FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32389/05
by Juha-Pekka VUOKKO and Others
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 September 2005,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having regard to the third applicant's request to withdraw his application,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case in respect of the first and second applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first and second applicants Mr Tom Fingerroos and Mr Jussi Järvinen, are Finnish nationals who were born in 1959 and 1965 respectively and live in Turku. The third applicant, Mr Juha-Pekka Vuokko, is a Belgian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Brussels. They were all represented before the Court by Mr J. Hakanen, a lawyer practising in Turku. 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.
On 6 August 1992 the police carried out a search at the first and second applicants' work place, at which point they became aware of the fact that they were suspected of offences in relation to credits granted by a bank, which was subsequently wound up. They were each questioned by the police several times between February 1993 and March 1996. The third applicant became aware of his status as a suspect in respect of similar offences on 8 March 1994 when he was first questioned by the police. He was only questioned once after that, namely on 9 March 1994. The final phase of the pre-trial investigation, concerning all the applicants, ended on 9 April 1996.
The hearing of the case, which involved some 30 defendants, began in the Salo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) on 7 March 1995. The claims for damages against the first and second applicants were filed during the court sessions of 7 March 2005 and 7 August 1996. The charges and the claims for damages against the third applicant were brought on 10 September 1996. The case was heard over more than 60 days. Testimony was given by 73 witnesses. The documents submitted to the court comprised more than 33,000 pages. The applicants closed their defence on 28 January 1998.
On 24 March 2000 the District Court issued its judgment, which ran to almost 900 pages. The court convicted the first applicant of several counts of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to a suspended term of one year and six months' imprisonment along with a supplementary fine. The second applicant was convicted of several counts of aggravated fraud and sentenced to a suspended term of two years' imprisonment and a supplementary fine. The third applicant was convicted of three counts of aggravated fraud and sentenced to a suspended term of eleven months' imprisonment and a supplementary fine.
The court's judgment included a procedural decision to examine the complainant's, i.e. the bank's successor's, claims for damages in separate civil proceedings.
On 4 March 2002 the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), having held an oral hearing, gave its judgment concerning the criminal head of the proceedings.
On 30 October 2002 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.
On 12 May 2006 the District Court issued its judgment concerning the claims for damages. It held the first and second applicants liable in damages in the amount of 9.8 million euros (EUR) and the third applicant in the amount of almost EUR 3.2 million. All applicants, as well as the complainant, appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal, which rendered its judgment on 12 February 2008. The proceedings continued before the Supreme Court.
During the examination of the claims for damages the applicants, among other defendants, lodged a procedural complaint to have these claims dismissed due to the excessive length of the proceedings. On 9 March 2004 the District Court accepted that the proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy, but dismissed the complaint noting that the domestic legislation did not provide for the possibility to discontinue civil proceedings. The court also stated that it was in the interests of the complainant that the proceedings be continued. It came to this conclusion even though it accepted the applicants' view that the complainant company was a State-owned company. On 29 November 2004 the applicants' appeal against the decision was refused by the Court of Appeal. On 12 April 2005 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the total length of the proceedings was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They also complained under Article 13 about the lack of an effective remedy in that connection.
THE LAW
By letter dated 18 January 2008 the Government's observations were sent to the applicants' representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 3 March 2008.
On 22 February 2008 the applicants' representative informed the Court that the third applicant, Mr Juha-Pekka Vuokko, wanted to withdraw his application and that he had no further claims in the matter. He also submitted, on that date, observations and just satisfaction claims in respect of the first and the second applicant.
On 28 March 2008 the Government requested the Court to strike the application out of the list in so far as it concerned the third applicant.
As regards the first and second applicants, on 23 July 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Arto Kosonen, the Government Agent, declare that the Government of Finland offer to pay ex gratia EUR 29,000[1] (twenty nine thousand euros) to Mr Tom Valdemar Fingerroos and Mr Jussi Kalevi Järvinen 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 pecuniary and 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 27 August 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the first and the second applicant:
“We, Mr Tom Valdemar Fingerroos and Mr Jussi Kalevi Järvinen, the applicants in the above case, note that the Government of Finland are prepared to pay us ex gratia the sum of EUR 29,000 (twenty nine 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 pecuniary and 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.
We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Finland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. We declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the third 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 his case.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the Government and the first and second applicants. 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 in so far as it relates to the first and second applicants (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
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 AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] This sum includes EUR 12,000 for non-pecuniary damage for each of the two applicants and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses (inclusive of VAT).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy