CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 1 juillet 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2C71C288 { width:48.12pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     362   1.7.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment concerning Finland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final. [1]   (1)     Suominen v. Finland (application no. 37801/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Failure by court to give reasons for refusing to admit evidence at trial   Kersti Hannele Suominen, a Finnish national, was born in 1942 and lives in Forssa (Finland). Between 26 June 1991 and 16 February 1993 she made arrangements with a bank to finance the company of which she was the owner and managing director. In spring 1993 the bank refused to grant Ms Suominen any more loans and in February 1995 instituted civil proceedings against her for the return of the previous loans. The District Court found for the bank and Ms Suominen’s property was seized. She appealed unsuccessfully.   Ms Suominen complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, that she had been denied a fair trial because the District Court had refused, without giving written reasons for its decision, to admit part of the evidence she had wanted to submit.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the main issue here was whether the court had given reasons for its decision to refuse to admit part of the evidence submitted by the applicant. As it had not done so, the applicant had been unable to appeal effectively against the refusal. The Court held unanimously that the applicant had not had a fair trial and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   The Court awarded the applicant 2,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   2,300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. The full text of the Court’s judgment is accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.