13.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Karperö. In 1988 and 1989 he and another person contracted to guarantee a bank loan granted to N. As N. was eventually unable to meet the reimbursement conditions, the applicant and his co-guarantor each paid the bank approximately 113,000 Finnish markkas (FIM) (approximately 19,000 euros (EUR)), excluding interest, in 1991. 14.  In 1995 N. applied for a debt adjustment in accordance with the 1993 Adjustment of Debts (Private Individuals) Act (laki yksityishenkilön velkajärjestelystä, lag om skuldsanering för privatpersoner 57/1993 – “the 1993 Act”) and proposed a payment schedule for the court’s approval. The applicant opposed the request, arguing that such an adjustment could lead to an unjustified deprivation of his property, consisting of his claim against N. The applicant argued that N. was young and healthy and could be expected to be able to reimburse his debts to the guarantors in due course. In the alternative, the applicant requested that the adjustment of N.’s debts be postponed. 15.  On 19 April 1996, after N. had found employment, the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Korsholm granted him a debt adjustment and adopted a payment schedule which was to take effect on 1 June 1996 and remain in force for five years. The applicant’s claim against N. was reduced to FIM 2,168 (EUR 365). The District Court considered that N.’s solvency had been significantly weakened on account of his previous unemployment and unsuccessful business activities. Given that N. was already able to reimburse FIM 420 (EUR 71) per month to his creditors at the time of the court’s examination, it was not possible under the 1993 Act to postpone the entry into force of the payment schedule. The District Court gave the following reasons:
“... With reference to Tomas Bäck’s submission, the District Court notes that under the Adjustment of Debts (Private Individuals) Act it is possible to reduce the amount of a claim and even to write a claim off. Considering that a guarantee always involves a risk as to the possible obligation to pay the creditor and the possibility of recourse against the principal debtor, the District Court finds that the claim in question cannot be considered as a possession that would enjoy inviolable protection under the European Convention on Human Rights. ...” 16.  Among N.’s seventy other creditors was F. bank, with a claim amounting to FIM 231,722 (EUR 38,973), of which the District Court retained FIM 4,510 (EUR 759) as part of his payment schedule. 17.  The applicant appealed, contending that the almost total extinction of his claim against N. violated his property rights under the Convention. No legislation on debt adjustment had existed at the time when the applicant had contracted to guarantee N.’s debts. Furthermore, the extreme step of writing off his claim discriminated against him as a private creditor who, unlike creditor banks, would receive no compensation from the State. 18.  On 14 October 1996 the Vasa Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the District Court’s decision and its reasoning. The applicant was refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) on 19 February 1997.