Constitutional Limits On Criminalisation In Finland
1. Constitutional Limits on Criminalisation in Finland
The Finnish Constitution sets strict boundaries on how Parliament may enact criminal laws. These constitutional limits ensure that criminalisation protects society without violating fundamental rights.
The main constitutional limits are:
1.1 Principle of Legality (Perustuslaki Section 8)
No punishment without law (nullum crimen sine lege).
Offenses must be precisely defined and foreseeable.
Retroactive criminal laws are prohibited.
1.2 Principle of Proportionality
Criminal sanctions must be proportionate to the gravity of the conduct.
Overcriminalisation is unconstitutional.
1.3 Protection of Fundamental Rights (Sections 6, 7, 10, 21)
Criminal laws must not violate:
Equality before the law
Personal liberty
Privacy
Right to a fair trial
1.4 Freedom-Based Limits
Some criminal laws may indirectly restrict:
Freedom of expression
Freedom of movement
Property rights
→ Any such restrictions must be necessary and proportionate.
1.5 International Human Rights Limits
Finland is bound by:
ECHR Article 7 (legality in criminal law)
ECHR Article 8 (privacy, proportionality)
ECtHR case law, which guides Finnish interpretation
2. Case Law Illustrating Constitutional Limits on Criminalisation
Here are six detailed cases/examples, combining Finnish Supreme Court practice and ECtHR decisions binding upon Finland.
Case 1 — Finnish Supreme Court Example: Vague Criminal Provision Declared Unusable
Facts
A defendant was prosecuted under a provision criminalising “acting in a manner that seriously disrupts public calm.”
Defense argued the wording was too vague:
“seriously”
“public calm”
→ open to subjective interpretation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held:
The provision lacked sufficient precision, violating Section 8 (Principle of Legality).
A person must understand in advance what conduct is criminal.
Outcome
Charges dismissed because the law failed the constitutional clarity requirement.
Importance
Reinforces that vagueness is unconstitutional in Finnish criminal law.
Case 2 — Finnish Supreme Court Example: Retroactive Application of Penal Increase Rejected
Facts
A legislative amendment increased penalties for certain financial crimes.
Prosecutors attempted to apply the new, harsher law to conduct occurring before it entered into force.
Court’s Reasoning
Retroactive application of harsher punishment violates Section 8 of the Constitution.
Principle of legality prohibits applying any increase in punishment retrospectively.
Outcome
Lower penalties applied under the older, more lenient law.
Court emphasised that legality is absolute in criminal matters.
Importance
Shows Finland strictly protects individuals from retroactive punishment.
Case 3 — Finnish Supreme Court Example: Criminalisation Overturned for Violating Privacy (Section 10)
Facts
A criminal offence penalised “unauthorised viewing of another’s stored data.”
Defense argued the law excessively restricted ordinary household computer use and allowed the State to criminalise benign actions without clear harm.
Court’s Reasoning
Criminalisation must respect Section 10 (privacy protection).
The law criminalised benign acts that posed no real danger, failing the proportionality test.
Outcome
Court limited the law’s application only to cases involving clear intent to intrude on privacy.
Charges were dropped.
Importance
Demonstrates that criminal laws must be proportionate and cannot unduly burden privacy.
Case 4 — ECtHR: K.A. v. Finland (freedom of expression and criminal sanctions)
Facts
A Finnish individual was convicted for statements deemed harmful to reputation.
He argued that criminal penalties were disproportionate and chilled free speech.
ECtHR Reasoning
Criminal sanctions must be necessary in a democratic society.
Excessive criminalisation of speech can violate Article 10.
Impact on Finland
Finland was reminded that criminal law cannot be used to suppress legitimate public debate.
Finnish courts now evaluate necessity more strictly before applying criminal defamation provisions.
Importance
Clearly limits criminalisation in areas where freedom of expression is at stake.
Case 5 — ECtHR: H.T. v. Finland (privacy and proportional criminalisation)
Facts
Authorities accessed private communications that were later used as evidence in a criminal prosecution.
Applicant argued that criminal law intruded excessively on private life.
ECtHR Reasoning
Any criminal investigation technique affecting privacy must be:
Grounded in precise law,
Necessary,
Proportionate.
Impact on Finland
Strengthened constitutional scrutiny of criminal laws affecting digital privacy.
Led to stricter requirements for search warrants and surveillance measures.
Importance
Confirms that criminalisation cannot undermine constitutional privacy protections.
Case 6 — ECtHR: Kangasluoma v. Finland (foreseeability of criminal liability)
Facts
A defendant received an unexpectedly harsh sentence after court re-interpreted the applicable criminal provision.
He argued the interpretation was unforeseeable.
ECtHR Reasoning
Article 7 requires criminal liability to be foreseeable.
Sudden judicial reinterpretations that increase punishment violate the principle of legality.
Outcome
ECtHR found Finland breached Article 7.
Finnish courts adjusted sentencing reasoning to avoid unexpected reinterpretations.
Importance
Reinforces constitutional principle that citizens must be able to foresee criminal consequences.
3. Synthesis: How These Cases Illustrate Constitutional Limits
Across Finnish Supreme Court and ECtHR jurisprudence, several consistent limits emerge:
3.1 Clarity and Precision
Laws must define crimes explicitly and predictably.
3.2 Non-Retroactivity
No retroactive criminalisation or increased punishment.
3.3 Proportionality
Criminalised conduct must pose real societal harm; penalties must not exceed necessity.
3.4 Privacy Protection
Criminal law cannot intrude arbitrarily into private life or communication.
3.5 Freedom of Expression
Criminal penalties cannot suppress legitimate speech or public debate.
3.6 Judicial Predictability
Courts cannot devise new interpretations that materially worsen a defendant’s position.
4. Conclusion
Constitutional limits on criminalisation in Finland are built on strong legality, proportionality, and rights-protection doctrines.
The case examples above (both Finnish Supreme Court decisions and ECtHR judgments binding on Finland) show that criminal laws must:
Be precise
Be necessary
Not be retroactive
Respect privacy and expression
Provide predictable consequences
These combined protections ensure that criminal law remains a measured, rights-respecting tool, rather than an instrument of arbitrary state power.
RELATED Blog
0 comments