CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 20 septembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA8C2B9B0 { width:20.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   520 20.9.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 20   September 2006 at 9 a.m., in the case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland (application no. 63235/00).   The applicants   The case was introduced by Vilho Eskelinen, Arto   Huttunen, Markku Komulainen, Lea Ihatsu and Toivo Pallonen as well as the heirs of the late Hannu Matti Lappalainen (Päivi, Janne and Jyrki Lappalainen). They were born in 1955, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1937, 1957, 1983 and 1981 respectively and are all Finnish nationals living in Sonkakoski or Sonkajärvi (Finland).   Summary of the facts   Mr Eskelinen, Mr   Huttunen, Mr Komulainen, Ms Ihatsu, Mr Pallonen and Hannu Matti Lappalainen all worked for the Sonkajärvi District Police. Under a collective agreement of 1986, they were entitled to a special allowance for working in a remote area. When that allowance was withdrawn in 1988, they were given individual wage supplements to make up the difference.   On 1 November 1990, after being moved to another duty police station even further away from their homes, the applicants lost their individual wage supplements. They maintain, however, that Kuopio Provincial Police Command promised them compensation.   On 3 July 1991 the Ministry of Finance refused a request for authorisation to pay each applicant a monthly individual wage supplement of 500-700 Finnish marks (84-118   euros   (EUR)). The applicants subsequently lodged an application for compensation, which was rejected.   The applicants appealed, asking for an oral hearing to prove, among other things, that they had been promised compensation. Their appeal was rejected on the ground that, at the relevant time, only the Ministry of Finance (and not the provincial police command) could authorise compensation. The court also found that no compensation had been awarded in other similar cases.   The applicants appealed again, requesting an oral hearing and emphasising that allowances had been granted to other police personnel in similar circumstances. On 27 April 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court found that the applicants had no statutory right to the individual wage supplements and that it was unnecessary to hold a hearing, given that the alleged promises made by the provincial police command had no bearing on the case.   Complaints   The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights about the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an oral hearing. They further complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) that they lost their entitlement to a special allowance and had received no compensation. Under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), they maintain that they were treated differently from other police personnel. They also rely on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 October 2000 and declared admissible on 29 November 2005. On 21 March 2006, the Chamber of the Court dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30 [1] of the Convention.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese) Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), judges , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), substitute judges , and also Erik Fribergh , Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Arto Kosonen , Agent ,   Arja Manner and Tiina Eränkö , Advisers ;   Applicants :   Pasi Orava , Counsel .     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private.   Press Contacts   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects.