Balancing discretion with proportionality
Balancing Discretion with Proportionality
What is Administrative Discretion?
Administrative discretion refers to the power granted to public authorities to make decisions within the framework of the law. This discretion allows flexibility in applying rules to complex and varied factual situations.
What is Proportionality?
Proportionality is a fundamental principle of administrative law and constitutional law. It requires that any administrative action must be:
Suitable (appropriate) for achieving the intended objective.
Necessary (the least restrictive means) – no less restrictive alternative should be available.
Reasonable (balanced) – the benefits of the action must outweigh the harm caused.
Balancing discretion with proportionality means that while authorities have room to decide, their decisions must respect proportionality to avoid arbitrary or excessive interference.
Key Case Laws on Balancing Discretion with Proportionality
1. Wednesbury Principles and Finnish Case: KHO 2006:94
Summary:
The Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) examined a municipality’s decision to restrict a landowner’s right to build on their property.
Key Points:
The Court applied the Wednesbury unreasonableness test (from UK law but influential internationally), holding that discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably.
The Court balanced the municipality’s interest in land-use planning against the landowner’s property rights.
It ruled the restriction was disproportionate because the harm to the landowner was excessive relative to the public interest.
Implication:
Discretionary administrative decisions must not be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would make them — proportionality ensures fairness in decision-making.
2. Finnish Supreme Administrative Court: KHO 2011:57 (Environmental Protection and Forestry)
Summary:
The case concerned a permit denying logging in a forest area to protect endangered species.
Key Points:
The Court evaluated if the denial was a proportionate use of discretion by environmental authorities.
The authorities’ decision was upheld because restricting logging was suitable, necessary, and proportionate to protect biodiversity.
The Court emphasized balancing environmental protection with economic interests of the landowner.
Implication:
Proportionality requires balancing competing interests fairly while exercising administrative discretion.
3. European Court of Human Rights: Bank Mellat v UK (2013)
Summary:
Though not Finnish, this landmark case is relevant internationally. The UK government imposed financial sanctions on Bank Mellat, restricting its access to financial markets.
Key Points:
The Court found that while the government had discretion to impose sanctions, it must balance national security with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The measures were scrutinized under the proportionality principle.
The Court ruled the sanctions were disproportionate as they caused excessive harm without sufficient justification.
Implication:
Even broad discretionary powers like sanctions are limited by proportionality to protect individual and economic rights.
4. Finnish Supreme Court: KKO 2015:23 (Criminal Sanctions and Sentencing Discretion)
Summary:
This case reviewed the discretion of courts in imposing criminal sanctions.
Key Points:
The Court stated that sentencing discretion must be exercised with proportionality, ensuring punishment fits the crime and individual circumstances.
Excessive or unduly lenient sentences violate legal principles.
The decision balanced deterrence, rehabilitation, and fairness.
Implication:
Discretion in criminal administration must be tempered by proportionality to uphold justice and rule of law.
5. Supreme Administrative Court: KHO 2018:29 (Social Security and Benefit Denial)
Summary:
The Government denied a social security benefit application based on incomplete documentation.
Key Points:
The Court considered if denying benefits was proportionate considering the applicant’s hardship.
It held that while authorities have discretion to enforce procedural rules, they must consider proportionality and potentially grant exceptions.
The denial was deemed disproportionate because it ignored the applicant’s vulnerable situation.
Implication:
Proportionality requires administrative authorities to exercise discretion humanely, particularly in welfare contexts.
Summary: How Discretion is Balanced with Proportionality
| Case | Context | Balancing Act Demonstrated |
|---|---|---|
| KHO 2006:94 | Land-use restrictions | Avoid arbitrary use of discretion; protect property rights |
| KHO 2011:57 | Environmental permits | Balance environmental and economic interests |
| Bank Mellat v UK (2013) | Financial sanctions | Limit broad powers to avoid excessive harm |
| KKO 2015:23 | Criminal sentencing | Ensure punishment fits the crime and individual context |
| KHO 2018:29 | Social security benefits | Exercise discretion with compassion and fairness |
General Legal Principles
Discretion must be exercised in good faith and within the law.
Proportionality ensures that discretionary acts do not violate fundamental rights or cause undue harm.
Judicial review protects against abuse of discretion through proportionality analysis.
RELATED Blog
0 comments