CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 23 octobre 1997

.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. 27323/95                       by Mauno PELTONEN                       against Finland           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 23 October 1997, the following members being present:              Mrs    J. LIDDY, President            MM     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            Mr     R. NICOLINI              Mrs    M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 13 March 1995 by Mauno Peltonen against Finland and registered on 15 May 1995 under file No. 27323/95;         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 1946 and currently residing in Athens, Greece.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         In 1992 the applicant, then resident in Sweden, travelled to Egypt. In 1993 he officially moved from Sweden to Finland. In the light of this move the local Social Insurance Office (försäkringskassan) in Sweden, on 26 January 1993, decided to stop paying him Swedish national pension benefits, referring to his possibility of obtaining similar benefits from the Finnish authorities.         The applicant's request for disability pension from Finland was refused by the Joutseno branch office of the Social Insurance Institution (kansaneläkelaitos, folkpensionsanstalten) on 15 June 1993 on the basis that he was not resident in Finland.         The applicant appealed, arguing that he was only temporarily living in Egypt and that his return to Finland had been delayed due to the urgent treatment of an illness. On 17 February 1994 the Appellate Board for Social Insurance (tarkastuslautakunta, prövningsnämnden) dismissed his appeal, maintaining that in the light of material adduced he was not resident in Finland. The Board referred to an opinion submitted by the Social Insurance Office. This had not been communicated to the applicant and was not reproduced or summarised in the Board's decision.         The applicant appealed further, adducing, inter alia, an extract from the Finnish population register dated 6 April 1994 and showing that he had been resident in Finland since April 1993.         On 5 September 1994 the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus, försäkringsdomstolen) upheld the decision of the Appellate Board, having noted a further opinion submitted by the Social Insurance Institution as well as various supplementary observations, whose contents and sender were not specified. The opinion and the supplementary observations had not been communicated to the applicant and were not reproduced or summarised in the Court's decision. The decision was dispatched on 14 September 1994. No further appeal was open to the applicant.     COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains that the Finnish authorities have subjected him to degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention, have infringed his right to personal security within the meaning of Article 5 and have violated his property rights contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He also invokes Article 14.   2.     The applicant complains that he was denied a fair and public hearing of his pension request in Finland. In particular, the Appellate Board for Social Insurance and the Insurance Court did not communicate to him the material obtained from other sources. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   3.     The applicant complains that the unknown supplementary observations obtained by the Insurance Court might consist of his private correspondence which has then been revealed in violation of Article 8 of the Convention.     THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains that the Finnish authorities have subjected him to degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, have infringed his right to personal security within the meaning of Article 5 (Art. 5) and have violated his property rights contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). He also invokes Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.         The Commission considers that these complaints are largely unsubstantiated and finds no indication of a violation of any of the above-mentioned provisions.         It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.     The applicant complains that he was denied a fair and public hearing of his pension request in Finland. In particular, the Appellate Board for Social Insurance and the Insurance Court did not communicate to him the material obtained from other sources. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which reads as follows:         "In the determination of his civil rights ..., everyone is       entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] tribunal       established by law. ..."         The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice thereof to the Finnish Government.   3.     The applicant complains that the unknown supplementary observations obtained by the Insurance Court might consist of his private correspondence which has then been revealed in violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. This provision 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."         The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice thereof to the Finnish Government.         For these reasons, the Commission,         DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's       complaints relating to the alleged unfairness of the       pension proceedings and the alleged interference with his       correspondence; and         unanimously,       DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.               M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber