FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 26527/10 Janne R ÄTY against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 April 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Ledi Bianku , President, Päivi Hirvelä , Zdravka Kalaydjieva , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 May 2010,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Janne Räty , is a Finnish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Rääkkylä . The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the lack of a fair trial and the length of the compensation proceedings, and under Article 14 of the Convention about discrimination.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the length of the compensation proceedings. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

By letter dated 14 December 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“ The Government wishes to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – its acknowledgement that, in the special circumstances of the present case, the length of the civil proceedings has failed to fulfil the requirement of ”reasonable” within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the applicant in compensation a total sum of EUR 2,850 (two thousand eight hundred and fifty euros ). This sum includes EUR 1,900 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 950 for the applicant ’ s costs and expenses (inclusive of possible VAT). In the Government ’ s view, the aforementioned total sum would constitute adequate redress and sufficient compensation for the impugned length of the said proceedings, and thus constitute an acceptable sum as to quantum in the present case.

The total sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. In the event of a failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertakes to pay simple interest on it, from the 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.

In the light of above, the Government would suggest that the circumstances of the present case allow the Court to reach the conclusion that there exists ‘ any other reason ’ , as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, justifying the Court to discontinue the examination of the application, and that, moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Accordingly, the Government invites the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”

In a letter of 21 January 2012 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government ’ s declaration was unacceptably low.

The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application” .

It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey , [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec .) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec .) no. 28953/03).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Finland , its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ‑ ... .; Majewski v. Poland , no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland , no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; and Rangdell v. Finland , no. 23172/08 , 19 January 2010 ).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the Government ’ s unilateral declaration;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Fatoş Aracı Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar President