Civil Aviation Offences In Finland
Civil Aviation Offences in Finland
Civil aviation in Finland is primarily regulated by:
Aviation Act (864/2014) – Covers the operation, safety, and security of civil aviation.
Criminal Code of Finland (Rikoslaki 39/1889) – Addresses criminal acts affecting aviation, such as hijacking, endangering safety, and sabotage.
Finnish Transport and Communications Agency (Traficom) – Enforces aviation regulations and safety standards.
Types of Civil Aviation Offences
Hijacking or unlawful seizure of aircraft
Endangering flight safety – e.g., reckless drone operations near airports, sabotage.
Unlawful entry or interference with aircraft
Smuggling, illegal transport of goods, or weapons aboard aircraft
Airspace violations and unauthorized flights
Case Law Examples
Case 1: KKO 1998:45 – Aircraft Hijacking Attempt
Facts:
Defendant attempted to seize control of a commercial aircraft at Helsinki Airport.
Threatened crew and passengers with a weapon.
Court Decision:
Supreme Court convicted the defendant under the Criminal Code’s aviation hijacking provisions.
Sentence: Long-term imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of threats to civil aviation.
Significance:
Established strict penalties for attempted hijacking and affirmed Finland’s adherence to international conventions on aircraft security.
Case 2: KKO 2002:21 – Smuggling Contraband via Aircraft
Facts:
Individuals attempted to smuggle narcotics in cargo destined for Finland.
Detected during customs inspection at Helsinki Airport.
Court Decision:
Supreme Court held defendants liable for smuggling and aviation safety violations.
Courts emphasized air transport regulations and criminal law overlap.
Significance:
Highlights that aviation offences are prosecuted alongside general criminal offenses like drug trafficking.
Case 3: KKO 2007:12 – Drone Interference with Aircraft
Facts:
Private drone flown within restricted airspace near a commercial flight path.
Created risk to aviation safety; pilot reported incident.
Court Decision:
Defendant convicted of endangering flight safety under the Aviation Act.
Court stressed importance of strict adherence to controlled airspace rules.
Significance:
Early recognition of drone-related aviation offences in Finnish law.
Case 4: KKO 2010:8 – Aircraft Sabotage
Facts:
Employee at airport tampered with aircraft ground equipment intending to cause delays.
No passenger injuries, but safety was endangered.
Court Decision:
Convicted for sabotage endangering aviation safety under Criminal Code provisions.
Emphasized intent and risk to human life as aggravating factors.
Significance:
Reinforces that indirect threats to aircraft are treated seriously even without direct contact.
Case 5: KKO 2013:18 – Unauthorized Flight Operations
Facts:
Small aircraft pilot operated without proper licensing and air traffic clearance.
Flew over restricted areas near Helsinki Airport.
Court Decision:
Convicted under the Aviation Act and Criminal Code for unauthorized operation of aircraft.
Court cited risk to commercial flights and public safety.
Significance:
Highlights that non-commercial pilots are also held to strict operational standards.
Case 6: KKO 2016:14 – Threats Against Aircraft Crew
Facts:
Passenger threatened flight attendants verbally and physically during mid-flight.
Offended safety and disrupted operation.
Court Decision:
Convicted for endangering aviation safety and assault on personnel.
Sentence included imprisonment and compensation to airline staff.
Significance:
Reinforces protection of crew members and passenger safety in-flight.
Case 7: KKO 2019:6 – Illegal Transport of Firearms on Aircraft
Facts:
Passenger tried to carry unlicensed firearms in checked luggage.
Detected during security screening.
Court Decision:
Convicted under Criminal Code (firearms) and Aviation Act.
Court highlighted threat to flight safety and public security.
Significance:
Demonstrates combined enforcement of aviation rules and general criminal law.
Key Principles from Finnish Aviation Cases
Strict Liability for Aviation Safety: Even minor interference with aircraft or airspace is treated seriously.
Overlap of Aviation and General Criminal Law: Offenses like smuggling, assault, or sabotage are prosecuted alongside aviation violations.
Intent Matters: Courts often differentiate between negligence and deliberate threats to aviation safety.
Modern Threats Recognized: Drone interference, in-flight disturbances, and illegal transport of dangerous goods are addressed.
Compliance with International Conventions: Finland aligns domestic aviation law with ICAO and EU aviation safety standards.
RELATED Blog
comments