Date when decision was rendered: 14.10.1998

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 3223; S96/2824

Reference to source

KKO 1998:122.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1998 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1998 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1998 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1999

Pages: pp. 665-689

Subject

access to court, fair trial, doping, legal protection,
rätt till domstolsprövning, rättvis rättegång, dopning, rättsskydd,
oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, doping, oikeusturva,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 32 and 33 of the Associations Act; section 8 of the Constitution Act

= föreningslag 32 §, 33 §; regeringsformen 8 §

= yhdistyslaki 32 §, 33 §; hallitusmuoto 8 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

Owing to a positive doping test, a sportswoman had been excluded from competition events for a period of four years through a decision of an association (The Finnish Sports Federation / Suomen Urheiluliitto).The Supreme Court, confirming the decision by the Helsinki Court of Appeal, came to the conclusion that the sportswoman could claim in a court of law that the decision by the association be annulled.According to the Supreme Court, a decision by an association is subject to review by courts of law if there is an evident and sufficient need for judicial protection.In its reasoning that these criteria were met the Supreme Court referred to the protection of a person's honour in the Constitution Act.The Supreme Court found the case admissible and dismissed the claim.

In its decision, the Helsinki Court of Appeal had stated that excluding the sportswoman from competition events affected her rights and interests.Therefore, denying her any right of appeal to a court of law would be in contradiction with Article 6-1 of the ECHR.

23.10.2002 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 31.10.2000

Judicial body: Helsinki Court of Appeal = Helsingfors hovrätt = Helsingin hovioikeus

Reference: Report no. 3077; R99/1857

Reference to source

Registry of the Helsinki Court of Appeal

Helsingfors hovrätts registratorskontor

Helsingin hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

freedom of expression, freedom of the press, respect for private life, respect for family life, doping,
yttrandefrihet, tryckfrihet, respekt för privatliv, respekt för familjeliv, dopning,
ilmaisuvapaus, painovapaus, yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen, doping,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 27, section 2 of the Penal Code

= strafflagen 27 kapitel 2 §

= rikoslaki 27 luku 2 §.

ECHR-10

Abstract

A reporter and an editor-in-chief of the Finnish News Agency had published a piece of news according to which a former top skier, while he was still active, had used hormones in order to improve his performance.They also claimed that "persons in a leading position" within the Finnish Ski Association were involved in the case.The name of the skier was given but not the names of the other persons possibly involved.The skier as well as a number of persons in a position of authority within the Ski Association started legal proceedings against the reporter and the editor, accusing them of public libel and claiming damages.Before the court, the defendants referred to their right as journalists to protect their sources.Partly because of this, they were not able to provide sufficient evidence in support of their claims.They were both convicted.Damages were awarded to all claimants.All the parties in the case appealed against the decision.

In assessing the balance between the freedom of expression and the right to privacy, the Helsinki Court of Appeal referred to Article 10-2 of the ECHR and the possible restrictions of freedom of expression as well as to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v.Norway (judgment of 20 May 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999 III) and Ionel Dalban v.Romania (judgment of 28 September 1999, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1999 VI).The court found that the use of doping in sports is comparable to matters of public interest as specified in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.With regard to such matters, it could be considered that the freedom of expression covers possible recourse to severe criticism and a degree of exaggeration.However, the conclusion of the court of appeal was that in this case the defendants had not proven the information given in the news to be true, nor had they shown that they had sufficient reasons to believe that the information was true or could be substantiated.The court found the defendants guilty, but mitigated their punishments as compared to those imposed by the court of first instance.In assessing the question of pecuniary damages, the court of appeal referred to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A, no. 316-B).As compared to the decision of the court of first instance, the appeal court reduced the amount of damages as well as the number of persons entitled to damages.In addition to the skier, only a few persons within the Ski Association were awarded compensation.

The Supreme Court did not grant leave to appeal in the case.

28.10.2002 / 12.3.2003 / LISNELLM