CASE OF VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS AGAINST FINLAND AND 6 OTHER CASES
Doc ref: 63235/00;16207/05;26654/08;26890/95;47628/06;63744/10;931/13 • ECHR ID: 001-186801
Document date: September 20, 2018
- Inbound citations: 381
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 5
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
Resolution CM/ ResDH (2018)325 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Seven cases against Finland
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 September 2018 at the 1324 th meeting of the Ministers ’ Deputies)
Application No.
Case
Judgment of
Final on
63235/00
VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS
19/04/2007
Loading citations...Grand Chamber
16207/05
RAITA
16/02/2010
16/05/2010
26654/08
HUOLTOASEMA MATTI EURÉN OY AND OTHERS
19/01/2010
19/04/2010
26890/95
KUKKOLA
15/11/2005
15/02/2006
47628/06
KUKKONEN (No. 2)
13/01/2009
13/04/2009
63744/10
VARJONEN
22/04/2014
22/04/2014
931/13
SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAPÖRSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY
21/06/2017
Grand Chamber
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),
Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the violations established;
Recalling the respondent State ’ s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:
- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;
Having examined the information provided by the government indicating the measures adopted to give effect to the judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see Appendix) ;
Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,
DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination thereof.
Appendix
Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgments
in the Vilho Eskelinen group of cases against Finland
Introductory case summary
These cases concern the excessive length of administrative proceedings (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) and the lack of effective remedy in this respect (violations of Article 13).
I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Paid on
Vilho Eskelinen and Others
63235/00
20,000 EUR
9,622.11 EUR
29,622.11 EUR
10/07/2007
Raita
16207/05
2,500 EUR
2,500 EUR
26/07/2013
Huoltoasema Matti Euren Oy and Others
26654/08
2,500 EUR
2,500 EUR
15/07/2010
Kukkola
26890/95
5,000 EUR
8,000 EUR
13,000 EUR
15/05/2006
Kukkonen
47628/06
3,500 EUR
640 EUR
4,140 EUR
09/07/2009
Varjonen
63744/10
4,000 EUR
2,500 EUR
6,500 EUR
14/05/2014
Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy
931/13
9,500 EUR
9,500 EUR
18/08/2017
b) Individual measures
The domestic proceedings in these cases are closed. No other individual measure is therefore necessary in these cases.
II. General measures
- Article 6, paragraph 1
An overview of the general measures adopted in relation to excessive length of proceedings has been presented in the action report attached to Final Resolution CM/ ResDH (2012)75, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 June 2012 in 35 cases against Finland ( Kangasluoma group, concerning the excessive length of civil and criminal proceedings).
Furthermore, the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (586/1996) has been amended. In particular, a provision was added stating that an authority processing an appeal shall give a party an estimate on the processing time at the request of the said party. The amendment entered into force on 1 June 2013.
- Article 13
The Act on Compensation for Excessive Duration of Judicial Proceedings (362/2009) entered into force on 1 January 2010. According to the Act, applicants are entitled to obtain reasonable compensation from the State budget in case of excessive length of proceedings attributable to the authorities. The assessment of the length of proceedings and the amount of compensation should correspond to the European Court ’ s practice. The content of the above-mentioned Act as well as the relevant domestic judicial practice are described in more detail in the above-mentioned action report concerning the Kangasluoma group.
The Act was amended in 2013 to apply also to administrative courts and courts of special jurisdiction. The Administrative Judicial Procedure Act was amended at the same time. If proceedings in an administrative matter are delayed, a party has the right to obtain reasonable compensation from the State budget. The provisions concerning courts apply also to administrative boards processing appeals.
In addition to the aforementioned, a party has, at present, several remedies available in case of excessive length of administrative proceedings. A party may complain about the excessive length of the proceedings before a lower authority to a higher authority or to the supreme legal guardians, the Parliamentary Ombudsman or the Chancellor of Justice.
Moreover, according to the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (586/1996), the excessive length of the proceedings can be taken into account when ordering an administrative sanction.
A party can also request compensation for damages on the account of excessive length of proceedings in accordance with the Tort Liability Act (412/1974).
III. Conclusions of the respondent State
The government considers that no further individual measures are required, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention in these cases.