FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 18841/03 by Irja ESKOLA and Others against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 May 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki, Mr J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Mr M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 May 2003,

Having regard to the correspondence from the respondent Government and the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Finnish nationals, are listed in the Annex together with their legal representatives.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

The proceedings of which the applicants complain are outlined in the Court's decision on admissibility in the case of T., A., J. and S. v. Finland (no. 27744/95, decision of  9 September 2003). The applicants in the present case were involved in organising the public care of S. from June 1991 to June 1994. In June 1994 the applicants in no. 27744/95 (henceforth “the complainants”) initiated private prosecution proceedings and proceedings for damages against the City of Helsinki and the applicants, accusing them inter alia of having abused their public office in subjecting S. to inappropriate investigation methods and in drawing erroneous conclusions from the resultant findings. The public prosecutor did not join the private prosecution but participated in the trial ex officio.

The case was heard on 23 occasions before the District Court ( käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten ) of Helsinki, starting on 24 August 1994. The public prosecutor suggested that a police investigation be carried out into the alleged offences and that an opinion be obtained from the National Authority for Medico-Legal Affairs ( terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården ; “the Medico-Legal Authority”). No police investigation was conducted however and on 3 March 1995 the police requested the Medico-Legal Authority to submit an opinion.

The Medico-Legal Authority's opinion was delivered on 14 November 1997 after the District Court had repeatedly adjourned the proceedings. On 29 October 1999 it acquitted all applicants.

In its judgment of 27 March 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's conclusions without having held a rehearing.

On 22 November 2002 the Supreme Court ( korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen ) refused the complainants leave to appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings against them were excessively lengthy.

THE LAW

By letter dated 6 January 2004, the Government offered to settle the case on the payment of 600 euros (EUR) to each applicant. By communications of 26 February 2004, the applicants and the Government stated that they had reached agreement to settle the case for EUR 600 for each applicant, with EUR 732 for their legal costs.

The Court notes that the applicants have reached agreement with the Government and wish to withdraw their application in light of the above agreement.

The Court finds that the applicants no longer wish to pursue their application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Michael O'Boyle Nicolas B ratza Registrar President