FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 7779/04
by K.K. 
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
	Sir	Nicolas , President,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Mr	 ,
	Ms	 ,
	Mr	 	Mrs	  judges,
and Mr T.L. , Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 February 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS
The applicant is a Finnish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Harjavalta.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The first set of proceedings
In 1998 the applicant began to suffer from chronic inflammation of the larynx. On 9 February 1999 the insurance company rejected her compensation claim, finding that her sickness was not an occupational disease, which could be compensated under the Occupational Health Disease Act (ammattitautilaki, yrkessjukdomslagen). Upon appeal, the Accident Board (tapaturmalautakunta, olycksfallsnämnden) rejected her appeal on 18 June 1999.
Subsequently, the applicant renewed her application before the insurance company, submitting a fresh medical opinion in support thereof. On 7 September 1999 her new application was rejected. She appealed to the Accident Board without success; its decision was issued on 12 January 2000.
The applicant appealed to the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus, försäkringsdomstolen) against the two decisions, requesting, inter alia, an oral hearing. The insurance company filed its observations and the applicant was given an opportunity to reply. On 20 November 2001 the applicant requested the court to speed up the proceedings. In December 2001 the Insurance Court requested an expert opinion from Dr H.M., and his opinion was sent to the parties for comments. On 24 January 2002 the court ordered the applicant to specify her reasons for requesting an oral hearing.
On 13 May 2003 the Insurance Court partly quashed the decision. It found that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the chronic inflammation of her larynx; her other complaints were, however, rejected. Insofar as the applicant’s claims had been accepted, the case was referred to the insurance company for further measures. The appeal was examined without an oral hearing. The court found that the decisive factors for reaching a decision in the applicant’s case were the medical opinions on her health and working conditions, and that the case could be decided on the basis of the written evidence. The court also considered that the contents of her case file were of high quality.
The applicant, represented by a lawyer, appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), claiming that the Insurance Court’s decision was wrong. She did not allege any unfairness in the proceedings. On 25 March 2004, having obtained an expert opinion from the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs (terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården) and written observations from the parties, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
On 27 April 2004, the applicant requested the Insurance Court to annul its decision of 13 May 2003, claiming that it was based on inadequate information and material. On 3 May 2005 her application was rejected. The court ruled that even if the insurance company had material which had not been sent to the Insurance Court, that material had had no influence on the Insurance Court’s decision. In November 2005 her appeal was pending before the Supreme Court.
2. The second set of proceedings
On 21 February 2002, the applicant requested the Accident Board to provide her with a copy of its medical member J.’s opinion. On 7 March 2002 the Accident Board rejected her application, stating that the provisions of the Code on Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalk) regarding a judge’s professional conduct applied also to the members of the Accident Board, including its medical members. Consequently, J.’s commentary was part of the Accident Board’s internal deliberations, not a document which could be made public even to the complainant.
On 4 April 2003, the Insurance Court upheld the decision and on 9 September 2003 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
3. The third set of proceedings
On 19 April 2004, the insurance company rejected the applicant’s application for inconvenience compensation (haittaraha, menersättning). However, she was granted compensation for her aggravated asthma and inflammation of the larynx. She appealed, requesting an oral hearing before the Accident Board. She was asked to indicate her reasons for requesting an oral hearing.
The Accident Board rejected her application on 15 June 2005, without holding an oral hearing, which it considered manifestly unnecessary.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the decision, the applicant appealed to the Insurance Court. On 12 August 2005 she was informed that her application was pending before that court.
4. The fourth set of proceedings
On 11 November 2004 the applicant requested the insurance company to give her access to her files, and she was informed that she could study the files at any of the insurance company’s offices. The applicant still considered that she had not seen all the relevant material and subsequently, on 7 March 2005, requested the Data Protection Ombudsman to obtain the files for her.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 that the proceedings were flawed for a number of reasons. In particular,
1. the length of the proceedings was excessive;
2. she was not given copies of the material relevant to her case as she did not have access to J.’s opinion, who was a medical member of the Accident Board;
3. during the first set of proceedings the insurance company submitted observations to the Insurance Court, which allegedly were not communicated to her for comment;
4. she was denied an oral hearing in the first and third sets of proceedings;
5. the decisions were based on inadequate material and evidence, the reasoning was biased and she was not given access to her case files.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length and unfairness of the different sets of proceedings. She relied on Article 6 § 1, which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. The alleged length of proceedings
1. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. The Court observes that the application concerns various different domestic proceedings. It finds that these different proceedings cannot be considered together for the purposes of assessing the reasonableness of the length of the overall proceedings. That being said, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of the complaint as far as it concerns the alleged length of the first set of proceedings and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
As to the other sets of proceedings, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court finds that they did not exceed the reasonable time requirement. It follows that the length complaint concerning the other sets of proceedings is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. The remainder of the application
2. As to the complaint that she was not given access to the opinion of J., the Accident Board’s medical member, the Court recalls that the opinion of any member of the domestic tribunal forms part of the internal deliberations of that court (see, inter alia, Markko v. Finland (dec.), no. 61113/00, 13 December 2005), and non-disclosure of it does not breach the adversarial requirement. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
3. As to the allegation that the insurance company had submitted opinions to the Insurance Court which the applicant had not seen, the Court recalls that under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. It appears that the applicant failed to raise this complaint in her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
4. As to the lack of an oral hearing, it appears that the applicant also failed to raise this complaint in her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in the first set of proceedings. The Court further notes that the applicant has not provided the Court with any information about the final outcome of the third set of proceedings. Consequently, the latter complaint has been lodged prematurely. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
5. As to the remaining complaints of unfairness, insofar they fall within the Court’s jurisdiction the Court does not find any indication of procedural impropriety or any failure to comply with Article 6 of the Convention. It follows that the remaining complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the first set of proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	T.L. 	Nicolas  
	Registrar	President