CASE OF PENTIKÄINEN v. FINLAND
No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano
5. The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Helsinki. 6. The applicant is a photographer and journalist for the weekly magazine Suomen Kuvalehti. On 9 September 2006 he was sent by his employer to take photographs of the demonstration which was being held in protest against the on-going Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM) in Helsinki. The demonstration was an exceptionally large one in the Finnish context and all media followed it closely. 7. Before the demonstration took place, on 30 August 2006, the Helsinki Police Department was alerted by the Finnish Security Intelligence that the upcoming “Smash ASEM” demonstration would be a hostile one and would not aim to highlight any clear political message. The Police Department did not manage to establish contact with the organisers of the demonstration. 8. The demonstration was to start at 6 p.m. on 9 September 2006. A separate area was reserved for the representatives of the media so that they could freely and safely observe the situation and take photographs on the demonstration place. 9. At the start of the demonstration, bottles, stones and jars filled with paint were thrown at public and policemen. Some demonstrators kicked and hit police officers. The police announced several times over loudspeakers that a peaceful demonstration was allowed on the spot but that the crowd was not allowed to demonstrate by marching. The crowd tried to break through the police defence line. Relying on all the information in their possession, the police decided to interrupt the demonstration which had now turned violent. The police announced over loudspeakers that the demonstration was stopped and that the crowd should leave the scene. This announcement was repeated several times. Hundreds of people then left voluntarily. 10. After the escalation of violence, the police considered that the event had turned into a riot and decided to seal off the demonstration area. First only a few people were allowed to leave the area. Then the police established several exit routes and people were allowed to leave. When leaving, they were asked to show ID and their belongings were checked. 11. However, the core group of around 20 people remained in one of the demonstration spots, including the applicant and a former Member of Parliament, all of whom had been asked to leave the scene, failing which they would be arrested. According to the applicant, he thought that this request only applied to the demonstrators. He claims that sometime later he indicated to the police that he was a representative of the media. He further claims that he was wearing his press badge and that a police officer accepted this. After having called his colleague, the applicant decided to stay until the situation was over. A short time later the police arrested the demonstrators. When leaving the scene the applicant was also arrested. The police arrested altogether 121 persons in the context of the demonstration. 12. The applicant was detained from 9 September at 9.26 p.m. until 10 September at 3.05 p.m., that is, 17.5 hours. 13. On 23 May 2007 the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for disobeying the police (niskoittelu poliisia vastaan, tredska mot polis) under Chapter 16, section 4, subsection 1, of the Penal Code. 14. On 17 December 2007 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) found the applicant guilty of disobeying the police but did not impose any penalty on him. The court found it established that the applicant had been aware of the orders of the police to leave the scene but had decided to ignore them. It appeared from the witness statements given before the court that the applicant had not told or indicated the arresting police officer that he was a journalist. According to the arresting officer, this fact only became known to him when the relevant magazine appeared. It appeared also from the witness statements that two other photographers, who had been in the sealed-off area, had been able to leave the scene without consequences just before the applicant was arrested. The court found it further established that the police orders had been clear and that they had clearly concerned everybody. The court balanced the Article 10 right against other interests, finding that the police had had the right to ask the applicant, among others, including the former Member of Parliament, to leave the scene. The interference with the applicant’s right to exercise his freedom of expression had thus been based on law, and it had fulfilled the legitimate aim of preventing disorder. The interference had been necessary in a democratic society in order to put an end to a violent situation. However, relying on Chapter 6, section 12, of the Penal Code, no penalty was imposed as the offence was excusable. The court found that the applicant who, as a journalist, was confronted with contradictory expectations, stemming from obligations imposed on the one hand by the police and on the other by his employer. 15. By letter dated 23 January 2008 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), claiming that the District Court should have dismissed the charges against him. He argued that his arrest and the fact that he was found guilty were against the Constitution and Article 10 of the Convention. The applicant was a journalist and that he had not participated in the demonstration or caused any disorder. The District Court had not reasoned why his arrest and conviction were “necessary in a democratic society” and had thereby failed to justify the interference. 16. On 30 April 2009 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal without giving any further reasons. 17. By letter dated 24 June 2009 the applicant further appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before the Court of Appeal. 18. On 1 September 2009 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.