European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> A. and E. RiiS (No. 2) against Norway - 16468/05 [2009] ECHR 1738 (30 September 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1738.html
Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1738

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)109¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

A. and E. RiiS (No. 2) against Norway

(Application No. 16468/05, judgment of 17 January 2008, final on 17 April 2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regards to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings: 16 years and three months for two levels of jurisdiction (violation of Article 6 paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that on the date indicated in the appendix, after expiry of the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment, and having taken note of the fact that the applicant had waived his right to default interest in view of the minimal sum involved (0,94 euros);

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)109

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

A. and E. RiiS (No. 2) against Norway

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). Proceedings lasted 16 years and three months for two levels of jurisdiction (from June 1990 to September 2006).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
-	20 000 euros	-	20 000 euros
Paid on 11/09/2008

b) Individual measures

The proceedings at issue came to an end in September 2006. The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered.

II. General measures

1) Length of the proceedings: The Norwegian authorities consider that this case does not reveal a structural problem and should therefore be considered as an isolated case which does not require adoption of any specific general measure. However, it must be noted that the Norwegian Government has adopted preventive measures to guarantee the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.

As regards criminal proceedings, the preventive measures introduced following the modification in 2002 of the Criminal Procedure Act include: time-limits for trial hearing (Section 275); the appointment by the court of another counsel if the counsel chosen by the defendant is responsible for significant delay (Section 102); the shortening of the time spent in investigating and adjudicating.

As regards civil proceedings, preventive measures introduced following the adoption of the Civil Procedure Act in 2005 include: judges’ explicit responsibility for dealing with cases in an expeditions manner; the responsibility of the head of the court to supervise the overall length of proceedings; the introduction of imperative time limits (six months from the filing of the case for the main hearing, unless there are special circumstances); new rules of evidence.

2) Effective remedies against excessive length of the proceedings: The excessive length of criminal proceedings is taken into consideration when fixing sentence and can justify the imposition of a more lenient sentence or the award of compensation for pecuniary damages (Section 445 of the Criminal Procedure Act) and, exceptionally, non-pecuniary damages (Section 447). As regards civil proceedings, compensation claims could be based on the regular compensation regime interpreted in the light of Article 13 of the European Convention.

3) Publication and dissemination: Given the direct effect of the European Convention in Norway, publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all competent courts should be sufficient to avoid other similar violations. A summary of the judgment in Norwegian, with a link to the original text, was published on the Internet site Lovdata (www.lovdata.no/avg/emdn/emdn-2005-016468-norge.htlm). The Lovdata database is widely used by those who practice law in Norway: lawyers, civil servants, prosecutors and judges alike. The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights (an independent national human rights institution) prepares summaries of the European Court’s judgments for the database.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no other individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent other similar violations, and that Norway has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.