Date when decision was rendered: 31.3.1999

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report No. 928; R 98/360

Reference to source

KKO 1999:46.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 1999 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 1999 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 1999 I tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Court

Date of publication: 1999

Pages: pp. 327-339

Subject

fair trial, independent and impartial tribunal, judges, universities,
rättvis rättegång, oavhängig och opartisk domstol, domare, universitet,
oikeudenmukainen oikeudenkäynti, riippumaton ja puolueeton tuomioistuin, tuomarit, yliopistot,

Relevant legal provisions

Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure

= rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §.

ECHR-6-1

Abstract

The case was between the University of Helsinki and a professor at the University.It concerned a possible abuse of authority in connection with finances of a research project commissioned by a company not connected with the University.The professor appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the court of appeal.In his appeal, he also stated that there was reason to doubt the impartiality of one of the judges of the appeal court.The judge's husband was a professor at the University of Helsinki and a member of a University consistory which had, among other things, the task of promoting cooperation between the various branches of science and maintaining academic traditions at the University.

The Supreme Court referred to Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, according to which a judge shall not act as a member of the court in a case, if, among other things, the judge himself/herself or his/her relative(s) are a party to the case or the result of the case may favor them or be to their disadvantage.The Court also referred to Article 6-1 of the ECHR and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.It concluded that the position or tasks of the judge's husband had no connection with the matter.Therefore there was no reason to doubt the judge's impartiality.

24.10.2002 / 4.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 16.9.2010

Judicial body: Kouvola Administrative Court = Kouvola förvaltningsdomstol = Kouvolan hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 10/0466/1

Reference to source

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

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

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

non-discrimination, right to education, cultural rights, universities,
icke-diskriminering, rätt till utbildning, kulturella rättigheter, universitet,
syrjintäkielto, oikeus opetukseen, sivistykselliset oikeudet, yliopistot,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1, 2-2, 13 and 18-3 of the Universities Act; sections 1, 2-3, 4, 6-1, 6-2, 7-2 and 17 of the Non-Discrimination Act; sections 6-2 and 16-2 of the Constitution Act

= universitetslag 1 §, 2 § 2 mom., 13 § och 18 § 3 mom.; lag om lika behandling 1 §, 2 § 3 punkten, 4 §, 6 § 1 och 2 mom., 7 § 2 mom. och 17 §; grundlagen 6 § 2 mom. och 16 § 2 mom.

= yliopistolaki 1 §, 2 § 2 mom., 13 § ja 18 § 3 mom.; yhdenvertaisuuslaki 1 §, 2 § 3 kohta, 4 §, 6 § 1 ja 2 mom., 7 § 2 mom. ja 17 §; perustuslaki 6 § 2 mom. ja 16 § 2 mom.

Abstract

In admitting students to a university the admission criterium had been the average grade of the applicant's degree certificate.One applicant claimed discrimination on the grounds that his/her dyslexia had not been taken into account when assessing his/her eligibility.The administrative court found that dyslexia does not as such raise a presumption of discrimination.It noted that using the degree certificate as an admission criterium places all applicants in an equal position.In the court's view, a person with dyslexia may be entitled to positive measures as compared to other applicants.However, there is no obligation to provide positive measures on grounds of dyslexia.The court concluded that there was no cause to assume that the applicant would have been subjected to discrimination.

26.1.2011 / 26.1.2011 / RHANSKI