[1 / 2] |
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,
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
|
|
[2 / 2] |
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,
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
|
|