Date when decision was rendered: 9.8.1990

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2108; H90/220, of the Supreme Court to the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Court

Högsta domstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

right to leave one's country, hijacking, extradition, freedom of opinion, inhuman treatment or punishment,
rätt att lämna sitt land, flygkapning, utlämning, åsiktsfrihet, omänsklig behandling eller bestraffning,
oikeus lähteä maasta, lentokonekaappaus, luovuttaminen, mielipiteenvapaus, epäinhimillinen kohtelu tai rangaistus,

Relevant legal provisions

Article 3 of the 1975 Treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on the prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft

= artikel 3 i avtalet mellan Finland och Sovjetunionen om förhindrande av flygplanskapning,

= artikla 3 Suomen ja Neuvostoliiton sopimuksessa lentokonekaappauksen estämiseksi.

ECHR-1, ECHR-3, ECHR-5, ECHR-6, ECHR-14, ECHRP-4-2-2

Abstract

Mr.Varfolomejev had forced a plane from Tallinn destined for Lvov to land in Helsinki where he surrendered to the authorities.He later applied for political asylum in Finland.The Soviet authorities demanded his extradition to the Soviet Union on the basis of a treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on the prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft.His application for asylum was rejected.The Ministry of Justice asked for the Supreme Court's opinion concerning the lawfulness of a possible extradition.Mr.Varfolomejev opposed an extradition on the grounds that he was persecuted in the Soviet Union.In December 1986, Varfolomejev was confined to a mental hospital for a period of 17 days after having expressed his opinion against the war in Afghanistan and having refused to do his military service.After this he was classified as a disabled person with no right to work, to study or to receive a passport.According to Mr.Varfolomejev, an extradition to the Soviet Union would mean confinement to a mental hospital for perhaps an indefinite time.

Having examined relevant Finnish legislation and Finland's obligations under international human rights conventions, including the ECHR, the Supreme Court found that Mr.Varfolomejev could not be extradited on the grounds of violation of Article 81 of the Estonian Penal Code (prohibition to leave the country without permission).However, the Supreme Court found no legal obstacles to his extradition to the Soviet Union on the grounds of seizure of a civilian aircraft.

See also Application No.17811/91 by Mihail Varfolomejev against Finland, decision of the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 September 1991.

23.3.1998 / 18.4.2019 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 10.7.1990

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1980; H90/219, of the Supreme Court to the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Court

Högsta domstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

right to leave one's country, hijacking, extradition, freedom of opinion, conscientious objection,
rätt att lämna sitt land, flygkapning, utlämning, åsiktsfrihet, civiltjänstgöring,
oikeus lähteä maasta, lentokonekaappaus, luovuttaminen, mielipiteenvapaus, siviilipalvelu,

Relevant legal provisions

Article 3 of the 1975 Treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on the prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft, Chapter 34, section 14 a of the Penal Code

= artikel 3 i avtalet mellan Finland och Sovjetunionen om förhindrande av flygplanskapning, strafflagen 34 kapitel 14 a §

= artikla 3 Suomen ja Neuvostoliiton sopimuksessa lentokonekaappauksen estämiseksi, rikoslaki 34 luku 14 a §.

ECHR-5, ECHR-13, ECHR-14, ECHRP-4-2-2

Abstract

Mr.Oleg Kozlov had forced a plane from Riga to Murmansk to land in Helsinki where he had surrendered to the authorities.He later applied for asylum in Finland.Referring to Article 3 of the 1975 Treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on the prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft, the Soviet Union demanded his extradition.Kozlov was not granted political asylum.The Ministry of Justice asked for the Supreme Court's opinion on the lawfulness of a possible extradition of Mr.Kozlov to the Soviet Union.Mr.Kozlov opposed an extradition.According to his statement, he was persecuted in the Soviet Union for his opinions, and had been declared mentally ill solely on the ground that he was a conscientious objector.Because of this, he had no right to work, to study or to receive a passport.Having examined the Finnish legislation and Finland's obligations under international law, including the ECHR, the Supreme Court found that Mr.Kozlov could not be extradited on the grounds of violation of Article 78 of the Latvian Penal Code (prohibition to leave the country without permission).However, the Supreme Court found no legal obstacles to his extradition to the Soviet Union on the grounds of seizure of civilian aircraft.

