Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 769/2016 AI generated

Supreme Court allows surrender refusal based on EU law discretionary grounds regarding child's best interests.

Case Number KKO 769/2016
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Finland allowed the applicant's request to refuse surrender to a third country. The lower court had found a discretionary ground for refusal under EU law concerning the child's best interests. The court upheld this decision, confirming that such grounds constitute valid reasons to deny extradition under the relevant EU framework.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 17(1) of the Return Directive; Art. 2(1) of the Return Directive: The court established that discretionary grounds for refusal based on the best interests of the child constitute a valid basis for denying surrender under EU law.

Keywords

AI generated
EU Return Directive discretionary refusal grounds child best interests surrender refusal third country expulsion

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 17(1) of the Return Directive
Art. 2(1) of the Return Directive
AI generated
kko-other_2020_1471
Supreme Court allows transfer to Sweden but rejects condition of returning to Finland for sentence execution.
kko-precedent_1997_149
Supreme Court allows prosecution for pre-extradition crimes when extradition is for sentence execution under Nordic law.
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.
kko-precedent_2012_87
Supreme Court of Finland allows temporary extradition to Sweden pending pending Finnish trial completion.
kko-precedent_2014_29
Supreme Court allows detention of Swedish citizen for organizing illegal entry based on flight risk despite residence abroad.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Käräjäoikeus oli katsonut, että luovuttamiselle oli EU-luovuttamislain 6 §:n 8 kohdan mukainen harkinnanvarainen kieltäytymisperuste. Kysymys luovuttamisen edellytyksistä.