Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

ORG The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP citizen who was born in DATE in GPE , GPE , and now lives in GPE .

ORG In DATE he joined the NORP army and became a member of ORG . His service was due to terminate in DATE or DATE when he would have received a resettlement grant and , at DATE , an army pension .

ORG In DATE PERSON took part in the NORP campaign . During the battle of FAC he witnessed the death and mutilation of several of his friends and was himself injured in the wrist by a mortar - shell blast . According to the medical evidence prepared for his court martial ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , as a result of these experiences he suffered from post - traumatic stress disorder ( " PTSD " ) , which manifested itself by flashbacks , nightmares , feelings of anxiety , insomnia and outbursts of anger . This disorder was not diagnosed until after the events of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG In DATE he sustained an injury during training for service in GPE when a rope which he was climbing broke and he fell to the ground , severely damaging his back . This injury was extremely painful and affected his ability to perform his duties , which , again according to the medical evidence , led him to suffer from feelings of stress , guilt and depression .

ORG In DATE the applicant , who had become a lance - sergeant , was sent with his regiment to GPE . On DATE , after a heavy drinking session , he held members of his own unit at pistol point and threatened to kill himself and some of his colleagues . He fired CARDINAL shots , which were not aimed at anyone and hit a television set , and subsequently surrendered the pistol . He was then arrested .

ORG On DATE an ex - naval psychiatrist , PERSON , examined PERSON and found that he was responsible for his actions at the time of the incident . However , a combination of stresses ( including his back injury and posting to GPE ) together with his heavy drinking on DATE , had led to an " almost inevitable " event . PERSON recommended " awarding the minimum appropriate punishment " .

Following this report , the decision was taken to charge Mr PERSON with a number of offences arising out of the incident on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG In order to establish that he was fit to stand trial , at the request of the army he was examined on CARDINAL occasions by PERSON , a civilian consultant psychiatrist who had been employed by ORG since DATE .

In her report of DATE , PERSON confirmed that PERSON was fit to plead and knew what he was doing at the time of the incident . However , his chronic back problem ( which caused him to be frustrated and depressed at not being fit for duty in his GPE posting ) together with " his previous combat stresses and a very high level of alcohol ... combined to produce this dangerous behaviour " .

In her second report , of DATE , she explained that the applicant had reacted to the stress caused by his back problems in the way he did on CARDINAL DATE because of his experiences in the Falklands war . Whilst she did not clearly state that he suffered from PTSD , she confirmed that similar patterns of behaviour frequently occurred at a late stage in those who experienced this disorder . She confirmed that the consumption of alcohol on the relevant day was a result of his condition and not a cause of it .

Mr PERSON was also examined by PERSON , at the request of his ( PERSON Findlay ’s ) solicitor . PERSON diagnosed him as suffering from GPE as a result of his service in the LOC .

ORG The position of " convening officer " ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) for the applicant ’s court martial was assumed by the General Officer Commanding GPE , Major General PERSON . He remanded PERSON PERSON for trial on CARDINAL charges arising out of the incident of CARDINAL DATE and decided that he should be tried by general court martial .

ORG By an order dated DATE , the convening officer convened the general court martial and appointed the military personnel who were to act as prosecuting officer , assistant prosecuting officer and assistant defending officer ( to represent PERSON in addition to his solicitor ) and the members of the court martial ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

ORG The court martial consisted of a president and CARDINAL other members :

( CARDINAL ) the president , Colonel PERSON , was a member of GPE District staff ( under the command of the convening officer : see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He was appointed by name by the latter and was not a permanent president ;

( CARDINAL ) Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON was a permanent president of courts martial , sitting in the capacity of an ordinary member . He had his office in LOC . He was appointed by name by the convening officer ;

( CARDINAL ) Captain PERSON was from ORG , a unit stationed in GPE . His reporting chain was to his officer commanding , his commanding officer and ORG , after which his report could , in exceptional circumstances , go to the convening officer ; he was a member of a footguard unit and the convening officer , as General Officer Commanding , was responsible for all footguard units . He was appointed to the court martial by his commanding officer ;

( CARDINAL ) Major PERSON was from ORG , also a footguard unit stationed in GPE . The convening officer was his second superior reporting officer . He was appointed to the court martial by his commanding officer ;

( CARDINAL ) Captain O’Connor was from ORG , ORG ( ORG ) , which is under the direct command of ORG and is administered by LOC . She was appointed by her commanding officer .

In summary , all of the members of the court martial were subordinate in rank to the convening officer and served in units stationed within GPE . None of them had legal training .

ORG The assistant prosecuting and defending officers were both officers from ORG stationed in LOC and had the same reporting chain as Captain Tubbs ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) above ) .

ORG The judge advocate for the general court martial was appointed by the Judge Advocate General ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . He was a barrister and assistant judge advocate with the Judge Advocate General ’s Office .

ORG On DATE , Mr PERSON appeared before the general court martial , at FAC in GPE . He was represented by a solicitor .

He pleaded guilty to CARDINAL charges of common assault ( a civilian offence ) , CARDINAL charges of conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline ( a military offence ) and CARDINAL charges of threatening to kill ( a civilian offence ) .

ORG On DATE , his solicitor had made a written request to the prosecuting authorities to ensure the appearance of PERSON at the court martial and on DATE the prosecuting officer had issued a witness summons requiring her attendance . However , the defence was informed on TIME of the hearing that PERSON would not be attending . Mr PERSON claims that her absence persuaded him to plead guilty to the above charges . However , his solicitor did not request an adjournment or object to the hearing proceeding .

ORG The defence put before the court martial the medical reports referred to above ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) and called PERSON to give evidence . The latter confirmed his view that the applicant suffered from GPE , that this had been the principal cause of his behaviour , that he had not been responsible for his actions and that he was in need of counselling . During crossexamination , PERSON stated that this was the first time he had dealt with battle - related PTSD .

The prosecution did not call any medical evidence in rebuttal or adopt any of the evidence prepared by the army - instructed psychiatrists , Drs McKinnon and GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

ORG In the course of his speech in mitigation , PERSON solicitor urged the court martial that , in view of the fact that his client had been suffering from PTSD at the time of the incident and was extremely unlikely to reoffend , he should be allowed to complete DATE of his service and leave the army with his pension intact and a minimal endorsement on his record .

ORG Having heard the evidence and speeches , the court martial retired to consider their decision on sentence , accompanied by the judge advocate . On their return they sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , reduction to the rank of guardsman and dismissal from the army ( which caused him to suffer a reduction in his pension entitlement ) . No reasons were given for the sentence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG Under LAW DATE , the decision of the court martial had no effect until it was confirmed by the " confirming officer " ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In Mr GPE ’s case , as was usual practice , the confirming officer was the same person as the convening officer . Mr PERSON petitioned him for a reduction in sentence .

Having received advice from the Judge Advocate General ’s Office , the confirming officer informed the applicant on DATE that the sentence had been upheld .

ORG The applicant , who had been under close arrest since TIME before the court martial hearing , was removed on DATE to a military prison and thereafter to a civilian prison on DATE .

ORG He appealed by way of petition to the first of the " reviewing authorities " ( see paragraph DATE below ) , the Deputy Director ORG , as delegate of ORG , a non - legally qualified officer who obtained advice from the Judge Advocate ORG . By a letter dated DATE , PERSON was informed that this petition had been rejected .

ORG He then petitioned the second of the reviewing authorities , a member of ORG who also was not legally qualified and who also received advice from the Judge Advocate General ’s Office . This petition was rejected on DATE .

ORG The advice given by the Judge Advocate General ’s Office at each of these CARDINAL stages of review was not disclosed to the applicant , nor was he given reasons for the decisions confirming his sentence and rejecting his petitions .

ORG On DATE , the applicant applied to ORG for leave to challenge by judicial review the validity of the findings of the court martial . He claimed that the sentence imposed was excessive , the proceedings were contrary to the rules of natural justice and that the judge advocate had been hostile to him on CARDINAL occasions during the hearing .

On DATE the ORG refused leave on the basis that the court martial had been conducted fully in accordance with the Army Act DATE and there was no evidence of improper conduct or hostility on the part of the judge advocate ( NORP v. General Court Martial ( Regent ’s FAC ) , ex parte PERSON , CO/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , unreported ) .

Mr GPE commenced a civil claim in negligence against the military authorities , claiming damages in respect of his back injury and PTSD . In a report dated DATE prepared for these purposes , Dr GPE confirmed her previous opinion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and clearly diagnosed PTSD .

ORG In DATE the civil action was settled by the Secretary of ORG , who paid the applicant £ MONEY and legal costs , without any admission of liability . The settlement did not differentiate between the claims in respect of PTSD and the back injury .

ORG The law and procedures which applied to the applicant ’s court martial were contained in LAW DATE ( " the CARDINAL Act " ) , LAW ) DATE ( " the DATE Rules " ) and LAW ( DATE ) . Since the ORG ’s consideration of the case , certain provisions in the CARDINAL Act have been amended by LAW ( " LAW " ) , which comes into force on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

ORG Many civilian offences are also offences under LAW ( section DATE ( CARDINAL ) ) . Although the final decision on jurisdiction lies with the civilian authorities , army personnel who are accused of such offences are usually tried by the military authorities unless , for example , civilians are involved in some way .

Depending on their gravity , charges against army law can be tried by district , field or general court martial . A court martial is not a standing court : it comes into existence in order to try a single offence or group of offences .

ORG At the time of the events in question , a general court martial consisted of a president ( normally a brigadier or colonel in the army ) , appointed by name by the convening officer ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , and CARDINAL other army officers , either appointed by name by the convening officer or , at the latter ’s request , by their commanding officer .

ORG Each member of the court martial had to swear the following oath :

" I swear by almighty God that I will well and truly try the accused before the court according to the evidence , and that I will duly administer justice according to LAW DATE , without partiality , favour or affection , and I do further swear that I will not on any account at any time whatsoever disclose or discover the vote or opinion of the president or any member of this court martial , unless thereunto required in the due course of law . "

ORG Before the coming into force of LAW , a convening officer ( who had to be a field officer or of corresponding or superior rank , in command of a body of the regular forces or of the command within which the person to be tried was serving ) assumed responsibility for every case to be tried by court martial . He or she would decide upon the nature and detail of the charges to be brought and the type of court martial required , and was responsible for convening the court martial .

ORG The convening officer would draw up a convening order , which would specify , inter alia , the date , place and time of the trial , the name of the president and the details of the other members , all of whom he could appoint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He ensured that a judge advocate ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was appointed by the Judge Advocate General ’s Office and , failing such appointment , could appoint CARDINAL . He also appointed , or directed a commanding officer to appoint , the prosecuting officer .

ORG Prior to the hearing , the convening officer was responsible for sending an abstract of the evidence to the prosecuting officer and to the judge advocate , and could indicate the passages which might be inadmissible . He procured the attendance at trial of all witnesses to be called for the prosecution . When charges were withdrawn , the convening officer ’s consent was normally obtained , although it was not necessary in all cases , and a plea to a lesser charge could not be accepted from the accused without it .

ORG He had also to ensure that the accused had a proper opportunity to prepare his defence , legal representation if required and the opportunity to contact the defence witnesses , and was responsible for ordering the attendance at the hearing of all witnesses " reasonably requested " by the defence .

ORG The convening officer could dissolve the court martial either before or during the trial , when required in the interests of the administration of justice ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ) . In addition , he could comment on the " proceedings of a court martial which require confirmation " . Those remarks would not form part of the record of the proceedings and would normally be communicated in TIME to the members of the court , although in an exceptional case " where a more public instruction [ was ] required in the interests of discipline " , they could be made known in the orders of the command ( Queen ’s Regulations , paragraph CARDINAL ) .

ORG The convening officer usually acted as confirming officer also ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG The current Judge Advocate General was appointed by the Queen in DATE for DATE . He is answerable to the Queen and is removable from office by her for inability or misbehaviour .

At the time of the events in question , the Judge Advocate General had the role of adviser to the Secretary of ORG on all matters touching and concerning the office of Judge Advocate General , including advice on military law and the procedures and conduct of the court - martial system . He was also responsible for advising the confirming and reviewing authorities following a court martial ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG Judge advocates are appointed to the Judge Advocate General ’s Office by the Lord Chancellor . They must have CARDINAL and DATE experience respectively as an advocate or barrister .

ORG At the time of the events in question , a judge advocate was appointed to each court martial , either by the Judge Advocate General ’s Office or by the convening officer . He or she was responsible for advising the court martial on all questions of law and procedure arising during the hearing and the court had to accept this advice unless there were weighty reasons for not doing so . In addition , in conjunction with the president , he was under a duty to ensure that the accused did not suffer any disadvantage during the hearing . For example , if the latter pleaded guilty , the judge advocate had to ensure that he or she fully understood the implications of the plea and admitted all the elements of the charge . At the close of the hearing , the judge advocate would sum up the relevant law and evidence .

ORG Prior to the coming into force of LAW , the judge advocate did not take part in the court martial ’s deliberations on conviction or acquittal , although he could advise it in private on general principles in relation to sentencing . He was not a member of the court martial and had no vote in the decision on conviction or sentence .

ORG At the time of the events in question , on a plea of guilty , the prosecuting officer outlined the facts and put in evidence any circumstance which might have made the accused more susceptible to the commission of the offence . The defence made a plea in mitigation and could call witnesses ( rules CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of the DATE Rules ) . The members of the court martial then retired with the judge advocate to consider the sentence , which was pronounced in open court . There was no provision for the giving of reasons by the court martial for its decision .

Certain types of sentence were not available to courts martial at the time of the applicant ’s trial , even in respect of civilian offences . For example , a court martial could not suspend a prison sentence , issue a probation order or sentence to community service .

ORG Until the amendments introduced by LAW , a court martial ’s findings were not effective until confirmed by a " confirming officer " . Prior to confirmation , the confirming officer used to seek the advice of the Judge Advocate General ’s Office , where a judge advocate different to the one who acted at the hearing would be appointed . The confirming officer could withhold confirmation or substitute , postpone or remit in whole or in part any sentence .

ORG Once the sentence had been confirmed , the defendant could petition the " reviewing authorities " . These were the Queen , ORG ( who could delegate to ORG ) , or any officer superior in command to the confirming officer ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ) . The reviewing authorities could seek the advice of the Judge Advocate General ’s Office . They had the power to quash a finding and to exercise the same powers as the confirming officer in relation to substituting , remitting or commuting the sentence .

ORG A petitioner was not informed of the identity of the confirming officer or of the reviewing authorities . No statutory or formalised procedures were laid down for the conduct of the post - hearing reviews and no reasons were given for decisions delivered subsequent to them . Neither the fact that advice had been received from the Judge Advocate General ’s Office nor the nature of that advice was disclosed .

ORG A courts martial appeal court ( made up of civilian judges ) could hear appeals against conviction from a court martial , but there was no provision for such an appeal against sentence when the accused pleaded guilty .

ORG Under LAW , the role of the convening officer will cease to exist and his functions will be split among CARDINAL different bodies : the " higher authorities " , the prosecuting authority and court administration officers ( see CARDINAL Act , Schedule I ) .

ORG The higher authority , who will be a senior officer , will decide whether any case referred to him by the accused ’s commanding officer should be dealt with summarily , referred to the new prosecuting authority , or dropped . Once the higher authority has taken this decision , he or she will have no further involvement in the case .

ORG The prosecuting authority will be the DATE legal branches . Following the higher authority ’s decision to refer a case to them , the prosecuting authority will have absolute discretion , applying similar criteria as those applied in civilian cases by ORG to decide whether or not to prosecute , what type of court martial would be appropriate and precisely what charges should be brought . They will then conduct the prosecution ( DATE Act , Schedule I , Part II ) .

ORG Court administration officers will be appointed in each ORG and will be independent of both the higher and the prosecuting authorities . They will be responsible for making the arrangements for courts martial , including arranging venue and timing , ensuring that a judge advocate and any court officials required will be available , securing the attendance of witnesses and selection of members . Officers under the command of the higher authority will not be selected as members of the court martial ( CARDINAL Act , Schedule I , Part III , section CARDINAL ) .

ORG Each court martial will in future include a judge advocate as a member . His advice on points of law will become rulings binding on the court and he will have a vote on sentence ( but not on conviction ) . The casting vote , if needed , will rest with the president of the court martial , who will also give reasons for the sentence in open court . The Judge Advocate General will no longer provide general legal advice to the Secretary of ORG ( CARDINAL Act , Schedule I , Part III , sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) .

ORG Findings by a court martial will no longer be subject to confirmation or revision by a confirming officer ( whose role is to be abolished ) . A reviewing authority will be established in each Service to conduct a single review of each case . Reasons will be given for the decision of the reviewing authority . As part of this process , post - trial advice received by the reviewing authority from a judge advocate ( who will be different from the one who officiated at the court - martial ) will be disclosed to the accused . A right of appeal against sentence to the ( civilian ) courts martial appeal court will be added to the existing right of appeal against conviction ( DATE Act , section CARDINAL and Schedule V ) .


Preliminary objections dismissed (ratione materiae);No violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;András Sajó;Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;David Thór Björgvinsson;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Giorgio Malinverni;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Loukis Loucaides;Mark Villiger;Nicolas Bratza;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Sverre Erik Jebens;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant is a civil servant in ORG . At the relevant time she was on secondment to ORG for the primary education of NORP children abroad , in the city of GPE . On DATE she filed a criminal complaint for perjury and defamation against PERSON , with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party , but without claiming compensation . PERSON , a civil servant in the same Ministry , was the applicant 's immediate superior . She alleged in particular that , in connection with an administrative investigation opened against her , PERSON had stated that she did not observe TIME and did not get on well with her colleagues .

On DATE , when the case was heard before ORG , the applicant reiterated her civil - party application , claiming MONEY ( MONEY ) and adduced her arguments . On DATE , ORG acquitted PERSON of the charges against him , finding that the applicant 's allegations were unsubstantiated . In particular , after examining all the evidence , the court considered that the offending remarks had been truthful and that it had not been the defendant 's intention to defame or insult the applicant ( judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE this judgment was finalised and entered in the register of ORG .

On DATE the applicant requested the public prosecutor at ORG to lodge an appeal on points of law against ORG judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , under LAW . She alleged , in particular , that the judgment did not contain sufficient reasoning .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG returned the applicant 's letter with the following handwritten comment on the actual request : “ There are no legal or well - founded grounds of appeal to ORG ” .

The Code of Criminal Procedure contains the following relevant provisions :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The present Code specifies the instances in which a judge gives a decision or makes an order .

Orders shall also be made by the public prosecutor where he has a statutory obligation to take measures during a judicial investigation in a case or when hearings have been adjourned by the court ... ”

“ Judgments , orders of the chamber of judges , and orders of the investigating judge or of the public prosecutor shall give specific and precise reasons ...

Even where it is not required by a specific provision , all judgments and orders shall include reasoning , whether they are final or interlocutory and whether or not they depend on the discretion of the judge hearing the case . ”

“ Remedies may be used solely by persons who are expressly afforded such right by law ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) ... an appeal on points of law may be lodged ( a ) by the defendant ; ( b ) by a third party whose civil liability has been engaged in the conviction judgment and who has acknowledged such liability ; ( c ) by a civil party named in the conviction judgment , but only in respect of that part of the judgment in which he or she is awarded damages or is recognised as being entitled to compensation , or in which his or her claims have been dismissed as being devoid of legal basis ; ( d ) by the public prosecutor .

ORG at ORG shall be entitled to appeal on points of law against any decision within the time - limit provided for in LAW ... ”

“ The quashing of an acquittal on points of law may be sought : ( a ) by the defendant , if he or she has been acquitted for expressing remorse ; ( b ) by the principal public prosecutor ... if the acquittal has been the consequence of a misinterpretation of a substantive criminal - law provision within the meaning of LAW ; ( c ) by the person who laid the charge or the complainant , if he or she has been ordered to pay damages and costs . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) ... ORG at ORG shall summon the appellant in cassation and other parties to the proceedings , by a summons served on them in accordance with ORG to CARDINAL and within the time - limit provided for in Article CARDINAL , before ORG or its plenary assembly ...

( CARDINAL ) Where the appeal on points of law has been lodged by a public prosecutor , he shall not be summoned but shall be represented by the public prosecutor at ORG .


CASE OF BLADET TROMSO AND STENSAAS v. NORWAY

Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The first applicant is a limited liability company , PERSON ORG , which publishes the DATE newspaper PERSON in the town of PERSON . The second applicant , PERSON , was its editor . He was born in DATE and lives at PERSON , near GPE .

PERSON is a regional capital of the northern part of GPE . It is the centre of the NORP seal hunting industry and has a university which includes an international polar research centre .

At the relevant time PERSON had a circulation of CARDINAL copies . Like other local newspapers in GPE , it was used as a regular source by ORG ( “ ORG ” ) .

Mr Odd PERSON had been on board the seal hunting vessel M / S Harmoni ( “ the NORP ” ) during DATE as a freelance journalist , author and photographer . Several of his articles pertaining to that season had been published by PERSON . These had not been hostile to seal hunting . On DATE Mr PERSON applied to ORG to be appointed seal hunting inspector for DATE on board the NORP . Following his appointment on DATE he served on board the ORG from DATE to DATE , when the vessel returned to its port in GPE . Thereafter , and until DATE , PERSON PERSON published CARDINAL articles on PERSON inspection .

On DATE PERSON printed an interview with Mr PERSON in which he stated , inter alia , that certain seal hunters on the Harmoni had violated the DATE LAW ( forskrifter for utøvelse av selfangst ) DATE as amended in DATE issued by ORG . The headline of the article read ( all quotes below are translations from NORP ) :

“ Research reveals crude hunting methods in LOC

Deplorable violations of the regulations ”

The introduction to the article quoted PERSON as follows ( in bigger print ) :

“ ‘ If seal hunting is to be permitted to continue , certain sealers have to stop killing the seals in the way they do . During DATE , which I have spent in LOC , I have uncovered a great deal which is clearly inconsistent with acceptable seal hunting methods . However , I should like to emphasise : Only a few of the hunters are guilty of [ such behaviour ] and those few do the [ seal hunting ] industry a disservice and provide ORG with good arguments . It is really regrettable and completely unnecessary!’ ”

The interview continued , inter alia , as follows :

“ ‘ If seal hunting is to be permitted to continue DATE and I am of the opinion that it should – there ought to be an inspector on every vessel . CARDINAL that makes sure that the animals are killed in a proper manner and are not subjected to unnecessary suffering .

... But let me emphasise : I am in favour of seal hunting , though it has to be carried out in an exemplary manner.’

PERSON states that he has been threatened by hunters to remain silent about his observations and experiences during the seal hunting on LOC . He does not wish to go into details ...

‘ That will be covered in the report I am going to write ... ’ ”

The article did not mention any seal hunter by name or provide any details of the allegedly illegal hunting methods .

NORP In order to defend themselves against the accusations contained in the above article of CARDINAL DATE the skipper on the NORP and CARDINAL of its crew members gave interviews which PERSON published on DATE . The introduction to the main interview stated ( in bigger print ) , inter alia :

“ The crew on ... the NORP is really furious . The allegations made by ‘ researcher’ Mr PERSON regarding ... seal hunters’ beastly killing methods are too much to swallow . ‘ Mr PERSON is expressing a blatant lie . He pretends to be a researcher but has no clue of what he is talking about’ , says Mr PERSON [ crew member ] . ”

A separate interview with Mr PERSON entitled “ They feel themselves blackened ” quoted him ( in an introduction reproduced in bigger print ) as follows :

“ ‘ I do not know what PERSON is trying to achieve with his accusations of bestial killing of seals . But we feel ourselves blackened and do not want to have this hanging over us.’ ”

Later in the interview Mr PERSON was quoted as saying :

“ ‘ ... PERSON describes us as blood - thirsty murderers but we follow the rules and are humane ... ’ ”

Mr PERSON ’s official report on the hunting expedition was completed on DATE , DATE after the expedition . This was significantly later than the normal time allotted to the preparation of such reports and after ORG had enquired about it . ORG received it on DATE and , because of DATE , did not review it immediately .

In his report , PERSON alleged a series of violations of the seal hunting regulations and made allegations against CARDINAL named crew members . He stated , inter alia :

“ I have also noticed that [ seals ] which have been shot in such a manner that they appear to be dead have ‘ ORG during the flaying ... I experienced several times that animals which were being flayed ‘ ORG showed signs that their ORG electric activity had not been terminated . ”

PERSON recommended that there should be a seal hunting inspector on every vessel and that compulsory training should be organised for all first - time hunters . Their knowledge of the regulations should also be tested . Finally , PERSON recommended an amendment to the regulations as regards the killing of mature seals in self - defence .

ORG decided temporarily ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to exempt Mr PERSON ’s report from public disclosure relying on section CARDINAL , item CARDINAL , of a DATE LAW in the Sphere of ORG ( lov om offentlighet i forvaltningen , PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . Under this provision , the ORG was empowered to order that the report not be made accessible to the public , on the ground that it contained allegations of statutory offences .

An article published by PERSON on DATE contained the following observations on the ORG ’s decision :

“ ‘ The report is of such a nature that we have exempted it from public disclosure’ , says [ a counsellor in the Ministry ] . ‘ So far we have merely read through it . When we have had time to study it closely , it will be sent to ORG and to ORG . But first we shall examine all the information provided by inspector Mr PERSON , in particular as regards any incidents that might be relevant to LAW . Everyone who is personally mentioned in the report will be given an opportunity to explain and defend himself.’ ”

In the above - mentioned article of CARDINAL DATE PERSON , having received a copy of the report which PERSON had transmitted to ORG , reproduced some of his statements concerning the alleged breaches of the seal hunting regulations by members of crew of the NORP . The headlines on the front page read :

“ Shock report ”

“ ‘ ORG skinned alive’ ”

The text on the front page stated :

“ Seal hunting inspector Mr PERSON is criticising NORP seal hunters in a shock report on DATE . [ He ] refers to illegal methods of killing , drunken crew members and the illegal start of the hunt before the opening of DATE . Not least the report includes an account of his being beaten up by furious hunters , who also threatened to hit him on the head with a gaff [ hakapik ] if he did not keep quiet . ‘ The report is of such a character that we have exempted it from public disclosure’ , said a spokesperson for ORG . ”

On DATE and DATE PERSON published the entire report in CARDINAL parts . The introduction to the first part stated :

“ ... During DATE [ Mr PERSON ’s report ] has created considerable turbulence within the seal hunting [ profession ] . Most consider it a particularly severe attack on a profession which has already met with opposition , both nationally and internationally . In several responses to PERSON it is clearly alleged that Mr PERSON is an agent of ORG .

PERSON has given us access to his notes from the [ expedition ] . The report has since been treated as confidential by ORG , given , inter alia , that various persons have been named and associated with breaches of the regulations . We have deleted the names ...

The report ... does not contain CARDINAL - sided criticism ... PERSON also compliments a number of crew members ... [ He ] in addition writes that he is a sympathiser of seal hunting . But not with the manner in which it was conducted on LOC DATE . ”

The second part of Mr PERSON ’s report , which was published by PERSON Tromsø on DATE , contained the following statements ( while deleting with black ink the names of the crew members referred to in square brackets below ) :

“ At CARDINAL [ a crew member ] beat to death a female harp seal which was protecting her pup . ”

“ At CARDINAL [ a crew member ] beat to death a female harp seal . ”

“ DATE [ I ] pointed out to the skipper that [ a crew member ] did not kill cubs in accordance with the regulations ( i.e. he ... hit it with the spike [ of the gaff ] and then dragged the cub after him ) . ”

“ At CARDINAL [ a crew member ] killed a female [ harp seal ] which was protecting her pup . ”

The hunting of harp seals had been legal in DATE .

In a commentary of DATE PERSON stated :

“ Poor working conditions ?

Are the authorities in proper control of seal hunting as conducted at present ? Do the ... inspectors of the Ministry ... enjoy working conditions enabling them to deliver unbiased reports about seal hunting or do they become too dependent on having a good relationship with the seal hunters ? In other words , are the sealing inspectors sufficiently independent in their supervision on board the sealing vessels ?

These are questions which PERSON has received from persons who know the industry well but , for various reasons , do not wish to come forward in public . The background to these questions is the report which PERSON has transmitted to his employer , ORG . PERSON was assigned as seal hunting inspector on board the PERSON - registered vessel NORP ... during DATE . The report is so critical that the ORG has decided to keep it ‘ confidential’ for the time being . ... , a counsellor in the ORG ... admits that he has never before received a report from a seal hunting inspector which was ‘ so unkind as this one’ . ”

On DATE PERSON published a further interview with crew member Mr PERSON , entitled “ Severe criticism against the seal hunting inspector : The accusations are totally unfounded ” . The caption under a photograph on the front page stated :

“ Sheer lies . ‘ Judging from what has transpired in the media regarding [ Mr PERSON ’s ] report , I would characterise his statements as sheer lies’ , says Mr PERSON . [ He ] ... demands that the report be handed over immediately [ to the crew ] . In this he is supported by CARDINAL colleagues , Mr [ S. ] and Mr [ M. ] … ”

The interview with Mr PERSON continued inside the newspaper and bore the headline “ ‘ Mr PERSON is PERSON ” .

The newspaper in addition published a letter on the same topic from Mr PERSON to the editor . According to PERSON , PERSON presence on board the NORP in DATE had not been appreciated . When he turned up at the departure of the DATE expedition , this was after having made a number of unsuccessful requests to the shipowner and the crew . As a last resort , he had bluffed ORG into believing that he was to go with the NORP to LOC and that he could take on , on a voluntary basis , the task of inspector . Without further ado , ORG had appointed him inspector because he had offered to do the job free of charge . Consequently , ORG sent an inspector whose knowledge about seal hunting and hunting regulations was extremely weak and who was psychologically unsuited for the job . He had carried out his tasks in an utterly strange and poor manner .

In an editorial , also published on DATE , the newspaper stated :

“ Some people are of the view that NORP seal hunting will again suffer from severe criticism from nature activists after the seal hunting inspector has revealed a number of objectionable circumstances in connection with an expedition . We believe this report will strengthen [ GPE ’s reputation ] as a serious seal hunting nation , provided that the contents of the report are used in a constructive manner . In all professions there are certain persons who will abuse the confidence which society has placed in them and who will operate on the edge of the law . The fisheries authorities must react strongly against all abuse . The authorities now have a unique opportunity to clarify the purpose of NORP seal hunting and how it should be conducted in an internationally acceptable manner .

What is revealed by the fresh report ... has to be perceived as a single , regrettable episode warranting ... a closer scrutiny of the manner in which NORP seal hunting should be carried out in DATE to come ... ”

On DATE PERSON published an article entitled :

“ ORG is furious and brands the seal report as :

‘ A work commissioned by Greenpeace!’ ”

CARDINAL representatives of ORG were quoted , inter alia , as follows :

“ ‘ We know our seal hunters and also have a certain knowledge of ... inspector Mr PERSON . In the light of this we dare to say : We do not believe a word of what is stated in [ his ] report ! Nor do we doubt for a second that [ he ] was placed on board the NORP by ORG . We will therefore demand that the ORG provide all the information surrounding [ his ] appointment ...

... We are also greatly surprised that the writer of PERSON editorial [ of CARDINAL DATE ] really dares to take a stand in this matter without having any better knowledge of seal hunting . We consider that frightening ... ’ ”

On the same date PERSON published an interview with Mr PERSON , in which he stressed that his report had included positive statements concerning CARDINAL crew members , whom he named .

In an interview published by PERSON on DATE a representative of ORG denied that it had been involved in any way in producing PERSON report .

In a press release dated DATE , ORG stated that because of its peculiar contents and form , the PERSON report had been exempted from public disclosure until further notice . According to veterinary expertise , it was practically impossible to flay a seal alive , whilst it was usual that reflex movements in the animal ’s muscles occur during slaughter . As regards the appointment of PERSON as an inspector , the ORG stated that he had referred in his application to the fact that he had attended the seal hunt in DATE in order to study all aspects of the hunt and to carry out research for ORG . He intended to attend also DATE . The purpose of his research was to write a book on seal hunting and to carry out scientific work . In addition he had indicated that , since at all events he was to go with the NORP during DATE , he was prepared to carry out the inspection without remuneration . ORG had had several telephone conversations with PERSON , during which he said that he had studied biology and was affiliated to several scientific associations , particularly in the area of polar research . In view of the fact that PERSON was willing to do the job free of charge and , especially , his research background , the ORG decided to appoint him . While seeking to attend the hunting expedition , he had offered his services to ORG at ORG . As a result , during the expedition , he had collected for the University certain parts of seal bodies . Later investigations had revealed that the inspector had no formal higher education and no competence as a researcher , nor any experience with the killing of animals . His strong reactions and comments on the killing of the animals were characterised by the fact that he did not have the required background for being an inspector . His report could not be regarded as a serious and adequate inspection report .

On DATE PERSON published an article entitled “ ORG rejects Mr PERSON ’s report ” , which quoted a senior official of ORG as having said :

“ ‘ [ Mr PERSON ’s ] report can not be regarded as a serious ... inspection report ; it is characterised by the fact that he lacks the professional background which an inspector should have … ’ ”

Another article published by PERSON on DATE quoted Mr PERSON as follows :

“ ‘ We are genuinely pleased that PERSON allegations that we violated legal laws and regulations during this DATE ’s seal hunting ... have been rejected by ORG ... We would never accept allegations that we were , among other things , flaying seals alive ... ’ ”

A further article published by PERSON on DATE bore the following headline :

“ The seal hunters are being bullied – The Sailors’ Federation wants to involve the police : ‘ Have the whole seal matter investigated’ ”

On DATE PERSON published a further interview with a senior official of ORG , quoting the latter as having stated :

“ ‘ In my view the media have now harassed the seal hunting profession enough . Imagine if you , working in the media , were to be harassed in the same manner . I can tell you that there are now seal hunters who can not sleep and who are receiving telephone calls day and night.’

DATE [ the official ] seemed more or less overcome , not least after [ the newspaper ] GPE had published photographs taken by PERSON during this DATE ’s seal hunting showing how seals are being killed with a gaff . [ The official ] had no compliment to spare for PERSON either : ‘ You were the ones who started this craziness!’ ... ”

In a further article published by PERSON on DATE CARDINAL former seal hunting inspectors were quoted as follows :

“ ‘ We can not claim that PERSON has not witnessed and experienced what he describes in his report ... But he has drawn completely wrong conclusions . NORP [ seal hunters in LOC ] are diligent and responsible and have much higher morals than regular NORP hunters when it comes to killing animals ... ’ ”

On DATE ORG issued a news bulletin reiterating some of the information provided by PERSON on the same date as to Mr PERSON ’s allegations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It stated that ORG was of the view that violations of the seal hunting regulations might have occurred . This bulletin was dispatched to its CARDINAL subscribers and various newspapers published articles which were based on it .

In a bulletin of CARDINAL DATE ORG DATE using PERSON as its source – affirmed , firstly , that the crew had demanded that the report immediately be made accessible to the public ( “ straks … offentliggjort ” ) and , secondly , that ORG had also called for the report to be made public . The Government submitted that the first statement had been based on PERSON article of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , misrepresenting , however , the fact that the crew had only requested that the report be handed over to it . In another news bulletin of DATE , the ORG reported the ORG as having stated that veterinary experts would consider the controversial PERSON report ; that the ORG would issue further information on the outcome and possibly also on the circumstances of his recruitment as inspector but would not comment any further until it had collected more information . It further stated that , on DATE , both ORG and the crew had requested that the report be made accessible to the public . PERSON received the bulletin on DATE .

According to a news bulletin of DATE , ORG had stated that , when appointing him inspector , it had relied on information supplied by PERSON himself to the effect that he was carrying out ORG research projects . The ORG understood the Ministry to mean that his research and links to ORG were thought to be far more extensive than they had been in reality .

In a further news bulletin issued later on DATE , the ORG stated that PERSON had refused to meet with officials of the Ministry to discuss his report .

On DATE the newspaper ORG , referring to the news bulletins issued by ORG , stated that the seal hunters had requested that PERSON report be made public .

Mr PERSON ’s report continued to receive a wide coverage in other media as well . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE extensive excerpts from the report were published in GPE , a bi - weekly for fishermen . CARDINAL of the articles published on DATE bore the following headline :

“ PERSON in the report on seal hunting :

‘ It happens that animals are being flayed while their eyes are rolling and they are yelping’ ”

The introduction to the article read as follows :

“ ‘ During the last part of the hunting period the animals , once shot , are rarely examined so as to verify that the shots have been lethal ... The animals are thereafter lifted on board , often alive . Animals are therefore often flayed while ... their eyes are rolling and they are yelping.’

These are some of the occurrences which Mr PERSON claims to have observed while acting as a seal hunting inspector on board the NORP ... Such ... statements have made the NORP ... and professionals consider that PERSON report is ‘ not ORG and wish not to make it accessible to the public .

In [ his ] report PERSON makes very strong accusations against named hunters . In the excerpts published by PERSON we have consistently deleted all names . ”

The excerpt published by PERSON on CARDINAL DATE included the observations which PERSON had made in the report as reproduced by PERSON on DATE .

NORP Over DATE the debate about Mr PERSON ’s report died out until DATE , when he gave a press conference in GPE . A film entitled “ Seal Mourning ” ( containing footage shot by PERSON from the NORP ) showed certain breaches of the seal hunting regulations . PERSON from the film were broadcast by ORG DATE and the entire film was broadcast by a NORP television channel on DATE . During DATE scenes from the film were broadcast by CARDINAL broadcasting companies worldwide , including ORG and ORG .

In view of the various reactions to the film , both within GPE and internationally , ORG was recalled while on an official journey abroad . Seal hunting was debated in ORG on DATE and , on DATE , the government announced that it would set up ORG . The government also banned with immediate effect the killing of baby seals or pups .

On DATE ORG submitted an extensive report based on various evidence , including , inter alia , Mr PERSON ’s inspection report , his footage as well as a book written by him . For the purposes of the inquiry PERSON had been examined as a witness by ORG ( byrett ) . ORG had also heard several of the crew members of the Harmoni as well as other seal hunting inspectors .

In its report ORG found that the truth of most of PERSON allegations relating to specifically named individuals had not been proved . It found no basis for the allegation that seals had been skinned alive or that pups had been kicked or flayed alive ( p. CARDINAL) .

On the other hand , the ORG identified several breaches of the hunting regulations ( p. CARDINAL ) , which it deemed had been established by the footage presented by PERSON . For instance , one seal had been killed with the sharp end of a gaff without previously having been hit with its dull end . Another seal had been killed with an axe , whereas a third seal had been lifted on board the NORP whilst still alive . The Commission published those parts of Mr PERSON ’s report which pertained to the Harmoni ’s hunting expedition , after deleting the crew PERSON names . The Commission further recommended various amendments to the hunting regulations , to their implementation and to the training of hunters . These recommendations were in line with some of the suggestions PERSON made in his report , notably as to the training of hunters on killing methods , the dissemination to hunters of information on the applicable rules and obligatory presence of an inspector on board every hunting vessel .

In DATE the crew of the ORG had instituted defamation proceedings against Mr PERSON before ORG , referring to statements which he had made about them in respect of the DATE and DATE hunting seasons . By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared CARDINAL statements in his inspection report null and void under LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . CARDINAL other statements made by PERSON PERSON in another context were also declared null and void .

Moreover , ORG prohibited PERSON from showing in public any of the footage pertaining to the Harmoni and ordered him to pay to the crew compensation ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) under LAW DATE and costs . His request for leave to appeal against the judgment was rejected by ORG of ORG ( Høyesteretts Kjæremålsutvalg ) on DATE .

Being resident in GPE , PERSON opposed the execution in GPE of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , on the ground that it violated his right to freedom of expression under LAW .

In a decision of DATE , ORG ( Högsta Domstolen ) upheld a decision by ORG of DATE , rejecting PERSON claim . While noting that it was not its role to carry out a full review of the NORP judgment , ORG found that the latter did not entail any breach of PERSON rights under LAW . This provision did not , therefore , constitute an obstacle to execution . Nor did the fact that the film in question had been shown in GPE mean that it would run counter to NORP public - order interests to execute the NORP judgment .

On DATE the crew members of the ORG also instituted defamation proceedings against the applicants , seeking compensation and requesting that certain statements appearing in Mr PERSON ’s report and reproduced by PERSON on DATE and DATE be declared null and void .

On DATE , after having heard the parties to the case and witnesses over a period of DATE , ORG ( herredsrett ) gave its judgment in which it unanimously found the following statements defamatory under LAW and declared them null and void ( død og maktesløs ; mortifisert ) under LAW ( the numbering in square brackets below follows that appearing in the ORG ’s reasoning ) :

( Statements appearing in the part of the PERSON report published by PERSON on DATE )

[ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] “ At CARDINAL [ a crew member ] beat to death a female harp seal which was protecting her pup . ”

[ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] “ At CARDINAL [ a crew member ] beat to death a female harp seal . ”

[ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] “ At CARDINAL [ a crew member ] killed a female which was protecting her pup . ”

( Statements appearing in one of the articles published by PERSON on DATE )

[ CARDINAL ] “ Seals skinned alive ”

[ DATE ] “ Not least the report includes an account of his ( PERSON ) being beaten up by furious hunters , who also threatened to hit him on the head with a gaff if he did not keep quiet . ”

On the other hand , ORG rejected the seal hunters’ claim with respect to the following statements published on DATE :

[ CARDINAL ] “ DATE [ I ] pointed out to the skipper that [ a crew member ] did not kill cubs in accordance with the regulations ( i.e. he ... hit it with the spike [ of the gaff ] and then dragged the cub after him ) . ”

[ CARDINAL ] “ At CARDINAL [ a crew member ] beat to death a female harp seal which was protecting her pup . ”

ORG provided the following reasons :

“ As regards the statements concerned , it is a basic condition for declaring these null and void that they be defamatory . This question must be considered in the light of how the statements were perceived by the ordinary newspaper reader . Moreover , the statements must not be interpreted separately . The decisive factor must be how they were understood when the articles were read as a whole . The position is somewhat different , however , as far as justification is concerned . The ORG will revert to this matter below . Even though the statements are to be considered on the basis of an overall assessment , it would nevertheless be correct to accord weight to the fact that the matter was splashed across the front page in bold type . The first impression given was thus that something serious had occurred . This impression was not appreciably lessened or altered by the more detailed article inside the newspaper . This factor must be deemed particularly significant .

The ORG finds it clear that both statements in question of DATE are defamatory . CARDINAL of them read : ‛Seals skinned ORG ( ‘ sel levende flådd’ ) . This assertion must be understood to mean that the seal hunters committed acts of cruelty to the animals . It goes without saying that skinning an animal alive causes severe pain to it . When read as a whole , the statement must be understood to apply not only to one seal , but to several . It gives the impression that the seal hunters not infrequently skinned seals while they were still alive .

The other statement reads : ‘ Not least the report includes an account of his being beaten up by furious hunters , who also threatened to hit him on the head with a gaff if he did not keep PERSON . This statement must imply that the seal hunters had assaulted PERSON , which , objectively speaking , amounts to a criminal act , cf . LAW . The threat to hit him on the head with their gaffs if he did not keep quiet comes within the objective description of the offence set out in LAW . The allegation must therefore be understood to mean that the seal hunters had committed CARDINAL offences . Such a statement must clearly be considered defamatory .

As regards the statements concerning female harp seals , it is not disputed that such seal hunting was not permitted in DATE . Reference is made to items CARDINAL , TIME , CARDINAL of the allegations ...

Item CARDINAL also concerns a violation of the seal hunting regulations . In this regard , reference is made to LAW , according to which the seal shall first be struck with the blunt end of the gaff and then with the spike . The reason for this is that the animals are to be knocked unconscious before they are killed with the spike . The statement must imply that the blows with the blunt end had been omitted .

A breach of the regulations constitutes a criminal offence . It is regarded as a misdemeanour and may be punished by a fine . Generally speaking , an allegation of such a violation must also be considered to be defamatory ...

In the ORG ’s view , the statements relating to the killing of female harp seals must be regarded as defamatory .

Hunting for this species of seal was not permitted at all in DATE . The statements do not differ from allegations of illegal hunting in general and imply that the crew behaved in a morally reprehensible manner . The ORG will deal below with the question as to whether the statements can be regarded as substantiated and thus lawful .

The ORG is , however , in doubt as regards the statement quoted in item CARDINAL . It is not alleged that the seal pups were made to suffer , but simply that the killing methods used were not in accordance with the regulations . Given that it is not alleged that the seal pups were made to suffer , the statement can hardly be interpreted as implying strong moral condemnation of the seal hunter . ... The decisive question is whether the killing is carried out in a responsible manner . The statement can not be understood to mean that it was not . At any rate , given the fact that it was not suggested that the pups had been made to suffer , the matter must be regarded as trivial . The court has , with some doubt , reached the conclusion that the statement can not be considered defamatory .

Accordingly , with the exception of item CARDINAL , the statements must fall within CARDINAL of the situations described in LAW , i.e. ‘ to harm another person ’s good name or GPE , and ‘ to expose him to ... loss of the confidence necessary for his position or DATE . There can be no doubt that the statements were capable of having such effects . In this regard , the defendants have pointed out that considerable sympathy was shown to the crew during the ensuing public debate . The legal requirement is , however , that the statements were ‘ capable’ of doing harm . The ensuing debate revealed that opinions about the hunting process differed .

There has been considerable opposition to seal hunting for DATE , particularly at the international level . Although many people in GPE , especially in northern GPE , were opposed to PERSON , this did not automatically mean that there was a corresponding support for the seal hunters . The latter received media coverage because of their hunting methods , for which they are being remembered . Apart from this , the crew members were not much involved in the debate about other aspects of seal hunting , in particular , the ecological aspect of the debate was especially heated during the so - called seal invasions at DATE .

It is undisputed that the group of persons to whom the statements apply is not so wide as to leave unaffected the individuals concerned . The defendants have thus not argued that deletion [ of names ] ensured sufficient anonymity . Even though the names of individual seal hunters had been deleted , it was clear that the NORP was the vessel at issue . Therefore , everyone who was on board must be seen as having been aggrieved by the statements ... In fact the deletion had an effect which was contrary to its purpose . In the report CARDINAL of the crew are named as having committed offences . If the newspaper had not deleted the names , the group of persons targeted would have been reduced correspondingly ...

Although the statements objectively fall within the scope of LAW , it is also a requirement that they be ‘ unlawful’ [ rettsstridig ] . In this regard the defendants have submitted several arguments . Firstly , it is argued that the seal hunting matter in GPE was probably the biggest news story in DATE . It is argued that in such a situation the press must enjoy a great deal of latitude in order to enable it to highlight all aspects of the matter ( the ‘ public interest’ point of view ) ...

The ORG accepts that an extensive freedom of expression must apply to discussion on matters of general public interest . This consideration is precisely the linchpin of LAW and it is essential in a democratic society ... In spite of this , however , there are some limitations . Firstly , the ORG has in mind that certain requirements relating to privacy and truth must be taken into account . ... All the statements complained of must be understood to mean that the crew of the NORP committed unlawful acts . This is the main theme of the newspaper articles of CARDINAL and DATE .

It hardly appears to the ORG that the newspaper ’s presentation of the matter , particularly on DATE , was primarily intended to promote a serious debate on matters of public interest . It focused on the criminal aspects . The public debate for and against seal hunting definitely remained in the background . The form in which the material was presented must also be taken into consideration . The affair was splashed across the front page in bold type . Words such as ‘ lie’ are used in CARDINAL of the headings of the articles that follow . The ORG is definitely of the impression that the primary motive of the newspaper was to be the first to print the story . In particular the front - page article is of a sensational nature . Sufficient attention was not paid to the protection of other persons in this disclosure . The newspaper was also aware that the material was sensitive and had thus particular reason to proceed with caution . The journalist , PERSON PERSON , had been told , presumably on DATE , during a telephone conversation with ORG , that the report was exempt from public disclosure . In the light of this , the ORG can not see that the newsworthiness of the matter could justify the manner in which it was presented .

Secondly , it has been argued that the publication concerns an official document . According to the newspaper , such documents are reliable sources which one should be able to trust . In this regard , reference is being made to LAW . Generally speaking , the ORG agrees that official documents must normally be considered as good journalistic sources . How good they are , however , depends on the circumstances . In the present case , the newspaper was aware that the report had been exempt from public disclosure and the reasons therefor . The ORG wished to investigate the matter more closely before deciding whether to make the report public . Mr PERSON was also aware that the allegation that seals had been skinned alive would sound like a tall story . Mr PERSON himself kept sheep and had some insight into the killing of animals . In spite of this , the matter was given wide coverage . In the circumstances , the newspaper clearly should have investigated the matter more closely before printing the material . On the evidence adduced , the ORG finds that no investigation had been made . In his testimony , Mr PERSON , Secretary General of ORG , stated that , as a matter of press ethics , it was objectionable to print the allegation that seals had been skinned alive if PERSON was aware that it was untrue .

Statements based on an inspection report clearly fall outside the ambit of LAW . This provision is exhaustive ...

... The defendants have invoked LAW . In this connection what is called the ‘ public interest’ point of view has been stressed . This may be described as the doctrine of unrestricted freedom of expression with regard to matters of public interest . Although the ORG has in fact already dealt with this point , it sees reason to comment that the present case differs from the DATE ORG case and the PERSON v. GPE case .

The latter case concerned in particular the expression of political opinions . Mr PERSON , the editor , had used such expressions as ‘ the basest ORG , ‘ immoral’ and ‘ ORG to describe certain aspects of Chancellor PERSON ’s character . These are value judgments and are not , like the statements in the present case , linked to facts ...

A defamatory statement which is true is not unlawful , cf . LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . In the present case , the defendants have admitted that , except in the case of one female harp seal , no proof has been adduced . However , it has been argued that PERSON produced photos showing that several female harp seals had been killed . Notwithstanding the said admission by the defence , the ORG will assess the matter for itself . As regards item CARDINAL of the allegations , it has clearly not been proved that the statement was true or probably true . On the contrary , Mr PERSON was of the opinion that the statement had to be inaccurate . Mr PERSON and PERSON have submitted CARDINAL different versions . As to item CARDINAL there is no reason for the ORG to give greater credence to PERSON than to PERSON can not see that there are other circumstances that would support this statement . Thus there is no evidence to substantiate the statement .

As regards the killing of female harp seals ORG states at p. CARDINAL of its report : ‘ Our conclusion is that we must regard the allegations about the killing of QUANTITY female harp seals as highly improbable.’ It is , however , a fact that the NORP was carrying the skin of a female harp seal when it returned from LOC . [ Crew member PERSON ’s ] explanation was that [ crew member PERSON ] had killed a harp seal pup . Its mother had been nowhere in sight . She had turned up afterwards and had attacked [ H. ] . He had become frightened and had tried to hit her on the nose with his gaff . He had , however , hit her too hard , so that she had started bleeding . The mother had been killed because of the blood . This is the matter referred to in item CARDINAL . The ORG can not see that the statement gives an objectively incorrect impression of what occurred . This does not imply that the ORG finds that [ H. ] acted unlawfully . If he acted in self - defence , his action was not unjustified . This question the ORG does not need to determine . Against this background the expression will not be declared null and void .

The other statements concerning female harp seals have not ... been substantiated by documentary evidence . The seal hunters deny that CARDINAL female harp seal had been killed . In his testimony Mr PERSON referred to photos which , in his view , substantiated the statements . He refused to produce the photos so that they could be assessed by experts . DATE after [ his ] testimony ... an article appeared in ... PERSON , accompanied by a photo of female harp seals . According to the seal hunters , the photo dated back to DATE , when such seal hunting had been permitted . The ORG can not base its decision on newspaper articles but only on what has taken place during the main hearing . Therefore it must be obvious that the other statements can not be regarded as having been proved . Moreover , the ORG is somewhat surprised by PERSON refusal to produce the photos in court .

To sum up , the ORG observes that the conditions have been fulfilled for declaring null and void the statements cited in items CARDINAL , TIME , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the allegations . The expression cited in item CARDINAL is not deemed to be defamatory , whereas that cited in item CARDINAL is deemed to have been proved true .

It is not a requirement for declaring the statements null and void that the conditions for imposing a penalty have been fulfilled ... ORG will consider the question of liability when discussing the claim for damages .

The conditions for awarding damages are set out in sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW DATE ( GPE , CARDINAL DATE , no . CARDINAL ) … Only [ compensation for non - pecuniary damage ] has been claimed . It is being specifically argued that the newspaper must be deemed to have acted negligently and that it would be reasonable if the ORG were to make an award for non - pecuniary damage . In its assessment , the ORG will attach weight to the existence of negligence as well as other circumstances . Thus , a number of factors are relevant to its determination of the compensation issue . In the ORG ’s view , the newspaper has behaved negligently . It had made no further investigation prior to the publication of the material in question , despite this having been called for in the circumstances . The ORG has expressed its views on this point above . As regards the compensation claim , it must nevertheless consider the significance of the measures taken to preserve anonymity . The deletion of names did not mean that the crew members could not be identified . As the name of the vessel , NORP , was clearly stated , it was easy to find out the identity of the crew . The individual seal hunters were known to their neighbours , acquaintances , families , etc . The newspaper must have been aware of this . In any event , it ought to have known that there was a real risk that the persons in question would be identified .

The ORG finds it reasonable that the plaintiffs be awarded compensation . The newspaper coverage caused such inconvenience to the crew members and damage to their reputation as to justify upholding their claim . A total of CARDINAL seals were caught during the expedition to LOC . Even though it is probable that some violations of the seal hunting regulations occurred , the rendering of PERSON report gave a grossly distorted picture . The main impression is that the regulations were essentially complied with .

As far as [ the second applicant ] is concerned , sections CARDINAL must be read in conjunction with LAW . The editor was at his cottage at the time and was not fully aware of the contents of the matters printed . Nonetheless , he did consent to the material being printed . Mr PERSON has not invoked the exception clause on freedom from liability . Accordingly , [ he ] must also be considered liable for the newspaper articles . This in turn will have a bearing on the compensation issue .

There are factors militating in favour of awarding a substantial amount in compensation : in the first place , certain statements in the preparatory work and , secondly , the degree of abusiveness of the material and the extent to which it was disseminated . In this connection it should be noted that PERSON has been ordered to pay each of the plaintiffs ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] . … In determining the amount , importance has been attached to the fact that the statements were widely disseminated . Given that this factor has already been taken into account , it must carry a little lesser weight in the case against the newspaper . Otherwise the crew would to some extent receive double compensation .

Moreover , the newspaper was aware that the material was sensitive and that CARDINAL of the allegations was false . A further factor is the form in which the material was presented , as is the fact that no investigations had been made . In addition , the newspaper did not apologise for having printed the material .

A factor pointing in the opposite direction is , in particular , the fact that the crew members were permitted to express their views . Generally speaking , the seal hunting matter was one of the biggest news stories in DATE . This fact must be accorded some weight , although it does not free the newspaper from liability . In the light of the circumstances , the ORG can not see that importance should be attached to the fact that inspector reports are normally public documents . PERSON report had been exempt from public disclosure . Nor is it significant that the report was eventually also published by PERSON . This fact was only mentioned but was not elaborated upon during the main hearing . The ORG has no knowledge of the context , circumstances , etc . The financial standing of [ the first applicant ] is of significance . The ORG finds that the newspaper has been in somewhat strained circumstances for DATE . Still its gross DATE turnover is said to be approximately ORG CARDINAL .

Accordingly , each of the plaintiffs is to be paid ORG CARDINAL in compensation , of which ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL are to be paid by the newspaper , and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL by the editor . The newspaper is also jointly and severally liable with the editor for the amount he has to pay . ”

On DATE the applicants sought leave to appeal to ORG ( PERSON ) , alleging that ORG had made an error of law . On DATE , ORG of ORG decided not to allow the appeal , finding it obvious that the appeal would not succeed .

The crew of the ORG also brought defamation proceedings against other media companies , including the newspaper GPE , its editor and journalist , in respect of an article published on DATE on the seal hunting issue . The action did not relate to an article of DATE in which GPE reproduced Mr PERSON ’s statements , published by PERSON , to the effect that seals had been flayed alive .

In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the action . ORG found that , although the impugned article had contained several allegations that seal hunting regulations had been violated , the manner of journalistic reporting at issue could not be considered “ unlawful ” ( “ rettsstridig ” ) .

ORG stated , inter alia :

“ PERSON received the report from PERSON in DATE and published a major article on DATE , in which it was claimed that seals had been ‘ skinned ORG . The article aroused great media interest . ORG ... issued bulletins on the seal hunting affair on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE . PERSON also followed up the affair , but most of its coverage was based on [ those ] bulletins . GPE ’s first article , published on DATE , stated in an introductory paragraph : ‘ Strong criticism of seal hunters’ . In an TIME issue on DATE it was stated : ‘ PERSON hunters must ORG . In TIME issue on DATE the seal hunters had their say at p. CARDINAL , under the heading : ‘ PERSON hunters : never flayed seals ORG . Mr PERSON had stated to the newspaper that ‘ we are shocked about Mr PERSON ’s allegations that we have skinned seals alive . ... He is of the view that PERSON has misunderstood the situation during the seal hunt and deplores that the crew has been blamed in his report to ORG Furthermore , it is stated that ‘ the allegation is so grotesque and removed from reality that a number of seal hunters have reacted very strongly against these . ‘ Flaying seals alive has never occurred during the QUANTITY seal hunt seasons in which I have ORG , says arctic shipowner , PERSON . … On DATE published an interview with seal inspector , Mr Nilssen , under the headline ‘ Disagreement on killing methods applied to ORG . On DATE it published an article entitled : ‘ ORG hunting report without substantiated allegations’ …

To sum up , the ORG considers the seal hunting case , as it stood on TIME of DATE as follows :

PERSON report had aroused a great deal of interest . Its contents had been disputed by the seal hunters , a shipowner and ORG . All the different points of view had been reported in GPE . Despite the refutations of the report made by the seal hunters and ORG , its contents had not been effectively and objectively refuted …

GPE ’s report on DATE amounted to a continuation of the seal hunting debate which had already started . Attacks had been made against the report and these PERSON wished to counter , through the newspaper DATE together with photographs . The debate was going on and it was only natural that GPE allowed PERSON to present his version of the matter … The ORG considers that GPE ’s article enabled the discussion to progress .

GPE ’s presentation is an objective , balanced account in defence of Mr PERSON ’s report . The article presents the evidence put forward by PERSON in support of the accuracy of the report and is an important element in the current seal hunting debate . PERSON focuses on the lawfulness of the existing seal hunting methods and has no intention of exposing the seal hunters to public contempt by means of malicious coverage ... The coverage clearly can not be compared to the article printed in ... PERSON on DATE . The ORG would also point out that GPE fairly consistently refers to PERSON as its source . Although the heading , when seen together with the photos , suggests that there have been violations of the regulations and cruelty to animals , these violations are not particularly highlighted . The newspaper focuses on the seal hunting case . It should also be noted that on DATE the sealers were given an opportunity , in a conspicuous place , to refute the inspector ’s report . This indicates that there was an ongoing debate on a matter of public interest in which the parties involved were , in a proper manner , given an opportunity to express their views . PERSON ’s coverage of the seal hunting case is characterised precisely by reciprocity : PERSON maintained that , from a journalistic point of view , the coverage of DATE was exemplary . The ORG agrees with the newspaper ’s view , particularly as regards the situation that obtained prior to the article published on DATE .

The ORG does not see any reason to examine whether GPE has adduced proof . ORG report … concludes that the regulations have clearly been breached . At p. CARDINAL , the Commission states :

‘ We can not avoid mentioning that during the period under consideration the implementation of the hunting regulations has been characterised by several defects which on the whole are not insignificant.’

The ensuing circumstances thus demonstrate that GPE to a large degree could substantiate the allegations that the rules had been breached . Mr PERSON ’s report was not a serious work and suffered from a number of shortcomings , but parts of it proved later to be accurate .

Accordingly , the ORG concludes that GPE ’s coverage was not unwarranted . It does not contain any unlawful defamatory statements ... ”

The crew ORG appeal to ORG was not allowed . Their claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage was further rejected by ORG ( lagmannsrett ) in a judgment of DATE .

On DATE , in further defamation proceedings instituted by the crew of the NORP , ORG declared null and void a statement to the effect that seals had been skinned alive , which had been transmitted by ORG on DATE .

NORP Under NORP defamation law , there are CARDINAL kinds of response to unlawful defamation , namely the imposition of a penalty under the provisions of LAW , an order under its LAW declaring the defamatory allegation null and void ( mortifikasjon ) and an order under LAW DATE to pay compensation to the aggrieved party . Only the latter CARDINAL were at issue in the present case .

Under LAW , a defamatory statement which is unlawful and has not been proved true may be declared null and void by a court . In so far as relevant this provision reads :

“ CARDINAL . When evidence of the truth of an allegation is admissible and such evidence has not been produced , the aggrieved person may demand that the allegation be declared null and void unless otherwise provided by statute . ”

“ CARDINAL . GPE det har vært adgang til å føre bevis for sannheten av en beskyldning og beviset ikke er ført , kan den fornærmete forlange at beskyldningen blir erklært død og maktesløs ( mortifisert ) dersom ikke annet følger av lov . ”

Such a declaration is applicable only with regard to factual statements , the truth of value judgments not being susceptible of proof .

Although the provisions on orders declaring a statement null and void are contained in LAW , such an order is not considered a criminal sanction but a judicial finding that the defendant has failed to prove its truth and is thus viewed as a civil - law remedy .

In DATE there has been a debate in GPE as to whether one should abolish the remedy of null and void orders , which has existed in NORP law since DATE and which may also be found in the laws of GPE and GPE . Because of its being deemed a particularly lenient form of sanction , ORG has expressed a wish to maintain it .

The conditions for holding a defendant liable for defamation are set out in LAW of LAW , LAW which provides :

“ Article CARDINAL . Any person who , by word or deed , behaves in a manner that is likely to harm another person ’s good name and reputation or to expose him to hatred , contempt , or loss of the confidence necessary for his position or business , or who is accessory thereto , shall be liable to fines or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year . If the defamation is committed in print or in broadcasting or otherwise under especially aggravating circumstances , imprisonment for a term not exceeding DATE may be imposed . ”

“ § CARDINAL . Den som i ord eller handling optrer på en måte som er egnet til å skade en annens gode navn og rykte eller til å utsette ham for hat , ringeakt eller tap av den for hans stilling eller næring fornødne tillit , eller som medvirker dertil , straffes med bøter eller med fengsel inntil DATE . Er ærekrenkelsen forøvet i trykt skrift eller i kringkastingssending eller ellers under særdeles skjerpende omstendigheter , kan fengsel inntil QUANTITY . ”

A limitation to the applicability of LAW follows from the requirement that the expression must be “ unlawful ” ( “ rettsstridig ” ) . While this is expressly stated in LAW , LAW has been interpreted by ORG to include such a requirement .

In a civil case concerning pre - trial reporting by a newspaper , ORG found for the newspaper , relying on the reservation of lawfulness ( rettsstridsreservasjonen ) , even though the impugned expressions had been deemed defamatory . It held that , in determining the scope of this limitation , particular weight should be attached to whether the case was of public interest , having regard to the nature of the issues and to the kind of parties involved . Furthermore , regard should be had to the context in which , and the background against which , the statements had been made . Moreover , it was of great importance whether the news item had presented the case in a sober and balanced manner and had been aimed at highlighting the subject - matter and the object of the case ( PERSON , p. CARDINAL , at p. CARDINAL ) .

Further limitations to the application of LAW are contained in LAW , which , in so far as is relevant , reads :

“ Article CARDINAL

Punishment may not be imposed under ORG and CARDINAL if evidence proving the truth of the accusations is adduced .

“ § CARDINAL .

DATE Straff efter § § CARDINAL og CARDINAL kommer ikke til anvendelse dersom det føres bevis for beskyldningens sannhet .

As regards the requirement of proof under LAW , the same standard which applies to the author of a libellous statement applies in principle also to a person who disseminates it . It is not clear under NORP law whether the criminal - law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt or the civil - law standard of balance of probability applies . The applicants have referred to a judgment of ORG , in which it accepted the standard applied by the lower court in a criminal libel case concerning allegations made in a television programme and a newspaper that a private practising lawyer had recommended his spouse to commit tax offences in connection with a property sale . In view of the seriousness of the accusation , it was found appropriate in that case to apply the same standard of proof as would apply to a public prosecutor in criminal proceedings on tax evasion . Leading legal writers are of the opinion that the truth of a defamatory accusation of theft must , in order to discharge the defendant from liability , be proved according to the same standard as would apply to the prosecution in a theft case . According to Professor PERSON , it would be reasonable to increase the burden of proof according to the seriousness of the defamatory statement . Professor PERSON and Professor PERSON have expressed the view that , although there may be good reasons for imposing a strict burden of proof in libel cases , in certain circumstances it may be justified to apply a somewhat less strict standard than in criminal cases , for instance where the victim of the libel has behaved in a particularly reprehensible manner ( see , PERSON , ORG , DATE , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and PERSON and PERSON , ORG strafferett , ORG , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - award

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in the village of PERSON , ORG region , GPE .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from the ORG - owned farm ORG .

After numerous unsuccessful attempts to receive salary and other payments arrears due to him from the farm , in DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim against the farm seeking the above payments and compensation for the delay in their payment .

NORP In DATE the defendant was transformed into the Sad Joint - Stock Company ( hereafter “ the Company ” ) in which PERCENT of shares belonged to the ORG .

On DATE the ORG ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) in salary arrears , compensation and other payments from the Company . The judgment was not appealed against within the DATE statutory time - limit and became final on DATE .

On DATE the Company lodged an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL October CARDINAL .

On DATE the bailiff service initiated enforcement proceedings .

By a ruling of DATE ORG left the appeal of the Company unexamined for failure to comply with procedural requirements , namely having been lodged outside the statutory time - limit without a request for renewal , failure to pay a court fee and shortcomings in the form and content of the appeal . The Company was given DATE to bring its appeal into compliance with relevant procedural law .

By a ruling of DATE , following the ORG ’s failure to comply with the court ’s ruling of DATE , ORG returned its appeal unexamined .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were suspended due to the insolvency proceedings against ORG initiated by ORG of ORG on DATE .

On DATE the ORG ’s share in the ORG was reduced from PERCENT to PERCENT .

By a letter of DATE , GPE informed the applicant that the defendant Company had no funds in its account and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Forced Sale of LAW of DATE .

On DATE ORG of Kharkiv region approved a friendly settlement between the Company and its creditors and discontinued the insolvency proceedings .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were resumed .

On DATE , on a complaint by the applicant , ORG instituted criminal proceedings against bailiff PERSON for fraud in relation to the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant ’s favour .

On DATE the defendant Company again lodged an appeal against the judgment of DATE . It also requested that the time - limit for the appeal be renewed , on the ground that at the time of the impugned judgment of the first - instance court it had been in a difficult economic situation and had been using all its funds to pay off debts to avoid insolvency and , therefore , it had not been able to afford the court fees for an appeal .

On DATE ORG allowed the ORG ’s request for renewal of the time - limit and issued a ruling in which it repeated ORG grounds for the request and added that “ the court considers it necessary to renew the time - limit for appeal ” . The court also noted that its ruling of DATE was not subject to appeal .

On DATE , on the basis of the ruling of DATE , ORG returned the writ of execution to ORG .

On DATE ORG reviewed the judgment of DATE , found in part against the applicant and in the other part reviewed the calculation of the requested compensation and awarded the applicant UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

On DATE the debtor transferred to the bailiff service the amount awarded from it under the decision of DATE . According to the Government , on DATE the applicant was informed that this amount was available for him . According to the applicant he did not receive any such information at that time .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against bailiff PERSON were discontinued for lack of proof of a crime .

On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the decision of DATE and requested that the time - limit for lodging an appeal be renewed on the ground that he had not been present before ORG and he had learned about the above decision only on DATE . By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s request and renewed the time - limit for lodging a cassation appeal .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that the court of appeal had considered the case in the applicant ’s absence and remitted the case to the court of appeal for a fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG issued a new decision along the same lines as its previous decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation .

The Act ( ORG Про введення мораторiю на примусову реалiзацiю TIME ” ) aims at protecting ORG interests in the sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the ORG holds PERCENT of the share capital . A moratorium on the enforcement of judgment debts has been introduced until such time as the mechanism for the forced sale of the property of such undertakings has been improved . No time - limit has been set . LAW provides that the prohibition on the forced sale of property includes the execution of writs by ORG on property belonging to such companies . The LAW therefore stays the execution of all writs by ORG against the assets of undertakings in which the ORG holds PERCENT of the share capital .

Under LAW ( ORG “ PERSON виконавче провадження ” ) , the enforcement of judgments is entrusted to ORG . Under LAW of the LAW , a creditor may make a complaint against actions or omissions of ORG with the head of the competent department of that ORG or with a local court . Section CARDINAL of the Act entitles a creditor to institute court proceedings against a legal person , entrusted with the enforcement of a judgment , for the inadequate enforcement or non - enforcement of that judgment , and to receive compensation .

Section CARDINAL of the Act ( ORG “ Про державну виконавчу службу ” ) provides for the liability of bailiffs for any inadequate performance of their duties , and compensation for damage caused by a bailiff when enforcing a judgment . Under LAW of the LAW , acts and omissions of the bailiff can be challenged before a superior official or the courts .

Article CARDINAL of the Code provided for delayed payment of the court fees or their payment by instalments . These methods of court fee payment could be allowed by a judge with regard to the property status of a party . Such an extension or delay in payment could be granted for a maximum period of DATE .

LAW provided that the procedural time - limits could be extended or renewed if the court found valid reasons for such an extension or renewal . A refusal to renew a time - limit was subject to appeal .

Article CARDINAL of the Code provided for a DATE period for lodging appeals against decisions of the first - instance court and a DATE period for appeal against its rulings . It further provided that these periods could be renewed if the court found valid reasons for their renewal .

The new Code of Civil Procedure , as well as LAW and LAW provide similar provisions as to the renewal of the procedural time - limits . LAW , however , limits the possibility of renewal to DATE .


The applicant , born in DATE , presently resides in GPE , GPE . In his application form , he states that he has NORP nationality .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE and requested asylum . He stated that he was a citizen of GPE . Before leaving for GPE , he had been living in GPE . In DATE the village was attacked by the NORP army . Soldiers searched his family 's home on QUANTITY occasions and took their money and valuables . They also threatened to kill the family members unless they left their home . As a consequence , the applicant decided to leave GPE . The applicant held also a NORP passport but maintained that he could not be considered as a citizen of GPE , as the passport did not entitle him to any civic rights in that country . Allegedly , if sent to GPE , he would be expelled to GPE . Thus , he was very much afraid of being sent to GPE .

On DATE ORG ( ORG invandrarverk ) rejected the applicant 's request and ordered his deportation to GPE . ORG found that the applicant held both NORP and NORP citizenship . Due to the prevailing situation in GPE , he could not be deported to that country . Consequently , in assessing his application , the question was whether he could be afforded protection in GPE . ORG noted that , according to available information , persons in the applicant 's situation did not risk to be sent from GPE to GPE against their will . Further , there was no reason to assume that GPE would not afford the applicant the same protection as other NORP citizens . Finally , the general situation in GPE did not constitute a ground for granting him asylum .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Utlänningsnämnden ) . He claimed that he had deserted from the NORP army and that , if deported to GPE , he could be forced to serve in that army in GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It shared the opinion of ORG and added that there was no apparent risk that NORP citizens would be forced to take part in armed conflict .

The applicant later requested a temporary residence permit in GPE . By a decision of DATE ORG granted the applicant such a permit until DATE and quashed the deportation order . In so doing , ORG referred to a Government decision of CARDINAL DATE according to which the worsened situation in GPE constituted an impediment to the deportation of asylum seekers to that country .

On DATE the applicant submitted a new application for a residence permit . He referred to his previous statements . Further , at an oral hearing on DATE he claimed that he would not be allowed to stay in GPE and that he could not return to his Muslimdominated home district in GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's new application and ordered his deportation to GPE . Having regard to guiding decisions taken by ORG , the ORG found that the applicant could not be sent back to ORG . With regard to the possible deportation to GPE , the ORG noted that no circumstances had been invoked by the applicant which could lead to the conclusion that he was unable to go to GPE . Consequently , the ORG reiterated the conclusions drawn in the previous decisions taken concerning the applicant .

The applicant appealed to ORG . In addition to what he had previously stated , he referred to the time he had spent in GPE . Having adjusted to NORP society , he claimed that he should be given a residence permit for humanitarian reasons . On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision .

Later , the applicant submitted another application to ORG . He invoked a medical certificate of DATE according to which he suffered from a post - traumatic stress syndrome and had regular contacts with a psychiatric clinic in GPE . Allegedly , he would not get the appropriate treatment for his mental problems in GPE . On DATE ORG rejected the new application .

In DATE the applicant made yet another application for a residence permit . He invoked a further medical certificate concerning his mental health . By decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to suspend the enforcement of the deportation order and on DATE it rejected the application .

In medical certificates issued by the psychiatric clinic at the hospital in GPE on DATE and DATE chief physician PERSON and therapist PERSON stated that the applicant had undergone treatment for some time at the clinic for a post - traumatic stress syndrome . Allegedly , the enforcement of the deportation order would seriously impair his mental state and could lead to a suicide attempt . The clinic submitted the first certificate to ORG and requested that the enforcement be suspended .

By a decision of DATE ORG suspended the enforcement of the deportation order for an unspecified period of time .