Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
KKO 1466/2017 KI-generiert

Supreme Court allows surrender under European Arrest Warrant despite defendant's absence from trial proceedings.

Geschäftsnummer KKO 1466/2017
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Finnland (FI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court of Finland allowed the surrender of the applicant to Greece based on a European Arrest Warrant. The applicant argued that surrender should be refused because the criminal proceedings were conducted while he was absent from Finland. The court ruled that the absence of the defendant does not constitute a valid ground for refusing execution of the warrant.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Art. 1 of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision; Art. 1 of the Act on the Execution of European Arrest Warrants: The absence of the requested person from the executing state does not preclude the execution of a European Arrest Warrant.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
European Arrest Warrant surrender proceedings defendant absence execution of warrant criminal law supreme court ruling international cooperation Recht auf Selbstbestimmung

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Art. 1 of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision
Act on the Execution of European Arrest Warrants
KI-generiert
kko-other_2020_1471
Supreme Court allows transfer to Sweden but rejects condition of returning to Finland for sentence execution.
kko-other_2016_769
Supreme Court allows surrender refusal based on EU law discretionary grounds regarding child's best interests.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2025:68
Supreme Court suspends extradition to Poland pending final domestic criminal trial to ensure fair trial rights.
kko-precedent_2010_59
Supreme Court allows secondary charge of fraud in extradition case where primary charge was insufficiently prepared. The court ruled that the secondary charge of fraud was admissible despite the extradition order covering all crimes, as the primary charge did not adequately prepare the defense for the secondary allegations. The decision clarifies that a secondary charge can be examined even if the extradition request covered all crimes, provided the defense was not prejudiced by the initial charge's scope. The court held that the secondary charge was admissible because the primary charge did not sufficiently prepare the defense for the secondary allegations, despite the extradition order covering all crimes. The court decided that the secondary charge was admissible because the primary charge did not sufficiently prepare the defense for the secondary allegations, despite the extradition order covering all crimes. The court decided that the secondary charge was admissible because the primary charge did not sufficiently prepare the defense for the secondary allegations, despite the extradition order covering all crimes.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2022:29
Supreme Court allows extradition to Poland and detention pending transfer, rejecting proportionality as a ground for refusal.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

A oli pyydetty luovutettavaksi eurooppalaisen pidätysmääräyksen perusteella Suomesta Kreikkaan vapausrangaistuksen täytäntöönpanoa varten.

Kysymys muun muassa siitä, oliko luovuttamisesta kieltäydyttävä sillä perusteella, että rangaistus oli tuomittu A:n ollessa poissa asian käsittelystä.