BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF
AIMINEN v. FINLAND
(Application
no. 24732/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
September 2009
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Aiminen v. Finland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private
on 25 August 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 24732/06) against the
Republic of Finland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Finnish national, Mr Jari
Kalervo Aiminen (“the applicant”), on 20 June 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr Pekka Romo, a lawyer practising in
Hämeenlinna. The Finnish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen
of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
- On
23 June 2008 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Fuengirola, Spain.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- On
10 May 1999 the applicant was detained by the police as a suspect.
Two days later he was released after questioning. He was further
questioned by the police on two later occasions. On 11 August 1999
the public prosecutor filed an application for a summons with the
Hämeenlinna District Court (käräjäoikeus,
tingsrätten). According to the indictment the applicant had
concealed property, namely a retirement pension insurance of a
considerable value, firstly in enforcement proceedings against him
and on a later occasion in his application for legal aid concerning
another set of proceedings. The summons was served on 4 October 1999.
- The
proceedings began on 17 March 2000 with a preparatory hearing. In an
oral hearing, held on 6 April 2000, the applicant was charged with
aggravated fraud by a debtor and aggravated fraud. Two complainants
to the case joined the first charge and presented an accessory claim
for damages and legal costs. On 27 April 2000 the court dismissed the
first charge, as well as the complainants' civil claims, stating that
the applicant's actions in that respect did not constitute a criminal
offence. As to the second charge, the court found the applicant
guilty of fraud and sentenced him to three months' conditional
imprisonment.
- The applicant appealed against the conviction to the
Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). The
complainants also appealed against the judgment as to the dismissal
of the first charge and their civil claims. They supplemented the
indictment alleging that the applicant had also concealed other
property besides the retirement pension insurance in the enforcement
proceedings. The applicant objected to the alteration of the charge,
contending that it was unlawful. The court found for the applicant on
this point and examined the first charge without having regard to the
alterations. On 27 June 2002, after having held an oral hearing, the
court upheld the lower court's judgment in all parts.
- The
Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) granted
the complainants leave to appeal. On 4 November 2003 the court
found that their fresh allegations did not constitute a prohibited
alteration of the charge and referred the case back to the District
Court for re-examination in that part.
- After
the Supreme Court's decision, the local media took a strong interest
in the case as the applicant was well-known in the region's
commercial life.
- The
other complainant requested the District Court, twice, for an
extension of the time-limit set by that court for completing the
charge, as civil proceedings, allegedly related to the case, were
still pending in the Supreme Court. These requests were granted on 25
April 2005 and 16 June 2005 respectively, without hearing the
applicant. According to the Government, the court had taken certain
procedural measures in the case even before granting those
extensions.
- On
7 June 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Deputy
Chancellor of Justice (apulaisoikeuskansleri, biträdande
justitiekanslern) contending that the proceedings had
lasted too long. He made reference to Articles 6 and 13 of the
Convention.
- A
preparatory hearing was held by the District Court on
1 November 2005. The charge against the applicant was
scheduled to be re-examined on 21 December 2005. However, the
complainants waived the charge and the case was dismissed on that
date without an examination of the merits.
-
On 5 June 2006 the Deputy Chancellor of Justice gave his response to
the applicant's complaint. He noted that the additional allegations
made by the complainants at the appellate stage had led to a fresh
pre-trial investigation, finalised by the end of 2004. At the same
time the police had investigated different offences allegedly
committed by the applicant. The latter pre-trial investigation had
ended in September 2005. After that, the District Court had resumed
the examination of the case remitted by the Supreme Court. The Deputy
Chancellor of Justice found it somewhat problematic that the fresh
hearing in the District Court only took place in December 2005,
although the case had been remitted already in November 2003.
However, having obtained a statement from the District Court, the
Deputy Chancellor of Justice was satisfied that it had been justified
for that court to wait for the outcome of the additional pre-trial
investigation relating to the case and to allow it to examine the
remitted case and possible new charges against the applicant in joint
proceedings. In these circumstances, the Deputy Chancellor of Justice
took the view that the length of the proceedings had not exceeded a
“reasonable time”.
- It
does not transpire from the case file whether fresh charges against
the applicant were brought and whether their examination was joined
with the case remitted to the District Court.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as
follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 10 May 1999, when the
applicant was detained, and ended on 21 December 2005, when the
District Court dismissed the remainder of the case. The proceedings
thus lasted six years, seven months and 14 days for three levels of
jurisdiction, of which one level twice.
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
- The
Government argued that the proceedings before the remittal of the
case to the District Court did not exceed a “reasonable time”.
The Government also pointed out that the applicant had requested an
extension of the time-limit set for his written reply to the Court of
Appeal and an oral hearing before that court. In the Government's
view, the proceedings after the remittal did not include any periods
of inactivity, bearing in mind the ongoing fresh pre-trial
investigation against the applicant and the civil proceedings pending
in the Supreme Court, both related to the remitted case. The delay
caused by the extensions granted at the request of the complainants
could not be attributed to the Government. Moreover, those extensions
had contributed to legal certainty and therefore also benefited the
applicant. Lastly, the Government submitted that although the case
had not been complex, it had been exceptional due to the alteration
of charges at the appellate stage.
- The
applicant contested those arguments. In his view, the proceedings
before the Court of Appeal had been excessively lengthy. Nor did the
District Court have any justification for the delay in the
proceedings after the remittal. The ongoing pre-trial investigation
had been completed by the end of 2004. The civil proceedings in the
Supreme Court, concerning an enforcement dispute, had had no
relevance to the criminal case against the applicant.
- Although
the proceedings before the Court of Appeal lasted some two years, the
Court finds that the total length of the first round of the
proceedings, some four and a half years, did not exceed a “reasonable
time”. The proceedings were delayed, however, following the
Supreme Court's decision to remit the case to the District Court,
where the case remained pending for almost two years and two months
before it was dismissed. The Court notes that the pre-trial
investigation instituted in the context of the additional claims made
by the complainants during the appellate proceedings was completed by
the end of 2004. Even assuming that it had been justified for the
District Court to wait for the outcome of that investigation, the
necessity for the extensions granted by the District Court to the
other complainant pending the outcome of parallel civil proceedings
remains unclear. The Court observes that the parties have not made
any comments on the other pre-trial investigation mentioned in the
Deputy Chancellor of Justice's reply to the applicant. The Court thus
considers that the Government have failed to give a satisfactory
explanation as to why the case was not scheduled to be re-heard until
21 December 2005, after it had been remitted to the District Court.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive
and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 9,875 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage for suffering, frustration and stress.
- The
Government contested the claim considering it excessive as to
quantum. The amount of any non-pecuniary damage should not
exceed EUR 2,500.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 2,500
under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 6,543.01 (inclusive of value-added tax)
for the costs and expenses incurred at the domestic level and before
the Court. The applicant did not specify the total sum under each
head, but the measures taken by the applicant's lawyer transpire from
an invoice submitted to the Court.
-
The Government contested those claims. They firstly noted that the
costs and expenses incurred at the domestic level only related to the
applicant's claim to the State Treasury for reimbursement of the time
spent in pre-trial detention, and should not be taken into account.
As to the proceedings before the Court, the Government submitted that
the award should not exceed EUR 3,500.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. The Court firstly notes that the
application concerned a rather simple case of length of criminal
proceedings. It further notes that the invoice submitted by the
applicant does not include any costs and expenses pertaining to the
applicant's attempt to speed up the proceedings by way of lodging a
complaint with the Deputy Chancellor of Justice. The Court subscribes
to the Government's view that the costs and expenses incurred before
the State Treasury are not related to the applicant's complaints
before this Court. Having regard to all the information in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects the claim for
costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 2,500 (inclusive of
value-added tax) for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,500 (two
thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and
expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable on those amounts;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for
just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 September 2009
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı, Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
