Norjalle harvinainen langettava tuomio EIT:sta22.12.2015 | Oikeusuutiset
Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) on antanut langettavan tuomion Norjalle koskien tapausta, jossa lautamiehen katsottiin olleen esteellinen ja siten, että oikeutta oikeudenmukaiseen oikeudenkäyntiin oli loukattu.
Vuoden 2014 tilastojen (Violations by Article and by State 1959-2014) mukaan Norja oli vuosien 1959-2014 aikana saanut EIT:lta 27 langettavaa tuomiota. Suomen vastaava luku oli 133. Norja oli myös ensimmäisten ihmisoikeussopimuksen (EIS) allekirjoittamaisen joukossa mm. muiden pohjoismaiden kanssa vuonna 1950 ja EIS tuli siellä voimaan vuonna 1953, kun vastaava vuosi oli Suomen osalta 1990.
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)