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. 69096/11
Joni HÄNNINEN
against Finland
lodged on 1 November 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Joni Hänninen, is a Finnish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Vantaa. He was represented before the Court by Mr Jukka Juusela, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.

A.  The circumstances of the case

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

On 4 June 2011 the police conducted a search of the applicant’s car and of an apartment which he owned. The apartment was searched because another person staying there was suspected by the police of attempted manslaughter (tapon yritys, försök till dråp). The applicant claims that he, as the owner of the apartment, was not allowed to be present during the search, nor was he told why the apartment was being searched and why he could not be present. The search was conducted late at night (at 11 p.m.) without any special reason. The apartment had been damaged because the police had entered violently even though the applicant had been willing to give them a key.

On 12 September 2011 the applicant received the minutes drawn up after the search. According to these, the applicant had been informed about the search and he had been asked to provide a key to the security lock of the apartment. As no key had been available, the security lock was drilled by the police with the applicant’s consent.

B.  Relevant domestic law

1.  Constitution

According to Article 10 of the Finnish Constitution (perustuslaki, grundlagen, Act no. 731/1999), the sanctity of everyone’s home is guaranteed. Measures derogating from this right, and which are necessary for the purpose of guaranteeing basic rights and liberties or for the investigation of crime, must be laid down by an Act.

2.  Coercive Measures Act

Chapter 5, section 1, subsection 1, of the Coercive Measures Act (pakkokeinolaki, tvångsmedelslagen, Act no. 646/2003) provides that a search may be conducted, inter alia, if there is reason to suspect that an offence has been committed and provided the maximum sentence applicable exceeds six months’ imprisonment.

The person whose domicile is being searched, or in his or her absence someone else, must be given the opportunity to be present at the search and to call a witness, unless this causes delay. If none of the above-mentioned persons were present at the search, the person whose domicile has been searched must be informed immediately (Chapter 5, section 4, subsection 2).

A search at domicile cannot be conducted between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. unless there are special reasons (Chapter 5, section 5, subsection 4).

The search warrant is issued by the investigative organs themselves.

3.  Penal Code

According to Chapter 21, section 1, of the Penal Code (rikoslaki, strafflagen, as modified by Act no. 578/1995), a person can be sentenced for manslaughter to imprisonment for at most eight years. For an attempt, the maximum sentence is at most three quarters of the maximum sentence for the accomplished offence.

4.  Remedies

According to section 118, subsection 3, of the Constitution everyone 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 sentenced to a punishment and that the public organisation, official or other person in charge of a public function be held liable for damages, as provided in more detail by an Act.

Chapter 40, section 9, subsection 1, of the Penal Code (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 at most one year.

Chapter 40, section 10, of the Penal Code (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, Act no. 689/1997), 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 8 and 13 of the Convention that his right to respect for his home was violated and that he did not have a possibility, at any stage of the proceedings, to challenge the search before a court. There was thus no effective remedy available to him.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his home within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? 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?