’WPC5 mM<ÆL9„öčXG;éŁ_Gõ灪tuē¬ ? hõWŠ(O°ųõjŻĆøWxå¬1éŃŽČĻ:Ö©hŌā†4?h@ąT²;Z[+䤲_ó šų©#:dldā›VóDx/ÉųĮ(CĄ™c¼Éø9ŻŠq„“Ē„¾,q$K×5`ŠƒpŖq¢¦†w–ņņÄ4ī¶.ä­ ŚŠNļĢ‹ö˜–Ļ'Ł OK’0låę9* ŽKĘ¢cira@“gFµ±Č«ŃŽ(5yŽĢjÅEwrZć 2^„ ĪbīŚ2ĆŪ’ÄŠÉŸ§ßz'CWÜŠ}“3ÖäōķĢ%YĖöLAav0ž OÆų—‹ZV¢•©tČVėˆ/ėېżżq8ĀśŃ÷üIŌŖ2̶÷Pø¼żB†Y]ÖÉGĀt:Rß0Ąæ2œSčI q?ģ°˜ńÜV°“’$A7‚£, bJ7lņR³ś”ÆU>£Kņh«aĄ]ÕP/oÊ€ŌžzO,KTׁb9憞§ā\>@æŒhŸ¤ålpā)‚N–h ī¾÷)§ü†@.w†äɎł}¶ƒ0Df—ČQ^jQ£b©ž“py)üņ»ü÷` #ĮšUN[ %© 0:Æ^ éwõ4ł  m˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - StandardČŠššČŠ0(ČhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ūœ$””ŌUKUS.,ŌPj), tQ+\g Tab3|x’U‹’ĄĄĄŻ ƒūœ!ŻŌUKUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌÓ  Óņ ņCOMMITTEE€ON€THE€ELIMINATION€OF€RACIAL€DISCRIMINATIONŠ ° ŠĢņņF.€A.€v.€NorwayóóŠ ą ŠĢCommunication€No€18/2000Š pĄ ŠĢ21€March€2001Š P   ŠĢŌ_ŌCERDŌ_Ō/C/58/D/18/2000€Š 0 € ŠĢĢADMISSIBILITYó óŠ P  ŠĢĢņņņņSubmitted€byóó:€€F.€A.€(name€deleted)Š Š  ŠĢņņAlleged€victimóó:€€The€authorŠ ° ŠĢņņState€party€concernedóó:€€NorwayŠ ą ŠĢņņDate€of€communicationóó:€€12€April€2000Š pĄ ŠóóĢĢą  ąņņThe€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discriminationóó,€established€under€article€8€ofŠ @ Šthe€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,Š 0€ ŠĢą  ąņņMeeting€on€óó21€March€2001,€Š ` ŠĢą  ąņņAdopts€óóthe€following:Š š@ ŠĢĢÓ=ÓÓ  Óņ ņDecision€on€Admissibilityó óŠ Ą! ŠÓłÓÓÓĢĢ1.€€The€author€of€the€communication,€Mr.€F.€A.,€claims€to€be€the€victim€of€a€violation€of€theŠ $ą" ŠConvention€by€Norway.€He€is€represented€by€the€non-governmental€organization€OrganisasjonenŠ €%Š # ŠMot€Ō_ŌOffentligŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌDiskrimineringŌ_Ō€(Ō_ŌOMODŌ_Ō).€Ō_ŌOMODŌ_Ō€brought€the€general€situation€to€the€attention€of€theŠ p&Ą!$ ŠCommittee€for€the€first€time€on€6€€December€1999.€In€a€letter€dated€12€April€2000€OMOD€submittedŠ `'°"% Šadditional€information€and€formally€requested€that€the€Committee€consider€the€communication€underŠ P( #& Šarticle€14€of€the€Convention.€The€communication€was€transmitted€to€the€State€party€on€13€SeptemberŠ @)$' Š2000.Š 0*€%( ŠĢņ ņThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoró óŠ ,`'* ŠĢ2.1€Ō_ŌŌ_Ō€The€author€reported€that€he€went€to€the€housing€agency€"Eiendom€Service"€and€paid€a€fee€whichŠ š-@), Šentitled€him€to€have€access€to€the€lists€of€vacant€accommodation.€In€checking€the€lists€he€found€thatŠ ° Šabout€half€of€the€housing€advertisements€clearly€indicated€that€persons€from€certain€groups€were€notŠ  š Šdesired€as€tenants.€Statements€like€"no€foreigners€desired",€"whites€only",€"only€Norwegians€withŠ ą Špermanent€jobs"€punctuated€the€housing€lists.€Š €Š ŠĢ2.2€€On€28€June€1995€the€author€informed€the€Oslo€police€about€this€situation€and€requested€thatŠ ` ° Šcharges€be€€brought€against€the€owner€of€the€agency€on€the€basis€of€section€349a€of€the€NorwegianŠ P   ŠPenal€Code,€which€reads€€as€follows:Š @  ŠĢą8  ą"Any€person€who€in€an€occupational€or€similar€activity€refuses€any€person€goods€orŠ  p  Šservices€on€Ō_ŌthesameŌ_Ō€conditions€as€apply€to€others€because€of€his€religion,€race,€colourŠ `  Šof€skin,€or€national€or€ethnic€origin,€shall€be€liable€to€fines€or€imprisonment€for€aŠ P  Šterm€not€exceeding€six€months€š8šŠš@ Š Š  ŠĢą8  ąThe€same€penalty€shall€also€apply€to€any€person€who€incites€or€is€in€any€other€wayŠ Š  Šaccessory€to€any€act€mentioned€in€the€previous€paragraph."ŠĄŠ Š  ŠĢ2.3€€The€police€took€more€than€two€years€to€investigate€the€case.€During€that€time€they€never€visitedŠ  š Šthe€housing€agency€in€question€in€order€to€collect€evidence.€Finally,€on€3€December€1997,€the€policeŠ ą Šordered€the€agency's€owner€to€pay€NKr€5,000,€or€alternatively€to€serve€10€days€in€prison,€forŠ €Š Šcontravention€of€section€349a€of€the€€Penal€Code.€The€decision€was€based€on€the€fact€that€in€theŠ pĄ Šperiod€between€December€1995€and€January€1996€the€owner,€through€her€firm,€Eiendoms€Service,Š `° Šhad€sold€lists€of€accommodation€to€rent€in€which€it€was€stated€that€certain€accommodation€was€onlyŠ P  Šavailable€to€Norwegians€in€regular€employment.Š @ ŠĢ2.4€€The€owner€appealed€the€decision€to€the€Oslo€City€Court,€which,€in€a€judgement€of€15€July€1998,Š  p Šdecided€to€acquit€her.€An€appeal€against€this€judgement€was€filed€with€the€High€Court,€whichŠ ` Šrejected€it€on€18€January€1999.€The€High€Court€noted€that€although€the€situation€fell€under€sectionŠ P Š349a€of€the€Penal€Code,€the€owner€had€acted€in€involuntary€ignorance€of€the€law.€The€case€wasŠ š@ Šfurther€appealed€to€the€Norwegian€Supreme€Court,€which,€in€a€ruling€of€27€August€1999,€declaredŠ ą0 Šthat€the€acts€in€question€were€not€covered€by€section€349a€and€rejected€the€appeal.Š Š  ŠĢņ ņThe€complaintó óŠ °"  ŠĢ3.€€The€author€claims€that€the€facts€described€amount€to€violation€by€the€State€party€of€the€rights€toŠ $ą" Šwhich€he€is€entitled€under€article€1,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Convention.Š €%Š # ŠĢņ ņObservations€submitted€by€the€State€partyó óŠ `'°"% ŠĢ4.1€€By€submission€of€13€December€2000€the€State€party€challenges€the€admissibility€of€theŠ @)$' Šcommunication.€It€claims€that€the€author€has€failed€to€file€a€communication€within€the€time€limit€setŠ 0*€%( Šout€in€rule€91€(f)€of€the€Committee's€rules€of€procedure.€This€provision€reads€as€follows:€"With€aŠ  +p&) Šview€to€reaching€a€decision€on€the€admissibility€of€a€communication,€the€Committee€š8š€shallŠ ,`'* Šascertain:€...€(f)€That€the€communication€is,€except€in€the€case€of€duly€verified€exceptionalŠ -P(+ Šcircumstances,€submitted€within€six€months€after€all€available€domestic€remedies€have€beenŠ š-@), Šexhausted".€The€Supreme€Court's€judgement€was€delivered€on€27€August€1999.€The€author,€who€wasŠ ° Š€an€OMOD€employee,€knew€about€it€on€the€same€date.€Therefore,€the€communication€should€haveŠ  š Šbeen€submitted€to€the€Committee€no€later€than€27€February€2000.Š ą ŠĢ4.2€€The€State€party€claims€that€the€letter€from€OMOD€of€6€December€1999€is€purely€of€a€generalŠ pĄ Šnature€and€devoid€of€any€content€that€may€help€to€qualify€it€as€a€communication€from€or€on€behalfŠ ` ° Šof€an€alleged€victim€of€a€violation.€The€author's€name€is€not€even€mentioned€in€it.€The€letter€doesŠ P   Šdraw€the€Committee's€attention€to€the€Supreme€Court's€judgement€of€27€August€1999,€however,€thisŠ @  Šis€not€sufficient€to€turn€it€into€an€individual€communication.€Furthermore,€the€author€was€not€a€partyŠ 0 € Što€the€criminal€proceedings,€which€were€based€on€charges€of€a€general€nature€initiated€by€OMODŠ  p  Šand€not€linked€to€alleged€wrongdoings€against€Mr.€F.€A.€Moreover,€the€issues€raised€in€the€letterŠ `  Šwere€dealt€with€in€the€dialogue€between€the€Committee€and€the€State€party€under€the€Committee'sŠ P  Šreporting€procedure.€They€are€also€being€seriously€addressed€by€the€Norwegian€authorities.Š š@  ŠĢ4.3€€The€State€party€further€argues€that€the€allegation€of€violation€of€the€Convention€is€notŠ Š  Šsatisfactorily€substantiated€for€the€purpose€of€admissibility.€For€instance,€the€letters€of€6€DecemberŠ Ą Š1999€and€12€April€2000€do€not€indicate€the€provisions€of€the€Convention€allegedly€violated€or€theŠ ° Šprecise€object€of€the€communication.€In€these€circumstances,€it€is€not€possible€for€the€State€toŠ  š Šprovide€an€adequate€response.€Neither€is€it€explained€in€the€letters€whether€the€alleged€violation€isŠ ą Šrelated€to€the€landlords'€discrimination€or€to€the€agency's€activity.€In€respect€of€the€former,€it€wouldŠ €Š Šbe€important€to€know€whether€the€accommodation€in€question€is€in€the€landlords'€private€houses€orŠ pĄ Šwhether€it€was€rented€out€as€part€of€a€larger€commercial€activity.€In€respect€of€the€latter,€theŠ `° ŠNorwegian€courts€considered€that€the€firm€Eiendoms€Service€did€not€discriminate€against€itsŠ P  Šcustomers.€Š @ ŠĢ4.4€€The€High€Court€judgement€describes€the€modus€operandi€of€the€firm,€an€agency€for€privateŠ  p Šaccommodation€rentals.€According€to€the€judgement,€landlords€informed€the€agency€of€theŠ ` Šaccommodation€available€and€the€agency€listed€the€offers€in€a€card-index€which€provided€factualŠ P Šinformation€on€the€accommodation€offered.€A€rubric€called€"Landlord's€wishes"€was€also€includedŠ š@ Šin€the€card-index.€If€the€accommodation-hunters€were€interested€in€a€particular€offer€in€theŠ ą0 Šcard-index€they€had€to€contact€the€landlord€themselves€for€any€further€action.€Ō_ŌEiendomsŌ_Ō€Service€wasŠ Š  Šnot€involved€in€showings,€preparation€of€contracts,€etc.€The€Court€found€that€certain€landlords€whoŠ Ą! Šmade€use€of€Eiendoms€Service€had€rejected€persons€of€foreign€origin€as€tenants;€however,€Ō_ŌEiendomsŌ_ŌŠ °"  ŠService€did€not€have€any€responsibility€in€respect€of€the€landlord's€preferences.€The€Court€consideredŠ  #š! Š€that€section€349a€of€the€Penal€Code€as€supported€by€theņņ€travaux€preparatoiresóó€did€not€apply€to€theŠ $ą" Šservices€offered€by€a€private€landlord€when€a€business€person€is€the€agent€for€those€services.€ThereŠ €%Š # Šwas€no€evidence€that€the€agency's€owner€had€any€objections€or€prejudice€against,€for€example,€peopleŠ p&Ą!$ Šwith€a€different€skin€colour.€On€the€contrary,€she€had€often€assisted€foreigners€in€findingŠ `'°"% Šaccommodation.€The€State€party€claims€that€the€author€€has€not€explained€the€reasons€why€heŠ P( #& Šdisagrees€with€the€Court's€conclusions.Š @)$' ŠĢņ ņCounsel's€commentsó óŠ  +p&) ŠĢ5.1€€Counsel€refers€to€the€objections€raised€by€the€State€party€on€the€basis€of€rule€91€(f)€of€theŠ -P(+ ŠCommittee's€rules€of€procedure€and€argues€that€the€possible€shortcomings€pointed€out€by€the€StateŠ š-@), Šparty€should€not€exceed€what€one€can€expect€from€a€small€NGO€without€legal€expertise€such€asŠ ° ŠOMOD.€Protection€from€violations€by€way€of€bodies€like€CERD€should€be€an€option€for€everybody,Š  š Šnot€only€for€people€with€legal€expertise.Š ą ŠĢ5.2€€The€purpose€of€the€letter€from€OMOD€dated€6€December€1999€was€to€request€the€CommitteeŠ pĄ Što€treat€the€Supreme€Court€judgement€of€27€August€1999€as€an€individual€complaint€under€articleŠ ` ° Š14€of€the€Convention.€In€the€letter,€OMOD€explicitly€requested€the€Committee€to€carry€out€anŠ P   Šindividual€evaluation€of€the€Supreme€Court's€ruling€in€relation€to€the€Convention.€If€theŠ @  Šcommunication€was€only€meant€as€a€general€communication€from€an€Ō_ŌNGOŌ_Ō,€as€suggested€by€the€StateŠ 0 € Šparty,€it€would€have€been€included€in€the€report€which€Ō_ŌOMODŌ_Ō€prepares€regularly€in€response€toŠ  p  ŠNorway's€periodic€reports€to€the€Committee.€It€is€true€that€the€author€used€the€opportunity€to€pointŠ `  Što€possible€large-scale€consequences€which€the€judgement€may€have€with€regard€to€the€protectionŠ P  Šof€ethnic€minorities€against€racial€discrimination€and€the€status€of€the€Convention€in€Norway.€ThisŠ š@  Šinformation,€however,€should€be€interpreted€as€complementary€to€the€individual€complaint€putŠ ą0  Šforward.Š Š  ŠĢ5.3€€The€letter€from€OMOD€dated€12€April€2000€confirmed€that€the€purpose€of€its€letter€of€6Š ° ŠDecember€1999€was€to€have€the€judgement€treated€as€an€individual€complaint€under€article€14€of€theŠ  š ŠConvention,€and€should€be€regarded€as€part€of€the€communication€submitted€on€6€December€1999.Š ą ŠĢ5.4€€Counsel€agrees€that€the€letter€of€6€December€1999€did€not€indicate€the€provisions€in€theŠ pĄ ŠConvention€that€had€been€violated.€However,€he€considers€that€the€allegations€of€violations€of€theŠ `° ŠConvention€should€be€enough€to€declare€the€case€admissible.€In€the€letter€of€12€April€2000€OMODŠ P  Šclaims€that€the€Supreme€Court,€in€its€judgement€"refused€to€give€F.€A.€the€rights€inherent€in€articleŠ @ Š1.1".€Among€those€rights€are€the€rights€referred€to€in€article€5€(e)€(iii),€5€(f)€and€6,€which€areŠ 0€ Šespecially€relevant€to€the€case€of€Mr.€F.€A.€Furthermore,€it€was€Mr.€F.€A.€who€reported€EiendomsŠ  p ŠService€to€the€police.€Subsequently,€the€police€brought€the€case€to€the€High€Court€and€the€SupremeŠ ` ŠCourt.Š P ŠĢ5.5€€Counsel€claims€that€the€object€of€the€communication€is€the€failure€of€the€Supreme€Court€toŠ ą0 Šcomply€with€its€obligations€under€the€Convention.€He€also€claims€that€the€alleged€violation€of€theŠ Š  ŠConvention€is€related€to€the€activities€of€the€housing€agency,€not€the€landlords.Š Ą! ŠĢ5.6€€Regarding€the€State€party's€claim€that€OMOD€did€not€substantiate€its€claim€that€the€conclusionŠ  #š! Šof€the€Supreme€Court€was€unwarranted,€counsel€argues€that€the€agency's€owner€indeed€refused€aŠ $ą" Šperson€"goods€or€services€on€the€terms€applicable€to€others".€The€author€was€not€at€all€offered€theŠ €%Š # Šsame€service€as€ethnic€Norwegians.€In€fact,€he€was€offered€a€smaller€number€of€vacant€flats€thanŠ p&Ą!$ Šother€customers€owing€to€his€ethnic€origin,€yet€he€had€to€pay€exactly€the€same€fee€to€have€access€toŠ `'°"% Šthe€index€cards.€Furthermore,€the€author€was€not€informed€beforehand€that€this€was€the€case.€ThisŠ P( #& Šdifference€in€treatment€is€illegal,€regardless€of€whether€it€is€made€on€behalf€of€somebody€else,€forŠ @)$' Šexample€a€landlord.€The€owner€of€the€housing€agency€had€written€the€discriminatory€texts€on€theŠ 0*€%( Šindex€cards€and€knew€what€that€meant€to€persons€of€minority€background.Š  +p&) ŠĢ5.7€€Counsel€further€argues€that€the€commercial€activity€of€Eiendoms€Service€cannot€be€categorizedŠ -P(+ Šas€being€within€"the€private€sphere".€The€agency€offered€a€general€service€to€the€public€which€fitsŠ š-@), Šthe€description€of€article€5€(f)€of€the€Convention.€The€activity€of€Eiendoms€Service€is€therefore€aŠ ° Šclear€case€of€discrimination€in€the€public€sphere,€not€the€private€one.Š  š ŠĢņ ņAdmissibility€considerationsó óŠ €Š ŠĢ6.1€€Before€considering€the€substance€of€a€communication,€the€Committee€on€the€Elimination€ofŠ ` ° ŠRacial€Discrimination€examines€whether€or€not€the€communication€is€admissible€pursuant€to€articleŠ P   Š14,€paragraph€7€(a)€of€the€Convention€and€rules€86€and€91€of€its€rules€of€procedure.Š @  ŠĢ6.2€€The€State€party€contends€that€the€author's€claims€are€inadmissible€because€of€his€failure€toŠ  p  Šsubmit€a€communication€within€the€time€limit€set€out€in€rule€91€(f)€of€the€Committee's€rules€ofŠ `  Šprocedure.€The€Committee€recalls€that,€according€to€this€provision,€communications€must€beŠ P  Šsubmitted€to€it,€except€in€the€case€of€duly€verified€exceptional€circumstances,€within€six€months€afterŠ š@  Šall€available€domestic€remedies€have€been€exhausted.Š ą0  ŠĢ6.3€€The€Committee€notes€that€the€Norwegian€Supreme€Court€adopted€its€final€decision€on€the€factsŠ Ą Šthat€constitute€the€object€of€the€present€communication€on€27€August€1999.€The€author€submittedŠ ° Šthe€communication€under€article€14€of€the€Convention€on€12€April€2000,€i.e.€more€than€six€monthsŠ  š Šafter€the€date€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies.€Prior€to€that€date,€on€6€December€1999,€theŠ ą Šdecision€of€the€Norwegian€Supreme€Court€had€been€brought€to€the€Committee's€attention,€but€thereŠ €Š Šwas€no€indication€that€the€author€had€intended€to€submit€a€communication€under€article€14€of€theŠ pĄ ŠConvention.€The€general€terms€in€which€the€letter€of€6€December€1999€was€drafted€suggested€thatŠ `° Šthe€author€wished€to€submit€the€facts€for€the€consideration€of€the€Committee€within€the€frameworkŠ P  Šof€its€activities€under€article€9€of€the€Convention.Š @ ŠĢ6.4€€Furthermore,€the€Committee€has€found€no€exceptional€circumstances€that€would€justify€notŠ  p Šapplying€the€six-month€requirement€stipulated€in€rule€91€(f)€of€the€rules€of€procedure.Š ` ŠĢ7.€€The€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discrimination€therefore€decides:Š š@ ŠĢą  ą(a)€That€the€communication€is€inadmissible;Š Š  ŠĢą0  ą(b)€That€this€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€State€party€and€the€author€of€theŠ °"  Šcommunication.Š #š!(#(# ŠĢ8.€€The€Committee€takes€this€opportunity€to€urge€the€State€party€to€take€effective€measures€to€ensureŠ €%Š # Šthat€housing€agencies€refrain€from€engaging€in€discriminatory€practices€and€do€not€acceptŠ p&Ą!$ Šsubmissions€from€private€landlords€which€would€discriminate€on€racial€grounds.€The€CommitteeŠ `'°"% Šrecalls€in€this€respect€its€concluding€observations€on€€the€fifteenth€periodic€report€of€Norway,€inŠ P( #& Šwhich€it€expressed€concern€that€persons€seeking€to€rent€or€purchase€apartments€and€houses€were€notŠ @)$' Šadequately€protected€against€racial€discrimination€on€the€part€of€the€private€sector.€In€this€connection,Š 0*€%( Šthe€Committee€recommended€that€Norway€give€full€effect€to€its€obligations€under€article€5€(e)€(iii)Š  +p&) Šof€the€Convention.Š ,`'* ŠĢÓIÓ