Resolution ResDH(2006)49 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 15 July 2003 (final on 15 October 2003) in the case of the Fortum Corporation against Finland

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 November 2006, at the 976th meeting of the Ministers ' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the P rotection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Fortum Corporation case delivered on 15 July 2003 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;

Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 32559/96) against Finland, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 May 1996 under former Article 25 of the Co n vention by a limited liability company Neste Oy (later the Fortum Corporation) , domiciled in Finland, and that the Court, seised of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of P rotocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint concerning a breach of the applicant company ' s right to a fair trial as the Supreme Administrative Court has not allowed it to submit comments on the documents which the court had received from the first-instance body;

Whereas in its judgment of 15 July 2003 the Court unanimously:

- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;

- held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company;

- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant company, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 10 000 euros in respect of costs and expenses plus any tax that may be chargeable and that simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points shall be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

- dismissed the remainder of the applicant company ' s claim for just satisfa c tion;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the mea s ures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 15 July 2003, having regard to Finland ' s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by it;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state informed the Committee of the measures taken to prevent new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;

Having satisfied itself that on 15 January 2004, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the a p plicant company the sum provided in the judgment of 15 July 2003,

Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Finland, that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)49

Information provided by the Government of Finland during the examination of the Fortum Corporation case by the Committee of Ministers

As to the general measures : At the material time, Finnish law contained no general provision on how parties to administrative proceedings were to submit their comments in writing. On 1 December 1996 the Administrative Judicial P rocedure Act ( hallintolainkäyttölaki, förvaltningsprocesslag 586/1996) entered into force. This law applies to proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court and contains an explicit provision on the hearing of parties (Article 34).

The Government of Finland also indicated that, in order to draw domestic courts ' attention to the requirements of the Convention in the application of this new provision, the European Court ' s judgment has been translated and published in the Finlex database and was widely disseminated with a covering letter to various authorities concerned.

As to the individual measures : The Government of Finland recalls that according to the Administrative Judicial P rocedure Act, sections 63 and 64, a decision may be annulled. Application for annulment must be lodged within five years from the date upon which the decision became final. In very specific circumstances, the decision may also be annulled after that time. According to section 67, the decision may be annulled or set aside in whole or in part. If the case needs to be reconsidered, it can either be returned to the deciding authority or, if the matter is found to be clear, be immediately amended by the authority. Under the existing legislation the applicant company may thus ask for reopening of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court .

The Government of Finland considers that in view of these developments there no longer exists any risk of new violations similar to those found in this case and that it has therefore fulfilled its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.