BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Olga KOIO v Finland - 66394/09 [2011] ECHR 273 (25 January 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/273.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 273 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
66394/09
by Olga KOIO
against Finland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ján
Šikuta,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Vincent
A. de Gaetano,
judges,
and
Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 November 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Ms Olga Koio, a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Tampere. She was represented before the Court by Mr Vesa Rajamäki, a lawyer practising in Tampere. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 July 2003 the police questioned the applicant on suspicion of procuring.
On 14 November 2003 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant and three other persons. According to the indictment, the applicant had between 16 February and 22 July 2003 provided two apartments for the purposes of prostitution by other persons and profited from that arrangement.
On 17 December 2009 the District Court convicted all defendants as charged. The applicant was sentenced to 60 unit fines. As to the sentencing the court stated that the defendants’ respective punishments should reflect the seriousness of their offences and their guilt thereof. The court also noted:
“The case has been pending before the court since 2003. The length of the proceedings has been taken into account in sentencing as a mitigating factor concerning [the applicant and one co-defendant] and as a reducing factor concerning [the other two defendants]. For this reason the defendants shall be sentenced to a fine, the amount of which should be substantial in respect of [the applicant and one co-defendant]”.
The applicant did not appeal against the judgment and it has acquired legal force in her case.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that the length of the above proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings against her. She relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
By letter dated 15 October 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government wishes to express - by way of a unilateral declaration - its acknowledgement that the length of the criminal proceedings has failed to fulfill the requirement of ”reasonable” referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Government emphasizes that the District Court has in any case mitigated the applicant’s sentence which is an undeniable fact that is to be taken into account as a reduction of the compensation to be reimbursed.
Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the applicant an amount of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros). This sum includes in compensation for non-pecuniary damage EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) and EUR 500 (five hundred euros) for costs and expenses (inclusive of the value-added tax). In the Government’s view, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and to your Court’s awards in comparable length of proceedings cases, the above total amount would constitute adequate redress for the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.
The total sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision to strike out by your Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. In the event of the failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
In the light of above, the Government would suggest that the circumstances of the present case allow your Court to reach the conclusion that there exists ‘any other reason’, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, justifying your Court to discontinue the examination of this part of the application, and that, moreover, there are no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the further examination of the case by virtue of that provision. Accordingly, the Government invites your Court to strike the application out of its list of cases.”
The applicant did not submit any comments.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Finland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006 ....; Pohjarakennus Oy Korpela v. Finland (dec.) no. 54841/08, 18 May 2009; and Lindholm and Venäläinen v. Finland (dec.) no. 5795/08, 1 December 2009).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Fatoş Aracı Ján
Šikuta
Deputy Registrar President