| Applicant name |
X.
|
| Applicant type |
Natural person
|
| Country |
Norway
|
| Decision no. |
3444/67
|
| Date |
16/07/1970
|
| Judges |
–
|
| Institution |
Commission (Plenary)
|
| Type |
Decision
|
| Outcome Art. 8 |
Inadmissible
|
| Reason |
Exhaustion Domestic Remedies; ratione materiae; no interference
|
| Type of privacy |
Informational privacy; locational privacy
|
| Keywords |
House searched; correspondence blocked
|
| Facts of the case |
Applicant complains, inter alia, of four issues. First, documents have been seized in his home. Second, his case was widely publicised in the media. Third, he suspected an auditor and the judges to be biased against him and wanted to have them prosecuted. Fourth, that his correspondence was monitored and seized.
|
| Analysis |
The Commission points out that, first he did not exhaust all domestic remedies with respect to the seizure of documents, second, it treats the publication of his trial in the media as a matter of Article 6 ECHR (where the judges/jurors biased by the reporting) and not as a matter of Article 8 ECHR, third, that there is no right under the Convention to have prosecution started by the state against fellow citizens (something that would later, in exceptional circumstances, be accepted by the ECtHR as a right falling under the right to privacy, for example when the applicant had been sexually assaulted and no criminal charges were pressed against the perpetrator, and fourth, that the applicant has only referred to one particular occasion on which he contends that the authorities have interfered with his correspondence, i.e. the alleged opening and removal of certain documents from a parcel sent by him to his lawyer in December 1964, for which no evidence was provided.
|
| Documents |
Decision
|