Brussels, 05/12/2013 (Agence Europe) - The Norwegian authorities did not made essential information available to deep sea divers about the risks linked to their employees' use of rapid decompression tables.
In its Chamber judgment, which is not definitive, given on 5 December (Vilnes and others against Norway Case), the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been: - a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights: the Norwegian authorities failed to provide the applicants with essential information enabling them to assess the risks to their health and lives resulting from the use of rapid decompression tables. The Court judged that there had been: - no violation of Articles 2 (right to life) or 8 as regards the remainder of the applicants' complaints about the authorities' failure to prevent their health and lives from being put in jeopardy; - and no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).
The case concerned historical complaints by divers that they are disabled as a result of diving in the North Sea for oil companies during the pioneer period of oil exploration (from 1965 to 1990).
As regards the applicants' complaints concerning the authorities' failure to prevent their health and lives from being put in jeopardy, the Court considered that the authorities had taken a wide range of measures in order to ensure the protection of divers' safety, thus complying with their positive obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 8. However, the Court also found that the authorities had failed to comply with their obligation under Article 8 to provide access to essential information enabling individuals to assess the risks to their health and lives. Indeed, although there had been a lack of scientific consensus regarding the long-term effects of decompression sickness, diving companies had been allowed to keep their respective diving tables secret merely in order to have a competitive advantage over other companies. Therefore, divers had been denied access to essential information on rapid decompression times and on the consequence that this could have on their health and safety. As a result, they had been unable to fully assess the risks involved and give their informed consent.
This case is of interest because it complements the Court's case-law on access to information under Articles 2 and 8, notably in so far as it establishes an obligation on the authorities to ensure that employees receive essential information enabling them to assess occupational risks to their health and safety.
The applicants are five Norwegian nationals living in Norway, Dag Vilnes (born in 1949 and living in Tonsberg), Magn Hakon Muledal (born in 1953 and living in Forde), Bjorn Anders Nesdal (born in 1958 and living in Kristiansand), Knut Arvid Nygard (born in 1961 and living in Tananger) and Per Arne Jacobsen (born in 1954 and living in Larvik); and, a Swedish national, Mr Lindahl (born in 1942, and living in Avaldsnes, Norway) and an Icelandic national, Sigurdur P. Hafsteninsson (born in 1953 and living in Jersey, United Kingdom). They are all former deep sea divers who had taken part in North Sea diving operations for the petroleum industry during what was known as the pioneer period (from 1965 to 1990). All alleged that they had developed health problems and had become disabled as a result of both bounce (short) and saturation (longer duration) diving jobs. Most were still suffering from decompression accidents. It has been known for some time that 350-400 “pioneer” divers, including the applicants, developed health problems due to their diving activities. Studies have shown the possibility of links between diving and lesions of the central nervous system.
The Court held that Norway was to pay €8,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (LC/transl.fl)