EMBASSY OF FINLAND
THE HAGUE
HM5013-31
VERBAL NOTE
The Embassy of Finland presents its compliments to the Registrar of the International
Court of Justice and has the honour, with reference to the letter of the Registrar, dated 20
October 2008, conceming the request for an advisory opinion on the question of the
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of lndependence by the
Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, has the honour to submit the
statement of Finland. The signed original copy will be delivered early next week.
Due to time constraints the statement is submitted in English only. The Embassy regrets
that it is not in a position to file the statement in·both of the official languages of the Court.
The Embassy of Finland avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Registrar of the
International Court of Justice the assurance of its highest consideration.
16 April, 2009
Attached:
- Statement of Finland (30 copies)
- CD ROM containing the Statement of Finland
Mr. Philippe Couvreur
The Registrar of the International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
2517KJ The Hague INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE UNILATERAL
DÉCLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE BY THE PROVISIONAL
INSTITUTIONS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT OF KOSOVO
(REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION)
STATEMENT OF FINLAND
APRIL 2009 2
1. The Object of the Advisory Opinion Requested from the Court
1.On 8 October2008the UnitedNations(UN)GeneralAssemblyadoptedresolution
A/RES/63/3,inwhich it requestedthe InternationalCourtof Justice,in accordancewith
Article 65 of the Statuteof the Court,to renderan advisoryopinionon thefollowingquestion:
"ls the unilateraldeclarationof independenceby the ProvisionalInstitutionsof Self
Governmentof Kosovoin accordancewith internationallaw?"Theformulationof the request
callsfor two comments.
2. First,althoughthe requestisformulatedto dealwiththe Iegality,underinternationallaw,
of actiontaken bythe Assemblyof Kosovo,the interestof the GeneralAssemblymustlie in
determiningthe legal consequences of the declarationof independence.Nothingcan be
said aboutthe characterof thedeclarationunderinternationalIawthatwouldnot
simultaneouslybe an answerto the question:does it conferon Kosovothe status of an
independi::mSt tate?A secondproblemconcernsthe absencein internationallawof specified
criteriaon howstatehoodmaybe conferredto an entity. ln the courseof history,Stateshave
gainedtheir independencein awidevarietyof ways, ofteninvolvingstatementsby political
leaders,groupsof leaders,provincialorgans,or assembliesofverydifferingl<inds.
Examiningthose cases ex post facto does not rendersufficientbasisfor drawinginferences
regardingthe presenceof a ruleof customaryinternationallawof a veryspecificcharacter
about criteriathat suchstatementswould haveto fulfil in orderto contributeto the
emergenceof statehood.
3. This does not,however,meanthat internationallawwould havenothingto say aboutsuch
statementsor declarations.Theymustbe examinedon a casebycasebasisand by
referenceto the general lawconcerningstatehood.A declarationof independenceinvolves
a claim aboutthe exerciseof sovereigntyin a territory.ln accordancewiththe well-known
formula in the Island of Palmas case(1928)sovereignty"inthe relationsbetweenStates
signifies independence.lndependencein regardto a portionofthe globeisthe rightto
exercisetherein,to the exclusionof anyotherState,thefunctionsof a State." 1
4. The possessionof sovereignty(andhencestatehood)hasbeenunderstoodto requirethe
presenceof an "animus"anda "corpus"- that is to say,"intentionandwillto act as a
2
sovereignandsomeactualexerciseor displayof such authority". As statedin OpinionNo. 1
of the ArbitrationCommissionof the Conferenceon Yugoslavia,the existenceof a State (i.e.
1
2Islandof Palmascase,Il UNRIM, at838.
LegalStatusof EasternGreen/and,Permanentof Courtof InternationalJusticeSerA/8 53,at46. 3
the presenceof "animus"and"corpus")is "a questionof fact".3Thedeterminationof the legal
effectof the unilateraldeclarationof independencemustthusbe doneby examiningthe
factualcircumstancesinwhichit was given.DoestheAssemblyof Kosovovalidlyexpress
thewill to exercisesovereigntyanddoes it representthe peopleandthe territory?
2. TheLawonSelf-Determination
5. The mostfrequentlyinvokedlegalprinciplein connectionwith the creationof Statessince
1945has beenthe rightof self-determination(Articles1(2),55, 73 and76(b)of the UN
Charter).Mostrecently,in the East Timor Case (1995)the ICJstatedthatthe rightto self
determinationwas an essentialprincipleof contemporaryinternationallawthat hadan erga
4
omnes character(i.e.nostate can ignoreit). As iswell-known,self-determinationmaybe
realisedin differentways, onlyone of whichinvolvesthe exerciseof independentstatehood
(externalself-determination).The usual- andindeedwidelypracticed- meansof its
realisationisthroughthe establishmentof a minorityor autonomyregimewithin an existing
State.That self-determinationshouldnotviolateterritorialintegritywasforcefullyiteratedby
5
the UNGeneralAssemblyin the FriendlyRelationsDeclarationin 1970. ltwas reaffirmed
by OpinionNo.2 of theArbitrationCommissionof the Conferenceon Yugoslavia:"theright
to self-determinationmust not involvechangesto existingfrontiersatthe time of
6
independence(uti possidetisjuris) exceptwherethe Statesconcernedagreeotherwise".
6. ln post-1945law,self-determinationis accompaniedby a strongruleinfavourof the
territorialintegrityof existingStates.However,althoughthe nexusis strong,it is not and has
neverbeenabsolute.The casesof Namibia(1990)andEastTimor(2002)exemplify
situationswhereindependenceemergesasthe onlyviableform of self-determinationin
responseto continuedoppressionbythe territorialStateandno expectationthat internai
self-determinationcouldbe meaningfullyrealisedin theforeseeablefuture.
7. Thatterritorialintegritymaybeoverriddenin exceptionalcaseswas affirmedexpressly,
andwith particularrelevanceto the situationin the areaofformerYugoslavia,in the early
3
ConferenceonYugoslavia,ArbitrationCommittee,OpinionNo.1,XXXIILM(1992),at 1495.TheYugoslav
Crisiswasmainlydealtwith attheinternationallevelthroughthe ConferenceonYugoslavia,establishedon27
August1991bythe EuropeanCommunities.TheConferenceonYugoslaviaestablishedanArbitration
Commissionchairedby RobertBadinter,to adviseit onthelegalissuesinrelationtothecrisis.
4EastTimor(Portugalv.Australia),Judgment,I.C.J.Reports1995,at 102,para.29.
5UNGARes.2625(1970),24 October1970,"Nothingintheforegoingparagraphsshallbeconstruedas
authorizingorencouraginganyactionwhichwoulddismemberorimpair,totallyorinpart,theterritorialintegrity
or politicalunityofsovereignandindependentStatesconductingthemselvesincompliancewiththe principleof
equalrightsandself-determinationofpeoplesasdescribedaboveandthuspossessedofa government
representingthewholepeoplebelongingtotheterritorywithoutdistinctionasto race,creedor colour."
6ConferenceonYugoslavia,ArbitrationCommission,OpinionNo.2,XXXIILM(1992),at 1498. 4
locus c/assicusbythe Commissionof Juristson the AalandIslands questionin 1920.Having
affirmedthatthe rightof self-determinationmaynot normallybe invokedagainstexisting
States,the Commissionheldthatwherethe boundariesof existingStateshavebecome
contested,as in the contextof a revolutionor a majorwar, self-determinationmayemerge
as a criterionfor futureterritorialsettlement:
"Fromthe pointof viewof bathdomesticand internationallaw,theformation,
transformationanddismembermentof Statesasa resultof revolutionsandwars
createsituationsoffact which,to a largeextent,cannot be metbythe applicationof
the normalrulesof positivelaw [...].
Undersuchcircumstances,the principleof self-determinationof peoplesmaybe
calledinto play. Newaspirationsof certainsectionsof a nation,which aresometimes
basedon oldtraditionsor on a commonlanguageand civilisation,maycorneto the
surfaceand produceeffectswhichmustbetakeninto accountinthe interestsof the
internaiand externalpeaceof nations." 7
8. lt hassometimesbeensuggestedthatthe widespreadapplicationofthe principleof self
determinationduringthe decolonizationprocesswas a "specialcase"andthat afterthe end
of the processthe doorto statehoodbythismeanshadbeenclosed.This iswrong.Notonly
wouldit createan arbitrarydistinctionbetweenentitiesseekingself-determinationandthe
various"situationsoffact" in whichsuch claimsare made,it also misunderstandsthe
rationaleof the principleitself,as expressedinthe AalandIslands caseand later.This
rationalewasechoedin the FriendlyRelationsDeclarationof 1970,in the paragraphquoted
above, whichreferredto Statesthat conductthemselvesin compliancewith the relevant
principlesandpossessa governmentrepresentingthewhole peoplebelongingto the
territory.lt was alsoarticulatedin the decisionofthe SupremeCourtof Canadain 1998
concerningthe right of Quebecto unilaterallysecedefrom Canada.The Courtconcluded
that internationallawgrants a rightto secessionwhere"a people"is subjectto alien
subjugation,dominationor exploitation;andpossiblywhere"a people"is deniedany
9
meaningfulexerciseof its rightto self-determinationwithinthe stateof whichitforms part".
9. The rationaleinvokedin thesecasespointsto a distinctionbetweennormalsituationsand
those of abnormality,or rupture,situationsof revolution,war, aliensubjugationorthe
absenceof a meaningfulprospectfor afunctioninginternaiself-determinationregime.The
FirstWorldWar andthe ensuingrevolutionsconstitutedsuch an "abnormality"inthe Aaland
Islands case,just like"colonialism"in the 1950sand 1960s,or the prolongedwar in the
territoryof theformerYugoslaviain the 1990s.ln suchsituations,to relyon the principleof
7
Reportofthe InternationalCommitteeofJuristsentrustedbythe Councilof the Leagueof Nationswiththetask
of givingan advisoryopinionuponthe legalaspectsoftheAalandIslandsquestion,Leagueof NationsO.J.
8pec.Suppl.No.3, (October1920),at 6.
9Supranote5. th
Referencere Secessionof Quebec(1998),161D.L.R(4 )385(S.C.C.)August20, 1998. 5
10
"stàbilityandfinalityof boundaries", for example,or utipossidetis,wouldbe to putthe cart
beforethe horse:there is littleor no stabilityof boundariesto be protected.lnstead,the very
question"whopossesses"or "whichboundary"hasbecomepartof the controversyand
cannotthereforebe usedas a criterionfor resolvingit.
1O.This is preciselythesituationinwhich Kosovofound itselfin duringthe dissolutionofthe
Socialist FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia(SFRY). The dismembermentof the SFRYhad
even beenformallyrecognisedbythe UN.That the SFRYhadceasedto exist ledthe UNto
concludethatthe FederalRepublicof Yugoslavia(FRY,consistingof Serbiaand
Montenegro)shouldapplyfor newmembershipin the UN.Sincethen,the FRYwas
transformedinto a StateunionbetweenSerbiaandMontenegrowiththe latterdeclaring
independencein 2006.The questionof the statusof Kosovohad notbeenaddressed,let
alone resolved.When thatquestionfinallyemergedatthe internationallevelin 1997,it had
alreadybecomecontentiousbetweenSerbiaand Kosovo.Fiveaspectsinthe factual
backgroundof the Declarationof lndependencejustify regardingthesituationas "abnormal":
a) Violent break-up of the SFRY. Kosovohas beenatthe coreof the political
upheavalthat ledto the creationof severalindependentstatesin the areaof the
SocialistFederalRepublicof Yugoslavia.The decisionby Serbiato curtailthe
internaiself-determinationof Kosovoin late 1980swas closelyconnectedwith
the policythat ledto theviolentbreak-upof thefederation.While the dissolution
was completedin 1992in the sensethatthe SFRYhadceasedto exist, the 12
situationremainedviolentandhighlyunstable.The Miloseviéregimecontinuedto
pursuea deliberatepolicyof repressionandpersecutionwith regardto Kosovo,
seekingto ensurethatthe ethnieAlbanianmajorityin Kosovobecomepolitically
powerless.
b) Unilateral changes in Kosovo's constitutional status. Kosovo'sconstitutional
status,whichunderthe 1974 Constitutionof the SFRYwas in manyrespects
comparableto thatofthe republics,was diminishedto "territorialautonomy"
1°Caseconcerningthe Templeof PreahVihear(Cambodiav. Thailand),Merits,Judgmento15 June1962,
I.C.J.Reports1962,at34-35.
11Hereis howthe CommissionofJuristsdescribedthesituationwhereself-determinareceivesan
independentrole:"iftheessentialbasisoftheserules, thatisto say,territorialsovereignty,is lacking, either
becausethe Stateis notyetfullyformedorbecauseit isundergoingtransformationordissolution,thesituationis
obscureanduncertainfroma legalpointofview,andwillnotbecomeclearuntiltheperiodof developmentis
completedandadefinitenewsituation,whichisnormalin respecttoterritorialsovereignty,hasbeenestablished.
Thistransitionfromaefactosituationto a normalsituationdejure ...tendsto leadto readjustmentsbetween
the membersof theinternationalcommunityandto alterationsintheirterritorialandlegalstatus;consequently,
12istransitionintereststhecommunityofstatesverydeeplybothfrompoliticalandlegalstandpoints".t6.
ConferenceforPeaceinYugoslavia,ArbitrationCommission,OpinionNo.8,XXXIILM(1992),at 1523. 6
throughchangesin Serbia'sconstitutionin 1989 and 1990. The statusof Kosovo
Albaniansas a "nationality"was reducedto beinga "nationalminority".Througha
wholeseriesof unilateralactions,SerbiadeniedKosovorepresentative
governmentandeffectiveparticipationin decision-making.
c) Persecution of Kosovo Albanians in 1989-1999. ln the period1989-1999 a
consistentpatternof persecution,serioushumanrightsviolationsandcrimes
againsthumanitywere directedat KosovoAlbanians.Theseculminatedin the
springof 1999 in massivedisplacementof peoplein andfrom Kosovo.A
referencecan be made,interalia,to the Milutinoviéet alJudgementof 2009,
which pointsto excessiveand indiscriminateforce usedbythe forces ofthe FRY
andSerbiain 1998, andof a broadcampaignof violencedirectedagainstthe
KosovoAlbaniancivilianpopulationduringthe courseofthe NATOair-strikes,
conductedbyforcesunderthe contraiof the FRYandSerbianauthorities. 13
d) The international recognition of the special nature of the situation. The
abnormalcharacterof the situationwas recognizedby UNSecurityCouncil
resolution1244 (1999) that establishedan internationalsecuritypresencein
Kosovo,requiringthatthe FRYputan immediateandverifiableendto violence
and repressionin Kosovo,and begina completewithdrawalfrom Kosovoof all its
military,policeand paramilitaryforces.The SecurityCouncildeterminedthatthe
situationinthe regioncontinuedto constitutea threatto internationalpeaceand
securityandthat KosovoAlbanianswereto be protectedagainstviolationsbythe
agentsofthe FRY.
e) Failure by Serbian authorities to provide a credible framework for internai
self-determination. UNSecurityCouncilResolution 1244 (1999) left openthe
questionof thefinal statusof Kosovowhilelaunchinga negotiationprocesswith
a viewto agreeingonthe questioninthe future.The politicalprocessopenedby
the resolutiondid not,however,bringabouta negotiatedsolution.By 2007, its
potentialwasexhausted.The SpecialEnvoyofthe UNSecretary-General
concludedthatthe partieswere not ableto reachan agreementon Kosovo's
future statusandthat no amountof additionaltalks,whatevertheformat,would
overcomethe impasse."Pretendingotherwiseanddenyingor delayingresolution
13InternationalCriminalTribunalfortheformerYugoslavia,Prosecutorv.Milutinoviéetal.,Judgementof26
February2009. 7
of Kosovo'sstatusriskschallengingnotonly its ownstabilitybutthe peaceand
stabilityof the regionas a whole."The onlyviableoptionfor Kosovo,accordingto
the SpecialEnvoy,was independence,to besupervisedfor an initialperiodby
the internationalcommunity. 14
11.Thesefive aspectsofthe situationin Kosovoduringthe period 1989-2007 createthe
factualbackgroundagainstwhichthe legaleffectsof the Declarationof lndependencemust
be determined.The 1921 Commissionof Rapporteursthat addressedtheAaland Islands
questionobservedthat self-determinationmay be realizedthoughsecessionwhenthe
prospectsof its credibleinternairealizationare no longerpresent:
"Theseparationof a minorityfromthe Stateofwhichit forms a partand its
incorporationin anotherStatecanonlybe consideredas an altogetherexceptional
solution,a lastresortwhenthe Statela15seitherthe Willor the powerto enactand
applyjust andeffectiveguarantees".
12.This isthe situationwherethe peopleof Kosovofoundthemselvesatthe time of the
unilateralDeclarationof lndependence.The actsof the FRYauthoritiesin the relevant
perioddemonstratedthat "theStatelackseitherthe will or the powerto enactand applyjust
andeffectiveguarantees".KosovocouIdnot expectto enjoymeaningfulinternaiself
determinationas partof the FRY.ln viewof the continuingsuppressionbythe authoritiesof
the FRYof the right·ofself-determination,andinthe absenceof anyguaranteesthat such
suppressionwouldcease,the only realisticsolutionwas to realizethe rightby independent
statehood.
3. Representation
13. ln orderfor the Declarationbythe Assemblyof Kosovoto havethe legaleffectof
conferringindependentstatehoodon Kosovothere mustbe sufficientevidencethatthose
institutionsrepresentthe peopleof theterritoryandexercisesomedegreeof contraiover it.
Again, customaryinternationallawis thin on specificcriteriato this effect.lt does provide
that the creationof Statesrequiresthe presenceof a territory,a people,aswell as a
governmentthat hassufficientterritorialcontraito enableit, in thewords of the Islandof
Palmascase,"to protectwithinthe territorythe rightsof otherStates,in particulartheir right
to integrityand inviolabilityin peaceandin wàr,togetherwiththe rightswhich each State
14UNDoc.S/2007/168(26March2007)paras,1,3,4 and5.
15ReportsubmittedtotheCounciloftheLeagueofNationsbythe Commissionof Rapporteurs,Leagueof
NationsDoc.B.7.21/68/106(1921),at 28. 8
mayclaimfor its nationalsinforeignterrito1y.Withoutmanifestingits territorialsovereignty
in a mannercorrespondingto circumstances,the Statecannotfulfil this duty". 16
14. What this broadcriterionmaymeanin practicehasfrequentlybeenlitigatedin territorial
disputeswheretheflexibilityof the relevantstandardandthe needto pay attentionto the
specialcircumstanceshasbeenhighlighted.ln thewordsofthe PermanentCourtof
InternationalJusticeinthe EasternGreen/and case(1933): "lt is impossibleto readthe
recordsof the decisionsin casesasto territorialsovereigntywithoutobservingthat in many
casesthe tribunalhasbeensatisfiedwithvery littlein thewayof the actualexerciseof
sovereignrights,providedthatthe other Statecouldnot makeout a superiorclaim." lnthat 17
case,the difficultylayin thefactthat the areawas "thinlypopulated".Althoughthis is not
herethe case,the rationalelaid out in the Islandof Palmas caseis still applicable.ln a
situationwherebathsidesareableto makesomeprimafacieplausibleclaim,the decision,
as observedby MaxHuber"wouldhaveto befoundedonthe relativestrengthof thetitles
invokedby each Party". 18
15.A criticalaspectof the situationat handis the internationalpresenceestablishedby UN
SecurityCouncilresolution1244 (1999). Underthe UNadministration,Kosovodevelopeda
legallyseparateexistencefrom Serbia.The resolutionset upthe UNadministrationin
Kosovo(UNMIK)with a mandatecovering"alllegislativeandexecutivepowers,includingthe
administrationof thejudiciary." Sincethen,joint administrationstructureswith Kosovo
institutionshavebeencreatedandresponsibilitiesnotdirectlyrelatingto sovereigntysuchas
economicpolicy,trade,andadministrativetasks havebeentransferredto the Kosovo
institutions.At the sametime, effectivecontraibythe institutionsofthe FRYhas been
drasticallylimited.20
16. The involvementofthe internationalcommunityis partof theway Kosovoresembles
other situationsinvolvingUNassistance,such as EastTimor,wherelimitationof internai
self-determination,accompaniedby serioushumanrightsviolationshaveopenedthe doorto
secessionandindependentstatehood.ln thesecases,the assessmentof effectivecontraiis
complicatedbythe extensiveinternationalpresence.Whatshouldbe stressed,however,is L
that the significanceof that presenceoughtto be readin the lightof the continuing l
16
IslandofPalmascase,Il UNRIAA,at839.
17Lega/StatusofEasternGreenland,PermanentCourtof InternationalJusticeSeA/B No.53, at46.
18Islandof Palmascase,Il UNRIAA,at869.
19ReportoftheSecretaryGeneralontheUnitedNationslnterimAdministrationin KosovoUN Doc.S/1999/779
~12July 1999)para.35.
0Referencecanbe madefor instancetotheintroductionofthe Deutschemark(laterEuro)asthelocalcurrency
bythe UNMIK. 9
oppressionexercisedby FRYinstitutionsin Kosovo,to whichit was a response,andthe
failure of thoseinstitutionsto guaranteea reasonablesystemof internaiself-determination.lt
would be hardlyappropriatethatthose institutionscouldnowinvokethe presenceofthat
protectiveoperationto supporttheir continuedauthorityover Kosovo.Ex injurianonjus
oritur.
17. As pointedoutabove,the special- indeedabnormal- characterof the Kosovosituation
has to do withthewar inthe territoryof the formerYugoslaviain 1991-1997 followedby
continuedoppressionof the peopleof Kosovobythe institutionsof the FRYandthe
absenceof anymeaningfulprospectofthe realizationof internaiself-government.The
predominantaspectof this case is its specificity,the emergenceof the claimfor
independenceout of a frustrationof the prospectsof internaiautonomyin the courseof the
civilwar andafterthefailureof the subsequentnegotiations.ln this regard,the "Provisional
Institutionsof Self-Government"referredta inthe questionsatisfythe criteriaexpectedof
representation.The KosovoAssemblythat adoptedthedeclarationof independenceis
foundedon the ConstitutionalFramework andwas electedin a nation-wideprocess,
conductedin 2007underthe supervisionof the Councilof Europeas well as various
22
internationalanddomesticgroups. Accordingto the Councilof Europe,the electionswere
conductedgenerallyin linewith Councilof Europeprinciplesaswell as internationaland
23
Europeanstandardsfor democraticelections. KosovoAssemblyrepresentsethnie
minoritiesaccordingto the rulesof shareof seatsestablishedin the Constitutional
Frameworkprovidingthat 20 seats out of total 120shouldbe reservedto non-Albanian
communities(10to KosovoSerbsand 10allocatedto otherCommunities).The Declaration
of lndependencewas adoptedunanimouslywith the KosovoSerbmembersof theAssembly
boycottingthe session.:¼
18.The creationof Statesout of long andviolentstrugglesrarelyfulfils criteriadiscussedin
idealtheoriesof democraticrepresentation.If attentionison "therelativestrengthofthe titles
invokedbyeachparty"as laid out in the Islandof Palmas,then it is clear, however,that no
other institutionor bodyhasnearlyas good a claimto speakon behalfof Kosovoas the
Assemblyof Kosovo.Bearingin mindwhat has beensaidaboveaboutthe abnormalnature
of the situation,andthe rationaleof the self-determinationprinciple,there seemslittledoubt
that if internationallawwereto ignoreor by-passthe Declarationof lndependence,itwould
21ConstitutionalFrameworkfor ProvisionalSelf-GovernmentUNMIK/REG/200(15 May2001)asamended,
Chapter9, Section1,http://www.unmikonline.org/constframeworkm5April2009).
22OSCEMissioninKosovohttp://www.osce.org/kosovo/13208.htm(3lMarch2009).
23http://www.coe.inUUdc/files/eventsl<7osovo/prelimstatementen.asp(3 March2009).
24BBCNewsEurope,KosovoMPsproclaimindependence,17February2008,
http://news.bbc.co.ul<l2/hi/europe/7249D(5April2009). 10
notserveoneoftheprincipalfunctionsit has- to providefor stableandlastingsolutionsfor
territorialdisputesthat arebasedon respectforfundamentalhumanrightsandfreedoms.
*****
19.Therefore,it mustbe concludedthatthe Declarationof lndependencebythe
ProvisionalInstitutionsof Self-Governmentof Kosovo(Assemblyof Kosovo)is in
accordancewith internationallaw.
Helsinki,16April2009 ,4,,444,U
--MarcuLaurent
DirectorGeneralfor LegalAffairs
Written Statement of Finland