CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 avril 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 118 April 2009 Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway - 34438/04 Judgment 16.4.2009 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Convictions of newspaper editors for publishing photographs of a person on the point of being arrested to serve a lengthy sentence she had just received for her part in a triple murder: no violation   Facts : The applicants were the editors in chief of two national newspapers in Norway which were covering a major murder trial. The case had attracted significant media attention and the identities of the defendants were known to the general public. The defendants, who had been on bail for more than a year, were convicted at the trial and given lengthy prison sentences. The applicants’ newspapers published photographs of one of the defendants, B, as she was making her way to an unmarked police vehicle parked in the vicinity of the court to begin a 21-year prison sentence for complicity. She had broken down on hearing the verdict and was described as being in a state of “deep despair”. The applicants were charged under a provision that made it an offence to photograph defendants in criminal proceedings on their way to or from court without their consent, unless there were special reasons for making an exception. They were acquitted at first instance but convicted by the Supreme Court following an appeal by the public prosecutor and ordered to pay 10,000 Norwegian kroner (approximately EUR 1,139) in fines with 15 days’ imprisonment in default. The Supreme Court found that although the defendant’s identity was already widely known, she had nevertheless been in obvious distress and in a situation of “reduced control” following her conviction and so within one of the core areas the legislation was intended to protect. Neither the shocking nature of the offence of which she had been convicted nor the extensive public interest in the case could deprive her of that protection. Law :   The Supreme Court, which was to be afforded a wide margin of appreciation to weigh up the conflicting interests, had based its decision to convict the applicants on the need to protect privacy and to safeguard due process. These were undoubtedly relevant reasons for the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, but the Court also had to determine whether they were sufficient. It accepted that, in view of the heinous character of the crimes, B’s conviction, sentencing and immediate arrest had been a matter of public interest, that the photographs concerned a public event in a public place and that B’s identity was already well known to the public. Nevertheless, it considered that the manner in which the photographs portrayed B was particularly intrusive: she had just been arrested inside the court house after being notified of her conviction for triple murder and sentence to the maximum 21-year term; the photograph showed her in tears and great distress, emotionally shaken and at her most vulnerable. She had not consented to being photographed and the fact that she had cooperated with the press on previous occasions could not justify depriving her of protection on this occasion. In sum, while on the facts the Court attached greater weight to the protection of B’s privacy than to the safeguard of due process, both the reasons relied on by the Supreme Court had corresponded to a pressing social need and were sufficient to justify the restriction on the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. Lastly, the fines imposed on the applicants had not been particularly severe. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes