CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 novembre 2007

.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. 103 December 2007 Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway (dec.) - 34438/04 Decision 22.11.2007 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: admissible   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 had been on bail for more than a year before the trial. At the trial they were convicted and given lengthy prison sentences. The applicants’ newspapers published photographs of one of the defendants 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 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. The applicants complain that the Supreme Court’s judgment was not supported by sufficient reasons and that their convictions for publishing the photographs were not therefore necessary in a democratic society. Admissible under Article 10. (For a closely related case in which a complaint about a ban on the live broadcasting of the trial was declared inadmissible, see the Court’s decision in P4 Radio Hele Norge ASA v. Norway ((dec.), no.   76682/01, Information Note no. 53).   © 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