THE CASE-LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN FINLAND
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The presumption of innocence is considered by the European Court of Human Rights, not only as a principle of criminal justice, but also as a “concrete and real” defendant’s right to be presumed innocent until the moment of procedural instance described by Paragraph 2, Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The case procedure is based on the presumption of innocence and the interpretation of doubt in favour of the defendant. It protects the suspect, meanwhile the offi cials authorized to conduct the preliminary investigation, are warned against voicing any allegations. Application of the presumption of innocence in Finland is regarded not only in criminal proceedings but in a much wider spectrum - in tax, environmental, migration and commercial law. These cases are dealt with in the administrative and commercial courts. The present article discusses examples for the application of presumption of innocence in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland in 2014.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
international law, the national courts of Finland, the paradigmatic function of the caselaw of the ECHR, the presumption of innocence
2. Montesquieu Charles-Louis de Seconda, «De l’Esprit des Lois». 1758. Édition établie par Laurent Versini // Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1995.
3. Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789 / The French Republic: the Constitution and the laws // M., 1989
4. Document the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE. Copenhagen from 5 to 29 June 1990 // https://www.oscepa.org/election-observation/brochures-documents/documents/2463-osce-copenhagen-document-1990-rus.
5. The UN Committee on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. General comment number 29 (2001) // http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/pactpol.shtml
6. Suomen perustuslaki / https://www.fi nlex.fi /fi /laki/ajantasa/1999/19990731
7. European Court H.R. Minelli v. Switzerland, Judgment of 25 Mar. 1983, Series A, No.62 / http://europeancourt.ru/resheniya-evropejskogo-suda-na-russkom-yazyke/minelli-protiv-shvejcarii-minelli-v-switzerlandpostanovlenie-evropejskogo-suda/
8. European Court H.R. Matijašević v Serbia, Judgment of 19 Sep. 2006, No 1161; European Court H.R. Garycki v Poland, Judgment No14348/02 // http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-76896#{“itemid”:[“001-76896”]}
9. European Court H.R. Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no.308 / http://europeancourt.ru/resheniya-evropejskogo-suda-na-russkom-yazyke/allene-de-ribemon-protiv-franciipostanovlenie-evropejskogo-suda/
10. European Court H.R. Müller v. Germany, Judgment of 27 Mar. 2014, no. 54963/08 // Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights N7 / 2014 s.21-22
11. KKO:2013:100. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Finland . 31.12.2013
12. KHO:2014:145. Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court. 2.10.2014
13. KHO:2014:35. Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court. 18.2.2014
14. KHO:2014:37 Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court. 4.6.2014. S2013/271
15. Decision on Appeal Court of Helsinki, 1.7.2014, no 1431.
16. KKO:2013:77. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Finland, 23.10.2013.