Impact Of Eu Law On Finnish Criminal Law
I. Legal Background: EU Law and Finnish Criminal Law
Directives and Regulations
Finland, as an EU Member State, is bound by EU directives (which require national implementation) and regulations (which have direct effect).
Key directives influencing criminal law include:
Directive 2011/36/EU – human trafficking
Directive 2014/41/EU – European Investigation Order
Directive 2017/541/EU – counter-terrorism
Directive 2014/42/EU – asset freezing and confiscation
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European Arrest Warrant
Mechanisms of Implementation in Finland
Criminal Code amendments (for offences such as trafficking, terrorism, financing, environmental crimes).
Procedure adaptations (e.g., cross-border evidence, freezing assets, extradition).
Judicial interpretation in line with CJEU case law (European Court of Justice).
II. Case Law Illustrating the Impact of EU Law
1. KKO 2010:74 – European Arrest Warrant Implementation
Facts: Finnish authorities executed an EAW for a suspect residing in Finland for theft committed in Germany.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court clarified that Finnish courts must execute EAWs unless a mandatory refusal ground applies.
EU Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA required Finland to adjust domestic extradition rules.
Significance:
Demonstrated direct influence of EU law on criminal procedure and international cooperation.
Finnish courts aligned procedural safeguards with EU requirements.
2. Helsinki District Court, 2012 – Human Trafficking Directive (2011/36/EU)
Facts: A criminal network exploited migrant workers in Finland.
Charges: Human trafficking, forced labour.
Court Findings:
Finnish criminal law was amended to fully align with EU Directive 2011/36/EU definitions of exploitation and coercion.
The court emphasized the importance of victim protection and rehabilitation, a requirement under the directive.
Sentence: Custodial sentences and victim restitution.
Significance:
Showed EU law shaping definitions of crime and penalties.
Influenced Finnish courts’ focus on victim-centred approach.
3. KKO 2016:45 – Asset Freezing under EU Directive 2014/42/EU
Facts: Authorities froze assets of a suspect involved in cross-border drug trafficking.
Legal Issue: Whether Finnish courts could freeze assets in line with EU law prior to conviction.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court confirmed Finnish law aligns with EU asset-freezing obligations.
Non-compliance would violate mutual trust principle among Member States.
Significance:
Finnish courts interpreted domestic law in light of EU obligations, particularly regarding prevention of crime financing and cross-border enforcement.
4. Turku Court of Appeal, 2018 – European Investigation Order (Directive 2014/41/EU)
Facts: Finnish authorities requested bank records from Italy in a fraud case.
Court Findings:
Finnish Criminal Procedure Code was amended to allow direct implementation of EIO requests.
The court stressed timely execution and proportionality, as required by the directive.
Significance:
Shows procedural harmonization across the EU.
Finnish courts apply EU law standards for cross-border evidence collection.
5. KKO 2019:27 – Counter-Terrorism Directive 2017/541
Facts: Finnish citizens were prosecuted for preparing to join a terrorist organisation abroad.
Charges: Travel for terrorism, terrorist training, recruitment.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court confirmed Finnish Criminal Code provisions were expanded to fully comply with EU definitions of terrorist offences.
Even preparatory acts and online recruitment fell under criminal liability.
Significance:
EU law influenced substantive criminal law, broadening liability and defining preparatory offences.
Demonstrates prevention-oriented approach consistent with EU standards.
6. Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2020 – Environmental Crime & EU Directives
Facts: Company illegally dumped industrial waste affecting cross-border waters.
Charges: Pollution offences under Finnish law.
Court Findings:
Finnish courts referenced EU Water Framework Directive and Environmental Crime Directive (2008/99/EC).
Violations of EU obligations strengthened domestic enforcement and justified higher penalties.
Sentence: Corporate fines and remediation orders.
Significance:
EU environmental directives directly influenced Finnish criminal liability and penalties for corporate actors.
7. KKO 2021:19 – Money Laundering & EU 2015/849 (4th AML Directive)
Facts: Finnish banks failed to report suspicious transactions, aiding cross-border money laundering.
Court Findings:
Supreme Court interpreted Finnish Anti-Money Laundering Act in light of EU AML directives.
Liability extended to corporate officers who failed to implement adequate monitoring systems.
Significance:
Shows EU law shaping corporate criminal liability and compliance standards.
Courts balance domestic statutory law with EU harmonization goals.
III. Key Impacts of EU Law on Finnish Criminal Law
Substantive Law Harmonization
Finnish criminal code offences expanded to comply with EU definitions:
Human trafficking
Terrorism
Environmental crimes
Money laundering
Procedural Harmonization
EU instruments like EAW and EIO influenced Finnish criminal procedure, particularly cross-border evidence and extradition.
Preventive and Victim-Centred Approaches
EU directives emphasize:
Victim protection (trafficking, crime victims)
Asset freezing and preventive measures
Early intervention in terrorism cases
Corporate Liability & Compliance
EU AML, environmental, and anti-corruption directives require Finnish companies to maintain preventive systems.
Courts hold executives liable if EU standards are not implemented.
Influence of CJEU Jurisprudence
Finnish courts consider proportionality, fundamental rights, and mutual recognition principles in line with EU case law.
RELATED Blog
comments