CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 6 juin 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),   Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of E. against Norway delivered on 29 August 1990 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling that the case originated in an application against Norway lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 13 May 1985 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr E., a Norwegian national, who complained inter alia that while in detention he had not had access to a court satisfying the requirements of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the Convention;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 12 April 1989 and by the Government of Norway on 19 June 1989;   Whereas in its judgment of 29 August 1990 the Court unanimously:   -        held that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the Convention as regards the scope of the Norwegian courts' power to review the lawfulness of the applicant's detention;   -        held that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), as regards their power to order his release;   -        held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), on account of the failure, in the review proceedings instituted on 3 August 1988, to take a decision "speedily";   -        rejected the claim for just satisfaction;   Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;   Having invited the Government of Norway to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 29 August 1990, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;   Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Norway gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution,   Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Norway, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                   Appendix to Resolution DH(91)16          Information provided by the Government of Norway     during the examination of the case of E. against Norway                  by the Committee of Ministers   The Norwegian authorities have distributed the Court's judgment together with a circular letter dated 16 January 1991 to all the courts in Norway describing the implications of the Court's judgment of 29 August 1990.   In this circular it is stressed that special expeditious measures should be taken by the courts in proceedings instituted against the state according to Chapter 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure in cases of preventive detention.   The circular states that, upon the court's receipt of such a law suit, the necessary preparatory measures, such as obtaining the defendant's observations and the appointment of medical specialists, should be taken as soon as possible.   Time for the main hearing should be fixed promptly.   In this connection the circular refers to section 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enables the court, when expeditious action is needed, to limit the period of notification for the main hearing to three days and, in extraordinary circumstances, to one day.   The circular also points out that the circumstances of each case will determine the acceptable length of time between the institution of court proceedings and the passing of judgment but that the European Court's judgment in the present case emphasised that eight weeks was an unacceptably long period of time.   If the person concerned requests his release and the court finds that the substantive conditions for the deprivation of liberty are no longer fulfilled, it must order his release.   Such an order will be effected immediately in accordance with section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless the court decides that it is not justified to release him before the case is examined on appeal.   In that case it is particularly important that the case be given priority also by the appeal court.   Finally, the circular letter underlines that it is the responsibility of the head of each court to implement the necessary administrative changes to meet the time requirements set out in the Court's judgment.