European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 11531/04
by Ari KORHONEN
against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Lech Garlicki, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2004,

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 Ari Korhonen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Tampere. He was represented before the Court by Mr K. Gummerus, 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 parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 16 October 1996 the applicant was questioned by the police as a suspect. He was subsequently charged with aiding and abetting an aggravated fraud allegedly committed by a Mr O. According to the indictment, O. had misled an insurance company by making a false claim for damages in the applicant’s name in regard to a car crash. In reality, the car in question was owned by O. himself and the alleged crash had never taken place. As a consequence, the insurance company paid 30,500 Finnish marks (FIM) to the applicant’s bank account. The applicant had forwarded the whole sum to O.

At the oral hearing in the Tampere District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) the applicant denied the charge and the insurance company’s claim for compensation. He claimed not to have known about O.’s plans to deceive the insurance company. He had agreed to register the car in his name in order to set off a debt. He had, therefore, lacked criminal intent.

On 22 August 2002 the District Court dismissed the charge against the applicant. It stated that he had abetted O.’s offence by forwarding him the reimbursement. However, there was no evidence indicating that he had known about O.’s criminal intentions at the time he had given O. permission to register the car in his name or that he had submitted the claim for compensation to the insurance company. The court concluded that this conduct could only be regarded as aiding and abetting fraud, and that offence was time-barred. However, the court did order the applicant to pay compensation to the insurance company jointly and severally with O.

The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). In his notice of appeal he stated that he had had no reason to suspect that O. had given him false information about the crash, and that he had forwarded him the reimbursement since the car had indisputably belonged to O. He requested an oral hearing.

On 23 September 2003 the Court of Appeal, without holding an oral hearing, dismissed his appeal, endorsing the reasons set out in the District Court’s judgment.

On 12 February 2004 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the total length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unfair because the courts did not reason their judgments as regards the compensation awarded, although he had contested the grounds for imposing liability. He further asserted that the higher instances unlawfully, and without giving any reasons, had denied him the right to an oral hearing. Lastly, he complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective remedy as regards the above-mentioned complaints.

THE LAW

On 5 June 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 4,000 (four thousand euros) to Ari Korhonen 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 30 June 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“I, Ari Korhonen, the applicant in the above-mentioned case, note that the Government of Finland are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of EUR 4,000 (four 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 he 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 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.

Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
Registrar President