CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 3 juillet 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s52E4ED8D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s72E23BBE { width:211.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 15710/03 by Päivi URMAS against Finland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3   July   2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta ,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mrs F. Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 April 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the partial decision of 21 November 2006, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows:       THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Päivi Urmas, is a Finnish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Ollila. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was employed by a bank as a head of financing at the relevant time. The policy followed in the bank caused credit losses, which led to the bank’s winding-up at the beginning of the 1990s. On 4 May 1993, the applicant was interrogated by the police for the first time. She was suspected of inter alia aggravated fraud and offences of misuse of a position of trust in connection with her activities at the bank. She was questioned for 60 days during the pre-trial investigation. She was charged on 27 January 1995. The charges against her included over 70 counts. The hearing of the case, which involved some 30 defendants, including the applicant, began in the Salo District Court ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) on 7 March 1995. The proceedings included several adjournments and lasted approximately five years in total. The case was heard over a total of 68 or 69 days. On 24   March 2000, the District Court rendered its judgment, which ran to almost 900 pages. The applicant was convicted of six offences of misuse of a position of trust and sentenced to a suspended term of three months’ imprisonment and a supplementary fine. The court decided to examine the complainant’s (the bank’s successor) claims for damages in separate civil proceedings. Those proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts. Having held an oral hearing, the Turku Court of Appeal ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) gave judgment on 4 March 2002. It acquitted the applicant of all charges. On 30 October 2002 the Supreme Court ( korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen ) refused the complainant and other defendants leave to appeal. COMPLAINTS   The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that connection. THE LAW On 18 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Finnish Government: “I, Mr Arto Kosonen, Agent of the Government of Finland, declare that the Government of Finland offer to pay ex gratia EUR 7,640 [1] (seven thousand six hundred and forty euros) to Ms Päivi Urmas with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” On 29 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I, Ms Päivi Urmas, the applicant in the above-mentioned case, note that the Government of Finland are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 7,640 (seven thousand six hundred and forty euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Finland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Fatoş Aracı   Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar   President [1] This sum includes non-pecuniary damage EUR 7,000 and costs and expenses EUR 640 (inclusive of VAT).