Abstract
In this chapter, we will compare the length of proceedings in Finland and Sweden . In contrast to Sweden, one of the big problems in Finland is delays in court procedures. In fact, Finland has received many violations alleging the country has violated Article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights because of the delays, while in Sweden the same violations are far less. Interestingly, the procedural systems and main principles are almost identical in Sweden and Finland, which is grounded in a common history during an important period in the development of the Finnish legal judiciary. Therefore, it is poignant to ponder a reason for this factual difference—especially given that there does not seem to be any significant differences in resources. Our hypothesis on the main explanatory factors is that the reason might be, on one hand, in the different court culture and, on the other hand, in the recent developments in the Swedish civil litigation, the so-called more modern proceedings reform (EMR). In Finland, the recent solutions have been the new possibility to pay compensation for delays in the judicial proceedings and the possibility to request for urgent consideration of the matter. The tools used in Finland differ, therefore, from the Swedish ones. The named reasons and differences are discussed in this article.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
From 1890 on, the Russification was the prevailing policy and that era is therefore called period of oppression. The aim was to make Finland more Russian style and some exceptions were made even in the field of legislation with the result that the Finnish service protested widely and new system were not fully followed. However, these exceptions made in the field of legislation covered only some parts in legal order and the other part was still, even officially and formally, legislated by the Finnish laws only. For instance, the Code for Juridical Procedure has been valid without any breaks from 1734 on until today and still, despite of the different historical eras as a part of Sweden , autonomous part of Russia or an independent state. More information on the historical background of the Finnish civil justice in English is available for instance in Kekkonen (2009).
- 2.
However, the recent economic crisis in Europe has different effects in Sweden and in Finland due to the fact that in Finland the currency is euro, whereas in Sweden the national currency still exists.
- 3.
The search at HUDOC database (visited 2013-10-10) gives the following results: Judgments: 293 Sweden and 398 Finland . Violations of Article 6: 90 Sweden and 190 Finland. Total pending cases: 244 Finland and 194 Sweden. Applications decided: Finland in 2011 492 and in 2012 620; Sweden in 2011 2590 and in 2012 909. Applications allocated to a judicial formation: Finland, in 2011, 432 and, in 2012, 317; Sweden, in 2011, 1942 and, in 2012, 546. Based on these statistics, it is difficult to say if there are more problems in Finland or if Swedes just do not file a complaint. At least, there seems to be a huge amount of Swedish applications at least in some years even if compared with the amount of inhabitants. In addition, the Swedish applications have been decided quite rapidly, which can indicate that the cases have been rather clear and without real problems. In addition, there are double as many judgments covering Finland compared with Sweden even if the population of Finland is just 50 % of the population of Sweden. The same relation covers also violations of Article 6. The difference is almost 100 % and related to the amount of population, the difference is almost 200 %. All of that refers to the result that there is no lack of Swedish applications either but they seem to be inadmissible or otherwise clear and to be solved rapidly and they do not lead to judgments and violations that easily compared with the Finnish ones. Therefore, one possible conclusion is that the individuals from the both named countries do complain to the ECtHR but the Finnish applications are more successful, which means that there have been more problems in Finland covering fair trial and Article 6 of ECHR.
- 4.
- 5.
For a review in English, see Ministry of Justice (2012), the Swedish Judicial System, available as PDF document on www.government.se.
- 6.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2012), pp. 26–35.
- 7.
Statistics from the end of 2012, Statistics Sweden , http://www.scb.se/.
- 8.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2012), pp. 24–25.
- 9.
See, for example, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), http://www.sccinstitute.com/.
- 10.
The summary proceedings is regulated in the Act Lag (1990:746) om betalningsföreläggande och handräckning. See also inter alia Lindell (2012), pp. 135–138.
- 11.
Prop. 1951:165.
- 12.
Sporrong & Lönnroth v. Sweden , 23 September 1982, Series No. 52, p. 190 et seq., 206.
- 13.
Nergelius (2010), p. 177.
- 14.
Act (1994:1219) on the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
- 15.
Bull and Sterzel (2010), pp. 94–95.
- 16.
See section 2:19 in the constitutional act Instrument of Government [Regeringsformen (1974:152)].
