Iversen Case (1963) Facts: On 1949, a Law providing for a public dental service was enacted .

In 1950, the Ministry for Social Affairs raised the question of increasing the supply of dentists for the pu lic dental ser!ice. It "as proposed that students ad#itted to the $or"egian %ental &ollege as "ell as those studying a road, "ere to e required, on eginning their studies, to #a'e a state#ent in "hich they undertoo', on co#pleting their studies, to "or' for a period not e(ceeding t"o years in the pu lic dental ser!ice in any district to "hich they "ere assigned y the Ministry. )his sche#e "as rought into effect in 1951. In 1955, ho"e!er, so#e dou t "as e(pressed in student quarters a out the legal force of the underta'ings "hich they had een required to #a'e. )his led to the passing of a *ro!isional Act relating to o ligatory pu lic dental ser!ice for dentists. )he Act "as applied to the I!ersen. At a #eeting "ith representati!es of the Ministry for Social Affairs, he accepted this post for the period en!isaged y the Ministry and too' o!er the position. +o"e!er, he ga!e up his "or' and left, ha!ing in a letter infor#ed the Ministry for Social Affairs of his intention to do so. &ri#inal proceedings "ere su sequently instituted against the I!ersen. ,y decision of the to"n court of, I!ersen "as ordered to pay a penalty of 'r. -,000, or, alternati!ely, to ser!e a prison sentence of .0 days for !iolation of the *ro!isional Act. I!ersen appealed against this /udg#ent to the Supre#e &ourt0 ho"e!er, the court dis#isses the appeal. I!ersen has paid the fine i#posed upon hi#. Issue: 1hether or not the ser!ice required fro# the I!ersen is 2forced or co#pulsory la or.3 Ruling: )he 4uropean &o##ission of +u#an 5ights held that the pu lic dental ser!ice ordinance had not i#posed forced la or for the purposes of the &on!ention since it did not fulfill the conditions set out y the I6O. )he "or' "as 7for a s ort period, pro!ided favorable re!uneration and did not involve an" discri!inator"# arbitrar" or punitive application 3. Moreo!er, it "as enforced on the occasion of an e#ergency, threatening the "ell8 eing of the co##unity. It "as o !ious that the *ro!isional Act had i#posed upon I!ersen neither sla!ery nor ser!itude. )he 9o!ern#ent had introduced the Act in its struggle to i!prove t e lot of t e population# as it considered it to be# wit in reasonable li!its# part of t e funda!ental u!an rig ts of t e population of $estern de!ocracies t at t e" s ould ave a !ini!u! of !edical facilities available suc as doctors# dentists and ospitals . )he &on!ention could not allo" unti#ely interference "ith the necessary and natural functioning of a de#ocratic society and institutions and the o struction of #easures of social i#portance.

Page 1 of 1