Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)23[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Suuripää 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
Suuripää (43151/02)
12/01/2010
12/04/2010
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)189);
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 / ACTION PLAN
ON THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Suuripää against Finland
Application No. 43151/02, Judgment of 12/01/2010, final on 12/04/2010
Violation of the Convention
Art. 6
Right to a fair trial.
In the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Supreme Court on 13 June 2002 reversed the lower court’s judgment to his disadvantage without holding an oral hearing. (§§ 47and 48 of the judgment)
Art. 6 § 1
Excessive length of criminal proceedings, three years and eleven months at two levels of jurisdiction (8 July 1998 – 13 June 2002)
Type
Leading case.
Individual measures
Just satisfaction
1.Just satisfaction, in total EUR 8.750, has been paid by the Government. See the document enclosed. Other measures
2.The proceedings in issue are now closed. Further, the re-opening of criminal proceedings is possible under the national law. No other individual measures are necessary.
General measures
3.In general, the Supreme Court has the possibility to hold a hearing: under Chapter 30, section 20, subsection 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the Supreme Court shall hold a hearing where necessary (see §27 of the judgment). The violation arose from an isolated decision by the Supreme Court not to hold a hearing in this case.
4.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 Helsinki 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, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Finance.
5.In relation to the violation concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, see Kangasluoma v Finland 48339/99).
6.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.
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