Resolution ResDH(2004)64
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 21 May 2002 (final on 21 August 2002)
in the case of Jokela against Finland
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 12th October 2004
at the 897th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Jokela case delivered on 21 May 2002 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 28856/95) against Finland, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 September 1995 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Ms Barbro Jokela, Ms Heidi Jokela, Mr Jussi Jokela and Mr Petri Jokela, Finnish nationals, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaints that the applicants' property rights had been violated on account of the discrepancy between the assessments given by the competent authorities and by the courts, of the market value of expropriated property and the market value of property subject to inheritance tax, and that the applicants had been denied a fair hearing in the expropriation proceedings;
Whereas in its judgment of 21 May 2002 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
- held that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention insofar as witnesses S. and W. had not been examined before the Land Court;
- held that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention as regards the Land Court's reasons for dismissing the appeal lodged by Heidi, Jussi and Petri Jokela;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay each of the applicants Heidi, Jussi and Petri Jokela, within three months from the date on which the judgment became final, 1 300 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage; 1 600 euros in respect of pecuniary damage; and to pay all the applicants jointly 11 000 euros in respect of costs and expenses together with any value-added tax that might be chargeable and that simple interest at an annual rate of 11% would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 21 May 2002, having regard to Finland's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state drew the Committee's attention to the fact that, on account of the specific circumstances of the case, new similar violations of the Convention could be avoided for the future by informing the authorities concerned of the requirements of the Convention: copies of the judgment had accordingly been sent out to the Supreme Court, High Administrative Court, Parliamentary Ombudsman, Chancellor of Justice, Appeals Court of Kouvola, Ministry of Justice, District Court of Vantaa and the Inheritance Tax Board of the Town of Nakkila; in addition, the Court's judgment has been published on the Finlex database and a separate press statement was released on the date of the judgment;
Having satisfied itself that on 20 November 2002, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 21 May 2002,
Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Finland, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy