European Court of Human Rights

Court's judgments and decisions by country. Finland application no. 10000..19999. Johansson, Molander, Väänänen, Lehtonen, Ruotsalainen, Narinen, Kari-Pekka Pietiläinen, W, Hagert, Raita, Nieminen, Grönmark, Grönmark, B, Kerojärvi, Landgren, Stjerna, C, Muttilainen, Juppala, Marttinen, Sorvisto, Hokkanen.

1. 10163_02.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Johansson v. Finland. Application no. 10163/02. -- European Court of Human Rights. Court's judgments and decisions by country -- Finland. The applicants were born in 1970 and 1967 respectively and live in Rajamäki. They have a son, born on 2 May 1999. The parents chose the name “Axl Mick” for their son. On 8 July 1999 the Hyvinkää Population Registration Authority (maistraatti, magistraten) refused the applicants' application to register this forename under section 32b, subsections 2(1) and 3(2), of the Names Act (nimilaki, namnlagen – see paragraph 16 below) as this form of spelling did not comply with Finnish naming practice. -- anttalainen.com Finland
2. 10615_03.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Molander v. Finland. Application no. 10615/03 -- On 4 June 1993 an article entitled “Experts have doubts about the impartiality of the child ombudsman. Children are weapons in bitter disputes.” was published in a magazine S. The article, written by a free-lance journalist N., concerned the applicant and her work. On 21 October 1993 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against N., the editor-in-chief of the magazine, F., and the publishing company Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy before the then City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätt) of Helsinki, for public defamation, alleging that the article insulted and defamed her professional experience. On 3 March 1994 the court dismissed the action. It referred to the amendments to the Freedom of the Press Act (painovapauslaki, tryckfrihetslag), according to which the proceedings should have been initiated before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Espoo. Apparently the applicant’s counsel failed to lodge new charges in time.
3. 10736_03.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Väänänen v. Finland. Application no. 10736/03. -- The applicant was born in 1919 and lived in Helsinki. In March 1985 the applicant underwent knee surgery in Palm Beach, Florida. On 15 June 1985 he was struck on the operated knee by G. Soon afterwards, an infection developed in the applicant’s knee and he became disabled. The applicant instituted civil proceedings against G. in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, which on 6 May 1988 ordered G. to pay the applicant 500,000 US dollars (USD) in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. On 11 June 1989 G. died. As he had failed to pay the damages, the applicant lodged, on 9 September 1991, an action for damages against G.’s estate before the then Helsinki City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätt), claiming 2,008,500 Finnish Marks (FIM; corresponding to USD 500,000) plus interest. He alleged that his disability in movement and the operations which followed were caused by G.’s blow. On 27 November 1992 the defendant was summoned.
4. 11704_03.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Lehtonen v. Finland. Application no. 11704/03 -- The applicant was employed by a bank, working in the relevant years 1989-90 in the bank’s new campaign to grant loans and to invest in property abroad. The applicant’s suspected offending in respect of credit decisions made without adequate guarantee arrangements, which led to the bank’s winding-up in the beginning of the 1990s, was reported to the police on 23 June 1992. The criminal investigation was begun by the police on 7 July 1992. A total of fourteen reports of offences had been made. The corresponding investigations lasted from 7 July 1992 to 9 December 1994 and from 9 April 1996 ending on 9 May 1996. On 7 August 1992 the police carried out a search at the applicant’s home and seized his assets, at which point he became aware that he was suspected of serious fraud in connection with his activities at the bank.
5. 13079_03.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Ruotsalainen v. Finland. Application no. 13079/03. -- The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Lapinlahti. While driving his pickup van on 17 January 2001, the applicant was stopped by the police during a road check. The police discovered a more leniently taxed fuel than diesel oil in the tank of the van.
6. 13102_03.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Narinen v. Finland (no. 2). Application no. 13102/03. -- The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Klaukkala. He is a former partner in a limited partnership company, which was wound-up in 1993. On 4 February 1994 the company's estate reported an offence against the applicant. The applicant was first interrogated by the police on 4 July 1995 on suspicion of, inter alia, offences of debtor's fraud, dishonesty and bookkeeping. In June 1997 he was charged on twenty-one counts. The Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) held the first hearing on 30 September 1997. In the following 14 hearings it heard 21 witnesses named by the prosecutor and 5 witnesses named by the applicant. At the 16th hearing on 4 March 1999 the District Court delivered its judgment. It convicted the applicant of, inter alia, two aggravated debtor's frauds, two offences of debtor's dishonesty and five bookkeeping offences and sentenced him to one year and eight months' imprisonment. He was ordered to pay the company's estate some 723,400 Finnish Marks (FIM; corresponding to 122,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation and to reimburse its legal expenses.
7. 13566_06.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Kari-Pekka Pietiläinen v. Finland. Application no. 13566/06. -- The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Helsinki. On 24 February 2004 the applicant was convicted of aggravated fraud by the Tuusula District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) and sentenced to conditional imprisonment for one year and eight months. On 25 March 2004 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) requesting, inter alia, that an oral hearing be held. The other defendants and one of the complainants also appealed to the Appeal Court.
8. 14151_02.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of W v. Finland. Application no. 14151/02. -- On 7 August 2000 a mother contacted the police on account of a suspicion that her children, a girl born in 1991 and a boy born in 1993, had been sexually abused by a neighbour, the applicant. On 10 August and 2 September 2000 the siblings were interviewed by a police officer experienced in investigating sexual abuse of children. The applicant was also suspected of having abused two other girls, both friends of the siblings and born in 1991. The girls were interviewed by the police on 11 August and 18 August respectively and again on 3 September 2000. All the interviews were recorded on videotape.
9. 14724_02.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Hagert v. Finland. Application no. 14724/02. -- In November 1994 400,000 US dollars were transferred from the applicant’s Swiss bank account to a Finnish bank account. According to the applicant, the intention was that the money should go into her Finnish bank account. It appears that her husband, B, organised the operation but transferred the money allegedly by mistake to his own account. Soon after, that same amount was transferred from B’s account to an account which belonged to a company, C. The applicant and B had a right to use that account.
10. 16207_05.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Raita v. Finland. Application no. 16207/05. -- The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Wittenborn. The applicant and his siblings inherited real property from their father. The property is situated in Piispankylä, Vantaa. At the time, a master plan (yleiskaava, generalplan) had been drawn up for the area but it had not reached the town planning stage. On 17 June 1996 they sold the property for 210,000 Finnish marks (FIM) (some 35,420 euros) (EUR). The buyer was a company which was to be set up later and it was represented by the applicant. On 26 August 1996 the city decided to use its first call on the property, since it had already negotiated the purchase of the surrounding properties and the purchase price was considered advantageous. On 24 September 1996 the applicant challenged the city's decision. On 2 May 1997 the Uusimaa County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) rejected his appeal, finding that pursuant to the Pre-emption Act (etuostolaki, förköpslagen; Act no. 608/1977) the city had a first call on the property since the sellers and the buyer were not close relatives (sections 1 and 5). It did not uphold the applicant's argument that the pre-emption was manifestly unfair (section 6). On 26 June 1997 the applicant appealed. On both parties' request, the consideration of the case was postponed pending negotiations with a view to reaching a friendly settlement. On 10 March 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) rejected the appeal. On 10 September 1999 the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal, arguing that the parties had been taken by surprise by the decision of March 1999 since they had been given to understand that the proceedings would be stayed until a settlement was reached.
11. 16385_07.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Nieminen v. Finland. Application no. 16385/07. -- The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Lahti. On 12 October 2000 the applicant was questioned by the police as a suspect in a number of aggravated narcotics offences which had allegedly been committed on 10 December 1999. The offences had been reported to the police on 5 October 2000. The pre-trial investigation was completed on 21 March 2001. The case was examined and decided by the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) with regard to some of the defendants in May 2001. The charges against the applicant and one other person were removed from the docket for the time being at the public prosecutor's request because H., a witness, had not been located to appear in court. On 15 April 2002 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant and the other remaining defendant. On 15 February 2004 H. was summoned to appear before the court on 12 May 2004. That hearing was cancelled as H. was in prison awaiting trial in Sweden. The hearing eventually took place on 11 August 2004. During the hearing H. refused to elaborate on the matter and his pre-trial records were read out to the court. On the same date the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. In its judgment the court stated, in reply to the complaint made by the applicant's co-defendant, that when assessed as a whole, the proceedings had lasted longer than usual. However, the delay had been attributable to the legal excuse of a witness, which had prevented the case from being finalised earlier. On 15 May 2006 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), having held an oral hearing, upheld the lower court's judgment. As witness H. was again unavailable for the hearing, despite several previous attempts by the court to reach him, the District Court recordings of his statements were played back during the hearing.
12. 17038_04.html -- European Court of Human Rights. Case of Grönmark v. Finland. Application no. 17038/04. -- The case originated in an application (no. 17038/04) against the Republic of Finland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Finnish national, Ms Maarit Grönmark (“the applicant”), on 13 May 2004. The applicant was represented by Ms Tuula Weckman, a lawyer practising in Mäntsälä. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
13. 17038_04_B.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Grönmark v. Finland. Application no. 17038/04. -- The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Mäntsälä. The applicant was born out of wedlock. In 1969 her father R.J. was ordered, on the initiative of the social services and by a decision of a District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), to pay child support until the applicant's 17th birthday. On 1 October 1976 the Paternity Act came into force. The transitional provisions in the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act state that paternity proceedings with regard to a child born before the entry into force of the Act had to be initiated within five years, that is, before 1 October 1981. Moreover, no claim could be examined after the death of the father. No such restrictions exist for children born after the entry into force of the Paternity Act.
14. 17122_02.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of B. v. Finland. Application no. 17122/02. -- The applicant and another person were suspected of having sexually abused the applicant's two daughters, K. born in October 1986 and J. born in October 1990. During the pre-trial investigation, K. and J. were questioned on 16 February 1997 and on 19 January 1997 respectively. Subsequently, they were questioned again and the interviews were recorded on videotape. K. was interviewed on 15 June and 6 December 1998 and J. on 22 June and 7 December 1998. On 3 December 1998 at the pre-trial stage, the applicant was shown the videotapes. She contested the suspected sexual abuse. She was given an opportunity to have questions put to the children, but she did not avail herself of the opportunity. Her counsel was also present. In her closing statement of 4 February 1999 she maintained that she was not guilty of any offence. She also considered the children's statements contradictory and unclear.
15. 17506_90.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Kerojärvi v. Finland. Application no. 17506/90. -- Mr Erkki Kerojärvi, a Finnish citizen born in 1924, is retired and lives in Helsinki. On 5 September 1985 the State Office for Accident Compensation (tapaturmavirasto, olycksfallsverket - "the Compensation Office") gave its decision on a request by the applicant for compensation under the 1948 Military Injuries Act (sotilasvammalaki, lag om skada, ådragen i militärtjänst, 28.5.1948/404 - "the 1948 Act") from the Finnish State in respect of certain conditions which he claimed resulted from his service in the wars between 1939 and 1945 between Finland and the Soviet Union. The Compensation Office accepted that a shrapnel wound to the applicant's back was a military injury but rejected his claims in respect of inguinal hernia, chronic prostatitis, acute tonsillitis and a number of other conditions. Considering that the degree of his disability was less than ten per cent, the minimum required to qualify for a life annuity (elinkorko, livränta) under section 8 of the 1948 Act (see paragraph 19 below), the Compensation Office refused to grant him such a benefit.
16. 17889_07.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Landgren v. Finland. Application no. 17889/07. -- The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Malaga, Spain. The applicant's company was building houses on a plot bordering on parkland in the city of Espoo. On 19 October 2000 the city filed a criminal complaint requesting the police to investigate whether the applicant, or other persons, had committed an offence by cutting down trees on city grounds and removing them without authorisation. On 31 October 2000 the applicant was questioned by the police for the first time in that connection. On 5 July 2001, having questioned the applicant on three further occasions, as well as other suspects and witnesses, and having obtained written evidence, the police referred the investigation report to the public prosecutor.
17. 18131_91.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Stjerna v. Finland. Application no. 18131/91. -- Mr Stjerna is a Finnish national and lives in Helsinki. On 28 March 1989 he applied to the County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen) of Uusimaa for permission to change his surname Stjerna (pronounced "Shaerna") to "Tawaststjerna". He maintained that his ancestors had used the proposed name and that he and other members of the Stjerna family had always felt it an injustice only to bear half of the original name. Moreover, the use of his surname gave rise to practical difficulties as it was an old Swedish form, was not well known and was difficult to pronounce. This meant that it was frequently misspelt (as "Stjärna", "Säärna", "Saarna", "Seerna", "Sierna", "Tierna" and "Stjerba").
18. 18249_02.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of C. v. Finland. Application no. 18249/02. -- The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Cartigny, Switzerland. The applicant and his wife, B., who was of Finnish origin, had two children, a boy T. born on 2 June 1987 and a girl A. born on 28 September 1989. The family lived together in Switzerland until 1993 when B. took the children to Finland where she took up residence with L. as her female partner. On 10 June 1994, B. applied for divorce and for custody of the children. On 10 October 1994 the parents reached an interim agreement whereby the children would stay in Finland with their mother for the moment and the applicant have the right to three supervised visits. The applicant states that on 13 October 1994 he became aware that the children’s maternal grandmother had made a complaint to the social services against B.’s female partner, L., alleging that she had sexually abused A. There is some indication in the documents that the applicant may also have lodged a complaint on this ground. The criminal charges lodged against L. were later dismissed by the courts.
19. 18358_02.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Muttilainen v. Finland. Application no. 18358/02. -- The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Kylänpää. On 14 June 1998 the applicant and T.A. were arrested by police officers M.H. and S.H. in the act of committing a theft. The applicant had a hammer in his hand at the time of arrest. Later he was charged with attempted theft and violent resistance to a public official (virkamiehen väkivaltainen vastustaminen, våldsamt motstånd mot tjänsteman). At the trial hearing before the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) the applicant admitted the attempted theft but denied the charge of violent resistance to a public official. Both the applicant and police officer M.H. were heard. M.H. testified, inter alia, that the applicant had threatened him and his colleague S.H. with a hammer by waving it above his head when the police officers had interrupted the attempted theft. The applicant, for his part, said that he had seen the police arrive and that he had raised the hammer above his head while leaving the building, before the police officers had ordered him to drop it. He denied any intention to threaten the police officers. T.A. testified that the applicant had tried to escape. S.H. was not heard as a witness.
20. 18620_03.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Juppala v. Finland. Application no. 18620/03. -- The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Ylöjärvi. On 20 July 2000 she took her daughter's son to a doctor. The boy was three years old at the time. According to the doctor's report, the applicant said that she had noticed a bruise on the boy's back which might have been caused by a blow, and that his behaviour had been abnormal since he had visited his father, T. The applicant had strong suspicions that the injuries were consistent with physical violence. Furthermore, it was written in the report that the applicant had informed the doctor that the boy had said that the bruise had been caused by a punch. The applicant further stated that in January 2000 she had noticed signs of violence for the first time, but that T. had explained that the boy had fallen down the stairs. The doctor wrote in his report that the bruise noted on the boy's back was consistent with a punch, thereby supporting the boy's account, given also to the doctor, that he had been hit by his father.
21. 19235_03.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Marttinen v. Finland. Application no. 19235/03. -- The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Helsinki. In 2000 the applicant became suspected of debtor’s fraud for allegedly not having provided correct information about his assets and possessions, including real estate, shares in two housing companies and cars, in debt recovery procedures on 14 January or 16 December 1994 and 5 December 1997 as well as in his bankruptcy proceedings on 13 November 1995 or 5 January 1996. His creditors, the Tax Office of Uusimaa and Osuuspankki Realum, a bank, were complainants in that pre-trial investigation, which was carried out by the Espoo police. The applicant was in detention from 26 January to 22 March 2000.
22. 19348_04.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Sorvisto v. Finland. Application no. 19348/04. -- The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Espoo. On 2 February 1995 the applicant, a member of the board of a wound-up company (“V.”), was detained on suspicion of involvement in offences of aggravated fraud, debtor dishonesty and false book-keeping, allegedly committed in 1991 and 1992, before the winding up of V. The criminal proceedings against his four co-defendants began on 18 April 1996 before the Salo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). The charges were served on the applicant on 6 May 1996 and 16 December 1996, respectively, and the trial against him apparently began on 19 March 1997.
23. 19823_92.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Hokkanen v. Finland. Application no. 19823/92. -- Mr Hokkanen, a Finnish citizen, was born in 1953. He lives at Tuusula. He has a daughter, Sini, who was born in September 1983. Following the death in April 1985 of Mrs Tuula Hokkanen (the child’s mother, to whom the applicant had been married since 11 June 1983), Sini was looked after by her maternal grandparents, Mr Reino and Mrs Sinikka Nick (hereinafter referred to as "the grandparents"). According to the applicant, he had agreed to this as a provisional arrangement so that he could deal with various problems caused by his wife’s death, including the reorganisation of his farming activities. In late 1985 the grandparents informed the applicant that they did not intend to restore Sini to him. Efforts, involving the Social Welfare Board (sosiaalilautakunta, socialnämnden) of Tuusula, were made to achieve reconciliation between the applicant and the grandparents, but to no avail.

European Court of Human Rights judgments and decisions -- Finland application no. 10000..19999