14 August 1979

 

Communication No. 53/1979

 
     

human rights committee

  Seventh Session  
  30 July-17 August 1979  
     
     

k. b.

 

v.

norway

     
     
 

DECISION

 
     
  Return Home
 
 
     
     
 
BEFORE: CHAIRMAN: Mr. Andreas v. Mavrommatis (Cyprus)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Sir Vincent Evans (United Kingdom), Mr. Luben G. Koulishev (Bulgaria), Mr. Julio Prado Vallejo (Ecuador)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius)
MEMBERS: Mr. Nejib Bouziri (Tunisia), Mr. Abdoulaye Dieye (Senegal), Mr. Manouchehr Ganji (Iran), Mr. Bernhard Graefrath (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Vladimir Hanga (Romania), Mr. Dejan Janca (Yugoslavia), Mr. Haissam Kelani (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Anatoly Petrovich Movchan (Soviet Union), Mr. Torkel Opsahl (Norway), Mr. Waleed Sadi (Jordan), Mr. Walter Surma Tarnopolsky (Canada), Mr. Christian Tomuschat (Federal Republic of Germany), Mr. Diego Uribe Vargas (Colombia)

All the members except Mr. Ganji and Mr. Uribe Vargas attended the seventh session of the Committee.
   
PermaLink: http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1979.08.14_KB_v_Norway.htm
   
Citation: K. B. v. Norway, Comm. No. 53/1979, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, at 24 (HRC 1979)
Publications: Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Human Rights, Human Rights Committee: Selection Decision under the Optional Protocol, Vol. I, at 24, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, U.N. Sales No. E.84.XIV.2 (1985)
 
     
 
 
     
 

[1]               The author of the communication, dated 16 June 1979, is a Norwegian citizen living in Norway, who inherited a fiat in Oslo in 1964, close to her home. She was separated from her husband in 1975 after 26 years of marriage. In December 1976, he sought by proceedings before the Oslo Town Court to obtain the right, against the author's will, to move into her fiat, as a tenant. The fiat had been rented to unrelated persons since it came into the ownership of the author. In a judgement delivered in December 1977, the Oslo Town Court rejected his claim.

 

[2]               The marriage was dissolved by divorce in February 1978, and by way of an administrative settlement by the special court for matrimonial estates, the fiat inherited by the author was assigned to her as her property.

 

[3]               The ex-husband appealed against the judgment of the Oslo Town Court to the Court of Appeals, which in November 1978 granted him the right to move into the fiat and, for that purpose, to deal directly with the present tenants. The author's application to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Judicial Select Appeals Committee on 20 March 1979. A petition for a review of the decision of the Judicial Select Appeals Committee was dismissed.

 

[4]               The author alleges that the decision of the Court of Appeals, having the effect of depriving her of the right to dispose of her property, constitutes a breach of articles 2 (1), 3 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

[5]               The Human Rights Committee observes that the right to dispose of property, as such, is not protected by any provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

[6]               A thorough examination of the communication has not revealed any facts in substantiation of the author's claim that she is a victim of a breach by the State party of articles 2 (1), 3 or 26 of the Covenant or of any other rights protected by the Covenant.

 

[7]               The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: The communication is inadmissible.

 
     

 

 

home | terms & conditions | copyright | about

 

Copyright 1999-2011 WorldCourts. All rights reserved.