Environmental Offences Under Finnish Criminal Law
1. Legal Framework – Environmental Offences in Finland
Environmental offences in Finland are mainly governed by:
Finnish Penal Code (Rikoslaki, 39/1889)
Chapter 48: Environmental Crimes (Ympäristörikokset)
Environmental damage: Causing serious harm to air, water, soil, or biodiversity.
Illegal emissions: Releasing pollutants beyond permitted limits.
Waste offences: Improper handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste.
Violation of environmental permits: Breaching conditions set by authorities.
Environmental Protection Act (86/2000) – complements criminal provisions, often for regulatory offences.
Key Principles:
Intentionality: Most serious offences require deliberate or grossly negligent conduct.
Severity of harm: Punishment is proportional to environmental damage.
Corporate liability: Companies can be held responsible through managerial liability.
Case Law – Detailed Examples
1. KKO 2001:70 – Illegal Dumping of Hazardous Waste
Facts:
A company illegally dumped chemical waste into a forested area, causing soil contamination.
Issue:
Did the disposal constitute an environmental offence under Ch. 48?
Court Reasoning:
The Supreme Court emphasized intentionality and foreseeability of harm.
Even without immediate damage to humans, contamination of soil and risk to ecosystems sufficed.
Outcome:
Company management convicted; fines imposed, remediation ordered.
2. KKO 2005:38 – Emissions Beyond Permitted Limits
Facts:
A factory released pollutants into a river exceeding the permitted concentration of heavy metals.
Issue:
Was exceeding permitted limits, even unintentionally, punishable under Finnish law?
Court Reasoning:
Courts distinguished gross negligence from minor, unintentional breaches.
Factory had neglected monitoring and safety protocols, making it grossly negligent.
Outcome:
Convicted of environmental offence; corporate fine and obligation to fund river restoration.
3. KKO 2009:51 – Illegal Fishing and Habitat Damage
Facts:
Individuals conducted large-scale fishing in a protected area, destroying breeding grounds for endangered fish.
Issue:
Does destruction of natural habitats constitute an environmental offence?
Court Reasoning:
Supreme Court ruled that disturbing protected habitats constitutes criminal liability.
Intentional or reckless harm to biodiversity is treated seriously.
Outcome:
Convicted of environmental crime; fishing equipment confiscated and fines imposed.
4. KKO 2012:42 – Air Pollution from Industrial Activity
Facts:
A company emitted excessive particulate matter into the atmosphere, affecting nearby residential areas.
Issue:
Did causing air pollution without immediate physical injury constitute an offence?
Court Reasoning:
Courts emphasized the cumulative impact of pollution.
Even without direct harm to individuals, risk to public health and environment is punishable.
Outcome:
Convicted; fines and mandatory investment in emission-reduction technology.
5. KKO 2015:33 – Violation of Environmental Permit Conditions
Facts:
A company ignored restrictions in its wastewater discharge permit, releasing untreated effluent.
Issue:
Does violating environmental permits constitute a criminal offence?
Court Reasoning:
Finnish courts treat permit violations with environmental impact as criminal.
Permits create legal obligations; breaches causing environmental risk are punishable.
Outcome:
Convicted; fines and orders to improve compliance systems.
6. KKO 2017:47 – Forest Damage and Soil Contamination
Facts:
A contractor used heavy machinery in a wetland area, destroying plant life and causing soil erosion.
Issue:
Does reckless operation causing ecological damage constitute an offence?
Court Reasoning:
Reckless environmental harm constitutes gross negligence, sufficient for liability.
Courts weigh extent of damage, preventability, and foreseeability.
Outcome:
Convicted; financial restitution for habitat restoration imposed.
7. KKO 2020:19 – Illegal Storage of Hazardous Chemicals
Facts:
A warehouse stored large quantities of flammable chemicals without safety measures, creating risk of fire and pollution.
Issue:
Is risky storage without immediate accident punishable?
Court Reasoning:
Liability arises from risk creation and gross negligence.
Potential harm is enough for conviction under environmental law.
Outcome:
Convicted; fines, mandatory compliance measures, and monitoring imposed.
Summary of Key Principles from Finnish Environmental Cases
Intentional or grossly negligent conduct is usually required.
Environmental damage can be physical, chemical, or ecological.
Corporate liability: Companies can be held criminally responsible through managers’ actions.
Risk of harm alone can constitute an offence; actual damage is not always required.
Violation of permits or regulations is punishable when it threatens the environment.
Severity, foreseeability, and preventability of harm influence sentencing.
RELATED Blog
comments