European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Kallio and Hannu Lehtinen v Finland - 586/19 [2011] ECHR 2119 (2 December 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2119.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2119

---

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

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)201¹

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Kallio and Hannu Lehtinen against Finland

(Applications Nos. 40199/02 and 32993/02, judgments of 22 July 2008,

final on 22 October 2008)

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 tax surcharge proceedings brought against the applicants, due to the administrative courts’ refusal to hold oral hearings and to hear the applicants’ testimony or that of witnesses (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (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, within the time-limit set, 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(2011)201

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

Kallio and Hannu Lehtinen against Finland

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the unfairness of tax surcharge proceedings brought against the applicants, due to the administrative courts’ refusal, in decisions of 2001 and 2002, to hold oral hearings and to hear the applicants’ testimony or that of witnesses (violations of Article 6§1).

The European Court found that in the circumstances of the applicants’ cases, where the crucial question had been the credibility of the applicants’ and witnesses’ statements, a direct assessment of their evidence given in person would have been necessary.

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
Kallio (40199/02)	-	3 000 EUR	5 000 EUR	8 000 EUR
Paid on 22/01/2009
Hannu Lehtinen (32993/02)	-	3 000 EUR	8 000 EUR	11 000 EUR
Paid on 21/01/2009

b) Individual measures

The Finnish authorities stated that, according to the Administrative Judicial Procedure Act (Act No. 586/1996), an administrative decision that has become final may be subject to an extraordinary appeal lodged by an individual by means of procedural complaint, restoration of expired time or annulment. The application for annulment of such decision is made before the Supreme Administrative Court, in general within five years from the date when the decision became final. The applicants may therefore request re opening of the administrative proceedings following the European Court’s judgments.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The judgments of the European Court were published in the Finlex database (www.finlex.fi). Summaries of the judgments in Finnish were published in the same database. Moreover, the judgments were sent out to numerous domestic authorities, including the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice, the Parliament / Constitutional Law Committee, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministries of Justice, Interior and Finance, the Turku Appeal Court, the Turku and Helsinki Administrative Courts, the South-western Finland Regional Tax Office and the Uusimaa Regional Tax Office.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required 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.