AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 25945/94
by Ensio HUKKATAIVAL
against Finland
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 28 February 1996, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 22 November 1994
by Ensio HUKKATAIVAL against Finland and registered on 14 December 1994
under file No. 25945/94;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1913. He is a
commercial counsellor residing in Helsinki. Before the Commission he
is represented by Mr. Pekka Pinomaa, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
In August 1991 the applicant sued the estate of a person called
A., who had died in 1987, for a debt. The applicant claimed that in
1984 he had, together with A, entered into a guarantee. He further
claimed that he had in 1986 payed out on the guarantee alone after
having orally agreed with A that A's portion of guarantee payment was
to be commuted into a debt of FIM 350,000, which A would later pay to
the applicant.
The case was heard in the City Court (raastuvanoikeus) of
Helsinki. The court heard evidence from one witness called by the
applicant and one witness called by the estate. The witnesses evidence
was tape-recorded, and the tapes were transcribed.
On 22 June 1992 the City Court, after evaluating the evidence,
found in favour of the applicant and obliged the estate to pay the
applicant FIM 350,000.
The estate appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus) of
Helsinki.
On 26 January 1994 the Court of Appeal quashed the City Court's
judgment and rejected the applicant's claim. No oral hearing had been
requested. No oral hearing was held pursuant to chapter 26 section 7
of the Code of Judicial Procedure, according to which the Court of
Appeal may, if it considers it necessary, hold an oral hearing. In its
reasoning the Court of Appeal set out the facts and the relevant
provisions on which its judgment was based. After evaluating the
evidence it stated, inter alia, that the applicant's right of recourse,
in respect of the suretyship, had lapsed under the statute of
limitation. It furthermore stated that it had not been proven that A
had agreed to commute the guarantee into a debt.
The applicant appealed against the judgment referring, inter
alia, to the fact that no oral hearing was held in the Court of Appeal.
On 23 May 1994 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus) refused the
applicant leave to appeal.
COMPLAINTS
1) The applicant complains, under Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention, that his right to a fair hearing was violated. He maintains
that the Court of Appeal quashed, to his disadvantage, the City Court's
judgment without holding an oral hearing in the case.
2) The applicant further complains, under Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention, that the Court of Appeal did not give proper reasons for
its evaluation of the witness evidence which differed from the City
Court's evaluation.
3) Finally, the applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 to the Convention, that the judgments have deprived him of his
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions since he lost his right to
request payment from the estate.
THE LAW
1) The applicant complains that his right to a fair hearing was
violated since the Court of Appeal did not arrange an oral hearing
although it came to a different outcome from that reached by the City
Court.
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention reads as far as
relevant:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public
hearing ... by (a) ... tribunal ... "
In respect of the oral hearing in the Court of Appeal the
Commission notes Finland's reservation to Article 6 (Art. 6) which
reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
"For the time being, Finland cannot guarantee a right to an
oral hearing in so far as the current Finnish laws do not
provide such a right. This applies to:
1. proceedings before the Courts of Appeal, ... in
accordance with Chapter 26 Sections 7 and 8, ... of the
Code of Judicial Procedure ..."
The Commission observes that chapter 26 section 7 of the Code of
Judicial Procedure does not provide a right to an oral hearing in
appeal proceedings in civil cases in the Court of Appeal. The
Commission finds that Finland's reservation covers the applicant's
complaint concerning the lack of an oral hearing in the Court of
Appeal.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible
ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2) The applicant complains further, under Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, that the Court of Appeal did not give
proper reasons for its judgment.
The Commission recalls that under specific circumstances the
absence of reasons in a court decision might raise an issue as to the
fairness of the procedure (No. 8769/79, Dec. 16.7.81, D.R. 25, p. 240).
The Commission notes that the Court of Appeal set out the facts
and stated the relevant provisions on which the judgment was based. The
Commission considers that the reasons given in the Court of Appeal's
judgment do not give rise to any appearance of the proceedings having
been unfair and contrary to the requirements of Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention in respect of the reasons given in the
relevant court decision.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
3) Finally, the applicant complains that the judgments resulted in
interference with his property rights.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) reads, in so far as relevant,
as follows:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject
to the conditions provided for by law and by the general
principles of international law.
..."
The Commission recalls that a person complaining of an
interference with his right to possessions must show that such a right
existed (No. 12164/86, Dec. 12.10.88, D.R. 58, p. 63). The Commission
finds that the applicant has not shown that he has the right referred
to. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there has been no
interference with the applicant's possessions in this respect.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy