Parliamentary Ombudsman Jari Råman considers that the Helsinki Police Department acted incorrectly when it failed to issue written administrative decisions concerning the ending of Elokapina demonstrations in May and June 2025 and did not provide the decisions to the persons who requested them. According to the Ombudsman, a decision to end a demonstration is an administrative decision subject to appeal and must be issued in writing even when, due to the urgency of the situation, the decision is initially made orally.

The matter came before the Ombudsman following a complaint. The complainants criticised the police procedure in situations where demonstrations had been ordered to end, but the police had not issued written decisions or served them on the complainants despite their requests. The Helsinki Police Department justified its procedure, among other things, on the grounds that the demonstrations had no identifiable organiser who, in the Police Department’s view, would have had the right to appeal against the decision.

The Ombudsman notes that a decision to end a demonstration constitutes a significant interference with the freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution and is therefore, by its nature, an administrative decision subject to appeal. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, such a decision must be issued in writing. Issuing a written decision does not require a request by a party, nor is it a matter within the authority’s discretion.

The decision emphasises that ending a demonstration restricts the freedom of assembly not only of the organiser but also of those participating in the demonstration. The police may not refrain from issuing or serving a decision on the grounds that they themselves consider that a person has no right of appeal. The final assessment of the right of appeal rests with the courts.

The decision also addresses the service of decisions. According to the Ombudsman, the police should primarily serve the decision on known persons for whose legal protection the decision may be relevant. A written decision must also be provided to a person requesting it, at least when that person claims that the decision directly affected their right to participate in the demonstration concerned. If the decision concerns a large or not previously identifiable group of persons, service by public notice in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act may be used.

The Ombudsman considered the procedure of the Helsinki Police Department to be reprehensible. In his view, the seriousness of the criticism is increased by the fact that the Police Department’s attention has already been drawn to some of the same issues in previous decisions of the Ombudsman. As the matter may concern all police departments, he also requested that the National Police Board assess what measures the decision calls for and, at the same time, consider whether it should issue uniform guidance to police departments on the drafting, service and registration of decisions concerning the ending of demonstrations.

Decision EOAK/4510/2025 has been published on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s website, www.oikeusasiamies.fiLink to an external website.

For further information, please contact Senior Legal Adviser Anu Lempiäinen, tel. +358 9 432 3369.