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!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF
SAARENPÄÄN LOMA KY v. FINLAND
(Application
no. 54508/00)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13
February 2007
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Saarenpään Loma Ky v. Finland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J.
Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr L.
Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mrs P. Hirvelä,
judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 May 2006 and on 23 January 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on the last mentioned
date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 54508/00) 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 limited partnership company
domiciled in Finland, Saarenpään Loma Ky (“the
applicant”), on 3 January 2000.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr Risto Kurki-Suonio, a lawyer
practising in Helsinki. The Finnish Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen
of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
- The
applicant company alleged that the length of the proceedings in its
case had been excessive.
- By
a decision of 9 May 2006, the Court declared the application partly
admissible.
- The
applicant and the Government each filed further written observations
(Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber decided, after consulting the
parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3
in fine).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant is a limited liability company whose main field of activity
consisted of building and hiring holiday cottages as well as
providing accommodation and travel services. It is owned
by Mr Kari Saarenpää and Mrs Eevaliisa Saarenpää,
who live in Valkeala.
The exemption permit proceedings
- On
22 November 1993 the applicant requested the Kymi County
Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelse)
to grant it an exemption permit (poikkeuslupa,
undantagstillstånd) to erect four cabins and one sauna
building on a piece of land called Mustalamminvuori, situated within
the Penttimäki property 1:464 in the Repovesi wilderness area in
the municipality of Valkeala. The intended cabins were to be located
in an area which was not covered by a shore plan (rantakaava,
strandplan) adopted in January 1986 upon Mr Kari Saarenpää’s
application.
- The
County Administrative Board refused the application on 16 December
1994, noting, inter alia, that part of the Penttimäki
property was located within an area included in the nationwide shore
protection programme (rantojensuojeluohjelma,
strandskyddsprogrammet), adopted in December 1990, and that the
intended construction would hamper significantly the implementation
of a shore plan and the overall settlement of the area.
- The
applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Ministry of the
Environment (ympäristöministeriö, miljöministeriet,
“Ministry”) on 7 December 1995.
- Following
the applicant’s further appeal the Supreme Administrative Court
(korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen)
conducted an inspection in situ and held an oral hearing. On
24 March 1997 it quashed the decisions and remitted the matter to the
Environmental Centre of South-East of Finland (Kaakkois-Suomen
ympäristökeskus, Sydöstra Finlands miljöcentral),
which had succeeded the County Administrative Board as the competent
first-instance body. The Supreme Administrative Court noted, inter
alia, the small-scale nature of the project and found that the
intended construction would not hamper significantly the
implementation of planning regulations or the overall settlement of
the area. The legal conditions for granting the exemption permit had
therefore existed.
- On
20 October 1997 the Environmental Centre nevertheless refused the
applicant the exemption permit. It considered that it was not
expedient to grant an exemption permit as a national park or a nature
conservation area might be established in that area.
- Upon
the applicant’s appeal, the Ministry granted the exemption
permit on 16 November 1998. It referred to the Supreme
Administrative Court’s decision of 24 March 1997 and observed
that the application could not be rejected on the sole ground that no
final decision had been made on the establishment of a nature
conservation area. Subsequently, on 24 June 1999 the
Valkeala municipality granted the building permit. The last-mentioned
decision acquired legal force on 13 July 1999.
The prohibition on activity
- On
9 July 1999, however, the Environmental Centre, of its own motion and
without hearing the applicant, prohibited any activity which could
jeopardise the natural state or landscape of the area. The
prohibition on activity (toimenpidekielto, åtgärdsförbud)
was enforceable immediately and was to remain in force for two years.
The Environmental Centre noted the building permit which had just
been granted to the applicant but recalled the decision on the shore
protection programme, according to which the authorities should
attempt to preserve the areas designated in the programme - such as
Repovesi - in their natural and undeveloped state. The undeveloped
Repovesi area was exceptionally large and its nature conservation
value had been recognised in various national nature inventories.
- The
applicant did not appeal to the Kymi Administrative Court.
The expropriation and compensation proceedings
- On
4 May 2001, i.e. before the prohibition on activity had
expired, the Environmental Centre initiated expropriation proceedings
with a view to acquiring the Repovesi area. The area, consisting of
82.5 hectares belonging to the applicant, was expropriated by the
State under a decision made by the Ministry on 24 July 2001. On 4
June 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s
appeal.
- Subsequently,
on 7 August 2002 the compensation proceedings began. On 14 February
2003 the Expropriation Committee (lunastustoimikunta,
inlösningskommissionen) decided on the amount of
compensation. The decision was upheld by the Mikkeli Land Court
(maaoikeus, jorddomstolen) on 22 August 2003. It
appears that the applicant did not lodge a further appeal. On 22
September 2003 the compensation awarded was paid to the applicant.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant claimed to be a victim of a breach of the “reasonable
time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention,
which provides, in so far as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
A. Period to be taken into account
The applicant’s submission
- The
applicant admitted that there had been three separate rounds of
appeals during the period 1997 – 2002. In its view, however,
the length of the proceedings had to be considered as a whole for the
purposes of Article 6 § 1. On that understanding,
the total length was thus over eight years and six months (from
November 1993 until June 2002). It stressed that in each round of
appeals the facts were the same, i.e. the legal effects of the
shore protection programme on its right to build on the land. Having
“won” the first round in the exemption permit
proceedings, the environmental authorities failed to comply with the
Supreme Court’s decision. Having "won" also the
second round in the exemption permit proceedings before the Ministry,
the environmental authorities initiated new proceedings ex
officio, this time by issuing a prohibition on activity. In this
way, in the applicant’s view, the environmental authorities had
effectively prevented it from building on the land during the said
period of time, until the Environmental Centre had finally “won”
the third round of appeals. Accordingly, the total length of the
proceedings could not, on any view, be attributable to the applicant,
but solely to the authorities.
- Furthermore,
in the applicant’s opinion its application for an exemption
permit should have been considered only once and matters of law and
expediency dealt with at the same time. The failure to do so in its
case proved that the Finnish court practice was not in compliance
with the requirements of a fair trial.
- Furthermore,
it took over nine years and two months before the applicant was
entitled to any compensation.
The Government’s submission
- The
Government contested the argument that the length of the proceedings
had been excessive. They submitted that there were various sets of
proceedings involved. The first concerned the lawfulness of the
exemption permit. Those proceedings lasted from 22 November 1993
until 24 March 1997, when the Supreme Administrative Court remitted
the matter to the lower instance. The second set of proceedings,
ending with the Ministry’s decision of 16 November 1998,
concerned the expediency of granting the applicant a permit. In the
Government’s view, this set of proceedings had to be excluded
from the examination under Article 6. Were the Court to decide that
Article 6 § 1 was applicable to this set of proceedings, the
Government submitted that the proceedings lasted until 16 November
1998 when the Ministry repealed the decision of 20 October 1997 of
the Environmental Centre and granted the applicant the permit it had
requested. In the alternative, the proceedings lasted from
16 December 1994 until 16 November 1998.
- The
Government further argued that the proceedings concerning the
prohibition on activity as well as the expropriation and the
following appeal proceedings were not related to the exemption permit
proceedings. Further, those proceedings lasted some ten months, or
alternatively, some two years and ten months. In the Government’s
view, the compensation proceedings did not concern the conditions for
expropriation but the amount of compensation and, consequently, were
unrelated to the exemption permit proceedings, a fact which the
applicant also accepted.
- The
Government added that what was at stake for the applicant did not
require special diligence on the part of the authorities.
The Court’s assessment
- The
Court notes at the outset that the applicant’s property was the
subject of judicial proceedings from 22 November 1993 to 22 August
2003, i.e. during a period of about nine years and nine
months.
- However,
the question arises whether and to what extent the different sets of
proceedings can be considered in toto for the purposes of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In the Government’s view,
there were different sets of proceedings, none of which was
excessive, whereas the applicant maintained that the different
proceedings up until June 2002 related to its possibility to develop
the land.
- It
was undisputed that the proceedings began on 22 November 1993 when
the applicant requested an exemption permit. The Court notes that the
exemption permit proceedings ended on 24 June 1999 when the
exemption permit was granted by the municipal authorities. Assuming
that Article 6 applies to the proceedings before the Environmental
Centre and the Ministry when they decided on the expediency of
granting the exemption permit, the Court notes that the proceedings
lasted about five years and seven months in total.
- The
Court does not agree with the applicant’s assertion that the
time taken to conclude the expropriation proceedings in June 2002
should be added to this period. While it is true that a prohibition
on activity was issued in respect of the property on 9 July 1999, the
expropriation proceedings did not flow from the exemption permit
proceedings. Further, the applicant did not appeal against the
prohibition issued on 9 July 1999. The Court finds that the mere
imposition of a prohibition on activity does not disclose the
existence of “proceedings” within the meaning of Article
6 § 1.
28.
The Court further notes that the expropriation proceedings began on 4
May 2001 when the Environmental Centre requested the Ministry to
expropriate the area. These proceedings ended on 4 June 2002 when the
Supreme Administrative Court rendered its decision. While it is
somewhat unclear from the applicant’s submissions whether its
length complaint includes also the compensation proceedings flowing
from the expropriation, the Court finds that these proceedings lasted
from 7 August 2002 until 22 August 2003. Consequently, the total
length of these two sets of proceedings, which may be considered in
toto (see, mutatis mutandis, Kukkola v. Finland,
no. 26890/95, § 41, 15 November 2005), was about two years
and one month.
B. The reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
- The
Court will assess the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having
regard to the criteria laid down in its case-law, in particular the
complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the
relevant authorities. On the latter point, what is at stake for the
applicant has also to be taken into account (see Philis v. Greece
(no. 2), judgment of 27 June 1997, Reports of
Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV, p. 1083, § 35).
- As
to the exemption permit proceedings, the Court notes that it took
three years and four months to consider the legal grounds for an
exemption permit before three instances. The Supreme Administrative
Court, before which the case was pending for some fifteen months,
carried out an inspection in situ and held an oral hearing
before deciding that the case should be remitted to the Environmental
Centre. Assuming that Article 6 applies to that part of the exemption
permit proceedings, which concerned the expediency of granting the
exemption permit, the Court notes that these proceedings were
conducted speedily as the exemption permit was granted within two
years and three months of the start of the proceedings in which three
instances had been involved. Further, the Court finds no unexplained
delays in the proceedings.
- As
to the expropriation proceedings, the time taken, some thirteen
months before the Ministry and the Supreme Administrative Court,
cannot be considered excessive in the circumstances. Furthermore,
assuming that the length complaint also related to the compensation
proceedings, the Court does not find any delays in the proceedings
before the Expropriation Committee and the Land Court.
- The
Court concludes, having regard to the above considerations and taking
into account the fact that there were no delays attributable to the
authorities in the exemption permit proceedings or in the
expropriation and compensation proceedings, the length of the
proceedings did not exceed a reasonable time.
33.
Accordingly, there has been no breach of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 February 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
