Date when decision was rendered: 20.6.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2357; S-94/1843

Reference to source

KKO 1996:80.

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. 380-390

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, judges,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code on Judicial Procedure; section 51 of the Act on Savings Banks

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §, sparbankslagen 51 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §; säästöpankkilaki 1 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

The court of first instance had ordered A to settle his mortgage loan with the savings bank.Three members of the jury of the court of first instance were members of the board of trustees of the savings bank at the time the property was mortgaged, but no longer at the time when the case was brought to court.The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there were no objective reasons to doubt the impartiality of those three jurors or the court.

The Vaasa Court of Appeal referred to Article 6 of the ECHR and stated that the requirement of impartiality applies both to the professional judges and to the lay members of the court.The court of appeal referred to the established case law of the European Court of Human Rights (the cases of Delcourt, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A, No.11 and Piersack, judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A, No.53) and noted that the impartiality of the court requires not only that the court should be impartial but it must also have the appereance of impartiality.The court of appeal also referred to the cases of Sramek (judgment of 22 October 1984, Series A, No.84), Langborger (judgment of 22 June 1989 Series A, No.155) and Holm (judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A, No. 279) when stating that the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of the ECHR in cases where a member of the court has such a relation to the party or the case itself that the impartiality of that person can be objectively questioned.No case law, however, applies directly to situations where the judge has a position in a legal person that is a party to the case.The Vaasa Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that because the three members of the jury had resigned from the board of trustees of the savings bank, they did no longer have such a status in the savings bank that their impartiality or independence could objectively bequestioned.

The Supreme Court referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and to the cases of Piersack and Holm and noted that in the light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the judge should not have personal bias concerning the case (subjective impartiality).On the other hand, legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the judge or the court should also be excluded (objective impartiality).Therefore, the previous commitments or activities of the judge or the judge's special relationship to the party are among the facts that must be taken into consideration when assessing the impartiality of the court in an objective sense.

Under the circumstances of the particular case, however, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that there was no objective reason to doubt the impartiality of the three members of the jury that had previously been members of the board of trustees of the litigant bank, or to doubt the impartiality of the court.(A vote)

30.3.1998 / 1.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 20.6.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2358; S95/781

Reference to source

KKO 1996:81.

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. 390-394

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, judges,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code on Judicial Procedure; section 14-1 of the Act on Cooperative Banks

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §; andelsbankslagen 14 § 1 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §; osuuspankkilaki 14 § 1 mom.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

At the time of the proceedings in the court of first instance one member of the jury was a member of the administrative board of the cooperative bank which was the plaintiff in the case.The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the lay member was disqualified in the present case.

The Supreme Court referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and to the case of Piersack (judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A, No.53) and noted that in the light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the judge should not have personal bias concerning the case (subjective impartiality).On the other hand, legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the judge or the court should also be excluded (objective impartiality).Therefore, the previous commitments or activities of the judge or the judge's special relationship to the party are among the facts that must be taken into consideration when assessing the impartiality of the court in an objective sense.

The Supreme Court noted that the administrative board of the litigant bank has both control and decision-making power over the affairs of the bank.Also the members of the board have access to credit information of the clients.The members also have liability for damages.For these reasons, the lay member of the court had such a relationship to the litigant bank that the defendants could reasonably doubt his impartiality.The Supreme Court quashed the decison of the court of first instance and the judgment of the appellate court.(A vote)

30.3.1998 / 1.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 11.10.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 3782; M-95/162

Reference to source

KKO 1996:124.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1996 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1996 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1996 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1997

Pages: pp. 615-617

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, criminal charge,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, brottsanklagelse,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, rikossyyte,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; section 2 of the Constitution Act

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §; regeringsformen 2 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §; hallitusmuoto 2 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

During the proceedings of the Land Court of Eastern Finland in a case concerning the expropriation of a certain land area, which was part of the national programme for the preservation of the seashores, one lay member of the court had a deal concerning the sale of his estates, which also belonged to the same preservation area, pending at the regional environment centre.

The Supreme Court noted that according to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, a judge is disqualified in a case if he has a part in the case or if he can expect to benefit from it or if the case can give him any disadvantage.The Court noted that after Finland's ratification of the ECHR, the possible disqualification of a judge has also to be weighed in the light of the provisions of the ECHR and the established case-law of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights.As way of an example, the Court referred to its own case-law (KKO 1995:185, KKO 1996:80, KKO 1996:81).It referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR, which states that in the determination of civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.The Supreme Court also referred to section II (17.7.1995/969) of the Constitution Act, which also includes the requirement of the impartiality of the courts.

The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the pending deal concerning the estates can have created reasonable doubts about the impartiality of the land court in an objective sense.On these grounds, the Supreme Court stated that the lay member in question was disqualified to take part in the proceedings in the land court.The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the land court and returned the case to the land court.

30.3.1998 / 10.10.2012 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 25.2.1997

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 624; R96/572

Reference to source

Registry of the Vaasa Court of Appeal

Vasa hovrätts registratorskontor

Vaasan hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

A had appealed against the decision of the court of first instance to the Vaasa Court of Appeal.In his appeal, A asked the court of appeal, among other things, to quash the judgment of the court of first instance on the grounds that B, who had been a lay member of the court in the case against A, should have been disqualified.B's daughter was engaged to the grandson of C who was the founder of a company which acted in the same line of business as A and was a competitor to A's business.C's son was employed by the competing company.When considering the disqualification of the lay member, the court of appeal held that on the basis of Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, there was no ground for the disqualification of B.The court further referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.According to the case law, a judge should not have a preconception of the case or personal bias concerning the case (subjective impartiality).Furthermore, legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the judge should be excluded (objective impartiality).When considering objective impartiality, it had to be taken into account whether the judge's previous actions or some other specific relation to a party in a case give objective reason to question the impartiality of the judge.There has to be a justified, that is, objectively acceptable, reason to question a court's impartiality.The relationship between B's daughter and the grandson of C, who acted in the same line of business as A, did not give reason to question the court's impartiality.The court of appeal dismissed the claim concerning the disqualification of B.

1.4.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 23.1.1997

Judicial body: Helsinki Court of Appeal = Helsingfors hovrätt = Helsingin hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 184; SO 96/6

Reference to source

HelHO 1997:2.

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, independent and impartial tribunal,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

A, who was a soldier, had been convicted in a criminal case in the court of first instance.He had also been dismissed from the Defence College by the Head of the College.A appealed against the decision of the court of first instance to the Helsinki Court of Appeal claiming that at least one of the court's two military members (B and C) could not be considered impartial and that the court had not fulfilled the requirements of impartiality and independence as prescribed in Article 6 of the ECHR.B had requested the initiation of the pretrial investigation in the case against A.B had also confirmed with his signature the decision of the Head of the Defence College concerning A's dismissal from the College.Both B and C were subordinates to the Head of the Defence College who had decided upon A's dismissal.The court of appeal referred to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, according to which a person shall not act as a member of the court in a case if the case deals with a matter which he has already decided or considered as a member of another court or as a representative of a public authority.Since B had requested the initiation of the pretrial investigation in the case against A and had been involved in the preparations for the request, he was well acquainted with the case and should therefore have been disqualified on the basis of Chapter 13, section 1.The Court also referred to Article 6 of the ECHR and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which a judge should not have a preconception of the case or personal bias concerning the case (subjective impartiality) and which also prescribes that legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the judge should be excluded (objective impartiality).When considering objective impartiality, the judge's previous engagement in the same matter and his special relationship to a party to a case has to be taken into account.B could have had a preconception of the case because of his involvement in the initiation of the pretrial investigation and because of the fact that he had confirmed the decision of the Head of the Defence College regarding A's dismissal.Therefore, B could not be considered impartial as prescribed in Article 6 of the ECHR.The fact that B and C were subordinates to the Head of the Defence College did not give an objective cause to question their impartiality.Also, since C had not been involved in the initiation of the pretrial investigation or A's dismissal, there was no cause to doubt his impartiality.Owing to the fact that B should have been disqualified on the basis of the doubts concerning B's impartiality, the court of appeal ordered the case to be returned to the court of first instance.

1.4.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 16.5.1997

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 732; S97/13

Reference to source

Registry of the Vaasa Court of Appeal

Vasa hovrätts registratorskontor

Vaasan hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The court of first instance had made a decision in a case against A and B concerning the recovery of outstanding debts.A and B appealed against the decision to the Vaasa Court of Appeal.In connection with their appeal A and B asked the court of appeal to examine whether C, who was working at the court of first instance, had been involved in the proceedings against them.Immediately before her job at the court of first instance, C had been employed by a bank which was one of the claimants against A and B.There was thus reason to doubt C's impartiality.The court of appeal referred to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure and to Article 6-1 of the ECHR as regards the prerequisites of a fair trial before an impartial and independent court and added that in addition to the grounds mentioned in section 1, the disqualification of a judge could also occur on other grounds which give a sufficient cause to legitimately question his impartiality.The court concluded that although C had participated in the preparations of the case against A and B in the court of first instance, she had not participated in the legal proceedings or in the decision in the case.The preparations of the case did not include any such decision-making which would have had any effect on the outcome of the case.Therefore, there was no reasonable cause to doubt the impartiality and independence of the court of first instance.

1.4.1998 / 28.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 14.11.1997

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 3984; S97/637

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Court

Högsta domstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code on Judicial Procedure; section 5-1 of the Act on Petition Proceedings in Courts of First Instance

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §, lag om behandling av ansökningsärenden vid allmän underrätt 5 § 1 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §; laki hakemusasioiden käsittelystä yleisessä alioikeudessa 5 § 1 mom.

ECHR-6

Abstract

The parties to a death estate could not agree which of the two candidates should be appointed administrator of the death estate.The president of the court of first instance, A, appointed B as administrator.The matter was not taken up in a session of the court but was decided by the president of the court in the court's office.Some of the parties to the death estate appealed against the decision of A to the Kouvola Court of Appeal which did not change the decision.They lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court and claimed that the disputed matter should have been decided in full session of the court of first instance and that there was reason to doubt A's impartiality since A, at the time when the decision was made, had a relationship with B and they were later married.The Supreme Court noted that since there was a dispute involved in the matter to be decided, the matter should have been decided by the court in full session.With regard to the alleged impartiality of B, the Court referred to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure according to which a judge should be disqualified, among other things, on account of certain family relationships or relationships by marriage.The Court also referred to Article 6 of the ECHR and its interpretation.A judge should not have a preconception of the case or personal bias concerning the case.Furthermore, legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the judge should be excluded.It should also be taken into account whether the judge's previous engagement in the same matter, his special relationship to a party to a case or the composition of the court could jeopardize a party's trust in the impartiality of the court.The Supreme Court concluded that because of A's relationship with B, there was a legitimate reason to doubt A's ability to resolve the matter in an impartial manner.The decisions of the Kouvola Court of Appeal and the court of first instance were quashed and the matter was returned to the court of first instance.

1.4.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 9.5.1997

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1548; M96/172

Reference to source

KKO 1997:59.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1997 I January-June

Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1997 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1997 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1997

Pages: pp. 282-284

Subject

independent and impartial tribunal, fair trial,
oavhängig och opartisk domstol, rättvis rättegång,
riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 57-4 of the Partition Act

= fastighetsbildningslagen 57 § 4 mom.

= jakolaki 57 § 4 mom.

ECHR-6

Abstract

The case concerned the construction of a forest road and the proceedings connected therewith.An expert and two trustees were appointed for the purposes of the road construction proceedings.The appellant M was one of the parties to the proceedings.M lodged an appeal with the Land Court of Southern Finland and asked that the result of the proceedings be annulled.During the proceedings before the land court, M submitted that one of the trustees was not impartial because he was an uncle to one of the parties to the road construction proceedings.The land court rejected the appeal.

M lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court held that the trustee who was related to one of the parties could not be considered impartial.However, according to section 57-4 of the Partition Act, a decision on impartiality had no effect on the proceedings carried out before the complaint concerning impartiality was made.In this particular case, doubts about the impartiality of a trustee were raised at the level of the land court, not at the meetings held during the road construction proceedings.Therefore, the decision on the complaint concerning impartiality of a trustee did not affect the proceedings.In these circumstances, the Supreme Court, referring to the preparatory work of section 57-4, concluded that the fact that the trustee could not be considered impartial could not alone constitute a ground for the annulment of the proceedings or the decisions made during the proceedings.The Supreme Court assessed the case on the basis of the ECHR and the case law based on the ECHR and concluded that they did not give occasion to a different interpretation of section 57-4 of the Partition Act.

2.4.1998 / 1.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 10.12.1997

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 4308; M-96/52

Reference to source

KKO 1997:194.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1997 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1997 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1997 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1998

Pages: pp. 979-984

Subject

independent and impartial tribunal, fair trial,
oavhängig och opartisk domstol, rättvis rättegång,
riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti,

Relevant legal provisions

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The city of Oulu had been granted the right to expropriate land from Mr. and Mrs.Y.The parties could not agree on the value of the land and the compensation to be paid.Mr. and Mrs.Y took the case to the Land Court of Northern Finland which rejected their claims concerning the compensation.Mr. and Mrs.Y lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court regarding the compensation.While the case was pending, Mr.Y presented a written submission to the Supreme Court where he, among other things, asked the Court to decide whether there was reason to doubt the impartiality of a lay member of the land court in this case.During the proceedings, the lay member was a member of the city council.He had also been the chairman of the real estate committee and had had several other positions of trust within the city administration.In these various functions he had participated in the decision-making on the city policy regarding land, expropriation and the pricing of land.The Supreme Court referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and concluded that the lay member's membership in the city council and his various positions of trust constituted a legitimate cause to doubt his impartiality.The lay member could not be considered impartial and independent when the Land Court of Northern Finland decided upon the question concerning the amount of compensation.

2.4.1998 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 8.12.1997

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 4284; S-96/1398

Reference to source

KKO 1997:192.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1997 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1997 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1997 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1998

Pages: pp. 974-977

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 and Chapter 15, section 3-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §, 15 kapitel, 3 § 2 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §, 15 luku, 3 § 2 mom.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

Cases between company X and A and company X and B concerning outstanding debts were pending in the court of first instance and the court of appeal respectively.At the same time, a case between company X and C was pending in the court of appeal.The court of appeal decided the case against company X.Company X appealed to the Supreme Court and questioned the impartiality and independence of one of the judges of the court of appeal in the case between company X and C.This judge had given legal advice and assisted A and B in their pending cases against company X.The Supreme Court referred to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, according to which a judge should be disqualified if he has acted as an attorney in the same case or if a party to the case is his adversary in another pending case.The same applies to a judge who has assisted an adversary of the party concerned in a pending case, or in a case which is to be initiated, an adversary of the party concerned.According to the Supreme Court, the judge of the court of appeal had not assisted the parties in the present case.This particular case was not even similar to the cases where the judge had assisted A and B.The judge's actions and statements during the proceedings of the case had not given any reason to believe that he was an enemy of the company.The Supreme Court concluded that, with respect to Chapter 13, section 1 of the code of judical procedure and Article 6-1 of the ECHR, there was no objective reason to doubt the impartiality and independence of the judge.

2.4.1998 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 25.6.1997

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2230; S-96/465

Reference to source

KKO 1997:102.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1997 I January-June

Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1997 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1997 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1997

Pages: pp. 466-471

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The court of first instance had given a default judgment in a case between A and B, on the grounds that the accused B had in his response referred only to facts which clearly had no relevance with respect to the outcome of the case and which he had not claimed to be able to prove.B filed an action for recovery, which in the case of a default judgment is made to the same instance, referring partially to the same facts he had presented in the case which resulted in the default judgment.His action for recovery was dismissed.B lodged an appeal with the Vaasa Court of Appeal.

The Vaasa Court of Appeal took notice of the fact that the same judge M had acted as a president of the court of first instance both in the case where the default judgment was given and in the decision concerning the action for recovery.Therefore there was reason to question her impartiality in the latter case.The court of appeal referred to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure according to which a person cannot act as a judge in a case, if he has been a judge in another court in the same case.The court also referred to the case law of the Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Piersack case, judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A, No. 53; De Cubber case, judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A, No. 86; and Hauschildt case, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A, No. 154).In the light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, a judge should not have a preconception of the case or personal bias concerning the case (subjective impartiality).Furthermore, legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the judge should be excluded (objective impartiality).The court of appeal argued that there was no reason to question M's subjective impartiality.However, the judge's previous engagement in the same matter had to be taken into account.The circumstances in the case should give no objective reason to even question the judge's impartiality.During the proceedings regarding B's action for recovery, M had had to consider the same issues which had been subject to the decision in the default judgment.As regards objective impartiality, M could not be considered impartial and independent as prescribed in the ECHR and in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.The court of appeal ordered that the case is returned to the court of first instance.

B appealed to the Supreme Court which maintained the decision of the court of appeal.When deciding the case, the Supreme Court made a general reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

2.4.1998 / 1.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 6.11.1995

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 4615; S94/1347

Reference to source

KKO 1995:185.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1995 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1995 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1995 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1995

Pages: pp. 768-771

Subject

independent and impartial tribunal, fair trial, judges,
oavhängig och opartisk domstol, rättvis rättegång, domare,
riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, tuomarit,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The case concerned the dismissal of the managing director, A, of a joint-stock company, B, in which the City of Kuhmo had a right of decision.A brought the case to court, demanding damages as company B had no acceptable reason for his dismissal.At the first hearing in the court of first instance, one juror was an accountant in company B and a member of the city council.Two other jurors present at all hearings were members of the city council.The court of first instance concluded that there had been a lack of confidence between A and company B, which constituted an acceptable ground for dismissal.It therefore rejected the claims.

The court of appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance.

A appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the court of first instance had not been an impartial and independent tribunal in the case, as several jurors were members of the city council.The Supreme Court stated that, in accordance with Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the jurors in question had not been partial or disqualified to act as jurors in the case.The question was therefore whether the composition of the court of first instance filled the criteria for a fair trial in accordance with Article 6-1 of the ECHR.The Court referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (i.a. the cases of Piersack, judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A, No.83; and Holm judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A, No. 279).According to this case law, a judge should not have personal bias concerning the case (subjective impartiality).Legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the judge or the court should also be excluded (objective impartiality).Previous commitments or activities of the judge or the judge's special relationship to a party in the case are among the facts that must be taken into consideration when assessing the impartiality of the court in an objective sense.The juror who was also an accountant at company B must, in the opinion of the Court, have formed an opinion on how A had carried out his tasks as a managing director of the company.Therefore he must have had an at least partially prejudiced view of issues affecting the case.The City of Kuhmo had had a right of decision in company B due to the city's shareholding.Due to the area of activities of company B, its significance for the city's trade and industry policy was considerable, meaning that also the members of the city council must officially have monitored the company's business.Employing or dismissing the managing director was not part of the city council's tasks.Nor had it been shown that the issue of how A had carried out his work would have been on the city council's agenda.However, the fact that several jurors were members of the city council was in the present circumstances a justified reason to distrust the impartiality of the court of first instance.The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the composition of the court of first instance in this case did not fill the criteria for an impartial tribunal as laid down in Article 6-1 of the ECHR.For this reason and to meet the requirements for a fair trial, the decisions of the court of appeal and the court of first instance were quashed, and the case was returned to another court of first instance than the one the case originated from.

8.4.1998 / 24.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 22.9.1994

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 1643; S93/923

Reference to source

VaaHo 1994:9.

Electronic database FHOT within the FINLEX databank system, administrated 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, independent and impartial tribunal,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

A, B, C and D had a surety obligation towards a bank for a check account agreement between the bank and a limited liability company.In the trial against them in the court of first instance, A, B, C and D claimed that the personal guarantee was not valid.At the time of the proceedings in the court of first instance, one member of the jury was a member of the board of governors of the bank which was the plaintiff in the case.The court of first instance found the personal guarantee to be valid and ordered A, B, C and D to pay the bank the amount of the guarantee.A, B, C and D appealed to the court of appeal, stating that the case should be returned to the court of first instance as there was reason to doubt the impartiality of one court member.

The court of appeal stated that on the basis of Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure and taking into account decision KKO 1988:46 by the Supreme Court, a member of the board of governors of a bank cannot be regarded as disqualified as a judge in a case where the bank in question is a party.However, a member of the board of governors of a bank still has such a relation to the bank that his impartiality in cases directly involving the profits of the bank can be legitimately questioned.The court also referred to Article 6 of the ECHR, stating that it takes precedence over applicable national law.It noted that taking also into account the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding Article 6, there was reason to doubt the impartiality of the court member in this case.Reference was made to the cases of Sramek (judgment of 22 October 1984, Series A, No. 84), Langborger (judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A, No. 155) and Holm (judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A, No. 279).The court of appeal quashed the decision of the court of first instance and returned the case to the latter for a new consideration.

22.4.1998 / 16.9.2003 / JKOSKIMI

Date when decision was rendered: 12.2.1998

Judicial body: Vaasa Court of Appeal = Vasa hovrätt = Vaasan hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 129; S97/295

Reference to source

VaaHO 1998:2.

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, independent and impartial tribunal, judges,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judical Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

X's application concerning an arrangement for the payment of debts was rejected by the court of first instance.The senior judge who made the decision at the court of first instance, was also the vice chairman and member of the board of governors of the local bank, the main creditor in X's case.The bank had objected to X's application.X appealed against the decision to the Vaasa Court of Appeal.He also submitted that there was reason to doubt the impartiality of the senior judge, owing to his position of trust with the bank.The senior judge stated that the board of governors only made general decisions on the bank's activities and did not participate in the decision-making regarding individual bank transactions or customer relations.He had not had any information about X's relation with the bank.Therefore, he had not considered it necessary to disqualify himself as a judge in X's case.

The court of appeal referred to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure and to Article 6-1 of the ECHR.It also made a general reference to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and stated that a judge should not have a preconception of the case or a desire to promote the interests of a party to a case (subjective impartiality).Furthermore, it had to be taken into account, whether the judge's previous actions or some other specific relation to a party in a case, give objective reason to question the impartiality of the judge (objective impartiality).There has to be a justified, that is, objectively acceptable reason to question a court's impartiality.

The court of appeal concluded that because of his position in the bank, the senior judge was committed to safeguarding the interests of the bank.There was a justified reason to doubt his impartiality.The court of appeal quashed the decision of the court of first instance and ordered the case to be returned to the court of first instance.

22.10.2002 / 27.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 3.9.1998

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 2808; M95/243

Reference to source

KKO 1998:100.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1998 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1998 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1998 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1999

Pages: pp. 566-568

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, judges,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel, 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §

Abstract

X and Y appealed to the Land Court of Southern Finland regarding the determination of the boundaries and area of their farm.Before the land court, they pointed out that three members of the court should be disqualified, since they had previously participated in the hearing of a complaint which concerned the determination of the boundaries of partly the same land area in connection with a construction plan for a private road.The three members of the land court stated that their participation in the hearing of the previous case did not alone give a sufficient cause for their disqualification in this case.The land court dismissed the case on the merits.X and Y appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court stated that the decision about the possible disqualification of the three members should not have been made by the persons themselves but by all the members of the land court.It then referred to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure according to which a person cannot act as a judge in a case, if he has been a judge in another court in the same case.The Court also referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which a judge should not have such a relation to a party or a subject matter in a case which could give an objective reason to question the impartiality of the judge.

With reference to the Partition Act, the Supreme Court concluded that the boundaries of the farm, to the extent they had been determined in connection with the road construction plan, had the force of law, binding also for future cases, and that the two cases did not concern the same matter.The Court found no cause to disqualify the land court members on the basis of the Code of Judicial Procedure nor any objective reason to believe that the members had such a preconception of the matter that their impartiality could have been in doubt.The Supreme Court sustained the decision of the land court.

22.10.2002 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 5.1.1998

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 12; M96/185

Reference to source

KKO 1998:3.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1998 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1998 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1998 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1998

Pages: pp. 23-25

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, judges,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel, 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The Land Court of Southern Finland had rejected the complainants' appeal regarding the amount of compensation granted to them as a result of expropriation of land.When appealing against the land court's decision at the Supreme Court, the complainants submitted that there was reason to doubt the impartiality of two members of the land court.One member worked for the municipality and the other was a chairman of a committee for the joint owners of a water area.Both the municipality and the committee had been parties in the expropriation proceedings.

The Supreme Court referred to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, according to which a person cannot act as a judge in a case, if he has acted as an attorney in the same case, or if he has an interest in the case.The Court concluded that the land court member, who was employed by the municipality and had acted as the representative of the municipality in the expropriation proceedings, should have been disqualified as a judge, in spite of the fact that the municipality had not appealed to the land court.The other member of the land court had been elected chairman of the committee after the expropriation proceedings but before the case was taken to the land court.The Supreme Court stated that his case could not be resolved with reference to the Code of Judicial Procedure and considered the matter on the basis of the ECHR and the case law under the Convention.The Court concluded that because of his position as a chairman of the committee, there was a legitimate reason to doubt the land court member's impartiality, in spite of the fact that the committee had not appealed to the land court.The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the land court and the case was returned to the land court.

23.10.2002 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 11.11.1998

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

Reference: Report no. 0851; H98/28

Reference to source

Registry of the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal

Rovaniemi hovrätts registratorkontor

Rovaniemen hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, judges,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The children of a deceased person asked the court of first instance to assign an executor of the distribution of the estate.They suggested that A, who was a lawyer and assisted them in the case, be assigned to the post.The widow objected to this.The children then suggested that B, who was also a lawyer and A's partner, be assigned and the court agreed to this.The widow appealed to the court of appeal.

The court of appeal stated that the tasks of an executor were comparable to those of a judge.Therefore, the rules regarding the impartiality of a judge were applicable.The court referred to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure which provides, among other things, that a judge shall not act as a member of the court in a case if he or she assists or has assisted a party in the same case.It then noted that according to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, any justified doubts regarding the impartiality of a judge should be excluded (objective impartiality).In view of this, it should be considered whether a judge's relation to a party or to a person assisting a party in the case gives reason to doubt the judge's impartiality.The court noted that A, who assisted the children of the deceased, could not act as en executor.Because of A's position and because of the fact that B was A's partner, there were justified grounds to doubt B's impartiality.The court of appeal quashed the decision of the court of first instance and returned the case to the lower court.

23.10.2002 / 27.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 31.3.1999

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 928; R 98/360

Reference to source

KKO 1999:46.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1999 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1999 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1999 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1999

Pages: pp. 327-339

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, judges, universities,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare, universitet,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit, yliopistot,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The case was between the University of Helsinki and a professor at the University.It concerned a possible abuse of authority in connection with finances of a research project commissioned by a company not connected with the University.The professor appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the court of appeal.In his appeal, he also stated that there was reason to doubt the impartiality of one of the judges of the appeal court.The judge's husband was a professor at the University of Helsinki and a member of a University consistory which had, among other things, the task of promoting cooperation between the various branches of science and maintaining academic traditions at the University.

The Supreme Court referred to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, according to which a judge shall not act as a member of the court in a case, if, among other things, the judge himself/herself or his/her relative(s) are a party to the case or the result of the case may favor them or be to their disadvantage.The Court also referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.It concluded that the position or tasks of the judge's husband had no connection with the matter.Therefore there was no reason to doubt the judge's impartiality.

24.10.2002 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 5.3.1999

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 564; S98/553

Reference to source

KKO 1999:35.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1999 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1999 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1999 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1999

Pages: pp. 271-275

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, judges,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The court of first instance had made a decision in a case concerning the reduction of maintenance payments.X, whose duty it was to pay maintenance in this case, appealed to the court of appeal on the grounds that the reduction was not big enough and that the judge who had decided the case was biased as the judge was herself a party to a similar case before another court.The latter case was concerning a type of maintenance payment with the purpose to support the education of a child who had reached the age of 18 years (maturity).

The Helsinki Court of Appeal noted Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, according to which a judge shall not act as a member of the court in a case if, among other things, he or she has a similar case pending before another court.The court also referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and to the views of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the notions of subjective and objective impartiality.It then concluded, that the judge was not prevented from deciding the case against X on the basis of the Code of Judicial Procedure.The judge did not have a similar case pending before another court as the party in that case was not the judge herself but her daughter who had reached the age of maturity.There was no reason to doubt the judge's impartiality on the basis of Article 6-1 of the ECHR either.The case concerning the judge's daughter had been decided before the case against X reached the stage of oral hearing.In view of the facts in the case it did not seem probable that the judge, as X claimed, had not treated X in an objective manner or had infringed on procedural requirements when conducting the proceedings and hearing a witness.The decision of the court of first instance was not amended.

X appealed to the Supreme Court which did not agree with the Helsinki Court of Appeal as far as the impartiality of the judge was concerned.It concluded that the case against X and the case concerning the judge's daughter had been pending at the same time.In the case concerning her daughter, the judge had initiated the proceedings as a representative of her daughter and had assisted her daughter during the proceedings.Although the daughter had reached the age of maturity, the maintenance payment she received for her education also had an effect on the finances of her mother as the daughter was still living at home with her mother.The impartiality of the judge in the case against X was therefore in doubt.The decisions of both lower courts were quashed and the case was returned to the court of first instance.In the decision of the Supreme Court there is no reference to the ECHR.

24.10.2002 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 16.2.1999

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 339; R98/38

Reference to source

KKO 1999:18.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1999 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1999 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1999 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1999

Pages: pp. 170-177

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, judges, witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare, vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit, todistajat,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

A had acted as a witness in a case concerning an assault.During the proceedings, she changed her statement from what she had told during the pretrial investigation.Because of this the prosecutor dropped the charges.The prosecutor also asked the police to investigate whether A could be suspected of having committed perjury.New charges were later brought in the assault case, and A acted again as a witness.Following its decision in the assault case, the court of first instance considered in the same composition the case against A concerning perjury.A was convicted.

A appealed to the Vaasa Court of Appeal and claimed that as the composition of the court of first instance had been the same in both cases, the judge had a preconception of the matter concerning A.She also told that she had not altered her statement on purpose but because of the leading questions put forth to her by, among others, the judge acting as the chairman of the court.The court of appeal referred to the provisions of the Code of Judicial Procedure regarding the impartiality of judges, to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.A judge should not have a preconception of a case nor a desire to favor one of the parties in the case (subjective impartiality).Any justified doubts regarding the impartiality of the judge should be excluded (objective impartiality).The court concluded that as the assault case had been decided before the case against A, the judge and the lay members of the court may have had a preconception of the matter when considering and deciding the case against A.Their impartiality was thus in doubt.The court ordered the case to be returned to the court of first instance.

The prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court which did not agree with the court of appeal.In the assault case, the court did not consider A's possible guilt for perjury and therefore the court members did not have a preconception of the matter when considering the case against A.Furthermore, A's statements made during the proceedings in the assault case constituted part of the evidence on the basis of which the court made its decision in the case against A.The court would have had to examine A's statements in the assault case even if it had assembled in a new composition.On the basis of the documents in the case, the behavior of the judge and the questions he had posed to A during the proceedings were appropriate, and there was no reason to doubt his impartiality on these grounds either.The case was returned to the court of appeal.

25.10.2002 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM