FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 37531/05 by Hannu KOSSILA against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 January 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Giovanni Bonello , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , Ledi Bianku , Nebojša Vučinić , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 October 2005,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a f riendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Hannu Kossila , is a Finnish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Pinnainen . He was represented before the Court by Mr Antti Sorjonen, 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 facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 15 August 1990, the Finnish Savings Bank – SSP Oy (later the Property Management Corporation Arsenal , “Arsenal-SSP”) granted the applicant a credit in the amount of 29,500,000 Finnish Marks (about five million euros ). The bank ' s credit decisions, made without adequate guarantee arrangements, led to its winding-up at the beginning of the 1990s.

In February 1993 the applicant was interrogated by the police. 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 aggravated fraud in the context of two credit decisions, and sentencing him to a conditional prison sentence. The Turku Appeal Court ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) upheld the judgment on 4 March 2002 and the Supreme Court ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal on 30 October 2002. On 30 April 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the Court against Finland (no. 14161/03 ), complaining about the length of these proceedings. In June 2007 the parties concluded a friendly settlement and the Court struck the case out of the list on 3 July 2007.

During the criminal proceedings against the applicant, on 25 September 1996, the Arsenal-SSP instituted c ompensation proceedings against him before the Salo District Court. The District Court had already on 21 June 1995 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 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 had an exceptionally voluminous case file. 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 Turku Appeal Court upheld the District Court ' s decision. On 12 April 2005 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

It appears from the other documents submitted to the Court that the Salo District Court held an oral hearing in the compensation proceedings on several dates between 22 November 2004 and 15 August 2005. On 12 May 2006 it issued its judgment in the compensation proceedings, 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 Turku Appeal Court which, after an oral hearing, upheld the District Court ' s judgment on 12 February 2008. It found that the compensation amount could not be adjusted solely on the basis of the excessive length of the proceedings.

It is not known whether the case is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the total length of the civil proceedings in his case had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He complained under Article 13 of the Convention that he had had no effective remedy for his complaint about the excessive length of the civil proceedings.

THE LAW

On 10 October 2008 the Court received the following d eclaration from the Government:

“ I, Mr Arto Kosonen , Agent of the Government of Finland, declare that the Government of Finland offer to pay ex gratia EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros ) [1] to Mr Hannu Kossila with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will 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 undertake 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 will constitute the final resolution of the case. ”

On 7 November 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I, Mr Hannu Kossila , the applicant in the above-mentioned case, note that the Government of Finland are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight hundred euros ) [2] 1 with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will 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. 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.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Finland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a 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 the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Fatoş Aracı Nicolas B ratza Deputy Registrar President

[1] This sum includes compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 1,300 and EUR 500 for costs and expenses (inclusive of VAT).

[2] This sum includes compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of EUR 1,300 and EUR 500 for costs and expenses (inclusive of VAT).