Date when decision was rendered: 16.9.1994

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

Reference: Report No. 4231; 2925/1/93

Reference to source

KHO 1994-A-8.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1994 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1994 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1994 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 19-23

Subject

drugs, freedom of association, freedom of expression,
narkotika, föreningsfrihet, yttrandefrihet,
huumeet, yhdistymisvapaus, ilmaisuvapaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1-1, 49-1-1, 49-2, 56 of the Associations Act; Narcotics Act

= föreningslagen 1 § 1 mom., 49 § 1 mom. 1 punkten, 49 § 2 mom., 56 §; narkotikalagen

= yhdistyslaki 1 § 1 mom., 49 § 1 mom. 1 kohta, 49 § 2 mom., 56 §; huumausainelaki.

ECHR-10, ECHR-11

Abstract

The Cannabis Association of Finland (Suomen kannabisyhdistys - Finlands cannabisförening) notified the Ministry of Justice that it wanted to be registered in the register of associations.The founding documents and regulations of the association were attached to the notification.According to the regulations, the aim of the association was to influence the policy and legislation relating to intoxicants in such a way as to make the use, availability and growing at home for personal use of cannabis legal for adults, as well as to study the use of cannabis in different cultures and periods of time.The Ministry of Justice, basing its decision on sections 1-1 and 49 of the Associations Act, rejected the notification, as it considered the aim of the association to be contrary to morals in that it was contrary to the prevailing legal and moral concepts of Finnish society.

The association appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, demanding to be included in the associations register, claiming that the decision of the Ministry violated their constitutional rights, the Associations Act and Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR.In its decision the Supreme Administrative Court referred to the same articles of the ECHR granting a right to freedom of expression and to freedom of association, weighing these against Finland's obligations under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.The Narcotics Act prohibits acts contrary to the convention.The Associations Act in turn prohibits the registration of associations with aims contrary to law or morals.

The aims of the Cannabis Association, as stated in its regulations, to influence the policy and legislation relating to intoxicants in such a way as to make the use, availability and growing at home for personal use of cannabis legal for adults, could in the opinion of the Court not as such be regarded as contrary to morals.The nature of the change aimed at must also be taken into account.Encouraging a habit detrimental to health must be seen as an aim of the association.Taking into account that the use of cannabis is criminalized and not generally accepted in society, but still regarded as an exceptional, unhealthy habit, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that an association whose aims include encouraging such a habit is contrary to morals as laid out in section 1-1 of the Associations Act.The Court rejected the appeal.

See also Application No. 26712/95, Larmela v.Finland, decision of the European Commission of Human Rights, 28 May 1997 (inadmissible).

7.4.1998 / 3.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 5.7.2006

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

Reference: Report no. 1717; 288/3/05

Reference to source

KHO 2006:43.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2006 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2006 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2006 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2010

Pages: pp. 47-56

Subject

appeal, access to court, non-discrimination, respect for private life, integrity, drugs,
ändringssökande, rätt till domstolsprövning, icke-diskriminering, respekt för privatliv, integritet, narkotika,
muutoksenhaku, oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn, syrjintäkielto, yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, koskemattomuus, huumeet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 28-1-7, 34-1 and 34-2-4 of the Administrative Procedure Act; section 6-2 of the Act on the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs; sections 25-1, 25-2, 25-5, 29, 38-1 and 39 of the Act on Health Care Professionals; sections 7-1 and 18-1 of the Constitution Act

= förvaltningslag 28 § 1 mom. 7 punkten, 34 § 1 mom och 2 mom. 4 punkten; lag om rättsskyddscentralen för hälsovården 6 § 2 mom.; lag om yrkesutbildade personer inom hälso- och sjukvården 25 § 1, 2 och 5 mom., 29 §, 38 § 1 mom. och 39 §; grundlagen 7 § 1 mom. och 18 § 1 mom.

= hallintolaki 28 § 1 mom. 7 kohta, 34 § 1 mom. ja 2 mom. 4 kohta; laki terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskuksesta 6 § 2 mom.; laki terveydenhuollon ammattihenkilöistä 25 § 1, 2 ja 5 mom., 29 §, 38 § 1 mom. ja 39 §; perustuslaki 7 § 1 mom. ja 18 § 1 mom.

ECHR-5; ECHR-6; ECHR-8

Abstract

The National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs, responsible for the supervision of health care professionals, found that it had good reason to presume that A, who was a foreign national and a physician licensed to practice his profession in Finland, was no longer capable of practicing his profession, owing to reduced functional capacity and possible drug addiction.Based on the Act on Health Care Professionals, the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs ordered A to submit a medical report concerning his health and his ability to work and imposed on A a temporary prohibition to practice his profession.It also held that appeal against the decision was not possible, because this was concerning a preparatory measure and not a final decision by which the issue would have been resolved or dismissed.Nevertheless, A appealed against the decision, to the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that this was an administrative decision directly concerning his rights and obligations.He argued that he had a right to appeal on the basis of the Act on Health Care Professionals as well as on the basis of section 21 of the Constitution Act (protection under the law and access to court) and Article 6 of the ECHR.He also claimed that the decision amounted to discrimination and did not honour his right to privacy and personal liberty, protected under the Constitution Act and the ECHR.

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the decision was appealable, because the possibility of appeal was not specifically restricted in the Act on Health Care Professionals.Moreover, the decision affected A's rights, obligations and interests to such an extent that he was entitled to submit the matter to the consideration of a court.Regarding the merits, the Court held, among other things, that the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs had previously issued several similar orders in cases where a physician had been suspected of drug addiction, and therefore the decision concerning A did not amount to discrimination on the basis of nationality.Also, the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs has a right, based on the law, to use the assistance of experts and to submit to the experts information necessary for the performance of their task, confidentiality provisions notwithstanding.It could thus attach to its decision A's medical records and other information for the use of the expert who would assess A's health and ability to work.The decision was also not in violation of A's right to personal liberty, because it had a legitimate aim to guarantee patient security and because it was A's own choice whether he would undergo a medical examination or not.The decision did not mean that A would have been ordered to involuntary treatment.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs had acted in accordance with its powers under the Act on Health Care Professionals.A's appeal was dismissed.

11.4.2007 / 2.12.2010 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 19.2.2013

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 353; R2011/193

Reference to source

KKO 2013:12.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2013 January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2013 januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2013 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2013

Pages: pp. 98-105

Subject

principle of legality, drugs,
legalitetsprincipen, narkotika,
laillisuusperiaate, huumeet,

Relevant legal provisions

chapter 3, section 1, chapter 44, section 5, chapter 50, sections 1-3 and 5-1 of the Penal Code; section 19 of the Medicine Act; section 8 of the Constitution Act; sections 3 and 5 of Government Decree 1088/2002 on importing of medicinal preparations for personal use

= strafflagen 3 kapitel 1 §, 44 kapitel 5 §, 50 kapitel 1 § 3 punkten och 5 § 1 mom.; läkemedelslag 19 §; grundlagen 8 §; statsrådets förordning (1088/2002) om personlig införsel av läkemedelspreparat till Finland 3 § och 5 §

= rikoslaki 3 luku 1 §, 44 luku 5 §, 50 luku 1 § 3 kohta ja 5 § 1 mom.; lääkelaki 19 §; perustuslaki 8 §; valtioneuvoston asetus (1088/2002) lääkevalmisteiden henkilökohtaisesta tuonnista Suomeen 3 § ja 5 §.

ECHR-7; Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Abstract

X had brought from Estonia to Finland a small amount of medicines for personal use, without, however, carrying the original prescription or a certificate required for importing medicines classified as narcotic substances.The court of first instance sentenced X to a fine for a narcotics offence.In the court's view, the fact that X had later presented the required certificates did not exonerate X from criminal liability.X appealed to the court of appeal which dismissed the charge.The court referred to Government Decree 1088/2002, issued on the basis of the Medicine Act and concerning import of medicinal products for personal use.It noted that section 3 of the Decree, on conditions for import of personal prescribed medicines, contains an explicit provision requiring that the traveller must carry the relevant documentation with him/her when entering the country, whereas there is no such explicit requirement in section 5 on importing of personal medicines classified as narcotic substances.The court relied on the principle of legality and held that the provision in the Penal Code on the punishability of unlawful importing of narcotics cannot be interpreted to the detriment of the defendant to the effect that missing documentation at the time of entry into the country alone would amount to unlawful import.

The prosecutor appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court noted that section 3 is a provision meant to be applied as long as there are no exceptions specified in the later sections of the Decree.The court found that because section 5 of the Decree imposes considerable limitations on importing of personal medicines classified as narcotic substances, there is clearly no intention to ease the general conditions for importing of personal medicines, including the requirement that the traveller should carry all relevant documentation with him/her when entering the country.In the court's view, it is clear from the provisions of the Decree that a person importing medicines classified as narcotic substances must carry the required prescription and certificate when entering the country.The provisions of the Decree are in accordance with the principle of legality as prescribed in the Penal Code, the Constitution Act, Article 7 of the ECHR and Article 49 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The court ruled that X had acted in violation of the Decree.However, it then considered the nature of X's possible offence.X would have had the right to bring the legally acquired, personal medicines to Finland provided X had presented the relevant documentation when entering the country.It had not even been claimed that X intended to abuse the medicines or hand them over to someone else.However, X had been negligent when failing to find out about the relevant regulations and to obtain and present the required documentation.In the court's opinion, considerations relating to the purpose of the regulations on narcotics and narcotics offences do not speak in favour of convicting a traveller importing medicines for personal treatment for a narcotics offence only because the required documentation is missing upon entry into the country.This would not be in right proportion to the demerits of the deed.The court found that X was also not guilty of a medicine offence which is a punishable act under the Penal Code only when committed intentionally or through gross negligence.Because the prosecutor had charged X for an intentional violation of the Medicine Act only and had not presented any alternative charge, the court did not assess whether X was liable for a minor offence, namely infringement through negligence of the Medicine Act.The Supreme Court upheld the outcome of the appeal court's ruling.

14.11.2013 / 14.11.2013 / RHANSKI