NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

allegations under Article 7 of the Convention and, in most of them, the Court did not find a violation of this provision. In the case of Radio France and Others v. France , 674 the Court did not find an infringement of Article 7 of the Convention; nevertheless, it set forth some important explanations concerning the subject. The Court noted that Article 7 § 1 of the Convention requires offences to be “clearly defined in law”. It has illuminated that this condition is satisfied where one can know from the wording of the relevant provision what acts and omissions will make a person liable. On the other hand, the Court stated that this Article does not outlaw the gradual clarification of the rules of criminal liability through judicial interpretation on a case by case basis. It is important that the resultant development should be consistent with the essence of the offence and could reasonably be foreseen. In the present case, an Article 34 NGO, the national radio broadcasting company, Radio France, lodged the application with the Court. The company complained that the scope of the criminal law had been over-extended and that the domestic courts had created a new category of offences by process of ‘analogy’. The Court did not agree and ruled that the offence in question, in the way in which it was applied, was ‘reasonably foreseeable’. 675 The issue of foreseeability of law was the subject matter of a few Finnish cases relating to the interpretation of the domestic penal law. There was again no violation of Article 7 of the Convention in the case of Reinboth and Others v. Finland . 676 One of the applicants in this case was the Finnish newspaper company, Helsingin Sanomat Oy. The applicants alleged that they had been convicted of a crime in breach of Article 7. The Court observed that both sides, the government and the applicants, agreed that the interference complained of was based in Finnish law, namely Chapter 24, section 8, of the Penal Code. The parties’ views, however, diverged as to foreseeability of the said provision.The Court noted that, at the time when the articles in question were published, five Finnish Supreme Court decisions concerning the interpretation of the provisions in question existed. All of the decisions concerned different aspects of private life, and, therefore, the possibility that a sanction would be imposed for invasion of private life was not unforeseeable. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the interference was ‘prescribed by law’ and found no infringement of Article 7 of the Convention. The Court came to the same conclusion in the case of Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland . 677 The applicant in the present case was, among others, the Finnish publishing company, Aller Julkaisut Oy. The circumstances of the case were comparable to the previous case and related to the interpretation of the foreseeability of the provisions of the Finnish Penal Code. There was also an identical situation with the Finnish publishing company “Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy” in the case of Tuomela and Others v. Finland , 678 where the Court again did not find an infringement of the right not to be punished without law.

Radio France, cited above.

674

Ibid. , § 41.

675

676 Reinboth and Others v. Finland , no. 30865/08, § 94, 25 January 2011. 677 Jokitaipale and Others v. Finland , no. 43349/05, § 82, 6 April 2010. 678 Tuomela and Others v. Finland , no. 25711/04, § 67, 6 April 2010.

123