[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF GRÖNMARK v.
FINLAND
(Application
no. 17038/04)
JUDGMENT
(Just
satisfaction)
STRASBOURG
12 July
2011
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 Grönmark v. Finland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section),
sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
Nebojša Vučinić,
judges,
and Fatoş
Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 21 June 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 17038/04) 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, Ms Maarit Grönmark
(“the applicant”), on 13 May 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms Tuula Weckman, a lawyer practising in
Mäntsälä. The Finnish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen
of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
- In
a judgment delivered on 6 July 2010 (“the principal judgment”),
the Court held that, even having regard to the margin of appreciation
left to the State, the application of a rigid time-limit for the
introduction of paternity proceedings, regardless of the
circumstances of an individual case and, in particular, the
obligation to take action within that time-limit, impaired the very
essence of the right to respect for one’s private life under
Article 8 of the Convention. In view of the above, and in particular
having regard to the absolute nature of the limitation period and the
Supreme Court’s refusal to allow any exceptions thereto, the
Court found that a fair balance had not been struck between the
different interests involved and, therefore, that there had been a
failure to secure the applicant’s right to respect for her
private life. Accordingly, the Court found that there had been a
violation of Article 8 of the Convention (Grönmark v.
Finland, no. 17038/04, 6 July 2010).
- Under
Article 41 of the Convention the applicant
sought just satisfaction of, inter alia, 5,430 euros (EUR)
plus interest in respect of pecuniary damage, comprising the lost
share of her putative father’s estate.
- Since
the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was
not ready for decision as regards pecuniary damage, the Court
reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant
to submit, within six months from the date on which the judgment
became final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of
the Convention, their written observations on that issue and, in
particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach
(ibid., § 69, and point 4 of the operative provisions).
- The principal judgment became final on 6 October 2010.
- The
applicant and the Government each filed
observations.
THE LAW
- In
the operative part of the principal judgment the Court made an award
to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and costs and
expenses. However, it decided to reserve the application of Article
41 of the Convention, in respect of pecuniary damage.
- 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. Pecuniary damage
1. The parties’ submissions
10. The
Government noted that, in the principal judgment of 6 July 2010,
the Court had found that the national courts had not made any
attempt to balance the competing interests, namely those of the
putative father and his family on the one hand, and those of the
child on the other hand, but had only concluded that the applicant’s
claim had been time-barred. However, the Court had not taken any
stand on the issue of what the outcome of such a balancing act in the
applicant’s case might have been, nor whether paternity would
have been established or not.
- In
the Government’s view there existed no causal link between the
violation of Article 8 of the Convention and any pecuniary damage
claimed in the present case. The question of the applicant’s
right to inherit could only be decided if the judgment of the Supreme
Court were overturned and the paternity question considered on the
merits. Until such decision was taken by a domestic court, the claim
for damages remained purely speculative. As the applicant’s
right to inherit was not yet time-barred, she could claim her part of
the estate, provided that paternity was legally confirmed. In that
case no pecuniary damage would exist.
12. The
applicant argued that there was a clear causal link between the
damage claimed and the violation found by the Court: she had lost her
share of her father’s inheritance due to a human rights
violation as paternity had not been legally confirmed and her right
to inherit had not been recognised. The division of the inheritance
could no longer be changed as it had already acquired legal force.
The applicant had sought reopening of her case. Even if the
applicant’s paternity proceedings were to be reopened and
paternity legally established, this would not have any effect on the
division of the inheritance because it had already acquired legal
force. R.J. had died intestate, leaving behind a daughter. Had his
paternity of the applicant been legally confirmed, both daughters
would have inherited an equal share of the estate.
2. The Court’s assessment
13. The Court reiterates that, in
principle, a judgment in which it finds a violation of the Convention
imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation to make reparation
for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible
the situation existing before the breach (see Scozzari and Giunta
v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR
2000 VIII). The Court must determine, at its discretion, the
level of just satisfaction, having regard to what is equitable (see
Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (Article 50), 6
November 1980, § 15, Series A no. 38). For an award to be
made in respect of pecuniary damage the applicant must demonstrate
that there is a causal link between the violation and any financial
loss alleged (see, for example, DruZstevní záloZna
Pria and Others v. the Czech Republic (just satisfaction),
no. 72034/01, § 9, 21 January 2010).
- In
the principal judgment the Court held that there had been a failure
to secure the applicant’s right to respect for her private life
due to the application of a rigid time-limit for the bringing of
paternity proceedings, regardless of the circumstances of an
individual case and, in particular, the obligation to take action
within that time-limit with the result that the applicant’s
case was never examined on the merits. The Court notes that it has
only examined the issue of the time-limit and its compatibility with
the Convention, not the merits of the present case. The paternity
issue has not yet been legally confirmed, this task being in the sole
competence of the domestic courts.
- As
the Court has taken no stand on the paternity issue itself, let alone
confirmed paternity in the applicant’s case, the Court finds
that there is no causal connection between the violation found in the
principal judgment and the pecuniary damage claimed. Consequently, no
award for pecuniary damage can be made in the present case and the
applicant’s claim in respect of pecuniary damage must be
dismissed.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed EUR 1,722 plus interest for
the costs and expenses incurred before the Court after the delivery
of the principal judgment.
- The
Government noted that, in the principal judgment of 6 July 2010,
the applicant had already been awarded EUR 5,000 in respect of costs
and expenses and in the Government’s view this compensation was
sufficient. Were the Court to have another opinion, the total amount
of compensation for costs and expenses should not exceed EUR 250
(inclusive of value-added tax).
- 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. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500 (inclusive of
value-added tax) under this head.
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
1. 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 500 (five
hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European
Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
2. Dismisses
the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 July 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas
Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
