RAUTIAINEN proti Finsku

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 7878/22
Jouni Ensio RAUTIAINEN
against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 November 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Egidijus Kūris, President,
Pauliine Koskelo,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 7878/22) 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”) on 19 January 2022 by a Finnish national, Mr Jouni Ensio Rautiainen, who was born in 1960 and lives in Kuopio (“the applicant”);

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The application concerns the allegedly excessive length of civil compensation proceedings.

2. On 28 March 2012 the applicant lodged a compensation claim against J.K., based on alleged fraud, with the Northern Savolax District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). Prior to lodging that claim he had been informed by the District Court that the compensation proceedings could not commence until the final decision in separate criminal proceedings against other persons, inter alia H.K., was reached. It does not appear from the file that the applicant had objected to that.

3. On 24 January 2014, in separate proceedings, the District Court of Vantaa confirmed a settlement concerning the applicant’s compensation claim against H.K., following the conviction of the latter by final judgment in July 2013. According to the settlement, the applicant agreed to seek enforcement of his claim solely in accordance with Chapter 10, Section 11(2) of the Criminal Code, i.e. from the funds to be collected by the Legal Registry Centre (Oikeusrekisterikeskus, Rättsregistercentralen; “the LRC”) through execution of the confiscation orders issued against H.K. and other beneficiaries of the fraud, and to refrain from seeking other measures of execution against H.K.

4. On 31 December 2015 the applicant asked the Northern Savolax District Court to further adjourn the examination of his compensation claim against J.K. until the resolution of his compensation claim against H.K. by the LRC. That resolution occurred on 24 August 2020.

5. On 31 August 2020 the applicant withdrew his claim against J.K. On 22 September 2020 the District Court dismissed the compensation claim without any reasoning other than mentioning that the applicant had withdrawn his claim against J.K.

6. The applicant had sought compensation for the delay in the civil proceedings against J.K. under the Act on Compensation for Excessive Duration of Judicial Proceedings (Act no. 362/2009), but the domestic courts did not consider the duration excessive. In September 2020 the District Court, while accepting that the civil case had lasted some 11 years and 8 months, did not consider the proceedings before the LRC to have formed part of the civil case. The District Court also noted the complexity of the criminal case against H.K., the applicant’s suspension requests and the relatively minor amount of his compensation claim (EUR 6,000). The final domestic decision in this respect was given by the Supreme Court on 28 August 2021.

7. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the civil proceedings had been excessive.

THE COURT’s ASSESSMENT

8. The proceedings started on 28 March 2012 and ended on 22 September 2020, lasting eight years, five months and twenty-eight days at one level of jurisdiction.

9. 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 and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).

10. The proceedings brought by the applicant may not be considered as being complex as the District Court only adjourned the proceedings in order to wait for the final decision in other proceedings until it dismissed the case on the applicant’s request.

11. As regards the conduct of the proceedings by the applicant, it is to be noted that the applicant himself, on 31 December 2015, requested the adjournment of the processing of his claim against J.K. until the resolution of his claim against H.K. by the LRC. The period during which the examination of the applicant’s claim against J.K. was adjourned, at his own request, pending the resolution by the LRC, is therefore not attributable to the respondent State.

12. As regards the period between 28 March 2012, when the applicant lodged his compensation claim, and 31 December 2015, when he himself requested the adjournment of the proceedings, it is noted that the proceedings at issue were lodged as “back-up” proceedings to the other proceedings against H.K. with an intention to ensure that the applicant could receive the compensation of EUR 6,000 from J.K. in case he did not receive it from H.K. or the LRC. Both claims were based on the same legal basis and were only due from one of the defendants. After having received the compensation from the LRC on 24 August 2020 the applicant no longer had a valid claim against J.K. It must have been, therefore, also the applicant’s own intention that the possible hearing in the present case be held possibly years later as the proceedings against J.K. were lodged at such an early stage only in order to avoid the time-limit set for requesting such claims from elapsing. As for the conduct of the proceedings by the domestic courts, it is also noted that the Court, in its earlier decision given in respect of the same applicant (see Rautiainen v. Finland (dec.), no. 56825/15, § 37, 3 February 2022) has already found that the length of the proceedings against H.K. were not excessive and thus met the reasonable time requirement. The remaining length of the proceedings other than that based on the applicant’s own request or consent to adjourn these proceedings until the proceedings against H.K. had ended, was not unreasonable in the case as the District Court finally gave its decision within a month after the LRC’s resolution was issued and within three weeks from the date when the applicant had withdrawn his compensation claim against J.K.

13. Furthermore, as to what was at stake for the applicant in the proceedings, the monetary compensation of EUR 6,000 may not have been insignificant to him but it does not strike as very significant either.

14. The length of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s civil claim against J.K., to the extent that their duration was attributable to the respondent State, was therefore manifestly not unreasonable.

15. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 15 December 2022.

Dorothee von Arnim Egidijus Kūris
Deputy Registrar President