We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
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.
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
You have
Access
