CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 23 novembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   586 23.11.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment concerning Finland   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment, which is not final. [1]   Puolitaival and Pirttiaho v. Finland (application no 54857/00) No violation of Article 6 § 1 The applicants, Olavi Puolitaival and Esko Pirttiaho, are Finnish nationals who were born in 1945 and 1958 and live in Jääli and Tampere respectively.   They were owners of a company called Konekersantti Oy, which brought several sets of civil proceedings against other commercial companies.   The first set of proceedings, brought against M.R. Ky, concerned a dispute over the sale of a machine. In those proceedings M.R. Ky was represented at first instance and on appeal by P.L. who was also a judicial secretary ( hovioikeudenviskaali, hovrättsfiskal ) at the Vaasa Court of Appeal at the time. In February 1993 the Vaasa Court of Appeal ruled in the applicants’ favour.   Another set of proceedings, brought against an investment bank, concerned the bank's refusal to grant the applicants' company a bank guarantee. According to the applicants, this caused the company to go into liquidation. Their claims were dismissed by the District Court. The Vaasa Court of Appeal, composed of three judges including P.L., upheld the District Court's decision. The applicants unsuccessfully requested leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that P.L. had sat on the bench of the Court of Appeal.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants argued that they had not had a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal as one of the Court of Appeal judges had represented the opposing party in earlier proceedings brought by the applicants.   The European Court of Human Rights noted that the two sets of proceedings had overlapped before the Court of Appeal for two or three months between December 1992 and February 1993. With regard to P.L.'s activities either as counsel or as a judge during that period, the Court observed that she had limited herself to drafting and signing the notice of appeal in the first set of proceedings and that another lawyer had dealt with the subsequent stages of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal. There was no indication that P.L. had been active as counsel in the case in the later stages. Furthermore, it was evident that during that period P.L. had not taken part in the second set of proceedings as a judge. According to the case file P.L.'s personal involvement in the second set of proceedings as a judge had not begun until some time after 30 April 1997, that is, approximately three and a half years after the period of overlap in question and more than five years after she had signed the notice of appeal.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case and more particularly to the remoteness in time and subject-matter of both sets of proceedings and to the fact that P.L.'s functions as counsel and judge had not overlapped in time, the applicants could not have entertained any objectively justified doubts as to P.L.'s impartiality. Accordingly, the Court held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in English.)     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.