Date when decision was rendered: 6.7.2005

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 1665; H2005/96

Reference to source

KKO 2005:84.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2005 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2005 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2005 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2006

Pages: pp. 606-609

Subject

right to marry, aliens, principle of legality, nulla poena sine lege, marriage, immigration,
rätt att gifta sig, utlänningar, legalitetsprincipen, nulla poena sine lege, äktenskap, invandring,
oikeus solmia avioliitto, ulkomaalaiset, laillisuusperiaate, nulla poena sine lege, avioliitto, maahanmuutto,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 16, section 7-1 of the Penal Code; Chapter 31, section 8-4 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= strafflagen 16 kapitel 7 § 1 mom.; rättegångsbalken 31 kapitel 8 § 4 mom.

= rikoslaki 16 luku 7 § 1 mom.; oikeudenkäymiskaari 31 luku 8 § 4 mom.

Abstract

Four Finns had each married Russian spouses.All four marriages ended after the Russian spouses had been granted residence permits in Finland.The Finns conceded that they had been paid or offered a reward for the marriage.Marriages of convenience contracted in order to circumvent immigration rules are not criminalized in Finnish law.However, the genuineness of a marriage may be assessed in the context of an application for a residence permit on the basis of a family tie.If the marriage has been contracted only in order to circumvent the rules on entry, the application for a residence permit is rejected.

In this case, the four Finns as well as one of the Russian spouses were charged with a registration offence under the Penal Code.Summoning the three other Russian spouses for trial failed.The court of first instance held that when saying "I do" as a part of the marriage ceremony, the defendants had provided false information and had thus caused a legally relevant error in the population register where marriages are registered.The defendants were sentenced to suspended imprisonment.

At the initiative of the Deputy Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Court took up the case as a reversal of a final judgment.The Supreme Court held that in regard to the legitimacy of a marriage, the motives for the marriage are irrelevant.Though the motives for a marriage may in some issues have legal relevance, they are not entered in the population register.Therefore, the faultiness of a register entry regarding marriage cannot be determined on the basis of the motives of the marriage.Consequently, a register entry about marriage cannot be deemed false on the grounds that the marriage is contracted in order to obtain a residence permit.The Supreme Court ruled that in this case the defendants' deeds did not constitute a registration offence under the Penal Code.It reversed the decision of the first instance court to the benefit of the defendants as being based on a manifest misapplication of the law.

29.5.2006 / 29.5.2006 / RHANSKI