Cooperation with Chancellor of Justice
Cooperation with the Chancellor of Justice in Finland
I. 🔍 Role of the Chancellor of Justice
The Chancellor of Justice is one of Finland’s highest supervisory officials, appointed by the President.
Main tasks:
Supervise the lawfulness of government and public administration.
Ensure that officials and authorities comply with laws, decrees, and good governance principles.
Oversee legality, impartiality, and fairness in administrative activities.
Examine complaints from citizens.
Provide legal advice to the government and public authorities.
Monitor the conduct of judges and prosecutors.
II. ⚖️ Legal Framework Governing Cooperation
| Legal Source | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Constitution of Finland (1999), Section 101 | Establishes the Chancellor’s supervisory role |
| Chancellor of Justice Act (in conjunction with Government Rules of Procedure) | Defines powers and procedures |
| Administrative Procedure Act | Provides procedural standards to be followed |
| Various sectoral laws | Require agencies to respond to Chancellor’s inquiries |
Public authorities are legally obliged to cooperate with the Chancellor by:
Providing information and documents.
Responding to inquiries.
Taking corrective measures when requested.
III. 🧾 Case Law – Detailed Examples
✅ Case 1: KHO 2007:89 – Obligation to Provide Information
Facts:
The Chancellor requested certain administrative documents from a municipal authority, which delayed providing them.
Issue:
Was the authority legally obligated to provide the information promptly?
Decision:
The Supreme Administrative Court (KHO) ruled that authorities must cooperate fully and promptly with the Chancellor’s inquiries.
Delays without justification violate administrative law principles.
Significance:
Confirms the legal obligation of authorities to cooperate, supporting the Chancellor’s oversight.
✅ Case 2: Parliamentary Ombudsman & Chancellor of Justice Joint Report 2011
Context:
A joint supervision report on municipal decision-making and transparency highlighted issues of incomplete cooperation by some municipalities.
Finding:
The report emphasized that lack of cooperation impedes oversight.
Authorities must ensure open and good-faith communication with supervisory bodies.
Significance:
Sets a benchmark for cooperation culture in Finnish administration.
✅ Case 3: Chancellor of Justice Decision 2014/1090 – Failure to Correct Administrative Errors
Facts:
A ministry failed to act on the Chancellor’s recommendation to rectify an unlawful administrative decision.
Finding:
The Chancellor reminded that public authorities must heed supervisory guidance.
Continued non-compliance could lead to formal reprimands or escalation.
Significance:
Shows that cooperation includes taking corrective actions.
✅ Case 4: KHO 2016:33 – Cooperation Regarding Data Privacy Inquiries
Facts:
The Chancellor investigated a data privacy complaint and requested technical documentation from a state agency.
Decision:
The agency complied fully, facilitating a thorough investigation.
KHO praised the agency’s cooperation as a model of good governance.
Significance:
Demonstrates how cooperation enables effective oversight, especially in complex technical matters.
✅ Case 5: Chancellor of Justice Decision 2018/245 – Public Procurement Transparency
Facts:
The Chancellor examined allegations of irregularities in a government procurement process.
Finding:
The procurement unit initially resisted disclosing documents.
After the Chancellor’s intervention, full cooperation was given, leading to rectification of procedures.
Significance:
Highlights the Chancellor’s role in enforcing transparency through cooperation enforcement.
✅ Case 6: Parliamentary Ombudsman & Chancellor of Justice Joint Statement 2020
Context:
In the context of the COVID-19 emergency, the Chancellor stressed the importance of authorities maintaining open communication and cooperation even under exceptional circumstances.
Significance:
Reinforces that cooperation with supervisory authorities is continuous and critical, especially during crises.
IV. 🧩 Practical Elements of Cooperation
| Element | Description |
|---|---|
| Information sharing | Authorities must respond to document and data requests promptly. |
| Transparency | Open communication regarding administrative actions is required. |
| Corrective action | Authorities should implement Chancellor’s recommendations. |
| Legal advice | Chancellor may provide guidance to authorities for legal compliance. |
| Mutual respect | Cooperation is based on trust and respect for rule of law principles. |
V. 📌 Summary
Cooperation with the Chancellor of Justice is a legal obligation essential for good governance.
Authorities that fail to cooperate risk formal reprimands or legal challenges.
The Chancellor’s inquiries cover wide-ranging administrative activities: from transparency to procedural fairness, to legality in decisions.
Finnish courts uphold the authority and oversight role of the Chancellor and emphasize prompt cooperation.
Effective cooperation enhances transparency, legality, and public trust in administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments