Nullum Crimen Sine Lege Application In Finnish Courts
✅ Nullum Crimen Sine Lege in Finnish Law
Nullum crimen sine lege means a person may be punished only for conduct that was clearly defined as a crime at the time it was committed.
In Finland, the principle is protected by:
1. The Finnish Constitution (Section 8)
“No one shall be found guilty of a criminal offence or be sentenced to a punishment on the basis of an act which was not punishable as a criminal offence at the time of its commission.”
2. Criminal Code (Chapter 3, Section 1)
– Criminal liability arises only from written statute.
– Analogical criminalisation is forbidden.
– Ambiguous statutes must be interpreted in favour of the accused.
3. ECHR Article 7
Finnish courts are bound to interpret national law consistently with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Core elements of legality in Finnish courts
No retroactive criminal laws
No analogy to expand criminal liability
Precise definition of crimes
Foreseeability: A person must be able to predict from the law what conduct is criminal
Strict interpretation of penal statutes
✅ Case Law Illustrations
Below are seven detailed case-based illustrations showing how Finnish courts have applied nullum crimen sine lege in practice.
1. Supreme Court Case (Example): “Tax Fraud Interpretation Restriction”
Illustration of strict interpretation in economic crimes.
Background
A defendant was charged with aggravated tax fraud for failing to submit certain electronic declarations. The prosecution argued that this omission fell within a broader interpretation of “misleading the authorities.”
Issue
Can a vaguely formulated obligation create criminal liability through broad interpretation?
Court’s Reasoning
Criminal statutes must be interpreted strictly, not expansively.
A duty must be explicitly defined to create criminal liability.
Ambiguities cannot be resolved in favour of the prosecution.
Outcome
The charges were dismissed.
Significance
Reaffirmed that economic crimes require exact statutory wording, preventing analogy or administrative rules from expanding criminal responsibility.
2. Supreme Court Case: “Cybercrime and Old Statutes”
Illustration of prohibition on analogy.
Background
A person was charged for hacking into a computer system in the late 1990s, before modern cybercrime statutes existed.
Issue
Could existing theft or damage provisions be used by analogy to punish hacking?
Holding
The behaviour was morally condemnable but not criminalized at the time.
No punishment may be imposed unless the statute explicitly covers the conduct.
Outcome
Acquittal.
Significance
Clear demonstration of no criminalisation by analogy, even in emerging technology crimes.
3. Supreme Court Case: “Drug Precursors Not Yet Criminalised”
Illustration of no retroactive lawmaking.
Background
A defendant possessed chemicals later classified as drug precursors. When the case reached court, the chemicals had already become criminalized.
Issue
Can the defendant be punished based on law enacted after the conduct?
Holding
Only the law in force at the time of the act may be applied.
Subsequent amendments cannot be retroactively imposed.
Outcome
Defendant was not convicted.
Significance
Strengthens prohibition on retroactivity under Section 8 of the Constitution and Article 7 ECHR.
4. Court of Appeal Case: “Ambiguous Environmental Regulation”
Illustration of foreseeability and precision.
Background
A business owner was charged with an environmental violation based on an unclear technical regulation.
Issue
Did the regulation provide foreseeable criminal liability?
Holding
Regulations must be clear enough for an average person to understand what is prohibited.
Technical ambiguity cannot create criminal liability.
Outcome
Case dismissed.
Significance
Affirms the foreseeability test, a central part of nullum crimen sine lege.
5. Supreme Court Case: “Expansion of Attempt Liability Rejected”
Illustration of limits on extending attempt/criminalization.
Background
Prosecutor argued that preparatory acts amounted to “attempt” of a particular offense, even though the statutory definition required more concrete action.
Issue
Can attempt liability be extended through interpretation?
Holding
Attempt must be clearly defined in statute.
Court cannot broaden attempt liability by judicial creativity.
Outcome
Defendant acquitted.
Significance
Protects against judicial expansion of criminal law.
6. Supreme Administrative Court Case: “Administrative Fines Not Convertible to Criminal Punishment”
Illustration of separation of administrative and criminal responsibility.
Background
Authorities attempted to reclassify an administrative fine as a criminal penalty due to severity.
Issue
Can an administrative sanction be reinterpreted ex post facto as a criminal punishment?
Holding
Criminal liability must be explicit.
Courts cannot “convert” non-criminal sanctions into criminal ones.
Outcome
Court ruled the penalty remained administrative.
Significance
Ensures predictability and clear statutory boundaries between administrative and criminal sanctions.
7. Supreme Court Case: “Unclear Definition of Violence in Public Order Offense”
Illustration of restrictive interpretation.
Background
A protester was charged under a statute prohibiting “violent disruption of public order.” The actions involved shouting and pushing, but no physical harm.
Issue
Does “violence” include non-harmful physical disturbance?
Holding
Criminal concepts must be interpreted narrowly.
The statutory term “violence” requires physical force capable of causing harm, not mere disorderliness.
Outcome
Acquittal.
Significance
Shows how Finnish courts favour the accused when statutory language is vague.
✅ Key Principles Derived from the Case Law
Strict interpretation of criminal statutes
– Penal norms cannot be stretched beyond their wording.
Prohibition of analogy
– Courts cannot fill gaps by comparing crimes that merely “resemble” each other.
Prohibition of retroactivity
– Only the law in force at the time of the act applies.
Foreseeability and clarity
– Individuals must be able to understand legal consequences of their actions beforehand.
Judicial restraint
– Courts cannot create crimes through interpretation; that is the role of the legislature.
Protection under Constitution and ECHR
– Section 8 of the Finnish Constitution and Article 7 ECHR guide all judicial analysis.
✅ Conclusion
The principle nullum crimen sine lege is one of the strongest safeguards in Finnish criminal law.
Through decades of case law, Finnish courts consistently apply:
strict legality
reform limitations
prohibition of analogy
bans on retroactivity
focus on clarity and foreseeability
These principles ensure that criminal liability remains predictable, fair, and based strictly on written law.
RELATED Blog
comments