Date when decision was rendered: 25.3.1982

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 1234; 1995/31/81

Reference to source

KHO 1982-A-2.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1982 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1982 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1982 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1982

Pages: pp. 45-47

Subject

elections, freedom of expression, equality,
val, yttrandefrihet, jämlikhet,
vaalit, ilmaisuvapaus, tasa-arvo,

Relevant legal provisions

Section 10 of the Constitution Act; sections 25, 139, 155 of the Local Government Act; Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of of Judical Procedure

= regeringsformen 10 §; kommunallagen 25 §, 139 §, 155 §; rättegångsbalken 13 kapitel 1 §

= hallitusmuoto 10 §; kuntalaki 25 §, 139 §, 155 §, oikeudenkäymiskaari 13 luku 1 §

Abstract

The town executive board of Loimaa decided that election posters for the upcoming local elections could be placed only in certain places.Each party taking part in the elections was allowed the same number of posters.The decision was based on the town police regulations with reference to public order and security, as no Act of Parliament or Decree regulated the placement of election posters.

A political party appealed to the county administrative court.According to the party, centralizing the election posters to certain places restricted the possibilities of political parties to inform the voters of their programme as well as the possibilities of the voters to form their opinion.It was thus in violation of the freedom of expression as prescribed in section 10 of the Constitution Act.The party also referred to section 10 of the Political Parties Act which requires equal treatment of all parties.As the party had the largest number of candidates, the decision of the town executive board meant that the party was allowed a smaller number of posters per candidate than other parties.Furthermore, the party claimed that X, who was the elections ombudsman for party Y, should not have participated in the decision of the town executive board as he was not impartial.

The county administrative court found that there was no reason to doubt X's impartiality under Chapter 13, section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure or section 25-1 of the Local Government Act.It also concluded that the restrictions as to the placement of posters did not violate the freedom of expression of the party concerned.

The Supreme Administrative Court came to the same conclusion as the county administrative court as regards X's impartiality.It also found that the decision of the town executive board only prohibited the free placement of election posters and was not in contradiction with section 10 of the Constitution Act.Furthermore, the Court concluded that the decision to divide the places for posters equally between the parties participating in the elections was not a violation of the equal treatment of all parties.The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the county administrative court.

17.4.1998 / 16.1.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 3.10.2005

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 2489; 1812/3/04

Reference to source

KHO 2005:62.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2005 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2005 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2005 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 369-380

Subject

elections, freedom of expression, right to vote, equality,
val, yttrandefrihet, rätt att rösta, jämlikhet,
vaalit, ilmaisuvapaus, äänioikeus, tasa-arvo,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 2 and 40 of the Locl Government Act; sections 12 and 14 of the Constitution Act

= kommunallag 2 § och 40 §; grundlagen 12 § och 14 §

= kuntalaki 2 § ja 40 §; perustuslaki 12 § ja 14 §.

ECHR-10; ECHRP-1-3; CCPR-19; CCPR-25

Abstract

A municipal executive board had given general instructions regarding the upcoming Parliamentary elections and the placing of election posters in the areas owned by the municipality.In these areas, the municipality would arrange the placing of election posters by reserving an equal amount of space for each political party.Any other placing of posters was forbidden.In order to cover the costs for these arrangements, the municipality requested from each political party participating in the elections a sum of EUR 840.Political party X appealed against the decision to the administrative court and further to the Supreme Administrative Court claiming that the decision resulted in unreasonable restrictions of the right to freedom of expression and the right to vote and to be elected.The Supreme Administrative Court held that a municipality has a right to decide in which way the areas owned by the municipality are used in campaing publicity.The decision of the executive board did not restrict the possibility to place election posters in privately owned areas.Considering the requirements of public order, public safety and a pleasant city environment, the municipality may decide that election campaign publicity is centralized as defined in the decision of the executive board.The impact on freedom of expression is not unreasonable in relation to the purpose of such arrangements.The Supreme Administrative Court also noted that a municipality had no statutory duty to arrange election campaign publicity.In view of the fact that the municipality had, on the basis of municipal self-government, voluntarily undertaken to arrange the placing of election posters, it was within its authority to require compensation for such arrangements.The payment of EUR 840 was based on the actual costs of the arrangements.The Court pointed out that there were also other means than outdoor campaigns available for political parties in distributing information about their programme and their candidates.It concluded that requesting the sum of EUR 840 as a compensation did not unreasonably restrict the right to freedom of expression and was also not in violation of the principle of equal treatment.

26.5.2006 / 16.1.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 9.4.2009

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 899; 687/1/09

Reference to source

KHO 2009:39.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2009 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2009 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2009 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2010

Pages: pp. 364-382

Subject

elections, right to vote, right to be elected,
val, rätt att rösta, rätt att bli vald,
vaalit, äänioikeus, oikeus tulla valituksi,

Relevant legal provisions

chapter 6a, section 101 and section 103 of the Election Act; section 14 of the Constitution Act

= vallag 6a kapitel, 101 § och 103 §; grundlagen 14 §

= vaalilaki 6a luku, 101 § ja 103 §; perustuslaki 14 §.

ECHRP-1-3

Abstract

In the municipal elections in October 2008 the voters in three municipalities (Kauniainen, Karkkila and Vihti) were, for the first time and on an experimental basis, given the possibility to vote electronically at polling stations either on election day or in advance voting.Each voter could choose between electronic voting and ballot voting.Distance electronic voting from home was not possible.Written and illustrated instructions for electronic voting were attached to the polling card sent prior to the polling day to each person with a right to vote.Illustrated instructions were provided at polling stations and in voting booths.After the elections it was reported that altogether 232 votes in the three concerned municipalities had not been registered in the electronic ballot box and were thus lost.

Ten residents, including two candidates, in the municipality of Kauniainen lodged an appeal against the decision of the central election committee by which the result of the election had been confirmed.According to the Election Act, such a decision is subject to appeal on the grounds that the decision is unlawful or that the election has been carried out in an incorrect order which might have had an effect on the election result.The appellants claimed, among other things, that electronic votes had been lost because of insufficient instructions for voters and because of defects in the electronic voting system.For example, the system did not warn the voter of the fact that a precipitated withdrawal of the voting card, that had to be inserted in the voting terminal, aborted the voting.A total of 61 electronic votes were lost in Kauniainen.

In the first appeal instance, the administrative court found that the instructions for electronic voting could have been clearer and more uniform, but they were not incorrect.It also held that the fact that a precipitated withdrawal of the voting card aborted the voting without alerting the voter could be considered a defect in the electronic voting system.However, the court found that, although some two per cent of the electronic votes were lost, this did not indicate that the election authorities had committed an error and that the election had been carried out in an incorrect order.The appeal was rejected.

In the second appeal instance, the Supreme Administrative Court found shortcomings in the written instructions for electronic voting whereas the illustrated instructions were correct.The Court further held that the electronic voting system had been defective, because it had not informed the voter that the voting was aborted if the voting card was withdrawn too soon.The voter could then have been left with the misconception that the voting had succeeded.This defect had been detected when the system was tested before the elections, but the election authorities had failed to take any action to correct it.The Court concluded that, considered as a whole, the measures taken in preparation for the electronic voting were unlawful.The election had thus been carried out in an incorrect order.Considering the number of non-registered electronic votes, the defects may apparently have affected the result of the election.In the view of the Court, the defects were of the kind that the result of the election could not be rectified.Therefore, with reference to section 103 of the Election Act, the Court ordered that new elections shall be held.As a result of the Court's decision, new elections will be held in all three municipalities concerned.

In their appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, the appellants referred to the Election Act, section 14 of the Constitution Act concerning electoral and participatory rights and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR, concerning right to free elections.The Supreme Administrative Court based its decision on the Election Act, with a brief reference to section 14 of the Constitution Act.

See also: Council of Europe, Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, Information report on the electronic voting in the Finnish municipal elections, observed on 26 October 2008.

15.4.2009 / 21.10.2010 / RHANSKI