FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34756/05 by Kim PARVIAINEN against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Giovanni Bonello , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , Ledi Bianku , judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 September 2005,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together ,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Kim Parviainen , i s a Finnish national who was born in 1979 and lives 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.

An insurance company granted the applicant rehabilitation aid for the period 1 July 1999 – 31 May 2000 in three separate decisions taken on 21 July and 16 December 1999 and 25 April 2000.

On 4 August 2000 the insurance company requested the Insurance Court ( vakuutusoikeus , försäkringsdomstolen ) to annul the decisions of 21 July and 16 December 1999 which had already become final. The insurance company stated that new information showed that the applicant ’ s employment contract was not genuine. The company attached to the request several medical opinions concerning the applicant ’ s health.

In written observations of 30 November 2000 and 5 April 2001 the applicant requested that an oral hearing be held in the case and that several persons be heard as witnesses. In a letter of 2 August 2001 and in his subsequent observations the applicant requested that two statements of the Centre for Pensions ( eläketurvakeskus , pensionsskyddscentralen ) should not be taken into account since they had been given by allegedly biased persons. The applicant also expressed his doubts about the impartiality of the referendaire in his case in the Insurance Court , referring to the fact that he had complained about the conduct of the Insurance Court , the Centre for Pensions and the insurance company to the Chancellor of Justice ( oikeuskansleri , justitiekanslern ). On 8 August 2001 the applicant again requested that an oral hearing be held and submitted an extensive list of further new persons to be heard as witnesses.

By a decision of 14 April 2005, the Insurance Court rejected the challenge to the lack of impartiality of the referendaire of the Insurance Court and stated that the alleged bias of the person signing the statements of the Centre for Pensions did not give reason for any measures to be taken. Moreover, the Insurance Court rejected the applicant ’ s request for an oral hearing, finding it unnecessary. The case concerned an extraordinary appeal and, according to national law, a hearing could be held if needed. The court held that since the case concerned the annulment of decisions, it was only required to examine whether the conditions for annulment were met. Although those conditions were met and the decisions were annulled, the court was not called upon to determine the merits of the case and it was therefore not necessary to hold a hearing. Finally, the Insurance Court annulled the insurance company ’ s decisions of 21 July and 16 December 1999 and referred the case back to the insurance company for a decision.

It is not known whether the proceedings are still pending before the national authorities.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complain ed under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the total length of the proceedings in his case was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement.

He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that there was no oral hearing during the proceedings before the Insurance Court . Even though he had requested that witnesses be heard, the Insurance Court rejected this request without giving reasons for its decision.

THE LAW

On 12 March 2008 the Court received the following d eclaration from the Government:

“ I, Arto Kosonen , Agent of the Government of Finland, declare that the Government of Finland offer to pay ex gratia EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros ) to Mr Kim Parviainen 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 27 March 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I, Kim Parviainen , the applicant in the above-mentioned case, note that the Government of Finland are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros ) 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 t o discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and 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.

Lawrence Early Nicolas B ratza Registrar President