Date when decision was rendered: 17.4.1997

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report No. 12569/95/1252

Reference to source

Electronic database FVAK within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen FVAK inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FVAK-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

freedom of religion, unemployment,
religionsfrihet, arbetslöshet,
uskonnonvapaus, työttömyys,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 7-1 of the Unemployment Security Act

= lag om utkomstskydd för arbetslösa 7 § 1 mom.

= työttömyysturvalaki 7 § 1 mom.

ECHR-9 (implicit reference)

Abstract

A, who was a Jehovah´s Witness, had been offered a job as an office employee at the Armed Forces.She refused to take the job and argued that although she would not carry a gun in her work, it was against her religious conviction to work for the Armed Forces.The unemployment fund rejected A´s right to receive unemployment benefit during a certain period on the grounds that she had without an adequate cause refused to take the job.A appealed against the decision to the Unemployment Appeal Board, which did not change the decision.A lodged an appeal with the Insurance Court.

The Insurance Court referred to section 7-1 of the Unemployment Security Act and argued that because of her religious conviction, A had an adequate reason to refuse to accept the job at the Armed Forces.The Court also regarded the situation of A as comparable to that of conscripts who are Jehovah´s Witnesses and can be exempted from military service or alternative service on the basis of the Act on Exemption of Jehovah´s Witnesses from National Service.

2.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 16.1.1997

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report No. 01713/96/108

Reference to source

Registry of the Insurance Court

Försäkringsdomstolens registratorskontor

Vakuutusoikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

freedom of religion, unemployment, muslims,
religionsfrihet, arbetslöshet, muslimer,
uskonnonvapaus, työttömyys, muslimit,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 20-1 of the Act on Labour Market Subsidies; section 9-1 of the Unemployment Security Act

= lag om arbetsmarknadsstöd 20 § 1 mom.; lag om utkomstskydd för arbetslösa 9 § 1 mom.

= laki työmarkkinatuesta 20 § 1 mom.; työttömyysturvalaki 9 § 1 mom.

ECHR-9

Abstract

A, who was a Muslim woman, had been interviewed for a job.During the interview she had told that she was a Muslim and because of her religion would cover her head with a scarf.She was interested in getting the job and had even offered to work on probation.Yet she did not get the job.The Unemployment Appeal Board rejected her right to receive, for a certain period of time, a certain form of unemployment benefit.The decision was based on the fact that she had without an adequate cause refused to take the job.A appealed to the Insurance Court.The Insurance Court referred to national legislation concerning unemployment benefits and to Article 9 of the ECHR and stated that A had a right to practice her religion and that Muslim women in general cover their heads with a scarf.It was not on account of her own behaviour that she was not employed.Therefore, she had the right to receive the benefit.

2.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 20.3.1997

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report No. 05142/96/955

Reference to source

Registry of the Insurance Court

Försäkringsdomstolens registratorskontor

Vakuutusoikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

freedom of religion, unemployment,
religionsfrihet, arbetslöshet,
uskonnonvapaus, työttömyys,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 7-1 of the Unemployment Security Act

= lag om utkomstskydd för arbetslösa 7 § 1 mom.

= työttömyysturvalaki 7 § 1 mom.

ECHR-9

Abstract

A, who was a Jehovah's Witness, had been offered a job as a cleaner at a Lutheran church.She refused to take the job and argued that it was against her religious conviction to clean a Lutheran church.The unemployment fund rejected her right to receive unemployment benefits during a certain period, owing to the fact that she had refused to take the job without an adequate cause.A appealed against the decision to the Unemployment Appeal Board, which did not change the decision.A lodged an appeal with the Insurance Court.The Insurance Court referred to Article 9 of the ECHR and section 7-1 of the Unemployment Security Act and argued that because of her religious conviction, A had an adequate reason to refuse to accept the job as a cleaner at a Lutheran church.

2.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 16.9.2003

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report No. 3780:2003

Reference to source

Electronic database for the decisions of the Insurance Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för försäkringsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin vakuutusoikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

legal assistance, unemployment,
rättshjälp, arbetslöshet,
oikeusapu, työttömyys,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1 and 6 of the Legal Aid Act

= rättshjälpslag 1 § och 6 §

= oikeusapulaki 1 § ja 6 §.

ECHR-6; ECHR-13

Abstract

A's application for earnings-related unemployment allowance had been rejected by an unemployment fund.In order to receive earnings-related unemployment allowance, a person must have been employed for 43 weeks during the two immediately preceding years.When calculating the time A had been employed, the unemployment fund had not included a time period during which A had not been paid a salary but had instead received compensation for loss of income from an insurance company under the Traffic Insurance Act.A wished to appeal against the fund's decision and applied for legal aid from a state legal aid office.A was granted certain benefits which according to the Legal Aid Act could be granted to a person whose means entitle him or her to legal aid for free.However, the legal aid office considered it was not necessary to appoint a legal aid attorney for A.A appealed against this decision, and the legal aid office forwarded the matter to the Insurance Court.The Insurance Court referred to the Legal Aid Act and its preparatory materials.The possibility to receive legal aid depends on the means of the applicant as well as his or her need for legal assistance.When considering the appointment of an attorney under the Legal Aid Act, the decisive question is whether the applicant is able to protect his or her interests properly without assistance.The court pointed out that the requirements set in the ECHR must also be taken into account.The main issue in A's case was whether the time period during which A had received compensation from the insurance company should be regarded as a period of employment.The legal question was clear and could not be regarded as demanding.Furthermore, in the court's view, the importance of the issue for A was indirect at most: even if A's claim were accepted, by the time A submitted his application he had been employed for less than 43 weeks during the two preceding years and was thus not entitled to earnings-related unemployment allowance.The Insurance Court concluded that A was able to protect his interests in the matter without assistance.A had not presented any cause pertaining to his person on the grounds of which he would not be able to make the appeal himself.The Insurance Court rejected A's request for an attorney.In addition, unlike the legal aid office, the court considered that because of his financial circumstances, A could not be granted the benefits intended for persons who are entitled to legal aid for free.

21.4.2004 / 21.4.2004 / JKOSKIMI