CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 septembre 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sFD1C8E96 { width:16.01pt; display:inline-block } .s9782B425 { width:22.01pt; display:inline-block } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .s894696E7 { width:4pt; display:inline-block } .s8ADF7EA2 { width:10.65pt; display:inline-block } .sF7CE47DC { width:1.29pt; display:inline-block }             Application No. 30511/96         by Maria HEIKEL         against Finland       The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 9 September 1998, the following members being present:       MM   N. BRATZA, Acting President       M.P. PELLONPÄÄ       E. BUSUTTIL       A. WEITZEL       C.L. ROZAKIS     Mrs   J. LIDDY     MM   L. LOUCAIDES       B. MARXER       B. CONFORTI       I. BÉKÉS       G. RESS       A. PERENIČ       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 11 February 1996 by Maria HEIKEL against Finland and registered on 19 March 1996 under file No. 30511/96;     Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;     Having regard to the information provided by the applicant on 21 April 1998 and by the respondent Government on 15 May 1998;     Having deliberated;     Decides as follows:     THE FACTS     The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1947 and resident in Kauniainen.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.     1.   The parcelling out of the property Muhka RNo. 5:42     The applicant owned a real property at Hirvensalmi - Muhka RNo. 5:42 - together with her uncle. This property enjoyed a right to certain landings and other common areas. The applicant and her uncle agreed to proceed to the parcelling out of Muhka 5:42 but in 1977 the latter appealed against the outcome thereof. In 1978 the Land Court (maaoikeus, jorddomstolen) of Eastern Finland dismissed his appeal. Subsequently he appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) but after he had withdrawn that appeal the case was struck off the list in 1981. The parcelling out was then entered in the land register (maarekisteri, jordregistret), thereby acquiring legal force. The applicant's property was given the name Muhka 5:55 and that of her uncle was named Muhka 5:56.     2.   The partitioning of the common landings     The proceedings for the partitioning of the common landings commenced in 1977 but the authorities allegedly failed to inform the applicant thereof timely. In 1979 it was decided that the landings to which Muhka 5:42 had been entitled should remain attached to that property together with the island of Juoksunsaari, as at the time the parcelling out of Muhka 5:42 had not yet acquired legal force. A particular area was reserved for the applicant's uncle for mooring purposes. On the applicant's appeal the Land Court, in 1981 (before the parcelling out of Muhka 5:42 had acquired legal force), quashed the 1979 decision as regards the area reserved for mooring. The applicant appealed further to the Supreme Court which, in 1984, dismissed the appeal but nevertheless returned the matter to the Land Court for certain corrections. In a decision later that year the Land Court made the necessary corrections. The portioning of the landings was entered in the land register in 1985.     3.   The redemption proceedings regarding the landings attached to Muhka 5:42 and the re-opening proceedings regarding the partitioning     In 1984 the applicant instituted proceedings with a view to redeeming some of the landings originally attached to Muhka 5:42 as well as the island of Juoksunsaari. In a first decision of 1985 the applicant was granted permission to redeem one landing, thereby attaching it to her property Muhka 5:55. On her appeal the Land Court, in 1986, found that the island of Juoksunsaari should also have been attached to Muhka 5:55. The matter was returned for a fresh examination. The applicant's uncle appealed to the Supreme Court which, in 1987, obtained opinions from a land surveyor and the National Surveying Board (maanmittaushallitus, lantmäteristyrelsen) and, in 1988, received the applicant's observations in reply. In 1988 the applicant also requested the National Surveying Board to take measures to have the Land Court's 1984 decision in the partitioning proceedings quashed. In 1989 the Board submitted a further opinion to the Supreme Court and, in March 1990, the applicant submitted further observations. In March 1990 the National Surveying Board ordered the Mikkeli District Surveying Office to reopen the proceedings for the partitioning of the common landings. A fresh decision was made on 16 May 1990 in the light of which the National Surveying Board, on 20 June 1990, petitioned the Supreme Court to quash and annul the relevant parts of the Land Court's 1984 decision and the subsequent entry in the land register.     Having joined the applicant's uncle's appeal in the redemption proceedings and the National Surveying Board's request for a reopening of the partitioning proceedings, the Supreme Court, on 3 June 1991, annulled the Land Court's decision of 1984 in the partitioning proceedings as well as the 1985 entry in the land register. The Supreme Court furthermore annulled and quashed the 1985 outcome of the redemption proceedings and quashed the Land Court's 1986 judgment in the same respect. The redemption matter was referred back for a fresh examination which was to take place when the partitioning of the landings had acquired legal force.     4.   The 1992 proceedings for the partitioning and the redeeming of the landings     On 19 February 1992 certain landings and the island of Juoksunsaari was attached to the applicant's property subject to her redeeming them at a fixed amount from the legal successors of the applicant's now deceased uncle. The successors appealed to the Land Court, whereas the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal (kantelu, klagan) regarding an alleged procedural error.     After an oral hearing and inspection the Land Court, on 15 December 1992, dismissed both the ordinary and the extraordinary appeal. Upon the parties' further appeals the Supreme Court, on 31 January 1994, considered that the Land Court should not have examined the applicant's extraordinary appeal, as there did not yet exist a decision which had acquired legal force. The Supreme Court, moreover, quashed part of the decision of 19 February 1992 and returned the matter for a fresh examination.     5.   The 1994 and 1997 proceedings for the partitioning and redeeming of the landings     On 25 August 1994 a fresh decision was made regarding the attachment of landings as well as the redemption amounts. The island of Juoksunsaari was still not attached to the applicant's property. Both the applicant and her late uncle's legal successors again appealed to the Land Court which after an oral hearing, on 24 May 1995, quashed the 1994 decision in part and returned the relevant matter for the purpose of having the island of Juoksunsaari finally attached to the applicant's property. The applicant's uncle's successors requested leave to appeal but, on 2 April 1996, the Supreme Court refused such leave. In subsequent proceedings the island of Juoksunsaari was eventually attached to the applicant's property. The partitioning of the landings was entered in the land register on 18 June 1997. On 14 August 1997 the redemption proceedings which the Supreme Court had, in 1991, ordered should be reopened were discontinued, as the landing in question had already been attached to the applicant's property.     6.   The applicant's petition to the Chancellor of Justice     In 1993 the applicant petitioned the Chancellor of Justice of the Council of State (valtioneuvoston oikeuskansleri, justitiekanslern i statsrådet). In his decision of 27 March 1995 the Deputy Chancellor of Justice expressed criticism as regards, inter alia, the various errors committed by the Land Court and the National Surveying Board in the proceedings involving the applicant's property.   COMPLAINTS   1.   The applicant complained that she was not afforded a fair trial within a reasonable time, as the proceedings lasted for nearly twenty years and the judiciary did not correct its mistakes. She invoked Article 6 of the Convention.   2.   The applicant also complained that she had been deprived of certain real property. In this respect she did not expressly invoke any provision of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION     The application was introduced on 11 February 1996 and registered on 19 March 1996.     On 4 March 1998 the Commission (First Chamber) decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.     On 21 April 1998 the applicant informed the Commission that the parties had reached a settlement and that she wished to withdraw her application. On 15 May 1998 the Government confirmed that a settlement had been reached on the basis of which the applicant had been paid FIM 150.000 in compensation for damages and costs.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION     The applicant complained of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention due to the fairness and length of the proceedings in question. She also complained that she had been deprived of certain real property. This complaint would have had to be examined under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.     In her letter of 21 April 1998 the applicant informed the Commission of her wish to withdraw her application in view of the settlement reached with the Government. According to the terms of the settlement as provided by the Government on 15 May 1998, the applicant has received FIM 150.000 in compensation for damages and costs relating to the present matter.     Noting the terms of the settlement reached between the parties, the Commission considers that the Convention issue underlying the application has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention. Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting the respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,       DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.             M.F. BUQUICCHIO                N. BRATZA      Secretary                         Acting President           to the First Chamber                   of the First Chamber