This article covers same-offence-identification as singular or multiple offences (same-offence- identification) pertaining to stalking. Said doctrine is a subbranch of the concurrence of offences and there are no provisions in the law concerning this phenomenon. Instead, it falls onto the courts to decide whether a conduct is to be considered a singular or multiple breach(es) of a certain criminalization. This decision is steered by legal praxis, legal literature and the so called “natural point of view” and the criteria that compose it, which have been established in legal praxis. Weighting of said criteria varies depending on the offence in question and especially its wording. Occasionally, this resolution can have a significant influence on determining the severity of punishment presently or in the future as well as time-barring of the right to bring charges. Thus, the consideration of these viable consequences already in the phase of same-offence-identification can be deemed an interesting prospect. The focus of this article is on the analysis of same-offence- identification pertaining to stalking (CCoF 25:7 a) in light of inter alia the principles of legality and equality within criminal law; if these decisions can directly influence the determining of punishment either in the present or in the future, it is paramount that said decisions are made foreseeably and justly. Hence, the main research material comprises decisions made by the courts of appeal of Helsinki, Turku and Vaasa in cases of suspected stalking between 2015 and 2019. A scrutiny of this material indicates that same-offence-identification is incoherent when convicting individuals of stalking. Worryingly, same-offence-identification practices appear haphazard and seem to follow initial identifications made by prosecutors. To harmonize these decisions, it is proposed that said rulings be reasoned more regularly.
{"title":"Rikosten yksiköinnin ennakoitavuus vainoamista (RL 25:7 a) koskevassa oikeuskäytännössä","authors":"Robert Sandberg","doi":"10.33344/vol11ypp74-106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/vol11ypp74-106","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000\u0000\u0000This article covers same-offence-identification as singular or multiple offences (same-offence- identification) pertaining to stalking. Said doctrine is a subbranch of the concurrence of offences and there are no provisions in the law concerning this phenomenon. Instead, it falls onto the courts to decide whether a conduct is to be considered a singular or multiple breach(es) of a certain criminalization. This decision is steered by legal praxis, legal literature and the so called “natural point of view” and the criteria that compose it, which have been established in legal praxis. Weighting of said criteria varies depending on the offence in question and especially its wording.\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000Occasionally, this resolution can have a significant influence on determining the severity of punishment presently or in the future as well as time-barring of the right to bring charges. Thus, the consideration of these viable consequences already in the phase of same-offence-identification can be deemed an interesting prospect. The focus of this article is on the analysis of same-offence- identification pertaining to stalking (CCoF 25:7 a) in light of inter alia the principles of legality and equality within criminal law; if these decisions can directly influence the determining of punishment either in the present or in the future, it is paramount that said decisions are made foreseeably and justly. Hence, the main research material comprises decisions made by the courts of appeal of Helsinki, Turku and Vaasa in cases of suspected stalking between 2015 and 2019.\u0000A scrutiny of this material indicates that same-offence-identification is incoherent when convicting individuals of stalking. Worryingly, same-offence-identification practices appear haphazard and seem to follow initial identifications made by prosecutors. To harmonize these decisions, it is proposed that said rulings be reasoned more regularly.\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127519068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"From the Editors","authors":"K. Markkanen","doi":"10.33344/vol14iss1pp4-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/vol14iss1pp4-5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125333860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-06DOI: 10.33344/vol13iss2pp32-63
Niko Kauppi
ICO on lohkoketjuteknologiaan perustuva rahoituskeino, joka toteutetaan laskemalla liikkeelle lohkoketjuun kytketty instrumentti eli token. Tokeneihin voidaan lohkoketjuteknologian joustavuuden vuoksi kytkeä useita erilaisia ominaisuuksia, kuten osakkeille tyypillisiä ääni- ja omistusoikeuksia tai hyödykkeille tyypillisiä osto- ja käyttöoikeuksia. Tämä artikkeli tarkasteleekin ICO:ja ilmiönä hyödyke- ja sijoitusmuotoisen joukkorahoituksen rajapinnassa, joka on oikeudellisesti ratkaisevassa asemassa, sillä hyödykemuotoiseen joukkorahoitukseen sovelletaan kuluttajansuojalainsäädäntöä ja kauppalakia siinä missä sijoitusmuotoiseen joukkorahoitukseen sovelletaan rahoitusmarkkinasääntelyä, kuten joukkorahoituslakia ja arvopaperimarkkinalakia. Artikkelissa arvioidaan tokeneita erityisesti suhteessa arvopaperimarkkinaoikeudelliseen arvopaperikäsitteeseen ja havaitaan sijoitusmuotoisten tokenien täyttävän siirtokelpoisen arvopaperin määritelmän. Lisäksi artikkelissa nostetaan esille hyödykemuotoisiin tokeneihin liittyviä ongelmakohtia ja arvioidaan mahdollisuuksia näiden ongelmakohtien paikkaamiseen nykylainsäädännön puitteissa. Voimakkaasti EU-oikeuteen pohjautuvan tarkastelun ohella artikkeli nostaa esille kotimaiseen arvopaperikäsitteeseen liittyviä näkökohtia ja sisältää lyhyen katsauksen Yhdysvalloissa käytyyn aihepiiriä koskevaan keskusteluun.
{"title":"ICO rahoituskeinona","authors":"Niko Kauppi","doi":"10.33344/vol13iss2pp32-63","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/vol13iss2pp32-63","url":null,"abstract":"ICO on lohkoketjuteknologiaan perustuva rahoituskeino, joka toteutetaan laskemalla liikkeelle lohkoketjuun kytketty instrumentti eli token. Tokeneihin voidaan lohkoketjuteknologian joustavuuden vuoksi kytkeä useita erilaisia ominaisuuksia, kuten osakkeille tyypillisiä ääni- ja omistusoikeuksia tai hyödykkeille tyypillisiä osto- ja käyttöoikeuksia. Tämä artikkeli tarkasteleekin ICO:ja ilmiönä hyödyke- ja sijoitusmuotoisen joukkorahoituksen rajapinnassa, joka on oikeudellisesti ratkaisevassa asemassa, sillä hyödykemuotoiseen joukkorahoitukseen sovelletaan kuluttajansuojalainsäädäntöä ja kauppalakia siinä missä sijoitusmuotoiseen joukkorahoitukseen sovelletaan rahoitusmarkkinasääntelyä, kuten joukkorahoituslakia ja arvopaperimarkkinalakia. Artikkelissa arvioidaan tokeneita erityisesti suhteessa arvopaperimarkkinaoikeudelliseen arvopaperikäsitteeseen ja havaitaan sijoitusmuotoisten tokenien täyttävän siirtokelpoisen arvopaperin määritelmän. Lisäksi artikkelissa nostetaan esille hyödykemuotoisiin tokeneihin liittyviä ongelmakohtia ja arvioidaan mahdollisuuksia näiden ongelmakohtien paikkaamiseen nykylainsäädännön puitteissa. Voimakkaasti EU-oikeuteen pohjautuvan tarkastelun ohella artikkeli nostaa esille kotimaiseen arvopaperikäsitteeseen liittyviä näkökohtia ja sisältää lyhyen katsauksen Yhdysvalloissa käytyyn aihepiiriä koskevaan keskusteluun.","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"107 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113985106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP150–179
Juho Mäki-Lohiluoma
In 2016, the European Commission re-launched the project for a common consolidated corporate tax base with a two-step approach of two interconnected proposals of Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB) and Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). The proposals faced fierce opposition from several Member States, even if few oppose combatting tax avoidance and eliminating tax obstacles of cross-border trade in principle. This article examines the CCCTB proposal as a possible solution to the conflict between the internal market and national tax autonomy. When focusing strictly on the said proposals in their current form, analysis of their capabilities to solve the conflict seem dim. On the other hand, if the CC(C)TB is seen as a system of formula apportionment and as an evolving framework, which can be enacted in parts of the internal market through for example enhanced cooperation, the outcast looks more positive.
{"title":"The CCCTB initiative as a possible solution to the conflict between the internal market and national tax autonomy","authors":"Juho Mäki-Lohiluoma","doi":"10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP150–179","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP150–179","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 \u0000 \u0000In 2016, the European Commission re-launched the project for a common consolidated corporate tax base with a two-step approach of two interconnected proposals of Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB) and Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). The proposals faced fierce opposition from several Member States, even if few oppose combatting tax avoidance and eliminating tax obstacles of cross-border trade in principle. \u0000This article examines the CCCTB proposal as a possible solution to the conflict between the internal market and national tax autonomy. When focusing strictly on the said proposals in their current form, analysis of their capabilities to solve the conflict seem dim. On the other hand, if the CC(C)TB is seen as a system of formula apportionment and as an evolving framework, which can be enacted in parts of the internal market through for example enhanced cooperation, the outcast looks more positive. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114623289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP180–195
Aaron Fagerholm
In December 2017 the Assembly of the State Parties to the Rome Statute decided to activate the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. After the historical activation decision, crime of aggression is now one the four core crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction, alongside with genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. This article reviews how crime of aggression, often referred to as the supreme international crime, after decades of politically influenced negotiations finally found its place in the jurisdiction of the Court. In addition to the historical review of the establishment of jurisdiction, the article also describes the legal state that entered into force. Discussion has a focus in the extent of the Court’s jurisdiction, which, due to many compromises under the negotiation process is far from extensive.
{"title":"Katsaus kansainvälisen rikostuomioistuimen hyökkäysrikosta koskevan toimivallan aktivointiin","authors":"Aaron Fagerholm","doi":"10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP180–195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP180–195","url":null,"abstract":"In December 2017 the Assembly of the State Parties to the Rome Statute decided to activate the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. After the historical activation decision, crime of aggression is now one the four core crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction, alongside with genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. This article reviews how crime of aggression, often referred to as the supreme international crime, after decades of politically influenced negotiations finally found its place in the jurisdiction of the Court. In addition to the historical review of the establishment of jurisdiction, the article also describes the legal state that entered into force. Discussion has a focus in the extent of the Court’s jurisdiction, which, due to many compromises under the negotiation process is far from extensive.","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"323 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115343484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP56–91
Atlas Saarikoski
On 12 April 2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that refugee children have the right to be reunited with their parents when they enter a Member State as minors and attain the age of 18 during their asylum procedure. The ECJ judgment forced Finland to amend its Alien Act according to which unaccompanied children lose their right to be united with their parents if they turn 18 before the family reunification decision is made. According to the newly accepted Finnish government proposal, the right to family reunification of an unaccompanied child arriving to Finland will differ depending on the child’s residence permit. This article asks whether such practice is discriminatory. To answer the question, the article examines the requirement of minority set in Finnish Aliens Act in light of the recent practice of the ECJ and the ECtHR. The argument is that the legal status and the obstacles for enjoying family life of unaccompanied children with different residence permits are rather similar. Therefore, the different treatment enabled by the newly amended Aliens Act discriminates children with weaker residence permits who lose their right to family reunification without an acceptable reason. Unaccompanied children can only enjoy their right to family life through family reunification. Their vulnerable position and the State’s obligation to primarily consider the best interest of the child in all actions concerning children also play a decisive role. The article concludes that guaranteeing an effective right to family reunification for all unaccompanied children is most in line with fundamental rights, human rights and EU law.
{"title":"Ajan vääjäämätön kuluminen","authors":"Atlas Saarikoski","doi":"10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP56–91","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP56–91","url":null,"abstract":"On 12 April 2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that refugee children have the right to be reunited with their parents when they enter a Member State as minors and attain the age of 18 during their asylum procedure. The ECJ judgment forced Finland to amend its Alien Act according to which unaccompanied children lose their right to be united with their parents if they turn 18 before the family reunification decision is made. \u0000According to the newly accepted Finnish government proposal, the right to family reunification of an unaccompanied child arriving to Finland will differ depending on the child’s residence permit. This article asks whether such practice is discriminatory. To answer the question, the article examines the requirement of minority set in Finnish Aliens Act in light of the recent practice of the ECJ and the ECtHR. \u0000 \u0000 \u0000 \u0000The argument is that the legal status and the obstacles for enjoying family life of unaccompanied children with different residence permits are rather similar. Therefore, the different treatment enabled by the newly amended Aliens Act discriminates children with weaker residence permits who lose their right to family reunification without an acceptable reason. \u0000Unaccompanied children can only enjoy their right to family life through family reunification. Their vulnerable position and the State’s obligation to primarily consider the best interest of the child in all actions concerning children also play a decisive role. The article concludes that guaranteeing an effective right to family reunification for all unaccompanied children is most in line with fundamental rights, human rights and EU law.","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133533837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP34–55
Lauri Säilä
According to the Finnish Bankruptcy Act (120/2004, as amended) Chapter 1, Section 5, conditional claims are generally considered as acceptable claims in bankruptcy. However, these claims may sometimes contradict with primary bankruptcy law principles, if they seem to be only applicable in bankruptcy. In these situations, conditional claims can be considered to be caused by so called ipso facto clauses, meaning contracts (or single terms) that have the sole purpose of affecting the rights of debtors in case of a bankruptcy. Courts and legal scholars have consistently found such agreements unenforceable but the detailed functioning of the doctrine has long been quite unclear. In response, this article aims to clarify the assessment, giving main emphasis to the critical analysis of a fairly recent case, KKO 2016:100, resolved by the Supreme Court of Finland in December 2016. According to the case analysis, the scope of the clause is found to be the decisive factor, concluding a rather problematic rule that conditional claims may only be regarded as ipso facto clauses, if they apply in virtually no other situations than bankruptcy.
{"title":"Ehdolliset saatavat ja konkurssinvarainen sopiminen","authors":"Lauri Säilä","doi":"10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP34–55","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP34–55","url":null,"abstract":"According to the Finnish Bankruptcy Act (120/2004, as amended) Chapter 1, Section 5, conditional claims are generally considered as acceptable claims in bankruptcy. However, these claims may sometimes contradict with primary bankruptcy law principles, if they seem to be only applicable in bankruptcy. In these situations, conditional claims can be considered to be caused by so called ipso facto clauses, meaning contracts (or single terms) that have the sole purpose of affecting the rights of debtors in case of a bankruptcy. Courts and legal scholars have consistently found such agreements unenforceable but the detailed functioning of the doctrine has long been quite unclear. \u0000In response, this article aims to clarify the assessment, giving main emphasis to the critical analysis of a fairly recent case, KKO 2016:100, resolved by the Supreme Court of Finland in December 2016. According to the case analysis, the scope of the clause is found to be the decisive factor, concluding a rather problematic rule that conditional claims may only be regarded as ipso facto clauses, if they apply in virtually no other situations than bankruptcy.","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132374671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-06-01DOI: 10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP122–149
Saana Ruottu
During leniency procedure, the participating companies are obliged to give self-incriminating statements to antitrust authorities. There is a risk that those statements will be utilized as evidence in a court of law by a party who was damaged by the spoken trust arrangement. These actions for damages can impose heavy financial losses to the participating companies. Therefore, to secure the attractiveness of the leniency procedure, the self-incriminating documents should be exempted from the disclosure of evidence or discovery. The purpose of this article is to scrutinize the effects of the new EU directive 2014/104/EU on national regulations which are located in the Finnish Act of Antitrust Damages Actions (laki kilpailuoikeudellisista vahingonkorvauksista, 1077/2016), and review what this means for the incentives to participate in leniency procedure. The Directive made the rules of disclosure of leniency documentation more stringent in comparison with the preceding legislation. Therefore, the legal position of the participating company has weakened. These are the main findings.
{"title":"Leniency–asiakirjojen suoja Suomessa — erityisesti suhteessa kilpailuoikeudelliseen vahingonkorvaukseen","authors":"Saana Ruottu","doi":"10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP122–149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33344/VOL13ISS1PP122–149","url":null,"abstract":"During leniency procedure, the participating companies are obliged to give self-incriminating statements to antitrust authorities. There is a risk that those statements will be utilized as evidence in a court of law by a party who was damaged by the spoken trust arrangement. These actions for damages can impose heavy financial losses to the participating companies. Therefore, to secure the attractiveness of the leniency procedure, the self-incriminating documents should be exempted from the disclosure of evidence or discovery. The purpose of this article is to scrutinize the effects of the new EU directive 2014/104/EU on national regulations which are located in the Finnish Act of Antitrust Damages Actions (laki kilpailuoikeudellisista vahingonkorvauksista, 1077/2016), and review what this means for the incentives to participate in leniency procedure. The Directive made the rules of disclosure of leniency documentation more stringent in comparison with the preceding legislation. Therefore, the legal position of the participating company has weakened. These are the main findings.","PeriodicalId":215987,"journal":{"name":"Helsinki Law Review","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115426319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：