Date when decision was rendered: 28.9.1999

Judicial body: Rovaniemi Court of Appeal = Rovaniemi hovrätt = Rovaniemen hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 619; R99/308

Reference to source

RHO 1999:4.

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, interpretation, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, tolkning, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, tulkkaus, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

section 4 of the Language Act

= språklagen 4 §

= kielilaki 4 §.

ECHR-6-3-d; ECHR-6-3-e

Abstract

A was convicted in the court of first instance.He was also obligated to pay back to the state the fees of the two interpreters who had assisted A and the prosecutor's witness during the proceedings.With reference to Article 6-3-e of the ECHR, the prosecutor appealed to the court of appeal as far as the interpretation costs were concerned.He also claimed that it was contrary to the spirit of the ECHR to obligate A to bear the fees of an interpreter who had assisted the prosecutor's witness.

The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal referred to section 4 of the Language Act which provides that, if necessary, an interpreter must be used in oral court proceedings.Unless the chairman of the court is able to take care of the interpretation, an interpreter must be provided with public funds.The court also referred to Article 6-3-e of the ECHR and to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koc (judgment of 28 November 1978, Series A, No. 29) and the Öztürk case (judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A, No. 73).In these cases, the European Court of Human Rights had noted that the provision concerning the right to free assistance of an interpreter also applied to a convicted person.

As the prosecutor's witness did not speak or understand the language used during the court proceedings, in order to hear the witness, it was necessary to use an interpreter.This was also necessary in order for A to be able to examine the witness as provided for in Article 6-3-d of the ECHR.To claim back from the accused A the interpretation costs incurred by the hearing of the prosecutor's witness was in contradiction with both Articles 6-3-d and e of the ECHR.

The court of appeal decided that A could not be required to pay back to the state the interpretation costs originally covered with public funds.

25.10.2002 / 30.5.2006 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 10.5.2001

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 938; R 2000/217

Reference to source

KKO 2001:47.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2001 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2001 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2001 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 2001

Pages: pp. 235-236

Subject

fair trial, interpretation,
rättvis rättegång, tolkning,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, tulkkaus,

Relevant legal provisions

section 4 of the Language Act; section 6 of the Decree on the implementation of the Language Act

= språklagen 4 §; förordning angående verkställighet av språklagen 6 §

= kielilaki 4 §; kielilain täytäntöönpanosta annettu asetus 6 §.

ECHR 6-3-e

Abstract

The Helsinki Court of Appeal had asked for the assistance of two interpreters during the main hearing of a criminal case.However, the main hearing was interrupted because of the problems in summoning one of the defendants.In its decision, the court of appeal ordered the amount of the fee to be paid from state funds to the interpreters for their services.In fixing the fee, the court referred to the small working load of the interpreters.The fee did not correspond to the prices announced by the company which had provided the interpreters.Following the appeal instructions appended to the decision of the court, the company petitioned for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and asked for the increasing of the fee.

The Supreme Court referred to Article 6-3-e of the ECHR, to the Language Act and to the Decree on the implementation of the Act.It noted that the state has a duty to arrange the use of an interpreter in an oral court hearing if necessary.However, the right of an interpreter to a fee is not fixed in any Act.The relation between a court (as a representative of the state) and an interpreter is based on a contract.Any dispute concerning the interpreter's fee is to be solved in a civil procedure.In this case, the court of appeal could thus not fix the amount of the fee in its decision, and its decision concerning the fee could not be made subject to appeal.The appeal instructions of the court of appeal were abolished as far as the fee of the interpreters was concerned.The appeal of the company was ruled inadmissible.

29.10.2002 / 10.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 9.5.2012

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 861; R2011/704

Reference to source

KKO 2012:45.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2012 January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2012 januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2012 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2012

Pages: 296-310

Subject

fair trial, preparation of defence, self-incrimination, legal counsel, pretrial investigation, interpretation,
rättvis rättegång, förberedande av försvar, utsätta sig för åtal, rättegångsbiträde, förundersökning, tolkning,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, puolustuksen valmisteleminen, saattaa itsensä syytteen vaaraan, oikeudenkäyntiavustaja, esitutkinta, tulkkaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 17, section 32 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; Chapter 6, section 7-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act; sections 10, 29, 37 and 39 of the Criminal Investigations Act

= rättegångsbalken 17 kapitel 32 §; lag om rättegång i brottmål 6 kapitel 7 § 2 mom.; förundersökningslagen 10 §, 29 §, 37 § och 39 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 17 luku 32 §; laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa 6 luku 7 § 2 mom.; esitutkintalaki 10 §, 29 §, 37 § ja 39 §.

ECHR-6-3-c; ECHR-6-3-e

Abstract

X had been in custody when being questioned by the police on suspicion of an aggravated narcotics offence.X had been appointed a defender who, however, was not present during the questioning.X did not speak Finnish, so the language used in questioning was English.The official record of the questioning was prepared in Finnish, and the police officer had given X an oral translation of the record in English.According to the pretrial investigation records, X had been informed by the police before the questioning of his right to counsel, but not of his right to remain silent and his right not to incriminate himself.The police had been aware that X had not consulted his counsel before the questioning.In the court of appeal, X was convicted for aggravated narcotics offence, grossly negligent homicide and grossly negligent bodily injury.The conviction was partly based on X's pretrial investigation statements which the prosecutor had referred to as evidence supporting X's guilt.

The Supreme Court found that, despite the evidence received in the oral hearing before the Supreme Court, it was not clear why X had failed to meet with his counsel.Apparently, counsel should have provided more effective assistance.On the other hand, the police had not notified him in advance as to when exactly X's questioning would take place.The Supreme Court held that the appointment of a defender for X or the fact that X had continued to answer questions in the absence of his counsel did not relieve the authorities from their duty to guarantee the suspect's rights of defence.Such guarantees must be practical and effective.The mere appointment of a defender is not necessarily sufficient.The Supreme Court concluded that X could not be regarded as having waived his right to counsel at the pretrial investigation stage in a knowing and unequivocal manner, as established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.Nor could X be regarded as having been fully aware of the offences he was suspected in or what the legal consequences of the waiver would be.As far as the working language of the questioning was concerned, the Supreme Court ruled that questioning X in English had not as such been in breach of X's rights.However, preparing the record of the questioning in Finnish, when the questioning had in fact been in English, was not in accordance with the Criminal Investigations Act.X had not been able to himself review the contents of the record of the questioning before signing it.

The Supreme Court concluded that there had been a breach of X's rights of defence and his right not to incriminate himself to the effect that X's statements in the pretrial investigation could not be used as evidence against him.In its decision, the Supreme Court discussed in detail the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on guarantees of a fair trial at the pretrial investigation stage, the waiver of the right to legal counsel and the minimum safeguards required in such a case.

1.10.2014 / 1.10.2014 / RHANSKI