AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 27323/95
by Mauno PELTONEN
against Finland
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 23 October 1997, the following members being present:
Mrs J. LIDDY, President
MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
L. LOUCAIDES
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
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 13 March 1995 by
Mauno Peltonen against Finland and registered on 15 May 1995 under file
No. 27323/95;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1946 and currently
residing in Athens, Greece.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
In 1992 the applicant, then resident in Sweden, travelled to
Egypt. In 1993 he officially moved from Sweden to Finland. In the light
of this move the local Social Insurance Office (försäkringskassan) in
Sweden, on 26 January 1993, decided to stop paying him Swedish national
pension benefits, referring to his possibility of obtaining similar
benefits from the Finnish authorities.
The applicant's request for disability pension from Finland was
refused by the Joutseno branch office of the Social Insurance
Institution (kansaneläkelaitos, folkpensionsanstalten) on 15 June 1993
on the basis that he was not resident in Finland.
The applicant appealed, arguing that he was only temporarily
living in Egypt and that his return to Finland had been delayed due to
the urgent treatment of an illness. On 17 February 1994 the Appellate
Board for Social Insurance (tarkastuslautakunta, prövningsnämnden)
dismissed his appeal, maintaining that in the light of material adduced
he was not resident in Finland. The Board referred to an opinion
submitted by the Social Insurance Office. This had not been
communicated to the applicant and was not reproduced or summarised in
the Board's decision.
The applicant appealed further, adducing, inter alia, an extract
from the Finnish population register dated 6 April 1994 and showing
that he had been resident in Finland since April 1993.
On 5 September 1994 the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus,
försäkringsdomstolen) upheld the decision of the Appellate Board,
having noted a further opinion submitted by the Social Insurance
Institution as well as various supplementary observations, whose
contents and sender were not specified. The opinion and the
supplementary observations had not been communicated to the applicant
and were not reproduced or summarised in the Court's decision. The
decision was dispatched on 14 September 1994. No further appeal was
open to the applicant.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that the Finnish authorities have
subjected him to degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the
Convention, have infringed his right to personal security within the
meaning of Article 5 and have violated his property rights contrary to
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He also invokes Article 14.
2. The applicant complains that he was denied a fair and public
hearing of his pension request in Finland. In particular, the Appellate
Board for Social Insurance and the Insurance Court did not communicate
to him the material obtained from other sources. He invokes Article 6
para. 1 of the Convention.
3. The applicant complains that the unknown supplementary
observations obtained by the Insurance Court might consist of his
private correspondence which has then been revealed in violation of
Article 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the Finnish authorities have
subjected him to degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 (Art. 3)
of the Convention, have infringed his right to personal security within
the meaning of Article 5 (Art. 5) and have violated his property rights
contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). He also invokes Article
14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.
The Commission considers that these complaints are largely
unsubstantiated and finds no indication of a violation of any of the
above-mentioned provisions.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant complains that he was denied a fair and public
hearing of his pension request in Finland. In particular, the Appellate
Board for Social Insurance and the Insurance Court did not communicate
to him the material obtained from other sources. He invokes Article 6
para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which reads as follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights ..., everyone is
entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] tribunal
established by law. ..."
The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the
file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is
therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the
Rules of Procedure, to give notice thereof to the Finnish Government.
3. The applicant complains that the unknown supplementary
observations obtained by the Insurance Court might consist of his
private correspondence which has then been revealed in violation of
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. This provision reads as follows:
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority
with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic
society in the interests of national security, public
safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others."
The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the
file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is
therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the
Rules of Procedure, to give notice thereof to the Finnish Government.
For these reasons, the Commission,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's
complaints relating to the alleged unfairness of the
pension proceedings and the alleged interference with his
correspondence; and
unanimously,
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy