User:Nicole4325/sandbox

Case Summary
The case of M.P. v. Finland was a decisions made by The European Court of Human Rights on December 15, 2016. It originated in an application against the Republic of Finland under Article 34 of the Convention for the protections of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by two Finnish nationals, Ms. M.P. and her minor daughter E.B. (whose names did not want to be disclosed) on June 3, 2012 (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). Ms. M.P., the mother of the applicant, claimed that her freedom of expression had been “violated as she had been convicted of defamation for having expressed concerns about her daughter” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). M.P. v. Finland is a case about a couple who has a child, and later on in the relationship, the mother finds that their child did not want to stay home alone with the father, and when she did, she behaved strangely. In May 2006, M.P. and her daughter left the father for their own safety, and the fight over custody rights began. As a result, the court holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland).

Background of the Case
In 2003, M.P. and her partner began to have relations, and in November of 2004, their daughter was born. However, in the Spring of 2006, the mother noticed that when the daughter was left alone with her father, she would begin acting strangely and never wanted to stay home alone with him. After this observation along with M.P. noticing that her daughter’s father was acting violent, M.P. decided that her and her daughter’s safety were in danger and they moved out (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland).

A.  First Proceedings Regarding Custody and Contact Rights

In July 2006, E.P.’s father filed for custody and contact rights over his daughter. In August, the Kouvola District Court “gave an interim decision that the father was to meet his daughter for two hours every weekend under supervision” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). While this was taking place, the mother was noticing that her child was talking strangely after each of the meetings with her father. Then, on June 15, 2007, the Kouvola District Court gave another interim decision making it that the father could now meet his daughter for two to four hours without supervision. After many hearings and controversies, the Kouvola District Court granted both of the parent’s joint custody of the child on September 4, 2007. “She was to live with her mother and meet her father every other weekend from Friday to Sunday and during the holidays, unsupervised” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland).     

B.  First Instance with Child Welfare Authorities and Police

In August 2007, M.P. claimed that her daughter’s attitude and behavior had drastically changed; her daughter was using vulgar language, had anxiety, and told her mother about bad things her father had done to her during their visits. After repetitive counts of bad nightmares and changed behavior, the mother decided to contact a child psychiatrist, and later child welfare authorities in Helsinki reporting “her suspicions of sexual abuse” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). On August 29, 2007, close to a week after the report was made, the child welfare authorities brought this to the police, and recommended that E.P.’s meetings with her father be discontinued for the extent of the investigation.

C.  Pre-Trial Investigation

On September 5, 2007, the Helsinki Police Department started their pre-trial investigation on the case. Both parents were questioned and nine days later, the Forensic Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Centre received the official request to assist the Helsinki Police Department (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). However, since the child was only two years and ten months old, the Centre told the Helsinki Police Department that children under the age of three could not be interviewed because it would not be possible to obtain reliable information on possible sexual abuse from a child at that young of an age. Later in the month, a physiological exam took place to find out if the child showed any signs or symptoms of the abuse, but it was later concluded that nothing was found. The pre-trial investigation was concluded on October 15, 2007 because there was no evidence of any crime committed. However, during a phone conversation on October 19, 2007, M.P. expressed her fear that her child would continue to be at risk, and she filed another report to the child welfare authorities stating that “she had been threatened with loss of her custody rights if she did not allow the meetings with the father” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland).

D.  Applicants Complaints

Following the numerous other reports to the child welfare authorities and the police, M.P. filed a complaint on February 18, 2008 with the National Authority for Medico-legal Affairs over the fact that her daughter had not been heard at all during the pre-trial investigation (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). Finally, after numerous complaints, on November 24, 2008, “the regional State Provincial Office found that there was no minimum age for hearing a child and that the three-year age-limit for child psychiatric interviews was only a recommendation” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). However, at the time of the first police investigation, the child had only been two years and ten months old, and since no new physical examination had been performed during the second pre-trial investigation, the Office decided to make no further action in M.P.’s case (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland).

E.  Defamation Proceedings

On an unspecified date during the proceedings, the father had asked for further investigation on whether the applicant, M.P., had attacked him and lied to the social worker that he had sexually abused their child. The father claims that these lies and allegations were made due to the fact that M.P. wanted sole custody over their child (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). On February 17, 2009, the Public Prosecutor began pressing charges against M.P. for insisting that on October 19, 2007, her child was in danger of being sexually abused by the father, even after the police had already investigated and found no evidence of crime (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). On September 11, 2009, “the Helsinki District Court convicted the applicant of defamation and sentenced her to 45 day-fines, amounting to 630 euros” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). In addition, she was ordered to pay the father around 1,885.66 euros because M.P. defamed her child’s father, and continued to make assumptions and allegations after the investigations reported no evidence of sexual abuse (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). However, on October 12, 2009, the applicant made an appeal to the Helsinki Appeal Court, claiming that she only “voiced her previous concern as the child was not heard at all during the concluded pre-trial investigation” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). She goes on to explain how her actions were not intended to be directed towards the father, but they were directed at the fact that the child’s health was still in danger. It was the child welfare authorities who turned M.P.’s concerns into sexual abuse claims, but, “sexual abuse does not always leave physical marks which could be revealed by medical examination, and it was a grave procedural mistake not to interview the child during the pre-trial investigation” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). In her appeal, she makes reference to the case Juppala v. Finland from 2008.

Case Summary of Juppala v. Finland
The case of Juppala v. Finland in which M.P. made reference to in her court appeal, had a lot of similarities to M.P. v. Finland, in a sense. On July 20, 2009, the applicant took her daughter’s three-year-old son (her grandson) to the doctor. According to the Doctors reports, the applicant had taken her grandson to the doctors because she had noticed a bruise on his back, and she noticed that his behavior was a lot different since he had visited his father (HUDOC Juppala v. Finland). It was written in the report that the boy had told the applicant that the bruise was in fact caused by a punch, and the doctor noted that the bruise was consistent with a punch (HUDOC Juppala v. Finland). In August, the father requested an investigation on whether the applicant had committed an offence by accusing him of hitting his son and further requested the police to investigate whether the applicant had committed an offence by taking the boy to the doctor (HUDOC Juppala v. Finland). In May the following year, the father claimed compensation from the applicant for “non-pecuniary damage amounting to 10,000 Finish marks” (HUDOC Juppala v. Finland). One of the judges, on August 24, 2001, found the applicant guilty of defamation since there was no reasonable grounds to support the claim that the father had struck his child. In the end, the applicant claims that her rights from Article 10 of the Convention had been violated because she had been found “guilty of defamation even though she had merely honestly voiced her impression of the causes of her grandchild’s bruises to the doctor, who was bound to professional secrecy” (HUDOC Juppala v. Finland). The court unanimously declared the application admissible and holds that there had been a violation of Article 10 if the Convention (HUDOC Juppala v. Finland).

A.  Second Set of Proceedings
After a request from the father for his child to live with him on March 18, 2010, the Helsinki District Court ordered this to happen on January 25, 2011. However, this decision was later up help by the Helsinki Appeal Court in December of 2011. The most recent administrative appeal took place on August 3, 2012, when the “National Police Board found that police conduct in the matter had been appropriate, and that the police had conducted an adequate pre-trial investigation without leaving any issues unclarified” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland).

The Law
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that:
 * 1) "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. The Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
 * 2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.” (European Convention on Human Rights, page 11).          

The applicant complained that under Article 10, her freedom of expression was violated, and the Government contested that argument. M.P. argued that she had been convicted on the basis of one phone conversation with a social worker on October 19, 2007, for something that was a duty in Finland, not a crime (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). M.P. made reference again to the case of Juppala v. Finland by stating that she had a greater duty to protect her child, than the grandmother had in the Juppala case, because according to the Finnish law, “a parent has the duty to protect a child who is in their custody” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). Since the social authorities were the ones who made the first report to the police, the applicant had the right to question the continuation of the case, after her child was not heard (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). The applicant could not have committed a crime by doing something that was considered her duty, therefore, her right to freedom of expression had been violated when she was accused and convicted of defamation (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland).

A. The Government
The Government found it uncontested that M.P.’s conviction for defamation interfered with her right of freedom of expression. The Government had also noted that, according to the Appeal Court, the applicant did not present any evidence showing that what she disclosed to the child welfare authorities about the child’s father was true. In addition, the Government argued that M.P. v. Finland differed greatly from Juppala v. Finland, the case that the applicant continuously referred back to, because in that case, the applicant had clearly seen a bruise on the child’s body, whereas in the present case, there were no veritable signs and symptoms supporting her allegations (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland).

A.  The Court’s Assessment         

The Court accepted the fact that the applicant’s criminal conviction was based on a reasonable interpretation of the Penal Code, “and that interference was thus prescribed by law” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). It had also pursued the aim of protecting the private life and reputation of the child and the father, and therefore was considered “necessary in a democratic society for the achievement of a legitimate aim and if it answers a pressing social need and, in particular, if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and if the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). This case called into consideration the need to safeguard children from abusive parents, and the need to protect these parents from the unwarranted interference with their right to respect for their private lives (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). The Court could not overlook the fact that in M.P. v. Finland, the applicant did not have a sufficient factual basis for allegations of criminal conduct by the child’s father (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). In addition, The Court could not disregard the fact that the applicant’s allegations had been raised while the fight over custody rights was going on. However, the Court took into account that the criminal charge against the applicant was based solely on statements made in one phone conversation with an official of the child welfare services, who was sworn to professional secrecy, and, while the charge and conviction were based on evidence of an unsubstantial allegation that the child was at risk of being sexually abused by the father, the evidence that was recorded confirmed that the applicant expressed her concern that the pre-trial investigation  had been inadequate since the child was too young to be interviewed (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). In the case, the “context of the interference with the applicant’s Article 10 rights was the confidential phone conversation with the public official” (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland).

Final Proceedings
         The applicant claimed 43,182.49 euros in respect of pecuniary damage, in addition to the 30,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland). The Court unanimously declared the complaint concerning Article 10 of the Convention admissible, and held that there was a violation of Article 10 of the Convention (HUDOC M.P. v. Finland).