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 >>
LAPPALAINEN v. FINLAND - 22175/06 [2009] ECHR 1717 (3 November 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1717.html
Cite as:
[2009] ECHR 1717
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF LAPPALAINEN v. FINLAND
(Application
no. 22175/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3
November 2009
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Lappalainen v. Finland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and
Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 October 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 22175/06) 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 Janne
Petteri Lappalainen (“the applicant”), on 22 May 2006.
The
applicant was represented by Mr Petri Sallinen, a lawyer practising
in Joensuu. The Finnish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen
of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
By
a decision of 20 January 2009 the Court declared the application
partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint
concerning the length of the proceedings to the Government. It also
decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of that complaint at
the same time (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Outokumpu.
On
16 November 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against K., a
journalist, and Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy, a publishing company,
claiming non-pecuniary damages for suffering and distress due to an
article published in 1998.
On
27 January 2000 the District Court (käräjäoikeus,
tingsrätten) held an oral hearing. On 4 February 2000
it rejected the action, holding that publishing the name of a
convicted person did not amount to an offence and that, therefore, no
right to compensation existed under Chapter 5, section 6, of the Tort
Liability Act (vahingonkorvauslaki, skadeståndslagen;
Act no. 412/1974).
The
applicant appealed. On 22 March 2001 he changed counsel.
On
12 December 2002 the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus,
hovrätten) held an oral hearing. On 31 March 2003 the court
partly upheld the applicant's claim and ordered the journalist and
the publishing company jointly to pay the applicant EUR 2,000 for
suffering and distress. The court found that there had been no
justification for publishing the name of a private person such as the
applicant.
All
the parties requested leave to appeal, which was granted on
3 September 2003.
In
its judgment of 19 December 2005 (precedent no. KKO 2005:136)
the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen)
overturned the appellate court's judgment and rejected the action.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 16 November 1999
and ended on 19 December 2005. It thus lasted 6 years, 1 month and 5
days for three levels of jurisdiction.
The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
The Government argued that,
although the proceedings before the Court of Appeal lasted some three
years and one month in total, the applicant's wish to change counsel
contributed to a delay of at least one year and seven months before
the Court of Appeal, which could not be entirely attributed to the
Government. The length attributable to the Government was thus four
years and six months for three levels of jurisdiction, which could
not be held excessive.
The applicant maintained that
his request had not in any way prolonged the proceedings.
The Court observes that the
proceedings before the District Court lasted a little over two months
in total. The proceedings before the Court of Appeal took three years
and one month with no clear explanation for the delay. The fact that
the applicant changed counsel cannot explain the delay as the
applicant did not request any extension of time limits. The Supreme
Court granted leave to appeal within four months of the appeal and
the judgment was given some two years and seven months after the
Court of Appeal had ruled on the matter.
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers
that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive
and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The
applicant claimed 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
The
Government found the amount excessive as to quantum. Should
the Court find a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention,
the Government conceded that the applicant should be awarded
compensation which should not exceed EUR 1,500.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 1,500
under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed EUR 3,172 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
The
Government left the matter to the Court's discretion.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 2,000 covering costs
and expenses for the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the remainder of the application
admissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts:
EUR 1,500 (one
thousand five hundred euros), in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
EUR 2,000 (two
thousand euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
plus any tax that
may be chargeable on the abovementioned amounts;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 November 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
