Compensation for wrongful detention
⚖️ PART 1: Compensation for Wrongful Detention
✅ 1. What is Wrongful Detention?
Wrongful detention refers to the unlawful or unjustified deprivation of liberty by state authorities. It can occur due to:
Arrest without legal grounds
Detention beyond statutory limits
Detention due to mistaken identity or procedural violations
Acquittal after pre-trial detention
✅ 2. Legal Basis for Compensation
International Law:
Article 5(5), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):
"Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation."
UN Human Rights Instruments:
Article 9(5), ICCPR: Recognizes the right to compensation for unlawful detention.
National Laws:
In Finland, wrongful detention compensation is governed by:
Act on Compensation for Wrongful Detention and Other Involuntary Measures (2001/422)
Administered by the Chancellor of Justice and paid by the Ministry of Finance
✅ 3. Elements Considered in Compensation Claims:
Legality of detention
Duration of detention
Psychological and physical harm
Financial losses
Stigma and reputational harm
Conduct of law enforcement
📚 Key Case Law: Wrongful Detention Compensation
1. Murray v. United Kingdom (1994, ECtHR)
Facts:
Mr. Murray was detained under anti-terror laws in Northern Ireland without proper justification.
Held:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found a violation of Article 5 ECHR and awarded just satisfaction for unlawful detention.
Significance:
Affirms compensation is a right under Article 5(5) ECHR when detention is unlawful.
2. Finland: Supreme Court Case KKO 2008:93
Facts:
A man was detained for over 6 months on suspicion of serious crime and later acquitted.
Held:
The Finnish Supreme Court held the man was entitled to compensation for lost income, reputational damage, and mental suffering.
Significance:
Even lawful detention can lead to compensation if the person is later acquitted and suffered harm.
3. H.L. v. United Kingdom (2004, ECtHR)
Facts:
A man with disabilities was informally detained in a psychiatric hospital without legal safeguards.
Held:
ECtHR found that lack of formal detention procedures violated Article 5(1) ECHR.
Significance:
Detention without clear legal procedure can be unlawful, triggering compensation.
4. Kampanis v. Greece (1995, ECtHR)
Facts:
The applicant was arrested and detained despite clear evidence he had committed no crime.
Held:
Court ruled that arbitrary arrest and detention violated Article 5, and awarded compensation.
Significance:
Malicious or negligent acts by police can lead to compensation for wrongful detention.
5. Finland: Chancellor of Justice Case 2021
Facts:
An asylum seeker was detained for weeks due to administrative error.
Held:
The Chancellor awarded monetary compensation and publicly criticized the immigration service.
Significance:
Administrative mistakes can result in legal liability for the state.
6. Assanidze v. Georgia (2004, ECtHR)
Facts:
Mr. Assanidze was kept in prison for over 3 years after his acquittal.
Held:
Clear violation of Article 5. Georgia was ordered to immediately release him and pay compensation.
Significance:
Detention after acquittal is a direct violation and compensable under ECHR.
🧾 Compensation Amounts (Finland Example):
Approx. €100–€130 per day of unlawful detention.
Higher if:
There’s media damage or reputational loss
Person is acquitted of serious charges
Emotional/psychological harm is severe
🛡️ PART 2: Digital ID Systems and Legality
✅ 1. What is a Digital ID System?
A Digital ID system is a government-backed or private system that assigns citizens a digital identity, used for:
Accessing government services
Voting
Taxation
Healthcare
Banking
Examples:
Finland's Suomi.fi e-Identification
Estonia’s e-ID
India’s Aadhaar
European Union’s eIDAS Regulation
✅ 2. Legal Frameworks
European Context:
GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) – Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Data processing must be lawful, transparent, and for legitimate purposes.
eIDAS Regulation (EU) No 910/2014
Regulates electronic identification and trust services across the EU.
National Laws:
Finland’s Act on Strong Electronic Identification (617/2009)
Act on the Processing of Personal Data in Public Administration (1050/2018)
✅ 3. Legal Principles Governing Digital ID:
Lawfulness and Consent
Data Minimization
Purpose Limitation
Right to Access and Correction
Non-discrimination
Security of Processing
📚 Key Case Law: Digital ID Legality
1. Digital Rights Ireland v. Ireland (C-293/12, CJEU)
Facts:
Challenged EU Data Retention Directive allowing storage of communication metadata.
Held:
The CJEU struck down the directive for violating privacy rights.
Significance:
Mass collection of personal data, even for national security, must be proportionate and clearly justified.
2. India: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017 & 2018)
Facts:
Challenge to the legality of India’s Aadhaar Digital ID system.
Held:
Supreme Court upheld Aadhaar as constitutional for welfare purposes.
Struck down use by private companies.
Emphasized data privacy, purpose limitation, and proportionality.
Significance:
A leading global judgment linking digital ID systems with privacy rights.
**3. Finland: Data Protection Ombudsman v. Population Register Centre (2019)
Facts:
Complaint about over-collection of biometric data during digital ID enrolment.
Held:
The Ombudsman found excessive data collection and issued a recommendation for reform.
Significance:
Shows Finland’s strict enforcement of GDPR principles in digital identity management.
*4. Schrems II Case (C-311/18, CJEU, 2020)
Facts:
Concerned transfer of personal data from the EU to the U.S. under the Privacy Shield framework.
Held:
Privacy Shield invalidated due to inadequate protection of EU citizens’ data.
Significance:
Applies to cross-border digital ID systems and cloud storage of ID data.
**5. European Court of Human Rights – S. and Marper v. UK (2008)
Facts:
UK retained fingerprints and DNA of individuals who were not convicted.
Held:
Violation of Article 8 (right to privacy). Even non-biometric ID data must be justified and proportionate.
Significance:
Applies to storage and retention policies in digital ID databases.
*6. Estonia’s Digital ID Flaw (2017 Response)
Facts:
Estonia suspended over 750,000 e-IDs after discovering a cryptographic vulnerability.
Held:
Though not a court case, Estonia acted transparently and complied with EU cybersecurity laws.
Significance:
Demonstrates state duty to ensure technical and legal integrity of digital ID systems.
⚖️ Key Risks in Digital ID Systems:
Mass surveillance
Data breaches
Exclusion of digitally illiterate populations
Function creep (use beyond intended purpose)
✅ Conclusion
✳️ Wrongful Detention:
Individuals have a fundamental right to liberty.
Violations, whether due to error, malice, or procedural lapses, can and do result in compensation.
Courts across Europe and Finland enforce strict liability standards in these cases.
✳️ Digital ID Systems:
Must comply with privacy laws, transparency, and security requirements.
Courts have reinforced the constitutional limits of digital governance.
Balance between security and privacy is essential.
RELATED Blog
0 comments