Abuse of power doctrine in Finland
Abuse of Power Doctrine in Finland
The Abuse of Power Doctrine (also known as ultra vires or misuse of authority) is a fundamental principle in Finnish administrative law. It prohibits administrative authorities from exercising their powers for purposes other than those intended by law or in a way that contradicts the purpose of the legislation. Even if the authority has legal competence to act, it must not misuse its powers in a way that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or discriminatory.
Key Elements of Abuse of Power
Improper Purpose: The authority uses its powers for a reason not allowed by law.
Unlawful Motive: Decisions based on bias, personal gain, or irrelevant considerations.
Excessive or Insufficient Use of Power: The decision is disproportionate or goes beyond what the law intends.
Violation of Good Administration: The authority acts in bad faith, unfairly, or irrationally.
The abuse of power doctrine protects citizens from arbitrary or unfair administrative decisions and reinforces the rule of law in Finnish public administration.
Case Law Examples
1. Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) 1982:165
Issue: Abuse of discretionary power in granting permits.
Facts: An administrative authority denied a building permit citing reasons unrelated to the legal criteria, possibly to favor another party.
Ruling: The Court held that the denial was an abuse of power because the authority used its discretion for improper purposes, ignoring the actual legal grounds.
Significance: Administrative discretion must be exercised according to the law's purpose, not for arbitrary reasons.
2. Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) 1995:32
Issue: Abuse of power in tax decisions.
Facts: A tax authority imposed penalties on a taxpayer based on considerations not related to tax law but to punish the taxpayer personally.
Ruling: The Court ruled this as an abuse of power, as the decision exceeded the authority’s lawful scope and was motivated by improper reasons.
Significance: Tax authorities must act within legal bounds, and personal motives cannot justify decisions.
3. Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) 2003:112
Issue: Abuse of power in social benefits denial.
Facts: An applicant for social benefits was denied aid because of unrelated political opinions expressed by the applicant.
Ruling: The Court found the denial to be an abuse of power, as the decision was based on an irrelevant and unlawful motive.
Significance: Administrative decisions must be free from discrimination and extraneous motives.
4. Administrative Court of Helsinki, 2010
Issue: Abuse of power in police enforcement.
Facts: Police officers used excessive force and detention powers not justified by the situation.
Ruling: The Court held that this constituted an abuse of power, as the use of authority was disproportionate and unjustified.
Significance: Authorities must exercise their enforcement powers reasonably and in line with legal limits.
5. Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) 2017:46
Issue: Abuse of power in environmental regulation enforcement.
Facts: The environmental authority imposed sanctions exceeding what the law allowed, aiming to set an example rather than enforce law strictly.
Ruling: The Court found that while authorities have discretion, using it to go beyond legal limits or for unrelated policy goals is abuse of power.
Significance: Enforcement actions must align strictly with legal powers and not be punitive beyond statutory authority.
Summary
The abuse of power doctrine in Finland acts as a check on administrative authorities to ensure that:
Their actions align with the legal purpose and limits of their powers.
Decisions are free from improper motives or irrelevant considerations.
Powers are exercised reasonably, proportionally, and fairly.
Citizens are protected against arbitrary, discriminatory, or malicious administrative conduct.
Finnish courts, especially the Supreme Administrative Court, rigorously apply this doctrine to maintain legality and fairness in public administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments