PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 30287/96) against the Kingdom of Norway lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Norwegian national, Mr Ulf Arne Hammern (“the applicant”), on 14 December 1995.

The applicant was represented by Mr C. Wiig, a lawyer practising in Trondheim. The Norwegian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr F. Elgesem, who acted as Agent until he left the Attorney-General's Office (Civil Matters) in June 2002. Thereafter, they were represented by Mr H. Harborg of that office.

The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of the reasoning relied on by the Norwegian courts in refusing his compensation claim with respect to damage sustained in criminal proceedings in which he had been acquitted.

The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).

The application was allocated to the former Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.

On 11 September 2001 the Chamber decided that, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the proceedings in the present case should be conducted simultaneously with those in the case of O v. Norway, Ringvold v. Norway and Y v. Norway (applications nos. 29327/95, 34964/97 and 56568/00 – Rule 43 § 2).

By a decision of the aforementioned date the Court declared the application admissible.

On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). However, this case was retained by the former Third Section.

A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 17 September 2002 (Rule 59 § 2). There appeared before the Court: (a) for the Government Mr H. Harborg, Attorney-General's Office, (Civil matters) Agent, Mr F. Elgesem, Advokat, Counsel/Adviser Mr K. Kallerud, Senior Public Prosecutor, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutors, Ms E. Holmedal, Attorney, Attorney-General's Office (Civil matters), Ms T. Steen, Attorney, Attorney-General's Office, Advisers; (b) for the applicant Mr C. Wiig, Advokat, Counsel, Mr U. Hammern, Applicant. The Court heard addresses by Mr Krokeide (counsel for Mr O, who pleaded the common issues relevant to both his case and that of Mr Hammern), Mr Wiig and Mr Elgesem.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bjugn.

On 10 March 1992 the head of the social services in the municipality of Bjugn contacted the local police after having received reports from Botngård kindergarten indicating that the applicant, who was an assistant at the kindergarten at the time, had sexually abused one or more of the children there. Subsequently, a criminal investigation was carried out. On 13 March 1992 the applicant was interrogated. He denied the accusations. On the same date he was suspended from his post.

On 1 September 1992 the applicant was formally indicted with respect to various offences under Articles 195, 198 and 228 of the Penal Code (straffeloven) concerning the sexual abuse of minors, allegedly committed against two children at the kindergarten, and under Article 192 of the Penal Code with respect to one of them. On 12 October 1992 the indictment was extended to 14 children at the kindergarten and, on 21 October 1992, a new indictment was issued involving 15 children. On 9 January 1993 the indictment was again extended to offences of sexual abuse of 36 named children and an unknown number of children at the kindergarten.

On the latter date, 6 further persons were indicted for sexual offences in relation to the same matter: the applicant's wife, two employees at the kindergarten and the local sheriff.

As a result of the above, the applicant spent three periods in pre-trial detention – respectively 7, 7 and 32 days – a total of 46 days. In the course of the investigations, three searches were carried out at the applicant's home.

On 22 September 1993 the applicant was formally indicted under Articles 195, 198 and 213 of the Penal Code for having allegedly committed various offences of sexual abuse against 10 kindergarten children.

On the same date the charges against the six other accused persons were dropped. They later claimed compensation under Articles 444 to 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (straffeprosessloven). The local sheriff obtained a settlement of NOK 200,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage; the five others obtained a court order requiring the State to pay NOK 200,000 to each of them. The applicant's wife obtained, in addition, NOK 140,000 in compensation for pecuniary damage.

The applicant's trial took place before the Frostating High Court (lagmannsrett), sitting with three judges and a jury, over a period of 43 days, between 15 November 1993 and 31 January 1994. After the jury had answered all of the 25 questions relating to the indictment in the negative, the applicant was acquitted by a judgment of 31 January 1994.

The applicant subsequently filed a petition with the High Court, claiming compensation under Articles 444 to 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, sitting with two of the judges who had taken part in the trial and a new judge (replacing the judge who had presided at the trial, disqualified from sitting in the compensation case), held an oral hearing between 13 and 15 February 1995. In its decision of 28 February 1995, the High Court ordered the State to award him the entirety of his claim of NOK 45,000 in compensation for pecuniary damage under Article 445, according to which provision such “compensation for special or disproportionate damage as a consequence of the criminal prosecution” could be awarded as was “reasonable in the circumstances”. Moreover, under Article 446, cf. 445, the High Court awarded him NOK 125,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the prosecution. However, on the basis of an assessment, the relevant parts of which are quoted in the Supreme Court's (Høyesterett) decision cited below (paragraph 23), the High Court rejected his claim for supplementary compensation under Article 444, it not having been shown probable that he did not commit the act which was the basis of the charge. The High Court referred to the evidence presented during the trial hearing between November 1993 and January 1994 and during the oral hearing in the compensation case in February 1995.

The applicant appealed against the High Court's decision of 28 February 1995 to the Appeals Selection Committee of the Supreme Court (Høyesteretts kjæremålsutvalg). He complained that the High Court's decision contained assumptions of criminal liability and that, consequently, it violated Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. He requested the Supreme Court to quash the High Court's decision.

By a decision of 8 June 1995, notified to the applicant by mail on 20 July 1995, the Appeals Selection Committee, considering that the applicant's appeal concerned the High Court's application of Article 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rejected the appeal.

In its reasoning, the Appeals Selection Committee first recalled that in its decision reported in Norsk Retstidende 1994, p. 721, the Supreme Court had stated (at p. 725): “It is the accused who carries the burden of proof that he did not carry out the act. It is sufficient that it is more probable than not. I do not agree with counsel for the defence that the accused has discharged the burden of proof where both alternatives, on the basis of the available evidence, appear to be equally likely. In this assessment the ordinary standards of evidence shall apply and the requirements in respect of the strength of the evidence must then to some extent be adapted to the possibilities for the accused to show that he did not carry out the act. Given the manner in which the provision has been formulated the situation may easily arise that an acquittal is not sufficient to justify a compensation claim when the accused is unable to discharge this burden of proof. I should like to stress that the refusal of a compensation claim does not entail that the previous acquittal is undermined or that the acquittal is open to doubt. The compensation case must be determined on an independent basis and the rules on evidence applying in such compensation cases do not differ from those which apply to ordinary compensation claims. The legislator has as a starting point opted for a solution whereby the financial burden caused by the institution of criminal proceedings, which are discontinued or which end with an acquittal, must be borne by the accused unless he is able to show that it is probable that he did not commit the act.”

The Appeals Selection Committee further recalled that in the above case the Supreme Court considered the relationship between the conditions for compensation under Article 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the Sekanina v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993 (Series A no. 266-A). The Supreme Court concluded that the rules in Article 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not, as such, contrary to Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. The Appeals Selection Committee affirmed that it would base itself on this view in its assessment of the present case. It further recalled that, in the 1994 decision, the Supreme Court had expressed the following view on the Sekanina judgment: “[In this case] decisive importance was attached to the reasoning in the particular case for rejecting the compensation claim. If in the reasoning for refusing compensation doubt is voiced as to whether the acquittal was correct or if the reasoning contains assumptions about criminal liability, then the relationship to Article 6 § 2 of the Convention would be problematic.”

Then the Appeals Selection Committee went on to state: “As pointed out by the prosecution in its reply to the appeal, the High Court had to justify why it considered that the conditions for making an award for compensation under Article 444 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been fulfilled. The Appeals Selection Committee must determine whether the reasoning of the High Court conflicted with the requirements of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. The Committee refers to the fact that the reasoning must be formulated in the light of the conditions for compensation as mentioned above. It is further clear that the High Court ... was aware of the rules in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the European Court's Sekanina judgment and the 1994 decision of the Supreme Court. In its decision concerning compensation under Article 444, the High Court, after having quoted the provision, specifies the subject-matter of the case as follows. 'Following the High Court's acquittal, Mr Hammern is not guilty under the criminal law. This question has not been submitted to the High Court which will not deal with it. The present case is a compensation claim brought by Mr Hammern. The question is whether he, in view of the rules of evidence under the law of compensation, is able to show that he did not carry out the acts which were referred to in the indictment.' The Committee points to the fact that here the High Court clearly specifies that Mr Hammern is not liable under the criminal law. Furthermore it is specified that the compensation claim must be determined on the basis of the rules of evidence applying under the law on compensation. The High Court then concludes, against the background of the evidence adduced, that considering the case as a whole, Mr Hammern 'has not shown it to be probable that he did not carry out the acts which grounded the charge.' Moreover, in the concluding remarks, it is stated: 'When the High Court, considering the case as a whole, reached the conclusion that Mr Hammern had not discharged his burden of proof, account was also taken of the fact that the requirements as to the strength of the evidence must to a certain extent be adapted to the possibility which he has for showing that he [Mr Hammern] did not commit the acts.... Nevertheless, in the assessment, it is the usual rules on evidence which should apply....' In support of his submission that the High Court's reasoning contains assumptions about criminal liability, he points to certain intermediate passages in which the High Court states: 'Medical experts have in the light of their investigations reached conclusions which in practice imply a very high degree of probability that the 10 children referred to in the indictment have been exposed to sexual abuse. The medical experts have discounted the possibility of self-inflicted injuries, that the injuries are caused by pathological conditions or conditions at variance from the norm. As pointed out by the prosecution, the children themselves gave statements to their parents, during the judicial examinations and to a psychologist, about abuse by Mr Hammern. Through the video recording of the judicial examinations of the children, the Court has been able to see how the children expressed themselves. The Court has been able to apprise itself of how the children during the examinations changed their behaviour when presented with questions of sexual abuse. Nor does the following fact make it less likely that he carried out the acts for which he was charged: the children markedly changed their behaviour, inter alia, in the form of bedwetting, refusing or expressing fear about going to the kindergarten, several children had a sore crotch, sore abdomen and, on one or several occasions, blood on their underwear, circumstances which essentially occurred after Mr Hammern started to work at the kindergarten and which diminished after his departure. The High Court further finds it established that at the kindergarten it was possible to perpetrate such abuse without it being revealed either from a technical or practical point of view. In the aftermath, several of the employees at the kindergarten have pointed to a few surprising situations: for instance the governor's eyewitness evidence, her perception of the situation, when she came over to Mr Hammern while he was washing a child in the crotch under peculiar circumstances. The High Court does not find any reason to go further into the discussion about the possibility of paedophilia. It is not only the so-called real paedophiles who commit abuse against children. Nor can a diagnosis which excludes paedophilia be deemed accurate, or notional paedophilia be defined precisely.' Having regard to the fact that the High Court clearly specified that its assessment was confined to the compensation case which was to be determined on the basis of the rules of evidence applying in such cases, the Appeals Selection Committee finds that the High Court' s reasoning does not go further than is necessary to carry out a careful examination of the compensation claim and that it does not entail any infringement of the presumption of innocence laid down in the Convention. The Committee once more emphasises that a refusal to award compensation under Article 444 does not imply that the previous acquittal is being undermined. In the light of the foregoing, the appeal must be rejected.”