European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> UOTI v Finland - 43180/04 [2007] ECHR 497 (29 May 2007 )
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/497.html
Cite as: [2007] ECHR 497
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
43180/04
by Jussi UOTI
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza,
President,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr S.
Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L.
Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta,
Mrs P.
Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 November 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jussi Uoti, is a Finnish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Turku. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Brander, a lawyer practising in Turku.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as they appear from the documents in the case file, may be summarised as follows.
The police investigated allegations that a bank had advanced loans without the necessary guarantees to such an extent that its solvency had been endangered and that unlawful financial inducements had been offered. The investigation also focused on whether there had been debtor dishonesty or fraud.
On 25 January 1996 the applicant was questioned by the police as a suspect and he was subsequently charged with four counts of economic crime allegedly committed in 1991.
On 18 April 1996 the Salo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) upheld the applicant’s claim that he had not been properly summoned to the trial and declared the case against him inadmissible. On 24 September 1996 the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the decision. On 20 October 1997 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) quashed the previous decisions and remitted the case to the District Court.
Meanwhile, a second hearing was held on 12 June 1996. On 6 August 1996 the applicant was charged with aggravated fraud allegedly committed in 1991. At the third hearing on 27 August 1996, the District Court upheld his claim that he had not been properly summoned. On 11 February 1998 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision. On 8 February 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision.
At the same hearing on 27 August 1996 the public prosecutor was found to be biased and a new prosecutor was assigned to the case, which was then adjourned until 11 November 1996.
On 21 January 1998 the District Court upheld co-defendant X’s claim that he had not been properly summoned and that the statute of limitations had already expired. On 8 October 1998 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision and remitted the case to the lower court. On 3 November 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision.
Meanwhile, on 30 March 2000 the District Court noted in its minutes that the parties disagreed as to whether the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 of the Convention had been complied with, and that the court would decide at a later stage whether the trial could continue.
On 18 May 2000 the District Court issued a separate decision dismissing the applicant’s request that the charges against him be declared inadmissible due to the length of the proceedings. It held, inter alia, that the case was exceptionally difficult, involving voluminous evidence and being of significant public interest. On 19 December 2000 it dismissed the applicant’s renewed request. On 12 January 2001 the applicant lodged a procedural complaint with the appellate court. It was dismissed on 13 March 2001.
There were 28 days of hearings in the District Court up to the end of 2000, held at approximately two to five months’ intervals.
On 28 June 2001 a Spanish court acceded to the request of the Finnish Government for the extradition of the applicant, who was residing in Spain at the time, to Finland to serve a prison sentence which had previously been imposed on him. According to an arrangement, the applicant would be granted immunity from further prosecution in Finland for offences he had previously committed.
On 14 August 2001 the District Court found that the criminal case against the applicant was barred on the basis of immunity.
On 30 November 2001 the Ministry of Justice applied to the Spanish authorities for permission to continue the applicant’s prosecution in Finland in respect of offences other than those for which he had been extradited. On 4 October 2002 the relevant Spanish court acceded to the request. The applicant’s appeal was rejected on 2 December 2002. On 10 January 2003 the Spanish Government consented to his continued prosecution in Finland.
The applicant challenged the lawfulness of the continued prosecution before the Finnish courts. During spring 2003 he changed counsel. On 20 August 2003 the District Court rejected his claim for continued immunity, finding that the immunity had been annulled by the afore-mentioned decision of the Spanish Government. The decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 3 or 13 December 2003.
The present case was adjourned until 9 December 2003 owing to the need to change the public prosecutor, who had fallen ill.
Meanwhile, on 25 February and 20 August 2003 respectively the District Court dismissed the applicant’s further requests that the charges be ruled inadmissible owing to the length of the proceedings. On 9 February 2004 it also dismissed his renewed request, observing that the question as to whether the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable would be examined in due course and that any redress required could be given at the end of the proceedings. The appellate court upheld the last-mentioned decision on 30 June 2004. On 12 October 2004 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
On 31 August 2004 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s renewed request to have the charges against him declared inadmissible on account of the length of the proceedings.
During the trial the police conducted at least 12 additional investigations, the last of which, according to the Government’s observations in the case of Uoti v. Finland (no. 61222/00, § 19, 9 January 2007), was completed on 28 November 2003.
There had been a total of some 50 days of hearings prior to 30 March 2004 when the District Court had started to obtain evidence. Thereafter, there were 38 days of hearings up until the end of October 2004.
On 30 December 2004 the Parliamentary Ombudsman, noting that he lacked competence to interfere with the ongoing proceedings, drew the Government’s attention to the need for the allocation of adequate financial resources to both the District Court and the authorities involved in the case.
On 21 March 2006 the District Court gave its judgment. It found that the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in the Constitution and the Convention had not been respected.
The court dismissed as time-barred the charges concerning four counts of debtor dishonesty and acquitted the applicant of two counts of aggravated fraud. Finally, it dismissed the charge of debtor dishonesty. It ordered the applicant and two co-defendants jointly to pay damages in the amount of some 100,000 euros (EUR) together with interest from 25 May 1992.
The public prosecutor appealed. The case is still pending before the Court of Appeal.
COMPLAINTS
THE LAW
The applicant alleged a violation of the right to trial within a “reasonable time”, a breach of the presumption of innocence and the absence of effective remedies.
Article 6 §§ 1-2 read insofar as relevant:
“1. In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
Article 13 reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] 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.”
In the present case the impugned reasons were given by the District Court in the course of criminal proceedings when it ruled on the applicant’s request to declare the case inadmissible owing to the length of the proceedings. The Court considers that the District Court’s reasoning cannot be construed as suggesting that the District Court had at that stage formed and enunciated an opinion on the applicant’s guilt. In these circumstances the Court concludes that the facts of the case do not disclose any indication of a violation of the presumption of innocence.
Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). The Court has above found that there is no indication of a violation of the presumption of innocence. It follows that the applicant does not have an “arguable claim” and that his complaint does not therefore attract the guarantees of Article 13.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in that connection;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President