Korkein oikeus; 2011-06-10; A, Finnish Government; KKO:2011:40
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FI:KKO:2011:40
Date: 2011-06-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Finland

82011FI0610(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regarded a prosecution brought before the Finnish Court of Appeal against a judge A (hereinafter the “defendant”) for violation of his official duty.
In the dispute, a Spanish company filed an action in a Finnish District Court against KL and SL. According to the application, KL and SL were domiciled in Belgium. The defendant, being the judge of this Finnish District Court, sent the summons there. The letter had returned to the District Court undelivered with the remark that the recipients did not reside at the indicated address. Other attempts to deliver the summons to KL and SL failed, but the defendant ordered a hearing in the case in their absence. Subsequently, the defendant issued a judgment in favour of the Spanish company, in which it ordered KL and SL to pay a debt. Based on that judgment, the Spanish company applied to the Spanish court for the enforcement of the Finnish judgment, which affected the property of KL in Spain. Only after KL and SL started their actions in the dispute. KL demanded compensation from the Finnish State for damages suffered by the enforcement of judgment in Spain.
The Court of Appeal cited Article 2(1), Article 3(2) and mainly Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), according to which “where a defendant domiciled in one Member State is sued in a court of another Member State and does not enter an appearance, the court shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction is derived from the provisions of this Regulation”. Consequently, the Finnish District Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the dispute concerning the claim against KL and SL, both residing in Belgium, to which they did not respond. Therefore, based on the breach of the defendant’s statutory duties caused by the failure to seek clarification of the address of KL and SL (through either Belgian authorities or Population Register) and by the failure to investigate the jurisdiction in compliance with Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, the Court of Appeal found the defendant guilty of negligent violation of official duty under Chapter 40 Section 10 of the Rikoslaki (hereinafter “the Criminal Code”). However, since the case was a minor debt claim and with regard to other circumstances in the case, the Court of Appeal left the sentence without penalty according to Chapter 6, Section 12(3) of the Criminal Code considering the defendant’s fault as minor. Regarding the claims concerning civil law, the Finnish State was ordered to pay damages to KL and SL of EUR 3_063.14.
Both the defendant and KL appealed this decision to the Korkein oikeus (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). The defendant demanded the rejection of the charges, whilst KL demanded that he be sentenced with a penalty and claimed that the State be ordered to compensate him by EUR 71_159.79.
The Supreme Court assessed all materials in the case-file and accepted the reasoning of the Court of Appeal regarding its explanation of the violation of official duties. However, the Supreme Court asserted that the fairness of proceedings is a fundamental principle of jurisdiction, and that procedural errors, in principle, cannot be regarded as minor if there has been a breach of the clear rules of the procedure. Because of the erroneous procedure, KL and SL underwent an enforcement procedure which affected their property. Therefore, the Supreme Court presented the opinion that there was no reason for leaving the defendant without penalty. The fair punishment for his action would be a warning. Finally, the Supreme Court held no grounds for the State to be obliged to pay a higher amount of compensation as calculated by the Court of Appeal.
In conclusion, the judgement of the Court of Appeal was ordered to be amended only as follows: The defendant was sentenced with a penalty for negligent violation of official duty. In all other aspects the judgment of the Court of Appeal was upheld.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.