Admissibility Of Evidence Rules In Finnish Courts
1. KKO 2023:14 – Admission of ANOM Messages
Context:
This case involved a Finnish criminal investigation connected to an international sting operation (Operation Trojan Shield). Criminal suspects in Finland were using specialized smartphones (“ANOM devices”) that were secretly monitored by law enforcement abroad. The prosecution wanted to use the intercepted messages as evidence.
Issue:
Were the messages admissible given that they were obtained through surveillance that arguably violated privacy and communication confidentiality laws?
Holding:
The Finnish Supreme Court admitted the messages into evidence.
Reasoning:
Finnish law allows courts discretion to use evidence obtained unlawfully unless it would make the trial unfair.
The court considered the probative value: the messages were highly relevant and credible.
Defendants had opportunity to challenge the evidence, maintaining trial fairness.
The rights violation (privacy) was weighed against the severity of the crimes and the importance of the evidence.
Significance:
This case shows that in Finland, unlawfully obtained evidence is not automatically excluded, but its admissibility is evaluated carefully with a focus on fairness and probative value.
2. KKO 2019:10 – Preservation of Evidence in Intellectual Property Cases
Context:
A patent holder requested that certain accounting materials and customer data of the defendant be preserved pre-trial to prevent destruction of evidence.
Issue:
Under what circumstances can a Finnish court order pre-trial preservation of evidence?
Holding:
The court allowed preservation of some, but not all, requested evidence.
Reasoning:
The Supreme Court established three prerequisites:
Evidentiary value: The evidence must likely help prove the case.
Danger of destruction: There must be a real risk of the evidence being lost or destroyed.
Balance of interests: The court weighs the requesting party’s need against the burden on the defendant.
Significance:
This case clarifies how Finnish courts prevent the loss of critical evidence while protecting fairness and avoiding overbroad orders.
3. KKO 2019:7 – Document Production in Civil Litigation
Context:
A party in a civil dispute requested a court order compelling the other party to produce emails, accounting records, and agreements.
Issue:
Can courts compel document production, especially if documents contain trade secrets or sensitive business information?
Holding:
The court granted production of some documents but refused others.
Reasoning:
Specificity: Requests must clearly identify documents.
Relevance: Documents must be likely to have evidentiary value.
Possession: Documents must be within the control of the other party.
Trade secrets: Documents containing trade secrets can be withheld unless the evidence is essential for proving a key fact.
Significance:
This case illustrates how courts balance transparency, relevance, and confidentiality in civil evidence disputes.
4. KHO 2018:52 – Use of Highly Personal Evidence in Asylum Cases
Context:
An asylum applicant claimed that evidence of their private sexual life should support their application.
Issue:
Can Finnish administrative courts admit highly intimate or sensitive evidence while respecting privacy?
Holding:
The court allowed some evidence but applied strict scrutiny due to privacy concerns.
Reasoning:
Finnish courts follow free evaluation of evidence, but fundamental rights (dignity, privacy) limit what can be considered.
Evidence must have strong justification to be used if it involves intimate or personal matters.
Significance:
Even under the principle of free evaluation, courts protect human dignity and balance privacy rights against evidentiary needs.
5. KHO 2021:6 – Speculation vs Evidence Threshold in Administrative Cases
Context:
An administrative case where authorities made decisions based on suspicions rather than verified facts.
Issue:
Does speculation alone satisfy the evidentiary requirements in Finnish administrative law?
Holding:
The Supreme Administrative Court held that mere suspicion is insufficient.
Reasoning:
Evidence must provide a real factual basis, even in administrative decisions.
Speculative or uncorroborated claims cannot form the sole basis of a decision.
Significance:
This demonstrates that free evaluation of evidence does not allow unfounded claims to substitute for real evidence.
6. KHO / KKO – Video and Recorded Statements in Criminal Proceedings
Context:
Criminal cases often involve pre-trial recorded statements (e.g., police interviews, statements from minors or witnesses).
Issue:
When are such statements admissible in court?
Holding:
Recorded statements can be admitted, but strict conditions apply:
The person must understand and consent (for minors/mentally impaired).
The defense must have opportunity to cross-examine or challenge the evidence.
Evidence must be reliable and relevant.
Reasoning:
The court evaluates both credibility and probative value.
Unlawfully coerced recordings or statements obtained in violation of fundamental rights are excluded.
Significance:
This shows how Finnish courts balance access to evidence, fair trial rights, and the reliability of statements, especially in sensitive contexts.
✅ Summary of Patterns in Finnish Evidence Law
Finnish courts follow free evaluation of evidence: most evidence is admissible.
Unlawfully obtained evidence may be used if fairness is maintained.
Pre-trial preservation and document production require specific justification and balancing of interests.
Sensitive or intimate evidence is scrutinized for fundamental rights.
Speculation alone is never enough; evidence must have factual basis.
Recorded statements require procedural safeguards for reliability and fairness.
RELATED Blog
comments