[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF KALLE KANGASLUOMA v. FINLAND
(Application
no. 5635/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
February 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kalle Kangasluoma v. Finland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson,
President,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai
Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 25 January 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 5635/09) 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 Kalle Petteri Kangasluoma (“the
applicant”), on 26 January 2009.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr Jaakko Tuutti, a lawyer practising in
Tampere. The Finnish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen
of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
- On
8 June 2009 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No.
14, the application was assigned to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Lapua.
- After
a request made by a complainant on 8 January 2002 the police started
to investigate the applicant's alleged involvement in aggravated
fraud and aggravated embezzlement which had taken place in 2001. The
applicant was questioned for the first time by the police on 22 June
2003. The pre-trial investigation was concluded on 27 August 2003 and
the case file was submitted to the public prosecutor on 16 April
2004.
- On
16 July 2004 the public prosecutor brought charges against the
applicant for aggravated fraud and aggravated embezzlement. On the
same date the case became pending before the Lahti District Court
(käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten).
- The
date of the initial oral hearing in respect of the applicant was set
for 9 September 2004 but he could not be heard as all witnesses could
not be summoned.
- On
29 November 2004 the applicant gave a written statement in the case.
- Other
hearings were also planned, for example for 7 December 2004,
12 December 2005 and 8 May 2006, but they were all eventually
either cancelled or the applicant could not be heard for other
reasons.
- The
hearing of the applicant's case was dependent on the proceedings
against M.T., who was the co-defendant in both of the two counts of
indictment concerning the applicant. The domestic authorities tried
to summon the applicant's co-defendants including M.T. and the
relevant witnesses on various occasions but these efforts remained
unsuccessful. An order for M.T.'s apprehension was issued but
annulled on 7 March 2006.
- T.L.,
a witness whose hearing was considered indispensable with regard to
all counts of indictment against the applicant, was present at the
hearings of 23 August 2004 and 7 December 2004 as far as the counts
of indictment against him were concerned but he could not be reached
for hearing as a witness in the applicant's case. While waiting for
the clarification of T.L.'s whereabouts, the District Court decided
to stay proceedings from 8 May 2005 to 16 June 2009. As T.L.
could not be reached for trial in Finland, a European Arrest Warrant
was issued for his apprehension on 11 November 2007. He was
surrendered to Finland on an unspecified date.
- On
an unspecified date the District Court decided to sever the
applicant's case from that of his co-defendants.
- On
27 May 2009 the District Court issued a summons to be served to the
applicant who was to appear for an oral hearing on 16 June 2009. The
hearing was cancelled as the applicant could not be summoned at his
place of residence.
- From
31 July 2009 onwards the applicant was serving a prison sentence.
While in prison, the applicant was summoned to the oral hearing held
on 27 October 2009.
- On
3 November 2009 the District Court dismissed all charges against the
applicant. As the judgment was not appealed against, it became final.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings
against him 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 ... any criminal charge
against him everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable
time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the application 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 22 June 2003 when the
applicant was questioned for the first time by the police, and ended
on 3 November 2009 when the final judgment was delivered in the case.
The proceedings thus lasted over six years and four months at one
level 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 (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
- The
Government maintained that the length of the pre-trial investigation
as well as the consideration of charges had been reasonable. As to
the District Court proceedings, they noted that the relevant
defendants and witnesses could not be reached for trial and the case
could not be processed due to their simultaneous or individual
absences. The domestic authorities had tried to summon them on
various occasions without success. On 16 June 2009 the applicant had
failed to attend an oral hearing without a valid excuse. The
applicant's own conduct had thus had a crucial effect on the duration
of the criminal proceedings and this prolongation could not be
attributed to the Government. There had been no unavoidable periods
of inactivity attributable to the domestic authorities, including the
courts. As to the complexity, the Government maintained that the
applicant's case had been a complex one, concerning economic crime.
The evidence presented before the District Court had been extensive
and the court had taken testimony from various witnesses. The court
had delivered its judgment in respect of 27 other defendants of the
case already on 15 October 2004. The Government concluded that, due
to an abuse of his right of individual application, the applicant's
application should be declared inadmissible under Article 35 § 4
of the Convention.
- The
applicant pointed out that, as concerned the oral hearing of 16 June
2009, the domestic authorities had failed to summon him and therefore
the question of a valid excuse had not even arisen. The applicant had
not been aware of the oral hearing of 16 June 2009 and he could thus
not be considered as abusing his right of individual application. As
the charges against the applicant had been dismissed, his sentence
could not have been mitigated and thus there had been no effective
remedy for excessive length available to him. Since 1997 it had been
possible to hear witnesses outside the courtroom but the national
authorities had failed to hear M.T. in this manner.
- The
Court observes that the alleged attempts by the national authorities
to reach the applicant's co-defendants or the witnesses and the
grounds for the cancellation of several of the District Court's oral
hearings in respect of the applicant cannot be verified from any
documents submitted to the case file. Thus, the Court is unable to
assess whether the national authorities, in fact, resorted to all
available measures, to a sufficient degree, in their attempts to find
the applicant's co-defendants and the witnesses. The same applies
also to the summonsing of the applicant for the oral hearing of
16 June 2009. Even assuming that the applicant had deliberately
evaded the oral hearing set for 16 June 2009, that could not have
delayed the proceedings to a significant degree as the criminal
proceedings against the applicant had already been pending for more
than five years and eleven months before 27 May 2009, that is, the
date of issuing the summons. Therefore, the Court cannot but conclude
that no major delay was attributable to the applicant. On the
contrary, the Court notes that there was a considerably long period
of inactivity attributable to the Government as the District Court
had decided to stay the proceedings from 8 May 2005 to 16 June 2009.
The applicant's case thus remained dormant for more than four years.
- 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 Pélissier and Sassi, 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 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government found the applicant's claim excessive as to quantum and
considered that the total amount of compensation for non-pecuniary
damage 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 the applicant the
full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,683.60 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the Court.
- In
the Government's view the total amount of compensation claimed for
costs and expenses, EUR 1,683.60 (inclusive of value-added tax), was
reasonable.
- Regard
being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the
Court considers it reasonable to award the sum claimed for costs and
expenses in full.
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 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:
(i) EUR
5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
1,683.60 (one thousand six hundred and eighty-three euros and sixty
cents), plus any tax that may be chargeable to him, in respect of
costs and expenses;
(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 15 February 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı David Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy
Registrar President
