issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 400 (2015)
17.12.2015
Judgments and decisions of 17 December 2015
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1 and 34 decisions2:
two Chamber judgments are summarised listed below;
three Committee judgments, which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court,
The judgments below are available only in English.
Kristiansen v. Norway (application no. 1176/10)
The applicant, Jørgen Kristiansen, is a Norwegian national who was born in 1984 and lives in
Borgenhaugen (Norway). The case concerned his complaint that criminal proceedings against him
had been unfair due to the participation of a juror who lacked impartiality.
In September 2008 Mr Kristiansen was convicted of attempted rape. The judgment was upheld on
appeal by judgment of a High Court, which sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment on account of
this and other offences. It also ordered him to pay the victim the equivalent of 7,500 euros in
compensation for damages. The courts found that Mr Kristiansen, aged 23 at the time, had
attempted to rape a 17-year old girl, with whom he had left a party, in a car parked at a petrol
station.
During the proceedings before the High Court one of the jurors informed the presiding judge that
she had previously had contacts with the victim. Mr Kristiansen’s counsel thus requested that the
juror be disqualified from taking part in the proceedings for lack of impartiality. After deliberations
the court decided that the juror ought not to withdraw. It pointed out that a member of the jury
might be disqualified especially if he or she had particular reasons for identifying with the victim. It
observed, however, that the juror in Mr Kristiansen’s case had been in contact with the victim only
sporadically many years ago, concluding that her impression of the victim was not capable of
influencing the assessment in the criminal case. Consequently the juror continued to take part in the
trial before the High Court.
Mr Kristiansen’s appeal against the High Court’s judgment, complaining about the juror’s
participation, was rejected by the Supreme Court in June 2009.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights,
Mr Kristiansen complained that the juror’s participation had made his trial unfair.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: 4,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 2,500 (costs and expenses)
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
Committee judgments, as well as inadmissibility and strike-out decisions, are final.
