Resolution ResDH(2006)51 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 21 March 2002 (final on 21 June 2002) in the case of Nikula 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 Nikula case delivered on 21 March 2002 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. 31611/96) against Finland, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 May 1996 under former Article 25 of the Co n vention by Ms Anne Nikula , a Finnish national, 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 ' s right of freedom of expression due to her conviction in 1994 for defamation (under Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code in force at the material time) following certain statements she made, as a lawyer, during a trial.;

Whereas in its judgment of 21 March 2002 the Court:

- held, by 5 votes to 2, that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;

- held, unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Articles 17 or 18 of the Convention;

- held, by 5 votes to 2, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 5 042 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

- held, unanimously, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months from the date at which the judgment became final, 1 900 euros in respect of pecuniary damage; 6 500 euros in respect of costs and expenses, together with any value added tax which might be due; and that simple interest at an annual rate of 13% would be payable on the sum 1,900 euros from 27 February 1996; and that simple interest at an annual rate of 11% would be payable on the other sums awarded from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;

- dismissed, unanimously, the remainder of the applicant ' 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 21 March 2002, having regard to Finland ' s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by it;

Recalling that the obligation of all member states to abide by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention involves an obligation to adopt rapidly individual measures in order to grant the applicants, to the extent possible, full redress for the violations found ( restitutio in integrum ), as well as to adopt without delay general measures in particular to prevent the recurrence of violations similar to those found by the Court;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information (see appendix to this resolution) about the measures taken remedying the consequences for the applicant of the violation found in the present judgment and preventing new violations of the same kind;

Having satisfied itself that on 8 August 2002, within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the a p plicant the sums provided in the judgment of 21 March 2002,

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)51

Information provided by the Government of Finland

during the examination of the Nikula case by the Committee of Ministers

The Government of Finland recalls that sums that the applicant had been sentenced to pay as a result of her conviction have been reimbursed to her in the framework of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, which also took into account the moral damage suffered as well as the costs and expenses paid.

Furthermore, the judicial records do not contain any mention of the applicant ' s conviction.

In addition, the applicant may, under Finnish law, seek the reopening of criminal proceedings having infringed the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Government of Finland recalls that measures were taken in 2000, after the facts at the origin of this case and before the finding of a violation by the Court, which avoid new violations of the same kind, in particular through amendments to the Criminal Code by Act No. 531/2000. According to the amended legislation, criticism aimed at the conduct of another person in his or her political or business activity, public office or function, scientific, artistic or other comparable public activity, is not considered defamation where the criticism clearly does not exceed the limits of acceptable conduct.

The government further observes that the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, has direct effect in the Finnish legal order (see e.g. Resolution DH (96) 607 in the Kerojärvi case) and indicates in this context that the Court ' s judgment has been published in the Finlex database and a separate press statement has been released on the date of the judgment. In addition the judgment has been sent out with a cover letter to various pertinent authorities, i.e. the Supreme Court, High Administrative Court, P arliamentary Ombudsman, Chancellor of Justice, Appeals Court of Vaasa , District Court of Kokkola , Ministry of Justice and the State P rosecutor ' s office;

* * *

The Government of Finland considers that in the light of the foregoing elements, all consequences of the violation for the applicant have been erased and that 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.