Date when decision was rendered: 16.10.2001

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2125; R2000/191

Reference to source

KKO 2001:104.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2001 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2001 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2001 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2002

Pages: pp. 654-661

Subject

prisoners, prison conditions, preventive detention, inhuman treatment or punishment,
fångar, fängelseförhållanden, internering i tvångsinrättning, omänsklig behandling eller bestraffning,
vangit, vankilaolosuhteet, pakkolaitokseen eristäminen, epäinhimillinen kohtelu tai rangaistus,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1, 15 and 16 of the Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivists; section 22 of the Constitution Act

= lag om internering av farliga återfallsförbrytare 1 §, 15 § och 16 §; grundlagen 22 §

= laki vaarallisten rikoksenuusijain eristämisestä 1 §, 15 § ja 16 §; perustuslaki 22 §.

ECHRP-7-4; ECHR (in general); CCPR (in general)

Abstract

A had been released on parole from an institution for preventive detention.While on parole, he committed manslaughter and was sentenced to prison by a court of first instance which considered that A had committed the offence without full possession of his senses.The prosecutor requested the court to authorize the Prison Court to decide on the incarceration of A in preventive detention.The court considered the conditions for incarceration under section 1 of the Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivists and concluded that these conditions were fulfilled in A's case.It decided to authorize A's incarceration and to cancel his parole.

A claimed that incarceration in preventive detention was a violation of human rights treaties binding on Finland.In its decision, the court of first instance discussed this question at length.It noted, among other things, that incarcerated recidivists did not serve their sentence in a separate institution but in ordinary prisons under close to normal prison conditions.In practice, incarceration only meant that the offender served the total length of his sentence.The court also pointed out that there was a possibility of appeal against the decisions of both the sentencing court and the Prison Court.According to the Act on the Incarceration of Dangerous Recidivist (section 15), an incarcerated recidivist shall be released on parole upon having served his total term of imprisonment, unless the Prison Court still considers him dangerous to the life or health of others.If he is not released, the matter shall be re-examined at least every six months.The court of first instance noted that such a possibility to continue the loss of liberty of the offender may be problematic.However, in the opinion of the court this constituted a security measure rather than an additional punishment, and in practice the possibility had not been used since 1971.The court continued that being released on parole was not a new punishment but a legal consequence of the fact that the offender had been incarcerated in preventive detention.Cancelling the parole in case the person on parole commits a crime (section 16) is not an additional punishment.

The court of first instance concluded that incarcerating A in preventive detention and cancelling his parole did not violate his human rights.One lay member of the court took a different view and considered, among other things, that the authorization of an offender's incarceration was against Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR as the offender was not aware of the total length of his sentence.

A took the case to the court of appeal which reduced the length of A's prison sentence but did not change the order of the first instance court concerning A's incarceration and the cancellation of his parole.In its decision, the court of appeal pointed out that international human rights treaties should be taken into account, especially when deciding on the possible continuation of the incarceration after the offender has served the total period of his imprisonment.

The case went further to the Supreme Court which mainly agreed with the reasoning of the lower courts and concluded that incarceration in preventive detention could not be considered an inhuman, cruel or degrading punishment.With reference to section 22 of the Constitution Act and to the duty of public authorities to guarantee the observance of basic rights and liberties and human rights, the Supreme Court pointed out that when considering the conditions for incarceration, the provisions of and legal practice under the CCPR and the ECHR had to be taken into account.It also mentioned the decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights concerning applications 20560/92 and 29328/95 against Finland.The Commission had noted that the fact that an offender served the total length of his prison sentence was not a violation of the ECHR.In the opinion of the Supreme Court, it is not a violation of the CCPR either.The Supreme Court concluded that the Prison Court could be authorized to decide on the incarceration of A in preventive detention.The order by the lower court to cancel A's parole was not relevant, as the Prison Court would in any case consider the question of A's incarceration.

30.10.2002 / 10.10.2012 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 21.3.2003

Judicial body: Helsinki Administrative Court = Helsingfors förvaltningsdomstol = Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 03/0156/2; 06500/02/5900

Reference to source

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

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

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

right to liberty, security of person, deported persons, prison conditions, prisoners,
rätt till frihet, personlig säkerhet, deporterade personer, fängelseförhållanden, fångar,
oikeus vapauteen, henkilökohtainen turvallisuus, karkotetut henkilöt, vankilaolosuhteet, vangit,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 9-4 of the Constitution Act; section 19 of the Act on International Co-Operation in the Enforcement of Certain Penal Sanctions; Chapter 2, sections 13-1 and 13-2 of the Act on the enforcement of penal sanctions

= grundlagen 9 § 4 mom.; lag om internationellt samarbete vid verkställighet av vissa straffrättsliga påföljder 19 §; lag om verkställighet av straff 2 kapitel 13 § 1 mom. och 13 § 2 mom.

= perustuslaki 9 § 4 mom.; laki kansainvälisestä yhteistoiminnasta eräiden rikosoikeudellisten seuraamusten täytäntöönpanossa 19 §; laki rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta 2 luku 13 § 1 mom. ja 13 § 2 mom.

ECHR-5

Abstract

An Estonian citizen A had been sentenced in Finland to imprisonment for a drug offence.The Directorate of Immigration had decided on A's deportation once A is released from prison.The Ministry of Justice ordered that A is transferred to Estonia in order to serve the prison sentence there.A appealed against the Ministry's decision to the administrative court.

The administrative court noted that the formal conditions for A's transfer, as prescribed in the Act on International Co-Operation in the Enforcement of Certain Penal Sanctions, were fulfilled.However, section 9-4 of the Constitution Act had to be taken into account as well, as a specific legal condition for the transfer.Section 9-4 provides that a foreigner shall not be deported, extradited or returned to another country, if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence, torture or other treatment violating human dignity.According to the court, attention should be paid, in particular, to prison conditions in the state to which the person is transferred and to the time period after which the person would have the possibility of being released on parole.In Estonia, a person may be released on parole after having served two-thirds of his/her sentence, whereas in Finland it is after one-half of the sentence has been served.The administrative court considered that although the carrying out of the sentence in Estonia may in practice prolong A's time in imprisonment, this did not as such contain a danger of treatment violating human dignity.Furthermore, in the court's view, there was no violation of Article 5 of the ECHR, as long as the term of imprisonment ordered by the Finnish court was not exceeded.With reference to reports submitted by the Ministry of Justice, the court then noted that the prison conditions in Estonia in general could not as such result in treatment violating human dignity.Admitt edly, the security conditions in prisons were not altogether stable, but on the other hand the court saw no reason to doubt that the prison authorities in Eston ia would not have the means and the intention to prevent any possible threats to the security of the prisoners.The administrative court rejected A's appeal.Th e decision is final.

See also European Court of Human Rights, Application no. 9764/03, decision on admissibility 2 December 2003 (partly inadmissible) and final decision on admissibility 15 June 2004 (inadmissible).

22.4.2004 / 2.1.2009 / 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