Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:37:15.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Norwegian Supreme Court and Strasbourg: The Case of Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther v. Norway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Arnfinn Bårdsen

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article attempts to give a brief overview as to the interplay between the Norwegian Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I will do so partly on a general footing and partly connected to a couple of specific cases. In particular, I will comment on the 16 January 2014 judgment from the Strasbourg Court in the Case of Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther v. Norway. This case involved an alleged violation of the right to privacy according to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), by publishing pictures from the wedding of a well-known couple-both performing artists-in a weekly magazine, without their consent.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 15 , Issue 7 , 01 December 2014 , pp. 1293 - 1305
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther v. Norway, ECHR App. No. 13258/09 (Jan. 16, 2014), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

2 Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov [Grl], May, 17, 1814 (Nor.).Google Scholar

3 Lov om styrking av menneskerettighetens stilling i norsk rett [Human Rights Act], May 21, 1999 (Nor.).Google Scholar

4 See, for example, the two cases reported in Rt. 2013 s. 1985 and Rt. 2012 s. 2039 regarding the extradition of minors. A translation into English can be found at the Norwegian Supreme Court's website: http://www.domstol.no/en/Enkelt-domstol/-Norges-Hoyesterett/Summary-of-Recent-Supreme-Court-Decisions/Summary-2012/, case HR-2012-2398-P and HR-2012-2399-P.Google Scholar

5 Rt. 2009 s. 1118.Google Scholar

6 European Court of Human Rights, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int.Google Scholar

7 Jones and others v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. Nos. 34356/06 & 40528/06 (Jan. 14, 2014), para. 194, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

8 See Opuz v. Turkey, ECHR App. No. 33401/02, para. 164 (Jun. 9, 2009), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

9 Detailed statistics of the Court can be found at the Court's website: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports&c=#n1347956867932_pointer.Google Scholar

10 See Austin v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. Nos. 39692/09, 40713/09, & 41008/09 (Mar. 15, 2012), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

11 Rt. 2000 s. 996.Google Scholar

12 See, e.g., Rt. 2005 s. 833.Google Scholar

13 Rt. 2013 s. 588. A translation into English can be found at the Norwegian Supreme Court's website: http://www.domstol.no/en/Enkelt-domstol/-Norges-Hoyesterett/Summary-of-Recent-Supreme-Court-Decisions/Summary-of-Supreme-Court-Decisions-2013/, case HR-2013-881-A.Google Scholar

14 See Opuz v. Turkey, ECHR App. No. 33401/02 (June 9, 2009) at para. 164.Google Scholar

15 Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther v. Norway, ECHR App. No. 13258/09 (Jan. 16, 2014).Google Scholar

16 Axel Springer AG v. Germany, ECHR App. No. 39954/08 (Feb. 12, 2012), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/; Van Hannover v. Germany (No. 2), ECHR App. Nos. 40660/08 & 60641/08 (Feb. 7, 2012), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

17 Lillo-Stenberg and Sæther v. Norway, ECHR App. No. 13258/09 at para. 33 (quoting Axel Springer AG v. Germany, ECHR App. No. 39954/08 at paras. 85–88).Google Scholar

18 Id. at para. 34.Google Scholar

19 Id. at para. 13 (quoting Rt. 2008 s. 533 para. 40).Google Scholar

20 Id. at paras. 44–45.Google Scholar