| Facts of the case |
A Norwegian law held that in each district, there was to be a dentist active. Because it was acknowledged that it would be difficult to fill all positions, especially in northern Norway, students admitted to the Norwegian Dental College as well as those studying abroad, were required, on beginning their studies, to make a statement in which they undertook, on completing their studies, to work for a period not exceeding two years in the public dental service in any district to which they were assigned by the Ministry. Although as much as possible, the government took into account the preferences of the dentists themselves as to where they wanted to live and work, not all wishes could be respected.
|
| Analysis |
Applicant’s main claim was that his being placed in a remote area of Norway constituted compulsory labor (Article 4 ECHR), which was rejected by the Commission on multiple accounts.
In addition, the applicant alleged that orders directing persons to take up work in places other than their place of residence constitute violations of the right of family life guaranteed under Article 8 (Art. 8) and also of the right to free association with others as guaranteed under Article 11 (Art. 11). In a remarkably short statement, the Commission stressed that no documents or arguments produced by the applicants showed any limitation of his rights to privacy and freedom of association. Under its current approach, the Court would most likely stress that such should be considered a limitation of the right to privacy (private life), but that such could be legitimate when such is prescribed for by law and necessary in a democratic society for reasons of the protection of health and morals.
|