European Court of Human Rights

Court's judgments and decisions by country. Finland application no. 60000..69999. Lönnholtz, Uoti, Uoti, Andria Oy and Kari Karanko, Eskelinen and Others, Kajas, Kajari, Ruoho, Ekholm, S.V.

1. 60790_00.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Lönnholtz v. Finland. Application no. 60790/00. -- Friendly settlement. The applicants were born in 1952 and 1955 respectively and live in Iittala. On 19 January 1994 they brought a private prosecution before the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) against some District Court judges, who had convicted them of malicious accusation in separate proceedings. The judges were charged with abuse of office as they had allegedly neglected to examine the case thoroughly, both as to the facts and as to the law. The applicants claimed damages from the State. On 4 February, 30 March and 25 May 1994 respectively the court invited the responses of the defendant judges, the Ministry of Justice and the acting public prosecutor, the Chancellor of Justice to the application for a summons. The court received them on 15 March, 19 April and 9 June 1994 respectively. The defendants denied the charges and the State its liability for any damages. In September 1994, the Deputy Chancellor of Justice informed the Court of Appeal that he did not associate himself with the private prosecution. On 1 September 1994 the case was assigned to another judicial secretary of the court. On 15 November 1994 the court invited the applicants’ further comments and they were received on 15 December 1994. On 10 March 1995 the court held its deliberations, following which the draft judgment was circulated among the judges for their final consideration. On 13 September 1995 the court, finding that the defendant judges had not overstepped their powers when deciding the case before them, rejected the charges and the other claims.
2. 61222_00.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Uoti v. Finland. Application no. 61222/00. -- The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Helsinki. On 28 November 1992 a State-owned bank requested the police to investigate whether a former bank director, P., had committed offences as the bank had advanced loans without acceptable guarantees to such an extent that its solvency was endangered. The bank also requested the police to investigate whether P. or some other person had received unlawful financial inducements or whether blackmail had been involved. On 20 August 1993 the bank supplemented its request maintaining that the applicant had possibly committed offences of dishonesty as a debtor, debt fraud or aggravated debt fraud during April-May 1992, as he had allegedly participated in transferring bank shares owned by certain limited liability corporations into his own control, thereby causing one of the corporations’ biggest creditors, the bank, financial losses of approximately 10,000,000 Finnish marks (FIM; equivalent to 1,681,879 euros: EUR).
3. 61222_00_B.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Uoti v. Finland. Application no. 61222/00. -- Just satisfaction. The case originated in an application (no. 61222/00) 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, Mr Kari Uoti (“the applicant”), on 14 September 2000. In a judgment delivered on 9 January 2007 (“the principal judgment”), the Court held as follows. The question of whether the redress afforded by the District Court was sufficient to make good a violation, if any, based on the entire length of the proceedings, could only be decided after the termination of the proceedings. These were still pending before the national courts and the redress that had been, or could in the future be offered was therefore inchoate. The Court found that the applicant could therefore still claim to be a victim. This conclusion was without prejudice to the question, to be decided at the end of the proceedings, of whether the applicant may be regarded as having obtained sufficient redress for any violation of Article 6. The Court found that the length of the proceedings up to that moment had been excessive and had failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. Therefore, there was a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Uoti v. Finland, no. 61222/00, 9 January 2007).
4. 61557_00.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Andria Oy and Kari Karanko v. Finland. Application no. 61557/00. -- The applicant, an owner of the applicant company, was born in 1958 and lives in Velkua. Since August 1993 S. had ordered children’s clothing from the then Andria Oy (apparently not the same company as the applicant company, and since 8 June 1994 called “Saariston Matkailuautot Oy”). In May 1994 the then Andria Oy’s debt collecting operation was transferred to a company E. On 26 July 1994, E., which is not an applicant before this Court, filed a writ of summons (case no. 94/6599) against S. with the Vantaa District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). The plaintiff E. was represented by the second applicant. The plaintiff requested outstanding payment of FIM 5,327 (EUR 896) with interest for an order of children’s clothing made by S. On 20 October 1994, the summons was served on the defendant, who contested the claims, alleging that he had cancelled the order in time. The court held a preparatory hearing on 19 May 1995, in which the plaintiff E. was represented by the second applicant. According to the Government, the plaintiff had stated that it would file a supplementary writ of summons and a claim for damages. On 5 July 1995 E.’s representative R. and the court agreed by telephone that the supplementary claims were to be submitted by 15 August 1995. Around February–March 1997 the District Court informed the plaintiff E. that a preparatory hearing would be held in May 1997 and reminded that it had not lodged a supplementary summons. On 25 April 1997, the applicant company filed a new writ of summons against S. with the District Court (case no. 97/2645). This claim also concerned the recovery of an outstanding payment of FIM 5,327 (EUR 896) for the purchase of goods. The applicant company also claimed damages in the amount of FIM 18,850 (EUR 4,179). The summons was served on the defendant on 27 June 1997, who submitted his response on 25 July 1997. Meanwhile, the preparatory hearing concerning the first writ of summons, filed by E., scheduled for 29 May 1997, was cancelled. The District Court considered it appropriate to examine all the claims together. According to the Government, on 10 June 1998 it joined the actions and served the defendant’s responses on the plaintiffs. On 15 April 1999 and 31 May 1999, the court held preparatory hearings. The main hearing was held on 23 August 1999, at which one witness was heard. The court also examined seven items of written evidence. At the hearing, the applicant company submitted a further claim for damages of FIM 6,000 (EUR 1,009). On 6 September 1999 the court issued a joint judgment in the two cases. Without giving reasons, E. was no longer considered as a plaintiff and the applicant company was indicated as the only plaintiff. The court rejected all the claims and ordered the applicant company, together with the second applicant, to pay the defendant’s legal expenses. It found that the second applicant, being the plaintiff’s legal representative, had negligently caused S. to incur legal costs. In its judgment it also noted the following: “It was not possible for the District Court to eliminate entirely the lack of clarity in the claims of the parties, especially those of the plaintiff, and the grounds of and evidence for these claims. ... It has examined the case to the extent that the parties have presented their claims and the grounds for them, and what had been the matter in question in the District Court’s view.”
5. 63235_00.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland. Application no. 63235/00. -- The applicants were born in 1955, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1937, 1957, 1983 and 1981 respectively and live in Sonkakoski and Sonkajärvi. The first five applicants and the late Mr Hannu Matti Lappalainen worked in the Sonkajärvi Police District. Under a collective agreement concluded in 1986, they were entitled to a remote-area allowance, which was added to their salaries as a bonus for working in a remote part of the country. The amounts of the allowance were calculated on the basis of a given area's remoteness. By a collective agreement concluded on 15 March 1988, the remote-area allowance was abolished. This would have resulted in a reduction of the salary payable to civil servants whose duty station was Sonkajärvi. In order to prevent such a reduction, the collective agreement granted them monthly individual wage supplements from 1 March 1988. On 1 November 1990 the Sonkajärvi Police District was incorporated into the Iisalmi Police District by a decision of the Ministry of the Interior (sisäasiainministeriö, inrikesministeriet). Following the incorporation, the applicants' duty station changed. They also lost their individual wage supplements and the length of their commute allegedly increased by up to 50 kilometres per day as they had to travel from Sonkajärvi to Iisalmi. According to the applicants, following their request of 17 October 1990 to that effect, the Kuopio Provincial Police Command (läänin poliisijohto, länspolisledningen) promised that their loss would be compensated.
6. 64436_01.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Kajas v. Finland. Application no. 64436/01. -- The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Helsinki. On 16 February 1995 the applicant wrote an article which criticised the business transactions and financial affairs of the Student Association of the University of Helsinki (to be called “HYY” hereinafter). The article was published in a magazine called “Uusi Ylioppilaslehti” which is a publication mainly distributed to the students and professors of the University of Helsinki and others interested in questions concerning the Student Association and the University. On 7 August 1995 HYY and some others mentioned in the article requested the police to investigate whether the applicant had defamed them. On 13 September 1995 the applicant was interrogated by the police for the first time for approximately one hour. On 13 February 1996 the police received another request for investigation which was related to a further alleged defamation in November-December 1995. In the context of this investigation, the applicant was heard on 2 May 1996 and the investigation was completed on the same day. On 20 June 1996 a local prosecutor decided not to prosecute the applicant for either of the alleged offences. However, as a result of an extraordinary appeal (kantelu, klagan) of 22 July 1996 by the complainants the County Prosecutor of Uusimaa ordered, on 17 January 1997, that the applicant be charged with an offence. On 27 January 1997 another local prosecutor brought defamation charges against the applicant before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) of Espoo. Charges were brought and a summons was served on the applicant on 31 January 1997.
7. 65040_01.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Kajari v. Finland. Application no. 65040/01. -- The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Tallinn. He and another Estonian national have a daughter born out of wedlock in 1992. On 31 July 1994 mother and daughter arrived in Finland. On 17 February 1995 their residence there was officially registered. In 1994-1998 the daughter lived both with her father in Estonia and with her mother in Finland in accordance with an agreement between the parents. According to the Government, on 18 January 1995 the applicant gave his written consent to the child's temporary stay in Finland and on 5 February 1995 he gave his consent that she stay permanently in Finland, presupposing that his visiting rights would not be affected. According to the applicant, he and the mother agreed in writing on 3 February 1995 that they would participate equally in the care of their daughter and that she would spend an equal amount of time, about one month at a time, with each parent. On 8 December 1995 the applicant and the mother agreed that neither of them would pay the other maintenance in respect of their daughter. On 19 December 1995 the agreement was confirmed by the Social Welfare Board (sosiaalilautakunta, socialnämnden) of Harjavalta, Finland. On 17 August 1998 the mother removed the child from day care in Tallinn and brought her to Finland.
8. 66399_09 .html -- European Court of Human Rights. Application no. 66399/09, S.V. against Finland -- The applicant, Mr S.V., is a Finnish national who was born in 1969. The President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided that the applicant’s name should not be disclosed (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court). The applicant’s application was lodged on 15 December 2009. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. On 27 July 2001 the applicant and nine other persons filed a civil action with the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). They requested that an arbitral award given in the same year concerning repurchase of shares be quashed or alternatively that the price payable for the shares in question be raised considerably. In summer 2009 the District Court started to proceed with the case and summoned the parties concerned to appear in person. The applicant resided abroad until September 2009 and his foreign address was allegedly listed in the population register. All other parties to the case were summoned by a registered letter but the applicant was summoned through an advertisement in the Official Gazette (Virallinen lehti, Officiella tidningen). As the applicant did not appear at the preparatory session of the case held on 17 June 2009, the District Court decided on 18 June 2009 to discontinue his case. The other parties to the case had meanwhile withdrawn their actions as they had reached an out-of-court agreement with the limited liability company. The applicant claims that he did not receive the decision of 18 June 2009 until early 2010, by accident, and that it did not include any instructions for appeal. By letter dated 17 January 2010 the applicant filed a complaint with the Helsinki Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten), requesting that the District Court’s decision of 18 June 2009 be quashed or annulled and that the case be referred back to the District Court for examination. He also requested restoration of the time-limit to appeal (menetetyn määräajan palauttaminen, återställandet av försutten fatalietid). He claimed that he had been summoned in an incorrect manner.
9. 66899_01.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Ruoho v. Finland. Application no. 66899/01. -- The applicant was born in 1952 and apparently lives in Portugal. On 30 March 1993 the applicant was interrogated on suspicion of debtor’s dishonesty. He had acted as a financial consultant in connection with transactions between two companies, Osakeyhtiö Six (as of 1997 Fryckman-Yhtiö Oy) and Moniplan Oy. On 30 December 1988 Osakeyhtiö Six had sold to Moniplan Oy the shares of its subsidiaries Six-Myynti Oy (later Seroponex Oy) and Aromimauste Oy (later Cenoporex Oy). The above-mentioned sales contract had later been declared null and void in civil proceedings. On 15 December 1993 the applicant was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting debtor’s dishonesty before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Helsinki. At the same trial the owners of Osakeyhtiö Six and Moniplan Oy were charged with two counts of debtor’s dishonesty. The case was heard on 26 occasions before the District Court. On 10 December 1997 the Helsinki Tax Rectification Committee (verotuksen oikaisulautakunta, prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden found Seroponex Oy and Cenoporex Oy liable to pay certain taxes. They appealed to the County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten).
10. 68050_01.html -- European Court of Human Rights. The case of Ekholm v. Finland. Application no. 68050/01. -- The applicants were born in 1922 and 1951 respectively and live mainly in Esbo. The first applicant owns a secondary residence in the municipality of Lumparland on the Åland Islands. The secondary property is also used by the second applicant, who is her son and only heir. According to the applicants, they use the property for holiday purposes as well as renting it to tourists and for business meetings. There is a dog yard on the neighbouring property. In the summer of 1991 the applicants applied to the then South Åland Municipal Health Board (“the Health Board”; Södra Ålands hälsonämnd), requesting that the owners of the neighbouring property (“the neighbours”) be ordered to move the dog yard away from their common boundary on the grounds that the noise gave rise to a private nuisance. On 12 September 1991 the Health Board decided not to take measures as it considered that no private nuisance existed. On 17 October 1991 the applicants appealed. The then Åland Provincial Administrative Court (Ålands länsrätt) received the Health Board’s statement and the neighbours’ reply to the appeal on 18 November 1991. It received the applicants’ rejoinder on 30 January 1992. On 14 May 1992 the court upheld the Health Board’s decision. On 23 June 1992 the applicants appealed further. The Supreme Administrative Court (högsta förvaltningsdomstolen, korkein hallinto-oikeus) received the Health Board’s statement and the neighbours’ reply to the appeal on 14 August 1992 and 15 September 1992 respectively. Meanwhile, on 23 July 1992 the applicants submitted additional information to the court and on 20 November 1992 they filed a rejoinder. On 11 March 1993 the court invited a statement from the building inspector (byggnadsinspektören) of Lumparland. It was received on 28 April 1993. The applicants filed their comments including an expert opinion on 30 April 1993. On 24 June 1993 the court, finding that the dogs’ barking amounted to a private nuisance such that the neighbours were under an obligation to put right or limit the disturbance, sent the case back to the Health Board.

European Court of Human Rights judgments and decisions -- Finland application no. 60000..69999