European Court of Human Rights

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)206¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Natunen against Finland

(Application No. 21022/04, judgment of 31 March 2009 – Final on 30 June 2009)

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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicant’s right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, in that the authorities, presumably during the pre-trial investigation in 2002, destroyed certain telephone recordings which made it impossible for the defence to verify its assumptions about the relevance of the recordings and to prove their correctness before the trial courts (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 taken together with Article 6, paragraph 3(b)) (see details in Appendix);

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

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, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its 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

- of 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 this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)206

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Natunen against Finland

Introductory case summary

This case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence, due to the destruction, by the authorities presumably, during the pre-trial investigation in 2002, of certain telephone recordings which made it impossible for the defence to verify its assumptions as to the relevance of the recordings and to prove their correctness before the trial courts (violation of Article 6(1) taken together with 6(3)(b).

The European Court found that there was no misconduct on the part of the authorities, who were obliged by the law in force at the time to destroy the impugned telephone recordings. However, the Court noted that a procedure where the investigating authority itself attempts to assess what information may or may not be relevant to the case, cannot comply with Article 6(1) (see §§47 and 49 of the judgment).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

The European Court considered that the award of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage provided sufficient redress in this case, having regard in particular to the destruction of the telephone recordings.

Following the European Court’s judgment, the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court on 27 August 2009. Taking into account the European Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court decided on 10 November 2010 not to vacate or set aside the judgment of the Helsinki Court of Appeal convicting the applicant, on the grounds inter alia that the conviction was not based solely on the telephone recordings but also on other evidence. Consequently, no other measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The relevant legislation was amended by Act 646/2003, which came into force on 1 January 2004. The new legislation states that superfluous information obtained through interception of telecommunications but not related to the offence, or pertaining to an offence other than that covered by the authorisation, is to be destroyed after the case has been definitively decided or removed from the docket (see §22 of the judgment).

A press release was given the same day the judgment was issued. Additionally, the judgment was disseminated to the relevant national authorities, as well as to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Committee for Constitutional Law of the Parliament, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. The judgment was published in the legal database Finlex in English, along with a summary in Finnish (www.finlex.fi ).

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required in this case apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, 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.