Andus McCoatover
The problem is that more senior courts have to put faith in the lower courts, otherwise their existence could not be justified and the whole hierarchy would become flat - leaving just one Supreme Court and us back where we started: a court without any oversight.
I think (and may be corrected) that appeal is usually limited to one of two cases: either where the original court made a procedural error (it then goes to an appeal court who decide solely on the basis of that procedure) or where the issue at stake is a fairly hazy point of law that needs clarification (in which case the House of Lords / Supreme Court have their say).
It isn't clear from the story whether this Finnish case falls into one of these two scenarios. The ECHR therefore seems like a pretty good option (and, with any luck, a successful one).
Big Brother icon. Again. Because we IT people thought we had it sussed with the implicit freedom of the Internet but have now given way to Orwell's nightmare.