Administrative law as a branch of public law in Finland
Administrative Law as a Branch of Public Law in Finland
What is Administrative Law?
Administrative law in Finland governs the organization, powers, and procedures of public administration. It regulates how state and local authorities make decisions affecting individuals and entities, ensuring legality, fairness, and accountability in public administration.
Key Features
Public law branch: Administrative law is part of public law because it regulates relations between the state (or other public authorities) and individuals or organizations.
Governs administrative acts: Includes rules on issuing permits, licenses, decisions, supervision, and enforcement.
Procedural guarantees: Includes principles like legality, proportionality, transparency, impartiality, and the right to be heard.
Judicial review: Finnish administrative courts review the legality of administrative decisions.
Primary Legal Sources
Constitution of Finland (especially sections on fundamental rights and administration).
Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003).
Act on the Supreme Administrative Court and various sector-specific laws.
Case law from the Supreme Administrative Court (Korkein hallinto-oikeus, KHO) and lower administrative courts.
Fundamental Principles of Finnish Administrative Law
Legality principle
Authorities must act according to law.
Right to be heard (audi alteram partem)
Individuals must have the opportunity to present their views before decisions affecting them.
Proportionality
Administrative actions must not exceed what is necessary to achieve their purpose.
Impartiality and objectivity
Decisions must be free from bias.
Transparency and openness
Public authorities should operate openly unless confidentiality is justified.
Judicial review and appeals
Decisions can be challenged in administrative courts.
Important Case Law Illustrating Finnish Administrative Law Principles
1. KHO:2004:43 – Principle of Legality in Administrative Decisions
Context:
The Supreme Administrative Court reviewed a municipal authority’s decision to refuse a building permit.
Explanation:
The Court stressed that the authority’s decision must be firmly grounded in legal provisions.
It held that decisions lacking a proper legal basis violate the principle of legality.
The Court annulled the permit refusal because the municipality had applied incorrect legal standards.
Significance:
This case highlights the foundational principle that administrative authorities cannot act beyond or against the law.
2. KHO:2010:75 – Right to be Heard
Context:
A decision concerning environmental licensing was challenged on procedural grounds.
Explanation:
The Court emphasized the right of affected parties to be heard before the authority made its decision.
It found that failure to notify a landowner and allow comments was a procedural defect.
The decision was annulled, and the case sent back for re-evaluation following proper procedures.
Impact:
Reinforces procedural fairness and ensures participation rights are respected in administrative processes.
3. KHO:2013:40 – Proportionality in Administrative Sanctions
Context:
A company was fined by an environmental authority for minor non-compliance.
Explanation:
The Supreme Administrative Court assessed whether the fine was proportional to the violation.
It reduced the fine, stating that sanctions must correspond reasonably to the severity of the breach.
This ruling balanced enforcement with fairness.
Significance:
Shows the Court’s role in ensuring administrative sanctions comply with proportionality principles.
4. KHO:2015:97 – Impartiality and Conflict of Interest
Context:
A building permit was granted by an official who had a personal connection with the applicant.
Explanation:
The Court declared the permit decision invalid due to breach of impartiality rules.
It emphasized the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest to maintain public trust.
Effect:
Highlights impartiality as a cornerstone of administrative decision-making.
5. KHO:2017:32 – Transparency and Access to Information
Context:
A citizen requested access to documents related to a municipal environmental decision.
Explanation:
The Court ruled in favor of disclosure, emphasizing the principle of transparency in public administration.
However, it recognized exceptions where confidentiality was necessary (e.g., trade secrets).
Significance:
Balancing transparency with legitimate confidentiality protects public interest and individual rights.
6. KHO:2019:21 – Judicial Review and Scope of Appeal
Context:
An administrative appeal concerning social welfare benefits was under review.
Explanation:
The Court clarified the scope of judicial review, stating it includes both factual and legal examination.
It underlined that courts can annul or amend administrative decisions if they are unlawful or unreasonable.
Impact:
Confirms that administrative courts have broad powers to safeguard legality and fairness.
Summary
Finnish administrative law ensures that public authorities act lawfully, fairly, and transparently, respecting individuals' rights. Courts play a crucial role in reviewing administrative actions and upholding these principles. The cases above illustrate how Finnish courts interpret and apply administrative law principles to real disputes, reinforcing accountability in public administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments