FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35967/05
by Mira Maaret RUNNE
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 October 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, Ms Mira Maaret Runne, is a Finnish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Helsinki. She was represented before the Court by Mr J. Bützow, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. 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.
The applicant was shopping in a shopping centre on 15 June 1992 when a glass wall above her broke and glass fell on her causing her injuries. After the accident, the applicant suffered from severe headaches which prevented her from working or studying. The insurance company of the owner of the shopping centre compensated the applicant for the loss of income for a period of one year but found that the applicant’s inability to work thereafter could no longer be attributed to the accident. After 15 June 1993, the insurance company further compensated the applicant in respect of certain costs.
The applicant claimed damages from the shopping centre before the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) by writs filed on 16 January 1995 and 13 February 1996. At the oral hearing on 19 September 1996, the parties agreed that the question of whether the shopping centre was liable to the applicant in damages should be dealt with first. The District Court found in its interlocutory judgment of 29 November 1996 that the shopping centre could not be held liable in damages. This judgment was overturned on 10 June 1996 by the Helsinki Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) which found that the shopping centre could be held liable in damages and referred the case back to the District Court. The Appeal Court’s judgment was upheld on 2 January 2001 by the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen).
The Helsinki District Court held an oral hearing in the case during which inter alia twelve medical experts were heard. On 14 June 2002 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim for damages on the basis that, according to several medical opinions, there was no causal link between the accident and the injuries suffered by the applicant. After having been asked by the applicant to accelerate the proceedings and having held an oral hearing in November 2003 during which ten medical experts were heard, the Helsinki Appeal Court upheld the judgment of the District Court on 27 May 2004. The Appeal Court also based its judgment on several medical opinions and in particular on the opinion of the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs. The court found that the authority’s experts provided the most objective evidence. In view of the materials they had produced these experts had given a more complete picture of the applicant’s situation. On 28 April 2005 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the total length of the proceedings in her case was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. She also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair as the District Court and the Appeal Court, in the second set of proceedings, had mainly relied on the expert opinions of the medical doctors of the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs who had never examined the applicant in person and they had given less weight to the opinions of the doctors who had examined her.
THE LAW
On 28 January 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 8,000 (eight thousand euros) to Ms Mira Maaret Runne 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 5 February 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Mira Maaret Runne, the applicant in the above-mentioned case, note that the Government of Finland are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 8,000 (eight thousand 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 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