CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 9 février 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }    The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),     Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 1 July 1991 by Mr Touko Ollila against Finland (Application No. 18969/91);     Whereas on 24 August 1993 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;     Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 30 November 1992, the applicant complained of the interference with his correspondence carried out by one of his guardians;     Whereas in its report adopted on 30 June 1993 the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;     Whereas, at the 505th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 7 January 1994, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;     Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 20 May 1994;     Whereas, at the 517th meeting of the Deputies held on 21 September 1994, the Committee of Ministers decided, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the Convention, not to award any sum of money as just satisfaction as the applicant had not submitted any claim for compensation;     Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of Finland to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 7 January 1994 and 21 September 1994, having regard to Finland's obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the Convention to abide by them;     Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Finland gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee's decisions, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution,     Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of Finland, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this case;     Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.   Appendix to Resolution DH (96) 3   Information provided by the Government of Finland during the examination of the case of Ollila by the Committee of Ministers     On 1 December 1995, a new act entered into force which introduced a new section 35a to the 1898 Guardianship Act, with the following wording:     "A guardian is entitled to open, without the consent of the ward, letters which have arrived to the ward and which on account of the name of the sender or some other special circumstance may be presumed to concern matters falling under the guardian's responsibilities."     A detailed description of the background and purpose of this provision is found in Government Bill RP 16/1995.     This change of the law will, furthermore, sufficiently circumscribe the guardian's powers to render effective the ward's right to have criminal proceedings instituted against the guardian if the latter would act in breach of the above provision (violation of the secrecy of telephone conversations and of correspondence - chapter 38, article 3, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Penal Code).     Another provision of the new act, section 49a, in addition provides that the guardian is responsible for any damage he may cause the ward, whether intentionally or through negligence.     The Finnish Government considers that these measures will prevent the repetition of the kind of violation of the Convention found by the Committee of Ministers in the present case.   It also points out that, as an interim measure, the responsible municipal authorities were informed of the problem posed by the absence of sufficiently detailed rules governing the guardian's control of the ward's correspondence and were advised to supplement existing regulations so as to prevent, as far as far as possible, problematical situations from arising while awaiting the entry into force of the new legislation.