Bayefsky.com

The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Jurisprudence

CCPR - Finland

List of all final views

Case Name Comm Number Date Articles Outcome
Hartikainen v. Finland 40/1978 09 April 1981 18(4) No Violation
Hertzberg et al. v. Finland 61/1979 (R.14/61) 02 April 1982 19(2, 3) No Violation
Muhonen v. Finland 89/1981 08 April 1985 14(6) No Violation
Vuolanne v. Finland 265/1987 07 April 1989 2(1, 3), 7, 9(4), 10(1) Violation
Torres v. Finland 291/1988 02 April 1990 7, 9(4) Violation
Järvinen v. Finland 295/1988 25 July 1990 8, 26 No Violation
Karttunen v. Finland 387/1989 23 October 1992 14(1) Violation
Kivenmaa v. Finland 412/1990 31 March 1994 15, 19(2), 21 Violation
Peltonen v. Finland 492/1992 21 July 1994 12(2, 3) No Violation
Länsman et al. v. Finland 511/1992 26 October 1994 27 No Violation
Länsman et al. v. Finland 671/1995 30 October 1996 27 No Violation
Äärelä and Näkkäläjärvi v. Finland 779/1997 24 October 2001 2, 14(1), 27 Violation
Olavi v. Finland 1076/2002 15 March 2005 14(1), 26 No Violation
Länsman III v. Finland 1023/2001 17 March 2005 27 No Violation
Paadar v. Findland 2102/2011 26 March 2014 14, 26, 27 No Violation

Information in this section of Bayefsky.com is as of May 2018. To update use the UN website search engine here.

CERD, CCPR, CESCR, CEDAW, CAT, CRC, CMW, CRPD and CED all have optional complaint mechanisms, whereby an individual may complain to the respective treaty body that his or her rights under the treaty have been violated. The CMW complaint mechanism is not yet in force.

Included in this section are:

  1. requests made by the treaty body for interim measures
  2. decisions to deal jointly with cases
  3. admissibility decisions (normally decisions determining a complaint is admissible are not issued separately and hence this category involves decisions in which complaints are found to be inadmissible)
  4. final views.

Information on follow-up of final Views where a violation has been found is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".