[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF
NARINEN v. FINLAND (NO. 2)
(Application
no. 13102/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 March
2007
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 NARINEN v. Finland (no. 2),
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr G.
Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L.
Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P. Hirvelä,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 February 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 13102/03) 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 Jukka-Pekka Narinen
(“the applicant”), on 31 March 2003.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr Pentti Lehtoruusu, a lawyer
practising in Helsinki. The Finnish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen
of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
- On
13 December 2005 the
Court decided to communicate the applicant's complaint about the
length of the criminal proceedings, declaring the remainder of the
application inadmissible. Applying Article 29 § 3 of
the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of
the length complaint at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Klaukkala. He is a former
partner in a limited partnership company, which was wound-up in 1993.
- On
4 February 1994 the company's estate reported an offence against the
applicant. The applicant was first interrogated by the police on
4 July 1995 on suspicion of, inter alia, offences of
debtor's fraud, dishonesty and bookkeeping. In June 1997 he was
charged on twenty-one counts.
- The
Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten)
held the first hearing on 30 September 1997. In the following 14
hearings it heard 21 witnesses named by the prosecutor and 5
witnesses named by the applicant.
- At
the 16th hearing on 4 March 1999 the District Court
delivered its judgment. It convicted the applicant of, inter alia,
two aggravated debtor's frauds, two offences of debtor's dishonesty
and five bookkeeping offences and sentenced him to one year and eight
months' imprisonment. He was ordered to pay the company's estate some
723,400 Finnish Marks (FIM; corresponding to 122,000 euros (EUR)) in
compensation and to reimburse its legal expenses.
- He
appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten),
requesting an oral hearing. On 16 February 2001 he asked the court to
speed up the proceedings and to dismiss the charges because of the
length of the proceedings.
- On
25 March 2002, without having held an oral hearing, the Court of
Appeal upheld the District Court's judgment with some minor
amendments. His conviction was reduced to eighteen months'
imprisonment. It rejected the applicant's further claims with the
reasoning that the proceedings had not exceeded a reasonable time.
- On
2 October 2002 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to
appeal.
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.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 4 July 1995 and ended
on 2 October 2002. It thus lasted seven years and three months for
three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the remainder of 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
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
application concerned a case of some complexity involving economic
crime. The Government pointed out that the applicant's legal counsel
had admitted during the domestic proceedings that the case was
difficult. They further noted that the Court of Appeal's file
contained some 7,000 pages. That fact, however, cannot in itself
explain why the proceedings took so long.
- The
Court observes that the investigative stage lasted almost two years
and the proceedings before the District Court some one year and eight
months. The appeal procedure before the Court of Appeal took about
three years and before the Supreme Court less than seven months.
- The
Court sees no reason to criticise the time taken to conclude the
early stages of the proceedings or for the Supreme Court to dispose
of the appeal. However, it finds no convincing explanation for the
time taken – about three years – before the Court of
Appeal. As remarked by the applicant, there was a period of
inactivity of one year and ten months before the appellate court had
even assigned a court official (referendaire) to examine his case.
The Government explained that at the turn of the century the Helsinki
Court of Appeal had suffered from a heavy case load. By the end of
2000 the number of pending cases had increased by approximately 12 %,
which was considered alarming. The present case had to wait its turn.
The Court recalls that this is not a sufficient excuse for the delay
as domestic courts are under an obligation to organise themselves in
such a way as to meet the requirements of Article 6 including the
reasonable time requirement (Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, cited above, § 74, Molander v.
Finland, no. 10615/03, § 28, 7 November 2006). Given
the importance of what was at stake for the applicant and the fact
that there was no oral hearing before the Court of Appeal, the Court
considers that the time taken by that court to examine the case was
exceptionally lengthy.
- 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 96,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage
for loss of income due to the lengthy proceedings.
- Under
the head of non-pecuniary damage the applicant asked the Court to
award him 10,000 euros (EUR) for suffering and distress resulting
from the length of the criminal proceedings against him.
-
The Government saw no legal basis for compensating the alleged
pecuniary damage. As to the non-pecuniary damage, they found the sum
claimed by the applicant excessive. In their view, the amount to be
awarded should not exceed EUR 2,200.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On
the other hand, it awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, also claimed EUR 5,002
(inclusive of value-added tax, “VAT”) for the costs and
expenses incurred before the Court.
- In
their memorial, the Government recalled that only one of the
applicant's four complaints had been declared admissible by the
Court. They also considered his representative's invoices somewhat
high. The Government took the view that the amount to be awarded
under this head should not exceed EUR 4,000 (inclusive of VAT).
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to
quantum. Furthermore, legal costs are
recoverable only in so far as they relate to the violation found. In
the present case the Court has declared most of the applicant's
complaints inadmissible. Having regard to the nature of the case, the
Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant EUR 2,500
covering costs and expenses 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 remainder of the application
admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- 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, the following
amounts:
(i) EUR
3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and
expenses;
(iii) any
tax that may be chargeable on the above 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 March 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
