Finland / Supreme Court / KKO:2025:68, R2025/418, 998
-
Finland / Supreme Court / KKO:2025:68, R2025/418, 998
Key facts of the case:
A Polish national (A), had been convicted in Finland by a district court in an extensive criminal case concerning, among other things, narcotics offences and robberies committed by an organised criminal group. Both A and the prosecutor had appealed against the decision. At the same time, the Helsinki District Court had ordered A to be surrendered to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant for the enforcement of a seven-year prison sentence imposed for an offence against life and health. A requested the Supreme Court to postpone the enforcement of the surrender decision, on grounds that enforcing the decision would prevent A from obtaining a fair trial in Finland during the appeal stage of the pending criminal case. In Poland, he would not have the opportunity to prepare his defence or meet or communicate by telephone with his counsel. He would also not have access to the pre‑trial investigation material in the case.
The Supreme Court applied the Act on Surrender Procedures between Finland and Other Member States of the EU (1286/2003). Section 49 of the Act allows the executing court to postpone the surrender of the requested person. The section is based on Article 24(1) of the Council Framework decision 2002/584/JHA on the EAW, which makes the Charter applicable in the case. Reference was also made to the Constitution Act, the ECHR and the ICCPR.
Key legal question raised by the court:
The key legal question raised by the Supreme Court was whether the enforcement of the decision to surrender A should be postponed for the duration of the appeal proceedings in the criminal case pending in Finland, taking also into consideration A’s rights of defence and participation, as required by the principles of a fair trial.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Court held that, in view of the seriousness of the criminal case pending in Finland, the interest in completing the criminal proceedings in Finland without disruption weighed more heavily than Poland’s interest in obtaining A’s surrender without delay for enforcing the sentence imposed in Poland. In addition, Finland has a duty to safeguard A’s rights of defence and participation in its judicial proceedings, as required by the right to a fair trial. Considering the seriousness and scope of the criminal charges against A, the proper organisation of his defence requires closer-than-usual communication between A and his counsel in preparation for the oral hearing in the court of appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that, in order to safeguard the guarantees of a fair trial, the enforcement of the surrender decision had to be postponed until the criminal case concerning A has been finally resolved.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
15. Section 21 of the Constitution of Finland, Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR), guarantee everyone the right to a fair trial. This includes, among other things, the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to have sufficient time and facilities to prepare their defence.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
15. Suomen perustuslain 21 §:ssä, Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa, Euroopan unionin perusoikeuskirjan 47 artiklan 2 kohdassa sekä kansalaisoikeuksia ja poliittisia oikeuksia koskevan kansainvälisen yleissopimuksen (KP-sopimus) 14 artiklassa taataan jokaiselle oikeus oikeudenmukaiseen oikeudenkäyntiin. Tähän kuuluu muun ohella rikoksesta syytetylle oikeus saada riittävästi aikaa ja edellytykset valmistella puolustustaan.