Date when decision was rendered: 9.10.2000

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2229; S97/1935

Reference to source

KKO 2000:97.

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. 500-516

Subject

non-discrimination, principle of proportionality, compensation, general principles of law,
icke-diskriminering, proportionalitetsprincipen, skadestånd, allmänna rättsprinciper,
syrjintäkielto, suhteellisuusperiaate, vahingonkorvaus, yleiset oikeusperiaatteet,

Relevant legal provisions

Damage Compensation Act; Act on the special protection of the river Kyröjoki (1139/1991)

= skadeståndslagen; lag om specialskydd för Kyro älv (1139/1991)

= vahingonkorvauslaki; Kyröjoen erityissuojelulaki (1139/1991)

Abstract

A contract between a company and the Government had not been fully implemented and had become void because of a new Act pertaining to the subject of the contract.On the basis of the Act, the company had already received some compensation.However, the company also accused the Government of breach of contract and demanded additional compensation.In support of its claim, the company referred not only to relevant national legislation but also to some general principles of law, among them the principles of proportionality and of non-discrimination as they result from the ECHR.It considered the said principles as restrictions to the discretion of the governmental authorities.

The court of first instance concluded that it had not been shown that the Government had committed a breach of contract or an act of negligence when enacting the new legislation.The principles of law, which the company referred to, could not alone and separately be applied as grounds for damages.The case went further to the court of appeal and to the Supreme Court, but the decisions of the two courts do not refer to the ECHR nor to general principles of law resulting from the ECHR.

28.10.2002 / 10.3.2003 / LISNELLM