PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 13258/09) against the Kingdom of Norway lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Norwegian nationals, Mr Lars Lillo-Stenberg and Mrs Andrine Sæther (“the applicants”), on 5 March 2009.

The applicants were represented by Mr Harald Stabell, a lawyer practising in Oslo. The Norwegian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Fanny Platou Amble, attorney at the Attorney General’s Office (Civil Affairs).

The applicants alleged that their right under Article 8 of the Convention to respect for private life had been breached by a Supreme Court judgment of 2 September 2008.

On 26 May 2010 the application was communicated to the Government, but it was decided to await the outcome of Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, ECHR 2012 and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicants were born in 1962 and 1964 respectively. They live in Oslo. The first applicant is a musician and the second applicant is an actress. They are both known to the public in Norway.

On 20 August 2005, the applicants married in a private ceremony which took place outdoors on an islet in the municipality of Tjøme in the Oslo fjord, approximately 100 km south of the capital.

Subsequently, the weekly magazine Se og Hør, hereafter “the magazine”, published a two-page article about the wedding, accompanied by six photographs. One photograph showed the bride, her father and her bridesmaids arriving at the islet in a small rowing boat; another showed the bride being brought to the groom by her father on the islet, surrounded by people; and yet another photograph showed the bride and the groom returning to the mainland on foot by crossing the lake on stepping stones. In the last photograph, the bride was barefoot with her wedding dress raised above her knees to avoid getting the dress wet. There was also a photograph of a couple and their baby who were wedding guests. Finally, there were two old photographs: one of the applicants framed in a heart and one of the second applicant and the applicants’ young son attending a musical festival one month earlier.

The article described the ceremony, the applicants and some of the guests. It stated, inter alia, that the ceremony was touching; that several guests could not hold back their tears when the bride arrived at the islet and a male voice choir starting singing the song “To live is to love”; and that a party took place after the ceremony in the garden of a named guest house. It also stated that the applicants’ manager had informed the magazine that the applicants did not wish to comment on their wedding.

The applicants brought compensation proceedings against the magazine before Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) and invoked, among other things, the right to respect for private life under section 390 of the Penal Code and Article 8 of the Convention. It was not in dispute that the magazine was not invited to the wedding and that the photographs were taken without the applicants’ knowledge approximately 250 meters from the islet.

By judgment of 22 November 2006 the Oslo District Court found for the applicants and ordered the magazine to pay them each 50,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK). In addition, the editor responsible was ordered to pay each applicant NOK 15,000 and the journalist and the photographer were ordered to pay each applicant NOK 5,000.

The magazine appealed to the Borgarting High Court (lagmannsrett), which by judgment of 13 February 2008 upheld the judgment.

The magazine appealed to the Supreme Court (Høyesterett), which by judgment of 2 September 2008 found against the applicants, by three votes to two.

Mr Justice U. gave the following reasons, which in the main were endorsed by the two other members of the majority: “I have concluded that the appeal should be allowed. (34) In recent years the Supreme Court has considered legal questions relating to violation of privacy in the judgments Rt-2007-687 (Big Brother) and Rt-2008-489 (Plata). My argument is based mainly on these judgments. As follows from the judgments, section 3-6 of the Damages Act concerning redress for violation of privacy must be read in conjunction with section 390 of the Penal Code. The provision in section 3-6 refers, at any rate primarily, to violation of section 390. In my view, there is no need to consider whether, as contended by [the applicants], there may be cases that are covered in principle by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights but not by “privacy“ under section 390 of the Penal Code. Nor will I examine whether this is a discussion of terminology or of facts. (35) I have already described the content of the article. There is no doubt that the case concerns information ‒ which I am using as a general term to refer to both text and pictures ‒ that taken as a whole is relevant to the issue of privacy. There is no reason for me to evaluate individual elements on the basis of whether or not they impinge on the concept of privacy. The article as a whole contains information about the couple and their child in addition to information about the wedding. The relationships within the family and between the family and their friends are clearly of a personal nature. (36) Thus the question under consideration is whether a violation of privacy took place, cf. section 390 of the Penal Code. There would have been no question of violation of privacy if consent to publication had been obtained, cf. paragraph 62 of the judgment in the Big Brother case. In this case it has been clearly established that the couple had not been informed beforehand that there were plans to publicise the wedding, nor were they asked for their consent. However, the journalist, Mr S, contacted [the first applicant’s] manager on Monday, immediately before the article went to press. The manager said that the couple did not wish to comment on the wedding. A little later the same day Se og Hør was contacted and informed that the couple did not consent to publication, but the reply was that the magazine was already in the press. It has thus been clearly established that the article was published without the couple’s consent. I would add that I see nothing in the article indicating that the couple had given the magazine permission to report on the wedding in return for payment. On the contrary, the article stated at the end that the two celebrities did not wish to comment. (37) The next question is whether the article was unlawful. This question must be decided on the basis of an overall evaluation of the article, cf. paragraph 64 of the Big Brother judgment with further references. In my assessment of legality I also refer to the Big Brother judgment, citing, as was done in the Plata judgment, paragraphs 57 and 58: ‘... When the penal provision applies to violation of privacy, this necessarily implies that the issue that arises is that of legality. This again implies that the publication must be assessed as a whole, in the actual context and situation, where protection of privacy must be weighed against freedom of expression, cf. Bratholm og Matningsdal, Part Three, 1998, page 222, of the Penal Code and comments, and further references. ... The European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated into internal Norwegian law in the Human Rights Act. Both Article 8 relating to respect for private and family life and Article 10 relating to the right to freedom of expression are central to the present case. The principles that must be weighed in this case are similar to those that must be weighed under section 3-6, first paragraph, of the Damages Act and section 390 of the Penal Code, and in the present situation these provisions should be interpreted in such a way that their content is in compliance with Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’ (38) Reference is also made in paragraph 72 of the Big Brother judgment to the summing up by the European Court of Human Rights in the von Hannover judgment: ‘... The conclusion must naturally be read in conjunction with the rest of the judgment. The issue throughout is the balancing of the right to privacy against the principle of freedom of expression. The central issue with respect to protection of privacy is therefore whether the published article contributes to a debate of public interest. In other words, the particular importance of protection under Article 10 of the Human Rights Convention lies in the relevance of the information in question to public debate. With respect to publication of details referring exclusively to an individual’s private life, and particularly to the private relationship between two persons who do not occupy positions in politics or in society, this is clearly outside the area that the provisions relating to freedom of expression are intended to regulate.’ (39) Both [applicants] are well-known figures, but neither of them has had a prominent role either in the public administration or in any other public body. Thus the provisions of Article 10 have no particular weight with respect to the magazine article in question, which clearly has a purely entertainment value. In the assessment of legality, protection under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention is the most relevant principle to be weighed. (40) I will now examine the circumstances in the present case in relation to the issue of legality. As mentioned above, an overall assessment of the magazine article shows that it concerns the subjects’ private life, and the question is whether in spite of this there are grounds for saying that it does not constitute a violation of privacy. A wedding is a very personal act. At the same time it also has a public side. A wedding is a public affirmation that two persons intend to live together, and has legal consequences in many different sectors of society. Thus information about a wedding does not in itself involve a violation of privacy if it is given in a neutral form and based on a reliable source, cf. paragraph 80 of the Big Brother judgment. (41) The judgment of the Court of Human Rights in the case of von Hannover and the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Big Brother case have premises that seem to go far in support of protection against the use of pictures and texts concerning an individual’s private life. It is therefore necessary to examine the facts on which the judgments were based. Paragraph 49 of the von Hannover case concerns a series of photographs of the aggrieved party. In its evaluation of the application of the law in the case at hand, the court stated in paragraphs 68 and 69: ‘... The Court finds another point to be of importance: even though, strictly speaking, the present application concerns only the publication of the photos and articles by various German magazines, the context in which these photos were taken ‒ without the applicant’s knowledge or consent and the harassment endured by many public figures in their daily lives cannot be fully disregarded (see paragraph 59 above). In the present case this point is illustrated in particularly striking fashion by the photos taken of the applicant at the Monte Carlo Beach Club tripping over an obstacle and falling down ... It appears that these photos were taken secretly at a distance of several hundred metres, probably from a neighbouring house, whereas journalists’ and photographers’ access to the club was strictly regulated ... ... The Court reiterates the fundamental importance of protecting private life from the point of view of the development of every human being’s personality. That protection ‒ as stated above ‒ extends beyond the private family circle and also includes a social dimension. The Court considers that anyone, even if they are known to the general public, must be able to enjoy a “legitimate expectation” of protection of and respect for their private life ...’ (42) Paragraph 59 states: ‘Furthermore, photos appearing in the tabloid press are often taken in a climate of continual harassment which induces in the person concerned a very strong sense of intrusion into their private life or even of persecution.’ (43) Thus the way in which the photos were published and the constant photographing ‒ often by photographers who followed her around ‒ constituted harassment of the aggrieved party and also an invasion of privacy. The situation was similar to some extent in the Big Brother case. Se og Hør ran several articles featuring photos taken from different sources together with speculation and gossip. The magazine also described the relationship between the parties during their life together, which was an invasion of their private life as a couple. (44) The right to protection of privacy is no weaker for well-known cultural personalities than it is for others, despite the fact that their photos are published in magazines and newspapers and on the internet in connection with their professional lives. It could be said that in the case of such individuals it is even more important to ensure that their private lives and personal relationships are protected. (45) A wedding is a very significant personal experience for the bridal couple, an experience that includes their families, friends and other persons close to them. The wedding ceremony and celebrations are therefore clearly part of private and family life and thus in principle should be protected. However, in my opinion this consideration is only one aspect of the case. (46) As mentioned above, a neutral description of two individuals’ wedding is not unlawful. (47) Neither the text nor the photos in the disputed magazine article contain anything unfavourable to the couple. The article contains no criticism, nor is there anything in the content that could weaken their reputations. (48) Furthermore, although the couple’s relationships with close friends are part of their private life, I cannot see that in this context the naming of a few of the participants constitutes a violation. Nor is it particularly unusual to write that the ceremony was “moving, and several of the guests couldn’t hold back their tears when a men’s choir sang ...”. (49) The article contains no photos of the actual wedding ceremony. It is therefore not possible for me to have any views on whether such photos, including close-ups, would have to be regarded in a different light from those featured in the article. Photos in such a situation would clearly have more personal significance than photos showing the bridal couple arriving at or leaving the place where the marriage took place. (50) I shall now examine more closely the way the wedding was conducted. The bride arrived at the islet in a rowing boat, with six bridesmaids on board. There she was greeted by her future husband and by a men’s choir singing a hymn. After the ceremony the bride and groom had to step from rock to rock in order to reach the shore, which the bride accomplished in bare feet. As pointed out in paragraph 50 of the von Hannover judgment, the concept of private life is comprehensive, and includes ‘a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of ‘private life’. However, a certain amount of weight must be given to the fact that the wedding was organised in a very unusual way, and took place in an area that is accessible to the public under the Outdoor Recreation Act and that is easily visible. As already mentioned, the photos do not show the most personal part of the wedding, the actual marriage ceremony. (51) As mentioned above, the photos were taken of a wedding in a place accessible to the public. It can be assumed that even in August there are large numbers of people on Tjøme, which is one of the most popular locations for holiday cottages and recreation in Norway. Furthermore, many of the arrangements were such as to attract attention from third parties, for example the arrival of the bride in an open boat and the presence of a men’s choir singing a hymn on the islet. The arrangements were also spectacular in themselves. In spite of the fact that all individuals, including celebrities, are entitled to protection against being photographed even in public places, I consider that this must be taken into account in the assessment of legality. (52) The photos were taken from a headland about 200-250 metres from the islet where the ceremony was being held, and a 300- to 400-millimetre zoom lens was used. For the bridal couple, however, the situation would not have been any better if the photography had taken place somewhere closer, or from a place where the photographer and journalist could have been seen by the wedding party. This could have disturbed the whole wedding. Nor was the photographing in the nature of a breach of confidence, as it would have been if for example any of the participants had published personal photos taken during or in connection with the wedding. The situation would also have been different if the photos had been taken of events taking place in a closed area where the subjects had reason to believe that they were unobserved, cf. paragraph 68, second sub-paragraph, of the von Hannover judgment. (53) The article contained a photo of [the second applicant] together with the couple’s under-age child. During the proceedings the focus has been on the photos related to the wedding, and it has not been contended that the use of the photo of the under-age child puts the case in a different light. The photo had previously been published in Aftenposten, and it has not been contended that consent was lacking on that occasion. For these reasons I shall not examine the particular questions raised by the use of a photo of an under-age child without the necessary consent of the parents. (54) Thus it must be concluded that the article did not involve unlawful violation of privacy. (55) [The applicants] have contended as an alternative that the photos were used in a way that conflicts with the provisions of section 45c of the Copyright Act relating to the right to control the use of one’s image. In my view these provisions should also be read with the reservation that there could be a conflict of principles and in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Convention. The conclusion would then be the same as that of my principal assessment. (56) The Court therefore allows the appeal. However, the case raises difficult and uncertain legal questions, clarification of which is in the public interest, cf. section 20-2, third paragraph, a, of the Code of Civil Procedure. No award of costs should therefore be made.”

Mr Justice T. gave the following reasons which in the main were endorsed by the other member of the minority: “(58) I am substantially in agreement with the first-voting judge’s general interpretation of section 3-6 of the Damages Act and section 390 of the Penal Code. However, when weighing the right to privacy against the principle of freedom of expression in this specific case, I have arrived at a different conclusion, since I consider that in the present case the appellants have violated the right to privacy under section 390 of the Penal Code. (59) I will first examine whether the subject of the article in Se og Hør can be considered to be ‘a personal matter’ in the meaning of section 390. (60) I agree with the first-voting judge that information that a marriage has been contracted between two named individuals can be published without being in conflict with the provisions of section 390 of the Penal Code. However, this is not the issue in the present case. The article in Se og Hør also describes in words and pictures details of the arrangements in connection with the wedding ceremony. (61) Weddings have always been a subject of general interest in the sense that those close to the bridal couple consider them important and wish to participate. It is also usual for the couple to wish to share the event with others. For these reasons there should in principle be no reason why the press should not report a wedding ceremony that takes place in full public view, and where no special arrangements have been made to indicate that the ceremony is private. (62) However, today it is not unusual for the couple to wish to share their wedding and its arrangements only with those closest to them, and often to give the event a personal touch. They are entitled to protect themselves from publicity in such cases as well, and this includes withholding permission for the press to publish the event. In my view the desire to hold a private wedding should be respected in the sense that the wedding ceremony should be regarded as a personal matter within the meaning of section 390. (63) A private wedding ceremony may take different forms. For example, a wedding held in a private home provides a clear signal to third parties that the marriage is a personal matter that may not be reported in the form published by Se og Hør without the bridal couple’s prior consent. (64) In my view all the relevant circumstances indicate that in the present case the wedding was a private event. The wedding party was held at a hotel on Tjøme, which in this context is clearly a private area. The islet where the events reported by Se og Hør, and the marriage itself, took place is a relatively short walk away and directly linked with the hotel’s property. In my opinion the fact that there is a general right of public access to the islet under the Outdoor Recreation Act does not prevent this part of the wedding from also being of a clearly private nature. It follows from the von Hannover judgment that protection of privacy also applies to places to which the public has access. Furthermore, consent to the use of the islet had been obtained from the landowner. Thus the arrangement as a whole indicated that the couple wished to restrict the wedding to themselves and their guests. From this perspective the event must be considered to be a personal matter within the meaning of section 390. (65) For these reasons I consider that Se og Hør published in words and pictures a number of details relating to a personal matter. Firstly, the magazine published details of the arrangements for the ceremony, which have been described more fully by the first-voting judge. I regard these as the personal touch that the bridal couple had wished to give their wedding and that in my view underlines the private nature of the wedding. Secondly, the article included a description of the guests and the couple’s families, together with the names of well-known figures. In this connection the names of guests with children were also given, and pictures were shown of the children and their parents. (66) Like the first-voting judge, I consider that it has been clearly demonstrated that the opposite parties’ consent had not been obtained. (67) The next question is whether the publication is legal and justified despite the fact that the subject of the article is a personal matter. It follows from paragraph 72 of Rt-2007-687 that the main question to be weighed is whether ‘the article contributes to a debate of public interest. In other words, the particular importance of the principle of protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights lies in the sphere of public debate’. I agree with the first-voting judge that this wording cannot be interpreted in such a way that it does not rule out that the publication of personal matters is justified in cases where it does not contribute to public debate. However, when matters of a personal nature such as those in question here are published, they must have at least a minimum of public interest if the invasion of privacy is to be considered legitimate. In the present case the publication was a celebrity article written for the sole purpose of entertainment. Although the desire to entertain is in itself legitimate, its nature does not justify overriding the affected parties’ desire to protect their privacy. In this connection I place special emphasis on the fact that getting married is a very significant occasion in a person’s life, and that therefore the activities celebrating it ‒ the marriage ceremony and the wedding party ‒ will for most people be one of the most important events of their lives, and will often be associated with strong emotions. (68) The fact that the opposite parties are well-known cultural figures in Norway has no bearing on the assessment. Well-known persons also have the right to respect for personal matters of the kind we are dealing with here. I find support for this view both in Rt-2007-687, cf. paragraph 74, and in the von Hannover judgment ..., cf. paragraph 67. (69) Although this has not influenced my view of the case, I would also like to comment on Se og Hør’s use of a zoom lens. The zoom lens enabled the journalist and the photographer to take close-up pictures of the bridal couple and their guests that make it look as if they were actually at the event themselves, when in fact they were hidden from those who were being observed. It seems likely that the reason for using this technique was that the journalist and photographer were aware that the bridal couple would have reacted to their presence on the islet and this might have resulted in the marriage ceremony being moved inside the hotel. Using a zoom lens because of the personal and private nature of the event resembles the use of a hidden camera, which is a factor that also weighs against the appellants. (70) For these reasons I am of the opinion that the article in Se og Hør cannot be justified on the basis of an assessment of legality, and that the opposite parties are entitled to redress for pain and suffering from the appellants. With regard to the amount of redress, the opposite parties have demanded that the amount decided by the Court of Appeal should be maintained. I have no objections to the amounts decided on. Since I know that I am in the minority, I will not formulate a final conclusion.”
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e1
001-140015_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
13258/09
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-140015_a8_e2
001-140015_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Kingdom of Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e3
001-140015_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Norwegian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e4
001-140015_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Lars Lillo-Stenberg
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e5
001-140015_a8_em5
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs Andrine Sæther
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e6
001-140015_a8_em6
DATETIME
QUASI
5 March 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e7
001-140015_a8_em7
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Harald Stabell
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e8
001-140015_a8_em8
LOC
NO_MASK
Oslo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e9
001-140015_a8_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
Norwegian Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e10
001-140015_a8_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mrs Fanny Platou Amble
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e11
001-140015_a8_em11
ORG
NO_MASK
Attorney General’s Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e12
001-140015_a8_em12
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e13
001-140015_a8_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
2 September 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e14
001-140015_a8_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
26 May 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e15
001-140015_a8_em15
MISC
NO_MASK
Von Hannover v. Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e16
001-140015_a8_em16
CODE
NO_MASK
40660/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e17
001-140015_a8_em17
CODE
NO_MASK
60641/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e18
001-140015_a8_em18
DATETIME
NO_MASK
2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e19
001-140015_a8_em19
MISC
NO_MASK
Axel Springer AG v. Germany
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e20
001-140015_a8_em20
CODE
NO_MASK
39954/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e21
001-140015_a8_em21
DATETIME
NO_MASK
7 February 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e22
001-140015_a8_em22
DATETIME
QUASI
1962
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e23
001-140015_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
1964
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e8
001-140015_a8_em24
LOC
NO_MASK
Oslo
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e24
001-140015_a8_em25
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e25
001-140015_a8_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
20 August 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e26
001-140015_a8_em27
LOC
QUASI
municipality of Tjøme
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e27
001-140015_a8_em28
LOC
QUASI
Oslo fjord
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e28
001-140015_a8_em29
QUANTITY
QUASI
100 km
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-140015_a8_e29
001-140015_a8_em30
ORG
QUASI
Se og Hør
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e30
001-140015_a8_em31
MISC
QUASI
To live is to love
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e31
001-140015_a8_em32
ORG
QUASI
Oslo District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e31
001-140015_a8_em33
ORG
QUASI
001-140015_a8_em32
Oslo tingrett
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e32
001-140015_a8_em34
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
250 meters
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e33
001-140015_a8_em35
DATETIME
QUASI
22 November 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e31
001-140015_a8_em36
ORG
QUASI
Oslo District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e34
001-140015_a8_em37
QUANTITY
QUASI
50,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e35
001-140015_a8_em38
QUANTITY
QUASI
NOK 15,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e36
001-140015_a8_em39
QUANTITY
QUASI
NOK 5,000
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e37
001-140015_a8_em40
ORG
QUASI
Borgarting High Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e37
001-140015_a8_em41
ORG
QUASI
001-140015_a8_em40
lagmannsrett
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e38
001-140015_a8_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
13 February 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e12
001-140015_a8_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-140015_a8_e12
001-140015_a8_em44
ORG
NO_MASK
001-140015_a8_em43
Høyesterett
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e13
001-140015_a8_em45
DATETIME
QUASI
2 September 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e39
001-140015_a8_em46
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Justice U.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e12
001-140015_a8_em47
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e40
001-140015_a8_em48
PERSON
QUASI
Mr S
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e29
001-140015_a8_em49
ORG
QUASI
Se og Hør
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e41
001-140015_a8_em50
PERSON
QUASI
Bratholm og Matningsdal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e3
001-140015_a8_em51
DEM
NO_MASK
Norwegian
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e42
001-140015_a8_em52
MISC
NO_MASK
von Hannover judgment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e43
001-140015_a8_em53
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Human Rights
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e44
001-140015_a8_em54
MISC
NO_MASK
case of von Hannover
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e12
001-140015_a8_em55
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e45
001-140015_a8_em56
MISC
NO_MASK
von Hannover case
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e46
001-140015_a8_em57
DEM
NO_MASK
German
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e47
001-140015_a8_em58
ORG
QUASI
Monte Carlo Beach Club
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e29
001-140015_a8_em59
ORG
QUASI
Se og Hør
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e42
001-140015_a8_em60
MISC
NO_MASK
von Hannover judgment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e48
001-140015_a8_em61
DATETIME
NO_MASK
August
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-140015_a8_e49
001-140015_a8_em62
LOC
QUASI
Tjøme
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e24
001-140015_a8_em63
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e50
001-140015_a8_em64
QUANTITY
QUASI
200-250 metres
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e51
001-140015_a8_em65
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
300- to 400-millimetre
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e42
001-140015_a8_em66
MISC
NO_MASK
von Hannover judgment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-140015_a8_e52
001-140015_a8_em67
ORG
QUASI
Aftenposten
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-140015_a8_e53
001-140015_a8_em68
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Justice T.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e29
001-140015_a8_em69
ORG
QUASI
Se og Hør
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e29
001-140015_a8_em70
ORG
QUASI
Se og Hør
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e29
001-140015_a8_em71
ORG
QUASI
Se og Hør
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e29
001-140015_a8_em72
ORG
QUASI
Se og Hør
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e42
001-140015_a8_em73
MISC
NO_MASK
von Hannover judgment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e29
001-140015_a8_em74
ORG
QUASI
Se og Hør
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e24
001-140015_a8_em75
LOC
NO_MASK
Norway
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e42
001-140015_a8_em76
MISC
NO_MASK
von Hannover judgment
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e29
001-140015_a8_em77
ORG
QUASI
Se og Hør
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-140015_a8_e29
001-140015_a8_em78
ORG
QUASI
Se og Hør
Lars Lillo-Stenberg
NOR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Lars Lillo-Stenberg