Date when decision was rendered: 4.2.1974

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

Reference: Report No. 504; 1884/31/71

Reference to source

KHO 1974-A-31.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1974 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1974 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1974 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1976

Pages: pp. 52-57

Subject

freedom of assembly, freedom of expression,
församlingsfrihet, yttrandefrihet,
kokoontumisvapaus, ilmaisuvapaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 5, 7 and 10 of the Constitution Act; section 12 of the Local Government Act

= regeringsformen 5 §, 7 §, 10 §; kommunallagen 12 §

= hallitusmuoto 5 §, 7 §, 10 §; kuntalaki 12 §

Abstract

The city council confirmed an ordinance of the city of Turku which, i.a., prohibited the use of loudspeakers without permission of the police in public places or in such a way that a loudspeaker situated in a private place could be heard in a public place, even if the loudspeakers were used for a public meeting.It also required permission for posting notices in public places.

Association A appealed to the court of appeal, claiming, i.a., that the ordinance violated the freedom of association and freedom of expression as loudspeakers were needed at public meetings, and that it therefore was contrary to the Constitution Act.The court of appeal rejected the appeal, regarding the ordinance as necessary and as within the competence of the adopting body.

The Supreme Court concluded that the ordinance did not make the freedom of expression and association as such subject to the approval of the authorities, but was adopted to enable the authorities to consider beforehand whether the use of loudspeakers or posting of notices was a threat to public order and security and, if this was the case, to prohibit the measures.The ordinance did not violate the Constitution Act.

17.4.1998 / 16.1.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 18.12.2003

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 3128; R2002/602

Reference to source

KKO 2003:128.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2003 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2003 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2003 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2004

Pages: 799-805

Subject

freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement,
yttrandefrihet, församlingsfrihet, rörelsefrihet,
ilmaisuvapaus, kokoontumisvapaus, liikkumisvapaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 2, section 1 of the Coercive Measures Act; Chapter 25, section 8 of the Penal Code, sections 9, 12, 13 and 14-3 of the Constitution Act

= tvångsmedelslagen 2 kapitel 1 §; strafflagen 25 kapitel 8 §; grundlagen 9 §, 12 §, 13 § och 14 § 3 mom.

= pakkokeinolaki 2 luku 1 §; rikoslaki 25 luku 8 §; perustuslaki 9 §, 12 §, 13 § ja 14 § 3 mom.

ECHR-10; ECHR-11; ECHRP-4-2

Abstract

A and a group of other environmental activists had protested against the logging of timber by staying so close to the logging machine that the work had to be interrupted.A was suspected of coercion under the Penal Code.On the basis of the Coercive Measures Act, the police had ordered that A shall not enter the territory of the municipality where the logging was carried out as well as the territory of two other municipalities close by where logging was expected to start in the near future.The ban's duration was originally close to two months, but on A's appeal the court of first instance had reduced it to a little over a month.A wanted the ban to be abolished altogether and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court which considered the case although the ban by that time had expired.

The Supreme Court held that as A's actions had in fact prevented the logging, A could be suspected of coercion and the ban was justified.However, the ban should have been limited to the municipality where the logging took place at that time, and it could be in force only as long as that logging had been completed (in practice, one week after the ban had been ordered).The Court noted that the ban infringed on A's freedom of expression, assembly and movement.However, as it was limited to a certain area and time period, it only caused a minor inconvenience to A and was justified considering its purpose (i.e. prevention of possibly considerable economic loss).

Two justices of the Supreme Court noted that although A's presence had interrupted the logging, A had not used violence or threat.In addition, before the police had arrested the activists, no efforts had apparently been made in order to persuade the activists to leave the area.The two justices held that the Penal Code could not be interpreted expansively to the detriment of the person suspected of a crime.They also referred to the freedom of expression, assembly and movement as provided for in the Constitution Act and the ECHR.The justices concluded that A's actions had not amounted to coercion and the ban was thus not justified.One of the two justices also noted that in addition to preventing A from moving freely in the country the ban prevented A from exercising his freedom of expression and assembly in a societal issue which A considered important.The justice referred to section 14-3 of the Constitution Act, according to which the public authorities shall promote the opportunities for the individual to participate in societal activities.In the justice's view, the obligation speaks for a restrictive use of coercive measures in a case where a person is suspected of a crime when having gone a bit too far in carrying out a societal activity which as such is protected by the Constitution and that person is not a so-called habitual offender.

21.4.2004 / 7.6.2004 / JKOSKIMI

Date when decision was rendered: 8.6.2009

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 1202; R2007/1041

Reference to source

KKO 2009:47.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2009 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2009 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2009 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 361-371

Subject

freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, participatory rights, right to a healthy environment,
yttrandefrihet, församlingsfrihet, rätt till inflytande, rätt till en sund miljö,
ilmaisuvapaus, kokoontumisvapaus, osallistumisoikeudet, oikeus terveelliseen ympäristöön,

Relevant legal provisions

section 18a of the Forest Act; chapter 5 section 3 of the Penal Code; sections 12, 13, 14-3 and 20 of the Constitution Act

= skogslag 18a §; strafflagen 5 kapitel 3 §; grundlagen 12 §, 13 §, 14 § 3 mom. och 20 §

= metsälaki 18a §; rikoslaki 5 luku 3 §; perustuslaki 12 §, 13 §, 14 § 3 mom. ja 20 §

Abstract

The court of first instance had sentenced three persons to a fine on the basis of the Forest Act, because the persons had been present within the immediate surroundings of a felling site when felling was under way and had thus prevented the felling which had been carried out in accordance with the Forest Act.The court of appeal agreed with the lower court.Both court instances held that the limitation of the freedom of expression and of assembly, as prescribed in the Forest Act, was not significant and was thus acceptable and not in conflict with the Constitution Act.

In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the penal provision in the Forest Act could not be implemented to the effect that it undermines the constitutional rights of freedom of expression and of assembly or hinders legitimate civic activities by, for example, nature activists.The Court pointed out that the Constitution Act specifically provides that the public authorities shall promote the opportunities for the individual to participate in societal activity and to influence the decisions that concern his or her own living environment.The Court ruled that demonstration is an activity protected by law regardless of the fact that the target of the demonstration may consider it to be disturbing, but remarked also that promoting a good cause does not as such justify illegal means.The Supreme Court confirmed the fine imposed on one of the three defendants.In the Court's opinion it had been shown that the defendant's explicit purpose had been to disturb the felling which, because of his actions, was interrupted for safety reasons.Regarding the two other defendants, the Court found that they had been present but it had not been shown that they were so close to the harvester when felling was under way so as to have prevented or delayed the felling.Although one of the defendants was guilty of a punishable act, the two other were not responsible for his actions.The Supreme Court acquitted the two defendants and quashed their fines.

17.6.2009 / 18.10.2012 / RHANSKI