European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36681/05
by Risto-Pekka RANTALA
against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 October 2005,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Risto-Pekka Rantala, is a Finnish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Espoo. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Fredman, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant was first questioned by the police on 28 April 1993. He was suspected of an offence in relation to credits granted by a bank, which was subsequently wound up. The pre-trial investigation concerning the applicant ended on 6 April 1995.

The hearing of the case, which involved some 30 defendants, began in the Salo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) on 7 March 1995. In respect of the applicant, the court proceedings began on 25 September 1996. The case was heard over more than 60 days. Testimony was given by 73 witnesses. The documents submitted to the court comprised more than 33,000 pages. The applicant closed his defence on 23 April 1997.

On 24 March 2000 the District Court issued its judgment, which ran to almost 900 pages. The court convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to a suspended term of eight months' imprisonment.

The court's judgment included a procedural decision to examine the complainant's, i.e. the bank's successor's, claims for damages in separate civil proceedings.

On 4 March 2002 the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), having held an oral hearing, issued its judgment concerning the criminal head of the proceedings.

On 30 October 2002 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.

On 12 May 2006 the District Court issued its judgment concerning the claims for damages. It held the applicant liable to damages in the amount of over 1.3 million euros (EUR), however dismissing the complainant's claims for expenses. The complainant appealed, claiming expenses.

On 12 February 2008 the Court of Appeal issued its judgment concerning the civil head of the proceedings. It does not transpire from the case file whether the proceedings continued, in respect of the applicant, before the Supreme Court.

During the District Court's examination of the claims for damages the applicant, along with other defendants, lodged a procedural complaint to have these claims dismissed due to the excessive length of the proceedings. On 9 March 2004 the District Court accepted that the proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy, but dismissed the complaint noting that the domestic legislation did not provide for the possibility to discontinue civil proceedings. The court also stated that it was in the interests of the complainant that the proceedings be continued. It came to this conclusion even though it observed that the complainant company was a State-owned company. On 29 November 2004 the applicant's appeal against the decision was refused by the Court of Appeal. On 12 April 2005 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the total length of the proceedings was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement.

THE LAW

On 23 July 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I, Arto Kosonen, Agent for the Government, declare that the Government of Finland offer to pay ex gratia EUR 12,000¹ (twelve thousand euros) to Mr Risto-Pekka Rantala with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 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.”

On 22 August 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Risto-Pekka Rantala, the applicant in the above-mentioned case, note that the Government of Finland are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 12,000 (twelve thousand euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 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 giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”

The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President