FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30271/96
by Reijo LEPPÄNEN and Seija AITTAMÄKI
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) sitting on 13 January 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrsN. Vajić, judges,
andMrV. Berger, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 9 March 1993 by Reijo Leppänen and Seija Aittamäki against Finland and registered on 21 February 1996 under file no. 30271/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 20 March 1997 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 21 May 1997 and to the the respondent Government’s friendly settlement proposal of 20 October 1999, the applicants’ letter of 22 November 1999, informing that the applicants have accepted the Government’s proposal and the respondent Government’s letter of 16 December 1999, noting that a friendly settlement has been achieved;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Finnish nationals, born in 1949 and 1961, respectively, and reside in Riihimäki, Finland. They are a common law couple. Before the Court they are represented by Mr Fredman, a lawyer practising in Helsinki
A.Particular circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Mr Leppänen was placed under guardianship in 1980. He received compulsory psychiatric care on seven different occasions for periods up to two months. In 1992 his placement under guardianship was revoked.
The applicants met in 1987. They have lived together since the end of the 1980’s, excluding some short breaks.
On 11 December 1995, Ms Aittamäki was placed in compulsory psychiatric care. On 15 December 1995 Mr Leppänen was also placed in compulsory psychiatric care.
On 15 January 1996 Mr Leppänen’s compulsory psychiatric care ended and he was allowed to return to his home.
On 18 January 1996 Ms Aittamäki left the hospital without permission and returned home. On 22 January 1996 Ms Aittamäki was brought back to the hospital by the police. The Chief Physician then instructed the staff not to inform Ms Aittamäki of any telephone calls from Mr Leppänen during the week to come. Mr Leppänen called Ms Aittamäki several times but his telephone calls were not connected.
On 23 January 1996 Mr Leppänen asked for a written decision of the prohibition of telephone calls in order to appeal against it together with Ms Aittamäki, but the applicants never received one. They complained to the Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri, justitiekansler). In response to the applicants’ petition, the Deputy Chancellor of Justice ad interim (apulaisoikeuskanslerin varamies, justitiekansleradjointes ställföreträdare) heard the Chief Physician in writing. The Chief Physician considered that the prohibition had been in Ms Aittamäki’s interests. At any rate, staff had conveyed telephone messages from Mr Leppänen to Ms Aittamäki.
According to the applicants, in 1996 for a period of several months, hospital staff also prohibited Mr Leppänen’s visits to Ms Aittamäki. According to the Government, Mr Leppänen was prohibited only once, in the beginning of December 1995, from visiting Ms Aittamäki.
In his decision of 3 May 1996 the Deputy Chancellor of Justice a.i. found that Mr Leppänen’s telephone messages to Ms Aittamäki had been conveyed to her to the extent this had been necessary and had not endangered the latter’s health, and noted that the restriction had been limited by time and implemented with due regard to proportionality considerations. The restriction could not be held to have been clearly against the law. He nevertheless found it, with reference to Section 28, subsection 1, of the Mental Health Act (mielenterveyslaki, mentalvårdslag 1116/1990), necessary to draw the competent Ministry’s attention to the requirement that restrictions of fundamental rights should be sufficiently detailed. On this point the legislation should therefore be amended.
B.Relevant domestic law
According to Section 28, subsection 1, of the Mental Health Act, the right of self-determination of a person admitted for observation or ordered to undergo treatment may be limited, and coercive measures may be taken, but only to the extent necessary for the treatment of his illness or to ensure his safety or that of others.
COMPLAINTS
1.The applicants complain about their placement in compulsory psychiatric care. Ms Aittamäki also complains about her placement under guardianship.
2.The applicants complain that for a period of several months hospital staff prohibited Mr Leppänen’s visits to Ms Aittamäki and, for a week, his direct telephone calls to her. They invoke Article 8 of the Convention in this respect.
3.The applicants furthermore complain that they did not have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention as they were unable to obtain a written decision by the Chief Physician concerning the prohibition of direct telephone calls.
4.Mr Leppänen also complains that his driving license has been withdrawn.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced on 9 March 1993 before the European Commission of Human Rights and registered on 21 February 1996.
On 17 January 1997 the Commission decided to communicate the applicants’ complaints concerning Articles 8 (Mr Leppänen’s visits to Ms Aittamäki’s hospital and the prohibition of direct telephone calls from him to her) and 13 of the Convention to the respondent Government.
The Government’s written observations were submitted on 20 March 1997. The applicants replied on 21 May 1997.
On 28 May 1997 the Commission granted the applicants legal aid.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
On 20 October 1999 the Government submitted a proposal with a view to reaching a friendly settlement. On 22 November 1999 the applicants accepted the Government’s proposal for friendly settlement under the condition that the Government agree to pay the applicants’ detailed claim concerning their costs and expenses. The Government accepted the applicants’ proposal on 16 December 1999 and noted that a friendly settlement on an ex gratia basis had been reached.
The settlement reached by the parties contains the following stipulations:
1.the Government of Finland will pay to both applicants the sum of FIM (Finnish Marks) 7,500 for non-pecuniary damage, i.e. in total FIM 15,000;
2.the Government of Finland undertake to examine whether the relevant legislation, especially Section 28, subsection 1, of the Mental Health Act should be amended and, if need be, to make a proposal to that effect;
3.the Government of Finland will pay to the applicants the total sum of FIM 9,000 for the applicants’ costs and expenses, any sums already paid by the Council of Europe by way of legal aid having to be deducted from that amount; and
4.the applicants declare that, subject to the fulfilment by the Government of what is stated above, they have no further claims against the Finnish State based on the facts of the present application.
THE LAW
The Court notes that the parties have reached a settlement whereby the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(b) of the Convention. Moreover, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue with the examination of the application.
It follows that the application may be struck off the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy