| Applicant name | X. |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Country | Norway |
| Decision no. | 7945/77 |
| Date | 4/07/1978 |
| Judges | – |
| Institution | Commission |
| Type | Decision |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Inadmissible |
| Reason | No interference; manifestly ill-founded (rights and freedoms of others); even if |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy; right to reputation |
| Keywords | Disclosure of criminal record |
| Facts of the case | Newspaper has published article about applicant, to his displeasure. Applicant goes to court, but fears that in these court proceedings, his criminal record will be published, and will attract a wide audience. |
| Analysis | The applicant refers to his right to reputation; the Commission does not adopt similar language (instead refering to the right to private life), but also does not reject it explicitly. The Commission accepts that the issue may result in an in an interference, but that it would than be the question whether such would be necessary in a democratic society in light of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. However, the Commission stresses that it does not need to determine this question, because the national courts have not arrived at a decision on this point; consequently, there has been no harm and the applicant cannot claim to be a victim. |
| Documents | Decision |