FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 32447/02
by Arja Tuulikki PIRINEN
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MsL. Mijović,
MrD. Spielmann, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 August 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Arja Tuulikki Pirinen, is a Finnish national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Palojoki. She is represented before the Court by Mr Jarmo Kinnunen, a lawyer practising in Espoo.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as they appear from the documents, may be summarised as follows.
On 30 March 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) quashed the decision of the Municipal Pensions Institution (kuntien eläkelautakunta, kommunernas pensionsnämnd) of 30 March 1994, in which the applicant’s application for a disability pension as from 1 January 1994 had been dismissed. The Supreme Administrative Court returned the application for fresh examination before the Local Government Pensions Institution (kuntien eläkevakuutus, kommunernas pensionsförsäkring).
The applicant received a disability pension from 1 January 1995 to 30 April 1995 under the State Retirement Pension Act (kansaneläkelaki, folkpensionslag; 347/1956).
1. The first set of proceedings
On 18 April 1995 the Local Government Pensions Institution issued a new decision granting the applicant a disability pension as from 1 February 1995 based on inability to work since 11 January 1995 (i.e., it did not grant a pension for the period of 1 January 1994-31 January 1995). The applicant appealed to the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus, försäkringsrätten), which upheld the decision on 7 November 1996.
2. The second set of proceedings
On 13 December 1996 the applicant applied again for a disability pension from 1 January 1994 to 31 January 1995. On 16 December 1996 the Local Government Pensions Institution upheld its previous provisional decision of 5 January 1996, according to which the applicant was granted a disability pension as from 1 February 1995. The applicant appealed to the Municipal Pensions Institution maintaining that she had been unfit to work as from 26 November 1993 and requesting a disability pension as from 1 January 1994 with interest. The applicant submitted to the Municipal Pensions Institution a medical doctor’s statement of 22 March 1997 (according to which the applicant was unfit to work as from 26 November 1993) and an ENMG-report of 3 March 1997. The Local Government Pensions Institution submitted its observations and the applicant submitted her observations in reply. On 14 May 1997 the Municipal Pensions Institution dismissed the applicant’s appeal maintaining, inter alia, that the applicant’s working capacity had not been reduced to an extent entitling her to a disability pension prior to 11 January 1995. On 18 June 1997 the applicant appealed to the Insurance Court requesting a disability pension as from 1 January 1994 and repeating her contention about the date of her inability to work and appending, inter alia, a medical doctor’s statement of 20 August 1997 (in which the applicant was regarded as unfit to work as from 26 November 1993, and which, inter alia, described the applicant’s finger problems). The Local Government Pensions Institution submitted its observations and the applicant submitted her observations in reply. On 26 February 1998 the Insurance Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
3. The third set of proceedings
On 22 December 1999 the applicant applied again for a disability pension as from 1 January 1994 maintaining her unfitness to work as from 26 November 1993. She appended a medical doctor’s report of 14-15 December 1999. On 14 February 2000 the Local Government Pensions Institution dismissed the application maintaining that there was no new evidence which justified any different conclusion as regards the date of her incapacity to work. On 13 March 2000 the applicant appealed to the Municipal Pensions Institution repeating her previous requests and claiming interest, reimbursement of her appeal costs and an oral hearing and also invoking Article 6 of the Convention. She identified herself and two medical doctors (K. and L., or alternatively H.) as witnesses and specified the topics for their proposed testimony. The Municipal Pensions Institution received two medical doctors’ statements of 27 March 2000 and 26-30 June 2000, respectively, a copy of a scientific article and two copies of a doctoral thesis. On 14 June 2000 the Local Government Pensions Institution submitted its observations and the applicant submitted her observations in reply on 7 July 2000.
On 27 September 2000 the Municipal Pensions Institution dismissed the appeal. It held:
“On 18 April 1995 the Local Government Pensions Institution found that your working capacity has been reduced to an extent entitling you to a disability pension as from 11 January 1995. Based on the newly presented medical evidence your disability to work cannot be regarded as having begun earlier than 11 May 1995. Your request for a disability pension as from 1 January 1994 with interest has consequently been dismissed.
As regards the oral hearing, the Municipal Pensions Institution finds, based on the presented medical and other evidence, that it is not necessary to hold one.”
On 10 November 2000 the applicant appealed to the Insurance Court claiming a disability pension as from 1 January 1994 with interest, reimbursement of her appeal costs and an oral hearing. She complained that the Municipal Pensions Institution had taken into account the medical doctor’s statement of 27 March 2000 although she had expressly stated in her observations of 7 July 2000 that she would not submit the statement in question. She complained that the Municipal Pensions Institution had apparently invited the statement of its own motion and that she had not been given an opportunity to present her observations on that statement. She also complained about the allegedly inadequate reasoning of the Municipal Pensions Institution, in particular as regarded the problems with her fingers. She further pointed out that there had been a typing error as regards the date of her disability to work. She proposed herself and two medical doctors (K. and L.) as witnesses for an oral hearing and specified that she would testify about her illnesses and inability to work as from 1993/1994 and the effect of her finger problems on her working capacity, and that the doctors were to be heard concerning the date of the applicant’s incapacity to work and, in particular, the effects of her finger problems.
The Insurance Court received medical doctors’ statements of 2 October 1998, 12 April 1999, 28 February 2001 and 25 January 2002, respectively. The Local Government Pensions Institution submitted its observations and the applicant submitted her observations in reply.
On 30 May 2002 the Insurance Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and her request for an oral hearing. It held, inter alia, as follows:
“Based on the available documents, [the medical doctor’s] statement of 27 March 2000 arrived at the Municipal Pensions Institution from the Local Government Pensions Institution on 15 June 2000 together with the applicant’s appeal. Consequently, the Municipal Pensions Institution did not invite the statement in question and has therefore not acted erroneously as claimed by the applicant.”
It further held, as regards the requested oral hearing, as follows:
“Proceedings before the Insurance Court are normally in writing. The Insurance Court must hold an oral hearing if requested by a private party. A case may however be examined without an oral hearing if ... it is manifestly unnecessary due to the nature of the matter or other reasons. If a party requests an oral hearing he/she must indicate the reasons why it would be necessary and what kind of evidence he/she would present at the hearing. The lack of necessity for an oral hearing is assessed on the basis of these grounds and a hearing may be dispensed with if it is highly likely that it would not be useful. An oral hearing concerning subjective medical hardships is usually unnecessary provided that there is proper and adequate written medical evidence at hand.
The case concerns
