Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)22[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Marttinen against Finland
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”)[2],
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it became final;
Case name (App. No.)
Judgment of
Final on
Marttinen (19235/03)
21/04/2009
21/07/2009
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent State, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;
Having invited the authorities of the respondent State to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute the judgment;
Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report provided by the government (see action report, document DH‑DD(2012)188E);
Having noted that the respondent State paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgment;
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
Marttinen against Finland
Application No. 19235/03
Judgment of 21/04/2009, final on 21/07/2009
Violation of the Convention
Art. 6 § 1
Right to a fair trial.
In proceedings to recover a debt from 2000-2002, the applicant was fined for refusing to give an overall account of his assets and other financial means under Chapter 3, section 34(d) of the Enforcement Act. At the same time the applicant suspected of a tax fraud concerning the same assets in other proceedings.
The Court found that the determination to ensure the effectiveness of debt recovery proceedings could not justify a provision which extinguished the very essence of the applicant’s right to silence and not to incriminate himself.
Type
Leading case.
Individual measures
1.The administrative fine ordered by the Helsinki District Court’s decision from 9 July 2000 was not paid as the bailiff subsequently waived the enforcement inquiry (see §24 of the judgment). The European Court held that the finding of violation of the Convention constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the alleged non-pecuniary damage. Further, re-opening of proceedings is possible under national law. Consequently, no other measure is considered necessary.
General measures
2.Chapter 3 of the Enforcement Act was amended with effect from 1 March 2004 and a new mechanism was introduced prohibiting the use of incriminating information to circumvent provisions on testimony or have the debtor charged with a criminal offence (see §§34 and 75 of the judgment).
3.Further, in its precedent of 20 October of 2009, the Supreme Court (KKO: 2009:80) annulled one of its earlier judgments concerning the right not to incriminate oneself. The case did not concern the applicant of the case of Marttinen v. Finland but in its reasoning the Supreme Court referred to the case.
4.According to the precedent, if information about a debtor’s property relates to both a pending criminal case and to enforcement or bankruptcy proceedings where this information is wanted from the debtor with the threat of punishment, the debtor is entitled to refuse to declare the property. The significance of the information from the standpoint of the debtor’s possible guilt is irrelevant.
5.In its precedent of 30 June 2010 (KKO: 2010:49), the Supreme Court also referred to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right to not incriminate oneself, including the case of Marttinen, as well as to its previous annulment of a judgment (KKO: 2009:80).
6.A press release was issued the same day as the judgment. Additionally, the judgment of the European Court was sent out to the relevant national authorities, as well as to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. The judgments were published in the legal database Finlex in English, along with summaries in Finnish ().
Conclusion
The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the general measures adopted will prevent 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 8 March 2012 at the 1136th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
[2] See also the Recommendations adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular Recommendation Rec(2004)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the improvement of domestic remedies.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy