FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7779/04
by K.K.
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 February 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the partial decision of 10 May 2007,
Having regard to the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government with a view to having the case struck out of the list and the applicant’s written response,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Finnish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Harjavalta. She was represented before the Court by Mr Kari Uoti, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 September 1997 the applicant took sick leave due to, inter alia, respiratory problems. On 8 December 1997 her employer filed a claim for compensation with the insurance company. On 9 February 1999 the insurance company rejected the claim, finding that the applicant’s sickness was not an occupational illness which could be compensated under the Occupational Health Disease Act (ammattitautilaki, yrkessjukdomslagen). Upon appeal, the Accident Board (tapaturmalautakunta, olycksfallsnämnden) rejected her appeal on 18 June 1999.
Subsequently, the applicant renewed her application before the insurance company, submitting a fresh medical opinion in support thereof. On 7 September 1999 her new application was rejected. She appealed to the Accident Board without success; its decision was issued on 12 January 2000.
The applicant appealed to the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus, försäkringsdomstolen) against the two decisions, requesting, inter alia, an oral hearing. The insurance company filed its observations and the applicant was given an opportunity to reply. On 20 November 2001 the applicant requested the court to speed up the proceedings. In December 2001 the Insurance Court requested Dr H.M. to prepare an expert opinion and his opinion was sent to the parties for comments. On 24 January 2002 the court ordered the applicant to specify her reasons for requesting an oral hearing.
On 13 May 2003 the Insurance Court partly quashed the decision. It found that the applicant was entitled to compensation for a chronic inflammation of her larynx; her other complaints were, however, rejected. Insofar as the applicant’s claims had been accepted, the case was referred to the insurance company for further measures. The appeal was examined without an oral hearing. The court found that the decisive factors for reaching a decision in the applicant’s case were the medical opinions on her health and working conditions, and that the case could be decided on the basis of the written evidence. The court also considered that her case file had been very well prepared.
The applicant, represented by a lawyer, appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), claiming that the Insurance Court’s decision was wrong. She did not allege any unfairness in the proceedings. On 25 March 2004, having obtained an expert opinion from the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs (terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården) and written observations from the parties, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
On 27 April 2004, the applicant requested the Insurance Court to annul its decision of 13 May 2003, claiming that it was based on inadequate information and material. On 3 May 2005 her application was rejected. This decision was not subject to appeal.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that the length of the proceedings had been excessive.
THE LAW
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The Government’s request to the Court to strike the case out of its list and the applicant’s objections thereto
On 6 September 2007, the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“1. The Government notes that the efforts with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case have been unsuccessful.
2. In this situation, the Government wishes to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that in the special circumstances of the present case the length of the first set of proceedings did not fulfil the requirement of ”reasonable” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
3. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the applicant a global amount of EUR 1,300 (one thousand three hundred euros). In its view, this amount would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, and thus an acceptable sum as to quantum in the present case.
4. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. In the event of the failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
5. In the light of above, the Government would suggest that the circumstances of the present case allow your Court to reach the conclusion that there exists ‘any other reason’, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, justifying your Court to discontinue the examination of the application, and that, moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Accordingly, the Government invites your Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”
The applicant disagreed, contending that the examination of the case should be continued. As to the compensation offered by the Government, the applicant considered it inadequate, since it did not even cover her costs and expenses.
B. The Court’s assessment
The Court recalls that on 10 May 2007, it decided to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the above proceedings. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.
Both parties filed submissions with the Registry in the context of friendly settlement negotiations (Article 38 § 1 (b) of the Convention and Rule 62 of the Rules of Court). No settlement was reached.
Article 37 of the Convention provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”
Article 37 § 1 in fine includes the following proviso:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court recalls that under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the basis of a unilateral declaration filed by the respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. In deciding whether or not it should strike the present case out of its list, the Court will examine carefully the terms of the declaration made by the Government in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular its judgments in cases such as Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC] (no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005); Swedish Transport Workers Union v. Sweden ((striking out), no. 53507/99, 18 July 2006); Van Houten v. the Netherlands ((striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005‑IX) and Kalanyos and Others v. Romania ((no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007)).
The Court observes that the Accident Board issued its first decision on 18 June 1999. The case-file does not indicate when the case came before the Accident Board; however, the contested decision of the insurance company was dated 9 February 1999. The Insurance Court issued its decision on 13 May 2003 and the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on 25 March 2004, at which point the proceedings had lasted some five years.
The Court notes in the first place that the Government’s declaration contains a clear acknowledgment that the reasonable time requirement has not been respected within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Secondly, the Court is satisfied that the global amount offered to the applicant ‑ EUR 1,300 ‑ by the Government in compensation constitutes adequate redress for the excessive length of the proceedings having regard to all the circumstances of the case. As to the costs and expenses it should be noted that at the time of lodging the application the applicant was not represented. She incurred legal fees only after the communication of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII and Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ....). Furthermore, it has already had occasion to address complaints related to alleged breach of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in cases against Finland (see, for example, Riihikallio and Others v. Finland, no. 25072/02, §§ 22-27, 31 May 2007; F. and M. v. Finland, no. 22508/02, §§ 48-53, 17 July 2007 and Ekholm v. Finland, no. 68050/01, §§ 62-66, 24 July 2007).
Against this background, the Court considers that it is no longer justified, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, to continue the examination of the remainder of the application, and finds no reasons which would require the further examination of the case (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
1. Takes note of the terms of the Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein (Rule 43 § 3 of the Rules of Court);
2. Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy