Date when decision was rendered: 8.12.2005

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

Reference: Report no. 1428; R05/792

Reference to source

I-SHO 2005:24.

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

presumption of innocence, police,
rätt att förutsättas vara oskyldig, polis,
syyttömyysolettama, poliisi,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 40, section 9 of the Penal Code; section 2-1 of the Police Act; section 13-2 of the Police Decree; section 14-2 of the State Civil Servants Act

= strafflagen 40 kapitel 9 §; polislag 2 § 1 mom.; polisförordning 13 § 2 mom.; statstjänstemannalag 14 § 2 mom.

= rikoslaki 40 luku 9 §; poliisilaki 2 § 1 mom.; poliisiasetus 13 § 2 mom.; valtion virkamieslaki 14 § 2 mom.

ECHR-6-2

Abstract

A, who was a policeman, had captured B and C on suspicion of theft.B and C brought charges against A for having violated his official duty because A had used offensive language when capturing B and C.The court of first instance found that when calling B and C "thieves", A had violated the presumption of innocence as prescribed in the Criminal Investigations Act and the ECHR.Considering that A had also used bad language, the court held that his behaviour was improper and violated B's and C's dignity and fundamental rights.According to the Penal Code, a violation of official duty is punishable only in cases where the act, when assessed as a whole and taking into consideration its detrimental effect and the other circumstances connected with the act, is not petty.In this case, A had been alone, it was dark and he had reason to believe that B and C were carrying a blunt weapon.The court held that, under such stressful circumstances, A had not been able to fully consider the use of appropriate language.The court also referred to earlier practice in cases where a state official had used inappropriate language and noted that in such cases the officials had at most been given an admonition and there had been no need for prosecution.The court concluded that when assessed as a whole and taking into consideration all the circumstances, A's act was petty.The charges against A were therefore dismissed.The court of appeal agreed with the first instance court.One member of the appeal court would have sentenced A to a fine, mainly because A had continued to call B and C "thieves" after the police patrol, who had been called in to assist A, had arrived and the situation had calmed down.The decision of the appeal court is final.

29.5.2006 / 9.4.2010 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 30.1.2009

Judicial body: Kuopio administrative court = Kuopio förvaltningsdomstol = Kuopion hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 09/0060/2; 00636/08/1499

Reference to source

Electronic database for administrative court decisions within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för beslut av förvaltningsdomstolar inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

respect for private life, police,
respekt för privatliv, polis,
yksityiselämän kunnioittaminen, poliisi,

Relevant legal provisions

section 18 of the State Civil Servants' Act; sections 9-3 and 9d of the Police Act; section 10 of the Constitution Act

= statstjänstemannalag 18 §; polislag 9 § 3 mom. och 9d §; grundlagen 10 §

= valtion virkamieslaki 18 §; poliisilaki 9 § 3 mom. ja 9d §; perustuslaki 10 §

Abstract

Senior constable X had occasionally in his free time worked as a lorry driver in a transport company owned by his friend.For this purpose, X applied for a permit for a secondary occupation, as prescribed in the Police Act and the State Civil Servants' Act.The chief of police rejected the application.X appealed against the decision to the administrative court.The administrative court stated that also policemen have a constitutional right to private life, and therefore any prohibition on having a secondary occupation must be based on adequate legal grounds.X was a senior constable in the traffic police and one of his main tasks was traffic enforcement, including heavy vehicles enforcement.If X were granted a permit for a secondary occupation as a lorry driver, he would in his free time carry out a task which he himself would in principle supervise as a policeman and there would thus be a conflict between his free-time activities and his duties as a policeman.In the court's view, this case had to be assessed keeping in mind the public credibility of the police.Therefore, the fact that X only occassionally worked as a lorry driver and apparently did not receive any monetary compensation for the task, was not decisive.The court concluded that X's secondary occupation could jeopardize public confidence in police action.The chief of police had thus not abused his discretion in rejecting X's application for a secondary occupation permit.

23.6.2009 / 6.7.2009 / RHANSKI