Aho v. Finland

Mr. Pentti Aho, a smoker who died from cancer of the larynx, filed suit against two tobacco companies claiming compensation for the cancer caused by smoking cigarettes. He based his claim on false and illegal marketing and on violations of a ban on selling harmful products. The District Court ruled that because the selling of tobacco was not prohibited, the sale of the product itself did not give rise to liability for damages. Further, noting plaintiff’s awareness of tobacco-related health issues, the District Court held that the marketing of tobacco products could not give rise to liability for damages. Mr. Aho appealed. The Court of Appeals rejected the case, but observed that the tobacco companies had sought to mislead customers by failing to inform them of the possible detrimental effects of tobacco on health. Mr. Aho, however, could not receive any damages for the tobacco companies’ negligence because the Court did not find a causal link between smoking and the damage alleged. After another appeal, the Supreme Court found that there was a causal link between smoking and the damage alleged, but it did not find a causal link between the damage and the tobacco companies’ marketing activity.

Family members of the deceased Mr. Aho later sued Finland claiming that the length of the proceedings had constituted inhumane and degrading treatment.  Further, they claim that that the criminal justice system had failed to prosecute and convict the perpetrators, thereby violating Mr. Aho’s right to life.  The Court found no violation.

Aho v. Finland, No. 2511/02, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) (2007).

  • Finland
  • Oct 16, 2007
  • The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section)
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Asko Aho
  • Pentti Aho
  • Taimi Aho

Defendant Finland

Legislation Cited

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"The Court has examined above the length complaint under Article 6 and it finds that it does not raise any issue under Article 3 of the Convention. It follows that this aspect of the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. As to the complaints lodged on 11 January 2002, the Court notes that the final domestic decision for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention was given on 7 June 2001 which is more than six months before these complaints were raised. It follows that they have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. As regards the private prosecution against the management of the tobacco companies, the applicants complained, under Article 2, that the criminal justice system had failed to prosecute and to convict the perpetrators, thereby violating Mr Pentti Aho’s right to life. They also complained, under Article 6 § 1, that the Supreme Court had failed to give reasons when refusing leave to appeal. Further, Judge Y, who had been strongly criticised by counsel A. in relation to another case, took part in the decision-making. Moreover, ordering them to pay the other parties’ legal costs and the fact that it took the Court of Appeal six years to examine and partly grant her application for cost-free counsel rendered the trial unfair. They also relied on Article 6 § 3(d). They furthermore complained, under Article 13, that they had been denied justice on the above-mentioned grounds. Lastly, they complained, under Article 3, that the lengthy proceedings, having regard in particular to Mr Pentti Aho’s cancer, had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. The Court notes that the complaints made under Article 6 are incompatible ratione materiae(see paragraph 42 above). As to the remaining complaints concerning these proceedings, the Court finds no indication of any violations in the particular circumstances of this case. It follows that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention."