Resolution ResDH(2006)50
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 12 July 2001 (Grand Chamber)
in the case of K. and T. against Finland
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 November 2006,
at the 976th 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 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the K. and T. case delivered on 12 July 2001 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 25702/94) against Finland, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 October 1994 under former Article 25 of the Convention by K. and T., two Finnish nationals, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the applicants' complaints concerning first the violation of their right to respect for their family life on account of the placement of their children J. and M. in public care, and the absence of an effective remedy in that respect;
Whereas in its judgment of 12 July 2001 the Court:
- held, by fourteen votes to three, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning J.;
- held, by eleven votes to six, that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the emergency care order concerning M.;
- held unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the normal care orders in regard to either child;
- held unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention by reason of the failure to take proper steps to reunite the family;
- held unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of current access restrictions;
- held unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicants, within three months, 80 000 Finnish marks in respect of non-pecuniary damage; 65 190 Finnish marks less 2 230 French francs and 2 871,54 Euros to be converted into Finnish marks, in respect of costs and expenses 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, unanimously, 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 12 July 2001, 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 gave the Committee information on the applicants' individual situation and on the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 29 August and 14 September 2001, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of 12 July 2001,
Declares, after having taken note of 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.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)50
Information provided by the Government of Finland
during the examination of the K. and T. case
by the Committee of Ministers
The government recalls at the outset, as regards the general measures, that the violations found in this case concerned the authorities' failure to respect the applicants' right to family life. On the date of the judgment of the European Court a press statement was released and the judgment has since been widely disseminated to all relevant authorities and published in the judicial database FINLEX (). In addition the government has initiated various training activities, including a seminar which brought together members of the courts of highest instance. The Ministry for Social Affairs and Health furthermore initiated a thorough survey of all child custody cases submitted to the European Court of Human Rights.
The government is of the opinion that, considering that the Convention has direct effect in Finnish law and that the domestic law should be interpreted in accordance with the judgments of the European Court (see Resolution DH(96)607 in the Kerojärvi case), the authorities concerned will use their best endeavours to prevent the occurrence of violations similar to those found by the European Court in the present case.
As regards the individual measures, the government observes that the only possible remedy for the violation relating to the original care order is the just satisfaction awarded by the Court as no violation has been found in respect of the subsequent care orders. It further notes that although the Grand Chamber found a violation as regards the absence of efforts to reunite the family for the past, it found no such violation for the more recent period including the time since the Court's judgment.
In view of these particular circumstances, the government considers that no special individual measures are required in this case.
The Government of Finland thus considers that it has fulfilled its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy