Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)44[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Muttilainen against Finland
(Application No. 18358/02, judgment of 22 May 2007, final on 22 August 2007)
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 an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal in criminal proceedings against the applicant (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (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(2010)44
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Muttilainen against Finland
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the lack of an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal in criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant in 1998 (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1). The applicant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment by a court of first instance for attempted theft and violently resisting to a police officer. In the appeal proceedings, the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s request to hold an oral hearing and upheld the conviction while reducing his sentence to three months’ imprisonment.
The European Court found that an oral hearing was necessary before the Court of Appeal, as it had to make a full assessment of the applicant’s guilt or innocence. In the circumstances of the present case the applicant’s intention and the credibility of the statements could not have been properly determined without a direct assessment of the evidence given in person by the applicant and by one of the witnesses.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
2000 EUR
1000 EUR
3000 EUR
Paid on 20/08/2007
b) Individual measures
The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages. Furthermore, the applicant has a possibility to request the reopening of the proceedings (Chapter 31, Article 2, of the Code of Judicial Procedure). Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary.
II.General measures
The European Court noted that under chapter 26, Section 15 of the Code of judicial procedure, the Court of Appeal shall hold an oral hearing if the credibility of testimony admitted before a court of first instance is an issue. Consequently, it appears that the violation found in this case was due to a wrongful application of law by the Court of Appeal.
The government considers that, in view of the direct effect of the Convention in Finland, the requirements of Article 6, paragraph 1, and the European Court’s case-law will be taken into account in the future, thus preventing similar violations. In this context it should be noted that the European Court’s judgment has been published on the judicial database Finlex () in English version. A summary and an excerpt from the judgment was also published in Finnish on the same database. The judgment was sent out to the Parliamentary Constitutional Committee, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Helsinki District Court, the Helsinki Court of Appeal, the Ministries of Justice and of the Interior.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that in the circumstances of the case no individual measures were required, that the direct effect of the Convention in Finland 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 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy