Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 32560/96

by Satu NIIRANEN

against Finland

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 15 April 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. J. LIDDY, President

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs. M. HION

Mr. R. NICOLINI

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 29 July 1996 by

Satu NIIRANEN against Finland and registered on 7 August 1996 under

file No. 32560/96;

Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the submissions of the late applicant's counsel

dated 13 March 1997;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant was a Finnish citizen, born in 1948 and a theatre

director by profession. Prior to her death in January 1997 she was

detained in a hospital for mentally ill in Paihola. She was represented

by Mr Pekka Reinikainen, lawyer of The Association for Psychiatric

Health Helmi r.y. based in Helsinki.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

On 6 June 1995 an ambulance came to fetch the applicant from her

friend's house at Liperi. The ambulance staff demanded that she come

with them to the local health care centre for an examination of her

mental health. They showed no document in support of this demand. The

applicant having refused to comply with it, a police patrol came to

fetch her, again without presenting any document in support of the

demand. She then agreed to go with them. The applicant had not

previously had any contact with the physician at the local health care

centre who had ordered her examination.

From the health care centre the applicant was transferred to the

Paihola Hospital for observation. On 9 June 1995 the Chief Physician

ordered her compulsory care, as the conditions for such care had been

met pursuant to section 8 of the 1990 Mental Health Act (mielenterveys-

laki, mentalvårdslag 1116/1990). It appears that on the same day the

applicant's then counsel was given a copy of the order.

The applicant appealed belatedly to the County Administrative

Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) of Northern Carelia, essentially

arguing that the care order had been insufficiently reasoned. She

referred, inter alia, to written statements by Drs. M.R. and B.F, who

acknowledged that she was suffering from certain mental problems but

considered that they could be resolved through voluntary care.

The County Administrative Court heard the Chief Physician in

writing and the applicant was able to comment on his opinion. On

22 August 1995 the Court held an oral hearing, where it heard, among

others, the Chief Physician.

In its decision of 25 August 1995 the County Administrative Court

accepted that the applicant could appeal against the care order, as she

had not received the original or a certified copy thereof. It

nevertheless rejected the appeal, essentially considering that the care

order had been sufficiently reasoned and finding that the applicant was

still in need of compulsory care.

Following the applicant's further appeal the Supreme

Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltnings-

domstolen) obtained a further written opinion from the Chief Physician,

who considered that the care order had been issued in accordance with

the Mental Health Care Act and criticised the manner in which counsel

had interfered with the applicant's right to proper care. The applicant

was not afforded an opportunity to comment on this opinion dated

17 October 1995.

On 30 January 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the

County Administrative Court's decision without providing any further

reasons. The decision does not mention the hearing of the Chief

Physician.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that

her detention was unjustified. The physician who ordered that she

should undergo observation had never seen her previously. The Chief

Physician did not give sufficient reasons for his compulsory care order

and failed to notify the applicant thereof in pursuance of domestic

law.

2. The applicant also complained that she was not informed promptly

of the reasons for the deprivation of her liberty. In addition, her

right to security was violated, given that neither the ambulance staff

nor the police officers showed any legal basis for threatening to use

force unless she would agree to undergoing observation. She invoked

Article 5 paras. 1 and 2 of the Convention.

3. The applicant furthermore complained that due to the Chief

Physician's failure properly to notify her of his compulsory care order

she was not entitled to have the lawfulness of the order examined

speedily by a court.

4. The applicant also complained that as a result of the Chief

Physician's failure properly to notify her of his compulsory care order

the administrative court proceedings could not commence within a

reasonable time. In addition, she was not afforded any opportunity to

comment on the Chief Physician's opinion to the Supreme Administrative

Court. She invoked Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

5. The applicant further complained that during her detention her

right to receive and contact her counsel and others had been

restricted. Moreover, four letters sent to her by her counsel had been

opened and read by hospital staff. She invoked Article 8 of the

Convention.

6. The applicant finally complained that she had been denied an

effective remedy against the restrictions of her visits and contacts

and the interference with her correspondence.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 29 July 1996 and registered on

7 August 1996.

On 27 November 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

On 10 February 1997 the Government informed the Commission that

the applicant had died in January 1997. The Government furthermore

requested that their time-limit for lodging observations on the

admissibility and merits of the application be suspended pending a

possible withdrawal of the case. This request was granted on

18 February 1997.

On 13 March 1997 counsel informed the Commission that none of the

late applicant's relatives wished to pursue the application which was

therefore withdrawn.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant has died in January 1997

and that none of her relatives wish to pursue the application. In these

circumstances it can be struck out of the Commission's list of cases

within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.

Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character

affecting the respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention,

which require the further examination of the application by virtue of

Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

Menu

NIIRANEN v. FINLAND

NIIRANEN v. FINLAND