FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 60790/00
by Anja and Anne LÖNNHOLTZ and the estate of Martta LÖNNHOLTZ
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 January 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrR. Maruste,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 August 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Ms Anja Lönnholtz and Ms Anne Lönnholtz are Finnish nationals, who were born in 1952 and 1955 respectively and live in Iittala. The third applicant is the estate of Mrs Martta Lönnholtz, born in 1920, who died in 1999. They are represented before the Court by Mr Vesa Laukkanen, a lawyer practising in Kokkola. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen, Director in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents, may be summarised as follows.
1. The first set of proceedings
In 1983 Mrs Martta Lönnholtz lodged a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri, justitiekanslern) on account of an alleged fraud committed by a lawyer conducting the administration of the estate of her late husband. The case was transferred to the Finnish Bar Association’s Disciplinary Board (Suomen asianajajaliiton kurinpitolautakunta, Finlands advokatförbunds disciplinnämnd), which in 1984 found no reason to take measures, as the lawyer concerned had not acted in violation of the lawyers’ code of conduct or otherwise neglected his duties.
Subsequently, the police carried out a pre-trial investigation on Mrs Martta Lönnholtz’s request. On 19 July 1989, the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute as he found no evidence of the alleged fraud.
In September 1989 the applicants instituted criminal proceedings before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Tampere against the above-mentioned lawyer. They also claimed damages and legal costs. The lawyer denied the charges and the other claims. Moreover, he brought a private prosecution against the applicants and charged them with malicious accusation, as they had allegedly knowingly accused him of an offence concerning which the public prosecutor had already decided not to prosecute. He also claimed damages and legal costs. The applicants denied the charges as well as the other claims.
The public prosecutor did not associate himself with either of the private prosecutions.
On 19 December 1990 the District Court decided not to examine the charges against the lawyer, as they had been raised outside the statutory time-limit. However, the District Court convicted the applicants of malicious accusation, sentenced them to a suspended term of four months’ imprisonment and ordered them to pay the lawyer’s legal costs. The District Court rejected his claim for damages as unspecified.
The applicants appealed, requesting that the lawyer be found guilty as charged and that the charges brought against them be rejected.
On 8 February 1993 the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), finding, inter alia, that the charges against the lawyer had been raised in time, rejected them as there was no evidence that the lawyer was guilty of fraudulent actions. As to the charges of malicious accusation, the Court of Appeal, finding that as from an objective point of view the applicants had reason to bring a private prosecution, rejected the charges against the applicants.
On 4 November 1993 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicants leave to appeal.
2. The second set of proceedings
The first examination of the case
On 19 January 1994 the applicants brought a private prosecution before the Turku Court of Appeal against the judges, who had convicted them of the afore-mentioned malicious accusation in the District Court. 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 of Finland.
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 (apulaisoikeuskansleri, biträdande justitiekanslern) 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 Court of Appeal judges for their final consideration. On 13 September 1995 the Court of Appeal, finding that the above-mentioned judges had not overstepped their powers when deciding the case before them, rejected the charges and the other claims.
On 13 November 1995 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court, requesting an oral hearing. Alternatively, they requested that the case be referred back to the lower court and that it be directed to hold a hearing. On 11 December 1995 the case was assigned to a judicial secretary of the court, who reported on it to the judges on the bench on 27 March 1996. By its decision of 20 June 1996 the Supreme Court referred the case back to the lower court, as it considered that the case should not have been decided without an oral hearing.
The second examination of the case
On 25 June 1996 the case was restored to the Court of Appeal’s case-list. The case was assigned to a section of the court and to a judicial secretary on 23 July and 9 August 1996 respectively. The court held preparatory sessions on 31 January, 6 February, and on 5, 13 and 21 March 1997.
On 20 May 1997 the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing and heard all the parties. The Deputy Chancellor of Justice confirmed that he did not associate himself with the private prosecution.
On 23 November 1998 the Court of Appeal held its final deliberations in the case. On 1 December 1998 it gave judgment, finding that the judges before the District Court should not have convicted the applicants of malicious accusation. The Court of Appeal held that the judges had neglected their duties to examine thoroughly all aspects of the case, but it rejected the charges as it found that the neglect was only minor taken in the context of the proceedings as a whole. However, the Court of Appeal found that the applicants were entitled to compensation due to the afore-mentioned wrongful conviction. The State of Finland was ordered to pay each applicant 30,000 Finnish marks (FIM; about 5,045 euros (EUR)) plus legal costs. All the parties appealed.
On 1 February 1999 the applicants among others lodged their appeals with the Supreme Court. On 20 May 1999 the case was assigned to a judicial secretary of the court. The court held a preparatory meeting on 14 September 1999 following which it invited comments from the Ministry of Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal, which were received on 12 and 18 October 1999 respectively. Following a preparatory meeting on 3 November 1999 the court received the applicants
