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,
rättshjälp, fri rättegång,
oikeusapu, maksuton oikeudenkäynti,

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

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,
rättshjälp, fri rättegång,
oikeusapu, maksuton oikeudenkäynti,

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

Date when decision was rendered: 12.2.1993

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 446; R92/54

Reference to source

KKO 1993:19.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1993 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1993 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1993 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 74-82

Subject

fair trial, preparation of defence, legal assistance,
rättvis rättegång, förberedande av försvar, rättshjälp,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, puolustuksen valmisteleminen, oikeusapu,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 11, section 22, Chapter 14, sections 3 and 4, Chapter 25, section 3-2, Chapter 31, section 1-4 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 11 kapitel 22 §, 14 kapitel 3 § och 4 §, 25 kapitel 3 § 2 mom., 31 kapitel 1 § 4 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 11 luku 22 §, 14 luku 3 § ja 4 § 25 luku, 3 § 2 mom., 31 luku 1 § 4 mom.

ECHR-6-3-b, ECHR-6-1, CCPR-14-3-b, CCPR-14-1

Abstract

A 19-year-old defendant was accused of several serious crimes.He did not have legal assistance.Some of the charges were presented as late as in the very hearing following which the defendant was convicted.According to the Supreme Court, a court must take care that a defendant in a criminal case enjoys the minimum safeguards prescribed in international treaties that form part of the law, including the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence (Article 6-3-b of the ECHR and Article 14-3-b of the CCPR).If it turns out that the defendant has not had enough time to prepare his defence, the court must attach his attention to the possibility of postponing the hearing, and must postpone the case if the defendant so asks.The defendant had not benefitted from the minimum rights enjoyed by a defendant in a criminal case.Therefore there had been a procedural error.There were other procedural errors as well, because the defendant was asked to comment on the various charges in a rather summary way, and the court gave the unrepresented defendant only oral instructions on the possibility of having the case reviewed by a higher court.Thus, the procedure did not comply with the requirements of a fair and public hearing (Article 6-3-b of the ECHR and Article 14-3-b of the CCPR).The ruling of the court of appeal was quashed and the case returned to the court of first instance (4 justices).One justice was of the opinion that the procedural errors of the court of first instance had not affected the outcome of the case.

26.3.1998 / 24.3.2003 / LISNELLM

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,
fri rättegång, rättshjälp,
maksuton oikeudenkäynti, oikeusapu,

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

Date when decision was rendered: 15.2.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 517; R-94/823

Reference to source

KKO 1996:17.

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. 95-103

Subject

fair trial, legal assistance, freedom of expression,
rättvis rättegång, rättshjälp, yttrandefrihet,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeusapu, ilmaisuvapaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 27, section 2 of the Penal Code

= strafflagen 27 kapitel 2 §

= rikoslaki 27 luku 2 §

Abstract

The legal counsel of the defendant had during the criminal proceedings accused the prosecutor of having deliberately misused his discretion and thus acted against his legal obligations.The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the counsel had not provided substantiated reasons to support his allegations and was therefore guilty of public slander.One justice, dissenting, argued that the legal counsel of an accused person has, if the interests of his client so require, freedom to criticise the acts of the prosecution without danger of being punished.This right is part of the right to a fair trial and is a central human rights principle in states abiding by the rule of law.According to the dissenting opinion, this principle becomes illusionary if the freedom of speech of the legal counsel is excessively limited.The majority of the Supreme Court approved the arguments of the court of appeal.The court of appeal held that the legal counsel had, as such, a right to criticise the prosecution and express his doubts about the correctness of the acts of the prosecution.However, the court of appeal stated that the legal counsel had not sufficiently substantiated the foundations of his allegations.(A vote).

See also the case of Nikula v.Finland (Application No. 31611/96), judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 21 March 2002.

27.3.1998 / 1.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 9.5.1996

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1624; R-95/655

Reference to source

KKO 1996:48.

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. 237-239

Subject

fair trial, legal assistance,
rättvis rättegång, rättshjälp,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeusapu,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 15, sections 2, 3-3, 10a-1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; section 15-2 of the Criminal Investigations Act

= rättegångsbalken 15 kapitel 2 §, 3 § 3 mom., 10a § 1 mom., förundersökningslagen 15 § 2 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 15 luku 2 §, 3 § 3 mom., 10a § 1 mom; esitutkintalaki 15 § 2 mom.

ECHR-6-3, CCPR-14-3

Abstract

A, who was arrested for blasting, had a right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choice, although the counsel he chose already represented another suspect in the same case.The Supreme Court stated that the right to choose a legal counsel cannot be limited purely by reason of the fact that the counsel has information which he or she is obliged to keep confidential.The Supreme Court also noted that section 15-2 of the Criminal Investigations Act laid down stricter qualifications on the counsel than Chapter 15, section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure.However, the court proceedings on the imprisonment of an arrested person were not part of the pre-trial investigation.Thus limitations regarding the qualifications of a legal counsel imposed in the Criminal Investigation Act were not applicable in the court proceedings.The court of first instance referred explicitly to Article 6-6 of the ECHR and Article 14-3 of the CCPR, which secure the right to choose a legal counsel.The court of appeal approved the reasoning of the court of first instance.

27.3.1998 / 1.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 27.2.1996

Judicial body: Eastern Finland Court of Appeal = Hovrätten i Östra Finland = Itä-Suomen hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 208; H95/18

Reference to source

I-SHO 1996:1.

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, access to court,
rättshjälp, rätt till domstolsprövning,
oikeusapu, oikeus tuomioistuinkäsittelyyn,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 15, section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 15 kapitel 2 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 15 luku 2 §.

ECHR-6-3-c, CCPR-14-3-d

Abstract

On the basis of Chapter 15, section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the court of first instance had regarded the legal counsel as inappropriate to act as legal assistant to A and therefore prohibited him from acting as a legal assistant in the case.The legal counsel had a right to appeal against the decision.

31.3.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 28.8.1997

Judicial body: Turku Court of Appeal = Åbo hovrätt = Turun hovioikeus

Reference: Report No. 2175; R97/614

Reference to source

Registry of the Turku Court of Appeal

Åbo hovrätts registratorskontor

Turun hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, legal assistance, preparation of defence,
rättvis rättegång, rättshjälp, förberedande av försvar,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeusapu, puolustuksen valmisteleminen,

Relevant legal provisions

ECHR-6-3-b, ECHR-6-3-c, CCPR-14-3-b

Abstract

The court of first instance had convicted P for a serious embezzlement offence.He was also to pay considerable damages.P appealed to the Turku Court of Appeal and asked that the case be returned to the court of first instance.He claimed that without legal assistance he had not been able to defend himself and he had not had an opportunity or enough time to prepare for his defence.

The Turku Court of Appeal noted that P had no criminal record and was unemployed.The damages demanded from him were considerable and the charges against him could lead to imprisonment.The records of the proceedings before the court of first instance did not tell whether the relevant legal provisions had been explained to P or whether it had been suggested that P should seek legal assistance.Neither did they tell whether P had had sufficient possibilities to prepare for his defence.

The court of appeal referred to Article 14-3-b of the CCPR and to Article 6-3-b and c of the ECHR and stated that the court has to see to it that the minimum requirements for a fair trial are fulfilled.If it is apparent that the accused has not had enough time to prepare for his defence, the court has to draw his attention to the possibility of postponing the legal proceedings and to the fact that the accused has the possibility to seek legal assistance.Considering the circumstances in the case, the demands directed at the accused and the consequences of the demands, the court of appeal concluded that P had not had enough time to prepare for his defence and the legal proceedings had not fulfilled the requirements of a fair trial, as specified in Article 6-1 of the ECHR.The case was returned to the court of first instance.

1.4.1998 / 28.3.2003 / LISNELLM

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,
fri rättegång, brottsanklagelse, rättshjälp,
maksuton oikeudenkäynti, rikossyyte, oikeusapu,

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

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,
fri rättegång, rättshjälp,
maksuton oikeudenkäynti, oikeusapu,

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

Date when decision was rendered: 19.10.2001

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

Reference: Report No. 596; R01/251

Reference to source

RHO 18:2001.

Registry of the Rovaniemi Court of Appeal

Rovaniemi hovrätts registratorskontor

Rovaniemen hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, legal assistance,
rättvis rättegång, rättshjälp,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeusapu,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 15, section 3 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; section 17 of the Act on courts of first instance

= rättegångsbalken 15 kapitel 3 §; tingsrättslag 17 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 15 luku 3 §; käräjäoikeuslaki 17 §.

ECHR-6-3-c; CCPR-14-3-d

Abstract

A had assisted B in the proceedings against B before the court of first instance and had also drafted B's appeal to the court of appeal.Approximately at the same time as B filed his appeal, A was appointed a court clerk at the court of first instance.A asked the court of appeal to decide whether he could act as B's legal counsel at the main hearing before the court of appeal.

The court of appeal referred to section 17 of the Act on courts of first instance which provides that a court clerk may be ordered to act as a chairman or member of the court in certain cases.According to Chapter 15, section 3-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, a legally trained member of a court may not assist a party or act as his or her legal counsel, unless he himself is party to the case or a close relative of the party to the case.A was not a close relative of B.The court of appeal also referred to Article 6-3-c of the ECHR and Article 14-3-d of the CCPR and the right of the defendant to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing.It concluded that on the basis of Chapter 15, section 3, of the Code of Judicial Procedure, A was not qualified to assist B.Consequently, B no longer had the right to defend himself in the case through A's assistance.B was asked to notify the court, within the time specified by the court, whether he wished to defend himself in person or to choose a new legal counsel.

30.10.2002 / 12.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 3.6.2003

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: 9710:2002

Reference to source

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,
rättshjälp,
oikeusapu,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1 and 6 of the Legal Aid Act

= rättshjälpslag 1 § och 6 §

= oikeusapulaki 1 § ja 6 §.

ECHR-6; ECHR-13

Abstract

A wanted to appeal against a decision by which the State Treasury had granted A, 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.By the decision of the legal aid office A's expenses for the measures already undertaken were covered.However, A's request for an attorney paid for by the state was rejected on the grounds that this was a petitionary matter and there were no especially weighty reasons for appointing an attorney.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 its preparatory materials.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 court pointed out that the requirements set in the ECHR must also be taken into account.In A's appeal, the amount of the compensation was at issue.The assessment of the compensation is principally based on the documents and evidence presented at the trial.A decision on the amount of the compensation does not involve demanding legal and factual questions.A and A's lawyer had not presented any new information regarding A's claim for compensation.Nor had they presented any cause pertaining to A's person on the grounds of which A would not be able to make the appeal himself.The Insurance Court concluded that A was able to protect his interests without assistance.The decision of the legal aid office was not amended and A's request for the appointment of an attorney paid for by the state was rejected.

21.4.2004 / 21.4.2004 / JKOSKIMI

Date when decision was rendered:

Reference to source

Date of publication:

Subject

legal assistance,
rättshjälp,
oikeusapu,

Relevant legal provisions

Abstract

21.4.2004 / 21.4.2004 / JKOSKIMI

Date when decision was rendered: 19.8.2003

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report No. 3002:2003

Reference to source

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,
rättshjälp,
oikeusapu,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 1 of the Legal Aid Act

= rättshjälpslag 1 §

= oikeusapulaki 1 §.

ECHR-6; ECHR-13

Abstract

The State Treasury had rejected A's application, as a victim of a crime, for compensation from state funds for crime damage.According to the Treasury's decision, it had not been shown that A's injuries were caused by an offence.A wanted to appeal against the decision and applied for legal aid from a state legal aid office.A requested that the expenses for measures undertaken so far are covered and that he is appointed an attorney paid for by the state.The legal aid office rejected A's application.A appealed against the decision, and the legal aid office forwarded the matter to the Insurance Court.In assessing the appeal, the Insurance Court referred to the Legal Aid Act and its preparatory materials.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 court pointed out that the requirements set in the ECHR must also be taken into account.In A's case, the police had not been able to discover the perpetrator of the offence in the pretrial investigation, and therefore the case or the claim for compensation on the basis of the offence had not been brought before a court.When appealing against the decision of the State Treasury, A has to present evidence not only of the damage caused by the offence but also of the offence itself as well as bring forth other facts pertaining to the legal assessment of the offence.Deciding the matter involves demanding legal and factual questions.The Insurance Court concluded that A was not able to protect his interests in the matter properly without legal assistance.The decision of the legal aid office was amended.A was granted legal aid for legal expenses and he was appointed an attorney paid for by the state.

21.4.2004 / 21.4.2004 / JKOSKIMI

Date when decision was rendered: 16.9.2003

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report No. 3780:2003

Reference to source

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, unemployment,
rättshjälp, arbetslöshet,
oikeusapu, työttömyys,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1 and 6 of the Legal Aid Act

= rättshjälpslag 1 § och 6 §

= oikeusapulaki 1 § ja 6 §.

ECHR-6; ECHR-13

Abstract

A's application for earnings-related unemployment allowance had been rejected by an unemployment fund.In order to receive earnings-related unemployment allowance, a person must have been employed for 43 weeks during the two immediately preceding years.When calculating the time A had been employed, the unemployment fund had not included a time period during which A had not been paid a salary but had instead received compensation for loss of income from an insurance company under the Traffic Insurance Act.A wished to appeal against the fund's decision and applied for legal aid from a state legal aid office.A was granted certain benefits which according to the Legal Aid Act could be granted to a person whose means entitle him or her to legal aid for free.However, the legal aid office considered it was not necessary to appoint a legal aid attorney for A.A appealed against this decision, and the legal aid office forwarded the matter to the Insurance Court.The Insurance Court referred to the Legal Aid Act and its preparatory materials.The possibility to receive legal aid depends on the means of the applicant as well as his or her need for legal assistance.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 court pointed out that the requirements set in the ECHR must also be taken into account.The main issue in A's case was whether the time period during which A had received compensation from the insurance company should be regarded as a period of employment.The legal question was clear and could not be regarded as demanding.Furthermore, in the court's view, the importance of the issue for A was indirect at most: even if A's claim were accepted, by the time A submitted his application he had been employed for less than 43 weeks during the two preceding years and was thus not entitled to earnings-related unemployment allowance.The Insurance Court concluded that A was able to protect his interests in the matter without assistance.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.The Insurance Court rejected A's request for an attorney.In addition, unlike the legal aid office, the court considered that because of his financial circumstances, A could not be granted the benefits intended for persons who are entitled to legal aid for free.

21.4.2004 / 21.4.2004 / JKOSKIMI

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,
rättshjälp, fri rättegång,
oikeusapu, maksuton oikeudenkäynti,

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

Date when decision was rendered: 10.10.2005

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

Reference: Report no. 2546; 3086/2/04

Reference to source

KHO 2005:65.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2005 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2005 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2005 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 405-410

Subject

legal assistance,
rättshjälp,
oikeusapu,

Relevant legal provisions

section 23-1 of the Legal Aid Act

= rättshjälpslagen 23 § 1 mom.

= oikeusapulaki 23 § 1 mom.

ECHR-34

Abstract

A had applied for legal aid at a state legal aid office for the purpose of lodging a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights.He also asked that B, who had been his counsel in the same matter before the national courts, is appointed his attorney covered by legal aid to represent him in the procedure before the human rights court.Alternatively, A requested that he is given legal aid at least until he is granted legal aid by the human rights court.The legal aid office rejected A's application with reference to section 23 of the Legal Aid Act which prescribes that in cases considered abroad, legal aid shall cover the provision of general legal advice.The legal aid office held that such advice is given by public legal aid attorneys and does not include drafting a complaint or pursuing a case before a court abroad.The administrative court rejected A's appeal.The Supreme Administrative Court studied the wording and preparatory materials of section 23 and found that the meaning and scope of "general legal advice" remain unclear.Nevertheless, it can be concluded that "general legal advice" does not mean assistance in investigating a matter or representation before a court abroad.In the Court's opinion, it was not possible either to fully agree to A's request to be given legal aid until he is eligible to legal aid by the human rights court.However, the Court also held that it had not been clarified what kind of measures covered by "general legal advice" would have been possible in this case for the purpose of bringing the matter before the human rights court.Therefore, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the legal aid office and the administrative court and referred the matter back to the legal aid office.

26.5.2006 / 3.7.2009 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 1.9.2005

Judicial body: Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland = Östra Finlands hovrätt = Itä-Suomen hovioikeus

Reference: Report no. 1000; H05/812

Reference to source

I-SHO 2005:17.

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, legal assistance,
rättvis rättegång, rättshjälp,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeusapu,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1 and 3 of the Legal Aid Act; sections 2 and 5 of the Legal Aid Decree

= rättshjälpslagen 1 § och 3 §; rättshjälpsförordningen 2 § och 5 §

= oikeusapulaki 1 § ja 3 §; oikeusapuasetus 2 § ja 5 §.

ECHR-6-3-c; CCPR-14-3-d

Abstract

X had applied for legal aid in a criminal case in which he had been convicted by the court of first instance.X contested the charges and the evidence against him and intended to bring the matter before a court of appeal.A state legal aid office granted X legal aid against a deductible, that is, X should pay 55 per cent of the attorney's fee.X appealed against this decision to a court of first instance and requested that he is granted free legal aid.A day before the decision of the legal aid office, X had been laid off from his job and had thus no regular income.He also had debts and had been found insolvent in the execution.

The decision of the legal aid office was based on the provisions of the Legal Aid Act and the Legal Aid Decree on means-testing and calculation of the applicant's available means, taking into account the applicant's monthly income, necessary expenses, assets and liabilities.On the basis of this calculation, X could be granted legal aid against a deductible but not for free.On X's appeal the court of first instance found that considering X's income before he was laid off there were no grounds to grant him free legal aid.X appealed further, to a court of appeal which found that in order to guarantee X a due process in the criminal case against him it had been necessary for him to have recourse to legal assistance before the first instance court and that X would not be able to defend himself before a court of appeal without the assistance of an attorney.Considering X's current financial circumstances the court held that X was not capable of paying a percentage of the attorney's fee as calculated by the legal aid office.The court referred to Article 6-3-c of the ECHR and Article 14-3-d of the CCPR (conserning legal assistance) and found that in this case the human righs treaty provisions prevail over the provisions concerning means-testing in the Legal Aid Act and Decree.The court concluded that X was entitled to legal aid for free.The decision is final.

29.5.2006 / 29.5.2006 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 27.2.2007

Judicial body: Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland = Östra Finlands hovrätt = Itä-Suomen hovioikeus

Reference: Report no. 236; H06/1283

Reference to source

I-SHO 2007:4.

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,
rättshjälp,
oikeusapu,

Relevant legal provisions

section 6-2-1 of the Legal Aid Act

= rättshjälpslag 6 § 2 mom. 1 punkten

= oikeusapulaki 6 § 2 mom. 1 kohta.

ECHR-6; CCPR-14

Abstract

X had applied for legal assistance in proceedings in which a court issues an order on the adjustment of the debts of an insolvent private individual (in this case X) and confirms a payment schedule which corresponds to the ability of the debtor to pay.A debt adjustment case becomes pending upon the petition of the debtor.The state legal aid office had granted X legal aid for free but had not appointed him an attorney to serve as his counsel.Relying on section 6 of the Legal Aid Act, the legal aid office noted that public legal aid covers representation before a court but not in a petitionary matter before a general court of law, unless there are especially weighty reasons for that.In the opinion of the legal aid office, this was a petitionary matter and there were no especially weighty reasons to appoint an attorney at the expense of the state to assist X.The legal aid office also referred to the system of municipal finance and debt advisors who provide free aid for indebted persons in debt settlements.X appealed against the decision to a court of first instance which, however, agreed with the legal aid office.The court of appeal, on the other hand, ruled in X's favour.It referred, among other things, to the preparatory works of the Legal Aid Act, and held that when assessing the existence of especially weighty reasons for appointing a legal aid attorney at the expense of the state in a petitionary matter, the decisive factor is not the form of procedure but the question whether the applicant can properly protect his or her rights and interests without any assistance.The requirements set in the ECHR and the CCPR must also be taken into account.The court pointed out that the matter was of great financial significance to X.Drawing up the petition for debt adjustment had in this case required specific legal expertise.X had not been able to do it himself and had relied on an attorney.As X had also explained, he had not received aid from the municipal finance and debt advisors within a reasonable time for drawing up the petition.Therefore, the court of appeal concluded, there were exceptionally weighty reasons to appoint an attorney to X at the expense of the state to serve as his counsel in the debt adjustment proceedings.

8.7.2009 / 8.7.2009 / RHANSKI