European Court of Human Rights

Court's judgments and decisions by country. Finland application no. 50000..59999. Laukkanen and Manninen, Petri Sallinen and Others, Hyvönen, Karhuvaara and Iltalehti, Lammi, Saarenpään Loma Ky, Puolitaival and Pirttiaho, Harju, Heino, Selistö, Huohvanainen, Kukkonen, Mikhail DUMA, F.S.

1. 50230_99.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Laukkanen and Manninen v. Finland. Application no. 50230/99. -- The applicants were born in 1953 and 1955 respectively and live in Riihimäki and Lahti, respectively. The applicants were charged before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) of Lahti; the first applicant with unauthorised use of a motor vehicle and driving without a licence and the second applicant with unauthorised use of a motor vehicle, among other offences. The applicants were represented before the District Court by legal counsel. At the hearing before the District Court, on 10 September 1997, the public prosecutor called an eyewitness, N., a police officer. He had recognised the applicants and had seen them enter a car that was later reported stolen. When the witness gave evidence it appeared that there might have been other police officers in the area. The witness refused to answer some questions about his whereabouts when observing the applicants and also declined to confirm whether there had been other officers in the area, since he had been assigned to another operation not related to the applicants’ actions. The witness testified that he had recognised the applicants since he had met them before during pre-trial investigations. He had seen the first applicant enter the car by opening the door from the driver’s side. The second applicant had arrived a little later and had entered the car, and the car had left. The witness had seen its registration plate and remembered that it had contained the same digit three times. The applicants denied the charges against them, explaining they did not know anything about the incident they were accused of. They also stated to the District Court that they wished to be informed of the identity of the police officers witness N. had mentioned in order to be able to call them as witnesses.
2. 50882_99.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Petri Sallinen and Others v. Finland. Application no. 50882/99. -- The first applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Joensuu. He is a member of the Finnish Bar. The other 17 applicants were his clients at the relevant time (“the client applicants”). On 26 January 1999 the police conducted a search – it is not entirely clear of which premises – based on the suspicion that the first applicant's clients X and Y (not client applicants before the Court) had committed aggravated debtor's fraud. In the course of that search X managed to destroy the original of a promissory note which the police had attempted to seize and which may have been relevant to the financial arrangements underlying the suspected offence. At the time the first applicant's status in the investigation had been that of a witness. On 22 February 1999 the police requested him to attend for questioning in this capacity. This request was apparently cancelled before he had taken any action thereon. A police officer in charge of the criminal investigations granted a search warrant and on 2 March 1999 seven officers of the National Bureau of Investigation (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen), assisted by a tax inspector and an enforcement official (ulosottomies, utmätningsman), searched the first applicant's law office, flat and vehicles. This search warrant was likewise based on the suspicion that X and Y had committed aggravated debtor's fraud but the first applicant was now indicated as a suspect, namely that he had aided and abetted the offences by drafting certain documents.
3. 52529_99.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Hyvönen v. Finland. Application no. 52529/99. -- Friendly Settlement. The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Turku. On 16 June 1998 the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Vantaa convicted the applicant of aggravated concealment of stolen goods and aggravated forgery, sentencing him to one year and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant and his co-defendants had denied the charges. The District Court referred the complainants’ claims for damages to be pursued in separate civil proceedings once the criminal proceedings had ended. In his appeal to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki the applicant maintained his innocence and, in the alternative, requested that his sentence be reduced or suspended. He also proposed to re-examine witness P., who had already been heard in the District Court. The Court of Appeal summoned the applicant to attend its oral hearing on 24 May 1999. He failed to do so, allegedly due to his dementia and other age-related illnesses, but was represented by his counsel, who submitted a medical certificate and alluded to the applicant’s dementia. Counsel further stated that the applicant had failed to show up for their joint departure for Helsinki in spite of their prior agreement. In its decision of the same day the Court of Appeal found that no legally valid excuse had been shown for the applicant’s absence. His appeal was therefore struck out without counsel having been able to plead its merits and without having been able to re-examine witness P. The State was ordered to pay P. an allowance and reimburse her costs for having presented herself at the hearing venue.
4. 53678_00.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland. Application no. 53678/00. -- The first applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Helsinki, Finland. The second applicant (“the applicant company”) is a limited liability company based in Helsinki. The applicant company publishes a newspaper called Iltalehti which has a circulation of approximately 120,000. On 31 October 1996 it published an article on a criminal trial concerning the drunken and disorderly behaviour, including an assault on a police officer, of Mr A., a lawyer practising in Seinäjoki. The article bore the title “His wife [is] the chairperson of the parliamentary Committee for Education and Culture – Lawyer from Seinäjoki hits policeman in restaurant” (“Vaimo eduskunnan sivistysvaliokunnan puheenjohtaja – Seinäjokelainen asianajaja iski poliisia ravintolassa”). Follow-up articles were published on 21 November and 10 December 1996 concerning the verdict whereby the defendant was convicted and sentenced to six months’ suspended imprisonment. It was reported that the defendant was the husband of Mrs A., a member of the Finnish parliament and the chairperson of its Committee for Education and Culture. The headline on 21 November read “... Husband of member of parliament hits policeman in restaurant” (“... Kansanedustajan aviomies löi poliisia ravintolassa”). The heading on 10 December 1996 read “... Husband of member of parliament receives harsh sentence for violence in restaurant” (“... Kansanedustajan miehelle kova tuomio ravintolassa riehumisesta”). The trial of Mr A. had been widely publicised and discussed locally, and the role of Mrs A. – who was in no way involved in the criminal proceedings – had become the subject of, inter alia, political satire in a programme (“Iltalypsy”) broadcast on the main national television channel.
5. 53835_00.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Lammi v. Finland. Application no. 53835/00. -- The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Vantaa. He was the sole shareholder in a company, which was in the process of being wound up from 1987. In 1987 the official receiver of the company requested the applicant to hand over to him all the assets of the company. The applicant who was in possession of shares in a housing company refused to deliver those shares. The applicant instituted civil proceedings before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Vantaa against the company and requested the court to confirm that the shares were owned by him and that he was under no obligation to hand them over. On 17 December 1987 the District Court held, however, that the shares belonged to the company and ordered him to hand them over to the official receiver. On 30 November 1988 the judgment was upheld by the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). On 5 June 1989 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.
6. 54508_00.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Saarenpään Loma Ky v. Finland. Application no. 54508/00. -- The applicant is a limited liability company whose main field of activity consisted of building and hiring holiday cottages as well as providing accommodation and travel services. It is owned by Mr Kari Saarenpää and Mrs Eevaliisa Saarenpää, who live in Valkeala. On 22 November 1993 the applicant requested the Kymi County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelse) to grant it an exemption permit (poikkeuslupa, undantagstillstånd) to erect four cabins and one sauna building on a piece of land called Mustalamminvuori, situated within the Penttimäki property 1:464 in the Repovesi wilderness area in the municipality of Valkeala. The intended cabins were to be located in an area which was not covered by a shore plan (rantakaava, strandplan) adopted in January 1986 upon Mr Kari Saarenpää’s application. The County Administrative Board refused the application on 16 December 1994, noting, inter alia, that part of the Penttimäki property was located within an area included in the nationwide shore protection programme (rantojensuojeluohjelma, strandskyddsprogrammet), adopted in December 1990, and that the intended construction would hamper significantly the implementation of a shore plan and the overall settlement of the area. The applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Ministry of the Environment (ympäristöministeriö, miljöministeriet, “Ministry”) on 7 December 1995. Following the applicant’s further appeal the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) conducted an inspection in situ and held an oral hearing. On 24 March 1997 it quashed the decisions and remitted the matter to the Environmental Centre of South-East of Finland (Kaakkois-Suomen ympäristökeskus, Sydöstra Finlands miljöcentral), which had succeeded the County Administrative Board as the competent first-instance body. The Supreme Administrative Court noted, inter alia, the small-scale nature of the project and found that the intended construction would not hamper significantly the implementation of planning regulations or the overall settlement of the area. The legal conditions for granting the exemption permit had therefore existed. On 20 October 1997 the Environmental Centre nevertheless refused the applicant the exemption permit. It considered that it was not expedient to grant an exemption permit as a national park or a nature conservation area might be established in that area.
7. 54857_00.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Puolitaival and Pirttiaho v. Finland. Application no. 54857/00. -- The applicants, Olavi Puolitaival and Esko Pirttiaho, are Finnish nationals who were born in 1945 and 1958 and live in Jääli and Tampere respectively. The applicants were owners of a former company called Konekersantti Oy (hereinafter “the applicants' company”), which was a claimant in civil proceedings initiated on 3 December 1991 against another company called M.R. Ky (hereinafter “the M.R. company”). The proceedings concerned a dispute about the sale of movable property: the M.R. company had refused to pay the applicants' company the purchase price of an engine as they claimed, inter alia, that it did not contain all the components ordered. The lawyer of the M.R. company in the proceedings before the Vaasa District Court and in the lodging of an appeal with the Vaasa Court of Appeal on 4 March 1992 was P.L., who was also at that time a judicial secretary (hovioikeudenviskaali, hovrättsfiskal) at the Vaasa Court of Appeal. Together with her husband, she owned a law firm until 1995. At the material time, P.L. worked part-time for the law firm as a partner, having been given permission to do so by the Court of Appeal. In her notice of appeal of 4 March 1992 on behalf of the M.R. company P.L. submitted to the Court of Appeal, inter alia, that the applicants' company “seems to use concepts quite carelessly in its agreements in general”; that “what is essential about the case is that the seller must not act fraudulently and must not, even in good faith, draw up agreements the contents of which are unclear”; and, further, that “if we follow the logic of the City Court, overcharging is not a crime if you manage to overcharge more than one victim”.
8. 56716_09.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Harju v. Finland. Application no. 56716/09. -- The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Helsinki. The applicant was under suspicion of having organised illegal immigration (laittoman maahanmuuton järjestäminen, ordnande av olaglig inresa). The pre-trial investigation in her case was conducted by the criminal investigators of the Finnish Border Guard (Rajavartiolaitos, Gränsbevakningsväsendet) who, inter alia, conducted a search at her domicile on 9 July 2009 at 10 p.m. The applicant was not at home at the time of the search. She was not contacted about the search nor was her counsel informed about the search. During the search her computer, among other items, was seized. When the applicant returned home later that night, she found a handwritten note indicating that the Finnish Border Guard criminal investigators had searched her apartment and that some items had been seized. According to the records of the search and seizure, dated 11 July 2009, the seized materials, with the exception of the computer, were returned to the applicant on that same date. The applicant was later questioned as a suspect.
9. 56720_09.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Heino v. Finland. Application no. 56720/09. -- The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Helsinki. The applicant is an attorney. Some business transactions of her client's spouse were investigated by the police but she herself was not a suspect. On 7 October 2009 police investigators conducted a search at the applicant's office. During the search some e-mail correspondence were copied from her computer and certain documents were seized. By letter dated 12 October 2009 the head of the investigation (tutkinnanjohtaja, undersökningsledaren) informed the applicant that the seizure of the data had not been successful due to the fact that the wrong files had been copied, and that the information copied had been destroyed. The applicant allegedly never received a copy of the seized files so it was not possible to verify whether the seizure of the data really had been unsuccessful. The seized documents remained in the police's possession. The pre-trial investigation has been concluded and the case has been submitted to the public prosecutor for consideration of charges. No court proceedings have been initiated yet.
10. 56767_00.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Selistö v. Finland. Application no. 56767/00. -- The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Vaasa, Finland. The applicant is a journalist at the regional daily Pohjalainen which is published in Vaasa. In two articles published in January and February 1996 she described the allegedly unprofessional behaviour of an unnamed surgeon, “X”, which allegedly had caused the death of a patient in the Seinäjoki Central Hospital on 7 December 1992. The patient's top rib had been pressing on her artery, thereby hampering the blood flow in her left arm which would occasionally go numb. The surgery had consisted of shortening the top rib by 5-8 centimetres. Complications had arisen after the rib had been shortened and the patient was established to have died from the bursting of her subclavian vein and the blood flow into her pleural cavity. The patient's widower, Mr Haapalainen, had filed a criminal complaint against X and another surgeon who had assisted during the operation. The National Medico-Legal Board (terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättsskyddscentralen för hälsovården) had not found it possible to establish at what stage of her operation Mrs Haapalainen had suffered the injury leading to her death. Consequently, no causal link could be established between the injury and the conduct of either of the two surgeons. The Central Criminal Police had conducted a pre-trial investigation into the death. In April 1994 the Vaasa County Prosecutor had decided not to press charges against X, as there was no evidence that he was guilty either of an offence in office caused by negligence or of involuntary manslaughter.
11. 57264_09.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of F.S. and Others v. Finland. Application no. 57264/09. -- The first applicant, Ms F.S., is a Somali national who was born in 1980. The second and the third applicants are children of the first applicant, born in 1996 and 2007 respectively. They all live currently in Finland. The applicants entered Finland on 16 September 2008 and sought asylum on the same day. In the asylum interview the first applicant submitted that she had left Somalia because of the war. She had intended to leave alone, but the second applicant had run after her and she had to take her along. The first applicant has five other children who remained in Somalia, as did her two nephews, of whom she had been taking care. Having left Somalia, the first and the second applicant had travelled through Ethiopia, Sudan and Libya. They had left Libya by boat for Malta. The third applicant was born during that voyage. Upon arrival in Malta the applicants had been placed in detention. The first applicant had been released after seven months after which she had lodged an application for asylum. She was given a tent in which to live, but no other accommodation or subsistence. She had no work or access to health care services. Four months after her release from detention, the first applicant had paid a trafficker to arrange a flight to Finland for her and the children. On 14 November 2008 the Finnish Immigration Service (Maahanmuutto-virasto, Migrationsverket, hereinafter “the FIS”) refused the applicants residence permits and rejected their asylum claim without an examination of its merits. It also ordered their removal to Malta.
12. 57389_00.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Huohvanainen v. Finland. Application no. 57389/00. -- The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Liperi. On 2 December 1994 the applicant's 27-year-old brother J. was shot dead at six metres' range by the police following a two-day siege. The following events led up to the shooting: On the evening of Wednesday 30 November 1994 J. threatened a taxi driver with a gun, forcing him to abandon his car. J. pointed his gun, which had a silencer on it, at the driver's chest and then pushed it against his abdomen with force causing loss of breath. While on the ground the driver was forced to put his hands up and his clothes were searched. He was then ordered to lie on the ground face down. When he tried to look up, J. held the gun to the back of his head and said “if you move, you know what this gun will do”. Finally, J. let the taxi driver go having taken a torch from the car. Later that night, J. shut himself in his rented house on the island of Ängeslandet in the municipality of Kirkkonummi. He did not take any hostages. The island was subsequently evacuated.
13. 57793_00.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Kukkonen v. Finland. Application no. 57793/00. -- The applicant, who is a carpenter by profession, was born in 1967 and lives in Helsinki. On 31 January 1994 the applicant had an accident at work. He sustained a splinter fracture of his left elbow which later developed into degenerative arthritis. The insurance company paid him an occupational injury pension (tapaturmaeläke, olycksfallspension) until 31 May 1996. The applicant applied to have the pension continued from 1 June 1996 onwards. On 8 May 1996 the insurance company rejected his application finding that the applicant's working capacity had been reduced by less than 10%. It further held that the applicant's inability to return to his previous profession as a carpenter was not based on the injury to his left arm, but on his neck and shoulder pains which had not been caused by the accident. The applicant appealed to the Accident Board (tapaturmalautakunta, olycksfallsnämnden), repeating his requests. He relied on a medical opinion dated 13 May 1996 in which he was found to be unfit for carpentry work as well as an another medical opinion dated 4 June 1996. He submitted two further medical opinions dated 28 June 1996 and 19 January 1996 respectively. The Accident Board rejected his appeal on 13 March 1997 by four votes to one.
14. 58254_10.html -- European Court of Human Rights. Mikhail DUMA against Finland. Application no. 58254/10. -- The applicant, Mr Mikhail Duma, is a Russian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Mäntyharju. His application was lodged on 6 October 2010. He was represented before the Court by Ms Kaisu Tiirola, a lawyer practising in Mikkeli. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The Russian Government, who had expressed their wish to make use of their right to intervene under Article 36 of the Convention, were represented by Mr Georgy Matyushkin, representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that, as no place in a nursing home could be given to him in Russia, his deportation to the Russian Federation would constitute abandonment which would shorten his life. He had a right to enjoy family life with his children and his grandchild who all lived in Finland and were committed to taking care of him. He was completely dependent on his children and had no relatives left in Russia. On 19 January 2011 the President of the Section decided to indicate to the Government of Finland, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed to Russia until further notice. It was also decided to grant priority to the application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

European Court of Human Rights judgments and decisions -- Finland application no. 50000..59999