Peltonen v. Finland



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27323/95

by Mauno PELTONEN

against Finland

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 23 October 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs J. LIDDY, President

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

L. LOUCAIDES

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

Mr R. NICOLINI

Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 13 March 1995 by

Mauno Peltonen against Finland and registered on 15 May 1995 under file

No. 27323/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Finnish citizen, born in 1946 and currently

residing in Athens, Greece.

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

summarised as follows.

In 1992 the applicant, then resident in Sweden, travelled to

Egypt. In 1993 he officially moved from Sweden to Finland. In the light

of this move the local Social Insurance Office (försäkringskassan) in

Sweden, on 26 January 1993, decided to stop paying him Swedish national

pension benefits, referring to his possibility of obtaining similar

benefits from the Finnish authorities.

The applicant's request for disability pension from Finland was

refused by the Joutseno branch office of the Social Insurance

Institution (kansaneläkelaitos, folkpensionsanstalten) on 15 June 1993

on the basis that he was not resident in Finland.

The applicant appealed, arguing that he was only temporarily

living in Egypt and that his return to Finland had been delayed due to

the urgent treatment of an illness. On 17 February 1994 the Appellate

Board for Social Insurance (tarkastuslautakunta, prövningsnämnden)

dismissed his appeal, maintaining that in the light of material adduced

he was not resident in Finland. The Board referred to an opinion

submitted by the Social Insurance Office. This had not been

communicated to the applicant and was not reproduced or summarised in

the Board's decision.

The applicant appealed further, adducing, inter alia, an extract

from the Finnish population register dated 6 April 1994 and showing

that he had been resident in Finland since April 1993.

On 5 September 1994 the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus,

försäkringsdomstolen) upheld the decision of the Appellate Board,

having noted a further opinion submitted by the Social Insurance

Institution as well as various supplementary observations, whose

contents and sender were not specified. The opinion and the

supplementary observations had not been communicated to the applicant

and were not reproduced or summarised in the Court's decision. The

decision was dispatched on 14 September 1994. No further appeal was

open to the applicant.

COMPLAINTS

1 The applicant complains that the Finnish authorities have

subjected him to degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the

Convention, have infringed his right to personal security within the

meaning of Article 5 and have violated his property rights contrary to

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He also invokes Article 14.

2 The applicant complains that he was denied a fair and public

hearing of his pension request in Finland. In particular, the Appellate

Board for Social Insurance and the Insurance Court did not communicate

to him the material obtained from other sources. He invokes Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention.

3 The applicant complains that the unknown supplementary

observations obtained by the Insurance Court might consist of his

private correspondence which has then been revealed in violation of

Article 8 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1 The applicant complains that the Finnish authorities have

subjected him to degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 (Art. 3)

of the Convention, have infringed his right to personal security within

the meaning of Article 5 (Art. 5) and have violated his property rights

contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). He also invokes Article

14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.

The Commission considers that these complaints are largely

unsubstantiated and finds no indication of a violation of any of the

above-mentioned provisions.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2 The applicant complains that he was denied a fair and public

hearing of his pension request in Finland. In particular, the Appellate

Board for Social Insurance and the Insurance Court did not communicate

to him the material obtained from other sources. He invokes Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which reads as follows:

"In the determination of his civil rights ..., everyone is

entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] tribunal

established by law. ..."

The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the

file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is

therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the

Rules of Procedure, to give notice thereof to the Finnish Government.

3 The applicant complains that the unknown supplementary

observations obtained by the Insurance Court might consist of his

private correspondence which has then been revealed in violation of

Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. This provision reads as follows:

"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and

family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority

with the exercise of this right except such as is in

accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic

society in the interests of national security, public

safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the

prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of

health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and

freedoms of others."

The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the

file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is

therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the

Rules of Procedure, to give notice thereof to the Finnish Government.

For these reasons, the Commission,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's

complaints relating to the alleged unfairness of the

pension proceedings and the alleged interference with his

correspondence; and

unanimously,

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber