Relationship Between Eu Directives And Finnish Penal Code
1. Relationship Between EU Directives and the Finnish Penal Code
1.1. EU Directives and the Finnish Legal Order
EU directives are binding on Member States as to the result to be achieved, but each State chooses its own form and method of implementation.
Finland implements directives through:
Acts of Parliament (including amendments to the Penal Code)
Government decrees
Regulations by authorities
Administrative practices
For criminal law, the primary method of implementation is amendment of the Finnish Penal Code (Rikoslaki) because only Acts of Parliament can define crimes and penalties.
1.2. Obligation of Conformity
Even if a directive is not transposed correctly, Finnish courts must interpret national law in line with EU directives (the doctrine of indirect effect).
However:
Directives cannot independently impose criminal liability (no “direct effect” in criminal matters), according to the CJEU.
Still, Finnish courts use EU-conform interpretation wherever possible.
1.3. When EU Law Overrules Finnish Law
EU law does not generally create criminal offences, but it can:
Require Finland to criminalize specific conduct
(e.g., money laundering, human trafficking, environmental crimes).
Set minimum standards for penalties
(e.g., trafficking, child sexual exploitation).
Limit Finland’s criminal-law autonomy
(e.g., free movement, proportionality, non-discrimination).
The Finnish Constitution (especially Section 80) allows EU obligations to influence penal legislation.
2. Detailed Case Law (More than 5 cases)
Below are seven cases, including CJEU cases that directly shaped Finnish criminal law and Finnish Supreme Court (KKO) cases applying EU directives.
Case 1: CJEU – Kolpinghuis Nijmegen (1987)
Principle: Directives cannot, by themselves, create or aggravate criminal liability.
Relevance for Finland
This foundational principle restricts Finnish courts:
They cannot convict someone only because an EU directive requires criminalization unless the Finnish Penal Code has been amended accordingly.
This safeguards legality (nullum crimen sine lege) in Finnish constitutional law.
Impact on Penal Code
When Finland implements directives (e.g., Environmental Crime Directive), it must put every crime element explicitly into national law; courts cannot “fill gaps” using the directive.
Case 2: CJEU – Pupino (2005)
Principle: National courts must interpret domestic law as far as possible in light of EU instruments (including Framework Decisions on criminal law).
Relevance for Finland
This strengthened the doctrine of EU-conform interpretation of the Finnish Penal Code.
Example of impact:
In matters involving victims’ rights or procedural protections (e.g., child victims), Finnish courts must choose interpretations consistent with EU minimum standards.
Case 3: CJEU – Taricco (2015/2017)
Principle: EU law can require effective prosecution of serious crimes affecting EU financial interests, but cannot override fundamental constitutional principles.
Relevance for Finland
Though the case involved Italy, Finland applied its rationale:
EU obligations cannot force Finnish courts to violate legality requirements (Section 8 of the Constitution).
When implementing the PIF Directive (fraud against EU finances), amendments to the Penal Code (Rikoslaki 29:5–7 and tax-fraud provisions) were drafted to comply without retroactive effects.
Case 4: Finnish Supreme Court (KKO 2013:59) – Environmental Crime and EU Waste Directive
Facts
A company illegally transported waste, and the question was how “waste” should be defined.
EU Influence
The Waste Framework Directive contains a mandatory definition.
Court’s reasoning
Even though the Penal Code contains its own wording, the Court interpreted “waste” in line with the EU Waste Directive.
This follows the Pupino and conformity doctrine.
Significance
Finnish courts may rely on EU directive definitions even in criminal cases, provided this does not broaden criminal liability beyond the national legislation’s wording.
Case 5: Finnish Supreme Court (KKO 2015:20) – Human Trafficking Directive
Background
A person was prosecuted for trafficking and aggravated pandering.
Relevant EU Directive
The EU Human Trafficking Directive (2011/36/EU) sets minimum standards for:
Definitions
Penalties
Victim assistance
Court’s analysis
The Court explicitly considered the directive when interpreting:
“Abuse of a vulnerable position”
“Exploitation”
Although the Penal Code had been amended to implement the directive, the Court still used EU standards to guide interpretation.
Outcome
The conviction was upheld, with the Court emphasizing that Finnish law must be read consistently with the Directive’s human-rights-based definition.
Case 6: Finnish Supreme Court (KKO 2018:58) – Child Sexual Exploitation Directive
Context
Case concerning possession of child pornography and grooming.
Directive
The Child Sexual Exploitation Directive (2011/93/EU) requires:
Broader definitions of child pornography
Criminalization of online grooming
Effective penalties
Court’s reasoning
The Court evaluated Finnish Penal Code Chapter 17 (sexual offences) in light of the directive and concluded:
Grooming provisions must be interpreted broadly to ensure compliance.
Digital and online-communication elements should be understood according to EU standards.
Significance
This case marks a clear example of EU minimum-harmonization shaping Finnish criminal interpretation.
Case 7: Finnish Supreme Court (KKO 2020:66) – Money Laundering & EU AML Directives
Context
A defendant was charged with aggravated money laundering.
One issue: interpretation of “proceeds of crime” and “serious negligence”.
EU Directive Influence
The Anti-Money Laundering Directives (AMLD) and the EU Money Laundering Directive 2018 influenced Finnish legislation.
Court’s analysis
The Court used EU AML directives to interpret the scope of criminal liability.
The directives require effective measures against money laundering, and the Court adopted an interpretation consistent with EU standards while respecting legality.
Outcome
The Court upheld the conviction and emphasized that Finland must ensure effective criminal deterrence aligned with EU law.
3. Synthesis: How Directives Shape the Finnish Penal Code
A. Directives that REQUIRED new criminal offences in Finland
Human Trafficking Directive → amendments to Rikoslaki Ch. 25
Child Sexual Exploitation Directive → amendments to Ch. 17
Money Laundering Directives → Ch. 32
Environmental Crime Directive → Ch. 48
PIF Directive (protection of EU finances) → tax fraud & subsidy fraud provisions
B. Directives that affect criminal procedure
Victims’ Rights Directive
Trafficking Directive (victim support)
Child Exploitation Directive (child-friendly justice)
C. Interpretation Requirements
Finnish courts must interpret the Penal Code:
Pro-EU, but
Not against the wording of the law
Not retroactively (constitutional legality principle)
4. Conclusion
The relationship between EU directives and the Finnish Penal Code can be summarised in three points:
EU directives strongly influence the content of Finnish criminal law, requiring Finland to adopt specific crimes and minimum penalties.
Finnish courts must interpret national law in harmony with EU directives, as far as possible.
Directives cannot independently create crimes, and the Finnish Constitution protects against retroactive criminalization.
RELATED Blog
0 comments