British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
NIVA v. FINLAND - 37730/02 [2007] ECHR 11 (9 January 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/11.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 11
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF NIVA v. FINLAND
(Application
no. 37730/02)
JUDGMENT
(Friendly
settlement)
STRASBOURG
9 January
2007
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Niva v. Finland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J.
Casadevall,
Mr M. Pellonpää,
Mr S.
Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mr J.
Šikuta, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 March 2006 and on
5 December 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned
date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 37730/02) against the Republic
of Finland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Finnish national, Mr Risto Niva (“the
applicant”), on 15 October 2002.
The
applicant was represented by Mr Jarmo Kinnunen, a lawyer practising
in Espoo. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were
represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs.
The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about
the length of civil proceedings.
On
28 March 2006, after obtaining the parties’ observations, the
Court declared this complaint admissible. The applicant’s other
complaints had been declared inadmissible on 16 March 2004.
THE FACTS
The
applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Alapitkä.
On
5 October 1994 the applicant sustained injuries during an
operation on his back. On 14 March 1997 he issued a summons claiming
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and compensation for costs from
the
Patient Insurance Association (potilasvakuutusyhdistys, patientförsäkrings-förening;
later renamed as the Patient Insurance Board (potilasvakuutuskeskus,
patientförsäkringscentral)).
On
18 June 1998 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus,
tingsrätten) found the medical treatment inadequate and
ordered the defendant to pay the applicant non-pecuniary damage for
pain and suffering and to reimburse his medical expenses and legal
costs.
Both
parties appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus,
hovrätten).
On
10 March 1999 the Court of Appeal invited the National Authority for
Medicolegal Affairs (terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus,
rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården; “the
Authority”) to submit its report on the matter.
The
Authority requested medical opinions from Drs N. and M., which were
delivered on 28 May 1999 and 25 October 1999, respectively.
Considering that the two opinions were partly contradictory, the
Authority asked on 24 November 1999 for a third opinion from
Professor A. On 10 May 2000, 2 August 2000 and 18 September 2000
the Authority inquired of him whether the opinion would soon be
ready. Professor A.’s opinion was finally submitted on 28
December 2000, and on 17 January 2001 the Authority submitted its
report to the Court of Appeal.
In
his observations to the appellate court the applicant complained,
inter alia, about the delay of the Authority in submitting its
report to the Court of Appeal, and invoked Article 6 § 1
of the Convention.
On
17 October 2001, having held an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal
quashed the District Court’s judgment, rejecting the
applicant’s claims.
The
Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on 6 June 2002.
Meanwhile,
on 31 October 2000 the applicant sent a petition to the Parliamentary
Ombudsman (oikeusasiamies, ombudsman) complaining about the
length of the proceedings before the Authority. On 2 January 2002 the
Deputy Ombudsman criticised the Authority for unreasonable delay in
issuing the requested report. She maintained, however, that the case
did not disclose any unlawfulness in violation of section 21 of the
Constitution of Finland. The Deputy Ombudsman did not examine the
Court of Appeal’s proceedings as the case was at the time still
pending before the Supreme Court.
THE LAW
On
17 October 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the
Government:
“I ... declare that the Government of Finland
offer to pay ex gratia EUR 4,244 (four thousand two hundred and
forty-four euros) to Risto Niva with a view to securing a friendly
settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European
Court of Human Rights.
This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage, costs and expenses and any value-added tax that may be
applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of
notification of the judgment by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to
pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government
undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period
until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the
European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage
points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government further undertake not to request that the
case be referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of
the Convention.”
The
Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s
representative:
“I ... note that the Government of Finland are
prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,244 (four thousand two
hundred and forty-four euros) euros with a view to securing a
friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the
European Court of Human Rights.
This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage, costs and expenses and any value added tax that may be
applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of
notification of the judgment by the Court pursuant to Article 39 of
the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the
above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall
be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal
lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period
plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims
against Finland in respect of the facts of this application. I
declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.
This declaration is made in the context of a friendly
settlement which the Government and the applicant have reached.
I further undertake not to request that the case be
referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 § 1 of the
Convention after delivery of the Court’s judgment.”
The
Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties
(Article 39 of the Convention). It is satisfied that the settlement
is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or
its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention
and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court).
Accordingly,
the case should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the case out of the list;
Takes note of the parties’ undertaking not
to request a rehearing of the case before the Grand Chamber.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 January 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza
Deputy
Registrar President