![[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 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 12.6.1990 Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus Reference: Report No.1087; 89/1495 Reference to source VaaHO 1990:12. 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
legal assistance,
free trial,
Relevant legal provisions Sections 1(2) and 10(2) of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act = lag om fri rättegång 1 § 2 mom. och 10 § 2 mom. = laki maksuttomasta oikeudenkäynnistä 1 § 2 mom., 10 § 2 mom. ECHR-6-3-c Abstract In order to secure the right of an alien convicted of a crime and with poor knowledge of Finnish to have his sentence reviewed by a court of appeal and in order for him to be able to defend his rights in court, legal assistance had to be assigned to him in an uncomplicated criminal matter. 23.3.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [2 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 9.6.1992 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 1914; R91/494 Reference to source KKO 1992:81. Decisions of the Supreme Court 1992 I January-June Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1992 I januari-juni Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1992 I tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Court Date of publication: 1993 Pages: pp. 374-376 Subject
legal assistance,
free trial,
Relevant legal provisions Section 10-2 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act = lag om fri rättegång 10 § 2 mom. = laki maksuttomasta oikeudenkäynnistä 10 § 2 mom. ECHR-6-3-c, CCPR-14-3-d Abstract Interests of justice, as expressed in Article 6-3-c of the ECHR, may form special reasons, as required by domestic law, for assigning a lawyer to a defendant in a case where more severe punishment than a fine is not to be expected.Evidence in the case had been ambigous and the damages sought by the injured party had been considerable in relation to T's financial situation.In addition, during the trial in the lower instances T had been assisted by a municipal legal aid scheme.Taking into account these facts and the provisions in Article 6-3-c of the ECHR and Article 14-3-d of the CCPR concerning the right to free legal assistance when the interests of justice so require, the Supreme Court decided that there were special reasons, as required in section 10-2 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act, to assign a lawyer to assist T in the case.The expenses of T's lawyer were, therefore, paid by the state. 24.3.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [3 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 29.1.1996 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 304; R-95/928 Reference to source KKO 1996:8. Decisions of the Supreme Court 1996 I January-June Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1996 I januari-juni Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1996 I tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Court Date of publication: 1996 Pages: pp. 51-54 Subject
free trial,
legal assistance,
Relevant legal provisions Section 10-2 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act = lag om fri rättegång 10 § 2 mom. = laki maksuttomasta oikeudenkäynnistä 10 § 2 mom. ECHR-6 Abstract Section 10-2 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings prohibits the courts from assigning a legal councel to an accused person in simple cases where, according to established case law, no severer punishment than a fine is to be expected or where the special circumstances of the case and the legal protection of the accused person do not otherwise demand the assignment of a legal counsel.A, who was a juvenile delinquent, was charged with several minor criminal offences to which he had already confessed during the preliminary investigation.A had previously been sentenced twice to probation and once to imprisonment.The latter sentence, however, was not yet in force. The court of appeal referred to unspecified provisions of the ECHR and the CCPR which relate to the legal defence of an accused person.Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the appellate court did not find it necessary to assign a legal counsel to the accused.The Supreme Court did not directly refer to any human rights provisions, but came to the conclusion that the case was not uncomplicated in the meaning of section 10-2 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act.The Supreme Court stated that considering the number and the nature of the crimes mentioned in the indictment, the motives of the crimes, and A's personal circumstances and his criminal record, neither the length nor the conditionality of the sentence could be assessed in advance.Therefore, the legal protection of A required that the court assign a lawyer to assist A. 27.3.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [4 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 7.2.1996 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 402; S-95/154 Reference to source KKO 1996:13. Decisions of the Supreme Court 1996 I January-June Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1996 I januari-juni Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1996 I tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Court Date of publication: 1996 Pages: pp. 82-86 Subject
free trial,
Relevant legal provisions Section 1 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act = lag om fri rättegång 1 § = laki maksuttomasta oikeudenkäynnistä 1 §. ECHR-6 Abstract According to the Supreme Court, the general standards approved by the Ministry of Justice for granting a free trial did not bind the courts as long as the courts were using their discretionary power based on sections 1 and 6-2 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act.The court of appeal referred to the decision of the court of first instance and noted that by granting a partially free trial to the defendants, the court of first instance had ensured the right to a fair trial as stated in Article 6 of the ECHR.The court of appeal considered that it was reasonable to order the defendants to be partially liable for the expenses of the proceedings.The Supreme Court referred to the purpose of the general standards approved by the Ministry of Justice, which was to unify the legal practice, but held that the general standards could not be used for reducing the applicability of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act.When deciding whether a free trial should be granted, according to the Act, the court may have to consider circumstances which have not been taken into account in the general standards approved by the Ministry of Justice.Therefore, taking into account the income and debts of the defendants as well as their maintenance liability, the economical circumstances of the defendants were such that they could not be assumed to be able to pay any of the expenses of the proceedings before the court.(A vote) 27.3.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [5 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 9.4.1997 Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus Reference: Report No. 508; R96/303 Reference to source VaaHO 1997:9. 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,
free trial,
Relevant legal provisions Sections 16-2 and 16a-1 of the Constitution Act; Chapter 21 of the Code of Judicial Procedure = regeringsformen 16 § 2 mom. och 16a § 1 mom.; rättegångsbalken 21 kapitel = hallitusmuoto 16 § 2 mom. ja 16a § 1 mom.; oikeudenkäymiskaari 21 luku. ECHR-6-2, ECHR-6-3 Abstract The public prosecutor had brought charges against A.Most of the alleged offences had been committed against A's wife who had been seriously ill at that time and later died.A's wife's mother and two brothers had joined the prosecutors summary penal orders and had also some additional claims.While the case was pending in the court of first instance, the relatives of A's wife informed the prosecutor that they had settled the dispute with A and wanted to renounce their claims against him.The relatives also held that there was not enough evidence to show that A had committed criminal offences against them.With reference to these facts and to the absence of sufficient evidence with regard to the charges, the prosecutor dropped the charges against A.A claimed before the court of first instance that the state should bear his legal costs.The court of first instance rejected A's claim as being without a foundation in law.The court also stated that although A's claim was in accordance with the Constitution Act and the ECHR, these instruments did not obligate a state to reimburse the legal costs.A appealed to the Vaasa Court of Appeal.The court of appeal found no basis in law for A's claims.The court also referred to Article 6 of the ECHR and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Masson and van Zon v.The Netherlands (judgment of 28 September 1995, Series A, No. 327-A) and stated that the ECHR did not grant a person charged with a criminal offence but subsequently acquitted a right to reimbursement of costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.The court noted that the principles of the presumption of innocence and the equality of the parties presuppose that a person released from charges should not bear the legal costs caused by his defence, provided that he has not by his own actions given the prosecutor a justified reason to bring a charge against him and that it would be unreasonable under the circumstances that he should bear the legal costs.On the basis of the pretrial investigation the prosecutor had a justified reason for bringing the charges.In the first hearing in the court of first instance certain new facts were revealed which gave the prosecutor a reason to reconsider the evidence and to drop the charges.Under these circumstances considerations of equity did not speak for a decision as to reimburse from state funds A's legal costs.The Vaasa Court of Appeal dismissed A's claim.A dissenting justice argued that, as compared to the pretrial investigation, the hearing in the court of first instance had not brought forth such new facts as to give a justified reason to reconsider the evidence.Because of this and because of the fact that A had not by his own actions given any reason to bring charges against him, it would be unreasonable if A was to bear the legal costs.Therefore, the dissenting justice argued, the state should reimburse the costs.The Supreme Court refused A leave to appeal. 1.4.1998 / 28.3.2003 / LISNELLM
|
|
|
|
| [6 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 7.2.1995 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 413; R93/751 Reference to source KKO 1995:7. Decisions of the Supreme Court 1995 I January-June Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1995 I januari-juni Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1995 I tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Court Date of publication: 1996 Pages: pp. 31-34 Subject
free trial,
criminal charge,
legal assistance,
Relevant legal provisions Section 10-2 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act = lag om fri rättegång 10 § 2 mom. = laki maksuttomasta oikeudenkäynnistä 10 § 2 mom. ECHR-6-3-c, CCPR-14-3-d Abstract The court of first instance had sentenced A and B to unconditional imprisonment for theft and aggravated drunken driving.Both had pleaded guilty to the charges. A and B appealed to the court of appeal, seeking a reduction of their punishment.In addition to a free trial, they asked to be provided with free legal counsel.As the case concerned an uncomplicated criminal matter, which, with regard to the expected punishment and the clear facts of the case did not require the appointment of a legal counsel, the court of appeal rejected the request.A and B asked the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court granted A and B leave to appeal as regards the request for free legal assistance in the court of appeal, but rejected the other claims.The Supreme Court first discussed the compatibility of section 10-2-2 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings (according to which legal counsel cannot be provided in uncomplicated criminal matters where, taking into account the expected punishment and the clear state of facts, the legal protection of the defendant does not require the appointment of a legal counsel) with Finland's international obligations under Article 14-3-d of the CCPR and Article 6-3-c of the ECHR, guaranteeing the right of anyone charged with a criminal offence to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require. In the preparatory work of section 10-2, theft and aggravated drunken driving were mentioned as type examples of uncomplicated criminal matters.The preparatory work indicate that the section was designed to assure free legal assistance when the interests of justice so require, and thus to be in accordance with the provisions of international human rights conventions. The Supreme Court also referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which, when considering the obligation of states to provide free legal assistance, has taken into account, i.a., the difficulty of the case and the legal issues, the seriousness of the crime, the maximum punishment, the punishment sentenced in the case, the ability of the defendant to defend himself , the appeals proceedings as a whole and the part of the court of appeal therein , as well as whether there was a fair trial in the court of first instance (see the cases of Pakelli, judgment of 25 April 1983, Series A, No.64; Monell and Morris, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A No.115; Grange, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A, No.174; Quaranta, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A, No.205).According to the case law, the interests of justice do not require that everyone charged with a criminal offence should in all circumstances have the right to free legal assistance. The Supreme Court did not change the decision of the court of appeal not to appoint free legal counsel, taking into account, i.a., the following facts: A and B had defended themselves in the court of first instance and pleaded guilty.They had not claimed not to have received a fair trial in the court of first instance.Both had previously received conditional prison sentences, for which reason the sentencing of unconditional imprisonment was not unexpected.The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal to the court of appeal, in which A and B only requested reduction of the sentences, did not involve such legal or other questions that A and B would have needed legal assistance.Nor were there any personal grounds on the part of either applicant to give reason to assess the need of legal counsel otherwise.The interests of justice did thus not require the appointment of a legal counsel.(A vote.) Two dissenting justices would have granted the request for legal counsel in order to enable the applicants to make a proper appeal, considering that denial of the request may amount to a denial of the right to appeal, which cannot be accepted at least in the case of unconditional prison sentences. 15.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [7 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 30.3.1995 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 1234; R94/87 Reference to source KKO 1995:54. Decisions of the Supreme Court 1995 I January-June Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1995 I januari-juni Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1995 I tammi-kesäkuu Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Court Date of publication: 1996 Pages: pp. 229-232 Subject
free trial,
legal assistance,
Relevant legal provisions Section 10-2 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act = lag om fri rättegång 10 § 2 mom. = laki maksuttomasta oikeudenkäynnistä 10 § 2 mom. ECHR-6-3-c, CCPR-14-3-d Abstract A was charged with aggravated drunken driving, three thefts and attempted theft, and had confessed his guilt already during the pretrial investigation.In the court of first instance he pleaded guilty to the charges, but claimed that the value of part of the stolen property was less than that indicated by the owner.He denied his guilt for the disappearence of one item.The court of first instance granted him a free trial but rejected the request for free legal assistance due to the expected punishment and the clear facts of the case.In its main decision, the court of first instance sentenced A according to the charges, but based the calculated value of the stolen items on the value admitted by A and rejected the charges regarding the missing item which A had not admitted to have taken.He was sentenced to a total of 3 months conditional imprisonment and to fines.He was also ordered to compensate the plaintiffs for damages not covered by their insurances, and he lost his driver's license for a certain period. A appealed to the court of appeal as regards the denial to appoint legal counsel.The court of appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance, stating that the sentence was not unexpected considering the charges.Although the damages ordered were considerable in relation to A's financial situation, the plaintiffs had not been represented by counsel with a legal education nor had any evidence regarding the amount of the damages been presented.A had no previous criminal record.The court of appeal found that the case was an uncomplicated criminal case falling under section 10-2-2 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act, and thus not of a nature to entitle A to free legal assistance. A was granted leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.The Court noted that the judicial classification of A's acts under criminal law had been clear on the basis of the material in the pretrial investigation.In addition, A had confessed his guilt already during the pretrial investigation.There existed thus no questions of evidence or other issues on which A would have required legal assistance.The sentences received by A were in accordance with practice and not unexpected.Although the damages that A was ordered to pay were considerable in relation to A's financial situation, they related mostly to damages not covered by insurances, and A had accepted most of these claims during the pretrial investigation. In the preparatory work of section 10-2 of the Cost-Free Court Proceedings Act (according to which legal counsel cannot be provided in uncomplicated criminal matters where, taking into account the expected punishment and the clear state of facts, the legal protection of the defendant does not require the appointment of a legal counsel), theft and aggravated drunken driving were mentioned as type examples of uncomplicated criminal matters.These were precisely the kind of crimes for which A was charged. The Supreme Court stated that the provisons of the ECHR, to which A had referred in his appeal, cannot, in the light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, be interpreted as guaranteeing a right of a person of limited means to free legal assistance only on the grounds that the expected punishment is imprisonment or that he has already received a prison sentence.The Court concluded that the case did not involve such legal or other questions that A would have needed legal assistance.Nor were there any personal grounds on the part of the applicant to justify the appointment of a legal counsel.The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of appeal. 15.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [8 / 8] |
Date when decision was rendered: 4.12.2003 Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus Reference: Report No. 8291:2003 Reference to source VakO 8291:2003. Electronic database for the decisions of the Insurance Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice Databasen för försäkringsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin vakuutusoikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
legal assistance,
free trial,
Relevant legal provisions sections 1, 6 and 7 of the Legal Aid Act = rättshjälpslagen 1 §, 6 § och 7 § = oikeusapulaki 1 §, 6 § ja 7 §. ECHR-6; ECHR-13 Abstract A wanted to appeal against a decision by which the State Treasury had granted hin, as a victim of a crime, compensation from state funds for crime damage.The Treasury had adjusted the compensation as compared to A's original claim.For the purpose of making the appeal, A applied for legal aid from a state legal aid office.The legal aid office did not grant A legal aid on the grounds that the matter was of little importance to the applicant.A appealed against the decision, and the legal aid office forwarded the matter to the Insurance Court.The Insurance Court referred to the Legal Aid Act and noted that when granting legal aid for legal expenses the applicant's financial means had to be taken into account.When considering the appointment of an attorney under the Legal Aid Act, the decisive question is whether the applicant is able to protect his or her interests properly without assistance.The requirements set in the ECHR must also be taken into account.The Insurance Court ruled that A's legal expenses for the measures already undertaken were to be covered.However, A's request for an attorney paid for by the state was rejected.The main issue in the appeal was the amount of the compensation.In the court's opinion, this did not include demanding legal and factual questions.Furthermore, A had not presented any cause pertaining to his person on the grounds of which he would not be able to make the appeal himself. 20.1.2005 / 30.5.2006 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|