Global Freedom of Expression

Español

Karttunen v. Finland

Closed Mixed Outcome

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Pamphlets / Posters / Banners
  • Date of Decision
    May 10, 2011
  • Outcome
    Inadmissible, Criminal Sanctions
  • Case Number
    App. No. 1655/10 (2011)
  • Region & Country
    Finland, Europe and Central Asia
  • Judicial Body
    European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law
  • Themes
    Indecency / Obscenity
  • Tags
    Children, Sexuality

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) found inadmissible the appeal of an artist seeking to overturn the domestic court’s confiscation of pictures of young women in sexual poses as an art project.


Facts

The applicant was Ms. Ulla Annikki Karttunen. The applicant was an artist and put on display at a public art gallery hundreds of photographs of young women in sexual poses. The photos were seized by Finland’s police and a prosecutor pressed charges against the applicant. A District Court in Finland found the applicant guilty of possessing and distributing obscene pictures involving children. No sanctions were imposed, but all the photos were confiscated. The applicant appealed to Finland’s Appellate Court claiming “that her work as an artist had to be equated with the work of a journalist or scientist, and that she had therefore had a justification for the possession and the distribution of the pictures in question.” Para. 7. That Court disagreed and affirmed the District Court. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court which refused the appeal. The applicant then lodged the present application before the ECtHR.


Decision Overview

The decision of the ECtHR was unanimous. Nicolas Bratza presided as president of the Court.

The applicant argued that, by confiscating the images, the Finnish government had violated her right to artistic expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The Court agreed that there was a violation of Article 10. However, the violation fit two exceptions under that Article: it was prescribed by law and it pursued a legitimate aim. The Court next turned to whether this restriction was necessary in a democratic society. The Court found that this restriction was necessary to protect the morals and rights of minors or potential minors involved in the case at hand. Moreover, the District Court recognized the applicants’ intentions were good and therefore only confiscated the photos and did not impose sanctions. Therefore, the Court deemed the appeal inadmissible.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Mixed Outcome

This case does not expand or contract expression. It upholds the principle that obscene speech does not warrant protection of Article 10 and bans the use of pictures depicting child pornography-like imagery.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

Related International and/or regional laws

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Fin., Constitution of Finland, art. 10
  • Fin., Penal Code Ch. 17

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback