FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16428/09
by Jarmo Juhani MÄRSYNAHO
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jarmo Juhani Märsynaho, is a Finnish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Vahto. He was represented before the Court by Mr Miikka Hakanen, a lawyer practising in Turku. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) was represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen, from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In May 2003 the Social Insurance Institution (KELA, FPA) rejected the applicant’s request for a pensioner’s subsidy. The Inspection Board rejected the appeal in September 2004. The Insurance Court gave the final decision in the matter in January 2006.
On 3 May 2006 the applicant requested that the decision be annulled by the Supreme Administrative Court as no oral hearing had been held and as the Insurance Court did not communicate to him two statements provided for the proceedings before KELA.
On 12 June 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment due to the non-communication of two documents. The case was returned to the Insurance Court for re-examination. The Insurance Court gave its decision on 15 December 2009. The decision was final, except with regard to the pensioner’s subsidy from 1 January 2008 onwards, which issue was returned to KELA to be examined at a first-instance level.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the above-mentioned proceedings were excessively lengthy. He relied on Article 6 which reads insofar as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
1. The parties’ submissions
By a letter dated 25 January 2010 the Government informed the Court of their unilateral declaration, signed on the same date, with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application.
The declaration provided as follows:
“1. Whereas the efforts with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case have been unsuccessful, the Government wishes to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that the length of the proceedings has failed to fulfil the requirement of “reasonable” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
2. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the applicant in compensation EUR 4,940 (four thousand nine hundred and forty euros). The sum includes EUR 3,325 (three thousand three hundred and twenty-five euros) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage as well as EUR 1,615 (one thousand six hundred and fifteen euros) for costs and expenses (inclusive of VAT). In the Government’s view, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and to your Court’s awards in comparable length of proceedings cases, the above total amount would constitute adequate redress for the excessive length of the proceedings.
3. The total sum 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.
4. 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 this part 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 this part of the application out of its list of cases.”
In his letters of 4 and 5 February 2010 the applicant expressed the view that, as the case was pending at national level with regard to compensation from 1 January 2008 onwards, there was no reason to strike the case out of the list of cases and requested that the examination of the case be continued. He further stated that he would accept the compensation offered by the Government only if it was to be paid to him before 15 March 2010.
2. The Court’s assessment
The Court reiterates that 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 points out that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to strike out an application, or part thereof, 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 length of proceedings complaint 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), Kalanyos and Others v. Romania ((no. 57884/00, § 25, 26 April 2007)), and K.K. v. Finland ((striking out), no. 7779/04, 27 November 2007).
The Court notes 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. The Court is satisfied that the total amount offered to the applicant by the Government in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses, that is 4,940 euros, constitutes adequate redress for the excessive length of the proceedings having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
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 and in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy