Date when decision was rendered: 14.1.1992

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 21; R91/759

Reference to source

VaaHO:1992:1.

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

Databasen FHOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FHOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

right to examine witnesses, fair trial,
rätt att förhöra vittnen, rättvis rättegång,
oikeus kuulustella todistajia, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti,

Relevant legal provisions

ECHR-6-3-d, CCPR-14-3-e

Abstract

The defendant in a criminal case must be given the possibility to examine, in person, a person whose statement is used as evidence for the conviction.The court of first instance had, in the trial of the defendant A, accepted as evidence a statement given by an accomplish, B, who had earlier been convicted in the same case.B was not heard in person in A's trial.Two judges of the three-member Chamber of the Court of Appeal made a reference to CCPR-14-3-e and ECHR-6-3-d and returned the case for retrial to the court of first instance.One judge would have acquitted the defendant in the absence of reliable evidence.Final.

23.3.1998 / 4.11.2002 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 2.6.1992

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1849; R90/878

Reference to source

KKO 1992:73.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1992 I January-June

Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1992 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1992 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1993

Pages: pp. 343-346

Subject

basis of charges, fair trial, preparation of defence,
åtalsgrund, rättvis rättegång, förberedande av försvar,
syytteen perusteet, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, puolustuksen valmisteleminen,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 21, section 5-1 of the Penal Code, Chapter 14, section 3-1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= strafflagen 21 kapitel 5 § 1 mom., rättegångsbalken 14 kapitel 3 § 1 mom.

= rikoslaki 21 luku 5 § 1 mom., oikeudenkäymiskaari 14 luku 3 § 1 mom.

ECHR-6-1, ECHR-6-3, ECHR-14-1, CCPR-14-3

Abstract

Articles 6-1 and 6-3 of the ECHR were cited by the Surpreme Court as justification for a ruling to shorten a person's prison sentence, as the lower courts had not properly informed the defendant of the possibility that he could be punished for a more serious crime than the one invoked by the prosecutor in the indictment.

If the juridical characterization of the behaviour is not described in the indictment itself, the court must, during the trial, inform the defendant of the possibility of his behaviour being characterized differently from the indictment presented by the prosecutor.The court was thus of the opinion that the defendant had not been informed in detail of the charges against him and had not had adequate facilities for the preparation of his defence.Therefore he could not be convicted of aggravated assault but only of assault.

24.3.1998 / 22.4.2005 / ASADINMA

Date when decision was rendered: 12.2.1993

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 446; R92/54

Reference to source

KKO 1993:19.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1993 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1993 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1993 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 74-82

Subject

fair trial, preparation of defence, legal assistance,
rättvis rättegång, förberedande av försvar, rättshjälp,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, puolustuksen valmisteleminen, oikeusapu,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 11, section 22, Chapter 14, sections 3 and 4, Chapter 25, section 3-2, Chapter 31, section 1-4 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 11 kapitel 22 §, 14 kapitel 3 § och 4 §, 25 kapitel 3 § 2 mom., 31 kapitel 1 § 4 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 11 luku 22 §, 14 luku 3 § ja 4 § 25 luku, 3 § 2 mom., 31 luku 1 § 4 mom.

ECHR-6-3-b, ECHR-6-1, CCPR-14-3-b, CCPR-14-1

Abstract

A 19-year-old defendant was accused of several serious crimes.He did not have legal assistance.Some of the charges were presented as late as in the very hearing following which the defendant was convicted.According to the Supreme Court, a court must take care that a defendant in a criminal case enjoys the minimum safeguards prescribed in international treaties that form part of the law, including the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (Article 6-3-b of the ECHR and Article 14-3-b of the CCPR).If it turns out that the defendant has not had enough time to prepare his defence, the court must attach his attention to the possibility of postponing the hearing, and must postpone the case if the defendant so asks.The defendant had not benefitted from the minimum rights enjoyed by a defendant in a criminal case.Therefore there had been a procedural error.There were other procedural errors as well, because the defendant was asked to comment on the various charges in a rather summary way, and the court gave the unrepresented defendant only oral instructions on the possibility of having the case reviewed by a higher court.Thus, the procedure did not comply with the requirements of a fair and public hearing (Article 6-3-b of the ECHR and Article 14-3-b of the CCPR).The ruling of the court of appeal was quashed and the case returned to the court of first instance (4 justices).One justice was of the opinion that the procedural errors of the court of first instance had not affected the outcome of the case.

26.3.1998 / 24.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 23.8.1993

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2799; S92/102

Reference to source

KKO 1993:99a.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1993 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1993 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1993 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 483-485

Subject

fair trial, right to be heard,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att höras,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus tulla kuulluksi,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 31, section 4-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 31 kapitel 4 § 2 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 31 luku 4 § 2 mom.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

In a labour law case, the respondent company had disobeyed a summons.The court of first instance issued a unilateral judgment.As the summons had been served to the director of legal affairs of the company, who was not authorised to receive a summons, the company sought an extraordinary remedy in the court of appeal, which, without hearing the plaintiff, nullified the ruling in the court of first instance because of a procedural error.The plaintiff sought leave of appeal in the Supreme Court and asked it to either quash the ruling by the court of appeal or to extend the prescribed time limit for instituting a lawsuit in a labour dispute.The Supreme Court referred to the main rule in Chapter 31, section 4-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, according to which the other party is to be heard in dealing with procedural complaints.The decision by the court of appeal, based on facts and evidence presented earlier by the defendant company, was of great importance for the plaintiff.Taking into account the provisions of Article 6-1 of the ECHR on fair trial, the Supreme Court concluded that the main rule of hearing the other party should have been followed by hearing the plaintiff.The case was returned to the court of appeal.

26.3.1998 / 24.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 27.12.1993

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 4632; R92/725

Reference to source

KKO 1993:164.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1993 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1993 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1993 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 725-727

Subject

fair trial, basis of charges,
rättvis rättegång, åtalsgrund,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, syytteen perusteet,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 14, section 3 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 14 kapitel 3 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 14 luku 3 § art.

ECHR-6-1, ECHR-6-3, CCPR-14-1, CCPR-14-3

Abstract

The court of appeal had returned a criminal case to the court of first instance in order to give the defendants the possibility to be heard on an alternative juridicial characterisation of the offence, presented in the court of appeal by the prosecutor.The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court and stated, i.a., that the new characterisation should be dismissed.The Supreme Court referred to its own judgment 1992:73 in which the Court had, by referring to Articles 6-1 and 6-3 of the ECHR and Article 14-3 of the CCPR, stated that the defendant must be informed not only of the description of facts forming the basis for the indictment, but also of the juridical characterisation of the behaviour in question.

26.3.1998 / 24.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 26.2.1993

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 461; R92/1240

Reference to source

VaaHO 1993:5.

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

Databasen FHOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FHOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

ECHR-6-3-d, CCPR-14-3-e

Abstract

The Vaasa Court of Appeal quashed the ruling by the court of first instance and returned the case for retrial.The defendant had been convicted on the basis of the statements by two plaintiffs who had been heard in court without the presence of the defendant.Such conduct was in conflict with Article 14-3-e of the CCPR and Article 6-3-e of the ECHR, according to which it was part of the minimum rights of a defendant to examine or have examined witnesses against him.

27.3.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 10.9.1993

Judicial body: Eastern Finland Court of Appeal = Hovrätten i Östra Finland = Itä-Suomen hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 1736; R92/1291

Reference to source

I-SHO 1993:8.

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

Databasen FHOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FHOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

right to examine witnesses, fair trial, criminal charge,
rätt att förhöra vittnen, rättvis rättegång, brottsanklagelse,
oikeus kuulustella todistajia, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, rikossyyte,

Relevant legal provisions

CCPR-14-3-e

Abstract

The Eastern Finland Court of Appeal quashed the ruling by the court of first instance and returned the case for retrial.The defendant had been denied the right to have a witness heard by the court.The court referred to Article 14-3-e of the CCPR, according to which everyone shall be entitled, in the determination of a criminal charge against him, to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf.

27.3.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 15.2.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 517; R-94/823

Reference to source

KKO 1996:17.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1996 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1996 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1996 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1996

Pages: pp. 95-103

Subject

fair trial, legal assistance, freedom of expression,
rättvis rättegång, rättshjälp, yttrandefrihet,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeusapu, ilmaisuvapaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 27, section 2 of the Penal Code

= strafflagen 27 kapitel 2 §

= rikoslaki 27 luku 2 §

Abstract

The legal counsel of the defendant had during the criminal proceedings accused the prosecutor of having deliberately misused his discretion and thus acted against his legal obligations.The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the counsel had not provided substantiated reasons to support his allegations and was therefore guilty of public slander.One justice, dissenting, argued that the legal counsel of an accused person has, if the interests of his client so require, freedom to criticise the acts of the prosecution without danger of being punished.This right is part of the right to a fair trial and is a central human rights principle in states abiding by the rule of law.According to the dissenting opinion, this principle becomes illusionary if the freedom of speech of the legal counsel is excessively limited.The majority of the Supreme Court approved the arguments of the court of appeal.The court of appeal held that the legal counsel had, as such, a right to criticise the prosecution and express his doubts about the correctness of the acts of the prosecution.However, the court of appeal stated that the legal counsel had not sufficiently substantiated the foundations of his allegations.(A vote).

See also the case of Nikula v.Finland (Application No. 31611/96), judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 21 March 2002.

27.3.1998 / 1.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 9.5.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1624; R-95/655

Reference to source

KKO 1996:48.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1996 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1996 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1996 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1996

Pages: pp. 237-239

Subject

fair trial, legal assistance,
rättvis rättegång, rättshjälp,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeusapu,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 15, sections 2, 3-3, 10a-1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; section 15-2 of the Criminal Investigations Act

= rättegångsbalken 15 kapitel 2 §, 3 § 3 mom., 10a § 1 mom., förundersökningslagen 15 § 2 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 15 luku 2 §, 3 § 3 mom., 10a § 1 mom; esitutkintalaki 15 § 2 mom.

ECHR-6-3, CCPR-14-3

Abstract

A, who was arrested for blasting, had a right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choice, although the counsel he chose already represented another suspect in the same case.The Supreme Court stated that the right to choose a legal counsel cannot be limited purely by reason of the fact that the counsel has information which he or she is obliged to keep confidential.The Supreme Court also noted that section 15-2 of the Criminal Investigations Act laid down stricter qualifications on the counsel than Chapter 15, section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure.However, the court proceedings on the imprisonment of an arrested person were not part of the pre-trial investigation.Thus limitations regarding the qualifications of a legal counsel imposed in the Criminal Investigation Act were not applicable in the court proceedings.The court of first instance referred explicitly to Article 6-6 of the ECHR and Article 14-3 of the CCPR, which secure the right to choose a legal counsel.The court of appeal approved the reasoning of the court of first instance.

27.3.1998 / 1.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 20.6.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2357; S-94/1843

Reference to source

KKO 1996:80.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1996 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1996 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1996 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1996

Pages: pp. 380-390

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, judges,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code on Judicial Procedure; section 51 of the Act on Savings Banks

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §, sparbankslagen 51 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §; säästöpankkilaki 1 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

The court of first instance had ordered A to settle his mortgage loan with the savings bank.Three members of the jury of the court of first instance were members of the board of trustees of the savings bank at the time the property was mortgaged, but no longer at the time when the case was brought to court.The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there were no objective reasons to doubt the impartiality of those three jurors or the court.

The Vaasa Court of Appeal referred to Article 6 of the ECHR and stated that the requirement of impartiality applies both to the professional judges and to the lay members of the court.The court of appeal referred to the established case law of the European Court of Human Rights (the cases of Delcourt, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A, No.11 and Piersack, judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A, No.53) and noted that the impartiality of the court requires not only that the court should be impartial but it must also have the appereance of impartiality.The court of appeal also referred to the cases of Sramek (judgment of 22 October 1984, Series A, No.84), Langborger (judgment of 22 June 1989 Series A, No.155) and Holm (judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A, No. 279) when stating that the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of the ECHR in cases where a member of the court has such a relation to the party or the case itself that the impartiality of that person can be objectively questioned.No case law, however, applies directly to situations where the judge has a position in a legal person that is a party to the case.The Vaasa Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that because the three members of the jury had resigned from the board of trustees of the savings bank, they did no longer have such a status in the savings bank that their impartiality or independence could objectively bequestioned.

The Supreme Court referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and to the cases of Piersack and Holm and noted that in the light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the judge should not have personal bias concerning the case (subjective impartiality).On the other hand, legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the judge or the court should also be excluded (objective impartiality).Therefore, the previous commitments or activities of the judge or the judge's special relationship to the party are among the facts that must be taken into consideration when assessing the impartiality of the court in an objective sense.

Under the circumstances of the particular case, however, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there was no objective reason to doubt the impartiality of the three members of the jury that had previously been members of the board of trustees of the litigant bank, or to doubt the impartiality of the court.(A vote)

30.3.1998 / 1.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 20.6.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2358; S95/781

Reference to source

KKO 1996:81.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1996 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1996 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1996 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1996

Pages: pp. 390-394

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, judges,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code on Judicial Procedure; section 14-1 of the Act on Cooperative Banks

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §; andelsbankslagen 14 § 1 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §; osuuspankkilaki 14 § 1 mom.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

At the time of the proceedings in the court of first instance one member of the jury was a member of the administrative board of the cooperative bank which was the plaintiff in the case.The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the lay member was disqualified in the present case.

The Supreme Court referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and to the case of Piersack (judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A, No.53) and noted that in the light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the judge should not have personal bias concerning the case (subjective impartiality).On the other hand, legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the judge or the court should also be excluded (objective impartiality).Therefore, the previous commitments or activities of the judge or the judge's special relationship to the party are among the facts that must be taken into consideration when assessing the impartiality of the court in an objective sense.

The Supreme Court noted that the administrative board of the litigant bank has both control and decision-making power over the affairs of the bank.Also the members of the board have access to credit information of the clients.The members also have liability for damages.For these reasons, the lay member of the court had such a relationship to the litigant bank that the defendants could reasonably doubt his impartiality.The Supreme Court quashed the decison of the court of first instance and the judgment of the appellate court.(A vote)

30.3.1998 / 1.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 30.8.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 3195; R-95/1455

Reference to source

KKO 1996:101.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1996 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1996 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1996 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1997

Pages: pp.518-520

Subject

fair trial, pretrial investigation, right to remain silent,
rättvis rättegång, förundersökning, rätt att avstå från att yttra sig,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, esitutkinta, oikeus pysyä vaiti,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act

= vägtrafiklagen 58 §

= tieliikennelaki 58 §.

ECHR-6-2, CCPR-14-3-g

Abstract

Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act obliges every driver involved in a traffic accident to stop and assist the injured.A had been involved in a traffic accident but neglected his obligations under section 58 of the Road Traffic Act.He claimed that he could not be punished for neglecting his obligations as stopping and assisting the injured at the scene of the accident would have placed him in a position where he himself could have been arrested and charged with drunken driving, among other things.This would violate A's right not to incriminate himself, which can be derived from the ECHR.

The Supreme Court stated that it does not follow from obeying section 58 of the Road Traffic Act that a crime suspect involved in a traffic accident would not have the same rights as everyone charged with a criminal offence is entitled to according to Article 14-3-g of the CCPR and Article 6-2 of the ECHR.A was sentenced for neglecting his obligations under section 58 of the Road Traffic Act.

Both the court of first instance and the court of appeal came to the same conclusion as the Supreme Court.The reasoning behind the decision of the court of first instance was the purpose of section 58 of the Road Traffic Act, which is to protect the life and health of victims of traffic accidents and which also contributes to the realisation of human rights.

30.3.1998 / 1.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 11.10.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 3782; M-95/162

Reference to source

KKO 1996:124.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1996 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1996 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1996 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1997

Pages: pp. 615-617

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, criminal charge,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, brottsanklagelse,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, rikossyyte,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; section 2 of the Constitution Act

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §; regeringsformen 2 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §; hallitusmuoto 2 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

During the proceedings of the Land Court of Eastern Finland in a case concerning the expropriation of a certain land area, which was part of the national programme for the preservation of the seashores, one lay member of the court had a deal concerning the sale of his estates, which also belonged to the same preservation area, pending at the regional environment centre.

The Supreme Court noted that according to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, a judge is disqualified in a case if he has a part in the case or if he can expect to benefit from it or if the case can give him any disadvantage.The Court noted that after Finland's ratification of the ECHR, the possible disqualification of a judge has also to be weighed in the light of the provisions of the ECHR and the established case-law of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights.As way of an example, the Court referred to its own case-law (KKO 1995:185, KKO 1996:80, KKO 1996:81).It referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR, which states that in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.The Supreme Court also referred to section II (17.7.1995/969) of the Constitution Act, which also includes the requirement of the impartiality of the courts.

The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the pending deal concerning the estates can have created reasonable doubts about the impartiality of the land court in an objective sense.On these grounds, the Supreme Court stated that the lay member in question was disqualified to take part in the proceedings in the land court.The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the land court and returned the case to the land court.

30.3.1998 / 10.10.2012 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 9.9.1996

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 1295; R96/373

Reference to source

VaaHO 1996:13.

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

Databasen FHOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FHOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses, right to be heard,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen, rätt att höras,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia, oikeus tulla kuulluksi,

Relevant legal provisions

ECHR-6-3-d, CCPR-14-3-e

Abstract

The sentencing judgment of the court of first instance was based primarily on evidence with regard to which the accused had not been heard and which he had not been given opportunity to examine.The trial violated the principle of the right to be heard and the right of the accused person to examine or have examined witnesses against him, and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf as provided by Article 6-3-e of the ECHR and Article 14-3-e of the CCPR.The Vaasa Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the court of first instance and returned the case to that court.

30.3.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 24.10.1996

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

Reference: Report No. 5561; S96/1093

Reference to source

HelHO 1996:9.

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

Databasen FHOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FHOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, access to court,
rättvis rättegång, rätt till domstolsprövning,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn,

Relevant legal provisions

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

B, who was an athlete, had been suspended for 4 years from competitions by the administration of the central sports organisation A because the doping samples of B had contained traces of prohibited anabolic steroids.B brought the case to court and demanded A invalidate the suspension.A argued that the court did not have jurisdiction ratio materie over the claims asserted in the case.

According to the Helsinki Court of Appeal, the decision to suspend B from competitions had such factual consequences on B as an athlete that the denial of jurisdiction of the court would have violated the right of access to court as guaranteed in Article 6-1 of the ECHR.The suspension affected the rights of B and the decision had such serious consequences on him that B had the right to have the decision reviewed by the court.

31.3.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 2.2.1996

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 164; S95/297

Reference to source

VaaHO 1996:4.

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

Databasen FHOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FHOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses, oral hearing,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen, muntligt förfarande,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia, suullinen menettely,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 26, section 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 26 kapitel 7 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 26 luku 7 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

There was no disagreement about the contents of the statement of the witness examined in the court of first instance.The question was whether the statement supported the claims of the plaintiff.Therefore and since there were no other reasons for an oral hearing of the witness at the appellate court, the request for an oral hearing was rejected as apparently unnecessary.

31.3.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 6.6.1991

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1930; R-90/770

Reference to source

KKO 1991:84.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1991 I January-June

Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1991 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1991 I tammi-kesäkuu

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

ECHR-6-3-d, CCPR-14-3-e

Abstract

A was prosecuted for a violation of the Narcotics Act.He pleaded not guilty.Two statements given by B and C as defendants in an earlier drug trial were used as proof of A's guilt.The court of first instance and the court of appeal accepted these statements as evidence without providing A with an opportunity to examine B or C in person.A was sentenced to imprisonment.

The Supreme Court stated that according to the principles laid down in Article 6-3-e of the ECHR and Article 14-3-e of the CCPR, everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him.According to the Supreme Court, the statements given by B and C in earlier trials should not have been used by the lower courts as proof of A's guilt without providing him with an opportunity of examining B or C in person or to have these persons examined.The Supreme Court was not unanimous in its decision (four votes to one).The dissenting judge, and the rapporteur of the case, were of the opinion that the drug charge brought against A should have been dismissed.

1.4.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 4.12.1997

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 1800; S97/516

Reference to source

VaaHO 1997:32.

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

Databasen FHOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FHOT-tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, right to be heard,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att höras,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus tulla kuulluksi,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 18 and 70-2 of the Guardianship Act; section 16-2 of the Constitution Act; Chapter 12, sections 1, 2, 3 and Chapter 31, section 1-1-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= förmynderskapslagen 18 § och 70 § 2 mom.; regeringsformen 16 § 2 mom.; rättegångsbalken 12 kapitel 1 §, 2 §, 3 § och 31 kapitel 1 § 1 mom. 2 punkten

= holhouslaki 18 §, 70 § 2 mom.; hallitusmuoto 16 § 2 mom.; oikeudenkäymiskaari 12 luku 1 §, 2 §, 3 § ja 31 luku 1 § 1 mom. 2 kohta.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

On the application of the guardianship board, the court of first instance had, without submitting the matter to a session of the court, assigned to A a trustee who would take care of A's economic affairs.A was not heard when the decision was made.According to a medical doctor's opinion, owing to A's state of mental health, it would not have been possible to hear her in a legal matter.After initially having given her consent to the appointment of a trustee, A had later, in a letter to the court of first instance, objected to the application of the guardianship board.A appealed against the decision of the court of first instance to the Vaasa Court of Appeal.Referring to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and to the relevant provisions of the Constitution Act and the Code of Judicial Procedure, the Vaasa Court of Appeal stated that one of the most central elements of a fair trial is a person's right to be heard when a court is deciding upon his or her rights and obligations.Furthermore, section 18 of the Guardianship Act prescribes that a person who is to be placed under guardianship has to be heard personally, unless the hearing can be considered detrimental to him or her.According to section 70-2 of the same Act, this also applies to appointing a trustee.On the basis of the medical opinion it was not possible to draw the conclusion that hearing A personally would have been detrimental to her.Therefore, the court of first instance should have given A the possibility to be heard in a session of the court, and if need be, to be assisted by legal counsel.The Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the court of first instance and ordered the case to be returned to the court of first instance.

1.4.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 9.5.1997

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 680; R96/616

Reference to source

Registry of the Vaasa Court of Appeal

Vasa hovrätts registratorskontor

Vaasan hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

ECHR-6-3-d, CCPR-14-3-e

Abstract

A case against A had been considered at the court of first instance.The charges against A were dismissed.One of the complainants lodged an appeal with the Vaasa Court of Appeal referring, among other things, to the examination during the pretrial investigation of two persons as witnesses against the accused.However, the prosecutor or the complainant did not have these witnesses examined before the court of first instance and the evidence they had given during the pretrial investigation was not discussed during the legal proceedings.The applicant did not ask for the examination of these witnesses in the appeal proceedings.

The Vaasa Court of Appeal referred to Article 6-3-d of the ECHR and Article 14-3-3 of the CCPR and to the right of the accused to examine or to have examined witnesses against him.In this case the accused had not been given such an opportunity.The court of appeal stated that when considering the evidence presented in the case, the court would not take into account the evidence given by the two persons examined as witnesses during the pretrial investigation.

1.4.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 25.2.1997

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 624; R96/572

Reference to source

Registry of the Vaasa Court of Appeal

Vasa hovrätts registratorskontor

Vaasan hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

A had appealed against the decision of the court of first instance to the Vaasa Court of Appeal.In his appeal, A asked the court of appeal, among other things, to quash the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds that B, who had been a lay member of the court in the case against A, should have been disqualified.B's daughter was engaged to the grandson of C who was the founder of a company which acted in the same line of business as A and was a competitor to A's business.C's son was employed by the competing company.When considering the disqualification of the lay member, the court of appeal held that on the basis of Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, there was no ground for the disqualification of B.The court further referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.According to the case law, a judge should not have a preconception of the case or personal bias concerning the case (subjective impartiality).Furthermore, legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the judge should be excluded (objective impartiality).When considering objective impartiality, it had to be taken into account whether the judge's previous actions or some other specific relation to a party in a case give objective reason to question the impartiality of the judge.There has to be a justified, that is, objectively acceptable, reason to question a court's impartiality.The relationship between B's daughter and the grandson of C, who acted in the same line of business as A, did not give reason to question the court's impartiality.The court of appeal dismissed the claim concerning the disqualification of B.

1.4.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM