THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 44594/98 by T.T. against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 April 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress , President , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mr P. Kūris , Mr B. Zupančič , Mr J. Hedigan , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 September 1998,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, T.T., is a Finnish national, who was born in 1964 and lives in the municipality of T. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Mr A. Kosonen, Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant has been unemployed since 9 April 1996 and received unemployment benefit.

On 21 May 1997 a letter was allegedly sent to the applicant from the local employment office, requesting the applicant to contact a proposed employer for a job interview. The offer was sent to the applicant by means of a so-called ePost Letter which was transferred by the employment authorities via the labour administration computer system to an ePost Letter Storage Medium (operated by a private company called Atkos Oy ) from which the offer was transmitted to the applicant on paper. The letter containing the job offer was not registered by the employment agency nor by Atkos Oy . A copy of a list of job offers sent as ePost Letters by the local employment agency on 21 May 1997, however, contains the applicant’s identity code. Because the computer system was then replaced, information concerning the said job offer is no longer available in the existing computer system of the labour administration.

According to the applicant, he never received the letter.

On 28 May 1997 the local employment office informed the applicant that they have given the following statement to the applicant’s unemployment fund:

“The applicant’s conduct has resulted, on 28 May 1997, in a situation in which a job contract has not been reached. The contract would have lasted more than five working days.

The applicant’s unemployment benefit cannot be paid during the period of 28 May 1997 until 8 July 1997.

Reasoning: The applicant has not contacted the proposed employer when he was offered a job as a foreman. He has explained that he has not received such an offer. The letter has been sent normally from the employment office. According to the information available, the applicant has been abroad at the time without having informed the employment authorities of his trip.”

The letter of 28 May 1997 was sent to the applicant to an address which slightly differs from his correct address (the letter was sent to street number 300, the applicant’s correct street number being 302).

The applicant’s unemployment fund refused to pay the applicant any unemployment benefit during the period referred to in the local employment office’s statement of 28 May 1997.

The applicant complained to the Unemployment Benefit Appellate Board ( työttömyysturvalautakunta , arbetslöshetsnämden ) which upheld the fund’s decision on 17 December 1998, noting that the applicant had not shown that he had not received the relevant offer. The applicant was, thus, found to have caused his unemployment by his negligent conduct.

The applicant appealed to the Insurance Court ( vakuutusoikeus , försäkringsdomstolen ) which, on 27 August 1998, after having requested a statement from the applicant’s unemployment fund, upheld the Board’s decision.

B. Relevant domestic practice

Labour commissions ( työvoimatoimikunta , arbetskraftskommission ) apply a practice according to which it is considered that the person looking for work has received the job offer if it is established that it has in fact been sent by the employment agency. Where the person in question contends that he has not received the letter, consideration is given as to whether he can show that mail has also been lost earlier, or whether there is evidence that the letter has otherwise been lost for reasons not relating to him. Where no evidence exists in support of the alleged deficiencies in mail deliveries, it is considered that the person in question has received the letter.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains, under Article 1 of Protocol No.1, that he was arbitrarily deprived of his livelihood, i.e. his unemployment benefit, which he had an established right to receive. He had no opportunity to challenge the information given by the authorities in respect of the alleged mailing of the relevant offer.

2. The applicant also complains, under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, that he was not presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law as he was deprived of his benefit before a final decision was issued.

THE LAW

By letter dated 27 March 2002 the Court invited the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The Government proposed, by letter dated 27 January 2003, that they were prepared to pay the applicant in full and final settlement of the matter a lump sum of EUR 3,200.

By his letter to the Court of 11 February 2003 the applicant accepted the Government’s offer.

By letter dated 24 February 2003 the Government confirmed that the settlement had been concluded on the following terms:

“The settlement has been made on ex gratia basis. The Government will pay the applicant a lump sum of EUR 3,200. The applicant declares that, subject to the fulfilment by the Government of what is stated in the settlement to be outlined, he has no further claims against the Finnish State, based on the facts of the present application. “

The Court notes that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. It is further satisfied that the parties’ agreement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President