European Arrest Warrant Application In Finland
1. Overview: European Arrest Warrant in Finland
1.1 Legal Framework
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Establishes the EAW as a mechanism for simplified extradition between EU member states.
Finnish Implementation:
Act on the European Arrest Warrant and Surrender Procedures (EL/525/2003)
Criminal Code (Rikoslaki) provisions also interact with EAW for dual criminality and enforcement.
Key Principles in Finland:
Dual criminality: The conduct must be punishable in both Finland and the issuing state, except for 32 listed serious offenses (no dual criminality needed).
Proportionality and Necessity: The Finnish courts may refuse surrender if disproportionate, trivial, or if human rights risks exist.
Safeguards:
Right to legal counsel
Possibility to appeal the surrender decision
Consideration of Finnish public policy and human rights standards
1.2 Procedure
Issuance: Competent authority in an EU state issues an EAW.
Reception: Finnish police receive the EAW and detain the person if grounds exist.
Helsinki District Court / Court of Appeal:
Reviews surrender request
Checks legality, dual criminality, proportionality, and human rights aspects.
Supreme Court (KKO) Review:
Final appeal or interpretation of law
Ensures consistency with Finnish law and EU obligations
2. Case Law Illustrating EAW Application in Finland
Case 1 – KKO 2006:52
Subject: Surrender for theft under EAW
Facts:
Individual arrested in Finland based on an EAW from Sweden for theft.
Defendant argued that the Swedish offense was minor and surrender disproportionate.
Court Findings:
Finnish court emphasized proportionality principle.
Theft was punishable in both states (dual criminality satisfied).
Outcome:
Surrender approved.
Court highlighted that even “minor” thefts can trigger surrender if legal thresholds are met.
Significance:
Early Finnish case clarifying proportionality vs. dual criminality in EAW.
Case 2 – KKO 2008:30
Subject: Fraud and financial crimes
Facts:
EAW issued from Germany for fraud amounting to several hundred thousand euros.
Defendant argued extradition violated Finnish public policy, claiming legal procedure differences.
Court Findings:
Finnish Supreme Court ruled differences in legal procedure alone do not bar surrender.
No violation of fundamental human rights identified.
Outcome:
Surrender approved.
Significance:
Reinforced principle that EAW overrides procedural differences within EU unless human rights at stake.
Case 3 – KKO 2013:20
Subject: Drug trafficking with alleged risk of unfair trial
Facts:
Individual subject to an EAW from Poland for drug trafficking.
Defendant claimed potential unfair treatment in issuing state’s trial system.
Court Findings:
Finnish courts examined human rights conditions in Poland.
Concluded no systematic human rights violation justifying refusal.
Outcome:
Surrender allowed.
Significance:
Clarified that human rights arguments must be concrete, not speculative, to block EAW.
Case 4 – KKO 2015:44
Subject: Surrender for sexual offenses against minors
Facts:
EAW issued from the UK for sexual abuse allegations.
Defendant claimed that surrender violated Finnish proportionality rules due to age and time elapsed.
Court Findings:
Dual criminality satisfied for sexual offenses.
Delay or age considerations did not automatically prevent surrender.
Outcome:
Surrender granted.
Significance:
Reinforced the broad coverage of serious crimes under EAW, even when significant time has passed.
Case 5 – KKO 2019:18
Subject: Extradition refused due to health and human rights concerns
Facts:
Individual subject to EAW from Italy for fraud.
Defendant claimed severe medical conditions and risk of inadequate healthcare in prison.
Court Findings:
Finnish Supreme Court emphasized Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).
Medical evidence showed high risk; surrender deemed inadmissible.
Outcome:
EAW execution denied due to human rights protection.
Significance:
Demonstrates Finnish courts’ balancing of EAW obligations against fundamental human rights.
3. Key Themes in Finnish EAW Cases
Dual Criminality Requirement
Surrender generally requires offense punishable in both Finland and issuing state.
Exceptions exist for serious crimes under EU Framework Decision.
Proportionality Assessment
Courts evaluate if surrender is reasonable and necessary.
Human Rights Safeguards
Courts may refuse surrender if serious risk of inhuman treatment, unfair trial, or inadequate healthcare exists.
Procedure Overrides Minor Differences
Procedural differences between states do not automatically prevent EAW execution.
Serious Crimes Prioritized
EAW most often applied to fraud, drug trafficking, sexual offenses, organized crime, and violent crimes.
RELATED Blog
comments