Seppo Hyökki

OPEN LETTER





To members of the Nobel committee



I very strongly oppose the election of former president of Finland, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, for a Nobel nominee. My reasons are the following.



My opposal is a very strong protest against the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, given by Fourth Section 7.11.2000 (Application nro 48998/99, Seppo Hyökki versus Finland). The decision was made by a committee that unanimously rejected my demands. I also doubt the ability of the Finnish legal advisors in the European Court of Human Rights to give sufficient information for the English translation as the material was very wide. The other alternative is that the translations were incomplete on purpose. I think it is a very strong violation against the Convention on Human Rights, that the decision also deprived me any future court proceedings regarding this case. The decision also stole me a human compensation for the last 15 years, that were very hard. During these year I had no chance to have any kind of holiday, neither in the summertime or in the winter. Also my family has had to give up almost all normal activities because of this, and we haven't been able to take our children to see their grandmother in Hungary. My children are 9, 12, and 13 years old.



The committee was composed of the following persons:



Mr A. Pastor Fidruejo, President,

Mr J. Makarczyk,

Mr V. Butkevych, judges,

And Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar



The committee gave the following decision.




EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS



FOURTH SECTION



DECISION



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF



Application no. 48998/99

by Seppo HYÖKKI

against Finland



The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of



Mr A. Pastor Fidruejo, President,

Mr J. Makarczyk,

Mr V. Butkevych, judges,

And Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar



Delivered the following unanimous decision on 7 November 2000:



The Court has examined the application and has noted that the applicant has been informed of the possible obstacles to its admissibility. In the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that the application must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.



Accordingly, the Court



Declares the application inadmissible.



Vincent Berger Antonio Pastor Ridruejo

Registrar President





I am of the opinion that this decision given by the above judges is discriminating, as I applied against the operation of the Finnish legislature; the parliament, the government and the president (the president of Finland being Mr. Martti Ahtisaari at that time). President Ahtisaari accepted and confirmed the law regarding persons withing the public health service on 15 June 1994. According this law, for example a midwife or a nurse can practise as a chiropractor, but I was left out of this registration despite of my professional skills. This caused the fact that daily discrimination can continue freely on all fronts. The preparation of this law during years 1985-1994 in the Finnish parliament and in different committees got quite farcical and dramatic as all possible political instances and spheres of interest tried to influence the contents of the law. It was certainly already then known that Martti Ahtisaari would be a future Nobel nominee. If the president of Finland had been prosecuted in the European Court of Human Rights in November 2000, the trial would certainly have lasted until year 2001 or 2002. If this case had been proceeded in court, the position of president Ahtisaari as the confirmer of the law would have been strange and questionable. However, this was consciously prevented by the above mentioned gentlemen with their decision. Thus, the reputation of president Ahtisaari was in all respects clean the Nobel nomination.



My case is about being discriminated during the last 28 years, and the discrimination is still continued by the Finnish Chiropractor Association and its certified chiropractors. I have gathered a large material of this discrimination. The material consists of approx. 5 kg of official documents and clarifications. This material has been given to the European Court of Human Rights for handling. It is very suprising that this wide and versatile material, that clearly proved discrimination against practicing my profession, was not handled in the European Court of Human Rights. I have considered this afterwards from many points of view with the result that potential nomination of president Ahtisaari was the reason for not handling my case.



The following is a quotation from my application to the European Court of Human Rights on 30 March 1999. The quotation consists of the most crucial arguments in the application. (This text is my own translation from the Finnish original, not an official translation.)



(Why I applied against the president: Mr. Martti Ahtisaari was the president of Finland at the time when Finland accepted the law of persons within health service. This law put me to an unequal position compared to other chiropractors.)



STATEMENT OF THE FACTS



14.


Application against the operation of the Finnish legislature; parliament, government and president



The Finnish legislature has broken against the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 14 and 17 including economical, social and civil rights, that guarantee rights concerning e.g. work, livelihood and education, by preparing and accepting a law and statute on competent persons within health service. By accepting this law, they have discriminated against me by preventing me from practicing my profession as a registrated chiropractos.



In addition to this, this law put me into an unequal position as an entrepreneur compared to registrated entrepreneurs within health service regarding compensations for treatment fees supported by the state. At the same time, the law ordained a determining market position for only certain professionals who have certificated abroad.



Ministry of Health and Security and Center of Legal Protection within Public Health Service



have broken the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 14 and 17, by purposefully preventing me from practicing my profession as a registrated chiropractor and masseur, and by practicing conscious discrimination by preventing me from participating in a professional test enabled by law in order to measure my professional skills. As I appealed to the Supreme Court for their operation, they refused to supply evidence to the court and thus committing a breach of the personal register law.



These authorities have also allowed a public abuse against me by other, both political and religious groups as well as mass media.


Ministry of Education



has practiced discrimination, pressed by the above mentioned authorities, by denying my access to educational establishments it supervises, such as the Health Service School in Helsinki and the Adults' Occupational Educational Establishment in Turku. The Ministry of Education also failed to follow its own rules regarding certificating in exceptional circumstances.


The Supreme Administrative Court



has mostly failed to investigate this case despite of the wide, explicit evidence. The Supreme Administrative Court proceeded faultily as I requested for the presenter's memorandum on 21 September 1998. In its negative statement the Supreme Administrative Court interprets a law that does not concern the Supreme Administrative Court. My request for the presenter's memorandum was renewed on 7 January 1999. By this date, this case has not been heard.



(Remark to the above: The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court are not based on the law, but only the interpretation of the law.)



The decision of



the Market Court



will enable discrimination in mass media also in the future. The decision is important in the respect that it does not clearly judge abusive writings but puts me to a very discriminated position as a professional.



STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATION(S) OF THE CONVENTION AND/OR PROTOCOLS AND OF RELEVANT ARGUMENTS



15. See the violations against the Convention as stated on the preceeding page



Based on these, I am of the opinion that at least my rights protected in Articles 6 and 14 in the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated. I am of the opinion that preventing me from practicing my profession and hindering it are against regulations given for protection of property in Article 1 in additional record 1.



I am of the opinion that my right to practice my profession is to be seen as a 'civil right' referred to in Article 6.



The authority and court proceedings have not followed the minimum regulations guaranteed to protect a fair trial as stated in Article 6. I have not been informed of the reasons for the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court as 'fair trial' requires. The negotiation and presentation memoranda of the Supreme Administrative Court should no be kept in secret from the party concerned. Concealing the presenter's memoranda and comparable documents, that precede court decisions and explain reasons for these decisions, has not been prescribed by law, and neither is there any other acceptable reason to keep them in secret when it comes to human rights. The negotiation secret is mentioned in the judicial oath, which states not to express "those negotiations that the Court proceeds behind closed doors." This text included in the oath is not a specific and explicit regulation by law, and its wording cannot be seen to regard such written judgment arguments that the presenter's memoranda and comparable documents include. Concealment of deliberations in general courts has not been properly regulated by law, and even less concealment of memoranda that include crucial reasons for decisions and that have in this case been drawn up when solving the case in an administrative court. The procedure is above all against the publicity principle in Article 6 and it enables an arbitrary decision procedure. It is also in conflict with the principle of impartiality and independence of courts. The procedure in its entirety expresses such unequal treatment with no grounds that has to regardes as discrimination as stated in Article 14.



I am also suprised by the judges' decision that the decision for my application is final and is not subject to any appeal either to the Court or to any other body. I would certainly have continued by taking my case to an official court in the European Union, in which they would certainly have proceeded it at my own expense. Thus I would have got a fair trial for my case. This decision also means that the huge work that I have been doing for the last 20 years for my case has proven useless and that the wide discrimination can still continue.



If needed, I will give you wide and versatile additional information on this matter.







Helsinki, 22 September 2001



Yours Sincerely,





Seppo Hyökki