CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 30 juin 1993

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                                FIRST CHAMBER                          Application No. 18969/91                                Touko Ollila                                   against                                   Finland                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 30 June 1993)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.          INTRODUCTION            (paras. 1 - 16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              A.     The application                  (paras. 2 - 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              B.     The proceedings                  (paras. 5 - 11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1              C.     The present Report                  (paras. 12 -16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   II.         ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS            (paras. 17 - 44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3              A.     The particular circumstances of the case                  (paras. 17 - 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3              B.     Relevant domestic law                  (paras. 27 - 44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3   III.        OPINION OF THE COMMISSION            (paras. 45 - 71) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6              A.     Complaint declared admissible                  (para. 45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6              B.     Point at issue                  (para. 46) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6              C.     Article 8 of the Convention                  (paras. 47 - 70) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6              CONCLUSION            (para. 71) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9   APPENDIX I        : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . .10   APPENDIX II       : DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . . . .12   APPENDIX III      : EXCERPT FROM THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN'S                    DECISION OF 1 JUNE 1992. . . . . . . . . . . . .37   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.     The following is an outline of the case, as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.     The application   2.     The applicant is a Finnish citizen born in 1925 and resident at Juornaankylä.   He is a doctor of radiology and an agronomist by profession.   3.     The application is directed against Finland.   The respondent government are represented by Ambassador Tom Grönberg, Director General for Legal Affairs, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Helsinki.   4.     The application primarily relates to measures affecting the applicant in his capacity as a ward. The complaint admitted by the Commission concerns the justification under Article 8 of the Convention of the screening and stopping of certain correspondence addressed to the applicant.   B.     The proceedings   5.     The application was introduced on 1 July 1991 and registered on 21 October 1991.   6.     On 24 October 1991 the Rapporteur decided to request certain information from the Government.   7.     The information was submitted by the Government on 25 November 1991.   The applicant's comments in reply were submitted on 11 February 1992.   8.     On 30 March 1992 the Commission decided to invite the Government to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   9.     The Government's observations were submitted on 4 and 23 June and 18 August 1992.   The applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 17 and 18 September 1992.   10.    On 30 November 1992 the Commission declared the applicant's complaint of interference with his correspondence admissible.   It further decided to take no action with respect to his complaint under Article 25 of the Convention and declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   The Commission finally referred the application to the First Chamber.   11.    After declaring the application admissible, the Commission (First Chamber), acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   Active consultations with the parties took place between 11 December 1992 and 10 February 1993.   In the light of the parties' reactions the Commission finds that there is no basis upon which a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   12.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (First Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:         MM.   F. ERMACORA, Acting President of the First Chamber            E. BUSUTTIL            A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK       Sir   Basil HALL       Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS       Mrs. J. LIDDY       MM.   M. PELLONPÄÄ            B. MARXER            G.B. REFFI            B. CONFORTI   13.    The text of the Report was adopted on 30 June 1993 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   14.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention, is:   i)     to establish the facts, and   ii)    to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose a       breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the       Convention.   15.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I, the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II and an excerpt from the Deputy Ombudsman's decision of 1 June 1992 as Appendix III.   16.    The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.     The particular circumstances of the case   17.    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).   18.    On the applicant's appeal the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Kouvola on 28 August 1986 quashed the decision following a re-hearing.   19.    Following a further appeal the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) on 27 October 1988 quashed the Court of Appeal's decision and upheld that of the District Court.   20.    On 4 April 1990 the District Court prolonged the guardianship for a further five years and re-appointed S.P. as guardian.   21.    On 18 September 1990 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal.   22.    Leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision was refused by the Supreme Court on 24 January 1991.   23.    During his placement under guardianship all correspondence addressed to the applicant, with the exception of magazines and postcards, was being screened by S.P. The applicant was subsequently given all correspondence pertaining to his personal matters.   24.    Following the applicant's requests to have his placement under guardianship revoked, alternatively that S.P. be replaced by another guardian the District Court on 14 July 1992 dismissed S.P. and provisionally appointed the Official Guardian (virkaholhooja, tjänsteförmyndare) of the municipality of Askola as guardian as from 1 September 1992. It further adjourned the applicant's request for a revocation of his guardianship.   25.    On 26 August 1992 the District Court replaced the Official Guardian by Mr. P.V.   26.    On 20 October 1992 the District Court revoked the applicant's placement under guardianship and appointed an administrator (uskottu mies, god man) to take care of his financial and legal affairs.   B.     Relevant domestic law   a.     Placement under guardianship or control by an administrator   27.    Under Section 17 para. 1 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 by an ordinary court of law.   28.    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).   29.    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).   30.    The guardianship shall be revoked, if the grounds for placing the person under guardianship no longer exist (Section 17c, as amended by Act no. 368/830.   b.     Rights and duties of the guardian   31.    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 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.   32.    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).   33.    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).   34.    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).   35.    Under Section 39 the guardian may not without the consent of an ordinary court 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.   36.    Under Section 40 the guardian may not without the consent of the Guardianship Board acquire real property on the ward's behalf against payment, with one exception dispose of timber from the ward's forest, with one exception let his real property on lease for a shorter period than five years, and with some exceptions take out loans, draw a bill or take over the responsibility for someone's debts.   37.    Any transaction indicated in Sections 39 and 40 shall be considered void unless the Court or the Guardianship Board subsequently approves it (Section 41).   38.    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. 368/830).   39.    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).   40.    Under Section 51 the guardian shall submit annual settlements of the ward's accounts to the Guardianship Board.   41.    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.   42.    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).   43.    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.   c.     Secrecy of correspondence   44.    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, nor has any other legislation providing explicitly for an exception been cited to the Commission.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaint declared admissible   45.    The Commission has admitted the complaint pertaining to the interference with the applicant's correspondence as carried out by S.P., one of the applicant's guardians.   B.     Point at issue   46.    The issue to be determined is whether there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.   C.     Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention   47.    Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention 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."   48.    The Government admit that there has been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his incoming correspondence. During his placement under guardianship all correspondence, with the exception of magazines and postcards, was being screened by guardian S.P., following which all correspondence pertaining to the applicant's personal matters was handed over to him.   49.    The Government consider, however, that the interference was in accordance with the law. Whilst the 1898 Act does not explicitly allow an interference with a ward's correspondence, a guardian's right of access to correspondence necessary for the administration of his ward's possessions may be derived from that Act. S.P. may have had to screen the applicant's correspondence in order to determine whether its contents pertained to the administration of the applicant's possessions.   50.    The Government admit that it is doubtful whether the provisions of the 1898 Act fulfil the requirement of foreseeability of the interference. Any interference with a ward's correspondence is, however, subjected to supervision by an ordinary court of law. If the interference at issue exceeds what is allowed under the Constitution Act and the 1898 Act, criminal proceedings may be instituted.   51.    The Government finally argue that the interference with the applicant's correspondence was necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder and the protection of the freedom and rights of others.   52.    The Commission notes that the Government do not dispute State responsibility for the interference as carried out by guardian S.P. The Commission, for its part, finds that, in performing his duties, S.P. was exercising public authority under the supervision of the District Court and the Guardianship Board as a representative of the latter. Thus, his acts undoubtedly gave rise to State responsibility.   53.    The Commission further observes that the Government admit an interference with the applicant's right to respect for correspondence addressed to him. It has not been alleged that his outgoing correspondence has been interfered with. The Commission will therefore limit its examination to the justification under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the screening and stopping of certain correspondence addressed to the applicant.   54.    The Commission must decide whether this interference was justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2), which authorises certain restrictions on the rights guaranteed by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1), provided that such restrictions are "in accordance with the law" and "necessary in a democratic society" for one or more of the aim or aims enumerated in para. 2.   55.    An interference cannot be held to be "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention unless, first of all, it has some basis in domestic law.   However, the expression "in accordance with the law" also relates to the quality of the law in question. This implies that the law should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him. Finally, the law must be compatible with the rule of law (Eur. Court H.R., Kruslin and Huvig judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A nos. 176-A and 176-B, p. 20, para. 27, and p. 52, para. 26, respectively; Herczegfalvy judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 27, para. 88).   56.    Moreover, the term "law" should be understood in its "substantive" sense, not its "formal" one.   It may therefore include enactments of lower rank than statutes as well as unwritten law.   In a sphere covered by written law, the "law" is the enactment in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (the above-mentioned Kruslin and Huvig judgments, pp. 21-22, para. 29, pp. 53-54, para. 28, respectively).   a.     The existence of a legal basis for the interference   57.    The Commission will first examine whether the first of the above- mentioned conditions is fulfilled in the present case, i.e. whether the interference with the applicant's correspondence had a basis in Finnish law.   58.    The Commission observes that Section 12 of the Constitution Act prescribes that there shall be no interference with the secrecy of correspondence other than by means of an exception provided for by law.   59.    Indeed, such laws have been enacted and apply, for instance, to patients in mental institutions in accordance with Section 28 para. 2 of the 1990 Act on Mental Health Care (mielenterveyslaki 1247/90, mentalvårdslag 1247/90) as well as to prisoners in accordance with Section 49 of the Decree of the Treatment of Prisoners (vankein- hoitoasetus 431/75, fångvårdsförordning 431/75).   60.    The 1898 Act does not, however, contain any provision authorising a guardian to screen or stop his ward's correspondence.   61.    The Government have not pointed to any other enactment of a lower rank, nor have they referred to any unwritten law. They have argued, however, that the guardian's right to screen his ward's correspondence can be derived from his general duties under the 1898 Act and that any screening of a ward's correspondence is subject to supervision by a court.   62.    The Commission observes that Section 33 of the 1898 Act prescribes a general obligation for the guardian to safeguard conscientiously the ward's rights and promote his interests. This entails taking care of the ward's possessions and representing him in matters relating to his possessions.   b.     Foreseeability of the interference and compatibility with the       rule of law   63.    Even assuming, however, that S.P.'s right to screen the applicant's correspondence could be derived from his general duties under the above-mentioned Section 33 which was accessible to the applicant, there remain to be examined the required foreseeability of the consequences of the law as well as the required compatibility of the law with the rule of law.   64.    As indicated above the concept of foreseeability requires that the applicant should have been able to foresee the consequences of the relevant law governing his placement under guardianship. Compatibility with the rule of law implies that the applicant should have had access to a measure of protection under national law against arbitrary interferences with his right to respect for his correspondence.   65.    If a law confers a discretion on a public authority or a person exercising such authority, it must indicate the scope of that discretion. The degree of precision required will depend on the particular subject matter (cf. the above-mentioned Kruslin and Huvig judgments, pp. 22-23, para. 30 and pp. 54-55, para. 29, respectively, and the above-mentioned Herczegfalvy judgment, p. 27, para. 89).   66.    In the light of the relevant provisions of the 1898 Act referred to above the Commission finds that the Finnish legislation on guardianships does not in any way specify the scope or conditions of exercise of the discretionary power used by a guardian when interfering with his ward's correspondence.   67.    It may not be possible to formulate a law to cover every eventuality arising in the implementation of a person's placement under guardianship (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Silver and Others judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 88). Finnish law, however, discloses a total absence of any detail at all as to the permissibility of an interference with a ward's correspondence and the purpose and duration of such an interference.   68.    Furthermore, there is no specification of the arrangements for a review of the interference (cf. the above-mentioned Herczegfalvy judgment, pp. 27-28, para. 91). Even with appropriate legal advice the applicant could not know with a reasonable degree of certainty whether the interference at issue was unlawful (cf. Herczegfalvy v. Austria, Comm. Report 1.3.91, para. 270, Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 244, p. 51).   69.    In sum, the applicant did not enjoy the minimum degree of protection to which one is entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society. Accordingly, the interference was not carried out "in accordance with the law".   