Date when decision was rendered: 13.3.1991

Judicial body: Cathedral Chapter of the Turku Archbishopric = Åbo ärkestifts domkapitel = Turun hiippakunnan tuomiokapituli

Reference: Report No. 1791; 1187/90

Reference to source

The Cathedral Chapter

Domkapitlet

Tuomiokapituli

Date of publication:

Subject

church, criminal charge, courts, fair trial,
kyrka, brottsanklagelse, domstol, rättvis rättegång,
kirkko, rikossyyte, tuomioistuimet, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 444, 451, 452, 455, 457, 458 of the Church Act; Chapter 7, section 2 of the Penal Code

= kyrkolagen 444 §, 451 §, 452 §, 455 §, 457 §, 458 §; strafflagen 7 kapitel 2 §

= kirkkolaki 444 §, 451 §, 452 §, 455 §, 457 §, 458 §; rikoslaki 7 luku 2 §.

ECHR-6 (unspecified reference)

Abstract

Based on the Archbishop's request for appropriate measures towards a vicar who had not behaved in accordance with what was required of a priest under the Church Act, the Cathedral Chapter had held a hearing of the vicar and drawn up a protocol of the hearing.The vicar was informed of the contents of the protocol.After this, the Cathedral Chapter had appointed a prosecutor who sent an indictment to the Cathedral Chapter.The documents in the case were sent to the County Dean for a statement.The prosecutor claimed that the vicar had neglected his duty to obey his superior, the Archbishop, and thereby behaved in a way that was inappropriate for a vicar, for which he demanded punishment under sections 96, 99, 108, 397 of the Church Act and Chapter 7, section 2 of the Penal Code.

The vicar stated that the hearing in the Cathedral Chapter was contrary to the requirement of a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR.He also asked to be allowed to explain himself again personally to the Cathedral Chapter and that the Cathedral Chapter hear witnesses.These request were rejected by the Cathedral Chapter.

The Cathedral Chapter agreed that the provisions of the Church Act on criminal procedure were contrary to the ECHR, which was incorporated into Finnish law.It therefore decided to take into account the provisions of the ECHR.The Cathedral Chapter had in its opinion acted in accordance with the Church Act and within the jurisdiction accorded by it.The procedure followed was however contrary to the requirements of the Article 6 of the ECHR.The Cathedral Chapter was therefore not authorised to give its opinion on the case.It therefore dismissed the case without considering the merits.

17.4.1998 / 31.3.2003 / LISNELLM