CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 30 novembre 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                            AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 18969/91                       by Touko OLLILA                       against Finland         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 30 November 1992, the following members being present:              MM.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                  J.A. FROWEIN                  S. TRECHSEL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  H. DANELIUS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            Mr.    F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 1 July 1991 by Touko OLLILA against Finland and registered on 21 October 1991 under file No. 18969/91;         Having regard the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 4 and 23 June 1992 and 18 August 1992 as well as the applicant's observations of 17 and 18 September 1992;         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 1925 and resident at Juornaankylä. He is a doctor of radiology, an agronomist and a farmer by profession. He is divorced and has seven grown-up children.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   Particular circumstances of the case         On 17 April 1985 the District Court (kihlakunnanoikeus, häradsrätten) of Orimattila in application of Sections 17 and 17a of the 1898 Guardianship Act (holhouslaki 34/1898, lag 34/1898 angående förmynderskap; hereinafter "the 1898 Act")   placed the applicant under guardianship for a period of five years at the request of the applicant's then wife and six of his children. The District Court appointed Mr. S.P. as guardian (holhooja, förmyndare).         Before the District Court the applicant was represented by counsel.         It does not appear on the basis of what expert opinions, if any, the placement under guardianship was decided.         On the applicant's appeal the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Kouvola on 28 August 1986 quashed the decision following a re-hearing. It had regard to written expert opinions of 7 June and 8 November 1985 submitted at the applicant's request by Mr. Aarne Harenko, doctor of neurology, psychiatry and geriatry, a written opinion of 12 February 1986 submitted at the Court's request by the National Medical Board (lääkintöhallitus, medicinalstyrelsen), and a written opinion of 13 June 1986 by the hospital of Kellokoski. Only the opinion by the National Medical Board supported a placement order.         On appeal the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) on 27 October 1988 (by 3 votes to 2) quashed the Court of Appeal's decision and upheld that of the District Court. The Supreme Court had regard to a written opinion of 14 January 1988 submitted at the Court's request by the National Medical Board (and based on a written opinion of 16 July 1987 submitted by Mr. Erkki Väisänen, associate professor and a permanent expert to the Board), a written opinion of 25 May 1987 by Mr. Juhani Vartiainen, doctor of cancer diseases and radiology, and a written opinion of 5 March 1988 submitted by the afore-mentioned Dr. Harenko. Only the opinion submitted by the National Medical Board supported a placement order.         On 14 December 1988 the applicant lodged a petition with the Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri, justitiekanslern), alleging that the grounds for placing him under guardianship had been insufficient. He further complained of S.P.'s administration of his possessions and requested that another person be appointed his guardian.         Following petitions by the applicant the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman) on 10 April 1989 found no grounds for a request for an annulment of the Supreme Court's decision, nor did he find the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Court to be condemnable or further investigation necessary as regards two decisions of the Public Prosecutor not to bring charges on the basis of reports lodged by the applicant.         On 13 February 1989 the Central Criminal Police decided to take no further measure in respect of a report lodged by the applicant.         By a petition lodged with the District Court on 13 April 1989 the applicant requested that his guardian be dismissed and replaced by Mr. B.V.         On 17 April and 30 May 1989 the District Court requested the applicant to supplement his petition. By an opinion of 7 July 1989 the Guardianship Board (holhouslautakunta, förmyndarenämnden) of Askola objected to the change of guardian.         On 21 September 1989 the Deputy Chancellor of Justice (apulais- oikeuskansleri, biträdande justitiekanslern) found no grounds for taking further measures in the case, inter alia as the request that another person be appointed as the applicant's guardian was currently being examined by the District Court.         In a further petition lodged with the District Court on 27 September 1989 the applicant, now represented by a lawyer, again requested that his guardianship be revoked. He submitted inter alia:   (translation from Finnish)         "...       Following the placement under guardianship I have been       subjected to mental and even physical ill-treatment. In no       way have I been informed of the administration of my large       possessions and in spite of these I have been placed to       live in a [room] with a surface of less than 10m2 without       even the most primitive possibilities of taking care of my       health and personal hygiene. Moreover, my guardian has also       in other harsh ways interfered with my privacy and       restricted my possibilities to write, which has always been       an ... important interest of mine. My guardian ... has not       visited me for five years, but nevertheless he is charging       6.000 FIM per month in guardianship fees and 2.000 FIM per       month for costs. I, however, do not have recourse even to       my monthly pension of 3.600 FIM. There is complete distrust       between me and my guardian. ..."         On 4 December 1989 the applicant's children requested that the placement order be prolonged and S.P. re-appointed guardian.         By a letter of 21 December 1989 to the local post office the applicant complained that for five years he had not received any mail, although he used to receive up to 1,5 kg of mail per month. Copies were sent to the Minister of Justice, the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice.         On 3 January 1990 the applicant withdrew his petitions of 13 April and 27 September 1989 to the District Court.           At the District Court's hearing on the same day in respect of the request for a prolongation of the guardianship both the applicant's children and the guardian were assisted by counsel. The applicant was not; he told the Court that this was unnecessary. At the request of counsel for the applicant's children the Court adjourned the hearing in order to receive further evidence to be presented by them.         On 28 March 1990 the District Court in application of Section 3 of the 1983 Guardianship Decree (holhousasetus 851/83, förmynderskaps- förordning 851/83; hereinafter "the 1983 Decree") and Section 65 of the 1898 Act appointed a guardian ad litem (a lawyer) to represent the applicant.         On 4 April 1990 the District Court prolonged the guardianship for a further five years and re-appointed S.P. as guardian. It had regard to a written opinion of 29 March 1990 submitted at the Court's request by Ms. Tarja Pohjasvara, assistant physician, and Mr. Matti Iivanainen, associate professor, both of the Neurological Clinic of the Central University Hospital of Helsinki, noting that for a period of three years there had been no improvement in the applicant's mental capacity or general state of health and concluding that he was suffering from an incurable brain damage probably caused by disturbances in his blood circulation and abuse of tranquillisers. The Court also had regard to a written opinion of 8 March 1990 submitted at the Court's request by Ms. Marjatta Rosenberg, a physician at the Public Health Centre of Porvoo considering, inter alia, that the applicant's general state of health and his psychosocial situation had improved. In a supplementary written opinion of 21 March 1990 submitted at the request of the applicant's relatives she stated, however, that she was not taking any position as regards the question whether the applicant needed to be placed under guardianship.         On 18 September 1990 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal.         On 9 October 1990 the Central Criminal Police took note of a further report lodged by the applicant.         According to the Government, the President of the District Court on 23 October 1990 visited the applicant in order to acquaint himself with his living conditions.         On 18 December 1990 Ms. Riitta Kauppinen, a physician and Member of Parliament, requested the Parliamentary Ombudsman to investigate alleged irregularities as regards the applicant's everyday living conditions, financial situation and his requests for a change of guardian. The request was based on a visit paid by her to the applicant's place of residence, where she had formed the impression that compared with his previous circumstances and standard of living his conditions had deteriorated and were inadequate.         Leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision of 18 September 1990 was refused by the Supreme Court on 24 January 1991.         On 23 April 1991 the Guardianship Board approved the guardian's settlement of the applicant's accounts (holhoustili, förmyndareräkning) for 1990.           That settlement indicated inter alia the following:   -      assets                                            3.447.343 FIM; -      debts                                             1.140.923 FIM; -      deposits                                            929.547 FIM; -      new credits                                         314.101 FIM; -      receivable from [the applicant's son] J.O.          100.000 FIM; -      salary and [employment] pension                      38.763 FIM; -      national pension                                      6.948 FIM; -      withdrawals from deposits                            26.638 FIM; -      costs of living and [use of]       disposable funds                                     46.629 FIM; -      costs for treatment                                   1.059 FIM; -      the guardian's fees and expenses                     34.753 FIM; -      lawyers' fees                                        49.478 FIM; -      costs for new farming machines                      251.500 FIM.         On 30 April 1992 the Police District of Porvoo decided to take no measures in respect of the applicant's report of suspected murder attempts and breaches of the 1898 Act.         On 2 May 1991 Ms. Pirkko Turpeinen, doctor of psychiatry, submitted the following petition to the Deputy Ombudsman:   (translation from Finnish)         "... I confirm having visited ... [the applicant] at his       request and at the request of his friend S.J. and M.V., a       lawyer. [The applicant] himself as well as his friends felt       that his human rights are not respected. They also feel       that not only has [the applicant] been wrongfully placed       under guardianship, but that the guardianship is being used       to suppress him.         I meet [the applicant] on 19 March 1991 in his "home". At       the front door I am being met by a young man who reacts [to       me] in an aggressive and suspicious way ..., [the       applicant's son] M.O. who wants to know why I have come. He       allows me to pass after all and I enter a side room of the       small farm building ...         I have never seen a room like that in which [the applicant]       is living. [The applicant] is lying on a bed, which is       surrounded by papers in disorder, old remnants, dirt.         I discuss with [the applicant] in private for about an       hour. I ask about his childhood, his early stages of life,       his studies, his professional activities, his family and       children. [The applicant] speaks to the point and answers       all my questions. His relationship with his family is       bitter due to the placing of him under guardianship (the       reasons for which I am unaware of). He states his interest       in rehabilitation, which would be needed in order to re-       establish his mobility. He would also be interested in       participating in the administration of his agricultural       property.         During this meeting I do not detect any such mental       abnormality as could form the basis for his guardianship.       [The applicant] is self-centered and has a short patience,       which may be due at least partly to his treatment, which he       considers unfair, and to the regression caused by this.         [The applicant] feels that his treatment is due to the fact       that the relatives want to take control over the large       possessions acquired by him through his own work.         In my opinion measures should be taken to have [the       applicant] undergo rehabilitation and to have his human       rights and [his right to] a decent life restored.       ..."         On 4 June 1991 the applicant addressed a letter to the President of the District Court requesting that his guardianship be revoked. It included a copy of Ms. Turpeinen's petition. In particular, he alleged that he was unjustifiably placed under guardianship; that the guardian was embezzling his possessions; and that he was being refused recourse to his pension.         The applicant received no reply to his request.         On 20 June 1991 the President of the District Court audited the guardian's settlement of the applicant's accounts for 1990 in accordance with Section 54 para. 3 of the 1898 Act, but referred it to a separate examination. He noted inter alia that already in the settlement of the accounts for 1989 the applicant's agricultural activity had shown a loss; that in 1990 the guardian had agreed to lease 85 hectares of farming land to three of the applicant's sons; that part of the land had been turned into fallow; that the guardian had lent 100.000 FIM to one of the sons; that it was unclear what security had been given for the loan and what interest had been charged for it; and that the applicant had submitted that he had been refused recourse to funds stated as disposable in the settlement. The President requested the Guardianship Board to supply clarification on a number of points pertaining to the administration of the applicant's possessions.         On 23 July 1991 the Guardianship Board submitted information according to which inter alia the farming on the applicant's property had been taken over by a consortium run by three of the sons by means of a lease of 100.000 FIM signed in the spring of 1990; that no loan had been given and that the outstanding account was due to the fact that the applicant had received no payment for the lease; and that "an agreement had been reached" to charge a penal interest of 16 per cent for this account.         On the same day the Guardianship Board further considered a proposal by the President of the District Court that the Board together with the applicant's guardian take measures in order to arrange for rehabilitation of the applicant. The Board noted that the guardian had informed the Secretary to the Board by telephone that the applicant was awaiting rehabilitation at a rehabilitation centre at Punkaharju. The guardian had further promised to submit documentation showing when the request for rehabilitation had been made.         Having also regard to the fact that on 28 June 1991 the applicant had been recommended by the local Public Health Centre to receive rehabilitation the Board found no reason to take any measures.         In the summer of 1991 the applicant underwent rehabilitation as a result of which his mobility improved. His state of health has, however, again deteriorated and he now appears to be almost immobile.         It appears that the applicant's care in the private hospital of Eira in Helsinki in 1991 was interrupted by the guardian.         By a letter of August 1991 to the President of the District Court the applicant alleged that the guardian had been causing him great financial losses; that he was not receiving his pension; that he was being refused access to the settlements of his accounts; that his eye- sight was decreasing as the guardian was refusing him means enabling him to undergo an operation; that he was becoming immobile due to lack of rehabilitation; and that the guardian was refusing to pay for certain subscriptions.         The applicant received no reply to his letter.         On 30 September 1991 the President of the District Court found that the necessary information had been provided by the Guardianship Board. Having regard to this, as well as the information obtained by the Court itself and the fact that the Board had approved the settlement of accounts without remarks, and concluding that it could not carry out a detailed audit of the settlement, the Court, referring to Sections 45 and 55 of the 1898 Act, found that there was no need at this point to appoint a guardian ad litem to contest the settlement.         On 28 January 1992 the Central Criminal Police took note of a further report lodged by the applicant.         In 1992 the Guardianship Board approved the settlement of the applicant's accounts for 1991 with one remark as to the fees charged by the guardian S.P. The President of the District Court subsequently referred the settlement for separate audit.         On 10 April and 29 May 1992 the President of the District Court considered the applicant's requests of 1991. On the last-mentioned day the matter was referred for examination at a hearing on 2 June 1992.         On 1 June 1992 the Deputy Ombudsman rendered her decision in regard to the applicant's and Ms. Kauppinen's petitions (see the Appendix).         On 2 June 1992 the District Court held a hearing, where the applicant was represented by a guardian ad litem (a lawyer) appointed on that day in application of Sections 65 and 66 of the 1898 Act. The Court heard the applicant and the Chairman of the Guardianship Board. It further noted that it had not yet received any reply to the President's letter to the Board of 19 December 1991. The case was adjourned in order to enable the guardian ad litem to study the case- file. The applicant was ordered to summon Ms. Turpeinen as a witness, provided he wanted to invoke her report of 2 May 1991.         On 14 July 1992 the District Court dismissed S.P. as the applicant's guardian and provisionally appointed the Official Guardian of the municipality of Askola as guardian as from 1 September 1992. The District Court had regard to the statements by the applicant and S.P. according to which they had been unable to negotiate about matters relating to the guardianship, the separate audit of S.P.'s settlement of the applicant's accounts for 1991, and the Deputy Ombudsman's finding that S.P. is a member of the Municipal Board of Askola.         The District Court adjourned its consideration of the applicant's request for revocation of the guardianship.         On 27 July 1992 Dr. Matti Tuovinen, a forensic psychiatrist and a permanent expert to the Ministry of Social and Health Affairs (sosiaali- ja terveyshallitus, social- och hälsostyrelsen) submitted an opinion to the National Board of Social Welfare for the purposes of the proceedings before the Commission. It reads, inter alia, as follows:   (translation from Finnish)         "...       By letter of 12 June 1992 the National Board of Social       Welfare has requested me to study, in my capacity as       expert, the application to [the Commission] lodged by [the       applicant], doctor of radiology, as well as the documents       pertaining to it, and to submit my opinion as to the       questions put to [the Board] by the Ministry for Foreign       Affairs. ...         I have had at my disposal the files relating to [the       applicant] at the National Medical Board / the National       Board of Social Welfare spanning over a period of       approximately ten years. He has now - by letter of 30 March       1992 - lodged an application against Finland in which he       alleges defects in the administration of his guardianship.       He has, inter alia, submitted that on six occasions his       guardian has taken him for treatment in a mental hospital       against his will and for no reason. It appears that he has       been treated at least in the hospitals of Lapinlahti,       Kellokoski and Tammiharju, for other reasons at the       neurological department ... of the Central University       Hospital of Helsinki as well as at the rehabilitation       centre at Punkaharju.         The Ministry for Foreign Affairs has put the following       questions to the National Board of Social Welfare:         -     Has [the applicant] been taken for treatment in a            mental hospital in the way alleged in his submissions;            has he been discharged due to lack of reasons            justifying treatment; or has he been detained for            treatment against his will ?         -     How has [the applicant's] health care been organised            and has it been possible to give him the treatment            necessary in view of his condition ?         [The applicant] ... received a university degree in       agriculture ... in 1952, became a graduate in medicine ...       in 1963 and a specialist doctor in radiology in 1973. He       submits that he has been a farmer since 1979. He has been       married and has seven children, born between 1953 and 1970.       In the summer of 1985 Juhani Leistén, medical counsellor       and a permanent expert to the National Medical Board,       assessed [the applicant's] personality: '... [He] has been       an intelligent, original person with a hidden inferiority       complex, but [he has been] ambitious. [His] behaviour may       be placed in the biological grey zone close to manic       depression. [He] has had almost overactive stages in his       life. Growing old and the family growing up [he] became       depressive, dependent on alcohol and drugs, started       producing paranoid tendencies, became projective and       sometimes goes into a serious state of regression and       psychotic behaviour, with the result that his reality       perception is seriously disturbed. ...'         [The applicant] had complained about his treatment between       3 June and 7 July 1981 at [the hospital of] Tammiharju and       of his treatment at the psychiatric clinic from 11 November       1984 to 19 January 1985. [He] was found to have brain       symptoms caused by polyneuropathy and possibly by a       radiation injury or a degenerating process, as well as from       rectum cancer. For the last-mentioned condition he has been       operated on at least thrice since 1985. Being from time to       time immobile he has, during the last years, been       helplessly dependent on home medical treatment. [He] has,       however, remained active enough to write criticising       letters and try to fight legally against his placement       under guardianship. [He has further] complained of having       been detained in hospitals as well of alleged acts of       negligence. On the other hand, his relatives have on       several occasions requested investigations by the National       Board as to why effective measures have not been taken in       order to remedy his occasional helplessness, noting that       several recommendations that he be taken to a mental       hospital have not been followed. [Guardian S.P.] has kept       contact both with the physician at the Public Health Centre       and the National Board and has described [the applicant's]       problematic behaviour. The physician at the Public Health       Centre has stated in her opinion that even in behavioural       crises [the applicant] has not shown any disturbance       justifying detention against his will. For example, in 1988       he was sent to [the hospital of] Kellokoski, but he was ...       returned, no grounds justifying detention against his will       having been found. In 1986 he [also] underwent an       examination at Kellokoski, that time for the purpose of the       guardianship [proceedings]. In 1982 [he was examined] at       the private mental hospital of Sanerva following a request       by the National Medical Board. These two sets of hospital       treatment were, accordingly, voluntary ... The previously       mentioned stays at the psychiatric clinic of the Central       University Hospital of Helsinki and Tammiharju took place       against his will. Numerous previous investigations       instituted at [the applicant's] request have found those       stays to be justified. As soon as the conditions for       compulsory treatment ceased to exist he was, at his       request, immediately discharged. According to the material       at my disposal [the applicant] has been detained in a       mental hospital on six occasions since 1981. In his       application he has not, however, specified which of those       six stays he refers to. It appears, however, that although       the ... responsibility for the medical care given to him in       his home lies with the physician at the Public Health       Centre, the guardian has normally, in accordance with his       own responsibility, attempted to monitor the situation and       at least institute an investigation in order to determine       whether there were grounds justifying care [against the       applicant's will]. At least on one occasion in 1988 the       finding, after a period of observation of [the applicant]       in a mental hospital, was that he had been sent there       unnecessarily. This, however, does not contain any opinion       as to whether there had been grounds for taking him in for       observation. It should be emphasised that a vigilant and       well-read paranoiac soon learns how to dissimulate, if need       be. It appears from the statements made by the home medical       service and the case records in the file that attempts have       been made to invest care and efforts in the monitoring of       [the applicant's] condition and in his care, despite the       fact that he is, as a patient, apparently occasionally very       ungrateful and regressively full of whims. His criticising       attitude and the effective compulsory means should       [,however,] keep the risk of realistically perceivable acts       of negligence small. Finally, it should be observed that       the symptomatic core of the paranoia suffered by this kind       of person does not consist only of suspicions arising out       of individual situations or a momentary distortion of his       reality perception - [symptoms which he manages to hide       quickly] during a psychiatric examination - but in an       extensive passion for complaints and attacks which may       occasionally use as their instrument ... defects which are       indeed real, although exaggerated. All in all, behind       everything we see a paranoid outlook forming the meaning of       [his] life.       ..."         On 26 August 1992 the District Court replaced the Official Guardian by Mr. P.V., a lawyer.         In its opinion of 8 October 1992 the Guardianship Board objected to the revocation of the guardianship or the appointment of an administrator.         On 20 October 1992 the District Court revoked the applicant's placement under guardianship and appointed an administrator (a lawyer) to take care of his financial and legal affairs. It had regard to, inter alia, Ms. Turpeinen's statement of 2 May 1991, now confirmed as a medical opinion in accordance with Section 12 para. 1 of the Medical Practice Act.           The District Court stated inter alia the following:         (translation from Finnish)         "...       In her medical report of 13 October 1992 Pirkko Turpeinen has not       detected any symptoms in [the applicant] justifying [his]       placement under guardianship.         [The applicant] is in the District Court's view unable, because       of a physical illness, to take care of his affairs. Nobody shall,       however, be placed under guardianship due to a physical illness.       ..."         The District Court's decision is subject to appeal both by the applicant's children, himself and his guardian ad litem.         In 1985 the market value of the applicant's possessions was estimated at 10.000.000 FIM. His agricultural property amounts to 115 hectares of farming land and 250 hectares of forest land.         According to the applicant his possessions include, inter alia, 2 km of undeveloped lakeside property and 51 buildings. He claims to be the former owner of large toy and shoe factories.         The applicant has submitted a copy of the results of an intelligence test carried out by a psychologist of Mensa of Finland on 28 August 1990 according to which his intelligence quotient is 142, which is higher than that of 96 per cent of the population.   Relevant domestic law         Under Section 17 of the 1898 Act, as amended by Act no. 368/83, a person who is incapable of taking care of himself or of matters concerning his possessions, and provided that his financial situation, income or other important interests are obviously jeopardised, may be placed under guardianship (para. 1). A request may be submitted by the person himself, his or her spouse, a relative of his or the Guardianship Board (Section 17d paras. 1 and 2, as amended by Act no. 368/83).         If it is found that a person's interests may be sufficiently safeguarded by appointing an administrator he shall not be placed under guardianship (Section 17 para. 2).         The placement under guardianship shall be ordered for an indefinite period or for a period defined by the court (Section 17a, as amended by Act no. 368/83).         The guardianship shall be revoked, if the grounds for placing the person under guardianship no longer exist (Section 17c, as amended by Act no. 368/83). Such a request may be lodged by the persons mentioned in Section 17d paras. 1 and 2 as well as by the guardian.         Under Section 17d para. 3 the ward may request that his guardianship be revoked by submitting a petition to the District Court. Under Section 30, as amended by Act no. 368/83, he may also request that his guardian be dismissed provided the ward has attained the age of fifteen.         Section 6 of the Act on the Handling of Petitions at Courts of First Instance (laki 307/86 hakemusasioiden käsittelystä yleisessä alioikeudessa, lag 307/86 om behandling av ansökningsärenden vid allmän underrätt) prescribes certain formal requirements of a petition. If a petition is found to be incomplete the petitioner shall be requested to complete it, unless this is considered unnecessary. If the petition is not completed it shall in principle be dismissed.         Under Section 3 of the 1983 Decree the court shall ex officio appoint a guardian ad litem inter alia when examining a petition for the revocation of a guardianship, provided the ward's interests are, or may become, in conflict with those of his guardian.         Under Section 20 para. 2 of the 1898 Act, as amended by Act no. 368/83, the ward shall have control of any possessions acquired by his own work while being placed under guardianship, as well as of any yield of those possessions and of any substitute possessions. Under para. 3 the Guardianship Board may consent to the guardian taking control of such possessions, provided this is called for in the interests of the ward.         The guardian shall take care of the ward's possessions and represent him in matters concerning the possessions. The guardian shall further conscientiously safeguard the ward's rights and promote the ward's interests (Section 33, as amended by Act no. 368/83).         The guardian shall further provide the ward with such care as is regarded as necessary in view of the ward's needs as well as his other circumstances (Section 34, as amended by Act no. 368/83).         The guardian shall hear the ward in matters of importance from the ward's point of view. The hearing of the ward is not necessary if he is unable to comprehend the meaning of the matter (Section 37, as amended by Act no. 368/83).         Under Section 39 the guardian may not without the court's consent dispose of the ward's real property or let it on lease for more than five years, in the latter case provided the guardianship is based on a decision by a court. Any such transaction shall be considered void unless the court subsequently approves it (Section 41).         The ward's possessions shall be administered in such a way as to ensure that they as well as any proceeds are used for his benefit (Section 42, as amended by Act no. 368/83).         The ward shall have recourse to any possessions needed for his personal use as well as to a reasonable amount of cash, having regard to his needs and other circumstances. The guardian shall see to it that the ward can keep any possessions necessary during the guardianship or subsequently for housing or business activities or which otherwise have a special value for him. Any further possessions not used for the ward's subsistence or otherwise for his needs shall be invested so as to ensure adequate preservation of their value as well as reasonable proceeds (Section 43, as amended by Act no. 368/83).           Where a person under guardianship has received, by way of either a donation or a will, written instructions on the administration of the possessions given to him, these are to be complied with unless, following changed circumstances, the court grants permission to deviate from them (Section 45).         Under Section 51 the guardian shall submit annual settlements of the ward's accounts to the Guardianship Board.         Under Section 54 para. 3 the Guardianship Board shall, having audited the settlement of the ward's accounts, refer it to the Court together with any remarks.         Where a guardian submits an incorrect or a defective settlement of the ward's accounts the Court shall, under penalty of a fine, order him to fulfil his obligation (Section 55 para. 1). If there is a reason to contest the guardian's administration or the settlement of the ward's accounts before the guardian has resigned, the Court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to institute proceedings on behalf of the ward (para. 2).         Under Section 61 a ward who has the necessary understanding of the matter may consult the settlement of his accounts as submitted to the Guardianship Board and request that the Board or the Court take measures necessary in view of the administration of his property.         Under Section 65 a guardian ad litem shall be appointed inter alia in matters where the ward's interests are or may become in conflict with those of the guardian.         The Court may, at a person's request, appoint an administrator to administer certain property or to take care of a certain matter, provided the person himself is unable to do so for medical or other similar reasons but it is unnecessary to place him under guardianship. If the person is unable to lodge such a request it may be lodged by his relatives or the Guardianship Board (Section 66).         Under Section 75 para. 3 a decision whereby a placement under guardianship has been revoked shall be enforced only when it has acquired legal force.         Section 12 of the 1978 Medical Practice Act (laki 562/78 lääkärin-toimen harjoittamisesta, lag 562/78 om utövning av läkaryrket) provides that an opinion submitted by a person practising medicine to a court or to other authorities shall be confirmed with the wording: "Which I affirm on my honour and conscience" (para. 1). Such an opinion is valid without a confirmation under oath unless the court or the authority for special reasons orders such a confirmation (para. 2).         Under Chapter 17, Section 11 of the 1948 Code of Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari 571/48, Rättegångs Balk 571/48) a private written statement submitted for the purpose of pending or future legal proceedings shall not be used as evidence before a court of first instance unless otherwise prescribed by law. For a special reason, however, the evidence may be permitted by the court.           Under Chapter 31 the Supreme Court may upon request annul a legally final decision under certain conditions. According to the prevailing practice such a request may be lodged inter alia by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.         Under Section 12 of the 1919 Constitution Act (hallitusmuoto 94/19, regeringsformen 94/19) there shall be no interference with the secrecy of correspondence other than by means of an exception provided for by law. The 1898 Act contains no explicit provision for such an exception.         According to Section 2 of the 1987 Act on Pre-trial Investigation (esitutkintalaki 449/87, förundersökningslag 449/87) a pre-trial investigation shall be carri