Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)172[1]
R.H. against Finland
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(Application No. 34165/05, judgment of 2 June 2009, final on 2 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 violation established (see document DH-DD(2012)1041E);
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)1041E);
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.
34165/05
Name
R.H.
Judgement
02/06/2009
Final
02/09/2009
Violation of the Convention
The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant in 2002–2004, as the Appeal Court failed to make a full examination of the case or to organise an oral hearing, but used instead a so-called «filtering procedure» based on Chapter 26, sections 2 and 2a of the Code of Judicial Procedure (violation of Article 6§1).
The European Court found that in the circumstances of the case, the credibility of the statements of the persons involved could not have been properly determined by the Appeal Court without a direct assessment of such evidence.
Type
Leading case.
Individual measures
Just satisfaction
The European Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction with respect to non-pecuniary damage.
Other measures
Re-opening of domestic proceedings is available under the Finnish legislation (Chapter 31, Sections 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure). Consequently, no other individual measure is considered necessary.
General measures
Under Chapter 26, Section 15, of the Code on Judicial Procedure, the Appeal Court shall hold an oral hearing if the credibility of the testimony admitted in the District Court is an issue (see §34 of the European Court’s judgment). The violation in this case arose from an isolated decision of the Court of Appeal to apply the filtering procedure and to reject the request for an oral hearing (see § 11 of the judgment).
Publication and dissemination
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 sufficient to prevent new, similar violations. The judgment has been disseminated to the Oulu District Court, the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal and the Supreme 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 Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, and the Ministry of the Interior.
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 published a press release concerning the judgment on same the day as the judgment was delivered.
Government’s conclusion
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