CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juin 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 13 June 2014   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 61815/13 Behruz VAZVAN against Finland lodged on 25 September 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Behruz Vazvan, is a Finnish national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Vantaa. He is represented before the Court by Mr   Risto   Rouvari, 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. Background of the case The applicant made a technical invention for which he applied for a patent on 28 October 1994. Subsequently, on 14 December 2001, he received a patent for his invention which was, however, later withdrawn. On 1 November 1994 the applicant joined a big telecommunications company in Finland. He told the company early on about his invention and tried to engage cooperation with the company. The company apparently learned about his patent application on 12 July 1995 but was not interested in cooperation. On 18 October 1995 the applicant’s employment with the company ended. In 2002 the applicant noticed that the company was infringing his patent and informed the company of this. The company initiated civil proceedings against the applicant, claiming ownership of the applicant’s invention. On 9   February 2006 the Helsinki District Court ( käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten ) rejected the company’s claim to ownership of the applicant’s invention but accepted its alternative claim and confirmed that the applicant had made the invention in question while working for the company. The court also confirmed that the company held a licence for the invention and that it had to pay reasonable compensation to the applicant for this patent licence. On 31   January 2008 the Helsinki Appeal Court ( hovioikeus, hovrätten ) upheld the District Court judgment. This judgment became final. Impugned proceedings As the applicant and the company could not agree on reasonable compensation for the patent licence, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the company in the Helsinki District Court on 27   November 2006. He claimed, inter alia , compensation of 924,720,000 euros for the use of the patent licence. On 6 October 2010 the Helsinki District Court accepted the applicant’s claims partly and ordered the company to pay to him 12,000 euros in compensation. The applicant was also ordered to pay the company’s costs and expenses before the District Court, which after mitigation amounted to 60,000 euros. The court found that the applicant had not been able to show that the company had actually used the invention for which it held the licence. The invention had thus had no greater value for the company. The fact that the company held the patent licence had not prevented the applicant from patenting the invention or giving further licences to it as the applicant still held all rights. As there were six separate patents, the court estimated the proper compensation to be 2,000 euros for each patent and thus 12,000   euros in total. At the same time as the judgment, the parties also received, for information, a statement drafted by the technical experts appointed by the court and given to the court in the present case. By letter dated 16 December 2010 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Appeal Court, requesting, inter alia , that the company be ordered to pay him 924,720,000 euros in compensation for the holding of the patent licence and that he be freed from the obligation to pay the company’s costs and expenses. He requested that an oral hearing be held and that the technical experts attend this hearing. Moreover, the applicant complained about the fact that the obligation to pay costs and expenses completely cancelled out his right to compensation and therefore he should be dispensed from paying. The company lodged a counter appeal, requesting that the compensation be reduced to 2,000 euros and that the applicant be ordered to pay the costs and expenses of the company. On 17 October 2012 the Helsinki Appeal Court, after having held an oral hearing, accepted the company’s claims and reduced the amount of compensation payable to the applicant to 2,000 euros. It also ordered the applicant to pay the company’s costs and expenses before the District Court and the Appeal Court to a total of 444,471.08 euros plus interest. The court found that as the compensation concerned just one patent to which the company held only a licence, 2,000 euros was proper compensation. As to the costs and expenses, the court found that the different material positions of the applicant and the company spoke for the mitigation of the payment obligation in the applicant’s favour. However, even though the invention had been important to the applicant, he had requested compensation equal to 4 to 8% of the annual turnover of the whole company-group. His claims had, from the outset, been manifestly ill ‑ founded and non-itemised, and no evidence had been presented to support them. The grounds for mitigation were not therefore fulfilled and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs and expenses of the company in full. By letter dated 11 December 2012 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court ( korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen ), reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before the Appeal Court. Moreover, he stressed the fact that the technical experts had not attended the Appeal Court hearing and requested that the case be referred back to the Appeal Court for them to be heard. On 30 May 2013 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice According to section 66 of the Patents Act ( patenttilaki, patentlagen , Act   no. 550/1967, as in force at the material time), when examining a patent matter the District Court was to be assisted by two technical experts to be appointed by the court. The experts were to give their views on the matters submitted to them by the court. Their views were entered in the record and they were entitled to question the parties and witnesses. It appears from the Government proposal HE 124/2012 vp that the practice at the time was that the experts practically always gave their statement after the conclusion of the oral hearing. The parties to the proceedings were not given a possibility to comment on the experts’ statement. This state of affairs changed when the Patents Act was amended with effect from 1 September 2013 (Act no. 101/2013). According to the new section 66c of the Act, the District Court shall provide the parties a possibility to comment on the statement of the experts before deciding the case. According to the transitional provisions, if such a matter has already become pending in a District Court before the entry into force of the amendment, the previous provision is applicable. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he did not have a fair hearing as he was not able to comment on the expert statement drafted by the technical experts, used by the District Court. This statement was given to the parties only together with the District Court judgment and the experts did not attend the Appeal Court hearing. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s right to adversarial proceedings respected as regards his possibility to comment on the expert statement prepared for the District Court?