Date when decision was rendered: 14.1.1992

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

Reference: Report No. 21; R91/759

Reference to source

VaaHO:1992:1.

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

right to examine witnesses, fair trial,
rätt att förhöra vittnen, rättvis rättegång,
oikeus kuulustella todistajia, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti,

Relevant legal provisions

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

Abstract

The defendant in a criminal case must be given the possibility to examine, in person, a person whose statement is used as evidence for the conviction.The court of first instance had, in the trial of the defendant A, accepted as evidence a statement given by an accomplish, B, who had earlier been convicted in the same case.B was not heard in person in A's trial.Two judges of the three-member Chamber of the Court of Appeal made a reference to CCPR-14-3-e and ECHR-6-3-d and returned the case for retrial to the court of first instance.One judge would have acquitted the defendant in the absence of reliable evidence.Final.

23.3.1998 / 4.11.2002 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 26.2.1993

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

Reference: Report No. 461; R92/1240

Reference to source

VaaHO 1993:5.

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, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

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

Abstract

The Vaasa Court of Appeal quashed the ruling by the court of first instance and returned the case for retrial.The defendant had been convicted on the basis of the statements by two plaintiffs who had been heard in court without the presence of the defendant.Such conduct was in conflict with Article 14-3-e of the CCPR and Article 6-3-e of the ECHR, according to which it was part of the minimum rights of a defendant to examine or have examined witnesses against him.

27.3.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 10.9.1993

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

Reference: Report No. 1736; R92/1291

Reference to source

I-SHO 1993:8.

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

right to examine witnesses, fair trial, criminal charge,
rätt att förhöra vittnen, rättvis rättegång, brottsanklagelse,
oikeus kuulustella todistajia, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, rikossyyte,

Relevant legal provisions

CCPR-14-3-e

Abstract

The Eastern Finland Court of Appeal quashed the ruling by the court of first instance and returned the case for retrial.The defendant had been denied the right to have a witness heard by the court.The court referred to Article 14-3-e of the CCPR, according to which everyone shall be entitled, in the determination of a criminal charge against him, to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf.

27.3.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 9.9.1996

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

Reference: Report No. 1295; R96/373

Reference to source

VaaHO 1996:13.

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, right to examine witnesses, right to be heard,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen, rätt att höras,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia, oikeus tulla kuulluksi,

Relevant legal provisions

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

Abstract

The sentencing judgment of the court of first instance was based primarily on evidence with regard to which the accused had not been heard and which he had not been given opportunity to examine.The trial violated the principle of the right to be heard and the right of the accused person to examine or have examined witnesses against him, and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf as provided by Article 6-3-e of the ECHR and Article 14-3-e of the CCPR.The Vaasa Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the court of first instance and returned the case to that court.

30.3.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 2.2.1996

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

Reference: Report No. 164; S95/297

Reference to source

VaaHO 1996:4.

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

fair trial, right to examine witnesses, oral hearing,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen, muntligt förfarande,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia, suullinen menettely,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 26, section 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 26 kapitel 7 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 26 luku 7 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

There was no disagreement about the contents of the statement of the witness examined in the court of first instance.The question was whether the statement supported the claims of the plaintiff.Therefore and since there were no other reasons for an oral hearing of the witness at the appellate court, the request for an oral hearing was rejected as apparently unnecessary.

31.3.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 6.6.1991

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1930; R-90/770

Reference to source

KKO 1991:84.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1991 I January-June

Högsta domstolens avgöranden 1991 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1991 I tammi-kesäkuu

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

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

Abstract

A was prosecuted for a violation of the Narcotics Act.He pleaded not guilty.Two statements given by B and C as defendants in an earlier drug trial were used as proof of A's guilt.The court of first instance and the court of appeal accepted these statements as evidence without providing A with an opportunity to examine B or C in person.A was sentenced to imprisonment.

The Supreme Court stated that according to the principles laid down in Article 6-3-e of the ECHR and Article 14-3-e of the CCPR, everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him.According to the Supreme Court, the statements given by B and C in earlier trials should not have been used by the lower courts as proof of A's guilt without providing him with an opportunity of examining B or C in person or to have these persons examined.The Supreme Court was not unanimous in its decision (four votes to one).The dissenting judge, and the rapporteur of the case, were of the opinion that the drug charge brought against A should have been dismissed.

1.4.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 9.5.1997

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

Reference: Report No. 680; R96/616

Reference to source

Registry of the Vaasa Court of Appeal

Vasa hovrätts registratorskontor

Vaasan hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

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

Abstract

A case against A had been considered at the court of first instance.The charges against A were dismissed.One of the complainants lodged an appeal with the Vaasa Court of Appeal referring, among other things, to the examination during the pretrial investigation of two persons as witnesses against the accused.However, the prosecutor or the complainant did not have these witnesses examined before the court of first instance and the evidence they had given during the pretrial investigation was not discussed during the legal proceedings.The applicant did not ask for the examination of these witnesses in the appeal proceedings.

The Vaasa Court of Appeal referred to Article 6-3-d of the ECHR and Article 14-3-3 of the CCPR and to the right of the accused to examine or to have examined witnesses against him.In this case the accused had not been given such an opportunity.The court of appeal stated that when considering the evidence presented in the case, the court would not take into account the evidence given by the two persons examined as witnesses during the pretrial investigation.

1.4.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 13.6.1997

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

Reference: Report No. 947; R97/264

Reference to source

Registry of the Vaasa Court of Appeal

Vasa hovrätts registratorskontor

Vaasan hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

ECHR-6-3-d

Abstract

A had purchased computer equipment which company X later claimed was stolen from it.A was convicted for negligent concealment of illegally obtained goods and the computer equipment was confiscated.A lodged an appeal with the Vaasa Court of Appeal and claimed that he had had no cause to think that the equipment was stolen.He also stated that it had not been reliably proved that the equipment had been stolen from company X.During the pretrial investigation B, who worked for company X (the complainant), and C, representing the company which had originally sold the computer equipment to company X, were questioned.They had given their opinion as to whether the equipment purchased by A was actually the equipment stolen from company X.The Vaasa Court of Appeal stated that in case of a charge regarding concealment of illegally obtained goods, it has to be reliably ascertained that the goods in the possession of the accused have indeed been obtained illegally, as specified in Chapter 32, section 1 of the Penal Code.As a general rule, the decision in the case cannot be based solely on information received during the pretrial investigation, since this violates the right of the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him, as prescribed in Article 6-3-d of the ECHR.In this case, no specific reason had been presented as to why B and C could not have been examined in the court of first instance.Except for their statements given during pretrial investigation, no other evidence regarding the alleged theft of the computer equipment had been presented.Since A had not had the opportunity to examine B and C, his right to examine or have examined witnesses against him had been violated.On account of this procedural error, the case was returned to the court of first instance.

1.4.1998 / 2.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 11.9.1997

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 3065; R-96/1159

Reference to source

KKO 1997:128.

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. 665-669

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 17, section 9-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 17 kapitel 9 § 2 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 17 luku 9 § 2 mom.

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

Abstract

The defendant A, who was charged with assault, was not present at the first hearing of the case in the court of first instance.The case was postponed and A was put under an obligation to be present at the court's next session.At the second hearing A was present.He contested the charges and claimed also that he had forgotten to attend the first hearing.The case was postponed again in order to obtain new clarification in the matter.A was put under an obligation to attend the following hearing.The court also informed him of the fact that a decision in the case could be made even in his absence.In the following hearing, which A did not attend, the court heard a witness and A was convicted.The prosecutor appealed to the Turku Court of Appeal asking for a more severe punishment for A and also demanded that A be fined for having been absent from the court sessions without a good cause.The court of appeal quashed the decision of the court of first instance on account of procedural errors, which included the fact that A should have been given an opportunity to examine the witness, for example by postponing the trial.The court should have seen to it that A had a real opportunity to hear the witness.Here the court of appeal referred to Article 6-3-d of the ECHR and Article 14-3-e of the CCPR.

The prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court referred to Chapter 17, section 9-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, according to which it is, in exceptional cases, possible to hear a witness even in the absence of the accused if the court sees it fit.The Supreme Court also referred to Article 6-3-d of the ECHR, Article 14-3-e of the CCPR and to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Delta case, judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A No. 191-A; Isgrò case, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A, No. 194-A; and Saidi case, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A, No. 261-C).According to the case law, the parties to a criminal case have to be given an adequate possibility to hear the witness.In the summons, A had already been informed of the fact that a witness would be heard during the proceedings.In the second hearing, which A attended, the case was postponed, A was put under an obligation to attend the following hearing and he was told that a decision in the case could be made in his absence.Hence, the Supreme Court argued, the court of first instance had given A the opportunity to examine the witness, but A did not use this opportunity.Hearing the witness in A's absence was possible in this case and there was no need to postpone the decision either.The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Turku Court of Appeal.The decision of the court of first instance remained in force.

2.4.1998 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 29.4.1997

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

Reference: Report No. 440; E 96/2

Reference to source

Registry of the Eastern Finland Court of Appeal

Hovrätten i Östra Finlands registratorskontor

Itä-Suomen hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 12 and 15-3 of the Criminal Investigations Act; Chapter 14, section 4 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= förundersökningslagen 12 §, 15 § 3 mom.; rättegångsbalken 14 kapitel 4 §

= esitutkintalaki 12 §, 15 § 3 mom.; oikeudenkäymiskaari 14 luku 4 §.

General reference to human rights

Abstract

K was charged before the court of first instance in a criminal case.He did not attend the first session of the court.The case was postponed and the court ordered K to attend the following session.K was again absent but sent to the court a medical certificate and other clarifications for his absence.The case was postponed again and K was ordered to be brought to the next session of the court at his own cost.K attended voluntarily the next session of the court.K lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal in Eastern Finland and claimed that the public prosecutor T and justice S, who had been the president of the court of first instance in the case against K, had acted contrary to their official duty and neglected K's constitutional right and human right to be absent from a court session with a legitimate cause, by ordering him to be brought before the court.They had also violated K's rights when rejecting his request for additional investigations and hearing of additional witnesses in the case.The Court of Appeal concluded that the clarifications K had submitted regarding his absence from the second session did not show that K, on account of illness, could not have attended the court session which was held in his home town.Since K attended the next session of the court voluntarily, the court`s order on K being brought before the court was never implemented.The court of first instance had not exceeded its authority by ordering K to be brought before the court and the public prosecutor T or justice S had not acted contrary to their official duty.K had asked the police to make additional investigations in the case.Since this request was not made before the court and had not been considered by the court, justice S had not acted contrary to his official duty.The public prosecutor had not carried out additional investigations on the grounds that the facts presented by K were not relevant with respect to the decision-making in the case.Also, the prosecutor had summoned to be heard persons who could give evidence relevant to the case.Considering the facts presented by K as a ground for additional investigations and taking into account that persons who could give evidence relevant to the case, had been summoned to be heard before the court, the court of appeal concluded that the public prosecutor T had not exceeded his discretion by rejecting K's request for additional investigations.Justice S had informed the public prosecutor T that owing to lack of time no witnesses would be heard at the court's following (third) session.In order to save K from additional costs, T had told K not to bring witnesses to the said session.The court of appeal noted that in order to secure that the proceedings are carried out in the appropriate manner, a court has a right to give orders regarding the time when witnesses are examined.The court of appeal concluded that justice S, by ordering that no witnesses would be examined at the next session, and T, by informing K of this order, had not acted erroneously.

2.4.1998 / 28.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 25.1.1995

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 197; R93/474

Reference to source

KKO 1995:5.

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. 25-27

Subject

criminal charge, right to be heard, right to examine witnesses,
brottsanklagelse, rätt att höras, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
rikossyyte, oikeus tulla kuulluksi, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 12, section 7-1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 12 kapitel 7 § 1 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 12 luku 7 § 1 mom.

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

Abstract

During the pretrial investigation B had stated that his watch had been stolen and that the item was worth FIM 30,000.A denied that he had stolen the watch and that it at any rate would be worth that much.However, he admitted that he had stolen a number of other items from B's apartment in a burglary.The theft of the items A admitted having stolen would, considering the value of the items, have made A liable only for theft, not aggravated theft, he claimed.The lower courts based their decisions on B's statement as to the burglary and the value of the watch, without giving A an opportunity to pose questions to B.

A appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming, i.a., that the value of the property he had admittedly stolen had been overstated by B.He also denied having stolen some of the items.A had demanded an oral hearing in the court of appeal, as well as the hearing of B in person regarding the stolen property and its value, but the requests had been rejected.

The Supreme Court referred to Article 14-3 of the CCPR and Article 6-3-d of the ECHR on the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to examine or have examined witnesses against him.In this case, the stated value of the watch in particular was considerable and no other evidence as to its theft and value had been presented.As A had not been given an opportunity to pose questions to B re garding the theft and the value of the watch, the lower courts should not have a ccepted B's statement during the pretrial investigation as evidence in the matter.This constituted a procedural error.The Supreme Court returned the case to the court of first instance for retrial in the proper legal order.

15.4.1998 / 13.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 3.4.1995

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1298; R93/803

Reference to source

KKO 1995:66.

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. 277-280

Subject

right to examine witnesses, family, criminal charge,
rätt att förhöra vittnen, familj, brottsanklagelse,
oikeus kuulustella todistajia, perhe, rikossyyte,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 17, section 20 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 17 kapitel 20 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 17 luku 20 §.

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

Abstract

A was charged with drunken driving on a public road under circumstances that endangered the safety of others.While sitting next to the driver B, who was A's son, A had gripped the steering wheel and caused B to lose control of the car.He was also charged with having neglected to be as careful as the situation merited when having gripped the steering wheel, thereby causing the car to slide off the road.A denied the charges.During the pretrial investigation, B had told police officer C that A had gripped the wheel causing the car to slide off the road.B refused to stand as a witness in the court of first instance referring to his family relations with A.Having heard C's testimony, the court of first instance found A guilty as charged.

The court of appeal upheld the decision, referring, i.a., to C's statement and the fact that A had admitted during the pretrial investigation that he had consumed considerable amounts of alcohol before getting into the car.C had also seen A in town in a drunken condition a few hours before the incident.

The Supreme Court referred to Chapter 17, section 20 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, which gives relatives a right to refuse to take the witness stand, as well as to Article 6-3-d of the ECHR and Article 14-3-e of the CCPR, which give the accused a right to examine or have examined witnesses against him.As B refused to testify, A had no possibility to question him personally.Hearing C on B's statement constituted a practical denial of the protection of close relatives laid down in Chapter 17, section 20 of the Code of Judicial Procedure.The court of first instance should thus not have allowed C to testify on the above-mentioned issues or used his statement as evidence against A.No other evidence of A's guilt existed.The Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the court of first instance and the court of appeal, released A from the punishment and dismissed the charges against him.

16.4.1998 / 13.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 2.9.1998

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

Reference: Report No. 982; R98/72

Reference to source

VaaHO 1998:9.

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, right to examine witnesses, respect for family life,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen, respekt för familjeliv,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia, perhe-elämän kunnioittaminen,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 17, section 11 and 20 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 17 kapitel 11 § och 20 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 17 luku 11 § ja 20 §.

ECHR-6-3-d; ECHR-8, CCPR-14-3-e; CCPR-23

Abstract

The complainant, who was engaged to the defendant, had refused to testify before the court of first instance.The defendant was charged with fraud, as he had arguably with intent to deceive persuaded the complainant to give him large sums of money.The court stated that Chapter 17, section 20 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, which grants a witness the right to refuse to testify owing to a close relationship with the defendant, could also be applied to the complainant in this case.According to Chapter 17, section 11-1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, written statements obtained during a pretrial investigation cannot be used as evidence in court.However, if a witness cannot be examined during the main hearing, the court may allow that such statements are taken into account (section 11-2).The court of first instance concluded that since the complainant could not be heard before the court, the statements she had made during the pretrial investigation could be used as evidence.Mainly on the basis of this evidence, the defendant was convicted.

The defendant appealed to the court of appeal which confirmed the complainant's right to refuse to testify in court.The court then referred to Article 6-3-d of the ECHR and Article 14 3 e of the CCPR and to the right of the defendant to examine or have examined witnesses against him.The court stated that the prohibition to use statements obtained during a pretrial investigation as evidence in court is an expression of this rule and of the principle of a fair and public hearing.The exception in Chapter 17, section 11-2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure should thus be given a narrow interpretation.The court concluded that in this case, the use of the statements made during the pretrial investigation meant that the complainant's right to refuse to testify owing to her close relationship with the defendant was infringed.According to the court, it could not have been the intention of the legislator that a witness's right of refusal to testify could be intervened by virtue of section 11-2.The right of respect for family life as provided in Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 23 of the CCPR should also be taken into account.Using the pretrial investigation statements as evidence in court meant that the defendant had not been able to exercise the minimum rights guaranteed by international treaties.Intervening with the complainant's right of refusal was also to the defendant's disadvantage.Since the statements made during the pretrial investigation could not have been used as evidence in court and there was no other evidence to support the indictment, the court of appeal concluded that the suit be dismissed for lack of evidence.

23.10.2002 / 27.3.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 28.9.1999

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

Reference: Report No. 619; R99/308

Reference to source

RHO 1999:4.

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

fair trial, interpretation, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, tolkning, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, tulkkaus, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

section 4 of the Language Act

= språklagen 4 §

= kielilaki 4 §.

ECHR-6-3-d; ECHR-6-3-e

Abstract

A was convicted in the court of first instance.He was also obligated to pay back to the state the fees of the two interpreters who had assisted A and the prosecutor's witness during the proceedings.With reference to Article 6-3-e of the ECHR, the prosecutor appealed to the court of appeal as far as the interpretation costs were concerned.He also claimed that it was contrary to the spirit of the ECHR to obligate A to bear the fees of an interpreter who had assisted the prosecutor's witness.

The Rovaniemi Court of Appeal referred to section 4 of the Language Act which provides that, if necessary, an interpreter must be used in oral court proceedings.Unless the chairman of the court is able to take care of the interpretation, an interpreter must be provided with public funds.The court also referred to Article 6-3-e of the ECHR and to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koc (judgment of 28 November 1978, Series A, No. 29) and the Öztürk case (judgment of 21 February 1984, Series A, No. 73).In these cases, the European Court of Human Rights had noted that the provision concerning the right to free assistance of an interpreter also applied to a convicted person.

As the prosecutor's witness did not speak or understand the language used during the court proceedings, in order to hear the witness, it was necessary to use an interpreter.This was also necessary in order for A to be able to examine the witness as provided for in Article 6-3-d of the ECHR.To claim back from the accused A the interpretation costs incurred by the hearing of the prosecutor's witness was in contradiction with both Articles 6-3-d and e of the ECHR.

The court of appeal decided that A could not be required to pay back to the state the interpretation costs originally covered with public funds.

25.10.2002 / 30.5.2006 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 16.5.2000

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 0886; R99/609

Reference to source

KKO 2000:62.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2000 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2000 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2000 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 2000

Pages: pp. 286-288

Subject

fair trial, oral hearing, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, muntligt förfarande, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, suullinen menettely, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 26, sections 14 and 15 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 26 kapitel 14 § och 15 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 26 luku 14 § ja 15 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

The court of first instance had convicted A for manslaughter.A appealed to the court of appeal.He claimed that the decision of the court of first instance had been based on an incorrect assessment of evidence and that the charges against him should be dismissed.He requested that the court of appeal should also hold a main hearing in order to hear the parties and the witnesses again.The court of appeal stated that the decision in the matter was not dependent on the credibility of the evidence presented before the court of first instance and that it was possible to decide the case without a new hearing of the evidence.It also saw no reason to change the decision of the lower court.A appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court referred to Chapter 26, section 14 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, which provides that a court of appeal has to hold a main hearing in a criminal case if the defendant so requests.Exceptions to this rule are listed in paragraph 2 of the same section.The Supreme Court also noted that section 14 had been amended (in 1998) because of reasons emanating from the ECHR.Furthermore, according to section 15, a court of appeal has to hold a main hearing if the decision in the matter is dependent on the credibility of the oral evidence presented before the court of first instance.The Supreme Court stated that in this case the court of appeal could not assess in a reliable manner the oral evidence presented by the parties and the witnesses solely on the basis of the documents of the first instance court and without hearing the persons in question.A main hearing should have been held.The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the court of appeal and returned the case to the latter.

28.10.2002 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 13.6.2000

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1234; R99/204

Reference to source

KKO 2000:71.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2000 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2000 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2000 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 2000

Pages: pp. 359-364

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 17, section 32 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; Chapter 6, section 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act

= rättegångsbalken 17 kapitel 32 §; lag om rättegång i brottmål 7 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 17 luku 32 §; laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa 7 §.

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

Abstract

A was charged with having assaulted B.B, who was engaged to A, did not wish to say anything during the court proceedings.The statement B had made during the pretrial investigation was presented as evidence and read out at the main hearing.Additional evidence was presented by the police officer who had interrogated B during the pretrial investigation.A was convicted.A appealed to the court of appel which did not change the decision of the court of first instance.A appealed further to the Supreme Court and claimed that the charges against him should be dismissed as unsubstantiated.

The Supreme Court noted that as a complainant B had a right to refuse to say anything or to answer questions when she was heard with an intention to present evidence during the proceedings.As B had used this right, it was possible (as provided for in Chapter 17, section 32 of the Code of Judicial Procedure) to read out at the main hearing the statement B had given during the pretrial investigation.The Court then referred to Article 6-3-d of the ECHR and Article 14-3-e of the CCPR concerning the right of the accused to examine or have examined witnesses against him.Because of B's refusal to say anything during the court proceedings, A had not had this opportunity.Furthermore, other evidence presented in the case could not be considered sufficient as to prove A's guilt.The Court concluded that it had not been clarified that A was guilty of the crime he was charged with.The decision of the court of appeal was quashed and A was acquitted.

In a concurring opinion, one judge also referred to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Unterpertinger (judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A, No. 110), Delta (judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A, No. 191-A) and Asch (judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A, No. 203).He also discussed briefly the right to private and family life as provided for in the Constitution Act and the ECHR in connection with the principle according to which no one can be forced to give evidence which may harm the person's close relative, on the one hand, and, on the other, the possible intimidation of a complainant by a close relative.

28.10.2002 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 22.12.2000

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

Reference: Report No. 883; R00/643

Reference to source

RHO 5:2001.

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, right to examine witnesses, evidence,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen, bevis,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia, todisteet,

Relevant legal provisions

ECHR-6

Abstract

B had escaped from prison and robbed a bank.He was convicted in the court of first instance together with another person who had driven the get-away car in the robbery.The case went further to the court of appeal.During the proceedings before the court of appeal, B continued to deny his guilt.He pointed out that the bank clerks or witnesses had not identified him as the robber.A videotape from the bank's surveillance camera had been presented as evidence in the court of first instance.Some of the witnesses had identified B on the basis of the tape.However, B claimed that such identification could not be considered reliable.Some of the witnesses were guards at the prison from which B had escaped.B considered their testimonies as being biased, prejudiced, second-hand evidence which was against the spirit of the ECHR.

The court of appeal noted that four witnesses had with certainty identified B from the videotape by his features, bearing and walk.Although the bank clerks had not identified B as the robber, their observations supported the evidence given by other witnesses.During the police investigation, the videotape had been shown to the guards who acted as witnesses.The guards had been heard by the police one at a time.They had been chosen at random, except for one, C, who was a foreman at the place where B had worked while in prison.Prior to the police investigation, C had learned that B was to be identified from the videotape while the other guards who acted as witnesses did not know who they were supposed to identify from the tape.According to the court of appeal, this reduced the value of C's testimony.However, the identification made by the three other guards could be regarded as reliable.All the witnesses had been heard before the court of first instance and the court of appeal in the presence of the defendants, which thus had a possibility to examine or have examined the witnesses.The court of appeal concluded that the requirements of a fair trial had not been infringed.

30.10.2002 / 30.5.2006 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 1.6.2006

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 1294; R2005/88

Reference to source

KKO 2006:50.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2006 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2006 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2006 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2006

Pages: pp. 342-347

Subject

fair trial, right to be heard, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att höras, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus tulla kuulluksi, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 8, section 11-1 of the Criminal Procedure Act; section 21 of the Constitution Act

= lag om rättegång i brottmål 8 kapitel 11 § 1 mom.; grundlagen 21 §

= laki oikeudenkäynnistä rikosasioissa 8 luku 11 § 1 mom.; perustuslaki 21 §.

ECHR-6

Abstract

X was charged with negligent violation of official duties.In the pretrial investigation, X denied the charges.The court of first instance had ordered a date for the main hearing and had informed X of the fact that the case may be heard and decided in his absence, in accordance with Chapter 8, section 11 of the Criminal Procedure Act.X was not able to attend the hearing at that date and asked the court to set another date.The court held that X's excuse for non-attendance (namely, participation in a course) was not valid.The case was decided in X's absence, and he was sentenced to a fine.Both the appeal court and the Supreme Court found that the case should not have been decided in the defendant's absence, mainly because X had denied the charges and because in the main hearing the court had heard several witnesses and received plenty of written evidence, including expert opinions.The charges were expressly concerning X's actions and possible negligence and the matter could not be decided without hearing the defendant personally.The case was returned to the first instance court for a rehearing.Both the appeal court and the Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of the Criminal Procedure Act only.However, one concurring justice of the Supreme Court also held that the procedure before the first instance court did not honour X's right to a fair trial as secured by section 21 of the Constitution Act as well as his right to examine or have examined witnesses as prescribed in Article 6-3 of the ECHR.

11.4.2007 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 10.4.2007

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference to source

KKO 2007:36.

Decisions of the Supreme Court I 2007 January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen I 2007 januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2007 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2007

Pages: pp. 208-212

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 31, section 1-4 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 31 kapitel 1 § 4 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 31 luku 1 § 4 mom.

ECHR-6

Abstract

In its judgment of 26 July 2005 in the case of Mild and Virtanen v.Finland, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Articles 6-1 and 6-3(d) of the ECHR because the applicants had not had a right to examine witnesses against them in the proceedings before the court of appeal which had convicted them of aggravated theft and of aiding and abetting.On the basis of the applicants' extraordinary appeal, the Supreme Court annulled the court of appeal's decision on account of a procedural error and returned the case to a retrial.The Supreme Court held that an important right of the accused had not been respected and this could be assumed to have essentially influenced the result of the case.Since the time of the court of appeal's decision in 1996, national legislation has been amended making it possible to assure the attendance of witnessed before the courts.

7.4.2008 / 11.9.2009 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 21.12.2007

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. R2007/242; 2888

Reference to source

KKO 2007:101.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2007 II July-December

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2007 II juli-december

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2007 II heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2008

Pages: pp. 535-540

Subject

fair trial, right to examine witnesses,
rättvis rättegång, rätt att förhöra vittnen,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, oikeus kuulustella todistajia,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 17, section 11-3 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 17 kapitel 11 § 3 mom.

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 17 luku 11 § 3 mom.

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

Abstract

The Supreme Court held that, in a case concerning pandering, the court of first instance could admit as evidence witness statements given by three foreign persons during the pretrial investigation.The witnesses had failed to attend the main hearing, and the court of first instance had not succeeded in hearing them through a video link in the country where they were residing.The police in that country had managed to reach only one of the witnesses and she referred to a lawful excuse and would not attend the hearing.In the Supreme Court's opinion the court of first instance had been active in trying to hear the foreign witnesses.Moreover, their statements did not constitute conclusive evidence in the case but rather supported the evidence given by two other witnesses who had been heard in the proceedings before the court.The statements of these two witnesses alone provided sufficient evidence to show that the defendant was guilty of pandering.In its decision, the Supreme Court referred, among other provisions, to Article 14-3-e of the CCPR and Article 6-3-d of the ECHR as well as to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Unterpertinger v.Austria (judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A, no. 110), Delta v.France (judgment of 19 December 1990, Series A, no. 191-A) and Rachdad v.France (judgment of 13 November 2003).

7.4.2008 / 26.6.2009 / RHANSKI