The Deputy-Ombudsman issued two recommendations for recompense for violations of fundamental rights
The task of the Parliamentary Ombudsman is to ensure that the authorities and other persons performing a public task comply with the law and respect fundamental rights. The Parliamentary Ombudsman Act empowers the Ombudsman to recommend to a competent authority that the authority correct an error or rectify a shortcoming that has been observed.
According to the established decision policies, violations of fundamental rights must first and foremost be prevented, and if this is not possible, they must be rectified or corrected. If even this cannot be done, the violation must be recompensed.
To this end, Deputy-Ombudsman Mikko Sarja issued two recommendations for recompense in May.
Processing of an accident and incorrect appeal instructions
In the first case (2071/2025), the Accident Appeal Board had attached appeal instructions to its decision rejecting the complainant’s application for the deletion of a decision issued by an insurance institution and the related request for organising an oral hearing.
The complainant filed a complaint with the Insurance Court in accordance with the appeal in-structions. However, the Insurance Court did not investigate the complaint because it was not competent to do so and ordered the complainant to pay a court fee of EUR 270.
The Deputy-Ombudsman considered that the Board had acted unlawfully when issuing the appeal instructions in a situation where appealing was not possible. The actions resulted in the complainant’s case not being dealt with appropriately as required by section 21 of the Constitu-tion. In addition, the complainant suffered financial damage and was unduly directed to appeal without legal prerequisites.
Removing a stoma bag as a security check
In the second case (3456/2025), a prisoner was required to change their stoma bag in the presence of staff after returning to prison from a leave of absence and after an unsupervised meeting. The prison considered the measure to be a security check, the execution of which can be decided by a prison officer.
However, the Deputy-Ombudsman considered that changing a stoma bag is a procedure that interferes severely with personal integrity and is comparable to an intimate body search. This interpretation was also supported by the Judicial Unit of the Prison and Probation Service of Finland and the Ministry of Justice.
In the Imprisonment Act, the prerequisites for intimate body searches are significantly stricter than for security checks, and the decision on an intimate body search is made by the head of prison. It should therefore have been assessed whether the strict prerequisites laid down in the Act were met before the measure was taken. The Deputy-Ombudsman considered that the prisoner’s right to personal integrity and dignity was not realised because of the staff’s unlawful actions.
The Deputy-Ombudsman delivered his decision to the State Treasury for processing under the Act on State Indemnity Operations.
Deputy Ombudsman Mikko Sarja’s decisions no 2071/2025 and 3456/2025 have been published (in Finnish) online at www.oikeusasiamies.fi.
For more information, please contact Principal Legal Adviser Juha Niemelä (2071/2025), tel. +358 9 432 3356 and Senior Legal Adviser Matti Vartia (3456/2025), tel. +358 9 432 3378.