Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
H.A.L. against Finland

 (Application No. 38267/97, judgment of 27/01/2004, final on 07/07/2004)

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 unfairness of administrative proceedings resulting in the dismissal of the applicant’s request for an extension of the payment of a sickness allowance (violation 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 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(2009)94

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
H.A.L. against Finland

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before an administrative tribunal in which the applicant requested in 1995 an extension of the payment of a sickness allowance (violation of Article 6 §1).

The European Court of Human Rights stated that neither the social security commission nor the appeals board had given the applicant any reason why his medical certificate had been deemed insufficient. What is more, neither body gave the applicant enough information to enable him to participate fully in the proceedings and in particular they did not disclose the medical experts’ opinions. The proceedings in question resulted in the dismissal of the applicant’s claim.

I.	Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a)  Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
-	4 000 EUR	1 500 EUR	5 500 EUR	
Paid on 07/10/2004	

b) Individual measures

Under Chapter 3 of the Insurance Court Act and Chapter 11 of the Act on Judicial Procedure in Administrative Matters, the applicant had the possibility to file a petition for re-opening of the impugned proceedings. He submitted no request regarding individual measures to the Committee of Ministers.

II.	General measures

This case presents similarities to those of Hirvisaari against Finland (failure to provide reasoned decisions, closed by ResDH(2004)63 in October 2004) and K.P. against Finland (no opportunity for applicant to comment on certain opinions, closed by ResDH(2006)59 in November 2006). In these cases the European Court’s judgments were brought to the attention of the authorities concerned (in particular to the social insurance courts) to inform them of the requirements of the Convention in this field.

Moreover, the European Court’s judgment in the present case has been published on the Finlex . A summary of the judgment in Finnish has been published on the same database. In addition, the judgment been widely disseminated with a covering letter to various authorities concerned, for instance to the Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and the Social Insurance Institution (Kansaneläkelaitos).

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new, similar violations and that Finland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.