![[Sökformulär]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/sok.gif){kind=icon}
![[Info om databasen]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/info2.gif){kind=icon}
![[Söktips]](http://trip.abo.fi/icon/soktips.gif){kind=icon}
| [1 / 7] |
Date when decision was rendered: 9.8.1990 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 2108; H90/220, of the Supreme Court to the Finnish Ministry of Justice Reference to source Registry of the Supreme Court Högsta domstolens registratorskontor Korkeimman oikeuden kirjaamo Date of publication: Subject
right to leave one's country,
hijacking,
extradition,
freedom of opinion,
inhuman treatment or punishment,
Relevant legal provisions Article 3 of the 1975 Treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on the prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft = artikel 3 i avtalet mellan Finland och Sovjetunionen om förhindrande av flygplanskapning, = artikla 3 Suomen ja Neuvostoliiton sopimuksessa lentokonekaappauksen estämiseksi. ECHR-1, ECHR-3, ECHR-5, ECHR-6, ECHR-14, ECHRP-4-2-2 Abstract Mr.Varfolomejev had forced a plane from Tallinn destined for Lvov to land in Helsinki where he surrendered to the authorities.He later applied for political asylum in Finland.The Soviet authorities demanded his extradition to the Soviet Union on the basis of a treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on the prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft.His application for asylum was rejected.The Ministry of Justice asked for the Supreme Court's opinion concerning the lawfulness of a possible extradition.Mr.Varfolomejev opposed an extradition on the grounds that he was persecuted in the Soviet Union.In December 1986, Varfolomejev was confined to a mental hospital for a period of 17 days after having expressed his opinion against the war in Afghanistan and having refused to do his military service.After this he was classified as a disabled person with no right to work, to study or to receive a passport.According to Mr.Varfolomejev, an extradition to the Soviet Union would mean confinement to a mental hospital for perhaps an indefinite time. Having examined relevant Finnish legislation and Finland's obligations under international human rights conventions, including the ECHR, the Supreme Court found that Mr.Varfolomejev could not be extradited on the grounds of violation of Article 81 of the Estonian Penal Code (prohibition to leave the country without permission).However, the Supreme Court found no legal obstacles to his extradition to the Soviet Union on the grounds of seizure of a civilian aircraft. See also Application No.17811/91 by Mihail Varfolomejev against Finland, decision of the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 September 1991. 23.3.1998 / 18.4.2019 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [2 / 7] |
Date when decision was rendered: 10.7.1990 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 1980; H90/219, of the Supreme Court to the Finnish Ministry of Justice Reference to source Registry of the Supreme Court Högsta domstolens registratorskontor Korkeimman oikeuden kirjaamo Date of publication: Subject
right to leave one's country,
hijacking,
extradition,
freedom of opinion,
conscientious objection,
Relevant legal provisions Article 3 of the 1975 Treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on the prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft, Chapter 34, section 14 a of the Penal Code = artikel 3 i avtalet mellan Finland och Sovjetunionen om förhindrande av flygplanskapning, strafflagen 34 kapitel 14 a § = artikla 3 Suomen ja Neuvostoliiton sopimuksessa lentokonekaappauksen estämiseksi, rikoslaki 34 luku 14 a §. ECHR-5, ECHR-13, ECHR-14, ECHRP-4-2-2 Abstract Mr.Oleg Kozlov had forced a plane from Riga to Murmansk to land in Helsinki where he had surrendered to the authorities.He later applied for asylum in Finland.Referring to Article 3 of the 1975 Treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on the prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft, the Soviet Union demanded his extradition.Kozlov was not granted political asylum.The Ministry of Justice asked for the Supreme Court's opinion on the lawfulness of a possible extradition of Mr.Kozlov to the Soviet Union.Mr.Kozlov opposed an extradition.According to his statement, he was persecuted in the Soviet Union for his opinions, and had been declared mentally ill solely on the ground that he was a conscientious objector.Because of this, he had no right to work, to study or to receive a passport.Having examined the Finnish legislation and Finland's obligations under international law, including the ECHR, the Supreme Court found that Mr.Kozlov could not be extradited on the grounds of violation of Article 78 of the Latvian Penal Code (prohibition to leave the country without permission).However, the Supreme Court found no legal obstacles to his extradition to the Soviet Union on the grounds of seizure of civilian aircraft. See also Application No. 16832/90 by Oleg Kozlov against Finland, decision of the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 May 1991. 23.3.1998 / 18.4.2019 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [3 / 7] |
Date when decision was rendered: 21.11.1990 Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus Reference: Report No. 3342, H90/350, of the Supreme Court to the Finnish Ministry of Justice Reference to source Registry of the Supreme Court Högsta domstolens registratorskontor Korkeimman oikeuden kirjaamo Date of publication: Subject
right to leave one's country,
hijacking,
extradition,
freedom of opinion,
inhuman treatment or punishment,
Relevant legal provisions Article 3 of the 1975 Treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft = artikel 3 i avtalet mellan Finland och Sovjetunionen om förhindrande av flygplanskapning = artikla 3 Suomen ja Neuvostoliiton sopimuksessa lentokonekaappauksen estämiseksi. ECHR-3, CCPR-7 Abstract Mr.Selivanov had forced a plane from Novgorod to Petrozavodsk to land in Helsinki where he surrendered to the authorities.He later applied for political asylum in Finland.Referring to Article 3 of the 1975 Treaty between Finland and the Soviet Union on the prevention of seizure of civilian aircraft, the Soviet Union demanded Mr.Selivanov's extradition to the Soviet Union.He was not granted asylum in Finland.The Ministry of Justice asked for the Supreme Court's opinion concerning the lawfulness of a possible extradition of Mr.Selivanov to the Soviet Union. Mr.Selivanov opposed an extradition on the grounds that he was wrongly classified as a mentally ill person in the Soviet Union.According to his statement, he had been assaulted and beaten several times during his stay in the Lipetski mental hospital.According to Mr.Selivanov, he was confined to the mental hospital after having expressed critical opinions on Soviet society. Having examined the Finnish legislation and Finland's obligations under international law, including the ECHR, the Supreme Court found that Mr.Selivanov could not be extradited on the basis of violation of Article 81 of the Estonian Penal Code (prohibition to leave the country without permission).However, the Supreme Court found no legal obstacles to his extradition to the Soviet Union on the grounds of seizure of a civilian aircraft. 23.3.1998 / 18.4.2019 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [4 / 7] |
Date when decision was rendered: 19.9.1996 Judicial body: County Administrative Court of Central Finland = Länsrätten i Mellersta Finland = Keski-Suomen lääninoikeus Reference: Report No. 552; 551/4030/96 Reference to source Electronic database FLOT within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice Databasen FLOT inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin FLOT-tietokanta Date of publication: Subject
freedom of movement,
right to leave one's country,
passport,
Relevant legal provisions Section 7-2 of the Constitution Act; section 34 of the Act on the Securing of Child Maintenance = regeringsformen 7 § 2 mom.; lag om tryggande av underhåll för barn 34 § = hallitusmuoto 7 § 2 mom.; laki lapsen elatuksen turvaamisesta 34 §. ECHRP-4-2-2, ECHRP-4-2-3, CCPR-12-2, CCPR-12-3 Abstract The board of social and health affairs had proposed that the county administrative court assign a prohibition of issuing a passport to A, as laid down in section 34 of the Act on the Securing of Child Maintenance, unless A settled an acceptable guarantee for paying the maintenance of his child B.The obligation to pay the maintenance was ordered by the court of first instance.According to the board, there existed reasonable doubts that A would leave the country.This in turn might risk the payment of B's maintenance. The County Administrative Court of Central Finland rejected the application of the board of social and health affairs.It referred to Article 2-2 of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR, according to which everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own.The county administrative court noted that the right can be restricted only in accordance with Article 2-3 of the same Protocol.The court also referred to Articles 12-2 and 12-3 of the CCPR and to section 7-2 of the Constitution Act.According to the Constitution Act, necessary restrictions on this right may be prescribed by an Act of Parliament in order to ensure legal proceedings or the enforcement of a sentence or to secure the fulfilment of the obligation to carry out national defence. The county administrative court argued that neglecting payments of maintenance is not such a reason as included in section 7 of the Constitution Act, or in the above-mentioned articles of the ECHR or the CCPR, that could justify a restriction of the right to leave a country.The court came to the conclusion that it could not prohibit the issuing of the passport in this case. 31.3.1998 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI
|
|
|
|
| [5 / 7] |
Date when decision was rendered: 19.10.1991 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 3171; 787/4/91 Reference to source Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo Date of publication: Subject
passport,
compulsory military service,
right to leave one's country,
Relevant legal provisions Military Service Act; section 9-1 of the Passport Act = värnpliktslagen; passlagen 9 § 1 mom. = asevelvollisuuslaki; passilaki 9 § 1 mom. ECHRP-4-2, CCPR-12 Abstract The applicant was a Finnish citizen who had resided and been registered in Sweden since December 1986.On 10 September 1990, his application for a passport was rejected by the Finnish Embassy in Stockholm on the grounds that he was wanted by the Finnish police for violation of the Military Service Act, since he had failed to report for duty in Finland.The applicant lodged an appeal against the Embassy's decision at the County Administrative Court of Uusimaa.The appeal was dismissed.The applicant claimed that as a Finnish citizen permanently residing in Sweden, he had no military obligations towards the Finnish State, and taking into account Article 4-2 of the ECHR and Article 12 of the CCPR concerning the right to leave any country, including one's own, he could not be denied a passport on the basis of section 9-1 of the Passport Act. In its decision, the Supreme Adminstrative Court stated that the authorities are entitled under the Passport Act to deny a passport to a person between the age of 17 and 19 who is liable for military service, unless that person can show, in a way described in the Passport Decree, that military service does not form an obstacle to his receiving a passport.Since the applicant was liable for military service and had not shown that military service did not form an obstacle to the issuing of a passport, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the county administrative court. 1.4.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM
|
|
|
|
| [6 / 7] |
Date when decision was rendered: 10.6.1988 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 2491; 6288/1/87 Reference to source KHO 1988-A-48. Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1988 A, General Part Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1988 A, allmän del Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1988 A, yleinen osa Place of publication: Helsinki Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court Date of publication: 1989 Pages: pp. 98-99 Subject
criminality,
passport,
right to leave one's country,
constitution,
Relevant legal provisions Passport Act; Passport Decree; sections 7-2 and 92-2 of the Constitution Act = passlagen; passförordningen; regeringsformen 7 § 2 mom., 92 § 2 mom. = passilaki; passiasetus; hallitusmuoto 7 § 2 mom., 92 § 2 mom. CCPR-12-2 Abstract Prior to October 1987, there was no Act of Parliament governing the issuing, denying and cancellation of passports.The matter was dealt with in a Government Decree, which was at least partially problematic in the light of Article 12 of the CCPR (see the critical comments of several members of the Human Rights Committee in UN Doc.CCPR/C/SR.170).On the basis of this Decree, a local police chief had cancelled the passport of A, who was suspected of a crime.The Country Administrative Court upheld the decision. A appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that the cancellation of his passport was contrary to Article 12-2 of the CCPR, according to which everyone is free to leave his country and that all restrictions on this right must according to Article 12-3 of the CCPR be "provided by law".As the Covenant had the status of an Act of Parliament and the restrictions were laid down in a Decree only, section 92-2 of the Constitution Act prohibited the application of the Decree.The Supreme Administrative Court stated that the Covenant had been incorporated through an Act and a Decree.As Article 12-3 of the CCPR allows certain restrictions on the rights set forth in Article 12-2 of the CCPR and taking into account section 7-2 of the Constitution Act, the provisions of the Passport Decree could be applied so that the applicant's passport was cancelled.There was no conflict of norms between the CCPR and the relevant provisions of the Passport Decree. The Court can be understood to have expressed its willingness to directly apply the provisions of the CCPR.However, as the Court found no norm conflict in the case, it did not go into the issues of the hierarchical status of the Covenant, the applicability of lex posterior etc. 16.4.1998 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM
|
|
|
|
| [7 / 7] |
Date when decision was rendered: 19.9.1991 Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus Reference: Report No. 3172; 786/4/91 Reference to source Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo Date of publication: Subject
freedom of movement,
passport,
right to leave one's country,
compulsory military service,
Relevant legal provisions Military Service Act; section 9-1 of the Passport Act = värnpliktslagen; passlagen 9 § 1 mom. = asevelvollisuuslaki; passlagen 9 § 1 mom. ECHRP-4-2, CCPR-12 Abstract The applicant was a Finnish citizen who had resided and been registered in Sweden since 1986.On 2 November 1990, his application for a passport was rejected by the Finnish Embassy in Stockholm on the grounds that he was wanted by the Finnish police for violation of the Military Service Act, since he had failed to report for duty in Finland.The applicant lodged an appeal against the Embassy's decision at the County Administrative Court of Uusimaa.The appeal was dismissed.The applicant claimed that as a Finnish citizen permanently residing in Sweden, he had no military obligations towards the Finnish State, and taking into account Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of the ECHR and Article 12 of the CCPR concerning the right to leave any country, including one's own, he could not be denied a passport on the basis of section 9-1 of the Passport Act. In its decision, the Supreme Adminstrative Court stated that the authorities are entitled under the Passport Act to deny a passport to a person between the age of 17 and 19 who is liable for military service, unless that person can show in a way described in the Passport Decree that military service does not form an obstacle to his receiving a passport.Since the applicant was liable for military service and had not shown that military service did not form an obstacle to the issuing of a passport, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the county administrative court. 17.4.1998 / 31.3.2003 / LISNELLM
|
|
|
|