appeal, and later to the Insurance Court. During the proceedings the Insurance Court requested an opinion from the Fund, which was delivered but not
communicated to the applicant. Also, the Insurance Court obtained documents from the Supreme Administrative Court, which had solved the case of
the applicant’s dismissal. The Insurance Court upheld the Board’s decision in
its judgment in 1995.
In his application to the ECtHR, the applicant claimed that there had been a
violation of his right to a fair hearing, as the documents obtained ex officio by the
Insurance Court had not been communicated to him. According to the Finnish
Government, the non-communication did not constitute violation of Article 6,
because the obtained documents had primarily referred to the appeal and
subsequent observations and to the facts of the case but had not contained any
new evidence or revealed new facts that would have affected the Court’s conclusion. The non-communication was undisputed. The ECtHR stated that the
obtained opinion had constituted reasoned opinions on the merits of the applicant’s appeals and the objective of these opinions was to influence the decision of
the Insurance Court. Hence, the ECtHR concluded that it should have been for
the applicant to decide whether or not to comment on these opinions. As no such
possibility had been reserved to him by the Insurance Court, the applicant was not
able to participate properly in the proceedings.
20 Thus, there had been a violation
of Article 6 and the respondent state was obliged to pay damages to the applicant.
In the aftermath of the ECtHR’s decision, the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe invited Finland to inform it on the measures taken in
consequence with the decision. In its communication, the Government of Finland
informed the Committee that the damages had been paid to the applicant in
accordance with the decision. In addition to this, the Government accentuated
the possibility of seeking the annulment of the domestic decisions on the grounds
of violation of Article 6.
21 Although decisions of ECtHR do not cause annulment
of the domestic decisions as such, the Government’s communication shows that
they are closely followed. The ECtHR’s decision on the violation of Article 6
provides grounds for annulment within the domestic legal system. Thus, the
violation of due process can cause the decision to be set aside, and to lose its
validity because the process during which it was reached did not accommodate the
moral position adopted in the due process programme of the legal system.
Article 6 ECHR on the right to fair trial has several different elements. The
Article addresses equality of arms, the independent constitution of the court, and
publicity of the proceedings. In addition to these, the Article addresses access to
the court as well as access to enforcement. Access to enforcement is not
specifically provided for in the Convention but has been established in the case
law. The case law concerning access to enforcement depicts another different
aspect of the right to fair trial than equality of arms and adversarial proceedings,
although it does not provide any additional insight into justification beyond the
analysis of due process as law’s internal programme. Still, access to enforcement
as a part of due process benefits the objective of this study in another way,
namely for understanding private enforcement. The case law on access to
168 Three quests for justification
communicated to the applicant. Also, the Insurance Court obtained documents from the Supreme Administrative Court, which had solved the case of
the applicant’s dismissal. The Insurance Court upheld the Board’s decision in
its judgment in 1995.
In his application to the ECtHR, the applicant claimed that there had been a
violation of his right to a fair hearing, as the documents obtained ex officio by the
Insurance Court had not been communicated to him. According to the Finnish
Government, the non-communication did not constitute violation of Article 6,
because the obtained documents had primarily referred to the appeal and
subsequent observations and to the facts of the case but had not contained any
new evidence or revealed new facts that would have affected the Court’s conclusion. The non-communication was undisputed. The ECtHR stated that the
obtained opinion had constituted reasoned opinions on the merits of the applicant’s appeals and the objective of these opinions was to influence the decision of
the Insurance Court. Hence, the ECtHR concluded that it should have been for
the applicant to decide whether or not to comment on these opinions. As no such
possibility had been reserved to him by the Insurance Court, the applicant was not
able to participate properly in the proceedings.
20 Thus, there had been a violation
of Article 6 and the respondent state was obliged to pay damages to the applicant.
In the aftermath of the ECtHR’s decision, the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe invited Finland to inform it on the measures taken in
consequence with the decision. In its communication, the Government of Finland
informed the Committee that the damages had been paid to the applicant in
accordance with the decision. In addition to this, the Government accentuated
the possibility of seeking the annulment of the domestic decisions on the grounds
of violation of Article 6.
21 Although decisions of ECtHR do not cause annulment
of the domestic decisions as such, the Government’s communication shows that
they are closely followed. The ECtHR’s decision on the violation of Article 6
provides grounds for annulment within the domestic legal system. Thus, the
violation of due process can cause the decision to be set aside, and to lose its
validity because the process during which it was reached did not accommodate the
moral position adopted in the due process programme of the legal system.
Article 6 ECHR on the right to fair trial has several different elements. The
Article addresses equality of arms, the independent constitution of the court, and
publicity of the proceedings. In addition to these, the Article addresses access to
the court as well as access to enforcement. Access to enforcement is not
specifically provided for in the Convention but has been established in the case
law. The case law concerning access to enforcement depicts another different
aspect of the right to fair trial than equality of arms and adversarial proceedings,
although it does not provide any additional insight into justification beyond the
analysis of due process as law’s internal programme. Still, access to enforcement
as a part of due process benefits the objective of this study in another way,
namely for understanding private enforcement. The case law on access to
168 Three quests for justification