Pollution Offences And Criminal Liability
Legal Framework in Finland
Environmental Protection Act (Ympäristönsuojelulaki 527/2014)
Governs prevention and control of environmental pollution.
Establishes civil and criminal liability for activities causing pollution or environmental harm.
Criminal Code of Finland – Chapter 48 (Environmental Offences)
Section 48:1: Environmental pollution causing serious harm to public health or nature is punishable.
Section 48:2: Reckless or negligent acts leading to pollution can lead to fines or imprisonment.
Key Principles
Liability can be intentional or negligent.
Punishment depends on severity, foreseeability, and environmental impact.
Corporate and individual responsibility are recognized.
1. Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2003:76
Facts: A factory illegally discharged chemical waste into a river.
Court Findings:
Court found that the company violated environmental protection laws.
Defendant argued lack of intent; court ruled negligence sufficed for criminal liability.
Sentence: Fines and environmental remediation ordered.
Significance:
Established that negligent pollution can trigger criminal liability.
Emphasized duty of care for industrial operations.
2. District Court of Helsinki, 2007
Facts: Ship owners dumped oil near a harbor, causing environmental damage.
Court Findings:
Actions qualified as environmental crime under Chapter 48.
Liability extended to corporate management responsible for operations.
Sentence: Fines and partial suspension of operations.
Significance:
Highlighted corporate accountability for environmental offences.
Showed courts consider magnitude of pollution and public impact.
3. Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2010:45
Facts: Farm released untreated sewage into a lake, impacting local fisheries.
Court Findings:
Court held the farmer recklessly disregarded environmental regulations.
Civil liability for compensation and criminal liability for environmental offence confirmed.
Sentence: Conditional imprisonment and financial restitution.
Significance:
Demonstrated that environmental offences can carry both civil and criminal consequences.
Emphasized foreseeability of harm as a factor.
4. Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2014:33
Facts: Industrial plant released toxic gases into the air in excess of permitted levels.
Court Findings:
Intentional violation of environmental standards constituted aggravated environmental pollution.
Severity increased due to risk to public health.
Sentence: 1 year imprisonment (suspended) and large fines.
Significance:
Shows courts distinguish ordinary pollution from aggravated offences based on public harm.
Reinforces that criminal law supplements regulatory enforcement.
5. District Court of Turku, 2017
Facts: Company disposed of hazardous waste in forested area.
Court Findings:
Illegal disposal created lasting environmental damage.
Corporate directors held personally liable in addition to the company.
Sentence: Fines, mandatory cleanup, and environmental supervision.
Significance:
Courts hold decision-makers accountable, not just operational staff.
Environmental harm severity influences sentencing.
6. Supreme Court of Finland, KKO 2019:22
Facts: Illegal burning of industrial materials released toxic fumes in residential area.
Court Findings:
Court emphasized direct threat to public health, elevating seriousness.
Conviction for aggravated environmental offence confirmed.
Sentence: Conditional imprisonment, community service, and financial penalties.
Significance:
Reinforced principle that public health impact aggravates environmental crime.
7. District Court of Oulu, 2021
Facts: Small company repeatedly discharged chemical waste despite prior warnings.
Court Findings:
Court considered repeated violations and reckless disregard for the law.
Criminal liability confirmed; civil restitution for environmental damage required.
Sentence: Fines and operational restrictions.
Significance:
Courts penalize recidivism in environmental offences.
Emphasizes deterrence alongside remediation.
Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
Intent Not Required: Negligent or reckless pollution suffices for criminal liability.
Aggravating Factors: Public health impact, repeated violations, and corporate scale increase severity.
Dual Liability: Both civil restitution and criminal sanctions may apply.
Corporate Responsibility: Directors and decision-makers can be held personally liable.
Preventive and Remedial Focus: Sentences often include fines, remediation, operational limits, or imprisonment.
Environmental Protection as Public Interest: Courts prioritize protection of ecosystems and communities.
RELATED Blog
comments