AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 29328/95
by Jarmo KOSKINEN
against Finland
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs. M. HION
Mr. R. NICOLINI
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 9 November 1995
by Jarmo KOSKINEN against Finland and registered on 21 November 1995
under file No. 29328/95;
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, a Finnish citizen born in 1954, was detained in
the Turku Central Prison. He is represented by Mr Sami Heikinheimo, a
lawyer in Helsinki. This is the applicant's second application to the
Commission. The first one (No. 20560/92) was declared inadmissible on
30 August 1994.
The facts of this case, as submitted by the applicant or apparent
from the documents submitted, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was apparently imprisoned since 1979 on account of
various violent offences and other crimes. In 1981 he was convicted of
having killed a fellow prisoner and of having assaulted two other
prisoners. He was sentenced to twelve years' further imprisonment. The
judgment included an authorisation for the Prison Court (vankilaoikeus,
fängelsedomstolen) to order his incarceration in preventive detention
as a dangerous recidivist. Such an order was issued in 1983. Pursuant
to domestic law he was initially to be placed on a semi-open ward.
The 1953 Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivists
(laki vaarallisten rikoksenuusijain eristämisestä, lag om internering
av farliga återfallsförbrytare 317/1953) is applicable to offenders
convicted of certain offences involving aggravated violence or
constituting a particular danger to the life and health of others, and
who are sentenced to at least two years' imprisonment. The sentencing
court may authorise the offender's incarceration by the Prison Court
in an institution for preventive detention, if, during a period of ten
years preceding his offence, he has committed another offence of an
extremely violent character, or involving a particular danger to the
life and health of others, and provided he is clearly to be considered
particularly dangerous to the life and health of others. Such an
offender is to be regarded as a dangerous recidivist (section 1 of the
1953 Act).
Between 1983 and 1991 the applicant was also convicted on five
counts of violent resistance against prison officers as well as of
various other offences.
On 11 August 1990 the applicant had served two thirds of his
sentence. An incarcerated recidivist, however, shall be released on
parole only upon having served his total term of imprisonment, unless
the Prison Court still considers him dangerous to the life and health
of others. If he is not released, the matter shall be re-examined by
the Prison Court at least every six months (sections 14 and 15 of the
1953 Act).
In January 1994 the applicant was transferred to the Turku
Central Prison, where he was allegedly isolated on the so-called
northern ward. He considers this to be a closed ward within the meaning
of the legislation on the institutions for preventive detention. He was
allegedly not allowed to work or participate in activities with other
dangerous recidivists or other prisoners, including participation in
religious services. He was allowed only one hour's outdoors exercise
per day.
The Prison Court shall reconsider an incarceration order if it
is found to be clearly unnecessary in the light of new information
(section 9 of the 1953 Act). In 1994 the applicant requested the Prison
Court to re-examine the grounds for his incarceration which he argued
was no longer justified. He referred, inter alia, to the fact that the
psychiatric reports suggesting his incarceration dated back to 1982.
At any rate, he submitted, his incarceration was not being properly
enforced, as he was not placed on a semi-open ward.
Having obtained an opinion from the Board (johtokunta,
direktionen) of the Turku Central Prison, the Prison Court, on
16 November 1994, held a hearing and inspected the prison premises. The
Prison Court refused the applicant's request that Chief Physician T of
the Kellokoski mental hospital be invited to examine the grounds for
his incarceration. Instead the Prison Court invited Chief Physician J
of the Prisoners' Mental Hospital to state whether a fresh
investigation of the grounds for incarceration was necessary.
In his opinion of 6 March 1995 J considered that a fresh
investigation of the grounds for the applicant's incarceration was not
necessary. The opinion was based on J's interview with the applicant
in February 1994, his previous knowledge of the applicant (who had been
his patient up to 1980) as well as on an assessment of previous expert
reports.
In January 1995 the applicant requested the Department for Prison
Administration (oikeusministeriön vankeinhoito-osasto, justitie-
ministeriets fångvårdsavdelning) to allow Chief Physician T to examine
him in person. The Department referred the request to Chief Physician
K of the applicant's prison. It appears that no reply was given.
Having heard the applicant in writing in regard to the material
obtained, the Prison Court, on 9 May 1995, refused his request for a
re-examination of the grounds for his incarceration.
In response to the applicant's petition the Parliamentary
Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman)
heard, among others, the Prison Governor and Deputy Governor. According
to them, the applicant's placement on the northern ward corresponded
to placement on a semi-open ward and was thus in accordance with
domestic law. The cell doors were kept open for about one hour per day;
the daily exercise also lasted about one hour; and twice a week the
prisoners could spent one hour in the room for leisure activities.
In his decision of 31 August 1995 the Ombudsman found, inter
alia, that the applicant was not being isolated in his cell for up to
23 hours a day but was being offered opportunities similar to those
offered to normal prisoners in regard to participation in leisure
activities. The Ombudsman concluded that the conditions on the northern
ward of the Turku Central Prison were not contrary to the provisions
on semi-open wards, albeit that the placement of dangerous recidivists
was not sufficiently regulated on a national level.
An institution for preventive detention shall either be a
separate institution or form part of another penitentiary (section 10
of the 1953 Act). In view of the small number of incarcerated
recidivists the Ministry of Justice has not designated any separate
institutions for this purpose.
The Ombudsman urged the Ministry of Justice (oikeusministeriö,
justitieministeriet) to comply with its obligation under domestic law
to issue an instruction regarding the institutions for preventive
detention. Moreover, it was for the Ministry and not for the prisons
themselves to decide which wards should function as institutions for
preventive detention.
On 1 May 1997 the applicant was released from prison, having
served his sentence in full as well as some additional days of
disciplinary punishment.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that the requirement that he serve his
full sentence instead of the normal two thirds with parole meant that
as from 11 August 1990 he was imprisoned by virtue of the Prison
Court's order of 1983. This body does not fulfil the requirements of
a "court" or "tribunal" within the meaning of Articles 5 and 6 of the
Convention, as it has close connections with the Department for Prison
Administration and had failed to ensure that its incarceration order
in the applicant's case was being properly enforced. Accordingly, this
part of his detention was unlawful, contrary to Article 5 para. 4 of
the Convention.
2. The applicant also complains that he was denied an effective
remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention in that the
Prison Court in 1995 refused to re-examine the grounds for his
incarceration. The Prison Court's summary investigation did not meet
domestic law requirements according to which he had an absolute right
to obtain a regular, thorough and impartial examination of the
justification for his continued incarceration. The applicant was thus
effectively prevented from adducing fresh evidence supporting his
release.
3. Finally, the applicant complains that his alleged isolation as
from January 1994 was unlawful, as he should have been placed on a
semi-open ward. He considers that his ward's daily schedule, as
submitted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, did not conform with reality.
Despite the Ombudsman's criticism the applicant's allegedly unlawful
placement on a closed ward continued and he had no effective remedy
whereby he could challenge this. He invokes Articles 6 and 13 of the
Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the requirement that he serve his
full sentence instead of the normal two thirds with parole meant that
as from 11 August 1990 he was unlawfully detained by order of the
Prison Court, allegedly not a "court" or a "tribunal" within the
meaning of Articles 5 and 6 (Art. 5, 6) of the Convention.
The Commission recalls that under Article 27 (Art. 27) of the
Convention it shall not deal with any application submitted under
Article 25 (Art. 25) which is substantially the same as a matter which
has already been examined by it and if the fresh application contains
no relevant new information. The Commission finds that the applicant's
present complaint is in substance essentially the same as one of his
complaints in Application No. 20560/92 which was examined on 30 August
1994. Moreover, no "relevant new information" within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention has been adduced
which would enable the Commission to deal with this complaint.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected
pursuant to Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.
