EIT: Kuulopuhetodistelun hyödyntäminen ei tehnyt asfalttikartellijutusta epäoikeudenmukaista

EIT huomioi, ettei välillisellä näytöllä ollut ratkaisevaa merkitystä korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden ratkaisussa. Pauliine Koskelo jätti täydentävän lausuman jossa arvioi syytetyn vähimmäisoikeuksia hallinnollisesta sanktiosta päätettäessä.

In Chamber judgment in the case of SA-Capital Oy v. Finland (application no. 5556/10) the
European Court of Human Rights, unanimously, held that there had been:

• no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and,
• rejected as inadmissible complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair hearing/presumption of innocence).

The case concerned the applicant company’s complaint that Finland’s Supreme Administrative Court had relied on hearsay evidence about its role in an asphalt cartel and had increased a fine on it. The Court found that the Supreme Administrative Court, which had been dealing with the case on appeal from a first-instance judgment, had had plentiful evidence of the company’s involvement in the cartel and that the indirect, hearsay evidence had not been conclusive.
Given the complex nature of competition cases, the way in which the domestic court had gathered evidence from witnesses had been appropriate and the applicant company had been able to test those submissions.

Click here to download the press release