Date when decision was rendered: 8.11.1994

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 4114; R92/676

Reference to source

KKO 1994:114.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1994 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1994 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1994 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1995

Pages: pp. 502-510

Subject

trade, right to property, constitution,
handel, äganderätt, grundlagen,
kauppa, omistusoikeus, perustuslaki,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 2 of the Decree on foreign trade and securing of economic growth (162/1974); sections 1 to 3 of the Act on foreign trade and securing of economic growth (157/1974); sections 6 and 92-2 of the Constitution Act

= förordning om utrikeshandel och säkrande av ekonomisk tillväxt (162/1974) 2 §; lag om utrikeshandel och säkrande av ekonomisk tillväxt (157/1974) 1-3 §, Regeringsformen 6 §, 92 § 2 mom.

= ulkomaankaupan ja taloudellisen kasvun turvaamisesta annettu asetus (162/1974) 2 §; ulkomaankaupan ja taloudellisen kasvun turvaamisesta annettu laki (157/1974) 1-3 §, hallitusmuoto 6 §, 92 § 2 mom.

Abstract

The prosecutor demanded that A and B should be sentenced for having imported steel without an import licence in 1978-1982.A and B claimed that the requirement of a permanent import licence, as prescribed in the Decree on foreign trade and securing of economic growth, was contrary to the Act on foreign trade and securing of economic growth.The court of first instance noted that the Act did not explicitly prohibit the use of permanent import licences and that the relevant provisions of the Decree had not been questioned in previous legal praxis.However, the court concluded that there were extenuating circumstances in the case and considering this, the right to institute criminal proceedings had been time-barred.The charges against A and B were therefore dropped.

The case went further to the court of appeal which noted that import restrictions were possible in specific cases listed in the Act on foreign trade and securing of economic growth and that, according to the Act, it was possible to prescribe on such restrictions in a Decree.However, the Act did not provide for the possibility of an obligatory import licence in this case.The Act had been enacted following the procedure for constitutional amendments as its provisions in some cases meant that legislative power was delegated from the Parliament to an executive authority and as some of the provisions could infringe the freedom of economic activity and the right to property.This being the case, the Act had to be interpreted restrictively.The court of appeal then referred to section 92-2 of the Constitution Act, which prescribes that if a provision in a Decree conflicts with an Act of Parliament, a court shall not apply it.As the relevant provisions of the Decree in this case were in conflict with the Act, the court of appeal did not apply the Decree and dropped the charges as being without a foundation in law.

The Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal.As grounds for the restrictive interpretation of the Act, the Supreme Court mainly brought up the delegation of legislative power to an executive authority, whereas one concurring judge emphasized the protection of property rights as prescribed in section 6 of the Constitution Act.

7.4.1998 / 10.10.2012 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 30.5.1980

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

Reference: Report No. 2487a; 3593-3596/30/78

Reference to source

KHO 1980-A-2.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1980 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1980 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1980 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1981

Pages: pp. 47-49

Subject

freedom of the press, trade,
tryckfrihet, handel,
painovapaus, kauppa,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 10 of the Constitution Act; sections 15 and 16 of the Act on the Freedom of the Press Act

= regeringsformen 10 §; tryckfrihetslagen 15 § och 16 §

= hallitusmuoto 10 §; painovapauslaki 15 § ja 16 §

Abstract

Temporary distribution of printed matters was not an activity which, taking into account section 10 of the Constitution Act and the Act on the Freedom of the Press, could be made subject to such authorisation as stipulated in the city ordinance.The sale of such printed matters was therefore not punishable.

The city administrative court of Helsinki was of the opinion that the sale of the printed matters was gainful employment, regardless of the fact whether the persons selling them were paid or not, and that the freedom of the press was not at issue in the case.The sellers A, B, C and D appealed to the county administrative court, which rejected the appeal.

A, B, C and D appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, which quashed the decision of the lower courts.The Court referred to the fact that the sale had been temporary and not the real profession of A, B, C and D.The sale had therefore not constituted such sale of books as described in sections 15 or 16 of the Act on the Freedom of the Press that required a notification to the authorities.The city ordinance could include restrictions of trade, but not in contravention of the constitutional right guaranteed in section 10 of the Constitution Act of the freedom of the press.The distribution of printed matters by A, B, C and D could therefore not be regarded as such trade or other gainful employment that under the city ordinance required the authorities' permission.

21.4.1998 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM