The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human
Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the
application lodged on
22 April 1991 by Mr L. against Finland (Application No. 18595/91);
Whereas on 18 May 1995 the Commission transmitted the said report to the
Committee of Ministers and whereas the case has not been referred to the
European Court of Human Rights, neither by the Commission nor by a state
entitled to do so under Article 48
(art. 48) of the Convention, within the time-limit of three months from the
transmission of the reports to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers;
however, whereas that within this
time-limit, the applicant seized the Court in accordance with Protocol No. 9
(P9) but considering that the screening panel of the Court decided on 15
December 1995 that this case would not be considered by the Court, the Committee
of Ministers is now called upon to take a decision in accordance with Article 32
(art. 32) of the Convention and with Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention as
amended by Article 5 of Protocol No. 9 (P9-5) for those states having ratified
the latter;
Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 12
May 1994, the applicant complained that he had not received a fair hearing
before an impartial tribunal, and of a breach to the right to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions, in the context of proceedings relating to the
construction of a road on his land;
Whereas in its report adopted on 5 April 1995 the Commission expressed,
unanimously, that there had been a violation of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention, in that the applicant did
not receive a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal; by eight votes to one,
that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) as
regards the deprivation of part of the applicant's property; by eight votes to
one, that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) as
regards the applicant's obligation to participate in the road costs; and
unanimously that no further issue arose under Article 13 (art. 13) of the
Convention;
Whereas, at the 559th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 22 March
1996 the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the
Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32,
paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention, in that the applicant did
not receive a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal; that there had been no
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) as regards the deprivation of
part of the applicant's property, that there had been no violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) as regards the applicant's obligation to
participate in the road costs,
Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this
case;
Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with
Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention with a view to adopting the final
resolution.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy