FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
This version was rectified on 19 May 2010
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
Application no. 35658/08
by Hannu PARONEN
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

and 
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 July 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Hannu Paronen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Salo. He was represented before the Court by Mr Pekka Kotilainen, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was employed by the Finnish Savings Bank – SSP Oy (later the Property Management Corporation Arsenal, “Arsenal-SSP”). In 1992 the police were informed of suspected offences in respect of credit decisions made without adequate guarantee arrangements, which had led to the bank's winding-up at the beginning of the 1990s.
On 7 August 1992 a search was conducted at the applicant's home. He was for the first time questioned as a suspect by the police on 9 February 1993. Criminal proceedings against him started in the Salo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) in 1995 and the court gave judgment on 24 March 2000, convicting him of misuse of a confidential position and sentencing him to a conditional prison sentence. On 4 March 2002 the Turku Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) changed the District Court's judgment, convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to a conditional prison sentence. The applicant did not appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen).
During the pre-trial investigation, on 30 December 1993, the Arsenal-SSP instituted compensation proceedings against the applicant before the Salo District Court. On 21 June 1995 the District Court decided to adjourn all compensation proceedings in the case pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. On 24 March 2000 the District Court decided to separate the compensation proceedings from the criminal proceedings in order not to delay the latter.
The compensation proceedings were continued in April 2000. Several parties lodged various procedural claims with the District Court, requesting, inter alia, that the compensation complaints be dismissed as the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time.
On 9 March 2004 the District Court gave a separate decision on the complaints relating to the allegedly excessive length of the compensation proceedings. The court found that the proceedings had lasted an exceptionally long time and that they were expected to last several more years before a final judgment was given. The excessive length was due to the fact that the case was complicated and the case file was exceptionally voluminous. The court noted that the compensation proceedings had been adjourned pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. While accepting that the proceedings had been exceptionally lengthy, the District Court, however, rejected the applicant's claims as the domestic legislation did not provide for an option to close civil proceedings due to their excessive length. It was also found to be in the plaintiff's interest to continue the trial.
On 29 November 2004 the Appeal Court upheld the District Court's decision. On 12 April 2005 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.
The District Court held oral hearings in the compensation proceedings on several dates between 22 November 2004 and 15 August 2005. On 12 May 2006 it issued its judgment, ordering the defendants, including the applicant, to pay substantial compensation to the Arsenal-SSP. The court found, referring to its decision of 9 March 2004, that the compensation complaint could not be dismissed solely on the basis of the excessive length of the proceedings and that there were no means to compensate the applicant for this.
The applicant appealed to the Appeal Court which, on 12 February 2008, partly released the applicant from liability for damages and partly reduced the compensation to be paid by him. However, it found that the award of compensation could not be adjusted solely on the basis of the excessive length of the proceedings.
The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court which on 24 June 2008 dismissed his appeal without examining the merits as the appeal had been lodged out of time. On the same day the Supreme Court also refused the applicant's extraordinary appeal for restoration of the time which had elapsed (menetetyn määräajan palauttaminen, återställande av försutten fatalietid).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the 
THE LAW
A.  Length of the compensation proceedings
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of his compensation proceedings.
 On  28 January 2010 and 10 February 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Finland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 11,000 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment would constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the case out of the list.
B.  Remainder of the application
The applicant also complained under the same Article about the excessive length of his criminal proceedings.
The Court notes that the impugned criminal proceedings ended on 4 March 2002 when the Appeal Court rendered a final judgment in the applicant's case. As the applicant lodged this complaint with the Court only in July 2008, this part of his application was not lodged within the six months' time-limit. It follows that this complaint must be rejected as being out of time within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the excessive length of the compensation proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
	Lawrence Early	Nicolas Bratza
	Registrar	President