Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)202[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Juppala against Finland
(Application No. 18620/03, judgment of 2 December 2008, final on 2 March 2009)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the lack of sufficient reasons for the restriction on the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, who was convicted for defamation for having expressed her suspicion that her son‑in‑law had ill-treated his son (violation of Article 10) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)202
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Juppala against Finland
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the violation of the right to freedom of expression of the applicant, who was convicted in February 2002 for defamation of T., her son-in-law, after she had taken her grandson to a doctor and voiced a suspicion that he might have been hit by his father (violation of Article 10).
The European Court noted that the applicant’s criminal conviction had been “prescribed by law” as it had been based on a reasonable interpretation of Chapter 27, Article 2(1) of the Penal Code in force at the time (until 01/10/2000). However, the Court found it alarming that the Court of Appeal had taken the view that, even though there was no doubt that she had seen her grandson’s bruised back, the applicant had not been entitled to repeat what the boy had told her, that is, that he had been hit by his father. Voicing a suspicion of child abuse, formed in good faith, in the context of an appropriate reporting procedure should be available to any individual without fear of a criminal conviction or an obligation to pay compensation for harm suffered or costs incurred. Moreover, it had not been argued before any court that the applicant had acted recklessly. The European Court thus concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had not been justified by sufficient reasons and had therefore failed to answer any “pressing social need”.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
3 616,41 EUR
3 000 EUR
2 695,98 EUR
9 312,39 EUR
Paid on 28/05/2009
b) Individual measures
The sums that the applicant had been sentenced to pay as a result of her conviction are covered by the just satisfaction awarded by the European Court, which also took into account the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicant may, under Finnish law, seek the reopening of criminal proceedings having infringed the European Convention of Human Rights (see, for example, the case of Nikula, Final Resolution ResDH(2006)51 adopted on 02/11/2006).
Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
In view of the direct effect given to the Convention and the European Court’s case-law in Finland and in order to encourage courts to take due account of it, the judgment of the European Court was published in the legal database Finlex (). A summary of the judgment in Finnish was published in the same database. The judgment was also sent out to numerous domestic authorities, including the Parliament/Constitutional Law Committee, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministries of Justice and Interior, the Tampere District Court and the Turku Court of Appeal.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy