AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 32560/96
by Satu NIIRANEN
against Finland
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 15 April 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
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 29 July 1996 by
Satu NIIRANEN against Finland and registered on 7 August 1996 under
file No. 32560/96;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the submissions of the late applicant's counsel
dated 13 March 1997;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant was a Finnish citizen, born in 1948 and a theatre
director by profession. Prior to her death in January 1997 she was
detained in a hospital for mentally ill in Paihola. She was represented
by Mr Pekka Reinikainen, lawyer of The Association for Psychiatric
Health Helmi r.y. based in Helsinki.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
On 6 June 1995 an ambulance came to fetch the applicant from her
friend's house at Liperi. The ambulance staff demanded that she come
with them to the local health care centre for an examination of her
mental health. They showed no document in support of this demand. The
applicant having refused to comply with it, a police patrol came to
fetch her, again without presenting any document in support of the
demand. She then agreed to go with them. The applicant had not
previously had any contact with the physician at the local health care
centre who had ordered her examination.
From the health care centre the applicant was transferred to the
Paihola Hospital for observation. On 9 June 1995 the Chief Physician
ordered her compulsory care, as the conditions for such care had been
met pursuant to section 8 of the 1990 Mental Health Act (mielenterveys-
laki, mentalvårdslag 1116/1990). It appears that on the same day the
applicant's then counsel was given a copy of the order.
The applicant appealed belatedly to the County Administrative
Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) of Northern Carelia, essentially
arguing that the care order had been insufficiently reasoned. She
referred, inter alia, to written statements by Drs. M.R. and B.F, who
acknowledged that she was suffering from certain mental problems but
considered that they could be resolved through voluntary care.
The County Administrative Court heard the Chief Physician in
writing and the applicant was able to comment on his opinion. On
22 August 1995 the Court held an oral hearing, where it heard, among
others, the Chief Physician.
In its decision of 25 August 1995 the County Administrative Court
accepted that the applicant could appeal against the care order, as she
had not received the original or a certified copy thereof. It
nevertheless rejected the appeal, essentially considering that the care
order had been sufficiently reasoned and finding that the applicant was
still in need of compulsory care.
Following the applicant's further appeal the Supreme
Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltnings-
domstolen) obtained a further written opinion from the Chief Physician,
who considered that the care order had been issued in accordance with
the Mental Health Care Act and criticised the manner in which counsel
had interfered with the applicant's right to proper care. The applicant
was not afforded an opportunity to comment on this opinion dated
17 October 1995.
On 30 January 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the
County Administrative Court's decision without providing any further
reasons. The decision does not mention the hearing of the Chief
Physician.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that
her detention was unjustified. The physician who ordered that she
should undergo observation had never seen her previously. The Chief
Physician did not give sufficient reasons for his compulsory care order
and failed to notify the applicant thereof in pursuance of domestic
law.
2. The applicant also complained that she was not informed promptly
of the reasons for the deprivation of her liberty. In addition, her
right to security was violated, given that neither the ambulance staff
nor the police officers showed any legal basis for threatening to use
force unless she would agree to undergoing observation. She invoked
Article 5 paras. 1 and 2 of the Convention.
3. The applicant furthermore complained that due to the Chief
Physician's failure properly to notify her of his compulsory care order
she was not entitled to have the lawfulness of the order examined
speedily by a court.
4. The applicant also complained that as a result of the Chief
Physician's failure properly to notify her of his compulsory care order
the administrative court proceedings could not commence within a
reasonable time. In addition, she was not afforded any opportunity to
comment on the Chief Physician's opinion to the Supreme Administrative
Court. She invoked Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
5. The applicant further complained that during her detention her
right to receive and contact her counsel and others had been
restricted. Moreover, four letters sent to her by her counsel had been
opened and read by hospital staff. She invoked Article 8 of the
Convention.
6. The applicant finally complained that she had been denied an
effective remedy against the restrictions of her visits and contacts
and the interference with her correspondence.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 29 July 1996 and registered on
7 August 1996.
On 27 November 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the
application to the respondent Government.
On 10 February 1997 the Government informed the Commission that
the applicant had died in January 1997. The Government furthermore
requested that their time-limit for lodging observations on the
admissibility and merits of the application be suspended pending a
possible withdrawal of the case. This request was granted on
18 February 1997.
On 13 March 1997 counsel informed the Commission that none of the
late applicant's relatives wished to pursue the application which was
therefore withdrawn.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicant has died in January 1997
and that none of her relatives wish to pursue the application. In these
circumstances it can be struck out of the Commission's list of cases
within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.
Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character
affecting the respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention,
which require the further examination of the application by virtue of
Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy