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,
rätt att lämna sitt land, flygkapning, utlämning, åsiktsfrihet, civiltjänstgöring,
oikeus lähteä maasta, lentokonekaappaus, luovuttaminen, mielipiteenvapaus, siviilipalvelu,

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

Date when decision was rendered: 8.9.1997

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

Reference: Report No. 1257; R97/61

Reference to source

Registry of the Vaasa Court of Appeal

Vasa hovrätts registratorskontor

Vaasan hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

non-discrimination, conscientious objection,
icke-diskriminering, civiltjänstgöring,
syrjintäkielto, siviilipalvelu,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 26 of the Civilian Service Act; Section 5 of the Constitution Act

= civiltjänstlagen 26 §; regeringsformen 5 §

= siviilipalveluslaki 26 §; hallitusmuoto 5 §.

ECHR-14, CCPR-26

Abstract

T had started his alternative service but had later refused to continue his service.He was sentenced to imprisonment for refusal to discharge his alternative service.The length of his imprisonment corresponded to the time remaining of his service.T appealed to the Vaasa Court of Appeal and claimed that, as compared to Jehovah's Witnesses, to women as well as to men who are regional citizens of the Åland Islands, his conviction was discriminatory and thus contrary to the prohibition of discrimination in section 5-2 of the Constitution Act and in international human rights conventions.Also, the length of his imprisonment was unreasonable and discriminatory in comparison with the length of ordinary military service.The Vaasa Court of Appeal considered the discrimination claims in the light of Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 26 of the CCPR.The court also referred to the case law of the European Commission of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee.The exemption of Jehovah's Witnesses from military service was discussed in the light of the case of N. v.Sweden (decision of 11 October 1984, Decisions and Reports 40) and the case of Brinkhof v.The Netherlands (Communication No. 402/1990, views of the Human Rights Committee adopted on 27 July 1993).With reference to section 1-2 of the Act on the Exemption of Jehovah's Witnesses from National Service, which states that the Act does not apply to conscripts who have already started their military service, non-armed service or alternative service, the court concluded that T's conviction had not been discriminatory because T had already started his alternative service.With reference to the case of Spöttl v.Austria (European Commision of Human Rights decision of 15 May 1996, Decisions and Reports 85-A) and to the fact that the aim of the Act on Women's Voluntary Military Service was to secure the equality of women as compared to men, the court concluded that women's possibility to voluntary military service did not lead to the conclusion that section 26 of the Civilian Service Act is in contradiction with the prohibition of discrimination as prescribed in Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 26 of the CCPR.As regards the Åland Islands, the court noted that the exemption from military service was connected with the regional citizenship in the Åland Islands.On the basis of the internationally recognized autonomous status of the Åland Islands, there are objective and justified grounds for the exemption from military service of men who are regional citizens of the Åland Islands.Their exemption from military service could not be discriminatory against T because T's status was not comparable to that of the regional citizens of the Åland Islands.With reference to the case of Autio v.Finland (European Commission of Human Rights decision of 6 December 1991, Decisions and Reports 72) the court noted that there were sufficient grounds for the differential treatment as regards the length of ordinary military service and that of alternative service.The court concluded that connecting the length of imprisonment with the time remaining of the convicted person's alternative service was not discriminatory in comparison with those performing ordinary military service.The court of appeal dismissed the appeal.The Supreme Court did not grant T leave to appeal.

1.4.1998 / 30.5.2006 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 5.6.1998

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

Reference: Report No. 1409; R98/102

Reference to source

Registry of the Turku Court of Appeal

Åbo hovrätts registratorskontor

Turun hovioikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

conscientious objection, sexual discrimination,
civiltjänstgöring, könsdiskriminering,
siviilipalvelu, sukupuolisyrjintä,

Relevant legal provisions

section 26 of the Act on Conscientious Objection; section 5-2 of the Constitution Act

= civiltjänstgöringslagen 26 §; regeringsformen 5 § 2 mom.

= siviilipalveluslaki 26 §; hallitusmuoto 5 § 2 mom.

ECHR-14; CCPR-26

Abstract

A was a conscientious objector and under the Act on Conscientious Objection liable to do alternative non-military service.In a letter A had informed the authority where he was supposed to serve that he refuses to do his alternative service.Later A had been sentenced by the court of first instance to 75 days of imprisonment under section 26 of the Act on Conscientious Objection.In his appeal to the Turku Court of Appeal, A demanded that the charges against him be rejected as being incompatible with the right of all persons not to be discriminated against on the ground of sex as prescribed by section 5-2 of the Constitution Act, Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 26 of the CCPR.According to A, the Military Service Act applies to men only and only men who are liable to do military service may be ordered to do alternative service regardless of the fact that women have the right to do their military service on a voluntary basis.

In its decision, the Turku Court of Appeal noted that the CCPR and the ECHR have been incorporated into the Finnish legal order by an Act of Parliament, the former in 1976, the latter in 1990.In a conflict situation they are superseded by a later Act of Parliament, in this case the Act on Conscientious Objection which was adopted in 1991 and was also lex specialis in relation to the treaties.In its decision, the court also stated that in the case of Spöttl v.Austria (Application No. 22956/93) the European Commission of Human Rights held that the mere fact that only men are obliged to do military service does not constitute discrimination.The Turku Court of Appeal therefore upheld the decisi on of the court of first instance.The Supreme Court refused A leave to appeal.

23.10.2002 / 27.3.2003 / LISNELLM