Date when decision was rendered: 16.9.1994

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

Reference: Report No. 4231; 2925/1/93

Reference to source

KHO 1994-A-8.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 1994 A, General Part

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 1994 A, allmän del

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 1994 A, yleinen osa

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: The Supreme Administrative Court

Date of publication: 1994

Pages: pp. 19-23

Subject

drugs, freedom of association, freedom of expression,
narkotika, föreningsfrihet, yttrandefrihet,
huumeet, yhdistymisvapaus, ilmaisuvapaus,

Relevant legal provisions

Sections 1-1, 49-1-1, 49-2, 56 of the Associations Act; Narcotics Act

= föreningslagen 1 § 1 mom., 49 § 1 mom. 1 punkten, 49 § 2 mom., 56 §; narkotikalagen

= yhdistyslaki 1 § 1 mom., 49 § 1 mom. 1 kohta, 49 § 2 mom., 56 §; huumausainelaki.

ECHR-10, ECHR-11

Abstract

The Cannabis Association of Finland (Suomen kannabisyhdistys - Finlands cannabisförening) notified the Ministry of Justice that it wanted to be registered in the register of associations.The founding documents and regulations of the association were attached to the notification.According to the regulations, the aim of the association was to influence the policy and legislation relating to intoxicants in such a way as to make the use, availability and growing at home for personal use of cannabis legal for adults, as well as to study the use of cannabis in different cultures and periods of time.The Ministry of Justice, basing its decision on sections 1-1 and 49 of the Associations Act, rejected the notification, as it considered the aim of the association to be contrary to morals in that it was contrary to the prevailing legal and moral concepts of Finnish society.

The association appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, demanding to be included in the associations register, claiming that the decision of the Ministry violated their constitutional rights, the Associations Act and Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR.In its decision the Supreme Administrative Court referred to the same articles of the ECHR granting a right to freedom of expression and to freedom of association, weighing these against Finland's obligations under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.The Narcotics Act prohibits acts contrary to the convention.The Associations Act in turn prohibits the registration of associations with aims contrary to law or morals.

The aims of the Cannabis Association, as stated in its regulations, to influence the policy and legislation relating to intoxicants in such a way as to make the use, availability and growing at home for personal use of cannabis legal for adults, could in the opinion of the Court not as such be regarded as contrary to morals.The nature of the change aimed at must also be taken into account.Encouraging a habit detrimental to health must be seen as an aim of the association.Taking into account that the use of cannabis is criminalized and not generally accepted in society, but still regarded as an exceptional, unhealthy habit, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that an association whose aims include encouraging such a habit is contrary to morals as laid out in section 1-1 of the Associations Act.The Court rejected the appeal.

See also Application No. 26712/95, Larmela v.Finland, decision of the European Commission of Human Rights, 28 May 1997 (inadmissible).

7.4.1998 / 3.4.2003 / LISNELLM

Date when decision was rendered: 21.4.2008

Judicial body: Supreme Court = Högsta domstolen = Korkein oikeus

Reference: Report no. 743; S2007/400

Reference to source

KKO 2008:41.

Decisions of the Supreme Court 2008 I January-June

Avgöranden av Högsta domstolen 2008 I januari-juni

Korkeimman oikeuden ratkaisuja 2008 I tammi-kesäkuu

Date of publication:

Subject

freedom of association, equality,
föreningsfrihet, jämlikhet,
yhdistymisvapaus, tasa-arvo,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 32 and 33 of the Associations Act; section 13 of the Constitution Act

= föreningslag 32 § och 33 §; grundlagen 13 §

= yhdistyslaki 32 § ja 33 §; perustuslaki 13 §

Abstract

A meeting of an association had fixed the admittance and membership fees for the year 2005.It was decided that those who reside outside the district within which the association operates, would pay a considerabley higher admittance fee.Later in the same meeting, X and Y, who lived outside the district within which the association operated, were admitted as new members.X and Y brought an action for annulment against the association, claiming that the decision on admittance fee was in conflict with the Associations Act, because it essentially violated the equality of a member.Moreover, the rules of the association did not contain any provision which would make it possible to fix the amount of the admittance fee on the basis of a member's domicile.The court of first instance dismissed the action.It ruled that the decision did not violate the equality between members, because it concerned applicants who at the time of the decision had not yet been admitted as members.Also, an association has a right to freely decide on the admittance of members and the conditions for membership.The court of appeal agreed with the lower court.

The Supreme Court noted that freedom of association, as guaranteed in the Constitution Act, gives an association the right to choose its members in accordance with the rules of the association, unless otherwise prescribed in law.However, once a person has been admitted as member, he or she has rights which the association is obliged to respect.X and Y had been admitted as members of the association and, after their admission, were therefore obliged to pay an admittance fee.The rules of the association explicitly refer to the admission fee as an obligation of a member, and a failure to fulfill this obligation could lead to expulsion from the association.The decision on admission fee thus concerned X's and Y's obligations as members of the association.In the Supreme Court's opinion, the right to bring an action for annulment was independent from the question whether X and Y were members of the association or not at the time the decision was made.The Court continued that freedom of association also means that, unless otherwise prescribed in law, an association has a right to specify in its rules the ways in which it organizes its activities.In this case, the rules of the association laid down an obligation for members to pay an admission fee when joining the association.However, it did not appear from the rules that the amount of the admittance fee could vary, depending on which group a member belongs to.The Court concluded that without a basis in the rules of the association, the decision concerning a higher admittance fee for those who reside outside the district within which the association operates, violated essentially the equality between the members and was therefore void under the Associations Act.The Supreme Court ordered the association to pay back to X and Y the admission fee to the extent it exceeded the fee charged from other new members.

31.3.2010 / 31.3.2010 / RHANSKI