Date when decision was rendered: 13.12.1993

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 4489; S92/1250

Reference to source

KKO 1993:156.

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. 699-703

Subject

compensation, lawful detention, deprivation of liberty,
skadestånd, laglig anhållande, frihetsberövande,
vahingonkorvaus, laillinen pidätys, vapaudenriisto,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1 and 2 of the Act on Compensation from State Funds for the Arrest or Detention of an Innocent Person

= lag om ersättning av statens medel som till följd av frihetsberövande skall betalas till oskyldigt häktad eller dömd 1 § och 2 §

= laki syyttömästi vangitulle tai tuomitulle valtion varoista vapauden menetyksen johdosta maksettavasta korvauksesta 1 § ja 2 §.

ECHR-5-1-c, CCPR 14-3-g

Abstract

The court of first instance and the court of appeal had dismissed an application for compensation, based on the Act on Compensation from State Funds for the Arrest or Detention of an Innocent Person.Both instances referred to the fact that the defendant had changed his story during the investigation and the trial and thereby contributed to his detention.The court of appeal referred to Article 5-1-c of the ECHR authorising detention on reasonable suspicion of a n offence.In quashing the ruling by the court of appeal and granting compensation, the Supreme Court referred to Article 14-3-g of the CCPR, according to which a defendant shall not be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

26.3.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 14.6.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2225; S-95/868

Reference to source

KKO 1996:75.

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. 357-361

Subject

deprivation of liberty, compensation,
frihetsberövande, skadestånd,
vapaudenriisto, vahingonkorvaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 4 of the Act on Compensation from State Funds for the Arrest or Detention of an Innocent Person

= lag om ersättning av statens medel som till följd av frihetsberövande skall betalas till oskyldigt häktad eller dömd 4 §

= laki syyttömästi vangitulle tai tuomitulle valtion varoista vapauden menetyksen johdosta maksettavasta korvauksesta 4 §.

ECHR-5-5, CCPR-9-5

Abstract

A policeman had ordered A to be taken into custody and demanded the court of first instance to order that A lose his parole because of his misbehaviour.The court of first instance rejected the demand.The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that A had the right to receive compensation for the unnecessary deprivation of his liberty.

Considering the purpose of section 4 of the Act on Compensation from State Funds for the Arrest or Detention of an Innocent Person, which is to guarantee compensation to innocent persons who have been deprived of their liberty because of crime investigation or conviction, the compensation provisions in question have, in established case law, been interpreted widely and applied with analogy.Therefore the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of appeal and held that A was entitled to compensation for the deprivation of his liberty.

In addition to section 4 of the Act on Compensation from State Funds.A's claims for compensation were based on Article 9-5 of the CCPR and Article 5-5 of the ECHR.

30.3.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 22.8.1991

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No.2744; 520/7/91

Reference to source

KHO 1991-A-47.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1991 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1991 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1991 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1992

Pages: pp. 160-161

Subject

deprivation of liberty, aliens, compensation,
frihetsberövande, utlänningar, skadestånd,
vapaudenriisto, ulkomaalaiset, vahingonkorvaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Aliens Act; section 2-1-3 of the Act on County Administrative Courts; section 3-1 of the Administrative Appeals Act

= utlänningslag; lag om länsrätter 2 § 1 mom. 3 punkten; lag om ändringssökande i förvaltningsärenden 3 § 1 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki; lääninoikeuslaki 2 § 1 mom. 3 kohta; laki muutoksenhausta hallintoasioissa 3 § 1 mom.

CCPR-2

Abstract

On 2 April 1990, the Human Rights Committee had found a violation by Finland of Article 2 of the CCPR in the Torres case (Communication No.291/1988).Mr.Torres had not been able to have the legality of his deprivation of liberty determined by a court without delay.The Human Rights Committee stated that Finland therefore should compensate Mr.Torres for the violation of his rights.In his application to the Ministry of the Interior, Mr.Torres requested that Finland pay him the sum of FIM 50.000 plus an annual 16 % interest rate since 10.1.1988.

In its decision, the Ministry of the Interior stated that Mr.Torres had not been able to have the legality of the deprivation of his liberty determined by a court on the basis of the provisions of the Aliens' Act in force at the time of the deprivation of his liberty.Therefore the Ministry of the Interior, while rejecting most of the demands and taking into account Article 2 of the CCPR, decided to award Mr.Torres the sum of FIM 7000 as compensation.The Ministry noted that the relevant provisions of the Aliens' Act had subsequently been amended by Act 408/1990.

In the Supreme Administrative Court, Mr.Torres demanded the payment of the full sum requested by him in his application to the Ministry of the Interior.The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the Ministry's decision was not a binding decision on Mr.Torres' right to compensation as regards the part of the application for compensation rejected by the Ministry.The Ministry's decision was not such a decision which according to section 3-1 of the Administrative Appeals Act could be appealed.The decision of the Ministry could be brought to the county administrative court as an administrative dispute.For this reason, the Supreme Adminstrative Court transferred the case to the county administrative court.

1.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 13.3.1998

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

Reference: Report No. 335; R98/172

Reference to source

VaaHO 1998:3.

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

deprivation of liberty,
frihetsberövande,
vapaudenriisto,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 1, sections 21-3 and 27 of the Coercive Measures Act; Criminal Proceedings Act

= tvångsmedelslagen 1 kapitel 21 § 3 mom. och 27 §; lag om rättegång i brottmål

= pakkokeinolaki 1 luku 21 § 3 mom. ja 27 §; laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa.

ECHR-5

Abstract

The court of first instance had decided on 25 February 1998 that A should remain in custody.Charges against A had been brought within the time limit set by the court (before 4 March 1998).The court had decided that the main hearing should be held on 18 March 1998.In his appeal to the Vaasa Court of Appeal, A claimed that regardless of the fact that charges had been brought against him the court of first instance should have decided on the lawfulness of his continued detention within two weeks from the latest decision to keep him in custody, in other words, before the main hearing on 18 March.

The court of appeal dismissed the appeal mainly on the following grounds: Chapter 1, section 21-3 of the Coercive Measures Act provides that if the court decides that charges shall be brought against a person later than within two weeks, the court must at its own initiative consider the lawfulness of the detention after each period of two weeks until charges are brought.This provision concerns cases of detention regarding which preparations for bringing charges have not been completed or a pretrial investigation is still in progress.In such cases the decision of detention is by necessity based on incomplete information.Therefore, there are weighty arguments for a reinvestigation of the reasons for the detention with relatively short intervals.

After the revision of the criminal procedure in 1997, criminal proceedings are instituted by a fairly detailed application for a summons.This means that courts now have, once charges have been brought, better opportunities than before to judge the reasons for the detention and, if necessary, to order the immediate release of the detainee.The Criminal Proceedings Act defines the time limit within which the main hearing must be held.After charges have been brought there are no weighty reasons why the courts should on their own initiative consider the prerequisites of the detention at two-week intervals.Furthermore, according to Chapter 1, section 27 of the Coercive Measures Act, a detained person has the right to appeal against the decision of detention.Such appeals must be decided urgently.According to the court of appeal, this possibility gives the detainee sufficient legal rights after charges have been brought against him and also fulfils the requirements put forth in Article 5-4 of the ECHR.

23.10.2002 / 27.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 4.12.2000

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2771; R2000/399

Reference to source

KKO 2000:119.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2000 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2000 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2000 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 2001

Pages: pp. 628-631

Subject

deprivation of liberty, lawful detention,
frihetsberövande, laglig anhållande,
vapaudenriisto, laillinen pidätys,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 6, section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Chapter 1, sections 21, 23 and 24 of the Coercive Measures Act; section 7 of the Constitution Act

= lag om rättegång i brottmål 6 kapitel 10 §; tvångsmedelslagen 1 kapitel 21 §, 23 §, 24 §; grundlagen 7 §

= laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa 6 luku 10 §; pakkokeinolaki 1 luku 21 §, 23 §, 24 §; perustuslaki 7 §.

ECHR-5-4

Abstract

The court of first instance had postponed the main hearing with more than 14 days because of the fact that three defendants, who were all accused of murder, had been remanded for a mental examination.The court had also decided to continue the detention of the fourth defendant A, who was accused of accessory to murder.A filed an extraordinary appeal against the decision before the court of appeal and claimed that a new decision concerning the lawfulness of A's detention should have been made within 14 days from the main hearing.As this had not been done, A's detention had no longer any legal basis.

The court of appeal noted that according to Chapter 1, section 21 of the Coercive Measures Act and the relevant case law of the Supreme Court, a decision on the lawfulness of detention had to be made after each period of 14 days until charges were brought against the detained person or until the main hearing was begun.In A's case, the main hearing had already begun.According to the law, it was possible to postpone the main hearing with more than 14 days because of a mental examination of the defendant(s).As A was accused of accessory to murder, it was not possible to make a decision in A's case before a decision was made regarding the three other defendants.Thus, there were legal grounds to hold A in custody.

A appealed to the Supreme Court which did not change the decision of the appeal court.The Supreme Court noted that the court of first instance had a possibility to consider the lawfulness of A's detention immediately after the main hearing.If there were no legal grounds to hold A in custody, the court of first instance should, in accordance with Chapter 1, section 24 of the Coercive Measures Act, order that A be immediately released.The Court also referred to section 7 of the Constitution Act and to Article 5-4 of the ECHR concerning the right of a detained person to submit his detention for a review by a court.It concluded that in the present situation A had sufficient legal safeguards to bring the detention issue before a court.

28.10.2002 / 10.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 7.1.1998

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

Reference: Report No. 9; S97/153

Reference to source

Registry of the Helsinki Court of Appeal

Helsingfors hovrätts registratorskontor

Helsingin hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

deprivation of liberty, compensation,
frihetsberövande, skadestånd,
vapaudenriisto, vahingonkorvaus,

Relevant legal provisions

section 4 of the Act on Compensation from State Funds for the Arrest or Detention of an Innocent Person

= lag om ersättning av statens medel som till följd av frihetsberövande skall betalas till oskyldigt häktad eller dömd 4 §

= laki syyttömästi vangitulle tai tuomitulle valtion varoista vapauden menetyksen johdosta maksettavasta korvauksesta 4 §

Abstract

The court of first instance had ordered compensation from state funds for A who had been arrested for 33 days but was declared innocent and released.A appealed against the decision and requested that the amount of compensation would be increased.

The court of appeal discussed, among other things, the question as to whether the behavior of a person during detention should be taken into account when considering the amount of compensation.During his detention, A had been passive and had often failed to answer the questions posed by the police.He had not specifically defended himself against the charges, although he had been given the possibility to do so and had also had a legal counsel.The court of appeal noted that the Constitution Act or human rights conventions do not guarantee a person who is suspected on reasonable grounds for an offence a short detention period or the least possible suffering.Instead, they guarantee the right to speak or to remain silent in one's own case and they provide protection against arbitrary treatment.The court continued that if a detained person for some reason does not wish to make use of the means guaranteed for his or her defence and of the possibility to thus clarify the matter, that person's claim for receiving an amount of compensation which is larger than on the average on account of a prolonged detention period is not likely to be successful.The court also referred to the principle of equality and noted that when assessing the amount of compensation no distinction should be made between persons, unless there is a justified cause for that.The court of appeal did not change the decision of the first instance court.The Supreme Court did not grant A leave to appeal.

6.8.2003 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 27.1.2004

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 176; R2003/300

Reference to source

KKO 2004:7.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2004 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2004 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2004 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2004

Pages: 37-42

Subject

right to liberty, security of person, appeal, deprivation of liberty, lawful detention,
rätt till frihet, personlig säkerhet, ändringssökande, frihetsberövande, laglig anhållande,
oikeus vapauteen, henkilökohtainen turvallisuus, muutoksenhaku, vapaudenriisto, laillinen pidätys,

Relevant legal provisions

section 60 of the Aliens Act; section 21-2 of the Constitution Act

= utlänningslag 60 §; grundlagen 21 § 2 mom.

= ulkomaalaislaki 60 §; perustuslaki 21 § 2 mom.

ECHR-5

Abstract

A had been detained on the basis of the Aliens Act.The court of first instance had twice decided to continue A's detention.Section 60 of the Aliens Act (378/1991) prescribed that, with a few exceptions, decisions made under the Act were not subject to appeal.The exceptions did not include a decision on detention made by a court of first instance.However, extraordinary appeal under the Code of Judicial Procedure was possible in the form of a complaint on the basis of a grave procedural error.In A's case the question was whether it was possible to file a complaint on the grounds that there were no reasons for the detention as prescribed by law.The Supreme Court first recalled the amendments made to the previous Aliens Act (400/1983) in order for national legislation to correspond to the ECHR and its provisions concerning deprivations of liberty.In 1990, a provision was added to the Aliens Act according to which it was possible for a detained person to file a complaint against a decision concerning his or her detention in order for a higher court to review the reasons for detention.Such a provision was not included in the later Aliens Act (378/1991) which was in force when A's case was pending.However, the Supreme Court referred to the Government Bill to the Aliens Act, according to which previous amendments required by the ECHR were included in the proposed Act.It was not explicitly said in the Government Bill that the drafters intended to leave out the possibility of complaint from the new Act.Furthermore, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it was possible to interpret the restrictions to the right of appeal in section 60 of the Aliens Act to the effect that they only applied to decisions made by administrative authorities and administrative courts and not to decisions by general courts.The Court ruled that section 60 did not prevent the possibility of appeal against the decision on detention made by a court of first instance: the question was left open in the Act.The Supreme Court then referred to section 21-2 of the Constitution Act concerning the right of appeal and to the fact that detention constituted serious interference with the liberty and security of a person.The Aliens Act did not prescribe any maximum duration for the time in detention.A court of first instance had a duty to reconsider its decision on detention at two-week intervals.In the Supreme Court's opinion this did not correspond to a possibility to have a decision reviewed by a higher court.Therefore, in the Court's view, it was reasonable that a detained person should have a right to have the grounds for his or her detention reviewed by a higher court.The Court then referred to legislation concerning general courts and pointed out that the need for swift legal safeguards in cases concerning personal liberty was taken care of by means of a right of filing a complaint.No time limit was prescribed for filing such a complaint.The Supreme Court ruled that also in the case of the Aliens Act it was possible to file a complaint against the decision on detention made by a court of first instance on the grounds that there were no reasons for the detention as prescribed by law.The court of appeal had rejected A's complaint as it was not made on the basis of a grave procedural error.One justice of the court dissented.His reasoning corresponded to that of the Supreme Court.

22.4.2005 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 8.12.2005

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 3021; S2004/842

Reference to source

KKO 2005:128.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2005 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2005 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2005 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2006

Pages: pp. 924-929

Subject

deprivation of liberty, compensation,
frihetsberövande, skadestånd,
vapaudenriisto, vahingonkorvaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 8, section 5-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act; sections 1 and 2 of the Act on Compensation from State Funds for the Arrest or Detention of an Innocent Person

= lag om rättegång i brottmål 8 kapitel 5 § 2 mom.; lag om ersättning av statens medel som till följd av frihetsberövande skall betalas till oskyldigt häktad eller dömd 1 § och 2 §

= laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa 8 luku 5 § 2 mom.; laki syyttömästi vangitulle tai tuomitulle valtion varoista vapauden menetyksen johdosta maksettavasta korvauksesta 1 § ja 2 §.

ECHR-5-5; CCPR-9-5

Abstract

On the basis of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court of first instance had ordered that A, a defendant in a criminal matter, is to be fetched to the court hearing.On that occasion, A was deprived of his liberty for three days.The charges against A were later dismissed.The question was whether A was entitled to compensation for the deprivation of his liberty.The Supreme Court noted that while the Act on Compensation from State Funds for the Arrest or Detention of an Innocent Person explicitly refers to cases of arrest or detention on the basis of the Coercive Measures Act, in case law the provisions have been interpreted expansively to apply also in situations comparable to arrest or detention.The Supreme Court thus argued that the Act was applicable to deprivation of liberty based on an order to bring a person before a court in cases where the charges are dismissed.However, according to the Act a person is not entitled to compensation if he or she has tried to escape or avoid pretrial investigation or trial.In this case, A had been involved in several criminal matters and a warrant for his apprehension had been issued on 15 previous occasions.The court of first instance had therefore had weighty reasons to believe that A would fail to appear in court.In the Supreme Court's view, the order to fetch A to the hearing had thus been justified, and it can be held that A had himself contributed to the deprivation of his liberty.The Court concluded that A was not entitled to compensation, despite the fact that the charges against him had been dismissed.

Five concurring justices argued for a literal interpretation of the Act on Compensation from State Funds.The Act was not applicable in A's case and he was thus not entitled to compensation.The justices also referred to Article 5 of the ECHR and Article 9 of the CCPR and pointed out that a person is entitled to compensation on the basis of the human rights provisions, if the deprivation of that person's liberty has been illegal or based on legislation which is in violation of the ECHR or the CCPR.The order to fetch A to the hearing and the deprivation of his liberty were based on the law.The human rights provisions did not require an expansive interpretation of the Act on Compensation in this case.

29.5.2006 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI