The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

(hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human

Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the

application lodged on 1 July 1991 by Mr Touko Ollila against Finland

(Application No. 18969/91);

Whereas on 24 August 1993 the Commission transmitted the said report to

the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for

in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without

the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in

pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;

Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 30

November 1992, the applicant complained of the interference with his

correspondence carried out by one of his guardians;

Whereas in its report adopted on 30 June 1993 the Commission expressed,

unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8)

of the Convention;

Whereas, at the 505th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 7 January

1994, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the

Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32,

paragraph 1

(art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of

Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the

Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be

awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of

the Commission dated 20 May 1994;

Whereas, at the 517th meeting of the Deputies held on

21 September 1994, the Committee of Ministers decided, in accordance with

Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the Convention, not to award any sum of

money as just satisfaction as the applicant had not submitted any claim for

compensation;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of Finland to

inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 7 January 1994 and 21

September 1994, having regard to Finland's obligation under Article 32,

paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the Convention to abide by them;

Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers,

the Government of Finland gave the Committee information about the measures

taken in consequence of the Committee's decisions, which information appears in

the appendix to this resolution,

Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of

Finland, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 (art. 32) of the

Convention in this case;

Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this

case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (96) 3

Information provided by the Government of Finland

during the examination of the case of Ollila

by the Committee of Ministers

On 1 December 1995, a new act entered into force which introduced a new

section 35a to the 1898 Guardianship Act, with the following wording:

"A guardian is entitled to open, without the consent of the ward, letters

which have arrived to the ward and which on account of the name of the sender or

some other special circumstance may be presumed to concern matters falling under

the guardian's responsibilities."

A detailed description of the background and purpose of this provision is

found in Government Bill RP 16/1995.

This change of the law will, furthermore, sufficiently circumscribe the

guardian's powers to render effective the ward's right to have criminal

proceedings instituted against the guardian if the latter would act in breach of

the above provision

(violation of the secrecy of telephone conversations and of correspondence -

chapter 38, article 3, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Penal Code).

Another provision of the new act, section 49a, in addition provides that

the guardian is responsible for any damage he may cause the ward, whether

intentionally or through negligence.

The Finnish Government considers that these measures will prevent the

repetition of the kind of violation of the Convention found by the Committee of

Ministers in the present case.  It also points out that, as an interim measure,

the responsible municipal authorities were informed of the problem posed by the

absence of sufficiently detailed rules governing the guardian's control of the

ward's correspondence and were advised to supplement existing regulations so as

to prevent, as far as far as possible, problematical situations from arising

while awaiting the entry into force of the new legislation.