European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 27708/07
by Jyrki JERKKOLA
against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 July 2007,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jyrki Jerkkola, is a Finnish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Tampere. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Vartiainen, a lawyer practising in Tampere. 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 applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 8 February 2001 the applicant reported to the police an assault allegedly committed against him by two men, H.A. and E.N. Both suspects were detained and questioned by the police on that date. An eyewitness was questioned some weeks later. On 15 January 2002 the police questioned the applicant as a plaintiff, at which point he made a claim for damages without specifying the amount thereof. On 1 March 2002 the police closed the investigation.

On 25 March 2002 the public prosecutor lodged an application for a summons with the Tampere District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). According to the indictment H.A. and E.N. had assaulted the applicant, thus causing him physical injuries.

On 2 April 2002 the court invited the applicant to submit a written claim for damages. In his submission, dated 3 May 2002, the applicant requested the court to order the defendants to pay him jointly 800 euros for pain and suffering and 300 euros for damaged clothing.

An oral hearing was scheduled for 6 May 2002. However, the hearing was cancelled as the court had not been able to serve the summons on E.N. and the witness and as H.A had failed to appear in court despite the service of summons on him.

The court decided to reschedule the hearing to 3 June 2002. It also ordered that H.A. be apprehended and brought to the hearing by the police.

The service of summons on E.N. and the witness was again unsuccessful. Nor was H.A. found. The hearing was cancelled and a new date was set for 12 August 2002. Again, the court ordered H.A. to be brought to the hearing. It also issued a warrant in respect of E.N. and the witness for the purpose of serving them with the summons. However, E.N. and the witness could not be reached and the hearing was again cancelled.

The hearing was subsequently adjourned several times after that, apparently due to failure to serve the summons on E.N. The scheduled dates were 7 October 2002, 18 November 2002, 13 January 2003, 7 April 2003, 16 June 2003, 22 September 2003, 1 December 2003, 9 February 2004, 9 August 2004 and 29 November 2004.

No hearings were scheduled after November 2004. Neither of the defendants had a permanent address and E.N. could not be reached to allow a summons to be served on him.

As of the beginning of 2005 the case was assigned to another judge.

On 13 February 2008 the court held an oral hearing in which H.A. was charged with assault. E.N. did not appear in court as the charge against him had become time-barred. H.A. was convicted as charged and sentenced to imprisonment. He was ordered to pay the applicant 500 euros for pain and suffering and 250 euros for damaged clothing.

It does not transpire from the case file whether the authorities took any measures between November 2004 and 13 February 2008.

H.A. and the applicant both appealed against the District Court’s judgment to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), where the case was pending at the time of lodging the application with the European Court.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

On 22 October 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I, Arto Kosonen, Agent of the Government of Finland, declare that the Government of Finland offer to pay ex gratia EUR 5,000¹ (five thousand euros) to Mr Jyrki Jerkkola 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 27 October 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Mr Samuli Vartiainen, the applicant’s counsel in the above-mentioned case, note that the Government of Finland are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) to Mr Jyrki Jerkkola 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.

Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Finland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares 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 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