- 17.
Danelius (2012), p. 39, see also NJA 2005 p. 462 and NJA 2005 p. 726, where the Supreme Court found that damages should be grounded directly on article 13 in the convention, in a case where national legislation on tort not gave the right to damages. See also RÅ 1997 ref. 65 and RÅ 2001 ref. 56 where the Supreme Administrative Court found that an authority’s decision was applicable according to article 6:1 in the convention, despite the fact that national legislation expressly stipulated that these kind of decisions where non-applicable.
- 18.
Act (1942:740).
- 19.
Prop. 1942:5, see also the Act Om införandet av nya rättegångsbalken (1946:804).
- 20.
- 21.
For a review, see Petersen, Chap. 2.
- 22.
Prop.1986/87:89 Om ett reformerat tingsrättsförfarande, p. 192. The judge can take a formal decision to adjourn the case on special grounds, see inter alia sections 49:4 and 49:11 in the Code of Judicial Procedure.
- 23.
See Hellborg v. Sweden , 28 May 2006, and The Estate of Nitschke v. Sweden, 27 December 2007, and Wassdahl v. Sweden, 6 February 2007.
- 24.
See Lilja v. Sweden , 23 January 2007.
- 25.
Webpage of the European Court of Human Rights, http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=contact&c=.
- 26.
The fourth case is Rey and others v. Sweden , 20 December 2007.
- 27.
Judgment of 30 March 2010, no. 39013/0.
- 28.
Judgment of 19 December 2006, no. 73841/01.
- 29.
Judgment of 11 October 2005, no. 59129/00.
- 30.
Section 32 in the referred case, see also mutatis mutandis Boddaert v. Belgium, judgment of 12 October 1992, Series A no. 235-D, § 38, and Pedersen and Pedersen v. Denmark, no. 68693/01, § 46, 14 October 2004.
- 31.
- 32.
Nergelius (2010), p. 315.
- 33.
Nergelius (2010), pp. 313–316.
- 34.
Decision 11 June 2013, Dnr 5465-2012.
- 35.
Decision 2 February 2007, Dnr 3626-2005.
- 36.
See §15 in the Swedish Regulation , Terms of Reference for the District Courts (Förordning med tingsrättsinstruktion (1996:381).
- 37.
According to section 11:2 of the Constitutional Act Regeringsformen (1974:152), the Swedish courts have an absolute independency. In article 6 ECHR it is emphasised that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
- 38.
JO refers to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. Recommendation No. R (94) 12 and to the Swedish Report Kommittén om domstolschefens roll och utnämningen av högre domare (SOU 2000:99).
- 39.
Prop. 2004/05:131, En modernare rättegång—reformering av processen i allmän domstol.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
See Chapter 49 § 12 in the Code of Judicial Procedure.
- 44.
- 45.
Government Bill Prop. 2004/05:131, En modernare rättegång—reformering av processen i allmän domstol, p. 1.
- 46.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2012), p. 23.
- 47.
Se Chapter 43 § 4 in the Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act, 2009:400 (offentlighets- och sekretesslagen).
- 48.
SOU 2012:93, p. 94.
- 49.
- 50.
Prop. 2004/05:131, En modernare rättegång—reformering av processen i allmän domstol, p. 95.
- 51.
See The Swedish National Courts Administration (2010), p. 17 and SOU 2012:93, p. 263.
- 52.
Meaning Informations and Communications Technology.
- 53.
See European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (2010), p. 128.
- 54.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2010), p. 18.
- 55.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2010), p. 19.
- 56.
SOU 2012:93, p. 100.
- 57.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2010), p. 20.
- 58.
See Chapter 45 § 10a in the Code of Judicial Procedure.
- 59.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2010), pp. 20–21.
- 60.
SOU 2012:93, p. 19.
- 61.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2010), p. 21.
- 62.
Prop 2004/05:131 p. 171 et seq.
- 63.
- 64.
NJA (2011), p. 843.
- 65.
SOU 2012:93, p. 13. The inquiry suggests that “the court of appeal should be able to refer a precedent case to the Supreme Court within the framework of exemption review. The Supreme Court will be able to directly examine a precedent case when the court of appeal has refused leave to appeal, in other words without the Supreme Court first granting leave to appeal in the court of appeal.” Citation on p. 21.
- 66.
SOU 2012:93, p. 19.
- 67.
SOU 2012:93, p. 241.
- 68.
SOU 2012:93, pp. 240–241.
- 69.
SOU 2012:93, p. 262.
- 70.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2012), pp. 12–14. An important factor when estimating the length of proceedings in the courts is that the Government’s goal is defined from without the 75th per centile. This implies that 75 % of the determined cases have a shorter length of proceeding than the length reported in the statistics.
- 71.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2008), p. 14.
- 72.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2012), pp. 24–25.
- 73.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2012), p. 25.
- 74.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2012), pp. 25–26.
- 75.
See the webpage of the Courts of Sweden http://www.domstol.se/.
- 76.
See the Swedish National Courts Administration (2012), pp. 28–30.
- 77.
SOU 2012:93, p. 260.
- 78.
- 79.
More information on the topic in English, for instance, in Hämäläinen (2009) and http://oikeus.fi/8108.htm, visited 10.09.2013.
- 80.
www.oikeus.fi/15954.htm, visited 8.10.2013
- 81.
OMML 16/2013, pp. 24–25.
- 82.
Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 3, Section 1.
- 83.
Before 1 January 2009, it was possible to have lay judges in some types of civil cases like in some family law matters even if in practice that composition was hardly used.
- 84.
- 85.
Section 1 in the Act of courts of appeal 281/2013, which will enter into the force on the 1 April 2014.
- 86.
OMML 16/2013, p. 25.
- 87.
Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 25a, Section 5.
- 88.
Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 25a, Section 11.
- 89.
- 90.
- 91.
Ervo (1995), pp. 56, 58 and 60.
- 92.
Leppänen (1998), p. 437.
- 93.
For a review, see Saarensola, Chap. 12.
- 94.
http://vrk.fi/default.aspx?docid=6890&site=3&id=0, visited 2013-03-18.
- 95.
http://www.scb.se/Pages/Product____25785.aspx, visited 2013-03-18.
- 96.
See Sect. 13.8.
- 97.
Professor Jyrki Virolainen has got similar results when he compared the effectivity of the courts of appeal in Finland and in Sweden . See http://jyrkivirolainen.blogspot.fi/2009/11/189-hovioikeusprosessin-uudistaminen.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 98.
For instance, the undisputed debt cases belong into the general courts jurisdiction in Finland whereas in Sweden they are decided by executive authorities. There are also differences in petitionary matters and civil cases. For instance, in Finland many family law issues are petitonary matters whereas in Sweden they are normal civil cases. The Swedish statistics do not cover even bankruptcy cases, which are included in the Finnish statistics. Therefore, the statistics are not comparable as such. Due to the economic crisis the amount of debt cases has become much higher and therefore the total amount of civil cases is higher than before. In Finland those debt cases belong into the jurisdiction of general courts, whereas in Sweden the executive authorities take care of them. This is the main reason which makes comparisons between statistics difficult. Sixty-four per cent of Finnish civil cases were namely debt cases even if not all of them undisputed ones. Therefore, most of the Finnish civil cases belong to the executive authorities in Sweden. About statistics see http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/koikrs/2012/koikrs_2012_2013-04-02_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 99.
- 100.
http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/koikrs/2012/koikrs_2012_2013-04-02_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 101.
tilastokeskus.fi/til/koikrs/2012/koikrs_2012_2013-04-02_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 102.
tilastokeskus.fi/til/koikrs/2012/koikrs_2012_2013-04-02_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 103.
tilastokeskus.fi/til/koikrs/2012/koikrs_2012_2013-04-02_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 104.
http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/hovoikr/2012/hovoikr_2012_2013-06-28_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 105.
tilastokeskus.fi/til/hovoikr/2012/hovoikr_2012_2013-06-28_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 106.
tilastokeskus.fi/til/hovoikr/2012/hovoikr_2012_2013-06-28_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 107.
tilastokeskus.fi/til/hovoikr/2012/hovoikr_2012_2013-06-28_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 108.
tilastokeskus.fi/til/hovoikr/2012/hovoikr_2012_2013-06-28_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 109.
tilastokeskus.fi/til/hovoikr/2012/hovoikr_2012_2013-06-28_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09.
- 110.
For instance, Spolander has written on the reasonable time as part of the development on procedural human rights as such. See Spolander (2007), pp. 21–88.
- 111.
- 112.
- 113.
See Väätänen (2011).
- 114.
See Ervo (2004), pp. 22–28.
- 115.
- 116.
See Määttä (2013), p. 61.
- 117.
See the Sect. 13.14.
- 118.
The system is very similar to Sweden . See Sect. 13.6.
- 119.
Parliamentary Ombudsman of Finland , The Summary of Annual Report 2011, p. 23. Available on the web: http://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/dman/Document.phx?documentId=in29012125858656&cmd=download, visited 23.01.2013.
- 120.
http://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/Resource.phx/eoa/kantelu/kenesta.htx, visited 2013-10-09.
- 121.
More information in Husa (2002).
- 122.
http://www.okv.fi/fi/ratkaisut/, visited 2013-10-09.
- 123.
PeVM 14/2006 vp. and PeVM 16/2006 vp. The Committee discussed already that time the problem deeply and heard experts—among the others the author of this article—widely in four sessions.
- 124.
Määttä (2013), pp. 60–61 and the Statement of the Ministry for Foreign Affaires 21.10.2009.
- 125.
See Sippel, Chap. 10.
- 126.
The English information can be found of the web: http://oikeus.fi/54440.htm, visited 2013-10-10.
- 127.
- 128.
The Act on Compensation for the Excessive Length of Judicial Proceedings, Sections 4 and 7 as well as http://oikeus.fi/54440.htm, visited 2013-10-10.
- 129.
The Act on Compensation for the Excessive Length of Judicial Proceedings, Section 6 as well as http://oikeus.fi/54440.htm, visited 2013-10-10.
- 130.
The Code for Judicial Procedure, Chapter 19 and http://oikeus.fi/54440.htm, visited 2013-10-10.
- 131.
Niskanen–Ahonen–Laitinen (2000), pp. 103–108.
- 132.
OMML 69/2012, p. 9.
- 133.
OMML 16/2013, p. 12.
- 134.
In 2006, it has been suggested to intensify the Finnish civil proceedings by adopting a discovery system and by intensifying the pre-trial level even by other means. The third proposal made by prof. Virolainen that time was not to accept the time-based invoices by attorneys any longer but to legislate a limit for their fees by maximum rates for different legal actions. Virolainen (2006), pp. 581–583. However, these proposals did not cause further discussion among Finnish legislator or legal literature.
References
Autio A-L (2014) Lainkäytän asema ja saatavuus yritysten riidanratkaisussa. Lakimiesliiton Kustannus
Bull T, Sterzel F (2010) Regeringsformen: en kommentar. SNS Färlag, Stockholm
Danelius H (2012) Mänskliga rättigheter i europeisk praxis: en kommentar till Europakonventionen om de mänskliga rättigheterna. Norstedts Juridik, Stockholm
Ekeläf PO et al (2011) Rättegång, femte häftet. Norstedts Juridik, Stockholm
Ekroth J (2001) JO-ämbetet – en offentligrättslig studie
Ervo L (1995) The reform of civil procedure in Finland . Civil Justice Q (January) 56–64
Ervo L (2004) Suomalaisen prosessin kompastuskivet Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen oikeuskäytännässä. In: Juhlajulkaisu Antti Jokela 60 vuotta. Turun yliopisto 2004, pp 11–29
Ervo L (2007) Scandinavian trends in civil pre-trial proceedings. Civil Justice Q (October) 466–483
Ervo L (2009) The characteristics of procedure. In: Finnish Civil Justice. Jigakusha, pp 55–100
European judicial systems CEPEJ (2012). Available on the web: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/2012/Rapport_en.pdf, visited 2013-10-10
http://oikeus.fi/54440.htm, visited 2013-10-10
http://oikeus.fi/8108.htm, visited 2013-10-09
http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/hovoikr/2012/hovoikr_2012_2013-06-28_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09
http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/koikrs/2012/koikrs_2012_2013-04-02_tie_001_fi.html, visited 2013-10-09
http://www.oikeus.fi/15954.htm, visited 2013-10-08
http://www.oikeusasiamies.fi/Resource.phx/eoa/kantelu/kenesta.htx, visited 2013-10-09
http://www.oikeusministerio.fi/fi/index/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet/2013/05/oikeudenkaynninviivastyminenvoidaankesakuunalustalahtienhyvittaamyoshallintotuomioistuimissa.html, visited 2013-10-10
http://www.okv.fi/fi/ratkaisut/, visited 2013-10-09
Hämäläinen M (2009) Court system. In: Finnish civil justice, vol 2. Nagoya University Comparative Study of Civil Justice, Jigakusha, pp 17–32
Husa J (2002) Oikeusasiamies käsittelyn joutuisuuden valvojana. Lakimies 3/2002, pp 352–376
Kastula T (2009) Rikosasioiden kohtuullinen käsittelyaika ja rikosoikeudenkäyntien viivästymistä vastaan olevat tehokkaat oikeussuojakeinot – erityisesti Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen ja ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen oikeuskäytännän valossa. Available on the web: http://www.edilex.fi.ezproxy.utu.fi:2048/lakimies/1503.pdf, visited 2013-10-15
Kekkonen J (2009) Roots of civil procedure in Finland from the point of view of modernity. In: Finnish Civil Justice. Nagoya University Comparative Study of Civil Justice vol 2. Jigakusha 2009, pp 3–16
Leppänen T (1998) Riita-asiain valmistelu todistusaineiston osalta. Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys, Helsinki
Levén S, Wersäll F(2011) En modernare rättegång – hur har det gått? SvJT 2011, pp 18–31
Lindell B (2012) Civilprocessen – rättegång samt skiljefärfarande och medling. Iustus färlag, Uppsala
Määttä P (2013) Rikosasian joutuisa käsittely. Lakimiesliiton Kustannus
Ministry of Justice (2012) The Swedish Judicial System. Stockholm
Nergelius J (2010) Svensk statsrätt. Studentlitteratur, Lund
Niskanen, Hannu – Ahonen, Timo - Laitinen, Ahti (2000) Suomalaisten luottamus tuomioistuimiin. Turun yliopisto
OMML 16/2013 Oikeudenhoidon uudistamisohjelma vuosille 2013 –2025. Oikeusministeriä
OMML 69/2012 Todistelu yleisissä tuomioistuimissa. Oikeusministeriä
PeVM 14/2006 vp – K 15/2005 vp Perustuslakivaliokunnan mietintä Valtioneuvoston oikeuskanslerin kertomuksesta oikeuskanslerin virkatoimista ja lain noudattamista koskevista havainnoista vuodelta 2004
PeVM 16/2006 vp – K 9/2005 vp Perustuslakivaliokunnan mietintä Eduskunnan oikeusasiamiehen kertomuksesta vuodelta 2004
Prop. 1942:5 Färslag till ny rättegångsbalk
Prop. 1986/87:89 Om ett reformerat tingsrättsfärfarande
Prop. 2004/05:131, En modernare rättegång – reformering av processen i allmän domstol
SOU 2000:99 Kommittén om domstolschefens roll och utnämningen av hägre domare
SOU 2012:93, En modernare rättegång – en uppfäljning, del 2
Spolander MM (2007) Menettelyn joutuisuus oikeudenmukaisen rikosoikeudenkäynnin osatekijänä. Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys
Swedish National Courts Administration (2008) Årsredovisning 2008, Jänkäping
Swedish National Courts Administration (2012) Årsredovisning 2012, Jänkäping
Väätänen U (2011) Oikein ja joutuisasti. Joutuisuus hyvän hallinnon ja oikeusturvan takeena hallintotoiminnassa. Lakimiesliiton Kustannus
Virolainen J (2006) Prosessin pitkittymisen syistä, seurauksista ja ehkäisykeinoista. Defensor Legis 4/2006, pp 567–587
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ervo, L., Dahlqvist, A. (2014). Delays in Civil Proceedings: Comparative Studies Between Finland and Sweden . In: Ervo, L., Nylund, A. (eds) The Future of Civil Litigation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04465-1_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04465-1_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04464-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04465-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)