2. The applicant also complains that he was denied an effective
remedy within the meaning of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention in
that the Prison Court refused to re-examine the grounds for his
incarceration.
The Commission has considered this complaint under Article 5
para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention which reads as follows:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or
detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which
the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily
by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not
lawful."
Where a prison sentence is imposed after "conviction by a
competent court", the supervision required by Article 5 para. 4
(Art. 5-4) is incorporated in the court's judgment. Prisoners serving
imprisonment of a discretionary character are entitled under Article
5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) to take proceedings at reasonable intervals to
have the lawfulness of their detention decided by a court where the
punitive period of their sentence has expired (see Eur. Court HR, Weeks
v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p.
28, para. 56; Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom judgment
of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A, pp. 26-27, para. 68).
The present applicant was serving a prison sentence of a punitive
character. While serving that sentence he was thus not entitled to have
the lawfulness of his incarceration decided by a "court" within the
meaning of Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4). It is true that under section
15 of the 1953 Act the Prison Court may also order that a dangerous
recidivist should remain in preventive detention once he has served his
full sentence. In the present case no such order was issued.
Accordingly, there is no appearance of a violation of Article 5 para.
4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention. No further issue arises under Article
13 (Art. 13).
It follows that this complaint must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
3. Finally, the applicant complains that his alleged isolation as
from January 1994 was unlawful, as he should have been placed on a
semi-open ward. Moreover, he had no effective remedy whereby he could
challenge his placement. He invokes Articles 6 and 13 (Art. 6, 13) of
the Convention.
The Commission has first considered this complaint in the light
of Article 5 para. 1 (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the Convention which reads as
follows:
"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the
following cases and in accordance with a procedure
prescribed by law:
a. the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a
competent court; ..."
In the present case the only question arising under this
provision is whether or not the applicant's detention as from January
1994 was "lawful", having regard to the manner in which it was
implemented.
It is true that there must be some relationship between the
ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and
conditions of detention (cf. Eur. Court HR, Ashingdane v. the United
Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 21, para. 44). As
regards sentences, however, the arrangements for implementing these may
sometimes be caught by the Convention - in particular where they are
incompatible with Article 3 (Art. 3) - but they cannot, in principle,
have any bearing on the "lawfulness" of a deprivation of liberty (see
Eur. Court HR, Bizzotto v. Greece judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports
1996-V, No. 21, para. 34.
The Commission finds that the conditions in which the applicant's
sentence was allegedly implemented as from January 1994 do not disclose
any appearance of a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of
the Convention.
The Commission has already found (in para. 2 above) that while
serving his sentence the applicant was not entitled to have the
lawfulness of his incarceration decided by a "court" within the meaning
of Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4). The Commission does not need to
examine whether any separate issue arises under Article 13 (Art. 13)
of the Convention with regard to the manner in which the applicant's
incarceration was allegedly being implemented, as his complaint under
Article 13 (Art. 13) is in any case inadmissible for the following
reasons.
The Commission recalls that an applicant, who is found to have
no "arguable claim" that another Convention provision has been
violated, is not entitled to a remedy under Article 13 (Art. 13) (see,
e.g., Eur. Court HR, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment
of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, pp. 14-15, paras. 31-33 and p.
20, para. 46). The concept of an arguable claim nevertheless falls to
be determined having regard to the particular facts of the case and the
nature of the legal issues raised (cf., e.g., Eur. Court HR, Plattform
"Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A
no. 139, p. 11, para. 27).
In the present case the Commission considers that the applicant
had no arguable claim of a breach of Article 5 para. 1 (a) (Art. 5-1-a)
- on account of the allegedly unlawful implementation of his sentence -
which would have warranted a remedy within the meaning of Article 13
(Art. 13). Accordingly, there is no appearance of a violation of this
provision. Finally, no issue arises under Article 6 (Art. 6).
It follows that this complaint must also be rejected as being
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.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy