Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nullum crimen sine lege)

Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Reykjavík.

The applicant was a member of the Icelandic Parliament (Althingi) during the years 1987 to 2009. He served as Minister of Finance in the years 1998 to 2005, Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2005 to 2006 and Prime Minister from 2006 to 2009. After Parliamentary elections in May 2007 the applicant led the government which was formed by the Independence Party (Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn), of which he was a member, and the Social Democratic Alliance (Samfylkingin).

In the beginning of October 2008 the Icelandic banking system collapsed. On 6 October 2008 the applicant proposed a bill to Parliament which, on the same day, was adopted as the Act on the Authority for Treasury Disbursements due to Unusual Financial Market Circumstances etc. (Lög um heimild til fjárveitingar úr ríkissjóði vegna sérstakra aðstæðna á fjármálamarkaði ofl., no. 125/2008). Among other things, it authorised the Financial Supervisory Authority (Fjármálaeftirlitið) to intervene in the operations of financial undertakings. On 7 and 9 October 2008 the authority seized control of Iceland’s three largest banks, Landsbanki Íslands hf., Glitnir banki hf. and Kaupþing banki hf.

In December 2008 Parliament established a Special Investigation Commission (Rannsóknarnefnd Alþingis, hereinafter “the SIC”) to investigate and analyse the processes leading to, as well as the causes of, the collapse of the above-mentioned banks. According to section 1 of the Special Investigation Commission Act (Lög um rannsókn á aðdraganda og orsökum falls íslensku bankanna 2008 og tengdra atburða, no. 142/2008; hereinafter “the SIC Act”), one of the Commission’s objectives was to assess whether mistakes or negligence had occurred in the course of implementing laws and rules in respect of financial activities in Iceland and regulatory inspection in that field and, if so, who might be responsible. While its role was not to investigate potential criminal conduct, the SIC should inform the State Prosecutor of any suspicions of criminal activities having taken place as well as any potential breaches of official duty. The SIC made an extensive investigation during which it collected information from individuals, financial institutions and public institutions, conducted formal hearings with 147 individuals and meetings with a further 183 individuals.

The applicant testified before the SIC on 2 and 3 July 2009. On 8 February 2010 the SIC informed him that it considered that he had acted negligently and invited him to submit a written statement in reply, which he did on 24 February 2010.

On 12 April 2010 the SIC issued its report which contained a detailed description of the causes of the collapse of the Icelandic banks as well as serious criticism of the acts and omissions of a number of public officials and institutions. This included the applicant and two other ministers from his cabinet, the Minister of Finance, Mr Árni M. Mathiesen from the Independence Party, and the Minister of Business Affairs, Mr Björgvin G. Sigurðsson from the Social Democratic Alliance, who were found to have shown negligence by omitting to respond in an appropriate fashion to the impending danger for the Icelandic economy that was caused by the deteriorating situation of the banks.

In the meantime, on 26 January 2009, the government led by the applicant resigned and on 1 February 2009 the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-Green Movement (Vinstrihreyfingin – grænt framboð) formed a government. Those two parties gained a majority of seats in Parliament in the subsequent elections on 25 April 2009.

In 2009 Parliament passed an amendment to the SIC Act according to which it was to elect an ad hoc parliamentary review committee (Þingmannanefndin; hereafter “the PRC”) “to address the report of the SIC on the collapse of the banks, and form recommendations as to Parliament’s response to the SIC’s conclusions”. It was also to adopt a position on ministerial accountability and assess whether there were grounds for impeachment proceedings before the Court of Impeachment (Landsdómur) for violations of the Ministerial Accountability Act (Lög um ráðherraábyrgð, no. 4/1963). The PRC was established on 30 December 2009 and was composed of nine members of Parliament representing all the parliamentary party groups. It commenced work on 15 January 2010.

The PRC examined the SIC report, held 54 meetings and multiple informal working meetings. It received several expert opinions on ministerial liability from professors as well as the former state prosecutor and Ms Sigríður J. Friðjónsdóttir, then deputy state prosecutor. Ms Friðjónsdóttir attended five meetings of the PRC and expressed her opinions on the potential charges against ministers, the penal provisions that might apply, the evidence that could be relevant and the rules and content pertaining to an indictment. She also submitted a draft text for part of an indictment. The PRC further collected original documents relating to the ministers’ duties which were mentioned in the SIC report, inter alia letters, notes, minutes, emails from the Government Offices and the Central Bank of Iceland and minutes from meetings of the consultative group on financial stability and contingency planning. On 18 May 2010 the PRC sent letters to 16 individuals, including the applicant, who had held office as ministers during the period covered by the SIC report, asking them to submit comments and information regarding the report’s conclusions. The committee received replies from 14 individuals, including the applicant who submitted his reply by letter of 7 June 2010.

On 11 September 2010 the PRC submitted a proposal for a parliamentary resolution to commence impeachment proceedings against four cabinet members: the three mentioned above (including the applicant) and Ms Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir, who was the former Minister of Foreign Affairs and the head of the Social Democratic Alliance. The proposal listed six points of alleged negligent behaviour, corresponding to the counts in the eventual indictment issued against the applicant (see paragraph 23 below). The applicant was considered to have been negligent in all six respects, whereas the other three ministers were deemed responsible only in respect of five of the points (excluding what was to become count 1.3 in the applicant’s indictment). The proposal was presented as a whole but Parliament decided to vote on each former minister separately. In a resolution of 28 September 2010, by 33 votes to 30, it approved the PRC’s proposal to commence impeachment proceedings against the applicant. With similar small majorities, the votes concerning the other former ministers led to the conclusion that they should not be indicted.

All 15 members of the Left-Green Movement and all three members of The Movement (Hreyfingin) voted in favour of impeachment of each of the four former ministers and all 16 members of the Independence Party voted against the proposal. Six of the nine members of the Progressive Party (Framsóknarflokkurinn) voted in favour of impeachment of all the ministers and three members voted against. As regards the members of the Social Democratic Alliance, one of its 20 members voted in favour of impeachment of each of the ministers and 11 members voted against in respect of all of them. The remaining eight Social Democratic members were the only ones that cast differing votes in regard to the four ministers: the applicant – eight in favour of impeachment; Mr Mathiesen – six; Ms Gísladóttir – four; and Mr Sigurðsson – two.

On the same day, 28 September 2010, the applicant designated a lawyer for his defence. On 30 September he was formally notified of the result of the voting in Parliament. The Parliament resolution, containing the exact points of indictment, the PRC’s proposal and an explanatory memorandum with the reasons for the proposal, was made available on the website of the Parliament.

On 12 October 2010 Parliament appointed Ms Friðjónsdóttir to prosecute the case on its behalf. It also appointed a parliamentary committee to assist her and to monitor the case.

The Court of Impeachment constituted to adjudicate the case was composed, in accordance with section 2 of the Court of Impeachment Act (see paragraph 44 below). Thus, five members of the court were judges of the Supreme Court, one was a judge of the District Court (Héraðsdómur) of Reykjavík, and one was a professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Iceland. The latter member was, on 1 September 2011, appointed as justice of the Supreme Court, but continued to sit on the Court of Impeachment in his original capacity. The remaining eight members of the Court of Impeachment were lay judges appointed by Parliament.

Following the applicant’s request by letter of 15 November 2010 the Court of Impeachment, on 30 November 2010, appointed the applicant’s lawyer as his defence counsel. The applicant claims that he and his lawyer had made such a request on several earlier occasions. However, no evidence thereof has been submitted in the present case.

According to Parliament’s prosecutor (see paragraph 28 below) she invited, by a letter of 9 December 2010, the applicant’s counsel to make comments or request that further information be collected. It appears that counsel did not make any comments or requests in reply.

Following decisions of the Court of Impeachment of 22 March 2011 and the District Court of 24 March 2011, the prosecutor was given access to documents and information, including documents from the SIC database, statements given before the SIC as well as correspondence from the applicant’s former work email. She conducted a research into these documents but did not hear the applicant or any witnesses during her investigation.

On 11 April 2011 the applicant’s counsel was provided with a USB memory stick containing the documents which the prosecutor had obtained from the SIC database.

On 10 May 2011 the applicant was indicted, in accordance with the Parliamentary resolution of 28 September 2010:

1.1 For having shown serious neglect of his duties as Prime Minister in the face of major danger looming over Icelandic financial institutions and the State Treasury, a danger of which he was or ought to have been aware and would have been able to respond to by initiating measures, legislation, general governmental instructions or governmental decisions on the basis of current law, for the purpose of avoiding foreseeable danger to the fortunes of the State.

1.2 For having failed to take initiative, either by taking measures of his own or by proposing measures to other ministers, to the effect that there would be a comprehensive and professional analysis within the administrative system of the financial risk faced by the State because of the risk of financial crisis.

1.3 For having neglected to ensure that the work and emphasis of a consultative group of the Government of financial stability and preparedness, which was established in 2006, were purposeful and produced the desired results.

1.4 For having neglected to take initiative on active measures on behalf of the State to reduce the size of the Icelandic banking system by, for example, advocating that the banks reduce their balance sheets or that some of them move their headquarters out of Iceland.

1.5 For not having followed up and assured himself that active measures were being taken in order to transfer Landsbanki Íslands hf.’s Icesave accounts in Britain to a subsidiary, and then to look for ways to enable this to happen with the active involvement of the State.

The above-specified conduct is deemed subject to section 10(b), cf. section 11, of Act no. 4/1963 [on Ministerial Responsibility], and, alternatively, section 141 of the General Penal Code, no. 19/1940.

For having, during the above-mentioned period [February 2008 – October 2008] failed to implement what is directed in Article 17 of the Constitution of the Republic on the duty to hold ministerial meetings on important government matters. During this period there was little discussion at ministerial meetings of the imminent danger; there was no formal discussion of it at ministerial meetings, and nothing was recorded about these matters at the meetings. There was nevertheless specific reason to do so, especially after the meeting on 7 February 2008 between him, Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttur, Árni M. Mathiesen and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Central Bank of Iceland; after his and Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir’s meeting on 1 April 2008 with the Board of Governors of the Central Bank of Iceland; and following a declaration to the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian Central Banks, which was signed on 15 May 2008. The Prime Minister did not initiate a formal ministerial meeting on the situation nor did he provide the Government with a separate report on the problem of the banks or its possible effect on the Icelandic State.

This is deemed to fall under section 8(c), cf. section 11, of Act no. 4/1963, and, alternatively, section 141 of the General Penal Code, no. 19/1940.”

Also on 10 May 2011 an amendment to the Court of Impeachment Act (Lög um landsdóm, no. 3/1963) entered into force, according to which the judges “who hold seat on [the court] when Parliament has decided to impeach a minister, and their substitutes, shall complete the case although their term has expired”. According to the bill introducing the amendment, this was to avoid disruption of a judge’s examination of an ongoing case. As a consequence, the six-year term of office of the court’s eight lay judges, who had been appointed by Parliament on 11 May 2005, was extended until the conclusion of the proceedings against the applicant.

The case was filed by the prosecution with the Court of Impeachment on 7 June 2011. The prosecution argued, inter alia, in respect of count 2 of the indictment, that the matter of the banking system and the risk of financial crisis had been important government matters and could hardly have been more important. Storm clouds had been gathering since before the beginning of the period to which the indictment related and the applicant had known or ought to have known where things were headed. Thus, this matter should have been discussed at ministerial meetings as prescribed by Article 17 of the Constitution which should be interpreted according to its words (see paragraph 42 below). The prosecution objected to the applicant’s argument that a constitutional custom had developed to the effect that only matters under Article 16 of the Constitution should be discussed in ministerial meetings under Article 17, and even if such custom existed, it could not override a clear provision of the Constitution. Furthermore, a breach against Article 17 had substantive consequences since, if cabinet meetings were not convened on urgent problems, the opportunity to respond clearly would be lessened. It had been apparent that important government matters had not been discussed by the cabinet and the knowledge that the defendant had demonstrably possessed had not been reported to the ministers. The applicant’s violation according to count 2 of the indictment was a conduct offence and punishable irrespective of the consequences or risks attributable to the conduct.

The applicant challenged the impartiality and independence of the eight judges appointed by Parliament, mainly on the ground that Parliament had extended their term by having enacted the above-mentioned legislation. By its ruling on 10 June 2011, the Court of Impeachment rejected the petition, finding that the legislator had pursued a legitimate aim and that the measure had been proportionate vis-à-vis the applicant.

On 5 September 2011 the applicant lodged a request to have the case dismissed, relying, among other things, on Article 6 of the Convention. He claimed that the investigation in the case had been manifestly defective, inter alia as the investigation conducted by the SIC had not been criminal in nature, the SIC having no such mandate, and as no real investigative measures had been undertaken by the PRC or the prosecutor. He had not been questioned or invited to respond to the accusations, neither before Parliament’s resolution nor before the prosecutor issued her indictment. He also challenged the impartiality of the prosecutor due to her involvement in Parliament’s preparation of the decision to indict him, during which she had been repeatedly consulted by the PRC and had allegedly expressed her opinion on his potential responsibility under the Ministerial Accountability Act. The applicant further maintained that his chance of preparing a proper defence was compromised as the counts of the indictment were undefined and only described in general terms his alleged criminal conduct and the criminal provisions under which that conduct was subsumed were unclear and discretionary. Also the rules governing the impeachment proceedings and the penal provisions of the Ministerial Accountability Act and other invoked legislation were, in his view, so unclear that due process could not be ensured. Finally, he asserted that the decision by Parliament to bring proceedings against him alone had been taken on purely arbitrary and political grounds and thus did not treat him equally with other ministers originally subject to the investigation in the case.

The prosecutor contested the applicant’s request, maintaining, inter alia¸ that, in view of the thorough gathering of material by the SIC, there had been no need for an independent collection of evidence by the PRC, which was supposed to base its work on the report of the SIC. Moreover, the applicant’s defence counsel had not asked that the applicant be heard during the investigative stage, although such an opportunity was provided by section 16(2) of the Court of Impeachment Act and the prosecutor had invited him, by a letter of 9 December 2010, to make comments or request further information to be collected. With respect to the applicant’s challenge against her impartiality, the prosecutor objected to the assertion that she had expressed an opinion on the applicant’s potential criminal liability. She further claimed that the counts of the indictment were not unclear or worded in general terms, pointing out that further specifications in regard to several counts were found in the explanatory memorandum accompanying Parliament’s resolution and that, additionally, count 2 of the indictment provided explanatory examples of events that had given reason to discuss the imminent financial crisis at ministerial meetings. The prosecutor also disagreed with the applicant’s contention that the applicable procedural or criminal provisions were unclear. As for the alleged unequal treatment by Parliament when deciding to charge the applicant but not the other ministers, she stated that the majority of its members, bound only by their own conviction, had found that the facts of the case up until that point were likely to lead to a conviction of the applicant but not the others.

By a decision of 3 October 2011 the Court of Impeachment upheld the applicant’s motion for dismissal in so far as it concerned counts 1.1 and 1.2 of the indictment, but rejected the remainder of the request. It noted that Parliament held the authority to bring cases against a minister and that its review committee, the PRC, had obtained, inter alia, various evidence referred to in the SIC report and written statements from several ministers, including the applicant, before finding that there was enough evidence for a parliamentary resolution to commence proceedings against the applicant. Parliament’s handling of the matter had been in compliance with relevant legislation and its resolution to commence impeachment proceedings had not prevented the appointed prosecutor from investigating the case further and gathering new evidence. Indeed, the prosecutor had continued the investigation of the case before issuing the indictment against the applicant. Moreover, judgment in a criminal case should be based on evidence presented in court, including the testimonies of witnesses. If there were insufficient support for the charges against the defendant, he would be acquitted of the charges, a more favourable outcome for him than a dismissal, which could lead to possible shortcomings being remedied and a new indictment being issued.

As regards the involvement of the prosecutor, the court referred to the general rules of pre-trial investigation under the Criminal Procedure Act (Lög um meðferð sakamála, no. 88/2008), according to which he or she is authorised to take various measures, including the collection of information and the making of decisions affecting the position of a suspect. Such intervention by the prosecutor did not affect his or her eligibility to handle the case later, such as by deciding whether to indict and bring the case to court. In line with this, the advice given to the PRC by the person subsequently appointed prosecutor could not lead to her disqualification in the case, even less so since Parliament held the authority to decide whether to indict and to determine the content of the indictment.

With respect to the content of the indictment, the court found that it generally complied with the form and structure prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act and that it did not show such shortcomings that the entire case should be dismissed. As for counts 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 2, the court considered that there was no doubt as to what conduct was the subject of the indictment and how it was deemed punishable by law. However, the conduct imputed to the applicant in counts 1.1 and 1.2 had not been specified with sufficient clarity and these charges were accordingly dismissed.

The court went on to find that the procedure in impeachment proceedings was unambiguous and foreseeable, the Court of Impeachment Act containing a few special provisions and the proceedings being, in all other respects, governed by the rules of general application laid down in the Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, the penal provisions invoked by the prosecution were worded in such a way that they could be interpreted on the basis of objective criteria and were clear enough to enable a proper defence.

Finally, in regard to the fact that Parliament had voted to bring proceedings exclusively against the applicant, the court noted that, under the Constitution, members of Parliament were bound only by their own conviction. Moreover, the resolution adopted by Parliament, as the holder of authority to decide on prosecution in impeachment cases, was not subject to review by the court in such a manner as might lead to the dismissal of the case.

Subsequently, the applicant submitted written pleadings to the Court of Impeachment.

The public hearing in the case commenced on 5 March 2012. It started with the formal testimony of the applicant, the first statement he gave since the charges had been brought against him. During the hearing, which lasted until 16 March, written evidence was produced and 40 witnesses gave evidence before the court. The applicant attended all sessions. On 13 March the applicant testified for a second time. Oral pleadings by the lawyers for the applicant and the prosecution were made on 15 and 16 March.

By a judgment of 23 April 2012 the Court of Impeachment unanimously acquitted the applicant of counts 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 of the indictment, finding that the prosecution had not established that the actions which he was accused of having neglected could or would have averted the danger facing the Icelandic financial institutions and the State treasury or reduced it considerably. As for certain negligence imputed to him by the prosecution, the court considered that it related to actions that were not among his duties. However, by nine votes to six, the majority consisting of five professional judges and four lay judges, the Court of Impeachment found the applicant guilty in respect of count 2. The court considered it established that major danger had been threatening the Icelandic commercial banks and the State Treasury as early as February 2008 and that the applicant had to have been aware of that danger. However, basing itself on the minutes of 52 ministerial meetings held between 1 February and 6 October 2008 and the testimony of the applicant and the witnesses, in particular five ministers who had held a seat in the government in 2008, the court found that this matter had not been discussed during the meetings, apart from the last four meetings, on 30 September and on 3, 5 and 6 October. It therefore concluded that the applicant had failed to comply with the duty set out in Article 17 of the Constitution to hold ministerial meetings on “important government matters”.

As to the criminal liability under the Ministerial Accountability Act, the court generally stated:

“The accountability provided for in Article 14 of the Constitution and Article 1 of [the Ministerial Accountability Act] represents an addition to the parliamentary and political responsibility borne by a minister towards Parliament in respect of the discharge of his duties of office on the basis of parliamentary rule. Even though parliamentary responsibility places great restraint on a minister, the Constitution assumes that a breach in office on his part may entail criminal liability, as further laid down by law. When comparing these two kinds of responsibility it must be concluded that only serious wrongs on the part of the minister committed in office would lead to his punishment. Accordingly, the sole matter of his conduct being worthy of criticism or blame cannot suffice for invoking the legal accountability in question, so that more grave matters must be in issue. It is then determined by an assessment of all facts whether certain conduct is considered serious enough to be subject to punishment, either pursuant to [the Ministerial Accountability Act] or the general penal code, cf. section 1(2) of the aforementioned Act.”

The court went on to make the following remarks about section 8(c) of the Ministerial Accountability Act:

“According to section 8(c) of [the Act] it is punishable if a minister, apart from the incidents described in points (a) and (b) of the section, ‘by other means personally implements, orders the implementation or allows the implementation of any measure that contravenes the Constitution of the Republic, or fails to implement any measure prescribed therein, or causes neglect of such implementation’. The latter part of this provision describes an offence of direct omission, which means that the very fact of a minister neglecting to implement any matter ordered by the Constitution or causing the neglect of its implementation will be a punishable offence irrespective of the consequences or risks attributable to such an omission. As noted in the explanatory notes to the bill that became [the Act], section 8(c) of the Act contains a provision of general import which applies to all breaches of the Constitution other than those specifically made punishable in other points of the section. Accordingly, it falls within the conduct description of this provision to fail to comply with the duty, provided for in Article 17 of the Constitution, to hold ministerial meetings ‘to discuss new legislative proposals and important government matters’.”

In regard to the applicant’s motion to have the whole case dismissed due to the alleged lack of clarity of section 8(c) of the Ministerial Accountability Act, the Court of Impeachment considered that the words “important government matters” in Article 17 of the Constitution, to which section 8(c) referred, could easily be understood by a reasonable man in the office held by the applicant and that the provisions contained predictable and reasonable criteria regarding the minister’s discharge of official duties.

The applicant had also maintained that it was clear from the origin and history of Article 17 of the Constitution that important government matters that should be discussed in ministerial meetings according to that provision were only matters that should have been submitted to the President in the State Council according to Article 16 of the Constitution. The court examined the history of the two constitutional articles, in particular the difference in language between “important government measures” (mikilvægar stjórnarráðstafanir) in Article 16 and “important government matters” (mikilvæg stjórnarmálefni) in Article 17, finding that the latter term was literally more extensive. It concluded as follows:

“... These two features, that the constitutional provisions on ministerial meetings has remained substantially unchanged despite the change in Iceland’s constitutional position in 1944 and that a distinction was made between matters to be discussed at ministerial meetings, on the one hand, and those to be submitted to the State Council, on the other, in the first Act on the Government Offices of Iceland, unequivocally support a literal interpretation of the instruction under Article 17 of the Constitution. In accordance with a principle of statutory interpretation it will here be found proper to follow the clear language of the provision, which prior preparatory works cannot refute.

Accordingly, the Prime Minister, who heads the cabinet and leads ministerial meetings, has a duty to ensure that important government matters of which he is aware are discussed and, where applicable, addressed in those meetings, as provided for in Article 17 of the Constitution. ...”

The court then noted that it was not at the Prime Minister’s sole discretion to determine when a matter was of such nature that it should be raised at a ministerial meeting. Rather, of primary importance was to what extent it concerned the interests of the state and the general population. The court concluded that the danger facing the Icelandic bank system and thus the welfare of the state had been of gigantic and unprecedented proportions and was, due to the great public interest at stake, without a doubt an important government matter within the meaning of Article 17 of the Constitution.

The applicant had asserted that cabinet meetings were not a common platform for ministers to discuss matters with other ministers and that Article 17 of the Constitution did not prevent individual ministers from discussing certain matters among themselves without presenting them at the meetings. Furthermore, the minutes of the cabinet meetings did not exhaustively record the discussions, as they contained only a listing of the items placed on the agenda. Frequently, other subjects than those listed had been discussed, inter alia under the item “other issues”. Statements by former ministers before the court had clearly showed that the banking system had been repeatedly discussed at the meetings held during the period to which the indictment referred.

In this respect, the court noted that, under the Constitution, cabinet meetings was the forum for political consultation between ministers on important government matters. Whether or not it had been customary to raise comparable issues at ministerial meetings or in informal consultations between the chairmen of governing coalition parties, such practices could not absolve the Prime Minister from the duty laid down in Article 17.

As regards the specific conduct imputed to the applicant, the court stated, inter alia, the following:

“According to that which has been related above, it is considered proved beyond doubt in the case that the great danger facing the Icelandic banks and thus the welfare of the State was not discussed at cabinet meetings in the period from February 2008 until the end of September the same year. As stated above, it must also be considered a fact in the resolution of the case that various issues that were up for discussion in the consultative group on financial stability and contingency planning, and which there was due reason to discuss in the cabinet, were not dealt with at those meetings. That was all the more urgent as the defendant did not convey important information which he possessed about the affairs of the banks to the Minister for Business Affairs, to whom they pertained. Last but not least it is proven that those two aforesaid documents that were forwarded to foreign authorities [a declaration of 16 May 2008 signed by the defendant, the ministers of foreign affairs and finance and the board of governors of the Central Bank of Iceland to the central banks of Sweden, Denmark and Norway on the completion of currency swap agreements and a letter of 20 August 2008 by the Ministry of Business Affairs to the UK Treasury providing answers to certain questions posed by the latter] and contained, on the one hand, obligations, and, on the other, promises, in the name of the government, were not discussed at its meetings.

The defendant and various other persons who have testified before the Court have emphasised that the situation in financial markets was so sensitive during the period related to the case that the slightest rumour that the Icelandic banks might encounter a liquidity crisis could have accelerated and even caused their collapse. For this reason it had been very important to discuss the danger facing the banking system within a small group, in full confidentiality. Although those views may have been fully justified, especially while the difficulties of the banks were still known by few, it is to no avail for the defendant to allege that for this reason he was unable to give an account of the issues in question at cabinet meetings. The framework of those meetings is not least designed so that ministers and supreme holders of executive power can consult one another and discuss important issues confidentially and behind closed doors, with the ministers having a compelling duty ... not to disclose points raised there concerning such confidential matters.

The defendant’s conduct of failing to comply with Article 17 of the Constitution where it prescribes that ministerial meetings should be held on important government matters ... not only led to a breach against a procedural rule but also contributed to the fact that a political policy to address the huge problem of which the defendant must have been aware in February 2008 was not formulated at the level of the cabinet of ministers. If such a policy had been formulated and then implemented in an organised manner, including action by the Central Bank of Iceland and the Financial Supervisory Authority, it may be argued that it would have been possible to lessen the harm caused by the collapse of the banks in the beginning of October 2008. It is also likely that the authorities would then have been better prepared for taking a position towards the request of Glitnir Bank hf. for financial assistance at the end of September 2008, so that the problems of that bank might have been resolved in a more deliberate manner than was the case.

It may be inferred from the defendant’s testimony before the court that he closely followed the progress of the matters in question. ... [I]t must be regarded as gross carelessness on the part of the defendant to have failed to take up the issues related above for discussion at cabinet meetings, as he was aware or at least should have been aware that they were of such importance, and of such nature, as an integral part of the government’s economic policy, that he had a duty to do so.”

The applicant was consequently convicted of a violation of section 8(c) of the Ministerial Accountability Act, for having by gross negligence failed to hold ministerial meetings on important government matters as prescribed in Article 17 of the Constitution. He was not sentenced to any punishment and the Icelandic State was ordered to bear all legal costs, including fees to the applicant’s counsel. Not subject to an appeal, the judgment was final.

The minority’s opinion was to acquit the applicant of all charges. In regard to count 2 of the indictment, the minority referred to the requirement of foreseeability and clarity and to the rule of interpretation that a criminal provision should be narrowly construed when there is doubt as to its application. It expressed the following view on the history of Articles 16 and 17 of the Constitution:

“According to the interpretation of Article 17 of the Constitution related above, the duty to hold ministerial meetings only extended to meetings on matters to be submitted to the State Council and matters which individual ministers wished to raise, and the actual practice in respect of the functions of ministerial meetings has been in keeping with this ever since. In addition, the witness statements by ministers in the [applicant’s] cabinet have indicated that economic issues and the issues of financial undertakings were frequently discussed in cabinet meetings at the outset of the meeting or under the agenda item of other issues, even though this was not recorded in the minutes.

In this case, the interpretation of Article 17 of the Constitution is in issue when assessing whether [the applicant] became guilty of punishable conduct, and viewpoints on good administrative practices which have gained more prominence of late cannot be a determining factor in this context. It should also be noted that a minister will not be held criminally liable under [the Ministerial Accountability Act] unless serious errors have been committed while in office, which cannot apply to the charges according to this count of the indictment, as related above in the course of interpretation of Article 17 of the Constitution. Taking this into consideration, we are of the opinion that the [applicant] should be acquitted of a violation of the [Act].”


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

A list of applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Mr T. Barkhuysen, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam (hereafter also: the applicants’ representative).

Before the events complained of, the applicants variously held shares or subordinated bonds (the latter under diverse designations) issued by SNS REAAL N.V., a public limited company (naamloze vennootschap, “N.V.”) incorporated under Netherlands law, or one or more of its subsidiaries. The events complained of, which concern the expropriation of those shares and subordinated bonds, are set out in Stefania Adorisio and Others against the Netherlands and three other applications (dec), no. 47315/13, 14 January 2014. Appeals against the expropriation decision were dismissed by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division (Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak) of the Council of State (Raad van State) on 25 February 2013. Proceedings relating to compensation are currently pending before the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).

At the time of the proceedings in issue, the Rules of Court, as pertinent, provided as follows (footnotes omitted):

“1. Persons, non-governmental organisations or groups of individuals may initially present applications under Article 34 of the Convention themselves or through a representative. ...”

“The parties have a duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and, in particular, to take such action within their power as the Court considers necessary for the proper administration of justice. This duty shall also apply to a Contracting Party not party to the proceedings where such cooperation is necessary.”

“ 1. Any application made under Articles 33 or 34 of the Convention shall be submitted in writing and shall be signed by the applicant or by the applicants’ representative.

Where an application is made by a non-governmental organisation or by a group of individuals, it shall be signed by those persons competent to represent that organisation or group. The Chamber or Committee concerned shall determine any question as to whether the persons who have signed an application are competent to do so.

Where applicants are represented in accordance with Rule 36, a power of attorney or written authority to act shall be supplied by their representative or representatives. ”

“1. Any application under Article 34 of the Convention shall be made on the application form provided by the Registry, unless the President of the Section concerned decides otherwise. It shall set out

(a) the name, date of birth, nationality, sex, occupation and address of the applicant;

and be accompanied by

(h) copies of any relevant documents and in particular the decisions, whether judicial or not, relating to the object of the application.

Failure to comply with the requirements set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Rule may result in the application not being examined by the Court.

The date of introduction of the application for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the subject matter of the application, provided that a duly completed application form has been submitted within the time-limits laid down by the Court. The Court may for good cause nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be the date of introduction. ... ”

Clarification of the above Rules, among others, was provided by a Practice direction on the institution of proceedings issued by the President of the Court under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court. At the time of the proceedings here in issue, it read as follows, in its relevant parts and in the redaction in force since 24 June 2009 (footnote omitted):

“4. If an application has not been submitted on the official form or an introductory letter does not contain all the information referred to in Rule 47, the applicant may be required to submit a duly completed form. It must be despatched within eight weeks from the date of the Registry’s letter requesting the applicant to complete and return the form.

Failure to comply with this time-limit will have implications for the date of introduction of the application and may therefore affect the applicant’s compliance with the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.

Applicants may file an application by sending it by fax. However, they must despatch the signed original by post within eight weeks from the date of the Registry’s letter referred to in paragraph 4 above.

On receipt of the first communication setting out the subject-matter of the case, the Registry will open a file, whose number must be mentioned in all subsequent correspondence. Applicants will be informed thereof by letter. They may also be asked for further information or documents.

Failure to provide further information or documents at the Registry’s request (see paragraph 7) may result in the application not being examined by the Court or being declared inadmissible or struck out of the Court’s list of cases. ”


Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicant, Mr Jasmin Smailagić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Rijeka. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Margan, a lawyer practising in Rijeka.

The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.

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

On 29 March 2001 an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) opened an investigation in respect of the applicant and another person in connection with a suspicion of economic crime.

The applicant appealed against that decision on 9 April 2001, arguing that it had not been sufficiently established that he had committed the alleged offences at issue.

On 26 April 2001 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court, composed of Judges S.P.L., T.I.T. and S.B.B., dismissed his appeal and upheld the decision of the investigating judge on the grounds that a sufficient degree of reasonable suspicion existed to warrant the opening of an investigation.

Following the investigation, on 21 February 2002 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu) indicted the applicant and another person in the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu) on charges of misfeasance in business.

On 31 May 2007 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years.

The Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office challenged this judgment, with an appeal lodged before the Zagreb County Court on 17 July 2007, arguing that the sentence was too lenient.

On 31 July 2007 the applicant also lodged an appeal against the judgment, alleging numerous substantive and procedural flaws.

An appeal hearing before a panel of judges of the Zagreb County Court, composed of Judges S.B.B., L.S. and T.I.T., was held on 29 January 2008. The applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing. They did not object to the composition of the appeal panel.

On the same day the Zagreb County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case on the grounds of insufficient reasoning in the judgment.

Following a retrial, on 13 November 2008 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.

The applicant appealed to the Zagreb County Court on 2 January 2009, alleging numerous substantive and procedural flaws in the first-instance judgment.

At an appeal hearing held on 17 November 2009 before a panel of judges of the Zagreb County Court, composed of Judges S.B.B., L.S. and T.I.T., the applicant and his lawyer reiterated the appeal arguments. They did not object to the composition of the appeal panel.

On the same day the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded and upheld the first-instance judgment.

On 26 February 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining, inter alia, that the appeal court had not been impartial owing to the fact that Judges S.B.B. and T.I.T. had sat on the panel which had dismissed his appeal, and the same judges had previously upheld the decision to open an investigation against him in connection with the same offences.

On 9 May 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint as ill-founded on the grounds that the questions which Judges S.B.B. and T.I.T. had had to answer when deciding on the opening of an investigation against him differed from those questions which they had examined upon his appeal against the first-instance judgment adopted after a hearing on the merits of the charges held against him. The Constitutional Court therefore considered that there was nothing to warrant calling into question the impartiality of these particular judges.

The decision of the Constitutional Court was sent to the applicant’s representative on 10 June 2013.

The relevant provision of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (Ustav Republike Hrvatske, Official Gazette nos. 56/1990, 135/1997, 8/1998 (consolidated text), 113/2000, 124/2000 (consolidated text), 28/2001 and 41/2001 (consolidated text), 55/2001 (corrigendum), 76/2010, 85/2010 and 05/2014) reads:

“In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law.”

At the material time, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Zakon o kaznenom postupku, Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 58/1999, 112/1999, 58/2002, 143/02, 62/2003 and 115/2006) provided:

“(1) A judge or lay judge shall be excluded from sitting in a case:

if he has been injured by the offence;

if he is the spouse, a relative by blood, either lineal, descending or ascending, or collateral to the fourth degree, or related by affinity to the second degree, to the defendant, his counsel, the prosecutor, the injured person, their legal guardian or legal representative;

if he is a legal guardian, ward, adopted child or adoptive parent, foster parent or foster child of the defendant, his counsel, the prosecutor or the injured person;

if in the same criminal case he has carried out investigative actions, or has taken part in deciding on an objection to the indictment, or if he has taken part in the proceedings as a prosecutor, defence counsel, legal guardian or legal representative of the injured person or the prosecutor, or if he has testified as a witness or as an expert witness;

if in the same case he has taken part in adopting the decision of a lower court or in adopting a decision of the same court being challenged by means of an appeal or extraordinary remedy.

(2) A judge or lay judge may be removed or remove himself from a particular case if it has been argued and proved that there are circumstances other than those listed in the previous paragraph which call his impartiality into doubt.”

“(1) A judge or lay judge, as soon as he discovers a ground for exclusion referred to in Article 36, paragraph 1, of this Code, shall discontinue all activity on the case and report the matter to the president of the court, who shall appoint a substitute judge ...

(2) If a judge or lay judge holds that other circumstances exist which would justify his standing down (Article 36, paragraph 2), he shall inform the president of the court thereof.”

“(1) Disqualification of a judge may also be requested by one of the parties ...

(2) A party may seek the disqualification of a judge of a higher court in the appeal or reply to the appeal [of the other party]. In any event, it must be at the latest before the commencement of the hearing of that court.

In the decision no. U-III-3116/2002 of 17 September 2004 the Constitutional Court examined whether the previous involvement of a judge, who dismissed an appeal against the investigating judge’s decision opening an investigation, required exclusion of the judge from the subsequent participation in the proceedings under Article 36 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant part of the decision reads:

“With regard to the arguments from the constitutional complaint that there has been a fundamental error of the proceedings because a judge participating in the main hearing should have been excluded from the case, the Constitutional Court notes as follows:

Under Article 36 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 58/1999, 112/1999, 58/2002, 143/2002 and 62/2003 – consolidated text) a judge or a lay judge shall be excluded from sitting in a case if in the same criminal case he has carried out investigative actions, or has taken part in deciding on an objection to the indictment, or if he has taken part in the proceedings as a prosecutor, defence counsel, legal guardian or legal representative of the injured person or the prosecutor, or if he has testified as a witness or as an expert witness.

Under Article 367 § 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a fundamental procedural error exists if a judge or a lay judge who should have been excluded (Article 36 § 1) sat in the case during the main hearing.

The County Court’s case file shows that the investigation, that is to say investigative actions, had been carried out by Judge M.B., an investigating judge of the Split County Court, and that Judge J.Č., who presided the trial panel of the first-instance court, as a member of a three-judge panel, had decided upon the appeals against the decision of the investigating judge opening the investigation and ordering pre-trial detention ...

In view of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and having regard to the above findings ... the [Constitutional] Court finds that an alleged fundamental error in the proceedings at issue has not occurred, which could lead to a violation of the constitutional right to a fair trial.”

In the case no. Kž-211/11-9, on 29 January 2015, the Supreme Court also explained:

“ ... Article 36 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerns instances in which a judge is excluded from sitting in a case if in the same criminal case he has carried out investigative actions, or has taken part in deciding on an objection to the indictment, or if he has taken part in the proceedings as a prosecutor, defence counsel, legal guardian or legal representative of the injured person or the prosecutor, or if he has testified as a witness or as an expert witness.

The reasons referred to in Article 36 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are exhaustive, and those reasons do not include participation of a judge in the decision on appeal against a decision opening an investigation.”

On 22 February 2008, in case no. Su-IV-187/08, the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) examined on the merits a request for the disqualification of two of its judges lodged by the defence under Article 36 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure just before the commencement of an appeal hearing before that court.

In case no. Su-1174/10, on 22 November 2010 the Zagreb County Court examined on the merits a request for the disqualification of a judge submitted just before the commencement of an appeal hearing before that court.


CASE OF LILLO-STENBERG AND SÆTHER v. NORWAY

No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The applicants were born in 1962 and 1964 respectively. They live in Oslo. 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 the 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 last 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 applicants’ 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 proceedings against the magazine before Oslo District 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 meters 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 NOK 15,000 and the journalist and the photographer were ordered to pay each applicant NOK 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 2008 found against the applicants, by three votes to two.

Mr Justice U. gave the following reasons, which in the main were endorsed by the two other members of the majority:

“I have concluded that the appeal should be allowed.

(34) In recent years the Supreme Court has considered legal questions relating to violation of privacy in the judgments Rt-2007-687 (Big Brother) and Rt-2008-489 (Plata). My argument is based mainly on these judgments. As follows from the judgments, section 3-6 of the Damages Act concerning redress for violation of privacy must be read in conjunction with section 390 of the Penal Code. The provision in section 3-6 refers, at any rate primarily, to violation of section 390. In my view, there is no need to consider whether, as contended by [the applicants], there may be cases that are covered in principle by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights but not by "privacy" under section 390 of the Penal Code. Nor will I examine whether this is a discussion of terminology or of facts.

(35) I have already described the content of the article. There is no doubt that the case concerns information ‒ which I am using as a general term to refer to both text and pictures ‒ that taken as a whole is relevant to the issue of privacy. There is no reason for me to evaluate individual elements on the basis of whether or not they impinge on the concept of privacy. The article as a whole contains information about the couple and their child in addition to information about the wedding. The relationships within the family and between the family and their friends are clearly of a personal nature.

(36) Thus the question under consideration is whether a violation of privacy took place, cf. section 390 of the Penal Code. There would have been no question of violation of privacy if consent to publication had been obtained, cf. paragraph 62 of the judgment in the Big Brother case. In this case it has been clearly established that the couple had not been informed beforehand that there were plans to publicise the wedding, nor were they asked for their consent. However, the journalist, Mr S, contacted [the first applicant’s] manager on Monday, immediately before the article went to press. The manager said that the couple did not wish to comment on the wedding. A little later the same day Se og Hør was contacted and informed that the couple did not consent to publication, but the reply was that the magazine was already in the press. It has thus been clearly established that the article was published without the couple’s consent. I would add that I see nothing in the article indicating that the couple had given the magazine permission to report on the wedding in return for payment. On the contrary, the article stated at the end that the two celebrities did not wish to comment.

(37) The next question is whether the article was unlawful. This question must be decided on the basis of an overall evaluation of the article, cf. paragraph 64 of the Big Brother judgment with further references. In my assessment of legality I also refer to the Big Brother judgment, citing, as was done in the Plata judgment, paragraphs 57 and 58:

‘... When the penal provision applies to violation of privacy, this necessarily implies that the issue that arises is that of legality. This again implies that the publication must be assessed as a whole, in the actual context and situation, where protection of privacy must be weighed against freedom of expression, cf. Bratholm og Matningsdal, Part Three, 1998, page 222, of the Penal Code and comments, and further references.

... The European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated into internal Norwegian law in the Human Rights Act. Both Article 8 relating to respect for private and family life and Article 10 relating to the right to freedom of expression are central to the present case. The principles that must be weighed in this case are similar to those that must be weighed under section 3-6, first paragraph, of the Damages Act and section 390 of the Penal Code, and in the present situation these provisions should be interpreted in such a way that their content is in compliance with Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’

(38) Reference is also made in paragraph 72 of the Big Brother judgment to the summing up by the European Court of Human Rights in the von Hannover judgment:

‘... The conclusion must naturally be read in conjunction with the rest of the judgment. The issue throughout is the balancing of the right to privacy against the principle of freedom of expression. The central issue with respect to protection of privacy is therefore whether the published article contributes to a debate of public interest. In other words, the particular importance of protection under Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention lies in the relevance of the information in question to public debate. With respect to publication of details referring exclusively to an individual’s private life, and particularly to the private relationship between two persons who do not occupy positions in politics or in society, this is clearly outside the area that the provisions relating to freedom of expression are intended to regulate.’

(39) Both [applicants] are well-known figures, but neither of them has had a prominent role either in the public administration or in any other public body. Thus the provisions of Article 10 have no particular weight with respect to the magazine article in question, which clearly has a purely entertainment value. In the assessment of legality, protection under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention is the most relevant principle to be weighed.

(40) I will now examine the circumstances in the present case in relation to the issue of legality. As mentioned above, an overall assessment of the magazine article shows that it concerns the subjects’ private life, and the question is whether in spite of this there are grounds for saying that it does not constitute a violation of privacy. A wedding is a very personal act. At the same time it also has a public side. A wedding is a public affirmation that two persons intend to live together, and has legal consequences in many different sectors of society. Thus information about a wedding does not in itself involve a violation of privacy if it is given in a neutral form and based on a reliable source, cf. paragraph 80 of the Big Brother judgment.

(41) The judgment of the Court of Human Rights in the case of von Hannover and the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Big Brother case have premises that seem to go far in support of protection against the use of pictures and texts concerning an individual’s private life. It is therefore necessary to examine the facts on which the judgments were based. Paragraph 49 of the von Hannover case concerns a series of photographs of the aggrieved party. In its evaluation of the application of the law in the case at hand, the court stated in paragraphs 68 and 69:

‘... The Court finds another point to be of importance: even though, strictly speaking, the present application concerns only the publication of the photos and articles by various German magazines, the context in which these photos were taken ‒ without the applicant’s knowledge or consent and the harassment endured by many public figures in their daily lives cannot be fully disregarded (see paragraph 59 above). In the present case this point is illustrated in particularly striking fashion by the photos taken of the applicant at the Monte Carlo Beach Club tripping over an obstacle and falling down ... It appears that these photos were taken secretly at a distance of several hundred metres, probably from a neighbouring house, whereas journalists’ and photographers’ access to the club was strictly regulated ...

... The Court reiterates the fundamental importance of protecting private life from the point of view of the development of every human being’s personality. That protection ‒ as stated above ‒ extends beyond the private family circle and also includes a social dimension. The Court considers that anyone, even if they are known to the general public, must be able to enjoy a “legitimate expectation” of protection of and respect for their private life ...’

(42) Paragraph 59 states:

‘Furthermore, photos appearing in the tabloid press are often taken in a climate of continual harassment which induces in the person concerned a very strong sense of intrusion into their private life or even of persecution.’

(43) Thus the way in which the photos were published and the constant photographing ‒ often by photographers who followed her around ‒ constituted harassment of the aggrieved party and also an invasion of privacy. The situation was similar to some extent in the Big Brother case. Se og Hør ran several articles featuring photos taken from different sources together with speculation and gossip. The magazine also described the relationship between the parties during their life together, which was an invasion of their private life as a couple.

(44) The right to protection of privacy is no weaker for well-known cultural personalities than it is for others, despite the fact that their photos are published in magazines and newspapers and on the internet in connection with their professional lives. It could be said that in the case of such individuals it is even more important to ensure that their private lives and personal relationships are protected.

(45) A wedding is a very significant personal experience for the bridal couple, an experience that includes their families, friends and other persons close to them. The wedding ceremony and celebrations are therefore clearly part of private and family life and thus in principle should be protected. However, in my opinion this consideration is only one aspect of the case.

(46) As mentioned above, a neutral description of two individuals’ wedding is not unlawful.

(47) Neither the text nor the photos in the disputed magazine article contain anything unfavourable to the couple. The article contains no criticism, nor is there anything in the content that could weaken their reputations.

(48) Furthermore, although the couple’s relationships with close friends are part of their private life, I cannot see that in this context the naming of a few of the participants constitutes a violation. Nor is it particularly unusual to write that the ceremony was “moving, and several of the guests couldn’t hold back their tears when a men’s choir sang ...”.

(49) The article contains no photos of the actual wedding ceremony. It is therefore not possible for me to have any views on whether such photos, including close-ups, would have to be regarded in a different light from those featured in the article. Photos in such a situation would clearly have more personal significance than photos showing the bridal couple arriving at or leaving the place where the marriage took place.

(50) I shall now examine more closely the way the wedding was conducted. The bride arrived at the islet in a rowing boat, with six bridesmaids on board. There she was greeted by her future husband and by a men’s choir singing a hymn. After the ceremony the bride and groom had to step from rock to rock in order to reach the shore, which the bride accomplished in bare feet. As pointed out in paragraph 50 of the von Hannover judgment, the concept of private life is comprehensive, and includes ‘a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of ‘private life’. However, a certain amount of weight must be given to the fact that the wedding was organised in a very unusual way, and took place in an area that is accessible to the public under the Outdoor Recreation Act and that is easily visible. As already mentioned, the photos do not show the most personal part of the wedding, the actual marriage ceremony.

(51) As mentioned above, the photos were taken of a wedding in a place accessible to the public. It can be assumed that even in August there are large numbers of people on Tjøme, which is one of the most popular locations for holiday cottages and recreation in Norway. Furthermore, many of the arrangements were such as to attract attention from third parties, for example the arrival of the bride in an open boat and the presence of a men’s choir singing a hymn on the islet. The arrangements were also spectacular in themselves. In spite of the fact that all individuals, including celebrities, are entitled to protection against being photographed even in public places, I consider that this must be taken into account in the assessment of legality.

(52) The photos were taken from a headland about 200-250 metres from the islet where the ceremony was being held, and a 300- to 400-millimetre zoom lens was used. For the bridal couple, however, the situation would not have been any better if the photography had taken place somewhere closer, or from a place where the photographer and journalist could have been seen by the wedding party. This could have disturbed the whole wedding. Nor was the photographing in the nature of a breach of confidence, as it would have been if for example any of the participants had published personal photos taken during or in connection with the wedding. The situation would also have been different if the photos had been taken of events taking place in a closed area where the subjects had reason to believe that they were unobserved, cf. paragraph 68, second sub-paragraph, of the von Hannover judgment.

(53) The article contained a photo of [the second applicant] together with the couple’s under-age child. During the proceedings the focus has been on the photos related to the wedding, and it has not been contended that the use of the photo of the under-age child puts the case in a different light. The photo had previously been published in Aftenposten, and it has not been contended that consent was lacking on that occasion. For these reasons I shall not examine the particular questions raised by the use of a photo of an under-age child without the necessary consent of the parents.

(54) Thus it must be concluded that the article did not involve unlawful violation of privacy.

(55) [The applicants] have contended as an alternative that the photos were used in a way that conflicts with the provisions of section 45c of the Copyright Act relating to the right to control the use of one’s image. In my view these provisions should also be read with the reservation that there could be a conflict of principles and in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Convention. The conclusion would then be the same as that of my principal assessment.

(56) The Court therefore allows the appeal. However, the case raises difficult and uncertain legal questions, clarification of which is in the public interest, cf. section 20-2, third paragraph, a, of the Code of Civil Procedure. No award of costs should therefore be made.”

Mr Justice T. gave the following reasons which in the main were endorsed by the other member of the minority:

“(58) I am substantially in agreement with the first-voting judge’s general interpretation of section 3-6 of the Damages Act and section 390 of the Penal Code. However, when weighing the right to privacy against the principle of freedom of expression in this specific case, I have arrived at a different conclusion, since I consider that in the present case the appellants have violated the right to privacy under section 390 of the Penal Code.

(59) I will first examine whether the subject of the article in Se og Hør can be considered to be ‘a personal matter’ in the meaning of section 390.

(60) I agree with the first-voting judge that information that a marriage has been contracted between two named individuals can be published without being in conflict with the provisions of section 390 of the Penal Code. However, this is not the issue in the present case. The article in Se og Hør also describes in words and pictures details of the arrangements in connection with the wedding ceremony.

(61) Weddings have always been a subject of general interest in the sense that those close to the bridal couple consider them important and wish to participate. It is also usual for the couple to wish to share the event with others. For these reasons there should in principle be no reason why the press should not report a wedding ceremony that takes place in full public view, and where no special arrangements have been made to indicate that the ceremony is private.

(62) However, today it is not unusual for the couple to wish to share their wedding and its arrangements only with those closest to them, and often to give the event a personal touch. They are entitled to protect themselves from publicity in such cases as well, and this includes withholding permission for the press to publish the event. In my view the desire to hold a private wedding should be respected in the sense that the wedding ceremony should be regarded as a personal matter within the meaning of section 390.

(63) A private wedding ceremony may take different forms. For example, a wedding held in a private home provides a clear signal to third parties that the marriage is a personal matter that may not be reported in the form published by Se og Hør without the bridal couple’s prior consent.

(64) In my view all the relevant circumstances indicate that in the present case the wedding was a private event. The wedding party was held at a hotel on Tjøme, which in this context is clearly a private area. The islet where the events reported by Se og Hør, and the marriage itself, took place is a relatively short walk away and directly linked with the hotel’s property. In my opinion the fact that there is a general right of public access to the islet under the Outdoor Recreation Act does not prevent this part of the wedding from also being of a clearly private nature. It follows from the von Hannover judgment that protection of privacy also applies to places to which the public has access. Furthermore, consent to the use of the islet had been obtained from the landowner. Thus the arrangement as a whole indicated that the couple wished to restrict the wedding to themselves and their guests. From this perspective the event must be considered to be a personal matter within the meaning of section 390.

(65) For these reasons I consider that Se og Hør published in words and pictures a number of details relating to a personal matter. Firstly, the magazine published details of the arrangements for the ceremony, which have been described more fully by the first-voting judge. I regard these as the personal touch that the bridal couple had wished to give their wedding and that in my view underlines the private nature of the wedding. Secondly, the article included a description of the guests and the couple’s families, together with the names of well-known figures. In this connection the names of guests with children were also given, and pictures were shown of the children and their parents.

(66) Like the first-voting judge, I consider that it has been clearly demonstrated that the opposite parties’ consent had not been obtained.

(67) The next question is whether the publication is legal and justified despite the fact that the subject of the article is a personal matter. It follows from paragraph 72 of Rt-2007-687 that the main question to be weighed is whether ‘the article contributes to a debate of public interest. In other words, the particular importance of the principle of protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights lies in the sphere of public debate’. I agree with the first-voting judge that this wording cannot be interpreted in such a way that it does not rule out that the publication of personal matters is justified in cases where it does not contribute to public debate. However, when matters of a personal nature such as those in question here are published, they must have at least a minimum of public interest if the invasion of privacy is to be considered legitimate. In the present case the publication was a celebrity article written for the sole purpose of entertainment. Although the desire to entertain is in itself legitimate, its nature does not justify overriding the affected parties’ desire to protect their privacy. In this connection I place special emphasis on the fact that getting married is a very significant occasion in a person’s life, and that therefore the activities celebrating it ‒ the marriage ceremony and the wedding party ‒ will for most people be one of the most important events of their lives, and will often be associated with strong emotions.

(68) The fact that the opposite parties are well-known cultural figures in Norway has no bearing on the assessment. Well-known persons also have the right to respect for personal matters of the kind we are dealing with here. I find support for this view both in Rt-2007-687, cf. paragraph 74, and in the von Hannover judgment ..., cf. paragraph 67.

(69) Although this has not influenced my view of the case, I would also like to comment on Se og Hør’s use of a zoom lens. The zoom lens enabled the journalist and the photographer to take close-up pictures of the bridal couple and their guests that make it look as if they were actually at the event themselves, when in fact they were hidden from those who were being observed. It seems likely that the reason for using this technique was that the journalist and photographer were aware that the bridal couple would have reacted to their presence on the islet and this might have resulted in the marriage ceremony being moved inside the hotel. Using a zoom lens because of the personal and private nature of the event resembles the use of a hidden camera, which is a factor that also weighs against the appellants.

(70) For these reasons I am of the opinion that the article in Se og Hør cannot be justified on the basis of an assessment of legality, and that the opposite parties are entitled to redress for pain and suffering from the appellants. With regard to the amount of redress, the opposite parties have demanded that the amount decided by the Court of Appeal should be maintained. I have no objections to the amounts decided on. Since I know that I am in the minority, I will not formulate a final conclusion.”

The relevant provision 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.

Sections 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.