resolution DH (99) 24
CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF 25 February 1997
IN THE CASE OF Z. AGAINST Finland
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 January 1999
at the 654th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 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 Z. case delivered on 25 February 1997 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 22009/93) against Finland, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 21 May 1993 under Article 25 of the Convention by Ms Z., a Finnish national, and that the Commission declared admissible her complaint according to which there had been violations of her right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on account, in particular, of the orders imposed on her doctors and psychiatrist to give evidence and disclose information about her in certain criminal proceedings against her husband; the seizure of her medical records at the hospital where she had been treated and their inclusion in their entirety in the investigation file; the decisions of the competent courts to limit the confidentiality of the trial record to a period of ten years; and the disclosure of her identity and medical data in the Court of Appeal's judgment; the Commission also declared admissible the applicant's complaint that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, she had not been afforded an effective remedy with respect to her complaints under Article 8;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 25 January 1996;
Whereas in its judgment of 25 February 1997, the Court:
- held, by eight votes to one, that the orders requiring the applicant's medical advisers to give evidence had not constituted a violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
- held, by eight votes to one, that the seizure of the applicant's medical records and their inclusion in the investigation file had not given rise to a violation of Article 8;
- held, unanimously, that the order to make the transcripts of the evidence given by her medical advisers and her medical records accessible to the public in 2002 would, if implemented, constitute a violation of Article 8;
- held, unanimously, that the disclosure of the applicant's identity and medical condition by the Helsinki Court of Appeal constituted a breach of Article 8;
- held, unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine the applicant's complaints under Article 13 of the Convention;
- held, unanimously, that the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, 100 000 Finnish marks in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and for legal costs and expenses 160 000 Finnish marks, plus any applicable VAT, less 10 835 French francs to be converted into Finnish marks at the rate applicable on the date of delivery of the present judgment; that simple interest at an annual rate of 11% should be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;
- dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 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 25 February 1997, having regard to Finland’s obligation under Article 53 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 gave the Committee information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;
Having satisfied itself that on 15 April 1997, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent State paid the applicant the sum provided for in the judgment of 25 February 1997,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Finland, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (99) 24
Information provided by the Government of Finland
during the examination of the Z. case
by the Committee of Ministers
The Government of Finland has ensured that a three-page summary in Finnish of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights had been included in the FINLEX Data Base System which is maintained by the Ministry of Justice and is accessible to the authorities and the public at a small fee.
In addition, at the request of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Chancellor of Justice requested the revision of the impugned decision pursuant to chapter 31, section 8 (4) of the Code of Judicial Procedure in order to remedy the individual situation of the applicant. The Supreme Court found, by a decision of 19 March 1998, that in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the confidentiality of the trial record - under the Act on the Publicity of the Court Proceedings - had been based on a misapplication of the law. In its new decision, the Supreme Court extended the period during which the trial records are to be kept confidential from ten years to forty years as from 6 May 1992.
The Government of Finland considers that the measures adopted evidences that Finnish law has adapted to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and that the government has made sufficient efforts to act in order to prevent similar situations from arising. Finland has, accordingly, complied with its obligations under Article 53 of the Convention in this respect.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy