PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 34964/97) against the Kingdom of Norway lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Norwegian national, Mr Ivar Ringvold (“the applicant”), on 5 December 1996.

The applicant was represented by Mr S. Næss, a lawyer practising in Lillestrøm. The Norwegian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr F. Elgesem, who acted as Agent until he left the Attorney-General’s Office (Civil Matters) in June 2002. Thereafter, they were represented by Mr H. Harborg of that Office.

The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of the national court’s decision, despite his acquittal on criminal charges, to order him to pay compensation to the victim.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

On 11 September 2001 the Chamber decided that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the proceedings in the present case should be conducted simultaneously with those in O. v. Norway, Hammern v. Norway and Y. v. Norway (applications nos. 29327/95, 30287/96 and 56568/00 – Rule 43 § 2).

On 11 September 2001 the Chamber also declared the application admissible.

On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1), but this case remained with the Chamber constituted within the former Third Section.

A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 17 September 2002 (Rule 59 § 2). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr H. Harborg, Attorney-General’s Office (Civil Matters), Agent, Mr F. Elgesem, Advokat, Counsel/Adviser, Mr K. Kallerud, Senior Public Prosecutor, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ms E. Holmedal, Attorney-General’s Office (Civil Matters), Ms T. Steen, Attorney-General’s Office, Advisers; (b) for the applicant Mr S. Næss, Advokat, Counsel. The Court heard addresses by Mr S.J. Klomsæt (counsel for Mr Y., who pleaded the common issues relevant to both his case and that of Mr Ringvold), Mr Næss, Mr Elgesem and Mr Harborg.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Oslo.

On 24 June 1993 the applicant was charged under Articles 192 and 195 of the Criminal Code (straffeloven) with the sexual abuse of a minor, G., born in December 1979, during the period from 1986 to 1990. Under these provisions he was charged with having, on one or several occasions, threatened to hit G. if she cried out, and/or having held her tight, whereupon he had introduced his penis into or pointed it towards her sex and/or made her masturbate him. At the time, G.’s father was cohabiting with the applicant’s mother. The alleged offences were said to have occurred in the applicant’s home when the child visited her father.

Criminal proceedings were instituted before the Eidsivating High Court (lagmannsrett) which heard the case between 16 and 18 February 1994, including G.’s compensation claim of (up to) 110,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK) for non-pecuniary damage, made under section 3-5 of the Damage Compensation Act 1969 (skadeerstatningsloven), and joined to the trial in accordance with Article 3 of the 1981 Code of Criminal Procedure (straffeprosessloven). By a judgment of 18 February 1994, the High Court, noting that the jury had answered the questions concerning criminal guilt in the negative, acquitted the applicant of the charges. Moreover, it decided to reject G.’s compensation claim.

G. subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court (Høyesterett) under the rules of the 1915 Code of Civil Procedure (tvistemålsloven) against the refusal to award compensation. The Supreme Court then ordered the taking of oral evidence by the Oslo City Court (byrett). Evidence was taken between 26 and 30 June 1995, 18 and 20 October 1995, 20 November 1995 and 3 January 1996, during which time more than twenty witnesses were heard.

In the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court, G.’s lawyer requested that documents produced in the context of the criminal case be submitted as evidence to the Supreme Court. These included records of the judicial examination of G., medical certificates, letters and witness statements given to the police in connection with the criminal proceedings. The applicant’s lawyer, relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, objected to this request.

By a decision of 29 May 1996, the Supreme Court authorised the documents from the criminal case to be joined to the case file in the compensation proceedings. Its decision included the following reasons: “In their pleadings, the lawyers for the parties have dealt extensively with the issue under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. The only question for the Supreme Court to determine is whether the submission of the criminal-case documents in the civil case would as such violate this Convention provision. The question as to the significance of this provision for the decision on the compensation claim falls to be considered in connection with the decision on the merits of the appeal. The use of documents from the criminal case as evidence in this case does not in my view fall foul of the requirement in Article 6 § 2 ... The submission of the documents does not as such imply that the acquittal in the criminal case is open to doubt. The statement in the Sekanina case, which the lawyer for the defendant has referred to, must be read in its context. The ruling cannot be perceived as a general procedural bar against the production of the case documents from criminal proceedings in a later case. Furthermore, I should like to add that, although this is not decisive for my view on the issue under Article 6 § 2, both parties were given the usual opportunity to supply evidence in connection with the taking of evidence by the Supreme Court. In my view, the request for submission of the criminal-case documents in question must therefore be granted.”

The Supreme Court examined the case under the rules of civil procedure. After hearing the parties and a large number of witnesses, the Supreme Court, in a judgment of 5 June 1996, ordered the applicant to pay NOK 75,000 to G. in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, under section 3-5(1)(b) of the Damage Compensation Act.

The first voting judge, Mrs Justice Gjølstad, stated on behalf of a unanimous court, inter alia: “In so far as the appeal concerns the merits, two general questions arise, namely the relationship to the acquittal in the criminal case (see Article 6 § 2 of the Convention) and the requirement of proof in such cases. Under Chapter 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, civil compensation claims may ... be made in criminal proceedings by the prosecution or by the injured party. This arrangement is intended to make it easier for the injured party to have a civil compensation claim examined, but it does not preclude the possibility of making such a claim in separate civil proceedings instead. Contrary to what followed from the old Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not a condition for the examination of civil compensation claims that the accused person should have been convicted in respect of the charge. Thus, it is in principle possible to either reject or uphold a civil compensation claim, irrespective of the decision concerning criminal liability. This has its background in the fact that the injured party, who does not enjoy rights as a party in the criminal case, should not forfeit his or her compensation claim as a result of an acquittal in the criminal case. Although it will hardly be a frequent occurrence that the decision on the civil compensation claim goes in a different direction from that on criminal liability, this may happen for various reasons. Amongst others, the requirement of evidence for the criminal and the civil consequences of an action ... is different. By Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, a person who is charged with a criminal offence is to be deemed innocent until proved guilty. The presumption of innocence applies even after an acquittal (see in this connection the Sekanina case and the decision reported in Norsk Retstidende 1994, p. 721, dealing with the significance of the presumption of innocence in a case concerning the right of the accused to compensation after an acquittal). However, in my opinion it must be clear that the said provision cannot constitute an obstacle for a person injured by an act to claim compensation from the alleged perpetrator, even though the latter has been acquitted of a criminal offence, and that the court in such a case can rely on a finding that the defendant has in fact committed the act in relation to which he has been acquitted. Even assuming that the Convention provision applies to the treatment of such claims, it has not been infringed as long as no disagreement or doubt has been expressed with regard to the decision on criminal liability. I cannot see that the arrangement under Norwegian criminal procedural law, whereby it is possible to have civil compensation claims determined after an acquittal, gives rise to any particular problems in relation to Article 6 § 2 [of the Convention]. Moreover, in the case at hand, it is above all the High Court’s decision concerning compensation which has been brought before the Supreme Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

As regards the requirement of evidence, Mrs Justice Gjølstad noted that under the law on compensation the test was normally the balance of probabilities. However, bearing in mind the burden which an allegation of reprehensible conduct might have for the defendant and the serious consequences it might have for his or her reputation, the requirement as to the strength of the evidence had to be stricter than that which applied to the test of the balance of probabilities. Nevertheless, the requirement could not be as strict as that which applied for establishing criminal liability. In a case of the kind under consideration, the test had to be whether on the balance of probabilities it was clearly probable that the alleged abuse had been committed.

In dealing with the particular facts of the appeal concerning compensation, the Supreme Court had regard to the video recording of the judicial examination of the alleged victim in the criminal proceedings before the High Court. The Supreme Court did not share the High Court’s view that the evidentiary value of the video recording was diminished by certain misgivings concerning the lack of synchronisation of sound and picture when shown to the High Court. Those shortcomings had been remedied before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also had regard to evidence taken by it from this person, which deviated slightly from the judicial examination before the High Court. It further had regard to the statements of an expert witness and the statements of a therapist who had treated the alleged victim. Considering the evidence as a whole, Justice Gjølstad found that the evidence satisfied the standard of proof, establishing that sexual abuse had occurred and that, on the balance of probabilities, it was clear that the applicant was the abuser. Accordingly, there was a basis for awarding the victim compensation under section 3-5(1)(b) of the Damage Compensation Act. However, Justice Gjølstad emphasised that this decision was taken independently of the decision in the criminal case and that it did not undermine the acquittal. Finally, as regards the amount of compensation, she observed, inter alia, that she based her assessment on her finding that several infringements had occurred and that, even though their extent was not possible to ascertain with precision, there had been serious violations involving a certain use of force or threats, as a result of which G. had sustained damage.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e1
001-60933_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
34964/97
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60933_a8_e2
001-60933_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Kingdom of Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e3
001-60933_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Norwegian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e4
001-60933_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Ivar Ringvold
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e5
001-60933_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
5 December 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e6
001-60933_a8_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Næss
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e7
001-60933_a8_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Lillestrøm
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e8
001-60933_a8_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Norwegian Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e9
001-60933_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Elgesem
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e10
001-60933_a8_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Attorney-General’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e11
001-60933_a8_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
June 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e12
001-60933_a8_em12
PERSON
QUASI
Mr H. Harborg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e13
001-60933_a8_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
11 September 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e14
001-60933_a8_em14
MISC
NO_MASK
O. v. Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e15
001-60933_a8_em15
MISC
NO_MASK
Hammern v. Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e16
001-60933_a8_em16
MISC
NO_MASK
Y. v. Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e17
001-60933_a8_em17
CODE
NO_MASK
29327/95
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e18
001-60933_a8_em18
CODE
NO_MASK
30287/96
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e19
001-60933_a8_em19
CODE
NO_MASK
56568/00
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e13
001-60933_a8_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
11 September 2001
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60933_a8_e20
001-60933_a8_em21
ORG
NO_MASK
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e21
001-60933_a8_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
17 September 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60933_a8_e12
001-60933_a8_em23
PERSON
QUASI
Mr H. Harborg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e10
001-60933_a8_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
Attorney-General’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e9
001-60933_a8_em25
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Elgesem
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e22
001-60933_a8_em26
PERSON
QUASI
Mr K. Kallerud
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e23
001-60933_a8_em27
ORG
NO_MASK
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e24
001-60933_a8_em28
PERSON
QUASI
Ms E. Holmedal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e10
001-60933_a8_em29
ORG
NO_MASK
Attorney-General’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e25
001-60933_a8_em30
PERSON
QUASI
Ms T. Steen
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e10
001-60933_a8_em31
ORG
NO_MASK
Attorney-General’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e6
001-60933_a8_em32
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S. Næss
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e26
001-60933_a8_em33
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S.J. Klomsæt
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e27
001-60933_a8_em34
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Y.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e4
001-60933_a8_em35
PERSON
QUASI
001-60933_a8_em4
Mr Ringvold
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e6
001-60933_a8_em36
PERSON
QUASI
001-60933_a8_em6
Mr Næss
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e9
001-60933_a8_em37
PERSON
QUASI
001-60933_a8_em9
Mr Elgesem
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e12
001-60933_a8_em38
PERSON
QUASI
001-60933_a8_em12
Mr Harborg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e28
001-60933_a8_em39
DATETIME
QUASI
1965
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e29
001-60933_a8_em40
LOC
QUASI
Oslo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e30
001-60933_a8_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
24 June 1993
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-60933_a8_e31
001-60933_a8_em42
PERSON
QUASI
G.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e32
001-60933_a8_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
December 1979
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e33
001-60933_a8_em44
DATETIME
QUASI
1986 to 1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e31
001-60933_a8_em45
PERSON
QUASI
G.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e31
001-60933_a8_em46
PERSON
QUASI
G.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e34
001-60933_a8_em47
ORG
QUASI
001-60933_a8_em52
Eidsivating High Court (lagmannsrett)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e35
001-60933_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
16 and 18 February 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e31
001-60933_a8_em49
PERSON
QUASI
G.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e36
001-60933_a8_em50
QUANTITY
QUASI
110,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e37
001-60933_a8_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
18 February 1994
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e34
001-60933_a8_em52
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e31
001-60933_a8_em53
PERSON
QUASI
G.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e38
001-60933_a8_em54
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court (Høyesterett)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em55
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e40
001-60933_a8_em56
ORG
QUASI
Oslo City Court (byrett)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e41
001-60933_a8_em57
DATETIME
QUASI
26 and 30 June 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e42
001-60933_a8_em58
DATETIME
QUASI
18 and 20 October 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e43
001-60933_a8_em59
DATETIME
QUASI
20 November 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e44
001-60933_a8_em60
DATETIME
QUASI
3 January 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em61
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e31
001-60933_a8_em62
PERSON
QUASI
G.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em63
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e31
001-60933_a8_em64
PERSON
QUASI
G.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e45
001-60933_a8_em65
DATETIME
QUASI
29 May 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em66
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em67
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e46
001-60933_a8_em68
MISC
NO_MASK
Sekanina case
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em69
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em70
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em71
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e47
001-60933_a8_em72
DATETIME
QUASI
5 June 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e48
001-60933_a8_em73
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs Justice Gjølstad
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e46
001-60933_a8_em74
MISC
NO_MASK
Sekanina case
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e49
001-60933_a8_em75
MISC
NO_MASK
Norsk Retstidende 1994, p. 721
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e3
001-60933_a8_em76
DEM
NO_MASK
Norwegian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e34
001-60933_a8_em77
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em78
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e48
001-60933_a8_em79
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs Justice Gjølstad
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em80
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e34
001-60933_a8_em81
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em82
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e34
001-60933_a8_em83
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e34
001-60933_a8_em84
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em85
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e39
001-60933_a8_em86
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e34
001-60933_a8_em87
ORG
NO_MASK
High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-60933_a8_e31
001-60933_a8_em88
PERSON
QUASI
G.
Ivar Ringvold
NOR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Ivar Ringvold