European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Laaksonen and Juha Nuutinen v Finland - 70216/01 [2010] ECHR 955 (3 June 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/955.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 955

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)45¹

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Laaksonen and Juha Nuutinen against Finland

(Applications Nos. 70216/01 and 45830/99, judgments of 12 and 24 April 2007, final on 12 and 24 July 2007)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against the applicants due to a breach of their right to be informed about the charges and to prepare their defence, as well as the lack of a public hearing on appeal in the Laaksonen case (violations of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)45

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Laaksonen and Juha Nuutinen against Finland

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the unfairness of criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in that they were not informed in detail of the accusations against them.

In the Laaksonen case, the Helsinki Court of Appeal found in June 1999, with no oral hearing, that the applicant had been party to a fraudulent bankruptcy, even though he had initially been charged with having himself committed the same offence, but acquitted at first instance. The European Court considered that in the circumstances of the case and given the outcome of the proceedings, the applicant should have been given the opportunity to contest the accusations brought against him (violation of Article 6§1).

In the Juha Nuutinen case, the applicant had been charged with certain tax offences which he was found guilty of at first instance. The Turku Court of Appeal found in August 1997 that he had been party to these offences as well as in another which had not appeared on the initial list of charges. The European Court considered that the applicant’s defence rights had been violated in that he had not been able to contest this new accusation properly (violation of Articles 6§§ 1 and 3 (a) and (b)).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total
Laaksonen 70216/01	-	3 000 EUR	3 000 EUR	6 000 EUR
				Paid on 16/10/2007
Juha Nuutinen 45830/99	-	1 000 EUR	2 500 EUR	3 500 EUR
				Paid on 25/10/2007

b) Individual measures

The European Court awarded just satisfaction in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants. Furthermore, the applicants may apply for the reopening of the proceedings (Chapter 31, Article 2, of the Code of Judicial Procedure). Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary.

II. General measures

The new Criminal Procedure Act (Act No. 689/1997), which came into force on 01/10/1997, codified the rule according to which an accused may not be convicted of an offence not mentioned in the bill of indictment. This provision was not observed in the present cases, as the proceedings at issue began before the entry into force of the new Act.

As regards the lack of oral hearing in the Laaksonen case, even according to the provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure (Act no. 661/1978) in force at the time, the appellate court could not change the first instance court’s judgment without holding an oral hearing unless the sentence was only a fine or the oral hearing was manifestly unnecessary (see §17 of the judgment). The current Chapter 26, Section 15 (165/1998) of the Code of Judicial Procedure provides that the Court of Appeal shall hold an oral hearing if the credibility of testimony admitted before a court of first instance is at stake.

The judgments of the European Court have been published on the judicial database Finlex (www.finlex.fi) in English. A summary and an excerpt from the judgments were also published in Finnish on the same database. They were sent out to several domestic authorities, including the Parliamentary Constitutional Committee, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice and the courts concerned.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.