![[Sökformulär]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/sok.gif){kind=icon}
![[Info om databasen]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/info2.gif){kind=icon}
![[Söktips]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/soktips.gif){kind=icon}
| [1 / 4] |
Date when decision was rendered: 13.12.1993 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 4489; S92/1250 Reference to source KKO 1993:156. Decisions of the Supreme Court 1993 II July-December Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1993 II juli-december Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1993 II heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Court Date of publication: 1994 Pages: pp. 699-703 Subject
compensation,
lawful detention,
deprivation of liberty,
Relevant legal provisions Sections 1 and 2 of the Act on Compensation from State Funds for the Arrest or Detention of an Innocent Person = lag om ersättning av statens medel som till följd av frihetsberövande skall betalas till oskyldigt häktad eller dömd 1 § och 2 § = laki syyttömästi vangitulle tai tuomitulle valtion varoista vapauden menetyksen johdosta maksettavasta korvauksesta 1 § ja 2 §. ECHR-5-1-c, CCPR 14-3-g Abstract The court of first instance and the court of appeal had dismissed an application for compensation, based on the Act on Compensation from State Funds for the Arrest or Detention of an Innocent Person.Both instances referred to the fact that the defendant had changed his story during the investigation and the trial and thereby contributed to his detention.The court of appeal referred to Article 5-1-c of the ECHR authorising detention on reasonable suspicion of a n offence.In quashing the ruling by the court of appeal and granting compensation, the Supreme Court referred to Article 14-3-g of the CCPR, according to which a defendant shall not be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. 26.3.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [2 / 4] |
Date when decision was rendered: 4.12.2000 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 2771; R2000/399 Reference to source KKO 2000:119. 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. 628-631 Subject
deprivation of liberty,
lawful detention,
Relevant legal provisions Chapter 6, section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Chapter 1, sections 21, 23 and 24 of the Coercive Measures Act; section 7 of the Constitution Act = lag om rättegång i brottmål 6 kapitel 10 §; tvångsmedelslagen 1 kapitel 21 §, 23 §, 24 §; grundlagen 7 § = laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa 6 luku 10 §; pakkokeinolaki 1 luku 21 §, 23 §, 24 §; perustuslaki 7 §. ECHR-5-4 Abstract The court of first instance had postponed the main hearing with more than 14 days because of the fact that three defendants, who were all accused of murder, had been remanded for a mental examination.The court had also decided to continue the detention of the fourth defendant A, who was accused of accessory to murder.A filed an extraordinary appeal against the decision before the court of appeal and claimed that a new decision concerning the lawfulness of A's detention should have been made within 14 days from the main hearing.As this had not been done, A's detention had no longer any legal basis. The court of appeal noted that according to Chapter 1, section 21 of the Coercive Measures Act and the relevant case law of the Supreme Court, a decision on the lawfulness of detention had to be made after each period of 14 days until charges were brought against the detained person or until the main hearing was begun.In A's case, the main hearing had already begun.According to the law, it was possible to postpone the main hearing with more than 14 days because of a mental examination of the defendant(s).As A was accused of accessory to murder, it was not possible to make a decision in A's case before a decision was made regarding the three other defendants.Thus, there were legal grounds to hold A in custody. A appealed to the Supreme Court which did not change the decision of the appeal court.The Supreme Court noted that the court of first instance had a possibility to consider the lawfulness of A's detention immediately after the main hearing.If there were no legal grounds to hold A in custody, the court of first instance should, in accordance with Chapter 1, section 24 of the Coercive Measures Act, order that A be immediately released.The Court also referred to section 7 of the Constitution Act and to Article 5-4 of the ECHR concerning the right of a detained person to submit his detention for a review by a court.It concluded that in the present situation A had sufficient legal safeguards to bring the detention issue before a court. 28.10.2002 / 10.3.2003 / LISNELLM
|
|
|
|
| [3 / 4] |
Date when decision was rendered: 27.1.2004 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 176; R2003/300 Reference to source KKO 2004:7. Decisions of the Supreme Court 2004 I January-June Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2004 I januari-juni Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2004 I tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2004 Pages: 37-42 Subject
right to liberty,
security of person,
appeal,
deprivation of liberty,
lawful detention,
Relevant legal provisions section 60 of the Aliens Act; section 21-2 of the Constitution Act = utlänningslag 60 §; grundlagen 21 § 2 mom. = ulkomaalaislaki 60 §; perustuslaki 21 § 2 mom. ECHR-5 Abstract A had been detained on the basis of the Aliens Act.The court of first instance had twice decided to continue A's detention.Section 60 of the Aliens Act (378/1991) prescribed that, with a few exceptions, decisions made under the Act were not subject to appeal.The exceptions did not include a decision on detention made by a court of first instance.However, extraordinary appeal under the Code of Judicial Procedure was possible in the form of a complaint on the basis of a grave procedural error.In A's case the question was whether it was possible to file a complaint on the grounds that there were no reasons for the detention as prescribed by law.The Supreme Court first recalled the amendments made to the previous Aliens Act (400/1983) in order for national legislation to correspond to the ECHR and its provisions concerning deprivations of liberty.In 1990, a provision was added to the Aliens Act according to which it was possible for a detained person to file a complaint against a decision concerning his or her detention in order for a higher court to review the reasons for detention.Such a provision was not included in the later Aliens Act (378/1991) which was in force when A's case was pending.However, the Supreme Court referred to the Government Bill to the Aliens Act, according to which previous amendments required by the ECHR were included in the proposed Act.It was not explicitly said in the Government Bill that the drafters intended to leave out the possibility of complaint from the new Act.Furthermore, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it was possible to interpret the restrictions to the right of appeal in section 60 of the Aliens Act to the effect that they only applied to decisions made by administrative authorities and administrative courts and not to decisions by general courts.The Court ruled that section 60 did not prevent the possibility of appeal against the decision on detention made by a court of first instance: the question was left open in the Act.The Supreme Court then referred to section 21-2 of the Constitution Act concerning the right of appeal and to the fact that detention constituted serious interference with the liberty and security of a person.The Aliens Act did not prescribe any maximum duration for the time in detention.A court of first instance had a duty to reconsider its decision on detention at two-week intervals.In the Supreme Court's opinion this did not correspond to a possibility to have a decision reviewed by a higher court.Therefore, in the Court's view, it was reasonable that a detained person should have a right to have the grounds for his or her detention reviewed by a higher court.The Court then referred to legislation concerning general courts and pointed out that the need for swift legal safeguards in cases concerning personal liberty was taken care of by means of a right of filing a complaint.No time limit was prescribed for filing such a complaint.The Supreme Court ruled that also in the case of the Aliens Act it was possible to file a complaint against the decision on detention made by a court of first instance on the grounds that there were no reasons for the detention as prescribed by law.The court of appeal had rejected A's complaint as it was not made on the basis of a grave procedural error.One justice of the court dissented.His reasoning corresponded to that of the Supreme Court. 22.4.2005 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [4 / 4] |
Date when decision was rendered: 21.12.2004 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 2997; R2003/886 Reference to source KKO 2004:128. Decisions of the Supreme Court 2004 II July-December Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2004 II juli-december Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2004 II heinä-joulukuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: Edita Date of publication: 2005 Pages: pp. 815-820 Subject
right to liberty,
security of person,
lawful detention,
Relevant legal provisions Chapter 1, sections 5, 19 and 26a of the Coercive Measures Act = tvångsmedelslagen 1 kapitel 5 §, 19 § och 26a § = pakkokeinolaki 1 luku 5 §, 19 § ja 26a §. ECHR-5 Abstract X had been absent from a main hearing in two different criminal cases against him.The court of first instance had ordered that X is to be detained when caught as his apparent intention was to avoid trial.X was later apprehended and sent to prison, in order to enforce both a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court of appeal in an earlier case against X and the warrant for detention issued by the court of first instance.Having served his sentence X was released from prison but was almost immediately arrested again on the grounds that there was reasonable cause to believe that he would try to avoid trial in the cases pending before the court of first instance.The Coercive Measures Act provides that if a court has issued a warrant for the detention of a suspect absent from a hearing, the court shall be immediately notified of the enforcement of the warrant and shall review the grounds of the detention within four days from the detention at the latest.X's detention on the basis of the warrant issued by the first instance court was not reviewed until 22 days after the enforcement of the warrant, that is after he had served his sentence and was re-arrested.The Supreme Court ruled that as the court had not reversed the warrant for X's detention, it was still in force when X was released from prison.Considering what had been shown in the matter the Supreme Court saw that there was reasonable cause to believe that X would try to avoid trial and therefore there were legitimate grounds for his detention as provided for in the Coercive Measures Act.The Supreme Court then assessed whether X's detention was unreasonable having regard to the particulars of the case, X's age or his other personal circumstances.The Court found that X had not been granted the minimum legal safeguards applicable in a situation where a convicted prisoner is at the same time also a prisoner on remand.In the Court's opinion, X should have been able to rely on it that the lawfulness of his detention is immediately reviewed by a court ex officio and that he is heard in the process.The fact that X could have referred to Article 5-4 of the ECHR and requested on his own initiative that the lawfulness of his detention is reviewed by a court did not constitute a sufficient legal safeguard in this case.The Court also pointed out that the fact that X had first been released and then almost immediately detained again may have caused him unnecessary suffering.However, the Supreme Court concluded that in spite of these circumstances the continuation of X's detention could not be regarded as unreasonable as prescribed in the Coercive Measures Act.The decision was made by a vote (3-2).Two dissenting justices were of the opinion that as X's detention had not been reviewed within the time limit prescribed in the Coercive Measures Act, X could not be re-arrested on the same grounds upon which his previous detention was based. 22.4.2005 / 2.6.2006 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|