Comparative analysis of Finnish Constitution and Swedish model
Comparative Analysis: Finnish Constitution vs. Swedish Model
1. Constitutional Frameworks Overview
| Aspect | Finland | Sweden |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Documents | Single codified constitution: Constitution of Finland (1999) comprising 4 fundamental laws: - Constitution Act - Parliament Act - President Act - High Court of Impeachment Act | Uncodified Constitution made up of 4 fundamental laws (The Instrument of Government, The Act of Succession, The Freedom of the Press Act, and The Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression), but no single unified document |
| Nature | Written, rigid constitution with formal amendment procedure | Written fundamental laws but flexible, with easier amendment process |
| Separation of Powers | Clear separation among legislative, executive, judicial powers | Parliamentary sovereignty dominates, strong parliament control |
| Judicial Review | Constitutional review by the Constitutional Law Committee in Parliament; Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court can review constitutionality in individual cases | No formal constitutional court; parliamentary committees and ordinary courts have limited powers to review constitutionality |
| Human Rights | Explicit rights guaranteed in the Constitution; interpreted broadly by courts | Strong human rights protections in fundamental laws; courts give effect to fundamental laws but Parliament remains supreme |
| Role of Parliament | Parliament has strong legislative power, but Constitution protects separation and rights | Parliament is supreme and laws cannot be overturned by courts |
2. Key Features Compared
a) Constitutional Rigidity and Amendment
Finland: Amendments require two consecutive parliaments with elections in between or a qualified majority in one session.
Sweden: Amendments require approval by two successive parliaments but with no elections necessarily in between, making it easier to change.
b) Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation
Finland: The Supreme Court and Supreme Administrative Court have powers to assess constitutionality in cases. The Constitutional Law Committee advises Parliament.
Sweden: Courts cannot invalidate laws on constitutional grounds; Parliament holds ultimate authority. Constitutional review is mainly political.
c) Protection of Fundamental Rights
Both constitutions guarantee strong human rights protections.
Finnish courts actively interpret rights in constitutional cases.
Swedish courts respect fundamental laws but defer to parliamentary sovereignty.
3. Case Law Illustrations
Finland Case 1: Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) 2015:49 – Freedom of Expression vs. Public Order
Issue:
A person was prosecuted for publicly insulting a religious group. The question was whether this violated constitutional freedom of expression.
Court’s Reasoning:
Balanced constitutional right to free speech against public order.
Referred to Section 12 of Finnish Constitution (freedom of expression) and Section 2 (Human dignity and liberty).
Held that limitations on speech must be proportionate and necessary.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld as the speech incited hatred, violating public order.
Significance:
Shows Finnish courts’ active role in balancing rights, using constitutional standards.
Finland Case 2: Supreme Court KKO 2016:36 – Separation of Powers
Issue:
Whether Parliament could delegate excessive legislative power to executive agencies.
Court’s Finding:
Affirmed Constitution’s principle of separation of powers.
Held that Parliament may delegate powers but cannot abdicate legislative responsibility.
Decision invalidated delegation that was too broad.
Significance:
Upholds constitutional checks and balances in Finland.
Sweden Case 1: Supreme Court NJA 2018 s. 775 – Principle of Legal Certainty
Issue:
Application of a law retroactively affecting citizens.
Court’s Reasoning:
Reflected on the Instrument of Government’s provisions regarding rule of law.
Despite parliamentary supremacy, the court emphasized legal certainty and non-retroactivity.
Did not invalidate the law but called for careful legislative drafting.
Significance:
Shows Swedish courts’ respect for rule of law but deference to Parliament.
Sweden Case 2: Supreme Administrative Court (HFD) 2015 ref. 49 – Freedom of Religion
Issue:
A religious organization challenged a municipal decision limiting their activities.
Court’s Reasoning:
Balanced freedom of religion protected under fundamental laws with municipal interests.
Held that limitation was disproportionate and violated fundamental rights.
Significance:
Shows judicial respect for fundamental rights but within limits of parliamentary decisions.
Comparative Case 3: Freedom of Information and Transparency
Finland: The Constitution guarantees openness (Section 12). The Supreme Administrative Court actively enforces transparency.
Sweden: Openness principle is deeply rooted in the Freedom of the Press Act. Courts respect this principle but Parliament regulates exceptions.
4. Summary Table: Key Constitutional Differences and Case Law
| Feature | Finland | Sweden | Case Law Example (Finland) | Case Law Example (Sweden) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constitution type | Codified, rigid | Uncodified, flexible | KHO 2015:49 (Expression) | NJA 2018 s.775 (Legal certainty) |
| Judicial review | Stronger, courts can assess constitutionality | Limited, political control | KKO 2016:36 (Separation of powers) | HFD 2015 ref.49 (Religion) |
| Human rights protection | Explicit, active court role | Explicit, parliamentary supremacy | KHO 2015:49 (Expression) | HFD 2015 ref.49 (Religion) |
| Amendment | Difficult, strict process | Easier, two parliaments approval | — | — |
| Parliamentary supremacy | Limited by constitution | Supreme | — | — |
5. Conclusion
Finland’s Constitution is more rigid and judicially enforceable, with courts playing an active role in constitutional interpretation and protection of rights.
Sweden’s model is more flexible and parliamentary, with courts respecting Parliament’s supremacy but still enforcing fundamental rights through interpretation.
Both countries balance democracy, rule of law, and rights protection but with different institutional emphases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments