Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)171[1]
Kaura against Finland
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application Noo 40350/05, judgment of 23 June 2009, final on 23 September 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 final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established (see document DH-DD(2012)1040E);
Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2012)1040E);
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
ACTION REPORT
ON THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Respondent State
Finland
Application no.
40350/05
Name
Kaura
Judgement
23/06/2009
Final
23/09/2009
Violation of the Convention
Art. 6 § 1
Unfairness of administrative proceedings due to a refusal by the Insurance Court to hold an oral hearing. The proceedings concerned the applicant’s civil rights and obligations initiated by him in 2000–2005 against the authorities’ refusal to pay him unemployment benefit because he had failed to respond promptly to a potential employer.
Art. 6 § 1
Excessive length of the same administrative proceedings, which started on 26 October 2000 when the applicant appealed to the Unemployment Appeal Board and ended on 2 June 2005 when the Insurance Court delivered a final decision in the case.
Type
Leading case
Individual measures
Just satisfaction
1. Just satisfaction, in total EUR 5,915.40, has been paid by the Government.
Other measures
2. The proceedings in question have completed. Further, the re-opening of the domestic proceedings is possible under national legislation. No other individual measure appears necessary.
General Measures
1. In general, the Insurance Court has the possibility to hold an oral hearing. Under section 38, subsection 1 of the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (Act No. 586/1996, as amended by Act No. 433/1999), an administrative court shall conduct an oral hearing if a private party so requests (see §36 of the judgment). According to section 39, subsection 4 of the Unemployment Security Act (Act No. 602/1984, as amended by Act No. 301/1999), in force at the relevant time, the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act applies also to the proceedings before the Unemployment Appeal Board (see §15 of the judgment). The violation in this case arose from an isolated decision by the Insurance Court to reject the applicant’s request and not to hold a hearing. The European Court found that, the question of the credibility of the statements of the persons involved could not, as a matter of fair hearing, be properly determined without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the applicant as well as the employer (§37 of the judgment).
Dissemination and publication
2. In view of the direct effect of the Convention and its case-law in Finnish legal system, the publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all judicial authorities are useful to prevent new, similar violations. The judgment has been disseminated to the Social Insurance Institution, the Unemployment Appeal Board and the Insurance Court, as well as to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.
3. In relation to the violation concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings, see Vilho Eskelinen and others v Finland (63235/00).
4. The summary of the judgement has been published on the Government’s website on national legislation and case law () in Finnish. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs also gave a press release on the case the same day the judgement was issued.
Conclusions of the Government
The measures adopted are capable of preventing similar violations. Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 December 2012 at the 1157th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy