Jokela v Finland: ECHR 21 May 2002

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of P1-1; No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to witnesses; No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to reasons for decision; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award
‘Although Article 1 of Protocol 1 contains no explicit procedural requirement, the proceedings at issue must also afford the individual a reasonable opportunity of putting his or her case to the responsible authorities for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures interfering with the rights guaranteed by this provision. In ascertaining whether this provision has been satisfied a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures’.


45, ECHR 2002-IV, 28856/95, [2002] ECHR 452, [2002] ECHR 456, [2003] 37 EHRR 26


Worldlii, Bailii


European Convention on Human Rights 1


Human Rights


See AlsoJokela v Finland ECHR 5-Oct-2000
. .

Cited by:

CitedJ A Pye (Oxford) Ltd v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-2005
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
CitedBank Mellat v HM Treasury QBD 11-Jun-2010
The respondent had made an order under the Regulations restricting all persons from dealing with the the claimant bank. The bank applied to have the order set aside. Though the defendant originally believed that the Iranian government owned 80% of . .
CitedBank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) SC 19-Jun-2013
The bank challenged measures taken by HM Treasury to restrict access to the United Kingdom’s financial markets by a major Iranian commercial bank, Bank Mellat, on the account of its alleged connection with Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.171298