FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31499/05
by Seppo Juhani LAAKKO
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 August 2005,
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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Seppo Juhani Laakko, is a Finnish national who was born in 1951 and lives in Fuengirola. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Ahomäki, a lawyer practising in Järvenpää. 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 parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1984 the applicant was involved in a car accident which caused him permanent chest and neck injuries as well as loss of the use of his right hand, and difficulty in reading and watching television. All these injuries led to a permanent incapacity to work. The insurance company paid compensation for the injuries until mid-1987 and for some other expenses until September 1991. On 23 September 1991 it rejected further claims submitted by the applicant as it considered that the injuries were no longer caused by the accident. On 5 December 1991 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Helsinki City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätt). On 21 January 1993 the court, after an oral hearing, found that his injuries were caused by the accident and awarded him compensation for the injuries suffered from 1987 until the end of 1991. The insurance company did not appeal against this judgment.
In 1996 the insurance company, relying on a new medical opinion, found that the applicant’s inability to work was not caused by the accident. On 19 February 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). The court held an oral hearing during which it heard the doctors who had treated the applicant, the insurance company’s doctor as well as an expert from the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs (Terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, Rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården). On 18 December 2001 the court confirmed that the applicant was clearly unable to work and found that the insurance company was liable to pay the applicant damages until he reached the retirement age of 65.
The insurance company appealed to the Helsinki Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten), which rejected as unnecessary the parties’ request for an oral hearing. On 10 June 2004 the Appeal Court quashed the District Court’s judgment and rejected the applicant’s complaints, finding that the causal link between the accident and the applicant’s inability to work had not been established with a sufficient degree of probability.
The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) complaining inter alia about the lack of an oral hearing before the Appeal Court. On 1 March 2005 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the total length of the proceedings in his case was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He further complained that the proceedings in the Helsinki Appeal Court were unfair as the court rejected the request to hold an oral hearing, made by both parties. Moreover, the judgment of the court was solely based on the expert opinion of a medical doctor of the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs who had not examined the applicant in person. The applicant also complained that the Supreme Court, by refusing leave to appeal, failed to correct the mistakes made during the Appeal Court proceedings. He did not invoke any Articles of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 7 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Arto Kosonen, Agent of the Government of Finland, declare that the Government of Finland offer to pay ex gratia EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros) to Mr Seppo Juhani Laakko with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any 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 taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On 31 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Seppo Juhani Laakko, the applicant in the above-mentioned case, note that the Government of Finland are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any 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 taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Finland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy