FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42259/20
Patrick STEVENS
against Norway
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 16 June 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, Judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 42259/20) against Norway lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 8 September 2020 by an Irish national, Mr Patrick Stevens, who was born in 1951 and lives in Fareham, United Kingdom (“the applicant”), and who was represented by Mr P. Danielsen, a lawyer practising in Oslo;
the decision to give notice to the Norwegian Government (“the Government”), represented by Mr M. Emberland, of the Attorney General’s Office (Civil Matters), as their Agent, assisted by Ms I. Thue, a lawyer at the same office, of the complaints concerning Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns an Irish national who used to work as a diver in the petroleum sector in the North Sea and who complained under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the dismissal of an application he had made for compensation awarded by the Norwegian Parliament to divers who had contracted injuries and other health issues while diving for operators in the petroleum sector in the North Sea from 1965 to 1990 and who were, or had been, members of the Norwegian national social insurance scheme.
2. The applicant had carried out diving operations during the relevant period, but was not and had not been a member of the Norwegian national social insurance scheme. His applications for compensation, submitted to a special compensation board set up to administer the compensation scheme, were accordingly dismissed. He brought a claim in the domestic courts against the special compensation board’s decision, arguing essentially that he either had a right to compensation or that, as a non-Norwegian national, he had been deprived of that right in a discriminatory manner, but to no avail. He maintained those arguments before the Court.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
3. The Court notes at the outset that it does not have to decide on the Government’s objection to the application on the grounds that it had been lodged outside the six-month time-limit set out at the relevant time in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, or the applicant’s argument that it had been lodged within that time-limit. The application was in any event lodged within the three-month extension introduced by decision of the President of the Court in 2020 as a consequence of the lockdown imposed in France on account of the COVID‑19 pandemic (see Saakashvili v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 6232/20 and 22394/20, §§ 46-59, 1 March 2022) and is therefore not inadmissible as having been lodged out of time.
4. With regard to the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, it is the Court’s understanding that once the impugned compensation scheme had been created in 2004, the persons who satisfied the requirements set therein had a right to compensation under domestic law. However, the Court finds it established that the applicant was not and had not been a member of the national social insurance scheme. Since the applicant accordingly did not fulfil the eligibility conditions for the compensation scheme, it is clear that he did not by virtue of his claim for compensation have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Nor is the Court able to consider that the applicant has adduced any kind of material to show that in the process leading to the establishment of the compensation scheme, the domestic authorities had acted in any manner giving grounds for a “legitimate expectation” to benefit from it.
5. It follows that the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention taken alone is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
6. Turning to the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court will proceed on the basis that the impugned compensation scheme in general may have related to proprietary interests in a manner that made it fall within the “ambit” of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in which case the discrimination complaint is not incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention (see for example, mutatis mutandis, Puricel v. Romania (dec.), no. 20511/04, 14 June 2011).
7. The Court understands the applicant’s principal grievance to be one of discrimination on the basis of his nationality, in so far as he argued that members of the Norwegian national social insurance scheme had largely also been Norwegian nationals. The Court notes, however, that the impugned condition did not refer to Norwegian nationality, but to membership of the Norwegian national social insurance scheme, and that it is undisputed that nationals of other countries were included if they were or had been members of the scheme and that Norwegian nationals were excluded if they were not or had not been members. Those who were included in the compensation scheme would, in general, have resided in Norway and have paid social security contributions and, although the particular compensation was not dependent on special contributions, many, if not most of the ordinary benefits from the national social insurance scheme would also be linked to membership thereof.
8. Taking account of the above matters, the Court is unable to subscribe to the applicant’s argument that the membership requirement indicated that he had in reality been discriminated against on the basis of his nationality. It finds it unclear whether the applicant also maintained that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his status as a non-member of the Norwegian national social insurance scheme or a non-resident of Norway as such. Nonetheless, the Court does not find it necessary to decide on whether such members or such residents would be relevant comparators under Article 14 of the Convention as it considers that the eligibility requirements for the compensation scheme were in any event sufficiently justified.
9. It follows from the above that the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 7 July 2022.
Martina Keller Ganna Yudkivska
Deputy Registrar President