FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10626/12
Juha Kauko RUOTSALAINEN
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Robert Spano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 February 2012,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Juha Kauko Ruotsalainen, is a Finnish national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Jyväskylä.
2. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. Several of the bigger Evangelic-Lutheran congregations publish a free newspaper which, in some congregations, is distributed to all households. This was the situation in the area where the applicant lives. Since 2006 the applicant has repeatedly asked the local congregation not to deliver the newspaper to his address.
5. On 18 December 2006 the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan apulaisoikeusasiamies, riksdagens biträdande justitieombudsman) took a stand on the issue on the basis of several complaints made to him. As the Evangelic-Lutheran congregations performed a public function, they fell under the supervision of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. He found that the newspapers in question were to be regarded as religious ones which also appeared relatively often. It was the responsibility of the publisher to make sure that the distribution of the newspaper respected the religious beliefs of others. Even if the practice of distributing the free newspaper to all households was not unconstitutional, he believed that the minimum requirement was to respect the opinion of those who did not want to receive the newspaper. The complainants had not been able to prohibit the delivery of the newspaper. The Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman found that the best solution would be to distribute the newspaper only to members of the congregation. The congregational authorities needed to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights and human rights and it was their responsibility to respect the religious beliefs of others. It was irrelevant which method of distribution was the cheapest for the congregations.
6. On 13 February 2007 the Parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee (perustuslakivaliokunta, grundlagsutskottet), by referring to the activities of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, gave attention in its report (mietintö PeVM 17/2006 vp, betänkande PeVM 17/2006 rd) to freedom of expression in the religious context, protected both by the Constitution and Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. It found that these provisions gave very strong protection to the freedom of religious and other convictional communication. This freedom belonged equally to all individuals as well as to all religious communities functioning in Finland. Possible restrictions to this freedom could be made by an act but such acts would need to fulfil the criteria of clarity and precision as well as being acceptable and necessary.
7. On 18 January 2008 the applicant requested the police to investigate the matter.
8. On 14 July 2008 the public prosecutor decided that no pre-trial investigation was to be conducted in the matter. She found that it was doubtful whether the matter constituted a crime and, even if it did, it was a minor one for which no charges would be brought.
9. The applicant started to receive the newspaper again in 2009. The delivery to the applicant’s household was not discontinued in spite of several requests to that effect. The applicant did not want to prohibit the delivery of all free publications but had put a sticker on his mail box saying that he did not want any “spiritual material” to be delivered to him.
10. On 24 April 2009 the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman took a stand on the issue again. He found that he did not have competence to assess the opinions expressed by the Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament but that the best solution would be to mail the newspaper only to those persons who were members of the local congregation. About half of the congregations already used this manner of distribution.
11. On 14 January 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri, justitiekanslern), about the same matter.
12. In its submissions to the Chancellor of Justice, the congregation in question noted that the newspaper was delivered to all households which had not prohibited the delivery of free publications and advertisements. If such a prohibition was made, the newspaper was not delivered to those households. The distribution of the newspaper only to the members of the congregation would be illegal since such practice would have no legal basis and it would restrict the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression of the congregations. Persons had no legal right to demand that certain free publications and advertisements be delivered to them and others not.
13. In his submissions to the Chancellor of Justice, the applicant further noted that it was unreasonable to require a person who did not want to receive religious publications to prohibit all free publications and advertisements. Quite often, for example, important and useful information bulletins from the city administration or bus timetables were sent via free distribution to all households. It was also unreasonable that a person had to reveal his or her beliefs to all neighbours by putting a sticker on the mail box prohibiting spiritual publications.
14. On 6 October 2011 the Deputy Chancellor of Justice replied that he would not examine the matter as it had already been examined by the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman. Moreover, even though he had competence to supervise the measures taken by Evangelic-Lutheran congregations, he did not have competence to assess the opinions of the Constitutional Law Committee of the Parliament.
15. The applicant is still receiving the newspaper.
COMPLAINTS
16. The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention that the delivery of a free newspaper by the Evangelic-Lutheran congregation to his household, even though his family members were not members of that Church, violated his rights under these Articles.
THE LAW
17. By letter dated 28 November 2013 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 9 January 2014.
18. On 16 December 2013 the applicant informed the Court that he wanted to withdraw the application since he was not financially able to hire an advocate for a case which might last for a long time and which might involve travelling abroad.
19. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, 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.
20. In view of the above, it is appropriate 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 AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy