FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 49684/99
by Eero HIRVISAARI
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 December 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrM. Pellonpää, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 20 April 1999 and registered on 17 August 1999,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Finnish national, born in 1946 and living in Vantaa. He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Ahomäki, a lawyer practising in Järvenpää.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 February 1992 the pension fund of the applicant’s employer granted the applicant a full temporary disability pension as from 1 March 1992 until 30 June 1992. Thereafter the period of full pension was prolonged several times.
On 13 June 1997 the pension fund reviewed its previous decision and changed the applicant’s pension into a partial one for an indefinite period beginning on 1 June 1997. The pension fund reasoned its decision by observing that, under the evidence obtained, the applicant’s capability to work could no longer be considered reduced to such an extent as entitling him to a full disability pension.
The applicant appealed to the Pension Board (eläkelautakunta, pensionsnämnden), which on 4 March 1998 rejected the appeal. The decision was reasoned as follows:
“An employee is entitled to a full disability pension provided that his or her ability to work has continuously been reduced by at least three fifths for a minimum of one year and that this reduction has been caused by an illness, a defect or an injury. The employee’s remaining ability to earn income by carrying out work that would be available to him or her and that he or she could reasonably be expected to perform must be taken into account when assessing the reduction in the employee’s ability to work. Furthermore, the employee’s education, previous activities, age, living conditions and other comparable factors must be taken into consideration.
According to the statements on [the applicant’s] state of health, [the applicant] suffers from depression that has become more difficult during the autumn of 1997. However, [the applicant’s] symptoms must be considered as mild. Therefore, the Pension Board finds [the applicant] still partly capable of working as from 1 June 1997.”
The applicant appealed to the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus, försäkringsdomstolen). He referred, inter alia, to several medical statements according to which he was for the time being incapable of working because of his mental illness. On 27 October 1998, the Insurance Court rejected the appeal reasoning the decision as follows:
“[The Insurance Court refers to] the reasons given in the Pension Board’s decision. The new material filed while the case was pending [before the Insurance Court] does not change the evaluation of [the applicant’s] disability.”
The pension fund has later, on 27 January 1999, decided to reject the applicant’s renewed application for a full disability pension instead of partial one. The Pension Board rejected the applicant’s appeal on 25 May 1999. The applicant’s further appeal to the Insurance Court appears to be still pending before the domestic authorities.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was not afforded a fair trial as the Pension Board and the Insurance Court did not give adequate reasons for their decisions.
2. The applicant, further, complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was not afforded a fair trial as all the statements at the Pension Board’s and the Insurance Court’s disposal were not communicated to him.
THE LAW
1. The applicant considers that the Pension Board did not, in its decision concerning the applicant’s appeal against the Pension Fund’s decision, express any grounds on which their decision was based, and neither did the Insurance Court as it merely upheld the Pension Board’s decision. He complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that it is not sufficient to merely refer to the applicable legal provisions without expressly stating those grounds that demonstrate the connection between the conclusions and the legal provisions. The decisions should have clearly indicated why the specialists’ opinions supporting the full disability pension, submitted by the applicant to the Pension Board and the Insurance Court, had not been given any relevance. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention reads, insofar as relevant, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Government deny that there has been any violation and conclude that the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention were satisfied in the particular circumstances of the case. Even though they admit that in the present case a more substantial statement of reasons might have been desirable, they find that the Pension Board and the Insurance Court gave sufficient reasons for rejecting the applicant’s request and appeal, and accordingly the proceedings in issue were not rendered arbitrary or otherwise unfair on the grounds invoked by the applicant.
The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that this part of the application raises complex issues of law and fact under the Convention, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits of this part of the application. The Court concludes, therefore, that the application is not manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established.
2. The applicant, further, complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the expert medical opinions referred to in the Pension Board’s and Insurance Court’s decisions were not communicated to the applicant.
The Court notes, however, that this part of the application was first introduced in the applicant’s submissions of 5 July 1999, whereas the final decision in the applicant’s case was given by the Insurance Court on 29 October 1998 and thus more than six months earlier. It follows that this part of the application has been submitted too late and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant’s complaint that[Note1] the applicant was not afforded a fair trial as the Pension Board and the Insurance Court did not give adequate reasons for their decisions;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy