Date when decision was rendered: 8.6.2009

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 1202; R2007/1041

Reference to source

KKO 2009:47.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2009 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2009 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2009 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 361-371

Subject

freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, participatory rights, right to a healthy environment,
yttrandefrihet, församlingsfrihet, rätt till inflytande, rätt till en sund miljö,
ilmaisuvapaus, kokoontumisvapaus, osallistumisoikeudet, oikeus terveelliseen ympäristöön,

Relevant legal provisions

section 18a of the Forest Act; chapter 5 section 3 of the Penal Code; sections 12, 13, 14-3 and 20 of the Constitution Act

= skogslag 18a §; strafflagen 5 kapitel 3 §; grundlagen 12 §, 13 §, 14 § 3 mom. och 20 §

= metsälaki 18a §; rikoslaki 5 luku 3 §; perustuslaki 12 §, 13 §, 14 § 3 mom. ja 20 §

Abstract

The court of first instance had sentenced three persons to a fine on the basis of the Forest Act, because the persons had been present within the immediate surroundings of a felling site when felling was under way and had thus prevented the felling which had been carried out in accordance with the Forest Act.The court of appeal agreed with the lower court.Both court instances held that the limitation of the freedom of expression and of assembly, as prescribed in the Forest Act, was not significant and was thus acceptable and not in conflict with the Constitution Act.

In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the penal provision in the Forest Act could not be implemented to the effect that it undermines the constitutional rights of freedom of expression and of assembly or hinders legitimate civic activities by, for example, nature activists.The Court pointed out that the Constitution Act specifically provides that the public authorities shall promote the opportunities for the individual to participate in societal activity and to influence the decisions that concern his or her own living environment.The Court ruled that demonstration is an activity protected by law regardless of the fact that the target of the demonstration may consider it to be disturbing, but remarked also that promoting a good cause does not as such justify illegal means.The Supreme Court confirmed the fine imposed on one of the three defendants.In the Court's opinion it had been shown that the defendant's explicit purpose had been to disturb the felling which, because of his actions, was interrupted for safety reasons.Regarding the two other defendants, the Court found that they had been present but it had not been shown that they were so close to the harvester when felling was under way so as to have prevented or delayed the felling.Although one of the defendants was guilty of a punishable act, the two other were not responsible for his actions.The Supreme Court acquitted the two defendants and quashed their fines.

17.6.2009 / 18.10.2012 / RHANSKI