Resolution ResDH(2006)59
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 31 May 2001 (final on 31 August 2001)
in the case of K.P. 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 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the K.P. case delivered on 31 May 2001 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. 31764/96) against Finland, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 January 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by K.P., a Finnish national, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint concerning a breach of the applicant's right to a fair trial due to the failure to communicate to her the opinions obtained ex officio during proceedings regarding her entitlement to continued disability allowance and various pensions;
Whereas in its judgment of 31 May 2001 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 15 000 Finnish marks in respect of non-pecuniary damage and that simple interest at an annual rate of 11% would be payable on this sum from the expiry of the above‑mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed the remainder of the applicant's 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 31 May 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 drew the Committee's attention to the fact that, having regard to the specific circumstances of this 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, with a covering lette, to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Chancellor of Justice, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Board for Accident Compensation, Social Security Institution, Pension Board, Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court and Insurance Court; in addition, the Court's judgment has been published in the Finlex database and reported on 1 June 2001 in the Finnish press (Helsingin Sanomat);
The government also drew the Committee's attention to the possibility to seek annulment of domestic court decisions rendered in violation of Article 6, and the fact that in this case the Supreme Court annulled the final decision and referred the case back to the Insurance Court;
Having satisfied itself that on 20 November 2001, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 31 May 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.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy