Paluu media-sivulle.

Declaration of VOT ry (now, Vakuutusongelmaisten liitto ry) to be used freely in the media.

Subject: MISTREATMENT OF THE APPLICANTS OF DISABILITY PENSION IN FINLAND WHICH IS AGAINST AGREEMENT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

The President of the Republic of Finland Martti Ahtisaari is known around the world as a skilful and just peace negotiator, but in his native country the citizens who have been disabled are treated unjustly and inhumanely in matters concerning pensions. As the most important goal for the Finnish Chairmanship of the European Union (beginning from 1.7.1999), the Prime Minister of Finland Paavo Lipponen set the following of the human rights of Europe. How can Finland require this from other countries of Europe when Finland does not follow the Agreement of Human Rights when estimating disabilities.

The Finnish government has made has made a reservation concerning article 6 paragraph 1 of the general agreement article 64 applying to oral handling. The reservation has in practice denied from innumerable citizens the right to oral hearing. This reservation for the oral hearing has been removed on 1.4.1999, just before the  Finnish Chairmanship of the European Union began. According to article 6 of the Agreement on Human Rights of Europe, which obliges Finland, everyone has a right to a fair and public trial in an independent and impartial court. This so-called "fair trial-principle” must also be followed in decisions concerning pensions, which can be compared whith court decisions. The European Court of Human Rights has in its decisions concerning the fair  trial-principle emphasised that ” justice must not only be done; it must also be seen to be done” (Publications of The European Court of Human Rights 11 ).

In Finland the compulsory accident insurance’s and disability insurance’s, in other words the social insurance’s are handled through private insurance companies which make profit. The pension insurance companies control their own business interests and make their own decisions concerning the liability to pay based on the law. The position of the pension insurance companies is conflicting.

The insurance doctors, protected by the law, earn considerable rewards working for the pension insurance companies, without having obligations to make the medical reasons know. Medical- insurance has no special status in Europe, but in Finland it has raised itself to such a high position, that in an individual case it is more surely correct than other medical experts. The decision-making process of the pension institutes puts some citizens to unequal positions.

In the late 80's and early 90's people had their disability pensions settled usually without problems. When the economic situation weakened in Finland in the 1990's the pension criteria tightened, without any tightening in the legislation itself.

During the past few years pension institutions decisions, in which the pension is rejected against an independent doctors supporting statement, have become increasingly more common common. In numerous cases where pension has been rejected, the applicant for pension has delivered statements of specialised doctors that support his or hers application. The private pension insurance companies have gained a position that has been extremely emphasised and their decisions can be compared with the decisions of courts. In cases where the application has been rejected the applicant can not have any information why his or hers application has been rejected. No medical  or other reasons. A statement given by a doctor acting as a member of court has been seen to be a part of a negotiation which must be kept secret on basis of the legal proceedings chapter 1 paragraph 7. The applicant for pension has no right to receive information concerning him- or herself, even with the permission of an authority.

It will thus be extremely difficult for the pension applicant to appeal to the following appellate level about the rejection decisions, because he has to guess on what grounds the rejection was made. When making an appeal about the decision of the pension institution to the court, the pension institutions obtain more statements from the National Board of Medicolegal Affairs and others, where the same doctors that work for the pension institutions write the statements. These doctors never get to see the applicants. The same, apparently challengeable insurance doctors with their statements, are representatives of different institutions during the whole process. This is in Finland the "way of the country”. It is questionable if justice is done.

For the citizens' protection under the law in such important decisions, according to which the applicant for pension is able to work, the statements and decisions should be clearly justified. Even the insurance court has no obligation to provide arguments for its decisions and when justifying its decisions it can make a reference to the decision of a lower court.

In Finland the disability pensions are processed in the insurance court, which has systematically rejected the oral hearing demanded by the citizens, in spite of the conflicting statements. The insurance court has thus denied from the disabled citizen the right to bring the doctors who have examined him to testify in a court hearing.

The insurance court does not always give to the patient the new and important documents provided by the pension institutes. In doing so the insurance court hides material which is significant to the citizen. When a party does not know what is said about him, he can't give a deposition to the court. There are innumerable cases in which an accidentally disabled person hasn't gotten his case processed in the reasonable time required by the 6th article 1st paragraph of the human rights convention. The process with all the separate phases could have lasted from three to seven years.

Many people whose application for disability pension has been rejected, have noticed that they  are left outside the social security and basic income of a civilised state. The pension institutes consider them to be able to work whereas the employment authorities consider them as unable to work. There are cases where the application for pension has been rejected and the applicant has been found to be able to continue in his former work, but after he has returned to his work he has been dismissed. The employer could have given notice totally legally on basis that the person could not manage his task because of his illness. The citizens are often left without income for the time it takes to handle their application for disability pension. When the court rejects the application for a disability pension the citizen is left without income.

In disability cases the citizen can't take his case to a district court session, where the handling is oral. The present practice allowed by the finnish law employs a considerable group of highly paid people and obviously it is therefore difficult to change the law. Because of the law many disabled people in Finland have no impartial and credible legal protection of a civilised state.

The Finnish Members of Parliament have known the existence of the unjust law but the majority of them has accepted the prevailing injustice with their passivity. Several Members of Parliament act as representatives in the supervisory boards of insurance companies. At the same time the state of Finland pays their salary and takes loans from the insurance companies.

We demand that the Finnish legislation and its application in the granting of the disability pension must be brought into a just and equal level for every citizen.

Helsinki 2.9.1999 support Vakuutusongelmaisten tuki ry (now, Vakuutusongelmaisten liitto ry).*)

*) A support group, which asks for medical and judicial help from Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders etc. in its homeland for those disabled who have lost their health, jobs and homes.