[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF RIIHIKALLIO AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
(Application
no. 25072/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
31
May 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 Riihikallio and Others v. Finland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J.
Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S.
Pavlovschi,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P. Hirvelä,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 10 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 25072/02) 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 three Finnish nationals, Mr Reino Kaarlo Antero Riihikallio, Mr
Klaus Antero Ketola and Mr Olavi Johannes Niemikoski (“the
applicants”), on 27 June 2002.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr P. Impola, 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
18 October 2005 the
Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to
the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it
decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at
the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1949, 1939 and 1936 respectively and live in
Tuusula (Finland), Mijas Costa (Spain) and Nukari (Finland).
A. The Tuusula District Court
- On
31 December 1993 and 18 November 1994 the Finnish Savings Bank –
SSP Oy (which later became the Property Management Corporation
Arsenal (Omaisuudenhoitoyhtiö Arsenal – SSP Oy,
Egendomsförvaltningsbolaget Arsenal – SSP Ab;
hereinafter “Arsenal”) instituted civil proceedings
against 16 defendants, including the applicants.
- It sought damages amounting to some 275 million Finnish
marks (FIM; equivalent to 46.25 million euros (EUR)) plus 16 per cent
interest fom 1 December 1994 for allegedly granting credit
negligently in 1989-1991 and for subsequent credit losses allegedly
caused by the 16 defendants in their capacity as members of the
Board, managing director or other delegates in the management of the
Savings Bank of Keski-Uusimaa (which in 1992 merged into the Finnish
Savings Bank – SSP Oy, later replaced by Arsenal). The first
applicant, Mr Riihikallio, was the Chairman of the Board; the second
applicant, Mr Ketola, was the Managing Director; and the third
applicant, Mr Niemikoski, was a member of the Board.
- The
first summons was served on the applicants on 7 January 1994. At the
request of several defendants, the District Court extended the
time-limit for responding to the claims until 30 September 1994 and,
additional claims having been lodged with it in November 1994, again
until the end of January 1995. All three applicants denied the
claims, maintaining that the amounts of damage allegedly caused had
not been sufficiently proved. They demanded that the amounts at least
be adjusted to make them reasonable. The court requested the
plaintiff’s observations to be filed by 31 March 1995
and, following two extensions, received them on 19 June 1995.
They ran to 500 pages and included 12 folders of further evidence.
The defendants’ observations in reply were requested by
15 November 1995 and, following an extension, were received on
25 January 1996. On 6 July 1994 and 7 August 1995 the
plaintiff requested the seizure of the applicants’ assets.
- From
6 October to 16 October 1995, the District Court held a hearing
concerning a claim made by the defendants challenging the plaintiff’s
right to lodge its claims, and on the seizure of their assets. On 16
October 1995, the District Court gave judgment on these issues.
- From
26 February to 4 June 1996 the District Court held preparatory oral
hearings. At the parties’ request, the case was adjourned. From
19 August to 23 September or October 1996 additional preparatory
hearings were held. During this period there were more than 40 days
of hearings.
- From
11 November 1996 to 25 or 30 September 1997, the District Court
examined the merits, holding over 120 days of hearings. The parties
were informed that judgment would be delivered on 30 January 1998.
The delivery was subsequently postponed until 31 March 1998 and again
until 15 May 1998.
- On
15 May 1998, the District Court gave judgment (running to
1,278 pages). It ordered the second applicant to pay damages of
FIM 20 million. The first applicant, together with
defendant X, was ordered to share this liability up to FIM 3.5
million. The third applicant, together with defendant Y, was ordered
to share the liability up to FIM 2.8 million. Interest
would run at 16 per cent from 1 December 1994. All applicants were
ordered to pay substantial legal costs to the plaintiff.
B. The Helsinki Court of Appeal
- All
applicants appealed. The thirty-day time-limit for lodging the appeal
was extended twice and on 1 February 1999 the appeals were lodged.
- On
31 May 1999 the court refused the second applicant’s, among
others’, request that the seizure be revoked.
- The
court held preparatory oral hearings from 14 to 18 January 2000.
- On
16 February 2000, the Court of Appeal held a main hearing concerning
the District Court’s judgment on the plaintiff’s right to
lodge the claim and the seizures. On the former point, the District’s
Court’s judgment was upheld. The seizures were also maintained
in force.
- From
29 February to 4 May 2000, the court held the main hearing on the
merits.
- On
25 January 2001, the court gave judgment (running to 247 pages).
The second applicant and another person were ordered to pay damages
jointly in the amount of FIM 22 million. The first applicant was
ordered to share this liability up to FIM 2 million. The third
applicant, together with a number of other defendants, was ordered to
share this liability up to FIM 1.5 million. They were ordered to pay
16 per cent interest from 1 December 1994.
C. The Supreme Court
- On
26 March 2001 the applicants requested leave to appeal, which was
refused on 28 December 2001.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants 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 his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint 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 7 January 1994 when
the summonses in respect of the initial claims were served and ended
on 28 December 2001. It thus lasted almost eight years for three
levels of jurisdiction.
- 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Government argued that the case had been complex, the case-file
voluminous and the financial interests involved significant. The
applicants’ requests for extensions of the time-limits and the
lodging by the plaintiff of two separate sets of claims had
contributed to the length of the proceedings. The schedule for the
proceedings had been drawn up in agreement with the parties. At the
material time, the Finnish courts had faced an exceptionally heavy
and rapidly growing case load. The proceedings had coincided with the
reform of the Code of Judicial Procedure, which had necessarily
delayed the examination of the case. There had been no period of
unnecessary inactivity attributable to the courts or other
authorities.
- The
applicants took the view that the State of Finland as owner of the
plaintiff corporation had had indirect control over the case and had
therefore been responsible for the running of the proceedings. The
facts of the case had not been challenging. The legal points had been
similar in respect of all claims and the applicable legislation had
been clear. While it was true that the case file had been extensive,
that fact should not be used to deny a party’s right to have
his case processed within a reasonable time. It was for the
Government to provide the necessary resources for managing trials
within a reasonable time. This was particularly important in cases
involving substantial financial interests.
- 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 Frydlender, 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
- In
respect of pecuniary damage the first and the second applicant
claimed EUR 26,112.25 and EUR 11,273.98 respectively which was half
the penalty interest on the compensation they had been ordered to
pay. They considered that the delay in the proceedings had increased
the interest. The third applicant also claimed EUR 50,000 as
compensation for financial loss suffered; the long duration of the
seizure of his real property had prevented him from handing over to
his son the property to continue to be used for farming purposes.
In
respect of non-pecuniary damage all three applicants claimed
EUR 30,000 each for suffering and distress. The first and the
second applicants’ health had deteriorated as a result of the
long period of uncertainty.
They
claimed interest from 4 April 2002 on the above amounts.
- The
Government contested the claims for pecuniary damage. They considered
the claims for non-pecuniary damage excessive; any award should not
exceed EUR 1,000 per applicant.
- 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 applicants EUR 4,000 each in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
first and the third applicant claimed EUR 35,908.12 and 22,113.65
respectively which was half the costs and expenses incurred before
the domestic courts. They considered that the delay in the
proceedings had increased their costs.
All
three applicants claimed EUR 4,423.16, EUR 4,139.91 and EUR 4,679.36
respectively for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
They
claimed interest from 4 April 2002 on the above amounts.
- The
Government contested these claims insofar as they concerned the
domestic proceedings. As to the Strasbourg proceedings, any award
should not exceed EUR 1,000 (net of value-added tax) for each
applicant.
- The
Court reiterates that an award under this head may be made only in so
far as the costs and expenses were actually and necessarily incurred
in order to avoid, or obtain redress for, the violation found (see,
among other authorities, Hertel v. Switzerland, judgment of 25
August 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2334, § 63).
In
the present case, regard being had to the information in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects the claim for
costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings. As to the Strasbourg
proceedings, the Court notes that the application was examined under
the joint procedure provided for under Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention and that the costs and expenses before it have not been
fully substantiated (Rule 60 of the Rules of Court). It however
considers it reasonable to award the applicants jointly the sum of
EUR 4,000 (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 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, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to each applicant in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to the
applicants jointly in respect of costs and expenses, plus any tax
that may be chargeable;
(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 applicants’
claims for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 31 May 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
