Date when decision was rendered: 13.5.2003

Judicial body: Insurance Court = Försäkringsdomstolen = Vakuutusoikeus

Reference: Report No. 6276:2001

Reference to source

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

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

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin vakuutusoikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

torture, inhuman treatment or punishment, fair trial, prisoners,
tortyr, omänsklig behandling eller bestraffning, rättvis rättegång, fångar,
kidutus, epäinhimillinen kohtelu tai rangaistus, oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, vangit,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 1 of the Act on accident compensation for convicted prisoners and persons in institutional care (894/1946)

= lag om skadestånd för olycksfall åt personer, som intagits i särskilda straff-, underhålls- och vårdanstalter 1 §

= laki eräisiin rangaistus-, huolto- ja hoitolaitoksiin otettujen henkilöiden tapaturmakorvauksesta 1 §.

ECHR-3; ECHR-6; CCPR-7; CCPR-14-1

Abstract

Convict A had been transferred to a prison hospital for rehabilitation.He was injured while playing football with the other inmates.The State Treasury did not grant A accident compensation.A appealed against the decision to a specific accident insurance appeal board which rejected the appeal.The board admitted that A had a duty to participate in the football match as a part of his rehabilitation programme.However, when the accident happened, A was not at work under the guidance and supervision of the prison authorities, as required in the Act on accident compensation for prisoners.

A appealed to the Insurance Court and claimed, among other things, that the board's decision was in breach of Articles 3 and 6 of the ECHR and Articles 7 and 14-1 of the CCPR.The Insurance Court rejected the appeal on the same grounds as the board.The court also concluded that there had been no violation of the ECHR or the CCPR, but did not discuss the provisions in more detail in its decision.

22.4.2004 / 22.4.2004 / JKOSKIMI