Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Finland / Supreme Court / KKO:2020:25, R2020/117

Supreme Court decision regarding a request for surrender
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
17/03/2020
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:FI:KKO:2020:25

Eiropas Savienības Pamattiesību harta

Title I: Dignity

Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Finland / Supreme Court / KKO:2020:25, R2020/117
    Key facts of the case:
    The case concerned a request for surrender of a Romanian national (A) to Romania where A was to serve a four-year prison sentence. The district court of Helsinki had denied the request. The public prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court applied Act 1286/2003 on Surrender Procedures between Finland and Other EU Member States, which implements Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant. The court also referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR; Muršić v Croatia) and the CJEU (C-128/18 Dorobantu) in which the courts interpret the prohibition of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
     
    Key legal question raised by the Court:
    Section 5(1)(6) of the Act on Surrender Procedures provides for a list of mandatory grounds for refusal, among them reasonable grounds to suspect that the requested person is in danger of being subject to torture or other treatment violating human dignity. The Supreme Court noted that while section 5(1)(6) is not explicitly based on the grounds for refusal as prescribed in Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision, the said provision can be derived from the obligation to respect fundamental rights and human rights binding on Finland. The key legal question in this case was whether the request for surrender should be denied pursuant to section 5(1)(6) and because of the inadequate prison conditions in Romania.
     
    Outcome of the case:

    According to information provided by the Romanian prison authorities, it was highly likely that A would serve a major part of the four-year sentence in a semi-open prison where the personal space allocated to a detainee is at least two square metres. The Supreme Court noted that the ECtHR has in the case of Muršić confirmed the standard of three square metres per detainee in multi-occupancy accommodation as the relevant minimum standard under Article 3 of the ECHR. The CJEU has assessed the minimum standards for prison conditions, following the guidelines set by the ECtHR. The Supreme Court concluded that in A’s case there was a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter. Such a presumption can be rebutted only if the reductions in the required minimum personal space of three square metres are short, occasional and minor and the detainee has sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell. These criteria must be met cumulatively. Both the ECtHR and the CJEU have held that in cases where a detainee has less than three square metres of personal space, a period of detention around 20 to 27 days cannot be regarded as short, occasional and minor. The fact that a detainee has a possibility to

    spend part of the day outside the overcrowded cell does not change the outcome of the assessment. The Supreme Court denied the request for surrender.

    17. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että selvityksen mukainen kolme neliömetriä alittava henkilökohtainen tila niin sanotussa puoliavoimessa järjestelmässä eli A:n kohdalla Brailan vankilassa synnyttää ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen oikeuskäytännön perusteella vahvan olettaman ihmisoikeussopimuksen 3 artiklan loukkauksesta ja vastaavasti olettaman Euroopan unionin perusoikeuskirjan 4 artiklan loukkauksesta (tuomio Muršić v. Kroatia, kohta 137 ja tuomio Dorobantu, 71–77 kohdat).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    7. In its case law, the CJEU has noted that the Framework Decision, according to its Article 1(3), shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, among other instruments. Therefore, the executing judicial authority has under certain conditions an obligation to bring the surrender procedure established by the Framework Decision to an end, where surrender may result in the requested person being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter (see the Grand Chamber judgment of 15.10.2019, Dorobantu, C-128/18, EU:C:2019:857, para. 50 and the case law cited). The Supreme Court finds that it is justified to interpret section 5(1)(6) of the Act on Surrender Procedures as far as possible in line with the interpretation given by the CJEU to Article 1(3) of the Framework Decision, Article 4 of the Charter and the related human rights obligations. 8. In its case law, the CJEU has held that the mere existence of evidence that there are deficiencies with respect to detention conditions in the issuing Member State does not necessarily imply that the persons whose surrender has been requested will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the event that he is surrendered to the authorities of that Member State. When considering surrender in such a case, the executing judicial authority must determine, specifically and precisely, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the person will run a real risk of being subject to inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, because of the conditions for detention envisaged in the issuing Member State. The assessment must be based on objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence of detention conditions (Dorobantu, paras. 54 and 55 and the case law cited). 9. The CJEU has also held that insofar as the right set out in Article 4 of the Charter corresponds to the right guaranteed by Article 3 of the ECHR, its meaning and scope are to be the same as those laid down by the ECHR (Dorobantu, para. 58). 16. The Supreme Court finds that the information, provided by the Romanian prison authorities, on the prisons where A is likely to be placed, and on the detention conditions therein, can be regarded as sufficient. Based on that information, it is possible to determine, specifically and precisely, whether A would face a risk of being subject to inhuman or degrading treatment because of deficiencies in detention conditions.

    17. The Supreme Court finds that, in accordance with the case law of the ECtHR, the allocated personal space of less than three square metres in a so-called semi-open system, in A’s case in the Braila Prison, raises a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR and, similarly, a presumption of a violation of Article 4 of the Charter (Muršić v. Croatia, para. 137 and Dorobantu, paras. 71–77).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    7. Unionin tuomioistuin on oikeuskäytännössään todennut, että puitepäätöksellä ei sen 1 artiklan 3 kohdan mukaan vaikuteta velvoitteeseen kunnioittaa muun muassa perusoikeuskirjassa taattuja perusoikeuksia. Tämän vuoksi täytäntöönpanosta vastaavalla oikeusviranomaisella on tietyin edellytyksin velvollisuus päättää puitepäätöksen mukainen luovuttamismenettely, jos luovuttaminen saattaa johtaa siihen, että luovutettava henkilö joutuu perusoikeuskirjan 4 artiklassa tarkoitetun epäinhimillisen tai halventavan kohtelun kohteeksi (ks. suuren jaoston tuomio 15.10.2019, Dorobantu, C-128/18, EU:C:2019:857, 50 kohta ja siinä viitattu oikeuskäytäntö). Korkein oikeus katsoo, että EU-luovuttamislain 5 §:n 1 momentin 6 kohtaa on perusteltua tulkita mahdollisimman pitkälle yhtenevästi sen tulkinnan kanssa, jonka unionin tuomioistuin on antanut puitepäätöksen 1 artiklan 3 kohdalle ja perusoikeuskirjan 4 artiklalle sekä niihin liittyville ihmisoikeusvelvoitteille. 8. Unionin tuomioistuin on ratkaisuissaan katsonut, että pelkkä puutteita osoittavien seikkojen olemassaolo pidätysmääräyksen antaneen jäsenvaltion vankeusolosuhteissa ei välttämättä merkitse sitä, että luovutettavaksi pyydetty henkilö altistuisi konkreettisessa tapauksessa epäinhimilliselle tai halventavalle kohtelulle, jos hänet luovutetaan tämän jäsenvaltion viranomaisille. Tällaisessa tilanteessa luovuttamista harkittaessa on konkreettisesti ja yksityiskohtaisesti arvioitava, onko olemassa painavia perusteita uskoa, että luovutettavaksi pyydetty henkilö altistuisi todelliselle vaaralle joutua perusoikeuskirjan 4 artiklassa tarkoitetun epäinhimillisen tai halventavan kohtelun kohteeksi kyseisen jäsenvaltion vankeusolosuhteiden vuoksi. Arvioinnin tulee perustua objektiivisiin, luotettaviin, tarkkoihin ja asianmukaisesti päivitettyihin tietoihin vankeusolosuhteista (tuomio Dorobantu, 54 ja 55 kohdat ja niissä viitattu oikeuskäytäntö). 9. Unionin tuomioistuin on lisäksi todennut, että siltä osin kuin perusoikeuskirjan 4 artiklaan sisältyvä oikeus vastaa Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 3 artiklassa taattua oikeutta, sen merkitys ja ulottuvuus ovat samat kuin ihmisoikeussopimuksessa (tuomio Dorobantu, 58 kohta). 16. Korkein oikeus katsoo, että Romanian vankeinhoitoviranomaisten selvitystä niistä vankiloista, joihin A luovutuspäätöksen jälkeen todennäköisesti sijoitettaisiin, sekä näiden vankiloiden olosuhteista voidaan pitää riittävänä. Selvityksen perusteella on siten mahdollista arvioida riittävän konkreettisesti ja yksityiskohtaisesti, onko A vaarassa joutua ihmisarvoa loukkaavan kohtelun kohteeksi vankeusolosuhteiden puutteellisuuden vuoksi.