Search
document

Document text Analytics

TUOMAINEN v. FINLAND

Doc ref: 18971/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1899

Document date: August 31, 1994

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

TUOMAINEN v. FINLAND

Doc ref: 18971/91 • ECHR ID: 001-1899

Document date: August 31, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 18971/91

by Kauko TUOMAINEN

against Finland

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 31 August 1994, the following members being present:

MM. A. WEITZEL, President

C.L. ROZAKIS

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

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 4 July 1991 by

Mr. Kauko TUOMAINEN against Finland and registered on 22 October 1991

under file No. 18971/91;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to :

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

6 January 1994;

- the applicant's death and the absence of any reaction on the part

of his estate to the effect that the application would be

pursued;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant was a Finnish citizen, born in 1926. He lived in

Kurolanlahti. The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be

summarised as follows:

In October 1984 the applicant bought 77 hectares of land which

later became the subject of redemption and compensation proceedings in

the absence of agreement with the National Board of Agriculture. The

applicant pursued unsuccessful litigation up to the Land Court and

Supreme Court, when finally 371.177 FIM was fixed as final compensation

to the applicant for the redemption of the land in question.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant had complained to the Commission of allegedly

insufficient compensation, an unfair hearing and unreasonable delay in

the proceedings. He invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the

Convention and Article 6 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 4 July 1991 and registered on

22 October 1991. On 13 October 1993 the Commission decided to request

the respondent Government to submit written observations on the

admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 1

of Protocol No. 1. The Government's observations were submitted on

6 January 1994. On 28 January 1994 these were communicated to the

applicant for possible comments before 18 March 1994.

On 26 April 1994 the applicant was sent a registered letter

drawing his attention to the expiry of the above-stated time-limit.

This letter was returned by the Finnish Postal Service indicating that

the applicant had died. On 20 May 1994 a registered letter was sent to

the administrator of the applicant's estate inviting his heir or heirs

to inform the Commission before 24 June 1994 whether he or they

intended to pursue the application. On 10 June 1994 the Commission

received an acknowledgement of receipt of its letter of 20 May 1994.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission recalls that under Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (c)

of the Convention it may decide to strike a petition out of its list

of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the

applicant does not intend to pursue his case or that it is, for any

other reason established by the Commission, no longer justified to

continue the examination of it. The Commission shall, however, continue

its examination of the petition if respect for human rights, as defined

in the Convention, so requires.

The Commission observes that the applicant has died on an unknown

date. In view of the absence of any reaction on the part of his estate,

the Commission considers that the application is not being pursued by

the applicant's successors. Moreover, in the absence of any special

circumstances regarding respect for human rights, as defined in the

Convention, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of

the case.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant