Judicial interpretation of the legality principle post-2000
Principle of Legality: The Finnish Legal Basis
Before the cases, some scaffolding:
The Constitution of Finland guarantees criminal law legality: no one may be held guilty of a crime, or sentenced, under conduct that was not criminal under law at the time. Also, no heavier penalty than provided at the time may be imposed. (This is the core of the legality principle: nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege). FRA
This is supplemented by criminal code provisions, preparatory works, and case‐law that emphasize that penal norms must be sufficiently precise so that persons can foresee when their conduct is criminal; penal laws must be interpreted strictly (not by analogy to the disadvantage of the accused).
With that, here are key cases post‐2000 (or around) in which Finnish courts addressed issues that implicate the legality principle.
Key Cases
Here are several Finnish cases where the legality principle was in issue: some more directly, some more by implication (e.g. interpretation of offence elements, sentencing, procedural fairness and clarity).
Case 1: KKO 2008:93 – Child Circumcision Case
Facts: A mother had a circumcision performed on her 4½‑year‑old son for religious/cultural reasons, by someone whose identity was unknown, at the home of her mother, under local anaesthesia. The operation removed part of healthy tissue, causing pain/injury etc. This was not done for a medical reason. korkeinoikeus.fi
Issue (legal): Whether this constitutes assault under Finnish Criminal Code, or incitement to assault, given the legal definition of assault. Since consent, religious motive etc., and circumstances raised questions about legal grounds. Does the statute unambiguously cover such conduct? Is there foreseeability, or is this pushing the boundaries of what “assault” penal law contemplates?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that despite the religious/cultural motive, the mother’s conduct falls within the statute’s definition of assault. The elements: causing pain, removing tissue, etc., were met. The religious motive did not provide exemption, as the law defining assault is sufficiently clear to encompass actions that injure health or cause pain even without medical necessity.
Legality Principle Aspect: The case illustrates that as long as the law (statute) defines the offence elements clearly, even somewhat borderline or cultural practices are covered. The accused must be able to foresee that the conduct is covered. The Court did not accept an argument that the statute was too vague to encompass this non‑medical circumcision. Thus, reaffirmation that penal laws may have broad coverage but must provide clarity.
Case 2: KKO:2022:2 – Berry‑picking Boss & Human Trafficking Counts
Facts: A person in charge of a berry‑picking operation (boss) was accused of human trafficking. There were multiple complainants (workers) over a period. The lower court convicted him of 26 separate counts (one for each complainant). The question in the Supreme Court was whether his conduct amounted to 26 separate offences, or whether it should be considered a single offence counting multiple complainants in some other way. korkeinoikeus.fi+1
Legal question relevant to legality: This implicates how offence elements are interpreted, particularly: what constitutes “separate count,” how “victim” or “complainant” identity matters, what the law prescribes regarding the number of offences. Is it possible (allowed) to convict for multiple offences in such a scenario, or does that run afoul of foreseeability or proportionality under the legality principle?
Holding: The Supreme Court upheld that the accused had committed 26 separate counts of human trafficking, one for each complainant. The reasoning was that human trafficking is an offence against personal liberty (protected legal interest), self‑determination etc. Because each complainant was individually deprived of freedom of action, even if under the same overarching scheme, the law and earlier case law support counting separate offences. The law is sufficiently clear (in its wording and in its preparatory works) to show that similar acts encompassing multiple victims can lead to multiple counts. korkeinoikeus.fi
Legality Principle Aspect: Here, the principle of legality requires that the accused know (or legally foresee) that if he treats several persons in the same scheme, each victim may give rise to separate penal counts, even if same time/place/scheme. The Court referred to earlier precedents, clarifying the law, so it wasn’t creating a new liability out of thin air but interpreting consistent with prior legislation and judicial interpretation.
Case 3: KKO:2023:35 – Petty State Border Offence
Facts: A Finnish citizen traveled by pleasure boat from Finland to Estonia, then back, and on returning was unable to produce a valid travel document at the border inspection. A border guard issued a “petty state border offence” under relevant Criminal Code sections (17, s. 7a). The fine under the penal order was extremely high (15 day‑fines, with one day‑fine amount calculated from income) giving huge sums. A objected, case went up. korkeinoikeus.fi
Issues:
Does the law cover Finnish citizens who cannot produce documentation upon re‑entry, if the wording might seem broader (“cross border without valid document”)? How strictly must the law be interpreted under the legality principle?
What is a just and proportional penalty? Is the day‑fine system, especially fine amount, constrained by legality and proportionality so that persons can foresee the potential severity?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that although the wording of the provision could be read broadly, the objective of the legislation indicates that not all cases of failing to carry a document are criminalised. So they interpreted the law in a more limited way so that it does not punish mere inability to show valid travel document on re‑entry in all contexts, unless the other elements are present. However, in this particular case, the conduct met the offence elements under the domestic law. They found a “petty state border offence” had occurred.
On sentencing, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty: rather than using the maximum, they imposed a much lower number of day‑fines consistent with the defendant’s income and with proportionality, emphasizing that amount of one day‑fine is significant. They noted the legality principle in that penal law must provide foreseeability, including foreseeability of the penalty magnitude.
Legality Principle Aspect: This case shows how Finnish courts avoid overly broad interpretations of penal norms that could catch persons who might not reasonably foresee their conduct to be criminal. The requirement is: the law must be clear enough; courts may limit scope via interpretation to maintain legality. Also, penalties must remain foreseeable and proportionate: large fines must be justifiable under the law as written, and cannot be arbitrary or beyond what reasonable person would expect under that law.
Case 4: KKO:2021:91 – Judge Participating by Video Link
Facts: In a murder case, one of the three judges of the panel was unable to be physically present for the continued main hearing due to COVID‑19 quarantine, and participated by video link. The law had explicit provisions for parties, witnesses, experts to appear by video link, but none for judges. korkeinoikeus.fi
Issue: Does allowing a judge to participate by video link, when the law does not explicitly provide for it, violate procedural law? Does it violate fairness or foreseeability? Could such a deviation from law be justified under legality / procedural rights basis?
Holding: The Supreme Court held that although the law does not explicitly provide for judge’s participation via video link, given the exceptional circumstances (COVID‑19), the deviation did not materially affect the right to fair trial, the principle of immediacy etc. The procedural error was not so serious that the case must be remitted or overturned. The defendant’s rights had been preserved in the hearing, defense, evidence, etc. korkeinoikeus.fi
Legality Principle Aspect: While this is more about procedural legality than purely criminal law sanction, it shows that legality principle (here more procedural legality) demands that deviations from law must be sanctioned only if they are prescribed, or at least foreseeable, or justified, and not arbitrary; that rights under constitution/ECHR must be respected; where law is silent, courts are cautious about creating practice by analogy or assumption in penal/procedural law to the detriment of the accused.
Case 5: KKO 2005:66 – Delay in Pre‑Trial Investigation & Driving Ban
Facts: A person was under a temporary driving licence; was banned from driving for a long time during a period where pre‑trial investigation was delayed unreasonably. Eventually charges were dropped, but the driving ban remained for long period. The person lost economic opportunity and suffered non‑pecuniary harm. Sued the State for compensation. eurotort.acdh-dev.oeaw.ac.at
Issue: The question is less directly about punishment under criminal law, but implicates legality in the sense of state liability for acts that are prescribed by law, respect for fair procedure, reasonable time under Article 6 ECHR, and what legal basis enables compensation for harm resulting from procedural violations.
Holding: The Supreme Court found that because of the violation of “reasonable time” (delaying pre‑trial investigation nearly 4 years) the State was liable for both economic damages (costs for re‑exam etc.) and non‑pecuniary harm. The amount awarded for non‑pecuniary harm was reduced somewhat by the fact that the plaintiff had delayed in pursuing remedy. eurotort.acdh-dev.oeaw.ac.at
Legality Principle Aspect: This case isn’t about criminal liabilities per se, but touches on legality in the sense that public authorities, in criminal procedure roles, must act within the law, must protect fundamental procedural rights, including the requirement of reasonable time. When they violate these, even where law supports public authority powers, there is legal remedy. It underscores that legality is not just about forbidding retroactive criminal law, but also that criminal procedure has to conform to law, and that deviations (violations of procedure) have consequences.
Case 6: Tax‑Fraud Intentionality Case (KKO 2024:34)
Facts: Person A inherited a Swiss bank investment account being traded, later moved to Finland, failed to report capital income from foreign account in tax returns 2010‑2013 (evading ~€77,000). The question whether her failure was intentional (a required mental element) or whether she had a credible innocent mistaken belief or misunderstandings (bank would withhold etc.). Prosecution demands proof of intentionality. Borenius
Issue: When is intentionality established or presumed? What must the law require to convict tax fraud? Does the legislation, judicial interpretation, etc., provide foreseeability for what mental state is required? To what extent can a mistaken belief or lack of knowledge excuse liability? The legality principle demands that the accused can foresee what is criminal, including what mental elements are required.
Holding: The Supreme Court acquitted (i.e. dismissed charges) because it found that the accused’s explanation (her lack of knowledge of tax law, her background, role of bank etc.) created reasonable doubt about intentional tax fraud. They emphasize that intentionality must be proven beyond reasonable doubt; not enough that conduct resulted in harm, but knowledge or awareness of legal duty must be shown. Borenius
Legality Principle Aspect: This is a good example: criminal liability, particularly for offences involving mental elements (intent, knowledge, awareness), must be defined clearly enough that people can foresee whether their conduct (and what knowledge they have) is enough for criminal punishment. The Court refused to stretch interpretation to convict where the law or evidence did not clearly establish mental fault. This protects legal certainty, avoids unjust surprise or liability beyond what statute allows.
Themes & Tensions & How Finnish Courts Handle Them
From these cases, several recurrent themes show how the legality principle is interpreted in Finnish jurisprudence:
Foreseeability / Clarity of Statute: Penal laws must be sufficiently precise so a person can know whether their conduct is criminal. Statutes are interpreted strictly; penal provisions are not to be extended by analogy to disadvantage the accused. When law is ambiguous, and especially where mental elements are unclear, courts tend to resolve in favour of accused. (See Tax Fraud Case, Border Offence case, etc.)
Strict Interpretation vs Legislative Intent: Courts examine the wording of statutes, preparatory works (legislative history), earlier case law, purpose of law to interpret possibly ambiguous provisions in ways that do not violate legality. If a literal reading would yield an unreasonably broad or unforeseeable result, courts may limit scope via interpretation consistent with law’s purpose. (Border offence case is example.)
Mental Elements (Intent / Knowledge) are Key: For many offences, the presence of specific intent or awareness is part of the offence. Courts demand proof of these, not simply negligent or mistaken behaviour, especially when consequences are severe. This ties into foreseeability: accused must know or could foresee the wrongfulness. (Tax Fraud Case.)
Proportionality & Penalty Foreseeability: Legality principle also includes no heavier penalty than that provided by law, and penalties must not be arbitrary. In Finland, the day‑fine system is structured to adjust fine magnitude by the person’s income; courts look at what is reasonable, foreseeability of fine magnitude, and reduce penalties when deemed excessive in view of law. (Border offence; petty state border offence case.)
Procedural Legality: Not only substantive criminal law, but criminal procedure itself must conform to legality: procedural rules, rights to fair trial, immediate appearance, participation by judges, etc. When laws are silent, courts are reluctant to fill gaps to the detriment of defendant. (Judge by video link case; delay in trial case.)
Non‑retroactivity: Although I did not find a recent Finnish case in these summaries that is a classic retroactive penal law, the constitutional guarantee is always present, and courts avoid retroactive application (e.g. applying later law that criminalises previously legal conduct).
Some Notable Case Comparisons / Contrasts
In the petty state border offence case (KKO 2023:35), even though the wording arguably could have held a Finnish citizen guilty for failure to carry a document on re‑entry, the Court limited the scope to maintain foreseeability and avoid overly broad criminalisation. This shows courts enforce both legal clarity and avoid surprise liability.
In the human trafficking multiple counts case, the law was clear (statutory text + preparatory works + prior case law) that separate victims can give rise to separate counts; so the accused could foresee that behaviour would carry multiple offences.
In tax fraud case, exploration of individual background, knowledge, mistaken belief played a central role; court resisted presuming knowledge where the statute or evidence lacked clarity.
In video link judge participation case, legality in procedure: absence of statutory provision for that practice was a risk, but extraordinary circumstances allowed a narrower interpretation; Court considered material effect, fairness, rights of defense.
Unresolved / Difficult Areas & Criticisms
While Finnish practice generally upholds the legality principle strongly, certain difficult areas remain:
Where statutes use vague or evaluative terms (“other circumstances”, “dependence”, “vulnerability”, etc.), there is always room for disagreement on foreseeability. Courts must strike careful balance, but borderline cases may lead to legal uncertainty.
Penalties calculated based on income (day‑fine system) can be very large in income terms; while the law provides formula, the actual magnitude may be surprising to some, especially when day‑fine count is high. Foreseeability is somewhat limited by complexity of formulas.
New modes of offence (e.g. cyber offences, environmental offences) sometimes push into territory where legislature hasn’t always anticipated all circumstances; courts have to decide whether to interpret existing law to cover new technical/conduct modalities.
Procedural vs substantive legality distinctions sometimes blur: e.g. whether procedural irregularities amount to “unforeseeable” deviation from law or not; how big a procedural error must be before case is vacated.
Overall Conclusion
Finnish jurisprudence since 2000 shows a robust respect for the legality principle. Key features:
Laws defining crimes and penalties must be sufficiently clear so individuals can foresee which acts are offences and what punishments may follow.
Mental elements must be clear; conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; mistaken belief or ignorance (when reasonably plausible) can lead to acquittal.
Penal laws are strictly construed; analogical extension (i.e. interpreting to cover similar but non‑statute conduct) to detriment of accused is avoided.
Punishments (including fines) must be proportional, and courts are aware of foreseeability of magnitude.
Courts also protect procedural legality: deviations from statute in procedure are permissible only in narrow, exceptional cases; rights under fair trial and constitutional/ECHR norms require that legal rules are followed or justified.
RELATED Blog
0 comments