6.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1955 respectively and live in Iittala. 7.  On 19 January 1994 they brought a private prosecution before the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) against some District Court judges, who had convicted them of malicious accusation in separate proceedings. The judges were charged with abuse of office as they had allegedly neglected to examine the case thoroughly, both as to the facts and as to the law. The applicants claimed damages from the State. 8.  On 4 February, 30 March and 25 May 1994 respectively the court invited the responses of the defendant judges, the Ministry of Justice and the acting public prosecutor, the Chancellor of Justice to the application for a summons. The court received them on 15 March, 19 April and 9 June 1994 respectively. The defendants denied the charges and the State its liability for any damages. In September 1994, the Deputy Chancellor of Justice informed the Court of Appeal that he did not associate himself with the private prosecution.
On 1 September 1994 the case was assigned to another judicial secretary of the court. On 15 November 1994 the court invited the applicants’ further comments and they were received on 15 December 1994.
On 10 March 1995 the court held its deliberations, following which the draft judgment was circulated among the judges for their final consideration. On 13 September 1995 the court, finding that the defendant judges had not overstepped their powers when deciding the case before them, rejected the charges and the other claims. 9.  On 13 November 1995 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), requesting an oral hearing. Alternatively, they requested that the case be referred back to the lower court and that it be directed to hold a hearing. On 11 December 1995 the case was assigned to a judicial secretary of the court, who reported on it to the judges on the bench on 27 March 1996. By its decision of 20 June 1996 the Supreme Court referred the case back to the lower court, as it considered that the case should not have been decided without an oral hearing. 10.  On 25 June 1996 the case was restored to the Court of Appeal’s case-list. The case was assigned to a section of the court and to a judicial secretary on 23 July and 9 August 1996 respectively. The court held preparatory sessions on 31 January, 6 February, and on 5, 13 and 21 March 1997.
On 20 May 1997 the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing and received oral evidence from the parties. The Deputy Chancellor of Justice confirmed that he did not associate himself with the private prosecution.
On 23 November 1998 the court held its final deliberations in the case. On 1 December 1998 it gave judgment, finding that the defendant judges should not have convicted the applicants of malicious accusation. The Court of Appeal held that the judges had neglected their duties to examine thoroughly all aspects of the case, but it rejected the charges as it found that the neglect was only minor taken in the context of the proceedings as a whole. However, it found that the applicants were entitled to compensation due to the afore-mentioned wrongful conviction. The State was ordered to pay each applicant 30,000 Finnish marks (FIM; about 5,045 euros (EUR)) plus legal costs. All the parties appealed. 11.  On 1 February 1999 the applicants among others lodged their appeals with the Supreme Court. On 20 May 1999 the case was assigned to a judicial secretary of the court. It held a preparatory meeting on 14 September 1999 following which it invited comments from the Ministry of Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal, which were received on 12 and 18 October 1999 respectively. Following a preparatory meeting on 3 November 1999 the court received the applicants’ comments in reply on 22 November 1999. The court deliberations were held on 1 December 1999. On 8 February 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment insofar as it had rejected the charges. However, the Supreme Court rejected also the claim for damages, as the judges had not acted in a negligent or careless manner. Thus, it found that the applicants were entitled neither to compensation nor to legal costs.