70.    In view of this finding there is no need for the Commission to examine whether the other requirements under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) have been complied with, i.e. whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim and whether it was proportionate and thus necessary in a democratic society.   CONCLUSION   71.    The Commission concludes, unanimously, that there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.   Secretary to the First Chamber          Acting President of the                                        First Chamber          (M. F. BUQUICCHIO)                   (F. ERMACORA)                                 APPENDIX I                         HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS   Date                              Item _________________________________________________________________     1 July 1991                      Introduction of the application   21 October 1991                   Registration of the application   Examination of admissibility   24 October 1991                   Rapporteur's request for                                  information from the Government   25 November 1991                  Information submitted by the                                  Government   11 February 1992                  Comments in reply submitted by                                  the applicant   30 March 1992                     Commission's decision to invite                                  the Government to submit observations                                  on the admissibility and merits of the                                  application                                    Commission's decision to give                                  the application precedence     4 June 1992                      Government's observations 23 June 1992                      Government's supplementary                                  observations   18 August 1992                    Government's supplementary                                  observations   17 September 1992                 Applicant's observations in reply   18 September 1992                 Applicant's supplementary                                  observations in reply   30 November 1992                  Commission's decision to declare the                                  application partly admissible and                                  party inadmissible.                                    Commission's decision to refer the                                  application to the First Chamber   11 December 1992                  Communication to the parties of                                  the text of the decision on                                  admissibility   Examination of the merits   16 February 1993                  Commission's consideration of                                  the state of proceedings     30 June 1993                      Commission's deliberations on                                  the merits, final vote and adoption                                  of the Report                                APPENDIX III         EXCERPT FROM THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN'S DECISION OF 1 JUNE 1992   (translation from Finnish)         "...       The Guardianship Board has stated that it has heard [the       guardian] ... [and] supervised his activities by inspecting       the settlement of [the applicant's] accounts. ... In 1990       [the Board] considered [the applicant's] guardianship on       several occasions. The guardian has informed [it] of the       plans for [the applicant's] follow-up treatment and       rehabilitation which, however, had remained unimplemented       following [the applicant's] refusal to accept treatment.       The visiting nurse at the Regional Health Centre of Porvoo       is responsible for [the applicant's] medication. [She]       visits him once a week. Everyday care is provided by the       home help of the municipality of Askola and the guardian       keeps regular contact with the home helper. According to       the guardian [the applicant] himself has chosen the room in       which he is living. He does not use any other room in his       house. The guardian has stated that he has shown him all       the documents relating to the guardianship.         [The Board] has found that the guardian has acted in the       interests of his ward and has tried by all means to fulfil,       as well as possible, his obligations under Section 34 of       the 1898 Act.         In her submission of 26 February 1991 the senior home       helper ... has stated that a home helper visits [the       applicant] on a daily basis and on weekends, if necessary.       [He] receives home help in the form of cleaning, bathing,       care of clothes and preparation of meals. He has been       offered a meals-on-wheels service but has refused this. ...         The home helpers have found that [the applicant] is in need       of help. The difficulty lies, however, in the fact that       [he] himself is unwilling to accept the home help offered.       In particular, [he] often considers the care of his       personal hygiene and clothes and the changing of bed linen       unnecessary. According to the senior home helper [he]       himself chooses to make use of only one of the rooms in the       house and not, for example, of the kitchen or the toilet.       [He] is mobile with the help of a walker.       ...       In his submission of 16 May 1991 Mr. Pentti Soveri, senior       physician at the Regional Health Centre of Porvoo, has       stated that [the applicant] has received all of the       services which he is in need of and has been willing to       accept. [His] motivation for rehabilitation has been poor       [and] he has therefore not consented to more effective       means of rehabilitation.       ...       ... I conclude ... that [the applicant] has received home       medical care and rehabilitation. The rehabilitation,       however, has frequently been interrupted as a result of       [his] refusals to go on with it. ... [He] has further       consistently refused services such as care of his personal       hygiene, the making of his bed, the changing of his bed       linen and his clothes as well as the cleaning of his room,       sometimes for long periods of time.       ...       Mr. Jukka Siltaloppi, an inspecting official from my Office       visited [the applicant] on 30 May 1991 together with       Ms. Marjatta Rosenberg, physician at the Public Health       Centre, and the Chairman of [the Board]...         Inspector Siltaloppi observed that [the applicant's]       conditions of living were inadequate in the way described       by Ms. Riitta Kauppinen in her petition. [The applicant]       stated ... that he did not get along with his guardian. He       had last met him in court about a year earlier, when the       guardianship had been prolonged. [He] further stated that       not once had he been allowed to study the settlements of       his accounts and that he had not received his pension       amounting to some 3.000 FIM [per month]. He further stated       that he was in no need of a full-time [home helper]. He       expressed his desire for rehabilitation services but       alleged that his guardian refuses to meet the expenses       incurred thereby.       ...       On 1 October 1991 I requested a further report from [the       Board] as regards the supervision of [the applicant's]       guardianship. My request was partly due to what had earlier       been disclosed in the matter and partly as a result of the       written submissions by Ms. Pirkko Turpeinen, a psychiatrist       and senior physician, by Mr. Seppo Järvinen and by       Mr. Matti Schroderus, a psychiatrist. All of these       contained sharp criticism of [the applicant's] conditions.         [The Board] has been requested to submit a detailed account       of how and when [the applicant] has been able to study the       settlements of his accounts, how much in disposable funds       he is receiving and in what way, how he has been receiving       rehabilitation as from 30 May 1991 and of what kind, as       well as an account of his treatment at the hospital of Eira       and why this was discontinued. [The Board] has further been       requested to re-assess the guardian's actions in the light       of the additional information disclosed in the case.         In its submission of 7 November 1991 [the Board] has noted       that according to the settlement of accounts for 1990       approved by [the District Court] [the applicant] received       a pension income ... amounting to a total of 45.711 FIM.       His costs of living and disposable funds [used] ...       amounted to a total of 46.629 FIM. [His] pension had thus       been used for the upkeep of his welfare. In practice [the       home helpers] had handed over the money. Out of a cash       amount provided by the guardian they give [the applicant]       money for his needs against a receipt. No new information       concerning the guardian's actions on the basis of which its       opinion on the matter could change had come to [the       Board's] attention.         [The Board] has appended a statement by [the guardian's       lawyer] of 23 October 1991 ... indicating that [the       applicant] has been given an opportunity to examine the       settlement of his accounts by means of copies of the       [pertinent] documents. Except for a few initial years of       his guardianship [the applicant] had refused to receive the       documents or had torn them up immediately. Accordingly, it       had not been possible to hand him the receipts for       inspection. In recent years [he] had not even requested to       see the settlements of his accounts, but had remained       completely passive in this respect. It had never been       possible properly to discuss ... the settlements or indeed       any other matter related to his guardianship. As his       guardian, [S.P.] has given [the applicant] a monthly       average of FIM 2,000 in cash. [The applicant] uses his       disposable funds for the most multifarious attempts to file       totally unfounded criminal complaints and petitions for       review merely in order to torment his guardian and the       members of his family. All along [he] has had the right and       possibility to maintain, in accordance with his position,       a material standard of living corresponding to his       possessions, and the spiritual welfare and atmosphere       afforded by his mental abilities. Subsequent to       [30 May 1991] a place for [him] had been obtained in the       Punkaharju hospital for care and rehabilitation, a renowned       establishment of high standard, but [he] did not wish to       avail himself even of this opportunity in its entirety.       [Moreover,] [the applicant] had requested admission to the       hospital of Eira for no special medical reason, contrary to       [the guardian's] explicit prohibition and keeping this       secret from him. The cost of care at Eira hospital was       beyond [his] solvency, rendering treatment there       impossible.       ...       By a letter of 9 March 1992 [the applicant's son M.O.] ...       has objected to the statement of Pirkko Turpeinen ...         By letters of 15 April 1992 [the applicant's sons J.O. and       P.O.] ... have, inter alia, drawn my attention to the       difficulties which have arisen in the care and       rehabilitation of their father because of his negative       attitude towards treatment.       ...       I have had at my disposal copies of extracts of the minutes       of [the Board's] meetings from 1985 to 1991 considering       [the applicant's] guardianship; the settlements of his       accounts; the letter of guardianship [holhouskirja,       förmynderskapsbok] at the District Court; and the minutes       relating to [its] audits of the settlements for 1990 and       1991.         ... Also the file of the Court of Appeal of Kouvola       pertaining to its decision of 18 September 1990 has been at       my disposal.       ...