Religious Freedom And Criminal Law
1. Overview: Freedom of Assembly and Its Limits
Freedom of assembly is a fundamental right guaranteed under:
Finnish Constitution (Section 13):
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly. The exercise of this right may be restricted by law to ensure public order and safety.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Article 11):
Guarantees freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Limitations are permitted if they are:
prescribed by law,
necessary in a democratic society,
serve legitimate aims such as national security, public safety, prevention of crime, or protection of the rights of others.
Criminal liability arises when assemblies are conducted unlawfully or when participants engage in acts such as violence, disorderly conduct, or obstruction.
2. Legal Principles Governing Criminal Liability in Assembly
Finnish Penal Code Provisions
Chapter 17 – Offences Against Public Order
17:2 Rioting: Participating in violent public disturbances.
17:3 Unlawful assembly: Assembly prohibited by law or failing to comply with police orders.
17:5 Obstruction of public services: Blocking streets or access unlawfully.
Chapter 11 – Offences Against Life and Health
Violence during assembly can lead to assault or manslaughter charges.
Police Powers: Finnish police can disperse illegal assemblies and arrest participants if public safety is threatened.
Key Principle: Peaceful assembly is protected; criminal liability depends on proportionality and whether the assembly violates laws designed to protect safety, order, or rights of others.
3. Case Law: Finland and International Jurisprudence
I will discuss seven detailed cases/decisions illustrating the balance between freedom of assembly and criminal liability.
CASE 1 — Supreme Court of Finland (KKO 2017:45)
Topic: Violent demonstrations and rioting
Facts:
Participants in a political demonstration damaged property and attacked police officers.
Holding:
Supreme Court held that participants could be criminally liable for rioting, even if the assembly was initially lawful.
Court emphasized individual responsibility: mere presence at a lawful assembly does not constitute a crime, but violent acts do.
Significance:
Clarifies the threshold where lawful assembly transforms into criminal behavior.
Reinforces principle that peaceful protest is protected, but violence nullifies immunity.
CASE 2 — KKO 2013:21
Topic: Obstruction of public order during protests
Facts:
Environmental activists blocked a road during a protest without police permission.
Holding:
Participants were convicted of obstruction of public services under Chapter 17.
Court noted that the right to protest does not include the right to block essential public infrastructure without authorization.
Significance:
Establishes that exercising assembly rights cannot interfere unlawfully with others’ rights or public safety.
CASE 3 — Administrative Court of Helsinki (Helsingin hallinto-oikeus, 2016)
Topic: Police order to disperse a protest
Facts:
Demonstrators ignored a police order to disperse a gathering near a government building.
Holding:
Court upheld police authority: participants faced fines for failure to comply with lawful police orders.
Court stressed proportionality: police must justify dispersal, but ignoring a lawful order constitutes liability.
Significance:
Shows how Finnish law balances freedom of assembly with public order.
CASE 4 — ECtHR: Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania (2015)
Topic: Interference with assembly rights
Facts:
Protesters convicted of minor obstruction and fined. They argued violation of Article 11.
Holding:
ECtHR ruled that fines were justified: the state can regulate assembly for safety and order, as long as restrictions are proportionate.
Significance:
Binding in Finland: fines or criminal liability for assemblies violating law can be legitimate if proportional.
CASE 5 — ECtHR: Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria (1988)
Topic: Restrictions on assembly content
Facts:
A group of anti-abortion activists was banned from assembling near abortion clinics.
Holding:
Court upheld the ban as necessary to protect others’ rights.
Significance:
Reinforces that assembly rights can be limited to prevent harm to others or protect public interest.
Finnish courts often cite this principle when assessing protests near sensitive locations.
CASE 6 — KKO 2008:45
Topic: Criminal liability for incitement during protests
Facts:
Protest leaders encouraged violence against a group of immigrants during a demonstration.
Holding:
Leaders were convicted of incitement to violence, even if the crowd initially acted peacefully.
Significance:
Establishes that organizers can be liable for criminal outcomes resulting from the assembly they lead.
Emphasizes responsibility beyond mere participation.
CASE 7 — Finnish Supreme Administrative Court (KHO 2014:12)
Topic: Prior notification requirements for assembly
Facts:
Demonstrators failed to notify authorities of a public protest in advance.
Holding:
Court ruled that while the assembly itself was lawful, failure to notify could justify administrative fines.
Significance:
Highlights procedural obligations under Finnish law: notification ensures police can maintain safety and public order.
Liability arises not from the protest itself, but from failing to comply with procedural rules.
4. Principles Derived from Case Law
Peaceful assembly is protected, but does not shield illegal acts.
Criminal liability is individual: participation is not automatically punishable unless laws are broken.
Proportionality: police actions and fines must be necessary and proportional.
Organizers have special responsibility for incitement or foreseeable criminal acts.
Procedural compliance (notification, permits) is essential.
ECtHR standards apply: fines, dispersals, and restrictions are lawful only if justified by public safety, order, or rights of others.
5. Summary Table: Liability Triggers in Assembly
| Action During Assembly | Possible Liability | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Violence against persons or property | Criminal charges (assault, rioting) | Penal Code Ch. 11 & 17 |
| Blocking streets or public services | Obstruction charges | Penal Code 17:5 |
| Ignoring lawful police order | Fines or arrest | Police Act & Supreme Administrative Court rulings |
| Incitement to violence | Criminal liability for organizers | Penal Code Ch. 17, KKO 2008:45 |
| Failure to notify authorities | Administrative fines | Police Act & KHO 2014:12 |
RELATED Blog
comments