See also Application No. 16832/90 by Oleg Kozlov against Finland, decision of the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 May 1991.

23.3.1998 / 18.4.2019 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 21.11.1990

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 3342, H90/350, of the Supreme Court to the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Court

Högsta domstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

right to leave one's country, hijacking, extradition, freedom of opinion, inhuman treatment or punishment,
rätt att lämna sitt land, flygkapning, utlämning, åsiktsfrihet, omänsklig behandling eller bestraffning,
oikeus lähteä maasta, lentokonekaappaus, luovuttaminen, mielipiteenvapaus, epäinhimillinen kohtelu tai rangaistus,

Relevant legal provisions

Article 3 of the 1975 Treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft

= artikel 3 i avtalet mellan Finland och Sovjetunionen om förhindrande av flygplanskapning

= artikla 3 Suomen ja Neuvostoliiton sopimuksessa lentokonekaappauksen estämiseksi.

ECHR-3, CCPR-7

Abstract

Mr.Selivanov had forced a plane from Novgorod to Petrozavodsk to land in Helsinki where he surrendered to the authorities.He later applied for political asylum in Finland.Referring to Article 3 of the 1975 Treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on the prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft, the Soviet Union demanded Mr.Selivanov's extradition to the Soviet Union.He was not granted asylum in Finland.The Ministry of Justice asked for the Supreme Court's opinion concerning the lawfulness of a possible extradition of Mr.Selivanov to the Soviet Union.

Mr.Selivanov opposed an extradition on the grounds that he was wrongly classified as a mentally ill person in the Soviet Union.According to his statement, he had been assaulted and beaten several times during his stay in the Lipetski mental hospital.According to Mr.Selivanov, he was confined to the mental hospital after having expressed critical opinions on Soviet society.

Having examined the Finnish legislation and Finland's obligations under international law, including the ECHR, the Supreme Court found that Mr.Selivanov could not be extradited on the basis of violation of Article 81 of the Estonian Penal Code (prohibition to leave the country without permission).However, the Supreme Court found no legal obstacles to his extradition to the Soviet Union on the grounds of seizure of a civilian aircraft.

23.3.1998 / 18.4.2019 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 19.3.2019

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. H2019/8; 443

Reference to source

KKO 2019:26.

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

Databasen för Högsta domstolens beslut inom FINLEX_databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

extradition, inhuman treatment or punishment, citizenship (EU),
utlämning, omänsklig behandling eller bestraffning, medborgarskap (EU),
luovuttaminen, epäinhimillinen kohtelu tai rangaistus, kansalaisuus (EU),

Relevant legal provisions

Extradition Act; section 9-4 of the Constitution Act; Articles 18 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

= lag om utlämning för brott; grundlagen 9 § 4 mom.; Fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt artikel 18 och artikel 21

= laki rikoksen johdosta tapahtuvasta luovuttamisesta; perustuslaki 9 § 4 mom.; Sopimus Euroopan unionin toiminnasta artikla 18 ja artikla 21.

ECHR-3; Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

X, who was a citizen of Lithuania, had been sentenced in Turkey in 2013 to a prison sentence of 10 years.X escaped from prison in 2016.Turkey had submitted a request to Finland for X's extradition for the enforcement of his sentence.The Ministry of Justice requested the opinion of the Supreme Court on whether it was possible to consent to the request for extradition.

The Supreme Court found that there were no impediments to extradition as provided for in the Extradition Act.The court then noted that an EU citizen, whose extradition has been requested outside the EU, must be treated in the same way as Finnish nationals if that EU citizen is deemed to reside permanently in Finland.Section 2 of the Extradition Act prohibits the extradition of Finnish citizens.X had told that he lived in Lithuania and was visiting Finland only, for work reasons.The court found that X's status as an EU citizen did not in this case prevent his extradition to Turkey, nor did it require the Finnish authorities to find out whether X could serve his sentence in Lithuania.

X had objected to the extradition on grounds that he would be subjected to inhuman treatment because of the prison conditions in Turkey.The Supreme Court considered the prohibition of torture and the principle of non-refoulement, as provided for in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 19), ECHR (Article 3) and the Constitution Act (section 9-4).The Supreme Court referred to the judgment of the CJEU in the case of Petruhhin (C-182/15), in which the CJEU held that a Member State must verify that the extradition of an EU citizen to a non-EU country for the enforcement of a sentence will not prejudice the rights referred to in Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.Also, the existence of declarations and accession to international treaties guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights in principle are not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment where reliable sources have reported practices resorted to or tolerated by the authorities which are manifestly contrary to the principles of the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights, Saadi v.Italy, judgment of 28 February 2008).

The Supreme Court noted that the findings of the European Committee against Torture, reported in 2015 (CPT/Inf (2015) 6), confirmed that the conditions especially in older Turkish prisons can be inhumane.The Ministry of Justice had asked the Turkish authorities for additional information concerning the length of the remaining period of X's prison sentence and the conditions in the prison in which X was to serve his sentence.By the time of the Supreme Court's decision there had been no response from the Turkish authorities.In the court's opinion, X's humane treatment could not be guaranteed by the fact that Turkey was a state party to the ECHR or by assurances given by the Turkish authorities in the request for extradition that they would abide by the provisions of the ECHR.The report of the European Committee against Torture shows that there is a real risk that X is placed in a prison where the conditions amount to ill-treatment contrary to Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 3 of the ECHR.The Turkish authorities had not submitted any additional information to prove otherwise.The Supreme Court concluded that the request for the extradition of X may not be granted because the extradition would be contrary to Article 19 of the Charter, Article 3 of the ECHR and section 9-4 of the Constitution Act.

9.5.2019 / 9.5.2019 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 17.3.2020

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. R2020/117; 362

Reference to source

KKO:2020:25.

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

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

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

extradition, inhuman treatment or punishment, prisoners, prison conditions,
utlämning, omänsklig behandling eller bestraffning, fångar, fängelseförhållanden,
luovuttaminen, epäinhimillinen kohtelu tai rangaistus, vangit, vankilaolosuhteet,

Relevant legal provisions

section 5-1-6 of the Act on Surrender Procedures between Finland and Other Member States of the European Union

= lag om utlämning för brott mellan Finland och de övriga medlemsstaterna i Europeiska unionen 5 § 1 mom. 6 punkten

= laki rikoksen johdosta tapahtuvasta luovuttamisesta Suomen ja muiden Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioiden välillä 5 § 1 mom. 6 kohta.

ECHR-3; Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

The district court of Helsinki had denied a request for surrender of a Romanian national (A) to Romania where A was to serve a four-year prison sentence.The public prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court applied Act 1286/2003 on Surrender Procedures between Finland and Other EU Member States, which implements Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant.The court also referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Mursic v Croatia) and the CJEU (C-128/18 Dorobantu) in which the courts interpret the prohibition of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

Section 5(1)(6) of the Act on Surrender Procedures provides for a list of mandatory grounds for refusal, among them reasonable grounds to suspect that the requested person is in danger of being subject to torture or other treatment violating human dignity.The Supreme Court noted that while section 5(1)(6) is not explicitly based on the grounds for refusal as prescribed in Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision, the said provision can be derived from the obligation to respect fundamental rights and human rights binding on Finland.The key legal question in this case was whether the request for surrender should be denied pursuant to section 5(1)(6) and because of the inadequate prison conditions in Romania.

According to information provided by the Romanian prison authorities, it was highly likely that A would serve a major part of the four-year sentence in a semi-open prison where the personal space allowed to a detainee is at least two square metres.The Supreme Court noted that the European Court of Human Rights has in the case of Mursic confirmed the standard of three square metres per detainee in multi-occupancy accommodation as the relevant minimum standard under Article 3 of the ECHR.The CJEU has assessed the minimum standards for prison conditions, following the guidelines set by the European Court of Human Rights.The Supreme Court concluded that in A's case there was a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.Such a presumption can be rebutted only if the reductions in the required minimum personal space of three square metres are short, occasional and minor and the detainee has sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell.These criteria must be met cumulatively.Both the European Court of Human Rights and the CJEU have held that in cases where a detainee has less than three square metres of personal space, a period of detention around 20 to 27 days cannot be regarded as short, occasional and minor.The fact that a detainee has a possibility to spend part of the day outside the overcrowded cell does not change the outcome of the assessment.The Supreme Court denied the request for surrender.

3.7.2023 / 3.7.2023 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 16.4.2021

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. R2021/153; 581

Reference to source

KKO:2021:24.

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

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

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

extradition, inhuman treatment or punishment, prisoners, prison conditions,
utlämning, omänsklig behandling eller bestraffning, fångar, fängelseförhållanden,
luovuttaminen, epäinhimillinen kohtelu tai rangaistus, vangit, vankilaolosuhteet,

Relevant legal provisions

section 5-1-6 of the Act on Surrender Procedures between Finland and Other Member States of the European Union

= lag om utlämning för brott mellan Finland och de övriga medlemsstaterna i Europeiska unionen 5 § 1 mom. 6 punkten

= laki rikoksen johdosta tapahtuvasta luovuttamisesta Suomen ja muiden Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioiden välillä 5 § 1 mom. 6 kohta.

ECHR-3; Article 4 of the Charter for Fundamenral Rights of the European Union

Abstract

The public prosecutor had requested in the court of first instance that a Romanian national (A) is surrendered to Romania where he was to serve a five-year prison sentence and a three-year supplementary sentence.A referred to various national (Ombudsman) and international (CPT) reports on prison conditions in Romania and objected to the request.The court of first instance found that despite the assurances given by the Romanian judicial authorities, there were reasonable grounds to suspect that A was in danger of being subject to treatment violating human dignity, because of the poor conditions and overcrowding in the prisons where A was to serve his sentence.The court denied the request.The prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court applied the Act (1286/2003) on Surrender Procedures between Finland and Other RU Member States, which implements Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant.Section 5 of the Act provides for a list of mandatory grouds for refusal, among them reasonable grounds to suspect that the requested person is in danger of being subject to torture or other treatment violating human dignity.The section is not explicitly based on the grounds for non-execution in Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision but can be derived from the human rights obligations binding on Finland.The Framework Decision does not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights (Article 1).The CJEU has held (C-128/18 Dorobantu) that the executing judicial authority has an obligation to bring the surrender procedure to an end where surrender may result in the requested person being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.The Supreme Court found that section 5 of the Act on Surrender Procedures should therefore be interpreted as far as possible in line with the interpretation given by the CJEU to Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the related human rights obligations.

The CJEU has found (C-128/18 Dorobantu) that the mere existence of evidence that there are deficiencies with respect to detention conditions does not necessarily imply that, in a specific case, the person, whose surrender has been requested, will be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment.When considering whether a request for surrender should be denied on grounds of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, the assessment must be specific and precise and based on objective, reliable, and properly updated data.The Romanian judicial authorities had submitted a detailed report on the conditions in the prisons where A would be placed.Based on the report it seemed that a minimum personal cell space of three square metres could not be guaranteed throughout the execution of A's prison sentence.The CJEU (C-128/18 Dorobantu), the European Court of Human Rights (Mursic v Croatia) and the Supreme Court (KKO:2020:25) have found that when the personal space available to a detainee is below three square metres, it creates a strong presumption of a violation of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment.

Following the request by the public prosecutor, the Romanian Ministry of Justice, as the competent central authority, provided assurances, given by the prison service authorities, to the effect that A will have a personal cell space of at least three square metres for the entire duration of the execution of his sentence.According to the case law of the CJEU (C-220/18 PPU Generalstaatsanwaltschaft; C-125/18 Dorobantu), the European arrest warrant system is based on mutual trust.Assurances given or endorsed by the issuing judicial authority after the assistance of a central judicial authority, are as a rule considered reliable.It is only in exceptional circumstances, and on the basis of precise information, that the executing judicial authority can find that, notwithstanding assurances, there is a real risk of the person concerned being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, because of that person's detention conditions.

The Supreme Court noted that the assurances given by the competent Romanian authorities applied to this specific case only and where explicitly concerning A.In their report, the Romanian judicial authorities had also described in detail the arrangements for sanitation, hygiene, health care and social support in the prisons where A would be detained.The Supreme Court held that generic, national and international reports on overcrowding and conditions in the prisons where A was going to be detained, were not sufficient to show exceptional circumstances where the request for A's surrender could be denied, notwithstanding assurances.

3.7.2023 / 3.7.2023 / RHANSKI