The actions of the State of Finland in the matter of Malmi Airport taken to European Court of Human Rights

Seppo SipiläNews archive

Friends of Malmi Airport Association (FoMA) has on 8 April 2019 filed a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights against the actions of the State of Finland in processing the matter of Malmi Airport. The complaint concerns the infringements of the basic rights of the association and its members in the administrative court proceedings related to the General Plan of Helsinki.

The first argument of the complaint is Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to a fair trial. A major part of the Association’s complaint against the General Plan of Helsinki was left aside altogether in Administrative Court. This omission was appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which approved the complaint but still left the matter unprocessed as a whole. The omitted arguments were significant to the Association’s case.

In addition, FoMA has complained about the lack of publicity of the court documents related to its case. The Association has requested the presentation memoranda related to its court case. The Supreme Administrative Court has denied the request based on the Association not being a litigant, even though the Association is the actual plaintiff and has pursued its purpose according to its constitution.

Denying access to the documents is in violation of the right to be reciprocally informed about one’s case as defined in the Human Rights Convention’s Article 6, and the right to an effective remedy as defined in Article 13. The purpose of the Association, according to its constitution, is specifically related to the matter under complaint: advancing the preservation of Malmi Airport. The Association is indisputably a litigant in its own matter.

Thirdly, the Association has complained about the violation of the principle of equality in processing cultural values. The Supreme Administrative Court has ruled against the statement of Heritage Finland, the Finnish heritage authority, and contrary to all other cultural value assessments applied expediency consideration, which is neither its job nor under its jurisdiction.