Resolution CM/ ResDH (2010)16 [1]

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

S.H. against Finland

(Application No. 28301/03, judgment of 29 July 2008, final on 29 October 2008)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Prote ction 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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the u nfairness of certain insurance proceedings in that it had not been possible for the applicant to comment on two medical opinions included in her case file (violation of article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the mea s ures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the a p plicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix);

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2010)16

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

S.H. against Finland

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the unfairness of certain insurance proceedings relating to the applicant ’ s accident pension: the applicant was denied the opportunity to comment on two medical opinions included in her case file in 2002. The European Court concluded that the applicant had therefore not been able to participate properly in the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

2 500 euros

3 000 euros

5 500 euros

Paid on 29/01/2009

b) Individual measures

The applicant may request the reopening of the proceedings in question. Consequently, no other individual measure is required in this case.

II. General measures

This case presents similarities to the K.P. case (No. 31764/96, judgment of 31/05/2001, closed by Resolution ResDH (2006)59, adopted on 02/11/2006), in which the facts occurred in 1994-1995. The Finnish authorities consider that the violation found in this case, having taken place after the adoption and publication of the K.P. judgment, seems to remain isolated. Nevertheless, an excerpt of the judgment in Finnish was published in the legal database Finlex ( www.finlex.fi ) and the judgment was sent out to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Parliament/Constitutional Law Committee, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministries of Justice and of Social Affairs and Health, the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health, to the Employment Accidents Appeal Board and to the Insurance Court.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 March 2010 at the 1078 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies .