CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 janvier 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s324C4492 { width:196.13pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 30742/02 by Jani Matti Kalevi ELO against Finland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20   January 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 August 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows:                     THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Jani Matti Kalevi Elo, is a Finnish national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Rauma, Finland. He is represented before the Court by Mr Jarmo Kinnunen, a lawyer practising in Espoo, Finland. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant worked as a sheet-iron worker. He had graduated from secondary school and he had taken one and a half years’ training in technical designing. He had also taken a four months’ course in management with the intention of carrying on his father’s sheet-iron business. On 17   October 1996 he was involved in an accident at his place of work. He sustained injuries to his legs and heels. After the accident the applicant commenced business studies at a university in 1999. An insurance company granted the applicant an allowance for 100% reduction of his working capacity for the period from 18 October 1996 to 16   October 1997. The same insurance company also granted the applicant an industrial injury pension for the period from 17 October 1997 to 31 August 1999. On 27 June 2000 the insurance company gave two decisions regarding the applicant’s further insurance compensation claims. The insurance company granted the applicant an allowance for one year starting from 1   September 1999 for studies which would upgrade the applicant’s skills in technical designing. The applicant was also granted funding for a half years’ support training for finding a job. The insurance company held that due to his health the applicant was incapable of working as a sheet-iron worker but that he could continue working as a technical designer, for which he was trained. The company also held that it was possible for the applicant to use the one and a half years’ benefit for his university studies. However, the company did not agree to fund the applicant’s university studies directly. In a second decision on 27 June 2000 the insurance company decided to grade the compensation at scale 3. The applicant appealed to the Accident Board ( tapaturmalautakunta, olycksfallsnämnden ) about the said decisions. He demanded, inter alia , the quashing of the decisions on 27 June 2000 and full reimbursement of the expenses of his university studies and a higher grading of his compensation. He supported his claim with reference to his young age (24 years) and stated that his prior educational and work history did not exclude university studies from the scope of the educational expenses. He asserted that he had never worked as a technical designer. He also demanded that his compensation be graded at scale 7 (instead of 3). For this purpose, the applicant submitted two medical reports in which the compensation was evaluated to be at scale 6 or 7 respectively. The applicant requested an oral hearing in order to present evidence in support of his view of the grading of the compensation. In particular, the applicant wanted two medical doctors (A and H) to be heard concerning the facts on which they based their estimation of the grading of the compensation. The applicant also wanted to give an oral statement himself about the handicaps in his everyday life due to his injuries. The Accident Board requested further written arguments from the insurance company, which objected to an oral hearing. The Accident Board then requested the applicant to present his written observations on the insurance company’s arguments. The applicant submitted further arguments supporting his view of the grading of the compensation. On 5 April 2001 the Accident Board rejected the applicant’s request for an oral hearing, reasoning that the proceedings before it were usually written. It noted that A and H had already submitted their written statements to the Board and, thus, there was no need for an oral hearing. It rejected the applicant’s claim for reimbursement and for the higher grading of his compensation. The applicant appealed to the Insurance Court ( vakuutusoikeus, försäkringsdomstolen ), again requesting a full reimbursement of the expenses of his university studies and a higher (scale 7) grading of his compensation. He also requested an oral hearing as he wanted himself as well as medical doctors A and H to be heard as witnesses concerning his handicap in movement and standing up and concerning the evaluation of the grading of his compensation. He demanded that the latter question be examined from a wider perspective of his lower limbs in general and not as the more restricted question of the condition of his heels and ankles. The Insurance Court received further observations from the parties regarding their demands and a new medical report. On 19 June 2002 the Insurance Court rejected the applicant’s request for an oral hearing, reasoning that the procedure in the Insurance Court was as a general rule written and that an oral hearing was unnecessary as the court had decided to examine the grading of the applicant’s compensation on the basis of his heels and ankles, in which assessment it was satisfied with the written medical evidence. The Insurance Court maintained that the several medical reports at its disposal were sufficient evidence without their confirmation under oath. It further noted that the hearing of the applicant in person was not necessary as the decisive factor in the decision making was the medical reports. It also upheld the decision of the Accident Board. There is no appeal against the judgment of the Insurance Court.     B.     Relevant domestic law 1. Compensation   Section 18a, paragraph 1 of the Accident Insurance Act ( tapaturmavakuutuslaki, lag om olycksfallsförsäkring , 608/1948) provides that compensation shall be paid to an employee who, inter alia , has suffered permanent injuries from an accident. Section 5 of the Act on Compensation of Rehabilitation Expenses pursuant to the Accident Insurance Act (625/1991) provides for reimbursement of such necessary rehabilitation expenses aimed to maintain or enhance a person’s working and/or earning capacity, which help the person to continue at his/her previous work or profession despite his/her injuries or sickness, or which help the person to start a new profession capable of supporting the person. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the said section, the person’s age, prior working activities, education, living conditions, handicaps caused by the injury or the sickness and the person’s chances of finding a job according to normally applicable recruitment conditions after rehabilitation shall be taken into account when assessing his/her need for rehabilitation.   2. Procedure   The procedure in the Accident Board is governed by the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters. Section 53 paragraph 6 of the Accident Insurance Act ( tapaturmavakuutuslaki, lag om olycksfallsförsäkring , 608/1948, as amended by act 297/1999) provides that the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters shall be applied when examining a case in the Accident Board if not otherwise stipulated. An oral hearing shall be held when necessary according to section 37 of the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters. Section 37 of the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters ( hallintolainkäyttölaki, förvaltningsprocesslag, 586/1996) provides that an oral hearing, in which for example parties, witnesses and experts may be heard, shall be held when necessary. Section 38 paragraph 1 of the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters provides that an oral hearing must be held if requested by a private party. An oral hearing may however be dispensed with if a party’s demand is ruled inadmissible or immediately dismissed or if an oral hearing would be clearly unnecessary due to the nature of the case or other circumstances. The procedure in the Accident Court is also governed by the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters. In accordance with section 9 of the Insurance Court Act ( laki vakuutusoikeudesta, lag on försäkringsdomstolen , 14/1958), as in force at the relevant time, the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters shall be applied when examining a case in the Insurance Court if not otherwise stipulated. An oral hearing shall be held when necessary according to section 37 of the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters. An oral hearing must be held when requested by a private party as stipulated in section 38 of the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters. Section 5 of the Insurance Court Act, as in force at the relevant time, provides that the members of the Insurance Court include a medical doctor in cases where medical assessment is necessary. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention that he did not receive a fair hearing as the Insurance Court rejected his request for an oral hearing. 2. The applicant further alleges that the judgment of the Insurance Court was not properly reasoned as it did not mention the statements of A and H. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complains about the lack of an oral hearing in his compensation claims under Article 6 of the Convention. Article 6   §   1 provides, insofar as relevant: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing”. The Court decides to adjourn the further examination of this part of the application pending its communication to the respondent Government.   2.     The applicant also complains that the judgment of the Insurance Court was not properly reasoned as it did not mention his medical doctors’ reports. The Court has examined the complaint under Article 6   §   1 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that although Article 6   §   1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, judgment of 19   April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 20, § 61). Thus, in dismissing an appeal, an appellate court may, in principle, simply endorse the reasons for the lower court’s decision (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no.   30544/96, §   26, ECHR 1999 ‑ I). Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that as regards the merits of the case the Insurance Court merely stated that the applicant’s application was dismissed. It would appear to the Court however that the Insurance Court in reaching its decision impliedly incorporated the reasons given by the Accident Board. It is significant that in this respect the decision of the Accident Board was appended to the Insurance Court’s decision (see Helle v. Finland , judgment of 19   December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ VIII, §   56). The Court further notes that the Accident Board had due regard to the documents presented by the applicant in its decision and set out its conclusions on the medical evidence. Therefore, even though its reasoning did not contain express reference to the doctors A and H, there is no indication that the applicant’s arguments were not properly or fairly examined. Consequently, the Court finds that this part of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected pursuant to Article 35   §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning [Note1] the lack of a public/oral hearing; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas   BRATZA   Registrar   President [Note1]   Summarise the complaints without necessarily citing the invoked Convention Articles.