FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
CASE OF MANNINEN v. FINLAND
 
(Application no. 28631/05)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
14 April 2009
 
 
FINAL
 
14/07/2009
 
This judgment may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Manninen v. Finland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Nicolas Bratza, President,
 Lech Garlicki,
 Ljiljana Mijović,
 David Thór Björgvinsson,
 Ján Šikuta,
 Päivi Hirvelä,
 Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 March 2009,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 28631/05) against the Republic of Finland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Finnish national, Mr Rainer Kaarlo Tapio Manninen (“the applicant”), on 8 August 2005. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr V. Lehtevä, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3. On 4 June 2008 the President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the lack of remedies in that respect to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3). 4. The applicant and the Government each filed further written observations (Rule 59 § 1). THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Helsinki. 6. The applicant purchased a company in September 1995. The company was wound-up on its own initiative in March 1996. A criminal investigation was started in regard to the financial activities of the company in February 1997 and the applicant was questioned by the police for the first time on 21 April 1997. He was, together with two other persons, suspected of aggravated debtor’s dishonesty and false accounting in 1995 and 1996. 7. The pre-trial investigation was finalised on 26 November 1997. On 27 March 1998 the prosecutor waived prosecution due to insufficient evidence. 8. On 22 April 1998 the bankruptcy estate requested the State prosecutor to examine the previous decision not to prosecute. On 23 December 1998 the deputy State prosecutor requested the police to conduct an additional investigation without delay due to the time that had already passed since the beginning of the investigation. On 23 December 1999, the local prosecutor was ordered to bring charges against all the suspects. An additional investigation was requested. The last investigation was concluded on 13 January 2000. 9. The charges were brought against the applicant and the other defendants on 16 February 2000. The District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) dismissed all the charges on 1 March 2002. 10. Following the prosecutor’s appeal and after a two-day oral hearing, the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) convicted the applicant on 18 June 2004. He was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment. The sentence was amended for reasons of equity in view of two previous prison sentences dating from 2002 and 2004. 11. In his appeal to the Supreme Court the applicant raised the issue of the excessive length of the proceedings. The Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal on 8 February 2005. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
12. Chapter 6, Article 7, point 3, of the Penal Code (rikoslaki, strafflagen; as amended by Act No. 515/2003 which took effect on 1 January 2004) reads:
“In addition to what is provided above in section 6, grounds for mitigating the sentence that are also to be taken into consideration are ...

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation