FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

Application no. 14161/03 by Hannu KOSSILA against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Ms L. Mijović , Mr J. Šikuta , Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mrs F. Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 April 2003,

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 partial decision of 21 November 2006 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly 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 Pinsainen. He wa s represented before the Court by Mr Antti Sorjonen, a lawyer practising in Helsinki . The respondent 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.

On 15 August 1990, the bank granted the applicant a credit in the amount of 29,500,000 Finnish Marks (FIM, about 4,961,543 euros (EUR)). The bank ’ s credit decisions, made without adequate guarantee arrangements, led to its winding-up at the beginning of the 1990s.

The applicant ’ s suspected fraud in respect of two credit decisions was reported to the police. Various reports of offences had been made against the bank ’ s employees and debtors.

The applicant was interrogated by the police twice, namely on 22 and 23 February 1993. He was charged with two counts of aggravated fraud.

The hearing of the case, which involved some 30 defendants, began in the Salo District Court ( käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten ) on 7 March 1995. The court held a total of 68 or 69 hearings, in which 73 witnesses were heard.

The judgment was rendered on 24 March 2000 and it ran to almost 900 pages. The District Court rejected the applicant ’ s claim concerning the allegedly unspecified charges, noting that the proceedings concerned exceptionally large-scale economic offences. The applicant was convicted of an aggravated fraud committed on 15 August 1990 . The court found that the applicant had no intention to repay the credit in total, and had thus intentionally deceived the bank. The other count was dismissed. The applicant was sentenced to a suspended term of four months and fifteen days ’ imprisonment and a supplementary fine. The court decided to examine the complainant ’ s (the bank ’ s successor) claims for damages in separate civil proceedings. Those proceedings are still pending before the national courts.

The applicant among other defendants appealed to the Turku Court of Appeal ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) . Having held an oral hearing, the appellate court gave its judgment on 4 March 2002 . It increased the applicant ’ s sentence to a suspended term of one year and four months ’ imprisonment. It stated in its reasons that it had taken the length of the proceedings into account as a mitigating factor in determining the applicant ’ s and other defendants ’ sentences.

On 30 October 2002 the Supreme Court ( korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen ) refused the complainant and the defendants leave to appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

THE LAW

On 20 June 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Finnish Government:

“ I, Arto Kosonen , Agent of the Government of Finland , declare that the Government of Finland offer to pay ex gratia EUR 8,952 [1] (eight thousand nine hundred and fifty-two euros ) 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 20 June 2007 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 8,952 (eight thousand nine hundred and fifty-two 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 a ny 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 (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Cou rt unanimously

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

FatoÅŸ Aracı Nicolas Bratza              Deputy Registrar President

[1] This sum includes non-pecuniary damage EUR 7,000 and costs and expenses EUR 1,952 (inclusive of VAT).