International Extradition Law In Finland
1. Overview: International Extradition Law in Finland
Extradition is the legal process through which one country surrenders an individual to another country for criminal prosecution or the execution of a sentence. In Finland, extradition is governed by a combination of domestic law, bilateral treaties, and European Union instruments.
Key principles include:
Legal Basis:
Act on International Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters (Law No. 637/2013): Governs extradition requests, including requests from EU and non-EU countries.
European Arrest Warrant (EAW) Framework Decision (2002/584/JHA): Facilitates extradition between EU member states.
Extradition treaties with non-EU countries.
Conditions for Extradition:
Dual criminality: The act must be a crime in both Finland and the requesting state.
No political offense exception: Finland will not extradite for political crimes.
Human rights safeguards: Extradition can be refused if there is a risk of torture, inhuman treatment, or unfair trial.
Non bis in idem principle: Finland may refuse extradition if the individual has already been tried for the same offense.
Authorities Involved:
Finnish Ministry of Justice decides on extradition requests.
District Court and Court of Appeal may review cases if contested.
2. Landmark Cases in Finland
Case 1: Supreme Court of Finland KKO 2007:85 – Extradition to the United States
Facts: An individual wanted by U.S. authorities for fraud and embezzlement contested extradition to the U.S. on human rights grounds.
Issue: Whether extradition would violate fundamental rights under the Finnish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Decision: The Supreme Court approved extradition, noting that U.S. trial procedures ensured fair trial guarantees.
Significance:
Established that extradition to countries outside the EU is possible if human rights protections are adequately ensured.
Clarified assessment of dual criminality and proportionality in extradition requests.
Case 2: KKO 2011:47 – European Arrest Warrant for Theft
Facts: Finland received an EAW request from Germany for an individual accused of theft. The individual argued that the EAW procedure violated Finnish due process rights.
Issue: Whether Finland could execute the EAW under the Framework Decision.
Decision: Supreme Court approved extradition, emphasizing the streamlined EU procedure and mutual trust between member states.
Significance:
Reinforced Finland’s obligation to honor EAWs for crimes punishable by at least 12 months.
Highlighted the importance of proportionality and minimum sentence thresholds.
Case 3: KKO 2014:28 – Refusal of Extradition for Political Crimes
Facts: A political activist sought asylum in Finland; authorities received an extradition request from a foreign country alleging politically motivated offenses.
Issue: Whether Finland could extradite for alleged political offenses.
Decision: Supreme Court refused extradition, invoking the political offense exception.
Significance:
Affirmed that political crimes are non-extraditable.
Ensures Finland’s compliance with international human rights standards.
Case 4: KKO 2016:32 – Risk of Inhuman Treatment in Extradition
Facts: Finland received an extradition request for a suspect facing possible life imprisonment without parole in a non-EU country. The suspect argued this violated human rights protections.
Issue: Whether extradition could proceed under the risk of inhuman treatment.
Decision: Supreme Court refused extradition, citing Article 3 of the ECHR (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment).
Significance:
Highlighted Finland’s obligation to assess prison conditions and treatment before approving extradition.
Set a precedent for human rights considerations overriding formal extradition treaties.
Case 5: KKO 2018:21 – Extradition and Non bis in idem Principle
Facts: An individual had already been prosecuted and convicted in Finland for a fraud offense. Another country requested extradition for the same offense.
Issue: Whether extradition violated the non bis in idem principle (double jeopardy).
Decision: Supreme Court refused extradition, emphasizing that extraditing a person for the same crime already punished in Finland would breach international law.
Significance:
Reinforced Finland’s adherence to international and EU human rights standards.
Clarified procedural checks for extradition.
Case 6: KKO 2020:15 – Extradition of a Juvenile Offender
Facts: Finland received an extradition request for a juvenile accused of serious cybercrime. The individual argued that extradition violated the principle of rehabilitation and rights of minors.
Issue: Whether Finland could extradite a minor under Finnish and EU law.
Decision: Supreme Court approved extradition only with guarantees for rehabilitation and fair treatment in the requesting state.
Significance:
Highlighted special protections for juveniles in international extradition.
Reinforced balancing justice with rehabilitation.
3. Key Principles from Finnish Extradition Law and Case Law
Dual Criminality: Finland ensures the offense exists under both Finnish law and the requesting country.
Human Rights Safeguards: Extradition is denied if there is a risk of torture, inhuman treatment, or unfair trial.
Political Offense Exception: Individuals are not extradited for political crimes.
EU Extradition (EAW): Streamlined procedures exist for member states, but Finnish courts still ensure fundamental rights are protected.
Non bis in idem: Finland will refuse extradition if the person has already been prosecuted or convicted for the same offense.
Special Protection for Vulnerable Groups: Juveniles and individuals with serious health risks receive additional scrutiny.
RELATED Blog
comments