European Court of Human Rights

                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 24950/94
                      by Pertti KINNUNEN
                      against Finland

      The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 15 May 1996, the following members being present:

           Mr.   C.L. ROZAKIS, President
           Mrs.  J. LIDDY
           MM.   E. BUSUTTIL
                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                 A. WEITZEL
                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
                 B. MARXER
                 B. CONFORTI
                 N. BRATZA
                 I. BÉKÉS
                 E. KONSTANTINOV
                 G. RESS
                 A. PERENIC
                 C. BÎRSAN

           Mrs.  M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 7 July 1994 by
Pertti Kinnunen against Finland and registered on 19 August 1994 under
file No. 24950/94;

      Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1935 and resident in
Varkaus. He was a legal practitioner up to 1990, when he went on early
retirement. This is his second application to the Commission, his first
(No. 18291/91) having been declared inadmissible on 13 October 1993.

A.    Particular circumstances of the case

      The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may
be summarised as follows.

      In 1985 the applicant was arrested and detained, suspected of
fraud. In the context of the arrest he was fingerprinted and
photographed at the Lahti Police Department. This material was placed
in a file pertaining to him and kept by that Police Department.
Information pertaining to his personal details was also transferred to
the National Police Register of Personal Details (tuntomerkkirekisteri,
signalementregistret) kept by the Central Criminal Police.

      The applicant was subsequently charged with, inter alia,
instigation of fraud, but was finally acquitted by the Court of Appeal
(hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Kouvola in 1988.

      On 10 June and 13 July 1994 the applicant requested that the
Police Department send him its file with the photographs and
fingerprints taken in 1985. He also requested physical access to the
registers in which he suspected that he had been included and, in
particular, to the Register of Professional Criminals and Recidivists
(Ammatti- ja taparikollisten rekisteri; the so-called "ATARI Register)
allegedly also kept by the Central Criminal Police.

      On 14 July 1994 the Police Department confirmed that the
applicant's personal details had been filed in the Register of Personal
Details. On that day and in view of the applicant's acquittal in 1988
the Department had requested the Central Criminal Police to delete the
information concerning him. The Central Criminal Police was expected
to delete him from the register within about a week. His name did not
appear in any other police register and he was free to inspect the
registered information at any local police department. The applicant's
picture would be removed from the Department's own archives but could
not be sent to him.

      On 15 July 1994 the applicant requested the Police Department to
contact the Central Criminal Police so as to prevent it from destroying
the material concerning him without he himself being present. He
repeated his request to receive the original file with the  photographs
and fingerprints. No further measures were taken by the Police
Department.

      On 29 July 1994 the applicant invoked his right of access to the
Register of Personal Details at the Varkaus Police Department. He was
unable to inspect his file physically, but on 1 August 1994 the
Department confirmed in writing that he did not appear in the register.

B.    Relevant domestic law

      According to the 1987 Act on Registers of Persons (henkilö-
rekisterilaki 471/87, personregisterlag 471/87), anyone shall
in principle have access to information possibly pertaining to him and
stored in a register (section 11). Access may be denied or restricted,
inter alia, if access to the information could hamper the prevention
or investigation of crime or be contrary to another particularly
important general interest (section 12). Incorrect information shall
be corrected at the request of the person concerned (section 15). The
Data Protection Ombudsman (tietosuojavaltuutettu, dataombudsmannen) may
order the file-keeping authority to grant access to a register and to
make such corrections. He may also bring the matter before the Data
Protection Board (tietosuojalautakunta, datasekretessnämnden). If the
Ombudsman refuses to take measures, the person concerned may seize the
Board directly. A final appeal lies to the Supreme Administrative Court
(korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) (sections 35
and 38).

COMPLAINTS

1.    The applicant complains that the police registered him "as a
criminal" even before he had been tried by the courts. He invokes
Article 6 para. 2 as well as Article 8 of the Convention.

2.    The applicant also complains that for years after his acquittal
had acquired legal force the police still considered him "as a
criminal". He refers to the confirmation by the Lahti Police Department
that on 14 July 1994 he still appeared both in its own file and in the
Register of Personal Details kept by the Central Criminal Police. He
again invokes Article 6 para. 2 and Article 8.

3.    The applicant further complains about the refusal of the Lahti
Police Department to send him its file on him. He also complains that
he was denied his right of physical access to the registers in which
he suspects that he has been included. He invokes Article 13 of the
Convention.

4.    The applicant finally complains that he has been denied an
effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.
He submits, in particular, that he did not receive an appealable
decision in writing concerning the deletion by the Central Criminal
Police of information pertaining to him.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant complains that the police registered him "as a
criminal" even before he had been tried by the courts. He invokes
Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) as well as Article 8 (Art. 8) of the
Convention.

      The Commission recalls that under Article 27 (Art. 27) of the
Convention it shall not deal with any application submitted under
Article 25 (Art. 25) which is substantially the same as a matter which
has already been examined by it and if the fresh application contains
no relevant new information. In its decision of 13 October 1993 on the
admissibility of Application No. 18291/91 the Commission already dealt
with the applicant's grievance that his personal details had been
recorded in 1985. His present complaint is in substance the same as
that lodged by him in Application No. 18291/91, i.e. a matter which has
already been examined by the Commission. Moreover, no "relevant new
information" within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b)
of the Convention has been adduced which would enable the Commission
to deal with his present complaint.

      It follows that this complaint must be rejected pursuant to
Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.

2.    The applicant also complains that for years after his acquittal
had acquired legal force the police still considered him as a criminal.
He refers to the confirmation by the Lahti Police Department that on
14 July 1994 he still appeared both in its own file and in the Register
of Personal Details. He again invokes Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) and
Article 8 (Art. 8).

      Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention reads as follows:

      "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
      innocent until proved guilty according to law."

      Article 8 (Art. 8) reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

      "1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his private ...
      life, ...

      2.   There shall be no interference by a public authority
      with the exercise of this right except such as is in
      accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic
      society in the interests of national security, public
      safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the
      prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
      health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
      freedoms of others."

      In the present case it appears that the personal details
collected from the applicant in 1985 remained in the file of the Lahti
Police Department up to July 1994. Up to that time information based
on his personal details also remained in the Register of Personal
Details kept by the Central Criminal Police.

      The Commission recalls that the Convention entered into force
with respect to Finland on 10 May 1990. In accordance with the
generally recognised rules of international law it only governs, for
each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into force with
respect to that Party (see, e.g., No. 220/56, Dec. 15.7.57, Yearbook
1 pp. 157, 159; No. 9453/81, Dec. 13.12.82, D.R. 31 pp. 204, 208). The
present grievance, however, concerns a situation continuing up to July
1994, thus falling within the Commission's competence ratione temporis
(cf. No. 10454/83, Dec. 23.1.86, D.R. 45 p. 91; mutatis mutandis,
No. 14/56, Dec. 9.6.58, Yearbook 2 pp. 214, 234; cf. also Eur. Court
H.R., Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A
no. 299-A, p. 19, para. 53).

      The Commission furthermore recalls that in its decision of
13 October 1993 on the admissibility of Application No. 18291/91 it
rejected a similar complaint, having found that the applicant had
failed to exhaust domestic remedies, a requirement prescribed
by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. It noted that the applicant
had not  asserted his right of access to the retained information and
his subsidiary right to request that it be corrected or deleted.
Although the applicant has now requested that he be granted access to
the Register of Personal Details and that he be removed from that
register, he has not requested the Data Protection Ombudsman to
intervene in the matter pursuant to section 35 of the 1987 Act on
Registers of Persons. For the reasons below, however, the Commission
need not decide whether the domestic remedies have now been exhausted.

(i)   As regards Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention, the
Commission observes that the applicant's grievance concerns the
retention of his personal details and the information based thereupon
during a period subsequent to his acquittal in 1988. He has not been
charged with any criminal offence after that acquittal. It is true that
in certain circumstances an issue may also arise under Article 6 para.
2 (Art. 6-2) if a public authority continues to voice suspicions
regarding an accused's innocence despite his final acquittal (see, Eur.
Court H.R., Sekanina v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A
no. 266-A, pp. 14-16, paras. 27-31).

      In the present case the Commission finds no indication that the
retention of the applicant's personal details and the information based
thereupon amounted to a finding of guilt or a voicing of suspicions
which would be in violation of Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2).

(ii)  As regards Article 8 (Art. 8), the Commission must first examine
whether the retention at issue amounted to an interference with the
applicant's right to respect for his private life within the meaning
of that provision. It notes that the material retained by the Lahti
Police Department consisted of photographs and fingerprints taken in
connection with his arrest in 1985 and therefore did not constitute an
intrusion upon his privacy (cf. No. 20542/92, Dec. 29.11.93, D.R. 75
pp. 231, 237-238). Moreover, there is no indication that the
Department's file or the Register of Personal Details contained any
surveillance or similar information in respect of the applicant or any
subjective appreciations which he might have wished to refute (cf. Eur.
Court H.R., Leander judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 22,
para. 48; No. 15220/89, Comm. Report 15.10.93, D.R. 75 p. 30).

      The Commission therefore considers that the material and
information retained by the police was not of such a character that it
could have adversely affected the applicant any more significantly than
the publicly known fact that he had been charged with, but acquitted
of, certain charges. In these circumstances the Commission finds that
the retention complained of cannot be considered to amount to an
interference with his right to respect for his private life within the
meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) (cf. Friedl v. Austria, Comm. Report
19.5.94, paras. 49 et seq., Series A no. 305-B, p. 21; No. 25099/94,
Dec. 5.4.95, D.R. 81-B pp. 136, 139). Finally, it appears that the
relevant material and information was deleted from the Lahti Police
Department's file and the Register of Personal Details in July 1994,
as requested by the applicant. Accordingly, there is no appearance of
any violation of that provision.

      It follows that this complaint must as a whole be rejected as
being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3.    The applicant further complains about the refusal of the Lahti
Police Department to send him its file on him. He also complains that
he was denied his right of physical access to the registers in which
he suspects that he has been included. He invokes Article 13 (Art. 13)
of the Convention.

      The Commission has examined this complaint under the above-quoted
Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, again assuming that the domestic
remedies have been exhausted. It recalls that the Convention organs
have left open whether a general right of access to personal data and
information may be derived from para. 1 of that provision (Eur. Court
H.R., Gaskin judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160, p. 15, para.
37). Referring to its considerations in point 2 concerning the nature
of the retained material and the information concerning the applicant,
the Commission considers that the refusal on 29 July 1994 to allow him
physical access to various registers and the refusal to send the file
with his personal details to him neither amounted to a lack of respect
for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) nor
interfered with his right to respect for such private life (cf.,
mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Gaskin judgment, pp. 15-17,
paras. 38-41 and the above-mentioned No. 25099/94, loc.cit., pp. 139-
140).

      It follows that this complaint must also be rejected as being
manifestly il-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

4.    The applicant finally complains that he has been denied an
effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the
Convention. He submits, in particular, that he did not receive an
appealable decision in writing concerning the deletion by the Central
Criminal Police of information pertaining to him.

      Article 13 (Art. 13) reads as follows:

      "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this
      Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
      before a national authority notwithstanding that the
      violation has been committed by persons acting in an
      official capacity."

      The Commission recalls that, according to the European Court of
Human Rights, an applicant, who is found to have no "arguable claim"
that another Convention provision has been violated, is not entitled
to a remedy under Article 13 (Art. 13) (see, e.g., Eur. Court H.R.,
Powell and Rayner judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, pp.
14-15, paras. 31-33 and p. 20, para. 46). The concept of an arguable
claim nevertheless falls to be determined having regard to the
particular facts of the case and the nature of the legal issues raised
(cf. Eur Court H.R., Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" judgment of 21
June 1988, Series A no. 139, p. 11, para. 27; No. 12474/86, Dec.
11.10.88, D.R. 58 p. 94).

      Referring to its findings above in regard to the complaints under
Articles 6 and 8 (Art. 6, 8), the Commission can leave aside the
question whether the remedies available to the applicant under the Act
of Personal Registers were "effective" within the meaning of Article
13 (Art. 13). Instead it concludes that he had no "arguable claim" of
a breach of any of those provisions which would have entitled him to
a remedy under Article 13 (Art. 13). Accordingly, there is no
appearance of any violation of that provision either.

      It follows that this complaint must also be rejected as being
manifestly il-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber           President of the First Chamber

      (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                         (C.L. ROZAKIS)