Information Note on the Court’s case-law 60
January 2004
Kangasluoma v. Finland - 48339/99
Judgment 20.1.2004 [Section IV]
Article 13
Effective remedy
Availability of a remedy in respect of the length of criminal proceedings: violation
Facts: In 1990 the police opened investigations in relation to the applicant’s business activities and questioned him in that connection. In 1994 he was formally charged with, inter alia, aggravated tax fraud, and, subsequently, sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. The appeal proceedings instituted by the applicant ended in 1998, when the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
Law: Article 6 § 1 (reasonable time) ─ The Court considered that the applicant had been subject to a “charge” when the preliminary investigations in his case had been opened by the police in 1990, and not in 1994, when he was formally charged with an offence, as the Government maintained. Although the case was of some complexity, several parts of the proceedings had been unjustifiably long, and the overall time of the proceedings, 7 years and 4 months, was not reasonable.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
Article 13 ─ The Government claimed that the applicant could have lodged a complaint to the Court of Appeal against any unjustified adjournments in the case or submitted a reasoned request to the courts at any time to have the proceedings accelerated. Likewise, they argued that the applicant could have obtained compensation under the Tort Liability Act if the delay in the court proceedings had been caused by an erroneous or negligent act of a public official. The Court, however, considered that the Government had failed to show how the applicant could have obtained relief – preventive or compensatory – by having recourse to such remedies, in particular considering that a mere delay (when no erroneous act had been committed) was not a ground for compensation under Finnish law. The Government had also failed to supply examples from domestic practice showing it was possible to obtain relief by using such remedies.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously)
Article 41 ─ The Court awarded the applicant 3,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy