirety.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the registration and the possible
use of the information concerning him in the central register for
mentally ill persons violate Article 8 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 13 December 1994 and registered
on 19 January 1995.
The applicant died on 25 January 1996. On 1 April 1996 the
applicant's representative submitted that he had informed the
applicant's three children of the application pending before the
Commission. Furthermore, he submitted a request for the continuation
of the case dated 26 March 1996 from an organisation called "Mental
Helse Norge". Finally, he submitted (without supporting documents) that
a fund which had supported the applicant financially would prefer the
case to continue.
No information has been submitted from the applicant's children.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission recalls that the applicant died on
25 January 1996. The Commission further recalls that an applicant's
death does not in itself dispose of his or her complaint. It falls to
the Convention organs to decide whether the application should be
examined further or whether it should be struck out of the list of
cases. In the examination of this question special consideration must
be given to the intentions expressed by the applicant's heirs as well
as to the nature of the complaint (cf. e.g. No. 12526/86, Dec. 7.1.91,
D.R. 68, p. 104).
In the present case the Commission notes that none of the
applicant's children has expressed a wish to have the examination of
the applicant's complaint continued by the Commission.
Furthermore, the Commission finds that the nature of the
complaint does not, following the applicant's death, justify a
continuation of the examination of the petition, nor does the respect
for human rights as defined in the Convention so require. Accordingly,
the Commission finds that the application should be struck out of the
list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1(c) 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 Acting President
to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy