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!

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 16245/10
Jarkko Mikael PEURANIEMI
against Finland
lodged on 18 March 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jarkko Mikael Peuraniemi, is a Finnish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Jämsä. He was represented before the Court by Mr Jyri Nuojua, a lawyer practising in Tampere.

A.  The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 25 January 2010 the applicant was sleeping at his friend’s place when the police entered the apartment, pulled the applicant violently from the bed and allegedly pushed him around. The police suspected that the applicant had earlier been driving under the influence of alcohol. The police made a bodily inspection (henkilöntarkastus, kroppsvisitation) of the applicant, examining his clothes and pockets, and found car keys in his pocket. However, after a telephone call to the applicant’s father, the police were convinced that it had been the applicant’s father, and not the applicant, who had driven the car. The applicant claimed that the inspection caused him harm.

On 18 February 2010 the police decided to terminate the pre-trial investigation into the matter as they had suspected the wrong person and the applicant had not committed any crime.

B.  Relevant domestic law

1.  Coercive Measures Act

According to section 10 of the Coercive Measures Act (pakkokeinolaki, tvångsmedelslagen, Act no. 450/1987, as amended by Act no. 646/2003), a bodily inspection (henkilöntarkastus, kroppsvisitation) can be made of a person suspected on reasonable grounds of, inter alia, drunken driving.

According to section 12 of the Act, the provisions concerning search of premises are mutatis mutandis applied to bodily inspection. If the bodily inspection is thorough, it needs to be conducted in a location intended for that purpose. If the bodily inspection is conducted by a person other than medical personnel, a witness should be present, if possible. An examination requiring medical expertise can only be conducted by a medical doctor.

An official with the power of arrest shall decide on a bodily inspection. However, a police officer may carry out such measures without a warrant in urgent cases.

2.  Remedies

According to section 118, subsection 3, of the Constitution anyone who has suffered a violation of his or her rights or sustained loss through an unlawful act or omission by a civil servant or other person performing a public function shall have the right to request that the civil servant or other person in charge of the public function be punished and that the public organisation, official or other person in charge of a public function be held liable for damages, as provided for in more detail by an Act.

Chapter 40, section 9, subsection 1, of the Penal Code (rikoslaki, strafflagen, as modified by Act no. 604/2002), provides that if a public official, when acting in office, intentionally in a manner other than that provided above in this Chapter violates or neglects to fulfil his official duty based on the provisions or regulations to be followed in official functions, and the act, when assessed as a whole, taking into consideration its detrimental and harmful effect and the other circumstances connected with the act, is not a petty offence, he shall be sentenced for violation of official duties to a fine or to imprisonment for a maximum period of one year.

Chapter 40, section 10, of the Penal Code (as modified by Act no. 604/2002) provides that if a public official, when acting in office, through carelessness or lack of caution, in a manner other than that referred to in section 5, subsection 2, violates or neglects to fulfil his or her official duty based on the provisions or regulations to be followed in official functions, and the act, when assessed as a whole, taking into consideration its detrimental and harmful effect and the other circumstances connected with the act, is not a petty offence, he shall be sentenced for negligent violation of official duties to a warning or to a fine.

According to Chapter 1, section 14, of the Criminal Procedure Act (laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa, lagen om rättegång i brottmål, as modified by Act no. 647/2003), an injured party may bring a private prosecution only if the public prosecutor has decided not to press charges.

Under Chapters 3 and 4 of the Tort Liability Act (vahingonkorvauslaki, skadeståndslagen, Act no. 412/1974) proceedings may be brought against the State in respect of damage resulting from fault or negligence by its employees in the performance of their duties.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention that he has been suspected of a crime without reason and that his liberty, personal integrity and privacy have been violated by the acts of the police.

He also complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have an effective remedy as this kind of issue cannot be examined before a court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the fact that a bodily inspection was carried out? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

2.  Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?