CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 6 juin 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s87F54B90 { height:5.4pt } .s35B47D62 { font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sB93F16D9 { font-size:6.67pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:super; color:#0000ff } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s97D52449 { width:7.02pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFE832CA2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sBFC49883 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2E722ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:16pt } .sF1E2154C { font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB2A0F2B6 { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sB3368229 { margin-left:13.34pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:4.51pt } .s96A5430B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify } .sEBABED72 { margin-left:17.85pt; text-align:justify } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s744FF0AF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s33510801 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s89AA850 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .sB50208C4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:16.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s6146EB9D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Résolution CM/ResDH(2012)75 [1]   Exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme 35 affaires contre Finlande   Requête   Affaire arrêt du définitif le 48339/99 KANGASLUOMA 20/01/2004 14/06/2004 23667/06 AHLSKOG RAFAEL 13/11/2008 13/02/2009 2511/02 AHO 16/10/2007 16/01/2008 24732/06 AIMINEN 15/09/2009 15/12/2009 4799/03 ELORANTA 09/12/2008 09/03/2009 36288/97 FRYCKMAN 10/10/2006 10/01/2007 33173/05 G. 27/01/2009 27/04/2009 39509/08 HORSTI 10/11/2009 10/02/2010 39105/05 JAANTI 24/02/2009 24/05/2009 64436/01 KAJAS 07/03/2006 07/06/2006 5635/09 KALLE KANGASLUOMA 15/02/2011   17889/07 LANDGREN 10/11/2009 10/02/2010 22175/06 LAPPALAINEN 03/11/2009 03/02/2010 34147/96 LEHTINEN 13/09/2005 13/12/2005 41585/98 LEHTINEN N o 2 08/06/2006 08/09/2006 43160/98 LEHTINEN TOIVE 22/05/2007 22/08/2007 45618/04 LEHTINEN TOIVE N o 2 31/03/2009 30/06/2009 11704/03 LEHTONEN 13/06/2006 13/09/2006 28631/05 MANNINEN 14/04/2009 14/07/2009 77138/01 MATTILA 23/05/2006 23/08/2006 10615/03 MOLANDER 07/11/2006 07/02/2007 13102/03 NARINEN N o 2 06/03/2007 06/06/2007 16385/07 NIEMINEN 03/11/2009 03/02/2010 45952/08 NOUSIAINEN 23/02/2010 23/05/2010 38158/07 OY HOPOTIHOI SUOMEN LELUKAMARIT TOY & HOBBY LTD AND MATTI KANGASLUOMA 22/09/2009 22/12/2009 26189/06 PETIKON OY ET PARVIAINEN 27/01/2009 17/02/2009 31021/06 PETROFF 03/11/2009 03/02/2010 23172/08 RANGDELL 19/01/2010 19/04/2010 25072/02 RIIHIKALLIO ET AUTRES 31/05/2007 12/11/2007 66899/01 RUOHO 13/12/2005 13/03/2006 45981/08 SEPPÄLA 11/01/2011   38581/97 T.K. ET S.E. 31/05/2005 31/08/2005 61222/00 UOTI 09/01/2007 13/01/2009 09/04/2007 13/04/2009 10736/03 VÄÄNÄNEN 22/05/2007 24/09/2007 36989/05 VIENONEN ET AUTRES 24/03/2009 24/06/2009   Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit qu’il surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu les arrêts définitifs, qui ont été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans les affaires ci-dessus et les violations constatées (voir document DH-DD(2012)508E )   [2] ; Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -      de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -      de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le Gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter les arrêts y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2012)508E )   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées   ;   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans ces affaires et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.   ACTION REPORT ON THE EXECUTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   Respondent State   Finland Application no.   48339/99 Name   Kangasluoma Judgement   20/01/2004 Final   14/06/2004 Violation of the Convention   Article 6 § 1 Excessive length of criminal and civil proceedings. Article 13 Absence of an effective remedy in that respect. Type Leading case. Kangasluoma and 36 other cases concern the excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings (violations of Article 6 § 1). Several cases also concern the absence of an effective remedy enabling the applicants to complain about the length of the proceedings (violations of Article 13).   Individual measures   Just satisfaction   In most of the cases the European Court awarded just satisfaction for compensation non-pecuniary damages suffered by the applicants.   Other measures   The domestic proceedings are closed in all the cases. No other individual measure appears necessary.   General Measures   Article 6(1)   Finland has provided previous updates on measures taken with regard to Article 6(1). This Action Report provides a general overview of all steps taken. With regard to result-based direction of the courts, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the excessive length of the proceedings is on view when negotiating on result targets with courts.   The Ministry of Justice negotiates result targets directly with each court. The result targets for the prosecution service are agreed on with the Office of the Prosecutor General, which agrees on the result targets with each individual unit. The targets concerning, inter alia, the amount of cases to be decided and the average processing times and the resources required to achieve the targets are settled during the annual result negotiations. For the sake of independence of the courts, individual cases, including judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, are not discussed during the negotiations. However, the case law of the Court, on a general level, is taken into account in that the courts’ attention is drawn to the fact that the overall processing times must be taken into account when organising their activities. The districts courts, for instance, have set as one of their targets to consider a case more promptly if its pre-trial investigations have lasted over two years.   Additionally, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights is also discussed as a part of the training of judges. Annually, an average of 450 judges participates in the training, which covers almost half of all the judges in Finland. Training of judges in Finland is voluntary and continuous in-service / updating training, which is organised by the Ministry of Justice Finland and the Office of the Prosecutor General and the courts themselves. In addition, several private training organisers produce judicial training subject to a charge. Target groups for the trainings are judges and secretaries of district courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. Training activities for judges and secretaries of administrative courts and legal aid personnel exist also.   The Ministry of Justice produces approximately 250 training days/activities per year. Out of these, 2-3 seminars are devoted particularly to legal proceedings (both civil and criminal) and one the issues that is dealt is the length of proceedings. Trainers/specialists in these seminars are prosecutors and judges. Approximately 70-100 judges take part in these seminars annually. Ministry of Justice organises also seminars on economic offences and on proceedings related to such offences in co-operation with the police, the prosecutors and the judges. These seminars have so far been organised 5 times and about 150 judges and prosecutors have participated in them.   The Ministry of Justice organises also an annual human rights seminar, which has been arranged for the last 10 years and about 300 judges and prosecutors have participated. The seminar focuses on dealing with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights given against Finland. One of the focuses has, thus, been the length of the proceedings.   Furthermore, as measures of general development of legislation and legal policy, the current Government agreed, in its programme adopted in June 2011, on several measures securing legal protection, including, inter alia, a legal protection programme to be prepared to reduce the total length of legal proceedings and to improve the quality of legal protection. Moreover, according to the Programme, resources of the judiciary will be secured in a sustainable and equal manner. Also, places for court training will be increased; training of judges guaranteed, and documentation system of the judiciary will be renewed.   In addition, the following measures have been undertaken and/or are underway: interaction among police, prosecutors and courts in order to reduce the length of proceedings, inter alia through common database system; improvement of quality of work of the courts, namely restructuring the district courts system; introduction of an appraisal system in the civil service; and reallocation of resources within the district courts system.   Article 13   Legislative measures   The Government’s Bill on compensation for excessive length of proceedings was passed by the Parliament in April 2009 and the Act on Compensation for Excessive Duration of Judicial Proceeding (362/2009, hereafter “Act on Compensation”) entered into force on 1 January 2010.   According to the said Act, applicants are entitled to obtain reasonable compensation from the state budget in case of excessive length of proceedings when the delay in proceedings has been attributable to the authorities. The assessment of the length of proceedings and the amount of compensation (to be determined by the court examining the merits of the case) should correspond to the European Court’s practice and include inter alia the case-law of the European Court on the application of Article 6. The new Act also establishes rules for calculating the amount of compensation for lengthy proceedings.   According to the information submitted by the courts to the Ministry of Justice, in 2010, compensation for excessive duration was paid in a total of 45 cases. The total amount of compensation was 130   750 euros and of costs and expenses 1   442 euros. In 2011, compensation was paid in a total of 46 cases and the total amount of compensation was 153 300 euros and of costs and expenses 6   155 euros.   Simultaneously with the Act on Compensation, the Code of Judicial Procedure (4/1734) was amended with new provisions on urgent consideration of cases in order to provide a preventive measure against excessive length of proceedings. In particular, new Chapter 19 of the Code provides with a possibility for district courts to order a matter to be considered urgent at the request of a party where there is a compelling reason. As a rule, a request for urgent consideration is decided by a judge other than the one considering the merits of the case.   Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights   In its decision of 9 November 2010 in the case of Ahlskog v. Finland   (no. 5238/07), the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the compensation provided by the Act on Compensation is an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 (and 35) of the Convention. Finding that the wording of the Act on Compensation clearly indicates that it is specifically designed to address the issue of excessive length of proceedings, the European Court was satisfied that a complaint under the Act on Compensation was an effective remedy in the sense that it is capable of providing adequate redress for excessive length of proceedings in civil and criminal cases, provided that the impugned proceedings are still pending (§ 73 of the decision).   Mainly due to aforementioned measures, the number of the cases against Finland concerning the excessive length of the legal proceedings has decreased significantly and currently there are only few cases still pending before the Court.   Domestic Judicial Practice   In its precedent from 8 June 2011 (KKO:2011:38), the Supreme Court stated that human-rights friendly interpretation of national tort law requires the compensation provided by the Act on Compensation to be applicable also in cases where the consideration of the case ends before actual legal proceedings before court, for instance during pre-trial investigation.   Moreover, in its decision of 7 June 2011 concerning an extraordinary appeal, the Supreme Court has rejected the applicant’s request for compensation, referring to Sections 7 and 14 of the Act on Compensation and noted in its reasoning that the applicant could have been presented his request already before the Court of Appeal.     Publication and dissemination   The judgments of the European Court have been translated, published on Finlex database and widely disseminated with a covering letter to various authorities concerned (for example to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the appeal courts and district courts concerned, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior and the National Bureau of Investigation).     Conclusions of the Government   The measures adopted are capable of preventing similar violations. Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 6 juin 2012 lors de la 1144e réunion des Délégués des Ministres. [2] Document disponible uniquement en anglais